The UC system already requires that all works be deposited in their own OA system (https://escholarship.org/).
The reporting in this is a little vague - not sure if that's just the standard of journalism or intentional. The negotiations broke down because the UC system wanted Elsevier to waive their OA publishing fee since they were already paying an access fee (basically Elsevier want full access fees for journals with both closed and open articles), and Elsevier refused - they insist on being paid to on both ends by the UC system for OA articles (both for publishing costs and access costs).
Elsevier are fighting a losing battle for their livelihood here - the world is going OA, and once it does Elsevier (and their ScienceDirect platform which gate-keeps academic publishing metrics) is going to collapse. They're trying to squeeze every last cent out now, and if they give in to the UC system here, then every university on the planet will demand the same deal.
What is not clear right now is if the UC system is going to limit faculty involvement in Elsevier journals. At one point in the negotiations they had threatened to prevent UC faculty from being editors or reviewers for Elsevier journals. It is not clear if they can force that on Senate members (tenured faculty), but the Senate can force that on their own members (like they did the OA policy which precipitated this renegotiation). In addition to OA and access fees, Elsevier gets an in-kind contribution of millions of dollars in free labor from UC faculty.
So why should the Federal government come first? Surely under the US constitution one is a citizen of your state first and then of the union, since the states make up the Union? But instead the tax system works backwards with the federal government getting the first crack at your money, then the state, then the county and then the city. It should be the other way around - deduct all city taxes (including GST) from your income, then county taxes, then state taxes, and then the federal government gets a share of what remains.
Besides the unfortunate loss in employment opportunities for unscrupulous accountants and lawyers, I think the US would be better off if they eliminated all corporate income taxes. There are so many loopholes and handouts that it is impossible to make companies pay an equitable amount.
To compensate for the loss of federal income, personal taxes should be raised, especially taxes on capital gains, and loopholes closed so that corporate resources cannot be used for personal gain without taxation.
Most US states/counties/cities would also be much better off with a (lower rate) VAT rather than GST, so they could get income from a broader range of economic activity (especially lawyers fees). But Americans seem to as blind to the concept of VAT as they are to so many other modern ideas.
Actually they are. Under the current state of Oracle v. Google it is a copyright violation to reimplement an API. AWS might be granted a fair use exemption by a court, but they might not (as Google currently has not for the Java APIs), and until they are, they should be assumed to be copyright pirates.
I'm glad MongoDB has done this though... Their business is going to be dead in months, if not weeks, and it means others will not try this type of nonsense. While I prefer BSD type licenses, I understand the point of the GPL in wanting people to contribute back. What MongoDB is doing is going a step further and trying to prevent their software from being used, even if it has not been modified. They want the best of both worlds: the kudos of open source and the money of enterprise licenses and they are going to end up with neither.
I do believe that this new technology called "broadcast television" may have a future.
They'd probably have more luck calling it "Wireless Streaming Video"... But who are we kidding, they'd call it "Free Unlimited Wireless Streaming Video with Wide Area Multi-Screen Synchronization (and sponsored content)". Watch what all your friends else is watching! At the same time!
Not to be picky, but the definition of compaction in civil engineering is generally "taking the air out"... but officially concrete is consolidated, not compacted.
That's only true in the US, or actual pavement engineering. In the rest of the English speaking world the binder is called bitumen and the product asphalt. Asphalt "Concrete" is also a bit of a misnomer in the engineering sense, because it is really in a different class of materials to lime/pozzolanic concretes.
No. The exact point of the Pai's FCC decision is that ISPs are not telecommunications carriers (Title II), only "information services" (Title I). Currently there is no legal difference between Netflix and Comcast.
Of course... I just preferred to use the shorter spelling of "ask", since most of the new slashdot readers don't seem to understand long words these days.
The states definitely have control over right-of-way on all land within the state. States can always remove pole/digging access from anyone that doesn't comply with Net Neutrality. If VoIP is an "information service" then a Title I company does not have a legal right to pole access if they are not providing a real dial tone on the copper.
