License
May 22nd, 2009
All posts in The Occasional Pamphlet by Stuart M. Shieber are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
on scholarly communication
All posts in The Occasional Pamphlet by Stuart M. Shieber are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
@srush_nlp @redpony @yoavgo …but they'd probably argue that matching up of words and corresponding letters is not a *syntactic* requirement, much as in their argument against "respectively" constructions in section 4 of <jstor.org/stable/25001071>. Rather, it's a semantic or even pragmatic phenomenon. 2/2
About 3 months ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
@srush_nlp @redpony @yoavgo I'm assuming @yoavgo is thinking of an argument that the full phrase and its acronym display a cross-serial dependency, as in the CSDDSG example? I'd defer to Pullum and Gazdar (GaP) on this, ... 1/2
About 3 months ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
Exactly 11 years ago today I was on this trip: shbr.link/scouring #uffington #whitehorse #preservation #libraries
About 3 months ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
@ThomasScialom @srush_nlp Yep. That was Alan Turing's point in his 1950 Mind paper "Computing machinery and intelligence".
About a year ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
Why the Constitution specifies copyright’s exclusive rights “for limited Times” only: web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicd…
About a year ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
Congrats to my grad alma mater @Stanford for their new #openaccess policy, widening the 2010 @StanfordEd policy to the whole university. Fantastic! And thanks go to @StanfordLibs for establishing the new Office of Scholarly Communications. stanford.io/37lKHdB
About 2 years ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
A prime example of our educators fundamentally missing the point. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. #smh nyti.ms/2IVR9Qh
About 2 years ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
Here's an idea: Maybe (says @InfoEcon) there should be a market in truth for political ads and social media posts. Liars pay; truth-tellers can signal their honesty backed by bucks. See dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/34… for details.
About 2 years ago from Stuart Shieber's Twitter · reply · retweet · favorite
Leave a Reply