Sounds good to me. I hate carry-on luggage.
I take this as a symptom that we're becoming more impoverished. You know who has to pay attention to details like load balancing and variance between passengers? People who have no longer have so much wealth that they estimate high, buy extra gas, and forget the problem. Or schedule more trips.
I think this sort of finesse is going to become more and more common as the nation becomes less wealthy (climate change induced scarcity and the diminishing stocks of mined wealth). Fortunately, we have the tools for it, but it requires a new sort of paying attention to detail. I don't love attention to detail, so I kinda wish the careless plenty had lasted longer.
This subject is on your mind a lot these days, isn't it, Megan?
"Careless 'n Plenty" is the worst candy ever.
Anyway, today I'd be willing to cut some slack to any airline that doesn't use Russian airplanes.
Same like always. I figured most people here don't read my water blog, so I could get away with repeating my same theme. This is a different application of it, at least.
I'm going to a conference tomorrow and fedexed my poster to myself to avoid a carry-on- USAir, I don't think I would have been charged but I didn't want to deal with it. My parents ship back their dirty laundry from long trips all the time. Seems like this might encourage more transfer of money from airlines to shipping companies.
The prospect of traveling with offspring, in any kind of vehicle, sure gets more appealing all the time.
9: My barely not quite 40 pound son insists on both fucking armrests with greater persistence than a 300 pound traveling salesman. On the other hand, he tells more interesting stories.
All baby stuff is exempted from the policy.
7: Fair enough. I'm working on a post in response to your manifesto, btw.
7: I'm not even sure where to find that blog. Fortunately, the water shortage doesn't look universal. The local food movement and higher water prices in the South might help Pennsylvania agriculture.
The prospect of traveling with offspring, in any kind of vehicle, sure gets more appealing all the time.
Continental has, of late, apparently discontinued its practice of allowing families with small children (4 and under) to board early. They have also begun selling (selling!) the bulkhead seats* for $49-$149, depending on the length of the flight, 24 hours before departure. Family friendly!
* Also the exit rows, but that has nothing to do with traveling with one's family. Still, annoying.
I'm not even sure where to find that blog.
It's linked in my sidebar. Starts with O.
Fortunately, the water shortage doesn't look universal. The local food movement and higher water prices in the South might help Pennsylvania agriculture.
Yeah, I think the northeast is likely to benefit considerably from the coming changes.
Via JP Stormcrow, comment 17, My first post title seems slightly NSFW, what with the big bold font and all thread.
Not that I mind or anything. (And besides the airlines don't care what you or I think.)
Really? I'm looking forward to reading it. There's not a lot of cross-conversation on the water blogs.
I put it under my name, Moby. But it is pretty arcane. I can't think that it would interest anyone without a professional interest.
15: That's why there's been a massive influx of Mexicans.
To the extent that liking this post encourages the use of "incentivizing", I do not like this post at all.
Personally, I only have a passing interest in water.
Yeah, I think the northeast is likely to benefit considerably from the coming changes.
Except for the likely eradication of maples, which will mean no more syrup and no more leaf-peepers. But yes, Long Island tomatoes should be even more delicious, which is hard to fathom given their preexisting deliciousness.
15.1: Thanks.
15.2: I was going to try to do more to conserve water, but then I realized, based on listening to how often the sump pump runs, that I basically live on top of a well.
19: The airlines don't care about your usage prescriptivism.
18: They say the Pittsburgh population drop has likely bottomed out. I'll believe it after the actual census, but that would help on many problems.
At least he wouldn't have put his seat back. Women arrested, tried to take corpse on flight to Berlin.
24: Trend not applicable to Pittsburgh.
26: I'm actually a bit hopeful about stopping the decline. Unemployment is only up a bit and there has not been an increase in "discouraged workers" and the like. We're still broke, but now everyone is. (If you were referring specifically to the influx of Mexicans, that I have no seen.)
It'll be really interesting to see the results of this census. I suspect a lot of previous trends will have slowed, stopped, or reversed.
14- Last year we flew Bos-Montreal-London-Amsterdam with 2 kids. Ironically the worst leg was the last even though it was the shortest. The airline (BMI) did not due advance seat assignments, so when we checked in there were no contiguous seats (it was a 2-1 narrow body plane.) They assigned the kids, then 2 and 4 yrs, to the single seats several rows from us or each other. We asked the flight attendant to help rearrange and they said it was up to us to ask other passengers, none of whom wanted to take a single seat- best we ended up with was one of us each a row back across the aisle from a kid.
Next week we're flying Bos-Miami-San Jose with 3 kids.
