111–120 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but in the area of education and science, limiting access is holding back the progress of the entire human race. Although I doubt Adobe and Microsoft did this out of altruism: By allowing piracy of their software for private use, it became widely used, and at work people wanted to continue using the software they knew -- this time paying for it.
Of course! And it was a win-win situation for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please consult the various citations under links and references provided in this entire subthread, which claim otherwise. Galileo was an important scientist and his model did turn out to be a step in the right direction, but historical record suggests that he didn't have enough evidence to promote his model back at the time.
"enough evidence to promote his model" I don't know what this is supposed to mean. For Galileo, his observations that Venus had phases, like the Moon, and that Jupiter had its own moons, and more, were enough to convince him that the Copernican theory was more likely to be correct than the geocentric model. We now know that he interpreted the evidence correctly.
TL;DR: The models that were popular in times of Galileo weren't stories told to poor villagers by the Evil Church; they were precise mathematical tools that could be used to predict in advance the positions of planets, eclipses, etc. They also had an elaborate explanations for what the parts of their models mean. And then comes Galileo with a theory that's inferior, built on arbitrary assumptions, doesn't agree with observation and fails to match the predictive capabilities of established models.
The strength of a model is its ability to predict the future, and therefore no sane, rational person could accept Galileo's model over the common ones based on the evidence they collected and analyzed so far. That's what I mean by "enough evidence to promote one model over another". It eventually took Newton, few decades later, to basically sort things out by providing a) an actual explanation for why stuff would orbit other stuff, and b) mathematical model that spat out better predictions than the previous models did while being also simpler. And only then scientific world moved to accept the new picture - when it became the one that matched available evidence the best (it still took a few hundred years to sort out the kinks though).
People in times of Galileo weren't stupid, the Church wasn't supressing astronomy, and Galileo himself got sacked for being an ass to authority.
The only "online piracy" I see here is when Elsevier demands US$30 from you to get a copy of a paper written by scientists paid for by your tax dollars, who paid Elsevier page fees to publish it . Elsevier and similar companies are the thieves here, and they have a hell of a lot of nerve to be accusing scientists of "stealing" and "piracy" for working to create the very knowledge Elsevier shamelessly exploits. (Even…
Last week linguists issued Elsevier an ultimatum, demanding fair open access for the journal Lingua [0,1]: > We asked for the following: 1) The journal is transferred to full Open Access status, 2) Article Processing Charges (APCs) cost 400 euros, 3) The copyright of articles remains with the authors, 4) The journal henceforth operates under a cc-by licence, 5) Ownership of the journal is transferred to the collectiv…
The only "online piracy" I see here is when Elsevier demands US$30 from you to get a copy of a paper written by scientists paid for by your tax dollars, who paid Elsevier page fees to publish it . Elsevier and similar companies are the thieves here, and they have a hell of a lot of nerve to be accusing scientists of "stealing" and "piracy" for working to create the very knowledge Elsevier shamelessly exploits. (Even…
Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Maybe something would start to happen if scientists preferentially avoided citing non-openly published papers. They won't though, because their work is too competitive, but it might help to put a damper on it.
Couldn't the scientist refuse to peer review non-openly published papers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last week linguists issued Elsevier an ultimatum, demanding fair open access for the journal Lingua [0,1]: > We asked for the following: 1) The journal is transferred to full Open Access status, 2) Article Processing Charges (APCs) cost 400 euros, 3) The copyright of articles remains with the authors, 4) The journal henceforth operates under a cc-by licence, 5) Ownership of the journal is transferred to the collectiv…
Now it looks like Elsevier is not going to cooperate Are we really surprised? How would you feel if some of your customers demanded you turn your business over to them for zero compensation? I wish the linguists all the luck in the world starting their new, open-access journal.
Probably the same way encyclopedia companies felt as wikipedia grew. Bad news for them.
Peer Review = Flawed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Tax Payer Money going to research not available to continue science = Flawed Policy How can an article about this not mention Aaron Schwartz?
> Peer Review = Flawed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Then again, as per your article > Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative And the problem outlined with TFA has little to do with peer-review, it has to do with open access which is largely orthogonal.
So they take grants and federal money put the results behind pay walls and say they are doing us a service.
That is flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people in the US don't realize how much better the US library system is than most of the rest of the world. Even the developed world!
Could you elaborate? I haven't seen any differences in the Swedish library system compared to the US one, and my experiences with the German libraries have also been good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please consult the various citations under links and references provided in this entire subthread, which claim otherwise. Galileo was an important scientist and his model did turn out to be a step in the right direction, but historical record suggests that he didn't have enough evidence to promote his model back at the time.
"enough evidence to promote his model" I don't know what this is supposed to mean. For Galileo, his observations that Venus had phases, like the Moon, and that Jupiter had its own moons, and more, were enough to convince him that the Copernican theory was more likely to be correct than the geocentric model. We now know that he interpreted the evidence correctly.