Re: Harvard's cost inflation can't keep pace with the journals'?
27-28% isn't nearly as much as the 6-year increase at 1987 which was +76% total (and a jump of almost +90% of base tuition). No wonder academic publishers figured ridiculous pricing hikes were the norm. For Harvard to complain that it "far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices" sounds a bit rich to me. Literally.
Harvard's cost inflation can't keep pace with the journals'?
Prices for online content from two providers have increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices
I know I've been reading Techdirt too long when...
my first thought on reading this article was "Hmm, there's a business opportunity here for somebody to set up an auto-request-extensions business because this judge isn't meeting the needs of his government customers..."
Which is why the redaction-of-the-final-letter(s) case interested me :) Does one treat it as if the terminal "s" is there, or does one treat it as if it's not an "s", or is there some peculiar exception for redacted letters?
From your first two links, it sounds like either is acceptable as long as one is consistent. :)
commnet.edu: "Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text."
purdue.edu: "James' hat is also acceptable."
Personally, I'm from the Strunk & White category that would use "James's" (or in this case, the original "Mr. Smarta**'s" as was in the post), but I can't see things like that without at least wondering about it.
Even if you wanted to argue that it's somehow "good for the economy" to artificially prop up pharma companies with longer and stronger patents, if it comes at the expense of public health, that's not going to help the economy at all. A healthy population is a consuming population. Letting people die around the world is not good for the economy.
Do you have any studies backing this? My gut feeling is that people with endangered health assume a "whatever it costs" desperation, even if it means driving them to the brink of bankruptcy (or over the edge). And if the poor are a burden on society's coffers, their deaths free up funds to better stimulate the economy.
Unless of course, there are causes more important than a free market... :-)
[T-shirts] can be quite lucrative (and, yes, for all the people asking, we really will be restocking our own t-shirts soon).
I'd be up for the paywall shirt. How about a less disjoint range of prices? There's a vast gap between $25 (for a t-shirt you can't have because it's currently sold-out) and $1000. Perhaps past experiments have shown this to be a ghost-town of a price-point. Also, details on the Crystal Ball would be nice: I tend to read via RSS, but without a "Crystal Ball" RSS feed, it wouldn't do me any good.
It's "easy" to claim that technology "destroys" jobs, but it's never the case in practice. It may change jobs, but increased efficiency creates jobs through economic growth.
There is job destruction: of jobs that can be replaced by a machine. The new jobs created by growth require new skills, and a lazy subset of people want jobs that don't require them to change & remain relevant.