<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_13_1551222</id>
	<title>What Open Source Shares With Science</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244911860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends in a philosophical piece at ZDNet about the similarities between <a href="http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10012939o-2000630136b,00.htm">open source development and the scientific method</a>. Here's an excerpt:
<i>"The speed of progress is greatly enhanced by virtue of the fact the practitioners of Science publish not only results, but methodology, and techniques. In programmatic terms, this is equivalent to both the binary and the source code. This not only helps 'bootstrap' others into the field, to learn from the examples set, but makes it possible for others to verify or refute the results (or techniques) under investigation. In an almost guided-Darwinian evolutionary fashion, this makes the scientific process a powerful tool for the highlighting, analysis and possible culling of ideas and concepts; less useful ideas and hypothesEs die, and likely contenders come sharply into focus. Newton made his famous comment about 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' in part, to indicate that his contributions to human knowledge could not have been achieved solely. He needed the 'firmament' beneath him hypothesized, tested and confirmed by generations of scientists, philosophers and thinkers before him, over centuries."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends in a philosophical piece at ZDNet about the similarities between open source development and the scientific method .
Here 's an excerpt : " The speed of progress is greatly enhanced by virtue of the fact the practitioners of Science publish not only results , but methodology , and techniques .
In programmatic terms , this is equivalent to both the binary and the source code .
This not only helps 'bootstrap ' others into the field , to learn from the examples set , but makes it possible for others to verify or refute the results ( or techniques ) under investigation .
In an almost guided-Darwinian evolutionary fashion , this makes the scientific process a powerful tool for the highlighting , analysis and possible culling of ideas and concepts ; less useful ideas and hypothesEs die , and likely contenders come sharply into focus .
Newton made his famous comment about 'standing on the shoulders of giants, ' in part , to indicate that his contributions to human knowledge could not have been achieved solely .
He needed the 'firmament ' beneath him hypothesized , tested and confirmed by generations of scientists , philosophers and thinkers before him , over centuries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends in a philosophical piece at ZDNet about the similarities between open source development and the scientific method.
Here's an excerpt:
"The speed of progress is greatly enhanced by virtue of the fact the practitioners of Science publish not only results, but methodology, and techniques.
In programmatic terms, this is equivalent to both the binary and the source code.
This not only helps 'bootstrap' others into the field, to learn from the examples set, but makes it possible for others to verify or refute the results (or techniques) under investigation.
In an almost guided-Darwinian evolutionary fashion, this makes the scientific process a powerful tool for the highlighting, analysis and possible culling of ideas and concepts; less useful ideas and hypothesEs die, and likely contenders come sharply into focus.
Newton made his famous comment about 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' in part, to indicate that his contributions to human knowledge could not have been achieved solely.
He needed the 'firmament' beneath him hypothesized, tested and confirmed by generations of scientists, philosophers and thinkers before him, over centuries.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323341</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1244896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've taken roughly the same class, and as part of the quarter that didn't slack off as much, I was pretty satisfied with the experience. The fact is, I don't think that those who slacked off would ever do that well on a proper programming team, and that class very quickly separated those who cared about their craft from those that didn't.</p><p>The point isn't to create a working project. The point is to get experience of what creating such a project feels like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've taken roughly the same class , and as part of the quarter that did n't slack off as much , I was pretty satisfied with the experience .
The fact is , I do n't think that those who slacked off would ever do that well on a proper programming team , and that class very quickly separated those who cared about their craft from those that did n't.The point is n't to create a working project .
The point is to get experience of what creating such a project feels like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've taken roughly the same class, and as part of the quarter that didn't slack off as much, I was pretty satisfied with the experience.
The fact is, I don't think that those who slacked off would ever do that well on a proper programming team, and that class very quickly separated those who cared about their craft from those that didn't.The point isn't to create a working project.
The point is to get experience of what creating such a project feels like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321493</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science being done by "qualified" priests in ivory tower cathedrals...let's pick this horrible, 180 degrees off analogy apart, shall we?<br>
<br>
First off, there's no need for the scare quotes.  Academic science is done by a range of individuals.  At the high end we've got professors and staff scientists who have decades of relevant experience.  They're qualified to lead research groups and/or provide detailed technical expertise.  A rung down you've got postdocs with 10-15 years of experience and then graduate students with a handful of years.  They handle the month to month details, are in charge of a subset of the research, and are also there for training and education.  Under them are undergrads who are learning how to go about doing research.  This bottom rung has little to no qualifications or experience.  The top, well, you go to a dentist for a root canal, a surgeon for a new heart valve, and a mechanic to tune your car engine.  All "qualified" individuals within their areas of expertise, with years to decades of specialized training the average person doesn't have.  If you've got a problem with that, then take your car to the dentist, your faulty heart valve to your mechanic, and your root canal to the guy who delivers your pizzas.<br>
<br>
Second, when you think "ivory tower" you should think of a dilapidated building constructed on the cheap back in the 70's, with decades of deferred maintenance, that's 50\% over-capacity, and that isn't going to be updated or replaced any time soon because the state legislature has been slowly strangling the university (most universities are public institutions and account for most academic research) ever since hippies first walked the earth.<br>
<br>
Third, priests and cathedrals...wow that's a bad analogy, BadAnalogyGuy.  The primary job of a priest is to uphold and disseminate dogma <b>THAT MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED</b>.  Penalties range from merely being shunned to the death penalty, depending on the time, place, religion, and of course the question.  The primary job of a scientist begins with asking interesting questions.  Then figure out how to answer them, and follow the conclusions wherever they lead, even if they run head long into long held and widely supported views.  Except for the fact that most priests and most academic scientists are poor, priests and scientists are polar opposites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science being done by " qualified " priests in ivory tower cathedrals...let 's pick this horrible , 180 degrees off analogy apart , shall we ?
First off , there 's no need for the scare quotes .
Academic science is done by a range of individuals .
At the high end we 've got professors and staff scientists who have decades of relevant experience .
They 're qualified to lead research groups and/or provide detailed technical expertise .
A rung down you 've got postdocs with 10-15 years of experience and then graduate students with a handful of years .
They handle the month to month details , are in charge of a subset of the research , and are also there for training and education .
Under them are undergrads who are learning how to go about doing research .
This bottom rung has little to no qualifications or experience .
The top , well , you go to a dentist for a root canal , a surgeon for a new heart valve , and a mechanic to tune your car engine .
All " qualified " individuals within their areas of expertise , with years to decades of specialized training the average person does n't have .
If you 've got a problem with that , then take your car to the dentist , your faulty heart valve to your mechanic , and your root canal to the guy who delivers your pizzas .
Second , when you think " ivory tower " you should think of a dilapidated building constructed on the cheap back in the 70 's , with decades of deferred maintenance , that 's 50 \ % over-capacity , and that is n't going to be updated or replaced any time soon because the state legislature has been slowly strangling the university ( most universities are public institutions and account for most academic research ) ever since hippies first walked the earth .
Third , priests and cathedrals...wow that 's a bad analogy , BadAnalogyGuy .
The primary job of a priest is to uphold and disseminate dogma THAT MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED .
Penalties range from merely being shunned to the death penalty , depending on the time , place , religion , and of course the question .
The primary job of a scientist begins with asking interesting questions .
Then figure out how to answer them , and follow the conclusions wherever they lead , even if they run head long into long held and widely supported views .
Except for the fact that most priests and most academic scientists are poor , priests and scientists are polar opposites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science being done by "qualified" priests in ivory tower cathedrals...let's pick this horrible, 180 degrees off analogy apart, shall we?
First off, there's no need for the scare quotes.
Academic science is done by a range of individuals.
At the high end we've got professors and staff scientists who have decades of relevant experience.
They're qualified to lead research groups and/or provide detailed technical expertise.
A rung down you've got postdocs with 10-15 years of experience and then graduate students with a handful of years.
They handle the month to month details, are in charge of a subset of the research, and are also there for training and education.
Under them are undergrads who are learning how to go about doing research.
This bottom rung has little to no qualifications or experience.
The top, well, you go to a dentist for a root canal, a surgeon for a new heart valve, and a mechanic to tune your car engine.
All "qualified" individuals within their areas of expertise, with years to decades of specialized training the average person doesn't have.
If you've got a problem with that, then take your car to the dentist, your faulty heart valve to your mechanic, and your root canal to the guy who delivers your pizzas.
Second, when you think "ivory tower" you should think of a dilapidated building constructed on the cheap back in the 70's, with decades of deferred maintenance, that's 50\% over-capacity, and that isn't going to be updated or replaced any time soon because the state legislature has been slowly strangling the university (most universities are public institutions and account for most academic research) ever since hippies first walked the earth.
Third, priests and cathedrals...wow that's a bad analogy, BadAnalogyGuy.
The primary job of a priest is to uphold and disseminate dogma THAT MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED.
Penalties range from merely being shunned to the death penalty, depending on the time, place, religion, and of course the question.
The primary job of a scientist begins with asking interesting questions.
Then figure out how to answer them, and follow the conclusions wherever they lead, even if they run head long into long held and widely supported views.
Except for the fact that most priests and most academic scientists are poor, priests and scientists are polar opposites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</id>
	<title>Science is not open</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1244916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,<br>it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.</p><p>I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur, but am prevented from doing so.</p><p>And this problem doesn't apply only to me, but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannot<br>afford the knowledge.</p><p>Science badly needs a Bastille day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,it can not in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or " fsf-free " software.I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur , but am prevented from doing so.And this problem does n't apply only to me , but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannotafford the knowledge.Science badly needs a Bastille day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur, but am prevented from doing so.And this problem doesn't apply only to me, but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannotafford the knowledge.Science badly needs a Bastille day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321461</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1244921340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying no one can do professional software development out of their home office because they don't have mainframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying no one can do professional software development out of their home office because they do n't have mainframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying no one can do professional software development out of their home office because they don't have mainframe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320959</id>
	<title>How bout Scientists share their sourcecode?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People would be surprised how much software is developed under grant from the gov and is NOT open source. Some institutions like Cal Tech refuse to release their source code or even license it under an open source license that lets them retain copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People would be surprised how much software is developed under grant from the gov and is NOT open source .
Some institutions like Cal Tech refuse to release their source code or even license it under an open source license that lets them retain copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People would be surprised how much software is developed under grant from the gov and is NOT open source.
Some institutions like Cal Tech refuse to release their source code or even license it under an open source license that lets them retain copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321115</id>
	<title>open source = non-privatized science</title>
	<author>panthroman</author>
	<datestamp>1244918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software, like science, produces a non-rival public good.  (Nonrival means it is not consumed when somebody uses it.)  But there are private research companies just like there are private software companies.</p><p>I used to work in a publicly-funded virology lab studying Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).  My biggest result was finding this particular human gene that HCV required in order to infect a person.  If you took liver tissue, knocked out that gene, and tried to infect it with HCV... no infection.  Has anyone seen this before?  Nothing in the scientific literature, but we found a dusty old patent from a company that had clearly found this connection years earlier, but never published it or followed it up.  The company was likely hedging its bets in case it wanted to follow up later.  HCV kills tens of thousands of people a year (liver cancer).  Just makes me so frustrated.</p><p>Most people are already familiar with negative market externalities like pollution or overfishing.  Science and software both exemplify <em>positive</em> externalities, which are just as problematic in free market capitalism.  If only there were a clear way to internalize externalities!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software , like science , produces a non-rival public good .
( Nonrival means it is not consumed when somebody uses it .
) But there are private research companies just like there are private software companies.I used to work in a publicly-funded virology lab studying Hepatitis C Virus ( HCV ) .
My biggest result was finding this particular human gene that HCV required in order to infect a person .
If you took liver tissue , knocked out that gene , and tried to infect it with HCV... no infection .
