[HN Gopher] Einstein award going to Paul Ginsparg for creating a...
___________________________________________________________________
Einstein award going to Paul Ginsparg for creating arXiv.org
Author : endymi0n
Score : 1073 points
Date : 2021-11-26 08:32 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (idw-online.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (idw-online.de)
| grouphugs wrote:
| it has too much garbage to be getting awards
| roastedpeacock wrote:
| IN a world of leeches like Elsevier, his work is much appreciated
| brainwipe wrote:
| Been out of research for a while, didn't know about this. Will
| get my papers up there.
| DreamScatter wrote:
| It's not a public website, I'm not even able to post my math
| research on arxiv
|
| https://github.com/chakravala/Grassmann.jl
| evanb wrote:
| The Nobel Prize in Physics often goes to "tooling" experimental
| work. Think: blue LEDs, CCDs, fiber optics, optical tweezers,
| things like that. Not that anybody asks me, but I would advocate
| a similar tooling award split between Berners-Lee (www), Knuth
| (TeX), and Ginsparg (arXiv). I can think of no people who had a
| more profound change in how physics is actually practiced.
| prionassembly wrote:
| Maybe that's a sign that theory research in physics has become
| iredeemably suspect?
|
| The Swedish bank (not an OG Nobel prize, but effectively one of
| them) prize for economics pretty much alternates (A) sharing
| the prize between econometrics (ie. tooling) and empirical
| research and (B) awarding deep theory.
| evanb wrote:
| I would push back on this. Irredeemably suspect? The Nobel
| committee doesn't make theory awards until they are supported
| by experiment. There was basically no new particle physics
| data for 30 years. Then they found the Higgs and that's
| nothing else. Theory beyond this is speculative, nobody knows
| if it's important or not.
| bborud wrote:
| That's a very good point. Surely people on Hacker News
| collectively know enough people to get a nomination done? :-)
|
| PS: the above list good, are we missing anyone important who
| ought to be on that list?
| speedcoder wrote:
| Maybe the HN community could set up an award?
| ngc248 wrote:
| I second this. lets do one.
| speedcoder wrote:
| How would we go about doing so?
| dekhn wrote:
| I would love if there was a "Nobel Prize in Math, Computer
| Science, and Information Processing".
| vecter wrote:
| There's the Godel Prize for theoretical computer science, the
| ACM Turing Award for more general contributions to computing,
| and of course the Fields Medal (and nowadays the Abel Prize)
| for math.
| ahurmazda wrote:
| Well deserved. I only recently learned about the origin of arxiv
| and the story surrounding Joanne Cohn. Highly recommended read
|
| https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2021110...
| trox wrote:
| If you've ever wondered about the unusual arXiv.org website
| favicon: The original logo was a skull with bones as reference to
| the piratey nature of distributing preprints without the
| publisher's consent. The smiley face was added later in order to
| make it less offensive. Due to the conversion to a non-
| transparent format, the backgrond was filled with the green
| color.
|
| https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-story-behind-the-arXiv-org-f...
| Cort3z wrote:
| Why does so many online articles refrain from adding a simple
| link to the product in question?
|
| https://arxiv.org/
| azalemeth wrote:
| Completely and utterly deserved. Arxiv, like Wikipedia and
| arguably sci-hub, is an absolute boon to humanity. What I find
| interesting is that its endorsement system does largely work at
| making it very easy to submit papers whilst reducing the amount
| of spam. Sure, there are some papers that are not completely
| brilliant -- or indeed, actually any good at all -- but they have
| the same "right" to be read as their huge CERN brethren. In some
| fields of physics, paid journal publishing is really a niche in
| comparison to stuff on the ArXiv. In others, and other areas of
| science, not quite so much yet. I also very much like the fact
| that it is open, mostly LaTeX based (machine-readable maths!) and
| free.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Wikipedia is one of my refuges from the where the rest of the
| web seems to be going. It's one of the few that don't cause me
| to hit reader view (mobile safaris defacto ad blocker)
| immediately.
