text:
Thousands of people are expected to peruse hundreds of tables of guns, ammunition, cartridges, magazines and knives at two gun shows in Pierce County this weekend.
Many people will buy from firearms dealers, who have booked most of the shows' booths. Such sellers are required by federal law to conduct background checks that delve into a potential buyer's history of mental illness, drug use and criminal convictions, among other aspects.
But some purchases will be made from another kind of seller: private individuals selling guns from their personal collections.
Both shows operate under the so-called gun show loophole, which excuses private sellers at such events from having to research the backgrounds of their buyers.
The one at the Washington State Fairgrounds in Puyallup still requires a background check in those cases, although it is a more rudimentary review than dealers conduct. The other show, 9 miles away at the Tacoma Dome, does not require any check.
That worries some city of Tacoma elected officials who favor universal background checks as a way to lower crime rates and keep guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them.
Wes Knodel signed a contract last year for weekend's show, the Dome's first in 23 years. He said he was ready to schedule another gun show there in November and four more shows next year until Dome officials told him that he would have to wait until after this show to review how it went.
They also indicated that he might not be able to host another gun show at a city-owned facility without background checks in place, he said.
"They told me right away there was a couple of members of the City Council who wanted to re-address even having gun shows in Tacoma, or address any changes that we might have to make," he said.
Mayor Marilyn Strickland, a member of the national group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is one of those council members.
"Ideally we would require universal background checks, but the contract (with Knodel) had been signed. In the future we would probably take that into account," she said this week.
The council has not had a public discussion about preventing gun shows at the Dome or adding requirements beyond those in state law, which doesn't require background checks if someone buys from a private seller at a gun show.
"Right now, it's cash goes one way, the firearm goes the other way and there's a handshake in between," said Knodel, who has organized gun shows in Washington and Oregon since 2000. He runs a smaller gun show in Centralia about once a month.
Knodel requires all sellers, private or not, to verify that buyers are from Washington state and of legal age to buy a gun. Sellers also must record the gun's serial number and the amount paid, and provide the receipt to the buyer, who signs a statement that says he or she is legally allowed to buy a gun.
Strickland said Knodel is being "conscientious" in his attempt to ensure no gun is sold to someone who shouldn't have one, but she still thinks more diligence is required.
"From a polling standpoint, people do support background checks, including people who own guns," Strickland added.
At least three other council members — Ryan Mello, Robert Thoms and Lauren Walker — said they agree with Strickland. But the council is divided on the issue.
Councilman David Boe said the council should not be trying to manage the Dome or any other city-owned venue.
"At what point do we need to set policies for any show at the Tacoma Dome?" Boe said. "Not to make light of it at all, but no one called me to see if it's OK for Justin Bieber to come to the Tacoma Dome."
Councilman Joe Lonergan said he has no qualms about having the gun show at the Dome, and by delaying Knodel's contract, the city could be missing an opportunity to generate revenue for the city-owned Tacoma Dome. He said there has been no public discussion about the topic.
To have "substantial decisions being done in one office doesn't seem like the best idea to me. We could have a study session and give direction," he said.
City officials might not have to act. This fall, state voters will decide two gun-related ballot measures. Initiative 594 would require background checks for all private gun sales, while Initiative 591 would forbid background checks more stringent than federal law requires.
If I-594 passes, the organizers of both of this weekend's guns shows would have to change how they operate.
The Washington Arms Collectors gun show at the Puyallup fairgrounds requires a club membership to make any gun purchases, whether from a dealer or a private seller. To get a membership, buyers must submit to a Washington State Patrol search of their state criminal histories or show a valid concealed pistol licence which requires a more stringent background check.
Phil Shave, executive director of Washington Arms Collectors, said club members feel more comfortable selling guns to each other knowing that they've all had at least basic background checks. But the club, which has given $250,000 to the I-591 campaign, doesn't want the state to require checks.
"The Washington Arms Collectors does have a position that we believe that private transactions between good citizens are something the government does not need to be involved in," Shave said.
The club, which has organized gun shows since 1951, has operated a show at the fairgrounds several times a year since the 1980s.
Karen LaFlamme, spokeswoman for the Puyallup fairgrounds, said the fair's board occasionally asks questions about the gun show but is currently satisfied.
"They (Washington Arms Collectors) have very high standards of what they will allow with their rules here," she said.
The last time the Tacoma Dome hosted a gun show was in 1991, the same year the rock band Guns N' Roses played there. Other gun shows have been held in city-owned facilities since then, but none allowed private sales of firearms, said Kim Bedier, director of public assembly facilities for the city.
Knodel said he decided to book the Dome because his Centralia events have been full for the past three or four years, with 300 or 400 tables worth of vendors on a wait list for a recent show.
"That told me there was a market for a bigger show in the area," Knodel said. "When someone told me the Tacoma Dome was available I stuck my neck out and rented it."
But council members' opposition could throw a wrench in his plans, he said earlier this week.
"I really hope that the city does not want to go beyond the limits of the law, because it creates a firestorm of politics," Knodel said. "... We have four really good dates set up for 2015, and that's all on hold now."
Mello said he did not tell the Dome to hold off on issuing contracts for future gun shows. But he said it is legal for the city to restrict which functions to allow at its facilities — and that would include requiring background checks for all gun sales or forbidding gun shows altogether.
"(Guns) have the potential to kill and seriously injure people. I do not see the harm in making sure that criminals and others who should not have the weapons don't have them," Mello said. "This does not seem like a big burden for what the potential downside is."
If the council continues on this path, Knodel said, "The (National Rifle Association) will certainly be contacted."
Kate Martin: 253-597-8542


