Federal/state laws are public domain and freely available online. (If you want to complain about copyrighted 3rd party codes being incorporated, complain about that). If you or your lawyer pay Reed Elevier money it's not because that's the only way to access that information.
No. The Federal/state statutes are easily accesible in book or electronic form. But the statues are only half the law. The rest of the law is embodied in precidents which determine how the statutes are applied. If you are aware of the precidents you can go and get actual trial documentation from the courthouse, assuming that it was not destroyed. But to dig through the rulings in different jurisdictions over a long period of time, without electronic access is at best problematic. Or as Douglas Adams put it:
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
you have to convince 1)young scientists they can still get employed and grants publishing there and 2)old faculty who do the highering and grant reviews that these are just as good as normal journals.
You don't need to be published in a "respectable" journal as much as you need the cites.
I was there when arXiv was the initial mailing list, that became xxx.lanl.gov that then became arXiv . About three years after xxx was started the majority of cites in papers appearing there where to papers referenced by xxx.
The sad thing to me as the totally useless academic who published papers on "the demonstration of trivialiy of a sigma model with a phi four term in the presence of a chern-simons term to the 10 loop level" which no one cites because well the research is meaningless.
The same way as at present. Reviewers are not paid, they are basically volunteers.
The traditional model works like this:
1) a paper is written (no one gets paid)
2) it's sent to a journal, where the editor (paid) looks and decides whether or not to pass it on to reviewers (only the journal staff are paid)
Actually most of the editors I heard of rarely got paid, and if they did get paid it was very little. Most were premier scientist who did it for the prestige of being an editor.
3) the paper is sent to reviewers who make comments and suggest whether to publish or not (no one gets paid)
4) if the paper is not-worthy it's sent back to the author/s who decided to revise and resubmit or whatever (no one gets paid)
5) if the paper is accepted, the author has to sign over copyright (no one gets paid)
In my experience, a lot of time the publisher got paid for printing the article. They called them "page fees". Ain't "publish or perish" great?
6) the paper is published, and if the author wants more than the "complementary" copies, has to pay. If anyone else wants to see the article, they have to pay. The journal makes loads of money for very little work.
Another model cuts out the last two steps, and the journal makes their money from ads, donations, grants or other sponsorship (e.g. from a university). Another model has volunteers all the way through. It's not difficult.
It's not a free market. The government, through grants, fund researchers. Researchers in turn fund their universities, one of three ( or four for state run universities ) sources. The other two being endowments and students. The researchers again fund the publishers from grants--through page fees, access to published articles--through subscriptions and services like JSTOR--. FInally the university libraries also pay for subscriptions--money they got from researchers grants.
Could such a system work? I think once the original startup costs are handled, one grant could maintain such a system. A lot cheaper for the government then propping up the publishers.
As for lost jobs, well just giving the workers an equivalent position to sit in a room would be cheaper. For every dollar a worker gets, the owner probably gets 1000.
Even more as publishing techniques improve and those workers get thrown out of work anyway.
Very little of this happens in maths journals, and when it happens, it is usually the editor that does it, and he does it for free. Or rather, payed by his employing institution, not by the publisher.
Rather they get payed from their grant money--although it may get cycled through the institution.
You mean the same closet that some homeless guy was storing his stuff in?
You mean 100x the "normal" load that MIT could easily have r3egulated and didn't?
Sorry I keep expecting spaces and newlines to be respected. Reposted formated.
It's not that they want to keep things quiet. JSTOR is a database of journal articles. By Journal I mean things like The New England Journal of Medicine or Physical Review, where scientists publish their academic papers.
The whole thing is a big scam by the publishers of those journals. The editors of the journals are scientists who do it for free because of the prestige. The peer reviewers do it for free because of the prestige. The scientists pay for the papers to be published ( rather their grants pay ) because they need to get published to keep their jobs. Typically university libraries buy these journSorry I keep expecting spaceals ( which are priced at somewhere between 10 and 100 times as much as the C/C++ Users Journal for example ). The libraries pay for the journals from money the university gets off the top of the scientists grants ( last I heard 60% but YMMV ) for overhead. Often times the scientists don't even go into the library if they need an old journal article they get it from JSTOR. IIRC JSTOR charges a subscription which is paid for by the scientists grant. I seem to remember that you could get old "Communications of the ACM" directly from the source at $60 an article.
