As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.
Thus proving nurb432's original comment:
Well, the media has to continue to play the game as good little followers, demonizing anyone that doesn't play by the 'rules'.
It's all fine and dandy to argue that economic sanctions don't work or don't achieve the desired goals in a timely fashion (cf. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria), but what's your alternative?
Cuban here. How about just not trying to make the people of that country missplace the blame in the government in hopes that they will raise against it? If it is were so bad, we would just raise without your pressure, and maybe even ask you for support (arguably, the fact that the sanction exists just shows the population that "you" are not the good guys, regardless of our opinion regarding the government - and if you are clearly trying to oppress us, most of us wont side with your "cause"). If it isn't so bad, then why intervene in the first place? It's one thing to refuse to sell weapons and torture devices and to encourage others to do the same. It's quite another (to give an example that should be familiar to slashdot) to interfere with the country's ability to connect to the Internet and at the same time, complain that the horrible dictator wont let us browse the web out of fear.
One of the reasons that Cuban dissidents are not popular isn't fear of the government... Is that those who are known are clearly paid (in the form of "prizes" won) to follow an US agenda, or can't distinguish between not being free and being poor (cue the ones "exiled" to Spain last year protesting for lack of "freedom" after the spanish government cut their subsidies). The second group are dumb, the first one can't be trusted, and the ones in neither group are silenced... by both national and international media.
(Full disclosure: I left Cuba mainly for economic reasons, though I also had my dislikes about the government. I suspect that the reason why I only had "dislikes" were the sanctions - it is stupid to blame the Castros for everything when a powerful third party is explicitly trying to make you despair. Given that from here I still can't see any mention of a dissident with a coherent platform, I'm starting to suspect there isn't one.)
TL;DR: if the only options you are considering are to starve the population, or to outright kill them in an invasion... you are not the "good" guys.
Yes I agree with this, as long as it’s made explicitly clear to the reader that a prior publication already exists. However I disagree that a translation is CV worthy. If this were the case, I would just translate all of my papers into every language I could and pad my CV with hundreds of copies of the same publication.
The question is, would you be able to? Translating a paper is not just passing it through google translate. It requires a great deal of work, and it has tremendous benefits for the scientists that speak the target language better than the original. But if you are able to do it (as in, the paper should pass peer review in the target language), by all means, go ahead. I'm reasonably fluent in english, and I'm obviously decent in my native language, but I haven't been able to produce a coherent translation of my own works yet (in either direction). Believe me, I've tried. I admire the few people I know who can do it. If you can... I admire you too.
Any person interested in my publication list (employer, tenure committee) would see through this ruse.
That's the point, you are assuming that it is a "ruse" and that I would try to hide the fact that it is a translation. I wouldn't. I wouldn't just list "original paper" and "translated paper" and try to make them seem different. One of them, the most "important" one (whatever that means), would get its space in the CV as the new work. The other one would get a subtitle below that one ("Also published as 'target language title' in 'target language journal'"). Btw, I do this as well with conferences/papers, i.e, if I write a paper and present it at a conference, workshop (or vice-versa), I don't try to pass them off as different works. As I said, if I value translations so much, there is no way I would try to hide that I made one.
I certainly wouldn’t reject a paper that is based on a presentation that you did at an internal seminar.
Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? What if the seminar is open to the public? What if you presented at the "internal seminar" of another institution? What if it was a minor conference, or a conference at a minor university? Or a conference that didn't publish the proceedings? What if they did publish the proceedings, but just hidden somewhere with low visibility, or even behind a paywall? Would the quality of the research have any bearing on your decision? I'm aware that you don't need to have a line, and I'm not implying that not having a definite line means that there is no distinction (that would be a fallacy), but you do seem to have a pretty strong opinion and a very well defined line. You can bet that at any chance I have, I/will/ try to submit papers to conferences in my home country, not because I want to "pad" my CV, but because I want to do the very little I can to change the "status quo" (a lot of researchers from my country wont publish locally, because doing so would disqualify them from publishing in an "important" venue, which in turn makes the local venues even less important. The "important" venues are obviously very pleased with that arrangement). Whether to accept the "duplicate" presentation should be a decision of the host venue, based on whether the quality of the paper warrants another talk and whether the target audience is likely to have been exposed to that work and/or will gain by being exposed again. To disregard it without that consideration is, IMHO, irresponsible towards the goal of disseminating science.
As a physicist, I’m only interested in the physics aspect of your paper. As a computer scientist, I might not understand your physics notations. As a result your paper will probably just drift into obscurity in all venues. The best approach is to write three different papers (not just minor tweaks, but tailored for the audience), each with their own unique take on the problem, each with unique results (and ea
Certain source files distributed by Oracle America and/or its affiliates are
subject to the following clarification and special exception to the GPL, but
only where Oracle has expressly included in the particular source file's header
the words "Oracle designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath"
exception as provided by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code."
Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making
a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of
the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules,
and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your
choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module,
the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent
module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If
you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of
the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do
so, delete this exception statement from your version.
So then the question is... well why are you trying to publish it here if a reference to x journal is good enough? Why don't you just read it in so and so journal? Or better yet, just link to your webpage. Why should you publish old research in multiple journals? No, I'm sorry, the only real reason to publish in multiple periodicals, especially given the lenient copyright policies of the publishers I know of, is to pad your own CV.
Impact factor. Prestige of the new journal. The obscurity of a random researcher's website. Minor corrections to make the work easier to follow. Publishing in a completely different venue. Accessibility. The first two may be related with "padding the CV", but it is not necessarily just to increase the number of publications without doing new work. Accessibility is important if the journal doesn't let you self-publish, with I'll grant you is pretty uncommon now (but not completely gone), though this point is moot if you have to sign away your copyright - but in this case, it would be copyright infringement, not fraud.
