Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
There are two major differences
[Read the article: Robert Kennedy speaks out against Retroactive Immunity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]between now and then, from what I see:
(1) The telecoms would probably get away with what they did if they just 'fessed up. That is, the "good faith" argument may not have worked with the judge, but it could work with a jury, Congress, or the media. Of course, that's assuming that "'fessing up" would not reveal further crimes for which the public would never forgive them.
(2) The Hanover merger details were apparently well known. We have no idea, for sure, what the telecoms actually did and are doing. We can only guess.
This is all in addition to the obvious: that in 1965 we had an AG or principle, who considered it his job to enforce laws.
-
Er ...
[Read the article: What is James Inhofe trying to keep secret?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]we may want to remember that just because NIH has funded research, that doesn't mean it funds the publication of the research. The publisher holds the copyright, and could lose money if it effectively yields that copyright to NIH. Worse, publishers might be less willing to publish NIH research if they know they will lose money on it.
Generally, academic publishers don't make money on publishing research---they lose money, for this reason and seek to recover costs where they can. They don't stand to lose much by this, but there's no question they will lose something.
Personally, I think NIH should publish its own research for free. That way, there is no question as to who owns it: No one. Government publications lack all copyright.
-
Just a minute...
[Read the article: When is a bra strap just a bra strap?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sure, all of us have tales of public affection gone too far -- couples making out on the subway, a guy walking down the street with his hand tucked into the back of his girlfriend's pants
That's going too far? Says who?
Tolerance of human sexuality begins at home, folks.
-
You're right, Mr E
[Read the article: When is a bra strap just a bra strap?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tried to burn a cross on someone's lawn the other night. They called the cops on me. Unbelievable!
You just can't get anything done in this country any more.
-
You've got to be kidding me
[Read the article: What is James Inhofe trying to keep secret?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]scientific researchers want their publications to be read by as many people as possible, given that their promotions are often tied to how many times they're cited. A good deal of the resistance to open access publishing is from the publishers themselves, who charge huge fees for institutional subscriptions. I'd look into who's been lobbying Inhofe from the publishing industry.
First, what researchers want is for their work to be published by a prestigious journal so that people in their field will read and recognize it, and it may even get into the MSM. Prestige is measured by impact factor, which is calculated from citation data. That doesn't mean "promotions are often tied to how many times they're cited." It means that some journals have built up brand recognition, by setting and maintaining high standards, over decades, and the rest are trying to imitate them as best they can.
Second, what's wrong with the people who produce a product charging for it? Hint: Those aren't "fees." They are "subscriptions." And yes, they are large. That's because everyone at an institution---say, all the students at a university---has access to that subscription.
Finally, do you really think the publishing industry has the money to "lobby"? Are you retarded? I'm serious. I'll cut you some slack if you present evidence of mental impairment.
Face it, your hate model doesn't work here. Go play somewhere else.
-
@andrew
[Read the article: What is James Inhofe trying to keep secret?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hear you. Although my question was intended as a politeness. Truly stupid people get the treatment they deserve, but sometimes there are excuses.
However, I'd maintain that anyone who considers the publishing industry to have serious lobbying capacity needs to recheck his facts.
-
I did not know that
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: FISA reform and the honesty gap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never heard that about the Halperin memo. But it explains quite a bit.