Literature

"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...

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.

Well, this is not all possible answers... Here another one.

By the way, the author of the second quote is illogical. Materials are uploaded by one person, and money for clicks is received by the other.

2 Vorona

this is a matter of human stupidity, not logic. Personally, I don't care who gets what money and where. I'm not used to looking into someone else's pocket.

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.

Share your information with trusted friends who need it. If there is an emergency, they will help restore what was lost (at least partially).

I have multiple duplications of all the information. suffice it to say that only for weekly backups, 3 terabyte and two one-and-a-half terabyte screws are used. And a bunch of little things like 250 - 320 - 500 gig. It is unrealistic for me to lose this information.

Everyone is very happy

Thank you for opening your eyes to human depravity! That, it turns out, is why I am now sending my latest articles to all my colleagues! I thought it was to convey my thoughts to my colleagues, and it turns out - to get something from them for free later. Well, colleagues are good, the same, after all, they constantly send something, and they want to recruit more expensive than two-kopeck calendars.

If you sincerely believe that everyone around you is acting out of mercantile considerations, then I will not convince you otherwise.

Although, if you are the heir to a multi-million pupaar fortune, then there is something in this. I'll have to send you the prints

Don't pay any attention. It is difficult for people to admit THEIR excessive greed, it is easier for them to cut everyone's hair under their own comb.
Or accuse them of putting out-de, g...o, which no one, except the author, needs (while it is not known what immortal works they themselves have made humanity happy). Or they decide where the ladies ' novels are (well, of course, not for them), and where the nonfiction is (well, of course, for them).
Yes, just look at the results of voting in the next branch and everything falls into place.

Simply the proverb "the well-fed does not understand the hungry" describes a very wide range of phenomena. Including what is being discussed.

Well yeah That's why I quoted it.
In the next thread, I already wrote that we are not even talking about publications. There is a clash of two main paradigms of human society.

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.

OK, here's the okoem member's website, is it also built on this principle?

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

illogical. Materials are uploaded by one person, and money for clicks is received by the other.

this is a matter of human stupidity, not logic.

And what exactly do you think is the stupidity in my case? Is it stupid that I didn't put up banner ads on my site with low traffic?
Or is it stupid that I spent time creating a non-commercial site instead of doing something like http://nightbabochki.com and "cut the loot"?

2 okoem

I'm tired of answering the same thing with different words. please read the discussion again, so as not to ask a question that has already been covered.

Thank you for opening your eyes to human depravity! That, it turns out, is why I am now sending my latest articles to all my colleagues! I thought it was to convey my thoughts to my colleagues, and it turns out - to get something from them for free later. Well, colleagues are good, the same, after all, they constantly send something, and they want to recruit more expensive than two-kopeck calendars.

I did not "open your eyes" to a fait accompli here, including by a long-standing example, but to the fact that freebie propaganda (and for some reason it applies to scientific literature) it may look like this from the outside. And, judging by your answer, it worked, got through, got through, and still opened it. That's the sad part of it, having to say this to people whose personal integrity neither I nor anyone else seems to have any reason to doubt. And who brought the conversation to this point? So think about not appearing worse than you really are in your propaganda. Personally, when I give something to someone, I also don't cut my hair like the scoundrel professor I mentioned. But I also do not look up to those colleagues who, having laid out something for nothing, begin to baslanit against others who do not want to do as I do. I can also give it away for free (even in a different field), but I leave it a matter of my own personal choice and do not expect others to do the same with their products. Otherwise, any unselfishness runs the risk of running into suspicions like those on which you will no longer be offended. If people are honest, why was there such a conspiracy and get out with propaganda worthy of the money-grubber?..

I did not "open your eyes" to a fait accompli here, including by a long-standing example, but to how freebie propaganda......... If people are honest, why was it so conspiring and getting out with propaganda worthy of a money-grubber?..

I tell you this, that not a single soul was noticed here, who would impudently and persistently demand with boldness from the most venerable men of science-that they lay out their works for nothing! Here, in this dispute, it is only necessary to clarify boldly what is the essence of scientific work and for what purpose and for what circle of people this is being done. The life of my being... ))))

To: Elez
You know, I was still hoping that your post wasn't a very good joke. And he answered in the same style. So that in no case "sneaked".

Almost the entire old collection of prints in ZINA with gift inscriptions. When you take up such work, you feel a special sense of unity with people who worked 100 or more years ago. By the way, some English-speaking authors (from the great ones) wrote donations in Russian. It's JUST SUCH A TRADITION to exchange prints and works.

