January 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Escaping the Inequality-Data Dark Ages by Thomas Piketty, et al - Project Syndicate

by J.C. DE MARTIN

lo segnalo in questa sede per l’aspetto dati. jc Escaping the Inequality-Data Dark Ages Dec 23, 2019 THOMAS PIKETTY , LUCAS CHANCEL, FACUNDO ALVAREDO, EMMANUEL SAEZ, GABRIEL ZUCMAN Even as perceptions of rising inequality undermine the foundations of democracy, data on wealth and income trends remain woefully inadequate. It is in the interest of all societies to develop an internationally recognized set of indicators and methods for tracking income, wealth, and effective tax rates accurately and transparently. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/inequality-data-and-denialism-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")

by Roberto Caso

Buonasera, Sono iscritto da anni alla lista. Ringrazio per l'attenzione verso il mio testo. Il titolo vorrebbe essere provocatorio esprimendo favore per il diritto dell'autore di fare uso pubblico della ragione (il diritto di esprimersi liberamente, autonomamente e assumendosi la responsabilità delle tesi sostenute) e disfvavore per la proprietà intellettuale instesa come strumento giuridico volto a mercificare la conoscenza. Non mi occupo in questo libro di brevetti, me ne sono occupato in passato a proposito del trasferimento tecnologico delle università. Non escludo in futuro di dedicarmi nuovamente al tema dei brevetti nell'ambito della ricerca scientifica e accademica. Condivido: si tratta di un tema molto rilevante. Non credo di essere stato capace di proporre idee originali e soluzioni innovative. Il libro si chiude con l'invocazione di una maggiore attenzione all'insegnamento, alla docenza, alla creazione di comunità di conoscenza. Niente di nuovo sotto il sole. Ma forse vale la pensa insistere sulla difesa di un mondo che rischia di estinguersi. A presto, Roberto Caso Il mar 7 gen 2020, 12:00 Giovanni Biscuolo <g(a)xelera.eu> ha scritto: > Buon giorno, > > "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> writes: > > > Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) > > ha recentemente > > pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza > > aperta tra diritto > > d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC > > CC-BY-SA per la precisione, non la versione NC (non libera)! > > > qui: > > https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) > > mille grazie per la segnalazione e **infinite grazie** al Prof. Caso per > aver deciso di pubblicare il libro con una licenza libera: se non è > iscritto a questa lista, per favore riferiteglielo :-) > > mi spiace unicamente vedere nel sottotitolo "proprietà intellettuale", > che ritengo una definizione fuorviante, se non altro perché almeno i > marchi di fabbrica non fanno proprio male a nessuno [1]: però chi sono > io per eccepire?!? :-) > > sono impaziente di vedere se nel libro sono proposte delle soluzioni a > questo che ritengo il nodo centrale (controllo della ricerca attraverso > la *manipolazione* del diritto d'autore, dei brevetti e dei relativi > incentivi economici alla ricerca) della crisi scientifica che ci > attende, compresa la crisi dell'AI [2] > > [...] > > > > https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir… > > della intervista mi permetto di riprendere, sottolineandole, queste > parole: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > I giovani ricercatori sempre più in posizioni lavorative precarie sono > spinti da incentivi perversi a pubblicare sempre di più e in fretta > nonché a uniformarsi al pensiero dominante. La quantità prende il > sopravvento sulla qualità. Le pressioni a frodare – ad esempio, > plagiando o fabbricando dati falsi – il sistema aumentano. Si tratta di > un circolo vizioso che rischia di alimentare le posizioni > antiscientifiche già ampiamente diffuse. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > saluti, Giovanni > > [...] > > > [1] il sottotitolo "La scienza aperta tra diritto d'autore e brevetti" > avrebbe messo meglio in evidenza che anche i brevetti sono un serio > problema per lo sviluppo della scienza (che alimenta e **si alimenta** > di tecnica) > > [2] > https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-confronts-reproducibili… > > -- > Giovanni Biscuolo > > Xelera IT Infrastructures > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Jan. 7, 2020

China Targets Internet Giants in Antitrust Law Overhaul

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/china-targets-internet-g… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left.

