...to reply to my own post. I don't think many people would take you seriously if you cited, for example, a MySpace webpage as a primary resource. I think that is what I've been trying to say.
Well, of course you can share the ideas. You just cannot share the article (_usually_ in practice the sharing does happen... just not on a webpage). You could even share the whole lot if you rewrote it. The problem comes when somebody else wants to cite your original article. Dodgy people could of course just cite the article after reading only the abstract. The body of the article usually contains a bit more than the abstract/synopsis though. I am not disagreeing with you... I am just suggesting that, possibly, it would be good for _anybody_ to be able to read a journal article--not just those with enough money or connections to have a subscription to the journal.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the article. I thought TFA was about a person (or persons) in academia (or whatever) being able to openly (freely as in beer) share their research; which is in opposition to the journals that publish the cream-of-the-crop and then hide the research away from the rest of the world (including possibly the authors). This seems a little out of whack, but it's how it's been for years. There should be a reversal--research needs to be available. If the author(s) institute cannot even afford the journal subscription, something is wrong. How would I as an individual get access to research?
two of the lead authors of the paper to be published in Science are amateur astronomers
Thank goodness for areas of science where "amateurs" can still make significant contributions. The other ones that springs to mind are biology and Comp. Sci. Physics, chemistry etc are out of the league of most people (myself included) where the best we can do is learn what others have already done. To be published in Science is a wonderful achievement. Kudos to them.
I think the parent may have been alluding to pirating for personal use (I will make no judgment on this as it is not what my post is about). Perhaps the parent misused the word "bootlegging", but my interpretation of the parent post was bootlegging as in distribution. All of your examples of jail time relate to distribution. Your examples also repeatedly state "for commercial gain". I also didn't think the parent implied this. *shrug* Just my 2-cents.
I don't know much about Roland. But, from the article:
Shyy is the Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson Collegiate Professor of Aerospace Engineering. Other authors of the book, "Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers" are: U-M research scientists Yongsheng Lian, Jian Tang and Dragos Viieru, and Hao Liu, professor of Biomechanical Engineering at Chiba University in Japan.
Other collaborators on this research include professors Luis Bernal, Carlos Cesnik and Peretz Friedmann of the University of Michigan; Hao Liu of Chiba University in Japan; Peter Ifju, Rick Lind and Larry Ukeiley of University of Florida, and Sean Humbert of University of Maryland.
If you're smarter than these people, perhaps you should apply for a job.
I am not sure "error tolerance" is the correct term; there is no "tolerance" (you are correct though; I am just debating the term), it's just that the high-end workstation cards sacrifice speed over accuracy. To say "error tolerance" implies that both types of card have errors (that they may or may not have and may or may not compensate for), and one tolerates them more than the other. This, strictly, isn't true. A better analogy would be something like high-end gaming cards have (for example... making the figures up) 24-bit precision and the high-end cards have 64-bit precision. There is no "tolerance" involved; just that one does the math better for accuracy and the other does the math better for speed.
I feel your pain. I have just stepped into a role where the previous people have linked spreadsheets and funny VB acting as glue for just about everything. It is a nightmare. Even scarier, the people EMAIL these linked spreadsheets--needless to say the fan is covered in shit most of the time.
I wanted to message you privately, but don't know how. I did some reading overnight, and you're absolutely correct. My apologies for talking about something I didn't understand properly, and my wrongful assumption that TFA contained facts. Thank-you for your reply.
Ahh, the penny drops. That explains the latest poll.
Boots: the boot process
Kape: the desktop effects
the evil side Kicker: kicker
the doomsday devices: the device manager
fighting heroes: gnome vs KDE
the super villainess: plasma
the infamy: ?
the evil laugh: the new sound effect when a program crashes
I am not a paleontologist, but I am versed in the debates over nomenclature etc. I would have to say I would take a dim view on somebody else publishing a formal name based on research that I had done and just haven't got around to publishing formally. If nothing else, it's an ethical debate. On the other hand, if the Mexico people publish and formally describe and name some unknown species based on someone else's findings, then this can be debated and overruled. If paleontology is anything like botany (I am involved in plant systematics) then I am sure that governing bodies of nomenclature can overrule the Mexicans descriptions (and names). From the article it doesn't seem they have the type specimen, and it seems obvious that the doctoral students first reported (and informally described) the species. If anything it brings into question the NMMNHS's credibility. As the article said:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature says scientists must not name species if they know a competing scientist is in the process of doing so.