I suspect a lot of previous trends will have slowed, stopped, or reversed.
Others, however, will have remained consistent or accelerated. I'll give you good odds.
I find myself making dumb spelling errors a lot more lately (due-do above)- should I be concerned about my mental capacity?
Others, however, will have remained consistent or accelerated.
Oh, no doubt. It's all a rich tapestry.
My barely not quite 40 pound son insists on both fucking armrests with greater persistence than a 300 pound traveling salesman.
...and? You never gave the second part of that "both".
I can't imagine why people turned down the seat switch in 29. who wants to be stuck sitting next to crying, frightened child? fuck all them. I fly singapore airlines as much as possible, but it just makes domestic US air travel all the more horrible-seeming in comparison. I regularly take the overnight train from NYC or DC to savannah rather than fly via at-fucking-lanta airport. the train is awesome and you have little beds! and a porter! and it's called "the silver star" or "the palmetto". and since it's all at night you don't really waste that much time on the 12 hour trip. not helpful to anyone who doesn't want to travel along the I-95 corridor, though.
The Palmetto always used to be the train on the Amtrak display that was five or six hours late. Routinely. I imagined it was due to an Amtrak-not-owning-the-tracks problem with freight in the south, but I never knew for sure. It sounds like things are better now, though.
It'll be really interesting to see the results of this census.
I'm torn between curiosity and dread. There are some extremely big differences in how much effort different states and municipalities have put into turnout. I am not optimistic for my home turf.
39 -- Lot of effort here, and plenty of pride in high early compliance figures. They're telling us that we'll lose $4k per year in federal funds for everyone not counted. And who knows, maybe we can get back that congressional seat we lost last time. If only more Sun Belt tea partiers had the courage of their rhetoric.
Our early lead has dropped off, but my city is currently at 70%. Philadelphia County is at 55%. Allegheny County is at 72%.
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/
This is neat.
40: I counted all of the imaginary people who live in my computer as Pittsburgh residents.
LA county at 62 percent -- and I hadn't miles in my form yet.
The census is giving you miles? That's what I call an incentive.
I see my parents' county is above average. As far as we can tell, I'm not counted this year. Can that be right? Is it because I'm a resident of another country right now? I wouldn't want the census to be off by one.
As far as we can tell, I'm not counted this year. Can that be right?
Probably, since you're an American living abroad who doesn't work for the federal government. (Question 21.)
That's what I figured. But when I'm coming back, I'm taking your social services anyway.
We got sent two different census forms. Then we found out that that is protocol in areas that they expect to have low participation rates. So that's what they think of us.
I only recently realized that the headline population figure provided by the US Census is just the states plus DC and doesn't include PR or the other territories, nor Americans living abroad, even if they are military or civil servants, though Fed employees are counted for the purpose of apportionment.
I never got a Census form for some reason. Looking at the FAQ document that Witt linked, I should look into where I can get one of those "Be Counted" forms.
I live in an apartment and got four forms. Two each for apartment xA and x.
I guess my area is known for high return rates (and looking at the map, that is indeed the case).
Revisiting the topic of luggage: why is it that every time I buy a new suitcase it seems harder to pack the amount of stuff in it than the last suitcase I had, even though from the outside they appear to be the same size?
(Maybe my compulsive over-packing is just getting worse.)
The universe is contracting, but only in the form of space, not packaging.
51 reads kind of incoherently. Packing is making me lose my words!
I guess my area is known for high return rates
Princeton saves. Rutgers invests.
the train is almost always a couple of hours late at the final destination, yeah. but your loved ones can find out well in advance.
I wouldn't want the census to be off by one
You can have mine as a non-resident alien that does get counted in the census. I feel like I should have indicated that I wasn't really American or something.
I had a reflexive "mis-spendin' my tax dollars!" reaction, when I received the following each spearated by a week:
1. A postcard from the Census indicating that, in a week's time, more or less, I'd be receiving my Census form.
2. My Census form.
3. A postcard from the Census indicating that, about a week or so ago, I should have received a Census form, and would I please fill it out and send it back if I hadn't already done so kthxbye.
59: My anti-government roommate did. It was surprising. Maybe she filled it out anarchically or something.
Maybe it was the most persuasive postcard ever.
Airlines should charge for luggage by the wheel.
I had a reflexive "mis-spendin' my tax dollars!" reaction, when I received the following each spearated by a week:
The FAQ document Witt linked has a long explanation of why they calculated that sending all those reminders actually saves money by reducing the need to send census takers in person, so I'm guessing they've received a lot of complaints along those lines.