Although, if you believe in a universal conspiracy, it's useless to argue.

Well yeah That's why I quoted it.
In the next thread, I already wrote that we are not even talking about publications. There is a clash of two main paradigms of human society.

If they write me down as "well-fed" according to the proverb, I will laugh heartily. I am ashamed to even tell you how much I live on per month. Accordingly, and according to the" paradigm " that I have been advocating for all my adult life, I would just like to defend what my opponents say, and not what I say. Those who have seen my page on the Internet (where my articles are freely posted just about "paradigms of society", and not about entomological literature), know this. I don't know, however, where any of my opponents fought for a change in the "paradigms of society". So far, they are bravely fighting only for free access to scientific publications within the framework of the system of domination of money. But I, unlike them, know that before you can focus on any" paradigm "of the" two main ones", you need to understand that it is completely emotional and completely illiterate to demand from one "paradigm" that it somehow function according to the laws of the other. Colleague Dmitrich here already reminded about the bride who wanted to attach the nose of another groom to the lips of one groom. If you want to achieve a different "paradigm" - first change the "paradigm", here I will support you first. And today, when communication problems are solved already at the electronic level, and we will have free access to scientific literature, and authors will not starve and lack research funding. Only after all, this should not be achieved on an entomological forum, but in another area, every problem is solved according to its objective logic, not from the tail, but from the head, but for some reason not I, but my opponents prefer to keep an inadequate body and adjust only one tail (out of many) to their ideal, considering it is replaceable within the framework of this system. As the classic said, they dream of eliminating disasters by preserving the basis of these disasters. Forum chatter will not change the situation in the area we are discussing, because it is determined by much more fundamental factors, and some colleagues can not understand this, believing that the role of money in society is determined by the will of an evil money-grubber-entomologist.

Almost the entire old collection of prints in ZINA with gift inscriptions. When you take up such work, you feel a special sense of unity with people who worked 100 or more years ago. By the way, some English-speaking authors (from the great ones) wrote donations in Russian. It's JUST SUCH A TRADITION to exchange prints and works.

If this tradition is now generally accepted, then there was no need to start a bazaar (especially not only in one topic). We're just being played, aren't we? Is there really no problem?
Or is there still a problem - where the "tradition" does not plow? Multi-volume faunal atlases are not so readily" exchanged " today. And serious scientists for the most part do not feel packed in this part, as they are called. It is one thing to collect prints in the ZIN, but another thing is to provide many individuals with books, when the Soviet circulation and the Soviet cost of publishing are a thing of the past.
In the abstract, everyone is happy to have free access, and I'm the first one. So it's not just to publications that the world has come together in a wedge, but to anything that is much more important in the life of even an entomologist. It was probably a good idea to take public transport for free in Lipetsk a few years ago. Who was bothered by all this, Sarah? But they didn't introduce it into the norm within the society, and even there it seems to have stalled, the concrete life is not on...sh. But we have access to literature in such a share, and there is enough of it for free. But serious people will not advocate the introduction of unlimited free access to entomological literature (even in numbers) into the norm in terms of commodity-money relations.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.11.2010 18: 11

2 A. J. Elez

And you shouldn't have written the abomination about calendars.
Who, like A. Y. Elez, sells disks with scans?
(http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=159669#)
How do we understand the struggle of A. Y. Elez "for the purity of the ranks"? Or should I understand it that way?

As your misunderstanding. I don't know what kind of struggle "for the purity of the ranks" you are talking about. I'm right here tearing my throat out against puritanism in the market, against caring about the cleanliness of personal weapons in the midst of a nuclear explosion. I don't know how you read my messages. About calendars, I gave an example of hypocritical "selflessness", when a person just spends his money in order to then distribute what he bought to people for free - with a long view to the case. How does this contradict the fact that I myself distribute the results of my work not for free, but for money (although I also distribute them for free, but here the addressees are searched for, no matter what, without advertising on the network, just among friends) or, what is good, that I go to work for a reason-God forbid I can't understand it. In my opinion, you didn't really care about logic, if you caught me in a contradiction that doesn't exist, but were just happy to dump something in my personal address that is actually as far away from compromising material as heaven is from earth. Now, if I announced in the market conditions about the free distribution of what I spent a lot of time and effort to create, with my income, then the next morning, cowardly bypassing the psychiatric clinic, I would go to enroll in the ranks of just freebie ideologists.
If you mentioned calendars without any connection with the rest, and you wanted to accuse me of distributing scans of other people's works, then I remind you that the youngest of the works I distribute is already about a hundred years old, these works are in the public domain; but my electronic versions will not become them for a very long time.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.11.2010 21: 11

Although, if you believe in a universal conspiracy, it's useless to argue.