Has anyone seen this before ?
Nothing in the scientific literature , but we found a dusty old patent from a company that had clearly found this connection years earlier , but never published it or followed it up .
The company was likely hedging its bets in case it wanted to follow up later .
HCV kills tens of thousands of people a year ( liver cancer ) .
Just makes me so frustrated.Most people are already familiar with negative market externalities like pollution or overfishing .
Science and software both exemplify positive externalities , which are just as problematic in free market capitalism .
If only there were a clear way to internalize externalities !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software, like science, produces a non-rival public good.
(Nonrival means it is not consumed when somebody uses it.
)  But there are private research companies just like there are private software companies.I used to work in a publicly-funded virology lab studying Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).
My biggest result was finding this particular human gene that HCV required in order to infect a person.
If you took liver tissue, knocked out that gene, and tried to infect it with HCV... no infection.
Has anyone seen this before?
Nothing in the scientific literature, but we found a dusty old patent from a company that had clearly found this connection years earlier, but never published it or followed it up.
The company was likely hedging its bets in case it wanted to follow up later.
HCV kills tens of thousands of people a year (liver cancer).
Just makes me so frustrated.Most people are already familiar with negative market externalities like pollution or overfishing.
Science and software both exemplify positive externalities, which are just as problematic in free market capitalism.
If only there were a clear way to internalize externalities!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324891</id>
	<title>Conceptually speaking, this is not surprising</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1244919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the news snippet actually claims is that a certain branch of science operates according to the same mechanisms as science at large does (that is, if computer programming may be considered a branch of science). This is basically what R M Stallman has been saying for at least twenty odd years. Namely, that computer programming is about sharing, about getting to see the source code, about modifying and improving it. Not only are there philosophical analogies between science and programming, there are also very important sociological and social ones, especially wrt how the open research model benefits the research community. I could go on about the Cathedral and the Bazaar models here (proprietary/patented research versus open/cooperative science), but such analogies are certainly quite obvious to the savvy crowd of Slashdot readers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the news snippet actually claims is that a certain branch of science operates according to the same mechanisms as science at large does ( that is , if computer programming may be considered a branch of science ) .
This is basically what R M Stallman has been saying for at least twenty odd years .
Namely , that computer programming is about sharing , about getting to see the source code , about modifying and improving it .
Not only are there philosophical analogies between science and programming , there are also very important sociological and social ones , especially wrt how the open research model benefits the research community .
I could go on about the Cathedral and the Bazaar models here ( proprietary/patented research versus open/cooperative science ) , but such analogies are certainly quite obvious to the savvy crowd of Slashdot readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the news snippet actually claims is that a certain branch of science operates according to the same mechanisms as science at large does (that is, if computer programming may be considered a branch of science).
This is basically what R M Stallman has been saying for at least twenty odd years.
Namely, that computer programming is about sharing, about getting to see the source code, about modifying and improving it.
Not only are there philosophical analogies between science and programming, there are also very important sociological and social ones, especially wrt how the open research model benefits the research community.
I could go on about the Cathedral and the Bazaar models here (proprietary/patented research versus open/cooperative science), but such analogies are certainly quite obvious to the savvy crowd of Slashdot readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323619</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1244899500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source shares everything with everyone.</p><p>It is sort of like Ghandi, only it is written as 010001110110100001100001011011100110010001101001.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source shares everything with everyone.It is sort of like Ghandi , only it is written as 010001110110100001100001011011100110010001101001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source shares everything with everyone.It is sort of like Ghandi, only it is written as 010001110110100001100001011011100110010001101001.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321015</id>
	<title>Yeah, like part of  what I posted.</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1244918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1259963&amp;cid=28244145&amp;art\_pos=9" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1259963&amp;cid=28244145&amp;art\_pos=9</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I think I posted it before but I can't find it off hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1259963&amp;cid = 28244145&amp;art \ _pos = 9 [ slashdot.org ] I think I posted it before but I ca n't find it off hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1259963&amp;cid=28244145&amp;art\_pos=9 [slashdot.org]I think I posted it before but I can't find it off hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322079</id>
	<title>the other lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet you had your suspicions reinforced, and others learned, how <em>not</em> to manage big DB projects. This, one could argue, is of some value. Science is like this too. There is much (wasted?) duplication of effort when failed* experiments go unpublished, just as there are many results in expensive journals that are hidden from many of us without the extra funds to subscribe; much less perform. Perhaps a good first step would be the open-sourcing of failed-experiment data.<br> <br>

* For various values of "fail."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you had your suspicions reinforced , and others learned , how not to manage big DB projects .
This , one could argue , is of some value .
Science is like this too .
There is much ( wasted ?
) duplication of effort when failed * experiments go unpublished , just as there are many results in expensive journals that are hidden from many of us without the extra funds to subscribe ; much less perform .
Perhaps a good first step would be the open-sourcing of failed-experiment data .
* For various values of " fail .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you had your suspicions reinforced, and others learned, how not to manage big DB projects.
This, one could argue, is of some value.
Science is like this too.
There is much (wasted?
) duplication of effort when failed* experiments go unpublished, just as there are many results in expensive journals that are hidden from many of us without the extra funds to subscribe; much less perform.
Perhaps a good first step would be the open-sourcing of failed-experiment data.
* For various values of "fail.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320733</id>
	<title>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322101</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1244884500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who don't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.</p></div><p>This shows that you lack imagination. There are frontiers that are still open.</p><p>For example in Astronomy, you can use nothing more than binoculars or a telescope - not the cheapest tools but well within reach - to contribute to variable star research just by regularly observing stars and using precise methods to determine their brightness by comparing them to other stars. Amateurs are needed for this sort of work because even with computerised surveys there are limitations to what the equipment can do. (Computerised surveys do not work well with very bright or very faint stars). Speaking of computers you can download raw Hubble data and the software to analyse it for free. That's not the only large instrument you can get data and analysis software for. Amateurs can and do make discoveries this way. Occasionally amateurs contribute to scientific papers too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who do n't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.This shows that you lack imagination .
There are frontiers that are still open.For example in Astronomy , you can use nothing more than binoculars or a telescope - not the cheapest tools but well within reach - to contribute to variable star research just by regularly observing stars and using precise methods to determine their brightness by comparing them to other stars .
Amateurs are needed for this sort of work because even with computerised surveys there are limitations to what the equipment can do .
( Computerised surveys do not work well with very bright or very faint stars ) .
Speaking of computers you can download raw Hubble data and the software to analyse it for free .
That 's not the only large instrument you can get data and analysis software for .
Amateurs can and do make discoveries this way .
Occasionally amateurs contribute to scientific papers too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who don't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.This shows that you lack imagination.
There are frontiers that are still open.For example in Astronomy, you can use nothing more than binoculars or a telescope - not the cheapest tools but well within reach - to contribute to variable star research just by regularly observing stars and using precise methods to determine their brightness by comparing them to other stars.
Amateurs are needed for this sort of work because even with computerised surveys there are limitations to what the equipment can do.
(Computerised surveys do not work well with very bright or very faint stars).
Speaking of computers you can download raw Hubble data and the software to analyse it for free.
That's not the only large instrument you can get data and analysis software for.
Amateurs can and do make discoveries this way.
Occasionally amateurs contribute to scientific papers too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321137</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, I know a biotech startup in an East L.A. warehouse.  They got cash from Crest and are doing work on new ways of combating tooth decay by disrupting bacterial biofilms in the mouth.  Sorry to burst your bubble, bud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I know a biotech startup in an East L.A. warehouse. They got cash from Crest and are doing work on new ways of combating tooth decay by disrupting bacterial biofilms in the mouth .
Sorry to burst your bubble , bud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I know a biotech startup in an East L.A. warehouse.  They got cash from Crest and are doing work on new ways of combating tooth decay by disrupting bacterial biofilms in the mouth.
Sorry to burst your bubble, bud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321925</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1244925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end.</p></div><p>What do you mean, Mr. Informative?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end.What do you mean , Mr. Informative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end.What do you mean, Mr. Informative?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324023</id>
	<title>Shoulders of Giants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244904660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/shoulders.html</p><p>Abstract: This paper posits that the open source/free software development and distribution paradigm will eventually become dominant. It aims to show that this will occur as an inevitable process, slowly at first, then with almost critical-mass motion. A number of analogies to other areas of human endeavour, such as Science will be used to underline the power of the concepts behind open source freeware. Also, that the open source movement shouldn't be viewed as an attack against any single closed source vendor, but against the inadequacies of the closed source process. And finally, the hope is for this message to achieve some sense of resonance with enough readers, to add just a little more momentum to the accelerating adoption of the open source paradigm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/shoulders.htmlAbstract : This paper posits that the open source/free software development and distribution paradigm will eventually become dominant .
It aims to show that this will occur as an inevitable process , slowly at first , then with almost critical-mass motion .
A number of analogies to other areas of human endeavour , such as Science will be used to underline the power of the concepts behind open source freeware .
Also , that the open source movement should n't be viewed as an attack against any single closed source vendor , but against the inadequacies of the closed source process .
And finally , the hope is for this message to achieve some sense of resonance with enough readers , to add just a little more momentum to the accelerating adoption of the open source paradigm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/shoulders.htmlAbstract: This paper posits that the open source/free software development and distribution paradigm will eventually become dominant.
It aims to show that this will occur as an inevitable process, slowly at first, then with almost critical-mass motion.
A number of analogies to other areas of human endeavour, such as Science will be used to underline the power of the concepts behind open source freeware.
Also, that the open source movement shouldn't be viewed as an attack against any single closed source vendor, but against the inadequacies of the closed source process.
And finally, the hope is for this message to achieve some sense of resonance with enough readers, to add just a little more momentum to the accelerating adoption of the open source paradigm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320927</id>
	<title>What open source shared with chocolate</title>
	<author>anyaristow</author>
	<datestamp>1244917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is like a box of chocolates. I'm not sure why...I just wanted to say that. It's what I thought of when I read the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is like a box of chocolates .
I 'm not sure why...I just wanted to say that .
It 's what I thought of when I read the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is like a box of chocolates.
I'm not sure why...I just wanted to say that.
It's what I thought of when I read the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321675</id>
	<title>Verily and forsooth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244923500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article should be covered up, cast out, smothered, and wiped off the face of the intartubes.  Somewhere in the Book of Gates, it must surely be written that Open Source is the work of the Devils, and that all who are contaminated by such heresy shall surely be cast into the lake of BSOD.</p><p>All who seek after the ways of wisdom are surely aware that both science and programming are best accomplished in secretive enclaves, and pursued by the holy clerics of Corporate America.  Surely, in the pursuit of wisdom, lesser beings shall be confused and damned by their communistic, socialistic methods.  No good can come of the curiosity of the little man.</p><p>Keep the science in the cathedrals, and keep the coding in Microsoft labs.</p><p>Thus speaketh the Gates.</p><p>All hail the great EULA!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article should be covered up , cast out , smothered , and wiped off the face of the intartubes .
Somewhere in the Book of Gates , it must surely be written that Open Source is the work of the Devils , and that all who are contaminated by such heresy shall surely be cast into the lake of BSOD.All who seek after the ways of wisdom are surely aware that both science and programming are best accomplished in secretive enclaves , and pursued by the holy clerics of Corporate America .
Surely , in the pursuit of wisdom , lesser beings shall be confused and damned by their communistic , socialistic methods .
No good can come of the curiosity of the little man.Keep the science in the cathedrals , and keep the coding in Microsoft labs.Thus speaketh the Gates.All hail the great EULA !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article should be covered up, cast out, smothered, and wiped off the face of the intartubes.
Somewhere in the Book of Gates, it must surely be written that Open Source is the work of the Devils, and that all who are contaminated by such heresy shall surely be cast into the lake of BSOD.All who seek after the ways of wisdom are surely aware that both science and programming are best accomplished in secretive enclaves, and pursued by the holy clerics of Corporate America.
