Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

How many quarters after Q1 2016 till Marissa Mayer is unemployed?
	1 or fewer
	2
	4
	Her job is guaranteed; what are you even talking about?

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Engineering works differently from law and medicine in that every field of engineering is separately certified-or not certified. The US cert structure for engineers is really messy and inconsistent as a result- it's actually a bunch of entirely separate professional systems. The word "engineer" in itself, isn't particularly meaningful and isn't regulated unless it's got a specific term in front of it.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 19:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 20:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Please start a separate thread for Transformers chat.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2016 22:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

San Francisco requires Uber and Lyft drivers to get business licenses

good...good...

Next the city should require each Uber/Lyft vehicle to be certified as an ISO-compliant mass transit system.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 15, 2016

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 20:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

rkajdi posted:

You guys also have an inheritance tax and generally don't give handjibbers to the upper class, so it's not just apples to apples here.

Seriously though, the issue is that you're worried about people being able to get a bunch of compensation, then stringing along the tax payments on it to reduce the overall burden. Extra points if they can do it until they die, because with no inheritance tax you can often use death as a way to skip out on more taxes. That kind of thing is part (along with stupidity like letting trusts exist into eternity and giving a poo poo about what how dead people want their money spent) of why we have a mess with the rich in the US.

The US applies the rule against perpetuities (indefinite trusts). There are exceptions for certain kinds of charity transfer systems, but they're pretty limited iirc. The US also has estate taxes, although they're limited and there are loopholes that reduce how much those taxes collect at the federal level.

# ¿ May 3, 2016 15:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

paragon1 posted:

So do you think they know that wetwork is a euphemism for paid murder?

Well, the jackets are reminiscent of that one scene in American Psycho...

# ¿ May 15, 2016 08:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mozi posted:

'W.. who are you?'

'I'm Appman.'

I am venture capital. I am right. I. AM. AnCapMan.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 16:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Musk is claiming on twitter that they paid the recruiter 55$ an hour for the workers, not 5.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 00:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

wateroverfire posted:

Even being paid 10-20x less, the Slovakian workers were getting paid a living wage (for Slovakia). In fact, it was a wage higher than the prevailing one in their country for the same work. It was a really good thing for those workers, who apparantly were also skilled enough to do the work. God forbid that welders from Slovakia get paid a living wage instead of welders from California, right? Is that not an equally valid perspective?

Where are the Slovenian workers living, again?

# ¿ May 19, 2016 16:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Wateroverfire, where were these Slytherin workers living? Where were they working?

# ¿ May 19, 2016 20:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

pangstrom posted:

You pointed out the discrepancy after others had and now you're going back for yet another pass. I'm not the posting police but maybe let this one go or if you have some clever endgame go ahead and skip to that.

I'm reiterating the point of where the labor was occurring, and thus which laws are relevant. I was the one who directly invoked the underlying geographic problem first. It cuts past all of the other objections. The Slytherin bit is to indicate the specific country name isn't important.

Feinne posted:

I'll make short shrift of these pesky unions with my magic! Disrupto Laborum!

accio servus!

# ¿ May 19, 2016 20:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The average donation to DAO was 7.5k. I'm guessing that's due to some horrific outliers.

# ¿ May 21, 2016 05:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lucy Heartfilia posted:

Explain the existence of stupid trivial software patents.

Better asked in the law questions thread.

# ¿ May 22, 2016 20:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Harik posted:

You say that, yet Japan has had to repeatedly crack down on games skirting gambling laws with cash-shop random loot boxes.

Just because they don't break US laws doesn't mean that other countries are as lazez faire about predatory practices and children's games.

Worth noting that Japanese companies doing that usually have yakuza ties.

# ¿ May 26, 2016 00:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Chrungka posted:

It appears that FSF has a different opinion on issue of copyrighting API:

(source)

Oracle are not claiming the scope of control FSF say they are, nor is the nature of the law what they pretend it to be. APIs themselves are not copyrightable. API structure, sequence and layout are copyrightable. That's a very important difference-it's the foundation of a variety of copyright IP schema. People who want to use the same API structure can license it from the copyright holder, or reverse engineer it using a clean room procedure. Google ran into this problem because they intentionally violated the reverse engineering process.

