Too true, a ban on abortion with this much time between the Roe v Wade case is pointless.
However, did you know that the Justices made clear rules on determining abortion through the trimesters? The first trimester was considered unregulated and one could whatever wishes. The second trimester required that one talk to a doctor for counseling on the physical damage that can happen to self (disease, scarring, sterilization). The third trimester only allowed abortions in which the life of the mother was at risk. A doctor was required to sign on this one.
Now, where things got crazy was when lawyers started arguing that mental diseases of childbirth (or some gobbledegook) was that the mother was at mental trauma risk. So, they wormed in what the justices thought were a fair balance and we now have the current system.
If it wasnt for those pesky lawyers...
And then again, I know little about Thompson. Abortion is a distant second. Biggest question: Do you support (via words and actions) the Bill Of Rights in their entirety?
And do you think trite phrases like "corrupt governments" does anything?
We send billions of $ to the peoples of Africa, and some to the governments in which we have either befriended or threatened with being "blowd up". I havent heard much of Kadafi recently.. Wonder why.
And frankly, we need the peoples of Africa to unite and overthrow the governments we dont like. So, we help the peoples.
And lastly... diseases dont just stay in one place.
Try using Firefox with heavy blockers. Even a tailored hosts file on your router would help, assuming you are running bind or something similar on your router.
If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book.
Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.
3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.
3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.
But when these huge companies work with other huge companies AND government agencies like the FBI and CIA, do you think you even have a chance in Hell?
Like many have said before me, we need to go pure encrypted communications to prevent this kind of violation. TOR, WASTE, and Linux based encryption techniques allows us these kind of tools to defend against attackers: our very providers of bandwidth.
And like I said, I do not know if he allowed his content to go under another license. I'm just following what he claims.
And also, he may have made a deal for commercial works that we know not of.
I also have found the links directly to Oxfords pages. You simply click on the "Full text FREE" link. If one would miss that, then perhaps they ought to get a job doing fries or bagging at a grocery.
However, Ingenta is charging illegally. I have posted those links around here. Just look at my posting history.
Try clicking on full text. You get full text without rightslink garbage.
If you look through the source for copyright.com (as seen in image), it's related to a javascript and is onclick a certain element that is NOT in the site.
After reading this, it seems an honest mistake.
Scholar.google does have 3 other sources for this document.
Ingenta DOES require payment in the line of $36.97 to view this. Hmm.
OUP wants me to pay for my own Open Access article
I have been dismayed (previous post: "Open Access") at the lack of commitment to OA by mainstream (primarily toll-access (TA)) publishers and have described this as a "systemic failure" of the industry. Here is another unacceptable lack of clarity and commitment from an Open Access journal from a major publisher. I had been investigating OUP's site for another reason (PRISM: Open Letter to Oxford University Press) and since I had published with them thought I would have a look at papers I had written ("I" and "my" include co-authors). This is what I found (screenshot):
The electronic article is accompanied by a sidebar with "request permissions". I followed this and the result is shown above. The journal wishes to charge me 48 USD to:
* USE MY OWN ARTICLE
* ON WHICH I HOLD COPYRIGHT
* FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (TEACHING)
The journal is therefore
* SELLING MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
* WITHOUT MY PERMISSION
* AGAINST THE TERMS OF THE LICENCE (NO COMMERCIAL USE)
I am lost for words...... the only charitable conclusion I can draw is that the publisher ritually attaches the awful Rightslink page to every article automatically and that this is a genuine mistake. I have found such "genuine mistakes" with other publishers in their hybrid journals (i.e. where only some of the papers are OA, the majority being toll-access TA). But this is a fully OA journal - all papers are OA - I assume CC-NC. There is no excuse for including the Rightslink page on ANY OA paper, let alone every one on a journal.
If this is - as I desperately hope - a genuine mistake then my criticism might seem harsh. But it is actually part of the systemic failure of the industry to promote Open Access. And I hope that OUP can and will clarify and rectify the position. If, however, it is deliberate and that the publisher actually intends to charge readers and users for Open Access articles I shall reserve comment.
