"Having seen OCLC try this crap before, my take on it is that it won't fly. I wouldn't worry about it."
You have much more faith in OCLC's incompetence then me. They have pretty much bought or other wise put all of their competitors out of business. I am very worried about it.
- Another Systems Librarian
I can tell you as an author and a reviewer, that in many fields double-blind doesn't mean much in reality. If you are one of only a few people studying a certain topic, it can be pretty obvious who is the author. Personally, I think Peer Review of journals is a good idea, although there are numerous examples of idiocy, forged data, plagiarism that has been published, and great works that have been rejected. What I do find troubling with some traditional journals is the time from submission to print. I had a article take 2 years to get published that was technology-related. By the time it was published, it was obsolete and not worth reading. Still counted for the tenure track though (although not as much as it would have been since with it being outdated, it wasn't cited much). Traditional journals need to come up with quicker turn around times (especially in the sciences and social sciences) or they will be overtaken by journals that do provide a faster review process.
I'm not saying they should have took and posted the photos, but it seems clear they did not violate the trespass law cited above. The only section that could possibly apply is Simple Trespasser, which states:
(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
1. A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
1. threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
2. starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
3. defacing or damaging the premises.
There is no allegation of 1) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises, 2) that the driver started a fire, or 3) the driver defaced anything.
If you are going to cite legal statute, find one that backs your argument.
Why the fsck would any IT manager/sysadmin choose a third party application without even looking at the system requirements? Maybe I should do a study saying I can't get three Windows admins to install MS IIS to run on my Plan 9 install so it is no good. It might be an exaggeration but that is the same type of thing you did here.
So? I get stuck with compatibility problems all the time on my Linux stuff, could it be that there is an actual cost to messing around trying to get stuff working? If there is one thing Windows is good for, it is backwards compatibility.
The problem isn't backward compatibility, it is forward compatibility. Windows doesn't offer that (in most cases). Can I put the newest version of Exchange server on Windows NT? I doubt it. That is the type of thing they were trying to do here with the unnamed 3rd party app. This study shows that you can do it in FLOSS. You couldn't do it no matter what in the Microsoft world if you hit this issue with the stupid requirements of this study.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are fake.
... since I can't install it on my computer.
The Metric System is for vureaucrats and is made to keep the ordinary people down: http://www.helium.com/items/1219927-why-wont-america-adopt-the-metric-system
Yea, I wanted a new mini. DRM-free music is nice though.
"Having seen OCLC try this crap before, my take on it is that it won't fly. I wouldn't worry about it." You have much more faith in OCLC's incompetence then me. They have pretty much bought or other wise put all of their competitors out of business. I am very worried about it. - Another Systems Librarian
I can tell you as an author and a reviewer, that in many fields double-blind doesn't mean much in reality. If you are one of only a few people studying a certain topic, it can be pretty obvious who is the author. Personally, I think Peer Review of journals is a good idea, although there are numerous examples of idiocy, forged data, plagiarism that has been published, and great works that have been rejected. What I do find troubling with some traditional journals is the time from submission to print. I had a article take 2 years to get published that was technology-related. By the time it was published, it was obsolete and not worth reading. Still counted for the tenure track though (although not as much as it would have been since with it being outdated, it wasn't cited much). Traditional journals need to come up with quicker turn around times (especially in the sciences and social sciences) or they will be overtaken by journals that do provide a faster review process.
Why the fsck would any IT manager/sysadmin choose a third party application without even looking at the system requirements? Maybe I should do a study saying I can't get three Windows admins to install MS IIS to run on my Plan 9 install so it is no good. It might be an exaggeration but that is the same type of thing you did here.
The problem isn't backward compatibility, it is forward compatibility. Windows doesn't offer that (in most cases). Can I put the newest version of Exchange server on Windows NT? I doubt it. That is the type of thing they were trying to do here with the unnamed 3rd party app. This study shows that you can do it in FLOSS. You couldn't do it no matter what in the Microsoft world if you hit this issue with the stupid requirements of this study.
I wish the most expensive journals were only $250. Some academic journals run into the thousands of dollars.
I'm not going to hold my breath. But I'm all for this solution.