Girlfriend? What is that? Some new kind of alchemy? I've never heard of such a thing as "girlfriend". Although I think I might want one, it sounds interesting
No, but it is worrying. For example, I often have to resort to emailing people using PDF's which contain the bulk of my message because their stupid ISP marks me as spam. I think it is because a lot of my emails involve giving people advice on plant species names--which always makes me go "wtf" when my email bounces because it is "spam-like". Since when is giving a person advice on species "spam-like"? Maybe it's the latin I don't know. I don't use my ISP for outgoing email (I run my own email servers) but for those people who do... their emails better not be innocent because they'd probably be filtered as spam. Much better to write a long message about penis enlargement than something serious--it's more likely to pass through the filters.
Well, I can somewhat understand his (and your) reasoning--it prevents "trial by public opinion". However, why couldn't the alleged terrorism and details be reported on, while at the same time keeping the name(s) of the suspects secret? A blanket-ban on reporting on terrorism could be seen as irresponsible. For example, if I heard that Mr-X had been captured and it became apparent that he was targeting my local nightclub (whatever), then I'd stay the hell away. With no reporting on the subject at all, I may well go out for a beer and end up with an molotov cocktail (so to speak).
By the look of that helmet, I'd be able to replicate it by strapping my computer box to my head. If I then set the box to calculate some insanely difficult task, like tic-tac-toe, the heat would penetrate by brain and make me effectively immune to degenerative diseases of the the brain.
Not sure. If it doesn't disadvantage people (i.e. lead to higher chance of death) then it's quite possible that A1 would just stick around (genes don't just disappear for no reason).
Slashdot Mirror
...to reply to my own post. I don't think many people would take you seriously if you cited, for example, a MySpace webpage as a primary resource. I think that is what I've been trying to say.
Well, of course you can share the ideas. You just cannot share the article (_usually_ in practice the sharing does happen... just not on a webpage). You could even share the whole lot if you rewrote it. The problem comes when somebody else wants to cite your original article. Dodgy people could of course just cite the article after reading only the abstract. The body of the article usually contains a bit more than the abstract/synopsis though. I am not disagreeing with you... I am just suggesting that, possibly, it would be good for _anybody_ to be able to read a journal article--not just those with enough money or connections to have a subscription to the journal.
Generally that is the way it goes, yes. Although, of course, you can produce derivative works (expand etc) and publish in yet another journal...
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the article. I thought TFA was about a person (or persons) in academia (or whatever) being able to openly (freely as in beer) share their research; which is in opposition to the journals that publish the cream-of-the-crop and then hide the research away from the rest of the world (including possibly the authors). This seems a little out of whack, but it's how it's been for years. There should be a reversal--research needs to be available. If the author(s) institute cannot even afford the journal subscription, something is wrong. How would I as an individual get access to research?
two of the lead authors of the paper to be published in Science are amateur astronomers
Thank goodness for areas of science where "amateurs" can still make significant contributions. The other ones that springs to mind are biology and Comp. Sci. Physics, chemistry etc are out of the league of most people (myself included) where the best we can do is learn what others have already done. To be published in Science is a wonderful achievement. Kudos to them.
I think the parent may have been alluding to pirating for personal use (I will make no judgment on this as it is not what my post is about). Perhaps the parent misused the word "bootlegging", but my interpretation of the parent post was bootlegging as in distribution. All of your examples of jail time relate to distribution. Your examples also repeatedly state "for commercial gain". I also didn't think the parent implied this. *shrug* Just my 2-cents.
I don't know much about Roland. But, from the article:
Shyy is the Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson Collegiate Professor of Aerospace Engineering. Other authors of the book, "Aerodynamics of Low Reynolds Number Flyers" are: U-M research scientists Yongsheng Lian, Jian Tang and Dragos Viieru, and Hao Liu, professor of Biomechanical Engineering at Chiba University in Japan. Other collaborators on this research include professors Luis Bernal, Carlos Cesnik and Peretz Friedmann of the University of Michigan; Hao Liu of Chiba University in Japan; Peter Ifju, Rick Lind and Larry Ukeiley of University of Florida, and Sean Humbert of University of Maryland.
