Funding, or a startup enterprise, is certainly needed to administer the peer review process. I'm willing to bet it would be less than $10 per paper in universal use. No money is needed to pay reviewers. In fact the savings would be so great, their could be a courtesy payment. The ruinous censorship and false ownership of the publishers should be broken.
(1) Someone else in this context refers to anyone other than the author-researcher. The point I am attempting to make is that researchers, as long as they are on an academic grant and salary, and with the prospects of generating millions of dollars of private property, have no incentive to change the system.
(2) It is clear that in electronics, biochemistry, and even in my little field, laser physics, the commercial applications overwhelm traditional pure research in degree of economic input, persons employed, turnover, etc. This is true in all hard sciences and life sciences. If it is not true in other fields, do they outweigh the scientific engineering fields? I think not.
Optical physicists and chemists need a laser with a knob on it to tune the laser to an exact desired color. In the 70s and 80s, the preferred method was the use of liquid dyes as the laser medium, typically dissolved in alcohol. The dye was pumped at high speed through quartz cells, and was gotten to lase by striking it with a fixed wavelength green or ultraviolet laser. Now the best practice was to use Teflon tubing. It cleans up better, and that’s important because when changing colors, the new dye’s wavelength might be absorbed by the previous dye residue, if any. Man, the triboelectric shock you can get from high speed flow of alcohol through Teflon! The Livermore Lab was worried about this during the laser isotope separation program, as a fire hazard. The problem is solved by installing stainless steel ground wires in the Teflon tubes.
“I don’t envision AT&T and Verizon tearing down huge amounts of copper in towns immediately.“
That’s not the point. When failures occur, they stop fixing the wires and send you a letter telling YOU what your new mode of service is, or nothing. There is no tearing down. The unsupported wire is left to rot or be salvaged at their convenience.
1. Frats select for lower overall academic ability. Few physics, biochem, ee majors. This bleeds over into their easier major.
2. Frats select for larger physical stature and attractiveness. This deselects for academic performance and strongly selects for business success.
3. Most importantly, there is little artistic, creative, or purely intellectual emphasis here. If a young person is dedicated to "going for the money" at an early age, the results are not surprising.
These advantages, while enduring, are likely to reduce with time, in my opinion.
For the first time ever, CCleaner 5.33.1612 is offered to immediately update, without begging you to upgrade, or trying to show you a video, or anything. The new version is 5.34.6207. The claim is that only the 32-bit version was affected. See http://www.piriform.com/news/release-announcements/2017/9/18...
The copyright law is absurd in the context of scientific publication. Here's why. The private property associated with the publication is created at the moment of publication, and is the association with the author's name. It is this association with publication which undergirds lifetime tenure, or reputation leading to employment, a cash flow which when discounted can be worth many millions of dollars. The investigator author knows this and the publisher knows this. The author gets permanent monopoly rights due to the association. It's remarkable. Unless the publication is proven wrong, the name association can last centuries. That's why I say many millions of dollars in the case of a significant publication, especially, pre-tenure.
Now the publisher knows this too, and tries to assert monopoly rights, using the skirts of copyright law, over a certain time frame, in the vending of images of the publication. It's ridiculous how little value he's added. And when you examine who paid for the research or work in question, it's a racket. Third world baksheesh is certainly less injurious to progress.
Many people lack a gut level understanding of this concept: a vendor who deep discounts or sells at cost can generate almost arbitrarily large revenues. For a while.