You're completely clueless. HR People? Are you kidding me? The only reason an organization like Elsevier needs HR is to hire the middlemen who aren't actually working anyway. Once you get rid of that entire wing in one fell swoop, there is no more need for HR. Works out rather nicely.
And why do you need typesetters or hardcopy journals? This isn't Newsweek here; the actual users of these journals don't care about pretty graphics beyond what they and their peers plot themselves. Again, since that stuff was there for marketing purposes, you don't actually need it anymore once you move away from the current marketing-based system.
What extra research? The only other real alternative to consider is an X-series Thinkpad. A Macbook with an old school Thinkpad keyboard would be pretty much ideal, but since that's not an option, it's just a matter of what you prefer more. For me, the Macbook touchpad and general lack of issues with OS X seals it. The nipple mouse is nice, but for extended use it gets really annoying, and the multitouch gestures are really convenient.
Nature and Science are usually called "magazines" by academics. They are periodicals for a general scientifically-educated audience, and they publish research which is highly mature and influential, or of "sexy" general interest, or both. You are correct that their publishing dynamics are different, and they (probably) shouldn't be made open-access. However, the word "journal" usually refers to technical field-specific journals like, oh, say, the one being discussed in the article, JMLR. These journals make up well over 95% of academic publishing. Once you've proven yourself in the field, you might write a general audience article in Nature.
Here's how the dynamics is really working. In the old days, being a professor was a highly elite, prestigious job, the draw of which was that you would be, at least hopefully, free of all real-world distractions except teaching. In those days, it would have been unimaginable to ask a fellow professor to help with plebeian shit like minor editing and web-hosting. These days, professors deal with a lot more real-world bullshit anyway. We won't get into why, or whether that's a good thing, but one of the upshots of this is that they are much more willing to cooperate on infrastructure, and get rid of the overvalued middleman.
the thing is, that the for-profit journals don't pay most of their staff either, and actually they've tricked the 'buildings' (=universities) into paying them through ridiculous subscription fees.
oh, shut up. the $15 quote comes from the stupid article, not from the machine learning people.
the web hosting costs, at most, another few thousand bucks, so it's still peanuts. a single institutional subscription to a commercial journal can cost about that much.
why is it that libertards and right-wingers have no fucking problem at all with people starving to death in the streets, unless their misfortune benefits other common peasants as opposed to their rich owners?
i don't really want to waste my time talking to irrational niggards like you about home economics. do your own fucking research and cost-benefit analysis.
Coke Zero uses the standard Coke recipe and just replaces sugar with artificial sweetener. Diet Coke uses a different flavor profile, actually close to the disaster "New Coke" from the 80s.
that's not actually true. the commodities/basic ingredients (apart from meat) are very competitively priced. i bought some excellent coffee there for $5.70/# which could easily have sold for $12/#.
canned beans, salsa, bread, etc., are very well-priced for the level of quality you get. even the cheese department usually has a few very good things on sale.
it's the meat, organic bullshit, and pre-packaged convenience items that get ridiculous fast.
Well, yes, but the next fucking paragraph expresses my belief that a majority would vote for copyright extension, at least if packaged as "more jobs and more movies."
You may disagree with this if you wish, and I may be wrong, however if both representative and direct democracies would support the current system, then how is it not public consent?
You don't seem to be a moron, but you do consistently misread what I say. At least you acknowledge it.
Like I said, it should be changed, but honestly, what consent of the public do you want? Our elected representatives support copyright by-and-large, yes, even slashdot's Patron Saint ROONNNNN PAAUULLLLL.
And direct democracy? Do you really think the majority wouldn't support copyright law if sold to them as "more jobs and more movies"?
So, yeah, I don't know if there isn't public consent. Most people seem pretty enthusiastic about it; they just want to have the best of both worlds and break the law for themselves while supporting the general idea.
Fair enough, no one said that exactly. Still, Hulu licenses this content and 'pay' for it through advertising agreements. Americans have more money (for now), and are an easier target for advertisers, than other nationalities. That's why Hulu is restricted to Americans, and why for non-Americans to watch Hulu is stealing.
Now, since Hulu has to uphold their end of the contract, they have to keep non-Americans from watching Hulu. Thus they need to block VPNs. Is this clear enough for you? Maybe they are also datamining you, maybe they aren't. Have you read their ToS? Personally, I watch Hulu about twice a year or so, and have much bigger problems than people trying to sell me shit over the internet.
No it isn't. It's public content once the copyright expires, which is effectively never. This should be changed.