by Giacomo Tesio

Ops... scusate... :-) Giacomo On 07/01/2020, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Già postato e discusso il 2 gennaio e giorni seguenti. > > Lo dico solo per informazione, capita a tutti (anche a me) di postare > cose già passate in lista :-) > > jc > > On 07/01/2020 16:11, Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relati… >> >> Google had first entered the Chinese market in 2006. At the time, >> founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said that Google would only stay >> if the company’s presence was doing more good than harm — that users >> were getting more information than before, even if there was >> censorship of some topics. But over the years, the list of items that >> the Chinese government demanded we censor grew significantly, and >> after the Chinese government attempted to hack into the Gmail accounts >> of human rights advocates in 2009, Larry and Sergey decided it was >> time to re-assess the 2006 decision. After a series of intense >> discussions with other executives, they decided that the only way to >> continue providing Search in China while adhering to the “Don’t be >> evil” mantra was to cease cooperation with the government’s censorship >> requirements. >> >> We knew this would cause a very public confrontation with the >> government, although we were never sure how bad it would get. In >> China, the government not only demands full access to a company’s user >> data and infrastructure, it also expects the full cooperation of >> companies to ensure that Chinese users see only content that is in >> line with government standards. For example, on a Maps product, the >> government requires that all geographic labels and information be >> approved by the government in advance, and that any user-generated >> content be strictly controlled by the company to avoid publication of >> anything the government deems “problematic,” which can be difficult to >> define. >> >> Our 2010 decision to stop cooperating with Chinese government >> censorship on Search results was the first time a non-Chinese >> corporation stood up to the Chinese government. In doing so, Google >> put everything on the line — its future in the world’s fastest-growing >> internet market, billions of dollars in profit, even the safety of our >> Chinese employees. At one point, I began planning for a possible mass >> evacuation of all our Google employees based in China, as well as >> their families. Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the >> principled approach the company took in making this decision. [...] >> >> In my new role, my team and I continued to engage with product >> executives who were increasingly frustrated by the phenomenal growth >> in the Chinese market and pushed hard for our re-entry into China. I >> was alarmed when I learned in 2017 that the company had begun moving >> forward with the development of a new version of a censored Search >> product for China, codenamed “Dragonfly.” But Dragonfly was only one >> of several developments that concerned those of us who still believed >> in the mantra of “Don’t be evil.” I was also concerned that Cloud >> executives were actively pursuing deals with the Saudi government, >> given its horrible record of human rights abuses. Cloud executives >> made no secret of the fact that they wanted to hire their own policy >> team, which would effectively block any review of their contracts by >> my team. Finally, in December 2017, Google announced the establishment >> of the Google Center for Artificial Intelligence in Beijing — >> something that completely surprised me, and made it clear to me that I >> no longer had the ability to influence the numerous product >> developments and deals being pursued by the company. [...] >> >> As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based >> approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on >> whether to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had >> never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its >> business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down >> on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger >> profits and an even higher stock price. >> >> It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues >> bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their >> desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to >> the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a >> different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into >> various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that >> placed me in a group labeled “homos” while participants shouted out >> stereotypes such as “effeminate” and “promiscuous.” Colleagues of >> color were forced to join groups called “Asians” and “Brown people” in >> other rooms nearby. >> >> In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior >> executives and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each >> case, there was no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I >> was accidentally copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the >> email, the HR director told a colleague that I seemed to raise >> concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to “do some digging” on >> me instead. [...] >> >> I think the important question is what does it mean when one of >> America’s marque’ companies changes so dramatically. Is it the >> inevitable outcome of a corporate culture that rewards growth and >> profits over social impact and responsibility? Is it in some way >> related to the corruption that has gripped our federal government? Is >> this part of the global trend toward “strong man” leaders who are >> coming to power around the globe, where questions of “right” and >> “wrong” are ignored in favor of self-interest and self-dealing? >> Finally, what are the implications for all of us when that once-great >> American company controls so much data about billions of users across >> the globe? >> ___ >> >> Prospettiva veramente interessante. >> >> >> Giacomo >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left.