Surely, in the pursuit of wisdom, lesser beings shall be confused and damned by their communistic, socialistic methods.
No good can come of the curiosity of the little man.Keep the science in the cathedrals, and keep the coding in Microsoft labs.Thus speaketh the Gates.All hail the great EULA!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903</id>
	<title>So that would make</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>proprietary software the equivalent of intelligent design?
<br> <br>
That doesn't quite sound right to me...</htmltext>
<tokenext>proprietary software the equivalent of intelligent design ?
That does n't quite sound right to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>proprietary software the equivalent of intelligent design?
That doesn't quite sound right to me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320989</id>
	<title>In an almost guided-Darwinian evolutionary ...</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1244917860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>crickets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>crickets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crickets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320951</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1244917620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many authors who feel as you do go ahead and post their papers on their websites for all to view anyway once they're published. Google Scholar now indexes them too. I agree completely on the journals, but in the meantime, you can always try finding papers this way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many authors who feel as you do go ahead and post their papers on their websites for all to view anyway once they 're published .
Google Scholar now indexes them too .
I agree completely on the journals , but in the meantime , you can always try finding papers this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many authors who feel as you do go ahead and post their papers on their websites for all to view anyway once they're published.
Google Scholar now indexes them too.
I agree completely on the journals, but in the meantime, you can always try finding papers this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320931</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1244917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was an interesting insight, to question how open science really is in practice, based on the practical difficulty of accessing information, even now.</p><p>By the way, on the Bastille day part, just a reminder from:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science\_nonviolence.html" title="ucsc.edu">http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science\_nonviolence.html</a> [ucsc.edu]<br>"Studies of social movements in the United States also show that the necessary social disruption has to be created through the principled use of strategic nonviolence. Any form of violence, whether property damage or physical battles with opponents and police, will turn off the great majority of Americans and bring down overwhelming police and military repression."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was an interesting insight , to question how open science really is in practice , based on the practical difficulty of accessing information , even now.By the way , on the Bastille day part , just a reminder from :     " Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence "     http : //sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science \ _nonviolence.html [ ucsc.edu ] " Studies of social movements in the United States also show that the necessary social disruption has to be created through the principled use of strategic nonviolence .
Any form of violence , whether property damage or physical battles with opponents and police , will turn off the great majority of Americans and bring down overwhelming police and military repression .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was an interesting insight, to question how open science really is in practice, based on the practical difficulty of accessing information, even now.By the way, on the Bastille day part, just a reminder from:
    "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science\_nonviolence.html [ucsc.edu]"Studies of social movements in the United States also show that the necessary social disruption has to be created through the principled use of strategic nonviolence.
Any form of violence, whether property damage or physical battles with opponents and police, will turn off the great majority of Americans and bring down overwhelming police and military repression.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321013</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think an essential problem with society is a movement away from peer reviewed discovery and more towards trade secrets and private reinvention of the same wheels.</p><p>Some would argue that we are making great advancements, but I think many private discoveries are kept secret, discarded or not pursued due to the lack of profit or legal conflicts/risks involved with publishing the discoveries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think an essential problem with society is a movement away from peer reviewed discovery and more towards trade secrets and private reinvention of the same wheels.Some would argue that we are making great advancements , but I think many private discoveries are kept secret , discarded or not pursued due to the lack of profit or legal conflicts/risks involved with publishing the discoveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think an essential problem with society is a movement away from peer reviewed discovery and more towards trade secrets and private reinvention of the same wheels.Some would argue that we are making great advancements, but I think many private discoveries are kept secret, discarded or not pursued due to the lack of profit or legal conflicts/risks involved with publishing the discoveries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320731</id>
	<title>What kathlene fent shared with me:</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1244915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>crabs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>crabs : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crabs :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28332601</id>
	<title>The similarity is intentional design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Open Source Model has been intentionally designed after the merits of the scientific method, I would say. Many people agree that one of the cental intentions of copyleft is to be able to review, improve and build upon the previous work of others. Since copyleft is probably the most prominent codification of the open source model, I think it could be seen as a central post the model relies on, thus describuing its design (and design intentions) adequately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Open Source Model has been intentionally designed after the merits of the scientific method , I would say .
Many people agree that one of the cental intentions of copyleft is to be able to review , improve and build upon the previous work of others .
Since copyleft is probably the most prominent codification of the open source model , I think it could be seen as a central post the model relies on , thus describuing its design ( and design intentions ) adequately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Open Source Model has been intentionally designed after the merits of the scientific method, I would say.
Many people agree that one of the cental intentions of copyleft is to be able to review, improve and build upon the previous work of others.
Since copyleft is probably the most prominent codification of the open source model, I think it could be seen as a central post the model relies on, thus describuing its design (and design intentions) adequately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322449</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1244887920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the joke, but right now you're modded interesting so you get  a serious reply.</p><p>The useful contributors to open source are not only highly skilled but they're also much fewer in number than contributors to science.  If you want to contribute to science you can pretty much show up at a lab with half a brain, say you'd like to work for free, and you'll probably get your name on a paper after a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the joke , but right now you 're modded interesting so you get a serious reply.The useful contributors to open source are not only highly skilled but they 're also much fewer in number than contributors to science .
If you want to contribute to science you can pretty much show up at a lab with half a brain , say you 'd like to work for free , and you 'll probably get your name on a paper after a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the joke, but right now you're modded interesting so you get  a serious reply.The useful contributors to open source are not only highly skilled but they're also much fewer in number than contributors to science.
If you want to contribute to science you can pretty much show up at a lab with half a brain, say you'd like to work for free, and you'll probably get your name on a paper after a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.</i></p><p>Or they go too far in the other direction.  I distinctly remember one database class in my MS curriculum which had thirty people working together on a one-semester project, and it was a nightmare.  At the time I was working as a DBA lead with a team of five people including myself, which was a pretty good number for our project, so I had a pretty decent idea of how things should work.  Trying to get thirty CS students, only a couple of whom had any real industry experience, to work together on a single project in that length of time was just Not Going To Happen.  I tried very hard to get the professor to break the class into a few groups and have each group work independently on the problem, but he wouldn't budge; he had a Grand Vision of what all these people working together would accomplish.  The mythical man-month in action.</p><p>The result was pretty much what you'd expect.  Three-quarters of the class slacked off, a quarter did all they could, and instead of a working project at the end of the semester we had a half-finished mess.  A few of us strongly suspected hat what he <b>really</b> wanted was a polished product he could distribute under his own name, so this chaos may in fact have been a silver lining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.Or they go too far in the other direction .
I distinctly remember one database class in my MS curriculum which had thirty people working together on a one-semester project , and it was a nightmare .
At the time I was working as a DBA lead with a team of five people including myself , which was a pretty good number for our project , so I had a pretty decent idea of how things should work .
Trying to get thirty CS students , only a couple of whom had any real industry experience , to work together on a single project in that length of time was just Not Going To Happen .
I tried very hard to get the professor to break the class into a few groups and have each group work independently on the problem , but he would n't budge ; he had a Grand Vision of what all these people working together would accomplish .
The mythical man-month in action.The result was pretty much what you 'd expect .
Three-quarters of the class slacked off , a quarter did all they could , and instead of a working project at the end of the semester we had a half-finished mess .
A few of us strongly suspected hat what he really wanted was a polished product he could distribute under his own name , so this chaos may in fact have been a silver lining ... But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.Or they go too far in the other direction.
I distinctly remember one database class in my MS curriculum which had thirty people working together on a one-semester project, and it was a nightmare.
At the time I was working as a DBA lead with a team of five people including myself, which was a pretty good number for our project, so I had a pretty decent idea of how things should work.
Trying to get thirty CS students, only a couple of whom had any real industry experience, to work together on a single project in that length of time was just Not Going To Happen.
I tried very hard to get the professor to break the class into a few groups and have each group work independently on the problem, but he wouldn't budge; he had a Grand Vision of what all these people working together would accomplish.
The mythical man-month in action.The result was pretty much what you'd expect.
Three-quarters of the class slacked off, a quarter did all they could, and instead of a working project at the end of the semester we had a half-finished mess.
A few of us strongly suspected hat what he really wanted was a polished product he could distribute under his own name, so this chaos may in fact have been a silver lining ...  But the experience was of no real value to anyone in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324695</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1244915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's would be harder to get a high publication count as a non-professional, but if you did an interesting experiment it should be reasonably easy to publish. But publication count should only be an issue if you are in the ivory tower to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's would be harder to get a high publication count as a non-professional , but if you did an interesting experiment it should be reasonably easy to publish .
But publication count should only be an issue if you are in the ivory tower to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's would be harder to get a high publication count as a non-professional, but if you did an interesting experiment it should be reasonably easy to publish.
But publication count should only be an issue if you are in the ivory tower to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320935</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1244917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure? Go to a public university library. lots of bound journal. where i live all you need is a drivers license to prove you pay in state taxes to support the local Uni. Often times you can get access to some online journals. And text books.</p><p>Take one class and you can join professional societies for student fees and get access to online publications. Sometimes you need a prof to write a letter but if you take a class and are on good terms with them they'll do it if you show keen interest.<br>Here's a really cheap one:</p><p><a href="http://www.geosociety.org/members/student.htm" title="geosociety.org">http://www.geosociety.org/members/student.htm</a> [geosociety.org]<br>$30/yr. $6/yr if you are in a low income country.</p><p>The real cost is publishing, but many cash strapped gov't agencies (NOAA, USDA, Park Service etc. in the US) with research arms are happy to have volunteers help with research and will help you with some equipment, field lodging etc. The Phds working at the research stations can help you write up results and get into journals. Having previously published coauthors is the key to getting published until you get a rep for solid work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
Go to a public university library .
lots of bound journal .
where i live all you need is a drivers license to prove you pay in state taxes to support the local Uni .
Often times you can get access to some online journals .
And text books.Take one class and you can join professional societies for student fees and get access to online publications .
Sometimes you need a prof to write a letter but if you take a class and are on good terms with them they 'll do it if you show keen interest.Here 's a really cheap one : http : //www.geosociety.org/members/student.htm [ geosociety.org ] $ 30/yr .
$ 6/yr if you are in a low income country.The real cost is publishing , but many cash strapped gov't agencies ( NOAA , USDA , Park Service etc .
in the US ) with research arms are happy to have volunteers help with research and will help you with some equipment , field lodging etc .
The Phds working at the research stations can help you write up results and get into journals .
Having previously published coauthors is the key to getting published until you get a rep for solid work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
Go to a public university library.
lots of bound journal.
where i live all you need is a drivers license to prove you pay in state taxes to support the local Uni.
Often times you can get access to some online journals.
And text books.Take one class and you can join professional societies for student fees and get access to online publications.
Sometimes you need a prof to write a letter but if you take a class and are on good terms with them they'll do it if you show keen interest.Here's a really cheap one:http://www.geosociety.org/members/student.htm [geosociety.org]$30/yr.
$6/yr if you are in a low income country.The real cost is publishing, but many cash strapped gov't agencies (NOAA, USDA, Park Service etc.
in the US) with research arms are happy to have volunteers help with research and will help you with some equipment, field lodging etc.
The Phds working at the research stations can help you write up results and get into journals.
Having previously published coauthors is the key to getting published until you get a rep for solid work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321247</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1244919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with what you're saying here, but this is likely a product of the way our current world works, where privatization is necessary for capitalism.</p><p>Science, afaik, has no interest in exclusivity -- but what you're seeing is a product of necessity within the framework of existence that we are in.</p><p>Don't worry, though.  The world is already too small for hoarding and privatization.  Blood will continue to spill for resources until we decide to die and stop making babies, or restructure our approach to life in a way that does not place others in a situation to struggle (and subsequently fight for life).   In time, community and open source will largely be the prevailing theme in life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with what you 're saying here , but this is likely a product of the way our current world works , where privatization is necessary for capitalism.Science , afaik , has no interest in exclusivity -- but what you 're seeing is a product of necessity within the framework of existence that we are in.Do n't worry , though .