Argumentation may not be entirely futile. Although, if we are talking about convincing me of the advantages of being free and the depravity of money-grabbing, then what is the point of breaking down an open door, if I myself fully agree with this all my adult life, and only argue with the naive dream of implementing this approach as generally accepted in an economic environment that is not adapted for this.
I don't believe in a general conspiracy, although I don't really understand what it means. After all, I would not believe (as it was already possible to understand) even in a corporate conspiracy of bloodsucking publishers with money-grubbing authors. Not in conspiracies and not in someone's evil blood-sucking will, but in objective conditions. I proceed from this myself and wish others to do so.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.11.2010 20: 43

1. You've already gone straight into sophistry
2. It is not correct to draw parallels between books and various industrial and food products. [...]
3. In "fishing reports" there are such intersex essays and pictures that you can't buy in bookstores, there are a lot of beautiful photos. And anyone can look at it and read it.
4. 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.
5. So you don't 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.
6. After all, in theory, a scientific article is also a desire to share your impressions, or not?

1. Since you start with ratings, it's clear that you don't have an answer to what you quoted. And then it's not up to you to give your grades.
2. Who is asking you? I personally drew perpendiculars: I emphasized that food products are much more vital - and for an entomologist - than any other publications, and even then they are not available for free. Although no one is ordered to give or treat, this is also recognized a hundred times here. You respond without reading what others have said.
3. Our "fishing reports" really have a lot of interesting things; we hope that when yours are in full swing, we will not be disappointed in them either. But the possibility of donating information does not imply that it is mandatory to give it. You can't force anyone to write even in "fishing reports".
4. You repeat yourself again - and you force me. Everyone has the right to give, but no one is obliged to. If my neighbor on the right gave me something, it does not oblige me to give something to either him or the neighbor on the left; it is a matter of my choice. They can be happy with gifts, but they can't demand them.
5. Who asks you to mix? But you can match anything with anything, as long as you specify what criteria are used.
6. No one here argued with this. They just pointed out that it wasn't fair to reduce it to this. Scientific articles (andbooks, which is more important and from which you smoothly slide to articles) suggest not only a desire to"share". This desire can overwhelm any layman. They also involve text and pre-text-empirical, analytical-work (the more expensive it is, the less willing it is to do it for nothing). Scientific publication (like any product of labor) is the result of both life activity, i.e. the cost of maintaining one's own life (the dead are not engaged in science) and the lives of those who have to be supported. I repeat for the stubbornly deaf: the fact that scientific work in comparison with some other work also has the good goal of "sharing" does not mean that the employee should be punished for this good component, avoiding paying for his product, calmly paying the producers of anything else. If the work is done with particularly good goals, this does not mean that it can be performed only on a subbotnik and on a voluntary basis, and the main part of your life is spent on something else, on which T. Hierophis would allow you to earn money for food and so on. This dispersion of forces will only harm scientific work. The one for whom this work is the main one in terms of time spent, by definition, should also earn money on it.

As for the volume of my messages, it is most often determined by someone else's thoughtlessness and someone else's unwillingness to read the topic before objections. Therefore, we have to repeat the answers that have already been given. Such producers of a hundred times answered questions have already been here; but adequate participants - to the extent of everyone's patience-from a certain point simply stop shouting to the deaf and perceive them as trolls.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.11.2010 20: 26

1. Since you start with ratings, it's clear that you don't have an answer to what you quoted. And then it's not up to you to give your grades.

That was the answer. I myself like to dilute sophistry, so it's not very difficult for me to find something like this in other people's messages

1. Who forces you? Announce your aliases.
2. "Why"," why", that's what I would like to hear.

1. I will not disclose pseudonyms, please review the topic yourself. And by "compels" (although I actually have- "does not oblige", "will not force") in this context, you can understand the recognition of the right to get and distribute a free scan without the consent of the author. This has been discussed for a long time, but today I will not reproach one of my comrades with phrases that have already turned sphagnum and are now being put forward as fresh by those who are too lazy to read the topic (by the way, the topic of free publications, which is intertwined in content with this one). To recognize the right to take someone else's is to recognize the duty of another to give his own.
2.The question "why" is usually answered about objective phenomena, and not the questions "why" or "for what purpose". Moreover, the troll bead can take you to an endless "why". But even to the question "for what?"in relation to someone's work, the answers in the topic were already there, you need to read more carefully. And for science, and for food, and a lot of things, one does not interfere with the other. You can add, if you like, - "to share", this is also not argued here. However, someone like you will immediately ask "why share?", and so on to the white birch. But the dispute here was much closer to the issue of copyright, in fact, about what should be considered the norm for scientific publications - free distribution (and, as has been repeatedly stated, even fresh literature and even without the consent of the copyright holder) or respect for the economic interests of copyright holders. If it was a matter of your inflated "questions", and there would be no dispute here. And I have nothing to dodge here, just from your funny message with these "questions" -

