3 ms·

It's not just about money, right? Even if it was just scientists writing essays and sharing them with each other we would still need https to prevent, say, prov

It's not just about money, right? Even if it was just scientists writing essays and sharing them with each other we would still need https to prevent, say, providers from snooping on or altering page contents.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Since I am the creator and maintainer of a scientific web app for molecular dynamics (shameless plug: http://www.bottledsaft.org http://www.bottledsaft.org) which is not on https (yet), I decided to check whether scientists browsing the net will quickly learn to ignore this warning. Finding so far: Yes, they will. No need to hurry, but I will go https eventually. Of the sites I checked quickly, these are running non-https by default: http://www.tandf.co.uk http://www.tandf.co.uk (Taylor & Francis, bunch of engineering journals) http://www.aps.org http://www.aps.org (American Physical Society, i.e. all the Phys. Rev. journals) http://journals.cambridge.org http://journals.cambridge.org (bunch of math and physics journals) http://www.thomsonreuters.com http://www.thomsonreuters.com (ManuscriptCentral, Scopus, the home of Impact Factor) http://www.sciencemag.org http://www.sciencemag.org (Science and other AIAA journals) http://www.nature.com http://www.nature.com (Nature Publishing Group) ... and I couldn't be bothered to check more
- jtruk 10y ago
  As another data point, It's the same story for international web-tech conferences. Scatter sample: https://www.techdiary.co.uk/elsewhere https://www.techdiary.co.uk/elsewhere [1] [1] I run this, though only keep the NE section updated just now.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  While this is good evidence of what is actually happening, please let's not suggest, even implicitly, that publishers are a place to look for guides to best practices [0]. I don't know about the sciences more generally, but, in math, "because the publishers do it" is just about the best reason possible not to do it [1]. [0] Except maybe that they publish them. :-) [1] Except the AMS, which, in my limited experience, seems to be populated by, and perhaps even more important, in the charge of, people who Get It.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    I agree. As I said, I really should get https working. I also really should finish a bunch of papers in various stages of completion and review, etc. This lets me decide whether the new Chrome behaviour rearranges my priorities or not.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

Since I am the creator and maintainer of a scientific web app for molecular dynamics (shameless plug: http://www.bottledsaft.org http://www.bottledsaft.org) which is not on https (yet), I decided to check whether scientists browsing the net will quickly learn to ignore this warning. Finding so far: Yes, they will. No need to hurry, but I will go https eventually. Of the sites I checked quickly, these are running non-https by default: http://www.tandf.co.uk http://www.tandf.co.uk (Taylor & Francis, bunch of engineering journals) http://www.aps.org http://www.aps.org (American Physical Society, i.e. all the Phys. Rev. journals) http://journals.cambridge.org http://journals.cambridge.org (bunch of math and physics journals) http://www.thomsonreuters.com http://www.thomsonreuters.com (ManuscriptCentral, Scopus, the home of Impact Factor) http://www.sciencemag.org http://www.sciencemag.org (Science and other AIAA journals) http://www.nature.com http://www.nature.com (Nature Publishing Group) ... and I couldn't be bothered to check more

jtruk 10y ago
As another data point, It's the same story for international web-tech conferences. Scatter sample: https://www.techdiary.co.uk/elsewhere https://www.techdiary.co.uk/elsewhere [1] [1] I run this, though only keep the NE section updated just now.
JadeNB 10y ago
While this is good evidence of what is actually happening, please let's not suggest, even implicitly, that publishers are a place to look for guides to best practices [0]. I don't know about the sciences more generally, but, in math, "because the publishers do it" is just about the best reason possible not to do it [1]. [0] Except maybe that they publish them. :-) [1] Except the AMS, which, in my limited experience, seems to be populated by, and perhaps even more important, in the charge of, people who Get It.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I agree. As I said, I really should get https working. I also really should finish a bunch of papers in various stages of completion and review, etc. This lets me decide whether the new Chrome behaviour rearranges my priorities or not.