1. I'm not interested in being brow beaten by some fool more interested in winning an argument then in addressing the argument.
If you're going to keep attempting an ad hominem then I'm going to simply not talk to you. And then what will you have accomplished?...you're going to get asinine...
Jeez, pot meet kettle.
To top it off, he addressed your points quite well and it appears that it's you that seems intent upon winning an argument with your long-winded reply, which, of course, doesn't specifically and concretely address the issues raised by the person you're replying to.
Funding to reproduce coming from same institution? So they'll have half the money for original research then. And the suckers tasked with the reproduction won't be advancing their own careers under the Publish (original, ground breaking work) Or Perish model used today.
Like it was stated, in a fairly appropriate analogy, reproducing others' work is akin to re-writing a new software project - in software dev, it's a losing game.
In science it's important, but like in software dev, the boss isn't interested. And while the result may be beneficial, it's hard to convince people that it's a rewarding career move to play catch-up to others' work.
Having said all that, I think we all agree that reproducibility is important -- question is, how to go about it as the current system kinda disfavours it in all but the most important projects.
We need to implement specific, concrete changes -- having grad students do some of that is a good idea, but not sure if it'll completely solve the issue.
But laymen will at least understand what has and has not be verified. That is important. Science cannot be something only scientists understand any more then the law can be something only lawyers understand.
Laymen will never understand cutting edge science (unless they're quite keen on the topic at hand - a miniscule minority), and any layman that thinks they understand the law as well as lawyers generally get their arses handed to them should they attempt pro se representation.
Yet conservatives may be shocked to learn that their idol Reagan was once a union boss himself. Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union, the AFL-CIO affiliated Screen Actors Guild. And he even served six terms as president of the organized labor group. Additionally, Reagan was a staunch advocate for the collective bargaining rights of one of the world’s most famous and most influential trade unions, Poland’s Solidarity movement.
By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.
So you modern conservatives even make Ronald Reagan look like a leftist. And guess what? He was no leftist.
That ought to give you reason to consider your blind partisanship, but something tells me that would be highly unlikely.
No they weren't. Cellphones were cool from the start. At least, around here anyway. Everyone wanted one. The problem with glass is the same with bluetooth headsets. People ware them even when they're not using them... which makes you look like a douche. Once Google has these embedded in regular glasses this will stop being an issue.
Agree with the first part, but on BlueTooth headsets - what's one supposed to do with them, take them off and pocket them? That risks losing them. I leave mine in place, even when turned off, when I'm out and about. 'Cause I know I'd lose it otherwise.
Maybe it helps that I grew up in a household where hearing aids were worn by a family member, so having something in the ear was normal. On the other hand, I hated wearing ear buds for the longest time, 'til I recognized the usefulness of them.
All the galaxies in our neighborhood are also rushing at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second (2,236.936 miles per hour) towards a structure called the Great Attractor, a region of space roughly 150 million light-years away.
I think they're calling them fast based on the relative speed to the galaxy that they're being ejected from / passing though.
Astrophysicists calculate that a star must get a million-plus mile-per-hour kick relative to the motion of the galaxy to reach escape velocity.
The diagram in TFA seems to indicate that these stars are not originating inside the galaxy, which to me raises the question, from whence do they come?
This image makes it appear the stars are mostly passing through the disk of the galaxy. I may be reading too much into the length of the coloured lines though.
That court case did nothing of the sort - it was a court case against a local US bank subsidiary asking for records of other subsidiaries in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands.
I came in here to address this issue.
An interesting quote (emphasis mine) from the linked-to case:
The nationality of the Bank is Canadian, but its presence is pervasive in the United States.[18] The Bank has voluntarily elected to do business in numerous foreign host countries and has accepted the incidental risk of occasional inconsistent governmental actions. It cannot expect to avail itself of the benefits of doing business here without accepting the concomitant obligations. As the Second Circuit noted years ago, "If the Bank cannot, as it were, serve two masters and comply with the lawful requirements both of the United States and Panama, perhaps it should surrender to one sovereign or the other the privileges received therefrom."
Over all I do hope that more data is moved to Canada (hence more jobs here), and the Canadian governments, federal and provincial, strengthen their determination (and regulations) to keep sensitive citizens' data out of the USA.
