Nemo_bis

27 ms·

361.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Statutory damages are not related to how much money you made out of the violation.
362.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Reasonable IT? Are you paying for an encrypted wi-fi? https://www.cnet.com/news/weworks-weak-wi-fi-security-leaves...
363.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Yes, and they should. But let's quote the actual terms of use ( https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en#toc-content ): ---- When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Go
364.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Indeed. Google Maps is also known to copy OSM without attribution (which is illegal, but not yet proven so clearly that I would be on a lawsuit). So spending money to add roads to Google Maps is just stupid, because if you add them to OSM i
365.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
> Mushkegowuk Council, in northern Ontario, paid him to document the network of ice roads It's immoral, and I hope also illegal, to use public money to donate exclusive use of a work to a private entity, let alone a for-profit. Whoe
366.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
You could consider using a certain little known libre encyclopedia for your searches: > was officially designated as a library by the state of California in 2007.[notes 6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archi
367.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
So it's actually comparable I'd say, in terms of frequency. In terms of how much "writing" this actually means, it varies: an edit to a large article, even if it's just a comma, requires several seconds of parsing t
368.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Issue tracked at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T22079
369.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Not so simple: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2016/09/breaking-cjeu-says-tha...
370.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
That could be true, but do you have some numbers? Wikimedia wikis are in the order of a few hundreds edits per minute, around a thousand and sometimes more. https://tools.wmflabs.org/wmcounter/ https://wikip
371.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
He was all over the place! It's all public under the same username so I hope he forgives me spoilering it: https://www.mediawiki.org/?search=Ori+livneh , https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q&#x2
372.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
The XML dumps are the most compact and sustainable format in the mid term (let's say decades). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_Wikimedia_project_... ZIM might be able to survive longer (centuries?) as pr
373.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
The last time I checked, it was more a problem of lacking servers with sufficient resources: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124960 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T219078 It sure doesn't harm if
374.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
I suppose London Trust Media is not bankrupt, so is Linux Journal LLC free to be sold? It's sad to lose jobs etc. but at least a non-profit caretaker to host a static copy shouldn't be too hard.
375.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
A few hundreds more are listed here: < https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filter...
376.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18977461
377.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review
378.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
No, it's the opposite: when subscriptions were for printed copies, it's not like Elsevier would send an agent to set fire on your archives as soon as you discontinued a journal. In the 1990s, electronic access was seen as a cost r
379.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Even in medical research, legacy publishers do precious little to respect even the very modest standards of the field for the disclosure of conflict of interest. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/7&#x2
380.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Indeed. Nature ranks very high in the retraction index. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690355/figure/...
381.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
The rejection of a submission does cancel a work, it merely shifts elsewhere. The question is whether peer review gives the right incentives; many suspect that publication venues with an ostensibly stricter peer review actually encourage th
382.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Maybe. > In the late 2000s, widespread debate and controversy ensued after Budden and colleagues (2008a) found that a switch to double-blind review in the journal Behavioural Ecol- ogy led to a small but notable 7.9% increase in the 2pro
383.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
More on this idea: http://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/04/what-should-a-modern-scient... http://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/01/why-academic-journals-need-...
384.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Are you trying to re-invent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project ?
385.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Sure. My favourite is IPOL Journal · Image Processing On Line https://www.ipol.im/ , which is doing it since 2011: «IPOL is a research journal of image processing and image analysis which emphasizes the role of mathematics a
386.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
See "Panoptykon files complaints against Google and IAB" https://edri.org/panoptykon-files-complaints-against-google-...
387.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
Linking can be copyright infringement ("communication to the public" and therefore in need of permission by default) in EU, if the judge dislikes you enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS_Media_v_Sanoma
388.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
An actual lawsuit has limited teeth, but the European Commission could do something. So far, it refused. https://zenodo.org/record/2565052
389.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
That's also questionable. For instance, journals with higher impact factor tend to contain more articles which can be considered bad by objective measures. "Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank" https:/&
390.
by Nemo_bis 7y ago
There's already such a norm. Use https://oadoi.org/ !

More ›