A Raspberry Pi uses a single USB interface between it's CPU and all the IO. Even the "on board" Ethernet for the Model B is connected to the on board USB hub. By adding extra interfaces to the USB bus, you will not only limit bandwidth even more, but also probably make the Pi run less stable. You can prevent this by using an external powered USB hub, adding more complexity and cost to the Pi, but you'll still have limited bandwidth. At a theoretical maximum of 400Mbit (half duplex) getting a Pi to route anything above 50Mbit full duplex will become a challenge, with a theoretical maximum of 100Mbit Full Duplex (100 FD per interface, means 200 HD per interface, 2 interfaces, total 400Mbit HD). Given the fact that a WRT54G will at least switch 100Mbit full duplex and route 20+ Mbit via wireless, a Raspberry Pi plus a powered external hub plus USB ethernet/WiFi isn't that much of an upgrade. Getting a Gbit wireless N router that is supported will most likely cost you the same or less, be less complex in hardware and give you more bandwidth than a Pi.
Using this argument without facts to back up why one solution costs more than the other can indeed be wrong. However, by itself it applies just fine. I've seen situations where an organization had 400 windows desktop computers and 200 Linux workstations. Both were used by end users, both had no admin rights for those end users. about 150 of the 200 Linux boxes were used by users that also had a windows machine. About 50 Linux machines were used as the only desk top computer. This implies that all critical systems like time management, e-mail, word processing and such were perfectly doable on the Linux machines. The entire windows support team, including servers, was about 30 FTE. The entire UNIX team had 2.5 FTE working on desktop support and about 10FTE working on servers (several hundred of them, several different OSes, doing 24/7 HA stuff). In this situation, the efficiency of the UNIX team was much bigger than that of the windows team. Given the fact that both had licenses on the desktop machines and the linux machines had significantly faster and more expensive hardware, in the end, the cost of both systems per desk top was more or less equivalent. In the end, the finance picture is much more complicated than just looking at support or license costs. In the end you select which system gets things done and is future proof for the most competitive price. Sometimes that is windows, sometimes it's not.
It's called road tax. Many countries around the world have it, and use the money car owners have to pay to be allowed on the public road to actually keep that road maintained. Civilized countries usually have such a system and have well maintained roads.
Don't ban it, tax it as gambling. 50% of profits go to government, losses aren't deductible. If you buy a stock and sell it again within a week, it's considered speculation and subject to gambling tax. This will make high volume trading not impossible, but much harder to actually make a profit with, while actual investors in stock that think companies will make money by honest profits are protected. This is for stocks. Any derivatives are by nature all speculation and should be taxed regardless of how long they are held before being sold, bought or exchanged for actual stock or product.
They tested X children. The 10% that performed best were awarded with the stamp "gifted". The 3% that performed best were awarded with the stamp "especially gifted". If they now give 4700 children more the stamp "gifted", they will have more than 10% of the children with a stamp stating they belong to the top 10%. That can't be right, so the current results aren't wrong. I'm sure every school wants all of their children to perform "better than average", but in reality, if they all perform better, the average goes up and you still end up with half of them performing worse than average. The same applies here. The top 10% is the top 10%, no matter how you rate.
You always hear about women being underrepresented in high profile jobs. I never see campaigns to get more women into plumbing, road work, carpentry, mining and similar "men jobs". Until those jobs get an equal represented share in the campaigns to get more women doing mens' jobs and the campaign gives just as much attention to men doing "women jobs", I regard the campaigns as sexist biased. The only way to break these gender biased roles is to work on them all at the same time and give all of them the same kind of attention. Focusing on a specific small part will never work, unless it's part of a big campaign that works on all jobs in all levels.
Maybe *you* haven't given Linkedin permission to scrape your address book, but someone else did. If those other people have the email address you use for Linkedin in their contact list, Linkedin will still find a relationship between you two and suggest a connection. The right to be left alone should really apply to mail and other internet databases too, no opt out or anything, but default. Unless a company or person has explicit permission from you yourself, they should not be allowed to keep your information in their databases, regardless how they got it in the first place.