Can't we please have the two minutes hate on wheeled "carry on" bags now?
I confess that I judge people with wheeled bags.
I have a wheeled carry-on bag, but I always check it. Is that O.K.?
Except when the airline charges me for checked baggage.
66: Yes. It's the people milling around the aisles trying to figure out how to fit their gigantic wheeled boxes into the overhead bins that get really tiresome.
What is wrong with wheeled bags?
(Where can you even buy a suitcase without wheels these days?)
It's the people milling around the aisles trying to figure out how to fit their gigantic wheeled boxes into the overhead bins
This sounds like a function of bag size, not wheels. You shouldn't try to carry-on bags that are too big, period.
I have nothing at all against wheeled bags, all of my bags have wheels, but I really, really have things against folks who want to jam their outsize luggage into overhead bins. Just check the damn stuff! Ugh.
69.1: Excessive tare.
69.2: Lots of places.
70: So maybe we could agree that you shouldn't try to carry on bags that you're not willing to actually carry?
69.2: Lots of places.
I just spent a few minutes looking around online, and I sure don't see many.
But I'm still not sure I'm even following the complaint. Some people try to bring bags that are too big, and should have been checked, on to the plane. Some of those bags have wheels. Therefore, wheels on luggage are deprecated? That doesn't make any sense.
74: If people aren't allowed to put wheels on their luggage, they'll only carry bags they can lift. So their bags will be smaller and more appropriate as carryons.
My son has a wheeled carry on bag. It looks like Thomas the Tank Engine. Since his feet don't hit the ground while sitting on a plane, he hasn't complained that I don't let him put it in the overhead bin.
It's probably the luggage equivalent of a gateway drug.
75: But plenty of people have (1) large luggage, that they check, that would be difficult to carry, or (2) small luggage that fits perfectly in an overhead bin, but is one wheels.
And apart from all that, what you're suggesting doesn't even follow: "no-wheels" hardly means carry-on appropriate. I've seen plenty of people try to shove oversized bags sans wheels into the overhead bins.
74: For starters, there are plain old duffel bags and small backpacks. You see lots of both on planes. And there are plenty of wheel-free, carry-on sized bags in every luggage store I've wandered through.
And it's not just that a few of the wheeled bags being hauled onto planes are too bit, it's that damn near all of them are.
75: Alternatively, in time people will grow ever larger and stronger as they carry their big heavy luggage, which luggage will also increase in size to accomodate the larger clothes of the new, super-human travellers, and eventually the planes won't be able to fly anymore from all the extra weight of the bulked-up passengers and their bigger heavier luggage.
And that is why wheels are a social good—subsidized by the airlines themselves, as a matter of fact.
I don't think you can blame consumers for buying bags that are sold as "carry-on sized" and then trying to carry them on to planes. A lot of the bags sold as carry-ons are too big. That's the problem, not that some suitcases have wheels.
For starters, there are plain old duffel bags and small backpacks.
Sure, there are things you could both pack clothes in and carry on to a plane, but I said suitcases.
If we'd had wheeled luggage back on the veldt we'd still be there.
"Suitcases" is Brock's safe word.
Good grief. I have a carry on bag that happens to have wheels which I can also carry just fine -- it looks more or less like a duffel bag -- and which fits easily, without problem, in the overhead luggage compartment.
I don't think you can blame consumers for buying bags that are sold as "carry-on sized" and then trying to carry them on to planes.
Why the hell not? You're exactly right that a lot of bags sold as carry-ons are too big. That's why I don't think people should carry them on.
Wheeled bags are reasonably handy. I like my wheeled bag. Wheeled luggage that is designed to fit in the overhead bins? Not a bad thing! Wheeled luggage that looks like it is designed to fit in the overhead bin, but in fact could be checked? Kind of not good. Wheeling your too-wide wheeled luggage down the aisle of the plane, so that it whacks into every seat and you take 10 minutes to get to your row? Pretty stupid. Why not check that bag, or failing that, carry it, good sir or madam?
Also, I don't really get the argument from carry-on ability. What you're saying is that it's okay if people who are big and strong try to jam oversized luggage into the overhead bins? What about people with light yet bulky items? They can cram away?
Also, if you banned carry-on bags with wheels, you'd have a lot of people who load up those rental carts, then struggle down the aisle with a bag that's too heavy for them, before subsequently struggling to jam it into an overhead bin. You can regulate volume, not idiocy.
I say ban luggage altogether. People get one outfit, and they have to make that shit last.