This is not a trivial point. The normal reader of a journal who wishes to re-use material has to navigate copyright constraints and restrictions on an all-too-frequent basis. Such a reader, especially if they were relatively unaware of Open Access could easily pay the journal for "permission to use an Open Access article for teaching". (Note that other charges are higher - to include my own article in a book I write would cost nearly 350 USD).
It is all indicative of an industry that simply isn't trying hard enough. RECOMMENDATION:
OPEN ACCESS ARTICLES ON PUBLISHERS' WEB PAGES SHOULD NEVER BE ACCOMPANIED BY RIGHTSLINK OR OTHER PERMISSION MATERIAL. INSTEAD THE PUBLISHER SHOULD PRO-ACTIVELY POINT OUT THE NATURE OF OA AND ENSURE THAT THE READER AND RE-USER IS FULLY AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS.
After all, the author has paid for this...
This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pm and is filed under open issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Oboes, along with flutes use high pitches. Flutes are almost always sharp (hence why they use more finger to cover holes), and that leaves the oboe. If they are 2 or 3 Hz out of tune, they are only logarithmically away very little at all.
Now if you notice, the oboe pitch is much higher (I cant remember if its 880 or 1760) so its relative distance is much lower than that of the violins.
Now, in terms of who we follow, in a symphony, we follow Principal Clarinet, Principal Trumpet, and Principal Violin (or concertmaster).
If the Conductor is wrong or just plain unreadable conducting style, we follow either our principal or the triad.
BTW, I was a principal clarinettist for a local symphony. Dropped out due to heavy demands on college.
Once at the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, they had a guest pianist from Japan who was playing contemporary and native pieces. Ok, this would normally work out OK, but natively made pianos were tuned for A=415, not A=440.
When the Conductor heard this, he DEMANDED that everything be tuned to A=440 (with about a 1 cent error margin).
When the piano tuner did his job, close to the end of the job, the bridge snapped (or whatever the piano strings are attached to).
You dont play the instrument's "A", but rather you compensate for your transposition and play up or down. Us Bb clarinets and trumpets play C. My A Clarinet plays B for concert pitch.
My C Saxophone (circa 1914 Conn), you just play A. They quit making them just after the war.
That low rumble is soo easy on the ears. And there's more sound output at 60Hz than concert bands playing. After all, isnt our electric grid up and running 24/7?
It is only legal to sell alcohol in stores that are open to the public. It is also illegal to sell alcohol at discounts that are restricted to certain members (employees, clubs,...)
I can legally walk into a Sams club here, not show "id" since the presence of alcohol demands that it is a public place, buy alcohol (and NOTHING else), and walk past the annoying door guards. They've yelled at me for not showing stuff that I now own and how my club card will be revoked.
I have never bought a Sams Club Card, nor will I. The second they call me a thief is the second I will make lots of money due to slander and kidnapping tort charges.
Lastly, there is a huge (6ftx12ft) hanging over the alcohol aisle stating the above Indiana law, yet no clerk knows of this oft-used policy. It usually jams up the lanes for about 5 minutes, yet they still have the cheapest prices on liquor.
And from what Ive seen (2'nd hand and first hand) 9 out of 10 cops are corrupt pigs. Planting evidence seems to be a rather fun game on those you want to see "go away" after evading serious charges on every occasion. And of course, having power to fuck with other people is just a perk.
The 1 out of 10 are actually good, honest people who DO want their community to be better and try hard to do so.
Also, another evaluation is that most people who want to become cops probably dont deserve it. Same goes for politicians.
Shirket Shitty has NO reasonable right to ask for your receipt and to inspect your purchases as you exit the store. They do have every right if they ACCUSE somebody of an illegal act, which they can detain, however no statement was given to that fact. If they have policies and do not factor in cost of doing business of shoplifting, the market will correct that. If the correction is by bankruptcy, so be it.