And then comes the "publishing in a completely different venue" reason. It's more evident if we talk about conferences instead of journals: if you present your work at a conference and don't publish it elsewhere after that, the only people who will know your work are the ones attending your talk. But if you present, then publish or present a second time, you can't claim that your publication/presentation is new (see my example in the previous post, when I was accused of self-plagiarism and my submission was almost denied because I had presented my work at an internal seminar that happened to have a website). Everyone does it anyway, but it can get hairy if the conference(s) end up publishing the proceedings in [some obscure journal]. But that's not limited to conferences! My own work covers topics of three completely different fields. There is little chance that a computer science publication will be read by a physics researcher, and I do need input from the three fields (specially in the form of a reviewer saying "this is completely wrong"). Shouldn't we try to send our papers to three specialised journals? (perhaps with minor changes: focusing on the CS problems for the CS journal, and so on, but those differences wouldn't be enough for an honest researcher to claim that they are three different works - I certainly don't claim that they are different). How does being accused of plagiarising ourselves furthers the goal of disseminating that work among those who can criticise it best?
And regarding the translations, that's an instance where publishing multiple times should be CV worthy. Most journals are in English, but there are a few that aren't. If you are native English speaker, you may not appreciate it. But if you aren't, chances are you will have to deal with them - perhaps you want to publish in a less known journal in your own language so you can get feedback from your local peers. Translating a paper is not an easy task. Hiding the translation in your website only is useless, or at least, not worthy of the effort required to translate it. Most certainly it is not an ethical violation, except in the minds of the publishers. (And that's assuming that you do the English version first. If you first publish the non-English version and then are not allowed to publish the translation, everyone loses).
That said, there are way more problems with the dissemination of knowledge than just being allowed or not to publish the same work in two venues. The "need" to pad one's CV, letting the publishers be the gatekeepers of knowledge, and letting their commercial interests dictate what is "ethical" in publishing are much bigger problems in the first place. I am just shocked at how quick you are at repeating the publishers' party line and refusing to even consider whether other opinions may have merit.
2) As a reviewer, if I see you published your paper elsewhere, I will immediately reject it. Publishing a paper more than once is called self plagiarism, and it's unethical. The purpose of publishing is to disseminate your research to the community. Publishing your work in more than one journal is counter to that goal because your research is already in the community, and you're taking up space in the journal for research that hasn't yet been published.
Please tell me that you see the contradiction there. For most journals out there, publishing in only one of them ensures that the paper is not already in the community - it is only available to those who purchased that particular journal. Not to mention translations, which are also considered self plagiarism, and which quite obviously increase the audience of the paper. Taken to the extreme, your attitude makes it hard to even share your work before publishing (I recently had an argument with a conference organiser, because after googling my name and title, they found out that I had given a seminar on that topic... in my own internal research group at my university).
I do disagree with taking credit more than once for the same research, specially through salami publishing and their ilk, which is a very serious problem. But the so-called "self plagiarism" is no more than an absurd power grab from the publisher, to ensure they keep the monopoly over the distribution of our research, specially in the light of the "taking space" argument (really, it does not make any sense whatsoever. Space where? On the website, where you have nearly unlimited space?). It's a shame that most of the scientific community, like you, have fallen for it. If they really cared about disseminating research, a much more efficient way is to let the authors state "this work was been previously published in so and so journal", rather than accusing them of fraud.
Or you could stop being so arrogant you feel the need to use "PhD" outside of academia:)
I know you are kidding, but why waste a perfectly good opportunity to bash a mediocre software system? In my (anecdotal) experience, changing even that may be hard. When I opened an account with Air Canada, I miss-clicked and ended up with "Prof." in my salutation, which I couldn't fix in the website afterwards. I phoned them to get it changed, and I was told that I had to make a formal request and present proof that I had changed my name (wtf??). Needless to say... I still fly as "prof". I guess I'm very lucky that my miss-click didn't select "mrs". I just hope that the QA team for the ticketing systems have nothing in common with the QA teams for the flight control software.
That's an eye opening statement. Really. It is your opinion that all people from, let's say, Spain and Latin America should change their names to please you, because you are incapable of printing a document that reads [first name] [paternal last name] [maternal last name]. And that we all are from a "village to sing a little song of grandure for a name". That's beyond arrogant. And pretty stupid, too: it can be solved by just/not/ using a "lastname char(10)" field in the database (which is an amazingly dumb design).
But the ridiculous suggestion of "changing my name" doesn't even address my point: that the GP stated that it was just as easy as writing the name as it appears in your ID. If all Latin Americans and Spaniards need to change their name, then you are conceding the point that it is not that simple (imho, it should be: the only reason why you can type something in your 'lastname' field, and get something else printed out in your boarding pass, is incompetence). Mind you, most Americans and Canadians I know, have a middle name. Given that the aforementioned airlines have gotten my first+middle name wrong (FIRSTNAMEMIDDLENAME or FIRSTNAMIDDL instead of "FIRSTNAME MIDDLENAME"), I suspect that your suggestion of changing our names should probably apply to you as well.
Really, it's quite simple to follow this rule. What does your ID say? Use that information. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, it isn't nearly that easy. I have two first names, and two last names. My official document lists the four words (I've seen people with more than 4). A some airline systems are just not prepared to deal with those very long strings with spaces in the middle. Checking in with Air France, for instance, is a pain, because even if I go buy my ticket with my passport in hand to show them the exact spelling, they still truncate my names, my last names, and remove the spaces. So I've easily had to spend 30 mins at the check in counter while they try to find what combination they used. Needless to say, I avoid Air France, but other airlines aren't much better: at least Air Canada and WestJet insist on deleting the spaces from my name(s). I can tell you that I have never flown with a ticket that shows my exact name (the one in my passport and the one I give when buying it).