Practically every part of that statement is inaccurate to the law of the case. Regardless of what you think copyright law on APIs should be, the FSF isn't a good source to use when you want to know what the law actually is-they're being willfully dishonest. This is a problem with many organizations doing legal advocacy, but I have to admit I've never seen it be as craven as in the tech IP context.

# ¿ May 28, 2016 18:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Munkeymon posted:

As I've tried to explain in the SCOTUS thread, the computer doesn't care about the legal distinction and the SSO is part of the API. APIs are effectively copyrightable now, depending on which language you're using.

"Part" =! "the API". It turns out language is important!

Space Gopher posted:

Your "very important difference" is meaningless, because an API is, by definition, the structure, sequence, and organization of publicly exposed methods used to communicate with a system. Take away the structure, and there is nothing left, because an API is necessarily divorced from its implementation.

And, as was discussed to death in the SCOTUS thread, it's impossible to use a clean-room reverse engineering process to come up with a compatible reimplementation of an API because the API is exactly the spec that goes into a clean room reverse engineering process. If APIs are in fact copyrightable, then every single clean room reverse engineering job ever done is a violation of API copyright. This is a fundamental change in software IP law, and trying to claim otherwise is hilariously disingenuous.

Ultimately, you're trying to stake a claim on a distinction as meaningless as "books aren't copyrightable, the words in books are" - yes, that might be technically true, but it provides no insight and certainly doesn't support any arguments you try to build on top of it.

Yes. The words aren't copyrightable, the order and structure are.That is how copyright works. Clean room reverse engineering is entirely viable- otherwise past applications of the method wouldn't have been legal. Google decided to skip a bunch of steps and break the cleanroom- that's the whole reason the suit happened in the first place. You explicitly described the violative steps google took in the SCOTUS thread- why are you reversing on this now?

# ¿ May 29, 2016 01:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

twodot posted:

Can you give the list of steps involved in doing a clean reverse engineering that produces a Java compatible library? My understanding of what a clean room would make such a thing impossible or a pointless formality.

It's closer to your conception of the latter. The problem is that the alternative is no copyright on code structures. The same protections, and methods of reversal, exist for copyright and other IP in other settings.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 29, 2016

# ¿ May 29, 2016 01:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

twodot posted:

I fine with having copyright on code structure, I want to understand what the people talking about clean rooms are trying to say, because my best understanding is they don't understand one of clean rooms or code structure, which isn't particularly charitable.

The crux of the problem is that they're getting their information from a set of legal advocacy groups that want to disrupt(wahey) extant software IP law. Motivated reasoning's a hell of a drug.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 01:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Software IP law is now in flux, though, as the discussion in the SCOTUS thread and a glance at Wikipedia should tell you. It's really not clear where software fits, as its form and function are intertwined in a way that make copyright and patents both extremely awkward to apply, resulting in inconsistent case law, and making every legal challenge a crapshoot. You're unfairly tarnishing the FOSS community by comparing them to "disruptive" (read: flouting regulations through technology) startups.

Is urban ground transportation and short term space rental not also in flux? Are there not similar changes and legal cases being brought in those sectors? The difference is the people who are speaking, and the language they use- and how close an affinity those people, and that language, have with the forum demographics. And Google has a lot more money and market power, of course.

To be clear, I'm comparing Google (who set up the case to force a particular outcome that will give them greater leverage and shut out a competitor) to disruptive startups, in this particular case. The FSF or EFF are more like libertarian legal groups such as the WLF in this analogy- their ideology lets them see and present the information involved in only the way that makes their cause just. They are then accepted by people who are part of the culture as an objective and ethical source.

# ¿ May 29, 2016 02:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

my brand

Also, courtesy of Sundae in the TPS thread, meet Josephine, an excellent way to die from botulism poisoning.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 04:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sundae posted:

I actually got Josephine from this thread originally.

Whoops!

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Probably not botulism, unless they're canning. Botulism requires anaerobic conditions, such as you get when you put something in a sealed jar and don't adequately heat-treat it. Salmonella, listeria, and whatnot, you betcha. Plus possible liver failure if your nice sweet neighbor went mushroom-gathering in the hills. We had a set of deaths from that last year, when some Russian IIRC immigrants made mushroom soup for the private nursing home they ran. Apparently they don't have Amanita phalloides in Russia, so nobody needs to know the difference.

