Literature

anecdote on the topic (about "theft" and the Russian mentality):
In Iran, a thief caught stealing sweets in a store has had his hand chopped off.
According to public opinion polls, every non-stealing Russian spoke
in favor of introducing such practices in Russia, while the remaining 99% expressed
confidence that Russia is a civilized country and should not stoop
to such barbarism.

I, you, and everyone on this forum is part of that majority. As soon as everyone understands this and stops waiting on the sidelines for better times to come, these times will slowly begin to come. The rolling stone gathers no moss. Most importantly, why don't some zoologists want this? Leading zoologists will see that it is useless to fight with scanning books, they will spit and stop publishing them, because it is unprofitable. But you still need to work, they won't just pay your salary. They will start pushing through electronic publications. Maybe we'll catch at least the beginning of it.

Books are not profitable to write... authors, and publishers (printing houses) this is more profitable (stars, of course, are not enough).
As always, I am a supporter of the " existence of paper circulation "(mailing to libraries). Digital technologies are not yet at their peak... rockets, and those can sometimes get lost, and the document can probably get lost/changed much easier.

If we accept the position of a purely digital publication, then it would be legitimate to suggest not the mandatory existence of a standard copy of new taxa, but to create comprehensive scans and store them in digital form.

This post was edited by Adamov - 22.10.2010 22: 28

Probably Copernicus felt the same way... (in no case do I compare myself with him)
To paraphrase: "But there will still be electronic publications!"
Of course, it is convenient to nod at international commissions, etc. And it is difficult and painful to break through walls with your forehead. And no money will be paid for it. Really?
But I got involved in this argument and now I won't give up so easily. Call me a heretic if you like.
At the initiative of c clegg, I open the topic "Forum participants 'publications". If necessary, move it to the appropriate section.

punch through . taxonomists are bound hand and foot by the ICZN. as it says, so it will be.

But you can publish the first description of the new taxon in some small-circulation collection (like our cathedral), spending 100 rubles - and the MCZN will be erased

it'll clear up. but read the recommendations to Article 8 of the Code. you can simply be ignored

Well, if you follow all the recommendations, you won't be able to describe taxa in Russian either. But recommendations are just recommendations, so that they don't have to be mandatory. And it is clear that if such an article exists in the world only in the form of 100 copies, then this is piggish on the part of the author. But if he puts it on the Internet, in public access - then, in my opinion, it will be quite normal.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 23.10.2010 13: 52

punch through . taxonomists are bound hand and foot by the ICZN. as it says, so it will be.

Together, we will gradually break through, do not doubt. The ICZN has also been rewritten and will be rewritten more than once. I don't understand: Are you against progress? It is clear that clamping down on publications is not progress at all. You yourself participated in the next branch "Forum participants' publications " - and here such retrogradism.

Well, if you follow all the recommendations, you won't be able to describe taxa in Russian either. But recommendations are just recommendations, so that they don't have to be mandatory. And it is clear that if such an article exists in the world only in the form of 100 copies, then this is piggish on the part of the author. But if he puts it on the Internet, in public access - then, in my opinion, it will be quite normal.

+1
And after all, the scan can still be sent to specialists in the group.

This post was edited by kovyl - 10/25/2010 17: 32

Together, we will gradually break through, do not doubt. The ICZN has also been rewritten and will be rewritten more than once. I don't understand: Are you against progress? It is clear that clamping down on publications is not progress at all. You yourself participated in the next branch "Forum participants' publications " - and here such retrogradism.

This is not retrograde. In general, I would clearly indicate the publications in which you can publish nomenclature acts. In any case, excluding all short-run collections from there.

Publication in real peer-reviewed journals with a fairly strict editorial policy is minimal "foolproof".

PS. I repeat: I am referring specifically to publications with nomenclature acts, because they cannot be ignored. In all other cases, I am in favor of free publications on the Internet.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 10/25/2010 17: 48

Exactly. Publishing on the Web is access for everyone. This is by no means a small-run collection. I would even say the opposite, the largest-circulation one. To protect yourself from the fool, there are moderators.
In principle, the publication of a nomenclature act does not differ from others. Otherwise, let's publish all the articles on the Internet, and nomenclature acts - on clay tablets or papyri.