text:
Beginning March 1, Google will share all of your collected information across all of its services including Google+ and YouTube. If you don't want those services to have access to your search history, and I am not making any statements regarding what the content of the history might contain, it would be a good idea to do it this month.
You have been warned.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Guest Post: Jan Velterop on open-access licences
January 31, 2014
[Introduction from Mike. I'm on the OKFN's open-access mailing list, where we're currently embroiled in a rather tedious reiteration of the debate about the merits of the various open-access licences. On Monday, veteran of the OA wars Jan Velterop posted a message so perfect that I immediately asked him for permission to re-publish it as a guest post here on SV-POW!. He kindly agreed, so over to Jan for the rest of this post. The only changes I've made are to highlight what I consider the key passages.]
I've been following this discussion with increasing bemusement. Frankly, it's getting ridiculous, at least in my humble opinion. A discussion such as this one about licensing and copyright only serves to demonstrate that copyright, once conceived as a way to stimulate and enable science and the arts, has degenerated into a way to frustrate, derange and debilitate knowledge exchange.
I'm not the first one to point out that absolutely anything, under any copyright licence or none, could be abused for evil purposes or, in more mild circumstances, lead to misunderstandings and accidental abuse. I agree with all those who said it.
The issue here is what science and scientific results stand for. Their purpose is emphatically not "to be copyrightable items". Copyright, invented to combat commercial abuse, has become a means of commercial abuse. The purpose of science and scientific results is to enrich the world's knowledge. Any commercial advantage – appropriate for industrially funded research – can be had by 1) keeping results secret (i.e. not publishing them), or 2) getting a patent. Science, particularly modern science, is nothing without a liberal exchange of ideas and information.
Ideally, scientific publications are not copyrightable at all, and community standards take care of proper acknowledgement. We don't live in an ideal world, so we have to get as close as we can to that ideal, and that is by ameliorating the insidious pernicious effects of copyright with CC-Zero and CC-BY licences.
The existence of the NC rider or stipulation for CC licences is unfortunate and quite damaging. Mainly because of the vagueness and ambiguity of what 'commercial use' means. Ideas in published articles can be freely used for commercial purposes of any kind, as ideas are not copyrightable. Only "the way the ideas have been formulated" is covered by copyright, and thus by the NC clause in copyright licences. In my interpretation that means that most usage of published material that is not a straightforward selling of text or images can be freely done. But that's my interpretation. And that's exactly where it rubs, because all the NC clause does is introduce hypothetical difficulties and liabilities. As a result of which, NC practically means: "stay away from using this material, because you never know with all those predatory legal eagles around". In other words, it's virtually useless for modern, sophisticated scientific knowledge discovery, which doesn't just consist of reading papers any longer, but increasingly relies on the ability to machine-process large amounts of relevant information, as human ocular reading of even a fraction of the information is not possible anymore. At least not in most fast-moving areas of the sciences. Read this article, or similar ones, if you want to be convinced: On the impossibility of being expert, BMJ 2010; 341 (Published 14 December 2010 – unfortunately behind a paywall).
The taxpayer angle ("must be open because the taxpayer paid for it"), leading to Kent Andersonian notions of knowledge protectionism ("results of research paid by US taxpayers should not be available to non-US citizens unless they pay for it"), is a most unfortunate, visceral and primitive reaction and a complete red herring. For many reasons, not least because the taxpayer, or vicariously the taxman, isn't the party that pockets any money payed for paywalled information. Besides, how far do you go? Americans not being allowed to stay alive due to a cure that was developed with public money in Switzerland unless they pay through the nose for it to the Swiss tax authorities? The "as-long-as-I-am-well-the-rest-of-you-can-go-to-hell" personality disorder. The whole idea is so against the ethos of science that those even thinking in that direction must be taken to be utterly and entirely unsuitable to any role in the scientific community.
Access control and restriction via copyright was at best a necessary evil in the print era; the 'necessary', though, has disappeared in the web environment.
Have a nice day!
Jan Velterop
The Paleontological Society's new open access options
January 28, 2014
My thanks to Steve Wang for pointing out that The Paleontological Society (in the USA, not to be confused the UK's Palaeontological Association) has a new open access policy. The highlights are:
The Journal of Paleontology and Paleobiology now offer two options for Open Access publishing [...]
Gold Open Access: authors or their institution may purchase Gold OA for their article by paying an Article Processing Fee (APC) of $2,500 ($1,500 for Society members). [...] Gold Open Access articles will be published under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license by default or CC-BY 3.0 license upon request.
Green Open Access: Authors of all articles published in the Journal of Paleontology or Paleobiology may freely post (e.g., to personal and institutional web sites) and distribute freely the final accepted manuscript file (not the pdf of the published article) under Green Open Access, 12 months after its publication.
It's good to see this real step forwards, and a lot of people are going to be particularly pleased that both Gold and Green are on offer.
The Gold APC, especially for members, is noticeably cheaper than at most of the legacy publishers. (It's $2500 for non-members, but they can join the society for $55 to take advantage of the lower price.) Elsevier, Springer, Wiley and Taylor and Francis have all spontaneously arrived at APCs at or very close to $3000 (and I'm quite sure there was no illegal price-fixing involved.) Members pay half of that — which is in the same ball-park as PLOS ONE's long-established benchmark of $1350.
It's excellent that there is an option to make the Gold articles true, BOAI-compliant open access by using the CC By licence.
It's good that the Green OA embargo is no longer than 12 months.
While $1500 is half the price of legacy publishers' OA offerings, it still feels like a previous-generation APC. PeerJ, Ubiquity and Magnolia Press among others have raised the bar (or do I mean lowered it?) by charging APCs an order of magnitude less. It's a shame that the Paleontological Society haven't opted to go with a next-gen publisher such as Ubiquity, who publish quite a few society journals at good prices.
The default to the CC By-NC licence is unfortunate, as it will prevent legitimate scholarly uses including re-use of figures in commercial journals, uses in teaching at universities that charge tuition, and use in Wikipedia. We can hope that most authors will choose CC By, which suffers from none of these drawbacks; but experience shows that most authors's immediate reaction, before they've thought it through in detail, is to err towards imposing more rather than less restrictions. The Society could have set expectations differently by using CC By except where authors request CC By-NC.
It's odd that the policy stipulates that version 3.0 of the CC licences is used, when the current version is 4.0, but it's not a big deal.
The imposition of the Green OA embargo is unfortunate (All Green-OA embargoes are iniquitous). Not only that, but 12 months exceeds the 6 months suggested by the better, earlier version of the RCUK policy and some others.
Nothing at all is said about the licence under which Green OA manuscripts should be made available. This is a missed opportunity, since in the absence of a clear statement of what is allowed, potential users will err on the side of safety — so, for example, PaleoSoc Green papers are likely to be omitted from content-mining projects.
This policy represents a valuable step forward for the Society; but it's not all it could have been.
Some of the limitations have been imposed by the Society for its own benefit, which one can understand: the highish APC, the embargo (though of course there is no evidence that embargo-less Green affects subscription revenue).
But other limitations could easily be fixed at no cost to the Society. In particular, I would like to see them reverse the CC By/By-NC option, so that the more open option is the default; and I'd like them to make it clear that Green OA papers may be (and should preferentially be) provided under CC By, too.
Can repositories solve the access problem?
March 2, 2013
The progressive RCUK policy on open access has recently come under fire, particularly from humanities scholars, for favouring Gold OA over Green. For various reasons — and I won't, for now, go into the question of which of these reasons are and aren't sound — they favour an approach to open access where publishers keep final versions of their papers behind paywalls, but drafts are deposited in institutional repositories (IRs) and people who want to read the paper can have access to the drafts.
It's appealing to think that this relatively lightweight way of solving the access problem can work. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced it can, for several reasons. I'll discuss these below, not so much with the intention of persuading people that Gold is a better approach, but with the hope that those of you who are Green advocates have seen things that I've missed and you'll be able to explain why it can work after all.
1. Two-class system
Most fundamentally, I worry that Green OA creates a two-class system which I can't approve of. It does this in two ways.
First, it necessarily creates two classes of papers: author's draft and publishers' final versions. These will differ in some respects, and it's hard in general to know what those respects are. Of course pagination will differ — which means you can't cite page-numbers reliably. But other changes are possible as well. For example, Matt and I have a paper in press now for which a whole additional figure — an important one — was added at the proofing stage. In our case, the paper will be OA anyway, but if it were not then the authors' manuscript would be a poor substitute.
And by implication, Green OA creates two classes of researchers — a potentially harmful division between those privileged few who have the "proper" papers and an underclass who have only manuscripts. (It doesn't help that for stupid historical reasons, our manuscripts are often butt-ugly: double-spaced, line-numbered, all the figures at the end instead of where they're needed, etc.)
Admittedly, the two-classes-of-researcher problem is not created by Green OA: it already exists, in a worse form where the underclass doesn't have access to any version of the paper. But whereas Gold OA solves this problem (everyone has exactly the same access to PLOS and PeerJ papers), Green doesn't.
(To me, it's obvious that democratising access is a good thing. But now that I've made the notion explicit, I can't help the uncharitable thought that there may be those out there who want to maintain a two-class system — to retain a notion that they are "in" while others are "out". I hope I'm wrong, and I'm certainly not accusing Green OA advocates of having this motivation. It just seems like it might be implicit in some of the broader struggles over access. Anyway, let's not confuse this separate potential problem with access with the actual problems with Green OA I'm addressing in this post.)
2. Expense of continuing subscriptions
I find it baffling that people keep talking as though Green OA is cheaper than Gold. It isn't, at all. As I've shown previously, the cost to the world of a paywalled paper (aggregated across all subscriptions) is about $5333. There is no reason to think that will change under the Green model, in which we continue to give the final and best version of our work to publishers.
By contrast, even the publisher-influenced Finch estimates typical Gold APCs as £1500-£2000 (about $2270-$3030), which amounts to 43%-57% as much. (Conveniently, the midpoint of the Finch range, £1750, is about $2650, which is almost exactly half of what we pay by the subscription model.
But the true cost of Gold OA is much, much less. Follow the link for the detail, but one credible banner figure starts with the observation that half of all Gold OA articles are published at no cost to the author and that the average APC of the other half is $906, to arrive at a true average APC of $453 — about one twelfth of the cost for a paywalled article.
So for purely pragmatic financial reasons, Green seems like a silly path. There's a very short-term saving, sure, as we avoid paying APCs. But we have to look further ahead than the next five years.
3. Embargoes
Now there is nothing intrinsic to Green OA that means embargoes must be in place. It's perfectly possible, and manifestly desirable, that no-embargo Green-OA mandate should be enacted, requiring that authors' final manuscripts become available immediately on publication. But for whatever historical reasons (and I admit I find this baffling) there are few or no Green-OA mandates that do this. Even the best of them seem to allow a six-month delay; twelve months is not uncommon (and Michael Eisen worries that the new White House policy with further establish twelve months as the norm.
I will have more to say about embargoes in a subsequent post. (SPOILER: it's not going to be pretty.) But for now it suffices to say that any system that makes research freely available only a year after it's published is wholly inadequate. Not to mention stupid. Stupid and inadequate.
So if Green OA is going to be the solution we need, it has to break free from embargoes.
4. Non-open licences
Similarly, there is no intrinsic reason why Green OA should mean non-open licences and Gold OA should mean truly open (BOAI-compliant) open access. And yet history has brought us to a point where is often how things are. For example, the RCUK policy (even before its progressive erosion got properly under way) says of its Gold arm that "The CC-BY license should be used in this case", but contains weasel words in its Green arm:
the journal must allow deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all changes resulting from peer review (but not necessarily incorporating the publisher's formatting) in other repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use.
This just won't do. It's not open access. To quote Heather Piwowar's pithy statement once more, "We do basic research not only to know more, but to do more". Non-commercial licences impede the use of research, and that's not to the benefit of wider society. (I won't labour this point now, because I'll have more to say on non-commercial clauses in a subsequent post.)
So as with embargoes, if Green OA is going to be the solution we need, it has to break free to its habitual acceptance of non-commercial clauses.
5. Practical failings
On top of the fundamental problems already discussion (two-class system, expense of continuing subscriptions, embargoes and non-open licences), the repository system as it exists today suffers from a suite of practical problems that render it pretty inadequate.
- Many institutions don't even have an IR; or if they do it doesn't work.
- Many scholars aren't associated with an institution and so don't know where they should reposit their manuscripts. (That this is overlooked is a symptom of an unfortunate elitist tendency among academics.) [UPDATE 4th March: thanks to Neil Stewart, whose comment below points out Open Depot as a solution to this.]
- The use of IRs involves an institution-by-institution fragmentation, with different user interfaces, policies, etc.
- For whatever reasons, many scholars do not bother to reposit their manuscripts in institution repositories.
- Even when mandates are in place, compliance is often miserable, to the point where Peter Suber considers the 80% NIH compliance rate as "respectable". It really isn't. 100% is acceptable; 99% is respectable.
- Many IRs have abject search facilities, often for example lacking the ability to restrict searches to papers that are actually available.
- Many IRs impose unnecessary restrictions on the use of the materials they contain: for example, Bath's repo prohibits further redistribution.
- There is no central point for searching all IRs (at least not one that is half-decent; I know about OAIster).
- The quality of metadata within most IRs variable at best
- Use of metadata across IRs is inconsistent — hence many of the problems that render OAIster near-useless.
… and, I am sure, many more that I've not thought of right now.
Could these issues be addressed? Yes, probably; but ten years have unfortunately not done much to resolve them, so I don't feel all that confident that the next ten will.
Do the IR advocates have a plan for solving these problems? Because they are much more political/sociological than technical, and those always seem to be the hardest ones to solve.
The progressive erosion of the RCUK open access policy
February 22, 2013
Here's a timeline of what's happened with the RCUK's open access policy (with thanks to Richard Van Noorden for helping to elucidate it).
March 2012: draft policy released for comment. As I noted in my submission, it was excellent. It did not accept non-commercial clauses (on either Gold or Green OA), and allowed Green-OA embagoes of no more that six months (with a twelve-month exception for two humanities councils). "It is anticipated that the revised policy will be adopted in summer 2012″
July 2012: actual policy released. Weakened to allow publishers to impose non-commercial clauses on Green OA. (They didn't tell anyone they'd made this change, as far as I ever saw. I discovered it for myself.) "The policy applies to all research papers whose work was funded by RCUK being submitted for publication from 1 April 2013″
November 2012: RCUK announce that they will only fund APCs for 45% of articles as Gold OA.
January 2013: RCUK announce that they "will not enforce" embargo periods.
February 2013: In response to House of Lords enquiry, RCUK clarifes "that it will gradually phase in its open access policy over a five year implementation phase". BIS and RCUK both endorse embargo-period "decision tree" that allows embargoes of up to two years.
At every single step of the way, the RCUK policy has been weakened. From being the best and most progressive in the world, it's now considerably weaker than policies already in action elsewhere in the world, and hardly represents an increment on their 2006 policy. Crucially, all three of the key differences discussed in March's draft policy have now been eliminated:
- "Specifically stating that Open Access includes unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools; and unrestricted reuse of content with proper attribution." — not if you use Green OA.
- "Requiring publication in journals that meet Research Council 'standards' for Open Access." — this will not be enforced.
- "No support for publisher embargoes of longer than six months from the date of publication (12 months for research funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC))." — no, embargoes of up to 24 months allowed even in the sciences.
Can anyone doubt that the nobbling of a truly progressive policy was the result of lobbying by a truly regressive publishing industry? It's been a tragedy to watch this policy erode away from something dramatic to almost nothing. Once more, it's publishers versus everyone else.
Again, I have to ask this very simple question: why do we tolerate the obvious conflict of interest in allowing publishers to have any say at all in deciding how our government spends public money on publication services?
The House of Lords' terribly disappointing report on Open Access
February 22, 2013
A while back, I submitted evidence to the House of Lords' inquiry into Open Access — pointlessly, as it turns out, since they were too busy listening to the whining of publishers, and of misinformed traditionalist academics who hadn't taken the trouble to learn about OA before making public statements about it.
Today the Lords' report [PDF version] is out, summarised here. And it's a crushing disappointment. As I'd feared, this inquiry didn't represent an opportunity to forge ahead, but a retreat. The RCUK's excellent OA policy is to be emasculated by a more gradual implementation, the acceptance of longer embargoes and a toning down of the preference for Gold over Green. (While there is case for Green in the abstract, the form of Green required by the RCUK policy is much weaker that its form of Gold, in that it doesn't require a liberal licence such as would enable text-mining, use in education, etc.)
On top of that, RCUK have been criticised for "lack of clarity": quite unfair since their policy is pretty explicit and in any case has twice been clarified on their blog. This is not a hard resource to find: anyone honestly concerned about a perceived lack of clarity could find it in ten seconds of googling. RCUK also caught criticism for lack of consultation — also unfairly, as they made a call for comments which I also responded to.
RCUK has responded apologetically to all this — "Lessons have been learned and we will continue to actively engage with the academic and publishing sectors" as though the publishing sector has any right to a say. I would much rather RCUK had shown the balls to stick with the leadership they initially provided, but I assume they're under political pressures and were left with no choice. Instead, venality from publishers, ignorance from certain academics and cowardice from the Lords has conspired to strip the UK of its leadership in OA, and reduce it to being a follower.
As Nature News editor Richard Van Noorden said, "In other words, RCUK in response promises nothing it wasn't doing already". And the reason was rather diplomatically stated by ICL researcher Stephen Curry: "Not 100% convinced their lordships have mastered topic". You can say that again.
Taking a step back — and a deep breath — the weakened RCUK policy is still A Good Thing — just a much less good thing than it could have been, and was on track to be. At a time when radical new journals like eLife and PeerJ are showing just how much better our publishing ecosystem can be, it's desperately disappointing to see the Lords backing an approach to OA that will mean we
- keep paying $5333 per article in subscriptions,
- don't see the work until two years after it's fresh,
- even then get only a draft instead of the final versions, and
- don't have permission to actually do anything with it.
What I would like to see from RCUK now is a statement that, if the public that funds our research is to face yet longer embargoes before it can see that work, it must at least be allowed to use it when it gets it. RCUK must insist on CC BY for the Green arm of its policy.
What is a viral licence?
February 8, 2013
Earlier today, Richard Van Noorden pointed out on Twitter that in this video, at about 5:40, the speaker says that "CC BY is essentially a viral licence". I was surprised to say the least that the speaker — Sue Joshua, Director of Legal Affairs at John Wiley & Sons — would make such a basic mistake. I'd have expected a copyright lawyer to know what the term "viral licence" means.
Hence this post.
A viral licence is one that imposes the same terms on derived works. If you don't believe me, here's the Wikipedia entry, and if you don't believe that here's Princeton University's definition.
This is the meaning of the term "viral licence". It doesn't mean "a licence that has suddenly become popular, i.e. 'gone viral'". It refers specifically to a licence that (by design) infects numerous works by transmitting itself to from one work to others.
The classic example of a viral licence is the GNU General Public Licence, which is used for much of the world's most important free software including the Linux kernel. [Disclosure: in my day-job, some of the software we release is under the GPL: YAZ Proxy, Metaproxy, pazpar2, Zebra, IRSpy, MKDru.]
The other best-known viral licence is Creative Commons Attribute-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA). Specifically, this is differentiated from the more common non-viral CC BY licence by the addition of the ShareAlike clause, which says:
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
The reason that CC BY is the most widely used licence for open-access publications is precisely that it is not viral — its non-viral nature means that work licenced using it can be deployed in the widest possible range of circumstances, which is generally what funders want in exchange for their money.
Why am I making such a big deal about this? Because we need to communicate! The term "viral licence" has one meaning, which makes it very easy and unambiguous to talk about. But if we allow Sue Joshua's confusion to spread, the term will soon become debased just as "open access" has. I was surprised to see in today's Twitter stream that a couple of people who I expected to know this term seemed unclear on it, so it's worth clearing up.
[In this post I am not interested in arguing about whether viral licences are a good or a bad thing; just in establishing what they are.]
My submission to the House of Commons inquiry on Open Access
February 7, 2013
Hot on the heels of the UK House of Lords' inquiry into Open Access, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee of the House of Commons has begun its own inquiry. This morning I submitted my own evidence. Here it is.
[It's not too late to make your own submission. It doesn't have to be as long as this: just let the government know your attitude regarding the parts of the question that concern you most. Again, details are here. Get writing!]
Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
Inquiry into the Government's Open Access Policy
Dr. Michael P. Taylor
7th February 2013
I am an honorary research associate in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol. A computer programmer by profession, I completed a Ph.D in my spare time in 2009, and continue to publish research in vertebrate palaeontology. Although my Bristol affiliation gives me reasonable access to paywalled literature, the mechanics of access are cumbersome as I work exclusively off-campus. My unusual circumstances give me a perspective from both inside and outside academia.
I speak only for myself, not for the University of Bristol.
Executive summary
- The UK currently leads the world in Open Access, and as a result enjoys a significant citation advantage; the rest of the world is following.
- The purpose of funding research is to benefit society as a whole. When publishers' interests conflict with those of broader society, the government must serve society.
- The inclusion of publishers on the Finch Committee represents a conflict of interest. Some recommendations of the Finch Report were compromised by this conflict of interest.
- Gold OA has a real advantages over Green OA in that it presents a single Version Of Record. But the Finch Report does not give proper weight to Green OA.
- The form of Green OA mandated by the RCUK policy is badly compromised in allowing restrictive licences and delayed access that reduce the value of the research.
- There is no evidence that Green OA negatively affects subscription revenue.
- CC BY allows commercial re-use by design, in order to obtain the best return on research investment. It explicitly prohibits plagiarism. It does not infringe author's rights, in fact allowing authors to retain more rights than the prevailing copyright-transfer regime.