| janto wrote:
| Unfortunately Wikipedia has also been heading in a
| disappointing direction. I now expect everything on there to
| be filtered through a specific political perspective.
| Deleting information is much easier than adding, so pesky
| facts are unlikely to persist.
| danielheath wrote:
| Somewhat true of the main pages; if you want to know
| whether something controversial is being left out, check
| the talk page.
| prionassembly wrote:
| The Wikipedia process is still pretty good last time I
| checked?
|
| There was a notability challenge in en.wikipedia on Olavo
| de Carvalho, a Steve Bannon type who wrote some philosophy
| books (like -- on Aristotle and Epicurus) as a younger man
| (and keeps getting his "philosopher" self-nomination
| challenged because he didn't go and get a college major in
| philosophy). I was for keeping the page, but on balance I
| think the process, arguments and result were fair -- even
| if almost certainly carrying some underlying political
| motivation.
|
| We have to focus on the process. It's the only way to
| general axiology.
| janto wrote:
| I don't have faith in the process anymore. Wiki-lawyering
| to remove content, is too effective. To what end? Saving
| disk space?
|
| I'm no longer motivated to fight deletionism in my
| domain. I don't want to spend time that is not
| appreciated.
|
| I suspect that as soon as a page is tagged for deletion
| by someone, others that enjoy being the arbiters of what
| is and is not WP, flock there. If they lack interest in
| the topic, they will vote to remove with many technical
| reasons. Statements that others do find it relevant or
| interesting, are simply ignored.
| Kye wrote:
| It does seem that many pages get claimed by one editor or
| another who sees it as their domain, but I haven't seen any
| study on the politics of these wiki fiefdoms. Most I see
| are conservative, sometimes extreme.
| alithejumbo wrote:
| I second this opinion about Wikipedia.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Yep. the next Einstein award should go to Alexandra Elbakyan.
| robot0x13 wrote:
| and Aaron Swartz
| Vetch wrote:
| > and arguably sci-hub
|
| Inarguably, not arguably. In my mind there is a clear
| separation between pre and post sci-hub. The stark increase in
| experienced friction when accessing scientific knowledge since
| sci-hub's pausing has highlighted its profound value.
|
| There's also libgen, the closest thing to a bastion of all
| written human knowledge.
|
| It'd be fun to read a short story about an AI trained on libgen
| data that makes significant contributions to fusion, longevity
| and cancer but whose creators are ineligible for any prizes and
| are jailed for life for multiple counts of copyright violation.
| nefitty wrote:
| On one of huggingface's explanation blurb of a training set,
| they half-jokingly speculate that GPT was trained on libgen.
| Apparently Google won't reveal what book data it used...
| harias wrote:
| Google books probably contains as much information as
| Libgen. It's simply doesn't allow public access.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Wikipedia has some major issues for real research and there are
| good reasons why universities don't allow students to include
| wikipedia links as citations in their papers. The information
| there simply isn't curated properly.
|
| A main gripe is that more often than not, the supporting links
| for claims made in wikipedia articles are broken or of poor
| quality. Another is the tendency of ideologues to remove
| anything they disagree with in their particular domain.
|
| It's useful for finding trivial information (flag of Botswana,
| say) but otherwise I usually block wikipedia from search
| results.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > there are good reasons why universities don't allow
| students to include wikipedia links as citations in their
| papers
|
| That reason is because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It's
| too far removed from a source of information to be
| appropriate to cite. It has nothing to do with the
| reliability of the site; it's basically never appropriate to
| cite any kind of encyclopedia.
|
| If there's a specific piece of information you found on
| Wikipedia, you chase down Wikipedia's source for that
| information and cite that. If you're using Wikipedia as a
| general reference, you don't need to cite that at all.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| A worthy choice.
