This reads as being very butt-hurt that somebody else chooses not to give away their core business. It is cool that you see profit as something obscene, but don't blame others for making a business.
Same goes for sending takedown notices. If you are technically in breach, you are in breach.
If you don't want to do business with Elsevier, that is fine. If you don't want others to do so, that is fine too. This is just being sad.
Nope. Elsevier's core business is coordinating reviews of papers - for which submitters pay a fee and for which the participating reviewers don't get paid - and then typesetting the articles using a special sauce and hosting it behind a paywall.
A pre-print of an article typeset using LaTeX on the academic's own machine is not under their copyright, and yet they're demanding take-down notices of such pre-prints hosted on 3rd party machines.
They are overreaching, and now they're alienating universities (who pay handsomely for site-wide subscriptions).
I don't give them long, even if they do publish Physica A.
Elsevier does not coordinate refereeing for typical journals; this is handled by the scientific board, who are not Elsevier employees. Elsevier is in charge of copy-editing, typesetting, and distribution, and coordinates with the scientific board.
"A pre-print of an article typeset using LaTeX on the academic's own machine is not under their copyright, and yet they're demanding take-down notices of such pre-prints hosted on 3rd party machines."
I have no position in this battle, but misinformation is misinformation: who has copyright on pre-prints is entirely immaterial. Authors, in order to get published in an Elsevier journal, 1) promise they didn't publish it before (with exceptions) and 2) promise not to redistribute the final paper or its preparatory versions after it has been published. They also agree to not allow anyone else to redistribute any of that in case, through whatever channel, it gets out. So this is purely a matter of Elsevier holding the author to their end of the bargain. Said author is entirely free to not enter into it in the first place, of course.
Said author is entirely free to not enter into it in the first place, of course.
In some fields it's not that free. The choice between publishing in a high-impact Elsevier journal or a low-impact journal with acceptable terms is not really a choice if you want to have a career in science.
Many choices, in fact. Including & not limited to: raising awareness of Elsevier's reprehensible practices, writing blogs, commenting on online forums. Lobbying various institutions. Not signing an explicit contract with Elsevier? Definitely a choice.
"Society made me do it" is always a pathetic excuse.
It is not a contractual issue when Elsevier attacks the INSTITUTIONS that they have no contract with, for hosting the papers that the authors are explicitly allowed to host on their personal websites (which happen to be hosted by the university). It's just plain extortion. Your point 2) is explicitly allowed in the contract for the preparatory versions and the "author copy" which is identical to the published version save for a notice.
> yet they're demanding take-down notices of such pre-prints hosted on 3rd party machines.
When you agree to the copyright form, you also agree that you won't systematically distribute preprints or submit them to a systematic distribution service.
In comparison with other publishers, Elsevier is rather generous to allow authors to post a preprint on their personal web-page (whether or not it is served by their university.)
Isn't this a website about startups and business? What is wrong with a healthy profit margin that is made by legal willing contracts between Elsevier and scientists?
Just because they make money and are involved with copyright they are automatically bad? If they were barely making any money and closer to broke startup founders, then they would be OK?
40% profit margins do not exist for long in properly functioning competitive markets. Deeply entrenched companies typically run at 10%. Monopolies (example: drug companies) run at 20% (arguably in the case of drug companies this is ok because they operate with much higher risk).
If you find a 40% margin that can't be ascribed to transient behavior, you have found a market that has entered one of the (many) modes of market failure, in which the usual arguments for markets being a force for good (or least evil) go out the window. We use markets precisely because they tend to avoid situations like this; it baffles me how frequently the "market did it so it must be good" argument rears its head every time there's an exception. It's circular reasoning, at least for those of us who don't take the moral infallibility of the free-market as an article of faith.
Specifically, they are not "automatically bad" because they make money using copyright. They are bad because they've found a loophole that lets them monopolize a critical distribution channel for taxpayer-funded research, and they're milking the shit out of it at enormous cost to taxpayers and students. Broke startup founders do not get to appropriate tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded work and hold it hostage from those who have paid for it, and if they did it would not be OK.
No, they're bad because the majority of their product (that is, knowledge) isn't developed by them, or paid for by them. Instead, it's funded by universities and funding agencies. It's a parasitic relationship with very little benefit to the host.
It's a sign their profit is not just from the service they provide, which is really rather simple, but from a historically grown, entrenched system that is very hard to get rid of. They're basically a tax on society, and we'd be much better off if authors and their institutions made a clean break.
In comparison with other publishers, Elsevier is rather generous to allow authors
They are absolutely not generous. In my field, the ACL is one of the largest organisations, which publishes (among other things) two journals. Nearly (or all?) publications are publicly available at:
Let's not forget that a substantial share of research worldwide is paid for by tax payers. It's awful to see that most of that knowledge does not become generally available to the larger public, but ends up being used to increase the profits of an oligopoly.
