What is the attraction of closed journals? That they (some of them) are selective.
What makes them selective? That qualified peer reviewers spend a lot of time looking at submissions, and reject all that do not meet a high enough standard. This is a time-consuming and not financially rewarded task.
What if the peer reviewers refused to review for closed journals? They wouldn't suffer personal consequences - the peer review process, by its nature, must be anonymous. Would the journals find replacement reviewers? Perhaps, but few people are qualified to review advanced research articles in a given field. If a high proportion of reviewers stopped reviewing for a given journal, it would greatly increase the burden on the remaining reviewers, making them too more likely to opt out.
So what is needed is for academics, when approached by a closed journal, to say "Sorry, I only review for journals that release all papers freely at most one year after publication." And to be willing to review for journals that do meet that criterion. And keep publishing (if desired) in the prestigious closed journal - until it is no longer the most prestigious, or until it is willing to open up. The more people who do this the better, but there is no need for everyone to switch journals all at once.
Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there". Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.
Automated drones are just the culmination of a decades-long trend in the U.S. towards enabling warfare by insulating the bulk of the population from its costs. During WWI and WWII,
In WW2, the US nuked Japan twice, killing over 200k civilians, to avoid losing troops in a ground invasion.
In the last few years, the US has killed several thousand Pakistani and Yemenite civilians, to avoid losing troops in ground operations.
The US has always been willing to kill bystanders in order to protect its own soldiers. Modern technology has drastically decreased the number of such bystanders killed. Perhaps the US military's motive here is good PR rather than altruism. But however you explain it, the world as a whole has gotten much less violent over the last century, and the development of precision killing technology is actually one of the causes.
Advice for tourists to the Amazon: "Rio Negro is an area that is great for the jungle vegetation and for the lack of mosquitoes (due to the acidity of the river). Unfortunately, the lack of mosquitoes means there are a lot fewer animals that live there." Source
For a majority of people, what you say is correct. It is entirely possible that for some people the financial reward does make a difference. Unfortunately neither of us has data on the subject.
You didn't take into account the people who would have used drugs, but didn't because they wanted to remain eligible for benefits. That represents a significant benefit for society, as those people become more responsible and take better care of their kids.
(Disclaimer: I am thinking of addictive and harmful drugs. Testing for marijuana is indeed a waste, but the problem is not with the testing program, it's with the fact that marijuana is illegal to begin with.)
The least divisive, least disrupting course of action is for the government to internally and secretly set up an Executive Action team within one the intelligence agencies whose purpose is to discredit, attack and dismantle and neutralize the leaders of the [conspiracy theorists].
A secret Executive Action team to discredit conspiracy theorists? Sounds like something a true conspiracy theorist would have anticipated and taken measures against:-)
Your refutation is only valid among populations that continually reproduce with one another. If two populations of primates were geographically separated, and then one evolved into chimps and the other into humans, there would be no issue of cross-mating diluting and neutralizing a complicated trait. Do we know that something like that did not happen?
Why cognitive development is roughly the same among all humans:
"Complex machinery was always universal within a sexually reproducing species. If gene B relied on gene A, then A had to be useful on its own, and rise to near-universality in the gene pool on its own, before B would be useful often enough to confer a fitness advantage. Then once B was universal you would get a variant A* that relied on B, and then C that relied on A* and B, then B* that relied on C, until the whole machine would fall apart if you removed a single piece. But it all had to happen incrementally - evolution never looked ahead, evolution would never start promoting B in preparation for A becoming universal later. Evolution was the simple historical fact that, whichever organisms did in fact have the most children, their genes would in fact be more frequent in the next generation. So each piece of a complex machine had to become nearly universal before other pieces in the machine would evolve to depend on its presence.
So complex, interdependent machinery, the powerful sophisticated protein machines that drove life, was always universal within a sexually reproducing species - except for a small handful of non-interdependent variants that were being selected on at any given time, as further complexity was slowly laid down. It was why all human beings had the same underlying brain design, the same emotions, the same facial expressions wired up to those emotions; those adaptations were complex, so they had to be universal."
Slashdot Mirror
The atmosphere is 0.04% CO2, your exhaled breath is 4-5% CO2. That's not enough to trigger the reflex?
What is the attraction of closed journals? That they (some of them) are selective.
What makes them selective? That qualified peer reviewers spend a lot of time looking at submissions, and reject all that do not meet a high enough standard. This is a time-consuming and not financially rewarded task.