There are 100% ways to prevent shoplifting. Seal everything in glass/poly cases and have keyholders everywhere. Oh.. that decreases impulse buying....
---You are performing a left-brained and purist exercise in interpretation, not contributing to my civil rights. Your position, like most liberal canards, denies the messy reality that we inhabit. In that real, unpredictable world, we need to follow our civic and legal principles in good faith, not mindlessly apply them to make pointless political statements.
Left brained and purist? How about the laws? Are those left brained? Show me what law specifies what he "broke". Thats right. The right-brainers' laws didn't have those laws on the books. Wonder why..
---The officer also has every reasonable right to see id once you are involved in an incident. Here again, please don't quote me the letter of the law.
Now thats just no-brained. I paraphrase law, but dont show me quotes. Are you related to those Kentucky-ian bible thumpers? Or perhaps, you're the one that opened that cretinism museum.
Hopefully the judge will see how stupid you are.
---In your scheme, Circuit City's rights and my consumer rights are violated. You provide no scheme in which our rights are not violated (given the reality of shoplifters, whom you are empowering). Should you prevail, our rights will be more violated. Now, if everyone else was like you -- tying up public resources with disingenuous civil rights complaints -- then we'd really be in trouble.
Aww.. Poor capitalist. Perhaps, if you have problems with "loss", you would create better ways to prevent shoplifting. I'm sure if you handcuffed all entrants into your store (with an appropriate warning on the store inside stating thus), it would deter crime.
Or better yet, lets assign security guards with tazers to each person. And we wont forget that warning that "We are not responsible for tazered people". That holds up real well in court.
---Invention without a financial return is called science.
Better said, it is called a Loss.
If one were a good scientist, they would tie their project in to a chance of gains for a few "buckets". One bucket could be the now-1 year, while another could be 1-5 years, while another could be 5 year-far future gains.
Risk analysis could be done to determine what strategy would maximize gains. Any bean counter would understand this kind of analysis and be very conducive to this sort of data handling.
I'd imagine that if I had 10% of my time for far future studies, I'd have leeway to do whatever I wanted, as long as I made a case for it.
---It's what I do for living, though it's rather hard to make a business case that figuring out the decay rate of craters on Triton is going to enrich anyone financially. With hope though, it will enrich my fellow scientists and lead to a broader understanding of the solar system and our place it it. Can you put a price on that?
Yeah, I place 0$, along with a negative cost associated for a scientist not doing profitable research. So, I'd assign a -100000$ cost on that (valuing you at 100k/yr and 1 yr of work)
In opposition to that would be lunar research. I could easily make a case in that we need to study the moon and all of its variables in that opposing interests could do the same, and possibly create better products in presence of its low gravity. Or I could say the same for space research in that we could diversify creation of certain hard-to-make objects easier in space.
---Turning the question around, would you have asked Max Plank for a business case for quantum physics, 50 years before it was used to invent the transistor?
If it was profitable to create Planck's equations and to investigate quantum theory, it would have been done when needed.
(All of this has been said if a Capitalist would have said it. Perhaps, Marx was right in that the main failing of Capitalism is that it does not take into consideration the aspect of the human condition: discovery.)
Slashdot Mirror
Too true, a ban on abortion with this much time between the Roe v Wade case is pointless.
However, did you know that the Justices made clear rules on determining abortion through the trimesters?
The first trimester was considered unregulated and one could whatever wishes.
The second trimester required that one talk to a doctor for counseling on the physical damage that can happen to self (disease, scarring, sterilization).
The third trimester only allowed abortions in which the life of the mother was at risk. A doctor was required to sign on this one.
Now, where things got crazy was when lawyers started arguing that mental diseases of childbirth (or some gobbledegook) was that the mother was at mental trauma risk. So, they wormed in what the justices thought were a fair balance and we now have the current system.
If it wasnt for those pesky lawyers...
And then again, I know little about Thompson. Abortion is a distant second. Biggest question: Do you support (via words and actions) the Bill Of Rights in their entirety?
