The bottom line is that if we extract enough energy from the sun to power our stuff we will make changes to the envrionment.
Right now we're using up really old stored energy, but once that's over if we don't make our own sun (fusion) we'll have to build enough windmills (or whatever) to make a change to the environment. I think if you covered the bottom of the ocean with structures that remove energy you would change its flow at the surface.
If you use a system like debian (maybe fedora too)
you can easily use source packages.
You get the advantages of locally compiled software and the sanity and maintainability of a package system.
I agree that searching is probably called for in this situation - but there is no call to insult this person. Most scientists I know work where they do beacuse they can get access to interesting things/people there.
Seems they are going to put back issues online for free. This may encourage cause other journals to do the same.
I've included the entire letter
though the most intersting part is at the beginning of the fourth paragraph
As of April 23, 2001, we have made our back research content freely
available 12 months after initial publication.
To AAAS Members:
As most of you know, Science - through revenue from advertising and
subscriptions - helps to support a wide range of Association activities.
These include strong programs in science and public policy, science
and law, international cooperation, K-12 education, and many others.
And of course Science also serves the entire scientific community more
directly, by providing, in addition to its research reports of new
findings, news and perspectives that place that research in the context
of human needs and public policy.
As the publication of a nonprofit scientific society, we face obligations
that sometimes present us with conflicts. AAAS is really two entities
in one: the publisher of a world-class journal and a nonprofit mission-
driven society with over 130,000 members. These two roles usually
mesh, but sometimes AAAS faces internal conflict. We need adequate
revenues to support the Association's programs, to serve our members,
and to keep Science's world readership. At the same time, we have a
responsibility to serve the broader scientific community and to respond
to its changing needs. In a world in which electronic and print
publications coexist, our financial picture is more complex and riskier.
We have to balance the need for revenue from Science in print against
the need to offer scientists everywhere the advantages that the Internet
can provide.
For example, we have executed site licenses for our online version with
over 500 institutions in the United States and abroad. The list includes
most of the major U.S. research universities as well as research-
intensive companies and many international institutions. This means
that students and fellows, faculty members, and research workers of all
kinds in such places can download any paper-indeed, any part of
Science. We knew all along that this policy would result in the loss of
some personal subscriptions, and it has. Yet we continue because we
believe it is part of a larger service obligation that comes to us
because we are a nonprofit organization.
As of April 23, 2001, we have made our back research content freely
available 12 months after initial publication. By taking this step, we
are responding to strong representations from the scientific community.
Yet this move may involve economic risks for us, through loss of
subscriptions, posing another potential threat to the Association
programs we support.
There is no immediate answer to this dilemma, which in one respect we
welcome because it testifies to the significance of our journal to the
community we serve. It is important, however, for you to appreciate the
tradeoffs involved, because you are both subscribers to Science and
members of the Association. One way in which you can help resolve
the problem is through loyalty to the print version. When the time for
renewal comes, we hope you will consider-in addition to the
convenience and the aesthetic advantages of Science in print-that you
are supporting a broader set of services that it provides to you and
your fellow scientists.
Sincerely,
Don Kennedy
Science's Editor-in-Chief
How would we know how many genes without sequence?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
The argument that it was not worthwhile to sequence the whole genome because there seem to be fewer genes than expected is badly flawed.
It was the sequencing effort that provided the data needed to estimate the number of genes.
I also don't believe that the 30,000 gene estimate is very well supported either (but that's another story right...)
I'm writing a longer rebuttal of many points in this article and I'm sending them to the publisher.
Ok, most of the post was pretty good.
However, when I followed bughunter's suggestion to look up the definition of "facism" at Merriam Webster, I did not find the definition that he led me to believe I would find.
Instead I find at www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: fascism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- fascist/-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fascistic/fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fascistically/-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
According to this definition a fascist state must be lead by a dictatorial leader. I don't think any mainstream politicians are espousing this view. His point remains somewhat valid since there does seem to be a tendency toward subjugation of individual freedom in favor of safety / well being of the "group." His use of the word "fascism" really just distracted from the central point.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that if we extract enough energy from the sun to power our stuff we will make changes to the envrionment.