The world is already too small for hoarding and privatization .
Blood will continue to spill for resources until we decide to die and stop making babies , or restructure our approach to life in a way that does not place others in a situation to struggle ( and subsequently fight for life ) .
In time , community and open source will largely be the prevailing theme in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with what you're saying here, but this is likely a product of the way our current world works, where privatization is necessary for capitalism.Science, afaik, has no interest in exclusivity -- but what you're seeing is a product of necessity within the framework of existence that we are in.Don't worry, though.
The world is already too small for hoarding and privatization.
Blood will continue to spill for resources until we decide to die and stop making babies, or restructure our approach to life in a way that does not place others in a situation to struggle (and subsequently fight for life).
In time, community and open source will largely be the prevailing theme in life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320971</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>mpeskett</author>
	<datestamp>1244917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes, we all know about 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar', but your characterisation of science as a cathedral with priests is way out of line. The same spirit of taking what works and building on it is the foundation of scientific endeavour. There's no "one true way" or revered holy texts of science, only what works. When something is found to not work, it has to be changed or discarded...

</p><p>You can try belittling qualifications, but getting qualified isn't some sort of indoctrination process (or at least it shouldn't be, granted it <i>might</i> resemble indoctrination in some places, but I submit that those places are turning out bad scientists, however qualified they are). As science advances, the necessary knowledge, experience and learning to make a meaningful contribution only grows, meaning people have to spend those years of study and specialisation, learning about what's gone before, to reach a point in a field where they can do something new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes , we all know about 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar ' , but your characterisation of science as a cathedral with priests is way out of line .
The same spirit of taking what works and building on it is the foundation of scientific endeavour .
There 's no " one true way " or revered holy texts of science , only what works .
When something is found to not work , it has to be changed or discarded.. . You can try belittling qualifications , but getting qualified is n't some sort of indoctrination process ( or at least it should n't be , granted it might resemble indoctrination in some places , but I submit that those places are turning out bad scientists , however qualified they are ) .
As science advances , the necessary knowledge , experience and learning to make a meaningful contribution only grows , meaning people have to spend those years of study and specialisation , learning about what 's gone before , to reach a point in a field where they can do something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes, we all know about 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar', but your characterisation of science as a cathedral with priests is way out of line.
The same spirit of taking what works and building on it is the foundation of scientific endeavour.
There's no "one true way" or revered holy texts of science, only what works.
When something is found to not work, it has to be changed or discarded...

You can try belittling qualifications, but getting qualified isn't some sort of indoctrination process (or at least it shouldn't be, granted it might resemble indoctrination in some places, but I submit that those places are turning out bad scientists, however qualified they are).
As science advances, the necessary knowledge, experience and learning to make a meaningful contribution only grows, meaning people have to spend those years of study and specialisation, learning about what's gone before, to reach a point in a field where they can do something new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321453</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>Goalie\_Ca</author>
	<datestamp>1244921280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While computer scientists build a lot of their research on top of open source software, seldom do they publish code for their result. Why? because the code is clearly a buggy hackfesh or because they want to milk their technique for more papers and prevent anyone else from beating them to the next one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While computer scientists build a lot of their research on top of open source software , seldom do they publish code for their result .
Why ? because the code is clearly a buggy hackfesh or because they want to milk their technique for more papers and prevent anyone else from beating them to the next one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While computer scientists build a lot of their research on top of open source software, seldom do they publish code for their result.
Why? because the code is clearly a buggy hackfesh or because they want to milk their technique for more papers and prevent anyone else from beating them to the next one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321209</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1244919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong.  Anyone can practice science --- follow the scientific method and you are a scientist....  The problem is whether you've established a history of valid application of that method and if your demonstrates that integrity upon review for publication.</p><p>The ivory towers you pretend to exist are only a figment of your imagination and/or ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
Anyone can practice science --- follow the scientific method and you are a scientist.... The problem is whether you 've established a history of valid application of that method and if your demonstrates that integrity upon review for publication.The ivory towers you pretend to exist are only a figment of your imagination and/or ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
Anyone can practice science --- follow the scientific method and you are a scientist....  The problem is whether you've established a history of valid application of that method and if your demonstrates that integrity upon review for publication.The ivory towers you pretend to exist are only a figment of your imagination and/or ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321307</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1244920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three words: George Washington Carver</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three words : George Washington Carver</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three words: George Washington Carver</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753</id>
	<title>Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>pm\_rat\_poison</author>
	<datestamp>1244916120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, education has yet to follow this trend. Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration. And while the hack tenet of "something that has been done once shouldn't be done again" was a conceived by some bright students, educators still give identical tedious projects that have the students complete in isolated groups, many times of consisting by just. There has even been an <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/11/student-challenges-p.html" title="boingboing.net">instance</a> [boingboing.net] of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project. How can we expect future developers to collaborate when their education forces a way to work that is very alien to the open culture and resembles that of a proprietary company<br>
Why hasn't the scientific community produced open textbooks, free to re-print, photocopy and distribute (a la Creative Commons license)<br>
Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , education has yet to follow this trend .
Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration .
And while the hack tenet of " something that has been done once should n't be done again " was a conceived by some bright students , educators still give identical tedious projects that have the students complete in isolated groups , many times of consisting by just .
There has even been an instance [ boingboing.net ] of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project .
How can we expect future developers to collaborate when their education forces a way to work that is very alien to the open culture and resembles that of a proprietary company Why has n't the scientific community produced open textbooks , free to re-print , photocopy and distribute ( a la Creative Commons license ) Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, education has yet to follow this trend.
Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.
And while the hack tenet of "something that has been done once shouldn't be done again" was a conceived by some bright students, educators still give identical tedious projects that have the students complete in isolated groups, many times of consisting by just.
There has even been an instance [boingboing.net] of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project.
How can we expect future developers to collaborate when their education forces a way to work that is very alien to the open culture and resembles that of a proprietary company
Why hasn't the scientific community produced open textbooks, free to re-print, photocopy and distribute (a la Creative Commons license)
Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1244918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science has changed man.<br>Back in the 19th century, anyone could just set up shop. All you needed was a collection of flasks of bubbling liquid, and a Van Der Graph generator.</p><p>Now days it's all big industrial labs with huge ventilation systems, and men in white coats who even have googles. The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who don't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.<br>Street guys like us don't stand a chance nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science has changed man.Back in the 19th century , anyone could just set up shop .
All you needed was a collection of flasks of bubbling liquid , and a Van Der Graph generator.Now days it 's all big industrial labs with huge ventilation systems , and men in white coats who even have googles .
The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who do n't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.Street guys like us do n't stand a chance nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science has changed man.Back in the 19th century, anyone could just set up shop.
All you needed was a collection of flasks of bubbling liquid, and a Van Der Graph generator.Now days it's all big industrial labs with huge ventilation systems, and men in white coats who even have googles.
The frontiers of human knowledge is out of reach to all of us who don't have a billion dollar particle accelerator.Street guys like us don't stand a chance nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320963</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1244917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak for other disciplines, but Mathematics is quite open. While most journals do not publish their papers, most decent academics have PDFs of their publications on their website, or on ArXiV. It's rarely a problem to find what you're looking for, even without a university subscription to a selection of journals.</p><p>Amateur research is extremely difficult to conduct productively these days, since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Most experiments need teams of people and highly expensive labs to run. The peer review process would also need to change considerably if we moved to a truly open system. While I agree thet you may have a point, I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak for other disciplines , but Mathematics is quite open .
While most journals do not publish their papers , most decent academics have PDFs of their publications on their website , or on ArXiV .
It 's rarely a problem to find what you 're looking for , even without a university subscription to a selection of journals.Amateur research is extremely difficult to conduct productively these days , since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked .
Most experiments need teams of people and highly expensive labs to run .
The peer review process would also need to change considerably if we moved to a truly open system .
While I agree thet you may have a point , I do n't think it 's quite as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak for other disciplines, but Mathematics is quite open.
While most journals do not publish their papers, most decent academics have PDFs of their publications on their website, or on ArXiV.
It's rarely a problem to find what you're looking for, even without a university subscription to a selection of journals.Amateur research is extremely difficult to conduct productively these days, since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.
Most experiments need teams of people and highly expensive labs to run.
The peer review process would also need to change considerably if we moved to a truly open system.
While I agree thet you may have a point, I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321501</id>
	<title>Of course open source is like science..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programs are written in formal languages. Every program is an explicit mathemathical expression.</p><p>Hide the code, and your are invalidating the expression, just like showing a math result without stating the formula. That's not science, at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programs are written in formal languages .
Every program is an explicit mathemathical expression.Hide the code , and your are invalidating the expression , just like showing a math result without stating the formula .
That 's not science , at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programs are written in formal languages.
Every program is an explicit mathemathical expression.Hide the code, and your are invalidating the expression, just like showing a math result without stating the formula.
That's not science, at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28325249</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings, it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.</p><p>I totally agree.</p><p>&gt; And this problem doesn't apply only to me, but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannot afford the knowledge.</p><p>There are plenty of countries, where a teacher or a professor earns only <a href="http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml" title="worldsalaries.org" rel="nofollow">$300 per month</a> [worldsalaries.org]. Cashing out $30 per paper for 24-hour access is absolutely unacceptable for such a person. Meanwhile most institutions in those countries just cannot afford an institutional subscription.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings , it can not in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or " fsf-free " software.I totally agree. &gt; And this problem does n't apply only to me , but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions can not afford the knowledge.There are plenty of countries , where a teacher or a professor earns only $ 300 per month [ worldsalaries.org ] .
Cashing out $ 30 per paper for 24-hour access is absolutely unacceptable for such a person .
Meanwhile most institutions in those countries just can not afford an institutional subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings, it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.I totally agree.&gt; And this problem doesn't apply only to me, but to countless fully qualified scientists whose institutions cannot afford the knowledge.There are plenty of countries, where a teacher or a professor earns only $300 per month [worldsalaries.org].
Cashing out $30 per paper for 24-hour access is absolutely unacceptable for such a person.
Meanwhile most institutions in those countries just cannot afford an institutional subscription.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320943</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on the field, really.  In bioinformatics, we're lucky enough to have (a) a growing number of open access journals, as another poster mentioned, and (b) a number of enormous public access databases with raw data available to anyone who wants to use it.  In biology and medicine in general, the NIH public access policy is designed to ensure that the finished product (i.e. journal articles) doesn't stay locked up forever.  But I understand that bioinformatics is kind of at the leading edge of this trend -- if your area of interest is, say, inorganic chemistry, it may be a lot harder to get past the barriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the field , really .
In bioinformatics , we 're lucky enough to have ( a ) a growing number of open access journals , as another poster mentioned , and ( b ) a number of enormous public access databases with raw data available to anyone who wants to use it .
In biology and medicine in general , the NIH public access policy is designed to ensure that the finished product ( i.e .
journal articles ) does n't stay locked up forever .
But I understand that bioinformatics is kind of at the leading edge of this trend -- if your area of interest is , say , inorganic chemistry , it may be a lot harder to get past the barriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the field, really.
In bioinformatics, we're lucky enough to have (a) a growing number of open access journals, as another poster mentioned, and (b) a number of enormous public access databases with raw data available to anyone who wants to use it.
In biology and medicine in general, the NIH public access policy is designed to ensure that the finished product (i.e.
journal articles) doesn't stay locked up forever.
