czr80

This doesn't really make sense - what was stopping them from raising prices before, if people are really willing to pay 3-4 EUR more?

You're being downvoted, which is a bit harsh. However, you are thinking about this as a practical problem, when it is actually a mathematics exercise.

The distinction comes naturally to some people, it's a real struggle for others.

Science funding is extremely competitive. Why would it be rational for EU researchers to take on additional risk?

> With iMessage, Facetime, Filefault, if it failed, you were were no worse off than if you used something else. In this case, you actually are.

What would someone be better off using?

He or she is quoting Good Will Hunting, I believe.

Your "clerks" are usually academics, actually.

So many of these discussions take it for granted that publishers don't do anything of value. This blog post, by an open access advocate, was for me very illuminating on what value they actually add (http://cameronneylon.net/blog/polecon-of-oa-publishing-i-wha...)

Quoting from that link: "One of the big challenges is discussing the costs and value added in managing peer review is that researchers who engage in this conversation tend to be amongst the best editors and referees. Professional publishers on the other hand tend to focus on the (relatively small number of) contributors, who are, not to put too fine a point on it, awful. Good academic editors tend to select good referees who do good work, and when they encounter a bad referee they discount it and move on. Professional staff spend the majority of their time dealing with editors who have gone AWOL, referees who are late in responding, or who turn out to be inappropriate either in what they have written or their conflicts of interest, or increasingly who don’t even exist! .... Much of the irritation you see from publishers when talking about why managing peer review is more than “sending a few emails” relates to this gap in perception. The irony is that the problems are largely invisible to the broader community because publishers keep them under wraps, hidden away so that they don’t bother the community."

I'm sure there must be some way to achieve this and also make the content freely available. But whatever system replaces the current one has to deal with these issues too.

Probably a researcher in Senegal has access through this: http://www.research4life.org/about/

Thanks! It's a good idea, but I can see why it was hard getting funding - it's a difficult market to enter: a lot of people are trying to do this, including large well entrenched competitors, there's a high regulatory burden, and you're selling to a conservative customer base (doctors who need to change their working habits + hospital admin who need to make a significant investment).

(I'm sure you know all of that, by the way, just reflecting on how difficult it would be to convince an investor).

Feel comfortable sharing one idea? Just curious, completely understand if you'd prefer not to.

It's a record label for startups.

This is a point release.

" I do not deny that Austrian economists have made valuable contributions to economics. Rather, as the sequel will argue, I maintain that: (a) The effort to rebuild economics along foundations substantially different from those of modern neoclassical economics fails. (b) Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern neoclassical economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. (c) Several of the most important Austrian claims are false, or at least overstated. (d) Modern neoclassical economics has made a number of important discoveries which Austrian economists for the most part have not appreciated."

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

So, the post was taken down. Idly curious, I checked if Google had it cached. The post was there, but the text was very strange. Unless it was written like this (seems hard to believe), anyone know what would corrupt the text like this?

