Thanks. I actually don't have much interest in Carmack's venture, but the explanation, given how badly people wanted to see it, and how embarassing it was, seemed suspicious.
I know people are going to dismiss this as a semantics debate, but...
Would you consider tape to be a poison? You can kill someone by taping shut all holes to the room they're in, making them suffocate. But the tape didn't kill them; a condition enabled by it, did. If you just slap tape on someone's skin, they won't get poisoned or die. Similarly, it doesn't make sense in my mind to call CO2 a pollutant, since it only harms me, at most, through a long term, indirect, non-chemical interaction with my body.
You're also confusing publishing and printing. There are two functions the publisher performs:
1) Vet the work to make sure it's appropriate quality. 2) Print it out.
There are completely separate functions. In my (extremely obvious) suggestion, scientists still vet the submission. Anything work involving printing lots of copies, once you know what the article should be, can be outsourced to a discount press.
(Seriously, this is basic stuff. I wonder how a lot of you put your shoes on in the morning. But at least I know how patent examiners get rooked into thinking some inventions are non-obvious when they're not.)
I know, don't dignify the clueless... but I'm doing it anyway.
We have families to feed, man! Rent to pay! Sure, I would do research even if I weren't being paid for it. But, I have to do something for money, or else I and my family starve living on the streets. So, I suppose I could bus tables for pay, and do research for free. But that would be pretty stupid, seeing as how people are willing to pay for research.
Then you agree that monetary compensation positively affects the production of scientific discoveries, which was my only point there.
Furthermore, if you "cut out the middleman", then you cut out deadtree versions of the journal (important) and
No you don't. You can still hire any number of bargain custom printing companies to make the paper copies of the journal issues, and then charge people who want that sent to them, the cost of production. You're confusing publishing and printing.
cut out monetary compensation for those doing the reviewing (see above, important).
But I thought monetary compensation didn't affect the supply of scientific works! Oh, right...
In any case, reviewers aren't paid today either, generally.
"Cut out the middleman" is a nice catchy phrase that strikes a chord in the hearts of many. But unless someone can come up with a real way in which it can be made to work, it is nothing more than demagogy.
Er, that's my point: you *can't* cut out the middleman, but the reason for that is scientists' irrational preference for having an unnecessary, exploitative publisher put its name on their work. Get rid of the bigotry, and remove the obstacles to genuine science.
The summary states that his license stipulates no commercial use. Charging anything for the paper beyond your own costs for providing it (a nominal bandwidth and storage fee, perhaps) is commercial use. On the face of it, OUP is violating the license. Yes, I was just objecting to the summary's characterization that he's being "denied access to his paper", though I guess I should be numb to/. sensationalism by now.
That's a great theory, but then you get every scientist posting his research to his blog. Strawman. My altnerative was not "put your papers on your blog". It was "have a peer-reviewed journal that cuts out the middleman".
If you are not publishing in a well known and widely-read journal, you are not likely to get a whole lot of your peers to even read the research much less try to duplicate your results. Sure, and that's a fault of scientists, not publishers. If you refuse to read something because it was "merely" peer-reviewed by a committee of respectable scientists that didn't have Kluwer's blessing, you are the problem, not Kluwer.
Most academic types do the research for its own sake, not necessarily to make money directly from it. Then why don't scientists all work for free? The more that *can* be made, the more people you'll draw, and the more output you'll generate, because you pull in the marginal cases. Just the law of supply at work.
1) Just because it's released under CC, doesn't mean that people must give you a copy of it for free on demand. It just means that the author has permitted people to copy it without his explicit approval. He should still be able to get it from someone else who doesn't want to charge him. Now, if he released the paper on the condition that no one ever charge for it, he has a case against OUP (for violating the license), but he's not being "denied access to his own paper"; it's just that one of many authorized providers simply isn't providing it. (Am I being "denied access to Jane Austen" when website #2938093583 won't email her works to me for free?)
2) If publishers are really contributing nothing to academic publishing, and just charge high prices and force you to sign away your rights (which I think is a fair characterization), here's a crazy idea: stop publishing through them! Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access. If scientists are so bigoted they only deign to acknowledge work published in overpriced, unnecessary, exploitative publishers' journals, the problem is on the scientists' end.
3) Yes, it would be nice if no publicly funded worker could ever hold any exclusive IP in their intellectual works. However, this would mean less intellectual work production by them. It's a tradeoff like any other.
Oh, and
4) Why did OUP ever accept it if it were labled as CC?