So JSTOR is just another way for publishers of journals ( Elvesier being the most prominent ) to get more money out of grants to publish their journals which they do at a lower cost then say Scientific American because they get a lot of people to work for free and people to actually pay to publish the articles. They get the money for publishing publicly funded research and they mostly get the money from publicly funded grants.
As much as people may not like some peoples way of getting wealth-- for example Donald Trump or BIll Gates-- They at least get the money from people who give it to them willingly. The book publishers get it from the taxpayer.
That being said. At this point we don't even know if Swartz killed himself over the prosecution. He may have discover ( for example ) that he has a very painful terminal cancer.
It's not that they want to keep things quiet. JSTOR is a database of journal articles. By Journal I mean things like The New England Journal of Medicine or Physical Review, where scientists publish their academic papers.
The whole thing is a big scam by the publishers of those journals. The editors of the journals are scientists who do it for free because of the prestige. The peer reviewers do it for free because of the prestige. The scientists pay for the papers to be published ( rather their grants pay ) because they need to get published to keep their jobs. Typically university libraries buy these journals ( which are priced at somewhere between 10 and 100 times as much as the C/C++ Users Journal for example ). The libraries pay for the journals from money the university gets off the top of the scientists grants ( last I heard 60% but YMMV ) for overhead. Often times the scientists don't even go into the library if they need an old journal article they get it from JSTOR. IIRC JSTOR charges a subscription which is paid for by the scientists grant. I seem to remember that you could get old "Communications of the ACM" directly from the source at $60 an article.
So JSTOR is just another way for publishers of journals ( Elvesier being the most prominent ) to get more money out of grants to publish their journals which they do at a lower cost then say Scientific American because they get a lot of people to work for free and people to actually pay to publish the articles. They get the money for publishing publicly funded research and they mostly get the money from publicly funded grants.
As much as people may not like some peoples way of getting wealth-- for example Donald Trump or BIll Gates-- They at least get the money from people who give it to them willingly. The book publishers get it from the taxpayer.
That being said. At this point we don't even know if Swartz killed himself over the prosecution. He may have discover ( for example ) that he has a very painful terminal cancer.
Just curious what time frame do you have to get six strikes in? Infinity? What if a person gets two strikes right away then nothing happens for a year? Then they get three, then a year later they get four?
Also will they reduce their fees for the time they throttle you? I'm sure several State Attorney Generals would not particularly like that.
BTW one way of protesting the policy is after the third or four strike, simply call them up and say "I didn't realize that downloading stuff was bad. Now that I do I won't do it anymore. Oh and since I won't be downloading, can you reduce my account to the slowest one you have?"
Before any one assails me with complaints about how they are now working for Homeland Security because no one would pay for the workproduct of their 60 hour weeks, I would like to point out that I generally do not believe in downloading stuff that I do not have permission to download from the copyright holder. I also am a realist and recognize that it is almost impossible to stop people from copy and redistributing a bunch of electonic ones and zeros, and I object to schemes which cannot work while making life more inconvenient for me.
The problem with the modern protester is that they are like spoiled brats screaming in the candy aisle. They also don't bother to read people like MLK, who himself said:
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
This is from apiece called "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". It was called that because he wrote it while in a Birmingham Jail for protesting.
Oh well there goes my positive karma.
When I was young all-boy and all-girl schools were going away. The feminists argued that it was discriminatory against girls. Then later the feminists started arguing that girls had to be separated from boys in class because they were intimidated by the boys.
Frankly I think single sex classrooms would be better. Taking away some of the sexual distractions. At the same time there is something to be said for mixed ed sex. Maybe what I would do is build all-boy and all-girl schools next to each other.
The whole thing stinks from start to finish. I didn't like the "We the People" site in the first place. In the first place, it creates a mechanism where petitions are just too easy. If something is worth the government doing, then to get it done people should have to put some effort into it.
Of course in truly Orwellian fashion the site is being fixed by by making some peoples voices more equal then others.
Ok. I haven't used anything beyond XP except for a bit of Vista, so I don't know what the latest and greatest are and I don't remeber what they were in my XP days, but I remember xdesk and powerbar from my NT days and there have always been two or three "virtual desktop" apps for windows since.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal/state laws are public domain and freely available online. (If you want to complain about copyrighted 3rd party codes being incorporated, complain about that). If you or your lawyer pay Reed Elevier money it's not because that's the only way to access that information.