How about a nice, fat trans-Canada fibre optic cable, all within our borders? I imagine the spending on the advertisements for the "Canada Action Plan" would've paid for a good deal of it...
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised.
That's where I think you're mistaken; they don't say, "q will be such", they state something more like, "if q continues to be such, we expect ___ with an X% level of confidence" (ya know, like scientists tend to do).
Climate prediction A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario.
vs
Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.
Finally, the IPCC projections are criticized for being, if anything, too conservative in their projections. Time and time again they've said X in Y years and in Y - Z years X is seen to be having an effect. And when something stupid does come out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 30 years), they correct it. Ya know, like scientists do.
Also, don't confuse media headlines with IPCC projections, just like you can't expect to see realistic scenes of IT in movies.
And please, check out the link a few posts above that points to the Ars Technica story where the comp sci prof has a look at the models - he was impressed - they're pretty good. Or, "all models are wrong, some are useful" and climate models are useful.
If climate models were accurate, their predictions would be accurate. All of the models have failed on their predictions. This means, they are inaccurate and are not accurately reflecting the real world model.
They don't make predictions, they make projections; if you can't get that right, you're worse than the climate models.
Similar to confusing weather with climate.
Newtonian physics doesn't make accurate predictions (at relativistic speeds, for example), but it's still accurate (enough) for models. Or was Isaac Newton a "physicist" instead of a physicist because he didn't cover all cases?
But I can't prove anthropogenic climate change with anything but a computer model... and I've made too many computer models in my day for that to be very convincing.
Have you seen climate models, or do you just deny the ones that you don't like due to your standard of "truthiness"?
Ars Technica covers climate models nicely: (see page 2)
Steve Easterbrook, a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, has been studying climate models for several years. “I'd done a lot of research in the past studying the development of commercial and open source software systems, including four years with NASA studying the verification and validation processes used on their spacecraft flight control software,” he told Ars.
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”
“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
And as usual no individuals will be held personally accountable for this. Perhaps a general censure will occur, or a mocking speech stating that they didn't do anything wrong thinly veiled as an apology.
Canadians often mock America but it seems that you guys have achieved banana republic status too.
Solution: Don't drive a McClaren in those conditions. You'll just have to take the Bentley, or the Rolls Royce.
You don't drive a Bentley or a Rolls Royce... Your chauffeur drives the Bentley or the Roller. So it doesn't matter how the windscreen is kept clean as you will be riding in back, far away from such irrelevancies.
As it should be.
The windscreen is kept clean by the butler strapped to the bonnet / hood and operating a squeegee.
... if, say, the military or state department actually follows the NSA's suggestions, there's a decent chance that those suggestions are pretty close to as good as it gets...
Are you saying that NSA hasn't yet created enough havoc, that you wish the State Department and the Military to join NSA in making even more violations to our Constitutions ??
When he said suggestions (not examples), I think he meant something like the NSA's Information Assurance recommendations.
Check it out, it's quite informative (+5 Informative).
Posting AC because I modded you up. I'm just turning 49. My earliest memory is being woken by my dad to watch Neil Armstong descend that ladder on out tiny B/W TV. That memory shaped my life.
It's with sadness that I don't recall that specific event, though the parents assure me that I was watching.
I do recall other, related events though, just not the big one.
Also, posting AC will remove your given mod points, unless perhaps you logged out altogether.
Easy to test: check score on some post, then give it a unique moderation. Check the score to ensure it was recorded. Post a reply as AC. Check score again: your mod will be gone.
The open nature is also being drastically eroded by moving more and more stuff into the Google Play Services. So while the platform is still technically open source, all the interesting things are moved into a separate, closed, layer.
Slowly but surely, android is closing up.
Perhaps, but I thought that moving things into Google Play was mostly in response to the "fragmentation" issue, and / or because manufacturers and carriers were unwilling to issue updates for Android. Perhaps compensating for allowing too much freedom for carriers to add crapware, sell handsets, then neglect the customers.
The separation of many features into Google Play allows them to be updated without the participation of the aforementioned parties - is this not the case?
Having said that, I try to avoid Google services where possible - I don't like any one entity knowing too much about me.
