I apologize for offending you. Still, I disagree. In my opinion, the problem is as much about sanitizing input as about output, regardless of where the damage is done.
Stealing the copper I can understand, as there is some monetary gain for the thief. But vandalism is something I just don't get. And it seems frustrating that there is no chance of catching these guys.
One problem I see with the approach you suggested is that work is already visible to many but may or may not be accepted in the end. Publications are often rejected not due to a lack of innovation but because of other aspects (evaluation, comparison to other work,...). A new idea appearing in this paper will then be available to the world while the author is not (yet) credited for his work. Someone else might just pick up his idea, fix the problems, and publish it himself.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for offending you. Still, I disagree. In my opinion, the problem is as much about sanitizing input as about output, regardless of where the damage is done.
http://xkcd.com/327/
Shooting down the fiber won't help anyone understand anything. Vandals are no freedom fighters.
Stealing the copper I can understand, as there is some monetary gain for the thief. But vandalism is something I just don't get. And it seems frustrating that there is no chance of catching these guys.
The combination of guns and immature pranks doesn't sound too good to me.
One problem I see with the approach you suggested is that work is already visible to many but may or may not be accepted in the end. Publications are often rejected not due to a lack of innovation but because of other aspects (evaluation, comparison to other work, ...). A new idea appearing in this paper will then be available to the world while the author is not (yet) credited for his work. Someone else might just pick up his idea, fix the problems, and publish it himself.