Every month the Special Collections department of the University of Amsterdam hosts a book salon, each focusing on a special theme. Last Thursday’s gathering focused on ‘the scientific publisher in the digital age’ and brought together a panel of three experts on the subject. Cees Andriesse, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Utrecht and the author of Dutch messengers. A history of science publishing, 1930–1980 (2008), was accompanied by Geert Noorman, the head of NUV (Nederlands Uitgeversverbond – Dutch Publishers Association) and Eelco Ferwerda, publisher digital projects at Amsterdam University Press (AUP).

Questions leading the discussion were: What is a publisher? What is its function in the digital era and how is the Internet affecting the publisher’s value proposition?

Professor Andriesse, the first speaker, stressed that the main incentive for scientists to publish is reputation building and not money-making. Their foremost aim, even though this might seem ideological, is the improvement and enlargement of human knowledge. In this respect publishing is a must: scientists can only deepen their insights through dialogue with fellow scientists scattered over the earth. To ensure the growth of (accurate and valuable) knowledge, scientists let their fellow researchers judge their work on originality and correct reasoning. They then give a (honest) judgment on the value of the research, mostly in a nuanced manner with suggestions for improvements. Of course this system knows its critics, but as Andriesse states, it is the only true way to establish quality: the scientific journal is what it is today because of peer review and the organization thereof. And this is the primary task of the publisher; together with his editorial board and secretariat, the publisher is to ensure the proper functioning and arrangement of the peer review.

Andriesse goes on to consider what the influence of the Internet is on scientific publishing and thus on the peer review process. How does the Internet influence and shape peer review? As Andriesse states, being a publisher is increasingly a question of personality and networking. It is the personal qualities of a publisher that makes his or her name and brand and this will continue to be the case in the digital era. He also states that when it concerns the arrangement of peer review, a lot of discretion is needed. Andriesse ends his talk by discussing two famous Elsevier publisher-scientist combinations: Roosenvelt and Frank (Nuclear Physics) and Akert and Remarque (Brain Research). He concludes by stating that although the shape and the communication of peer review has become digital, this has not accelerated the process significantly. Emerging models like PloS and Biomed are on the rise but they are not really a distraction from all the, as Andriesse states, crap on the Internet. Andriesse clearly states that the Internet can add near to nothing to the scientific journal and its peer review.

Eelco Ferwerda, the second speaker, takes another starting point and discusses two young publishing companies, both Open Access, but each playing a different role. He states that Open Access is a growing phenomenon, where for instance the Dutch funding organization NWO has recently chosen to pursue an open access policy. This rise of Open Access is a direct result of the nature of science and the new possibilities for publishing: computers play a tremendous role in the gathering of information, and re-use should not be prohibited via copyright. Creative Commons and free licenses offer possibilities in this respect, Ferwerda states.

He starts by discussing Hindawi a STM publisher which has since 2007 been completely Open Access. And they make a profit. They make use of a very ‘reductionist’ model: they do not have any direct contact with their editorial boards, everything gets handled by mail. Ferwerda states that the business model of Hindawi is completely focused on growth and profit making and on the development of new journals. By doing market research in Web of Science they search for the best scholars in a certain niche and build up a new journal around them. According to Ferwerda Hindawi thus uses a modern and strictly commercial model with a quantitative and a-personal approach to quality. Open Humanities Press on the other hand follows a different strategy. Founded by academics in 2006, their aim is to remove the cultural barriers that inhibit scientists to make full use of the digital possibilities; their strategy is centered on trust and quality. They seek out the best, well-known scholars to support their product (also e-monographs) and they give a home and a quality stamp to journals set up by academics. By establishing connections with the Library of the University off Michigan and the Public Knowledge Project (with their OJS software) they hope to work more efficiently. They operate on a volunteer basis. As Ferwerda says, they don’t offer money but quality through both their business model and their network. The question is however, as Ferwerda ponders, if this will be a sustainable model in the future. Amsterdam University Press is somewhere in between these models: although they are in many ways a lot like OHP, AUP is a professional publisher that needs to make money. For them Open Access is not so much an enthusiasm as it is a real business model. But as OHP shows, the web has led to a renaissance of scholar-lead publishing which is forcing publishers to rethink their value: they are foremost brand builders, organizers, sellers and distributors in the digital age.

