You seemed to be awfully worked up over Elsevier’s participation in the marketing of items (leg irons, stun guns, stun batons) that your next door neighbor can legally own.

I’m not all that worked up over it, though other people certainly are, like the editors of The Lancet. I think it’s disgusting, but no more so than plenty of other things.

If I’m worked up over something, it’s high journal prices. This is why I decided to boycott Elsevier, long before the arms fair issue showed up.

Pragmatism has its advantages, certainly, but only boycotting the entities that are weak enough to cave is, well, aesthetically unsatisfactory, wouldn’t you say? Sort of like only pulling over the slower speeders because the faster ones are too hard to catch

It’s unfortunate that we can only stop organizations from doing nasty stuff if they’re sufficiently weak and/or not sufficiently motivated to keep on being nasty… but that’s life. I’m used to it.

Do you work hard to create stuff and then pay people to give it away (a la the Public Library of Science)?

No, I work hard to create stuff and then give it away to everyone for free, because that’s how I maximize my audience, and I want readers more than I want to be paid for my writings. So, I put my papers on the arXiv and my website, where everyone can get them for free.

This is becoming the norm among mathematicians, and that’s great.

“My original joke seems to have struck a nerve in Chris Grant.”

Not so much nerve-striking as puzzling. You seemed to be awfully worked up over Elsevier’s participation in the marketing of items (leg irons, stun guns, stun batons) that your next door neighbor can legally own.

“Refusing NSF funding is even less likely to get the US government to stop using leg irons, stun guns, stun batons and cluster bombs. So, there’s not much point.”

Pragmatism has its advantages, certainly, but only boycotting the entities that are weak enough to cave is, well, aesthetically unsatisfactory, wouldn’t you say? Sort of like only pulling over the slower speeders because the faster ones are too hard to catch.

“You don’t work hard to create stuff, then give it someone else and let them sell it.”

Do you work hard to create stuff and then pay people to give it away (a la the Public Library of Science)?

I don’t want to give them my papers for free and then let them sell these papers at a high price!

My first run-in with this idea was when Sam Lomonaco was writing the proceedings of the AMS short course in quantum computation from the 2000 Joint Meetings. To hear him tell it, publishers these days do little more work on a book or a journal than Kinko’s does.

My original joke seems to have struck a nerve in Chris Grant. He suggests boycotting NSF funding because the US government uses leg irons, stun guns, stun batons and cluster bombs. I feel like explaining why I have no desire to do this — even apart from the fact that I’m not getting any NSF funding!

To my mind, the main purpose of a boycotts and similar pressure is to shame or scare some organization into bettering its behavior. This sort of pressure was successful in getting Elsevier to stop running arms fairs because:

1) Elsevier only made a miniscule percentage of its profits helping sell weapons and torture equipment,

and

2) a large portion of its business relies on good will from academics.

Similar pressure is not likely to get Elsevier to lower its prices - lowering prices would seriously cut into its bottom line. Refusing NSF funding is even less likely to get the US government to stop using leg irons, stun guns, stun batons and cluster bombs. So, there’s not much point.

The reason I’m still boycotting Elsevier is not mainly because I think this will force them to lower their prices. It’s because I don’t want to give them my papers for free and then let them sell these papers at a high price! There’s nothing bleeding-heart or liberal about this. It’s just common sense. You don’t work hard to create stuff, then give it someone else and let them sell it.

The introduction of leg irons and stun batons into the thesis defense process has made the whole thing much more efficient.

For panicking defenders or for escaping committee members?

Of course studies by the government of the United States of America dominate the subjects in “Irons in the Fire.” We beat the Germany of the first half of the 20th Century, and then the USSR of the second half of the 20th century in such studies, and publications. Now, we must prepare to stay ahead of China, which has great talent, numbers, and a unique approach to both Civil Rights and Noncontiguous Territories on a Spherical Manifold.

Of course I’m keenly interested, due to my long-time research on Mathematical Disinformation Theory.