[9fans] octopus paper

[9fans] octopus paper

[Francisco J Ballesteros]

Given the lag in publication, this system is no longer under development
(though we are still using it), but here's a paper about the Octopus.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016412121200043X

I post it here because it's related to Plan 9.

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

> Given the lag in publication, this system is no longer under development
> (though we are still using it), but here's a paper about the Octopus.
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016412121200043X

It asks me for $31.50 to download the paper.

-- 
Aram Hăvărneanu

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Francisco J Ballesteros]

WoW! I hate them.
It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
I'll talk to you off list.

On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:

>> Given the lag in publication, this system is no longer under development
>> (though we are still using it), but here's a paper about the Octopus.
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016412121200043X
> 
> It asks me for $31.50 to download the paper.
> 
> -- 
> Aram Hăvărneanu

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 253 bytes --]

Welcome to the world of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.

On 2 March 2012 10:29, Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org> wrote:

> WoW! I hate them.
> It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
> I'll talk to you off list.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 475 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Jeff Sickel]

The next time I visit London will include a walking tour of the
place that started all of this mess.  Sadly, I think the price
to join the information club has been increasing.

On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:

> Welcome to the world of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
> 
> On 2 March 2012 10:29, Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org> wrote:
> 
>> WoW! I hate them.
>> It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
>> I'll talk to you off list.

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Nicolas Bercher]

On 02/03/2012 13:11, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> Welcome to the world of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
>
> On 2 March 2012 10:29, Francisco J Ballesteros<nemo@lsub.org>  wrote:
>
>> WoW! I hate them.
>> It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
>> I'll talk to you off list.
>

Here at CNRS, you are starting to struggle against this crazy system:

  1) we pay to submit papers
  2) we pay to read papers from others
  3) we have to pay more if we want our papers to be freely accessible
  4) we are not paid for peer review

4 times a shame, at least.

Nicolas

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[John Floren]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Nicolas Bercher <nbercher@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 13:11, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> Welcome to the world of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
>>
>> On 2 March 2012 10:29, Francisco J Ballesteros<nemo@lsub.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> WoW! I hate them.
>>> It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
>>> I'll talk to you off list.
>>
>>
>
> Here at CNRS, you are starting to struggle against this crazy system:
>
>  1) we pay to submit papers
>  2) we pay to read papers from others
>  3) we have to pay more if we want our papers to be freely accessible
>  4) we are not paid for peer review
>
> 4 times a shame, at least.
>
> Nicolas
>

Unless Elsevier is even more evil that I thought, Nemo should still be
able to post a PDF on lsub.org. Now, if they're really evil, they got
exclusive rights...

John

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Nemo]

I'm trying to clear that out, we'll see.

On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:27 PM, John Floren wrote:
>
> Unless Elsevier is even more evil that I thought, Nemo should still be
> able to post a PDF on lsub.org. Now, if they're really evil, they got
> exclusive rights...
>
> John

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Jeff Sickel]

Tread carefully.

A recent copyright case did not go well for the author of a paper.

On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Nemo wrote:

> I'm trying to clear that out, we'll see.
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:27 PM, John Floren wrote:
>>
>> Unless Elsevier is even more evil that I thought, Nemo should still be
>> able to post a PDF on lsub.org. Now, if they're really evil, they got
>> exclusive rights...
>>
>> John
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Nemo]

Ok. They said explicitly that I can post pre-prints of the paper at web sites.

http://lsub.org/ls/export/ojss.ps


On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Nemo wrote:

> I'm trying to clear that out, we'll see.
> 
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:27 PM, John Floren wrote:
>> 
>> Unless Elsevier is even more evil that I thought, Nemo should still be
>> able to post a PDF on lsub.org. Now, if they're really evil, they got
>> exclusive rights...
>> 
>> John
> 

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Nicolas Bercher]

On 02/03/2012 17:27, John Floren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Nicolas Bercher<nbercher@yahoo.fr>  wrote:
>> On 02/03/2012 13:11, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>>
>>> Welcome to the world of Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2012 10:29, Francisco J Ballesteros<nemo@lsub.org>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> WoW! I hate them.
>>>> It seems my university is subscribed and I could browse it freely…
>>>> I'll talk to you off list.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here at CNRS, you are starting to struggle against this crazy system:
>>
>>   1) we pay to submit papers
>>   2) we pay to read papers from others
>>   3) we have to pay more if we want our papers to be freely accessible
>>   4) we are not paid for peer review
>>
>> 4 times a shame, at least.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>
> Unless Elsevier is even more evil that I thought, Nemo should still be
> able to post a PDF on lsub.org. Now, if they're really evil, they got
> exclusive rights...

Yes, this is point 5) I forgot.  Once your paper is submitted and if you
want to publish it via any other fees-less channel, say, this list, I
think you need to slightly modifidy your paper.  Basically, you give
your rights to the publishor/editor on the paper you submitted.  We
could state that they now own about ~95% of human knowledge, published
in the form of specific papers.  Somehow, this is scaring.

Nicolas

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[tlaronde]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:23:26PM +0100, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
>
> Here at CNRS, you are starting to struggle against this crazy system:
>
>  1) we pay to submit papers
>  2) we pay to read papers from others
>  3) we have to pay more if we want our papers to be freely accessible
>  4) we are not paid for peer review
>
> 4 times a shame, at least.

If only the result of such a system would be papers worth reading...

--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Jack Johnson]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org> wrote:
> Given the lag in publication, this system is no longer under development
> (though we are still using it), but here's a paper about the Octopus.

Hey Francisco,

First, I really like the ideas in Octopus. I think it was extremely
well-considered, and worth reviewing as people reconsider where and
how money is allocated in the various cloud-based infrastructure
subsystems, and how much or how little it affects the net effect.

Would you say it's more in "maintenance mode" or are you already
considering the subsequent cephalopod? :)

-Jack

Re: [9fans] octopus paper

[Nemo]

I have plans for something related to it in the future, but nix goes before that
and it will still take a long time to get there.
So, for me, it's just the system I use for development (working on nix, mostly).


On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Jack Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org> wrote:
>> Given the lag in publication, this system is no longer under development
>> (though we are still using it), but here's a paper about the Octopus.
> 
> Hey Francisco,
> 
> First, I really like the ideas in Octopus. I think it was extremely
> well-considered, and worth reviewing as people reconsider where and
> how money is allocated in the various cloud-based infrastructure
> subsystems, and how much or how little it affects the net effect.
> 
> Would you say it's more in "maintenance mode" or are you already
> considering the subsequent cephalopod? :)
> 
> -Jack