To protect yourself from the fool, there are moderators.

In other words, online publications published only on sites that have moderators with appropriate qualifications should be considered valid? And if the author publishes his own articles without asking authorized persons, then this is invalid?

Why build a vegetable garden? Once again, I am for the free dissemination of information on the Internet. But I absolutely do not like the prospect of the appearance of a mass of nomenclature acts that did not pass any examination at all before publication.

1. Copernicus probably felt the same way... (in no case do I compare myself with him)
2. Paraphrasing: "But there will still be electronic publications!"
3. Of course, it is convenient to nod at international commissions, etc. And it is difficult and painful to break through walls with your forehead. And no money will be paid for it. Really?
4. But I got involved in this argument and now I won't give up so easily. If you want, call me a heretic.
.......

1. Especially if you know not the Soviet common version, but what he was REALLY tried for - it turns out funny...
2. The phrase "And yet it turns!" is attributed to G. Galileo, and not to N. Copernicus.
3. Tirade, apparently, as always about greedy corrupt scientists. Would it not be very difficult for you to expand your thesis?
4. Do you know the joke about the elusive Joe?

In other words, online publications published only on sites that have moderators with appropriate qualifications should be considered valid? And if the author publishes his own articles without asking authorized persons, then this is invalid?

Exactly. Just as articles are (or at least should be) reviewed by a reviewer before being published. After all, here I am talking about how to make publications available to the widest possible range of people. If the main difficulties rest on finances, then the Network is at least some way to remove these difficulties.

1. Especially if you know not the Soviet common version, but what he was REALLY tried for - it turns out funny...
2. The phrase "And yet it turns!" is attributed to G. Galileo, and not to N. Copernicus.
3. Tirade, apparently, as always about greedy corrupt scientists. Would it not be very difficult for you to expand your thesis?
4. Do you know the joke about the elusive Joe?

1. Are you sure that this (and not the Soviet) version is REALLY true?
2. It doesn't matter who said it. The meaning is important.
3. What is there to deploy? Isn't everything clear that I described in all the previous posts?
4. I know. But what does this Joe have to do with it?

This post was edited by kovyl - 27.10.2010 20: 29

1. Think correctly. But for some reason you state it controversially.
2. The meaning, of course, is important, but incorrect links to it ... mmm... somewhat devalued.
3. Sorry - I didn't read the previous posts. Can you sum it up-briefly, for a couple of phrases?
Or is that what you're talking about?:

Exactly. Publishing on the Web is access for everyone. This is by no means a small-run collection. I would even say the opposite, the largest-circulation one. To protect yourself from the fool, there are moderators.
In principle, the publication of a nomenclature act does not differ from others. Otherwise, let's publish all the articles on the Internet, and nomenclature acts - on clay tablets or papyri.

4. Well, what does the heretic have to do with it?

In fact, there has been talk for a long time that new descriptions will need to be registered on special public sites, and without such registration, new taxa will be invalid. I'm more in favor, although the hell is in the details.

Let me remind you that descriptions on electronic media are already allowed, provided that they are sent to libraries, etc., etc. Thank God, it seems that this practice has not become widespread. The trouble is that the validity conditions were written very poorly. In general, if we assume that the code is a law, and the law must be clearly spelled out, then the latest version of the code is incompetent. Theoretically, a situation is possible when, how to put it politically correctly, a person with oddities will describe 150 new species, record the new descriptions on several CD/DVD discs and transfer them to 3 (for example) nearby rural libraries. And all other taxonomists will have to deal with this.

Why is there such a special attitude to "nomenclature acts"? All other side directions?

Because nomenclature acts cannot be ignored. If someone has presented their ideas, and you think that this is nonsense, but you don't want to swear, you can pretend that this publication does not exist. If someone described a new species in a way that makes it impossible to understand, then you can still get to it in the synonym.