I've always wondered what it's like for Germans (and I guess by extension, the Dutch) to use typical programming syntax. For example, you have to invert word order for a dependent clause in German. So, in speaking, you'd say "wenn int1 3 gleicht" ("if int1 3 equals"), but obviously your code has a different order ("if int1 == 3").
You remind me also of something that slipped into the French-produced game Beyond Good and Evil. There was an item that was officially called something like, "an Invigorator". (That was its name in stores.) But then on the items-screen, it was called an "active principle", but whenever it was abbreviated, it would be called a PA, presumably because in the original French it's called a "Principle Active" due to their word order.
Come on, there has to be some LiarSux plugin that Spartan-izes the web browsing experience. Or, could you use a really old browser that can't even handle a bunch of the newer stuff?
Sure. You can ask your customers to present a photo ID before purchasing anything, and if they exercise their right to refuse to provide the identification, then you exercise your right to refuse service. Once you have the photo ID, you can find out you can examine your surveillance videos and if you notice they did anything suspicious, you can forward the information to the police.
Great idea, detective dipshit! Unfortunately, thieves aren't actually *buying* the goods, but rather, just walking out with them, so having these rigorous procedures for dealing with people who buy stuff ain't gonna be too effective.
However, a certain level of security is necessary so that the stolen goods don't outweigh the extra money made from the increase in customers.
Yes, and the problem is that if merchants actually had to obey these limitations, and everyone knew exactly what these limitations were (they don't currently), there would either be massive theft (unlikely) or stores would vastly change access to their wares, for example, by having real cops patrol the place, or -- as you suggested -- lock up everything.
And then I'm sure no one would ever react to that with, "but I'm being treated like a criminal!"
Damned if you meaningfully demand a receipt, damned if you detain someone without perfect evidence, damned if you have a lot of police at the facility, damned if you lock up the merchandise, damned if you have "excessive" prices to make up for thieves, damned if you don't serve the community by having stores there. I guess you could call that a philosophy. I call it "being a whiny bitch".
Okay, which book can I pick up that shows me how to shut down an arbitrary process I see running in the task manager? Which book was I supposed to read that shows how to fix all the problems with unwanted programs, without using software specifically for that purpose? I notice that in two condescending posts, you never got to any of that. And like most elitists, you're assuming that any slowdown in someone's computers comes from a few, narrow, mind-numbingly stupid errors. If anyone's clueless here, it's you.
Well, that's great! Stores have the right to ask for your receipt, but you don't have to show it. Kind of an empty right, but whatever. A determined thief could then just take whatever he wanted and walk out of the store and there's nothing they can do. They can't detain him or stop him. If they touch him at all, they're violating his inalienable rights.
Any thoughts on how to keep goods from leaving the store unauthorized, without violating someone's rights?
Right, because everyone knows how to find the registry, everyone knows how to find how to find the registry, everyone knows how to interpret the registry, everyone knows how to kill programs running as "SYSTEM" and keep them from running again, and all malware is immediately obvious as being on your hard drive.
I don't know... I'd still say it's pretty impressive for the Wii to have any showing at all in the handheld fields, when it's not even a handheld system...
The device in the story seems to be similar to a polygraph, which typically measure three things (one of which is skin conductance) that supposedly correlate with lying. Now, regardless of whether they actually so correlate, as long as you can learn to control your mental states that alter those properties with enough precision, and enough relative independence, you should be able to control more than one binary variable.
I'm hopefully not the first person to think of this...
Very interesting. However, what I suggested is different in that it doesn't require an (extremely invasive and risky) brain implant, since it would monitor your brain signals indirectly through changes in your skin.
So is any kind of mental mouse already commercially available?
From what I understand, it correlates the changes in physiological metrics of you, with the times you jump. So, if you intentionally prepare to jump, like you normally do, but then deliberately hold back at the last second, opposite from how you acted while it was being trained, you can fool it. You'll show the signs of jumping, but then "change your pattern" so its guess is wrong.
Oh, and it probably would have been more relevant to make a cutesy reference to Minority Report.;-)
This sounds like it has applications for having a mouse you control with your mind. It seems like the way their system works is that it notices certain physiological changes in you when you are mentally preparing to make a jump. Now, if you can learn to recognize what you are thinking that activates those physiological changes, then you could intentionally make them, and then those changes could be used as the input.
If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.
It seems that major sports leagues are given special legal status in general. For one, they're exempt from antitrust laws. (Not that I like anti-trust laws, but selectively enforcing them can be worse.) For another, they seem to have additional rights to the content of their games beyond what IP law normally grants. Like, if I watch a game and stream my commentary about it so people can listen as they watch with the official broadcast's sounds muted, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But if I did the same thing to the e.g. Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, IBM couldn't stop me if they wanted to.