| reikonomusha wrote:
| Around 6 or 7 years ago, I went to a quantum computing conference
| and presented about a then newly developed quantum programming
| language that could run on a real quantum computer, showing a 1/2
| decent simulation of dihydrogen energy in terms of bond length.
|
| I authored a paper about this quantum programming language but
| had no way to post it to the arXiv. I'm not a traditional
| academic, but I had posted on the arXiv before, long ago, at a
| previous job. Problem was that my arXiv credentials were
| associated with that job's long lost email.
|
| I gave the presentation in a giant ballroom, and afterward, sat
| down at my assigned spot at one of these large circular tables.
| Next to me, during a brief coffee break, an old man I didn't
| recognize told me my talk was very interesting, and asked me if
| my paper was published yet. "Not yet; we haven't chosen a
| journal. And posting to the arXiv is delayed, because my account
| is locked, so a colleague is planning to post on my behalf."
|
| The man responds, "Oh, it should be possible to fix that." I said
| that I figured as much and have just procrastinated contacting
| the admins. "They're at Cornell right?"
|
| He said, "No, I mean, _I_ can fix that. You said your name was
| Reikon Musha right? "
|
| He opens his clunky laptop and continues, "I'm not supposed to do
| this. But I'm certain that if you gave an invited talk here,
| you're definitely not spoofing your name. Maybe you can show me
| your ID? No, no, just kidding."
|
| He continues clicking around. "Was xyz@example.com your old
| address? What's your new one?" I answered yes, and gave him my
| new address. He typed it in and said, "straight into the database
| it goes; just go and reset your password now."
|
| I was absolutely puzzled. I said, "Thanks?? Who are you?"
|
| He says, as a matter of fact, "I'm Paul, I invented the arXiv."
| adrian_mrd wrote:
| Nice anecdote, thanks for sharing :)
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| Now this thread is first Google result for your name
| EricLeer wrote:
| What an interesting story! I was wondering if you where you
| also working in the quantum computing field back then, or if
| you just worked on this as a hobby. 6 years ago the entire
| quantum computing field was not hyped as much yet (this was
| just about when the ibm quantum experience started?).
| reikonomusha wrote:
| Yes, I was working in the field, not as a hobby. The
| programming language and compiler research certainly preceded
| IBM's foray into publicizing "cloud quantum", but I think
| they had just come out with a primitive version of their
| Quantum Experience by the time we gave that talk. This was
| definitely before the public hype set full sail--but it was
| clearly beginning to simmer. Everything was really research-
| oriented then, but it's, as you observe, around the time
| companies began to open up a bit more. (This is completely
| ignoring DWave, a whole different story. This also ignores
| physics-academia, which on the other hand had all sorts of
| hype, all of which eventually bled into the public arena,
| from Majorana qubits to chemical simulation.)
|
| As a personal aside, I miss those days when things were just
| _so much quieter_ , heads-down, and collegial. It's difficult
| to describe how the research and commercial environment has
| changed for its participants over the last decade.
| ajkjk wrote:
| It was definitely very hype within academia long before that,
| even if you weren't hearing much about it in mainstream news
| yet.
| antihero wrote:
| So what you're saying is you can pwn literally any arXiv
| account by giving a convincing enough presentation on a highly
| specialised scientific field at a conference that Paul is
| attending?
|
| Pah, what sort of security do you call that?!
| path411 wrote:
| Reminds me of the xkcd: https://xkcd.com/810/
| Shared404 wrote:
| If you can both get invited under a fake name and show
| interesting enough research that Paul seeks you out I
| suppose.
|
| I think the first part would be rather difficult, probably
| more so than pwning a server.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Parent is joking
| Shared404 wrote:
| Well, _that 'll_ teach me not to HN right after waking
| up.
|
| Or won't. But it should :P
| nefitty wrote:
| I've always said that the neurobiology of sarcasm is
| woefully understudied
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| HN pre-coffee: read only. HN post-coffee: writes enabled.
