text:
If ResearchGate is Where Authors Connect and Collaborate …
By Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Controversial Topics
When the readers of The Scholarly Kitchen last heard from me on the about ResearchGate, I suggested that ResearchGate might emerge unscathed, perhaps even strengthened, from attempts by publishers to tame it through take-down notices and lawsuits. Though the take-down notices continue and the litigation is still ongoing, the recent announcement of a negotiated agreement between ResearchGate and Springer Nature, as well as Cambridge University Press and Thieme, indicates that ResearchGate may be proving its staying power in this field.
Last October, talks between the the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) and ResearchGate dissolved. Subsequently,the Coalition for Responsible Sharing (CRS) was created, which has pursued a strategy of take-down notices as well as continued discussions with ResearchGate. CRS includes Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS), which are pursuing litigation against ResearchGate. Shortly thereafter, a very succinct press release appeared. In totality, it said:
ResearchGate and Springer Nature have been in serious discussions for some time about finding solutions to sharing scientific journal articles online, while at the same time protecting intellectual property rights. The companies are cautiously optimistic that a solution can be found, and we invite other publishers and societies to join the talks.
I pondered at the time about what exactly this might mean. I was particularly curious about what concessions Springer Nature and/or ResearchGate would make relative to the original STM demands, those of the CRS, and the claims in the Elsevier/ACS lawsuit. With the recent press release announcing a collaborative agreement between ResearchGate and Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press, and Thieme (collectively "SNCUPT" for the remainder of this essay), we can now start to see the divergences and speculate on the implications of those differences.
Joseph Interpreting the Dreams of Pharaoh (image courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)
I am grateful to the staff of ResearchGate, Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press, Elsevier, and CRS for taking time to talk with me and share their perspectives on the agreement.
The Primary Issue — Pre/Post Upload Screening
The fundamental difference between SNCUPT and CRS is willingness/unwillingness to accept what seems to be ResearchGate's line-in-the-sand principle — no automated copyright compliance check at the point of user upload. It almost seems like ResearchGate might be asserting that it is not feasible to do this review at upload because author agreements are not available for ResearchGate's review. As Ijad Madisch, CEO of ResearchGate, explained to me in an April 27 email interview, "when scientists publish in a journal, they sign complex, private licensing agreements with the publishers. We're not privy to these agreements that determine whether scientists can upload an article to ResearchGate and under which conditions. Some allow it, others don't." Given ResearchGate's actions to turn content private in light of the planned CRS take-down notices last fall, one may have to question this assertion; however, it appears that ResearchGate has prevailed in its position in the SNCUPT agreement.
So, under the SNCUPT agreement, content will be made available on ResearchGate without pre-screening. However, also under the SNCUPT agreement, ResearchGate will facilitate publisher ability to review the content that has been posted and pursue various options for reacting to infringing content. Publishers of course retain the option of issuing take-down notices and ResearchGate will comply (as they are legally required to do so regardless of the SNCUPT agreement) but the agreement also includes a commitment to developing other pathways. Options here might include making the content private on ResearchGate, which still allows the author to share it upon request, replacing an uploaded PDF with a inline reading copy (e.g., perhaps through Digital Science's ReadCube or Cambridge Core Share), or engaging authors in a process of education through which the authors are given options among which to choose. It is particularly notable that linking out to a copy on another server is a possible option as ResearchGate has not allowed individual users to do such linking out under its terms of service.
James Milne, spokesperson for the CRS, reiterated that this approach of post-upload screening is unacceptable to the CRS. Milne again emphasized that the group looks for a simple solution that automatically provides clarity and allows for a consistent user experience without disruption. Milne outlines that the CRS believes that ResearchGate has an obligation to deploy copyright infringement detection software proactively. Likewise, this is the very issue that Elsevier/ACS seek to have the courts address. CRS continues to offer ResearchGate software that would do such proactive screening at upload in a negotiated agreement that includes pre-screening.
Gaby Appleton, Managing Director of Mendeley, detailed for me how the copyright infringement detection screening works. In a nutshell, a PDF is ingested, features (metadata, etc.) are extracted from the PDF, and then processed through a decision engine. The goal is high precision and low false positives. This Elsevier technology is part of the process through which CRS has been identifying infringing content in order to send take-down notices to ResearchGate.
The CRS also insists that the private sharing feature of ResearchGate is not an acceptable approach for authors sharing with their work because it is not constrained to a preset research group as the STM Voluntary Principles on Article Sharing on Scholarly Collaboration Networks allow, but rather functions as a mechanism to share an article with anyone who might ask for it. The SNCUPT does not address this specifically but allows each publisher to define the choice they might pursue if content is uploaded that infringes on publisher copyright ownership.
The Value of User-Centered Sharing
The STM Voluntary Principles are grounded in the fundamental principle that article sharing is important to the advancement of research:
Scholarly research is by its nature collaborative. Teams of researchers and scientists in the academic and not-for-profit sectors share experience, expertise, and facilities in order to advance human knowledge and understanding. Nowhere is this more evident than in the sharing of scholarly articles.
Brigitte Shull, Senior Vice President of Academic Publishing, Americas and Director of Scholarly Communication of Cambridge University Press, said it even more simply to me when we spoke: "sharing is part of the research workflow." Shull explained that Cambridge understands that their authors value ResearchGate, not only for dissemination of and access to content, but also for collaboration. ResearchGate is not only a space for sharing articles but also for creating connections and conversations.
Listening to Shull describe Cambridge's work to understand author motivations and drivers made it clear that taking a user-centered approach to the "problem" of ResearchGate rather than a copyright ownership-centric approach brings a different lens to the decision-making around negotiations with ResearchGate. Copyright issues are still addressed in the SNCUPT agreement but in a way that centers researcher workflow.
Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer of Springer Nature, echoed similar themes in stating that "we aim to make the content we publish as discoverable, accessible, understandable, usable, reusable, and shareable as possible and a part of that means putting our content where researchers already are rather than getting them to come to our content." As we chatted, Steven went on to say that "ResearchGate is an important and popular place where this can all occur" and "we want to partner with anyone who serves researchers — through our respective strengths."
In addition, through the SNCUPT agreement, publishers will have access to usage data about how their content is engaged on the ResearchGate platform. These data can be integrated with other usage data to provide authors with total usage metrics about their work and publishers will be able to compare/contrast content performance on the publisher platform with content performance on ResearchGate. This is a point of convergence with CRS, the members of which would also like to have usage data about content on ResearchGate, but are unwilling to trade-off the demand for pre-screening of content as the SNCUPT agreement requires. Additionally, the Elsevier/ACS lawsuit, even if successful, will not compel ResearchGate to share usage data. If SNCUPT publishers are able link out from ResearchGate to copies hosted on their own platforms, they will also be able to capture usage data of their content directly.
This is not the final chapter in the story of the relationships between ResearchGate and various publishers but this negotiated agreement with SNCUPT does demonstrate that there is not a uniformity of perspective in the publishing community about article sharing on ResearchGate, or presumably on the many other scholarly collaboration networks that exist. It also signals that ResearchGate, a decade-old start-up disruptor with with venture capital investment and a rapidly grown user base, has taken its place at the negotiating table and found not just enemies but allies.
The SNCUPT agreement lends a kind of legitimacy that begins to distance ResearchGate from piracy sites like Sci-Hub. Presumably discovery services will need to reconsider any decisions that marginalized ResearchGate hosted content and those who do research on the extent of open access content will need to grapple with how to categorize ResearchGate content (will it be considered "bronze" when there is a ResearchGate-publisher agreement in place or will yet another color be added to the lexicon?). And, the question that has been asked in conference hallways and receptions has re-emerged. Will ResearchGate remain independent or will it formalize its alliances through a merger or acquisition?
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
@lisalibrarian
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe is Professor/Coordinator for Research and Teaching Professional Development in the University Library and affiliate faculty in the School of Information Sciences and Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. lisahinchliffe.com
View All Posts by Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
54 Thoughts on "If ResearchGate is Where Authors Connect and Collaborate …"
Thank you for following up on this issue. The responses you got from the interested parties have helped clear some of my doubts, but there are some issues I still don't understand:
"when scientists publish in a journal, they sign complex, private licensing agreements with the publishers. We're not privy to these agreements that determine whether scientists can upload an article to ResearchGate and under which conditions. Some allow it, others don't."
My understanding is that libraries have been checking for copyright compliance at the moment of deposit in the repository since self-archiving came to be. Is it not enough to check the copyright statement of the document (i.e. "© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved."), and the sharing policies of the publisher to determine whether the article (in its preprint, AAM, or VOR forms) can be shared? Is the contract between authors and publishers absolutely necessary? In that case, have libraries been doing this wrong this whole time?
"under the SNCUPT agreement, ResearchGate will facilitate publisher ability to review the content that has been posted and pursue various options for reacting to infringing content"
So, do publishers need to enter into an agreement with ResearchGate in order to be able to check whether their content is being shared illegally in the platform? According to Madisch (https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/what-id-like-to-see-scientists-share-on-researchgate) "Should a scientist upload an article to ResearchGate that they aren't allowed to share, there's an easy fix: We have a reporting system that follows international law.". But I ask, how are publishers supposed to know in the first place whether their content is being shared illegally, if the platform does not offer a system (public API) to facilitate this?
"CRS continues to offer ResearchGate software that would do such proactive screening at upload in a negotiated agreement that includes pre-screening."
I wonder how "smart" this software is. Would it for example greenlight an AAM once the specified embargo period set by the publisher is over? Additionally, I wonder whether the publishers that are members of CRS have offered this software to repository managers all over the world, who (unlike ResearchGate) struggle to comply with copyright by checking manually each individual submission.
By Alberto Martín-Martín
It's a bit less straightforward than some of the rhetoric/logic might make you think. Copyright ownership and permission to post publicly are related but different topics. There are general parameters one might infer from a publisher's base contract but no one knows exactly what is in an author contract without having the author contract. Honestly, who even knows if a contract was executed (see https://twitter.com/micahvandegrift/status/989159468637343746)? And, there are also differences of opinion (not yet legally tested) about what some of the sharing provisions might allow – What does it mean to be able to share with a "research group"? What counts as a "disciplinary repository"? Also, publishers have been known to erroneously put their copyright statement on a PDF without having a copyright transfer from the author and to put items behind paywalls when they are supposed to be open access. (See https://twitter.com/paywallwatch if you want some examples.)
I know of no library that is prescreening uploads with an ingest/decision engine. Some libraries do review manually – some before made public, some after. But, as far as I know, the preponderance of IR content is posted with the same process RG uses – the person making the upload is asked to confirm that they are authorized to do so.
Publishers can already check if content they published is public on RG. That is the application of the Elsevier tool I described in the piece, for example. And, in fact, CRS publishers have done so and sent thousands of take-down notices as a result.
As to your question on handling embargoes, etc. My understanding is that the ingest/decision engine is "at that moment" analysis. I asked Gaby Appleton in my conversation with her – Elsevier (which owns the technology solution – not CRS) has not explored developing this into a service at this time. I also pondered this in my SK post on RG last October if the topic interests you further…
The copyright vs rights confusion is not helped by publishers such as Sage which puts copyright statements such as "© The Author(s) 2012" that look as though the author has rights to post the material, but the articles are actually still paywalled and the publisher keeps a tight claim.
There have been previous postings on SK bemoaning the fact that authors are ignorant of copyright matters, such as the example below. No wonder.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/31/guest-post-academics-copyright-ownership-ignorant-confused-misled/
By Chris Mebane
