Literature

go away trolls

2 Hierophis: don't push analogies to the extreme. Scientific dishonesty is already in a different category than commercialism.

And here there is bad faith, well, if a person honestly sold the holotype, exactly the same one, then he does not have the right to put up something from his series for the holotype, all the same, he will probably write that he used the entire series to describe it

rhopalocera.com what does the food look like in your picture?? Eat it yourself, in the morning and on the second day!

Does it matter? Of course not. Have you ever heard, for example, of a type series where a male and a female of "the same species" belonged to different subfamilies? This, by the way, is not a case of falsification, but the most conscientious error. Now imagine that someone decides to split a taxon with such a "type series" into two. Do you think it will be important in this case, which specimen is considered a holotype?

my words, but quote them in full, or don't quote them. finally turn on your brain and understand that I'm not exactly ready to break your arms and legs (and I did, by the way), but a thief. to a specific thief. who was caught stealing (not caught - not a thief. russian folk wisdom). about people like you, my mother says this: "he is either in the forehead or on the forehead."

I think you misjudged my attention to the discussion. you think the discussion is about you. I will release you from the conversation so as not to harm the psyche.

Leave my brain alone. I don't recommend what you should turn on.
Since you still haven't answered the twice-asked question, let the phrase "what's in the forehead, what's on the forehead" be addressed to you as well.
As for the hands and feet... Believe me, I smashed everyone's noses and your belts and "other attributes" to me to the light bulb.

go away trolls

This is the picture I had in mind!
My last post was about you feeding a troll.
Debating with a troll is a strange thing to do.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 08.11.2010 23: 19

Well, I write everything ironically.
This is the first time I've heard about this, and I've certainly heard about similar cases, but there males and females were described as different species because of the pronounced sexual dimorphism. Your example is very unusual. Honestly, I even find it difficult to answer how much it matters in this case, which specimen was taken as a holotype. It depends on how you approach it all. Creepy example
What can I say, it is necessary to know well the biology of the species that you describe, to record mating. And there will be no such oddities.

 
Debating with a troll is a strange thing to do.

Oh, you still haven't forgotten the broken lesson Oh yes, I went through this already, once made a remark to one teacher, and there was a serious topic, kaaaak he didn't like me later for this)))
This is the whole science

This post was edited by Hierophis-08.11.2010 23: 30

This is the picture I had in mind!
My last post was about you feeding a troll.
Debating with a troll is a strange thing to do.

I've already stopped. there are 2 trolls here

What's there to doubt? It follows from the code that it is very important. I understand that because of such stories, syntypes are canceled.

I can't resist the last time. syntypes are nomenclature types. it's a shame to talk about standard series and not know banal things.

I've already stopped. there are 2 trolls here

This is already interesting!!! Well, who is one of them it is already clear, it is yourself, and what, there is someone else? Or are there two of you?"

I wrote above that if someone makes a scan from my book, which I will publish, and distributes it to friends,then I will not complain about this. In addition, some of my articles are on sites without authorship, and I only remembered this now. And I don't say anything about the pictures at all. This is so, to the supposed objections that I haven't written anything yet and am flaunting it.

So it's easy for you to say, you are already provided with literature, and I have rhopalocera.com as you can see, neither in the scans nor on the shelf is there the same Darwin that you have, nor the same Cornelio... He still has a lot of money to spend...

For some reason, there are no questions about everything that an entomologist should use, for whom and why it is done. After all, we also eat bread, so ask the baker for whom he bakes it, or ask in the supermarket for whom the products are laid out there. Let a thousand times - for you and me, but the freebie does not follow from this. If someone somewhere gives away the product of their labor for nothing - a flag in their hands and a shaft in their hands. But even the chocolates in the shops are for us, but we don't get them for nothing. Both the chocolate bar and the book about it are made in production and, regardless of the author, the ideas will cost money. And who demands discrimination for entomological literature (much less necessary for people than food) - such a selfless person will eat a chocolate bar tomorrow, if he did not eat it yesterday.
You need to be principled and calculate your theses at least one and a half steps ahead. And to blackmail a scientist by saying that he works for the sake of science, and not for profit, when in the work he can not do anything without money, which also needs to be taken from somewhere , is ungrateful and dishonest. You will get the scientist to give up, stop throwing beads and answer: go you know where, think if it is more profitable for you that I, as a normal producer in a market society, work for profit, and not for science and not for you; just try to do without my work in your publications and sit out on their free publications, I'll look at you. And he will be right, how long can you endure these punches when you are beaten only for the fact that your work is for science, and not for profit, that your goals are nobler than those of manufacturers and sellers of something for which all screamers dutifully pay much more and more often. Rather than accuse them, they would have shown their concern for science themselves: they would have bought a circulation from the bloodsucker and then distributed it to those who wanted it for a penny, not their own book and not their articles,but his book, for which many are still ready to pay adequately. And to turn out someone else's pocket is still a concern for science and even unselfishness. Rhopalocera.com right, a well-known professor would agree with him: http://narod.ru/disk/27203183000/professor.wmv.html