But I understand that bioinformatics is kind of at the leading edge of this trend -- if your area of interest is, say, inorganic chemistry, it may be a lot harder to get past the barriers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320789</id>
	<title>Windows users...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are the controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are the controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are the controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321955</id>
	<title>Open Science is science fiction...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244926200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the practitioners of Science publish not only results, but methodology, and techniques."</p><p>That's the theory. The fact is that:<br>- most results are twisted or faked because winner takes all and being faster is better than being rigourous<br>- methodologies are dubious for the same reasons<br>- techniques are incompletely described to keep competitors behind</p><p>Science done the open-source way would be amazingly productive and creative. But the reality nowadays is very different:</p><p>You have to know in science there is only one reward: the publication of an article in prestigious review. And each paper generally requires months of research work. But the process  to get an article accepted generally takes even longer.</p><p>Moreover, for each article published, there are only 2 winners:<br>- the first author who did 95\% of the work<br>- the last author who generaly does nothing in the work but is the boss so his name has to be on the paper</p><p>The other researchers names can be on the article but it doesn't matter much. When you are looking for a job people just look if you published as first or last author.</p><p>So the competition is so intense these days in science and there is so much fear of competitors stealing ideas, that no deep collaboration can happen.</p><p>Moreover, the reviewing process is complete black box: papers are generaly reviewed by 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers that can be either<br>- competitors trying to delay authors to publish before them<br>- friends pushing other friends even when science is buggy</p><p>So you end up in a world where most scientists are living in this schizophrenic state where they have to publish results to get recognition in the scientific community while at the same time keep as much secret as possible for fear someone will steal their knowledge and publish before they do.</p><p>Maybe in 20 years when Gen Y takes over there will be some openess and science will benefit amazingly for that. But the rules and the reward of scientific publishing will have to change before anything can happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the practitioners of Science publish not only results , but methodology , and techniques .
" That 's the theory .
The fact is that : - most results are twisted or faked because winner takes all and being faster is better than being rigourous- methodologies are dubious for the same reasons- techniques are incompletely described to keep competitors behindScience done the open-source way would be amazingly productive and creative .
But the reality nowadays is very different : You have to know in science there is only one reward : the publication of an article in prestigious review .
And each paper generally requires months of research work .
But the process to get an article accepted generally takes even longer.Moreover , for each article published , there are only 2 winners : - the first author who did 95 \ % of the work- the last author who generaly does nothing in the work but is the boss so his name has to be on the paperThe other researchers names can be on the article but it does n't matter much .
When you are looking for a job people just look if you published as first or last author.So the competition is so intense these days in science and there is so much fear of competitors stealing ideas , that no deep collaboration can happen.Moreover , the reviewing process is complete black box : papers are generaly reviewed by 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers that can be either- competitors trying to delay authors to publish before them- friends pushing other friends even when science is buggySo you end up in a world where most scientists are living in this schizophrenic state where they have to publish results to get recognition in the scientific community while at the same time keep as much secret as possible for fear someone will steal their knowledge and publish before they do.Maybe in 20 years when Gen Y takes over there will be some openess and science will benefit amazingly for that .
But the rules and the reward of scientific publishing will have to change before anything can happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the practitioners of Science publish not only results, but methodology, and techniques.
"That's the theory.
The fact is that:- most results are twisted or faked because winner takes all and being faster is better than being rigourous- methodologies are dubious for the same reasons- techniques are incompletely described to keep competitors behindScience done the open-source way would be amazingly productive and creative.
But the reality nowadays is very different:You have to know in science there is only one reward: the publication of an article in prestigious review.
And each paper generally requires months of research work.
But the process  to get an article accepted generally takes even longer.Moreover, for each article published, there are only 2 winners:- the first author who did 95\% of the work- the last author who generaly does nothing in the work but is the boss so his name has to be on the paperThe other researchers names can be on the article but it doesn't matter much.
When you are looking for a job people just look if you published as first or last author.So the competition is so intense these days in science and there is so much fear of competitors stealing ideas, that no deep collaboration can happen.Moreover, the reviewing process is complete black box: papers are generaly reviewed by 2 or 3 anonymous reviewers that can be either- competitors trying to delay authors to publish before them- friends pushing other friends even when science is buggySo you end up in a world where most scientists are living in this schizophrenic state where they have to publish results to get recognition in the scientific community while at the same time keep as much secret as possible for fear someone will steal their knowledge and publish before they do.Maybe in 20 years when Gen Y takes over there will be some openess and science will benefit amazingly for that.
But the rules and the reward of scientific publishing will have to change before anything can happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323461</id>
	<title>Sounds right to me...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244897940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory of Intelligent Design has a lot of holes.</p><p>So does proprietary software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory of Intelligent Design has a lot of holes.So does proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory of Intelligent Design has a lot of holes.So does proprietary software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323019</id>
	<title>Open source helps open science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244893140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6237" title="climateaudit.org" rel="nofollow">Invoking the philosophy of open source</a> [climateaudit.org] was used to encourage openness in one bit of research.  The published research was ambiguous on the mathematics which were used, and making (some) of the analysis code public helped clarify what was done.  That blog has all too many examples of research which is being kept secret, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Invoking the philosophy of open source [ climateaudit.org ] was used to encourage openness in one bit of research .
The published research was ambiguous on the mathematics which were used , and making ( some ) of the analysis code public helped clarify what was done .
That blog has all too many examples of research which is being kept secret , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Invoking the philosophy of open source [climateaudit.org] was used to encourage openness in one bit of research.
The published research was ambiguous on the mathematics which were used, and making (some) of the analysis code public helped clarify what was done.
That blog has all too many examples of research which is being kept secret, however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321329</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1244920440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main problem here is, yes, people do learn by doing the exact same problems. Sometimes it's boring, like a quicksort; sometimes it's cool, like <a href="http://github.com/edgecase/ruby\_koans/tree/master" title="github.com">Ruby Koans</a> [github.com], but at the very least, no one learns to program without learning Hello World.</p><p>Yes, at a certain point, it'd be cool to be doing new things, and sharing, and collaborating. But there is a reason the existing problems should be done, and sharing source code is pretty much like sharing an essay -- not good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem here is , yes , people do learn by doing the exact same problems .
Sometimes it 's boring , like a quicksort ; sometimes it 's cool , like Ruby Koans [ github.com ] , but at the very least , no one learns to program without learning Hello World.Yes , at a certain point , it 'd be cool to be doing new things , and sharing , and collaborating .
But there is a reason the existing problems should be done , and sharing source code is pretty much like sharing an essay -- not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem here is, yes, people do learn by doing the exact same problems.
Sometimes it's boring, like a quicksort; sometimes it's cool, like Ruby Koans [github.com], but at the very least, no one learns to program without learning Hello World.Yes, at a certain point, it'd be cool to be doing new things, and sharing, and collaborating.
But there is a reason the existing problems should be done, and sharing source code is pretty much like sharing an essay -- not good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</id>
	<title>I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244916300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure? Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers. A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.</p><p>Open Source, though, is more like a bazaar. Wild and eclectic, the bazaar atmosphere takes the best and worst of everything, stirs it together, and produces some of the finest things found anywhere. Everyone has a say and anyone can set up shop.</p><p>I'm no millionaire, but I'd say that Open Source is much more like a bazaar than a cathedral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
Because science is done by a handful of " qualified " people working in ivory towers .
A cathedral staffed with priests , if you will.Open Source , though , is more like a bazaar .
Wild and eclectic , the bazaar atmosphere takes the best and worst of everything , stirs it together , and produces some of the finest things found anywhere .
Everyone has a say and anyone can set up shop.I 'm no millionaire , but I 'd say that Open Source is much more like a bazaar than a cathedral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers.
A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.Open Source, though, is more like a bazaar.
Wild and eclectic, the bazaar atmosphere takes the best and worst of everything, stirs it together, and produces some of the finest things found anywhere.
Everyone has a say and anyone can set up shop.I'm no millionaire, but I'd say that Open Source is much more like a bazaar than a cathedral.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321375</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1244920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Van Der Graph generator.</p></div><p>I am not familiar with this graph.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Van Der Graph generator.I am not familiar with this graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Van Der Graph generator.I am not familiar with this graph.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322503</id>
	<title>Re:Of course open source is like science..</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1244888520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hiding the source code is just giving you the result in a language that is not to your liking (machine code).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hiding the source code is just giving you the result in a language that is not to your liking ( machine code ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hiding the source code is just giving you the result in a language that is not to your liking (machine code).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324379</id>
	<title>Re: It's Time To Open Source Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been trying to do this for almost a decade, with little success.</p><p>Guess Microsoft has the education department strategists in its pockets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been trying to do this for almost a decade , with little success.Guess Microsoft has the education department strategists in its pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been trying to do this for almost a decade, with little success.Guess Microsoft has the education department strategists in its pockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323429</id>
	<title>But in science, openness in methods is fading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244897460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open Source may be taking hold in IT, but in science, openness is gradually being lost.  As pointed out, the critical factor is disclosing methodology as well as results.  The Methods section of scientific papers used to be a major component, prominently placed before the Results, and often of comparable size.  But if you look at the newer elite journals like Cell (and more and more of the Cell-wannabe journals), Methods are a brief afterthought at the end, often less than a single page.  The old rule of "sufficient information to reproduce the experiments" has gone out the window completely, replaced by "just the bare minimum needed to understand in principle what we did".  The clear implication of this is that the current leaders in any field no longer have to tell you how they did what they did, or at least, you have to contact them and ask them nicely.  Certainly, it helps the elite maintain their advantage and raises the barrier for new entrants.  Add to that the fact that so many of the materials are now proprietary commercially produced kits, often with undisclosed solutions or other components, and it is becoming harder and harder to test the reproducibility of any results.  As recently as 20 years ago, if you withheld the identity of even a single compound that you used, you wouldn't be allowed to publish in any respectable journal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source may be taking hold in IT , but in science , openness is gradually being lost .
As pointed out , the critical factor is disclosing methodology as well as results .
The Methods section of scientific papers used to be a major component , prominently placed before the Results , and often of comparable size .
But if you look at the newer elite journals like Cell ( and more and more of the Cell-wannabe journals ) , Methods are a brief afterthought at the end , often less than a single page .
The old rule of " sufficient information to reproduce the experiments " has gone out the window completely , replaced by " just the bare minimum needed to understand in principle what we did " .
The clear implication of this is that the current leaders in any field no longer have to tell you how they did what they did , or at least , you have to contact them and ask them nicely .
Certainly , it helps the elite maintain their advantage and raises the barrier for new entrants .
Add to that the fact that so many of the materials are now proprietary commercially produced kits , often with undisclosed solutions or other components , and it is becoming harder and harder to test the reproducibility of any results .
As recently as 20 years ago , if you withheld the identity of even a single compound that you used , you would n't be allowed to publish in any respectable journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source may be taking hold in IT, but in science, openness is gradually being lost.
As pointed out, the critical factor is disclosing methodology as well as results.
The Methods section of scientific papers used to be a major component, prominently placed before the Results, and often of comparable size.
But if you look at the newer elite journals like Cell (and more and more of the Cell-wannabe journals), Methods are a brief afterthought at the end, often less than a single page.
The old rule of "sufficient information to reproduce the experiments" has gone out the window completely, replaced by "just the bare minimum needed to understand in principle what we did".
The clear implication of this is that the current leaders in any field no longer have to tell you how they did what they did, or at least, you have to contact them and ask them nicely.
Certainly, it helps the elite maintain their advantage and raises the barrier for new entrants.
Add to that the fact that so many of the materials are now proprietary commercially produced kits, often with undisclosed solutions or other components, and it is becoming harder and harder to test the reproducibility of any results.