- The use of CC BY means that research does not merely allow us to know more, but to do more. It is not anti-commercial, it is anti-monopoly (and so facilitates an efficient market).
- Gold OA APCs vary greatly between publishers: traditional publishers are far more expensive than new OA-only publishers. Much lower APCs than the £1500–£2000 quoted by the Finch Report are achievable with no loss of publication quality. Government funding should cover only a base APC of perhaps £1000 to encourage downward pressure on prices.
- The government must make decisions on the basis of what benefits the UK as a whole, not what benefits any single industry. The government should allow both Gold and Green OA; should require the CC BY licence, whichever route is taken; should tolerate no embargo on Green OA; and should not fully fund exploitatively high APCs.
1. First, I enthusiastically welcome the government's clearly stated commitment to Open Access (OA). There is no question that the free availability of research outputs will have a significant positive effect – not only by accelerating further research, but also in the form of practical improvements in health, education and industry.
2. I am also delighted to see the UK leading the world in Open Access. RCUK's pre-Finch OA policy was one of the world's earliest and most significant; the Finch Report established a clarity of vision not previously seen in any national OA policy; and BIS's public commitment to OA in all government-funded work was a world first. As noted below, there are strong pragmatic reasons for the UK to maintain a position of leadership. But even leaving these aside, the symbolic value of leadership in open access can hardly be overstated.
3. Equally, it has been hugely encouraging to see the world following the UK's lead. In the days after the announcement of the UK policy, similar declarations followed from several European countries; and most importantly, the €80M "Horizon 2020" programme of the European Commission also announced an Open Access policy. Global research is not a zero-sum game: the UK's gain is not other countries' loss or vice versa. As more countries open up their research outputs, the whole world benefits.
4. Against this backdrop, implementation issues must be discussed with a simple but important principle in mind: who is publicly-funded research for? When the question is stated explicitly, the answer is immediately obvious: it is for the public that funds it – for the citizens whose health, education and economic prospects are all improved by Open Access.
5. Unfortunately, the implementation strategies recommended by the Finch Report are not those that would most benefit the public, but are slanted towards the interests of academic publishers. This is because, as noted on page 113 of the Finch Report, three of the fourteen working members of the group represent publishers. The involvement of publishers in deciding the UK's publishing policy is mystifying, as it represents a clear conflict of interest.
6. There is no question that in the process of research, publishers provide important services; but so do the providers of IT infrastructure and manufacturers of laboratory equipment, and their input was not sought in formulating policy. Neither should publishers have been consulted. The proper approach would have been for researchers, librarians, university administrators, funders, medics, educators and businesses to have worked out what policy and what strategy would best serve them in their goal of performing, disseminating and exploiting research; and then to negotiate with publishers (as with IT service providers and lab-equipment manufacturers) to obtain the necessary services at the best prices.
7. It is because of publisher involvement in the Finch Committee that the recommendations of the Report are skewed towards the interests of that one small group at the expense of citizens. All of the flaws in the recommendations in the report are directly attributable to this.
Specific issues
The Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report 'Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications', including its preference for the 'gold' over the 'green' open access model
8. There are good and legitimate reasons to prefer Gold over Green. Most importantly, there is no possibility of confusion over which is the version of record under the Gold model. However, the Finch Report goes much further than expressing a preference for Gold, by almost entirely omitting Green from its discussion. (The word "green" appears only three times in the 140 pages of the report and one of these is a reference to the HM Treasury Green Book.)
9. Perhaps as a result of this, the Green OA provisions of the revised RCUK policy are much weaker than its Gold OA provisions. In particular, while RCUK-funded work that is published as Gold OA must use the very permissive Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY), whereas work published as Green OA may have restrictive non-commercial clauses inserted. The inclusion of non-commercial clauses greatly diminishes the value of work, as discussed in the next section.
10. The Finch Report also allows embargoes – i.e. delays in availability – when research is published as Green OA, and the RCUK policy follows this (although it shortens the delays). Allowing such delays necessarily entails delaying all the benefits of Open Access, and thereby retards the progress of research, medicine, education and industry. There is no justification for these delays: even if they benefit publishers by enabling them to avoid subscription cancellations, the interests of publishers must be outweighed by those of all the other stakeholders.
11. In any case, counter-intuitively there is no evidence that Green OA hurts subscription revenue at all. The JISC/European-funded PEER project1, after nearly four years' work, concluded that "there is no evidence that self-archiving has harmful effects on journal viability". This is the only large-scale analysis of this issue to have been undertaken, and the only solid data we have to go on: publishers' statements about effects of Green OA on subscription revenue are guesses, not informed by data.
12. In conclusion, the full benefit of Green OA will be realised only if Green articles are licenced using CC BY and if they are made available from the date of publication rather than after an embargo. If these changes have a negative effect on publishers (which all the evidence says they will not), then that is regrettable; but it would not be a reason to delay access to, and reduce the utility of, publicly funded research.
Rights of use and re-use in relation to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons 'CC-BY' licences
13. The CC BY licence embodies the original definition of the term "Open Access" by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)2, and has been widely adopted as the open-access licence of choice by respected OA publishers such as BioMed Central (BMC) and the Public Library of Science (PLOS). It ensures that the published works can be used by the widest spectrum of organisations – not only to facilitate further pure research, but also to be used in education and to catalyse innovation in industry
14. Recently some regrettable misunderstandings of the CC BY licence have been promulgated, notably in an anti-Finch letter from editors of 21 history journals3. This claimed that the use of CC BY "means that commercial re-use, plagiarism, and republication of an author's work will be possible, subject to the author being 'credited' (but it is not clear in what way they would be credited). We believe that this is a serious infringement of intellectual property rights and we do not want our authors to have to sign away their rights in order to publish with us." I will address these misunderstandings in turn.
15. "commercial re-use": yes, by design the CC BY licence makes this possible. Contrary to the assumption of the history-journal editors, this is not a bug but a feature. The goal of the UK government policy is to benefit the UK in general, including its many commercial concerns.
16. "plagiarism": it is flatly wrong to say that CC BY encourages plagiarism. Plagiarism is the use of another person's work without acknowledgement; but the CC BY licence explicitly does require acknowledgement. It is not possible to plagiarise and be within the terms of this licence.
17. "republication of an author's work": yes, the CC BY licence does allow this. So do the agreements currently in use by most publishers, which allow the publisher to anthologise and otherwise reuse author's works with or without their consent. Again, this is a good thing: it enables the full value of the work to be realised, whether in an educational or commercial setting.
18. "it is not clear in what way they would be credited": on the contrary, the text of the CC BY licence4 plainly states "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)".
19. "serious infringement of intellectual property rights": quite the reverse: the CC BY licence codifies the standard scholarly practice whereby authors' works are used in various ways with full attribution but without further financial compensation. (After all, scholars have already been paid for their work.)
20. "we do not want our authors to have to sign away their rights in order to publish with us": this statement betrays a surprising ignorance of standard journal requirements, including those of many of the journals whose editors signed the letter. These journals require the author to sign copyright over to the publisher, a far greater violation of intellectual property rights than in the open-access model.
21. The goal of the CC BY licence is to allow the full value of a work to be realised. By contrast, the non-commercial (NC) clause that the current RCUK policy allows in the case of Green OA outright prohibits use of the work in many important situations – e.g. in health, education and commercial enterprises. Worse still, the uncertainty introduced by a non-commercial clause has a chilling effect, stifling uses that might be allowed but which the innovator does not want to risk having to defend in court. There is no justification for a ban on commercial use of research publications. We fund research not only in order to know more, but in order to do more.
22. A particularly important application of Open Access articles is that massive numbers of articles can be "mined" by computer programs far more efficiently than any human can read them. Such techniques are already in use in a limited way and proving their value: for example, in discovering and synthesising new chemical formulae5. However, such work is greatly impeded by the difficulty of obtaining permission from publishers, and assurances that they will not claim ownership of the results. The use of a permissive licence such as CC BY disposes of such concerns and encourages innovative uses of research data that we cannot yet envisage.
23. Eric Kansa, of the University of California at Berkeley, summed up the misunderstandings and realities of fully open licences such as CC BY very efficiently: "While Open Access is not anti-commercial, it is anti-monopoly". Monopolies lead to inefficient markets and poor economic utilisation. Permissive licences on publicly-funded work fix that.
24. In conclusion: for the benefit of the country as a whole, the government should renew its commitment to the use of the CC BY licence on all the Gold OA research that it funds, and extend this to Green OA publications as well.
The costs of article processing charges (APCs) and the implications for research funding and for the taxpayer
25. Simple calculations6 conservatively estimate the overall cost to the worldwide academic community of an average paywalled article at £3307 (£4.96 billion total paywall revenue each year for 1.5 million articles). Naively, an APC needs only be cheaper than this to achieve a net economic improvement. In practice, APCs need to be significantly cheaper because of the difficulty of making a transition to Gold OA while subscriptions are still being paid.
26. At present, APCs for Gold OA are under strong price pressure. I will review some key data points as they were one year ago, then consider recent developments.
- Typical APCs from traditional publishers (Elsevier "sponsored article", Springer Open Choice) are in the region of $3000 (about £1950)
- The open-access megajournal PLOS ONE charges $1350 (about £862)
- The broad survey of Solomon and Björk (2012) found an average Gold OA fee of $906 (about £579).
27. In the last year, significant developments have changed the landscape. In roughly chronological order:
- The new high-impact journal eLife, sponsored by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust, is initially waiving all APCs.
- The new for-profit open-access megajournal PeerJ introduces a new model where each author pays $99 (about £63) for a lifetime membership, which covers one publication each year at no further charge. (A $299 (~£189) lifetime membership covers unlimited publications.)
- The new Forum of Mathematics journals will waive all APCs for the first three years, after which they may charge £500 or may find a different revenue stream and retain a zero APC.
- The open-access humanities megajournal SAGE Open recently dropped its APC to $99.
28. Other new open-access ventures continue to emerge, including the Episciences initiative to create overlay journals for arXiv, and the Open Library of Humanities.
29. As low as these prices are, a surprising finding by Stuart Shieber of Harvard is that 70% of all open-access journals charge no APC at all7. Others have independently found similar results.
30. In the light of all this, it is surprising that the Finch Report suggests a typical APC of "£1500-£2000". The only explanation for this is that the bulk of the APCs in the sample that this range was calculated from was biased by many high-priced papers in traditional publishers' journals. If this is so, then a cultural change is required in researchers. There is no reason why the majority of papers should not be published in outlets with much lower APCs. (In most cases the new journals also offer other benefits, such as unlimited colour figures and supplementary information, and the ability to include audio and video in the published work.)
31. A shift away from traditional journals to newer "born open-access" journals is likely to be accelerated if there is some pressure on researchers to overcome their innate conservatism and choose venues accordingly. Researchers may find it more convenient to keep submitting to the same journals they have used previously, publishing their work as Gold OA with the APCs covered by funders. But this convenience, while attractive in the short term, will inhibit long-term change.
32. For this reason, I would support a cap on the APCs that will be paid by funders: for example, RCUK could elect to fund the first £1000 of each APC, leaving authors who insist on using more expensive journals to top up the fee from their own grants. The resulting downward pressure on prices would ensure that a true market in Gold OA provision emerges.
33. In some quarters, such a scheme might be described as a curtailment of academic freedom. It is not. The phrase "academic freedom" refers to the freedom to choose what to study and what opinions to express – not what venues to publish the results in. A researcher who freely elects what to work on is just as free, whatever journal his paper appears in.
34. In conclusion, government funding should cover the costs of modest APCs; but there is no need for them to continue to support very expensive journals as far cheaper alternatives are now becoming available at no loss of quality.
The level of 'gold' open access uptake in the rest of the world versus the UK, and the ability of UK higher education institutions to remain competitive.
35. Some critics of the Finch Report and RCUK's updated OA policy have complained that by making British-funded research outputs Open Access, these policies will put the UK's researchers at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world, because our research grants will have to bear the cost of APCs while those of others do not.
36. This complaint is true, but misleading. In the first place, all the signs are that the world as a whole is moving towards universal Open Access, so any period of Britain alone paying APCs will likely be short.
37. But more importantly, by making their work Open Access, British researchers place themselves at a huge advantage in terms of the visibility of their work. Numerous studies have now been performed on the Open-Access Citation Advantage. A good summary is found in the meta-analysis of Swan (2010)8. Swan surveyed 31 studies of the OACA, showing that 27 of them found an advantage of between 45% and 600%. I analysed the final table of that report, averaging the citation advantages given for each of ten academic fields (using the midpoints of ranges when given), and found that on average open-access articles are cited 2.76 times as often as non-open.
38. In conclusion, having made a bold beginning, the UK government should push vigorously on with its open-access plans, yielding benefits for medicine, education and industry, and giving its academics a competitive advantage over the rest of the world.
39. We must remember that what is best for the country as a whole will not necessarily be best for each group that is affected. In this case, it is clear that the UK will benefit from Open Access that is immediate and uses permissive licences, whether achieved by the Gold or Green route. It is likely that publishers will (rightly or wrongly) fear some damage to their business as this change is made. But the interests of one small group – publishers – must not be allowed to compromise decisions made on behalf of all other stakeholders. In particular, the government of the UK is beholden to its citizens, not to the publishing industry. The government must make decisions that promote the welfare of citizens rather than decisions that suit any one business.
40. Note that publishers who find the revised Green-OA terms unacceptable will be at liberty to decline offers of manuscripts resulting from Government-funded research. (In practice, this is unlikely to happen: rather than forego the opportunity to publish publicly funded research, publishers will simply accept the loss of their government-granted monopoly on the commercial exploitation of this research.)
41. It is not the job of government to concern itself with challenges faced by the publishing community at the expense of other stakeholders. This assertion does not arise from hostility to publishers, but from a simple recognition of who the government serves.
1. PEER Project: http://www.peerproject.eu/
2. Budapest Open Access Initiative: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
3. Statement on position in relation to open access: http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement-position-relation-open-access
4. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
5. Peter Murray-Rust, chemistry researcher: http://whoneedsaccess.org/2012/02/18/peter-murray-rust-chemistry-researcher/
6. What does it cost to publish a paywalled paper with anyone?: http://svpow.com/2012/07/18/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-paywalled-paper-with-anyone/
7. What percentage of open-access journals charge publication fees?: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/05/29/what-percentage-of-open-access-journals-charge-publication-fees/
8. Swan, Alma (2010) The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/2/Citation_advantage_paper.pdf
Other response to this call:
One argument in favour of CC BY
December 14, 2012
[Originally written as a comment on Martin Coward's blog, but I thought the point was worth making as its own post.]
Here's my take on the widely used Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY) in contrast to more restrictive CC licences such as the Non-Commercial variant (CC BY-NC).
It may be true, as Martin suggests, that CC BY-NC is better for the author than CC BY. But authors are part of a community, and it's unquestionably better for the broader community that CC BY be used. It's better for society that commercial applications of the author's research be allowed and encouraged.
So long as researchers are funded by that broader community, it's fair that funders should be able to mandate the more permissive licence, which is better for society. If we kick back against that — if we say it's not enough to be paid to do research, we also want a slice of the commercial uses of our work — we only perpetuate society's ivory-tower stereotype of academics who think the world owes them a living.
So while there is certainly an argument to be made that CC BY is also better for the researcher, I think that whether that's true or not, simple justice requires that no additional restrictions be placed on such work.
What would happen if I placed my manuscripts in the Public Domain?
December 13, 2012
We know that most academic journals and edited volumes ask authors to sign a copyright transfer agreement before proceeding with publication. When this is done, the publisher becomes the owner of the paper; the author may retain some rights according to the grace or otherwise of the publisher.
Plenty of authors have rightly railed against this land-grab, which publishers have been quite unable to justify. On occasion we've found ways to avoid the transfer, including the excellent structured approach that is the SPARC Author Addendum and my tactic of transferring copyright to my wife.
Works produced by the U.S. Federal Government are not protected by copyright. For example, papers written by Bill Parker as part of his work at Petrified Forest National Park are in the public domain.
Journals know this, and have clauses in their copyright transfer agreements to deal with it. For example, Elsevier's template agreement has a box to check that says "I am a US Government employee and there is no copyright to transfer", and the publishing agreement itself reads as follows (emphasis added):
Assignment of publishing rights
I hereby assign to <Copyright owner> the copyright in the manuscript identified above (government authors not electing to transfer agree to assign a non-exclusive licence) and any supplemental tables, illustrations or other information submitted therewith that are intended for publication as part of or as a supplement to the manuscript (the "Article") in all forms and media (whether now known or hereafter developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when and if the article is accepted for publication.
So journals and publishers are already set up to deal with public domain works that have no copyright. And that made me wonder why this option should be restricted to U.S. Federal employees.
What would happen if I just unilaterally place my manuscript in the public domain before submitting it? (This is easy to do: you can use the Creative Commons CC0 tool.)
Once I'd done that, I would be unable to sign a copyright transfer agreement. Not merely unwilling — I wouldn't need to argue with publishers, "Oh, I don't want to sign that". It would be simpler than this. It's would just be "There is no copyright to transfer".
What would publishers say?
What could they say?
"We only publish public-domain works if they were written by U.S. federal employees"?
Tutorial 19f: Open Access definitions and clarifications, part 6: open access that comes and goes
November 27, 2012
The best open-access publishers make their articles open from the get-go, and leave them that way forever. (That's part of what makes them best.) But it's not unusual to find articles which either start out free to access, then go behind a paywall; or that start out paywalled but are later released; or that live behind a paywall but peek out for a limited period.
Let's talk about these.
Initial "open access"
You'll sometimes come across journals where articles are free to read for some initial period after their publication. For example, the announcement of the Journal of Photonics for Energy says "The journal will be available as open access for the first year"; and the 2008/9 progress report for the Journal of Nutrition says "We will continue to restrict open access for one year, as per current procedure".
Despite the good intentions of the journals, these articles are not open access in any useful sense. The point of an open-access article is that it's there when you need it. If it's there this week, but I need to read and cite it next week when I can't get it any more, then that's no good.
Of course, this doesn't mean that publishers have a mandate to keep articles up on their web-sites forever (although we would prefer that they do). What it means is that, if they want to be open access, they can't prohibit others from mirroring and archiving those papers, and continuing to make them available after they've disappeared from the publisher's site.
Note that any article published with a Creative Commons licence — even the most restrictive of those licences — is safe from this kind of disappearance. Those licences guarantee third parties' rights to archive, replicate and redistribute the articles.
Delayed open access
it's probably more common to take the opposite approach. Some journals, including Science and Proceedings B, make articles free to read, and so "gratis open access", after an embargo period during which they are available only to subscribers. This period is one year in the case of both these journals; that seems to be typical.
Are such journals open access? I would say that the journals themselves are not open access, but that the articles become open access once they cross the release line. So for example, Raichlen and Polk's new neurobiology paper in Proc B. is not open access, but Anderson et al.'s seed-dispersal paper (which is a year older) is. On that basis you might choose to refer to Proc B. as a "delayed open access" journal.
[Unfortunately, Science is not truly open access even for older articles such as Stevens and Parrish's DinoMorph. That's because it requires registration/login before you can get to the papers. The BOAI FAQ does not accept registration-required content as open access, specifying "without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself".]
Transitory "open access"
And then you have the worst of both worlds. Every now an then a journal or a publisher has a special offer where they open up access to their articles for a limited period — for example, this one where the Royal Society opened up all their content for two weeks, or this where an issue of European Physical Journal D was opened for a week.
It seems churlish to criticise a generous action like this, but I find it close to useless, and I think most other researchers will, too. When I am working on a paper, I don't choose what to cite based on which journal or publisher the papers are from: I would never think, "Oh, let's see, European Physical Journal D is open at the moment, I'll cite something from there". I cite what's relevant and appropriate, irrespective of its source; and if I can't get the papers I need at that time there's a problem.
I sometimes wonder what publishers think will be the result of this kind of limited-time-only offer. One obvious outcome is that people will batch-download the transitorily available content — either to store up for themselves in case they even happen to need it (which is wasteful of both bandwidth and storage); or to post openly elsewhere for permanence (which is usually a violation of copyright).
To summarise: I think that making articles open access after a delay is a good thing (though obviously not as good as making them open access immediately!). But that making them free to read for a limited time — either when first published or as part of some special event later — is of very limited value, and can't really be described as open access.