So no, its not nearly as easy as just using the same name everywhere... most of the places I visit wont let me use my full name! (But thank you implying that it's my fault)
I guess I was very lucky, most of my teachers were the opposite of that... or at least, the ones I remember the best (though I do remember two who didn't know anything about the material).
One of my favourite anecdotes was with my 10th grade chemistry teacher. On the first class, he told us to take out the textbook (which he called "the evil spawn"), and to never open it or read it. One student asked why... and he answered: "first exercise for the class. Open the evil spawn at page X and list everything that it has wrong". (I'm being a bit dishonest here: he was the trainer of the Havana team for the Cuban chemistry competitions, and the group was chosen because we were the most likely to make the team... the rest of the school wasn't so lucky. When I moved to the math group, I missed him a lot.)
[detour]I always hesitate to call MD5 and SHA1 "encryption methods" instead of [cryptographic] hashes, but then I remember certain bank whose definition of hashing the user's password is to replace each letter with the corresponding number on a phone's keyboard. That is worse than using no encryption at all.[/detour]
The problem with using AES or any other symmetric ciphers is that it merely turns the problem into a key management problem... it just relocates it, not solves it. Now instead of having to keep the data secure, you have to keep the key secure. Now, that problem is much easier to handle (the key is very small compared with the data), but it is far from solved: it depends way too much on what you need the data for. Any process that needs access to the data will need both the encrypted data and the key, thus becoming the vulnerable point. What encryption buys you is containment: only the processes that have the key can access the data, so you can concentrate on isolating those. Even better if you use some form of PKI, so not even the processes receiving the data can access it. For some problems (see http://benlog.com/articles/2011/12/21/encryption-is-mostly-not-magic/ ), that is quite useless, for others (like storing SSNs, there is no reason why an internet connected server should be able to retrieve the SSN), it can be quite effective.
I don't think you understood what "impersonating you via login credentials to a third party" means. The solution you propose requires you to have a "master" account in the third party system that lets you access all your user's account in that third party system.
The issue here is when the only way to authorise an action is by using your username/password. In this case, if you want someone else to do something on your behalf (say, post to twitter before twitter implemented oauth), you need to give your username/password to that someone, and that password cannot be hashed (because otherwise he wouldn't be able to retrieve it to authenticate to the service).
Those who claim the old testament of the bible is literally true tend to wriggle quite amusingly when that one comes up.
The quoted passage didn't mention an approximation. It said 10 and 30. So the bible cannot be literally true as a whole. To claim that it is literally true in the face of errors like this is absurd: at least some parts are not true. At most you can say that some parts may be true, some are just approximations, and some may be false, which was the GP's point.
That's an interesting point of view. I mean, I agree, though I fall in the category of "too dumb to properly operate a cell phone". I didn't have a cell phone until last year or so; before that, I always used analog, corded phones (or wireless phones, but with the base station still connected to the analog line). One nice feature there is that you hear your own voice, so you can immediately know if your are talking too loudly. I miss that with the cell phone. With one of my ears covered (or both if I'm using a headset), I have little feedback to control my volume: I unconsciously rise the volume until I hear it "normally", but at that point I'm already way past "normal" (same effect as shouting when you have headphones on). So I need to consciously lower my voice below what my ears detect as a 'normal' volume. It took me a while to figure out what was happening.
The result is that I avoid using the phone in public, and try to whisper into it when I do. Well, that's my theory anyway... I wish I could actually test it, or at least have a my cellphone pass through the sounds it captures from the microphone. If I only hadn't grown up with noisy analog phone lines...
(A bit more related: when part of the line is analog and noisy, or your own environment is noisy, speaking loudly can help a lot.)
I had a similar experience. In high school, I managed to get the/etc/shadow file of one of my ISPs servers (it was a misplaced backup). Not believing what I just found, I decoded a few passwords, tried them, and immediately emailed them (the file, where it was, and the list of passwords I decoded) + my account and phone number. A couple of hours later I got a call from the CEO[1] thanking me for the report and telling me that they fixed the issue. And then he invited me for a tour of their offices to meet the IT staff and to a dinner party they were having.
But now that I'm no longer in Cuba... I fear discovering/reporting a vulnerability and finding myself in the wrong end of a lawsuit.
[1] We don't really have CEOs there... he was/is the top official.
Because, for a site like I mentioned to be useful, it would have to display lots of information about the listings, not merely point to the original website with an excerpt of the content. Think a "comparison" website. I don't know about you, but I think that displaying the information side by side is much more useful than going back and forth between different tabs, specially if the formatting of those tabs is different. But that would fall completely in the "scrap and display the factual data with a new formatting" category.
Re: the robots.txt, I didn't even think about that. Another reason to not go through the trouble of building the site: if a couple of the listings websites "opt out" of being crawled, I'm back to having to search in different websites and do the comparisons by hand. I agree with obeying robots.txt, so that means that I couldn't do it even if it was only for my private use and I didn't publish the website. It makes little sense to go through the trouble of building an incomplete database for comparison and then having to manually search the sites that opted out.
Did you read the rest of my post? In the sentence right after that one I said why I didn't see a difference: because the end result would be the same, a phone book with exactly the same contents as the original. And then I went on to ask why would copying factual information from one website and presenting it in another with a completely new design was worse than copying the data from a phone book and publishing it. The web scraping scenario even has a creative component missing from the phonebook-entry-copying scenario. Btw, I was not being antagonistic.
