I think he means Steven Tyler's daughter. It's an easy enough mistake.
The world is littered with similar ghost towns.
In the old days we just called those "ancient Roman ruins.'
He must be new here.
He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!
What in the sam hell are you talking about? (genuine question)
Congrats. You're Bear Grylls and NEWSFLASH: this conversation is not about you and your outlier behavior. They're talking about the majority of SUV owners who do not use them like that.
Speaking of outliers, the NSA has almost certainly flagged you as a potential Kazinsky-type terrorist.
If there is no added value why do people pay then?
Are you naturally this obtuse, or do you practice at it?
They pay because the content has value--NONE OF WHICH IS ADDED BY ELSEVIER.
Elsevier engages in rent-seeking by locking up the value and then adding nothing to it.
This isn't complicated. There's a reason all of Elsevier's customers hate them. It's the same reason Comcast's customers hate them too--Comcast DOESN'T ADD VALUE to the content they deliver, which they also do not produce. In fact, they substantially reduce the value of the content they deliver with the restrictions they place on it.
Elsevier is the science-publishing equivalent of Comcast. They are middle men who use a legally enforced monopoly to extract money from both producers of research and users of it while giving both sides nothing of value.
I'm sad to see traditional publishers who pay for reporters and columnists be undermined by aggregators that leach content and don't do much
And the award for most ignorant post in the thread goes to......
Elsevier IS an aggregator that leaches content and doesn't do much--they don't produce ANYTHING. They've "acquired" copy rights on other people's research data by paying researchers NOTHING except the "prestige" of peer review (which they also don't do or pay for--they get the same researchers to do it for them for free.
They are the epitome of a leech. And the research community HATES them, but can't avoid them for a variety of institutional reasons (see also: publish or perish).
You have to realize that your parent poster graduated from a US high school and so lacks basic statistic literacy--he doesn't know what sampling bias is.
they'll probably just buy two shitty cars to drive every day anyways.
Which is EXACTLY what happened in Mexico City when they tried this sort of thing. It wound up making the problem worse.
Bureaucrats need to learn that you cannot force people to change their habits. They will work around any restrictions and then resent you for it. You have to change the environment that makes gas-burning cars attractive--improve public transit, subsidize electric (or raise petrol taxes, either way), mixed-zoning so people don't have to go as far for daily needs, etc.
So with OS-X having around 7% market share, does that mean the world contains a lot of idiots?
You must be new to this world.
Yes, it's full of idiots. Though that is unrelated to the discussion at hand.
I love posts like this about language where someone thinks they're being "more correct" and in reality they just have no fucking clue what they're talking about.
Next he'll be telling us that splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions are modern corruptions.
BTW your sarcasm detector is broken.
Probably the part where he thinks Obama will be president until 2024.
Jeez, give it a rest already. We get it! You like the taste of shoe polish and want your overlords' boots to be well licked.