Check out this article about paying people to take their medicine, stop smoking and lose weight. The idea is that it will save on healthcare costs in the long term.
I can understand the monetary incentives to help people stop smoking and lose weight. Those things take a great deal of will power, so extra motivation is appropriate. But do we have to pay people to take their medicine? I pay big bucks to fill my prescriptions. Maybe I should just threaten not to take my medicine and then they'll pay me to take it. This could be a new source of income...
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Strange animals
Check out this article about cheetahs and jaguars who are attracted to Calvin Klein's Obsession for Men fragrance. This was not discovered by accident (imagine a researcher wearing the scent suddenly becoming the focus of a cheetah's affections). No, this was a hard-won discovery, made "after several years of testing with different fragrances."
I guess big cats and human females have similar taste (or smell) in men.
I guess big cats and human females have similar taste (or smell) in men.
Strange crimes
Check out this article about a woman arrested for pouring mayonnaise in a library book drop. She is a "person of interest in at least 10 other condiment-related crimes." Apparently she deals in ketchup and corn syrup as well. The best part: Her name is Joy L. Cassidy. Look at her picture. Do you think "Joy" is a fitting name?
Photo provided by the Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's Department
Isn't it strange how they paint curbs?
OK, I just can't figure this one out. Why do we need 2 1/2 feet of red curb? There's no fire hydrant anywhere near. And if there was, wouldn't you need more than 2 1/2 feet of red curb for it?
Did they just want to show off the nice landscaping in the background?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Isn't it strange how some streets are named?
What happens when they get divorced and Jim moves out? Chris still has to write her address as "100 Jim & Chris' Place." What if she gets remarried? That will be embarrassing to explain that Matt and Chris live at "Jim & Chris' Place."
What funny street signs have you seen? Share in the comments.
Don't some people have strange names?
Today we look at some strange surnames, and sympathize with their owners:
Ryno - I hope big noses don't run in the family.
Crumbley - Are you falling apart?
Lyssiotis - Sounds like some kind of disease.
Hurt - Don't become a dentist!
Wacker - I'm sure a judge would let you change that.
Bright - Now, I could go for that name.
The real shame is when some people hoard all the vowels, for example:
They could have shared with the vowel-deprived people named:
Ryno - I hope big noses don't run in the family.
Crumbley - Are you falling apart?
Lyssiotis - Sounds like some kind of disease.
Hurt - Don't become a dentist!
Wacker - I'm sure a judge would let you change that.
Bright - Now, I could go for that name.
The real shame is when some people hoard all the vowels, for example:
- Totokotsopoulos
- Kaanaana
- Kaialiilii (Hawaiians are especially wasteful with the vowels)
- Ioannou
They could have shared with the vowel-deprived people named:
- Ng
- Grbic
- Chzov
- Bytchkov
- Hrghllmrn
- Chtgheglovski
Isn't it strange how some people don't understand the concept of "tough economic times"?
Apparently the folks at Nature Publishing Group were not aware that we are having a global recession.
They decided that now would be a good time to raise the prices for the University of California's subscriptions to their journals by 400%. Yes, that means the new prices are five times what the UC system is used to paying. This amounts to an extra $1 million that the UC library system does not have to spend. The library budget was cut this year and will probably be cut a further 20% over the next two years. In fact, the library system has spent the last year shaving $1 million off of their journal budget. They negotiated with other publishers, who were understanding and worked with their budget constraints. But not the Nature Publishing Group.
What is this stuff that Nature is charging so much for? It must be a great product if they think they can charge that much for it, right? Yes, it is a great product. It's the results of the most impressive scientific research being conducted in the US and around the world. And NPG owns the copyright to this research, so they can charge however much they want for it. Here's the kicker: NPG did not do the research, they did not write the articles, and they did not review them for scientific accuracy. No, NPG got all of that work done for free. Taxpayers fund the vast majority of the research published in NPG's journals. The scientists write papers about the results and give the copyright to NPG for free. Then, other scientists review the papers to decide if they are scientifically sound and to suggest further experiments where needed. Again, the scientists do this work for free. Scientists also serve on editorial and advisory boards for the journals, again, for no compensation. All of this intellectual property is produced by taxpayer-funded scientists, and then handed over to NPG, who can charge whatever they want to anyone who wants to know the results of the research.