To be sure, publisher sharing policies are often confusing and sometimes even contradictory (https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107). However, using a few cases of erroneous copyright statements or documents that should've been made OA and weren't, to justify that we shouldn't trust copyright statements put by the publishers, seems a bit of a stretch to me. I have yet to see evidence that these errors are so widespread that the information provided by the publishers is totally untrustworthy.
If some publishers have the ability to check whether their content is being shared in RG, even though there is no API, I can think of no other option than they have built their software on top of RG's web interface (web scraping). In the best case, this is a very unstable and temporary solution, because RG has the power to easily break this software by making changes in the code of the website, or to slow it down by checking unusual use patterns by IPs (see comment by Angela Cochran below), or implementing CAPTCHAs (which they already have in place). Not offering efficient options to check the availability of copyright-infringing content in their platform means that the "fix" to this issue is not as "easy" as Madisch would make us believe.
"Elsevier (which owns the technology solution – not CRS) has not explored developing this into a service at this time".
Well, they say they don't plan to offer it as a service, but they *are* offering it as a (free?) service to ResearchGate, aren't they?
By Alberto Martín Martín
I think it is probably fair to say that each solution isn't as easy as any of the parties want to say that it is. Everyone, for their own good reasons, believes their solution is the best, easiest, etc. To return to a main point of the piece, taking a user-centric approach leads one to different places than a copyright-centric one – as with many things, what one concludes is determined in part by baseline assumptions about the way the world should/does work. In the end, however, it appears that the German courts will have a more definitive word on this than anyone.
As to Elsevier offering the technology to RG as a "free service" …. I suspect RG wouldn't see it as "free" since it is only offered with stipulations of when it must be used, demands for usage data, etc. RG would be "paying" in many ways.
If this episode leads commercial publishers to take a more user-centric approach to scientific publishing, I will of course celebrate it. However, I fear that any user-centric approach by commercial publishers will only be possible as long as it doesn't collide with their more primary profit-centric directives, and that this agreement might be more of a "enemy of my enemy" kind of move. The same day (April 19th 2018) the CRS announced that "ResearchGate has rejected all collaborative efforts" (http://www.responsiblesharing.org/2018-04-18-acs-and-elsevier-ask-court-to-clarify-researchgates-copyright-responsibility/), Springer said "Springer Nature and ResearchGate announce new cooperation" (https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/springer-nature-and-researchgate-announce-new-cooperation/15705990).
Putting pressure on Elsevier is not a new tactic for the other publishers (although this strays from this topic): last year most large commercial publishers (Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis…) agreed to make the reference lists of all the documents they publish freely available in CrossRef. With no effort at all, these publishers got some good PR on account of their support to open research infrastructure, and put pressure on Elsevier to do the same. Of course, they don't have any commercial interest in these data, like Elsevier has with Scopus. Now Elsevier is the only large commercial publisher that doesn't make these data openly available.
Thanks for this helpful overview. It seems to suggest that SNCUPT are willing to allow ResearchGate to infringe their content for 24 hours, including presumably the ability for RG to build an index of all their content for future "transformative" uses, in exchange for usage data on non-infringing content that allow them to keep up their cost per use argument. Am I understanding that correctly? It seems like SNCUPT are giving up much more than they are getting in this exchange. It leaves me wondering if there are not-public components to the agreement.
By Roger C. Schonfeld
I don't think it matters that it is "infringing" for 24 hours but that RG has a copy? Taking it out of the public eye doesn't change that RG has a copy. The "private locker" feature on RG is definitely housing content beyond what we see publicly right now.
I think we'd all be best assuming there are non-public components of any agreements between private companies! 🙂
Thanks for posting this excellent update Lisa on an evolving area of interest for all publishers and librarians, it will be interesting to see more details about the usage data publishers may be able to receive from Research Gate, and if this will be useful at all to librarians (as per your recent panel discussion on the usage topic, around side affects and implications of potentially declining publisher website usage stats).
By Adrian Stanley
ResearchGate could help by educating members about the broader issue. I use the platform sparingly but the one consistent interaction for me is users requesting digital copies of a *book* on DRM that I co-wrote. I always politely explain that my co-authors and I like our royalties and we don't share it for free.
ResearchGate could easily add something to the user experience that reminds users, when they are requesting something, that they be aware of copyright and its varieties and also that authors likely differ on the issues.
I think the broader issues are complex, and I don't have a firm thought on many of them, but I do think ResearchGate could (and perhaps should) do this simple thing to add to the ongoing dialogue.
By Bill Trippe
I find that RG is already peppering me with information about copyright when I'm browsing the site but I'm sure more could be done (and you'll note explanding author education is part of the SNCUPT agreement). But, there is nothing that violates copyright in someone making a request for a copyrighted item from the author. Of course a copyright owner is free to provide or not provide a copy without payment. Unless you have an atypical author contract, I would guess you no longer own the copyright of your book anyway and may have limited rights to give away any copies even if you want to. Assuming it is your publisher who owns it, the publisher is able to give away copies and probably (in limited amounts) has and those copies have been given away without any royalty payment to you. I of course don't know the terms of your contract – speaking about what is typical.
On the button. I get multiple requests for copies of two books published commercially. no problem to refuse politely, simply tedious
By Robert Cameron
I suppose you could also delete them from your RG profile of listed publications?
There are several companies that use software to find copyright infringing content on the web. They are searching for specific terms that indicate that the version being shared cannot be shared on that site. These systems are not fool proof but they are pretty close. I don't see why RG keeps claiming this is impossible.
I am concerned about the part of the SNCUPT agreement that expects publishers to look for infringing content on RG. Me and my entire organization are currently blocked from accessing RG for reasons that are unknown. They claim that our IP address is deploying crawlers, which it is not. Further, neither me nor my coworkers can get accounts. Despite they fact that there is a button that literally says "I am not a researcher," when you jump through those hoops, you get a message that you can't have an account because…you are not a researcher. So, in our case, we actually cannot review content on RG to see if it is in compliance.
It is also important to note that SNCUPT is not serving take-down notices. When a TDN is issued, and is determined to be valid, the offending site cannot allow that content back on it's site. I would be interested to know whether RG will catalog the papers they are asked to remove (or make private) under this agreement and not allow them to be posted again.
I find the collection of usage information to be a bit of a red herring. Would it be nice to know? Sure. But what are we to do with it? Are we going to provide another set of reports to Librarians to show them content is being used on a separate platform? Do they care? Is any of it COUNTER compliant?
So on to the positives. Many publishers take no issue with authors using Research Gate for promotion, collaboration, sharing. Many publishers allow authors to share some version of the paper at some point in time. A true partnership with RG may look more like the relationships we have with every other for-profit discovery platform. The publishers provide metadata (which includes DOIs and licensing rights for those DOIs)–all available currently from Crossref. From there authors can choose to upload an approved (legal) shareable file and engage as they wish. What I would want in return is a link to the publisher record. This would basically make RG on par with Mendeley but more open and possibly more publisher friendly.
Overall, I am glad to see that there is room for negotiation and I hope that other publishers look for interesting ways to work with RG.
By Angela Cochran
It is also important to note that SNCUPT is not serving take-down notices.
I'm not sure this is the case. As the article notes:
"Publishers of course retain the option of issuing take-down notices and ResearchGate will comply (as they are legally required to do so regardless of the SNCUPT agreement) but the agreement also includes a commitment to developing other pathways."
When a TDN is issued, and is determined to be valid, the offending site cannot allow that content back on it's site. I would be interested to know whether RG will catalog the papers they are asked to remove (or make private) under this agreement and not allow them to be posted again.
I believe this is a legal requirement of the take down process and non-compliance would put ResearchGate at legal jeopardy.
As with all things pertaining to copyright, it depends. 17 USC §512(c)(1)(A) describes the requirement, but it doesn't state how the service provider should know that something is infringing. Many automated systems use file hashes to track content, but resaving a PDF with slightly different metadata prior to upload changes the hash, and presents a fresh file to the automated checker. Should the provider know that it's the same file? That's for a court to decide.
By Shaun Halloran
I'm a little surprised to see you write: "I find the collection of usage information to be a bit of a red herring. Would it be nice to know? Sure. But what are we to do with it? Are we going to provide another set of reports to Librarians to show them content is being used on a separate platform? Do they care? Is any of it COUNTER compliant?"
The usage reports don't exist yet since this is an agreement to develop processes collaboratively so I don't know about COUNTER compliant (tho I presume publishers would push for that) but the desire for publishers to have usage data (in COUNTER compliant reports) is central in the STM Voluntary Principles, was in the original STM demands to RG, is something that CRS is seeking, etc. So, it seems that publishers definitely want this data and now the SNCUPT folks are the ones who will have it. Given so many publishers now tell authors how many readers their piece has – that is certainly a place I could see having those reads added in. But, especially in cases where the publisher PDF is replaced with an inline reading copy, I presume the data would flow into the same decisionmaking metrics system publishers already use for looking at use of inline reading/shared copy?
I'd welcome publishers explaining more about why they want this data and how they would use it but it certainly appears to be more of a strategic priority than a nice to have.
Lisa, thanks for this piece on a complicated topic, and for spending the time to talk to many sides in the debate. When I was at Elsevier, I was part of the discussions through STM with RG and I can say unequivocally that all the publishers involved were highly aware of the importance of the sharing platform, and the long tradition of researchers sharing versions of articles with colleagues. Many publishers have over the years worked hard at communicating policies re early versions, preprints and accepted manuscripts, as reflected in part by SHERPA/ROMEO. One of the reasons for the length of time in the discussions with RG had to do with attempting to fully understand how researchers were engaging with the RG site, and trying to see ways in which existing policies could extend to such sites (because as one comment pointed out, you can't have different policies for one site than you would have for other commercial SCNs– although you might have different policies for non-commercial IRs). This question of checking deposited documents first before posting might have seemed radical in 2017, but I wonder why the same idea recently espoused re inappropriate and fake news postings on other technology sites (FB/Google-YT), shouldn't apply to commercial SCN sites? The notion that things can be checked post-posting in 24 hours, and as others have noted the "self-takedown" that RG did last year upon the announcement of the SCR, suggests that RG could do a better job, particularly if supported by publisher technology. I hope we are heading in a public policy direction towards greater responsibility being taken by Internet sites!
By Mark Seeley
Note that YouTube filters content as it is uploaded and provides a system for copyright holders to block it from becoming public:
Yes, a system that is also oft-criticized for its overreach because it encourages blanket blocking and takedowns … even when a particular use being uploaded (or later identified) is allowed under fair use.
It does, however, offer a much more compelling cooperative arrangement that works to both parties' benefit — require it to be taken down, or choose instead to monetize the content and share revenue. That seems a much more attractive solution than the current offering of cooperatively taking everything down. Of course, to do it would require that ResearchGate start earning enough revenue to pay their own bills, let alone share that revenue with partners.
As long as there is also an easy path to the "this is fair use/doesn't infringe because I have the right to do so in my author agreement so stop bugging me about it!" option.
Any system for monitoring content that is automated is going to have some (hopefully small) error rate. The best way around this is manually checking each item before asking for its removal. This is not feasible for YouTube, given the volume of uploads (400 hours of video is uploaded every minute). Scholarly publishers are working on a smaller scale, but it is still a costly and time-consuming activity. Who should pay for the costs of this sort of monitoring is, I suppose, something the court case will determine. So far, at least, I've not heard of any egregious errors in the take downs that either group is issuing.
Step 1: Illegally distribute the content of others under the mandate of "sharing". (Kidnap)
Step 2: Come under fire from rights holders.
Step 3: Offer to collaborate with rights holders on profit-sharing scheme.* (Ransom)
Step 4: Profit!
This is the same old story we've seen with YouTube and others, told well by Robert Levine in Free Ride. It's disheartening that the surest path to a seat at the table is only available to the unscrupulous.
*Of course, we don't know the full details of this particular arrangement. But the hostage-ransom dynamic seems clear.
By Matthew Goddard