Which is why I can take the info from the phone book and publish them myself but I can't take someone else's phonebook, copy all the pages and then republish it as my own work because that expression of those facts are copyrighted.
I don't understand the difference between those scenarios. The final result is the same - both contain the same information, in the same order. I just don't see where to draw the line between "copying the facts in the phone book" and "copying the phone book". At the font and page design, perhaps? That seem awfully narrow...
If anything, in this case, I suspect that the "expression" of those facts is very different - the same set of facts (real state listings) in a different website design, probably without any inherent order and hopefully mixed with "facts" from other sources. I know, IANAL, I'm just trying to figure out why, if what can be copyrighted is the expression and not the facts, getting a final result almost exactly like the original work (phone book case) is more acceptable than aggregating several sources and presenting it in a new design (this case).
Last time I was looking for a place to rent, I felt tempted to do something like this. There are several rental websites out there, and you are lucky if their listing overlap... Comparing locations, prices, what was being offered, etc, was a pain. Some sites would at least let you right-click and open in a new tab, but others wouldn't. The maps, sometimes they were google's, sometimes they were bing, and they would never let you overlay the public transit lines on top... And instead of letting you chose a location and radius on the map, some would ask you for the postal code!
So, I toyed with the idea of scraping those sites and build my own database, and build a website from it for others like me (probably sticking some google ads to try to pay for the hosting). I guess it is a good thing I didn't. And it is a shame to know that I can't (and no one else can either). I don't like Rogers and part of me is smiling about this ruling... but if this means that there will be no "google news"-like service for rent hunting, this is another case of copyright preventing useful services from coming to life.
Any other assertion, be it for or against, fails at logic.
Not all other assertions regarding "gods" fail at logic. You can assert that some descriptions of some beings are self-contradictory, and thus there is no being that accurately matches those descriptions (reductio ad absurdum). One such description is of a benevolent, truthful being, who claims that killing is evil, and yet murders people.
This is different from claiming that there are no gods (which as you point out, is "unknowable" and "irrelevant"). This is claiming that "this particular god that you are telling me about cannot logically exist". Risking a holy war here, two concrete examples are the IPU (invisible and pink simultaneously, cannot exist) and the FSM (afaik, the his noodliness is not contradictory, he is merely irrelevant).
The claim that the IPU doesn't exist is logically sound, even if it is a statement regarding the existence of a god.
Ok, so you've changed your position again - first you say "where did I mention patents" and I point it out, and now you're changing your argument to how this is about patents not being licenced in an open-friendly way. Stick to one argument perhaps?
No, I said "where did I mention patented technologies". I mentioned patents - that is the problem with h.264, and you somehow figured out that jpeg would be a counter example. But jpeg clearly isn't h.264, neither is the wheel. Of course I was referring to "patents" in my post! And in every reply to it!/me is baffled. And apparently, too "paranoid" to continue.
This paranoid crap gets tiresome. Not everyone is out to get you.
(except MPEG-LA, evidently - because they/do not/ license their patents in a free software compatible way. But I know, "that's free software's fault".)
Anyway, to summarize my point instead of keep following your detours: * There are patents covering h.264. * Mozilla can't license those patents and keep firefox free. * Mozilla can't ignore the patents, because it is breaking the law. * Mozilla can't leave it to the OS, because doing so will alienate part of their users (linux users who are not violating the patents) * Mozilla (and me and others) prefer an open web, rather than a web controlled by a few companies --- this is the "ideology" and "paranoia" parts, I suppose.
So, clearly, this is all Mozilla's fault, because they can either make parts of firefox non-free, break the law, or ignore a chunk of their users. All that rant about calling me paranoid, and Linus and the iPad, RMS, the BBC, you not caring about ideology, and $$$, has nothing to do with the discussion, and doesn't change the fact that Mozilla would have to take one of these three paths to support h.264.
I just tried to point out that it wasn't a matter of "ideology" but "legality" and you replied with and ad-hominem. Given that this thread will have 0 influence in Mozilla's decisions, I'll stop, right now.
right - when the patents expires, Firefox might be able to include it. Is that what you meant?)
Here you imply that it is a patent issue that is causing the issue, when in reality it is a licensing and royalty issue, but so many people on slashdot confuse and conflate them that the terms are interchangeable, surely?
And what is that they have to license? Unless you are talking about some new issue I don't know about... it is a (group of) patents. That group of patents + the patent holders refusing to license them in a free-software friendly are the issue.
Again, there's nothing stopping Mozilla shipping an MPL licensed version of Firefox with the H.264 portion in a proprietary section,
I suppose that in your world view, the only thing preventing Microsoft from linking to GPL code in their code products is an "ideological position", right? They would/just/ have to change the licence and possibly their business model, but that's just ideological.
Alternatively they can hand off to the underlying OS if it supports playback - like the plugin MS has made for Chrome. There's no legal reason why they can't do either of these things, as they can definitely afford the licensing cost.
Such a move would only benefit those who have interest on controlling the web (remember last time that happened - one company controlling the web? and remember who opened the web again?). Why should Mozilla go out of their way to help them? It is telling that MS is the one writing the plugins for Firefox and Chrome (but not webm support for IE9). I suppose that those are just "ideological positions" with no basis on reality, right?
(It baffles me how intelligent people can oppose the idea of an open web because it is "ideological". Yes, it is, but as many, many ideas, they have very direct practical implications. Just look at the MPEG-LA attempt to establish a patent pool for VP8 - I'm sure they are not doing just for the evilness of doing it.)
Slashdot Mirror
As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.