No. The Federal/state statutes are easily accesible in book or electronic form. But the statues are only half the law. The rest of the law is embodied in precidents which determine how the statutes are applied. If you are aware of the precidents you can go and get actual trial documentation from the courthouse, assuming that it was not destroyed. But to dig through the rulings in different jurisdictions over a long period of time, without electronic access is at best problematic. Or as Douglas Adams put it:
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Yes but then how do you decrypt the file if it was encrypt with a different key. More likely they mean same post encryption.
Oh the embarassment.
Someone told me that it is being DDoSed. All I know is that I can't get it yet.
you have to convince 1)young scientists they can still get employed and grants publishing there and 2)old faculty who do the highering and grant reviews that these are just as good as normal journals.
You don't need to be published in a "respectable" journal as much as you need the cites. I was there when arXiv was the initial mailing list, that became xxx.lanl.gov that then became arXiv . About three years after xxx was started the majority of cites in papers appearing there where to papers referenced by xxx. The sad thing to me as the totally useless academic who published papers on "the demonstration of trivialiy of a sigma model with a phi four term in the presence of a chern-simons term to the 10 loop level" which no one cites because well the research is meaningless.
The same way as at present. Reviewers are not paid, they are basically volunteers.
The traditional model works like this: 1) a paper is written (no one gets paid) 2) it's sent to a journal, where the editor (paid) looks and decides whether or not to pass it on to reviewers (only the journal staff are paid)
Actually most of the editors I heard of rarely got paid, and if they did get paid it was very little. Most were premier scientist who did it for the prestige of being an editor.
3) the paper is sent to reviewers who make comments and suggest whether to publish or not (no one gets paid) 4) if the paper is not-worthy it's sent back to the author/s who decided to revise and resubmit or whatever (no one gets paid) 5) if the paper is accepted, the author has to sign over copyright (no one gets paid)
In my experience, a lot of time the publisher got paid for printing the article. They called them "page fees". Ain't "publish or perish" great?
6) the paper is published, and if the author wants more than the "complementary" copies, has to pay. If anyone else wants to see the article, they have to pay. The journal makes loads of money for very little work.
Another model cuts out the last two steps, and the journal makes their money from ads, donations, grants or other sponsorship (e.g. from a university). Another model has volunteers all the way through. It's not difficult.
It's not a free market. The government, through grants, fund researchers. Researchers in turn fund their universities, one of three ( or four for state run universities ) sources. The other two being endowments and students. The researchers again fund the publishers from grants--through page fees, access to published articles--through subscriptions and services like JSTOR--. FInally the university libraries also pay for subscriptions--money they got from researchers grants. Could such a system work? I think once the original startup costs are handled, one grant could maintain such a system. A lot cheaper for the government then propping up the publishers. As for lost jobs, well just giving the workers an equivalent position to sit in a room would be cheaper. For every dollar a worker gets, the owner probably gets 1000. Even more as publishing techniques improve and those workers get thrown out of work anyway.
Very little of this happens in maths journals, and when it happens, it is usually the editor that does it, and he does it for free. Or rather, payed by his employing institution, not by the publisher.
Rather they get payed from their grant money--although it may get cycled through the institution.
Since when has GNU in any way been funded by taxpayr money?
You mean the same closet that some homeless guy was storing his stuff in? You mean 100x the "normal" load that MIT could easily have r3egulated and didn't?
Samsung hasn't paid yet and may never have to. Worse comes to worse they will simply jack up prices to Apple.
When WIn 9 comes out or when Blamer gets fired. ( If he gets fired. )
Sorry I keep expecting spaces and newlines to be respected. Reposted formated.
It's not that they want to keep things quiet. JSTOR is a database of journal articles. By Journal I mean things like The New England Journal of Medicine or Physical Review, where scientists publish their academic papers.
The whole thing is a big scam by the publishers of those journals. The editors of the journals are scientists who do it for free because of the prestige. The peer reviewers do it for free because of the prestige. The scientists pay for the papers to be published ( rather their grants pay ) because they need to get published to keep their jobs. Typically university libraries buy these journSorry I keep expecting spaceals ( which are priced at somewhere between 10 and 100 times as much as the C/C++ Users Journal for example ). The libraries pay for the journals from money the university gets off the top of the scientists grants ( last I heard 60% but YMMV ) for overhead. Often times the scientists don't even go into the library if they need an old journal article they get it from JSTOR. IIRC JSTOR charges a subscription which is paid for by the scientists grant. I seem to remember that you could get old "Communications of the ACM" directly from the source at $60 an article.