It seems to me that TDN is like toothpaste, you just can't put it back in the tube.
By harvey kane
Dear Lisa, thanks for devoting a post to this very important topic. While understandably all the focus in the discussions between the CRS and ResearchGate has been on infringements of copyrights resulting from the unauthorized sharing of final published versions of subscription journal articles, I am surprised that until now nobody seems to have brought up the issue that similar 'infringements' are happening on a large scale for Open Access content as well in the form of violations of CC license terms. For example, why no concerns about the 'commercial exploitation' (as RG is a for-profit platform) of –NC designated content or lack of proper 'Attribution' for that matter (even for CC-BY)? This is a point that I have recently brought up with the CRS myself (taking a broader view on Responsible Sharing as such) as the Publisher I work for is looking to join the coalition.
By Remco de Boer
This is also an issue that came up regarding Digital Science's new Dimensions product. They are presenting CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND articles from publishers with whom they have no licensing agreement, framed in their ReadCube reader. Is this a commercial reuse of that content and a violation of the license terms?
Of all the components of CC licenses, NC is the one that is least clear to me. What does commercial mean? Does it mean anything related to money or a specific set of things? As I select images for my SK postings, I've had to ponder if I could select an image for an SK post that has an NC on it. Is the SK "commercial"? (I've solved this dilemma by just choosing public domain images!) Personally, I think we'll see this resolved through the courts if it is resolved at all but someone will have to decide it is worth attempting to litigate. FWIW, I recall https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/great-minds-v-fedex-office-print-services-inc/ – note that the owner of the NC content lost and FedEx won.
To David's point, I would argue that this does constitute a violation of the license terms. In response to Lisa, unless there is an obvious business model somewhere that I am missing, it seems to me that the SK is clearly not a commercial blog nor does it appear on a commercial platform. In the case of ResearchGate there can be little confusion though: this is a for-profit platform backed by significant venture capital where the available content adds to the value of this platform and where the resulting usage is commercialized through the sale of targeted advertising (amongst other things). But I agree with you that when it comes to NC-designated content this will require legal expertise to settle which uses may be acceptable in certain situations (I did not fully understand the details of the Great Minds vs. FedEx case you refer to above). Related to the current discussion, it will be interesting to see how RG would respond to any TDNs for CC-BY-NC articles (which if I am not mistaken have never been issued to date).
We do sell advertising on The Scholarly Kitchen (great rates, if anyone is interested https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/advertising/), so to err on the side of caution, we've stopped using any CC BY-NC images and done our best to replace old ones that were previously used on the site. We've also subscribed to a stock photo service.
One thing that many publishers do (including my employer) is clearly spell out in our author reuse policies that we consider posting the paper on a commercial, for-profit social network (and we include examples such as ResearchGate and Academia) to be a commercial reuse of the work requiring a licensing agreement, separating this from reuse in a non-commercial repository or website.
From a user perspective, Researchgate ceased being useful when the takedowns started because of the litigation by Elsevier etc. Suddenly many of the main-publisher articles were hidden, because of the dominance of the parties involved in the litigation. I no longer use it much, and bibliographies in my journal no longer have special links to Researchgate copies included after the item.
I do not know how people feel about its collaboration possibilities.
By simon batterbury
It's worth noting that the vast majority of those papers that disappeared from ResearchGate did so because ResearchGate took them down on their own, without any requests from the publishers involved.
This points out why it is a bad practice for a journal, purportedly the permanent record of the research process, to link to such an unreliable source for material. Anything on ResearchGate, whether legally there or not, could disappear at any moment. Illegal material could be taken down, or for business, or even unknowable reasons, ResearchGate could pivot and get rid of everything posted on the site. This is why one should cite papers/data/code by the DOI (and use that as the link), or at the very least link to a reputable repository that has an archiving arrangement in place to ensure perpetual access to the material.
"ResearchGate is a key force for change as Early Career Researchers consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform."
This timely nugget from:
Nicholas, D., and others. (April 26, 2018) What publishers can take away from the latest early career researcher research. Learned Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/leap.1165
This is from the ECR study that the PRC sponsored?
http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/137-news-main-menu/ecrs-year-one-key-findings/175-early-career-researchers-year-one-2016-key-findings
That one had the conclusion:
"ECRs use online communities passively and mainly ResearchGate…few used its sharing or collaborative mechanisms. Obtaining PDFs and connecting with their colleagues are the main activities undertaken by ECRs on social network platforms."
It is*. My reply was delayed because I first had to get the full text via a questionable social sharing mechanism which the CRS seems to oppose. It worked like this -I clicked on the corresponding author's link from the publisher's website, asked for a copy, and some hours later, voilà, I was reading it**. This radical approach has a benefit by not being anonymous – the author now knows that someone sought out their article, who that person is, and how to contact them, and the ice is now broken for future communication. Maybe even future collaboration. What a concept.
But how is this different from the private sharing feature of ResearchGate? Because I had to go to the trouble of first getting turned back from the publisher's website and then write a 1-sentence email, instead of just clicking a button within RG's domain? "Private sharing is not an acceptable approach for authors sharing with their work because it is not constrained to a preset research group …, but rather functions as a mechanism to share an article with anyone who might ask for it." (from Lisa Hinchliffe's main post). Yes CRS, that is in fact the whole point of writing and publishing articles – the hope that some might read it, and maybe even spark some interest to chase the science question a little further down the road.
* I did notice that the PRC lists someone named David Crotty from OUP on their steering committee and is someone who may know more about this group.
** And noticing that this paywalled article said "© 2018 The Author(s)" to better perpetuate confusion on rights vs. copyright.
My understanding of the difference between asking an author for a copy of their paper and ResearchGate facilitating that is the involvement of a for-profit business in the re-distribution of copyrighted material. If I ask you for a PDF of your paper, that's in line with the STM Sharing Principles, a one-to-one interaction among researchers. However, when a for-profit, venture capital-backed company makes a copy of that paper, stores it, offers it online and distributes it to everyone in the world that wants a copy, that seems an activity on a different scale (both in terms of numbers and in terms of commercial versus non-commercial).
Think of it in terms of Napster. If a company is storing an illicit copy on their servers and re-distributing it, that's probably illegal.
So, there are two issues (at least) – file storage and facilitating communication between author/requester. To my knowledge, RG does not send a copy upon request. The request is conveyed to the author – who may then provide the file requested or not. Now, to the file storage, let's say I have PDFs of my own publications in Mendeley. Is Mendeley infringing on the copyright of publishers (for those items before I stopped signing over copyright) by storing them for me? Or, is the issue publishers have with ResearchGate facilitating private sharing the combination of storage plus request facilitation?
To my knowledge, RG does not send a copy upon request.
I don't believe that's the case — as far as I know, the requestor clicks a button, RG sends an email to the author, they click on a "yes" button and RG does the sending of the paper. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Or, is the issue publishers have with ResearchGate facilitating private sharing the combination of storage plus request facilitation?
Probably, yes. I think there's also the question of what constitutes a "take-down". If you are responding to a TDN, and you keep a copy on your server of the thing you're supposed to have removed from your server (or allow a re-upload of that same thing), and you're still making it available, then does that mean you've failed to honor the take down?
What you described is my understanding but is also not the same as RG "distributes it to everyone in the world that wants a copy" … the author sends it via RG. Yes, that is a good question re takedown – but then again if it is ok for Mendeley to hold a private copy why wouldn't it be ok for RG to do so?
By Lisa Hinchliffe
Is there a limitation in the number of people that RG will redistribute that illicit material to? And again, the author isn't "sending it via RG", they're approving RG sending it. That's why things like BitTorrent were developed, so those interactions were peer-to-peer rather than running them through one company's server, making them responsible.
Yes, that is a good question re takedown – but then again if it is ok for Mendeley to hold a private copy why wouldn't it be ok for RG to do so?
If Mendeley was sent a take down, they'd have to remove it from their servers as well. I guess the difference is that publishers that have signed the STM Sharing Principles have said they're not going to enforce those rights against companies that sign on and follow those practices as well, and Mendeley has signed on. But non-signatories could certainly ask Mendeley to remove those copies.
I think you are grasping at straws in trying to make a distinction between "sending it via RG" and "approving RG sending it" but perhaps the courts will someday do so as well … or not. But, what I think is clear is that for publishers the issue is holding the copies privately or being a communication mechanism but the conjoining of the two.
There is a enormous legal difference. If I set up a website where people who own music or movies can talk to one another and arrange to send each other copies of those albums and films on their own, that's at best contributory infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement). If I set up a website that stores the music and movies and I send it to those users that want it, that's a much more serious offense, as was shown in the finding against Hotfile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotfile).
There is an important legal difference between those but RG doesn't do either of those. We've already established it isn't just chat/personal arrangement so a given on the first. But, unless you have evidence to the contrary to offer, allow me to state again that RG does not send the file to those who want it. RG sends a request to the author and then the author sends the file. Yes, via RG. But, still requires author action to authorize sharing. If the author doesn't approve, the file doesn't get sent. Hotfile does not appear to have had any aspect of creator (even if no longer copyright owner but having some sharing rights) involvement.
Again, who physically stores the material and who sends the material makes a difference as far as liability. The authors themselves do not send the file. It is a copy that is stored on RG's servers that is sent by RG. That makes an enormous difference in terms of liability. The author may authorize the sending (though if they don't have those rights I'm not sure what difference that makes), but RG is still acting as a third party service to store and deliver the material. That's very different than the author storing and sending the copy, at least in terms of how a court is going to look at RG.
What I can definitely concur with is that we won't know until a court weighs in … and, I'll add that I think the STM principles are going to make that any such court case more complicated not less. My opinion.
Let me try an analogy. If you send me a digital copy of the Lion King, and then you authorize me to send a copy of that to a third party, would Disney hold me free from liability because you authorized me to send it?
Analogy doesn't work. I have no contract with Disney that gives me a set of (limited) sharing rights as part of a copyright transfer agreement.
Except your contract specifically forbids you from licensing the material to third parties for distribution. Which is what you are doing here.
Not sure how you are so certain what's in my contracts. I'll have to check not on my phone but I don't recall that I'm entering a licensing agreement with RG.
I can't speak for other publisher's licensing arrangements, but for non-OA articles, in general (though not all journals, some societies still want copyright transfer), we leave copyright with the author and have them sign an exclusive licensing agreement which reads that they grant us the exclusive right:
"to publish the final version of the Article in the above Journal, and to distribute it and/or to communicate it to the public, either within the Journal, on its own, or with other related material throughout the world, in printed, electronic or any other format or medium whether now known or hereafter devised;"
By authorizing RG to send a copy to a third party, you are granting them the right to distribute it, so you would be in violation of the exclusivity agreement you signed with us.
Yeah, I'd never sign that agreement.
That's why we offer authors other options, such as Gold OA.
Also for the record, we voluntarily make more material freely available on our platform than any of the other top 20 publishers, so the easiest way to share your article is often with a link (https://peerj.com/articles/4375/).
Lovely, but I don't pay APCs either and I won't live forever so I'm not satisfied with sharing arrangements that depend on my offering links.
So, in reality, you would likely have not had a chance to publish my work. Or, you'd have amended that license to publish to terms I'd accept. My content, my call.
"No content is automatically supplied to anyone in response to a request full-text inquiry. In no event does ResearchGate make available or provide a copy of the full-text to the requestor. That can only be done by an author." (https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Discovering+and+requesting+research)
Guest Post — Does ResearchGate Emerge Unscathed, or Even Strengthened?
ResearchGate: Publishers Take Formal Steps to Force Copyright Compliance
Guest Post — Academics and Copyright Ownership: Ignorant, Confused or Misled?
Guest Post: Research Deluge -- Are Researchers Writing More yet Contributing Less?