I read it as "Ford Self-Driving R&D Car Smells Small Animal From Paper Bag At 200 Ft." and my first thought was, "What the hell kind of test is that?!?"
Split second later, "Waaiit a second, that can't be right."
But hey, my truck smells like a small animal in a paper bag - from 2 years ago.
Just a heads-up: posting anonymously will undo the mod point unless logging out before posting (I'm guessing on that), or from another browser, of course.
Was this the guy who was then billed by the hospital for all of these tests?
Yes.
Just too much outrageousness to easily summarize in one (or two) posts.
Popehat does the usual excellent job, plus has links to other sources for anyone that wants a different take on it. Popehat's coverage is rather in-depth from the legal perspective (Ken was a former LA DA and now defence attorney with 1st amendment focus if I recall correctly).
He pulled out of a WalMart in New Mexico without coming to a complete stop.
Then he looked nervous when pulled over. Allegedly appeared to be "clenching buttocks" when asked to step out of car.
Then, the officer got on the radio and heard from a colleague that the suspect had some previous drug related incident. Which the cop on the scene spun into "was caught with drugs up his butt".
The (uncertified) drug sniffing dog gave the signal, allegedly, on the guy's car seat.
Court gave search warrant for suspect's butt based on police officer's claim (unverified) of previously having hidden drugs up his butt.
2nd police officer's report makes no claim of previous incident being about drugs up butt.
The search was done in a different county (possibly outside jurisdiction of warrant) after hospital #1 refused to participate. Some of the search (colonoscopy at least) was performed after the valid time period of the warrant (rendering warrant invalid / expired?).
Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.
The template must have been used for the last time with WordPerfect 4.2.
I appreciate the humour in your comment, but just can't help myself from posting this. Because what has been done with a court order is frightening enough:
From the ever entertaining and informative Ken White at Popehat.com
1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
I wonder if this is really aimed at academia.edu rather than the authors. As far as I can tell, Elsevier hasn't (yet, at least) gone after academics posting their own papers on their own website in the traditional manner, i.e. as a PDF at www.university.edu/~jsmith/papers/smith2013bigresult.pdf.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez, pot meet kettle.
To top it off, he addressed your points quite well and it appears that it's you that seems intent upon winning an argument with your long-winded reply, which, of course, doesn't specifically and concretely address the issues raised by the person you're replying to.
Funding to reproduce coming from same institution? So they'll have half the money for original research then. And the suckers tasked with the reproduction won't be advancing their own careers under the Publish (original, ground breaking work) Or Perish model used today.
Like it was stated, in a fairly appropriate analogy, reproducing others' work is akin to re-writing a new software project - in software dev, it's a losing game.
In science it's important, but like in software dev, the boss isn't interested. And while the result may be beneficial, it's hard to convince people that it's a rewarding career move to play catch-up to others' work.
Having said all that, I think we all agree that reproducibility is important -- question is, how to go about it as the current system kinda disfavours it in all but the most important projects.
We need to implement specific, concrete changes -- having grad students do some of that is a good idea, but not sure if it'll completely solve the issue.
Laymen will never understand cutting edge science (unless they're quite keen on the topic at hand - a miniscule minority), and any layman that thinks they understand the law as well as lawyers generally get their arses handed to them should they attempt pro se representation.
Specialization in complex fields is natural.
+1 Interesting
(accidental Troll mis-mod being undone with this post)
"Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers.
I think I lost your point. Are you saying that England has the right to decide if it's spelled "colour" or "color" in the US?
Perhaps you're playing stupid on the Internet, or maybe you're just thick, so I'll spell it out for you.
If the USA wants to spell colour "kulor", England can't stop them.
England "invented" English. USA can do with it what they want.
USA "invented" the Internet. The world can do (or ought to be able to do) with it what it wants.
I believe that is what the +5 Insightful AC above you was getting at.
No unions? Sign me up!
And Reagan said this regarding unions:
So you modern conservatives even make Ronald Reagan look like a leftist. And guess what? He was no leftist.
That ought to give you reason to consider your blind partisanship, but something tells me that would be highly unlikely.