As recently as 20 years ago, if you withheld the identity of even a single compound that you used, you wouldn't be allowed to publish in any respectable journal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322335</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>jabithew</author>
	<datestamp>1244886780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they do that to us in (Chemical) Engineering they want us to produce a badly-managed and half-finished mess, the first time around anyway.</p><p>They consider it a Learning Experience. And that it is!</p><p>Your professor didn't go too far per se, it's just that he assumed that group work just happens. It's something you really have to learn. It doesn't surprise me to hear of academics behaving that way though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they do that to us in ( Chemical ) Engineering they want us to produce a badly-managed and half-finished mess , the first time around anyway.They consider it a Learning Experience .
And that it is ! Your professor did n't go too far per se , it 's just that he assumed that group work just happens .
It 's something you really have to learn .
It does n't surprise me to hear of academics behaving that way though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they do that to us in (Chemical) Engineering they want us to produce a badly-managed and half-finished mess, the first time around anyway.They consider it a Learning Experience.
And that it is!Your professor didn't go too far per se, it's just that he assumed that group work just happens.
It's something you really have to learn.
It doesn't surprise me to hear of academics behaving that way though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324895</id>
	<title>The Scientific Ethics of Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's important to note that open source is important for scientific ethics. As scientists, we are required to disclose everything about what we do - the methods, the errors, the methodologies - just as the article points out. If we don't, we are breaking a code of behavior that exists for the integrity and reliability of the field. How is it justifiable to go and hide that behind the shield of proprietary software in the DAQ or analysis just because somebody like SPSS wants to shut out competition? The answer is simple: it's not. Closed-source is actually scientifically unethical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's important to note that open source is important for scientific ethics .
As scientists , we are required to disclose everything about what we do - the methods , the errors , the methodologies - just as the article points out .
If we do n't , we are breaking a code of behavior that exists for the integrity and reliability of the field .
How is it justifiable to go and hide that behind the shield of proprietary software in the DAQ or analysis just because somebody like SPSS wants to shut out competition ?
The answer is simple : it 's not .
Closed-source is actually scientifically unethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's important to note that open source is important for scientific ethics.
As scientists, we are required to disclose everything about what we do - the methods, the errors, the methodologies - just as the article points out.
If we don't, we are breaking a code of behavior that exists for the integrity and reliability of the field.
How is it justifiable to go and hide that behind the shield of proprietary software in the DAQ or analysis just because somebody like SPSS wants to shut out competition?
The answer is simple: it's not.
Closed-source is actually scientifically unethical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321789</id>
	<title>Is code really this important?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without discussing the relative merits of Open/Closed source,
are we so sure of the importance of computer code? I mean, code
is important and all, but undocumented and poorly written code is
worth very little. Explaining, documenting, even proving the idea
(beyond having it) behind a certain computer program is the real
science, while the code is more like the experiment, the "mere"
execution of a theory. This doesn't change the fact that writing
good and working code is often quite difficult...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without discussing the relative merits of Open/Closed source , are we so sure of the importance of computer code ?
I mean , code is important and all , but undocumented and poorly written code is worth very little .
Explaining , documenting , even proving the idea ( beyond having it ) behind a certain computer program is the real science , while the code is more like the experiment , the " mere " execution of a theory .
This does n't change the fact that writing good and working code is often quite difficult.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without discussing the relative merits of Open/Closed source,
are we so sure of the importance of computer code?
I mean, code
is important and all, but undocumented and poorly written code is
worth very little.
Explaining, documenting, even proving the idea
(beyond having it) behind a certain computer program is the real
science, while the code is more like the experiment, the "mere"
execution of a theory.
This doesn't change the fact that writing
good and working code is often quite difficult...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323405</id>
	<title>Re:So that would make</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1244897220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that would make proprietary software the equivalent of fundamentalist churches. Intelligent design itself is not in competition with the scientific method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that would make proprietary software the equivalent of fundamentalist churches .
Intelligent design itself is not in competition with the scientific method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that would make proprietary software the equivalent of fundamentalist churches.
Intelligent design itself is not in competition with the scientific method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322493</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1244888340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense.  Go to a library.</p><p>Open source software is hidden away behind very expensive Internet connections and hardware requirements.  Certainly more expensive than a library card, if you even need that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Go to a library.Open source software is hidden away behind very expensive Internet connections and hardware requirements .
Certainly more expensive than a library card , if you even need that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Go to a library.Open source software is hidden away behind very expensive Internet connections and hardware requirements.
Certainly more expensive than a library card, if you even need that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321425</id>
	<title>Tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothinig, computer are not science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothinig , computer are not science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothinig, computer are not science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321383</id>
	<title>Let me think</title>
	<author>SquirrelsUnite</author>
	<datestamp>1244920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Code?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321607</id>
	<title>Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1244922960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, but did Newton have any bad characteristics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , but did Newton have any bad characteristics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, but did Newton have any bad characteristics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321765</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This problem has been creeping up on the academic world for a long while now. Ever since journals have been increasingly moving to an electronic format the publishers have been able to restrict information even more, ironically, so that everyone must pay to view this information. In the past things have been in paper form and sure anyone could look at them now that has all changed. Academics are an unorganized lot at the best of times so they submit articles to publishers at little to no cost and then make everyone pay to read it. This is every academic field not just science too. I just hope in time open journals will take over the traditional "respected" ones and that everyone can gain from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This problem has been creeping up on the academic world for a long while now .
Ever since journals have been increasingly moving to an electronic format the publishers have been able to restrict information even more , ironically , so that everyone must pay to view this information .
In the past things have been in paper form and sure anyone could look at them now that has all changed .
Academics are an unorganized lot at the best of times so they submit articles to publishers at little to no cost and then make everyone pay to read it .
This is every academic field not just science too .
I just hope in time open journals will take over the traditional " respected " ones and that everyone can gain from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This problem has been creeping up on the academic world for a long while now.
Ever since journals have been increasingly moving to an electronic format the publishers have been able to restrict information even more, ironically, so that everyone must pay to view this information.
In the past things have been in paper form and sure anyone could look at them now that has all changed.
Academics are an unorganized lot at the best of times so they submit articles to publishers at little to no cost and then make everyone pay to read it.
This is every academic field not just science too.
I just hope in time open journals will take over the traditional "respected" ones and that everyone can gain from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793</id>
	<title>Standing on the shoulders of giants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay for factual errors!</p><p>Newtons comment with regards to 'standing on the shoulders of giants' was actually just a jab at Robert Hooke (the two eminent Physicists hated each other, with the phrase originating in a letter Newton sent to Hooke).</p><p>However, Hooke was of significantly smaller stature than Newton, so by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' Newton was telling Hooke that he had learning nothing from him.</p><p>Although a fantastic scientist Newton was a very poor example of a human being, he was rude, offensive and incredibly stuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay for factual errors ! Newtons comment with regards to 'standing on the shoulders of giants ' was actually just a jab at Robert Hooke ( the two eminent Physicists hated each other , with the phrase originating in a letter Newton sent to Hooke ) .However , Hooke was of significantly smaller stature than Newton , so by 'standing on the shoulders of giants ' Newton was telling Hooke that he had learning nothing from him.Although a fantastic scientist Newton was a very poor example of a human being , he was rude , offensive and incredibly stuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay for factual errors!Newtons comment with regards to 'standing on the shoulders of giants' was actually just a jab at Robert Hooke (the two eminent Physicists hated each other, with the phrase originating in a letter Newton sent to Hooke).However, Hooke was of significantly smaller stature than Newton, so by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' Newton was telling Hooke that he had learning nothing from him.Although a fantastic scientist Newton was a very poor example of a human being, he was rude, offensive and incredibly stuck up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322891</id>
	<title>Heh</title>
	<author>j\_w\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1244891820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You plainly don't know science, and apparently missed the educational boat as well, if you are seriously pitching that "ivory tower" metaphor.  If I assume your post is serious and not troll bait, you've been paying to much attention to the media declarations about nullities like "scientific consensus."  There is not one field of science where there is uniform consensus among practitioners about anything.  In very field you will find that the practitioners are divided into cliques, some of whom may have the media's and the politicians' ears and some of whom do not.  These divisions would not exist if there was a true acceptance among the practitioners that a given theory was \_the\_ way things work.  Not only that, science is not a democracy and the fact that a view is widely accepted is no assurance that it is true.  If this were true, we would still be using Ptolemaic cosmology and fires would burn because of phlogiston.<br><br>You will often find many individuals in a field who treat some particular theory as the right one.  I'm inclined to think that about plate tectonics for example.  That does not mean that the currently preferred explanation is the correct one or the last word.  There are dissenters in every field (even some geologists who doubt plate tectonics), even in fields that look pretty well settled, and they are dissenters (justifiably so) because the current and preferred explanation is \_not\_ quite adequate to all data available in the field.  This the case from archaeology to cosmology, and as long as a given theory is not adequate to all phenomena addressed in a study area, that area will continue to be a science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You plainly do n't know science , and apparently missed the educational boat as well , if you are seriously pitching that " ivory tower " metaphor .
If I assume your post is serious and not troll bait , you 've been paying to much attention to the media declarations about nullities like " scientific consensus .
" There is not one field of science where there is uniform consensus among practitioners about anything .
In very field you will find that the practitioners are divided into cliques , some of whom may have the media 's and the politicians ' ears and some of whom do not .
These divisions would not exist if there was a true acceptance among the practitioners that a given theory was \ _the \ _ way things work .
Not only that , science is not a democracy and the fact that a view is widely accepted is no assurance that it is true .
If this were true , we would still be using Ptolemaic cosmology and fires would burn because of phlogiston.You will often find many individuals in a field who treat some particular theory as the right one .
I 'm inclined to think that about plate tectonics for example .
That does not mean that the currently preferred explanation is the correct one or the last word .
There are dissenters in every field ( even some geologists who doubt plate tectonics ) , even in fields that look pretty well settled , and they are dissenters ( justifiably so ) because the current and preferred explanation is \ _not \ _ quite adequate to all data available in the field .
This the case from archaeology to cosmology , and as long as a given theory is not adequate to all phenomena addressed in a study area , that area will continue to be a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You plainly don't know science, and apparently missed the educational boat as well, if you are seriously pitching that "ivory tower" metaphor.
If I assume your post is serious and not troll bait, you've been paying to much attention to the media declarations about nullities like "scientific consensus.
"  There is not one field of science where there is uniform consensus among practitioners about anything.
In very field you will find that the practitioners are divided into cliques, some of whom may have the media's and the politicians' ears and some of whom do not.
These divisions would not exist if there was a true acceptance among the practitioners that a given theory was \_the\_ way things work.
Not only that, science is not a democracy and the fact that a view is widely accepted is no assurance that it is true.
If this were true, we would still be using Ptolemaic cosmology and fires would burn because of phlogiston.You will often find many individuals in a field who treat some particular theory as the right one.
I'm inclined to think that about plate tectonics for example.
That does not mean that the currently preferred explanation is the correct one or the last word.
There are dissenters in every field (even some geologists who doubt plate tectonics), even in fields that look pretty well settled, and they are dissenters (justifiably so) because the current and preferred explanation is \_not\_ quite adequate to all data available in the field.
