Yup that’s what I mean.
Seems like a reasonable limitation then (not that the entire business model of scientific journals is reasonable in the 21st century is reasonable - just this specific limitation). The journal’s theme is proprietary, but the paper’s authors still have the LaTeX source so they can just slap a free preamble on it and publish it with that.
So basically the article you are allowed to release can have its typesetting - it just can’t have the journal’s preamble/theme?
or even sometimes the peer-reviewed, but NOT typeset article
What does that mean? The LaTeX source?
We really should stop killing dragonflies for usage in the stained glass industry.
He really is an American hero. Here is the evidence for that claim.
Only 29.2% of the world surface is land. Seems weird to focus on that area when deliberating where to send them.
That’s your solution for everything!
It’s an outdated business model, but the problem it tries to solve is real. You wouldn’t want the author to be payed for a single copy which the library freely distribute to as many users as it can. And when I say “freely”, I mean it’s free for the library - the readers will pay subscription. And when I say “library”, I don’t mean your local community library - I mean a big company that operates an online library.
For some reason books are the only media that operates by this model digitally. One would assume it’s because how physical libraries work - but video libraries were a thing, and so were game libraries, and you don’t see online video libraries or game libraries that use this model.
Maybe it’s because of advertisement? You can easily put ads in books (newspapers always have ads in them), but due to the static nature of books and the complete control the user have on the pace, you can’t force the readers to read your ads.
At any rate, this is not really scarcity because this model does not actually allow them to inflate the price. The library’s patrons pay a general subscription, so any specific book does not have a price in the library and therefore they can’t raise its price just because the library does not have enough copies of it. And if someone is willing to pay more in order to jump the queue - they can just as easily buy their own digital copy of the book.
You may have seen in the last few weeks that Internet Archive is trying to raise public support and funds for a legal fight. The thing they are being sued over? Exactly that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive
This is about copyrights, not about physical supply.
Which politician? If the president does it, it counts as an Official Act and is perfectly legal.
I’m already not supporting a conservative dystopia so you don’t have that leverage over me.
You are not actively supporting it, but you are not making the minimal effort to oppose it either.
there are many people who vote Trump don’t intend to support a conservative dystopia
Why are they voting for the candidate who promises a conservative dystopia then?
You have no more ability to get me to to vote Biden than you do to get a Trump voter to change their vote.
Disagree. I can’t coerce neither of you, of course, and as you said I’m not entitled to anyone’s fault, but I’m still allowed to argue on and internet and try to make people see reason. And for that, I have a “leverage” on you that I don’t have on a Trump voter - the proposition that you don’t want a conservative dystopia.
(Of course, if you do want a conservative dystopia consider my entire argument null and void)
That kind of blame is useless when trying to prevent gas station robberies. You need to blame the robbery on something the people who don’t want the station to be robbed could have done different, so that they could do it differently next time. Putting the blame on the robber, in this context, won’t do any good - the robber know exactly what they could have done to prevent the robbery (which is quite simple - just refrain from doing it) , but they won’t do it because they want to rob the store.
Let’s pretend, just for a moment, that the point of the public discussion of the elections is to try and affect their results. You conclude the if Trump gets elected, it’ll be the fault of the people who voted for Trump. So you go to Trump voters and try to convince them that if Trump gets elected it’d be their fault but they can change that if they act now and refrain from voting.
Say you’ve managed to convince them that this is the case. Will it affect their behavior? Will they say “I was going to vote for Trump because I want him as president, but now I realize that this would mean it’s my fault he gets elected so maybe I shouldn’t”?
On the other hand, if you manage to convince a non voter on Biden’s side that it’d be their fault if they don’t vote and Trump gets elected - that’s potentially another vote for Biden, and enough of these can change the outcome.
I make a distinction between “responsibility” and “blame”:
If the candidate you supported won, you share in the responsibility for it - but not in the blame because from your point of view there is no blame because it’s not a bad thing.
Not ridiculous - just not sufficiently detailed. The people who didn’t vote are only to be blamed if the candidate they’d vote for if they did vote lost. Basically, if Biden (Trump) wins:
The people who voted for Trump (Biden) should not be blamed, because they already did what they could - they voted for Trump (Biden). It’s not like they could have voted “harder”.
The people who voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed either - they got what they wanted, and they were within their civilian right to do so.
The people who did not vote but would have voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed because just like the previous group - they got what they wanted. Also, even if they would have voted it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. There is an approach that say this should still be condemned because this was still a risk, but I believe one should not be so quick to condemn a bad practice when it succeeds because if you have to do that that means you were unable to find enough cases where the practice failed (and condemn it there) - which should compel you to consider whether this really is a bad practice.
Also - we are talking about blaming Trump’s (Biden’s) loss on them, but they would have voted for Biden (Trump), which means that by not voting they gave half a vote to Trump (Biden) - so why blame them for not voting?
This leaves us with the people who did not vote but would have voted for Trump (Biden). These people are blamable - they did not get their preferred candidate, and they could have done something to increase the odds that he would have won.
Right. Sorry. Was more along the lines of “no one argues with the fact that …”, which pretty much means the same thing as your correction.
Of course the number of votes matter. Not voting affects the number of votes, because if the non-voter would have vote - the number of votes would be different. The responsibility is shared between all the people who get the right to vote. No one argue that this includes the ones who actually voted - the argument is about whether this includes the non-voters.
Alice and Bob. Alice wins. She says that Bob can only blame himself for neglecting his training, but Bob blames Alice and says that if she wouldn’t have ran so fast, he could have won.
Who is right and who is wrong?
While it is true that Bob would have won if Alice was slow enough, it doesn’t mean that Alice should be carrying any blame here. She wanted to win the race. Bob is the one who did something wrong, because he did not want to lose and still didn’t do what he can in order to win.
If candidate A gets elected, his voters don’t need to blame themselves for getting him elected. That’s what they wanted to do. Or, at least, that’s what the realistic option they preferred over the other realistic options.
If he does something they don’t like, and it’s something that the other candidate wouldn’t have done, only then should they blame themselves for getting him into power. And even then - they should balance that against the bad things (in their opinion) candidate B would have done that candidate A wouldn’t.
But for the very act of him getting their candidate elected? They should not feel guilty for that. They should feel pride - or at least, as much pride as casting a vote into a ballot can entitle.
The ones who should feel blame are the ones who wanted candidate B elected and did not vote. They could have done something to contribute to the outcome they prefer - they could have voted. By their inaction, they have contributed to a result they did not want.
If he thinks something doesn’t matter just because the people involved are dead, maybe history is not the right academic field for him.