The real issue is the people seated in the back of the plane who cram their carry-on bags into the compartment above my seat, located in the front of the plane (because I bothered to check in twenty-four hours before the flight's departure time, thanks very much), before I am allowed to board and find my seat. These people are beasts and should be herded into cattle cars if they must be allowed to travel at all.
Thank god for some sanity from parsimon and Sifu Tweety.
Brock, wheel away if you must. But if you Bogart the overhead bin above my seat, I'm coming after you, fella.
Wait, take 90 one step further. Ban clothes altogether, and only hot sexy people are allowed to fly. Problem solved!
The Great Plains, though? Totally banned.
I'm going to actually go further, and say that appropriately-sized wheeled luggage is a much less annoying carry-on that e.g. a duffle bag, because it is designed to go in the overhead bin space. You can cram a giant fucking duffle bag into the overhead bin, if you're inconsiderate and hateful.
Hydroplanes are right out. Way too dangerous.
90 - Stanley joins the campaign to get everyone assigned a uniform for universal peace and contentment.
Further in a different direction, though, it appears.
Also, I don't really get the argument from carry-on ability. What you're saying is that it's okay if people who are big and strong try to jam oversized luggage into the overhead bins? What about people with light yet bulky items? They can cram away?
Here, for example, is an "ultra light weight", nominally carry-on bag that weighs eight pounds, will generally exceed carry-on dimensions when packed, and uses up a decent portion of its volume on the framing to connect wheels, bag, and dragging handle. Get rid of the wheels and the frame and you can fit the same amount of stuff into a significantly smaller, lighter package.
Also, "fits neatly in the overhead bin" should not mean "takes up most of an overhead bin all by itself", with wheels or without.
The multitudinous problems of air travel cannot be fixed incrementally. Who dares to become the Malcom McLean of human transport?
And yes, huge duffels are also bad, and basically rectangular shape is good. But there are small duffels like that.
Wheeled carry-on bags that can only fit in the overhead bin if placed there in landscape rather than portrait orientation should be taken out and shot.
Also, "fits neatly in the overhead bin" should not mean "takes up most of an overhead bin all by itself", with wheels or without.
Well, yes. Which is why the fact that wheeled carry-on luggage is designed to fit perpendicular to the bin is nice.
I will say, in your defense, that it is very annoying when people have "expandable" rolling luggage which is designed to fit into an overhead board when not expanded, who cram every extension pocket full to bursting and then try to put it in the bin. But again, I blame the people, not the wheels.
In general, anything, be it wheeled luggage, unwheeled luggage, golf clubs, rolled up posters or small children, that can only fit in the bin in landscape orientation should be shot.
I like my wheeled bag.
Also, to the above discussion re the census, the radio ads I hear regarding census compliance make me kinda nervous. On foreign language radio they keep emphasizing that it is impossible that the census data will ever in a million years be used against the participant, and I'm really? History says otherwise, right?
History says otherwise, right?
Not so far as I know. Census takes confidentiality very seriously, which tends to piss off some of the other agencies (and researchers, etc.) who might like to use some of their data.
Which is why the fact that wheeled carry-on luggage is designed to fit perpendicular to the bin is nice.
Dunno, but I've seen a hell of a lot of wheeled bags turned sideways and stuffed in on recent flights. A lot of airplanes, including big ones, don't have as much overhead bin space as one might hope for.
Dunno, but I've seen a hell of a lot of wheeled bags turned sideways and stuffed in on recent flights.
See: people are idiots.
I don't know why airlines don't just get rid of the overhead bins altogether. "If it won't fit under the seat in front of you, check it" is a much cleaner and easier rule, with less potential for inter-passenger conflicts. And the space that's currently used for overhead bins could be converted into additional seating, which would help the airlines boost revenue.
Well, yes, but on those same planes my much smaller bag didn't much more than just fit perpendicular to the aisle.
And the space that's currently used for overhead bins could be converted into additional seating
"Aw, man. I got the upside down seat again. Crap."
114: I dunno. I've never taken my wheeled bag onto a plane where it didn't fit perpendicularly into the overhead bin. I refer again to 112.
Don't hate the bag, hate the bagger. Is I think what Sifu is saying.
116: OK, you can keep it. Just don't get a bigger one!
117: Which is fine. It's no skin off my nose if someone choose a wheeled carry-on if the size is reasonable. I still think that wheels and frame use more of the space and volume than makes sense in a sensibly-sized carry-on; YMMV.