I'm glad everyone agrees that the problem is Hollywood's copyright monopoly and licensing restrictions, and that this isn't a ridiculous conspiracy by Hulu to omg!!!track everyone!!!!
By "entitlement," I was referring to the asserted 'right' to use a VPN to access a service. There is no such right. I could have been more clear.
You should criticize Hulu all you want, but they're the middleman. You're not making a whole lot of sense. Do you agree that the problem is Hollywood's stupid licensing fetishism, or are you still maintaining that this is Hulu's conspiracy to track that you rewatch Strictly Sexual every Friday night and sell that information to OKCupid and Lubriderm?
You're not much for reading comprehension, are you? I didn't say that the license terms were reasonable, I said that given what they are, Hulu's method of enforcement is sensible. No one, apart from a few paranoid freaks, uses a VPN to watch legal non-porn videos unless they're violating region restrictions. You're not entitled to free movies, and Hulu's pricing was collectively negotiated for Americans only. Since Hulu is worth about $1B, and is licensing content from companies worth ~100x that much, it doesn't exactly have a lot of room to negotiate.
Almost every single time that's said about some giant company or government, it turns out to be wrong.
Utter nonsense. The ratio [actual conspiracies]/[paranoid bullshit] on slashdot is damn near zero, though admittedly still not as close as I'd like.
A better thing to do would be to not use Hulu...
I agree; if this bothers you, that is probably the best solution.
Foreigners can get a prepaid US credit card fairly easily. I'm not sure how easy those are to block, but it's probably at least as much of a moving target as identifying VPNs.
There is no conspiracy; they're just enforcing license terms in a simple and imho reasonable way. I have no idea what "insecure connections" I would be risking by not using a VPN, but it certainly hasn't been a problem for me yet. This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for fucksake, who cares about this corner case? What I said covers 99% of their business.
and I own a mansion and a yacht.
Huh. Maybe things are improving.
You're completely clueless. HR People? Are you kidding me? The only reason an organization like Elsevier needs HR is to hire the middlemen who aren't actually working anyway. Once you get rid of that entire wing in one fell swoop, there is no more need for HR. Works out rather nicely.
And why do you need typesetters or hardcopy journals? This isn't Newsweek here; the actual users of these journals don't care about pretty graphics beyond what they and their peers plot themselves. Again, since that stuff was there for marketing purposes, you don't actually need it anymore once you move away from the current marketing-based system.
What extra research? The only other real alternative to consider is an X-series Thinkpad. A Macbook with an old school Thinkpad keyboard would be pretty much ideal, but since that's not an option, it's just a matter of what you prefer more. For me, the Macbook touchpad and general lack of issues with OS X seals it. The nipple mouse is nice, but for extended use it gets really annoying, and the multitouch gestures are really convenient.
Nature and Science are usually called "magazines" by academics. They are periodicals for a general scientifically-educated audience, and they publish research which is highly mature and influential, or of "sexy" general interest, or both. You are correct that their publishing dynamics are different, and they (probably) shouldn't be made open-access. However, the word "journal" usually refers to technical field-specific journals like, oh, say, the one being discussed in the article, JMLR. These journals make up well over 95% of academic publishing. Once you've proven yourself in the field, you might write a general audience article in Nature.
Here's how the dynamics is really working. In the old days, being a professor was a highly elite, prestigious job, the draw of which was that you would be, at least hopefully, free of all real-world distractions except teaching. In those days, it would have been unimaginable to ask a fellow professor to help with plebeian shit like minor editing and web-hosting. These days, professors deal with a lot more real-world bullshit anyway. We won't get into why, or whether that's a good thing, but one of the upshots of this is that they are much more willing to cooperate on infrastructure, and get rid of the overvalued middleman.
the thing is, that the for-profit journals don't pay most of their staff either, and actually they've tricked the 'buildings' (=universities) into paying them through ridiculous subscription fees.
oh, shut up. the $15 quote comes from the stupid article, not from the machine learning people.
the web hosting costs, at most, another few thousand bucks, so it's still peanuts. a single institutional subscription to a commercial journal can cost about that much.
NIGGERS!! faggots!! niggers!! FAGGOTS!! N!GGERS!! fagg0ts!! nigg3rs!! FAGG0TS!! NIGgERS!! fagGots!! n1ggers!! FAGGO7S!! NIGGERS!! faggots!! niggers!! FAGGOTS!! N!GGERS!! fagg0ts!! nigg3rs!! FAGG0TS!! NIGgERS!! fagGots!! n1ggers!! FAGGO7S!! NIGGERS!! faggots!! niggers!! FAGGOTS!! N!GGERS!! fagg0ts!! nigg3rs!! FAGG0TS!! NIGgERS!! fagGots!! n1ggers!! FAGGO7S!!
drinking fresh mango juice
why is it that libertards and right-wingers have no fucking problem at all with people starving to death in the streets, unless their misfortune benefits other common peasants as opposed to their rich owners?
and since when did anyone give a shit about them?
equality is a symmetric relation.
i don't really want to waste my time talking to irrational niggards like you about home economics. do your own fucking research and cost-benefit analysis.