As a final example of new developments in science publishing Ferwerda mentions environments like H-net, a portal for researchers and educators covering all areas of the Humanities and Social Sciences. H-net is essentially a discussion network for knowledge exchange. Every sub-field is moderated by a team of scholars and an editorial board. Although not a publisher, H-net is an example of a semi-official form of scientific knowledge exchange. What will this model bring in the future and what will this mean for the publisher? – Ferwerda asks. 

Geert Noorman, the final speaker, brings the focus back to issues of peer review and the Internet. First of all he states that not every article needs an extensive discussion. Peer review also fulfills another function, namely that of ranking research. Being a reviewer is even a form of ranking or reputation building. And doing peer review is important work. And it is still work done by human beings that are fallible, which means mistakes are also still being made. However, as Noorman states, peer review is the only instrument to classify the results of science. It is hard work however, with, as he estimates, between 1-1,5 million articles published yearly. Do we still have enough reviewers (who can and want) to perform this job? Hasn’t peer review become old-fashioned and shouldn’t we replace it by usage statistics? Noorman clearly urges against this notion, citing figures showing that peer review is still very popular. According to these figures only 20% of the people think the current or classical system of peer review is no longer sustainable. 86 % however states they find it very valuable work to do and 91,5 % of the authors says it helped improve their work. When it comes to the digital developments, 73% of the reviewers say digital technologies has made their work easier the last 5 years. What is missing however, says 56 %, is proper information about how to conduct peer review. As to the future of peer review, the research shows processing tools will definitely increase in importance. And this is where, as Noorman states, publishers and universities could play an important role. The Internet could mean a lot to peer review: it builds communities, enlarges communication and it assists peer reviewers in doing their work faster and more efficient and it also enables meta-analysis.

However, as Noorman states, focusing solely on citation scores is a bad thing. Peer review will never become obsolete, although 25% of the researchers mentioned in the previous research think user statisctics might be an alternative to peer review). A thing publishers could focus on is the development of new tools and services that assist with better and faster peer reviewing like CrossCheck, the plagiarism detector by CrossReff.

These kinds of tools will make sure peer review remains alive and kicking in the digital age. Noorman states there should be more attention towards peer review in post-doctoral education, as it is a skill that needs to be trained and it is increasingly part of ones scientific responsibility. Noorman concludes by stating that usage statistics in some cases can be useful but that they miss the discussion element. And scientific discourse will always stay essential..

In the following discussion it becomes even clearer that the participants feel that the review of scientific publications remains essential. However, as Eelco Ferwerda states with pre-print repositories like arXiv, it gets a different function: peer review is more essential for ranking and branding afterwards, and less for direct scholarly communication. Peer review in this sense can be seen as a certificate, it is the end of a discussion, a final qualification: without this qualification you will not be admitted to the scientific annals, it serves as a threshold. With the online comments and the discussion on the preprint version a lot of rubbish also gets sifted out. In the end every article will have to be certified some where, some time. 

After a heated discussion on the need for Open Access (which according to some of the participants is being imposed on scientists by the government, publishers and libraries where others stated that Open Access was initiated by scientists) and the perceived ‘hidden agenda’ of the Dutch governments and its Open Access policy (which according to one participant will be used as an excuse to cut back on scientific funding even further, which was received very skeptical  by the majority of the participants), the concluding remarks focus on the fact that peer review as a process is first of all the property of the scientific community. But to organize it we still need publishers. To make things work better scientists should make clear what their needs are and publishers should keep on showing how they can fulfill these needs and how they can add value to the research process and outcome.

The problem, I felt, of the whole discussion on peer review as reflected on above, is that the speakers most of the time seemed to conflate peer review with (one of) its function(s): the certification of research as being qualitative. What the panelists seemed to essentially agree on was foremost the importance of the certification of scientific research by other scholars (the filter function), for which peer review is just one method. The lack of definitions used to describe peer review during the evening (not one definition was mentioned, if you don’t count ‘classical’) seemed to ignore the fact that not only there are already different levels and manners of doing peer review (from open to semi-open to blind etc.) there are also different methods to perform peer review per field. The difference is also huge between how peer review (often more an editorial process) is conducted in the HSS and in the Sciences. Statements made during the evening like ‘peer review will remain important in the digital age’ thus became quite meaningless with a term and a practice that can have so many meanings and manners. More important to question is what kind of peer review will become more important, and even more, how can we help it, advance it, adjust it or complement it in the digital age with the (alternative) tools and methods at our disposal (which are the more interesting questions concerning peer review I feel).