Right now we're using up really old stored energy, but once that's over if we don't make our own sun (fusion) we'll have to build enough windmills (or whatever) to make a change to the environment. I think if you covered the bottom of the ocean with structures that remove energy you would change its flow at the surface.
If you use a system like debian (maybe fedora too) you can easily use source packages.
You get the advantages of locally compiled software and the sanity and maintainability of a package system.
I agree that searching is probably called for in this situation - but there is no call to insult this person. Most scientists I know work where they do beacuse they can get access to interesting things/people there.
I've included the entire letter though the most intersting part is at the beginning of the fourth paragraph
To AAAS Members:
As most of you know, Science - through revenue from advertising and
subscriptions - helps to support a wide range of Association activities.
These include strong programs in science and public policy, science
and law, international cooperation, K-12 education, and many others.
And of course Science also serves the entire scientific community more
directly, by providing, in addition to its research reports of new
findings, news and perspectives that place that research in the context
of human needs and public policy.
As the publication of a nonprofit scientific society, we face obligations
that sometimes present us with conflicts. AAAS is really two entities
in one: the publisher of a world-class journal and a nonprofit mission-
driven society with over 130,000 members. These two roles usually
mesh, but sometimes AAAS faces internal conflict. We need adequate
revenues to support the Association's programs, to serve our members,
and to keep Science's world readership. At the same time, we have a
responsibility to serve the broader scientific community and to respond
to its changing needs. In a world in which electronic and print
publications coexist, our financial picture is more complex and riskier.
We have to balance the need for revenue from Science in print against
the need to offer scientists everywhere the advantages that the Internet
can provide.
For example, we have executed site licenses for our online version with
over 500 institutions in the United States and abroad. The list includes
most of the major U.S. research universities as well as research-
intensive companies and many international institutions. This means
that students and fellows, faculty members, and research workers of all
kinds in such places can download any paper-indeed, any part of
Science. We knew all along that this policy would result in the loss of
some personal subscriptions, and it has. Yet we continue because we
believe it is part of a larger service obligation that comes to us
because we are a nonprofit organization.
As of April 23, 2001, we have made our back research content freely
available 12 months after initial publication. By taking this step, we
are responding to strong representations from the scientific community.
Yet this move may involve economic risks for us, through loss of
subscriptions, posing another potential threat to the Association
programs we support.
There is no immediate answer to this dilemma, which in one respect we
welcome because it testifies to the significance of our journal to the
community we serve. It is important, however, for you to appreciate the
tradeoffs involved, because you are both subscribers to Science and
members of the Association. One way in which you can help resolve
the problem is through loyalty to the print version. When the time for
renewal comes, we hope you will consider-in addition to the
convenience and the aesthetic advantages of Science in print-that you
are supporting a broader set of services that it provides to you and
your fellow scientists.
Sincerely,
Don Kennedy
Science's Editor-in-Chief
The argument that it was not worthwhile to sequence the whole genome because there seem to be fewer genes than expected is badly flawed.
It was the sequencing effort that provided the data needed to estimate the number of genes.
I also don't believe that the 30,000 gene estimate is very well supported either (but that's another story right...)
I'm writing a longer rebuttal of many points in this article and I'm sending them to the publisher.
However, when I followed bughunter's suggestion to look up the definition of "facism" at Merriam Webster, I did not find the definition that he led me to believe I would find.
Instead I find at www.m-w.com:
According to this definition a fascist state must be lead by a dictatorial leader. I don't think any mainstream politicians are espousing this view. His point remains somewhat valid since there does seem to be a tendency toward subjugation of individual freedom in favor of safety / well being of the "group." His use of the word "fascism" really just distracted from the central point.
Well, considering how long it has taken for distributed.net to crack RC5-64 i think 128 is pretty safe. http://www.distributed.net/rc5/