text:
Invicta Men's Pro Diver Watch
$60 + free shippingSHOP NOW
Posted 22 hr 17 min ago
eWatches offers the Invicta Men's Pro Diver Watch, model no. 15171, for $59.99 with free shipping. That's the lowest total price we could find by $5. It features Japanese quartz movement, stainless steel case and band, and water resistance to 650 feet.


text:
Posts tagged with Georgia clean commuting
Against the backdrop of a terrible environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, everybody's frustrated.
Gulf coast residents are seething at BP. BP shareholders are upset at the prospect of losing billions on their investment. The federal government has lost patience with the progress being made after almost 60 days of dashed hopes (will there be a government takeover of the disaster response when the President speaks tonight at 8:00pm?). And many commuters - including some here in Georgia - are contemplating where they want to fill up their gas tanks, an expression of the public ire directed at (and potential dollars diverted from) British Petroleum.
But something interesting is happening. For some, the anger they feel about the seemingly hopeless situation we're in is starting to morph into something else. Bubbling up from the depths are diverging emotions about the oil spill as it relates to driving:
Some feel guilty about their reliance on cars. From today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reader Sybil Thomas of Whitesburg writes:
"I can bemoan a response that cannot encompass the enormity of the environmwental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. But as long as I am still filling up my gas tank with oil-based fuel, I, too, am responsible."
Others feel defensive about their freedom to drive, regardless of the environmental risks. Whichever direction your emotions are channeled, there is a desire for action. And MARTA's annual "Dump the Pump" event is one way to do something with your feelings about the situation. This Thursday, June 17, MARTA is encouraging all Atlantans to take transit to work. Another way to turn your feelings about oil into something actionable is to find a carpool partner and ride to work together once or twice a week. There are resources available from The Clean Air Campaign and RideSmart to make it easy.
Borne out of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is at least one positive circumstance. The oil spill is getting more conversations started about transportation options and about accountability. Where do you stand on these issues?