I don't think there's a single person or legal entity "at fault" here. It's a combination of multiple factors. First of all, your credit card company uses a proven flawed security model. Second of all, you should have been more careful with those numbers yourself, since it's a proven flawed system. Third of all, yes, your ISP can be found negligent for not adequately testing the equipment they provided to you. They can blame it on their manufacturer, but if they haven't tested the equipment they should be found criminally negligent in my opinion. You can't ask home users to know this much about computer security, since it's not their profession in general. However, ISPs are in this for a living and should know better.
Using a firewall box behind the router your ISP mandates you use, will not help you against a number of threats. Basically, they take over your router, put a sniffer on it and they can sniff all your internet traffic. The extra firewall may or may not prevent them gaining access to your computers behind the IPV4-NAT your router usually does. That's the only protection an extra firewall might give you. I'm saying might, since slight misconfiguration or access to a hackable service behind the firewall will negate all security that firewall is giving you.
Advocating FreeBSD, or any other specific solution is not helpful here. There are plenty of other adequate firewall solutions, more or less regardless of the operating system they may be running.
In practice, it will only help if manufacturers and vendors will be found liable for security flaws in their equipment and will automatically have to pay not just the price of the device and all damages to all customers that have bought it, but also a fine if they are found to be negligent. It's clear that vendors don't take security seriously (all tested devices were hacked) and ISPs aren't either. Home users can't be expected to know their security details up to such a high level so can't really be blamed for trusting their ISP or a leading brand to take care of security adequately. ISPs, vendors and manufacturers are supposed to know and actively secure their devices. Since they don't seem to care, some sort of threat should be put in place to make them take this more seriously.
They essentially have two options here. One is to import people that are actually skilled enough to do the work, since the US education system doesn't seem to provide them but focuses on burger flippers and waitresses instead. The other option is to let the companies either offshore the work completely, or go bankrupt because some foreign company comes up with a competing product and takes over the market. The short term solution is to import people, the long term solution is to put government money in education. Since government spending money on things like education and health care is generally frowned upon and politicians are only graded for their short term success, guess what happens.
How many people have died as a direct cause of 911 being actively blocked? Someone might have died in a cinema. It may even have been that people that noticed the person not being well tried calling 911. It may even have been that they were unable to reach 911. That may even have been because the cinema was blocking cell phone reception. The blockage may even have been on purpose. But would this person have survived if 911 could have been reached? I doubt there is any solid research done on this. "The ability to call 911 on your cell phone" is the most stupid argument to forbid blocking ever and it's the best people can come up with. Yes, it's a major inconvenience in modern society, but 20 years ago nobody would have cared because nobody had a cell phone. The amount of people dying because 911 couldn't be called hasn't significantly changed since, or the research indicating just that would be all over the news all the time and nobody in the their right mind would think of blocking cell phone reception.
Also, if you care about this, learn how to administer CPR. That will be literally be thousands of times more effective than calling 911 and wait for the paramedics to arrive. The first few minutes after someone has a heart failure are much more important than what happens after 10 minutes, when the paramedics arrive. If the first few minutes aren't critical, you have plenty of time to walk outside and make your call there, or get someone from the store call 911 for you.
Sorry, no. Closed software Vendors will be looking at their product running on large scale cloud providers like EC2, IBMs cloud and maybe MicroSoft Azure if it will ever get out of Beta. This means that they will possibly be looking at supporting HyperV, but not after they will be able to run on both Xen and KVM. EC2 will be a much more interesting target and they happen to be running Xen. Something like this is way more important than supporting some silly company that wants to run their linux boxes on HyperV, or supporting Azure. Economy of scale dictates you'll want to support the stuff most of your customers are running, not some niche.
A lot of VMs are also set up for security reasons, not just because the app won't "play nice with other applications on the box". Vendors that refuse to make software that behaves tend to sell very little software these days. However, securing a box that has to run a lot of different workloads is inherently more difficult and any security incident will have a much larger impact, compared to a set of VMs each running in their own security compartment. It just doesn't make sense to run the departmental file server on the same box as you're running your company web server from a security standpoint.
If you only get prebuilt packages for Gentoo, there are plenty of other distributions that make way more sense. If you build your own packages, like the folks at Gentoo have designed it, it's merely a big script and a repository.
A distribtution is meant to give an administrator or a consultant some sort of idea what he's heading in to when having to work on a machine they didn't install themselves. With Gentoo, you never know what you're going to get. While Gentoo is great to learn about Linux, compiling, porting and such, or to build a special purpose machine, it's not suitable for large scale deployments where more than one person will have to work on the machine. The amount of time spent actually documenting and learning the specifics of the exact deployment(s) simply make it way too expensive and error prone to be a good choice.