Nonsense. "Peering" is just a group of ISPs that think they are the Internet. This is nothing to do with the Internet, it is purely a business model. One that is very profitable.
For Comcast only about 40%. It would have been 50% but they were forced to spend nearly 13% of revenue on capital expenditure. It must suck to work so had for so little - a mere 33% growth. They lost -9% of their customers despite investing -10% more in infrastructure in Q2. And then the government even has the gall to tax them -50% in 2017!
content publishers and distributors get to peer directly with an isp and flood their network with whatever data the content provider wants
What utter nonsense. The content providers are what make the internet work - without content there is no internet. The ISP's users are who is "flooding the network with whatever data they want", because they are requesting it. If the ISP has too much traffic they need to ask their users to stop asking for it.
This is just squatting from ISPs, who can set the rules (and the world view) thanks to being first on the pot. There should be no "peering points" on the internet, only connections, and the only logical way to charge is for the ISP/user generating the traffic requests to pay for their delivery. But ISPs grew up in the US telecoms market where people can be made to pay and receive phone calls and text messages...
Liquefaction absolutely requires a fluid between the particles - that can be air, water or a mixture of both. All that is required is that the effective stress be reduced to zero. Most granular materials, regardless of particle size distribution (grading), will exhibit zero shear resistance when the effective stress is zero, and so any loading will cause them to move. Liquefaction in particular is caused by vibration, where the shaking builds up pore water pressure which cannot dissipate fast enough because the permeability of the material is too low. Materials which are susceptible to liquefaction are all normally consolidated (i.e. not over-consolidated), so the shaking has the effect of consolidating the particles (or the consolation may return to normal compression curve if the shaking is high enough). If the material is very fine (like a clay), and wet, it will tend to have some shear resistance at zero effective stress because of inter-particle bonding, so it will not liquefy, even though it has very low permeability.
Air/gas can have the same impact (e.g. this happens when frozen gasses unfreeze), but you typically need a lot more air to get the required pressures, since it is compressible.
Liquefaction is not the same as the material looking like it is behaving like a liquid (looking like it is flowing, like sand in an hour glass). That is just what granular materials look like when they do flow...
The way that you make soil samples for liquefaction testing is by slowly dropping the sand into the test mold, preferably with the mold already filled with water. This causes them not to consolidate during production. This is exactly how they are loading these cargoes. The article implies this increase the pore water pressure, but that is not the case.
The cheap solution for ships would be to monitor the pore water pressure in the cargo hold, and trigger an alarm if there is any sudden increase. Also, if the material was prone to liquefaction, then it can be consolidated during loading by vibrating the cargo (like with a concrete vibrator). Rather than baffles, another approach would be to put vertical drains into the material (pipes from the bottom of the hold up). You could just pull these out (vertically) before unloading. If you couldn't discharge the drained water, you could just pump it back on top.
Actually, most forest management is driven by logging interests, even in California, because these are National Forest Service lands. Also, the areas that are burning are not logging forests, they are mostly Chaparral and Oak:
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
You forgot Bourne shell script... 30 years of observing the world says that everything will be rewritten into one of those five, unless it is already 20 years old and in Fortran or Cobol, in which case someone will keep it going, because they are too scared to rewrite it.
Why should Google have to pay Sun/Oracle anything? That's like saying that authors need to pay Merriam/Webster/Oxford for using words.
The main problem with this case is that Google have never adequately explained what an API is. If you read the original testimony/filings and decision, the definition of what an API is is laughably vague, and as a result none of the lawyers know what they are fighting about. The correct definition of an API in copyright terms is a "blank form", that requires that you fill in certain information in certain boxes and deliver the form to a specified location for processing. The entity doing the processing might return information to you, or might take other actions on your behalf. The name of the function determines the address to deliver the form, and the parameters are the form fields, along with a calling convention which defines how those are interpreted. An ABI is similar, except already converted into binary/machine readable format by the compiler. This is more obvious on the web, where APIs are implemented using web forms, even if no form is displayed to the user.