text:
Budget Accommodation Europe Czech Republic Prague Apartments ABC Suites
It's a wonderful old building with good atmosphere and careful renovation. I do like the whitewashed medieval vaults! The furnishing is sparse, but fully comfortable and functional.
Private Rooms From US$122 Photos Description Map Guest Reviews
Hello traveler!
Our apartment house is a house from 15th century just in the middle of Old Town - less than 5 min walk to Old Town square or Charles Bridge- all in UNESCO protected area. The apartments are newly reconstructed, fully equipped with free Wi-Fi internet access.
As you stay in the very heart of the Prague`s Old Town you can walk to all Prague`s sights, famous restaurant, bars, cafes and nightclubs.
All our apartments are equipped with fully equipped kitchen, Satellite TV, free WI-FI access in all house, fridge and washing machine. Of course all apartments have own bathroom and restroom.
We can pick you up directly at the airport or railway station. Just send us your flight or train schedule so we can wait at the airport.
We accept credit cards VISA, EC/MC, AMEXK and of course cash in EUR, GPB, USD and CZK.
See you soon in Prague!
check-in starting at 14:00
check-out is at 10:00
But of course if you want to have different times, please just contact our office.
Jilska 12 Praha 1
Click here to enlarge map
It's a wonderful old building with good atmosphere and careful renovation. I do like the whitewashed medieval vaults! The furnishing is sparse, but fully comfortable and functional.
(There were some ugly scratches in the kitchen table, which might have been caused due to the fact that no cutting-board is furnished. Some ruthless person has most likely used the kitchen table!!!!)
The service with a pre-ordered transport from and to the airport for a reasonable price worked perfect! An extra bonus to the whole arrangement!
A little inconvenience was the fact that we had to jump over a "ditch" to reach the street when getting in and out from the house (Monday -Thursday), but the workers mostly provided a provisional "bridge" and were most attentive to ease our passage!
The location is very convenient - walking distance for all the things you wish to see during 3-4 days.
The street "Jilska" is a difficult one - actually if you read the street name across the entrance of No. 12 it is not "Jilska". Jilska is on the opposite side of the block?!
This apartment is the ideal place to stay if you want to experience the typical living style of Czech. It's one of the best accommodations I have stayed from my experience of European travel with this value and the central location. The detail decorated ceiling will give you a WOW factor that you'll never forget. I will highly recommend this place for anyone that is traveling to Prague.
Have you stayed here? Write a review
* The Customer Satisfaction score is based on a combination of ratings from Travellerspoint and external websites. The score of 83% for this property is based on ratings provided by 102 guests.
Loading ...


