Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/hardwarex/
Ordinarily, I wouldn't have brought this up at all however, since it appears this is going to be an open access journal, I am thinking that it may in fact be handled in a manner that is compatible with the spirit and the goals of the EOMA-68 project. Given the readership of scholarly journals, an effort to get a publication about this new open hardware standard could result a lot of interest and adoption within the scientific community. Perhaps if that comes to fruition, we may see EOMA-68 cards adopted as components used within custom sensors or instrumentation.
Anyhow, I'd say looking into this may be worth at least a few minutes of time.
-Mike
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Mike Leimon leimon@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
appreciated.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't have brought this up at all however, since it appears this is going to be an open access journal, I am thinking that it may in fact be handled in a manner that is compatible with the spirit and the goals of the EOMA-68 project. Given the readership of scholarly journals, an effort to get a publication about this new open hardware standard could result a lot of interest and adoption within the scientific community. Perhaps if that comes to fruition, we may see EOMA-68 cards adopted as components used within custom sensors or instrumentation.
Anyhow, I'd say looking into this may be worth at least a few minutes of time.
did that.... it's associated with the "OSHWA".
they use the phrase "open source hardware". as in, it's okay to create hardware with built-in DRM locking, Tivoisation and other unethical traps that are disguised as "open" but in fact mislead people and entrap them.
if they change the name to "libre hardware" - where we then also have to define "hardware" as well (as it could refer to silicon, designs, casework, or even just to "the manufacture of spoons" - nothing to do with computers at all) i'll be more inclined to be involved.
as it is i have so much to do over the next few months that i have to decline... much as i am grateful that you brought it up, mike. if anyone else feels confident about writing something and presenting it please feel free, i'll be happy to review it.
l.
On 9/1/16 11:15 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
they use the phrase "open source hardware". as in, it's okay to create hardware with built-in DRM locking, Tivoisation and other unethical traps that are disguised as "open" but in fact mislead people and entrap them.
Oh look. It is time for a religious war.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Al Billings albill@openbuddha.com wrote:
On 9/1/16 11:15 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
they use the phrase "open source hardware". as in, it's okay to create hardware with built-in DRM locking, Tivoisation and other unethical traps that are disguised as "open" but in fact mislead people and entrap them.
Oh look. It is time for a religious war.
that's not very helpful, al. please don't use sarcasm on this list in a derogatory way, or distract me from fulfilling my promises. there are plenty of other lists where that behaviour is acceptable: this isn't one of them.
just a couple of hours ago i sent a message explaining i am dealing with an enormous and completely overwhelming list of tasks in order to fulfil the promises and committments that have just been made to over 1,500 people. i don't appreciate having to deal with sarcastic remarks as a major distraction from any one of those tasks.
i trust that that's really *really* clear.
l.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
that's not very helpful, al. please don't use sarcasm on this list in a derogatory way, or distract me from fulfilling my promises. there are plenty of other lists where that behaviour is acceptable: this isn't one of them.
just a couple of hours ago i sent a message explaining i am dealing with an enormous and completely overwhelming list of tasks in order to fulfil the promises and committments that have just been made to over 1,500 people. i don't appreciate having to deal with sarcastic remarks as a major distraction from any one of those tasks.
i trust that that's really *really* clear.
faaackin 'ellfire, that guy was scary. he emailed me off-list 10 times in under 20 minutes. i had to block him so as to prevent further net abuse. just wasted over half an hour dealing with his demands instead of getting on with fulfilling the promises that i've made to everyone else.
l.
On 1 Sep 2016 3:45 p.m., "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton" lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
that's not very helpful, al. please don't use sarcasm on this list in a derogatory way, or distract me from fulfilling my promises. there are plenty of other lists where that behaviour is acceptable: this isn't one of them.
just a couple of hours ago i sent a message explaining i am dealing with an enormous and completely overwhelming list of tasks in order to fulfil the promises and committments that have just been made to over 1,500 people. i don't appreciate having to deal with sarcastic remarks as a major distraction from any one of those tasks.
i trust that that's really *really* clear.
faaackin 'ellfire, that guy was scary. he emailed me off-list 10 times in under 20 minutes. i had to block him so as to prevent further net abuse. just wasted over half an hour dealing with his demands instead of getting on with fulfilling the promises that i've made to everyone else.
I thought he was being sarcastic when he said time for a religious war. Sounds like he was serious lol.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Adam Van Ymeren adam.vany@gmail.com wrote:
I thought he was being sarcastic when he said time for a religious war. Sounds like he was serious lol.
i saw this phenomenon twice at hopeconf2016, after dr stallman's talk. two people - i had to stand next to one of them as i was next in line for questions - whilst he shouted into the microphone at dr stallman, to accuse him of hypocrisy... hypocrisy of what, the guy didn't say... and it didn't matter: it allowed this guy the opportunity to dismiss with prejudice everything he'd heard, thus allowing him to return to the comfort of the compromises that he clearly didn't like being made aware that he'd made without realising it.
why exactly this guy sat through an *entire 1hr30m talk* instead of walking out half way through it in disgust (as opposed to sitting still for 1hr30, getting up, shouting at dr stallman and *then* walking out in disgust)... that will have to remain a hilarious paradoxical mystery.
l.