Next to that we might also start thinking about alternatives to peer review that still fulfill the same basic function as peer review in order to make this process more efficient. In this respect the article ‘On the future of peer review in electronic scholarly publishing’ by Kathleen Fitzpatrick gives many insights, where she separates the structure of peer review from the purposes it serves (and those purposes we want it to serve and those it actually fulfills).

She distinguishes two functions of peer review: fostering discussion and improving the work, and quality filtering (two functions Ferwerda and Noorman also already touched upon briefly during their presentations). However, the first can also already take place during the research process in an open setting, using user comments on the preprint and focusing more on the communication between scholars. Fitzpatrick goes on to establish the benefits these kind of open peer review systems offer to scholarly communication: 

“Vast amounts of scholars’ time is poured into the peer review process each year; wouldn’t it be better to put that time into open discussions that not only improve the individual texts under review but are also, potentially, productive of new work? Isn’t it possible that scholars would all be better served by separating the question of credentialing from the publishing process, by allowing everything through the gate, by designing a post-publication peer review process that focuses on how a scholarly text should be received rather than whether it should be out there in the first place? Would the various credentialing bodies that currently rely on peer review’s gatekeeping function be satisfied if we were to say to them, “no, anonymous reviewers did not determine whether my article was worthy of publication, but if you look at the comments that my article has received, you can see that ten of the top experts in my field had really positive, constructive things to say about it”?”

It is this discussion on how to really improve scholarly communication foremost (which in my opinion comes before quality – not saying that quality establishment is not also of the utmost importance) with the digital possibilities which I felt was missing[*] in especially Andriesse’s and also Noorman’s discussion of this system and which made the evening into a not very exiting all-agreeing praising of systems we now actually have the chance to improve – apparently not during these kind of panel discussions however. 

By the way, Kathleen Fitzpatrick is currently offering her book manuscript, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy for public review via MediaCommons Press.

Take a gander at this handlebar conversion done recently on a Surly Cross Check.

It went from the standard drop bar to a mountain riser bar for a more upright riding position for general townie riding/commuting.

I’m finding my JavaScript code is not behaving as I’d like it to. Code I thought was solid and have been using consistently is less than solid. Code involving money. So it’s time to start rigorously testing things as if I were coding in C/C++. At http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_javascript.php is a list of free tools that can help.

1. CrossCheck. It seems to concentrate on verifing the code will run on multiple browsers. Making sure things work on buggy browsers like IE is not big on my list.
2. JavaScript Assertion Unit. Assertion testing. Might be all I need. Probably not though. I don’t want to complicate the code itself. I’d like to have a separate unit supplying the input and comparing it to expected results that can be used by code coverage tests too.
3. JSCoverage. This runs the latest Linux and Firefox distros and looks very promising. It only checks coverage though. Nothing else.
4. JSMock. The documentation is less than clear. I can’t tell if it can be automated, if it runs on Linux, or even what it does. Hopefully it allows test scripts to suppy and perhaps change values within the called functions and compare the results. However if it does do this it does not plainly say it.
5. JSNUnit. A product made for M$ environments. Does not work in Linux.
6. JSUnit. Tests multiple browser javascript on multiple OSs. It looks very promising in that you can write test scripts to run the pages, functions, and possibly even alter values. Hopefully allowing the JSCoverage to run at the same time. I’ll probably start with this tool.
7. JSUnit. I’m not sure how this one differs from the other JSUnit. I’d best compare the two carefully before deciding which one to use.
8. RhinoUnit. It is tied to ANT. It mentions having integrated support for JSLint.
9. JSLint. I’m not sure if this can be run standalone. Perhaps this page will explain it better: http://www.jslint.com/rhino/index.html
10. JavaScript Lint. Hmmm.

