Author pays is a problem. It's worse than reader pays.
In the conventional model, libraries, with professional, highly educated, librarians, basically decide which journals are legit and which are scams. The libraries negotiate bulk rates with the power of large institutions.
In the "open access" model, each individual author, many of whom see an invitation to submit to a journal in their email and assume it's legit (seriously), have to decide which journals are good, and then hand over thousands of dollars per paper. That system is ripe for abuse, and IS abused, on a large scale. The vast majority of open access journals are scams.
Yes, physics, and some other disciplines, have had it right for a long time, but it is NOT this new open access model. You submit to arxiv, which operates efficiently and is funded by grants (costs a few bucks a paper), and anybody who wants to reads your paper there. You *then* submit to some closed-access journal. Much of computer science dispenses with the extra step and just has nobody-pays journals that operate on grants at the couple-of-bucks-a-paper level.
I interpreted it as "less sensitive" which would be correct.
There are lots of different kinds of interference. In a good radio system, noise from the radio's electronics should be a minor component, dominated by thermal noise, to say nothing of "interference" which is other legitimate radio waves that just happen to not be of interest to the operator. This system would probably have less electronic noise, but could easily have worse thermal noise.
Internet companies became convinced that their users should experience a sense of "community." The thing they didn't think about was that a sense of community comes along with a sense of ownership. So instead of just moving on, your community criticizes you for ruining "their" message board / site / game / whatever.
There's a lot of criticism about social media company bubbles.
The idea of a blockchain-based monetary exchange system probably has some value. Problem is, the speculation has probably killed that. Mindy Mom isn't going to buy any bitcoin to send to her kid at college because she's read about how much of a shit show it is. Perhaps some stable government will introduce a blockchain currency, peg it's value, and call it something else that people will trust.
Blockchain isn't an improved version of a hash chain at all. It IS a hash chain. If you want to be generous, it adds some conventions so that a bunch of people can all agree on who gets to write the next node on the chain.
If you set up a public git account and came up with a system to assign a one time use password to a random registered accounts that they could use to make the next commit, you'd have a blockchain.
It is important to know how the process works, but looking up a number in a statistical table doesn't tell you how statistics works any better than punching numbers into a calculator and getting the answer.
Here's the key: don't get advice from Slashdot comments.
Here you will find wealthy enthusiasts who will call you an idiot for buying anything that's not the very latest. And you will find crotchety old men (many of them 13) who will berate you for not picking up a used card from four generations ago. You'll also find lots of trolls who just call you names.
NVIDIA hobbles non-32 bit floating point support on their gaming cards so there's incentive to buy their workstation cards. It sounds like that's going to change with this next generation, probably due to deep learning rather than cryptocurrency mining.
It's kind of poetic when you think about it. There is no such thing as "a data" because a single measurement is a completely different thing than a set of multiple measurements.
"At this point, it is mostly treated as plural in scientific contexts"
I suspect this is one of those things that's more about age. I'm a scientist. I generally see data used as a singular or measurable quantity. "Let me see the data." "The data was collected."
I have much older collaborators (about to retire) who change it to a plural when editing though.
I understand motivating people not to lose cards, but having them lose time over it seems pretty counter productive.
Apparently corporate bureaucracy is just as bad or worse than the government kind though, so I guess this isn't terribly surprising. If your company would like to hire an efficiency consultant for a review, I'd be happy to do it. Only $1 million.
Blockchain is like having a github account where you change the password after every login and give the new password to whoever first guesses the answer to a riddle.
I guess that depends how old you are, and how optimistically (or pessimistically) you evaluate the planet's carrying capacity and the exponential growth demanded by our current economic system.
"I haven't seen that particular poll, but I find it hard to believe. I would at least like to examine their methodology before drawing any conclusions" would be a perfectly acceptable answer.
You are correct, yelling "citation needed" or making personal attacks is not acceptable.
Truth. To confirm just go buy a pair of tailored, or off the rack pants at a dedicated men's shop. The tailor will ask you what waist size you are, you give the jean size, he rolls his eyes, measures you, and comes up with a number four or five inches bigger.
That's a G7 meeting in 1994. In southern Italy. In July. Every single man in that picture is wearing something that is completely unsuited for the weather and location. But they're all the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Author pays is a problem. It's worse than reader pays.
In the conventional model, libraries, with professional, highly educated, librarians, basically decide which journals are legit and which are scams. The libraries negotiate bulk rates with the power of large institutions.
In the "open access" model, each individual author, many of whom see an invitation to submit to a journal in their email and assume it's legit (seriously), have to decide which journals are good, and then hand over thousands of dollars per paper. That system is ripe for abuse, and IS abused, on a large scale. The vast majority of open access journals are scams.