And let me remind you that the question, which is here, without viewing the topic, put a very inflated edge, has long received coverage in it, so it is better to put it on some other forum, where it will be a wonder and where to answer it you will not have to repeat your arguments for the hundredth time for the sake of new arrivals. Got it, by God.

A. Y. Elez, you are very much mistaken if you think that in Russia a scientist has the opportunity to "stop throwing beads". It will immediately stay at all (or almost at all) without readers. Unless he goes West. Please note: those who claim the need to legalize scans are ready to post their own work. What for? Yes, because they want to be read at all.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 09.11.2010 09: 43

A. Y. Elez, you are very much mistaken if you think that in Russia a scientist has the opportunity to "stop throwing beads". It will immediately stay at all (or almost at all) without readers. Unless he goes West. Please note: those who claim the need to legalize scans are ready to post their own work. What for? Yes, because they want to be read at all.

you're confusing women's novels and nonfiction.

Stanislav, by your own lips....
So, if articles are published in domestic journals, they are very often not noticed at all. And it would be good only in the West-often by our colleagues, too. Maybe it's bad referencing, maybe it's because there aren't enough colleagues left, but it's true. Not everyone manages to get into foreign magazines (for example, "poor English" is a great excuse). And if the publication is in Russian, then even the codex does not save, since the original descriptions are read somehow, and the rest of the revision is not read at all (in terms of taxonomy, I speak from other people's stories, but there are good reasons to believe them. With regard to the non-reading of works by Russian colleagues-I myself encountered).

Maybe a little off topic.
The book can't resist scanning and photographing. Anyone can do this with it. There is a new modern information resource, databases and determinants on CD disks. For example, Diurnal butterflies of Eastern Europe - CD guide "The Butterflies (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea, Lepidoptera) of Eastern Europe. I bought a disk from Ivy. When they saw such a miracle in me, they began to ask me to copy it. I warned you that it was protected. They said we break any toys, and this one too. Ha-ha. The defense was excellent. But teachers, colleagues, persistent people went with the disk to professional breakers. The first question after viewing the disk was "How much does it cost?". When they heard the answer, they said, " Buy as much as you need, it will still be much cheaper than removing the protection." Books are past and present. Electronic images are the present and the future.

For example, Daytime butterflies of Eastern Europe-CD guide "The Butterflies (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea, Lepidoptera) of Eastern Europe. ...... Said, we break any toys, and this one too. Ha-ha. The defense was excellent. .......Books are past and present. Electronic images are the present and the future.

Let's say someone has collected a collection of books. Ten, twenty, fifty years have passed. The books are on the shelf, worn, but readable.
And someone has collected a collection of such protected CDs - time has passed - the working layer has peeled off or the format is outdated, there is nothing to read - the disks can be thrown away.
If these disks were not protected from copying , they could be rewritten to new media. And so...
Such protection is good at the moment against "pirates", but in the long run it turns out to be a dead end.

Let's say someone has collected a collection of books. Ten, twenty, fifty years have passed. The books are on the shelf, worn, but readable.
And someone has collected a collection of such protected CDs - time has passed - the working layer has peeled off or the format is outdated, there is nothing to read - the disks can be thrown away.
If these disks were not protected from copying , they could be rewritten to new media. And so...
Such a defense is good at the moment against the "pirates", but in the long run it turns out to be a dead end.

I'm sorry, a little off-topic.

That's why I never buy secure disks in principle. No. In order not to encourage, how to put it mildly... scam, because in this case the seller must inform about the period of operation (say, after n years, the disk will fall off) or give a lifetime warranty.

By the way, this is why sane software manufacturers do not protect their disks and allow them to make backups. Naturally, solely for the purpose of storage, etc. etc.

Stanislav, by your own lips....
So, if articles are published in domestic journals, they are very often not noticed at all. And it would be good only in the West-often by our colleagues, too. Maybe it's bad referencing, maybe it's because there aren't enough colleagues left, but it's true. Not everyone manages to get into foreign magazines (for example, "poor English" is a great excuse). And if the publication is in Russian, then even the codex does not save, since the original descriptions are read somehow, and the rest of the revision is not read at all (in terms of taxonomy, I speak from other people's stories, but there are good reasons to believe them. With regard to the non-reading of works by Russian colleagues-I myself encountered).