116: I'm guessing you don't fly regional airlines much. The standard carry-ons don't fit there, so you have to check them at the gate. That way, you get the chance of your luggage disappearing, plus you have to drag it through the airport. Which is why I started checking my carry-on. (Lately, I've only flown Southwest, so I don't have to pay $.)
you have to check them at the gate. That way, you get the chance of your luggage disappearing
Not really--I would think the chance of gate-checked luggage disappearing is pretty slim. (I've never heard of it happening.)
122: If I'm first off the plane, I always take the nicest bag.
121: I don't -- I almost always fly JetBlue domestic, and I don't go to your rinky-dink interior kind of towns. I did fly a smaller JetBlue plane not long ago, but I saw that it was a smaller plane when picking my seats, so I checked the bag.
when picking my seats
What did having a wedgie have to do with it?
123: I've always wondered why stolen luggage in the baggage-claim area isn't more common. I can think of one time there's been anyone there to confirm that I was, in fact, taking bags that belonged to me.
I've always wondered why stolen luggage in the baggage-claim area isn't more common
Not worth the hassle. TSA takes all the good stuff before it gets there.
I always bring carrion luggage.
Fortunately, it will always fly free on American Eagle.
History says otherwise, right?
Teo's right that the Census bureau takes this individual-level privacy very seriously.
A few people have been fear-mongering about the use of aggregated (not-personally-identifying) census data at a couple of junctures in the past, most egregiously around internment.
While ignominious and shameful, it bears keeping in mind that if law enforcement wanted to round up people of a certain ethnicity, the most efficient ways to find them would be likely to be:
1. Simple observation
2. Purchase of privately warehoused consumption data (i.e., buy some market analysis reports from one of the big credit-card companies)
3. Membership lists for religious or ethnically specific groups
The census would likely come in a poor fourth.
It's also important to remember that for more recent arrivals -- that is, people to whom foreign-language media is likely to be directed -- there are often extremely painful and fresh memories of misuse of government data by their home countries. Offering a blanket assurance of the safety of data in the US is a bit extreme,* but it's meant to counter a powerful and well-founded fear.
*I tend to be mildly-skeptical-to-cynical (depending on the situation) when it comes to US government veracity, but I have a fair degree of confidence in the privacy of the census data. Perhaps history will prove me wrong, but at least based on the employees I've met, the risks are lower here than in many other areas.
I've seen a hell of a lot of wheeled bags turned sideways and stuffed in on recent flights
Oh no. I didn't realize that a bag fitting neatly horizontally (landscape orientation) into 1/3 of the overhead compartment was a problem. Shoot. I thought that accorded with the official rules.
This is what I'm remembering regarding the census bureau giving up sensitive information to the detriment of participants.
109, 110: The ads might be in response to this. But don't worry, as the headline says, the census only helped relocate people, so no harm done.
132: I stand corrected. I had only seen the prior reports.
I learned about it from right wing news. (Seriously, someone responding to some right wing anti-census thing linked to the Scientific American article that jms linked sometime in the last few weeks).
I guess that's what I get for not reading right-wing news.
Yeah, Michele Bachmann is a dangerous fearmongering crazy person, but it bothers me when people dismiss the census thing straight out of hand. I very much doubt that she brings up the census confidentiality issue in service of the safety and protection of vulnerable immigrants and minorities, but it is a fact that the bureau has released census data and directly contributed to the harm of minorities in the past, and I think it's far from impossible that they'll do so again.
... and I don't go to your rinky-dink interior kind of towns.
I hardly go anywhere else.
I think people need to be issued permits for concealed carry-on. Keep those wheels covered!
census data and directly contributed to the harm of minorities in the past, and I think it's far from impossible that they'll do so again
It's not minorities that need to worry. This time around, they're going to use the data to round up all the patriotic Americans and put 'em in the FEMA camps!
It's possible that minorities will be harmed by release of Census data, sure, but it's much, much more likely that they'll be harmed by underrepresentation as a direct result of undercounting in the Census, as they have been systematically for decades.
Not that I hold any particular brief for the Census Bureau. Fuckers haven't even sent me my census form.
143: Did you at least get the postcard yet?
No postcard, but they did send me a letter.
142. That's certainly true. Even so, when you weigh likelihood of harm vs. the extent of harm, it's not exactly irrational for people to resist submitting fully completed census forms. If the census undercounts my demographic by one because I don't submit my census form, maybe my group will receive an incrementally lower level of services than it would have otherwise. And that sucks, but it sucks way less than the much less likely, but catastrophic, consequences should I submit my name and address, and those of my children, and the government decides that my demographic needs to be watched or relocated or wiretapped or whatever.