OMXplayer isn't there yet either. However, recently, they moved from buffer to FIFO, making it theoretically possible to put new files/streams at the end of the FIFO, in theory never stopping playback. Since OMXplayer is the only player using the hardware accelerated playback of the Pi, I'd say people that actually know how to code should put some effort in it. Either that, or get a capable media player to play nice with the libs for hardware acceleration on the Pi...
They are producing in the Sony plant in the UK. How Sony does it, I don't know, but presumably they have come up with some sort of financial plan that includes tax breaks and possibly subsidization of some sort to get these produced in the UK at a competing price. Don't forget that import taxes for ICT equipment into the EU are quite hefty. Maybe substantially lower than on electronic components? What I know is that they got a price quoted by Sony that was more than interesting enough to commit to a large number of RPis made in the UK. That number was enough for Sony to re-tool the UK factory and get the special equipment required to mount the memory chips on top of the SoC. That was the main investment for Sony, since they didn't have anything that could do that part of the process. The rest was basically just rearranging existing equipment and staff for this production line.
The guy has a point. Unless I already know everything about what's written here (and I probably already read the news elsewhere) I wouldn't be triggered to read the full article. It just doesn't appeal to me at all since none of the words used trigger my curiousness. By putting in just a bit more information in the summary, or even just the title, the editor/submitter would have gotten many more people interested. This is bad editing slashdots' part.
How about "Intermediate driver for X ported to Android hardware. Accellerated X now possible on all Android phones" as a headline? Then something like "The makers of Sailfish, an alternative phone OS that is spun off from Nokia's Meego, has ported Wayland to the Android graphics drivers. This means that any linux distribution that wants to run on android hardware only has to include a driver for Wayland graphics, not for every phone or tablet they want to support" for the summary? That way, people that just want a snippet will actually get the message without having to go through google or clicking the link (TL;DR never gonna happen) and people that didn't already read but are interested, will have an idea what sort of link they are going to click on. Probably over 99% of slashdot readers aren't going to click on a link, of for that matter visit a website, that promises them the content is going to be something they'll never understand and could just as well be in a foreign language they don't master. Summaries like this are just that, a good reason why people don't come here anymore.
Look at PowerDNS. They have been successfully doing open source development with paid developers since probably the earliest start. Other companies have variations on this theme.
Getting a crowdsourcing website set up to facilitate relatively unknown projects to advertise for backers is a logical follow up to this. I doubt that it will be profitable for the people setting up the crowdsourcing, since a lot of projects are not going to get any relevant backing because they simply aren't grown up enough to be useful. Starting a program from scratch with crowd sourced money will be much harder than to get money to get a nice feature in an already popular program.
Are you a Greenland law specialist then, that you declare this legal? It may be legal in your jurisdiction, but a Dutch court has made most ISPs block access to TPB because it was "illegal". It just may be illegal in Greenland too, what would you know?
If it was about the content, they wouldn't charge for a submission, but pay the person delivering them actual content. Like they used to do with newspapers, people or press bureaus would get paid if their submission got printed. This is about money and "reputable" academic journals will only print papers that will look good to their subscribers and on top of that, require a hefty fee from the person wanting to publish.
However much I hate online music sales websites, there should be at least two good online websites/blogs where you can publish your paper. Maybe crowd source the review? You start off with reviewers that are well known editors, they will give both articles and crowd sourced editors points for quality. People submitting papers will get a period where the "raw" paper can be commented on by editors and they can fix anything the editors mention, or withdraw the paper. Withdrawal will give you negative points, to keep trolls and "sponsored" research out. You may need to have two sponsors per university vouch for the paper before you can get it submitted, to wield out fake identities and plagiarism. I'm sure there are other details to thought of, but something like this might actually work and because of the model, the cost will be relatively low and could probably be covered by advertisements. Elsevier and others may not like it, but once a website like this will gain momentum, publishing scientific papers may finally enter "web 2.0". So, who's up for it?
