SARS-CoV-2 spike D614G variant confers enhanced replication and transmissibility • Hacker News Board

Re: SARS-CoV-2 spike D614G variant confers enhanced replication and transmissibility

#101

Post by powerapple » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

alexktz wrote: post #73

a_imho wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting old. Last 20 years maybe, but I can't name a technology advancement that happened in the last 10 years that I would really miss. To me it seems like most technology is now done for the sake of doing it and solutions are looking for problems. Not to mention all the dystopian surveillance we have now. Rose tinted glasses and all that, the start of the millennium was a much happier time period imo.

Have you used a 10 year old phone lately?

This is what I imaging would be a perfect set of devices:

  1) a smart watch can read notification, messages, listen to music, podcasts, audio books, receive and make phone calls, voice chat, group chats;
  2) a eink device to read books, browse internet for news (hackernews for example), emails;
  3) game consoles or pc + project + vr for entertainment;
  4) a tablet with keyboard for work (with access to servers in cloud) and netflix, youtube.

I really don't want to carry a phone with me.. it is big, attention seeking and to be honest, not very useful.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 spike D614G variant confers enhanced replication and transmissibility

#102

Post by murphyslab » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

anticensor wrote: post #85

murphyslab wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of the CC BY ND license is meant to reflect the common practice of sharing academic papers, which was often done informally, as opposed to a paywall. I can send you a copy of my paper; you can pass on copies to colleagues. But in doing so, you wouldn't edit it. That's not a freedom which is necessary for sharing a paper. The paper is a complete product. Moreover it would be a breech of the integrity of the work t…

I thought fair use was automatically disclaimed when you receive an explicit licence, reducing the baseline to taint=derivation (which is the main reason open source developers avoid looking at closed source software that performs similar function), unless your licence specifies otherwise. And some countries are not signatory to Berne convention, instead to Buenos Aires convention, which is much stricter and does not…

Regarding this claim:

> fair use was automatically disclaimed

Here's what the organization behind the CC licenses explains:

> By design, CC licenses do not reduce, limit, or restrict any rights under exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair use or fair dealing. If your use of CC-licensed material would otherwise be allowed because of an applicable exception or limitation, you do not need to rely on the CC license or comply with its terms and conditions. This is a fundamental principle of CC licensing. [1]

Regarding this ridiculous assertion:

> And some countries are not signatory to Berne convention, instead to Buenos Aires convention, which is much stricter and does not have a common fair use stipulation.

Every country that is a signatory of the Buenos Aires Convention [2] is ALSO a signatory to the Berne Convention. [3]

Your last claim is not worth substantive reply.

[1] https://creativecommonsusa.org/index.php/ufaqs/what-is-the-d...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buenos_Aires_Convention_S...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berne_Convention_signator...

Re: SARS-CoV-2 spike D614G variant confers enhanced replication and transmissibility

#103

Post by anticensor » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 11:57 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #12

anticensor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should still be BY-SA. Ancillary and auxiliary sources are key to scientific criticism.

What form of criticisms are possible with BY-SA that aren't with BY-CC? Criticism would usually come in the form of new papers which merely reference the previous one.

Direct editing of offending paper while adding you to authors. (that derivative work should still be referenced to the same DOI et al.)