That was a very extreme situation, and required legislation. And a World War. Ok, maybe we'll have a world war in the coming decade. In which case nearly every assurance ever given anyone will be open to question.
But really, if minorities today are going to self-victimize on account of this kind of thing, well, that's a tragedy.
That's because they already know all about you, teo.
131 -- The overhead bin is for 6 or 9 seats.
The letter wasn't addressed to me personally.
150: Oh, trust me. They didn't need to address it to you. They know, teo. They know.
Sorry about that, teo. We'll get another letter out to you first thing.
The letter wasn't addressed to me personally.
And it mentioned a "Starving Artists" sale in the ballroom at the Holiday Inn.
146: Fair enough, and the prevalence of that sort of mindset among a lot of underrepresented groups is exactly why the Census Bureau is going for such a crude and simplistic appeal this time, without acknowledging any of the nuances or history. We'll see if it works, I guess.
151: If they know, why won't they send me a damn form?
Actually I think it's probably the Postal Service rather than the Census that's to blame for this.
Didn't everyone get this letter? Dated March 8, begins "Dear Resident:"?
155: Don't you see? It's all an elaborate ruse to get you thinking they don't know. Addressing it to you personally would totally tip their hand.
149: Airlines should rewrite the rules for allowable size of overhead compartment luggage, in that case.
The best approach to keeping the government for using census data like that again would seem to be opposing the use of census data like that, not refusing to be counted.
See, if I lived in an area with low return rates they would be sending me postcards and everything. But no, I have to live in boring middle-class suburbia, and they probably just figure I'm procrastinating about filling it out.
159: Admittedly kind of hard to do for an individual.
We already returned our form and so far so g
So the problem is an overhead bin laden with too much stuff.
Did you guys catch that: bin laden. Right here on the airplane thread. Coincidence? No reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion.
163 would be much funnier if 162 hadn't been intentional, but I'm pretty sure it was.
Do keep in mind that the Census no longer includes a question on nativity. Unlike past censuses, it does not ask where you or your parents were born.
People with serious qualms about identifying themselves should still fill it out, even if they decide to skip the race/ethnicity question.*
(*As someone who works with this data every single day, I feel honor-bound to emphasize how critically important it is, however -- for tens of thousands of ethnic advocacy organizations, public health and community service providers, municipal planners, researchers, reporters, local officials, social justice advocates, and even local consuls for small countries that do not have the wherewithal to survey their own citizens abroad.)
I filled out my census form and mailed it back! All of your argument was not for naught! And apparently, my mother plans to intercept her household's census before my father gets to it, so perhaps they will also be properly counted this year for once.
Admittedly kind of hard to do for an individual in the midst of a World War.
You know, it's worth re-reading the opinions in Mitsuye Endo's case. Roberts:
I conclude, therefore, that the court is squarely faced with a serious constitutional question -- whether the relator's detention violated the guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution, and especially the guarantee of due process of law. There can be but one answer to that question. An admittedly loyal citizen has been deprived of her liberty for a period of years. Under the Constitution, she should be free to come and go as she pleases. Instead, her liberty of motion and other innocent activities have been prohibited and conditioned. She should be discharged.
All of your argument was not for naught!
Excellent. I can only hope that the trolley drivers, bus conductors, taxi drivers, security guards, elevator companions, co-workers, clients, friends, family, students, and strangers on the street to whom I have evangelized this last month have been as compliant.
Hmm. I just got an email from the university reminding me to fill out my Census form. Definitely some sort of conspiracy at work.
Your buses have a driver and a conductor? We get all of the shitty mass transit.
Opposing such use of census data, strangely enough, can be done collectively. It doesn't mean it will be successful. Just as not getting counted doesn't mean you won't get picked up anyway.
|| I have been in an incredibly bad mood lately. I hope it ends when the school year ends. |>
Huh, I don't know why my name didn't appear on 174. Must be the slow network failing to fill in the boxes.
Now that I've triple-commented just for this, I look pretty insane.
There's no shame in triple-commenting.
I just didn't want anyone else to claim my anger.
I tried to put a destination code on my anger, but it didn't work so well. Greenpeace got a nasty letter meant for Greenspan.
I will not check my anger at the gate! My anger does not fit underneat the seat in front of me! You people need to accomodate my anger! I will wheel my anger where I please!
On a brighter note, can I just saw how awesome JSTOR is? I know it's unfortunate that it prices out individuals and smaller institutions, but it really is incredible how much they've added to their collection over the years.
I'll never know.