I will once again summarize my main idea (for those who need to read all the previous posts in scrap):

Publications (whether they are books or articles or something else) should be accessible to everyone. Or it's not publications. The fact that some publications need to be purchased already makes them not available to everyone. Paper versions of the road in the publication. Conclusion: we need to switch to options for maximum availability at the lowest cost. No one will argue that so far electronic publications on the Web meet these criteria as much as possible? The fact that they do not have the proper status is only a matter of time. New things always struggle to find their way through. But the pros are too obvious to ignore.

The main objection, as I understand it, boils down to the fact that, according to some, if authors post their work, they will not have money for further research. To this I will answer that not all authors receive at least some n. money for their work and yet they still work. Others receive, but publish only articles, etc. ,i.e. non-commercial publications. And only a very small part publishes their works in the form of gorgeous color atlases, etc.

Well, it didn't work out for a couple of phrases.

And I felt like a heretic, because I was attacked and accused of being almost a hardened criminal... And I just expressed an idea that has been in the air for a long time.

In fact, there has been talk for a long time that new descriptions will need to be registered on special public sites, and without such registration, new taxa will be invalid. I'm more in favor, although the hell is in the details.

Let me remind you that descriptions on electronic media are already allowed, provided that they are sent to libraries, etc., etc. Thank God, it seems that this practice has not become widespread. The trouble is that the validity conditions were written very poorly. In general, if we assume that the code is a law, and the law must be clearly spelled out, then the latest version of the code is incompetent. Theoretically, a situation is possible when, how to put it politically correctly, a person with oddities will describe 150 new species, record the new descriptions on several CD/DVD discs and transfer them to 3 (for example) nearby rural libraries. And all other taxonomists will have to deal with this.

Well, that's right, electronic publications have absolutely nothing to do with it. After all, descriptions of delusional taxa can also be published on paper. And indeed send it to rural libraries. But Nota lepidopterologica is also not accessible to everyone. What should I do? How can I help the poor devils who don't have access to this magazine? If everything is published through the network, then there will be almost no such poor people left (except for those who do not have money for the Internet) and the authors will not unfasten the zazhravshim publishers. I received an amount from a foundation or patron of art, spent it at my own discretion, and reported back in an electronic publication. Is it bad?

This post was edited by kovyl - 27.10.2010 22: 36

In fact, there has been talk for a long time that new descriptions will need to be registered on special public sites, and without such registration, new taxa will be invalid. I'm more in favor, although the hell is in the details.

Currently, the function of registering new names is performed by paper Zoological Records.
Do they offer an online Zoobank?

Because nomenclature acts cannot be ignored. If someone has presented their ideas, and you think that this is nonsense, but you don't want to swear, you can pretend that this publication does not exist. If someone describes a new species in a way that makes it impossible to understand, then you can still get a synonym for it.

Maybe everything... until someone takes a sample and compares it, which will take years.
We were somehow taught differently: "We need to do complete reviews... collect all the works, even complete crap, including the one that he once wrote... sort out everything and "review". And that you can not say things like "a phenomenon previously unknown to anyone", if you have not shoveled all the literature. At best, you can say "the author does not know the works...", but this says a lot about the author himself.

Alexey, have you described any new species? And if you do, which magazine will you send it to?

I didn't describe it. I'll probably be in a ... cab."

This post was edited by Adamov - 28.10.2010 07: 45

I think the origins of these prejudices lie in the fact that we have not only seen the opportunity for a wide range of people to write, read, distribute text and images in electronic form, but also technology has changed significantly several times. Were replaced: media (not to mention punch cards, these were 5-inch floppy disks, then 3-inch ones, in parallel all sorts of streamers, IOMEGA zippers, magneto-optics, then CDs, DVDs, USB drives... what's next?). Word processors and, accordingly, text storage formats changed (who remembers chi-writer or LEXICON now?), operating systems ( ... , DOS, Windows 3. x, Windows 9x, 2000 / XP, Vista, 7 - and in parallel macs and Linux...). Plus, the limited life of media. Of course, all this contributes to the perception of the IT world as something extremely changeable and unreliable, as opposed to the eternal and unshakable "paper world". But how well-founded is this opinion? Remember, there was a discussion here once with a proposal, if I'm not mistaken, from ropalocera.com read the text typed in some not very common encoding under "diesel fuel"... I also suggested that you quickly read it using the available tools (by the way, I strongly suspect that even an Internet browser with forced encoding setting could be suitable for this purpose)-and somehow everything subsided after that, that is, the devil is not as terrible as it seems at first glance. Another thing is that the" electronization " of nomenclature acts should rely on some official servers for storing primary descriptions - and God forbid, if someone "smart" makes it possible to upload material there (and even more so from there) for a fee.