Yes, physics, and some other disciplines, have had it right for a long time, but it is NOT this new open access model. You submit to arxiv, which operates efficiently and is funded by grants (costs a few bucks a paper), and anybody who wants to reads your paper there. You *then* submit to some closed-access journal. Much of computer science dispenses with the extra step and just has nobody-pays journals that operate on grants at the couple-of-bucks-a-paper level.
Sub 5 s acceleration is likely to spill the boss's drink.
I interpreted it as "less sensitive" which would be correct.
There are lots of different kinds of interference. In a good radio system, noise from the radio's electronics should be a minor component, dominated by thermal noise, to say nothing of "interference" which is other legitimate radio waves that just happen to not be of interest to the operator. This system would probably have less electronic noise, but could easily have worse thermal noise.
Internet companies became convinced that their users should experience a sense of "community." The thing they didn't think about was that a sense of community comes along with a sense of ownership. So instead of just moving on, your community criticizes you for ruining "their" message board / site / game / whatever.
And that's why usenet died. It was a great idea in the early days. Then spam became a thing.
"Tougher" is a technical materials science term that describes a greater ability to absorb energy (such as from an impact) without fracturing.
So, you know, *exactly* what you were talking about. Newer glass formulations are much tougher than older ones.
There's a lot of criticism about social media company bubbles.
The idea of a blockchain-based monetary exchange system probably has some value. Problem is, the speculation has probably killed that. Mindy Mom isn't going to buy any bitcoin to send to her kid at college because she's read about how much of a shit show it is. Perhaps some stable government will introduce a blockchain currency, peg it's value, and call it something else that people will trust.
Blockchain isn't an improved version of a hash chain at all. It IS a hash chain. If you want to be generous, it adds some conventions so that a bunch of people can all agree on who gets to write the next node on the chain.
If you set up a public git account and came up with a system to assign a one time use password to a random registered accounts that they could use to make the next commit, you'd have a blockchain.
I'm moving. Just discovered both the casio and the TI, sitting together in a box. I haven't used either in more than a decade.
It is important to know how the process works, but looking up a number in a statistical table doesn't tell you how statistics works any better than punching numbers into a calculator and getting the answer.
Here's the key: don't get advice from Slashdot comments.
Here you will find wealthy enthusiasts who will call you an idiot for buying anything that's not the very latest. And you will find crotchety old men (many of them 13) who will berate you for not picking up a used card from four generations ago. You'll also find lots of trolls who just call you names.
NVIDIA hobbles non-32 bit floating point support on their gaming cards so there's incentive to buy their workstation cards. It sounds like that's going to change with this next generation, probably due to deep learning rather than cryptocurrency mining.
It's fun to watch Italians rolling their eyes when you order a panini though.
I also grin every time I say something like "four twenties eight!" in French.
Maths and sciences. It's an acknowledgement that the subject of mathematics (also a plural) is rich, with many subfields.
Ironically, "datum" often refers to a *set* of reference measurements.
It's kind of poetic when you think about it. There is no such thing as "a data" because a single measurement is a completely different thing than a set of multiple measurements.
"At this point, it is mostly treated as plural in scientific contexts"
I suspect this is one of those things that's more about age. I'm a scientist. I generally see data used as a singular or measurable quantity. "Let me see the data." "The data was collected."
I have much older collaborators (about to retire) who change it to a plural when editing though.
It depends where you are. A British server is likely to ask you if you want "some mash."
I understand motivating people not to lose cards, but having them lose time over it seems pretty counter productive.
Apparently corporate bureaucracy is just as bad or worse than the government kind though, so I guess this isn't terribly surprising. If your company would like to hire an efficiency consultant for a review, I'd be happy to do it. Only $1 million.
Blockchain is like having a github account where you change the password after every login and give the new password to whoever first guesses the answer to a riddle.
I guess that depends how old you are, and how optimistically (or pessimistically) you evaluate the planet's carrying capacity and the exponential growth demanded by our current economic system.
Either way, it's a pretty selfish outlook.
"I haven't seen that particular poll, but I find it hard to believe. I would at least like to examine their methodology before drawing any conclusions" would be a perfectly acceptable answer.
You are correct, yelling "citation needed" or making personal attacks is not acceptable.
Truth. To confirm just go buy a pair of tailored, or off the rack pants at a dedicated men's shop. The tailor will ask you what waist size you are, you give the jean size, he rolls his eyes, measures you, and comes up with a number four or five inches bigger.
You say those two things like they're mutually exclusive.
Men's clothing does not lean towards utility. It leans towards uniformity.
Example: https://goo.gl/images/LVV8A5
That's a G7 meeting in 1994. In southern Italy. In July. Every single man in that picture is wearing something that is completely unsuited for the weather and location. But they're all the same.