[ turns, crisply, wheeling the righteous anger of the non-affiliate behind him ]
180: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you politely to CALM THE FUCK DOWN AND TAKE YOUR SEAT. Thank you. We will now begin our pre-fight procedures.
I'm not going to pay a lot for this carry-on luggage!
183: who cares about procedure! Let's get this fight off the ground!
Some of the larger public libraries have JSTOR address for library card members. Usually it's limited to some subset of the journals, though. Or you can only get access from inside library branches. NYPL was like that a couple of years ago.
181: It is. All that time I used to spend at the copier and those heavy folders in the pack. All gone.
Please note that your armrest can also be used as a bludgeoning device. In the event of a loss of cabin pressure, affix your mask to your face before striking back.
My main annoyance with JSTOR these days is that Rutgers apparently only subscribes to a subset of the journals instead of the whole thing, so there are all these journals I used to be able to access when I was at Cornell that I now can't get to. Annoying.
If you are seated next to a small child, punch them in the face before putting on your own mask.
It is awesome for the journals I do have access to, though.
Many Mexican and Central American institutions have access to a similar database known as JSTÓRale.
In the unlikely event of a water landing, choke on a cock.
I spent a lot of graduate school photocopying things I thought I'd need. Eventually, they all appeared online on JSTOR, and I felt stupid for the copying.
But I still saved copies of the .pdf of all those articles to my hard drive, in case someday I didn't have access to JSTOR. It felt silly. "If I'm still in academe, won't I have access to JSTOR?"
No, in the community college world, you do not have access to JSTOR. But no matter. In community college world, the research you need access to is unrelated to the research anyone might have saved to their hard drive in the 4 year college world. So still, all that Xeroxing and saving was in vain.
And yet! I still have boxes and boxes of stuff I photocopied as a grad student.
Would you mind awfully, my good chap, If I sat here next to the emergency exit. I tend to gouge people's eyes out if they get in front of me.
--JP Donleavy The Unexpurgated Code
I'm not actually sure how much access I have here. I've only noticed journals I could not previously access are accessible - usually because they only recently have been digitized. What I meant is that public libraries seem to have an even smaller subset than many universities.
194: I have a stack of copy cards from four universities. I don't want to toss them because some of them have some money on them.
I print stuff out I get from Jstor. I require the physical act of annotation.
Also, pet peeve: Jstor has a lot of metadata: author name, journal name, article title, etc. But when you download a pdf its name is always just a string of numbers.
199.2: Yes, but you can rename them very easily. I use names like "Smith_Jones_2007_havetocite_readifhavetime.pdf" and "Doe_2003_whydoesthisfuckhaveabetterjobthanme.pdf".
What I meant is that public libraries seem to have an even smaller subset than many universities.
I'm sure they do. There seem to be multiple levels of access.
Somebody needs to totally own the shit out of JSTOR, is what you're all saying?
There seem to be multiple levels of access.
Laydeez?
I feel your pain, rob. (Except without the grad-school part. And the fact that I'm not university-affiliated and never will be.)
I save extraordinary numbers of reports and articles as PDFs on my computer, and some in hard copy. I used to think this was slight paranoia on my part, but the last decade has shown me:
-Reports you saved on Del.icio.us will and do vanish without a Google-trace
- Databases that your public library once subscribed to will disappear in the slash of a budget cut
- Ostensibly public government reports will hiatus during legal investigation, possibly never to reappear
- Allegedly complete newspaper archives will almost always lack charts, graphs, and other data that accompany articles; will often lack the articles themselves; and will occasionally in a fit of litigation see fit to gobble up an entire event
There is no substitute for it; you have to create your own paper trail. Especially if there is any chance your steps will be retraced, either by friendly colleagues or unfriendly investigators.
Especially if there is any chance your steps will be retraced, either by friendly colleagues or unfriendly investigators.
In the latter case a rather tailored trail might be to your advantage.
Somebody needs to totally own the shit out of JSTOR, is what you're all saying?
A while ago I wanted to make a specialized Jstor proxy along the lines of my specialized OED proxy, but then the OED one got shut down and I got a sternly worded email from Chicago's tech staff, so it probably won't happen.
200: I use names like "John Doe - Some Paper.pdf" and then I save them in a subversion repository.
Especially if there is any chance your steps will be retraced, either by friendly colleagues or unfriendly investigators.
Wait. Did you flip sides on the census issue?
In the latter case a rather tailored trail might be to your advantage.
Nah, I have enough stuff going on in my brain that keeping track of the real version of events is about all I can handle. I can't imagine trying to track parallel versions. Ye gods and little fishes.
(To say nothing of the ethical issues....)
