2085: "arXiv"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpers36
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

2085: "arXiv"

Postby jpers36 » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:09 pm UTC

Image

Title text: Both arXiv and archive.org are invaluable projects which, if they didn't exist, we would dismiss as obviously ridiculous and unworkable.

I still have no idea how archive.org works legally, but I use it for films and books pretty regularly. I'm in the middle of Village of the Damned, the one from 1960. I usually watch in 30 minute increments on the stationary bike.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby Jorpho » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

That title text is on point.

Is arXiv deliberately buried in search results somehow? I can't say it comes up very often when I go looking for papers. I do find stuff on scribd on occasion (and circumventing scribd's paywall is just a teensy bit inconvenient).

I would suggest avoiding ResearchGate, as it's probably worse than LinkedIn when it comes to spamming.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby pogrmman » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:40 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:That title text is on point.

Is arXiv deliberately buried in search results somehow? I can't say it comes up very often when I go looking for papers. I do find stuff on scribd on occasion (and circumventing scribd's paywall is just a teensy bit inconvenient).

I would suggest avoiding ResearchGate, as it's probably worse than LinkedIn when it comes to spamming.

arXiv is really, really subject-dependent. If you’re looking for a physics or astronomy paper, you can probably just go to arXiv and find it. But outside of those fields, they don’t really have a ton of stuff.

I find that google scholar will often pop up the arXiv link under “full text” for the pdf — but it’s also pretty smart: when I’m using internet from my college campus, it’ll pull up the direct pdf links for pretty much everything. At home, it only pulls up stuff I can actually access.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby MartianInvader » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am UTC

pogrmman wrote:arXiv is really, really subject-dependent. If you’re looking for a physics or astronomy paper, you can probably just go to arXiv and find it. But outside of those fields, they don’t really have a ton of stuff.

Also most fields in math.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

popman
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby popman » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:00 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:--SNIP--
I still have no idea how archive.org works legally, but I use it for films and books pretty regularly. I'm in the middle of Village of the Damned, the one from 1960. I usually watch in 30 minute increments on the stationary bike.



Everything they have is either gone into the public domain, or free for reuse. (unless someone uploads something they shouldn't)
The wayback machine (the part that archives the web) is different. They seem to just get everything, unless robots.txt tells them not to, and remove any content that gets complained about.
www.crashie8.com

xtifr
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby xtifr » Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:58 pm UTC

popman wrote:
jpers36 wrote:--SNIP--
I still have no idea how archive.org works legally, but I use it for films and books pretty regularly. I'm in the middle of Village of the Damned, the one from 1960. I usually watch in 30 minute increments on the stationary bike.



Everything they have is either gone into the public domain, or free for reuse. (unless someone uploads something they shouldn't)
The wayback machine (the part that archives the web) is different. They seem to just get everything, unless robots.txt tells them not to, and remove any content that gets complained about.


Well, they also have stuff you can check out temporarily, like any other library. Because that's basically what they are: a library. They're a member of the American Library Association, and they're partnered with the Smithsonian, which, I believe, provides most of their funding. Which is why they can operate at the scale they do.

But yeah, their public media collections are public domain or otherwise free (Creative Commons, etc.). Much like Project Gutenberg--which is actually included in their collection. As is ArXiv! :)
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby keithl » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:16 pm UTC

Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic often link to useful papers in publicly accessible places, such as the author's own personal website, especially academics at the more enlightened universities. Some less enlightened universities forbid paper sharing - a couple of years ago, Penn State made James Kasting remove his seminal papers from his website. But not before others in free countries like Russia :-) copied the papers onto their own personal websites, where Google and Microsoft find them. Explore the world - the truth is out there.
Most academics are pleased to send PDFs to other academics - sharing papers leads to more citations, and more citations leads to tenure.
It is a pity the academics don't use wiki technology to maintain continually-updating versions of their best papers online, so that only frozen and out-of-date versions are "owned" by the big publisher Kopyright Kops.
It is even more of a pity that we don't encourage "disciplined plagiarism": make paraphrasing and expanding the best papers online an academic requirement for a university degree. Put undergraduate students to work expanding the free academic sphere, teach them how to rewrite, and demonstrate their skills to graduate and postdoc programs.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby keithl » Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:32 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:They're a member of the American Library Association, and they're partnered with the Smithsonian, which, I believe, provides most of their funding. Which is why they can operate at the scale they do.
Brewster Kahle sold a few successful dot.com startups. Internet Archive is what he did with his wealth. Many other wealthy internet founders contribute, as well as small amounts of money and in-kind donations from hundreds of thousands of non-wealthy folks like me. Hopefully you will contribute also. Be the change ...