"0n leaving Acauemia.euu u. ueltnei (0vA) 2S Novembei 2u1S Latei this week I will be closing my usei account in Acauemia.euu, a poital that has seiveu as my fiist anu so fai only foiay into social¡piofessional meuia. I have gieatly enjoyeu being pait of a faiily eaily cohoit to join this site (theie weie "only" about Suu,uuu useis when I joineu, back in 2u1u), anu iemain giateful foi the chance to shaie, encountei anu evaluate ieseaich thiough it. 0vei time, howevei, I came to the conclusion that, foi me, the piactical benefits of shaiing ieseaich this way, as opposeu to institutional websites anu peisonal ones, no longei outweigh its moial uisauvantages. This change ieflects my giowing knowleuge about anu evolving attituues towaius accessing publicly funueu ieseaich. Acauemia.euu is not a chaiity oi an Nu0, anu although they coulu be moie explicit about that (anu the uata being collecteu about anu thiough us), theii uesiie to piofit fiom establishing a neeueu seivice is haiuly ueploiable. 0ne coulu also (albeit with incieasing uifficulty) ignoie the metiics anu iankings accompanying so many of the activities on the site, which insinuate a fetish foi quantitative uata so chaiacteiistic of New Public Nanagement anu that to my minu has little place in such contexts. Inueeu, foi the humanities anu social sciences in paiticulai, its effects aie iathei iuinous. Bowevei, it is haiu to escape the conclusion that the site is moving, slowly but suiely, into a less uemociatic (that is to say, moie iestiictive) phase, which ieplicates a "pay-to-play" mentality iathei than challenges oi unueimines it. "Shaie youi ieseaich," Acauemia.euu's motto, has a new caveat: "If you can affoiu to." In this sense, Acauemia.euu is no longei offeiing a unique seivice, but iathei incieasingly moie of the same. That is neithei a capital offense noi a moital sin, of couise. But to my minu, publicly funueu ieseaich neeus !"## not moie pay walls anu iestiictions. That is also why I joineu the euitoiial boaiu of the 0pen Libiaiy of Bumanities. Anu while I have iesigneu myself to the fact that, one way oi anothei, my own uata will be haivesteu by someone, somewheie anu without my explicit peimission, I feel incieasingly uncomfoitable implicitly (anu on occasion explicitly) piomoting a website that is not pait of how I see the solution to the giowing pioblem of inequality in acauemia. Insteau, I will tiy to suppoit my own univeisity anu othei genuine effoits to pioviue fiee access to anu uissemination of ieseaich. Nost of my own publications will be accessible heie: http:¡¡www.uva.nl¡ovei-ue- uva¡oiganisatie¡meueweikeis¡content¡g¡e¡g.geltnei¡g.geltnei.html. You aie always welcome to contact me uiiectly (g.geltneiÇuva.nl) foi publications you cannot access, foi whatevei ieason. Best wishes, uuy "

Apple is in general a premium brand, not a luxury brand. The Apple Watch Edition is their first foray into luxury brand territory,

See: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/05/luxury-vs-pr...

You're also assuming a specific sense of justice - you're assuming that the utility of money is linear. (That is, giving up $10 is the same to someone earning minimum wage and to someone earning $150k).

You can hold that view - but recognize that it is a specific view, not an essential definition of fairness.

Journals are communities of respected scientists.

I was a bit confused as to how an article published by Wiley could even be on an Elsevier site, but it seems that the journal is transferring from Wiley to Elsevier. Guess they messed up the licensing when transferring the articles.

Price discrimination is when a business charges different prices to different groups of consumers for the same product or service.

Charging different prices for similar goods is not pure price discrimination.

Yes. Google "stagflation".

And if they are better at you at the experience side?

Indeed. Since we can so easily measure empathy, perseverance, innovativeness, drive and confidence (to name just a few more) with simple numerical scales, it does seem strange that intelligence is this weird exception. I blame political correctness myself.

On a per capita basis the US is currently 10th (Qatar, Luxembourg and Singapore are the top 3).

Height is highly heritable. North and South Koreans are genetically the same. The average South Korean is six inches taller than the average North Korean.

What does the assertion that intelligence is heritable mean to you?

Vivid beats valid.

No. Peer reviewers get: early access to articles of interest, the feeling of contributing to the community they belong to, the ability to demonstrate their knowledge, the ability to reciprocate other people for reviewing their own articles, and so on. These are not financial rewards, but they are not less strong for that (arguably even stronger).

Journals are heavily incentivized to maintain standards because otherwise good authors will stop submitting to them and librarians will stop subscribing (of course only the first incentive holds for OA journals).

The fact that system sometimes fails is not proof that it is a bad system - all human systems have a failure rate.

> But when the wavefunction is understood as encoding probabilities, then it's not something physical, and its collapse is no more mysterious than the probability of the Giants winning the World Series "collapsing" to 100% once the final game was played.

No, from my understanding this is not correct - what you say would be true if we lived in a classical world.

The problem with this approach - that is, interpreting the wave function as encoding probabilities of different states of the world that merely reflect our ignorance of the true state - is that it doesn't explain how we can get interference effects between those different potential states of the world.

The Yes side on this comes across as trying to elevate important but minor elaborations into major disagreements, seemingly just to raise the status of their work.

Some context here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/10/201...

> It's objectively true that increasing the cost of energy amounts to something like a regressive tax.

No, this is not (automatically) true, it matters how the increase is implemented. See, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...