BANK MUAMALAT is a full-fledged Islamic Bank, commencing its operations on 1st October 1999. We are poised to pursue growth and strengthen our market presence, offering innovative, quality and competitive financial products and services. We presently serve all Malaysians at 58 branches and service centres throughout Malaysia, and 1 Offshore Bank in Labuan.
Sumber iklan rasmi jawatan kosong dan permohonan secara online sila layari laman webBank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd disini.


"Working in JLL has afforded me the opportunity to undertake a number of complex valuations and to work with people of the highest calibre. I have been promoted here and look forward to continued success, for the company and for myself."
'I joined JLL in 2010 working as a graduate surveyor within the Valuation Department where I gained invaluable experience through interesting but challenging instructions across all asset classes. This provided me with the necessary foundation to expand and develop the necessary skills and experience upon transferring to the Industrial Agency department where I was ultimately able to achieve my professional accreditation. The support of the JLL APC framework greatly assisted me in achieving the designation of a fully Chartered Surveyor and has provided me with a retained skillset to continue to progress and develop in my career as a Chartered Commercial Property Surveyor'.


text:
Discover a career as a PSYCHOLOGIST
What does a psychologist do?
Psychologists provide counseling and therapy to those suffering from emotional, learning, or behavioral problems. Psychologists may work in a variety of settings, including schools, clinics, hospitals, private practice, colleges and universities, corporations, and government. They study behavior, cognitive functioning, and emotions to understand, compare, and explain people's actions. There are clinical and counseling psychologists. Counseling psychologists study career development and also counsel people regarding career and educational choices. Educational and school psychologists do assessments to help diagnose problems school-aged children may have in regard to learning. There also are cognitive psychologists who study cognition and artificial intelligence.
What might a psychologist do in a workday?
diagnose and treat psychological problems.
collect data through interviews, case histories, and observation.
develop, select, administer, and interpret psychological tests, surveys and experiments.
counsel individuals, groups, and couples.
confer with parents, teachers, counselors, administrators, and others.
follow up to determine the effectiveness of treatment.
conduct research.
develop and evaluate mental health programs.
consult with social, educational, medical, or other agencies.
write for professional and trade journals or other media.
teach in colleges and universities.
evaluate and consult with organizations.
Developing a career as a psychologist?
Clinical and counseling psychologists may specialize in teaching, research, therapy, counseling, rehabilitation, community health, physiology, and psychopharmacology. They may choose to concentrate their work on a specific age group or psychological problem.
Clinical psychologists evaluate, diagnose, and treat mentally and emotionally disturbed people and are concerned with preventing and treating mental and emotional disorders.
Educational psychologists design, develop, and evaluate techniques and materials to solve problems in education/training programs.
School psychologists work with average, gifted, and physically or mentally challenged students.
Psychometrists or quantitative psychologists develop and implement intelligence, aptitude, achievement, and other tests and analyze results.
Developmental psychologists investigate emotional, mental, physical, and social growth and development.
Social psychologists study human relationships to understand individual and group feeling, thought, and behavior.
Experimental psychologists plan, conduct, and analyze experiments in human and animal learning, thinking, motivation, and perception.
Industrial-organizational psychologists develop and apply psychological techniques to personnel administration, management, and marketing problems.
How much does a psychologist earn?
How do I become a psychologist?
Students interested in becoming psychologists should prepare by taking challenging high school courses in science, math, and English, including advanced placement courses.
Licensed psychologists must have a doctorate in psychology from an accredited university with training in the area(s) of intended practice. Those who want to specialize in clinical services also must complete two years of supervised postdoctoral experience and one year of internship (or two years of part-time experience). Applicants must pass two written examinations as required by the certifying board. School psychologists must hold at least a master's degree.
Where else can I learn about becoming a psychologist?
American Psychological Association, Society of Clinical Psychology
750 First St. N.E. / Washington, DC 20002-4242
tel: (800) 374-2721 / web: www.apa.org
American Academy of Clinical Psychology
P. O. Box 700341 / San Antonio, TX 78270-0341
tel: (909) 626-5579 / web: www.aacpsy.org
State License Requirements for Psychologists:
A license is required to practice psychology in the Commonwealth of Virginia. For more information on licensure, applications, and forms, visit www.dhp.virginia.gov/Psychology.
Virginia Board of Psychology
Perimeter Center
9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300 / Henrico, Virginia 23233-1463
tel: (804) 367-4697 / Email: psy@dhp.virginia.gov
Educational Institutions in Virginia for Social Work:
Averett University
Bluefield College
Bridgewater College
Emory & Henry College
Institute for the Psychological Sciences
Jefferson College of Health Sciences
Mary Baldwin College
Norfolk State University
Northern Virginia Community College - Alexandria Campus
Randolph College
Shenandoah University
Southwest Virginia Community College
University of Mary Washington
University of Virginia at Wise
Virginia Intermont College
Virginia Wesleyan College