205.last: you just need to disguise it better. Send fake browser version headers, use somebody else's computer, tunnel it out through some covert channel or others. Piece of cake!
One way to undermine the hegemony of JSTOR would be to publish the full text of pre-1920 (or whenever the exact date is before which everything is public domain) articles online, which probably does violate their terms of service but is allowed under copyright law. This would only help people who need access to old articles, but that's a non-trivial number of people.
Send fake browser version headers, use somebody else's computer, tunnel it out through some covert channel or others.
Tunneling through some covert channel or other and using someone else's computer are exactly what will not work.
The way the OED link worked was this: it was a cgi script that ran on the U of C CS department's linux cluster. If you are coming from the U of C's network, you can just access the OED without authenticating yourself or anything like that. So: publicly accessible CGI script -> query on Chicago's network -> response to original user.
In order for this to work, the query to the OED has to come from Chicago's network!
205.last: I guess setting up that download 'bot wasn't such a great idea.
(Too bad, it was a nice little facility for very occasional use by the unhorsed.)
I know someone had posted the full text of this article the way I described in 210, but I can't seem to find it now. Maybe it's no longer there.
211: no, I understand. I'm saying, run the cgi on some webserver on some U of C machine that is listening to some tunneled channel from outside. Then make the request as normal, then return the documents through the same channel. It would still be the same kind of proxy, it just wouldn't be redistributing things in the clear over port 80.
Then set up a second proxy outside the U of C's network to funnel things into the tunnel. That's the one people would hit.
My phrasing was sort of hand-wavey in 214, but my point is a fabulous one.
I'm doing my part, and that article isn't even from before 1920.
Oh, you can do it for articles from any time, of course. It's just that it's only illegal(ish) for the more recent ones. For older ones it's unambiguously legal.
Oh, I see.
I'm not sure how well the network folks would take to me running my own webserver. Of course if they didn't mind long-running processes I could just have some non-web server listening on some sufficiently high port, and that would probably be simpler (because lighter-weight).
I'm not inclined to risk it, though.
I'll just have to do it on Stanford's computers! One is explicitly allowed to run up to ten "large concurrent processes", so obviously one long-running not very large process should be fine.
Now that's thinkin'!
Even better would be a lightweight, deployable app, so that anybody inside any network with JSTOR access could run it, and it would connect (covertly) to a common external proxy server, so that you'd essentially have peer-to-peer JSTOR access along (more or less) the napster model, and it would be robust if somebody got in trouble or had to take their proxy down, or whatever.
A little bit more shady, nominally, but yes.
The Terms of Service page says that you can't
incorporate Content into an unrestricted database or website, except that authors or other Content creators may incorporate their Content into such sites with prior permission from the publisher and other applicable rights holders
I would interpret that to mean that if a work passes into the public domain it's fair game.
It's a bit of a strained interpretation, it's true, but they don't address the specific issue at all.
Too bad one can't search their archives by date.
Oh wait, no one can't. Not just by date.
The oldest items in the database seem to be from the 1660s.
The Terms and Conditions do disallow downloading an entire issue of a journal.
The Terms and Conditions do disallow downloading an entire issue of a journal.
Yeah, from the context it looks like what they're worried about is libraries downloading and printing out whole journals to replace their hard-copy subscriptions.
The seventeenth-century papers (all of which seem to be from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) are fascinating.
God, the copyright extensions are fucking stupid.
I'm sure they have many of the same worries we all do. They want the best for their family and community. They seek more than the defense of intellectual property.
The 1693 volume has a posthumous paper by Robert Boyle describing how to extract phosphorus from urine.
228: The relevant date is 1923.
aka 5 BM (Before Mickey).
Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.
Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."
"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."
Don't know what we want but
We know how to get it
|>
Actually, between 1923 and 1964 copyright had to be renewed after 28 years or so, and most things were not renewed. Although many valuable and famous things were renewed. See here. As I understand it, much more is in the public domain than we think, but a blanket pre-1923 rule is easier to follow, especially if you run certain automated text-image services and you also have a search engine and are evil.
It's disgusting that papers based on publicly funded research aren't made available to the general public free from copyright. Those suckers forward thinking citizens paid for my work and they don't get to read it without paying again. Seems stupid to me.
The NIH now agrees with you, togolosh; any papers describing NIH-funded experiments have to be deposited in the open-access PubMed archive. There may be a wait—up to 6 months from publication, IIRC—but it's a lot better than the old model.
Also, people don't use citation managers that automatically rename their PDFs something sensible? Huh.
Automatically? How would that work?