If you're smarter than these people, perhaps you should apply for a job.
I am not sure "error tolerance" is the correct term; there is no "tolerance" (you are correct though; I am just debating the term), it's just that the high-end workstation cards sacrifice speed over accuracy. To say "error tolerance" implies that both types of card have errors (that they may or may not have and may or may not compensate for), and one tolerates them more than the other. This, strictly, isn't true. A better analogy would be something like high-end gaming cards have (for example... making the figures up) 24-bit precision and the high-end cards have 64-bit precision. There is no "tolerance" involved; just that one does the math better for accuracy and the other does the math better for speed.
The jury awarded TiVo $73 911 964 in damages. No wonder there are patent-trolls roaming about, with this kind of money being tossed around.
I feel your pain. I have just stepped into a role where the previous people have linked spreadsheets and funny VB acting as glue for just about everything. It is a nightmare. Even scarier, the people EMAIL these linked spreadsheets--needless to say the fan is covered in shit most of the time.
I wanted to message you privately, but don't know how. I did some reading overnight, and you're absolutely correct. My apologies for talking about something I didn't understand properly, and my wrongful assumption that TFA contained facts. Thank-you for your reply.
Ahh, the penny drops. That explains the latest poll.
Boots: the boot process
Kape: the desktop effects
the evil side Kicker: kicker
the doomsday devices: the device manager
fighting heroes: gnome vs KDE
the super villainess: plasma
the infamy: ?
the evil laugh: the new sound effect when a program crashes
I (not literally) could nominate the name invalid and demote it as such.
Yeah it's lucky I do not have involvement in place names--I'd have Australia sitting just off the coast of Florida
Ok, thank-you. I am not good a geography.
I am not a paleontologist, but I am versed in the debates over nomenclature etc. I would have to say I would take a dim view on somebody else publishing a formal name based on research that I had done and just haven't got around to publishing formally. If nothing else, it's an ethical debate. On the other hand, if the Mexico people publish and formally describe and name some unknown species based on someone else's findings, then this can be debated and overruled. If paleontology is anything like botany (I am involved in plant systematics) then I am sure that governing bodies of nomenclature can overrule the Mexicans descriptions (and names). From the article it doesn't seem they have the type specimen, and it seems obvious that the doctoral students first reported (and informally described) the species. If anything it brings into question the NMMNHS's credibility. As the article said:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature says scientists must not name species if they know a competing scientist is in the process of doing so.
Girlfriend? What is that? Some new kind of alchemy? I've never heard of such a thing as "girlfriend". Although I think I might want one, it sounds interesting
No, but it is worrying. For example, I often have to resort to emailing people using PDF's which contain the bulk of my message because their stupid ISP marks me as spam. I think it is because a lot of my emails involve giving people advice on plant species names--which always makes me go "wtf" when my email bounces because it is "spam-like". Since when is giving a person advice on species "spam-like"? Maybe it's the latin I don't know. I don't use my ISP for outgoing email (I run my own email servers) but for those people who do... their emails better not be innocent because they'd probably be filtered as spam. Much better to write a long message about penis enlargement than something serious--it's more likely to pass through the filters.
Umm, which is exactly what I was saying. Which is why I said report without naming names.
Well, I can somewhat understand his (and your) reasoning--it prevents "trial by public opinion". However, why couldn't the alleged terrorism and details be reported on, while at the same time keeping the name(s) of the suspects secret? A blanket-ban on reporting on terrorism could be seen as irresponsible. For example, if I heard that Mr-X had been captured and it became apparent that he was targeting my local nightclub (whatever), then I'd stay the hell away. With no reporting on the subject at all, I may well go out for a beer and end up with an molotov cocktail (so to speak).
By the look of that helmet, I'd be able to replicate it by strapping my computer box to my head. If I then set the box to calculate some insanely difficult task, like tic-tac-toe, the heat would penetrate by brain and make me effectively immune to degenerative diseases of the the brain.
Funny that he exempts some files also; are these files others helped with? (Blowing his entire sole author argument out of the water).
That should read "does not"
freedoms the american people still have left?
You know something? The world does does revolve around the american people and their whims.
Not sure. If it doesn't disadvantage people (i.e. lead to higher chance of death) then it's quite possible that A1 would just stick around (genes don't just disappear for no reason).