Coke Zero uses the standard Coke recipe and just replaces sugar with artificial sweetener. Diet Coke uses a different flavor profile, actually close to the disaster "New Coke" from the 80s.
that's not actually true. the commodities/basic ingredients (apart from meat) are very competitively priced. i bought some excellent coffee there for $5.70/# which could easily have sold for $12/#.
canned beans, salsa, bread, etc., are very well-priced for the level of quality you get. even the cheese department usually has a few very good things on sale.
it's the meat, organic bullshit, and pre-packaged convenience items that get ridiculous fast.
Well, yes, but the next fucking paragraph expresses my belief that a majority would vote for copyright extension, at least if packaged as "more jobs and more movies."
You may disagree with this if you wish, and I may be wrong, however if both representative and direct democracies would support the current system, then how is it not public consent?
You don't seem to be a moron, but you do consistently misread what I say. At least you acknowledge it.
Just because the net outcome of action A is positive, doesn't mean that A is legal or morally desirable. This isn't exactly hard to understand.
Goodthink, comrade. Upsub rewriting Newspeak to Minitrue. Reading plus-speedwise ensures goodthink.
Like I said, it should be changed, but honestly, what consent of the public do you want? Our elected representatives support copyright by-and-large, yes, even slashdot's Patron Saint ROONNNNN PAAUULLLLL.
And direct democracy? Do you really think the majority wouldn't support copyright law if sold to them as "more jobs and more movies"?
So, yeah, I don't know if there isn't public consent. Most people seem pretty enthusiastic about it; they just want to have the best of both worlds and break the law for themselves while supporting the general idea.
Fair enough, no one said that exactly. Still, Hulu licenses this content and 'pay' for it through advertising agreements. Americans have more money (for now), and are an easier target for advertisers, than other nationalities. That's why Hulu is restricted to Americans, and why for non-Americans to watch Hulu is stealing.
Now, since Hulu has to uphold their end of the contract, they have to keep non-Americans from watching Hulu. Thus they need to block VPNs. Is this clear enough for you? Maybe they are also datamining you, maybe they aren't. Have you read their ToS? Personally, I watch Hulu about twice a year or so, and have much bigger problems than people trying to sell me shit over the internet.
No it isn't. It's public content once the copyright expires, which is effectively never. This should be changed.
I'm glad everyone agrees that the problem is Hollywood's copyright monopoly and licensing restrictions, and that this isn't a ridiculous conspiracy by Hulu to omg!!!track everyone!!!!
By "entitlement," I was referring to the asserted 'right' to use a VPN to access a service. There is no such right. I could have been more clear.
You should criticize Hulu all you want, but they're the middleman. You're not making a whole lot of sense. Do you agree that the problem is Hollywood's stupid licensing fetishism, or are you still maintaining that this is Hulu's conspiracy to track that you rewatch Strictly Sexual every Friday night and sell that information to OKCupid and Lubriderm?
You're not much for reading comprehension, are you? I didn't say that the license terms were reasonable, I said that given what they are, Hulu's method of enforcement is sensible. No one, apart from a few paranoid freaks, uses a VPN to watch legal non-porn videos unless they're violating region restrictions. You're not entitled to free movies, and Hulu's pricing was collectively negotiated for Americans only. Since Hulu is worth about $1B, and is licensing content from companies worth ~100x that much, it doesn't exactly have a lot of room to negotiate.
Almost every single time that's said about some giant company or government, it turns out to be wrong.
Utter nonsense. The ratio [actual conspiracies]/[paranoid bullshit] on slashdot is damn near zero, though admittedly still not as close as I'd like.
A better thing to do would be to not use Hulu...
I agree; if this bothers you, that is probably the best solution.
Foreigners can get a prepaid US credit card fairly easily. I'm not sure how easy those are to block, but it's probably at least as much of a moving target as identifying VPNs.
There is no conspiracy; they're just enforcing license terms in a simple and imho reasonable way. I have no idea what "insecure connections" I would be risking by not using a VPN, but it certainly hasn't been a problem for me yet. This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
clever algorithm? they're physicists, for fucksake.