Some of the criteria I’m looking for are:

1. Fully Automatable.
2. Speed.
3. Ease.
4. Runs on Linux.
5. Coverage Check.
6. Free.
7. Actively supported.
8. RegEx comparisons.

The Lints are the natural place to start. I’ll somehow make some bash scripts to test them and go from there.

On Monday night, the Calgary Flames defeated the Chicago Blackhawks for the first time this season, cutting the deficit in their Western Conference Qu.[More..]


The online source for Calgary news, business, sports, entertainment, classified ads, horoscopes, weather, local news and more.[More..]

Calgary head coach Mike Keenan was happy with a 4-2 win in Game 3 of the the Flames best-of-seven series with Chicago, but upset that Hawks forward Adam Burish was not punished for a cross-check late in the game on Flames forward Rene …[More..]

As you might imagine, things are picking up at The Hub Bike Co-Op. 40 degrees seems to be the magic number, and with the possibility of highs near 60 today it could be a very busy day.

Here’s what folks seem to be gravitating to at the Minnehaha location:

The Giant Defy 3

A great, well-spec’d first road bike. Shorter top tube for a slightly more upright positioning then a traditional road bike, hyrdo-formed tubing for vertical compliance, mix of Sora/Tiagra components, carbon fiber seatpost and fork make for a no-brainer for those looking for a new way to ride. Particularly popular with the first time tri-athletes.

White Vittoria Zaffiro Pro

White tires in general are flying out the door. There’s this kevlar beaded 700×23 Zaffiro, and the 700×35 Randonneur. I pre-seasoned what I thought would be enough to get me through April, and we sold out by March, 1st, long before the streets were “clean”.

I was a bit flabbergasted by that. I’ve re-ordered twice as many and they should be back in the store the first week of April.

Velocity Deep V rims and wheels

What can I say; The Kids Love ‘em. Colors. colors, colors!

Also this week, the much awaited bikes from Vicious Cycles will arrive

The Casual Agent

An amazing cro-moly tubeset with all the bells and whistles. An epic bike, for the epic cyclist.

Over at the West Bank store it’s all about Surly

Long Haul Trucker

LHT’s, Crosschecks, Steamrollers, Big Dummy Cargo bikes, even a fair number of Pugsleys.

You want it, they probably have one built up in your size and ready to ride at the West Bank Hub.

Finally, check out Orbea

The Orca

Looking for the ride of your life? Look no further.

Built with Co-Op pride in the heart of the Pyrenees.

See you at the shop.

rman target uid/pwd@db_sid
run {
allocate channel c1 type disk ;
crosscheck archivelog all ;
release channel c1 ;
}

Yet another Surly Crosscheck to come out of the shop with a wonderful “Shimergo” conversion. Built from the frame up, this Surly was set up to assume the role of a year-round commuter.

Rolling on skinny, slick tyres for most of the year, it will be equipped with studded winter tyres in more inclement weather.

To find out more about “Shimergo,” see my previous post, here.

Have you heard of CrossRef?

The librarians in your library have.

Image credit: Crossref.org – All rights reserved – copyright 2008

The digital academic library meshes seamless electronic connections between distant points worldwide, and the end result provides our students, clinicians, faculty and staff with remote or on-campus access to library subscription materials, whether they are working at UCHC, from their homes or a different clinical location.

Librarians and technologists have spent many years creating these networks. Our essential work allows the process of pursuing research to seem easy; users are provided with a wide choice of health science databases and collections..

..

Image credit: Exlibris.com – All rights reserved – copyright 2008

Link out buttons are liberally spread throughout database pages, allowing users to click through to full-text subscriptions in seconds. A library of articles can be created by our users in a short amount of time. Many library users attend hands-on classes (taught by reference librarians) in order to learn to manage their collection of research articles using bibliographic management software such as EndNote or RefWorks.

Image credit: ISI and ThomsonReuters.com – All rights reserved – copyright 2008

And the next part is the best part: Our library users can then choose when and where to read, print, save or email their lists. Read it today, save it for next week, download it at home, print it or paper (or read it online and never print it at all).

Librarians are in the service profession, and convenience is King. (That makes Good Service… Queen!?)