If yes, you get my vote.
And do you think trite phrases like "corrupt governments" does anything?
We send billions of $ to the peoples of Africa, and some to the governments in which we have either befriended or threatened with being "blowd up". I havent heard much of Kadafi recently.. Wonder why.
And frankly, we need the peoples of Africa to unite and overthrow the governments we dont like. So, we help the peoples.
And lastly... diseases dont just stay in one place.
---yet I'm inundated with them at every turn.
Yet, I'm not.
Try using Firefox with heavy blockers. Even a tailored hosts file on your router would help, assuming you are running bind or something similar on your router.
Good point.
If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book.
Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.
3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.
3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.
Just a taste of what the Quran hides.
Bleh.
Whoops. Sorry.
;)
I play in a symphony and a band.. I know kinesthetically which notes are which fingers but sometimes tend to mess them up
But when these huge companies work with other huge companies AND government agencies like the FBI and CIA, do you think you even have a chance in Hell?
Like many have said before me, we need to go pure encrypted communications to prevent this kind of violation. TOR, WASTE, and Linux based encryption techniques allows us these kind of tools to defend against attackers: our very providers of bandwidth.
Try Here.
When we're considered criminals anyways, why not act like them?
And who're the real criminals: Those who download "copyrighted works", or those who charge for what we have already paid for?
I think we have a case of the stupids.
Try reading what I have posted here.
And like I said, I do not know if he allowed his content to go under another license. I'm just following what he claims.
And also, he may have made a deal for commercial works that we know not of.
I also have found the links directly to Oxfords pages. You simply click on the "Full text FREE" link. If one would miss that, then perhaps they ought to get a job doing fries or bagging at a grocery.
However, Ingenta is charging illegally. I have posted those links around here. Just look at my posting history.
Oxford does seem to have that as a mistake.
Ingenta is NOT a mistake, by any means.
Take a look... only 36.97 USD for full text
Ok...
Here's the Oxford website in question: Here
Try clicking on full text. You get full text without rightslink garbage.
If you look through the source for copyright.com (as seen in image), it's related to a javascript and is onclick a certain element that is NOT in the site.
After reading this, it seems an honest mistake.
Scholar.google does have 3 other sources for this document.
Ingenta DOES require payment in the line of $36.97 to view this. Hmm.
OUP wants me to pay for my own Open Access article
I have been dismayed (previous post: "Open Access") at the lack of commitment to OA by mainstream (primarily toll-access (TA)) publishers and have described this as a "systemic failure" of the industry. Here is another unacceptable lack of clarity and commitment from an Open Access journal from a major publisher. I had been investigating OUP's site for another reason (PRISM: Open Letter to Oxford University Press) and since I had published with them thought I would have a look at papers I had written ("I" and "my" include co-authors). This is what I found (screenshot):
The Image in the blog entry stating $48 cost
The electronic article is accompanied by a sidebar with "request permissions". I followed this and the result is shown above. The journal wishes to charge me 48 USD to:
* USE MY OWN ARTICLE
* ON WHICH I HOLD COPYRIGHT
* FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (TEACHING)
The journal is therefore
* SELLING MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
* WITHOUT MY PERMISSION
* AGAINST THE TERMS OF THE LICENCE (NO COMMERCIAL USE)
I am lost for words...
If this is - as I desperately hope - a genuine mistake then my criticism might seem harsh. But it is actually part of the systemic failure of the industry to promote Open Access. And I hope that OUP can and will clarify and rectify the position. If, however, it is deliberate and that the publisher actually intends to charge readers and users for Open Access articles I shall reserve comment.
This is not a trivial point. The normal reader of a journal who wishes to re-use material has to navigate copyright constraints and restrictions on an all-too-frequent basis. Such a reader, especially if they were relatively unaware of Open Access could easily pay the journal for "permission to use an Open Access article for teaching". (Note that other charges are higher - to include my own article in a book I write would cost nearly 350 USD).
It is all indicative of an industry that simply isn't trying hard enough.