Were replaced: media (not to mention punch cards, these were 5-inch floppy disks, then 3-inch ones, in parallel all sorts of streamers, IOMEGA zippers, magneto-optics, then CDs, DVDs, USB drives... what's next?). Word processors and, accordingly, text storage formats changed (who remembers chi-writer or LEXICON now?),

They reminded me of a long time ago. I used Zip disks a lot when putting them in Zip drive, they were very popular in America, but I don't remember them being called "zipper" (Maybe in Russia as jargon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iomega_Zip_drive

I used a lot (since 1994) as a copywriter, but when I got to Europe in 1989, I found that no one knows this popular editor in Russia. Only after a request in the USA (using the Telnet program, my first experience with the Internet in 1989!) did they find some version of this program.

And I started with 8-inch floppy disks.

They reminded me of a long time ago. I used Zip disks a lot when putting them in Zip drive, they were very popular in America, but I don't remember them being called "zipper" (Maybe in Russia as jargon).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iomega_Zip_drive

Y, and I have Iomega Zip-100 is still alive (although with floppy disks there is a problem with it). This is so, a distraction (inspired simply).

Y, and I have Iomega Zip-100 is still alive (although with floppy disks there is a problem with it). This is so, a distraction (inspired simply).

And I still have a SuperDiskDrive, then a competitor to Zip disks (in size exactly like a three-inch drive), but in Russia I think even less popular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS-120_drive

Well, I still found Bernoulli Boxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_Box

Yes, it's nice to remember what happened before the blanks: even the Fujitsu DynaMO 640 magneto-optics are lying broken on the mezzanine, but the toad presses to throw them out.

Of course, all this contributes to the perception of the IT world as something extremely changeable and unreliable, as opposed to the eternal and unshakable "paper world". But how well-founded is this opinion?

And remember, about a year ago, the Molbiol server went down? On the entomological forum, probably, too, some of the information received after the last backup has disappeared? We then uploaded the missing images again...

I think the origins of these prejudices lie in the fact that we have not only seen the opportunity for a wide range of people to write, read, distribute text and images in electronic form, but also technology has changed significantly several times. Were replaced: media (not to mention punch cards, these were 5-inch floppy disks, then 3-inch ones, in parallel all sorts of streamers, IOMEGA zippers, magneto-optics, then CDs, DVDs, USB drives... what's next?). Word processors and, accordingly, text storage formats changed (who remembers chi-writer or LEXICON now?), operating systems ( ... , DOS, Windows 3. x, Windows 9x, 2000 / XP, Vista, 7 - and in parallel macs and Linux...). Plus, the limited life of media. Of course, all this contributes to the perception of the IT world as something extremely changeable and unreliable, as opposed to the eternal and unshakable "paper world". But how well-founded is this opinion? Remember, there was a discussion here once with a proposal, if I'm not mistaken, from ropalocera.com read the text typed in some not very common encoding under "diesel fuel"... I also suggested that you quickly read it using the available tools (by the way, I strongly suspect that even an Internet browser with forced encoding setting could be suitable for this purpose)-and somehow everything subsided after that, that is, the devil is not as terrible as it seems at first glance. Another thing is that the" electronization " of nomenclature acts should rely on some official servers for storing primary descriptions - and God forbid, if someone "smart" makes it possible to upload material there (and even more so from there) for a fee.

read for your health. I'll look at the result with interest.

www.rhopaloera.com/surgery.ift

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 28.10.2010 17: 36

2 rhopalocera.com:
I looked at it and it looks like the file is encrypted. Anyway, it's not text in some "extended format". As you can see, if I'm right, this is a slightly different task than just reading a text file.

