61–70 of 280 posts
I donated ~$300 to SciHub and encourage you all to donate as well. Please give what you can, her bitcoin address can be found at the bottom of the homepage. https://sci-hub.do/
scihub.org/donate/ looks scam.
https://sci-hub.tech/donation/ at least has the same bitcoin address as sci-hub.do, but as for PayPal et al... ???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When our daughter was born with a rare life threatening condition my wife used SciHub to read articles about her condition. While the doctors had merely skimmed the pages, my wife pored over them and found a suggestion of using a particular drug. After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us sh…
> After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, if there wasn't a SciHub where would a person get free-gratis access to all scientific papers in one place (without being tracked AFAIAA, nor advertised to!). SciHub seems to have value beyond any "anti-value" Elsevier has. SciHub use is tortuous infringement in my country, this comment is in not way an endorsement of its use.
ArXiv and a long list of other free repositories are way better than SciHub for legally sharing free-gratis access to scientific papers. Yes there are many such repositories, but all are indexed e.g. by Google Scholar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.
Or didn't want to take the risk of using a somewhat experimental medicine (perhaps justifiably so, I don't know the details), or maybe the evidence is still promising but otherwise still very thin. Or they just didn't have the time to really research it as they also had dozens of other patients. There could be any number of reasons; without more details, I think it's quite a leap to immediately assume they're "lazy/o…
I think you’re absolutely correct about having dozens of other patients. My wife wrote a long email, that was forwarded to the doctors, citing various articles with links to the medical journals and the doctors couldn’t thank her enough for it. It wasn’t until that happened that someone prescribed the medication for her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When our daughter was born with a rare life threatening condition my wife used SciHub to read articles about her condition. While the doctors had merely skimmed the pages, my wife pored over them and found a suggestion of using a particular drug. After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us sh…
wow, vanilla comment but this is just really inspiring. kudos to her and best wishes to y'all going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.
Or didn't want to take the risk of using a somewhat experimental medicine (perhaps justifiably so, I don't know the details), or maybe the evidence is still promising but otherwise still very thin. Or they just didn't have the time to really research it as they also had dozens of other patients. There could be any number of reasons; without more details, I think it's quite a leap to immediately assume they're "lazy/o…
I get why it happens: they have to deal directly with patients who 99% of the time are not research capable and if they claim to be research capable what they really mean is that they've been sharing conspiracy theories on facebook. Doctors build defense mechanisms against the nonsense (authoritative tone, dismissive attitude) that grate on academic sensibilities. They can be slow to come around but eventually they usually do.
Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement. As much as I like Sci-Hub, it is clearly a service that disregards and breaches copyright. If you advocate for Twitter exercising a heavy hand on greyer areas (Trump), you shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same for clear breaches of their TOS/Laws (SciHub). It scares me that these…
Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's not a grey area. In the case of Sci-Hub what part of the ToS do they violate? The message cites counterfeiting, which doesn't seem to apply (unless that's a translation issue?). And if Piracy is a violation of their terms then why are there plenty of piracy to…
At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules if they want.
As a major source of information, is that what you want? Is getting bogged down in ToS details really the important issue here?
If we yell at Twitter and demand them to ban certain content, they are also going to exercise that power when it serves their interests too. You can't have it both ways.
At some point we need to stop the hypocrisy, recognize that SciHub is too valuable to the community to be shut down, and fix laws so that it becomes either legal or useless. That's no easy task, but it's much better than having scientists from all over the world rely on it while simultaneously pretending they are dangerous criminals.
SciHub doesn't have value so much as Elsevier has "anti-value". Scihub is a space without the negative effect of Elsevier gatekeeping, thus seeming to have a net positive effect. Instead of doing anything at all with SciHub, we should instead fight Elsevier. First blow should be on the basis that Elsevier is anti-competitive, by the logic that if wasn't there would be no reason for it to succeed at all. Second blow s…
Currently locking people out of information that is often funded with public money is not good for society. So having a small publication charge that can be covered in research is a good compromise to keep this work going on. Now the reward system of publication with impact factors and citations is indeed also entirely broken but that is another issue. But there is a lot more work that is thought of in the publication process. Yes peer reviewers are not paid, but finding the right reviewers, dealing with conflicts of interest, getting them to respond, and corresponding is not free. It takes time. And time is money. The more selective a journal is, the more they have to reject so those papers cost you time without a finished product. All of this does not cost the money that Elsevier reaps but it is not free.
Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement. As much as I like Sci-Hub, it is clearly a service that disregards and breaches copyright. If you advocate for Twitter exercising a heavy hand on greyer areas (Trump), you shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same for clear breaches of their TOS/Laws (SciHub). It scares me that these…
I agree that HN comments were completely and totally wrong to be onboard with banning Trump AND I also do not agree with banning Sci-Hub... but the solution isn't screaming at Twitter. The solution is using our freedom of speech and expression to start creating and supporting other services. I know that's hard, but at least in your personal life, try to use ActivityPub services and encourage everyone else to do so. S…
My consumption of information is so much better now that I have had to seek out reliable sources.