RECOMMENDATION:
OPEN ACCESS ARTICLES ON PUBLISHERS' WEB PAGES SHOULD NEVER BE ACCOMPANIED BY RIGHTSLINK OR OTHER PERMISSION MATERIAL. INSTEAD THE PUBLISHER SHOULD PRO-ACTIVELY POINT OUT THE NATURE OF OA AND ENSURE THAT THE READER AND RE-USER IS FULLY AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS.
After all, the author has paid for this...
This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pm and is filed under open issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Well, why dont you try reading what the CC (no commercial benefit) means.
What right does Oxford have to copy his work? If they did not work out a deal with him or his university, they, by default use the CC license.
The CC license he chose has "No Commercial Use" clause. They used it for commercial use, thereby making void their usage of the CC for copyright.
They are in violation of Rust's copyright. Hmm... if Rust can prove they did it in spite of CC (no com use), he probably can get treble damages...
Treble damages = $48 * 3 * n
Big number. Good.
Do you know WHY it stays in tune the best?
Oboes, along with flutes use high pitches. Flutes are almost always sharp (hence why they use more finger to cover holes), and that leaves the oboe. If they are 2 or 3 Hz out of tune, they are only logarithmically away very little at all.
Now if you notice, the oboe pitch is much higher (I cant remember if its 880 or 1760) so its relative distance is much lower than that of the violins.
Now, in terms of who we follow, in a symphony, we follow Principal Clarinet, Principal Trumpet, and Principal Violin (or concertmaster).
If the Conductor is wrong or just plain unreadable conducting style, we follow either our principal or the triad.
BTW, I was a principal clarinettist for a local symphony. Dropped out due to heavy demands on college.
Yup.
I have a crazy story about that kind of tuning...
Once at the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, they had a guest pianist from Japan who was playing contemporary and native pieces. Ok, this would normally work out OK, but natively made pianos were tuned for A=415, not A=440.
When the Conductor heard this, he DEMANDED that everything be tuned to A=440 (with about a 1 cent error margin).
When the piano tuner did his job, close to the end of the job, the bridge snapped (or whatever the piano strings are attached to).
It was only a $100,000 piano.
You dont play the instrument's "A", but rather you compensate for your transposition and play up or down. Us Bb clarinets and trumpets play C. My A Clarinet plays B for concert pitch.
My C Saxophone (circa 1914 Conn), you just play A. They quit making them just after the war.
Oh, I'm SURRRE you did, anonycoward.
How about proof on your libel?
Then I say we tune to 60Hz.
That low rumble is soo easy on the ears. And there's more sound output at 60Hz than concert bands playing. After all, isnt our electric grid up and running 24/7?
Even when he first showed up on the scene here, I thought his name was Scuttlebutt.
I live in Indiana, and according to Indiana law:
It is only legal to sell alcohol in stores that are open to the public.
It is also illegal to sell alcohol at discounts that are restricted to certain members (employees, clubs,...)
I can legally walk into a Sams club here, not show "id" since the presence of alcohol demands that it is a public place, buy alcohol (and NOTHING else), and walk past the annoying door guards. They've yelled at me for not showing stuff that I now own and how my club card will be revoked.
I have never bought a Sams Club Card, nor will I. The second they call me a thief is the second I will make lots of money due to slander and kidnapping tort charges.
Lastly, there is a huge (6ftx12ft) hanging over the alcohol aisle stating the above Indiana law, yet no clerk knows of this oft-used policy. It usually jams up the lanes for about 5 minutes, yet they still have the cheapest prices on liquor.
And from what Ive seen (2'nd hand and first hand) 9 out of 10 cops are corrupt pigs. Planting evidence seems to be a rather fun game on those you want to see "go away" after evading serious charges on every occasion. And of course, having power to fuck with other people is just a perk.
The 1 out of 10 are actually good, honest people who DO want their community to be better and try hard to do so.
Also, another evaluation is that most people who want to become cops probably dont deserve it. Same goes for politicians.
