Slashdot was always an advocacy site.
Rob Malda posted about a similar action he took in 1996, before /. got its name.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105030465637303791249/posts/MTYL...
1,160 karma · joined February 7, 2009
I'd guess that a "teaching university" would have nearly the same need for access (if the teaching is any good), but much less need for submission, compared to a "research university", so the teaching university should benefit from shifting cost from access to submission.
But again, there are good open access journals out there. And even traditional publishers typically allows open access for individual articles for an additional fee. While these fees may seem high, they will typically only constitute a small fraction of a research grant, so if you care and you plan for it in advance, there is really no excuse for not going open access.
However, what you do need is an "impact rating" calculated by Web of Science(TM). That rating is based on the number of citations articles in your journal gets from other rated journals.
Since your journal is new, it won't have an impact rating, meaning scientists won't publish in it, meaning you won't get an impact rating.
But the alternatives exists, e.g. Bentham and Hindawi are both running spamtastic marketing campaigns for 100s of open access journals, most with none or negligible impact ratings.
There are good and successful ones too. PLoS have very high quality open access journals. Expensive, though.
Yes, in that part of what you do is to tell Google "I trust these people" and give them higher ranking than random "search engine optimized" pages.
No, in that someone who follow the hacker news circle and search for "android" will likely prefer results about programming and marketing android applications, which are not the optimal results for the general public.
So the social graph does to things: it states trust (improves general quality of results), and it states interests (improves specific targeting of results).
The later obviously is more likely to work for interest based circles like "hacker news" than for your Family or even Friends circles.
Richard M. Stallman wrote the original Editor MACroS for the TECO editor.
James A. Gosling implemented Emacs in C as a stand-alone editor, sometimes called "Gosmacs", and distributed it freely with no copyright notice. Gosmacs had an extention language called Mocklisp, which wasn't really a Lisp (it had no lists) but appeared similar.
RMS used Gosmacs to get started on GNU Emacs, which featured a "real" Lisp (close to Maclisp).
JAG sold the rights to Gosmacs to Unipress, who renamed it Unipress Emacs, sold it commercially, and stopped distribution of gosmacs and derivatives (like GNU Emacs).
Presumably it was around this time the interview with Bill Joy occurred.
RMS rewrote the part of GNU Emacs that was derived Gosmacs, mostly the display code. One could guess that this experience is part of why the GNU project insists on signed copyright assignment or release forms for key utilities.
Some people (proprietary software) are applauded for bringing crying children into the restaurant, while others (copyleft software) are criticized for the same act, to use your (weird) analogy.
I'm not sure what people think they gain by going under the Apache umbrella, but it must be something since they bother. There are no lack of alternatives.
A two page LaTeX test document on my old Dell Optiplex (Q6700 cpu) with Ubuntu 10.4 takes 0.033s, two orders of magnitudes less than he experiences.
The 539 page reference manual for the project I'm working on takes 3 seconds to format.
GPLv2 does not contain the explicit patent grant that are part of why GPLv3 was created. And I very much doubt the courts will consider "or later" to include the patent grant.
The code in question seems very peripheral (something about using Firefox for configuration), and have received zero comments on the developers list. I would be very surprised if Microsoft had any other motivation for the release, than to make the engineer who worked on it happy.
However, it is probably not an accident that they choose the version of the GPL without a patent grant.
http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b46...
I gather that the "complete" Honeycomb source is available as part of the git history, but without tags.
http://dir.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.comp.lib.glibc
Seems public to me.
What callmeed fears is that businesses will use klout score to create a public appearance of good service, without actually providing good service.
You get zero credit for self-published papers, or papers in non-ranked journals.
So a researchers will always look after the highest ranked journal that is likely to publish a particular result. Issues of copyright get no regard and accessibility gets very little. Copyright ownership won't get you funding. Accessibility might get you more citations (which also affects ranking), but most citations come from other University researchers, who have access anyway through their libraries.
See last item of: http://www.google.com/support/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a...
For this reason, automatic web services probably have a larger potential for destroying jobs than robots. Hopefully nextparadigms is right that more jobs is created than destroyed by this process (I have no idea). Previous shifts seems to have worked out alright.
This doesn't mean Google+ will be a failure though, because unlike what he asserts, Google+ does offer one thing they don't: A tight integration with the Google services. Each of the various services used to have their own ways of sharing, now (or soon) they will have the same interface, namely Google+.
People may still use Facebook to keep track of old acquaintances and twitter to follow celebrities, but use Google+ to share photos from Picasa and their Android phone with their family, share documents from Google Docs with their colleagues, and Hangout with their friends. Which also explain why Google+ put Circles first, the various services doesn't overlap that much.
Joshua Gans will most likely be an active user of Google+ because of one these services, namely Google Search. Google Search is being tied to Google Profiles through the rel=author tag. This will put his name and picture next to his writings. The user clicking on them will go to his profile page. If he also share links to his writings on Google+, these will be shown alongside his profile. That will be hard to resist for any blogger.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answe...
TL;DR: Google+ mainly makes Google better. It has overlap in functionality with both Facebook and Twitter, and make take marketshare from those, but that is not the sole success criteria.
1) An article about why the Project Harmony contracts are considered harmful.
2) A separate article about why the seemingly similar contracts used by the FSF are acceptable.
Also, some words and a link about what "Project Harmony" is and who is behind it would be nice.
From what I gather, Canonical (Ubuntu) is the driving force.
Source: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/inside-google-plus-so...
That is also why Google+ is everywhere (and why it was named Google+). It is Google plus the added value you can get from social graph. The +You part of the service itself is not the main point, even though it of course provides some potential ad space.
Yes, there are potential anti-trust issues. They can be seen as somewhat analogous to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. That gave Microsoft a lot of trouble at the time, but today few would question that a consumer OS should include a web browser. Bill Gates saw where personal computing were headed, and reacted rationally.
Maybe search (and friends) can stay competitive without access to the social graph. I don't know. But Google don't believe so.
From the presentation, Google Circles sounds like a great UI for the already existing group tags funcionality. The group tags are also already used for sharing in Picasa.
There had been more than 700 previous cases, where McDonald had settled with the victims for a total of more than US$ 500.000, but hadn't changed their practice. The wast majority of the damages in this case was not "compensatory damages", intended to compensate the victim for her injury, but "punitive damages", intended to be large enough that McDonald would change their business practice. The punitive damages were set to be equivalent to two days worth of coffee sold at McDonald.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaur...
We can argue whether McDonald should be forced by law to lower the serving temperature. A UK court came to the opposite conclusion in a similar case. However, if we accept that as a premise, the size of damages doesn't seem out of line.