But yeah. Food inspection is one of those pieces of governmental interference I do not wish to see disrupted.

Without getting into the details, I think similar scenarios are exactly what will occur- people are acting as home-grown caterers, and the company partially exists to circumvent state regs on home canning/preserving businesses.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 06:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Non Serviam posted:

What you wrote, as well as the sources you used, was very interesting. Thank you very much!

EDIT: Theranos withdrew the request for emergency clearance of their Zika test.
http://fortune.com/2016/08/31/theranos-zika-test-application/

Good. There's pretty much no company I trust with emergency approvals, let alone Theranos.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 15:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I disagree with pretty much all of this. sci-hub is no better, no more ethical, and no more legal, than any other IP piracy system or disruptor we discuss in this thread. It's also probably another Russian effort at making GBS threads up rivals, given its location, practices, primary targets, and the defensive rhetoric involved.

Mystic_Shadow posted:

Authors not only don't get paid in academic publishing, they have to pay to get their work published (the rate was about $300 a page in my field.) Typically this money comes out of whatever grant the professor or lab supervisor got, but in the end it reinforces the idea that if you're not part of the ivory tower, it is really difficult to get any work published unless you are already rich.

Pay to publish is not a universal practice in academic publishing- it varies by publisher. It's also done by foss publications.

Non Serviam posted:

Yeah. The whole point of copyright was to give an incentive to create; removing that also removes most people's willingness to create. It turns out that dedicating a lot of time that will give you no money is something most people don't want to do.
Academic publishing, on the other hand, is a racket. Authors don't get paid, peer reviewers don't get paid, only the publisher.
Now, I think there's a legit reason to pay publishers, since they do have the servers available, not to mention the efforts of curators like Westlaw, which often summarizes cases, links them together, provides analysis, etc. However, the current rates are simply excessive.

If you think the rates for academic publishers are excessive, which may well be true for some of the for-profit ones, the proper response probably isn't to steal everything from all of them.

on buses: it turns out that public transportation infrastructure isn't necessarily supposed to be maximally efficient if it still serves a clientele that otherwise don't get to have jobs.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Sep 2, 2016

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 15:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Not when it's more efficient by because it's done by a third party that exists by flouting existing safety and employment regulations.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 16:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

wateroverfire posted:

Oh god can we not do this again.

Yeah, sure. Feel free to leave. You were wrong the last time you championed regulatory evasion, and you're wrong this time too.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 17:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The US legal caselaw is probably going to be freely and fully publicly available, at least at the federal levels (and probably most states) in 10-15 years. It's part of why the two big entities in private legal databases released premium versions of their systems. Other countries will follow/are following suit.

edit: fun fact: part of my research program involves taking what works from scientific and legal communication systems and cross-pollinating.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 3, 2016

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 06:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm posted:

I'll believe it when I see it. The Lexis and West lobbies are pretty strong. Also, beyond searching (which sucks on both), Shepardizing (or the generic version) is really where the real value is and still probably requires an actual human, so I don't see that going the way of the do-do any time soon. It would be great though.

It's happening. Again, that's explicitly the reason they developed Nexis and Next- to give added value and try to keep customers as things become publicly available.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 4, 2016

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 16:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The FDA still does that, but it's not clear that they will in this context- they usually do it for product contamination that kills people. I think the last one was a peanut butter CEO.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 18:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I've got an effortpost on the subject in one of the pseudoscience or natural products fallacy threads, but basically the FDA is operated with a tiny fraction of its necessary budget, and is the eternal target of a really scary anti-regulation think tank that likes to set up test cases to remove whole swathes of FDA regulatory authority. This colors their approach to things- enforcement action is expensive and risky. I'm not sure that's relevant to what's happened with Theranos- I'd need to look more closely at how their stuff was actually defined under the law.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 02:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Here's a story from the Verge detailing how they did it. I know relatively little about medical devices, so I can't speak to its accuracy without some time for research.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 02:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Subjunctive posted:

The US already did that too, right?

Yes, at least the NIH has.

namaste faggots posted:

You can already get a lot of papers on that uzbek site.