| :)
| rolandog wrote:
| Also, you can comment as a caffeinated user by prefixing
| with cudo.
| tomcam wrote:
| I'm glad you were the one to break the news
| 5faulker wrote:
| This is a great story.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| He not only fixed, but was careful in his conversation to give
| you the best possible anecdote.
| reikonomusha wrote:
| Haha, exactly. I know a lot of these kinds of anecdotes are
| hammed up for entertainment, but the conversation was quite
| literally as written (modulo the inaccuracies of my memory).
| cormacrelf wrote:
| You can now add, "And that man's award's name? Albert
| Einstein"
| mromanuk wrote:
| I laughed at your comment. On point.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| How does he (or people in general) pronounce arxiv?
| reikonomusha wrote:
| Like "archive". The X represents the Greek letter kh. Similar
| to TeX or LaTeX, which are pronounced like "tech" and "lay-
| tech".
| Uehreka wrote:
| With arXiv I mind less for some reason, but I pronounce TeX
| and LaTeX as teks and lay-teks because:
|
| - That's how I pronounced them when I first read them.
|
| - That's how everyone else pronounces them when they first
| read them until someone who has heard this factoid corrects
| them.
|
| - They look exactly like commonly-used English words.
|
| - It feels like a dumb prank to take the name of a writing
| system, whose sole purpose is written word and which will
| be most discussed in written media, and give it a
| deliberately odd pronunciation that people don't usually
| discover until they talk to someone about it.
|
| I'm grateful to the legendary folks who built these things,
| but I still wish they would've honored the Least Surprise
| Principle and picked better names.
| Jiro wrote:
| Not to say I disagree with you at all, but everything you
| say here applies to GNU.... (Well, maybe it's not so
| common a word, but it's still a written word for
| something that you're supposed to pronounce it unlike the
| English word it resembles.)
| Uehreka wrote:
| I pronounce it gah-noo or G.N.U. arbitrarily, but I
| assumed it was just like "sequel" and S.Q.L. where
| everyone just pronounces it both ways.
| anticensor wrote:
| SEQUEL is actually the precursor of SQL :)
| nikcub wrote:
| This is why I love HN
| Yajirobe wrote:
| and everybody clapped
| codetrotter wrote:
| Neat, next award should go to Alexandra Elbakyan for creating
| Sci-Hub :)
| grouphugs wrote:
| i remember them addressing all the garbage on there actually. he
| does deserve an award. i am in a mood due to severe lack of
| sleep, depression, and got hit with more sonic last night. phew
| doggy, let's go, gotta kill 'em all
| DreamScatter wrote:
| I still have never been able to post my paper about my
| Grassmann.jl geometric algebra foundations research on arxiv.
|
| https://github.com/chakravala/Grassmann.jl
|
| Seems like a useless overrated website.
|
| I was able to post my article on my own website instead.
|
| Arxiv is really a useless website.
| boibombeiro wrote:
| The least controversial post of the year.
|
| Well deserved.
| mschuetz wrote:
| ArXiv is great. I encourage anyone to submit their work there in
| addition to submitting to a peer-reviewed venue. Thankfully,
| they're compatible with overleaf nowadays. There was a time when
| arxiv didn't accept stuff from overleaf but it also didn't accept
| pdfs made from latex, so I had to pdf-print my pdf to submit it
| to arxiv.
| galcerte wrote:
| Do you think it would be worthwhile to upload something like a
| master's thesis that ultimately did not get published through a
| traditional journal? That happens to be my case. I am alright
| with my supervisors' decision to not pursue publication,
| however I still wish to have it out there in some form, as it
| took a sizeable amount of effort, and it might be useful as a
| way to advertise myself.
|
| On a tangent, is publishing the LaTeX source of a paper or
| thesis on GitHub something that people do...? I was also toying
| with the idea of writing my thesis with org-mode while
| including the code snippets I used for numerical calculations
| and graphs.
