HN user
From the pdf at the end of the article, this estimate is based on a study of 19000 consumers from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, UK, US. The population of all these countries is 1.5 billion, but there are more than 3 billion internet users. Also, a study based on 0.000001 of the 1.5 billion population?
The Science Advances article is http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3807
"Seventeen surgeons and 13 medical students participated in this study." According to Table S1 they were classified as:
- 8 expert, mean age 35, 700 laparoscopic procedures in average
- 9 novice surgeons, mean age 31, 60 laparoscopic procedures in average
- 7 trainees and 5 controls, medical school year 1-4, 0 laparoscopic procedures.
The article has 8 authors.
Links to drafts?
Ha, like Eve's sniffer ring from my Internet of Smells story http://telegra.ph/Internet-of-Smells-04-26
But what if it is not a copyright violation but it looks like one to some dumb filter? For say 0.5 million articles from arXiv?
Sure, they are not published illegally. IANAL but as I understand the process, is like this: the author submits to arXiv and either (a) gives arXiv a perpetual NON-EXCLUSIVE licence to distribute (which does not change the fact that the copyright is with the author) or (b) the author chooses a CC-BY licence. The author submits the article to Journal and after acceptance, may transfer the copyright to Journal. Is perfectly legal and it works like this for a significant part of the arXiv articles. See also here in the comments for cases when a revised version of the article from Journal is posted on arXiv. But now, with the new EU Copyright Directive, how will this delicate process interact with the dumb one-size-fits-all automatic filters which may detect (wrongly) that the article on arXiv infringes the copyright of the Journal. What if arXiv will receive a bombardment of requests from various Journals? What will they do? They are admirable but they don't have the surface to fight this ddossing from journals. Or maybe my concerns are void, I'd be very happy if this is the case.
But arXiv is not small, it has 1.4 million e-prints, is far bigger than most of other scientific platforms. It is non-commercial though.
Thank you. Anybody who has any influence in the discussion, please help to make this clear. It is important for the researchers, I think. In this particular case arXiv is by no means "small" (has 1.4 million articles) but is non-commercial, What about Figshare which may classify as commercial? Other platforms?
Well in mathematics and physics the usual thing to do is to first post on arXiv and then submit to the journal. ArXiv references are totally allowed. I heard that the situation is different in other fields but as you say this is not relevant for this discussion.
Right, will arXiv implement such filters? Same question for other green or gold OA platforms. We all know about Elsevier, but if I put my paranoid hat then for gold OA this is even more perverse, will they try to kill green OA (not that I believe in this failed classification which separates between green "repositories" for archiving and gold publication platforms). Anyway arXiv is a monument which has to be protected from this madness.
Oh I replied to another comment. The answer is "no". Fact is that 1/3 (anyway a significant proportion which can be referenced) of the arXiv articles appear later in journals. So it is a totally credible concern. The arXiv has a system of copyrights which allow them either a perpetual non-exclusive dissemination right, or a CC-BY copyright.
Why not? AFAIK about a 1/3 of the arXiv articles are later published in journals.
I'd like to see a discussion around these aspects. I see only cries re big platforms and news outlets.I'm neither of these.
Two more examples examples for arXiv and one for Figshare. (1) Article in journal has a flaw. For some reason the journal is slow or unhelpful concerning a correct version, so the author posts on arXiv a revised and perhaps much bigger version. Filters (will these be on arXiv?) detect a copyright infringement. (2) I translate an Euler article and post it on arXiv (with all attributions). Or an English translation of an obscure German or Russian article by a great mathematician. (3) I post on Figshare (and GitHub?) the meat of a published article (like data, procedures, results of experiments, programs) in order to make the research Open Science. I explain the context but maybe I don't pass the automated filter which detects a copyright infringement. For all examples, same questions as before.
Example: article in arXiv gets later published in a journal. Will the arXiv article version be still available for anybody? Only for non-EU people? Will be removed from arXiv? None of these?
As a EU researcher, reader and author, I ask: does this reform affect my use of arXiv or say figshare? Until now I don't have a clear answer.
... and if in doubt you'd better call Saul!
Earth is flat and the theory of evolution is bogus. You will not allow and will not allow any third party to publish or provide any benchmark or comparison test results. Done with Science.
True for both comments. In the case of the "ideal" lisp machine, in my mind should be something which rewrites local patterns in memory, randomly, in many places. It is possible, theoretically. Multiheaded TMs can also be seen in the same way, provided the state of the heads are also actually on the tape. Both models are particular rewrite systems and among them the lambda calculus based one is simpler (has fewer rewrites) than the TM one. Now that we really feel the need for decentralized computing, maybe some simple generic hardware (much simpler than a TM style processor) could be more fit than what we have now.
My guess is that because the accent was put on serial computations. I may be wrong but for for me the big selling point of a(n ideal) lisp machine is that if made right you could cut the machine in half and get two lisp machines. Conversely, two lisp machines working together are a bigger lisp machine, while two Turing machines working together are not a Turing machine. Maybe now is the time for these machines, or better machine parts randomly assembled by the big blind watchmaker [0] over the web.
See section V Simulation Results https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.05308.pdf
Latest version https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10228v2
For me the takeaway message is: "Fabric is the first blockchain system to support the execution of distributed applications written in standard programming languages"
After more reading, it is horrible. Even if the answers seem to be (0) no (1) maybe (2) yes, the main point of interest for researchers is that they will become publishers slaves, or else they have to not publish (anything which might result in a copyright filter). Give not publish, or be a slave.
Open Science fan here, I have some concrete questions about this copyright, publishers and linktax story, for example: (0) - will Scihub be affected? (1) - will arXiv link instead of the published article link be affected? (2) - will the social media companies start to apply filters to the search results and timelines???
More precisely, a 5 frames animation was encoded into bacterial DNA and retrieved in the genome of descendants after several generations https://www.nature.com/news/lights-camera-crispr-biologists-...
"Hey Mr. Gates
It may be that the activation energy required to initiate changes won’t arise within the system. In that case, an outside push might do the job, and the best place for this push to come from may be a nimble funding agency. For example, a request for proposals could specify that phase II funding decisions would be based on the impact of online resources developed in phase I, as measured by specific metrics developed with community feedback. Nothing makes a scientist contemplate change faster than a new source of grant money, and the only thing better than a faculty applicant with a paper in Science may be one bringing in a multimillion dollar grant."
Please post the list of all sites you visited in the past year and you'll get an absolutely serious answer.
This and the references https://figshare.com/articles/Chemlambda_strings/5751318
I mean by that a model of computation in the TCS sense. (Some) molecules, be them DNA, RNA or other, are akin to lambda terms (or graphs), beta reduction (or other graph rewrites) are akin to chemical reactions. The algorithm of reduction has to be random, local (i.e. no higher point of view criteria for interaction are used), performed by Nature. All in all, to be able to prove that some part of the biochemistry can be seen, as a concrete asynchronous graph rewrite automaton (capable of universal computation) would be a great advance in biology.