I don't see any problems at all. learn the same English. Should I remind you how many languages the average Russian nobleman was fluent in?

Let's say someone has collected a collection of books. Ten, twenty, fifty years have passed. The books are on the shelf, worn, but readable.
And someone has collected a collection of such protected CDs - time has passed - the working layer has peeled off or the format is outdated, there is nothing to read - the disks can be thrown away.
If these disks were not protected from copying , they could be rewritten to new media. And so...
Such a defense is good at the moment against the "pirates", but in the long run it turns out to be a dead end.

protection on ivy disks with comrades breaks in 2 minutes. verified . although on the other hand, why do you need it?

protection on ivy disks with comrades breaks in 2 minutes. verified . although on the other hand, why do you need it?

It doesn't break down who needs it "nafig?"
For others, it was a problem. But a few people have purchased disks.
Supported the authors.
I bought this CD several times. I don't know how many, but there were definitely two editions.

It doesn't break down who needs it "nafig?"
For others, it was a problem. But a few people have purchased disks.
Supported the authors.
I bought this CD several times. I don't know how many, but there were definitely two editions.

Basically, I don't buy disks. They are short-lived, and if people are still trying to fool around with protection , then in general it turns out to be tin: the disk is dead - and dosvidos is "published". And optical discs are dying like flies (I have a collection of movies on DVD, about 3,500 titles - I take about 20 discs to the trash every month).

And everything breaks down very simply if there is no binding to the computer ID (and there is none). A full clone of the disk is made (including the matrix number and hidden tracks) - and all cases .

1. A. Y. Elez, you are very much mistaken if you think that in Russia a scientist has the opportunity to "stop throwing beads". It will immediately stay at all (or almost at all) without readers. Unless he goes West.
2. Please note: those who declare the need to legalize scans are ready to post their own work. What for? Yes, because they want to be read at all.

I have highlighted the items in your message to answer in order.
1. There is a misunderstanding. I spoke about beads only in the sense of repeating the arguments on the forum a thousand times, that a scientist will stop arguing and agree to the slaughter of irrepressible opponents, that his goal is profit, not science,and choke, they say. If his books are too expensive for debaters, no one will still eliminate for them the purely academic need to know his publications when writing their own. The high cost of sources is not an excuse for not knowing them, alas. While cases of great suffering of the author from not distributing their own publications for free, as well as cases of forced emigration due to unspent bales with a well-published book, I believe, are not frequent. Anyway, no scientist can buy bread for selfless glory. And with bread - and much more. Most scientists write books, print them, but do not give them away for free, and they go to the West only temporarily for the sake of scientific creativity, and at the same time they do not suffer from the lack of readers (who are not only local, the world is big).
2. There is also a misunderstanding here. Where did you see here that "those who declare the need to legalize scans are ready to post their own work. What for? Yes, because they want to be read at all"??? The opposite is true: anyone who believes that it is not a pity to post their own work is in favor of legalizing scans in general. "Why? Yes, because they want" under this accordion to get someone else's reading for free, which is not so adapted for free distribution (the criteria here were formulated a thousand times), and save their salary and grants for other goods that cannot be ruined by any forum propaganda for free. Not so much so that they can be read for free, but so that they can read someone for free later as compensation. Understanding, obviously, that such a situation will be advantageous for them, and what those others will eat and work for, which West they will drape from freeloaders or which closet (for the sake of making it cheaper) to print faunal Talmuds with color illustrations - do not care. This is how things stand on the forum, if you look closely...

I knew a very disinterested professor at Moscow State University in the early 1980s. He had a way of going to a newspaper stand and buying a stack of a hundred or two identical calendars for the next year (at 2 kopecks apiece), and then giving them all away just like that. "Why?" And he loved, you see, to do good, and unselfishly. But it is not the sum of the costs that matters, but the fact that a gesture of benevolence is a gesture of benevolence. Expensive is not a calendar, expensive attention. After that, among the two dozen beneficiaries, when the need came, a positive review of the work of, say, his dissertation, even if it was not worth it, was already agreed to give a larger number of people, because he has good relations with them (after all, not bad, right?)... Someone already couldn't turn the tongue to say: go away with your stooges... The essence of this manner of giving calendars was explained to me by the psychologist Galperin, who once knew him very well, and is now deceased. Halperin said: try not to take these from him ... calendars, two kopecks - not the amount to remember all your life that this one is ... he has done you good (after all, he is not evil) and proceed from this in your communication with him and in possible actions with him. The council was too late: I did not knowingly give up the free calendar by that time, and the transition to another job soon protected me from possible compensation or the offended face of a prudent professor.
Sorry for the digression, but now I remember, I decided to tell my friends. It is in this topic. This is not an allusion to the proponents of a different position on scans, it is only a warning about what kind of moral image you need to watch out for, so as not to gain it, or at least not to look like it without guilt.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 09.11.2010 16: 41