On Thursday 1. September 2016 20.04.58 Mike Leimon wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
It's interesting to know that Elsevier think it's worth "taking a punt" on something like this, even though they publish books and journals on anything and everything. It may help to get attention from a wider audience.
Personally, I have a low opinion of journal publishing, having seen the brand obsession that pervades academia: publish a good article in a suitable journal that random assessors of the described work don't already know and there's no recognition to be had; get in amongst the authors on an article about someone else's work that gets into a "brand name" journal and suddenly you did something worthwhile after all.
Combine that with "publication points" and other "productivity measures" introduced to academia to make it more like the world of business and the actual priorities of research and sharing knowledge take something of a back seat.
And there are the long-disliked aspects of the peer-review process, which in this case involve paying $500 to Elsevier ($100 special initial offer!) per submitted article and then presumably having your work reviewed by people who are doing the reviewing for free. The positive side of this is that the copyright of articles seems to be retained by the author - unlike a lot of journal publishing - and that the licences are mostly standard Creative Commons ones (CC-BY and CC-BY-NC-ND):
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/open-access- licenses
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
Elsevier, of course, gets additional rights. How else would they make all that money?
http://theoryofcomputing.org/crisis.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/academic-publisher-elsevier-hit-with- growing-boycott-1.1166665
Ordinarily, I wouldn't have brought this up at all however, since it appears this is going to be an open access journal, I am thinking that it may in fact be handled in a manner that is compatible with the spirit and the goals of the EOMA-68 project. Given the readership of scholarly journals, an effort to get a publication about this new open hardware standard could result a lot of interest and adoption within the scientific community. Perhaps if that comes to fruition, we may see EOMA-68 cards adopted as components used within custom sensors or instrumentation.
Anyhow, I'd say looking into this may be worth at least a few minutes of time.
I don't disagree, despite what I wrote above, although I remain skeptical about the efficiency of such methods of informing and educating others. But I don't intend to tell anyone what to do with their time, and I appreciate you making us all aware of this.
Sorry to sound so negative above: it's a topic that can easily provoke a rant based on prior experiences and observations, especially in an academic context. I actually did contribute some articles to a genuine open access journal several years ago, and while I remain unconvinced of the effect those articles had, I did support the mission of that publication as a way of providing decent-quality material about the topic being covered.
Paul
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 1. September 2016 20.04.58 Mike Leimon wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
It's interesting to know that Elsevier think it's worth "taking a punt" on something like this, even though they publish books and journals on anything and everything. It may help to get attention from a wider audience.
which begs the question (bringing things back to a positive note) - so thank you to mike for raising this so that the idea can come about: why the heck don't we set up some sort of journal / conference at some point? or find a suitable existing conference and ask them if they'd like to run a track. fosdem2016 or something. fosdem's big enough (but might also be too big already).
l.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:26:11PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 1. September 2016 20.04.58 Mike Leimon wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
It's interesting to know that Elsevier think it's worth "taking a punt" on something like this, even though they publish books and journals on anything and everything. It may help to get attention from a wider audience.
which begs the question (bringing things back to a positive note) - so thank you to mike for raising this so that the idea can come about: why the heck don't we set up some sort of journal / conference at some point? or find a suitable existing conference and ask them if they'd like to run a track. fosdem2016 or something. fosdem's big enough (but might also be too big already).
There's a mini-Debconf at ARM in Cambridge in November ...
Elzevier - avoid at all costs if you value freedom in any respect. Various scientific folks have begun to boycott them and publish in house or independent peer-reviewed publication.
FOSDEM might well be an option.
AndyC
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Andrew M.A. Cater amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:26:11PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Thursday 1. September 2016 20.04.58 Mike Leimon wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
It's interesting to know that Elsevier think it's worth "taking a punt" on something like this, even though they publish books and journals on anything and everything. It may help to get attention from a wider audience.
which begs the question (bringing things back to a positive note) - so thank you to mike for raising this so that the idea can come about: why the heck don't we set up some sort of journal / conference at some point? or find a suitable existing conference and ask them if they'd like to run a track. fosdem2016 or something. fosdem's big enough (but might also be too big already).
There's a mini-Debconf at ARM in Cambridge in November ...
oo that'd be fun. bit early. i was thinking more along the lines of after people have their pledges, so they have some opportunity to play with them.
Elzevier - avoid at all costs if you value freedom in any respect. Various scientific folks have begun to boycott them and publish in house or independent peer-reviewed publication.
iiinteresting...