NPG argues that they "add value." Really? Let's see what work the publisher actually does. They mail manuscripts (that they got for free) to reviewers (who review for free) and consult with their editorial boards (who work for free) to decide which articles to publish. They proofread the articles and post them on a web site. That's it. Wow. Does that really cost hundreds of millions of dollars? No. How do I know? Because lots of non-profit scientific societies publish journals (even really prestigious ones like NPG) and they do it for a tiny fraction of the price of for-profit publishers like NPG. To be fair, most for-profit scientific publishers charge a lot more for the same services that non-profit publishers are able to do on the cheap. Nature Publishing Group is not the only one. But Nature Publishing Group is the one raising their prices 400% for the University of California, so that's the one we're focusing on today.
So, what's UC to do? They announced that if NPG would not come down on their price, the UC system would boycott NPG's journals. That means that not only would UC not subscribe to the journals, but would also encourage it's faculty to stop providing all that free labor: stop writing articles for NPG journals, stop reviewing articles, and resign from editorial and advisory boards.
What impact will that have on Nature? Well, articles from UC scientists provide a significant amount of content for NPG's journals, especially their flagship title, Nature. UC estimates that their scientists' articles in this one journal provide NPG with over $3 million per year in revenue. And that's not counting all of the other journals that UC scientists contribute to (NPG has dozens of journals). Oh, and that's also not counting all that free reveiwing, editing and advising.
So, who will win this standoff? We shall see. Here's a play-by-play:
They decided that now would be a good time to raise the prices for the University of California's subscriptions to their journals by 400%. Yes, that means the new prices are five times what the UC system is used to paying. This amounts to an extra $1 million that the UC library system does not have to spend. The library budget was cut this year and will probably be cut a further 20% over the next two years. In fact, the library system has spent the last year shaving $1 million off of their journal budget. They negotiated with other publishers, who were understanding and worked with their budget constraints. But not the Nature Publishing Group.
What is this stuff that Nature is charging so much for? It must be a great product if they think they can charge that much for it, right? Yes, it is a great product. It's the results of the most impressive scientific research being conducted in the US and around the world. And NPG owns the copyright to this research, so they can charge however much they want for it. Here's the kicker: NPG did not do the research, they did not write the articles, and they did not review them for scientific accuracy. No, NPG got all of that work done for free. Taxpayers fund the vast majority of the research published in NPG's journals. The scientists write papers about the results and give the copyright to NPG for free. Then, other scientists review the papers to decide if they are scientifically sound and to suggest further experiments where needed. Again, the scientists do this work for free. Scientists also serve on editorial and advisory boards for the journals, again, for no compensation. All of this intellectual property is produced by taxpayer-funded scientists, and then handed over to NPG, who can charge whatever they want to anyone who wants to know the results of the research.
NPG argues that they "add value." Really? Let's see what work the publisher actually does. They mail manuscripts (that they got for free) to reviewers (who review for free) and consult with their editorial boards (who work for free) to decide which articles to publish. They proofread the articles and post them on a web site. That's it. Wow. Does that really cost hundreds of millions of dollars? No. How do I know? Because lots of non-profit scientific societies publish journals (even really prestigious ones like NPG) and they do it for a tiny fraction of the price of for-profit publishers like NPG. To be fair, most for-profit scientific publishers charge a lot more for the same services that non-profit publishers are able to do on the cheap. Nature Publishing Group is not the only one. But Nature Publishing Group is the one raising their prices 400% for the University of California, so that's the one we're focusing on today.
So, what's UC to do? They announced that if NPG would not come down on their price, the UC system would boycott NPG's journals. That means that not only would UC not subscribe to the journals, but would also encourage it's faculty to stop providing all that free labor: stop writing articles for NPG journals, stop reviewing articles, and resign from editorial and advisory boards.
What impact will that have on Nature? Well, articles from UC scientists provide a significant amount of content for NPG's journals, especially their flagship title, Nature. UC estimates that their scientists' articles in this one journal provide NPG with over $3 million per year in revenue. And that's not counting all of the other journals that UC scientists contribute to (NPG has dozens of journals). Oh, and that's also not counting all that free reveiwing, editing and advising.
So, who will win this standoff? We shall see. Here's a play-by-play:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)