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Related if in one of two fields in Django I have two m2m related fields in my model admins and users.
I want to add constraint that single Profile can be connected only to one of admins or users field.
What is the best way to implement it in django?
class Session(models.Model):
    admins = models.ManyToManyField(Profile, related_name='admins')
    users = models.ManyToManyField(Profile, related_name='users')

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Prana Releases Promising Results
Prana Biotechnology released promising results from its phase 2 study of PBT2 in individuals with mild to moderate Huntington disease. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 104 (95%) of 109 study participants completed the 26-week study on one of the three study arms – PBT2 250mg daily, PBT2 100mg daily, or placebo. Serious adverse events were more common in those on active drug (nine) than on placebo (one), but only one was deemed by site investigators to be related to study drug.
In addition, on the principal secondary efficacy endpoints, Prana reported a statistically significant improvement on the Trail Making Test Part B, a test of executive function, in those randomized to PBT2 250mg. These results were similar to Prana's earlier phase 2 study in Alzheimer disease in which those randomized to PBT2 250mg had statistically significant improvements on both the Trail Making Test Part B and the Category Fluency Test. In the Huntington disease study, the improvement in executive function, which is impaired early in the disease, was also accompanied by a small, favorable signal in a key measure of functional capacity. No significant improvements were seen on other secondary efficacy measures in the study. A small (n=6) pilot imaging sub-study suggested reduced brain atrophy in those exposed to PBT2.
PBT2 is a metal-protein attenuating compound that may affect metal mediated oligomerization of huntingtin. In the R2/6 mouse model of Huntington disease, daily oral administration of PBT2 improved motor performance of the mice, increased body and brain weight, and increased the lifespan of the mice by 26%. The phase 2 study was the first assessment of the drug in individuals with Huntington disease.
Dr. Diana Rosas, an Associate Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and the study's co-principal investigator, said, "I am very excited about (the study)… the drug is targeting a key pathological process that has been identified as significant in (HD) in both transgenic mouse models and in human disease, (and) in as little as six months, we were able to measure a potential clinical benefit and most importantly a potential slowing of progression… Finally, the addition of novel potential biomarkers, one of the first multi-center studies to do this, is also very exciting and provocative.
In its press release on the study results, Prana indicated that it plans to advance PBT2 to a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial.
1 Prana Biotechnology. Prana announces successful phase 2 results in Huntington disease trial. (press release)
2 Lannfelt L, Blennow K, Zetterberg H et al. Safety, efficacy, and biomarker findings of PBT2 in targeting Abeta as a modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease: a phase IIa, double-blind,
randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:779-86.
3 Cherny RA, Ayton S, Finkelstion DI et al. PBT2 reduces toxicity in a C. elegans model of polyQ aggregation and extends lifespan, reduces striatal atrophy and improves motor performance in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington's disease. J Hunt Dis 2012; 1:211-219.
HD Research around the World: Canada


text:
Q: "Pissing it up" in British English I was watching a BBC documentary with Louis Theroux called "Drinking to Oblivion."
During an interview at 26:44, a person with an alcohol problem tells Theroux:

I was with my girlfriend at the time, and I was out pissing it up too
  much, really, and was pretty horrible to her, frankly. I remember,
  after that, thinking, I definitely, definitely don't ever want to
  drink again "because I don't want to put someone through that again."

It should be noted that the speaker is an educated person who appeared sober at the time of saying this.
I am aware that pissed can mean drunk. I also know about the slang phrase piss drunk which means extremely drunk.
I'm obviously guessing that "pissing it up" means getting very drunk (based on context, if nothing else.) However, I have not found any references for this phrase online.

*

*How old is this phrase? Is this a relatively new slang phrase, or a recent variation of the two examples I referred to above?

*What exactly does it mean? I've guessed that it simply means to get very drunk. Is this correct, and/or is there anything else to it? Detailed descriptions are welcome.

Good references would certainly be welcome. So would references to the phrase being used.