| cozzyd wrote:
| There are some theses on the arXiv but it's relatively rare.
| See e.g. https://arxiv.org/search/?query=dissertation&searcht
| ype=all&...
|
| Typically these are uploaded in some other archive that may
| be less open (e.g. often outsourced to proquest or
| something), but many universities have their own open
| archives. My PhD thesis is available on MIT dspace.
| Hilariously, it's a scanned copy of my printed thesis, since
| I had to print it out for submission, even in 2015.
|
| As for theses on GitHub, those happen but often people keep
| it private since they don't necessarily want the revision
| history exposed :).
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| >worthwhile to upload something like a master's thesis
|
| That'd be great. Seems dumb to let talented, hard-working
| student papers moulder on some basement shelf. (Or do they
| file 13 'em?) I've run across several onlined, very readable
| and informative masters' works over the years. Tend to be
| less hidebound about fresh theories/tooling as well.
| jacobmischka wrote:
| I can't attest to ArXiv publication, I didn't consider it
| actually (I may now, though to be honest mine is not
| groundbreaking research by any stretch of imagination), but
| publishing the LaTeX source on GitHub is definitely
| relatively common. I and a few acquaintances I knew from my
| Master's program did that.
| galcerte wrote:
| I imagine it depends on the field. Having perused your
| GitHub page and taken a look at what your program was
| about, I see why you might publish your thesis' source
| there. People working in theoretical physics aren't too
| inclined towards free software, so maybe that's why I
| haven't seen many related papers.
| jacobmischka wrote:
| Ah yes, I assumed computer science, apologies.
| eigenket wrote:
| The tex for my thesis is on github but I don't expect anyone
| to ever look at it there (anyone who might read it will find
| it on arxiv), I just used github for backup & versioning (I'm
| not quite dumb enough to have a document representing 4 years
| work in one place).
| Bayart wrote:
| >On a tangent, is publishing the LaTeX source of a paper or
| thesis on GitHub something that people do...?
|
| I've definitely seen it done, although I suspect the prime
| concern is versioning and backup.
| Boywithhalo wrote:
| "arXiv moderators expect submissions to be of scholarly
| archival interest to the communities they represent. A
| submission may be declined if the moderators determine it
| lacks originality, novelty, or significance.
|
| Submissions that do not contain original or substantive
| research, including undergraduate research, course projects,
| and research proposals, news, or information about political
| causes (even those with potential special interest to the
| academic community) may be declined." as explained in
| https://arxiv.org/help/moderation
|
| If your supervisors decided not to pursue publication then it
| seems likely that it does not match these criteria either.
| Note, this isn't a qualitative judgement about your thesis -
| as it says as much about academia as it does your thesis.
|
| Additionally, you might run into the endorsement system if
| you're new to arXiv. https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement
| galcerte wrote:
| > Submissions that do not contain original or substantive
| research
|
| Most, if not all master's thesis contain original research,
| and that is definitely my case as well.
|
| > undergraduate research, course projects, and research
| proposals, news, or information about political causes
|
| My thesis can't be classified under any of these
| categories, either.
|
| It does sound like I would be able to publish it there, but
| I'm going to have to reach out to my supervisors for an
| endorsement in arXiv, thanks for the tip.
|
| I believe they weren't inclined towards publishing it
| because I did not quite manage to fulfill their
| expectations with respect to the scope of the thesis. I
| came across quite a few bumps along the way which hindered
| my progress. It was still graded well enough, it has a good
| amount of original content, and I am relatively satisfied
| with its quality, though, so it's not like it was a
| complete disaster.
| amcoastal wrote:
| You should do it, but contact your advisor first. I know
| I'd like to upload my old masters thesis online, but the
| university retains a copyright on it. Its possible yours
| does to. I'm sure the information on that would be
| available on your schools website in the thesis
| format/guidelines sections.