Slashdot Mirror
OR Microsoft is just admitting that their existence is offensive...
Thanks. I actually don't have much interest in Carmack's venture, but the explanation, given how badly people wanted to see it, and how embarassing it was, seemed suspicious.
Again, I appreciate you following up.
You mean, the creator of an intellectual work thinks it's more creative than it really is? That very rarely happens.
I know people are going to dismiss this as a semantics debate, but...
Would you consider tape to be a poison? You can kill someone by taping shut all holes to the room they're in, making them suffocate. But the tape didn't kill them; a condition enabled by it, did. If you just slap tape on someone's skin, they won't get poisoned or die. Similarly, it doesn't make sense in my mind to call CO2 a pollutant, since it only harms me, at most, through a long term, indirect, non-chemical interaction with my body.
You're also confusing publishing and printing. There are two functions the publisher performs:
1) Vet the work to make sure it's appropriate quality.
2) Print it out.
There are completely separate functions. In my (extremely obvious) suggestion, scientists still vet the submission. Anything work involving printing lots of copies, once you know what the article should be, can be outsourced to a discount press.
(Seriously, this is basic stuff. I wonder how a lot of you put your shoes on in the morning. But at least I know how patent examiners get rooked into thinking some inventions are non-obvious when they're not.)
Could you remind me which part of my post (or which belief you think I have) any of that contradicts?
I know, don't dignify the clueless ... but I'm doing it anyway.
We have families to feed, man! Rent to pay! Sure, I would do research even if I weren't being paid for it. But, I have to do something for money, or else I and my family starve living on the streets. So, I suppose I could bus tables for pay, and do research for free. But that would be pretty stupid, seeing as how people are willing to pay for research.
Then you agree that monetary compensation positively affects the production of scientific discoveries, which was my only point there.
Furthermore, if you "cut out the middleman", then you cut out deadtree versions of the journal (important) and
No you don't. You can still hire any number of bargain custom printing companies to make the paper copies of the journal issues, and then charge people who want that sent to them, the cost of production. You're confusing publishing and printing.
cut out monetary compensation for those doing the reviewing (see above, important).
But I thought monetary compensation didn't affect the supply of scientific works! Oh, right...
In any case, reviewers aren't paid today either, generally.
"Cut out the middleman" is a nice catchy phrase that strikes a chord in the hearts of many. But unless someone can come up with a real way in which it can be made to work, it is nothing more than demagogy.
Er, that's my point: you *can't* cut out the middleman, but the reason for that is scientists' irrational preference for having an unnecessary, exploitative publisher put its name on their work. Get rid of the bigotry, and remove the obstacles to genuine science.
1) Just because it's released under CC, doesn't mean that people must give you a copy of it for free on demand. It just means that the author has permitted people to copy it without his explicit approval. He should still be able to get it from someone else who doesn't want to charge him. Now, if he released the paper on the condition that no one ever charge for it, he has a case against OUP (for violating the license), but he's not being "denied access to his own paper"; it's just that one of many authorized providers simply isn't providing it. (Am I being "denied access to Jane Austen" when website #2938093583 won't email her works to me for free?)
2) If publishers are really contributing nothing to academic publishing, and just charge high prices and force you to sign away your rights (which I think is a fair characterization), here's a crazy idea: stop publishing through them! Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access. If scientists are so bigoted they only deign to acknowledge work published in overpriced, unnecessary, exploitative publishers' journals, the problem is on the scientists' end.
3) Yes, it would be nice if no publicly funded worker could ever hold any exclusive IP in their intellectual works. However, this would mean less intellectual work production by them. It's a tradeoff like any other.
Oh, and
4) Why did OUP ever accept it if it were labled as CC?
I've always wondered what it's like for Germans (and I guess by extension, the Dutch) to use typical programming syntax. For example, you have to invert word order for a dependent clause in German. So, in speaking, you'd say "wenn int1 3 gleicht" ("if int1 3 equals"), but obviously your code has a different order ("if int1 == 3").
You remind me also of something that slipped into the French-produced game Beyond Good and Evil. There was an item that was officially called something like, "an Invigorator". (That was its name in stores.) But then on the items-screen, it was called an "active principle", but whenever it was abbreviated, it would be called a PA, presumably because in the original French it's called a "Principle Active" due to their word order.
Come on, there has to be some LiarSux plugin that Spartan-izes the web browsing experience. Or, could you use a really old browser that can't even handle a bunch of the newer stuff?