No they weren't. Cellphones were cool from the start. At least, around here anyway. Everyone wanted one. The problem with glass is the same with bluetooth headsets. People ware them even when they're not using them... which makes you look like a douche. Once Google has these embedded in regular glasses this will stop being an issue.
Agree with the first part, but on BlueTooth headsets - what's one supposed to do with them, take them off and pocket them? That risks losing them. I leave mine in place, even when turned off, when I'm out and about. 'Cause I know I'd lose it otherwise.
Maybe it helps that I grew up in a household where hearing aids were worn by a family member, so having something in the ear was normal. On the other hand, I hated wearing ear buds for the longest time, 'til I recognized the usefulness of them.
I imagine the creation of a TCP packet would mostly use a very similar routine regardless of the platform OS or hardware.
Or maybe the transferring of a packet.
A million miles per hour is not all that much.
All the galaxies in our neighborhood are also rushing at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second (2,236.936 miles per hour) towards a structure called the Great Attractor, a region of space roughly 150 million light-years away.
I think they're calling them fast based on the relative speed to the galaxy that they're being ejected from / passing though.
The diagram in TFA seems to indicate that these stars are not originating inside the galaxy, which to me raises the question, from whence do they come?
This image makes it appear the stars are mostly passing through the disk of the galaxy. I may be reading too much into the length of the coloured lines though.
That court case did nothing of the sort - it was a court case against a local US bank subsidiary asking for records of other subsidiaries in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands.
I came in here to address this issue.
An interesting quote (emphasis mine) from the linked-to case:
Over all I do hope that more data is moved to Canada (hence more jobs here), and the Canadian governments, federal and provincial, strengthen their determination (and regulations) to keep sensitive citizens' data out of the USA.
How about a nice, fat trans-Canada fibre optic cable, all within our borders? I imagine the spending on the advertisements for the "Canada Action Plan" would've paid for a good deal of it...
A projection is.
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised.
That's where I think you're mistaken; they don't say, "q will be such", they state something more like, "if q continues to be such, we expect ___ with an X% level of confidence" (ya know, like scientists tend to do).
I found this IPCC glossary:
Climate predictionA climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario.
vs
Climate projectionA projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.
Finally, the IPCC projections are criticized for being, if anything, too conservative in their projections. Time and time again they've said X in Y years and in Y - Z years X is seen to be having an effect. And when something stupid does come out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 30 years), they correct it. Ya know, like scientists do.
Also, don't confuse media headlines with IPCC projections, just like you can't expect to see realistic scenes of IT in movies.
And please, check out the link a few posts above that points to the Ars Technica story where the comp sci prof has a look at the models - he was impressed - they're pretty good. Or, "all models are wrong, some are useful" and climate models are useful.
If climate models were accurate, their predictions would be accurate. All of the models have failed on their predictions. This means, they are inaccurate and are not accurately reflecting the real world model.
They don't make predictions, they make projections; if you can't get that right, you're worse than the climate models.
Similar to confusing weather with climate.
Newtonian physics doesn't make accurate predictions (at relativistic speeds, for example), but it's still accurate (enough) for models. Or was Isaac Newton a "physicist" instead of a physicist because he didn't cover all cases?
Replying to self: broken link == missing link:
Ars Technica climate model coverage
But I can't prove anthropogenic climate change with anything but a computer model... and I've made too many computer models in my day for that to be very convincing.
Have you seen climate models, or do you just deny the ones that you don't like due to your standard of "truthiness"?
Ars Technica covers climate models nicely: (see page 2)
Steve Easterbrook, a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, has been studying climate models for several years. “I'd done a lot of research in the past studying the development of commercial and open source software systems, including four years with NASA studying the verification and validation processes used on their spacecraft flight control software,” he told Ars.
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”
“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
Don't use open source db. Use SQL Server for security and speed.
I agree, simply because I'm paid 50 cents to post this.
How much were you paid?
And as usual no individuals will be held personally accountable for this. Perhaps a general censure will occur, or a mocking speech stating that they didn't do anything wrong thinly veiled as an apology.
Canadians often mock America but it seems that you guys have achieved banana republic status too.
Sorry, that's petro-state.
Too cold for bananas up here.