This correct definition would have helped Google tremendously, because blank forms are specifically not protected by copyright law, after having been found to be not copyright-able by the Supreme Court. Oracle's SSO claims would also be seen for what they are - like claiming that organizing the forms in a bank or post-office in a particular way (in this case alphabetically) has some inherent value.
While it is true that trucks do significantly more structural damage than cars and bikes, this point is generally both misunderstood and overstated. Firstly, the damage is done by the load on the vehicle. This is generally accounted for in what are known as Equivalent Single Axle Loads, where a single axle is defined as a full dual wheel axle (four tires) loaded to the traditional legal maximum axle load of 80kN/18kips. The 1,500 times more damage comes from using an exponent of 4 on the load, which is generally OK for most roads, although is closer to 3 for asphalt and 6 for concrete. This is where the misunderstanding comes from - most trucks are not fully loaded. In California, the expected ESALs for a truck on an urban freeway or a local road is ~0.45, which is the majority of the network and the traffic, while it is ~1 for only routes with very high percentages of 18-wheelers (mostly long distance haul). So the "average" 18-wheeler with 3/5 axles (depending on how you count them) is actually doing the structural damage of 1 single axle fully loaded. By contrast, an average car is about 0.0002 ESALs, or about 1/5000 of the damage of a fully loaded 18-wheeler, but only ~2500 times the damage of an actual average truck (in California).
However, this is where the overstatement comes in - this only applies to structural damage. While structural damage does drive maintenance, it is not the only kind of damage, and also roads are not just built for freight. Roads are built for mobility and access, and the major cost is in their initial construction. The benefit to society of the road is in the ability to move more quickly and get to more places, and this has nothing to do with loading or structural damage. In addition, a large amount of the damage on roads is environmental not load related. The continual movement caused by heating and cooling leads to cracking. Asphalts age over time because of heat and UV (like plastics) and become brittle and crack. This cracking is accelerated by stresses related to tire inflation pressure, not load, where cars do almost as much damage as trucks. This is why you see a crazed pattern of cracks across the full width of many old city streets. On concrete damage is also caused by rocking of the slabs, which is worse for trucks, but cars also play a significant role (because a car fits on a slab, while a truck does not). Other damage is caused by shrinking and swelling of the underlying aggregate layers, or shrinking of bound layers. This exhibits as cracks with a large block like cracking. The drought in California caused a large amount of cracking as the underlying soil dried and contracted, completely unrelated to trucks. Old cracks in the underlying layers also reflect through new layers, and that is driven both by load and environmental conditions. There is also rutting which is related to shear under the tires in asphalt, and to the total vertical load in the underlying soils. In addition, there are many cases where one kind of damage can accelerate another kind of damage. Pavements are actually the most complex civil engineering structures to design.
The net result is that saying the some or other group is paying more or less than their share is never very accurate. Users should be paying both their share of for the general mobility and accessibility benefits to themselves, their share for the age/environmental related maintenance/upkeep, their share for the general benefit on society (that UPS can deliver their stuff, that an ambulance can get to their house, etc), and their share for structural damage. There is no formula for weighting these shares, because many of these benefits are intangible. It is also not fair to push the costs of new roads onto only those people in new developments because you create a very distorted tax, where the current residents are not paying the very high costs for something that will still benefit them indirectly.
What this boils down to is that generally truckers are not forced to pay most of the costs of roads because that would not be fair, but the balance of who pays is generally hammered out by a political process, so it is by definition "fair". If you don't think it is fair, you need more political power.
Slashdot Mirror
The UC system already requires that all works be deposited in their own OA system (https://escholarship.org/).