This the case from archaeology to cosmology, and as long as a given theory is not adequate to all phenomena addressed in a study area, that area will continue to be a science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321173</id>
	<title>Computer Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wow, who woulda thunk that computer science is science?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wow , who woulda thunk that computer science is science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wow, who woulda thunk that computer science is science?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324149</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>Phase Shifter</author>
	<datestamp>1244906880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,
it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.</p></div><p>Those "expensive privately-run journals" are available to the public, though.  Really, how much good is the source code if you don't have an "expensive, privately-owned machine" to compile it on, and how many internet cafes or public libraries have computers equipped with development software or allow users to install their own?<br> <br>
The real cost of entry into science isn't the subscription fees for journals, it's the time required to catch up on the current state of affairs.  I mean, unless you actually specialize in physics or chemistry, a college education will still leave you 80-100 years behind current knowledge in the field.<br> <br>
There are some areas of science amateurs can contribute more than others, with astronomy being a prime example. Physics, on the other hand, requires much more time invested in learning what has already been tested, as well as the math involved.<br> <br>
It doesn't help that the usual bunch of people claiming to be "amateur physicists" tend to be working on perpetual motion or free energy--those get mocked, but not for being "pagans raiding the cathedral."    To put it in open source programming terms, this is like someone posting here on Slashdot that "I've played minesweeper and solitaire for years, accumulating hundreds of hours of computer experience in the process. My computer expertise tells me the Linux kernel be better if we rewrote it in MS-basic instead of that obscure C stuff no one understands."  They would mostly be ignored or mocked, and even if someone did offer them the helpful suggestion to at least read a C programming textbook and subscribe to LKML, you really wouldn't expect them to do anything more than continue complaining that Linux programmers are an elitist club.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings , it can not in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or " fsf-free " software.Those " expensive privately-run journals " are available to the public , though .
Really , how much good is the source code if you do n't have an " expensive , privately-owned machine " to compile it on , and how many internet cafes or public libraries have computers equipped with development software or allow users to install their own ?
The real cost of entry into science is n't the subscription fees for journals , it 's the time required to catch up on the current state of affairs .
I mean , unless you actually specialize in physics or chemistry , a college education will still leave you 80-100 years behind current knowledge in the field .
There are some areas of science amateurs can contribute more than others , with astronomy being a prime example .
Physics , on the other hand , requires much more time invested in learning what has already been tested , as well as the math involved .
It does n't help that the usual bunch of people claiming to be " amateur physicists " tend to be working on perpetual motion or free energy--those get mocked , but not for being " pagans raiding the cathedral .
" To put it in open source programming terms , this is like someone posting here on Slashdot that " I 've played minesweeper and solitaire for years , accumulating hundreds of hours of computer experience in the process .
My computer expertise tells me the Linux kernel be better if we rewrote it in MS-basic instead of that obscure C stuff no one understands .
" They would mostly be ignored or mocked , and even if someone did offer them the helpful suggestion to at least read a C programming textbook and subscribe to LKML , you really would n't expect them to do anything more than continue complaining that Linux programmers are an elitist club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as scientific results and techniques are hidden in very expensive privately-run journals and conference proceedings,
it cannot in any sense be considered open in the same sense as open-source or "fsf-free" software.Those "expensive privately-run journals" are available to the public, though.
Really, how much good is the source code if you don't have an "expensive, privately-owned machine" to compile it on, and how many internet cafes or public libraries have computers equipped with development software or allow users to install their own?
The real cost of entry into science isn't the subscription fees for journals, it's the time required to catch up on the current state of affairs.
I mean, unless you actually specialize in physics or chemistry, a college education will still leave you 80-100 years behind current knowledge in the field.
There are some areas of science amateurs can contribute more than others, with astronomy being a prime example.
Physics, on the other hand, requires much more time invested in learning what has already been tested, as well as the math involved.
It doesn't help that the usual bunch of people claiming to be "amateur physicists" tend to be working on perpetual motion or free energy--those get mocked, but not for being "pagans raiding the cathedral.
"    To put it in open source programming terms, this is like someone posting here on Slashdot that "I've played minesweeper and solitaire for years, accumulating hundreds of hours of computer experience in the process.
My computer expertise tells me the Linux kernel be better if we rewrote it in MS-basic instead of that obscure C stuff no one understands.
"  They would mostly be ignored or mocked, and even if someone did offer them the helpful suggestion to at least read a C programming textbook and subscribe to LKML, you really wouldn't expect them to do anything more than continue complaining that Linux programmers are an elitist club.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324349</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, education is lagging behind once again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly, education has yet to follow this trend. Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.</p></div><p>Because students want to to have individual grades, so they can put them on their CVs and get jobs.  Many lecturers would love to make everything pass/fail groupwork (those dang grading meetings are a right pain in the arse).  But the students would find themselves unable to compete with the other universities' students who can point to individual grades to prove their contribution and ability.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There has even been an instance of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project.</p></div><p>Well, I suppose we could change it so that all assignments require you to do something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before (so you posting it on the web is a boon to science, rather than a way for next year's class to avoid doing any work).  Of course "something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before" is usually the requirement for a PhD, but we can make it so we won't give you a pass in CS101 until you've done that (and another PhD for CS102, and another for CS103, etc).  You'll be over eighty by the time you graduate, but hey that just means we get to take your fees for longer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why hasn't the scientific community produced open textbooks, free to re-print, photocopy and distribute (a la Creative Commons license)</p></div><p>They have; they're called lecture notes.  (Or were you expecting a free leather hard-binding, and maybe some gold dust, with that book you don't have to pay for?)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And while we're at it, why did I have to pay to see the Lord of the Rings?  And dammit, Ferrari, why should I have to pay if I want you to give me a car?</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , education has yet to follow this trend .
Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.Because students want to to have individual grades , so they can put them on their CVs and get jobs .
Many lecturers would love to make everything pass/fail groupwork ( those dang grading meetings are a right pain in the arse ) .
But the students would find themselves unable to compete with the other universities ' students who can point to individual grades to prove their contribution and ability.There has even been an instance of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project.Well , I suppose we could change it so that all assignments require you to do something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before ( so you posting it on the web is a boon to science , rather than a way for next year 's class to avoid doing any work ) .
Of course " something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before " is usually the requirement for a PhD , but we can make it so we wo n't give you a pass in CS101 until you 've done that ( and another PhD for CS102 , and another for CS103 , etc ) .
You 'll be over eighty by the time you graduate , but hey that just means we get to take your fees for longer.Why has n't the scientific community produced open textbooks , free to re-print , photocopy and distribute ( a la Creative Commons license ) They have ; they 're called lecture notes .
( Or were you expecting a free leather hard-binding , and maybe some gold dust , with that book you do n't have to pay for ?
) Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented ? And while we 're at it , why did I have to pay to see the Lord of the Rings ?
And dammit , Ferrari , why should I have to pay if I want you to give me a car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, education has yet to follow this trend.
Computer Science and Computer Engineering classes have yet to implement significant group collaboration.Because students want to to have individual grades, so they can put them on their CVs and get jobs.
Many lecturers would love to make everything pass/fail groupwork (those dang grading meetings are a right pain in the arse).
But the students would find themselves unable to compete with the other universities' students who can point to individual grades to prove their contribution and ability.There has even been an instance of a student being threatened to fail a class because he posted the source code of his project.Well, I suppose we could change it so that all assignments require you to do something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before (so you posting it on the web is a boon to science, rather than a way for next year's class to avoid doing any work).
Of course "something nobody in the world has ever been able to do before" is usually the requirement for a PhD, but we can make it so we won't give you a pass in CS101 until you've done that (and another PhD for CS102, and another for CS103, etc).
You'll be over eighty by the time you graduate, but hey that just means we get to take your fees for longer.Why hasn't the scientific community produced open textbooks, free to re-print, photocopy and distribute (a la Creative Commons license)They have; they're called lecture notes.
(Or were you expecting a free leather hard-binding, and maybe some gold dust, with that book you don't have to pay for?
)Why is it hard for pioneering ideas like that of the state of California trying to open their school textbooks to be implemented?And while we're at it, why did I have to pay to see the Lord of the Rings?
And dammit, Ferrari, why should I have to pay if I want you to give me a car?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321299</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1244920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur, but am prevented from doing so.</p></div></blockquote><p>What, the MIB keep showing up at your house and flashing your memory away?<br>
&nbsp; <br>They don't you say?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Then nothing is keeping you from performing research on your own time in your place except yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur , but am prevented from doing so.What , the MIB keep showing up at your house and flashing your memory away ?
  They do n't you say ?
  Then nothing is keeping you from performing research on your own time in your place except yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to pursue scientific research as an amateur, but am prevented from doing so.What, the MIB keep showing up at your house and flashing your memory away?
  They don't you say?
  Then nothing is keeping you from performing research on your own time in your place except yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321105</id>
	<title>This is an intersting argument...</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1244918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By argument, I mean in the logical sense, such as a "claim" bolstered by "proof, information, and example". (I'm trying to separate the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. process of somebody posting something and someone else immediately disagreeing. But, Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument here about slashdot postings...)</p><p>So, I wonder if this argument has been used in the patent "process vs. product" or "software patent" courts. It seems to me that patents are generally awarded to the "products of Science" rather than the science itself. If code processes, algorithms, and concepts are Science, then patents should only be awarded to the "products of Science" such as individual chips or other hardware that utilizes the software and not the software itself. This argument could help clarify the boundaries of the patentable domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By argument , I mean in the logical sense , such as a " claim " bolstered by " proof , information , and example " .
( I 'm trying to separate the / .
process of somebody posting something and someone else immediately disagreeing .
But , Hey , I 'm not trying to start an argument here about slashdot postings... ) So , I wonder if this argument has been used in the patent " process vs. product " or " software patent " courts .
It seems to me that patents are generally awarded to the " products of Science " rather than the science itself .
If code processes , algorithms , and concepts are Science , then patents should only be awarded to the " products of Science " such as individual chips or other hardware that utilizes the software and not the software itself .
This argument could help clarify the boundaries of the patentable domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By argument, I mean in the logical sense, such as a "claim" bolstered by "proof, information, and example".
(I'm trying to separate the /.
process of somebody posting something and someone else immediately disagreeing.
But, Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument here about slashdot postings...)So, I wonder if this argument has been used in the patent "process vs. product" or "software patent" courts.
It seems to me that patents are generally awarded to the "products of Science" rather than the science itself.
If code processes, algorithms, and concepts are Science, then patents should only be awarded to the "products of Science" such as individual chips or other hardware that utilizes the software and not the software itself.
This argument could help clarify the boundaries of the patentable domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321775</id>
	<title>It's Time To Open Source Education</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244924340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        Why not free up the educational system and put K1 right up through the Ph.D. level of education as free, open source, tools available in towns as well as on the net. Education is simply a form of information. Let's get the for money players out of the loop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not free up the educational system and put K1 right up through the Ph.D. level of education as free , open source , tools available in towns as well as on the net .
Education is simply a form of information .
Let 's get the for money players out of the loop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        Why not free up the educational system and put K1 right up through the Ph.D. level of education as free, open source, tools available in towns as well as on the net.
Education is simply a form of information.
Let's get the for money players out of the loop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321593</id>
	<title>Re:Science is not open</title>
	<author>malaprop</author>
	<datestamp>1244922840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that science cannot truly be considered open while the results are essentially embargoed in highly expensive journals. The typical going rate for a single article is $35, which made sense when they photocopied and snail mailed to you, but is about 2 orders of magnitude overpriced for internet access. I find that when I do drag myself off to a physical library, I typically have to scan through 10 to 20 papers to find 1 that is worth reading in detail. The abstract is typically useless for determining the quality of the paper. Now do the sums, to find a couple of usable papers you will need to look through 20 to 40 papers, which at $35 a pop is going to cost you $700 to $1400.  This meets no definition of open that I am aware of, and is a significant barrier to information access for a non university scientist.
Even when you go to a physical library these days, you'l find they typically have only a small number of the journals you find yourself needing. This is because the majority of professionals already do all their journal research online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that science can not truly be considered open while the results are essentially embargoed in highly expensive journals .
The typical going rate for a single article is $ 35 , which made sense when they photocopied and snail mailed to you , but is about 2 orders of magnitude overpriced for internet access .
I find that when I do drag myself off to a physical library , I typically have to scan through 10 to 20 papers to find 1 that is worth reading in detail .