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Già postato e discusso il 2 gennaio e giorni seguenti. Lo dico solo per informazione, capita a tutti (anche a me) di postare cose già passate in lista :-) jc On 07/01/2020 16:11, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relati… > > Google had first entered the Chinese market in 2006. At the time, > founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said that Google would only stay > if the company’s presence was doing more good than harm — that users > were getting more information than before, even if there was > censorship of some topics. But over the years, the list of items that > the Chinese government demanded we censor grew significantly, and > after the Chinese government attempted to hack into the Gmail accounts > of human rights advocates in 2009, Larry and Sergey decided it was > time to re-assess the 2006 decision. After a series of intense > discussions with other executives, they decided that the only way to > continue providing Search in China while adhering to the “Don’t be > evil” mantra was to cease cooperation with the government’s censorship > requirements. > > We knew this would cause a very public confrontation with the > government, although we were never sure how bad it would get. In > China, the government not only demands full access to a company’s user > data and infrastructure, it also expects the full cooperation of > companies to ensure that Chinese users see only content that is in > line with government standards. For example, on a Maps product, the > government requires that all geographic labels and information be > approved by the government in advance, and that any user-generated > content be strictly controlled by the company to avoid publication of > anything the government deems “problematic,” which can be difficult to > define. > > Our 2010 decision to stop cooperating with Chinese government > censorship on Search results was the first time a non-Chinese > corporation stood up to the Chinese government. In doing so, Google > put everything on the line — its future in the world’s fastest-growing > internet market, billions of dollars in profit, even the safety of our > Chinese employees. At one point, I began planning for a possible mass > evacuation of all our Google employees based in China, as well as > their families. Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the > principled approach the company took in making this decision. [...] > > In my new role, my team and I continued to engage with product > executives who were increasingly frustrated by the phenomenal growth > in the Chinese market and pushed hard for our re-entry into China. I > was alarmed when I learned in 2017 that the company had begun moving > forward with the development of a new version of a censored Search > product for China, codenamed “Dragonfly.” But Dragonfly was only one > of several developments that concerned those of us who still believed > in the mantra of “Don’t be evil.” I was also concerned that Cloud > executives were actively pursuing deals with the Saudi government, > given its horrible record of human rights abuses. Cloud executives > made no secret of the fact that they wanted to hire their own policy > team, which would effectively block any review of their contracts by > my team. Finally, in December 2017, Google announced the establishment > of the Google Center for Artificial Intelligence in Beijing — > something that completely surprised me, and made it clear to me that I > no longer had the ability to influence the numerous product > developments and deals being pursued by the company. [...] > > As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based > approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on > whether to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had > never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its > business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down > on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger > profits and an even higher stock price. > > It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues > bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their > desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to > the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a > different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into > various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that > placed me in a group labeled “homos” while participants shouted out > stereotypes such as “effeminate” and “promiscuous.” Colleagues of > color were forced to join groups called “Asians” and “Brown people” in > other rooms nearby. > > In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior > executives and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each > case, there was no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I > was accidentally copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the > email, the HR director told a colleague that I seemed to raise > concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to “do some digging” on > me instead. [...] > > I think the important question is what does it mean when one of > America’s marque’ companies changes so dramatically. Is it the > inevitable outcome of a corporate culture that rewards growth and > profits over social impact and responsibility? Is it in some way > related to the corruption that has gripped our federal government? Is > this part of the global trend toward “strong man” leaders who are > coming to power around the globe, where questions of “right” and > “wrong” are ignored in favor of self-interest and self-dealing? > Finally, what are the implications for all of us when that once-great > American company controls so much data about billions of users across > the globe? > ___ > > Prospettiva veramente interessante. > > > Giacomo > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 7, 2020

I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left.