Basically, I don't buy disks. They are short-lived, and if people are still trying to fool around with protection , then in general it turns out to be tin: the disk is dead - and dosvidos is "published". And optical discs are dying like flies (I have a collection of movies on DVD, about 3,500 titles - I take about 20 discs to the trash every month).

Just don't throw a photo of that garbage dump here, we've already seen it with straighteners .
Earlier, you stated from the experience of accepting restoration orders that optical disks are the least likely to be brought for restoration (and showed pathetic piles of optical disks in the photo of versus screw deposits). Or do they bring less money not because they are more reliable, but because they usually contain either nonsense or something that has been burned repeatedly (i.e. duplicated) and therefore can be restored independently by the user? But after the last remark about the flimsiness of optical disks , what remains reliable from electronic media? Or is there only paper left, and for movies - only visual memory?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 09.11.2010 16: 53

No, you just need to have several copies and periodically rewrite them to new media. However, almost no one does this - even when a fried rooster bites.

Well, that goes without saying, duplication is the best defense. I was just interested in the ratio of media types in terms of reliability, because once Stanislav popularly proved to us the enormous statistical advantage of optical disks. I personally also never really trusted them, and I burn everything at least twice-except, sorry, movies, and even if they are yat, I duplicate them only rare (i.e., and privately obtained, which by definition can not be either online or on sale). Expensive, however, but health is more expensive. But, of course, there is always a lot of operational material on the screws that has not yet been burned through. However, the most valuable items are also duplicated by physical screws.

Just don't throw a photo of that garbage dump here, we've already seen it with straighteners .
Earlier, you stated from the experience of accepting restoration orders that optical disks are the least likely to be brought for restoration (and showed pathetic piles of optical disks in the photo of versus screw deposits). Or do they bring less money not because they are more reliable, but because they usually contain either nonsense or something that has been burned repeatedly (i.e. duplicated) and therefore can be restored independently by the user? But after the last remark about the flimsiness of optical disks , what remains reliable from electronic media? Or is there only paper left, and for movies - only visual memory?

what garbage dump?
optical disks are very rarely worn. because very few people are stupid enough to trust them with important data.
there are no reliable digital storage devices. haven't figured it out yet. everything either wears out very quickly, or breaks down, or both.

  
For some reason, there are no questions about everything that an entomologist should use, for whom and why it is done. After all, we also eat bread, so ask the baker for whom he bakes it, or ask in the supermarket for whom the products are laid out there. Let a thousand times - for you and me, but the freebie does not follow from this.

You've already gone straight into sophistry

It is not correct to draw parallels between books and various industrial and food products. Factory-made chocolates, homemade eggs and milk - of course, they are offered everywhere for the equivalent.
However, here you are in this topic in particular, and on the forum in general, "gave out" a lot of text information, very long messages - the entire volume of your messages in this topic is equal to a small book,and on the forum-a decent book. This also took a considerable number of hours. Question: why did you do this? Can you answer it?
"Fishing reports" has such interstitial essays and pictures that you can't buy in bookstores, and a lot of beautiful photos. And anyone can look at it and read it. But what about the "loot"? Isn't it for his sake that you need to do all this, otherwise you may not have enough for the next sortie? has anyone thought about it? Hardly.
Now, a larger example is the Internet. On its vast expanses, on thousands of forums, hundreds of magazines, blogs, there is a huge mass of author's text and graphic information, in the form of diaries, photo sites, stories, disputes. And all this is publicly available, very often stories are published under a pseudonym. Why is this done? I think this is a rhetorical question for a certain category of people.

So you do not need to mix chocolate bars with a thick thick layer of what you need, "ladies ' magazines", and a creative impulse, a selfless desire to share your impressions. After all, in theory, a scientific article is also a desire to share your impressions, or not?

protection on ivy disks with comrades breaks in 2 minutes. verified .

Probably, for a professional in "computer cases", hacking this protection may not be particularly difficult. However, IMHO, for the vast majority of entomologists, hacking this protection on their own is not a real task. The specific example was above.