The abstract is typically useless for determining the quality of the paper .
Now do the sums , to find a couple of usable papers you will need to look through 20 to 40 papers , which at $ 35 a pop is going to cost you $ 700 to $ 1400 .
This meets no definition of open that I am aware of , and is a significant barrier to information access for a non university scientist .
Even when you go to a physical library these days , you'l find they typically have only a small number of the journals you find yourself needing .
This is because the majority of professionals already do all their journal research online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that science cannot truly be considered open while the results are essentially embargoed in highly expensive journals.
The typical going rate for a single article is $35, which made sense when they photocopied and snail mailed to you, but is about 2 orders of magnitude overpriced for internet access.
I find that when I do drag myself off to a physical library, I typically have to scan through 10 to 20 papers to find 1 that is worth reading in detail.
The abstract is typically useless for determining the quality of the paper.
Now do the sums, to find a couple of usable papers you will need to look through 20 to 40 papers, which at $35 a pop is going to cost you $700 to $1400.
This meets no definition of open that I am aware of, and is a significant barrier to information access for a non university scientist.
Even when you go to a physical library these days, you'l find they typically have only a small number of the journals you find yourself needing.
This is because the majority of professionals already do all their journal research online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321787</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree that Open Source is like Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you sure? Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers. A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.</p></div><p>As a failed computational biology post-doc, I'm pretty cynical about the current system of scientific research. If I were to suggest improvements, though, I would suggest trying to borrow from open source.</p><p>One of the key advantages of open source is the flexibility of association. If someone starts up a promising project, others are free to join and begin contributing right away. Similarly, if a project is headed toward failure people are free to jump ship and avoid wasting time.</p><p>On the other hand, in science the typical model is that some careless graduate student messes up an experiment in such a way as to give unexpected (and therefore interesting results). A couple other members of the lab try to replicate the experiment with ambiguous results but the principle investigator (PI) is desperate for any interesting looking results at all that can be used in a grant application so the PI goes ahead and applies for a grant on the basis of the messed up results. Because the PI is working at a major research university the messed up results are given the benefit of the doubt and grant gets awarded to the PI. By the time the grant money becomes available (typically a year or two after the initial careless experiment), it is clear to most people in the lab that the entire research premise of the (typically five year) grant is bogus. But the PI is essentially required by the grant to hire someone to do the research and, anyway, the PI is typically so far removed from the actual research ((instead doing administrative stuff) that the PI is the last to know that the original results were bogus. So, anyway, some starry-eyed young post-doc gets hired on to spend five years of his life working on a research premise that is already known by pretty much everyone else in the lab (except the PI) to be totally bogus.</p><p>What's would be the ideal solution to this sorry state of affairs? Less of this rigid grant bureaucracy. Along the lines of open source, find talented post-docs and let them associate (and disassociate) from projects as appropriate. That is, fund the post-docs rather than the projects. Rather than giving a five year grant to a project (that is, most likely, already known by those closest to it to be bogus), give five year grants to post-docs and then let them join up with (and even start) whatever projects are the most efficient use of their skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
Because science is done by a handful of " qualified " people working in ivory towers .
A cathedral staffed with priests , if you will.As a failed computational biology post-doc , I 'm pretty cynical about the current system of scientific research .
If I were to suggest improvements , though , I would suggest trying to borrow from open source.One of the key advantages of open source is the flexibility of association .
If someone starts up a promising project , others are free to join and begin contributing right away .
Similarly , if a project is headed toward failure people are free to jump ship and avoid wasting time.On the other hand , in science the typical model is that some careless graduate student messes up an experiment in such a way as to give unexpected ( and therefore interesting results ) .
A couple other members of the lab try to replicate the experiment with ambiguous results but the principle investigator ( PI ) is desperate for any interesting looking results at all that can be used in a grant application so the PI goes ahead and applies for a grant on the basis of the messed up results .
Because the PI is working at a major research university the messed up results are given the benefit of the doubt and grant gets awarded to the PI .
By the time the grant money becomes available ( typically a year or two after the initial careless experiment ) , it is clear to most people in the lab that the entire research premise of the ( typically five year ) grant is bogus .
But the PI is essentially required by the grant to hire someone to do the research and , anyway , the PI is typically so far removed from the actual research ( ( instead doing administrative stuff ) that the PI is the last to know that the original results were bogus .
So , anyway , some starry-eyed young post-doc gets hired on to spend five years of his life working on a research premise that is already known by pretty much everyone else in the lab ( except the PI ) to be totally bogus.What 's would be the ideal solution to this sorry state of affairs ?
Less of this rigid grant bureaucracy .
Along the lines of open source , find talented post-docs and let them associate ( and disassociate ) from projects as appropriate .
That is , fund the post-docs rather than the projects .
Rather than giving a five year grant to a project ( that is , most likely , already known by those closest to it to be bogus ) , give five year grants to post-docs and then let them join up with ( and even start ) whatever projects are the most efficient use of their skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
Because science is done by a handful of "qualified" people working in ivory towers.
A cathedral staffed with priests, if you will.As a failed computational biology post-doc, I'm pretty cynical about the current system of scientific research.
If I were to suggest improvements, though, I would suggest trying to borrow from open source.One of the key advantages of open source is the flexibility of association.
If someone starts up a promising project, others are free to join and begin contributing right away.
Similarly, if a project is headed toward failure people are free to jump ship and avoid wasting time.On the other hand, in science the typical model is that some careless graduate student messes up an experiment in such a way as to give unexpected (and therefore interesting results).
A couple other members of the lab try to replicate the experiment with ambiguous results but the principle investigator (PI) is desperate for any interesting looking results at all that can be used in a grant application so the PI goes ahead and applies for a grant on the basis of the messed up results.
Because the PI is working at a major research university the messed up results are given the benefit of the doubt and grant gets awarded to the PI.
By the time the grant money becomes available (typically a year or two after the initial careless experiment), it is clear to most people in the lab that the entire research premise of the (typically five year) grant is bogus.
But the PI is essentially required by the grant to hire someone to do the research and, anyway, the PI is typically so far removed from the actual research ((instead doing administrative stuff) that the PI is the last to know that the original results were bogus.
So, anyway, some starry-eyed young post-doc gets hired on to spend five years of his life working on a research premise that is already known by pretty much everyone else in the lab (except the PI) to be totally bogus.What's would be the ideal solution to this sorry state of affairs?
Less of this rigid grant bureaucracy.
Along the lines of open source, find talented post-docs and let them associate (and disassociate) from projects as appropriate.
That is, fund the post-docs rather than the projects.
Rather than giving a five year grant to a project (that is, most likely, already known by those closest to it to be bogus), give five year grants to post-docs and then let them join up with (and even start) whatever projects are the most efficient use of their skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321569</id>
	<title>Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1244922540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the sentence itself is much older and gets attributed to Bernard of Chartes (died around 1124).<br>Second, using Isaac Newton as an example for a scientist is complicated, because at this time, there wasn't a scientific method. Isaac Newton for instance was very interested in Alchimy and Astrology and even calculated (like Bishop James Ussher) the age of the earth according to the bible. In some way this was a hobby to many of the scholars at the time, even Johannes Kepler published his findings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the sentence itself is much older and gets attributed to Bernard of Chartes ( died around 1124 ) .Second , using Isaac Newton as an example for a scientist is complicated , because at this time , there was n't a scientific method .
Isaac Newton for instance was very interested in Alchimy and Astrology and even calculated ( like Bishop James Ussher ) the age of the earth according to the bible .
In some way this was a hobby to many of the scholars at the time , even Johannes Kepler published his findings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the sentence itself is much older and gets attributed to Bernard of Chartes (died around 1124).Second, using Isaac Newton as an example for a scientist is complicated, because at this time, there wasn't a scientific method.
Isaac Newton for instance was very interested in Alchimy and Astrology and even calculated (like Bishop James Ussher) the age of the earth according to the bible.
In some way this was a hobby to many of the scholars at the time, even Johannes Kepler published his findings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321029</id>
	<title>Manufacturing and engineering often closed too...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1244918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote on that here:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Licensing issues"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/da82d9fd52265dbc?hl=en" title="google.com">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/da82d9fd52265dbc?hl=en</a> [google.com]<br>"So basically, SME is using post-scarcity charitable dollars and tax<br>exemptions to finance the creation and distribution of artificial scarcity<br>of manufacturing information, which otherwise they could put up for free for<br>all on their website.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>To be blunt, I feel it is unethical for a tax-exempt non-profit to withhold<br>17000 papers on manufacturing from easy global distribution, just so some<br>current staff can make money for future activities by creating artificial<br>scarcity. That is 20th century ethical reasoning, now outdated by easy<br>distribution via the internet at no incremental cost (I'm sure there are<br>many places like Ibiblio or Archive.org who would host them for free if<br>bandwidth was an issue). And making things "members only" doesn't really<br>solve it, and I'd expect even members can't redistribute content or make<br>derivative works without special permission. "</p><p>From stuff I wrote around 2001:<br><a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html</a> [pdfernhout.net]<br>"The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary<br>copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it<br>results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of<br>helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little<br>cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through<br>charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence,<br>with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by<br>the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become,<br>perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up<br>to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by<br>requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and<br>donations."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote on that here :     " Society of Manufacturing Engineers ( SME ) Licensing issues "     http : //groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/da82d9fd52265dbc ? hl = en [ google.com ] " So basically , SME is using post-scarcity charitable dollars and taxexemptions to finance the creation and distribution of artificial scarcityof manufacturing information , which otherwise they could put up for free forall on their website .
...To be blunt , I feel it is unethical for a tax-exempt non-profit to withhold17000 papers on manufacturing from easy global distribution , just so somecurrent staff can make money for future activities by creating artificialscarcity .
That is 20th century ethical reasoning , now outdated by easydistribution via the internet at no incremental cost ( I 'm sure there aremany places like Ibiblio or Archive.org who would host them for free ifbandwidth was an issue ) .
And making things " members only " does n't reallysolve it , and I 'd expect even members ca n't redistribute content or makederivative works without special permission .
" From stuff I wrote around 2001 : http : //www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [ pdfernhout.net ] " The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietarycopyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as itresults in a conflict of interest between a non-profit 's primary mission ofhelping humanity through freely sharing knowledge ( made possible at littlecost by the internet ) and a desire to maximize short term revenues throughcharging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights .
In essence,with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible bythe wide spread use of the internet , tax-exempt non-profits have become,perhaps unwittingly , caught up in a new form of " self-dealing " , and it is upto donors and grantmakers ( and eventually lawmakers ) to prevent this byrequiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants anddonations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote on that here:
    "Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Licensing issues"
    http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/da82d9fd52265dbc?hl=en [google.com]"So basically, SME is using post-scarcity charitable dollars and taxexemptions to finance the creation and distribution of artificial scarcityof manufacturing information, which otherwise they could put up for free forall on their website.
...To be blunt, I feel it is unethical for a tax-exempt non-profit to withhold17000 papers on manufacturing from easy global distribution, just so somecurrent staff can make money for future activities by creating artificialscarcity.
That is 20th century ethical reasoning, now outdated by easydistribution via the internet at no incremental cost (I'm sure there aremany places like Ibiblio or Archive.org who would host them for free ifbandwidth was an issue).
And making things "members only" doesn't reallysolve it, and I'd expect even members can't redistribute content or makederivative works without special permission.
"From stuff I wrote around 2001:http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]"The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietarycopyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as itresults in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission ofhelping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at littlecost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues throughcharging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights.
In essence,with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible bythe wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become,perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is upto donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this byrequiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants anddonations.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28325249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1551222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28325249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28320753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28322079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28323341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28324349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1551222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1551222.28321955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
