From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: some emacs history Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:03:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1272650667 32520 80.91.229.12 (30 Apr 2010 18:04:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:04:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 30 20:04:26 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O7uZc-0000HJ-9o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:04:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53331 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O7uZb-0004zg-Pd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:04:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O7uZW-0004vX-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:04:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52997 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O7uZT-0004gg-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:04:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O7uZ7-0003Cl-Ks for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:03:54 -0400 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:45946) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O7uZ7-0003CT-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so244784fga.12 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=kdhvuDINZgyIE75vzFIdFhuUpG8GVd1GhEyhQ3w2/iM=; b=g76eG+YCgMB6QUBFCJXRIM5Rmdj8g8KbC8Y5JNL7Hu6ElSp10Ss6+erZSgZ281b0VQ kK3N0AVlM0a6N5QZHMq5TouYeLXs//Gwzq/tf2wYufLfBEvq/8WrDdxXLVbIcxEGG0rv vQ1l+CBBvLFTfJaYEbHgsakbxJMGpJIKwMo4o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=V8hEXGXN4ti/yccFwioJhcsnUHIVUEslUgl85c7RQPG4FlgHnLGH4VrECTL44Goo7V V2KnoRFweWc1tZF4RMQ8kYQ/4wXaAFyV0ZCqKiklI94OXyTFbvuq/z+dr9f5IWCSJ6W8 QmZFnSvBWBQ7LFW/Rlh6Ic5kOYN3NfbzPSf/0= Original-Received: by 10.239.187.134 with SMTP id l6mr627334hbh.84.1272650632172; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.239.164.81 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:124364 Archived-At: Should of course be "It would not be a problem of DOIs if they wer *NOT* used to point to scientific reports". On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: >> Lennart Borgman writes: >> >>>> This is a big problem with doi. It may point to hidden resources and >>>> in fact be totally useless for those who does not have access. >> >> I don't view that as a problem peculiar to DOIs; it also applies to >> URLs, as well as non-electronic services, such as private clubs. >> Somethings in life are free, but most are not. > > > It would not be a problem of DOIs if they were used to point to > scientific reports.(I am very doubtful if anything that is not > available for free should be used as references in scientific works, > even more since abstracts can be very misleading. But I guess this is > not the best place to discuss this ;-) >