Sure. You can ask your customers to present a photo ID before purchasing anything, and if they exercise their right to refuse to provide the identification, then you exercise your right to refuse service. Once you have the photo ID, you can find out you can examine your surveillance videos and if you notice they did anything suspicious, you can forward the information to the police.
Great idea, detective dipshit! Unfortunately, thieves aren't actually *buying* the goods, but rather, just walking out with them, so having these rigorous procedures for dealing with people who buy stuff ain't gonna be too effective.
However, a certain level of security is necessary so that the stolen goods don't outweigh the extra money made from the increase in customers.
Yes, and the problem is that if merchants actually had to obey these limitations, and everyone knew exactly what these limitations were (they don't currently), there would either be massive theft (unlikely) or stores would vastly change access to their wares, for example, by having real cops patrol the place, or -- as you suggested -- lock up everything.
And then I'm sure no one would ever react to that with, "but I'm being treated like a criminal!"
Damned if you meaningfully demand a receipt, damned if you detain someone without perfect evidence, damned if you have a lot of police at the facility, damned if you lock up the merchandise, damned if you have "excessive" prices to make up for thieves, damned if you don't serve the community by having stores there. I guess you could call that a philosophy. I call it "being a whiny bitch".
Okay, which book can I pick up that shows me how to shut down an arbitrary process I see running in the task manager? Which book was I supposed to read that shows how to fix all the problems with unwanted programs, without using software specifically for that purpose? I notice that in two condescending posts, you never got to any of that. And like most elitists, you're assuming that any slowdown in someone's computers comes from a few, narrow, mind-numbingly stupid errors. If anyone's clueless here, it's you.
Well, that's great! Stores have the right to ask for your receipt, but you don't have to show it. Kind of an empty right, but whatever. A determined thief could then just take whatever he wanted and walk out of the store and there's nothing they can do. They can't detain him or stop him. If they touch him at all, they're violating his inalienable rights.
Any thoughts on how to keep goods from leaving the store unauthorized, without violating someone's rights?
Right, because everyone knows how to find the registry, everyone knows how to find how to find the registry, everyone knows how to interpret the registry, everyone knows how to kill programs running as "SYSTEM" and keep them from running again, and all malware is immediately obvious as being on your hard drive.
You're an idiot.
I remember "back in the day" when spyware was still something you needed a separate scanner (Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, etc..) for.
:-/
Uh, someone remind me what the modern way to remove spyware is?
I still use those programs
I'm in ur computer
Connectin ur motherboards
I don't know ... I'd still say it's pretty impressive for the Wii to have any showing at all in the handheld fields, when it's not even a handheld system...
I did. Through piracy, though. And not the Nautilus kind, either.
The device in the story seems to be similar to a polygraph, which typically measure three things (one of which is skin conductance) that supposedly correlate with lying. Now, regardless of whether they actually so correlate, as long as you can learn to control your mental states that alter those properties with enough precision, and enough relative independence, you should be able to control more than one binary variable.
I'm hopefully not the first person to think of this...
Very interesting. However, what I suggested is different in that it doesn't require an (extremely invasive and risky) brain implant, since it would monitor your brain signals indirectly through changes in your skin.
So is any kind of mental mouse already commercially available?
From what I understand, it correlates the changes in physiological metrics of you, with the times you jump. So, if you intentionally prepare to jump, like you normally do, but then deliberately hold back at the last second, opposite from how you acted while it was being trained, you can fool it. You'll show the signs of jumping, but then "change your pattern" so its guess is wrong.
;-)
Oh, and it probably would have been more relevant to make a cutesy reference to Minority Report.
This sounds like it has applications for having a mouse you control with your mind. It seems like the way their system works is that it notices certain physiological changes in you when you are mentally preparing to make a jump. Now, if you can learn to recognize what you are thinking that activates those physiological changes, then you could intentionally make them, and then those changes could be used as the input.
If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.
It seems that major sports leagues are given special legal status in general. For one, they're exempt from antitrust laws. (Not that I like anti-trust laws, but selectively enforcing them can be worse.) For another, they seem to have additional rights to the content of their games beyond what IP law normally grants. Like, if I watch a game and stream my commentary about it so people can listen as they watch with the official broadcast's sounds muted, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But if I did the same thing to the e.g. Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, IBM couldn't stop me if they wanted to.
Yeah, but then that would violate the business model patents of most blogs I know.
"Bob Hoffenbacker makes a good point in today's New York Times about foreign policy.
[quote of entire gated version of an essay]
I agree.
UPDATE: Commenter 5 makes a good point.
Permalink | Comments(30) | Trackback(0)"