text:
Go to m.barnard.edu for the Mobile Barnard web app or download it from the App Store or Google Play.
Go to m.barnard.edu for the Mobile Barnard web app or download it from the App Store or Google Play.
Associate Professor of Political Science Alexander Cooley commented on the growing "prominence" of a military base in Uzbekistan.
A transnational perspective on slavery that spans from colonial India to the antebellum United States.
A look at two seminal women's ensembles in Delhi and how they aided and enlarged the concerns of the women's movement in India.
Over the past decade, and particularly since the arrival of President Debora L. Spar in July 2008, Barnard College has enhanced its global outreach and focus, with increasing opportunities for those in the Barnard community to integrate study, research, work and volunteer experiences abroad into their time at Barnard. Today, with students, programs, partners, research collaborations and alumnae around the world, Barnard College's global footprint reaches over 65 countries.
Copyright © 2014 Barnard College | Columbia University | 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027 | 212.854.5262


text:
Details about David Byrne and producer Brian Eno's collaboration album have emerged, as the duo launched a new site today. The album, entitled Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, will be released in August strictly through the album's official website. As Byrne says in a video on the page, Eno wrote the music and Byrne wrote the lyrics. Everything That Happens will be streamed for free in its entirety upon its release, with physical and digital copies available for purchase. If you sign up for updates at the page, you'll also be sent a free MP3 of one of the songs on August 4th. Additionally, Byrne will go on a tour that prominently features his previous collaborations with Eno, including their three Talking Heads albums together and their 1981 album My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. Dates for that tour will be announced soon.
To read the new issue of Rolling Stone online, plus the entire RS archive: Click Here
|Music Main
MUSIC 9 Classic Devo Videos
OLYMPICS 18 Epic Opening Ceremonies
Featured News From thedailybeast
We may use your e-mail address to send you the newsletter and offers that may interest you, on behalf of Rolling Stone and its partners. For more information please read our Privacy Policy.
Most Popular
Photos & Videos
Random Notes: Hottest Rock Pictures


text:
Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Enter name or type of business
Enter city & state, or ZIP
Guttering Seamless
Sign up today and get found faster by your customers.
Copyright 2014 Local Corporation - US Patent Number 7,231,405. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
Some data provided by Acxiom.


text:
Foolish Thoughts on Week 6: Last-second nonsense
by Jacob • October 14, 2008 • Culture, News • 1 Comment
Who is the better Manning now? I think Peyton Manning put ex-lax in his brother's Gatorade this week. It was time to shut up the critics. Peyton gets three touchdowns; Eli gets three picks. At least in fantasy, it looks like Peyton may have reclaimed his top spot on the Manning mantel for now....Read more →


text:
The Explanation
(for those who require one)
And, of course, that is what all of this is -- all of this: the one song, ever changing, ever reincarnated, that speaks somehow from and to and for that which is ineffable within us and without us, that is both prayer and deliverance, folly and wisdom, that inspires us to dance or smile or simply to go on, senselessly, incomprehensibly, beatifically, in the face of mortality and the truth that our lives are more ill-writ, ill-rhymed and fleeting than any song, except perhaps those songs -- that song, endlesly reincarnated -- born of that truth, be it the moon and June of that truth, or the wordless blue moan, or the rotgut or the elegant poetry of it. That nameless black-hulled ship of Ulysses, that long black train, that Terraplane, that mystery train, that Rocket '88', that Buick 6 -- same journey, same miracle, same end and endlessness."
-- Nick Tosches, Where Dead Voices Gather
-- Nick Tosches, Where Dead Voices Gather
Annals of Crime #93
Original Caption:
Exclusive Fascinating Photos of the Crime Museum of the Police College.
New York -- New York policemen are taught the complex art and science of detection in the now famous Police College instituted by Grover Whalen a few years ago. The Crime Museum of the Police College houses all sorts of evidence used in connection with murder cases, as well as a varied assortment of weapons used by gangsters and killers. A whole mystery story in one picture - the fantastic weapon of The Horseshoe Murder. The implement is a baseball bat with two horseshoes attached. The murderer's idea was to smash the skull of his victim leaving the impression of the horseshoe, so that police would believe the poor fellow had been kicked to death by a horse. (1930)
This entry was posted by Tom Sutpen
for the series: Annals of Crime
7 comments :
- Hank said...
Where do I get me some horseshoes?
- July 08, 2010 4:46 AM
- Ogden Frost said...
Now, why didn't I think of that?
- July 08, 2010 9:38 AM
- Ingram Frizer said...
This just crazy enough to work ......
- July 08, 2010 10:45 PM
- Christopher said...
My Lucky bat!
- July 10, 2010 2:07 AM
- Fred said...
And here I thought it was just Casey Stengel's lucky bat!
- July 10, 2010 9:12 AM
- Brent McKee said...
If it had really worked, the cop wouldn't have had it, or been able to identify it as a murder weapon.
- July 10, 2010 9:06 PM
- Timmy said...
Aint that a kick in the head?
- July 13, 2010 5:22 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )


text:
Business Administration Home
Welcome to Los Angeles City College
Business Administration Department
Chair: R.Britt Hastey
(323) 953-4000 ext. 2549 or 2547 • AD304
LACC has been preparing students for careers in business, accounting, and real estate for over 70 years. We rank in the top 20% of all United States colleges and universities offering undergraduate business programs and we are accredited by both the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the International Association for Management Education.
Our full and part-time faculty come from a wide range of industries and remain active in the business world to ensure they are current with the latest developments. They have experience in small companies and major corporations and institutions including the World Bank, General Motors, Washington Mutual, and Bank of America. In addition to actual business experience, our faculty are trained in the art of teaching - breaking down difficult business concepts into more easily understood lessons.
Classes are typically no larger than 30 students. These smaller classes mean our professors have more time for each student and more opportunity to answer your questions.
Our teaching staff is complemented by fully equipped computer labs with extended hours, and all required software.
Associate in Arts:
Accounting, Bookkeeping, Business Administration, Finance & Banking, Management, Marketing and Real Estate.
Administrative Office Assistant, Computer Applications Office Specialist, Legal Office Assistant, Medical Office AssistantCertificates:
Automated Accounting Technician, Business Administration, Finance & Banking, Management, Retail Management, Small Business Management, Marketing, Real Estate - Finance Specialization, Real Estate - Investment Specialization, and Real Estate - Marketing Specialization.
Adminsitative Office Assistant, Clerical Office Assistant, Computer Applications Specialist, Legal Office Assistant, Administrative Medical Office Assistant.
Basic Administrative Assistant, Basic Computer Applications, Basic Legal Office, Basic Medical Transcription, Basic Web Page Design.
Refer to the college catalog to see the course requirements of a specific degree or certificate program, or click the BUSINESS ADMIN CATALOG PAGE button (for Business Discipline programs) or CAOT CATALOG PAGE button (for Computer Applications & Office Techology programs) at the top of this page.
For the current/upcoming semester course offerings, click the CLASS SCHEDULE button at the top of this page.
Enrollment Fee Increase:
Enrollment fees are now $46 per unit for California residents. Click here for a list of all enrollment, tuition, international student and other fees . The Board of Governor's Fee Waiver (BOGFW) program waives the enrollment and health fees of students who meet program eligibility criteria. Interested students are encouraged to apply by completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or the Board of Governor's Fee Waiver application.
Los Angeles City College offers university transferable, career, credit and not-for-credit courses on its main campus. Courses include the arts, basic and advanced mathematics and English, computer science and technology, business, science, social sciences, language and more. Courses are offered weekdays, day and evenings, on Saturdays and Online.


text:
July 31, 2014
FLORENCE, S.C. (AP) - Mitt Romney says he will release his tax returns in April and they will show he pays close to 15 percent of his income in taxes.
The multimillionaire Romney has been under pressure from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and others to release the information.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday in South Carolina, Romney said most of his income comes from investments, not regular wages and salary. The tax rate on investment income is 15 percent, much lower than the 35 percent rate applied to wages for those in the highest tax bracket.
He suggested he would release only one year of tax information, for 2011.
Romney had initially said he would not release the tax returns.


text:
Devin Golden
Stopping Ringgold High School's spread-option offense was already a big challenge for North Murray.
Add in a deep passing threat, and the Mountaineers spent much of Friday night chasing the visiting Tigers' blue-and-white jerseys.
Ringgold scored touchdowns of 85, 58 and 29 yards and handled North Murray 49-27 in a Region 5-3A matchup at Mountaineer Stadium.
The Tigers (6-1, 4-0) gained 559 yards of offense — 395 on the ground and 164 through the air. While the numbers were unbalanced, Ringgold quarterback Slade Dale started a new favorite connection with wide receiver Christian Plott, who grabbed a 29-yard touchdown pass for a 28-3 lead with 1:35 left in the second quarter.
Plott also pulled in passes of 47 yards and 54 yards and finished with 138 receiving yards on just four catches. The first big pass play set up a 6-yard touchdown pass from Dale to Dakota Baer for a 21-3 lead earlier in the second quarter.
"It's always tough for teams to account for all of our running backs," said Ringgold coach Robert Akins, whose team was averaging 35 points per game entering Friday's action. "The real positive tonight was we threw the ball down the field."
The Mountaineers (1-6, 0-4) also had a tough time accounting for the Tigers' backfield. Running back D.L. Goins started the scoring with a 5-yard run with 10:07 left in the first quarter, Dale had a 58-yard scoring run for a 14-3 lead with 11:13 left in the second quarter and Ethan Dalton ended Ringgold's scoring with a 3-yard score with 7:36 left in the game.
"It all starts with the quarterback," North Murray coach David Gann said. "There were so many times where we had all the receivers covered and we've even got him contained, and he still makes someone miss for a 40-yard run."
Running back Kile Sholl scored twice — from 8 yards out for a 35-9 lead with 7:16 on the clock and from 85 yards out for a 42-15 lead on Ringgold's next possession. Sholl's long score was the first from scrimmage following North Murray's second touchdown of the third quarter and the game, a 15-yard run from John Chastain with 5:32 on the clock.
The Mountaineers' Drake McCowan, who scored from 3 yards away three minutes earlier, finished with 109 yards on 11 carries.
North Murray was held to three points in the first half. Aaron Mendez nailed a 24-yard field goal with 1:37 remaining in the first quarter, cutting Ringgold's lead to 7-3.
"They had a really good all-or-nothing scheme where they are sending more than we can block," Gann said.
Mountaineers quarterback Hinton McConkey and connected twice for scores in the fourth quarter, from 47 yards out to Darius Towns with 5:16 left in the game and from 13 yards out to Payton Swilling with 3:26 on the clock. McConkey finished 11 of 19 passing for 167 yards. Swilling had five receptions for 137 yards.


text:
August 2, 2014
Many areas picked up a decent helping of rainfall on Thursday. More will be one the way for the overnight forecast. Will the line hold together? It does look very likely!
Here's a closer view of the radar.
Now the flood potential is still around because any of these storms have the potential to lay down a quick couple of inches.
Rainfall so far!
I'll keep monitoring it from the weather center and you can keep an eye on things right here!
C-Ya Bye


text: More Page Page Content Communication « Back to Communication Attitudes Shift Regarding When to Discuss Compensation During RecruitmentWhy Pay Is Driving Employee SatisfactionTravel Expense Policy: DetailedCommunication: Wage Changes: I've heard that some employers are now legally required to communicate wage changes to employees. Can you tell me more about this?Communication: What should be included in a total compensation statement?Compensation Function Heightens Focus on CommunicationEmployee Confidence for Pay Raises Hits 4-Year HighAs Economy Improves, It's Time to Revisit Pay StructuresU.S. Employees' Confidence in Pay Raises FallsCounter Misperceptions About Pay <<<>>> Items Per Page: 10 25 50 100 All Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 « Back to Communication ADVERTISING LINKS


text:
Tommy Mann Jr.
The Port Arthur News
David Draiman has a new outlook on life and a hunger for success.
Draiman, best known as the vocalist for hard rock act Disturbed, is fronting a new band called Device. Draiman and Device will be performing at The Gig on Crockett Street in downtown Beaumont this Friday night for ages 18 and older. Special guests are Nonpoint and Red Line Chemistry. Tickets are $22.50 in advance.
Draiman and his bandmates, Virus and Will Hunt, are touring in support of the Device's self-titled debut which hit stores and Internet retailers on April 9. The first single, "Villify," is burning up the charts and the band just hit the road on April 10 in Mobile, Ala.
"Playing that first show was great. When we hit the stage, it felt like home," Draiman said in a telephone interview. "It was interesting to see how the crowd would respond, but it was a lot of fun. We have a couple of things we need to adjust, but it went fine for a first show."
Draiman is well known in the rock music world as the vocalist for Disturbed and that band's numerous hit songs. However, for Draiman, the opportunity to start the band Device is a very exciting time in his life.
"It's definitely a reality check for me," Draiman explained. "But it's fun to be the new guy again, to be the band that everyone is curious about. We're building this band from scratch and that's exciting to me. It's made me hungry again."
Recording the new album was, in some ways, therapeutic for Draiman because he was able to expand from the preconceived notions of what was expected of him as a vocalist compared to his time in Disturbed.
"With this record I definitely had the opportunity to go into some vibes and directions with my vocals that I couldn't before," he said. "It was nice to be able to branch out in those areas that just wouldn't be possible in Disturbed, like the cover of 'Close My Eyes Forever' with Lzzy Hale (of Halestorm) or maybe a song with a more classical composition."
Draiman said fans attending the band's concert on Friday in Beaumont, and throughout the tour, will not be disappointed.
"We are playing the entire record, so fans will get to hear it live at the show on Friday," he stated. "When we can, we are incorporating some other guests vocalists along the way to fill in for those songs that have them on the record. People are going to get something cool at every show."
While putting the finishing touches on the new Device album, Draiman also found time to lend his talents to friend Dave Mustaine for Megadeth's new album, "Super Collider," which is due to drop in June.
"It was such an honor and privilege to work with Dave," Draiman added. "He's such an amazing person and such a talented musician. I was thrilled to have the opportunity to be part of the new record."
Initially, Draiman said plans for summer tour options were still in the works, but since that time it has been announced that Device will take part in the 2013 version of Gigantour, which features Megadeth as the headlining act.
"We plan on being out on the road for a while and we want everyone to come out and see what this band is all about," Draiman said. "We think it will be a lot of fun for the fans. I know it is for me."


text:
Maria Lovelette
Class of 2012
Berkshire, VT
Major: Math
Favorite weekend activity: Community service, sports
Career Plans: Teaching
"JSC is close to my family, the tuition is really affordable, and I knew that I wanted to major in math and education, and JSC's education program has a really excellent reputation."
Maria Lovelette didn't begin her college career at Johnson State College, but when it became clear to her that the college she started at wasn't the right fit for her, she chose JSC.
"It was closer to my family, the tuition is really affordable, and I knew that I wanted to major in math and education, and JSC's education program has a really excellent reputation," Maria explains.
Mathematics has always been one of Maria's passions. "I love numbers, and I also love the challenge of math. I have always felt like it's better to struggle with something that you enjoy rather than just do the easiest thing. And my professors are always there to help whenever I need it."
Maria hopes to share her love of math with middle school children after she graduates. She agrees that working with children of that age can be a challenge, but it's a challenge she relishes. "I'm already working with middle school kids as a softball coach and I love it. I really enjoy working with them and being a positive role model."
In addition to coaching, Maria also plays softball at JSC as well as soccer. Next year, she plans to participate in the Student Athletic Advisory Committee on campus, a group which promotes student-athlete leadership opportunities as well as orchestrating community service activities for student athletes.
Athletics at JSC provide Maria with a sense of community that she really values. "Sports and life as member of a team are probably my favorite things about JSC," she says. But she has found connections off the playing field, too. "My classmates are really great. I meet with them a lot in the library to work on projects and studying, and it's really helpful."
Ultimately, JSC has turned out to be the right place for Maria. She's found a balance between academics, athletics, and community life that makes college a positive experience for her.