Slashdot Mirror
A Raspberry Pi uses a single USB interface between it's CPU and all the IO. Even the "on board" Ethernet for the Model B is connected to the on board USB hub. By adding extra interfaces to the USB bus, you will not only limit bandwidth even more, but also probably make the Pi run less stable. You can prevent this by using an external powered USB hub, adding more complexity and cost to the Pi, but you'll still have limited bandwidth. At a theoretical maximum of 400Mbit (half duplex) getting a Pi to route anything above 50Mbit full duplex will become a challenge, with a theoretical maximum of 100Mbit Full Duplex (100 FD per interface, means 200 HD per interface, 2 interfaces, total 400Mbit HD). Given the fact that a WRT54G will at least switch 100Mbit full duplex and route 20+ Mbit via wireless, a Raspberry Pi plus a powered external hub plus USB ethernet/WiFi isn't that much of an upgrade. Getting a Gbit wireless N router that is supported will most likely cost you the same or less, be less complex in hardware and give you more bandwidth than a Pi.
Using this argument without facts to back up why one solution costs more than the other can indeed be wrong. However, by itself it applies just fine. I've seen situations where an organization had 400 windows desktop computers and 200 Linux workstations. Both were used by end users, both had no admin rights for those end users. about 150 of the 200 Linux boxes were used by users that also had a windows machine. About 50 Linux machines were used as the only desk top computer. This implies that all critical systems like time management, e-mail, word processing and such were perfectly doable on the Linux machines. The entire windows support team, including servers, was about 30 FTE. The entire UNIX team had 2.5 FTE working on desktop support and about 10FTE working on servers (several hundred of them, several different OSes, doing 24/7 HA stuff). In this situation, the efficiency of the UNIX team was much bigger than that of the windows team. Given the fact that both had licenses on the desktop machines and the linux machines had significantly faster and more expensive hardware, in the end, the cost of both systems per desk top was more or less equivalent. In the end, the finance picture is much more complicated than just looking at support or license costs. In the end you select which system gets things done and is future proof for the most competitive price. Sometimes that is windows, sometimes it's not.
What are we going to do today Brain? Same as we do every day Pinky, try to conquer the world!
It's called road tax. Many countries around the world have it, and use the money car owners have to pay to be allowed on the public road to actually keep that road maintained. Civilized countries usually have such a system and have well maintained roads.
Don't ban it, tax it as gambling. 50% of profits go to government, losses aren't deductible. If you buy a stock and sell it again within a week, it's considered speculation and subject to gambling tax. This will make high volume trading not impossible, but much harder to actually make a profit with, while actual investors in stock that think companies will make money by honest profits are protected. This is for stocks. Any derivatives are by nature all speculation and should be taxed regardless of how long they are held before being sold, bought or exchanged for actual stock or product.
It's all in the signature, been there for a while too....
They tested X children. The 10% that performed best were awarded with the stamp "gifted". The 3% that performed best were awarded with the stamp "especially gifted". If they now give 4700 children more the stamp "gifted", they will have more than 10% of the children with a stamp stating they belong to the top 10%. That can't be right, so the current results aren't wrong. I'm sure every school wants all of their children to perform "better than average", but in reality, if they all perform better, the average goes up and you still end up with half of them performing worse than average. The same applies here. The top 10% is the top 10%, no matter how you rate.
You always hear about women being underrepresented in high profile jobs. I never see campaigns to get more women into plumbing, road work, carpentry, mining and similar "men jobs". Until those jobs get an equal represented share in the campaigns to get more women doing mens' jobs and the campaign gives just as much attention to men doing "women jobs", I regard the campaigns as sexist biased. The only way to break these gender biased roles is to work on them all at the same time and give all of them the same kind of attention. Focusing on a specific small part will never work, unless it's part of a big campaign that works on all jobs in all levels.
Maybe *you* haven't given Linkedin permission to scrape your address book, but someone else did. If those other people have the email address you use for Linkedin in their contact list, Linkedin will still find a relationship between you two and suggest a connection. The right to be left alone should really apply to mail and other internet databases too, no opt out or anything, but default. Unless a company or person has explicit permission from you yourself, they should not be allowed to keep your information in their databases, regardless how they got it in the first place.
I don't think there's a single person or legal entity "at fault" here. It's a combination of multiple factors. First of all, your credit card company uses a proven flawed security model. Second of all, you should have been more careful with those numbers yourself, since it's a proven flawed system. Third of all, yes, your ISP can be found negligent for not adequately testing the equipment they provided to you. They can blame it on their manufacturer, but if they haven't tested the equipment they should be found criminally negligent in my opinion. You can't ask home users to know this much about computer security, since it's not their profession in general. However, ISPs are in this for a living and should know better.