So JSTOR is just another way for publishers of journals ( Elvesier being the most prominent ) to get more money out of grants to publish their journals which they do at a lower cost then say Scientific American because they get a lot of people to work for free and people to actually pay to publish the articles. They get the money for publishing publicly funded research and they mostly get the money from publicly funded grants.
As much as people may not like some peoples way of getting wealth-- for example Donald Trump or BIll Gates-- They at least get the money from people who give it to them willingly. The book publishers get it from the taxpayer.
That being said. At this point we don't even know if Swartz killed himself over the prosecution. He may have discover ( for example ) that he has a very painful terminal cancer.
It's not that they want to keep things quiet. JSTOR is a database of journal articles. By Journal I mean things like The New England Journal of Medicine or Physical Review, where scientists publish their academic papers. The whole thing is a big scam by the publishers of those journals. The editors of the journals are scientists who do it for free because of the prestige. The peer reviewers do it for free because of the prestige. The scientists pay for the papers to be published ( rather their grants pay ) because they need to get published to keep their jobs. Typically university libraries buy these journals ( which are priced at somewhere between 10 and 100 times as much as the C/C++ Users Journal for example ). The libraries pay for the journals from money the university gets off the top of the scientists grants ( last I heard 60% but YMMV ) for overhead. Often times the scientists don't even go into the library if they need an old journal article they get it from JSTOR. IIRC JSTOR charges a subscription which is paid for by the scientists grant. I seem to remember that you could get old "Communications of the ACM" directly from the source at $60 an article. So JSTOR is just another way for publishers of journals ( Elvesier being the most prominent ) to get more money out of grants to publish their journals which they do at a lower cost then say Scientific American because they get a lot of people to work for free and people to actually pay to publish the articles. They get the money for publishing publicly funded research and they mostly get the money from publicly funded grants. As much as people may not like some peoples way of getting wealth-- for example Donald Trump or BIll Gates-- They at least get the money from people who give it to them willingly. The book publishers get it from the taxpayer. That being said. At this point we don't even know if Swartz killed himself over the prosecution. He may have discover ( for example ) that he has a very painful terminal cancer.
Just curious what time frame do you have to get six strikes in? Infinity? What if a person gets two strikes right away then nothing happens for a year? Then they get three, then a year later they get four? Also will they reduce their fees for the time they throttle you? I'm sure several State Attorney Generals would not particularly like that. BTW one way of protesting the policy is after the third or four strike, simply call them up and say "I didn't realize that downloading stuff was bad. Now that I do I won't do it anymore. Oh and since I won't be downloading, can you reduce my account to the slowest one you have?" Before any one assails me with complaints about how they are now working for Homeland Security because no one would pay for the workproduct of their 60 hour weeks, I would like to point out that I generally do not believe in downloading stuff that I do not have permission to download from the copyright holder. I also am a realist and recognize that it is almost impossible to stop people from copy and redistributing a bunch of electonic ones and zeros, and I object to schemes which cannot work while making life more inconvenient for me.
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
This is from apiece called "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". It was called that because he wrote it while in a Birmingham Jail for protesting. Oh well there goes my positive karma.
Actually most people I knew could set the time on a VCR/radio/Coffeemaker/alarm clock.
The main problem was that most of the devices used different interfaces so you had to know a lot of different interfaces.
Gary Cooper and Mark Twain.
Hope Barry doesn't lose it in a sewer grate.
So is it lead or SSRIs or just the fact that we give assholes a lot excuses for being assholes these days?
When I was young all-boy and all-girl schools were going away. The feminists argued that it was discriminatory against girls.
Then later the feminists started arguing that girls had to be separated from boys in class because they were intimidated by the boys.
Frankly I think single sex classrooms would be better. Taking away some of the sexual distractions. At the same time there is something to be said for mixed ed sex. Maybe what I would do is build all-boy and all-girl schools next to each other.
Girls are such p***ies. They do everything the teacher tells them to do.
The whole thing stinks from start to finish.
I didn't like the "We the People" site in the first place. In the first place, it creates a mechanism where petitions are just too easy. If something is worth the government doing, then to get it done people should have to put some effort into it.
Of course in truly Orwellian fashion the site is being fixed by by making some peoples voices more equal then others.
You've piqued my curiosity.
What is a Japanese desk. Maybe I would like to get one.
Ok. I haven't used anything beyond XP except for a bit of Vista, so I don't know what the latest and greatest are and I don't remeber what they were in my XP days, but I remember xdesk and powerbar from my NT days and there have always been two or three "virtual desktop" apps for windows since.
Yeah but cricket is a cheap imitation of baseball.