| Boywithhalo wrote:
| Didn't mean to imply it was a disaster; but without being
| familiar with your work the main signal in your comment
| was that your supervisors didn't push for publishing it,
| which might be a hint it's not a good fit for arXiv
| either. But if your supervisors will endorse you then by
| all means go for it!
|
| Another option might be to put it on Zenodo.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Yes, arXiv generally doesn't accept PDF's, preferring instead
| the tex source (which is amusing when people don't realize
| their comments show up. It uses something called autotex which
| has a few quirks (e.g. all images have to be in the same dir,
| etc.).
|
| Here is the makefile I use that also generates a .tar.gz for
| the arxiv (obviously won't help with Overleaf without cloning
| first, but) FIGURES=$(wildcard figs/*)
| TEXFILES=main.tex included.tex included2.tex ...
| main.pdf: $(TEXFILES) $(FIGURES) main.bib latexmk
| -pdf -g $< .PHONY: clean show clean:
| latexmk -C rm -rf forarxiv*
| forarxiv.tar.gz: forarxiv/main.tex forarxiv.pdf rm
| -f forarxiv.tar.gz cd forarxiv && tar
| --exclude=*.bib -cvzf ../forarxiv.tar.gz *
| forarxiv: mkdir -p $@
| forarxiv/main.tex: main.tex main.bib | forarxiv
| latexpand --empty-comments $< | sed -e 's#figs/##g' > $@
| forarxiv/main.bib: main.bib cp $< $@
| forarxiv.pdf: forarxiv/main.tex $(FIGURES) forarxiv/main.bib
| ln -f $(FIGURES) forarxiv/ ln -f foo.sty forarxiv/
| ln -f foo.bst forarxiv/ latexmk -cd -pdf
| forarxiv/main.tex latexmk -cd -c forarxiv/main.tex
| mv forarxiv/main.pdf $@ show: main.pdf
| xdg-open main.pdf
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| just in case it hasnt clicked yet, the X is the greek letter chi,
| so the url is "archive" phonetically
| asdf_snar wrote:
| I've been using the Arxiv for 10+ years. I always thought it
| was just a "cool" way of spelling it, like "ArXiV" or
| "eXtReme". Mind blown, thanks.
| cmehdy wrote:
| Now the game "arxiv vs snarxiv"[0] will also make more sense
| to you!
|
| [0] http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
| Yajirobe wrote:
| What about vixra[0]?
|
| [0]https://vixra.org/
| dekhn wrote:
| Many years ago (think: 1994) scientists (mainly CS folks)
| published papers on the web as postscript files. Actually, they
| were usually on FTP sites, not the web, as almost nobody used the
| web at the time. I developed a huge aversion to postscript (it
| was clunky and the renderers weren't great) but the idea that
| every bit of published science would be freely available on the
| web seemed completely and totally obvious to me.
|
| When I later became an academic, I learned that when you write a
| paper and submit it, conditions for publication typically include
| signing away the copyright to the journal, possibly with a
| license to distribute a few preprints offline.
|
| My advisor at the time pointed out that he actually modified the
| contract (changing the terms to retain copyright), signed it and
| sent it back (no journal ever complained, and all his papers are
| available as PDFs online).
|
| arxiv is the closest thing to what I dreamt of some decades ago
| and I'm thrilled that Paul is receiving recognition. Personally,
| I think arxiv is a better path forward than scihub, entirely due
| to its "legitimacy". In the future, I will always work to
| "publish" on arxiv and not put my work in journals (fortunately,
| I am not in a publish or perish situation).
|
| My only complaint is that I don't particularly like PDF and wish
| there was an HTML-zip format that could be sent around and the
| browser did all the rendering work, while the udnerlying data
| tables are stored in well-defined formats so they can be
| programatically extracted.