I tell you this, that not a single soul was noticed here, who would impudently and persistently demand with boldness from the most venerable men of science-that they lay out their works for nothing! Here, in this dispute, it is only necessary to clarify boldly what is the essence of scientific work and for what purpose and for what circle of people this is being done. The life of my being... ))))

I only understood "My Life", but Bulgakov's John the Terrible answered it a long time ago.

Well, your motivation is clear, that is, you write here, on the forum, only because of someone else's thoughtlessness.

It doesn't follow from what I've said, because you're too scared.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.11.2010 22: 15

Elez, you're smart, well done, So them!

My reports are also there

And under what nickname are your reports in "Fishing Reports"? And for what dates (at least some)?

And under what nickname are your reports in "Fishing Reports"? And for what dates (at least some)?

Not at all) You ignore my questions, so I'm also entitled to

And under what nickname are your reports in "Fishing Reports"? And for what dates (at least some)?

Not at all) You're ignoring my questions, so I can do the same.

But even though you don't see other people's answers, I won't ignore yours. This is not something that can be ignored on forums. I'm not congratulating you.

But even though you don't see other people's answers, I won't ignore yours. This is not something that can be ignored on forums. I'm not congratulating you.

And now you're going to eat me for it? Yes, what can you do, this is life)))

Pictures:

caeatla.jpg — (162.1к)

They don't eat on forums, don't you know:
http://www.aquaforum.ua/showpost.php?p=1176547&postcount=448

They don't eat on forums, don't you know

I sympathize with you, probably for several hours, at night, we reviewed the "fishing reports" and aquaforum Sheremetyevo, by the way, considers molbiol a malicious gathering of pirates, and the link to this site is somehow outlawed there. ATO I would have posted a link to this topic there long ago
PS
You argue just to argue. And personally, I'm not interested in that at the moment. There is no hope for a concrete answer from you. So wire Eustace and challenge him to a duel

Yes, I was bored with it last year... Words, words, words... well, och. a lot of words. Sometimes, however, I read it, but I have no desire to "get involved". The boredom (=emptiness) of words makes my jaw tighten. And winter will come... Everything will go into words.

It is believed that the truth is born in a dispute. But in THIS dispute, the truth will not be born. Because the argument itself is becoming more and more like masturbation.

It is believed that the truth is born in a dispute.

IMHO, in a dispute, the truth is not born. The truth exists by itself, regardless of what we think about it, regardless of the very existence of the dispute.

IMHO, in a dispute, the truth is not born. The truth exists by itself, regardless of what we think about it, regardless of the very existence of the argument.

Everything is so. Only in an irreconcilable dispute is everyone sure that the truth is just their opinion.

Sheremetyevo, by the way, considers molbiol a malicious gathering of pirates, and the link to this site is somehow outlawed there. ATO I would have posted a link to this topic there long ago

You're bluffing. Just at the aquaforum, you are already under surveillance, there is a ban looming over you for flooding (after the second warning), if it hasn't already broken out; You can't go there at all on these issues, like the wolf who has already annoyed everyone in the village. Otherwise, you wouldn't have come running to us with it. If you ignored the link, take a look at the image. It shows that it is not molbiol who is "outlawed" for pirate propaganda, but someone else.

Modern printing allows you to publish books of exactly the same content in any versions: on plain paper in softcover for students and "poor entomologists" - 500 rubles, and on coated paper, with a gold torched edge, in French binding, dust jacket for "rich amateurs in Japan and Europe" - the price is limited by the thickness of the "amateur" wallet.". And calling for malnutrition to buy a scientific book is not serious, the feeling of hunger does not change over the years . The author wrote it himself - scan it. And the enjoyment of books is no longer entomology, but second-hand books.

Modern printing allows you to publish books of exactly the same content in any versions: on plain paper in softcover for students and "poor entomologists" - 500 rubles, and on coated paper, with a gold torched edge, in French binding, dust jacket for "rich amateurs in Japan and Europe" - the price is limited by the thickness of the "amateur" wallet.". And calling for malnutrition to buy a scientific book is not serious, the feeling of hunger does not change over the years . The author wrote it himself - scan it. And the enjoyment of books is no longer entomology, but second-hand books.