All of these endeavors are standard, daily events in academic or health science libraries, which is why I bring up what the library profession refers to as the Front End and Back End (or the public face of the library, and the back-office technical stuff).

The Front End is what the librarians and technical systems staff refer to as the physical and digital front-door of the library from the perspective of the end user (people who use our library, services and collections), and the staff who work in public services, the human face of the library.

The Front End works seamlessly (on most days) because of the large cast of employees maintaining the Back End, watching over the myriad electronic connections and interconnected pathways, keeping them up and running 24×7x365.

Because the Back End staff aren’t visible in the public areas of the library and because the Back End works so well… many of the users who generate our most-active statistics counts – faculty, researchers, graduate students- no longer need to physically step into the (real) building. Those who do walk into the actual library may only come to know the (Front End) reference or circulation staff who provide public services.

Because of these coordinated efforts, thousands of subscription journals are accessible online, MEDLINE or other subscription resources can be searched and linked digitally to full-text article(s)… and any of us can read, save or download these research materials if we are sitting on-site (or using a proxy connection when off-site).

At times, the system goes down. Then who ya gonna call? The library staff. Who does the library staff then call? The publishers and the gateway sites… for example, Karger is a science & technology publisher and HighWire or ScienceDirect are journal gateway sites.

Image credit: ScienceDirect.com – All rights reserved – copyright 2008

That is where CrossRef comes in, as the role it plays represents an integral piece in keeping both Front End and Back End in the library functional.

There are several levels of explanations to describe all that a non-profit, independent membership association such as CrossRef.org does for scholarly and academic publishers (and library users). Following are several excerpts from the CrossRef “About” page:

” CrossRef.org is a not-for-profit independent membership association, founded and directed by publishers… with a mandate to make reference linking throughout online scholarly literature efficient and reliable. As such, it is an infrastructure for linking citations across publishers, and the only full-scale implementation of the Digital Object Identifier (or DOI) System to date. CrossRef’s mandate is to connect users to primary research content, by enabling publishers to work collectively. ”

” CrossRef is also the official DOI® link registration agency for scholarly and professional publications. It operates a cross-publisher citation linking system that allows a researcher to click on a reference citation on one publisher’s platform and link directly to the cited content on another publisher’s platform, subject to the target publisher’s access control practices. Our citation-linking network today covers millions of articles and other content items from several hundred scholarly and professional publishers.… CrossRef is a collaborative membership network, and not a product for purchase. “

“ DOI is an alphanumeric name that identifies digital content, such as a book or journal article. The DOI is paired with the object’s electronic address, or URL, in an updateable central directory, and is published in place of the URL in order to avoid broken links while allowing the content to move as needed. DOIs are distributed by publishers and by CrossRef, and there is no end-user charge associated with their use. As an identifier, the DOI can be incorporated into many different systems and databases. (For more information, see www.doi.org.) “

Now you, the reader, may be thinking “Why is the librarian taking up my time, writing about this CrossRef stuff? What does CrossRef have to do with evidence based medicine and health science literature? Why should I be concerned about a librarian thing?”

Answer: CrossRef is one of the many pieces of the network which allows all the linking required to bring that article to your desktop to be downloaded.

And if you are concerned about scholarly plagiarism, then please read this press release (June 19 2008 ) from CrossRef.org, announcing the introduction of a product designed for publishers’ use for detecting plagiarism of manuscripts submitted to editors of scholarly or professional publications. The product is called CrossCheck. This software is only available by paid subscription to editors or peer-reviewers, and not to individuals. Read more about it here. Twelve major publishers have begun using CrossCheck.

Think of CrossCheck as a sort of Turnitin® for academics and researchers. In fact, the company which created Turnitin® is iParadigms which also developed the software for CrossCheck.

.

Editors Note: Note: CrossRef® and CrossRef.org® are registered trademarks and the CrossRef logo is a trademark of PILA (Publishers International Linking Association). Turnitin® is a registered trademark of iParadigms.com.

]]> http://vandalure.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/0291/ Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:24 +0000 V. http://vandalure.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/0291/

Guten Abend, meine Lieben!