A: piss something up
Spoil or ruin something.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/piss

A: Dictionaries of British slang are awash in piss terms, but most of them don't mention verb forms that combine piss and up. Consistent with the Oxford Dictionaries definition of "piss something up" cited in the answer given by "Keep these mind", John Ayto & John Simpson, The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang (1992) has this entry for to piss up:

to piss up to spoil or ruin Cf. PISS-UP noun 1 ["A mess-up; a bungle or confusion"] 1937–.

Ayto & Simpson reports that the noun form of piss-up is younger than the verb form of to piss up, dating only to 1950, but that it is nevertheless two years older than the more widely recognized modern meaning of piss-up as a noun ("a bout of heavy drinking," according to this dictionary; "a drunken party," according to Jonathon Green, The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang [1984]).
Jonathon Green, Chambers Slang Dictionary (2008) provides three meanings for the verb phrase piss up, none of them very similar to Ayto & Simpson's definition:

piss up v. 1 {1960s–1970s} (U.S.) to vomit 2 see PISS OFF v. (2) ["to annoy"]. 3 see PISS ON v ["to treat contemptuously"].

More to the present point, Green has entries specifically for piss it up and for piss it up the wall:

piss it up v {fig. use of sense 2 ["to urinate"] above} {1960s+} to drink. piss it up the wall {var. on next [piss (money) against the wall)]} {late 15C+} to waste money on drink; thus to waste money in general.

Green also lists these "pissing up" phrases: piss up a rope ("to be engaged in a futile exercise"—U.S. slang), piss up someone's back ("to flatter someone"), piss up someone's leg ("to lie, to deceive"— U.S. slang), and piss up a storm ("to complain strongly, to make a major fuss"—U.S. slang).
Tony Thorne, The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang (1990) has an interesting note on the noun piss-up:

piss-up n British a drinking bout, drunken celebration. A vulgarism used neutrally or with cheerful overtones rather than disapprovingly.

I think that Green's definition of piss it up ("to drink") is the one relevant to the poster's question:

I was with my girlfriend at the time, and I was out [drinking] too much, really, and was pretty horrible to her, frankly.

Green says that the phrase goes back to the 1970s and involves a figurative use of piss in the sense of "to urinate." It might be slightly more accurate to say that the phrase alludes to a necessary physiological consequence of heavy drinking.

A: I have heard the phrase used by elderly New Zealanders twenty-five years ago as ordinary conversation and have heard it used in 1960s British TV clips. So, it is at least half a century old.
I haven't seen the phrase in any British literature from WWI or older.
This is as close as I can bracket it. The meaning is the one you have inferred from context.

A: "pissing it up" too much
"it" in context is money spent on drink.  Likely vital household income.
i.e. He was drinking all the wages.

A: I think in this context it means making a serious mess of his life, almost as though he was pissed (drunk). He's saying that his behaviour and actions were not reasoned or acceptable, even to himself.

A: It's as old as the hills, pissing it up in that context has been used for at least forty years and I expect much more.


text:
Die Kasachisch-Britische Technische Universität (KBTU; russisch ) ist eine von zwei technischen Universitäten der ehemaligen kasachischen Hauptstadt Almaty. Gegründet wurde die Universität im Jahr 2001.
Die Gründung der Kasachisch-Britischen Technischen Universität geht auf den kasachischen Präsidenten Nursultan Nasarbajew zurück, der mit dem Vereinigten Königreich über die Einrichtung einer solchen Hochschule verhandelte. Im November 2000 wurde eine Vereinbarung beider Staaten getroffen wurde. Seit dem 17. Juni 2009 wird an der KBTU wird nach britischem Standard unterrichtet. Die Universität besteht aus insgesamt sechs Fakultäten.

Internationale Beziehungen unterhält sie vor allem zu Universitäten im Vereinigten Königreich. Unter ihnen sind die University of Aberdeen und die Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, die University of Glasgow, die University of Dundee und die University of Stirling in Schottland. Auch zur Sol Bridge International School of Business in Daejeon in Südkorea pflegt man gute Kontakte.

Fakultäten
 Fakultät Management
 Geologische Fakultät
 Fakultät Technik und Informatik
 Fakultät Erdöl- und Erdgastechnik
 Fakultät der angewandten Chemie
 Sprachwissenschaftliche Fakultät

Weblinks
 Homepage

Fußnoten

Universität in Almaty
Almaty
Gegründet 2001

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


MTA have just obtained professional photos of the Orleans House Gallery project.
The selected photos particularly showcase the finished results after sensitive introduction of modern mechanical and electrical services.
The boiler cupboard photo highlights the limited space available to incorporate the boiler plant and related installations.


text:
HomeAnalysis & FeaturesPreview: Formula 1, Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, December 5, 2021
Preview: Formula 1, Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, December 5, 2021
December 2, 2021 admin Analysis & Features, Events Noticeboard, News, Reviews 0
Viewers on DStv can look forward to the 21st round of the 2021 Formula 1 World Championship, the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, live from the Jeddah Street Circuit on the evening of Sunday 5 December 2021.
SuperSport is definitely your #HomeOfSport and the ultimate destination for motorsport fans.
Seven-time World Champion Lewis Hamilton continued his brilliant form in the previous round in Qatar in November, claiming a second successive victory to narrow the gap to Drivers' Championship leader Max Verstappen to just eight points with two rounds remaining.
The Constructors' Championship is even tighter, with leaders Mercedes holding only a five-point advantage over Red Bull Racing-Honda, with the teams becoming ever more hostile as the thrilling 2021 campaign draws to a close over there next two races in the Middle East.
Hamilton has called on himself and Mercedes to bring their "AAA game" for the final two rounds of the season in an effort to clinch both titles on offer. The British driver is hoping to become the first to secure eight world championships (he currently shares the record of seven with the great Michael Schumacher).
"I love the close battle and the pressure, the demands it puts on you and the whole team," Hamilton explained. "I've thoroughly enjoyed it but these next two races need even better performance, so we will be bringing our AAA game for those ones."
He added, "The last two weeks have been fantastic, it's just amazing, and there is no time for celebrations. It's back in, I'll be back with the team already again next week and back in training tomorrow just staying on it, head down.
"I don't really have too much emotion because I'm just driven right now, but it is amazing, to be able to close back so many points in these last two races has been important."
Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff has warned that the 'Silver Arrows' are bang in form and determined to claim success: "Saudi should be a good track for us, but we know this year when you think it's a good one it can turn the other way around," he explained.
"But it's a long straight, we'll get our spicy equipment (engine) out for Saudi Arabia that we didn't use (in Qatar) and hopefully Valtteri (Bottas) is right up there – we need him. But in any case, if everyone finishes the race it will go to Abu Dhabi (the final round)."
Asked if the Mercedes package is currently the best it has been all season, Wolff replied: "Yes, definitely. I think the car is quick on the straight and good around the corners. Degradation works fine – even at races in the Middle East and we have two to come of these – on old tyres. I think we have to push maximum attack. We have to catch up, make some points up and that's just what we are going to do."
No rival can compete with SuperSport's coverage. Viewers on DStv can see all the action from the fastest sport in the world on their Channel of Champions.
Visit DStv to subscribe or upgrade, and join in on the excitement. And while you're on the move, you can stream live action on the DStv app.
Saudi Arabian Grand Prix broadcast details, 4-5 December 2021
All times CAT
18:50: Qualifying – LIVE on SuperSport Motorsport and SuperSport Maximo 1
Sunday 5 December
19:25: Race – LIVE on SuperSport Grandstand, SuperSport Motorsport and SuperSport Maximo 1
AFEX bond aims to boost Africa's food security and optimise climate smart innovations in 7 countries
Samsung's WindFree air conditioners now available in Kenya
GOtv and DStv subscribers to watch live the EUFA Nations League finals
June 5, 2019 admin News 0
GOtv and DStv subscribers are in for another football treat as the inaugural UEFA Nations League is decided over the next week. There will be thrilling midweek clashes between Portugal and Switzerland, as well as [c]
Mauritius Telecom, Showmax partner to bring live football, other content to subscribers in Mauritius
December 14, 2021 admin CSR, News 0
Mauritius Telecom has announced its partnership with Showmax, the streaming service that bundles the best of international entertainment content with live sports from SuperSport. SuperSport features the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, English Premier League, [c]
Maisha Mkanda documentary makes a comeback on Maisha Magic
December 31, 2021 admin Analysis & Features, News, Reviews 0
Popular African Uncensored-produced Maisha Mkanda is set to make a comeback on to Maisha Magic on Sunday 2 January 2022. This is the third season of the 13-episode, character-driven documentary series, Maisha Mkanda is back. [c]


YourBestBuy are delighted to stock the famous The Wonky Donkey.
With so many available recently, it is great to have a brand you can trust. The The Wonky Donkey is certainly that and will be a great purchase.
For this price, the The Wonky Donkey comes widely recommended and is a regular choice amongst most people. Scholastic Paperbacks have included some great touches and this results in great value.