From Wikipedia (Jimmy Wale's successful "hobby project"):
"Founded by Brewster Kahle in May 1996, the Archive is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating in the United States. It has an annual budget of $10 million, derived from a variety of sources: revenue from its Web crawling services, various partnerships, grants, donations, and the Kahle-Austin Foundation."

Mental Mouse
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby Mental Mouse » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:36 pm UTC

The way such collaborative projects work is by bringing together people who share a common goal or interest. Relatedly, the fastest way to kill such a collaborative project, is to demand that it make a profit.

That's not just because "making a profit" is a completely separate purpose, but also because profit-taking intrinsically implies extracting resources -- which is not just competing with the original collaboration, but predatory to it.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby Jorpho » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:07 am UTC

popman wrote:Everything they have is either gone into the public domain, or free for reuse. (unless someone uploads something they shouldn't)

There's just so much there that probably shouldn't be there, especially in their software collections. Don't they have some kind of DCMA exemption?

I found the fulltext of Good Omens there recently. They also have a nifty collection of 68k Macintosh software that all conveniently runs in-browser.

jpers36
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:37 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:
popman wrote:Everything they have is either gone into the public domain, or free for reuse. (unless someone uploads something they shouldn't)

There's just so much there that probably shouldn't be there, especially in their software collections. Don't they have some kind of DCMA exemption?

I found the fulltext of Good Omens there recently. They also have a nifty collection of 68k Macintosh software that all conveniently runs in-browser.


Exactly. How is it that I'm able to play the original Pitfall! on archive.org? I'm pretty sure it's not in the public domain. Do they have some exemption through their library status? Are they just not good at finding the stuff that's been illegally uploaded?

jpers36
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:39 pm UTC

Mental Mouse wrote:profit-taking intrinsically implies extracting resources


TANGENT WARNING

Why do you believe this?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:53 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
Mental Mouse wrote:profit-taking intrinsically implies extracting resources


TANGENT WARNING

Why do you believe this?


Not the guy you're asking, but:

How can you take a profit out of a system without extracting anything from the system? It seems pretty tautological to me that taking something out of the system takes something out of the system. A system that naturally generates a surplus and has insufficient potential for further growth to absorb that surplus gives profits naturally, but it's still possible for greed to push the profit-taking into being the limiting factor on the system's growth/well-being.

jpers36
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:56 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:A system that naturally generates a surplus and has insufficient potential for further growth to absorb that surplus gives profits naturally


There are some terms/assumptions I'd dispute, but this is basically what I'm arguing. Surplus situations exist within any economy which allow for all parties to benefit without predation, even when one or more parties is acting based on profit motive. Mental Mouse seems to be of the opinion that this is untrue so I'm looking for clarification.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:36 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:Surplus situations exist within any economy which allow for all parties to benefit without predation, even when one or more parties is acting based on profit motive.
Though I'm not Mental Mouse, it seems to me that the position is that in such ("win win") cases, the surplus can go to any of several parties (including the host party, i.e. "leaving it there"), and some of those parties "deserve it less", thus depriving the parties that "deserve it more" of what might have been theirs. Greed encourages a party to take as much of the surplus as they can get their grubby hands on.

If "profit motive" is equivalent to "greed", then the position arises naturally. That's the part where I would take issue. "Greed" is more like "excessive profit motive", and is, of course, not a Boolean but a matter of degree.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

ijuin
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby ijuin » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:39 pm UTC

For simplicity’s sake, let’s define “greed” in this context as the situation where maximizing profit overrides a party’s other concerns—e.g. for the academic publisher example given above, the prioritization of profit margin over providing a good service.

Mental Mouse
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: 2085: "arXiv"

Postby Mental Mouse » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:37 pm UTC

Yeah, you folks have basically got my point. I'll add that for "normal" companies, the company has intake streams too, and it has some control over those -- e.g., if costs go up, the company can raise prices or do something else to get more money and make a profit. Remember that the original context of my comment was crowdsourced projects, where the important input of resources is essentially volunteerism, and that can't simply be balanced against money. In that case, cash on hand is scarce, and can easily be a limiting factor. I've known projects that went under either because they couldn't get enough money to rent a meeting space or a server, or because one of the central players put a hole in the cash bucket (inappropriate spending and/or theft). Demanding a profit from something that's fundamentally not a cash business, seems to fall under the latter case,


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ZoomanSP and 39 guests