Both the ACM and the IEEE allow authors to post the final version on their personal website, or the website of their institution.
Of course, the ACM and IEEE are professional organizations, not for-profit publishers. So they can actually move away from the pay-per-access model and still continue to exist. I don't see how for-profit publishers can.
"When you agree to the copyright form" => presumably this is different for every publisher.
My only pre-print (hosted on arXiv) was submitted there long before it was accepted for publication in a non-Elsevier journal, who have made no attempt to take it down.
There are also open access journals which explicitly allow you to host your own pre-prints.
>and yet they're demanding take-down notices of such pre-prints hosted on 3rd party machines.
In the contract you sign, it's clearly stated you can't upload your manuscript to 3rd party distribution sites, other than arxiv. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not keen on what they're doing, but they're staying within their contracts.
The thing is: Elsevier is a middle-man whose "business" (parasitism, more like) critically depends on exactly two things: scientists who want to be published in their journals, and Universities who want access to those journals. The second one of these is annoyed enough to find alternatives, there is no business.
Which makes it very, very unwise to piss off both at the same time.
Science publishers served a purpose in the past, but the cost of what they're doing has gone down dramatically and at the same time they're jacking up prices to absurd levels to extract the maximum profit from the pseudo-monopoly resulting from the non-fungibility of science results and magnified by aggregation.
And the worst thing is that they extract these profits at the expense of everyone else because it actually reduces the accessibility of scientific research and the profits are paid for from science budgets.
It's the perfect example of an entire industry whose activity is a net negative for society at large.
In fact, in this case they tried not to "piss off" both at the same time and in fact concentrated on the university, not the individual scientist. The university just tried to communicate its pressure to it scientists, but it's a long and hard road to get them to care (some then already do!).
Nope, it's quite a short route. You delist Elsevier publications fromt he impact index you calculate for measuring their productivity, and they'll intantly care.
Universities are pissed off Elsevier when buying their material, but completely in love when hiring researchers, and also wondering why researchers don't seem to get what they feel about the matter.
That's bullshit though. The authors retain copyright over their work, and have always had the right to distribute their papers on their personal websites. It's part of the deal. Now the assholes are changing the deal after the fact, and trying to use threats to get the people producing actual value to play along. If, as an author, I was okay with the rest of their evildoing before this, and accepted the deal as it stood, I no longer have any reason to trust them to honor any other agreement.
At least for some of their journals (e.g. Global Environmental Change), I understand the position is that they will allow you to post the exact final published content, but (a) not as formatted by the journal and (b) not in any kind of organised institutional repository.
In case of (a), I actually prefer to post my own PDFs, because one of the tasks publishers-as-middlemen generally perform is screwing up captions, misapplying 'style guides' and so on.
Regarding (b), they are clearly trying to make it more difficult to find these posted articles, and to reduce the number posted by ensuring that individual authors have to take the initiative (rather than it being a matter of institutional policies).
(Edit: reading your comment again, I see that I'm wholly agreeing with you).
I'd REALLY love to see a court decide on whether adding their logo and running it through a script is a transformation substantial enough to warrant copyright as a separate work.
The contract states that there is no transfer of copyright, yet the assholes attempt to enforce copyright against the authors, while acting, effectively, as their agents. See the problem?
It states no such thing. In fact, the website clearly states exactly the opposite, in "normal" (i.e., not legalese) language:
"For subscription articles: These rights are determined by a copyright transfer, where authors retain scholarly rights to post and use their articles."
Absolutely not. Copyright is spit into several separable rights and the authors have signed some of these away. That they still own the majority of their rights under copyright is irrelevant.
> and have always had the right to distribute their papers on their personal websites
No they haven't. This was allowed (for preprints) under Elsevier's T&Cs only a few years ago. Authors have signed away their right to publish their work, so they need explicit permission.
You may not like the agreement, but it's perfectly valid under the law.
But they will change soon enough. It is just that IE8 is the ceiling of Windows XP, which is end-of-life in 4 months. If that does not convince, the bad press of all the vulnerabilities that follows, will.
Another driver: ipads and chromebooks are taking over.
People make choices and when the choice turns out wrong you could always claim they did not do their research well. Maybe so, maybe these guys can be blamed for that too.
That is of not much consequence. The important part is that they evaluate their choice and are ready to move onto a better platform. Without destroying the business.
If you check out the blog, you can see they did it for jQuery as well. Good for them. You could also argue they should have made other decisions from the start. But hey, they learned and it works for them.
What is more, they tell the world about it and try to prevent others from making the wrong choices. Even providing pointers to resources that were useful for them.
What I trying to say, they deserve a bit more credit than an off hand remark like: "our square peg didn't fit into App Engine's round hole".