FOSDEM might well be an option.
it's around the right time - i may still be in the far east though.
l.
On Thursday 1. September 2016 23.26.11 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
which begs the question (bringing things back to a positive note) - so thank you to mike for raising this so that the idea can come about: why the heck don't we set up some sort of journal / conference at some point? or find a suitable existing conference and ask them if they'd like to run a track. fosdem2016 or something. fosdem's big enough (but might also be too big already).
Yes, sorry once again to be negative, and thanks to Mike for bringing the journal to our attention! I just wanted to point out the pitfalls of such channels, although most people might start to suspect something as soon as the $100/$500 fee appears on their screens.
Some Free Software conferences have poster sessions, alongside the usual talks and tutorials. Once upon a time, EuroPython had a reviewed papers track, which I thought was very exotic for a community conference, but I guess it was an honest attempt to replicate that aspect of academic conferences.
Other kinds of conferences might also be relevant, of course. It might be easiest to start with the ones that share common interests and goals, however.
Paul
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:31:59PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
On Thursday 1. September 2016 20.04.58 Mike Leimon wrote:
Greetings all,
One of my friends brought this new open access journal to my attention this morning. Apparently, it is just starting up now and looking for an initial call for papers.
It's interesting to know that Elsevier think it's worth "taking a punt" on something like this, even though they publish books and journals on anything and everything. It may help to get attention from a wider audience.
Personally, I have a low opinion of journal publishing, having seen the brand obsession that pervades academia: publish a good article in a suitable journal that random assessors of the described work don't already know and there's no recognition to be had; get in amongst the authors on an article about someone else's work that gets into a "brand name" journal and suddenly you did something worthwhile after all.
Combine that with "publication points" and other "productivity measures" introduced to academia to make it more like the world of business and the actual priorities of research and sharing knowledge take something of a back seat.
And there are the long-disliked aspects of the peer-review process, which in this case involve paying $500 to Elsevier ($100 special initial offer!) per submitted article and then presumably having your work reviewed by people who are doing the reviewing for free. The positive side of this is that the copyright of articles seems to be retained by the author - unlike a lot of journal publishing - and that the licences are mostly standard Creative Commons ones (CC-BY and CC-BY-NC-ND):
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/open-access- licenses
This applies to the select few Elsevier publications that are open-access. Indeed what most peaple have against Elsevier is that most of their content is not open-access.
PLOS will typically charge you even more. E.g. if your article managed to get published into PLOS ONE, you'd have to pay $1500[1]. This is because it's their only source of funding: they are a respectable open-access non-profit.
https://plos.org/publication-fees - even more for some of the others.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
Elsevier, of course, gets additional rights. How else would they make all that money?
http://theoryofcomputing.org/crisis.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/academic-publisher-elsevier-hit-with- growing-boycott-1.1166665
Again, this is an open-access Elsevier publication. Not the typical Elsevier publication.
On Monday 5. September 2016 13.01.29 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:31:59PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/open-access- licenses
This applies to the select few Elsevier publications that are open-access. Indeed what most peaple have against Elsevier is that most of their content is not open-access.
Indeed.
PLOS will typically charge you even more. E.g. if your article managed to get published into PLOS ONE, you'd have to pay $1500[1]. This is because it's their only source of funding: they are a respectable open-access non-profit.
https://plos.org/publication-fees - even more for some of the others.
Yes, which unfortunately gives an excuse for various factions in universities to remain against open access because they can point at the costs and ask who will pay those fees. Meanwhile, the costs of other forms of publication are not questioned. The brand reputation of non-open-access journals is also brought to bear in such arguments.
But open access journals do need to be sustainable, certainly, and that does need to involve money coming from somewhere.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
Elsevier, of course, gets additional rights. How else would they make all that money?
http://theoryofcomputing.org/crisis.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/academic-publisher-elsevier-hit-with- growing-boycott-1.1166665
Again, this is an open-access Elsevier publication. Not the typical Elsevier publication.
Indeed. I did read those articles when I first came across them some years ago, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned them. But my remarks are more about Elsevier than any specific journal.
If people think the referenced journal is a good channel to communicate open hardware things, they should follow their instinct and not let me stop them.
Paul
P.S. Does it matter what the larger publishing organisation does? I had one experience of being at a conference about text-mining where a representative for a big-name academic publisher said that they were going to have an API for their articles that would only provide a jumbled bag of words (and maybe only some of the words). They seemed to think this was a generous offer to the audience, many of whom probably wanted to do semantic analysis on the text. You can imagine what the reaction was. All because the matter of being the gatekeeper was more important than the knowledge being shared.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Adam Van Ymeren -
Al Billings -
Andrew M.A. Cater -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Mike Leimon -
Paul Boddie -
Tzafrir Cohen