Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#31

Post by bpt3 »

kragen wrote: post #25
yig wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New articles are Creative Commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-NC-ND).

The new articles aren't important. The ACM is probably never again going to publish a paper as influential as Liskov's paper I mentioned above, or Knuth's "Structured Programming With go to Statements", or "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/362929.362947 , or Schorre's "META-II: A Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800257.808896 , or Ken…

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...

And to claim that new articles aren't important or that the ACM will never publish a highly impactful paper again is absurd.

Enjoy your free access to a wealth of human knowledge you played no part in creating, rather than waving a meaningless declaration around demanding more for nothing and demeaning individual authors.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#32

Post by bsenftner »

rezmason wrote: post #13

Holy smoke!! I have so many old documents to read now. Does anyone want to form an ACM Cool Papers Club?

At some point, a professor was retiring, and he had about 200 issues printed of the "ACM Transactions on Graphics", an entire book shelf. I asked and got it. The years he had were the 70's and 80's, when 3D graphics were research and transitioned from "how to render a line" to "stochastic motion blurred hyper-surface photon tracing". I used to read them as entertainment. Amazing stuff.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#33

Post by kragen »

bpt3 wrote: post #31
kragen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new articles aren't important. The ACM is probably never again going to publish a paper as influential as Liskov's paper I mentioned above, or Knuth's "Structured Programming With go to Statements", or "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/362929.362947 , or Schorre's "META-II: A Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800257.808896 , or Ken…

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... And to claim that new articles aren't important or that the ACM will never publish a highly impactful paper again is absurd. Enjoy your free access to a wealth of human knowledge you played no part in creating, rather than waving a meaningless declaration around demanding more for nothing and demeaning individual authors.

Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have.

I'm not demanding that the ACM do more. I'm demanding that they do less, by renouncing their right to sue other people for legally archive and redistribute ACM papers, so the ACM don't bear the full responsibility of doing so themselves. That way, I can do more of that wealth-of-knowledge-creating stuff you're so excited about, benefiting the ACM's members. It's a win-win.

It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing. That affects how we write literally every line of code in every language today except maybe assembly. Maybe one of the LLM papers might compete?

On a different note, it seems like you mostly post comments on HN in order to personally attack other commenters, as you are doing here, and to advocate political positions. That isn't what the site is for. If you keep doing it, they're going to ban you.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#34

Post by kragen »

lsuresh wrote: post #8

USENIX and their conferences were the absolute best to publish with. You as a researcher focus on submitting papers and/or being part of the PC. They help organize the whole conference instead of depending on an army of volunteers (you won't see "general chairs" and "local chairs" unlike with ACM). And all papers were open access without even needing a login: you literally just click the PDF from the conference websi…

Many USENIX papers are not open access, despite being available by literally just clicking the PDF from the conference website. (See the definition in https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration.) This is not for any nefarious reason; a lot of them predate the general understanding of why open-access licensing was important, as well as Creative Commons's founding.

You'll note, for example, that https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin... bears no license of any kind, and the unfortunate fact is that under current copyright law is that random people redistributing copies of the paper is by default illegal.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#35

Post by DonHopkins »

lsuresh wrote: post #8

USENIX and their conferences were the absolute best to publish with. You as a researcher focus on submitting papers and/or being part of the PC. They help organize the whole conference instead of depending on an army of volunteers (you won't see "general chairs" and "local chairs" unlike with ACM). And all papers were open access without even needing a login: you literally just click the PDF from the conference websi…

>without even needing a login:

Or rather a ";login:".

https://www.usenix.org/store/publications/login

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#36

Post by DonHopkins »

kragen wrote: post #33
bpt3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... And to claim that new articles aren't important or that the ACM will never publish a highly impactful paper again is absurd. Enjoy your free access to a wealth of human knowledge you played no part in creating, rather than waving a meaningless declaration around demanding more for nothing and demeaning individual authors.

Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have. I'm n…

"Attention Considered Harmful"

"GOTO Is All You Need"

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#37

Post by kragen »

DonHopkins wrote: post #36
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have. I'm n…

"Attention Considered Harmful" "GOTO Is All You Need"

That last one sounds like Scheme. Or Levien's Io.

The former sounds like a LessWrong fanfic.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#39

Post by newswasboring »

kragen wrote: post #33
bpt3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... And to claim that new articles aren't important or that the ACM will never publish a highly impactful paper again is absurd. Enjoy your free access to a wealth of human knowledge you played no part in creating, rather than waving a meaningless declaration around demanding more for nothing and demeaning individual authors.

Other authors of research and I are the ones demanding this. We're the ones giving the gift horse in the first place. People who don't play a part in creating human knowledge generally aren't interested in reading papers about how hard-to-use software that's no longer available worked on obsolete computers they don't have access to, especially when the problems that software solved are problems they don't have. I'm n…

> It really isn't very likely that anyone will ever publish a computer science paper as impactful as Dijkstra's go-to-statement thing.

Ok, disclaimer that I am not a computer scientist (work in semiconductors so only tangentially related). But, this statement has the same "end of history" energy has the famous Philipp von Jolly quote about end of theoretical physics:

"In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

I'm not claiming you are saying its end of CS, just the claim that there cannot be a new paradigm discovered in CS doesn't sit right with me.

Re: ACM Transitions to Full Open Access

#40

Post by OJFord »

tempfile wrote: post #23
jazzypants wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally down for that. Maybe a discord server or something?

What an irony to celebrate open access on discord!

Chat for free, but some private channels & access to the weekly discussion call require Server Nitro 3000+
Post reply on HN