LinTard:
Where are your papers, citizen?
Shirket Shitty has NO reasonable right to ask for your receipt and to inspect your purchases as you exit the store. They do have every right if they ACCUSE somebody of an illegal act, which they can detain, however no statement was given to that fact. If they have policies and do not factor in cost of doing business of shoplifting, the market will correct that. If the correction is by bankruptcy, so be it.
There are 100% ways to prevent shoplifting. Seal everything in glass/poly cases and have keyholders everywhere. Oh.. that decreases impulse buying....
---You are performing a left-brained and purist exercise in interpretation, not contributing to my civil rights.
Your position, like most liberal canards, denies the messy reality that we inhabit. In that real, unpredictable world, we need to follow our civic and legal principles in good faith, not mindlessly apply them to make pointless political statements.
Left brained and purist? How about the laws? Are those left brained? Show me what law specifies what he "broke". Thats right. The right-brainers' laws didn't have those laws on the books. Wonder why..
---The officer also has every reasonable right to see id once you are involved in an incident. Here again, please don't quote me the letter of the law.
Now thats just no-brained. I paraphrase law, but dont show me quotes. Are you related to those Kentucky-ian bible thumpers? Or perhaps, you're the one that opened that cretinism museum.
Hopefully the judge will see how stupid you are.
---In your scheme, Circuit City's rights and my consumer rights are violated. You provide no scheme in which our rights are not violated (given the reality of shoplifters, whom you are empowering). Should you prevail, our rights will be more violated. Now, if everyone else was like you -- tying up public resources with disingenuous civil rights complaints -- then we'd really be in trouble.
Aww.. Poor capitalist. Perhaps, if you have problems with "loss", you would create better ways to prevent shoplifting. I'm sure if you handcuffed all entrants into your store (with an appropriate warning on the store inside stating thus), it would deter crime.
Or better yet, lets assign security guards with tazers to each person. And we wont forget that warning that "We are not responsible for tazered people". That holds up real well in court.
---Invention without a financial return is called science.
Better said, it is called a Loss.
If one were a good scientist, they would tie their project in to a chance of gains for a few "buckets". One bucket could be the now-1 year, while another could be 1-5 years, while another could be 5 year-far future gains.
Risk analysis could be done to determine what strategy would maximize gains. Any bean counter would understand this kind of analysis and be very conducive to this sort of data handling.
I'd imagine that if I had 10% of my time for far future studies, I'd have leeway to do whatever I wanted, as long as I made a case for it.
---It's what I do for living, though it's rather hard to make a business case that figuring out the decay rate of craters on Triton is going to enrich anyone financially. With hope though, it will enrich my fellow scientists and lead to a broader understanding of the solar system and our place it it. Can you put a price on that?
Yeah, I place 0$, along with a negative cost associated for a scientist not doing profitable research. So, I'd assign a -100000$ cost on that (valuing you at 100k/yr and 1 yr of work)
In opposition to that would be lunar research. I could easily make a case in that we need to study the moon and all of its variables in that opposing interests could do the same, and possibly create better products in presence of its low gravity. Or I could say the same for space research in that we could diversify creation of certain hard-to-make objects easier in space.
---Turning the question around, would you have asked Max Plank for a business case for quantum physics, 50 years before it was used to invent the transistor?
If it was profitable to create Planck's equations and to investigate quantum theory, it would have been done when needed.
(All of this has been said if a Capitalist would have said it. Perhaps, Marx was right in that the main failing of Capitalism is that it does not take into consideration the aspect of the human condition: discovery.)
I do something a wee bit better:
Authors (in 99% of the cases) retain copyright.
Because of that, I contact authors I like through mail (NOT email) and ask for a signed copy and how much they charge for that.
Most of the times, I get a price of list +s/h for a signed copy. I'll tack on 5-10$ equivalent to their currency.
I treasure some authors because of the work they do, and how they do not act like the idiots of the MPAA or RIAA.
Those authors will have my support as long as they continue to create worthy books.