The reporting in this is a little vague - not sure if that's just the standard of journalism or intentional. The negotiations broke down because the UC system wanted Elsevier to waive their OA publishing fee since they were already paying an access fee (basically Elsevier want full access fees for journals with both closed and open articles), and Elsevier refused - they insist on being paid to on both ends by the UC system for OA articles (both for publishing costs and access costs).
Elsevier are fighting a losing battle for their livelihood here - the world is going OA, and once it does Elsevier (and their ScienceDirect platform which gate-keeps academic publishing metrics) is going to collapse. They're trying to squeeze every last cent out now, and if they give in to the UC system here, then every university on the planet will demand the same deal.
What is not clear right now is if the UC system is going to limit faculty involvement in Elsevier journals. At one point in the negotiations they had threatened to prevent UC faculty from being editors or reviewers for Elsevier journals. It is not clear if they can force that on Senate members (tenured faculty), but the Senate can force that on their own members (like they did the OA policy which precipitated this renegotiation). In addition to OA and access fees, Elsevier gets an in-kind contribution of millions of dollars in free labor from UC faculty.
If you send the money then it is not profit.
And California pays more to the federal government than it receives in grants - it's the red states that soak up federal money.
So why should the Federal government come first? Surely under the US constitution one is a citizen of your state first and then of the union, since the states make up the Union? But instead the tax system works backwards with the federal government getting the first crack at your money, then the state, then the county and then the city. It should be the other way around - deduct all city taxes (including GST) from your income, then county taxes, then state taxes, and then the federal government gets a share of what remains.
Besides the unfortunate loss in employment opportunities for unscrupulous accountants and lawyers, I think the US would be better off if they eliminated all corporate income taxes. There are so many loopholes and handouts that it is impossible to make companies pay an equitable amount.
To compensate for the loss of federal income, personal taxes should be raised, especially taxes on capital gains, and loopholes closed so that corporate resources cannot be used for personal gain without taxation.
Most US states/counties/cities would also be much better off with a (lower rate) VAT rather than GST, so they could get income from a broader range of economic activity (especially lawyers fees). But Americans seem to as blind to the concept of VAT as they are to so many other modern ideas.
AWS is not breaking any rules here
Actually they are. Under the current state of Oracle v. Google it is a copyright violation to reimplement an API. AWS might be granted a fair use exemption by a court, but they might not (as Google currently has not for the Java APIs), and until they are, they should be assumed to be copyright pirates.
I'm glad MongoDB has done this though... Their business is going to be dead in months, if not weeks, and it means others will not try this type of nonsense. While I prefer BSD type licenses, I understand the point of the GPL in wanting people to contribute back. What MongoDB is doing is going a step further and trying to prevent their software from being used, even if it has not been modified. They want the best of both worlds: the kudos of open source and the money of enterprise licenses and they are going to end up with neither.
That "further reading" should probably be: "The VR dream is dying again". This is the third time at least.
I do believe that this new technology called "broadcast television" may have a future.
They'd probably have more luck calling it "Wireless Streaming Video"... But who are we kidding, they'd call it "Free Unlimited Wireless Streaming Video with Wide Area Multi-Screen Synchronization (and sponsored content)". Watch what all your friends else is watching! At the same time!
Not to be picky, but the definition of compaction in civil engineering is generally "taking the air out"... but officially concrete is consolidated, not compacted.
That's only true in the US, or actual pavement engineering. In the rest of the English speaking world the binder is called bitumen and the product asphalt. Asphalt "Concrete" is also a bit of a misnomer in the engineering sense, because it is really in a different class of materials to lime/pozzolanic concretes.
No. The exact point of the Pai's FCC decision is that ISPs are not telecommunications carriers (Title II), only "information services" (Title I). Currently there is no legal difference between Netflix and Comcast.
Just don't call it a "community organizer"...
Of course... I just preferred to use the shorter spelling of "ask", since most of the new slashdot readers don't seem to understand long words these days.
The states definitely have control over right-of-way on all land within the state. States can always remove pole/digging access from anyone that doesn't comply with Net Neutrality. If VoIP is an "information service" then a Title I company does not have a legal right to pole access if they are not providing a real dial tone on the copper.