The difference is that's incredibly illegal.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 16:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mobby_6kl posted:

Has anyone been sued for downloading papers about panda loving illegaly? Not that I'd encourage it because that would be wrong but seems like a neat thing for broke students or independent researchers.

Yes. It's hard to trace, though, and people like to rationalize why it's ok to do something illegal if it benefits them.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 19:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

DACK FAYDEN posted:

Never forget Aaron Swartz. Former partner of Reddit, man who downloaded three-quarters-ish of JSTOR to a server at MIT, hounded by the government until he killed himself. If ever a unicorn was one of the good ones...

Sorry. Personal soft spot of mine.

(heck, his wiki page even compares the sweet Kazakh site to his work.)

"hounded by the government" meaning was subject to an entirely conventional criminal prosecution for scraping massive amounts of information from a non-profit digital library.

lancemantis posted:

90% of ~free the papers~ talk is pure nerd ideology; access for researchers in poorer/less developed institutions is a serious issue and the journals are a PITA, but most people discussing don't care about access for practical reasons

# ¿ Sep 9, 2016 19:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ILLiad and numerous equivalents exist. They usually take 1-2 days if you're in the continental US.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2016 22:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The charges against Swartz were among the strongest available under the law because that's how prosecution works. The entirely conventional practice is to raise the maximum in order to encourage a plea deal- the whole reason for the additional charges in Swartz's case was because he decided he wanted to plead not guilty and force the government to spend millions of dollars on the case, despite his obvious guilt on the much lighter initial charges.

JSTOR is not a vulture hiding behind its nonprofit status. Its explicit purpose since the time of its foundation was to accelerate and improve the availability of research. That Swartz targeted them, and tried to scrape their databases, just highlights the absurdity of the ideology and actions involved. It's not as if he was chaining himself to the doors of the Barker library, or publishing internal profit reports from Elsevier.

It turns out that information doesn't want to be free- in fact there is a cost if we want to be able to know or keep its value. People want information to be free, and they also don't want to see or experience the costs involved. I mean, this is a familiar story. A group wants something, vaguely conceives of how it could be done more efficiently with technology, ignores associated costs, objections and obstacles, and then rationalizes ignoring the law in pursuit of their convenience. The difference is this time the group in question is people in academia, and some of the people being inconvenienced are goons.

Doc Hawkins posted:

It's a role begging to be filled by a national public service, like health care.

This is being worked on- and it's something that was being worked on before people started stealing large amounts of information from publishing databases. Hell, I'm indirectly working on it-it's a part of my broader research on miscommunication within and between scientific discourses. Inconsistent availability of past research is a major culprit in the development of pointless conflict in scientific discussions. I'm looking forward to removing that problem as much as anyone.

It turns out, though, that regardless of their price-gouging nature, the stuff publishers did was complicated and expensive. Attempts to replace them with various kinds of free or open journal do not consistently work, or turn out not to be able to sustain their quality because of upkeep costs and unexpected issues. To make things worse, the desired end goals of more available journals are commonly conflated with other goals found in the FOSS movement, producing disruptions in academic and scientific discourse.

Will all academic publications be freely available to all users, with the government paying the costs of maintenance, upkeep and editing? Yes- eventually, mostly. The final system will probably be less free or centralized than anyone would like, in part due to ongoing disagreements within and between both academic and government stakeholder groups about what the final product should look like. In the meantime, we still don't need to pretend that our desire for convenience and free stuff is any more of a license to break the law than it is when Uber or Thiel do it.

silence_kit posted:

Often it is because the research is totally irrelevant and not interesting to anybody in the private sector.

Also, even interested and generous private sector funding sources tend to suck as people who can indirectly control research. There are a lot of nightmare stories about not only corporate bias in research, but also just having to coordinate and maintain funding from people who don't know the field involved, or how research works generally.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 04:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

This is summarily not true. The entire premise of a paid journal in of itself is self defeating, because putting yourself behind a paywall hurts your own impact factor. People publish to journals with higher impact factor- not to those that are the most expensive to get articles from.

I mean it would be great if the the money for these journals actually went to reviewers or to higher quality editors, but in my own experience within academia this is simply not the case.