Read reviews about Capital Restaurant - Wood Green here! All reviews have been written by Quandoo users that have already booked and eaten at Capital Restaurant - Wood Green. We try to be as transparent as possible by providing you with real guest experiences. Find out what other diners are saying about Capital Restaurant - Wood Green.
We had a warm welcome and were asked to go upstairs where it was slightly quiter. We were served really quickly. They serve large portions here so we were well fed and we took the rest of the food home with us. The food was very tasty. Well seasoned. Staff were polite and very informative about the food. Great value for money too. I would recommend Capital Restaurant .Good evening out.
The food was too much as we had ordered the full platter, it was delicious. We enjoyed the flat bread wrapped around meat like a ravioli. The atmosphere was warm and friendly like the staff who were attentive and helpful. I look forward to returning here with friends and family.
Excellent food, polite and welcoming staff, however the menu mainly offers large sizes only with the exception of couple, so I'm not able to order small size which in turn this leads to unwanted food waste otherwise I have no issues.


League of Legends is one of the well known games for the MOBA genre lovers. They are able to get multiplayer content by playing it. It means they can enjoy the game with friends. All are able to face different types of opponents.
All opponents are related to real time players. For getting success, everyone needs to consider the way of some specific strategies. It does not an easy task to build some effective strategies and achieve the objectives of playing.
With all these things, there is another way of getting success available. This particular way is Lol boosting service. The services are associated with numerous benefits. Following are some.
The game is designed by paying attention to several types of elements. All these elements are becoming useful in getting entertainment and increasing difficulties sometimes. Here, you should be focused on various elements. All beginners are not able to get familiar with these things, and they do not get the best way of playing.
The way of boosting services can help them in getting interaction with the experts. Mainly these specific experts can help them by providing knowledge about the game. On the basis of this particular knowledge, the players can develop some skills and get the best way of playing.
The main thing on which everyone wants to be focused on is related to the position of a profile. All players want to see their profile in the higher leagues. Generally, it can be possible by clearing the achievements and completely different types of tasks.
The way of boosting service is becoming so beneficial by which the players can achieve objectives easily. The most important thing is that during the time period of services, the account is controlled by the game masters.


WebHost.Pro Questions - Will I be able to own my domain name?
Yes our domain registration service http://www.ezdomainname.com allows you to even use other hosting companies. We want you to feel safe and know that you own your domain. You can do anything you want with your domain name at anytime. If you register a domain directly through us you will need to transfer it before you can point the name servers to another host.


text:
Taste of Cinema - Movie Reviews and Classic Movie Lists > Lists > Film Lists > The 20 Most Anticipated Movies of 2016
The 20 Most Anticipated Movies of 2016
Posted on January 6, 2016 January 6, 2016 by Ryan Anderson
7. Doctor Strange
The Marvel movie universe continues to expand. Director Scott Derrickson (Sinister) will bring the Marvel comic book character Dr. Strange to the big screen. Benedict Cumberbatch will star as surgeon Stephen Strange. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Michael Stuhlbarg, Mads Mikkelsen, and Tilda Swinton will also star.
The premise is as follows: After Stephen Strange, the world's top neurosurgeon, is injured in a car accident that ruins his career, he sets out on a journey of healing, where he encounters the Ancient One. Various incarnations of a Doctor Strange film has been in development since the mid-1980s. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer were brought on board in June 2010 to write a screenplay.
In June 2014, Derrickson was hired to direct the film. Cumberbatch was chosen for the eponymous role in December 2014, and at the same time, Spaihts was confirmed to be rewriting the script. Doctor Strange is scheduled to be released on November 4, 2016 in IMAX. People are pumped to see this one, especially to see Cumberbatch as the titular hero.
8. Inferno
The sequel to Angels and Demons and another in the Robert Langdon series of books by Dan Brown, Inferno will bring back the team of director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks as Langdon. Felicity Jones, along with Omar Sy, Sidse Babett Knudsen, Ben Foster, and Irrfan Khan star as well.
Inferno, based on the 2013 Dan Brown novel of the same name, follows Langdon as he awakes in a hospital room in Florence, Italy, with no memory as to what has transpired over the last few days. He suddenly finds himself, again, the target of a major manhunt. But with the help of Dr. Sienna Brooks, and his knowledge of symbology, Langdon will try to regain his freedom, and lost memories, all whilst solving the most intricate riddle he's ever faced.
In July 2013, the film was set for a December 18, 2015 release date. If you've been keeping with movies, or have just been alive this year, that was the day that Star Wars: The Force Awakens came out, so the film was moved to almost a year later. Inferno will have a release date of October 14, 2016.
9. Snowden
Oliver Stone is back covering another political mystery man. Stone, who has brought us classics like Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, and JFK, knows the ins and outs of political cinema. Stone also writes here with Kieran Fitzgerald, and their script is based on the book The Snowden Files, written by Luke Harding.
The film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Scott Eastwood, Melissa Leo, Timothy Olyphant, Zachary Quinto, Nicolas Cage and Tom Wilkinson. The true story follows Edward Snowden (Gordon-Levitt), an American computer professional who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) to The Guardian in June 2013.
The film was set for a Christmas 2015 release date, however the studio moved it back, rumors were that the film was not finished yet. The new release date is set for May 13, 2016. It would be nice to see a return to form for Stone, who recently has not had the best reviews for films. With this stellar cast and solid real life and written material to work with, this should be a solid showing for the director.
10. Suicide Squad
David Ayer (End of Watch, Fury), writes and directs the third installment in the DC Extended Universe about the titular anti-hero team. The film features an ensemble cast including Jared Leto as the Joker, Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn and Will Smith as Deadshot. Joel Kinnaman, Jai Courtney, Cara Delevingne, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Karen Fukuhara, Jay Hernandez, Adam Beach, and Viola Davis form the rest of the team.
We don't know much as far as plot yet, but that should be coming soon. We have been seeing pictures of the characters for a while, including the memorable pictures of Leto as the Joker. Although everyone has not liked the pictures, they have been well received and has increase the hype for the film. Suicide Squad is set for an August 5, 2016 release date in 2D, 3D, and 3D IMAX. This late summer blockbuster could compete with Marvel's sequels and originals that are sprinkled throughout the year.
11. The Nice Guys
From the man who brought you Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Iron Man 3 comes The Nice Guys. Directed and co-written by Shane Black, the man referred to above, The Nice Guys takes place in 1970's Los Angeles, when down-on-his-luck private eye Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and hired enforcer Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) must work together to solve the case of a missing girl (Margaret Qualley) and the seemingly unrelated death of a porn star.
During their investigation, they uncover a shocking conspiracy that reaches up to the highest circles of power. Starring alongside Gosling and Crowe are Matt Bomer and Kim Basinger. It will be the second collaboration between Basinger and Crowe after L.A Confidential (1997). The film will be released by Warner Bros. Pictures on May 20, 2016. The film was previously scheduled for an June 17, 2016 release,which WB moved to earlier date of May 20, 2016, giving its previous date to Central Intelligence.
To say this film is anticipated would be an understatement. The sequel to the incredibly successful Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Civil War will be the thirteenth installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
The film is directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, with a screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, and features an ensemble cast that includes Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Emily VanCamp, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Frank Grillo, Daniel Brühl, and William Hurt.
This jam packed film follows Captain America and the Avengers continue to protect the world, but the team becomes fractured into two opposing factions, one led by Captain America and another by Iron Man, after extensive collateral damage prompts politicians to pass an act regulating superhuman activity with government oversight and accountability for the Avengers. Civil War's combination of emotional tension and action should lead to success.
13. Race
This upcoming French-German-British-Canadian production is a biographical sports-drama about the life of African American athlete Jesse Owens. The film focused on the track and field star as he overcomes adversity to win four gold medals at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin.
The film is directed by Stephen Hopkins, the man who brought you Predator 2, and is written by Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse. Newcomer Stephan James will play Owens, this after John Boyega dropped out of the film to star in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The film also stars Jason Sudeikis, Jeremy Irons, William Hurt and Carice van Houten.
The first biopic of the legendary athlete has the support of Owens family, the Jesse Owens Foundation, the Jesse Owens Trust and the Luminary Group. Principal photography began on July 24, 2014, in Montreal, Canada. Forecast Pictures, Solo Film, and Trinity Race are producing the film, Entertainment One will release the film in Canada, Focus Features in the United States on February 19, 2016. If the film is not overly sentimental, we could have a real winner on our hands.
most anticipated movies 2016
20 Great Movies That Break The Rules of Cinema
The 25 Greatest Child Performances in Cinema History