Nonsense. "Peering" is just a group of ISPs that think they are the Internet. This is nothing to do with the Internet, it is purely a business model. One that is very profitable.
For Comcast only about 40%. It would have been 50% but they were forced to spend nearly 13% of revenue on capital expenditure. It must suck to work so had for so little - a mere 33% growth. They lost -9% of their customers despite investing -10% more in infrastructure in Q2. And then the government even has the gall to tax them -50% in 2017!
content publishers and distributors get to peer directly with an isp and flood their network with whatever data the content provider wants
What utter nonsense. The content providers are what make the internet work - without content there is no internet. The ISP's users are who is "flooding the network with whatever data they want", because they are requesting it. If the ISP has too much traffic they need to ask their users to stop asking for it.
Don't be a stooge for the ISPs.
This is just squatting from ISPs, who can set the rules (and the world view) thanks to being first on the pot. There should be no "peering points" on the internet, only connections, and the only logical way to charge is for the ISP/user generating the traffic requests to pay for their delivery. But ISPs grew up in the US telecoms market where people can be made to pay and receive phone calls and text messages...
Liquefaction absolutely requires a fluid between the particles - that can be air, water or a mixture of both. All that is required is that the effective stress be reduced to zero. Most granular materials, regardless of particle size distribution (grading), will exhibit zero shear resistance when the effective stress is zero, and so any loading will cause them to move. Liquefaction in particular is caused by vibration, where the shaking builds up pore water pressure which cannot dissipate fast enough because the permeability of the material is too low. Materials which are susceptible to liquefaction are all normally consolidated (i.e. not over-consolidated), so the shaking has the effect of consolidating the particles (or the consolation may return to normal compression curve if the shaking is high enough). If the material is very fine (like a clay), and wet, it will tend to have some shear resistance at zero effective stress because of inter-particle bonding, so it will not liquefy, even though it has very low permeability.
Air/gas can have the same impact (e.g. this happens when frozen gasses unfreeze), but you typically need a lot more air to get the required pressures, since it is compressible.
Liquefaction is not the same as the material looking like it is behaving like a liquid (looking like it is flowing, like sand in an hour glass). That is just what granular materials look like when they do flow...
The way that you make soil samples for liquefaction testing is by slowly dropping the sand into the test mold, preferably with the mold already filled with water. This causes them not to consolidate during production. This is exactly how they are loading these cargoes. The article implies this increase the pore water pressure, but that is not the case.
The cheap solution for ships would be to monitor the pore water pressure in the cargo hold, and trigger an alarm if there is any sudden increase. Also, if the material was prone to liquefaction, then it can be consolidated during loading by vibrating the cargo (like with a concrete vibrator). Rather than baffles, another approach would be to put vertical drains into the material (pipes from the bottom of the hold up). You could just pull these out (vertically) before unloading. If you couldn't discharge the drained water, you could just pump it back on top.
Most engines these days support worker threads, but that means you are managing them yourself. That might be a good thing...
Actually, most forest management is driven by logging interests, even in California, because these are National Forest Service lands. Also, the areas that are burning are not logging forests, they are mostly Chaparral and Oak: https://www.researchgate.net/p...
You forgot Bourne shell script... 30 years of observing the world says that everything will be rewritten into one of those five, unless it is already 20 years old and in Fortran or Cobol, in which case someone will keep it going, because they are too scared to rewrite it.
chrome://media-engagement/
No, he's just collecting school fees for the life lesson he's about to teach them.
Why should Google have to pay Sun/Oracle anything? That's like saying that authors need to pay Merriam/Webster/Oxford for using words.