Dies ist wiedermal ein ‘Tagesbericht’ von mir, in dem wiedermal das Glück der Dummen, oder von mir aus ‘des Teufels’ wie ich es meist zu nennen pflege, eine Rolle spielt.

~~~x~~~

Heute Morgen wurde ich um 8°°Uhr per Anruf von einem Freund aus dem Schlaf gerissen. Eine halbe Stunde später standen er und seine Freundin schon vor meiner Tür. Na, was hat es damit wohl auf sich? Shoppen in die Tschechei! Yeah! Das bedeutet für mich Pfefferminzschnapps und Kleiner Feigling in der Literflasche um ein Spottgeld! Also nichts wie hin!

Zuerst sind wir in in einem kleineren Kaff gelandet, wobei ich nicht mal weis wie man es schreibt. Egal, es hieß in Lautsprache Wischibrot oder so, wo ich mich gleich auf eine 1 Liter Flasche Pfefferminzschnapps gestürzt habe und nicht mehr losgelassen. Nein, ich habe sie nicht gleich ausgesoffen! – Obwohl ich schon zweimal eine ganze Flasche auf einmal getrunken habe. Ich könnte mich in dem Zeug baden! Einziger Wehmutstropfen: Kein ‘Kleiner Feigling in der Literflasche’… Saftladen-.-

Danach gings weiter nach Budweis. Das erste was wir von der Stadt zu sehen bekamen war ein Einkaufscenter das bei uns wohl nur unter Kolossen wie Metro Seinesgleichen findet. Von CD’s bis hin zu Alkohol und Campingausrüstungen, Lebensmittel, Kleidung, etc. …alles im selben Store erhältlich. Hier haben uns Mühli und ich für zukünftige Festivals ampingmatratzen gekauft. Für gerade mal umgerechnet 8 Euro also wirklich einen Test Wert. Wir werden schon noch rausfinden ob die was können. Einziges Manko des Ladens: Kein ‘Kleiner Feigling in der Literflasche’

Anschließend kämpften wir uns mit dem Auto in das Zentrum und legten die letzten paar hundert Meter zufuß zum Hauptplatz zurück. Erster Halt war auf einen Eiskaffe in einer wirklich netten Bar, mit stylischen schmiedeeisernen und ausgepolsterten Coutchen und Stühlen. (an dieser Stelle habe ich begonnen mit meinem Handy Fotos zu machen, und wenn ich es endlich schaffe mit dem beschissenen Vista die Bilder auf den PC zu bekommen poste ich sie nach)

Als nächstes wollten wir eine Runde über den Hauptplatz drehen, wobei wir plötzlich einer Prozession von Trachtengewandeten Tschechen gegenüber standen die Musizierten und sangen. Sah wirklich witzig aus! Auch hiervon habe ich Fotos;)

Als wir einmal um den Platz herum waren, meinte ich das wir unbedingt durch einen Torbogen marschieren müssen. Ja, meine Neugierde kennt nun mal keine GrenzenXD Und was befand sich am anderen Ende des gemauerten Tunnels? EIN PARK! Eine gewölbte Brücke die in eine herrlich grüne Anlage mit schattigen Bäumen mündete… aber wo kam die Musik her? Wo kam diese GUTE Musik her?

Dem mussten wir nachgehen! Gleich bei dem Park war ein Bierzelt und eine Bühne aufgebaut. Vereinzelt huschten Metaller und Rocker zwischen den Normalos durch die Gegend, oder lagen unter den Bäumen in der Wiese. Und da ich ein sehr Kontaktfreudiger Mensch bin, marschierte ich zu einem der Metaller hin und sprach ihn an, welche Band denn da gleich spielt, denn der Soundcheck lief bereits. Er meinte in gebrochenem Englisch, das wisse er nicht.

Nach ein paar weiteren Sätzen hatte ich rausgefunden das er am Vortag mit seiner Band “GrossCheck” an den Drumms hier in einer angrenzenden Halle gespielt hatte. Nach einer langen Nacht war er aufgewacht und da stand die Bühne. Als ich ihn fragte was er für Musik macht, antwortete er ‘Hardcorr’. Ich dache mir ‘fein!’ und als ich ihm erklärte das ich immer nach guter Musik aus verschiedenen Ländern suchte bakam ich eine PromoCD von ihm zugesteckt;) Also ich muss sagen, sie hören sich nicht mal schlecht an.

Und – wie ihr es von mir gewohnt seid – habe ich auch den Link zu ihrer Homepage, wo ihr die Lieder downloaden könnt:

CrossCheck Mp3’s

