What amazon is providing the ability for anyone to get books that non-slashdot readers enjoy reading. Pick up 50 of the best books of this year - doesn't matter which books you like, pick any list you like - and tell me how many of them you can buy in pdf format.
Get it? 400$us if buying you the ability to get any newly released book in a portable format. 400$us if buying you amazon's power to get editors to put books in an electronic format. No e-ebook has ever been sucessful because of the lack of contents interesting to most people, not technicalities.
I understand/. loves technicalities, but you need to wake up and smell the reality. No one really cares if you can read PDFs on it. People only care if they can get one of NYT's top 10 books to read while they are on the move or on vacation. And if they can do it while they are on vacation - without a freakin' computer - the better. They want to buy a book if they read a bit of it at a store. They want to buy a book if their vacation friend told them how good it was. And now you can, in a portable format. You don't even have to go to a wifi cafe'. You just do it before you pack to beach.
Get it?
Au contraire, mon cher, I have. For many years I tried a lot of PC software. Then I switched and I'm finding the software much better built and integrated. There's a sense of community among different programs to achieve a unique global goal of a good computer experience.
Your cliche' phrases are good enough for slashdot I guess...
I'm glad OS X has less apps since overall the quality to noise ratio is 10x higher than PC and leenucks. I'd rather pay 10-30$us for something that is really good than waste a week trying out 20 freeware/5$us programs.
OS X is currently an OS for people that value their time and don't mind paying for quality. Let's keep it that way.
Well, but that's a bit different of what we are discussing here. They used a small molecule from a company from which they (say they) don't have the chemical structure:
"The crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement and refined to 2.9 Å using the Tsmall beta, GreekR-I model taken from the FKBP12 complex (Table 1). It is not possible to build a detailed molecular model for the inhibitor at the resolution of the analysis without knowledge of its precise chemical structure, which is proprietary to Scios, Inc."
The PROTEIN structure itself was deposited in 2001, when the paper was published. Obtaining the structure of the small molecule could have been done by you if you wanted and managed to do it, simply using it to crystalize anything else suitable and get the x-ray data. Kind of interesting to do without the chemical data but doable I guess... (with the help of other techniques)
Btw, I wasn't able to find the raw data. Now, I honestly don't know if authors are forced to disclosure this data but I think they should.
From all of this, I find that your given example is not appropriate.
You found 211 on hold but many will not probably be ever published. I fail to see your point. No relevant protein structure published in a high-impact journal is not disclosured nowadays.
At the end of the day, I think we both want full data disclosure. I just wanted to point out that nowadays, almost everything is correctly available. I'm not saying everyone plays the game honestly though.
BA
Pharma companies do it all the time.
Let's have evidence/data and facts to back that up.
Most of Pharma research is not published butthat's another story.
BA
I'm of the opinion that anything that gets published should be published in its entirety, at least at some point. For example, people who publish protein structures can put the coordinates "on hold" for up to 18 months.
This is not true. If they publish the structure in any high-profile scientific journal (which usually means that the protein structure is of extreme relevance) they are forced to **immediatly** disclosure it. Normally, no one holds structure information after the paper is published.
In order to get pf's nice features into ipfilter, you would have brain-wash Darren Reed I guess.:-) pf has a lot of interesting things like alt-q integration (yes, not implemented in -current yet but there are working patches at altq's site), tables, etc (you mentioned them).
And yes, more is better. A lot of people (including me) use on some servers ipfw and ipfilter/ipnat at the same time because it's useful and you can take the best of each "world". pf introduction will give users even more options, nothing more, nothing less.
Slashdot Mirror
What amazon is providing the ability for anyone to get books that non-slashdot readers enjoy reading. Pick up 50 of the best books of this year - doesn't matter which books you like, pick any list you like - and tell me how many of them you can buy in pdf format. Get it? 400$us if buying you the ability to get any newly released book in a portable format. 400$us if buying you amazon's power to get editors to put books in an electronic format. No e-ebook has ever been sucessful because of the lack of contents interesting to most people, not technicalities. I understand /. loves technicalities, but you need to wake up and smell the reality. No one really cares if you can read PDFs on it. People only care if they can get one of NYT's top 10 books to read while they are on the move or on vacation. And if they can do it while they are on vacation - without a freakin' computer - the better. They want to buy a book if they read a bit of it at a store. They want to buy a book if their vacation friend told them how good it was. And now you can, in a portable format. You don't even have to go to a wifi cafe'. You just do it before you pack to beach.
Get it?
Yeah, I experienced exactly the same. back to safari... there's nothing as good as it.
Au contraire, mon cher, I have. For many years I tried a lot of PC software. Then I switched and I'm finding the software much better built and integrated. There's a sense of community among different programs to achieve a unique global goal of a good computer experience. Your cliche' phrases are good enough for slashdot I guess...
I'm glad OS X has less apps since overall the quality to noise ratio is 10x higher than PC and leenucks. I'd rather pay 10-30$us for something that is really good than waste a week trying out 20 freeware/5$us programs. OS X is currently an OS for people that value their time and don't mind paying for quality. Let's keep it that way.
Well, but that's a bit different of what we are discussing here. They used a small molecule from a company from which they (say they) don't have the chemical structure: "The crystal structure was solved by molecular replacement and refined to 2.9 Å using the Tsmall beta, GreekR-I model taken from the FKBP12 complex (Table 1). It is not possible to build a detailed molecular model for the inhibitor at the resolution of the analysis without knowledge of its precise chemical structure, which is proprietary to Scios, Inc." The PROTEIN structure itself was deposited in 2001, when the paper was published. Obtaining the structure of the small molecule could have been done by you if you wanted and managed to do it, simply using it to crystalize anything else suitable and get the x-ray data. Kind of interesting to do without the chemical data but doable I guess... (with the help of other techniques) Btw, I wasn't able to find the raw data. Now, I honestly don't know if authors are forced to disclosure this data but I think they should. From all of this, I find that your given example is not appropriate. You found 211 on hold but many will not probably be ever published. I fail to see your point. No relevant protein structure published in a high-impact journal is not disclosured nowadays. At the end of the day, I think we both want full data disclosure. I just wanted to point out that nowadays, almost everything is correctly available. I'm not saying everyone plays the game honestly though. BA
Pharma companies do it all the time. Let's have evidence/data and facts to back that up. Most of Pharma research is not published butthat's another story. BA
I'm of the opinion that anything that gets published should be published in its entirety, at least at some point. For example, people who publish protein structures can put the coordinates "on hold" for up to 18 months.
This is not true. If they publish the structure in any high-profile scientific journal (which usually means that the protein structure is of extreme relevance) they are forced to **immediatly** disclosure it. Normally, no one holds structure information after the paper is published.
BA
Because as I see it, no one is adding code to ipfw and there is a lot of interested people in getting pf into FreeBSD. I'm just being pragmatic.
In order to get pf's nice features into ipfilter, you would have brain-wash Darren Reed I guess. :-)
pf has a lot of interesting things like alt-q integration (yes, not implemented in -current yet but there are working patches at altq's site), tables, etc (you mentioned them).
And yes, more is better. A lot of people (including me) use on some servers ipfw and ipfilter/ipnat at the same time because it's useful and you can take the best of each "world". pf introduction will give users even more options, nothing more, nothing less.