You are missing my point. Maintaining and curating journals and the information within them costs money. That some parts of that process are currently done voluntarily doesn't remove that problem- and indeed, volunteer reviewing and editing brings with it a number of additional problems and perverse incentives, as do efforts at reform that involve replacing or modifying peer review. And just because the other parts of running an academic journal aren't things you see getting done, doesn't mean they are easy or free. Like food safety or employment regulations, it turns out there's a reason the current system is structured the way it is, and changing it in a way that's not deeply destructive requires more than taking all pdfs in existence and crowdsourcing file tags for them.

silence_kit posted:

Are you an idiot? Do you think that the academic publishing companies charge exorbitant fees because it is expensive to host .pdfs on a website and have volunteers do all of the work? There's no way in hell that academic publishing companies are operating anywhere close to at cost.

I didn't say they operate at cost-of course they don't. I said that information, including the work involved in setting up and maintaining journals, much of which is not visible to consumers, has a cost. The costs associated with organizing and maintaining academic databases are one of the continuous obstacles to federalizing them- no one wants to be fully on the hook for it. For example, one of the closest things to a success in this area, PMC, works because a lot of the preliminary work is done by publishers. PMC exists primarily through the collaboration of several larger entities in medicine (not least of them the federal government) applying pressure to the publishing industry. It's an outgrowth of PubMed, which was itself created in no small part so that entities like PMC could later be created. There's already work being done on these things, work that started almost as soon as people in the federal funding agencies realized the internet was going to be a thing. At the same time, the costs and conflicts in ideology that have to be resolved before academic publishing can be rendered fully public are massive.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 05:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This is what I meant by conflicting ideologies. A major divide between advocates of systems that do away with traditional blinded pre-publication peer review, such as arXiv, and detractors, is the availability and feasibility of blinded review, and the availability of dedicated reviewers at all. Fields with extreme internal language divisions or complexity in method or language see blinded review as impossible, and fields with highly coherent, rapid-throughput research (like math and a number of STEMs) see blinding as less necessary. That leaves...all the other fields, where blinding and peer review in advance of publication are useful to prevent social and perverse incentive effects that can pollute discourse (though there can be other problems with pure repository systems like arXiv that are more universal). What works for some doesn't work for others- but that doesn't make their fields less legitimate, their needs more valid, or "disruption" a better approach than the gradual. stakeholder-inclusive development of public/federal funding and support structures for academic publishing.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 08:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 17:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Non Serviam posted:

In my field, law, there are many top quality open access journals. I don't know how open access works in STEM areas though, so I don't know what something like the New Journal Of Very Complex Biochemistry and Quantum Mechanics* does that it needs a large revenue to stay afloat.

*not a real journal

Don't lie- there's no such thing as a top quality law journal.

(law journals are operated, edited, and usually reviewed almost exclusively by law students. Law journals are open access because they're fully subsidized as a prestige effort by law schools, used to enhance law student resumes. Good law articles tend not to be published in law journals at all, and law journal research is generally worse as a discourse than pretty much any other area I've studied for a few reasons.)

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 03:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Non Serviam posted:

That's simply not true. Even journals that are run by students do not use students as reviewers. What field are you in, and how are you judging the quality of law research? Because you're demonstrating a gigantic ignorance here.

Since you use the word "subsidized," what are the enormous costs that you feel need to be covered via the predatory fees currently being charged?

My apologies, it's been a couple years since I studied them; I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say that the majority of law journals do not have peer review at all. Instead, student editors perform cite checks after making the initial publication decision, which is normally all that passes for review. Student staff members also frequently publish in their own institution's journal.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 08:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 20:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

nm, a study covering one of the points you're looking for was linked further up the page. Yes, these externalities exist, yes they are a problem. The entirety of the benefits and advantages these companies are using to their benefit exist through evading extant regulations. Those regulations exist for a reason. These "disruptors" are trying to take advantage of the naive and solipsistic preference for immediate convenience that can give them a lasting market share and support base among the entitled and self-centered. They are counting on people not noticing or caring about the harms that the evasion of these regulations causes, especially when the harms are delayed or transposed to others.

What would an ethical, legal AirBnB look like? It would look like a hotel. What would an ethical, legal Uber look like? It would look like a taxi company.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 00:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

«‹›7 »