What if the peer reviewers refused to review for closed journals? They wouldn't suffer personal consequences - the peer review process, by its nature, must be anonymous. Would the journals find replacement reviewers? Perhaps, but few people are qualified to review advanced research articles in a given field. If a high proportion of reviewers stopped reviewing for a given journal, it would greatly increase the burden on the remaining reviewers, making them too more likely to opt out.
So what is needed is for academics, when approached by a closed journal, to say "Sorry, I only review for journals that release all papers freely at most one year after publication." And to be willing to review for journals that do meet that criterion. And keep publishing (if desired) in the prestigious closed journal - until it is no longer the most prestigious, or until it is willing to open up. The more people who do this the better, but there is no need for everyone to switch journals all at once.
Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.
Don't work? Don't socialize? Are you serious?
Automated drones are just the culmination of a decades-long trend in the U.S. towards enabling warfare by insulating the bulk of the population from its costs. During WWI and WWII,
In WW2, the US nuked Japan twice, killing over 200k civilians, to avoid losing troops in a ground invasion.
In the last few years, the US has killed several thousand Pakistani and Yemenite civilians, to avoid losing troops in ground operations.
The US has always been willing to kill bystanders in order to protect its own soldiers. Modern technology has drastically decreased the number of such bystanders killed. Perhaps the US military's motive here is good PR rather than altruism. But however you explain it, the world as a whole has gotten much less violent over the last century, and the development of precision killing technology is actually one of the causes.
The Second Amendment provides for a "well regulated" militia. The First Amendment says nothing about "well regulated" free speech...
Advice for tourists to the Amazon:
"Rio Negro is an area that is great for the jungle vegetation and for the lack of mosquitoes (due to the acidity of the river). Unfortunately, the lack of mosquitoes means there are a lot fewer animals that live there."
Source
Not at all. It does nothing to rule out a centrist party, or extreme right/left parties.
For a majority of people, what you say is correct. It is entirely possible that for some people the financial reward does make a difference. Unfortunately neither of us has data on the subject.
You didn't take into account the people who would have used drugs, but didn't because they wanted to remain eligible for benefits. That represents a significant benefit for society, as those people become more responsible and take better care of their kids.
(Disclaimer: I am thinking of addictive and harmful drugs. Testing for marijuana is indeed a waste, but the problem is not with the testing program, it's with the fact that marijuana is illegal to begin with.)
The least divisive, least disrupting course of action is for the government to internally and secretly set up an Executive Action team within one the intelligence agencies whose purpose is to discredit, attack and dismantle and neutralize the leaders of the [conspiracy theorists].
A secret Executive Action team to discredit conspiracy theorists? Sounds like something a true conspiracy theorist would have anticipated and taken measures against :-)
In Russia, power is money.
In USA, money is power.
More like:
In USA, money is power.
In Soviet Russia, power is money.
Your refutation is only valid among populations that continually reproduce with one another. If two populations of primates were geographically separated, and then one evolved into chimps and the other into humans, there would be no issue of cross-mating diluting and neutralizing a complicated trait. Do we know that something like that did not happen?
Why cognitive development is roughly the same among all humans:
"Complex machinery was always universal within a sexually reproducing species. If gene B relied on gene A, then A had to be useful on its own, and rise to near-universality in the gene pool on its own, before B would be useful often enough to confer a fitness advantage. Then once B was universal you would get a variant A* that relied on B, and then C that relied on A* and B, then B* that relied on C, until the whole machine would fall apart if you removed a single piece. But it all had to happen incrementally - evolution never looked ahead, evolution would never start promoting B in preparation for A becoming universal later. Evolution was the simple historical fact that, whichever organisms did in fact have the most children, their genes would in fact be more frequent in the next generation. So each piece of a complex machine had to become nearly universal before other pieces in the machine would evolve to depend on its presence.
So complex, interdependent machinery, the powerful sophisticated protein machines that drove life, was always universal within a sexually reproducing species - except for a small handful of non-interdependent variants that were being selected on at any given time, as further complexity was slowly laid down. It was why all human beings had the same underlying brain design, the same emotions, the same facial expressions wired up to those emotions; those adaptations were complex, so they had to be universal."
Source
When I was in university (in the US) I met some very competent Iran-born researchers. They all left Iran shortly after 1979...
Or post it anonymously to Slashdot...