Appengine platform would definitely benefit from more written material about how to implement advanced scenarios.
The comment about bulk uploads/downloads is definitely a problem where GAE needs more work.
On the other hand, GAE forces you to write software that doesn't depend on long running instances, because real world servers do die. The limits about request sizes is also important because it helps guarantee upper bounds to latencies.
Sometimes it's appealing to just roll your own solution, and you might even get better results for when everything works smoothly, until you get stuck.
Of course, not everyone needs a system that is resilient to machine, power, network and datacenter, outages.
Just consider that once you need it, and you design your own solution to accomplish it, you might end up enforcing the same constraints on your application and probably won't get it right for the first couple of iterations.
I don't think my remarks were particularly offhand given that their post indicates a lack of understanding of how App Engine works. Based on that misunderstanding and poor architectural / implementation choices, they then go on to say that the data store is slow, App Engine creates too many instances, requests were timing out, and memcache is too limited. These criticisms of App Engine might be valid for certain uses, if it were not for the fact that the way they built the application is likely the very cause of their problems.
For instance, I'm 95% confident that the work they did upon instance startup was build the search index based on reading:
"We HAD to use the search API for the last few months
because we couldn’t keep our indexes in memory, because
of the start up time (discussed earlier)."
I'll make some assumptions here because I don't have access to more information, but their search index is likely being built off of what is stored in the datastore. First off, calculating this all at instance startup is inappropriate. What if App Engine switches to a ZeroVM implementation where every request is effectively a new instance? They would be building an index just to throw it away right after. Or if instance lifetimes were limited to five minutes, it's the same problem. What if the amount of data in their datastore scales up by three orders of magnitude? Were they planning to burn through hours of instance startup time to build this index?
Not to mention that this index is most likely a deterministic function. In other words, given input data X, the result is always going to be output data X'. The fact that they recalculate the results of a deterministic function upon each instance startup is 100% wasteful. This is the direct cause of their request timeouts. Additionally, it's also the likely cause of the datastore slowness. As they state:
"Pre-computations at start up kept the new instances
busy, and app engine was creating more and more instances
to handle this."
So startup was taking such a long time because it had to (1) pull data from the datastore and (2) perform lengthy calculations on that data. App Engine saw the instance as being exremely busy therefore it spawned a new instance. Rinse and repeat. The datastore is going to get hammered with overlapping requests. No wonder it's slow. They may have also used a sub-optimal schema. It's been about three or four years since I've worked with App Engine, but I recall that their default datastore performed much better based on your choice of entity groups, etc. They should have used a background task for index building (if absolutely required), which is able to run for hours if needed. Store the results of the index build into the blob store. Retrieve that as needed without any recalculation.
Another thing they criticize is search API performance as being too slow. The current live application appears to do realtime search as you type. If they were implementing realtime search on top of App Engine's search API, I can see how that would be unsuitable as well. The search API is designed to take the results of a single query and fetch the results. If a search operation takes 500ms, that's not very fast but overall isn't a big deal. If that's 500ms per keystroke, then that will be massively slow. Searching upon hitting ENTER or clicking a button would have solved that. Or they could have re-thought their implementation if realtime is required.
App Engine is definitely not suitable for all problems, but it too deserves more credit than their blog entry gives it.
We started using app engine because it was easy to start with. We did some basic math on how much it'll scale with our architecture (which I too agree wasn't that good), and thought it would work reasonably until we grow quite big (at least half a million locations). I was/am new to app engine and was learning along the way.
The problem was when it started giving trouble even before 10K records, and not even more than 60 requests per second, which even a very low resource PC would handle without a problem since it won't even take a few milliseconds to compute (probably even without an index, just a sequential search). And we had to make changes to fix this.
It went on and on; every few weeks, users and content would grow and our app would fail. We didn't want to move away; just like you said, we thought the solution wasn't to avoid it, but to solve it.
Finally, after changing/improving the design a number of times, we considered using app engine backends to do central stuff such as maintaining the main index. At the same time, looking back at what we've been doing so far, it was quite clear that we were spending our time, which for sure we should have spent on building something that adds value to users, on learning some platform and trying to alter our architecture to fit into it. And we were going deeper and deeper in the hole, and we knew it would be hard to move.
Our vision is simple, and it has nothing to do with picking up some technology and figuring out how to make use of it. Instead, we try to start from the customer and work backwards. While on app engine, we once stopped taking new low paying customers (listings), until we fixed issues - I think this was a terrible.
Decision of moving away from app engine wasn't easy. We had to literally rewrite everything, and the fear of similar problems coming up was there.
Also, I never recommended anyone not to use it, I was just telling our story. In fact, I still use app engine for some work, and we would switch back to app engine if we are convinced that it's the way to give a better user experience.