text:
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: NPS Ranger dies rescuing climbers
NPS Ranger dies rescuing climbers
NPS Ranger Nick Hall fell to his death on Mount Rainier while rescuing four climbers.
Ranger plunges to death on Mount Rainier - CNN.com"never bring paws to a gunfight" - Jenna
Stories like this always piss me off. These asshats that go mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, rock climbing, etc. should do so at their own risk. Instead, they get someone else killed so THEY can get their adrenelin rush. As with every officer on here, I'll do my job, even if it means risking my life, but that doesn't mean I won't think you're a selfish dumb-ass for putting me in that position.
My prayers are with Ranger Hall, his family and co-workers. I hope they sue the living crap out of the "survivors."For the morning will come. Brightly will it shine on the brave and true, kindly upon all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn.
Winston Churchill
06-22-12, 07:16 PM #3Officer First Class
- Join Date
- 05-25-12
- Posts
- 151
- Rep Power
- 24152
praying in Jesus nameMay God be with you and your families as you Protect and Serve.
Rest in peace.
Fading Light
Falling Night
Trumpet Call , As The Sun , Sinks In Fright
Sleep In Peace , Comrade Dear
GOD Is Near
Rest in peace , Ranger Hall. Condolences to family , friends and colleagues.SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM-Ex-Sheriff Martin Howe to Will Kane in "High Noon"
"It's a great life. You risk your skin catching killers and the juries turn them loose so they can come back and shoot at you again. If your honest , your poor your whole life. And , In the end , you wind up dying all alone on some dirty street. For what? For nothing. For a tin star."
Far from being a handicap to command, compassion is the measure of it. For unless one values the lives of his soldiers and is tormented by their ordeals , he is unfit to command.
-General Omar Bradley, United States Army
06-23-12, 12:14 AM #6Pleasing nobody, one person at a time.
That which does not kill me, better start fucking running.
If I lived every day like it was my last, the body count would be staggering.
I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones
Hunt the wolf, and bring light to the dark places that others fear to go. LT COL Dave Grossman
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


text:
- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
The latest news from the Review
- Find us on Facebook
St Albans & Harpenden Review
Like us on Facebook
Hour-long delays on M25 (From St Albans & Harpenden Review)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting st albans to 80360, or upload here
Hour-long delays on M25
3:51pm Thursday 27th December 2012 in News
The M25 is struggling with the weight of seasonal traffic with drivers told to expect delays of around an hour this afternoon.
The Highways Agency has reported very heavy congestion anticlockwise from Junction 19 Watford down to Junction 11 in Chertsey, Surrey.
The agency said no accidents have been reported on the motorway in that stretch.
Comments are closed on this article.


text:
Blog Roundup: Financial Edition
The heavyweight court bout between Wilpon, Katz, and company vs. Irving Picard ended in a…well, sort of split decision. All in all, it was good news for the owners of the Mets, as Fred, Jeff, and Uncle Saul only had to payout a paltry $162 million. After the ruling, the Mets were able to sell 12 minority ownership shares of the team at $20 million apiece, infusing $240 million into the organization. This allowed them to immediately pay back their debts to the Bank of America and Major League Baseball. That's the good news. The bad news is, the Wilpons won't be forced to sell the team.
The Blogs check their accounts:
- Ian O'Connor of ESPN thinks Fred is still a loser.
- Hardball Talk says the Wilpons are happy, and praise Mario Cuomo (this is not a blog post from the mid-80s).
- Amazin' Avenue explores the ramifications of today's ruling.
- MMO wonders if this means better days ahead.
- Metstradamus examines what this does to the culture of negativity among Mets faithful.
- Tedquarters, meanwhile, is always thinking about his stomach (apologies to Han Solo). How would you define a sandwich?
We here at Mets Today work for free, so we don't have to worry about million dollar settlements. Stay tuned for more Mets news.
About the Author
Paul is a freelance writer, blogger, and broadcast technology professional residing in Denver. A New Jersey native, he is a long-suffering Mets fan, a recently-happy Giants fan, and bewildered Islanders fan. He's also a fair-weather Avalanche and Rockies supporter. In his spare time, he enjoys the three Gs: Golf, Guitars, and Games.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed.
Comments7 Responses to "Blog Roundup: Financial Edition"
Sad, sad day for Mets fans. The Wilpons will likely hold onto control of the Mets for years to come. But, here's what will happen:
1. The payroll will not go back up b/c they (i) are heavily leveraged in real estate, the Stadium, and the network, with payments coming due, (ii) they've lost Madoff's funny money cash stream they relied on in the past, and (iii) stadium and team revenues are likely to decline even further over the next 2 or 3 years (indeed, the only hope is that this happens so disastrously that they sell the team to save the family fortune, but that seems pretty remote).
2. In another year or two, Alderson will get disgusted and leave, at which point The Idiot Son will again take over and hire a GM in the Duqette-Omar mold: a subservient nitwit willing to pretend that Lil' Jeffie knows what he's talking about.
3. In short, I see no path to building a successful organization. The Mets will have the same long-term pattern as the Orioles: a once-proud franchise ruined by befuddled, cash-poor ownership.
4. I've been a faithful Mets fan since 1962 (when I was too young to know better), but it's time for me to search for another team. Since I like the NL-East and, of course, can't abide the Braves or Phillies, I'm thinking about the Nats, who may be around the same place that the Mets were in circa 1983 (good young talent, especially pitching, poised to make them a legitimate contender).
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY! (except for # 4. I get the Nat games and I have come to kind of like them especially with Davey in charge, but they can't rise higher than # 2, at least not yet. Maybe when Wright is sent away I'll join you) Rod Kanehl…..My favorite Met of the early 60′s.
I hear you on #4. I'm just not sure what I'm rooting for anymore. A uniform with "Mets" on the front of the shirt and a transient collection of roster fillers inside? It'd be one thing if I thought the organization was in new hands committed to a rebuilding program (like the early 80s, for example). That's something I'd wait for (we Mets are nothing if not patient and hopeful.) But when the Mets MLB roster sucks over the next 2 years, and seats are empty, the Wilpons will revert to rushing/ruining still-developing prospects and signing overpriced Free Agents (always settling for the ones that the real contenders don't want, at least not at the years and dollars that the next Omar will throw at them). I just don't think I can stand in the tracks and wait for that train to arrive.
I hear you Kanehl. But living out of New York i am known as a suffering Met fan by all the Philly fans around here. But I have those 4 Super Bowls they can't stand and I have the Steeler fans to pounce on them in the winter as well. We lose the Summer, but it wouldn't be the same if I became a Nats fan. Would I then have to become a Skins fan as well. I'm stuck with the Mets. No money for Wilpon however. He makes so little on a road game that I'll head to Nats Park or PNC or Camden Yards every now and then and have good natured back and forth with their fans. Never Philly. Their fans are totally whacked out in their park.
Izzy, I grew up in Jersey and now follow the Mets long distance from LA. Been to Citifield, been to Port St. lucie twice, catch the mets games when they're in @LA or San Diego. Been a loyal fan for a long time, but I'm at the crossroads with them now. It's one thing to be patient and enjoy their occazinal period sod success. It's another to commit to a couple of decades of mediocrity under someone as arrogant , dishonest and stupid as Jeff Wilpon.
Now I know why Izzy is gets angry so often. Living in Philly, surrounded by the crudest fans in the all of sports, will do that to you.
I, too, live away from NY. I've seen the Mets play in Atlanta,
Pittsburgh, LA, Baltimore, Philly and maybe DC or Fla. this year. When I go to NY I never even dream of going to Citi Field.
Kanehl and Izzy are correct, it's a sad time for Mets fans.
"The Magic is Back"


text:
Save your neck!
Sling strap!!
After many many requests from customers we finally decided to make a sling style camera strap. We took the same simple and super comfortable design we have, made a few changes, added the proper hardware and kept it funky....
Compatible with most other brands of sling style hardware.
Available now for all DSLR straps


text:
Degas and the Ballet Gallery
FROM SEPTEMBER 17 to December 11, 2011, the Royal Academy of Arts will stage a landmark exhibition focusing on Edgar Degas' preoccupution with movement as an artist of the dance.
Entitled Degas and the Ballet: Picturing Movement, it will trace the development of the artist's ballet imagery throughout his career, from the documentary mode of the early 1870s to the sensuous expressiveness of his final years. Here are some examples…
Roll your mouse over the left and right-hand sides of the image and then click to view more pictures.
6 of 6
Recent Galleries:
- The Dandy Lion Project Gallery
- Radical Geometry Gallery
- The Years of La Dolce Vita Gallery
- A Dialogue with Nature Gallery
- Vikings: life and legend Gallery
- Giorgio de Chirico: Myth and Mystery Gallery
- Shunga: sex and pleasure in Japanese art
- Daumier (1808 - 1879): Visions of Paris Gallery
- Australia at the Royal Academy of Arts Gallery
- Richard Rogers RA: Inside Out Gallery