You do realize the 'idiots in Sacramento' spend most of their time living and working in their home districts and only go to Sac to represent their district's interests while the legislature is in session?
The reason Stross' opinion might be worth paying attention to is his writing often revolves around economics, and people like Economics Nobellist Paul Krugman think he's solid on it: http://boingboing.net/2009/08/11/charlie-stross-and-p.html
I just set it up on a spare server and had a quick play with an odt version of a NIH grant (US National Institutes of Health) I'm collaborating on at the moment. Not too shabby - unlike google docs it doesn't completely bork the page formatting and the collection of styles we use to keep it in line with the (typographically absurd) requirements of the NIH (oh, SF424, how I hate thee). Which is a big deal, because most of the sections required in an NIH grant have strict page limits (and required fonts, font sizes, line spacing, and margin limits), and getting right to those page limits without going over is important. So when you've finished collaborating and are ready to download the final document, with google docs a) you have to reimpose those margins, fonts, etc which is a pita; and more importantly b) you run the real risk that on reimposing those margins, fonts etc the page count will change, requiring another whole round of editing to get it under the required page count. Whereas this appears to keep the document in odt the entire time and hence there'd be no nasty surprises at the end.
Having said all that, there's no way to add citations. Google docs has a close to useless implementation of citations (imagine 5 scientists collaborating on a document, each of whom have their own citation databases with thousands or tens of thousands of entries, and then go and have a play with citations in google docs. Try not to giggle too much when you realize how well that'd go..). But given open/libreoffice has really good integration with zotero, and zotero is also open source and browser based, it seems like these two could be made to talk to one another, which for academic collaborators would be a HUGE feature, jumping it way ahead of any other collaborative tool I've ever seen. And believe me, collaborative writing is so central to my work that I play with *anything* that looks like it might be an improvement on google docs or the nightmare of emailing around multiple copies of a document with 'track changes' in heavy use.
You forgot the third option - the hazard avoidance system saw the rocks and avoided them. The fact the lander didn't hit them suggests this is at least a plausable option..
"Post 1913 we can clearly see what happens in a democracy with the effective restraint on spending removed."
You become the richest most powerful country in the history of the world? Seriously, I can't imagine the US economy being even remotely as diverse and large as it is without 100 years of massive government spending on everything from a national road network to the development of computers.
I hear morale in the Stasi was pretty low immediately after the wall came down and revelations about exactly how pervasive their surveillance had been began leaking out too..
I'm currently research faculty at a large public university in California, with about 90% of my work funded by the NIH. When I was hired I had to sign something saying the University holds some intellectual property rights to anything I *patent* which was developed using university resources. Likewise the NIH requires me to report any patents or income derived from projectes they've funded (I'm not sure what happens if I do patent something - the kind of research I do doesn't lead to patents or income). However I retain exclusive *copyright* on anything I author, regardless of funding source or which university I work for. So if a given research project led to a patent and two papers, I could not give or sell the rights to the patent without involving both the university and whichever agency funded the research, but I am free to give away or otherwise reassign copyright on the papers without needing to talk to anyone else first. As a minor sidenote, the US is also a signatory to the Bearne convention on copyright, which means no matter what I sign with respect to copyright, I retain the "moral right" to be identified as the author of the paper, just the same as the Beatles might have signed away copyright to all their songs but retain an inalienable right to be identified as the authors of that music.
One thing I've heard is that a lot of the contracts between professional societies and publishers tend to be long term - in the 25 year+ range - so the prestgious 'Journal of X', compeltely owned by the 'Society for the Study of X' is still tied into a contract with 'Asshole publisher Y' which was signed before the internet was a 'real' way of doing academic business. Hence we can expect to see a lot of journals abruptly becoming open access and web only as those contracts expire.
Looks like you're right. I had a paper accepted by an Elsevier Journal in October and did the copyright stuff about a week ago. The form I received had the following radio buttons, which was what made me think other governments had carved out similar agreements. But a few minutes googling says this is just about who owns the copyright, not whether elsevier has to open access it after x months.
We are all US Government employees and there is no copyright to transfer
I am US Government employee but some of my co-authors are not
I am not a US Government employee but some of my co-authors are
The work was performed by contractors of the US Government under contract number: [textbox]
We are all UK Government employees electing to transfer copyright
We are all UK, Canadian or Australian Government employees and Crown Copyright is claimed
I am claiming Crown Copyright but some of my co-authors are not employees of the UK, Canadian or Australian Government
I am not claiming Crown Copyright but some of my co-authors are employees of the UK, Canadian or Australian Government
That's actually kind of what's happened. The US Government now requires all journals to make any paper funded by US tax dollars freely accessible to everyone within 12 months of publication. There's similar agreements in the EU, Britain, and Australia. When you do the copyright paperwork after a maunscript is accepted one of the things you incldue is the grant numbers that funded it so the journal knows whether they have to open-access it or not. The US agreement went into force in about 2007 from memory.
It's not about just 'getting your work out' - it's about the fact that the university who decides whether you get tenure or post-tenure promotions still does so partially on the basis of how many publications you have in peer-reviewed journals, and how high the impact factor of those journals is. My institution literally has a tenure requirements document that says "at least 3 papers published in journals from this list of high-impact journals, or at least 5 in this other list of lower-impact journals'. So it's publish in those journals or lose your job when you fail to get tenure. So you sign whatever the journal wants you to sign if you get a paper accepted there, no matter how stupid the terms. What needs to change is universities removing journals who abuse everyone from those magic lists, so we can all safely ignore them.
Don't give the bastards ideas!
Phase I-III are needed for treatments. FDA regulation of tests is different and considerably milder.
"There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property, or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." (Blackstone, 1766 Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume II of the Rights of Things
In a lot of disciplines, the most prestegious journals are actually owned by scholarly societies, and are published under contract with publishers. 'Science' is the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 'Addiction' (the highest impact journal in my own field) is the journal of the British Society for the Study of Addiction., but is published under contract by Wiley. In other words, publishers *don't* actually "hold the prestige".
A lot of the contracts between scolarly societies and publishers are 25 year kind of things, and were signed long before open access was a thing. But for a lot of journals those contracts are coming towards their end, and I suspect in the next decade we'll see increasing numbers of high impact journals go open access as a consequence.