Well, of course. This is because for furniture, for yachts, for mansions, and for cars, not only the main function matters, but also the culture of the product, for some reason they not only respect the engine and headlights, but also the aesthetics, and books, especially scientific ones, are a bit of a redneck business, and they will do without aesthetics, we don't care about the centuries-old ones achievements of the book publishing culture, as long as the main function is preserved. Tea, not a limousine, can also be sold in a leaky binding, it will go cheaper, the main thing is not in binding, but in scientific content, in spirituality, isn't it?

But seriously: how much can I advise you to read before the topic?

The main topic is complaints about the unjustified high cost of the book.
Dear A. Y. Elez, not all aesthetes and second-hand booksellers. I need an inexpensive book, at least on a spring (preferably not in a leaky cover). Rather than invest money in new paper, it is better to buy the right insect specimen.
And all your post, I don't even know how to understand, about yachts and other cattle... I wanted to express the idea that you can simultaneously publish different versions of a book for different tastes/interests and budgets. If you expressed it ambiguously, please do not judge strictly.

I wanted to express the idea that you can simultaneously publish different versions of a book for different tastes/interests and budgets.

How can I publish a book on R. Morpho on toilet paper without losing image quality? Who would buy such a book, even for 3 kopecks?

Speaking of toilet paper. Of course, "not all aesthetes and second-hand booksellers", but there is no need to be an aesthete to understand the level of consumer culture achieved at the moment in some field. That is why I did not speak about aesthetics, but about aesthetics and the culture of production and consumption. After all, even toilet paper itself is made "for different tastes/interests and budgets", but no one will try to offer crumpled newspapers as such on the commodity exchange today. And what would be the savings for the consumer, while maintaining all the functions and even adding another aesthetic one?
The fact that so much money is sometimes invested in the preparation of a scientific or other publication that replacing a coated one even with a wrapping one will reduce the selling price of a book quite slightly has already been said here. Therefore, it is not a bad idea to read not only the topic name, but also the messages already contained in it. Anyone who insists on replacing the coated one with a simple one, I suggest you admire the illustrations in the famous book by Yu. S. Arakcheev "In Search of Apollo". But there is paper, although not coated, but very high-quality. Look at these illustrations-except for those that give a full-page pigeon print (which, if accepted as the norm, even on a toilet paper would make an entomological atlas many times thicker and more expensive than any current one) - and understand that you are fighting for just such a scientific (!) stupid primitivism. Look at the illustrations in the excellent book by B. V. Stradomsky (on polyomattinae, 2005). And think about how much this edition would have won scientifically, if not for the obvious need to save on printing. This saving was especially strong there in the images of dark females.

Nowadays, cheap printing in the publication of scientific literature (especially those containing illustrative material) is a spit in science, which, alas, authors sometimes have to put up with, not being able to publish their work better, and from grateful readers expecting, instead of covering the costs of preparing and publishing it, only a free software scan. for ideological reasons. But to produce a scientific work that does not have a commemorative - or other special-meaning, with gadgets like those with which books are issued for donation by the president to others like himself, would, of course, be an excess that no one calls for.

I wouldn't buy a book I didn't need, but it was published on bad paper and in a bad binding. after six months of active use, it will look like a washcloth, and after 2 years it will fall apart into its component parts. Do you remember Korshunov and Gorbunov's 1995 book butterflies of Asian Russia? Just for fun, I can take a photo of what she's turned into now... but it was inexpensive . one thing pleases me - I scanned it at the time, and now there is no need to finish it off.

I wouldn't buy a book I didn't need, but it was published on bad paper and in a bad binding. after six months of active use, it will look like a washcloth, and after 2 years it will fall apart into its component parts.

Here you are somewhat exaggerating, of course, you would have bought it. But there really is a regret about the poor-quality product. Books from "Nature of Ukraine" many of my friends in two copies with one work, the other is on the shelf. The ones that work are scary. But I think with those books that are intensively worked with, it will not save, no matter what. But I work with books for 5 € not like for 140 €.

I bought 3 children's books with a total leafage of 450 pages, on medium paper, A5 format, circulation of 10,000. All the famous books of Volkov. I gave away 1100 rubles. What is surprising is that a luxury book with a circulation of 1000 copies. costs 5,000 rubles, i.e. 11 times more expensive than a 100-fold reissued children's book?