These links, by any chance, did not help? (I don't have time to bother myself, but it's interesting).

http://ufagen.ru/node/341
and from there, respectively:
http://www.xmission.com/~famties/ft-ged.htm

I don't think that's it. Rather it's from here: http://www.turkupetcentre.net/programs/doc/iftcrypt.html - but there is nothing to do there without a password. Or maybe something else altogether.

Let me explain. The file is not encrypted, it is packaged (like most text files in current text editors), it is a small piece of text that I just yesterday threw in diesel fuel on a working server that is used to recover data from Sanov systems. Software version 1998. Do not search the Internet - this format is not described, although the word processor was very widely used. I'm referring to what you write about "reliability and availability". Only a few people will be able to get an article from such a file. And just 10 years ago, half of the world's sysadmins could have done it. What will happen in 10 years with the same word - no one knows.

2 PVOzerski

"Extended" text only formats ended with the release of the first version of the word for Windows.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 29.10.2010 10: 58

I don't know what will happen to the word. And here.odt and .pdf will remain - since their specification is open. By the way, is the file extension you posted a standard or not? Or, to put the question another way, what is the name of the packer program (or at least the editor)? By the way, we have a Sanovsky terminal server deployed at work-naturally, with diesel fuel, but relatively new. In principle, I can feel and there

I won't say what kind of program it is - it will no longer be sporty (downloaded - installed - read). The extension is original. I didn't change anything. Packed by the text editor itself when saving. odt and pdf - why did you decide that they would stay? many formats for saving drawings did not survive even 5 years, although they were also open . you should not look at the" openness " of the code - it's not the file types that change, the hardware itself changes fundamentally - after which the files already follow. remember these milestones: 0x086, Pentium, Pentium III, Core Duo, x32, x64, and compare them with the evolution of software and file types. you will immediately see how quickly everything goes according to the principle of "complicating the structure and compacting archiving".

It seems to me that this program is written on the knee of a local admin craftsman... As for the "milestones", they were accompanied by a clear continuity. You can easily put, for example, DOS on AMD64 - and even run the program-even more so. In other words, the old one remains available.

About your example-I will ask today the craftsmen who serve our Solaris - and beware if it turns out to be a non-standard, Because there is a lot of standard that has lived since that time - these are archives, for example, formats .zoo, .arc, .lzh - all this can be opened. ASCII encoding has been around for a long time, and so have its Cyrillic extensions.

And I think that Mr. rhopalocera is absolutely wrong.
Take the same Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia. Yes, the authors worked hard collecting literature, etc. Well, they also received a fee from the funds. Well, what did the people who were not included in the authors ' circle get, but nevertheless whose publications they used to compile this catalog? Royalties, or at least a copy of this book? Even if not all of them, but at least those who were mentioned in the acknowledgements? Or should they show a photocopy of the thank-you page in the ticket window of the station when they go to buy a ticket to go to the fields? And they, by the way, sometimes pay their own money to be published.
So there's no need to talk about piracy here.

Ale, and who received royalties from the funds?
A person who writes an article-writes it for science. The person who writes a book writes it for the money. Have you thought about it? Either the publisher is publishing a large book-thinking about profit. Now, in more detail, who received a kickback from the funds? This whole discussion is very interesting to me. He was a co-author and author of 7 books, 110 articles. By the way, co-author of the Catalog of butterflies of the Russian Federation.
When someone cites publications, you should be very happy, but they got into a commercial book or someone else's article, this is generally the third question. It is bad that the catalog does not contain a list of references on the fauna of the Russian Federation. I hope that it will come out as a separate work.
And the thank-you page at the checkout window is too much. No one forced me to go to biologists and get a penny, no one pulls me by the hand to go to the fields. All this is our choice. Why break spears?

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 29.10.2010 16: 19