4 ms·

Well I can’t even read my own research paper (lost my tex source and final digital copy when both hard drive and backup drive failed within the same hour). I kn

by lloeki 7y ago

Well I can’t even read my own research paper (lost my tex source and final digital copy when both hard drive and backup drive failed within the same hour). I know for a fact that it is archived and basically exactly where but it’s beyond either one of an abusive layer of bureaucracy or a paywall, whichever I would choose to go through. Not that it’s worthy of anything or even remotely interesting but it tells a lot about the absurdity of it all.

romwell 7y ago
Can you get it off SciHub?
quickthrower2 7y ago
Count yourself lucky. Most of us developers cant even read the code we wrote in a professional setting once we leave a company.
- loup-vaillant 7y ago
  This idea that the original authors of the source code don't have any right to that source code (they're not even listed as authors most of the time), seems like a contradiction. If copyright is so important, why is it so easily stripped from its authors in some fields? It makes more sense when you understand that copyright was hardly ever about protecting authors, but about protecting the interests of the more powerful middlemen.
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    I think it fits in with the general idea of factories where you work for a salary and the work product you produce isn’t something you can take away. The problem with words or code is they are easy to copy, so one could easily make a copy and take it away. I guess that’s why they make you sign away the copyright
    - loup-vaillant 7y ago
      The factory analogy is pretty good. Profit doesn't really goes to the workers, it goes to the owners. And one critical property of capitalism is that owners and workers aren't the same people at all. Having programmers sign off their copyright has the same effect as classical capitalism: it separates whoever owns the code from whoever works on it. The owners can then enjoy the full royalties, while the programmers are limited to their salaries —just like the factory workers. Factory workers could walk away with the fruits of their labour, if only they owned the factory. Programmers could walk away with the fruits of their labour, if only they retained the rights to them. And in my opinion, they both should. The means of production should be owned by the workers, not the capitalists. If on the other hand you agree with capitalism, it makes perfect sense to have programmers sign away their rights.
tomsmeding 7y ago
> when both hard drive and backup drive failed within the same hour That is basically the horror scenario of backup'ing, since you don't usually protect against that kind of failure: the probability of it happening just seems too low. It's similar to having a limit to your attack model when securing your data/accounts/... against attacks: you can try to protect against a governmentally funded cyber attack on you personally, but you probably won't succeed and it's very surely not worth the trouble if you're not a very influential or otherwise important person. In this case, the usual retort would of course be "why didn't you have a backup in 'the cloud'?" I have for part of my stuff, but not for all. I feel you.
- lloeki 7y ago
  Turns out this guys was right: https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html
  - serf 7y ago
    NSFW: FYI if you click that link and the referrer is hacker news it redirects you to a nice picture of a testicle in a cup, first thing in the morning. (it redirects to : https://imgur.com/32R3qLv https://imgur.com/32R3qLv ) The link is fine, just don't click it from here -- well, unless cup-testicles are your bag. Pun intended.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      That is the best use of a referrer I think I have ever seen. Off to boil an egg now.
    - lloeki 7y ago
      I knew about that and tried beforehand to see if I needed to put a warning, but it doesn't trigger anymore for me so I thought this article was exempt, or he removed it. Maybe it's Safari that properly strips the referer.
      - 7y ago

by lloeki 7y ago

romwell 7y ago

Can you get it off SciHub?

quickthrower2 7y ago

Count yourself lucky. Most of us developers cant even read the code we wrote in a professional setting once we leave a company.

loup-vaillant 7y ago
This idea that the original authors of the source code don't have any right to that source code (they're not even listed as authors most of the time), seems like a contradiction. If copyright is so important, why is it so easily stripped from its authors in some fields? It makes more sense when you understand that copyright was hardly ever about protecting authors, but about protecting the interests of the more powerful middlemen.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I think it fits in with the general idea of factories where you work for a salary and the work product you produce isn’t something you can take away. The problem with words or code is they are easy to copy, so one could easily make a copy and take it away. I guess that’s why they make you sign away the copyright
  - loup-vaillant 7y ago
    The factory analogy is pretty good. Profit doesn't really goes to the workers, it goes to the owners. And one critical property of capitalism is that owners and workers aren't the same people at all. Having programmers sign off their copyright has the same effect as classical capitalism: it separates whoever owns the code from whoever works on it. The owners can then enjoy the full royalties, while the programmers are limited to their salaries —just like the factory workers. Factory workers could walk away with the fruits of their labour, if only they owned the factory. Programmers could walk away with the fruits of their labour, if only they retained the rights to them. And in my opinion, they both should. The means of production should be owned by the workers, not the capitalists. If on the other hand you agree with capitalism, it makes perfect sense to have programmers sign away their rights.

tomsmeding 7y ago

> when both hard drive and backup drive failed within the same hour That is basically the horror scenario of backup'ing, since you don't usually protect against that kind of failure: the probability of it happening just seems too low. It's similar to having a limit to your attack model when securing your data/accounts/... against attacks: you can try to protect against a governmentally funded cyber attack on you personally, but you probably won't succeed and it's very surely not worth the trouble if you're not a very influential or otherwise important person. In this case, the usual retort would of course be "why didn't you have a backup in 'the cloud'?" I have for part of my stuff, but not for all. I feel you.

lloeki 7y ago
Turns out this guys was right: https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/backups.html
- serf 7y ago
  NSFW: FYI if you click that link and the referrer is hacker news it redirects you to a nice picture of a testicle in a cup, first thing in the morning. (it redirects to : https://imgur.com/32R3qLv https://imgur.com/32R3qLv ) The link is fine, just don't click it from here -- well, unless cup-testicles are your bag. Pun intended.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    That is the best use of a referrer I think I have ever seen. Off to boil an egg now.
  - lloeki 7y ago
    I knew about that and tried beforehand to see if I needed to put a warning, but it doesn't trigger anymore for me so I thought this article was exempt, or he removed it. Maybe it's Safari that properly strips the referer.
    - 7y ago