Who polices what gets to be an acceptable profession? No one. Certainly not the MAFIAA and it's associates. Those are the people who make entertainment a profession of ill repute.

Pay for the musician's upkeep? The musician pays, who else? What the hell you mean, he can't hold down a real job? He holds a job to pay for his necessities, and after that is taken care of, he can amuse himself, and others, with his music.

If you starve to death because people stop buying games and software, then the world will have lost nothing. You're talking to a man who has changed careers multiple times. If your career suddenly dries up, you do what I've done - learn some new skills and/or learn how to apply your skills to another field. Stop sniveling. You boys and girls who play with code are nothing special.

But Alicia Wise, Director of Access & Policy at Elsevier, says that couldn't possibly have happened!

I've called it to her attention. Possibly she will even respond! Who knows?

That's what fancy splash screens are for.

Everyone should be legally prohibited from owning copyrights. As in copyright should be abolished entirely. If I own an item, it's my right to do with it what I see fit. Use as intended, destroy, reverse engineer, or copy.

And, no, I don't care what your objections are - there are nasal spray versions of all the shots

You should care what the objections are. The objections are not to the vaccine itself but to thiomersal used in them as a preservative. It is entirely possible to provide the vaccine without thiomersal (in Europe that's already standard practice) and if you listened to the objections, you'd do so and get more people vaccinated. The only blame here is on your insistence that thiomersal is safe, which is not your decision in the first place. Each patient has a right to decide what to put in his body, and if he does not want to put a mercury-based compound in there, what right have you to force him?

Or the Chronicle, at least: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865

By "edited by Elsevier", you mean of course "edited by someone else not getting paid either".

Claiming copyright on layout - a mechanical function - is severely questionable given Bridgeman v. Corel. Sweat of the brow does not earn you a copyright in the US.

Here's the Chronicle on this kerfuffle: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 The scientists are not happy.

At the end of every speech, announce: "Elsevier delenda est."

This has made the Chronicle: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865

I wonder if this is really aimed at academia.edu rather than the authors. As far as I can tell, Elsevier hasn't (yet, at least) gone after academics posting their own papers on their own website in the traditional manner, i.e. as a PDF at www.university.edu/~jsmith/papers/smith2013bigresult.pdf.

Easy. Force all government funded research to be published in an open access journal as a condition of that funding. Nature will either have to accept papers that are available for free, or become a vanity press for corporations.

Concerning impact factors, they seem a little indirect. The impact factor is the average number of citations a work in the journal receives. Why not just count the number of citations a work actually receives? If I publish a paper in Nature that receives no citations, what good is it to the scientific community and why should I get rewarded for that? If I publish a paper in PLOS One that gets hundreds of citations, isn't that more important than the publisher I chose?

The way the review service has been funded in the past is that they charge quite a bit to obtain the Journal's distribution.

Peer review is done on a volunteer basis by other researchers in your field.

Why not just put it on their institutional web server, and submit the link to google?

Because that doesn't count towards tenure.

Many of these journals require copyright assignment, at which point it's not your own work anymore. Just one more reason the traditional scientific publishing model needs to die a quick death.

"According to Tesla, the car needs a constant flow of power to keep its computers and systems switched on 24/7, ready to boot up instantly when the driver gets into the car.

That's just stupid. It won't hurt anyone to wait 20 seconds for the computers to boot up. If it takes longer than 20 seconds to boot the cars computers, WTF? PCs only take minutes to boot because of legacy BIOS and OS writers who don't care about boot times. Embedded computers suffer none of these problems.

Or 4.5kWh/24h=190W. Almost enough to power 2 100W lightbulbs.