Thus proving nurb432's original comment:
Well, the media has to continue to play the game as good little followers, demonizing anyone that doesn't play by the 'rules'.
It's all fine and dandy to argue that economic sanctions don't work or don't achieve the desired goals in a timely fashion (cf. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria), but what's your alternative?
Cuban here. How about just not trying to make the people of that country missplace the blame in the government in hopes that they will raise against it? If it is were so bad, we would just raise without your pressure, and maybe even ask you for support (arguably, the fact that the sanction exists just shows the population that "you" are not the good guys, regardless of our opinion regarding the government - and if you are clearly trying to oppress us, most of us wont side with your "cause"). If it isn't so bad, then why intervene in the first place? It's one thing to refuse to sell weapons and torture devices and to encourage others to do the same. It's quite another (to give an example that should be familiar to slashdot) to interfere with the country's ability to connect to the Internet and at the same time, complain that the horrible dictator wont let us browse the web out of fear.
One of the reasons that Cuban dissidents are not popular isn't fear of the government... Is that those who are known are clearly paid (in the form of "prizes" won) to follow an US agenda, or can't distinguish between not being free and being poor (cue the ones "exiled" to Spain last year protesting for lack of "freedom" after the spanish government cut their subsidies). The second group are dumb, the first one can't be trusted, and the ones in neither group are silenced... by both national and international media.
(Full disclosure: I left Cuba mainly for economic reasons, though I also had my dislikes about the government. I suspect that the reason why I only had "dislikes" were the sanctions - it is stupid to blame the Castros for everything when a powerful third party is explicitly trying to make you despair. Given that from here I still can't see any mention of a dissident with a coherent platform, I'm starting to suspect there isn't one.)
TL;DR: if the only options you are considering are to starve the population, or to outright kill them in an invasion... you are not the "good" guys.
Yes I agree with this, as long as it’s made explicitly clear to the reader that a prior publication already exists. However I disagree that a translation is CV worthy. If this were the case, I would just translate all of my papers into every language I could and pad my CV with hundreds of copies of the same publication.
The question is, would you be able to? Translating a paper is not just passing it through google translate. It requires a great deal of work, and it has tremendous benefits for the scientists that speak the target language better than the original. But if you are able to do it (as in, the paper should pass peer review in the target language), by all means, go ahead. I'm reasonably fluent in english, and I'm obviously decent in my native language, but I haven't been able to produce a coherent translation of my own works yet (in either direction). Believe me, I've tried. I admire the few people I know who can do it. If you can... I admire you too.
Any person interested in my publication list (employer, tenure committee) would see through this ruse.
That's the point, you are assuming that it is a "ruse" and that I would try to hide the fact that it is a translation. I wouldn't. I wouldn't just list "original paper" and "translated paper" and try to make them seem different. One of them, the most "important" one (whatever that means), would get its space in the CV as the new work. The other one would get a subtitle below that one ("Also published as 'target language title' in 'target language journal'"). Btw, I do this as well with conferences/papers, i.e, if I write a paper and present it at a conference, workshop (or vice-versa), I don't try to pass them off as different works. As I said, if I value translations so much, there is no way I would try to hide that I made one.
I certainly wouldn’t reject a paper that is based on a presentation that you did at an internal seminar.
Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? What if the seminar is open to the public? What if you presented at the "internal seminar" of another institution? What if it was a minor conference, or a conference at a minor university? Or a conference that didn't publish the proceedings? What if they did publish the proceedings, but just hidden somewhere with low visibility, or even behind a paywall? Would the quality of the research have any bearing on your decision? I'm aware that you don't need to have a line, and I'm not implying that not having a definite line means that there is no distinction (that would be a fallacy), but you do seem to have a pretty strong opinion and a very well defined line. You can bet that at any chance I have, I /will/ try to submit papers to conferences in my home country, not because I want to "pad" my CV, but because I want to do the very little I can to change the "status quo" (a lot of researchers from my country wont publish locally, because doing so would disqualify them from publishing in an "important" venue, which in turn makes the local venues even less important. The "important" venues are obviously very pleased with that arrangement). Whether to accept the "duplicate" presentation should be a decision of the host venue, based on whether the quality of the paper warrants another talk and whether the target audience is likely to have been exposed to that work and/or will gain by being exposed again. To disregard it without that consideration is, IMHO, irresponsible towards the goal of disseminating science.
As a physicist, I’m only interested in the physics aspect of your paper. As a computer scientist, I might not understand your physics notations. As a result your paper will probably just drift into obscurity in all venues. The best approach is to write three different papers (not just minor tweaks, but tailored for the audience), each with their own unique take on the problem, each with unique results (and ea
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html
"CLASSPATH" EXCEPTION TO THE GPL
Certain source files distributed by Oracle America and/or its affiliates are subject to the following clarification and special exception to the GPL, but only where Oracle has expressly included in the particular source file's header the words "Oracle designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code."
Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
So then the question is... well why are you trying to publish it here if a reference to x journal is good enough? Why don't you just read it in so and so journal? Or better yet, just link to your webpage. Why should you publish old research in multiple journals? No, I'm sorry, the only real reason to publish in multiple periodicals, especially given the lenient copyright policies of the publishers I know of, is to pad your own CV.
Impact factor. Prestige of the new journal. The obscurity of a random researcher's website. Minor corrections to make the work easier to follow. Publishing in a completely different venue. Accessibility. The first two may be related with "padding the CV", but it is not necessarily just to increase the number of publications without doing new work. Accessibility is important if the journal doesn't let you self-publish, with I'll grant you is pretty uncommon now (but not completely gone), though this point is moot if you have to sign away your copyright - but in this case, it would be copyright infringement, not fraud.