by Giacomo Tesio

https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relati… Google had first entered the Chinese market in 2006. At the time, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said that Google would only stay if the company’s presence was doing more good than harm — that users were getting more information than before, even if there was censorship of some topics. But over the years, the list of items that the Chinese government demanded we censor grew significantly, and after the Chinese government attempted to hack into the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates in 2009, Larry and Sergey decided it was time to re-assess the 2006 decision. After a series of intense discussions with other executives, they decided that the only way to continue providing Search in China while adhering to the “Don’t be evil” mantra was to cease cooperation with the government’s censorship requirements. We knew this would cause a very public confrontation with the government, although we were never sure how bad it would get. In China, the government not only demands full access to a company’s user data and infrastructure, it also expects the full cooperation of companies to ensure that Chinese users see only content that is in line with government standards. For example, on a Maps product, the government requires that all geographic labels and information be approved by the government in advance, and that any user-generated content be strictly controlled by the company to avoid publication of anything the government deems “problematic,” which can be difficult to define. Our 2010 decision to stop cooperating with Chinese government censorship on Search results was the first time a non-Chinese corporation stood up to the Chinese government. In doing so, Google put everything on the line — its future in the world’s fastest-growing internet market, billions of dollars in profit, even the safety of our Chinese employees. At one point, I began planning for a possible mass evacuation of all our Google employees based in China, as well as their families. Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the principled approach the company took in making this decision. [...] In my new role, my team and I continued to engage with product executives who were increasingly frustrated by the phenomenal growth in the Chinese market and pushed hard for our re-entry into China. I was alarmed when I learned in 2017 that the company had begun moving forward with the development of a new version of a censored Search product for China, codenamed “Dragonfly.” But Dragonfly was only one of several developments that concerned those of us who still believed in the mantra of “Don’t be evil.” I was also concerned that Cloud executives were actively pursuing deals with the Saudi government, given its horrible record of human rights abuses. Cloud executives made no secret of the fact that they wanted to hire their own policy team, which would effectively block any review of their contracts by my team. Finally, in December 2017, Google announced the establishment of the Google Center for Artificial Intelligence in Beijing — something that completely surprised me, and made it clear to me that I no longer had the ability to influence the numerous product developments and deals being pursued by the company. [...] As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on whether to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price. It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that placed me in a group labeled “homos” while participants shouted out stereotypes such as “effeminate” and “promiscuous.” Colleagues of color were forced to join groups called “Asians” and “Brown people” in other rooms nearby. In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior executives and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each case, there was no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I was accidentally copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the email, the HR director told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to “do some digging” on me instead. [...] I think the important question is what does it mean when one of America’s marque’ companies changes so dramatically. Is it the inevitable outcome of a corporate culture that rewards growth and profits over social impact and responsibility? Is it in some way related to the corruption that has gripped our federal government? Is this part of the global trend toward “strong man” leaders who are coming to power around the globe, where questions of “right” and “wrong” are ignored in favor of self-interest and self-dealing? Finally, what are the implications for all of us when that once-great American company controls so much data about billions of users across the globe? ___ Prospettiva veramente interessante. Giacomo

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")

by Mariella Berra

*E' morto Benedetto Vecchi dopo Franco Carlini attento lettore del mondo digitale <https://ilmanifesto.it/la-lotta-di-classe-si-e-spostata-nel-cyberspazio/> * https://ilmanifesto.it/la-lotta-di-classe-si-e-spostata-nel-cyberspazio/ ** Buon anno Mariella Il 07/01/2020 12:13, armeo(a)mail.nexacenter.org ha scritto: > > vado oltre: "L'esplosione esponenziale delle conoscenze ha tolto > validità ai concetti di proprietà intellettuale e diritto d'autore. Il > brevetto non ha più alcun senso e va cancellato dagli ordinamenti > giuridici." > > Raf > > Il 07/01/2020 11:59, Giovanni Biscuolo ha scritto: >> Buon giorno, >> >> "J.C. DE MARTIN"<demartin(a)polito.it> writes: >> >>> Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) >>> ha recentemente >>> pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza >>> aperta tra diritto >>> d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC >> CC-BY-SA per la precisione, non la versione NC (non libera)! >> >>> qui: >>> https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) >> mille grazie per la segnalazione e **infinite grazie** al Prof. Caso per >> aver deciso di pubblicare il libro con una licenza libera: se non è >> iscritto a questa lista, per favore riferiteglielo :-) >> >> mi spiace unicamente vedere nel sottotitolo "proprietà intellettuale", >> che ritengo una definizione fuorviante, se non altro perché almeno i >> marchi di fabbrica non fanno proprio male a nessuno [1]: però chi sono >> io per eccepire?!? :-) >> >> sono impaziente di vedere se nel libro sono proposte delle soluzioni a >> questo che ritengo il nodo centrale (controllo della ricerca attraverso >> la *manipolazione* del diritto d'autore, dei brevetti e dei relativi >> incentivi economici alla ricerca) della crisi scientifica che ci >> attende, compresa la crisi dell'AI [2] >> >> [...] >> >>> https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir… >> della intervista mi permetto di riprendere, sottolineandole, queste >> parole: >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> I giovani ricercatori sempre più in posizioni lavorative precarie sono >> spinti da incentivi perversi a pubblicare sempre di più e in fretta >> nonché a uniformarsi al pensiero dominante. La quantità prende il >> sopravvento sulla qualità. Le pressioni a frodare – ad esempio, >> plagiando o fabbricando dati falsi – il sistema aumentano. Si tratta di >> un circolo vizioso che rischia di alimentare le posizioni >> antiscientifiche già ampiamente diffuse. >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> >> saluti, Giovanni >> >> [...] >> >> >> [1] il sottotitolo "La scienza aperta tra diritto d'autore e brevetti" >> avrebbe messo meglio in evidenza che anche i brevetti sono un serio >> problema per lo sviluppo della scienza (che alimenta e **si alimenta** >> di tecnica) >> >> [2]https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-confronts-reproducibi… >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")