text:
Bookstore Cinema eBar
Page Turners & Pot Boilers
On the Cinema Screen
The Polymath: Unlocking the Power of Human Versatility
By (author): Ahmed, Waqas
Subject: BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / Personal Success
BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / Small Business
MATHEMATICS / General
Audience: general/trade
Format: Book-hardcover
Size: 8.90in x 5.90in x 1.40in
From The Publisher* Every human is born with multifarious potential. Why, then, do parents, schools and employers insist that we restrict our many talents and interests; that we 'specialise' in just one?
We've been sold a myth, that to 'specialise' is the only way to pursue truth, identity, or even a livelihood. Yet specialisation is nothing but an outdated system that fosters ignorance, exploitation and disillusionment and thwarts creativity, opportunity and progress.
Following a series of exchanges with the world's greatest historians, futurists, philosophers and scientists, Waqas Ahmed has weaved together a narrative of history and a vision for the future that seeks to disrupt this prevailing system of unwarranted 'hyper-specialisation.'
In The Polymath, Waqas shows us that there is another way of thinking and being. Through an approach that is both philosophical and practical, he sets out a cognitive journey towards reclaiming your innate polymathic state. Going further, he proposes nothing less than a cultural revolution in our education and professional structures, whereby everyone is encouraged to express themselves in multiple ways and fulfil their many-sided potential.
Not only does this enhance individual fulfilment, but in doing so, facilitates a conscious and creative society that is both highly motivated and well equipped to address the complexity of 21st century challenges.
Review Quote*
An erudite, masterful and entertaining study by a great writer and thinker… essential reading for the coming decade - Daniel Levitin, Neuroscientist, Musician and Bestselling Author of The Organised Mind
I am too stunned to comment on this book… I am transformed and transcended; I will never be the same - Story Musgrave, NASA astronaut and 'World's top-ranked Renaissance Man'
This revolutionary book has filled one of the great voids in the history of knowledge - Nasser D. Khalili, Scholar, Philanthropist and Founder of the Khalili Collections
Erudite and most enlightening - an indispensable addition to every educational institution worldwide - Ashok Jahnavi Prasad, the world's most academically qualified intellectual
Vastly educational…refreshingly inspirational - Edward de Bono, Bestselling Author of Six Thinking Hats andcoiner of 'Lateral Thinking'
Waqas has been called 'an emerging young Leonardo da Vinci' for his work in various fields.
He is currently Artistic Director at The Khalili Collections- one of the world's great art collections- and is simultaneously completing his postgraduate studies in Neuroscience at Kings College, London.
Previously, Waqas was Global Correspondent at FIRST Magazine, where his exclusive interviews included world leaders in government, business and academia. He was also the editor of Holy Makkah, the first-of-its-kind exploration of the sacred city, which received praise from UNESCO, the Commonwealth and the Vatican.
Born and raised in Britain, Waqas has since lived in several countries across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. He has degrees in Economics (BSc, SOAS) and International Relations (MSc, LSE), but his real education came from the five years he spent travelling the world researching and writing The Polymath, his first book.
41 Quebec Street
Guelph Ontario
Books, Magazines, Games & Gifts
Read Reviews & Interviews
Follow Columns & Articles
eBar
DJ's & Dancing
Comedy & Burlesque
A bookstore that shows movies • a cinema that serves dinner • a resto-bar that launches books


text:
Faith/Morality
Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Blocking Obama's Illegal Immigrant Amnesty
by Jeff Dunetz | Feb 17, 2015 | Other
Days before its first provision was supposed to begin U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has granted a temporary stay of President Obama's executive fiat granting amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The stay has been issued based on a request by 26 states suing to permanently stop Obama's action. Judge Hanan granted the stay giving the chance to allow the lawsuit to make its way through the courts. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."
"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.
The first of Obama's orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Not surprisingly the Press Secretary Josh Earnest issued a statement saying that Obama's executive actions were within the bounds of legality.
"The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws-which is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to help fix our broken immigration system," Earnest said, later adding "The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision."
An appeal by the administration would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Hanen, who's been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn't known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In his ruling in that case, he Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.
The coalition, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.
"Judge Hanen's decision rightly stops the President's overreach in its tracks," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement.
In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be "difficult or impossible to undo the President's lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action."
While Judge Hanen's stay (and rationale) is a positive step for limiting the President to the powers granted in the Constitution, by no means is this ruling one that will stick on appeal. Expect that as it makes its way to the Supreme Court, the stay will be on, off, and on again. This Constitutional battle has a long way to go.
Become a Lid insider!
Copyright © 2021 The Lid Blog. All Rights Reserved.


Confirm battery gets a full recharge. A dead battery needs to charge for at least 4-5 hours. Once the charging cable is connected the red LED will turn on indicating that the battery is being charged. Once the battery is at 100% the red LED will turn off.
Use Bluetooth mode while plugged in for charging. Whether plugged in to a computer or a USB outlet, Bluetooth mode can be used.
The new Qwerkywriter® S uses more battery than the original Qwerkywriter® so the typical charge duration is approximately 1 month but with heavy use expect to charge the Qwerkywriter® S every 1-2 weeks.


Training camp started just days ago, but new Nashville Predators head coach Peter Laviolette had the opportunity to meet and get to know several of his new players earlier this summer.
When he was officially announced as the second head coach in franchise history, Laviolette was in Europe with Team USA preparing for the start of the World Championships, where he was serving as the team's head coach. Nashville forward Craig Smith and defenseman Seth Jones were members of the American team, and they found out just before the tournament started that Laviolette was going to be their new bench boss with the Predators.
Laviolette is known as an offensive coach, so a talented forward like Smith should fit in well with his system. After returning from Europe, Laviolette was asked about Smith, and the early reviews were positive. "There's nothing about his game that I don't like," Laviolette told the Predators-gold clad crowd at the Music City Center that day.
Laviolette was an assistant coach with Team USA at the 2014 Olympics and after being dismissed as head coach of the Philadelphia Flyers last October, he had a lot of time to scout prospective members of the American squad. Jones was one of the players on Team USA's radar up until the team was named, so Laviolette had the opportunity to see him play several times as a scout.
Heading into his second NHL campaign, Jones was a little surprised when he found out that his coach at the World Championships would have the same role in Nashville.
Following his return from Europe, one of Laviolette's next moves as Nashville's head coach was to take a trip to Las Vegas to meet his new captain. Shea Weber was one of the three finalists for the Norris Trophy, so his new head coach took the opportunity to join Predators general manager David Poile on the trip to the NHL's awards ceremony in support of his franchise defenseman. It was a gesture that was well received by Weber.
Now that training camp has started, Laviolette will look to continue to build ties with his new players.
According to one player, the impressions are positive.


LOS ANGELES - The local support for Ted Lieu for Congress continued to pour in on Wednesday as three Santa Monica City Councilmembers announced their support for the State Senator from Torrance. Santa Monica City Councilmembers Kevin McKeown, Ted Winterer and Tony Vazquez each threw their support behind Lieu in the race to replace Rep. Henry Waxman who will retire at the end of this year.
"I have known Ted Lieu for many years and worked with him on issues important to Santa Monica. From his time in the Assembly to now in the Senate, Ted has been a fighter for the environment, housing, and transportation. Working with Ted I've been struck by his authenticity and willingness to learn his constituents' needs, and then proactively pursue solutions. I am honored to endorse Ted Lieu for Congress."
"I endorse Ted Lieu for Congress because he has consistently championed the priorities of constituents in Santa Monica and the district. He has repeatedly taken on air and noise pollution issues, is a fighter for sustainability and open space, and has stood up to powerful interests on behalf of his constituents. I know Ted will be an outstanding member of Congress and I am proud to endorse him."
"Ted Lieu has always fought for quality of life issues for the residents of Santa Monica and the constituents in his district. From holding important local hearings on air and noise pollution to working to save Paul Conrad's Chain Reaction peace sculpture in Santa Monica, Ted truly understands the local community. That is why I am honored to endorse Ted for Congress."


text:
FactoryGirl.define do
  factory :scrap do
    message "MyText"
  end

end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Today's presenter wants to use in his or her meeting the most convenient presentation device possible. The speaker's educational content is often carried on an Android tablet or iPad. On the other side of the podium or whiteboard, the audience often carries with them their most convenient, lightest and smallest devices, as well. These iPhones, Android phones or tablets can be used as voting devices instead of dedicated audience response keypads. While clickers are often faster and increase the response rate, they could be more cost prohibitive for certain meetings.
With CloudVOTE, a secure and private online content management system, the presentation content can be stored to be used on any device platform. It is possible to use a separate browser window to be projected onto the largest screen available to all audience members, but the presenter with a higher-tier CloudVOTE subscription can also push content to their devices directly.
Any combination of web-enabled presentation devices can be used, since all of the content and mobile polling app functionality is accessible through a web browser. The audience can answer the questions with their own mobile devices, or desktop and laptop computers of any model and make. Moreover, with a Wi-Fi base, you can present your CloudVOTE content from an iPad and still use student clickers to vote.