Well, that goes without saying, duplication is the best defense. I was just interested in the ratio of media types in terms of reliability, because once Stanislav popularly proved to us the enormous statistical advantage of optical disks. I personally also never really trusted them, and I burn everything at least twice-except, sorry, movies, and even if they are yat, I duplicate them only rare (i.e., and privately obtained, which by definition can not be either online or on sale). Expensive, however, but health is more expensive. But, of course, there is always a lot of operational material on the screws that has not yet been burned through. However, the most valuable items are also duplicated by physical screws.

You can store data on optics if it is stored very carefully. But my personal experience is sad: no matter how carefully we store the blanks, they fall into disrepair after an average of 10 years. Of course, you can duplicate it (and you need to), but there are cases when the old blank bursts in the reader. But in any case, an optical disk is more durable than a hard disk. Although this does not change the picture - to store information on digital media, you must meet at least 2 conditions:: 1) at least duplication (and better triplication), 2) timely replacement of the media. Thus, even with a small amount of stored information (say, 10 TB), at modern NLMD speeds, only creating a second copy (backup clone) will take 1.5 days. Plus at least weekly copying to a spare media. Plus a constant update of backups. In general, I just feel sorry for so much time. And if you don't do all this, you can easily lose all the information.

You've already gone straight into sophistry

It is not correct to draw parallels between books and various industrial and food products. Factory-made chocolates, homemade eggs and milk - of course, they are offered everywhere for the equivalent.
However, here you are in this topic in particular, and on the forum in general, "gave out" a lot of text information, very long messages - the entire volume of your messages in this topic is equal to a small book,and on the forum-a decent book. This also took a considerable number of hours. Question: why did you do this? Can you answer it?
"Fishing reports" has such interstitial essays and pictures that you can't buy in bookstores, and a lot of beautiful photos. And anyone can look at it and read it. But what about the "loot"? Isn't it for his sake that you need to do all this, otherwise you may not have enough for the next sortie? has anyone thought about it? Hardly.
Now, a larger example is the Internet. On its vast expanses, on thousands of forums, hundreds of magazines, blogs, there is a huge mass of author's text and graphic information, in the form of diaries, photo sites, stories, disputes. And all this is publicly available, very often stories are published under a pseudonym. Why is this done? I think this is a rhetorical question for a certain category of people.

So you do not need to mix chocolate bars with a thick thick layer of what you need, "ladies ' magazines", and a creative impulse, a selfless desire to share your impressions. After all, in theory, a scientific article is also a desire to share your impressions, or not?

This is done to cut down the dough. More people are rushing to find interesting content, and every such site has advertising banners. The more views you get, the more money you earn. Don't look for selflessness on the web - it's almost nonexistent. Just like everywhere else, actually.

Probably, for a professional in "computer cases", hacking this protection may not be particularly difficult. However, IMHO, for the vast majority of entomologists, hacking this protection on their own is not a real task. The specific example was above.

. The example is unfortunate, as is this whole discussion.

This is done to cut down the dough. More people are rushing to find interesting content, and every such site has advertising banners. The more views you get, the more money you earn. Don't look for selflessness on the web - it's almost nonexistent. Just like everywhere else, actually.

OK, here's the okoem member's website, is it also built on this principle? But this is a rhetorical question.

OK, here's the okoem member's website, is it also built on this principle? But this is a rhetorical question.

Naturally. It is hosted on a free hosting service, and ads there are automatically embedded in any site. More examples?

In any case, no one forces me to respond to these banners. Especially if I don't belong to their target audience. You don't need to go far for examples. This forum lives on molbiol.ru -accordingly, banners are focused on molecular biology - which is not relevant for everyone on this forum.

In any case, no one forces me to respond to these banners. Especially if I don't belong to their target audience. You don't need to go far for examples. This forum lives on molbiol.ru -accordingly, banners are focused on molecular biology - which is not relevant for everyone on this forum.

It doesn't matter. Each time you click on the page where the banner is located, you earn the hoster from 0.1 to 1 cent (depending on the type of contract between the hoster and the advertiser). You may agree, disagree, be furious, or cover part of the monitor with banners with a curtain - but if you clicked on the page, your click earned someone money

At first glance, yes. But in fact, for the ad CUSTOMER, this click was "parasitic". Agree: the person who puts up these banners is paid not to be present on the page, but to respond to the ad. Look at this. On sounds.evol.nw.ru (the site "Voices of Animals of the North-West of Russia", the engine was made by me personally, not counting the design design) there are" service " invisible frames. Let's say I place an ad there. Formally, each time you open this site, these frames are "opened" (just not visible). What do you think the ad customer will say if they find out about the "click-through" method?

It doesn't matter. clicks still count. a certain percentage of "empty" clicks are placed in advertising programs.