| cozzyd wrote:
| I've said this here before, but based on having dinner with him
| probably ten years ago now, the arXiv replaced the system that
| existed in the early 90's where people at top research
| universities would mail preprints to each other, as publishing
| was slow and waiting for preprints to be published would put
| you behind the curve by quite a long time. Obviously this was
| inefficient and somewhat exclusive (if you weren't at a
| university in the preprint exchange club, you'd be hopelessly
| behind in your field).
| dealpete wrote:
| > My only complaint is that I don't particularly like PDF and
| wish there was an HTML-zip format that could be sent around and
| the browser did all the rendering work, while the udnerlying
| data tables are stored in well-defined formats so they can be
| programatically extracted.
|
| Back when I was doing Math research it was common to submit
| LateX files to ArXiv. A quick look at some of the Physics
| papers, though, suggests it may not the case for other fields.
| cozzyd wrote:
| It depends. arXiv won't normally accept a LaTeX-generated
| PDF, but it will accept a PDF written in Word.
|
| Particle physicists, cosmologists and astrophysicists almost
| exclusively use LaTeX (anybody using Word would get laughed
| at). In other fields of physics, Word is more common and also
| not everyone submits everything to the arXiv. It's an
| interesting cultural divide...
| cycomanic wrote:
| > It depends. arXiv won't normally accept a LaTeX-generated
| PDF, but it will accept a PDF written in Word.
|
| What do you mean? I predict the majority of PDFs on arxiv
| are generated from latex just based on the fields who
| mainly use it. In fact many papers contain the tex source
| files.
| cozzyd wrote:
| What I mean is, if you try to upload the PDF from LaTeX,
| it will complain and tell you to upload the sources
| (which it then compiles to a PDF).
| dekhn wrote:
| I wrote my thesis in latex and convert to html in 1995.
| It's still online, 27 years later, and totally readable!
| Only a few external image links are broken.
|
| I don't particularly like latex though.
| algorias wrote:
| I'm in CS research, I submit all my papers as latex sources.
| Submitting pdfs that were obviously created in latex is
| supposedly against the rules.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| MHTML is not going anywhere, but presumably you could do a
| single HTML file with all media as embedded data URIs?
| judge2020 wrote:
| > changing the terms to retain copyright), signed it and sent
| it back (no journal ever complained, and all his papers are
| available as PDFs online).
|
| Assuming the journals signed it first, this is most likely
| illegal since they didn't know they were signing under the
| different terms. If they sign it after the professor signs it,
| they technically have the duty to confirm the language is the
| same, but it still might be seen as a deceptive practice on the
| professor's part.
| dekhn wrote:
| I had this discussion with the professor in question. He had
| already consulted with his IP lawyers. As you say, they
| technically have the duty to confirm the language is the
| same, but we know they didn't because the paper was published
| with their copyright attached. I think he was trying to push
| the issue, gently, and hoped some published would make a
| stink.
| tomcam wrote:
| Contracts are amended all the time in exactly this method.
| That's how contracts work (IANAL so maybe I've missed
| something, but I was taught this by lawyer left)
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Surely you are supposed to tell the other person if you
| are changing the contract though? Not a lawyer, but it's
| hard for me to believe that tricking someone into signing
| the wrong thing is an effective legal strategy.
| hackmiester wrote:
| If you just signed it, that would be indicating you
| accept it with no changes.
|
| There is no reason to send it back aside from redlining
| something. So sending a new contract is itself the
| indication that it has been redlined.
| nipponese wrote:
| Is arXiv openly accessible in China? I tried a quick search on
| the topic and saw that there are quite a few mirror sites but no
| definitive answer.
| _hzw wrote:
| You can check whether a site is blocked by GFW with the
| following websites:
|
| 1. http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/
|
| 2. https://www.comparitech.com/privacy-security-
| tools/blockedin...
| Havoc wrote:
| That's good. Sometimes I think stuff like this (supporting
| plumbing) moves science forward more than an individual discovery
| could.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-27 23:02 UTC)