by armeo＠mail.nexacenter.org

vado oltre: "L'esplosione esponenziale delle conoscenze ha tolto validità ai concetti di proprietà intellettuale e diritto d'autore. Il brevetto non ha più alcun senso e va cancellato dagli ordinamenti giuridici." Raf Il 07/01/2020 11:59, Giovanni Biscuolo ha scritto: > Buon giorno, > > "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> writes: > >> Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) >> ha recentemente >> pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza >> aperta tra diritto >> d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC > CC-BY-SA per la precisione, non la versione NC (non libera)! > >> qui: >> https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) > mille grazie per la segnalazione e **infinite grazie** al Prof. Caso per > aver deciso di pubblicare il libro con una licenza libera: se non è > iscritto a questa lista, per favore riferiteglielo :-) > > mi spiace unicamente vedere nel sottotitolo "proprietà intellettuale", > che ritengo una definizione fuorviante, se non altro perché almeno i > marchi di fabbrica non fanno proprio male a nessuno [1]: però chi sono > io per eccepire?!? :-) > > sono impaziente di vedere se nel libro sono proposte delle soluzioni a > questo che ritengo il nodo centrale (controllo della ricerca attraverso > la *manipolazione* del diritto d'autore, dei brevetti e dei relativi > incentivi economici alla ricerca) della crisi scientifica che ci > attende, compresa la crisi dell'AI [2] > > [...] > >> https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir… > della intervista mi permetto di riprendere, sottolineandole, queste > parole: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > I giovani ricercatori sempre più in posizioni lavorative precarie sono > spinti da incentivi perversi a pubblicare sempre di più e in fretta > nonché a uniformarsi al pensiero dominante. La quantità prende il > sopravvento sulla qualità. Le pressioni a frodare – ad esempio, > plagiando o fabbricando dati falsi – il sistema aumentano. Si tratta di > un circolo vizioso che rischia di alimentare le posizioni > antiscientifiche già ampiamente diffuse. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > saluti, Giovanni > > [...] > > > [1] il sottotitolo "La scienza aperta tra diritto d'autore e brevetti" > avrebbe messo meglio in evidenza che anche i brevetti sono un serio > problema per lo sviluppo della scienza (che alimenta e **si alimenta** > di tecnica) > > [2] https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-confronts-reproducibili… > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Buon giorno, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> writes: > Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) > ha recentemente > pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza > aperta tra diritto > d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC CC-BY-SA per la precisione, non la versione NC (non libera)! > qui: > https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) mille grazie per la segnalazione e **infinite grazie** al Prof. Caso per aver deciso di pubblicare il libro con una licenza libera: se non è iscritto a questa lista, per favore riferiteglielo :-) mi spiace unicamente vedere nel sottotitolo "proprietà intellettuale", che ritengo una definizione fuorviante, se non altro perché almeno i marchi di fabbrica non fanno proprio male a nessuno [1]: però chi sono io per eccepire?!? :-) sono impaziente di vedere se nel libro sono proposte delle soluzioni a questo che ritengo il nodo centrale (controllo della ricerca attraverso la *manipolazione* del diritto d'autore, dei brevetti e dei relativi incentivi economici alla ricerca) della crisi scientifica che ci attende, compresa la crisi dell'AI [2] [...] > https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir… della intervista mi permetto di riprendere, sottolineandole, queste parole: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- I giovani ricercatori sempre più in posizioni lavorative precarie sono spinti da incentivi perversi a pubblicare sempre di più e in fretta nonché a uniformarsi al pensiero dominante. La quantità prende il sopravvento sulla qualità. Le pressioni a frodare – ad esempio, plagiando o fabbricando dati falsi – il sistema aumentano. Si tratta di un circolo vizioso che rischia di alimentare le posizioni antiscientifiche già ampiamente diffuse. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- saluti, Giovanni [...] [1] il sottotitolo "La scienza aperta tra diritto d'autore e brevetti" avrebbe messo meglio in evidenza che anche i brevetti sono un serio problema per lo sviluppo della scienza (che alimenta e **si alimenta** di tecnica) [2] https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-confronts-reproducibili… -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures

Jan. 7, 2020

Re: [nexa] Reminder | 126° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 Gennaio 2020

by Nexa Media

Gentile Dott. Arvat, l'incontro verrà registrato in diretta streaming sul nostro canale youtube <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGxKEQNtu7ck2KMGDdFZ9NA?view_as=subscriber> e sarà possibile trovare il link al video all'indirizzo https://nexa.polito.it/nexa-hangout-on-air a partire dalle 18 di domani, ora di inizio del seminario. Cordialmente, -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219 Il 07/01/20 10:52, Massimo Arvat ha scritto: > Grazie per l’informazione, purtroppo non potrò essere presente, è > possibile avere un link ad una registrazione? > Massimo Arvat > >> Il giorno 06 gen 2020, alle ore 12:15, Nexa Media >> <media(a)nexa.polito.it <mailto:media@nexa.polito.it>> ha scritto: >> >> Gentilissimi,  >> >> >> vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 8 gennaio, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, >> eccezionalmente nella Sala Principi d'Acaja presso il Palazzo del >> Rettorato dell'Università degli Studi di Torino, in Via Verdi 8, >> si svolgerà il 126° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: >> *Metafisica del Web* >> Ospite: /Maurizio Ferraris (Professore all'Università degli Studi di >> Torino).// >> / >> Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo: >> https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-126 >> >> >> Cordiali saluti, >> >> >> -- >> Anita Botta >> Communication Manager >> >> Nexa Center for Internet & Society >> Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN >> Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino >> >> _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ >> _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> >> tel: 011 090 7219 >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > Massimo Arvat > arvat(a)zenit.to.it <mailto:arvat@zenit.to.it> > > ***** > Zenit Arti Audiovisive soc. coop. > Iscrizione Albo Cooperative n. A101724 > Partita Iva 06278280018 > Via Salerno 1 > 10152 Torino - Italy > Tel. +39.011.5217964 > Fax +39.011.4369765 > > ****** > Visita il nostro sito > Visit out website > www.zenit.to.it > > ****** > Questo documento è formato esclusivamente per il destinatario. Tutte > le informazioni ivi contenute, compresi eventuali allegati, sono da > ritenere esclusivamente confidenziali e riservate secondo i termini > del vigente D.Lgs. 196/2003 in materia di privacy e del Regolamento > europeo 679/2016 – GDPR- e quindi ne è proibita l’utilizzazione > ulteriore non autorizzata. Se avete ricevuto per errore questo > messaggio, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di contattare immediatamente il > mittente e cancellare la e-mail. Grazie. Per informazioni: Zenit Soc. > Coop. Via Salerno, 1 – 10152 Torino (TO) Italia – Telefono > +39 011.5217964 – Mail info(a)zenit.to.it > > Confidentiality Notice – This e-mail message including any attachments > is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain > confidential and privileged information pursuant to Legislative > Decree 196/2003 and the European General Data Protection > Regulation 679/2016 – GDPR-. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure > or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of > the original message. Thank You. For Information: Zenit Soc. Coop. > Via Salerno, 1 – 10152 Torino (TO) Italia – Telefono +39 011.5217964 – > Mail info(a)zenit.to.it > > > >

Jan. 7, 2020