Soviel also dazu das ich wiedermal rein zufällig eine GratisCD eingestriffen habe. Können die Leute riechen das ich ein CDFanatiker bin? O.o

Recht bald darauf kam etwas mehr Leben auf die Bühne. Auch wenn sich die Leute vom Bierzelt nicht wegbewegt haben, gingen wir nach Vorne um sich das mal anzusehen. Außer uns 3en stand nur noch ein anderer Typ davor. Ein Rocker(?) der schon einen leichten Graustich in seinem langen, braunen Haar hatte – aber was rede ich von ’stand’? Hätte ich die Videos vom Handy auf den Computer bekommen, könnte ich es jetzt euch schon zeigen aber so müsst ihr noch warten. Der Typ hüpfte und tanzte hartneckig und ganz alleine vor uns herum … und es sah so sauwitzig aus das ich ihn ungeniert dabei gefilmt habeXD

Die Band hieß jedenfalls ‘Rozkrock’ und auch wenn es kein Metal war… waren sie gut O.o Sie haben ihre Instrumente einfach beherrscht und waren live meiner Meinung nach >hammergeil!< weil sie einfach gerockt haben! Der Gesang war natürlich (genau wie bei Crosscheck) auf Tschechisch, aber sowas hat mich noch nie gestört.

Auch hier habe ich wieder einen Link für euch, unter dem ihr euch die Lieder ganz legal von der Bandpage saugen könnt:

Rozkrock

(einfach in der Sidebar auf >MP3< klicken, die Lieder sind mit rechter Mausklick, “speichern unter…” zu bekommen, bei direktem Klick öffnet sich QuickTime zum gleich hören)

Ich empfehle die Lieder “Funky Girl”, “Lalaska”, “Nekam vypadnem”, “Tak si vyber”, und “Woo-doo”

Ach, und übrigens, dies war Band Nummer 7 dieses Jahr, die ich live gesehen habe. Wieder ein Schritt näher an der 100er Marke;)

So… nagut, nach dem Konzert haben wir uns wieder auf dem Heimweg gemacht. Leider schon sehr früh am Nachmittag, da Mühli und Irene um 18°°Uhr zum RotKreuzDienst antreten mussten. Auf dem Rückweg bogen wir noch zum Duty Free ab und siehe da! MEIN KLEINER FEIGLING! – Natürlich in der Literflasche. Also doch noch ein Happy End;)

Um 17°°Uhr war ich wieder zu Hause und kann sagen, das ich den Tag wirklich genossen habe. Jetzt wollen wir bald wieder nach Budweis fahren, und nächstes Mal – so haben wir uns vorgenommen – werden wir und zuerst etwas hochprozentigen Proviant und Fressalien kaufen und in dem hübschen Park ein kleines Picknick veranstalten^^.

Also, die Fotos, Videos, und wenn ihr wollt sogar noch ne Sprachaufnahme vom Konzert bekommt ihr noch. Ihr müsst euch nur etwas gedulden.

Ich für meinen Teil bin heute total fertig und ausgepowert von der Hitze. Das Auto war auf der Heimfahrt ein Backofen! Jetzt werde ich mich zurücklehnen und meinen Samstagabend in trauter Zweisamkeit mit einem guten Buch verbingen.

Ich wünsch euch ein schönes Wochenende!

Lg,

SVdL

]]> http://dinandginting.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/crosscheck-dan-delete-obsolete-archivelog-dan-backup/ Mon, 05 May 2008 04:43:01 +0000 dinandginting http://dinandginting.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/crosscheck-dan-delete-obsolete-archivelog-dan-backup/

Hari ini melihat ke report backup oracle, ternyata failed. setelah ditelaah, ada file backup dan archivelog yang di rman tercatat, tapi secara fisik sudah hilang. Backup akan menganggap hal ini error, karena settingan backup diatur untuk menghapus obsolete backup dan menghapus archivelog yang sudah selesai dibackup, sementara rman tidak bisa menghapus file tersebut karena secara fisik sudah tidak ada. Untuk memperbaiki hal ini, dapat dilakukan crosscheck, kemudian didelete archivelog yang sudah expire ataupun backup yang sudah obsolete. Caranya :

1. Login ke rman

#rman target /

2.Di RMAN, crosscheck archivelog :

RMAN>crosscheck archivelog all;

3. Akan ditampilkan daftar archivelog yang sukses di crosscheck dan yang failed di crosscheck. Sekarang archivelog yang failed akan dihapus :

RMAN>delete expired archivelog all;

