I completely agree on those issues, luckily though the open access community is really growing. I remember talking to some people 1-2 years ago and having them disagree completely with my belief that open access would take off and likely overtake any but the very best journals. Lo and behold PLOS is now one of the biggest and I think their idea of publishing all well done research (in PLOS One and letting the commentaries and ratings decide what is most relevant) is going to replace the old system pretty soon... just have to wait for the non-internet generation to retire ;)
Huh... that would be a problem. And I didn't even think of that, even though I work with statistics every day! :P
Whatever they do, I would point to jilocasin's comment: "IF they were serious about improving airport security they would focus on things that might actually make us safer (reinforced cockpits, banning obvious weapons, perhaps a few bomb sniffing dogs)".
The same scanners that the TSA are using are being planned for use in European airports. The controversy started as soon as the first test run in a single airport took place. The discussion sounds very similar, one part privacy ("I don't want that man seeing me naked!") and one part health ("That machine will make me impotent!").
The idea of hiding the "sensitive parts" of those images was decided on last year though, so while the discussion in terms of health (which I agree needs to be examined more carefully) is still going on, the whole privacy thing disappeared pretty quickly when bureaucrats found out how easy it would be to blur out two parts of the body (which is really what we're talking about right?).
So now French citizens are paying for downloads through taxes and rate hikes from ISPs. Why not skip the bureaucracy and give that money directly to the music and film industry and make file sharing legal?
Oh, wait, then EVERYONE would know what is really going on... damn.
I'm addressing Hothmonster's and Todd's comments. So yes, some people are worried about that some of these songs would somehow be locked down, which there is no indication of. And while there is always the possibility of extra caveats I don't think we need to start coming up with extra reasons why this might be a horrible service. There is enough to worry about without creating fears that are not warranted by an evidence ;)
I think that, though it is not perfect, web apps are a pretty good solution to the issues of the closed appstore environment. I think they complement each other well.
On the issue of the masses going for the Apple system for magazines, I would agree only for the mass-market media. Mainstream media outlets that offer their products this way will get the most customers, but do so anyway. The smaller media outlets generally rely on a smaller, very interested subscriber base. As they are very interested they will certainly make the extra effort. Those smaller outlets then stick with their smaller base, but that isn't likely to change just because they are in the Apple system. The specialists will continue attracting specialists.
I agree that it is not constructive to keep people like John Barlow from such events. If we only let the politicians and the companies talk then that is all the public will hear. Yes, media reporting is biased and largely did not mention his talk, but some people read the articles that did come out, and if you read the article this one is based one you will see that numerous people in the crowd applauded Barlow's comments. That would not have happened if he hadn't gone and those people would have felt more alone as opposed to finding out that they are definitely not alone... even in a conference like the e-G8!
First, nope thats not the point of the article, though it is a small element in the story.
Second, its always easy to see others you don't understand as asshats, while perceiving your society's limitations of freedom as perfectly logical simply because you grew up with it and are used to it. The Chinese government does not contain more asshats than any other and there are just as many Chinese citizens fighting for more freedom as there are in the rest of the world. Well, maybe more than NA and EU... I think we've gotten a little comfortable.
While I'm not surprised by fudged numbers, that is one of the biggest discrepancies I've ever seen. Does the music industry even get close?
But what I am really interested in is how they might come up with such a number. Sure, a lot of lab work might not lead to specific products, but how much of that are studies showing the drugs don't have the effect we're paying for? I wouldn't mention those if I were them, considering someone might start looking.
There is one glaring omission here though. A large portion of the research that goes into these products still happens in universities and is funded, at least in part, by taxes. If they are including that in the cost, and I wouldn't put it past them, then that would explain the "discrepancy". Of course, that would not make the number right, it would just make it a double deception: the taxpayer twice, once for the research, and once for the product!
I really don't think the conversation has to be on natural gas versus coal. If you look at where the technology is today, despite the lack of big investment in the 20th century, I think we have a lot of other options. I am not going to list them here, you can find them anywhere; but for those who say those technologies are not enough and that we need other sources, just look at the case of Germany, where all of a sudden it is no problem to take 5 nuclear power plants off the grid after 2 years of politicians and "experts" insisting it would be impossible. And East Germany now has a problem of too much power flowing into the grid due to wind turbines.
But this topic is a nice contrast to the article. We need to be careful and bring change gradually, but this is an area where we need to speed up a bit, because the rash decisions in energy policy of 20th century are really hurting us now.
Yep, and although we keep experiencing that difference from our own actions over and over, we don't seem to be learning from it. We still want to move as fast as possible in every direction, without the proper amount of time to make sure we can deal with the consequences. Be it selling weapons, using pesticides, or building nuclear plants. I'm not against technology, I just think we should be a hell of a lot more careful about what we do with it.
Well, after seeing the other options for magazines on the iPad I am just not that surprised. Look at the Genieo and feedly apps: good looks with none of the lock-in (I have no vested interest, found them while planning what to do with my iPad 2 when I get it ;).
Not that they will take the world by storm, but that doesn't seem to be the direction all this is going anyway. Its not about one product, not even about one method. Its about choice, and The Daily leaves you with one source of news and one method in one app... and you pay more! then again, The Daily might be one of those options that you get to choose from... I just don't see it being the savior it was publicized as.
No, I'm not saying it has to be free. Yes, of course journalists need to make a living. But it has to happen in today's world with today's technology and today's expectations. Putting a newspaper into the iPad does not change the newspaper or fix the problem they have.
Be it advertising or CwF+RtB (I'm thinking free headlines with photos and videos to complement/link to youtube, twitter, facebook etc, and in-depth analysis paid per article or subscription options... but I'm no expert) the need for change is here, and those who don't take a risk or leap of faith and try something new will be left behind.