Using a firewall box behind the router your ISP mandates you use, will not help you against a number of threats. Basically, they take over your router, put a sniffer on it and they can sniff all your internet traffic. The extra firewall may or may not prevent them gaining access to your computers behind the IPV4-NAT your router usually does. That's the only protection an extra firewall might give you. I'm saying might, since slight misconfiguration or access to a hackable service behind the firewall will negate all security that firewall is giving you.
Advocating FreeBSD, or any other specific solution is not helpful here. There are plenty of other adequate firewall solutions, more or less regardless of the operating system they may be running.
In practice, it will only help if manufacturers and vendors will be found liable for security flaws in their equipment and will automatically have to pay not just the price of the device and all damages to all customers that have bought it, but also a fine if they are found to be negligent. It's clear that vendors don't take security seriously (all tested devices were hacked) and ISPs aren't either. Home users can't be expected to know their security details up to such a high level so can't really be blamed for trusting their ISP or a leading brand to take care of security adequately. ISPs, vendors and manufacturers are supposed to know and actively secure their devices. Since they don't seem to care, some sort of threat should be put in place to make them take this more seriously.
They essentially have two options here. One is to import people that are actually skilled enough to do the work, since the US education system doesn't seem to provide them but focuses on burger flippers and waitresses instead. The other option is to let the companies either offshore the work completely, or go bankrupt because some foreign company comes up with a competing product and takes over the market. The short term solution is to import people, the long term solution is to put government money in education. Since government spending money on things like education and health care is generally frowned upon and politicians are only graded for their short term success, guess what happens.
Crikey, they're a bunch of naughty little critters for doing that!
How many people have died as a direct cause of 911 being actively blocked? Someone might have died in a cinema. It may even have been that people that noticed the person not being well tried calling 911. It may even have been that they were unable to reach 911. That may even have been because the cinema was blocking cell phone reception. The blockage may even have been on purpose. But would this person have survived if 911 could have been reached? I doubt there is any solid research done on this. "The ability to call 911 on your cell phone" is the most stupid argument to forbid blocking ever and it's the best people can come up with. Yes, it's a major inconvenience in modern society, but 20 years ago nobody would have cared because nobody had a cell phone. The amount of people dying because 911 couldn't be called hasn't significantly changed since, or the research indicating just that would be all over the news all the time and nobody in the their right mind would think of blocking cell phone reception.
Also, if you care about this, learn how to administer CPR. That will be literally be thousands of times more effective than calling 911 and wait for the paramedics to arrive. The first few minutes after someone has a heart failure are much more important than what happens after 10 minutes, when the paramedics arrive. If the first few minutes aren't critical, you have plenty of time to walk outside and make your call there, or get someone from the store call 911 for you.
The land lines in that building aren't going to be jammed, so 911 is still reachable.
Sorry, no. Closed software Vendors will be looking at their product running on large scale cloud providers like EC2, IBMs cloud and maybe MicroSoft Azure if it will ever get out of Beta. This means that they will possibly be looking at supporting HyperV, but not after they will be able to run on both Xen and KVM. EC2 will be a much more interesting target and they happen to be running Xen. Something like this is way more important than supporting some silly company that wants to run their linux boxes on HyperV, or supporting Azure. Economy of scale dictates you'll want to support the stuff most of your customers are running, not some niche.
A lot of VMs are also set up for security reasons, not just because the app won't "play nice with other applications on the box". Vendors that refuse to make software that behaves tend to sell very little software these days. However, securing a box that has to run a lot of different workloads is inherently more difficult and any security incident will have a much larger impact, compared to a set of VMs each running in their own security compartment. It just doesn't make sense to run the departmental file server on the same box as you're running your company web server from a security standpoint.
If you only get prebuilt packages for Gentoo, there are plenty of other distributions that make way more sense. If you build your own packages, like the folks at Gentoo have designed it, it's merely a big script and a repository.