You don't drive a Bentley or a Rolls Royce... Your chauffeur drives the Bentley or the Roller. So it doesn't matter how the windscreen is kept clean as you will be riding in back, far away from such irrelevancies.
As it should be.
The windscreen is kept clean by the butler strapped to the bonnet / hood and operating a squeegee.
Of course.
Are you saying that NSA hasn't yet created enough havoc, that you wish the State Department and the Military to join NSA in making even more violations to our Constitutions ??
When he said suggestions (not examples), I think he meant something like the NSA's Information Assurance recommendations.
Check it out, it's quite informative (+5 Informative).
Posting AC because I modded you up. I'm just turning 49. My earliest memory is being woken by my dad to watch Neil Armstong descend that ladder on out tiny B/W TV. That memory shaped my life.
It's with sadness that I don't recall that specific event, though the parents assure me that I was watching.
I do recall other, related events though, just not the big one.
Also, posting AC will remove your given mod points, unless perhaps you logged out altogether.
Easy to test: check score on some post, then give it a unique moderation. Check the score to ensure it was recorded. Post a reply as AC. Check score again: your mod will be gone.
Better battery consumption? Optimization? There are lots of reason to update an application.
I'd add to that bug fixes for obscure hardware as new bug reports are filed.
But I also agree with a poster above and below - once I have a working app, I skip the upgrades generally.
The open nature is also being drastically eroded by moving more and more stuff into the Google Play Services. So while the platform is still technically open source, all the interesting things are moved into a separate, closed, layer.
Slowly but surely, android is closing up.
Perhaps, but I thought that moving things into Google Play was mostly in response to the "fragmentation" issue, and / or because manufacturers and carriers were unwilling to issue updates for Android. Perhaps compensating for allowing too much freedom for carriers to add crapware, sell handsets, then neglect the customers.
The separation of many features into Google Play allows them to be updated without the participation of the aforementioned parties - is this not the case?
Having said that, I try to avoid Google services where possible - I don't like any one entity knowing too much about me.
I read it as "Ford Self-Driving R&D Car Smells Small Animal From Paper Bag At 200 Ft." and my first thought was, "What the hell kind of test is that?!?"
Split second later, "Waaiit a second, that can't be right."
But hey, my truck smells like a small animal in a paper bag - from 2 years ago.
*goes back to sleep*
Just a heads-up: posting anonymously will undo the mod point unless logging out before posting (I'm guessing on that), or from another browser, of course.
Was this the guy who was then billed by the hospital for all of these tests?
Yes.
Just too much outrageousness to easily summarize in one (or two) posts.
Popehat does the usual excellent job, plus has links to other sources for anyone that wants a different take on it. Popehat's coverage is rather in-depth from the legal perspective (Ken was a former LA DA and now defence attorney with 1st amendment focus if I recall correctly).
Ah, good question.
He pulled out of a WalMart in New Mexico without coming to a complete stop.
Then he looked nervous when pulled over. Allegedly appeared to be "clenching buttocks" when asked to step out of car.
Then, the officer got on the radio and heard from a colleague that the suspect had some previous drug related incident. Which the cop on the scene spun into "was caught with drugs up his butt".
The (uncertified) drug sniffing dog gave the signal, allegedly, on the guy's car seat.
Court gave search warrant for suspect's butt based on police officer's claim (unverified) of previously having hidden drugs up his butt.
2nd police officer's report makes no claim of previous incident being about drugs up butt.
The search was done in a different county (possibly outside jurisdiction of warrant) after hospital #1 refused to participate. Some of the search (colonoscopy at least) was performed after the valid time period of the warrant (rendering warrant invalid / expired?).
This is not an isolated incident.
all without any sort of court order."
Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.
The template must have been used for the last time with WordPerfect 4.2.
I appreciate the humour in your comment, but just can't help myself from posting this. Because what has been done with a court order is frightening enough:
From the ever entertaining and informative Ken White at Popehat.com
I wonder if this is really aimed at academia.edu rather than the authors. As far as I can tell, Elsevier hasn't (yet, at least) gone after academics posting their own papers on their own website in the traditional manner, i.e. as a PDF at www.university.edu/~jsmith/papers/smith2013bigresult.pdf.
Just in case you missed this post by Danial Povey, it seems that is not the case.