Oh, I had a similar experience - need to ping him again.
2,545 karma · joined September 10, 2010
- several people here mention that they learned this phrase in the military
- the first written mention I could find is in a 1998 army report [0]
- the first Google Books hit for this phrase is from 1970 but this seems to be an error - the full text preview is from a different, recent book [1]
- Internet Archive has a lot of hits - but the earliest ones - except for the army report mentioned above - are from the 2000s (don't be fooled by wrong publishing dates in the metadata) [2]
- Google Ngram Viewer shows a brief appearance around 1980 (maybe a fluke) and then a steady rise in the 2000s [3].
- In one army magazine I saw an extended version: "slow is smooth, smooth is fast, fast is deadly" (which doesn't transfer that well to other professions)
[0] https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA357718/page/23/mode/2up?...
[1] https://www.google.de/books/edition/Span_of_Control/IYy_EAAA...
[2] https://archive.org/search?query=%22slow+is+smooth%22&sin=TX...
[3] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=slow+is+smooth...
German intelligence service BND famously argued ~10 years ago that them intercepting satellite communication at their listening station in Bad Aibling does not in fact happen on German soil but in space. Therefore, they argued, their surveillance activities weren't bound by German laws at all.
import "$tempfile"
TEXT=`tesseract -l eng+deu "$tempfile" stdout`
echo "$TEXT" | xsel -i -bHowever, it seems the firmware was written as 0x800 byte pages:
- Lasse's blog (in German): https://leben-im-zug.de/
- r/de thread (in German): https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/1b4syao/dieser_17j%C3%A...
AFAIK, licensing agreements between libraries and digital publishers typically include a right to perpetual access to articles in a journal or digital library they subscribe to. Any papers published while the licensing agreement is in place are to be made available even if the library cancels their subscription. This also includes the right to make backup copies of the digital library.
(Here's such an agreement between ACM and the Norwegian universities: https://www.openscience.no/media/3449/download?inline )
What the library is allowed to do with this backup probably depends on country-specific laws.
However, if I understand the current situation correctly, ACM allows everyone to download CACM articles but not to redistribute them, right?
In theory, they could also explicitly allow anyone to redistribute all of their publications (they reserve the right to do this in the licensing agreement with authors). However, I'd argue that it is not in ACMs interest to do so - and probably not in mine, either. Having a central, trustworthy source has benefits - e.g. when retracting papers. I'm fine with the ACM DL being free to use and having library backups as safety nets if ACM ever goes under.
For new OA publications at conferences/journals, authors get a choice of CC licenses [1,2]. The respective licenses can be found in an article's [3] "Information" sidebar (hidden by default) or the HTML/PDF version [4]. Unfortunately, the licenses are apparently not shown more prominently in the ACM Digital Library. The search function does not allow filtering by license either.
For CACM articles, the traditional ACM copyright notice seems to apply [5] (maybe there are CC-licensed articles, but I did not see any so far):
"Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author."
For pre-OA publications (< ~2020 ?), authors could either transfer copyright or give ACM a publishing license [3]. I'd assume that ACM may assign an arbitrary CC license to publications to which they own the copyright but not to ones for which they only have publishing rights. Given that authors only licensed publishing rights for the final article to ACM, I'd guess the only acceptable CC license in this case would be CC-BY-ND.
However, I guess that ACM won't want to go through the trouble of assigning CC licenses to older publications.
EDIT:
My tentative guesses/answers to your questions would be:
> - how effectively libraries' rights to archive, copy, and redistribute works published in cacm is protected;
IIRC, libraries subscribing to ACM's DL already have the right to archive the content. Given that many authors have only given ACM the right to distribute their works, I'm not sure whether scraping OA articles is allowed. (ACM has been banning IP ranges for mass-downloading papers in the past, so be careful.)
> - whether the license is compatible with incorporation of text into wikipedia and stack overflow; and
IMHO, only if a non-ND CC license was applied to the article. Also, correct attribution is still needed [7].
> - to what extent volunteer translations into languages such as chinese and spanish can be legally archived, copied, and redistributed
Again, probably only for explicitly CC-licensed content (excluding -ND).
[1] https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/publication-rights...
[2] https://cfiesler.medium.com/acm-copyright-licenses-which-sho...
[3] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3623509.3633366
[4] https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3623509.3633366
[5] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3624717 (sidebar)
[6] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14734/which-acm...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Creative_Commons_text...
IIRC, he always said that any OA model for ACM requires careful thinking about a sustainable business model.
In 2009 he argued [1]:
> "Indeed, the idea of unfettered access to scientific knowledge naturally resonates with many researchers, including me. So why doesn’t ACM become an open-access publisher? [...] ACM operates as a democratic association. If you believe that ACM should change its publishing business model, then you should lobby for this position. [...] The second issue is the business model of association publishing, for example, "reader pays" vs. "authors pays." This is a legitimate topic of discussion, as long as we understand that it cannot be separated from the overall business model of the association. Just remember, "free" is not a sound business model."
In 2018 he wrote [2]:
> "If we are serious about open access, then we must discuss its underlying business model. Let’s get serious about open access!"
[1] https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/open-closed-or-clopen-access/
They plan to make the entire digital library freely accessible by January 1, 2026.
Here's a short article about timeline and implications: https://medium.com/sigchi/about-acm-open-cd544408559c
EDIT: for anyone wondering why there need to be APCs at all, Jonathan Aldrich gives a glimpse into costs and benefits of 'traditional' publishers: https://medium.com/sigchi/what-benefits-do-traditional-publi...
What I don't understand (as a European with little knowledge of court decisions on fair use): with the same reasoning you might make software piracy a case of 'fair use', no? You take stuff someone else wrote - without their consent - and use it to create something new. The output (e.g. the artwork you create with Photoshop) is definitely not copyrighted by the manufacturer of the software. But in the case of software piracy, it is not about the output. With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use.
Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing?
I'd argue that a customer who accesses their own data on a vendor's database via a client has also the right to access it via a different client.
https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/uploads/publicati...
https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/projects/the-wedg...