The main problem with this case is that Google have never adequately explained what an API is. If you read the original testimony/filings and decision, the definition of what an API is is laughably vague, and as a result none of the lawyers know what they are fighting about. The correct definition of an API in copyright terms is a "blank form", that requires that you fill in certain information in certain boxes and deliver the form to a specified location for processing. The entity doing the processing might return information to you, or might take other actions on your behalf. The name of the function determines the address to deliver the form, and the parameters are the form fields, along with a calling convention which defines how those are interpreted. An ABI is similar, except already converted into binary/machine readable format by the compiler. This is more obvious on the web, where APIs are implemented using web forms, even if no form is displayed to the user.
This correct definition would have helped Google tremendously, because blank forms are specifically not protected by copyright law, after having been found to be not copyright-able by the Supreme Court. Oracle's SSO claims would also be seen for what they are - like claiming that organizing the forms in a bank or post-office in a particular way (in this case alphabetically) has some inherent value.
While it is true that trucks do significantly more structural damage than cars and bikes, this point is generally both misunderstood and overstated. Firstly, the damage is done by the load on the vehicle. This is generally accounted for in what are known as Equivalent Single Axle Loads, where a single axle is defined as a full dual wheel axle (four tires) loaded to the traditional legal maximum axle load of 80kN/18kips. The 1,500 times more damage comes from using an exponent of 4 on the load, which is generally OK for most roads, although is closer to 3 for asphalt and 6 for concrete. This is where the misunderstanding comes from - most trucks are not fully loaded. In California, the expected ESALs for a truck on an urban freeway or a local road is ~0.45, which is the majority of the network and the traffic, while it is ~1 for only routes with very high percentages of 18-wheelers (mostly long distance haul). So the "average" 18-wheeler with 3/5 axles (depending on how you count them) is actually doing the structural damage of 1 single axle fully loaded. By contrast, an average car is about 0.0002 ESALs, or about 1/5000 of the damage of a fully loaded 18-wheeler, but only ~2500 times the damage of an actual average truck (in California).
However, this is where the overstatement comes in - this only applies to structural damage. While structural damage does drive maintenance, it is not the only kind of damage, and also roads are not just built for freight. Roads are built for mobility and access, and the major cost is in their initial construction. The benefit to society of the road is in the ability to move more quickly and get to more places, and this has nothing to do with loading or structural damage. In addition, a large amount of the damage on roads is environmental not load related. The continual movement caused by heating and cooling leads to cracking. Asphalts age over time because of heat and UV (like plastics) and become brittle and crack. This cracking is accelerated by stresses related to tire inflation pressure, not load, where cars do almost as much damage as trucks. This is why you see a crazed pattern of cracks across the full width of many old city streets. On concrete damage is also caused by rocking of the slabs, which is worse for trucks, but cars also play a significant role (because a car fits on a slab, while a truck does not). Other damage is caused by shrinking and swelling of the underlying aggregate layers, or shrinking of bound layers. This exhibits as cracks with a large block like cracking. The drought in California caused a large amount of cracking as the underlying soil dried and contracted, completely unrelated to trucks. Old cracks in the underlying layers also reflect through new layers, and that is driven both by load and environmental conditions. There is also rutting which is related to shear under the tires in asphalt, and to the total vertical load in the underlying soils. In addition, there are many cases where one kind of damage can accelerate another kind of damage. Pavements are actually the most complex civil engineering structures to design.
The net result is that saying the some or other group is paying more or less than their share is never very accurate. Users should be paying both their share of for the general mobility and accessibility benefits to themselves, their share for the age/environmental related maintenance/upkeep, their share for the general benefit on society (that UPS can deliver their stuff, that an ambulance can get to their house, etc), and their share for structural damage. There is no formula for weighting these shares, because many of these benefits are intangible. It is also not fair to push the costs of new roads onto only those people in new developments because you create a very distorted tax, where the current residents are not paying the very high costs for something that will still benefit them indirectly.
What this boils down to is that generally truckers are not forced to pay most of the costs of roads because that would not be fair, but the balance of who pays is generally hammered out by a political process, so it is by definition "fair". If you don't think it is fair, you need more political power.