A distribtution is meant to give an administrator or a consultant some sort of idea what he's heading in to when having to work on a machine they didn't install themselves. With Gentoo, you never know what you're going to get. While Gentoo is great to learn about Linux, compiling, porting and such, or to build a special purpose machine, it's not suitable for large scale deployments where more than one person will have to work on the machine. The amount of time spent actually documenting and learning the specifics of the exact deployment(s) simply make it way too expensive and error prone to be a good choice.
OMXplayer isn't there yet either. However, recently, they moved from buffer to FIFO, making it theoretically possible to put new files/streams at the end of the FIFO, in theory never stopping playback. Since OMXplayer is the only player using the hardware accelerated playback of the Pi, I'd say people that actually know how to code should put some effort in it. Either that, or get a capable media player to play nice with the libs for hardware acceleration on the Pi...
If it were made by the prince of darkness, I'd agree. In this case, it's made by Sony.
They are producing in the Sony plant in the UK. How Sony does it, I don't know, but presumably they have come up with some sort of financial plan that includes tax breaks and possibly subsidization of some sort to get these produced in the UK at a competing price. Don't forget that import taxes for ICT equipment into the EU are quite hefty. Maybe substantially lower than on electronic components? What I know is that they got a price quoted by Sony that was more than interesting enough to commit to a large number of RPis made in the UK. That number was enough for Sony to re-tool the UK factory and get the special equipment required to mount the memory chips on top of the SoC. That was the main investment for Sony, since they didn't have anything that could do that part of the process. The rest was basically just rearranging existing equipment and staff for this production line.
The guy has a point. Unless I already know everything about what's written here (and I probably already read the news elsewhere) I wouldn't be triggered to read the full article. It just doesn't appeal to me at all since none of the words used trigger my curiousness. By putting in just a bit more information in the summary, or even just the title, the editor/submitter would have gotten many more people interested. This is bad editing slashdots' part.
How about "Intermediate driver for X ported to Android hardware. Accellerated X now possible on all Android phones" as a headline? Then something like "The makers of Sailfish, an alternative phone OS that is spun off from Nokia's Meego, has ported Wayland to the Android graphics drivers. This means that any linux distribution that wants to run on android hardware only has to include a driver for Wayland graphics, not for every phone or tablet they want to support" for the summary? That way, people that just want a snippet will actually get the message without having to go through google or clicking the link (TL;DR never gonna happen) and people that didn't already read but are interested, will have an idea what sort of link they are going to click on. Probably over 99% of slashdot readers aren't going to click on a link, of for that matter visit a website, that promises them the content is going to be something they'll never understand and could just as well be in a foreign language they don't master. Summaries like this are just that, a good reason why people don't come here anymore.
Look at PowerDNS. They have been successfully doing open source development with paid developers since probably the earliest start. Other companies have variations on this theme.
Getting a crowdsourcing website set up to facilitate relatively unknown projects to advertise for backers is a logical follow up to this. I doubt that it will be profitable for the people setting up the crowdsourcing, since a lot of projects are not going to get any relevant backing because they simply aren't grown up enough to be useful. Starting a program from scratch with crowd sourced money will be much harder than to get money to get a nice feature in an already popular program.
Are you a Greenland law specialist then, that you declare this legal? It may be legal in your jurisdiction, but a Dutch court has made most ISPs block access to TPB because it was "illegal". It just may be illegal in Greenland too, what would you know?
I think only a video of gameplay is on bittorrent, not the actual game?
If it was about the content, they wouldn't charge for a submission, but pay the person delivering them actual content. Like they used to do with newspapers, people or press bureaus would get paid if their submission got printed. This is about money and "reputable" academic journals will only print papers that will look good to their subscribers and on top of that, require a hefty fee from the person wanting to publish.
However much I hate online music sales websites, there should be at least two good online websites/blogs where you can publish your paper. Maybe crowd source the review? You start off with reviewers that are well known editors, they will give both articles and crowd sourced editors points for quality. People submitting papers will get a period where the "raw" paper can be commented on by editors and they can fix anything the editors mention, or withdraw the paper. Withdrawal will give you negative points, to keep trolls and "sponsored" research out. You may need to have two sponsors per university vouch for the paper before you can get it submitted, to wield out fake identities and plagiarism. I'm sure there are other details to thought of, but something like this might actually work and because of the model, the cost will be relatively low and could probably be covered by advertisements. Elsevier and others may not like it, but once a website like this will gain momentum, publishing scientific papers may finally enter "web 2.0". So, who's up for it?