Comments for The Quantum Pontiff http://dabacon.org/pontiff A College of Quantum Cardinals Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:36:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 Comment on Debate! by A Discussion and a Debate | Combinatorics and more http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643389 A Discussion and a Debate | Combinatorics and more Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:36:21 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643389 [...] this event is declared as a debate, I would like to think about it as a discussion. In the time scale of such a discussion what we can [...] [...] this event is declared as a debate, I would like to think about it as a discussion. In the time scale of such a discussion what we can [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by Research Works Act, la “SOPA” contra l’accés obert a la ciència | Q http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643380 Research Works Act, la “SOPA” contra l’accés obert a la ciència | Q Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:00:39 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643380 [...] per citar alguns exemples de blogs que segueixo, Tim Gowers, Steve Flammia, Scott Aaronson, Aram Harrow, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi… I segur que n’hi ha molts més. Per acabar, us recomano aquest [...] [...] per citar alguns exemples de blogs que segueixo, Tim Gowers, Steve Flammia, Scott Aaronson, Aram Harrow, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi… I segur que n’hi ha molts més. Per acabar, us recomano aquest [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by The Research Works Act, open access and publisher boycotts « sharmanedit http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643366 The Research Works Act, open access and publisher boycotts « sharmanedit Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:45:07 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643366 [...] of quantum mechanics and a co-blogger at ‘The Quantum Pontiff‘, asked ‘Why boycott Elsevier?‘, suggesting that a boycott was not enough – the system needs to change so that journals [...] [...] of quantum mechanics and a co-blogger at ‘The Quantum Pontiff‘, asked ‘Why boycott Elsevier?‘, suggesting that a boycott was not enough – the system needs to change so that journals [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by John Sidles http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643359 John Sidles Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:39:49 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643359 My cost estimate for the "Universal Library" is (a) 100 million peer-reviewed articles ⊗ (b) $250 per article paid for rights in perpetuity = $25 billion dollars. Spread over ten years, as the price of a permanently free academic literature, that price is pretty darn cheap. My cost estimate for the “Universal Library” is (a) 100 million peer-reviewed articles ⊗ (b) $250 per article paid for rights in perpetuity = $25 billion dollars.

Spread over ten years, as the price of a permanently free academic literature, that price is pretty darn cheap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Debate! by Wim van Dam http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643355 Wim van Dam Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:55:03 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643355 I agree with your point. A more appropriate title would have been: "Heavier-than-air flying machines of the 21st Century?" I agree with your point. A more appropriate title would have been: “Heavier-than-air flying machines of the 21st Century?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Debate! by John Sidles http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643354 John Sidles Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:29:49 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643354 There have been plenty of scientific debates that both sides (or even <i>all</i> sides!) have won: E. O. Wilson versus James Watson, Schwinger versus Feynman versus Tomanaga, Heisenberg versus Schroedinger, Salk versus Sabin (who can name others?). My hope and expectation is that the Harrow/Kalai debate similarly will help precipitate unification … especially since the two debaters are both of them so eminently worthy of our respect. There have been plenty of scientific debates that both sides (or even all sides!) have won: E. O. Wilson versus James Watson, Schwinger versus Feynman versus Tomanaga, Heisenberg versus Schroedinger, Salk versus Sabin (who can name others?).

My hope and expectation is that the Harrow/Kalai debate similarly will help precipitate unification … especially since the two debaters are both of them so eminently worthy of our respect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Debate! by Steve http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643353 Steve Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:23:02 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643353 Wim, that's hilarious. :) Also, may I point out that Lipton's blog isn't exactly neutral territory. Both Dick and Ken have expressed quantum skepticism in the past, e.g. <a href="http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/is-factoring-really-in-bqp-really/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Hopefully this debate can win over some hearts and minds. Wim, that’s hilarious. :)

Also, may I point out that Lipton’s blog isn’t exactly neutral territory. Both Dick and Ken have expressed quantum skepticism in the past, e.g. here.

Hopefully this debate can win over some hearts and minds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Debate! by Wim van Dam http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643352 Wim van Dam Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:04:01 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=6016#comment-643352 Sounds a lot like the quantum computing version of "debating the <a href="http://controversy.wearscience.com/" rel="nofollow">controversy</a>". Sounds a lot like the quantum computing version of “debating the controversy“.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by Jan Velterop http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643347 Jan Velterop Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:25:18 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643347 Less than the cost of the fighter planes annually lost worldwide in exercise, I reckon, not even counting the ones lost in battle. Less than the cost of the fighter planes annually lost worldwide in exercise, I reckon, not even counting the ones lost in battle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by John Sidles http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643337 John Sidles Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:09:33 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643337 OK, it's time for a "modest proposal." Or rather, a "modest Fermi estimate." What would be a fair price, to purchase by eminent domain, and to open forever to the public, available on-line, "free-as-in-freedom", <i>every peer-reviewed academic article ever published, in every subject, every year, and every language?</i> I will think on my financial estimate tonight, and post that estimate tomorrow evening (PST). Such a globalization-of-knowledge program might well be the smartest investment that the early 21st century could make. OK, it’s time for a “modest proposal.”

Or rather, a “modest Fermi estimate.”

What would be a fair price, to purchase by eminent domain, and to open forever to the public, available on-line, “free-as-in-freedom”, every peer-reviewed academic article ever published, in every subject, every year, and every language?

I will think on my financial estimate tonight, and post that estimate tomorrow evening (PST).

Such a globalization-of-knowledge program might well be the smartest investment that the early 21st century could make.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> Comment on Why boycott Elsevier? by Daniel Lemire http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643327 Daniel Lemire Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:28:17 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=5982#comment-643327 The copy editing done by journals is very shallow. I've found a dozen of typos in my published papers over the years... I've even a glaring typo in the abstract of a journal paper which appeared in a top notch (Elsevier) journal. All I can say on this is that copy editors hired by Elsevier, in my experience, are from India. (This is not a remark on their ability.) Given my approximate knowledge of the going rates in India I would conclude that $1000 is at least an order of magnitude too high a price, but I would not be surprised if it were two orders of magnitude too high or more. Anyhow, what is the value of copy editing to the scientific community? I would say that we would all agree that we are unwilling to pay $1000 per paper. I *don't* find that papers written by my peers are in need of more editing, even when I download it from arXiv as a preprint. You don't become a good scientist if you are a poor writer. And several of my colleagues who are weak in English pay for their own revisions. Of course, journals will try to hype the services they offer, and they will stress the importance of copy editing. The copy editing done by journals is very shallow. I’ve found a dozen of typos in my published papers over the years… I’ve even a glaring typo in the abstract of a journal paper which appeared in a top notch (Elsevier) journal.

All I can say on this is that copy editors hired by Elsevier, in my experience, are from India. (This is not a remark on their ability.) Given my approximate knowledge of the going rates in India I would conclude that $1000 is at least an order of magnitude too high a price, but I would not be surprised if it were two orders of magnitude too high or more.

Anyhow, what is the value of copy editing to the scientific community? I would say that we would all agree that we are unwilling to pay $1000 per paper.

I *don’t* find that papers written by my peers are in need of more editing, even when I download it from arXiv as a preprint. You don’t become a good scientist if you are a poor writer. And several of my colleagues who are weak in English pay for their own revisions.

Of course, journals will try to hype the services they offer, and they will stress the importance of copy editing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>