None of the independent labels are signing up for iTunes; and that means the vast bulk of their service will be made up by the commercial schlock the majors are trying to cram down peoples throats. (Unlike the US, non-major labels are a big chunk of the UK CD market).
No Franz Ferdinand? No White Stripes? No Dizzee Rascal?
Camera's saw the Oklahoma truck bomb, but it still blew up.
True. But the footage it took were used to help convict McVeigh, which means he's no longer at liberty to blow anybody else up. Most people consider this to be a good thing.
Everytime a pretty girl walks down the street i wonder if the camera is pointing at me or looking at her legs/ass/tits.
Well, given that the vast majority street cameras are completely static, I'd imagine "neither." And given that most are unmonitored, only recorded for later use for evidence purposes, I'd say, "still neither."
If we don't respect people in general in public, when do we start disrespecting people in private places
Well, here in the UK we've had closed-circuit TV cameras in stores and town centres for decades, and yet (despite your terribly compelling slippery slope arguments), no-one has yet forced me (or even asked me, now I think about it) to install one in my home.
We can see how this level of control
Its not control, though is it. My rights to do any legal acts are not infringed in the slightest.
Two points: (i) mathematics isn't an experimental science, or even very like one. (ii) when an experimental scientist gets negative results, the correct procedure is not to announce positive results and hope that no-one notices.
Only one problem. De Branges has been announcing proofs of RH since the late 1980s. None of them have been accepted so far. This one *might* be right (he is a talented mathematician -- he proved the Bieberbach conjecture -- but he's also something of a loony), but its too early to heap praise on him yet.
Lots of very valid points there. I agree with all of them. As you say (2) is the biggie, and none of the strategies I've seen proposed strike me as better than the imperfect system we have at the moment.
think I'd prefer better qualified reviewers for scientific papers... the music industry is now run by money-men instead of music-men, and they wouldn't know a good song/artist if it blasted their eardrums out.
To say I agree with these would be a considerable understatement.
Just why are you still giving the journals that power? Publish your information whatever way you see fit.
Because its the best system yet defined to get your work out to a wide audience along with the message "In the opinion of knowledgeable people in this field, this work is probably not wrong." Sticking a PDF on the web does the former; we're nowhere near finding a better way to perform the latter.
Ahh. But getting expert moderation is not an easy task. An important skill of journal editors is knowing who the experts are in certain fields to review papers.
Secondly, review is not *just* a moderation process, its a feedback process. The comments and corrections of reviewers are used to *improve* the original paper. Thats no small thing, and completely lost if you replace it with a "this is good / this is bad" button, or "(+5 Seminal)" rating scheme.
most recent papers are available online on the author's website
How did you know which papers were the seminal ones to read though? In my experience, you learn that by considering which journals they first appeared in.
Compared to the music industry, scientific publications needs more structure in distribution. Tastes in music are pure subjectivity: You like AC/DC, I like Britney[0], live and let live.
Journals per se have become a cash cow, but the structure and processes of peer review are important. It's how we tell Andrew Wiles and Murray Gell-Mann from the various witless kooks with a bogus proof or a crackpot theory. Without it, every worker in the field has to do her own comparative study of the merits of everyones work.
Until we find a way to replicate that, journals are here to stay.
[0] I don't actually, but you probably don't like AC/DC either.
I don't think that societal expectations, peer pressure, or discrimination can account for the 200-to-1 ratio in this case.
In the nicest possible way, I don't care what you think. Opinions are like assholes. Sure, this is a datapoint, but to suggest that it implies on thing or another about societal versus genetic pressures is just a nonsense.
Where's your evidence? What's your reasoning? How does the size of the sample affect the plausible distribution? Whats the null hypothesis?
My all means express opinions, but don't pretend they're facts until you're prepared to put the work in to make the case.
du jour: That is chosen or allocated for a particular day: 'of the day', 'for today'; sometimes with connotations of impermanence, interchangeability, or repetitiveness.
Furthermore, its the recipient's lawyers who has subpoenaed them. Surely people aren't suggesting that text messages should be so confidential that the recipient is allowed to read them?
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. Link for the above story
None of the independent labels are signing up for iTunes; and that means the vast bulk of their service will be made up by the commercial schlock the majors are trying to cram down peoples throats. (Unlike the US, non-major labels are a big chunk of the UK CD market).
No Franz Ferdinand? No White Stripes? No Dizzee Rascal?
No thanks, Steve.
Which bit of "in the UK" did you fail to understand?
Twit.
Its not control, though is it. My rights to do any legal acts are not infringed in the slightest.
McDonald's Germany Moves to SuSE Linux
and
Is the Linux Desktop Getting Heavier and Slower?
The word you're looking for is "lucky".
Two points: (i) mathematics isn't an experimental science, or even very like one.
(ii) when an experimental scientist gets negative results, the correct procedure is not to announce positive results and hope that no-one notices.
Only one problem. De Branges has been announcing proofs of RH since the late 1980s. None of them have been accepted so far. This one *might* be right (he is a talented mathematician -- he proved the Bieberbach conjecture -- but he's also something of a loony), but its too early to heap praise on him yet.
And if he'd left it there, that'd've been OK. Its from "Its probably safe to conclude ..." that he starts talking through his hat.
Thanks for asking, though.
Yeah. But how do you know who the good authors are? And how did the citers find the papers in the first place?
Because they've been published in journals (hell, its pretty rare to see a citation that doesn't refer to a peer reviewed publication)
Secondly, review is not *just* a moderation process, its a feedback process. The comments and corrections of reviewers are used to *improve* the original paper. Thats no small thing, and completely lost if you replace it with a "this is good / this is bad" button, or "(+5 Seminal)" rating scheme.
Compared to the music industry, scientific publications needs more structure in distribution. Tastes in music are pure subjectivity: You like AC/DC, I like Britney[0], live and let live.
Journals per se have become a cash cow, but the structure and processes of peer review are important. It's how we tell Andrew Wiles and Murray Gell-Mann from the various witless kooks with a bogus proof or a crackpot theory. Without it, every worker in the field has to do her own comparative study of the merits of everyones work.
Until we find a way to replicate that, journals are here to stay.
[0] I don't actually, but you probably don't like AC/DC either.
Where's your evidence? What's your reasoning? How does the size of the sample affect the plausible distribution? Whats the null hypothesis?
My all means express opinions, but don't pretend they're facts until you're prepared to put the work in to make the case.
Sorry, my apostrophe key's broken.
Oh my god. Someone's employed Snoop Dogg as a military contractor...
de jure: of right, by right, according to law.
du jour: That is chosen or allocated for a particular day: 'of the day', 'for today'; sometimes with connotations of impermanence, interchangeability, or repetitiveness.
Questions, comments?
Furthermore, its the recipient's lawyers who has subpoenaed them. Surely people aren't suggesting that text messages should be so confidential that the recipient is allowed to read them?
Sure, and by the same argument, laws that prohibit child abuse could all-to-easily lead to laws that prohibit all sexual contact between adults.
And then we'd die out as a race.
Woe! The sky is falling.