And then comes the "publishing in a completely different venue" reason. It's more evident if we talk about conferences instead of journals: if you present your work at a conference and don't publish it elsewhere after that, the only people who will know your work are the ones attending your talk. But if you present, then publish or present a second time, you can't claim that your publication/presentation is new (see my example in the previous post, when I was accused of self-plagiarism and my submission was almost denied because I had presented my work at an internal seminar that happened to have a website). Everyone does it anyway, but it can get hairy if the conference(s) end up publishing the proceedings in [some obscure journal]. But that's not limited to conferences! My own work covers topics of three completely different fields. There is little chance that a computer science publication will be read by a physics researcher, and I do need input from the three fields (specially in the form of a reviewer saying "this is completely wrong"). Shouldn't we try to send our papers to three specialised journals? (perhaps with minor changes: focusing on the CS problems for the CS journal, and so on, but those differences wouldn't be enough for an honest researcher to claim that they are three different works - I certainly don't claim that they are different). How does being accused of plagiarising ourselves furthers the goal of disseminating that work among those who can criticise it best?
And regarding the translations, that's an instance where publishing multiple times should be CV worthy. Most journals are in English, but there are a few that aren't. If you are native English speaker, you may not appreciate it. But if you aren't, chances are you will have to deal with them - perhaps you want to publish in a less known journal in your own language so you can get feedback from your local peers. Translating a paper is not an easy task. Hiding the translation in your website only is useless, or at least, not worthy of the effort required to translate it. Most certainly it is not an ethical violation, except in the minds of the publishers. (And that's assuming that you do the English version first. If you first publish the non-English version and then are not allowed to publish the translation, everyone loses).
That said, there are way more problems with the dissemination of knowledge than just being allowed or not to publish the same work in two venues. The "need" to pad one's CV, letting the publishers be the gatekeepers of knowledge, and letting their commercial interests dictate what is "ethical" in publishing are much bigger problems in the first place. I am just shocked at how quick you are at repeating the publishers' party line and refusing to even consider whether other opinions may have merit.
2) As a reviewer, if I see you published your paper elsewhere, I will immediately reject it. Publishing a paper more than once is called self plagiarism, and it's unethical. The purpose of publishing is to disseminate your research to the community. Publishing your work in more than one journal is counter to that goal because your research is already in the community, and you're taking up space in the journal for research that hasn't yet been published.
Please tell me that you see the contradiction there. For most journals out there, publishing in only one of them ensures that the paper is not already in the community - it is only available to those who purchased that particular journal. Not to mention translations, which are also considered self plagiarism, and which quite obviously increase the audience of the paper. Taken to the extreme, your attitude makes it hard to even share your work before publishing (I recently had an argument with a conference organiser, because after googling my name and title, they found out that I had given a seminar on that topic... in my own internal research group at my university).
I do disagree with taking credit more than once for the same research, specially through salami publishing and their ilk, which is a very serious problem. But the so-called "self plagiarism" is no more than an absurd power grab from the publisher, to ensure they keep the monopoly over the distribution of our research, specially in the light of the "taking space" argument (really, it does not make any sense whatsoever. Space where? On the website, where you have nearly unlimited space?). It's a shame that most of the scientific community, like you, have fallen for it. If they really cared about disseminating research, a much more efficient way is to let the authors state "this work was been previously published in so and so journal", rather than accusing them of fraud.
Or you could stop being so arrogant you feel the need to use "PhD" outside of academia :)
I know you are kidding, but why waste a perfectly good opportunity to bash a mediocre software system? In my (anecdotal) experience, changing even that may be hard. When I opened an account with Air Canada, I miss-clicked and ended up with "Prof." in my salutation, which I couldn't fix in the website afterwards. I phoned them to get it changed, and I was told that I had to make a formal request and present proof that I had changed my name (wtf??). Needless to say... I still fly as "prof". I guess I'm very lucky that my miss-click didn't select "mrs". I just hope that the QA team for the ticketing systems have nothing in common with the QA teams for the flight control software.
That's an eye opening statement. Really. It is your opinion that all people from, let's say, Spain and Latin America should change their names to please you, because you are incapable of printing a document that reads [first name] [paternal last name] [maternal last name]. And that we all are from a "village to sing a little song of grandure for a name". That's beyond arrogant. And pretty stupid, too: it can be solved by just /not/ using a "lastname char(10)" field in the database (which is an amazingly dumb design).
But the ridiculous suggestion of "changing my name" doesn't even address my point: that the GP stated that it was just as easy as writing the name as it appears in your ID. If all Latin Americans and Spaniards need to change their name, then you are conceding the point that it is not that simple (imho, it should be: the only reason why you can type something in your 'lastname' field, and get something else printed out in your boarding pass, is incompetence). Mind you, most Americans and Canadians I know, have a middle name. Given that the aforementioned airlines have gotten my first+middle name wrong (FIRSTNAMEMIDDLENAME or FIRSTNAMIDDL instead of "FIRSTNAME MIDDLENAME"), I suspect that your suggestion of changing our names should probably apply to you as well.
(Did I just fed a troll?)
Really, it's quite simple to follow this rule. What does your ID say? Use that information. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, it isn't nearly that easy. I have two first names, and two last names. My official document lists the four words (I've seen people with more than 4). A some airline systems are just not prepared to deal with those very long strings with spaces in the middle. Checking in with Air France, for instance, is a pain, because even if I go buy my ticket with my passport in hand to show them the exact spelling, they still truncate my names, my last names, and remove the spaces. So I've easily had to spend 30 mins at the check in counter while they try to find what combination they used. Needless to say, I avoid Air France, but other airlines aren't much better: at least Air Canada and WestJet insist on deleting the spaces from my name(s). I can tell you that I have never flown with a ticket that shows my exact name (the one in my passport and the one I give when buying it).