4. Archivelog yang expired akan dihapus. Sekarang untuk yang backup, lihat dulu backup yang obsolete :

RMAN>report obsolete;

5. Akan ditampilkan daftar backup yang obsolete, sekarang backup yang obsolete tadi akan dihapus :

RMAN>delete obsolete;

6. Pada konfirmasi, ketik yes, backup yang obsolete akan dihapus

Regardless of what the cycling industry will have you believe, more isn’t always better. Modern 10 speed cassettes rely on thinner cogs that wear out faster & cost more than twice as much as their 8 speed counterparts.

And when it comes to shifters that are fully serviceable & rebuildable, Campagnolo takes the cake, unlike the STI shifters that Shimano manufactures. Shimano would rather have you just buy another set of their shifters instead of being able to replace a spring or something else that should be easy to extend the life of the component.

What’s the best of both worlds? Campagnolo 10 speed shifters used with Shimano-based 8 speed drivetrains. It just so happens that the cable pull for Capagnolo 10 speed is the same that Shimano uses for their 8 speed setup. With proper installation & adjustment, a “Shimergo” setup works flawlessly!

False advertising!

Eight is great!

Here is a quick cost breakdown.

“Good” 8 speed cassette – $32 & “cheap” 8 speed chain – $10 = $42 total.

Vs.

“Cheap” 10 speed cassette – $70 & “cheap” 10 speed chain – $35 = $105 total.

So it costs about 250% more to replace the 10 speed drivetrain than it does the 8 speed drivetrain. To add insult to injury, the 10 speed drivetrain will have a shorter lifespan than the 8 speed, due to the chain & cassette cogs being thinner. So, not only does it cost more, but you’ll have to replace it more often!

I know that in this dot com era, literally everything is just a click away. We can buy things online, auction items online and even check in on line!!! I’m about to hear that we can shower online!

Anyway, in all this, we can also contact an auto car transport company online. That’s quite a relief because it’s rather timesaving and efficient because you don’t have to walk the streets or call left, right and centre looking for such a company. Also there isn’t much need anymore to hire a broker to link you to such services. All you need is a search engine and voila!

However, the beauty of the internet only lasts as long as the fellow on the other end of the mouse is credible. With the way crime syndicates have hit the internet industry, there is need to take extreme care when choosing an auto transport company to move your car from point X to point Y.The website may be elaborate and built with such genius that you’d fall for every single word they say. Before you know it, you’ve made a payment.

You may be in a hurry but don’t be so fast. Take a moment to crosscheck. Call them up; ask for that auto transport company’s physical address telephone number and cross check them.  

La chasse aux plagiaires

(Agence Science-Presse) – Le chercheur qui soumet un texte recopiant en tout ou en partie un texte déjà paru —eh oui, ça arrive— court de plus en plus de risques : une version pilote d’un logiciel appelé CrossCheck a été lancée le 1er août : elle analyse des séquences de mots et les compare avec sa banque d’articles. Jusqu’ici, de tels logiciels anti-plagiat étaient limités par le fait que, sur Internet, l’accès à la plupart des revues scientifiques est réservé aux abonnés —une chose étonnante dans l’univers des médias, mais une réalité du milieu scientifique. Or, CrossCheck, grâce à une entente avec six éditeurs, dont le géant Elsevier, peut désormais accéder à leurs banques de données. Des éditeurs pourraient même obliger les chercheurs à faire « tester » leurs articles avant parution, ce qui limiterait la tentation du « copié-collé ».