So no, its not nearly as easy as just using the same name everywhere... most of the places I visit wont let me use my full name! (But thank you implying that it's my fault)
I guess I was very lucky, most of my teachers were the opposite of that... or at least, the ones I remember the best (though I do remember two who didn't know anything about the material).
One of my favourite anecdotes was with my 10th grade chemistry teacher. On the first class, he told us to take out the textbook (which he called "the evil spawn"), and to never open it or read it. One student asked why... and he answered: "first exercise for the class. Open the evil spawn at page X and list everything that it has wrong". (I'm being a bit dishonest here: he was the trainer of the Havana team for the Cuban chemistry competitions, and the group was chosen because we were the most likely to make the team... the rest of the school wasn't so lucky. When I moved to the math group, I missed him a lot.)
Since the GP was referring to "anything except the login credentials".
[detour]I always hesitate to call MD5 and SHA1 "encryption methods" instead of [cryptographic] hashes, but then I remember certain bank whose definition of hashing the user's password is to replace each letter with the corresponding number on a phone's keyboard. That is worse than using no encryption at all.[/detour]
The problem with using AES or any other symmetric ciphers is that it merely turns the problem into a key management problem... it just relocates it, not solves it. Now instead of having to keep the data secure, you have to keep the key secure. Now, that problem is much easier to handle (the key is very small compared with the data), but it is far from solved: it depends way too much on what you need the data for. Any process that needs access to the data will need both the encrypted data and the key, thus becoming the vulnerable point. What encryption buys you is containment: only the processes that have the key can access the data, so you can concentrate on isolating those. Even better if you use some form of PKI, so not even the processes receiving the data can access it. For some problems (see http://benlog.com/articles/2011/12/21/encryption-is-mostly-not-magic/ ), that is quite useless, for others (like storing SSNs, there is no reason why an internet connected server should be able to retrieve the SSN), it can be quite effective.
I don't think you understood what "impersonating you via login credentials to a third party" means. The solution you propose requires you to have a "master" account in the third party system that lets you access all your user's account in that third party system.
The issue here is when the only way to authorise an action is by using your username/password. In this case, if you want someone else to do something on your behalf (say, post to twitter before twitter implemented oauth), you need to give your username/password to that someone, and that password cannot be hashed (because otherwise he wouldn't be able to retrieve it to authenticate to the service).
Quoting the GP (emphasis mine):
Those who claim the old testament of the bible is literally true tend to wriggle quite amusingly when that one comes up.
The quoted passage didn't mention an approximation. It said 10 and 30. So the bible cannot be literally true as a whole. To claim that it is literally true in the face of errors like this is absurd: at least some parts are not true. At most you can say that some parts may be true, some are just approximations, and some may be false, which was the GP's point.
That's an interesting point of view. I mean, I agree, though I fall in the category of "too dumb to properly operate a cell phone". I didn't have a cell phone until last year or so; before that, I always used analog, corded phones (or wireless phones, but with the base station still connected to the analog line). One nice feature there is that you hear your own voice, so you can immediately know if your are talking too loudly. I miss that with the cell phone. With one of my ears covered (or both if I'm using a headset), I have little feedback to control my volume: I unconsciously rise the volume until I hear it "normally", but at that point I'm already way past "normal" (same effect as shouting when you have headphones on). So I need to consciously lower my voice below what my ears detect as a 'normal' volume. It took me a while to figure out what was happening.
The result is that I avoid using the phone in public, and try to whisper into it when I do. Well, that's my theory anyway... I wish I could actually test it, or at least have a my cellphone pass through the sounds it captures from the microphone. If I only hadn't grown up with noisy analog phone lines...
(A bit more related: when part of the line is analog and noisy, or your own environment is noisy, speaking loudly can help a lot.)
I had a similar experience. In high school, I managed to get the /etc/shadow file of one of my ISPs servers (it was a misplaced backup). Not believing what I just found, I decoded a few passwords, tried them, and immediately emailed them (the file, where it was, and the list of passwords I decoded) + my account and phone number. A couple of hours later I got a call from the CEO[1] thanking me for the report and telling me that they fixed the issue. And then he invited me for a tour of their offices to meet the IT staff and to a dinner party they were having.
But now that I'm no longer in Cuba... I fear discovering/reporting a vulnerability and finding myself in the wrong end of a lawsuit.
[1] We don't really have CEOs there... he was/is the top official.
Because, for a site like I mentioned to be useful, it would have to display lots of information about the listings, not merely point to the original website with an excerpt of the content. Think a "comparison" website. I don't know about you, but I think that displaying the information side by side is much more useful than going back and forth between different tabs, specially if the formatting of those tabs is different. But that would fall completely in the "scrap and display the factual data with a new formatting" category.
Re: the robots.txt, I didn't even think about that. Another reason to not go through the trouble of building the site: if a couple of the listings websites "opt out" of being crawled, I'm back to having to search in different websites and do the comparisons by hand. I agree with obeying robots.txt, so that means that I couldn't do it even if it was only for my private use and I didn't publish the website. It makes little sense to go through the trouble of building an incomplete database for comparison and then having to manually search the sites that opted out.
Did you read the rest of my post? In the sentence right after that one I said why I didn't see a difference: because the end result would be the same, a phone book with exactly the same contents as the original. And then I went on to ask why would copying factual information from one website and presenting it in another with a completely new design was worse than copying the data from a phone book and publishing it. The web scraping scenario even has a creative component missing from the phonebook-entry-copying scenario. Btw, I was not being antagonistic.
Which is why I can take the info from the phone book and publish them myself but I can't take someone else's phonebook, copy all the pages and then republish it as my own work because that expression of those facts are copyrighted.
I don't understand the difference between those scenarios. The final result is the same - both contain the same information, in the same order. I just don't see where to draw the line between "copying the facts in the phone book" and "copying the phone book". At the font and page design, perhaps? That seem awfully narrow...
If anything, in this case, I suspect that the "expression" of those facts is very different - the same set of facts (real state listings) in a different website design, probably without any inherent order and hopefully mixed with "facts" from other sources. I know, IANAL, I'm just trying to figure out why, if what can be copyrighted is the expression and not the facts, getting a final result almost exactly like the original work (phone book case) is more acceptable than aggregating several sources and presenting it in a new design (this case).
Last time I was looking for a place to rent, I felt tempted to do something like this. There are several rental websites out there, and you are lucky if their listing overlap... Comparing locations, prices, what was being offered, etc, was a pain. Some sites would at least let you right-click and open in a new tab, but others wouldn't. The maps, sometimes they were google's, sometimes they were bing, and they would never let you overlay the public transit lines on top... And instead of letting you chose a location and radius on the map, some would ask you for the postal code!
So, I toyed with the idea of scraping those sites and build my own database, and build a website from it for others like me (probably sticking some google ads to try to pay for the hosting). I guess it is a good thing I didn't. And it is a shame to know that I can't (and no one else can either). I don't like Rogers and part of me is smiling about this ruling... but if this means that there will be no "google news"-like service for rent hunting, this is another case of copyright preventing useful services from coming to life.
Any other assertion, be it for or against, fails at logic.
Not all other assertions regarding "gods" fail at logic. You can assert that some descriptions of some beings are self-contradictory, and thus there is no being that accurately matches those descriptions (reductio ad absurdum). One such description is of a benevolent, truthful being, who claims that killing is evil, and yet murders people.
This is different from claiming that there are no gods (which as you point out, is "unknowable" and "irrelevant"). This is claiming that "this particular god that you are telling me about cannot logically exist". Risking a holy war here, two concrete examples are the IPU (invisible and pink simultaneously, cannot exist) and the FSM (afaik, the his noodliness is not contradictory, he is merely irrelevant).
The claim that the IPU doesn't exist is logically sound, even if it is a statement regarding the existence of a god.
Crappy slashdot ate my opening question mark.
Déjame ayudarte con eso. Qué te sale? Yo te lo puedo traducir :D.
Ok, so you've changed your position again - first you say "where did I mention patents" and I point it out, and now you're changing your argument to how this is about patents not being licenced in an open-friendly way. Stick to one argument perhaps?
No, I said "where did I mention patented technologies". I mentioned patents - that is the problem with h.264, and you somehow figured out that jpeg would be a counter example. But jpeg clearly isn't h.264, neither is the wheel. Of course I was referring to "patents" in my post! And in every reply to it! /me is baffled. And apparently, too "paranoid" to continue.
This paranoid crap gets tiresome. Not everyone is out to get you.
(except MPEG-LA, evidently - because they /do not/ license their patents in a free software compatible way. But I know, "that's free software's fault".)
Anyway, to summarize my point instead of keep following your detours:
* There are patents covering h.264.
* Mozilla can't license those patents and keep firefox free.
* Mozilla can't ignore the patents, because it is breaking the law.
* Mozilla can't leave it to the OS, because doing so will alienate part of their users (linux users who are not violating the patents)
* Mozilla (and me and others) prefer an open web, rather than a web controlled by a few companies --- this is the "ideology" and "paranoia" parts, I suppose.
So, clearly, this is all Mozilla's fault, because they can either make parts of firefox non-free, break the law, or ignore a chunk of their users. All that rant about calling me paranoid, and Linus and the iPad, RMS, the BBC, you not caring about ideology, and $$$, has nothing to do with the discussion, and doesn't change the fact that Mozilla would have to take one of these three paths to support h.264.
I just tried to point out that it wasn't a matter of "ideology" but "legality" and you replied with and ad-hominem. Given that this thread will have 0 influence in Mozilla's decisions, I'll stop, right now.
right - when the patents expires, Firefox might be able to include it. Is that what you meant?)
Here you imply that it is a patent issue that is causing the issue, when in reality it is a licensing and royalty issue, but so many people on slashdot confuse and conflate them that the terms are interchangeable, surely?
And what is that they have to license? Unless you are talking about some new issue I don't know about... it is a (group of) patents. That group of patents + the patent holders refusing to license them in a free-software friendly are the issue.
Again, there's nothing stopping Mozilla shipping an MPL licensed version of Firefox with the H.264 portion in a proprietary section,
I suppose that in your world view, the only thing preventing Microsoft from linking to GPL code in their code products is an "ideological position", right? They would /just/ have to change the licence and possibly their business model, but that's just ideological.
Alternatively they can hand off to the underlying OS if it supports playback - like the plugin MS has made for Chrome. There's no legal reason why they can't do either of these things, as they can definitely afford the licensing cost.
Such a move would only benefit those who have interest on controlling the web (remember last time that happened - one company controlling the web? and remember who opened the web again?). Why should Mozilla go out of their way to help them? It is telling that MS is the one writing the plugins for Firefox and Chrome (but not webm support for IE9). I suppose that those are just "ideological positions" with no basis on reality, right?
(It baffles me how intelligent people can oppose the idea of an open web because it is "ideological". Yes, it is, but as many, many ideas, they have very direct practical implications. Just look at the MPEG-LA attempt to establish a patent pool for VP8 - I'm sure they are not doing just for the evilness of doing it.)