About data store being slow, they charge us per data store read. It slowing down as the number of reads increase, for me, sounds like saying it's your fault if your calls drop because you are making a lot of calls.
About search API, we didn't use it for auto completion; we maintain a small dictionary for that.
Just to clarify we were building the index at the start up.
About scaling, we have given some thought to it. But not so much since it's not something we will require in the near future. We can create multiple instances and balance the load as long as the index is small enough to fit in memory.
I'm sure there is a way to get this working on app engine. But we are glad that we moved, and it runs smoothly. And more importantly, we have been able to give the users a lot more benefits during the past couple of months than during an year on app engine, because we had more time to focus on users. And if we had moved earlier, we would have been able to do more.
It would be interesting to see how you could have resolved the issues. I think eliminating the search index generation on instance startup would have solved almost all the issues you were experiencing. For comparison, Khan Academy serves up 6 million active users a month:
That's likely many orders of magnitude more than the traffic levels you're experiencing. Clearly the platform works, but you need to architect your application to work with it rather than trying to shoehorn App Engine to work with your architecture.
If you don't have the ability to do that (due to time pressures or other factors), then you made the right call to move to a platform you are familiar with.
After getting his hands on a Chromebook Pixel, the father of Linux said:
THANK YOU GOOGLE
With the web as a platform, Chrome deserves all the attention on HN. I do not even understand where your animosity comes from, when reading your post. None of your is even specific to Chrome OS. It would hold true for any fridge or toaster with embedded Linux. Yup, those are consumption-centric as well. In fact, I am a consumer too. Shoot me.
As for attacking the Linux community: Sparked by Android and ChromeOS, Google has soared into the top 10 of Linux contributors and seems very committed to keep Linux healthy.
F*ck apartheid, but for all I know Mandela pretty much deserved to go to jail.
Big disgrace if the CIA actively sponsored this regime, but the allegations in the article are just from one source not directly related to the affairs. All the "Who knows" and "My guess" doesn't make the case any stronger.
> Big disgrace if the CIA actively sponsored this regime
The US was the apartheid regime's next-to-last overt ally (Israel was the last -- and proliferated nuclear weapons technology to South Africa) -- US overt support ending only late in the Reagan Administration under intense public and Congressional pressure -- and its not really the worst regime the US backed as a bulwark against Communism.
Regardless of whether the CIA was involved in supplying information for Mandela's arrest, there is no question that at the time -- and for decades after -- the US government was -- overtly, not merely potentially covertly -- backing the South Africa apartheid regime.
The USA was very stringent in adhering to the progressively tighter UN arms embargoes and once the supplies from France ceased this caused SA to look towards Israel, Taiwan and Argentina for military equipment ( the latter two mainly as covert import channels, Israel as a partner ).
Occasional US arms did appear in SADF service but only as grey imports.
SA intel and SADF held a pretty dim view of CIA capabilities ( particularly in Angola ) and from what I know in public sources didn't deal much with them. Though they did supply captured Warpac equipment, once they had examined it in conjunction with the Israelis.
Was doing some reading after seeing your comment and stumbled on this State Department site. What it says was new to me (I'm not American). Here it is if anyone else is interested. http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/98678.htm
Do you believe his jailors deserved to go to jail? What about his prosecutors? The results of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission clearly indicate evilness of the apartheid regime and those in control of it. That Mandela's response when gaining power was not one of retribution, revenge, and bloodshed clearly indicates in my mind that his was a principled, moral mind and that he clearly did not deserve to go to jail.
I figured the 70k number came from crime counts or something similar, since it's easy to build up non-negligible numbers pretty easily when 50 people are murdered in your country per day, which is the case in South Africa.
But individual crimes, even crimes partially or wholly racially motivated, do not make for a race war or genocide.
I agree that stuff like this needs to be well-sourced, but I'm glad to see some of it getting attention. Mandela is, and rightfully so, held up as a beacon of kindness and forgiveness that we should all try to incorporate. But I think we do his legacy a disservice by not talking about all the corruption he fought, and who we really was (including the parts that make him look like, as you suggest, he "pretty much deserved to go to jail").
I've done a lot of reading on this topic myself. I would love to post some sources but I don't have my books with me at the moment. But for what it's worth (which is not much, admittedly) - let me add my endorsement as a fellow HNer that what the author talks about is plausible, and there is plenty of evidence if you care to go looking for it. I believe this is a well-accepted theory by many other South Africans, rather than a fringe conspiracy. But yes - unfortunate that the author doesn't do more to back up the claims in a verifiable way.
edit: The cover is different, but I'm pretty sure this is the book I read that did the most to back up these events: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-B-O-S-S-Africas-Secret-Police/d.... The details, as I remember them, have always been very consistently reported by the various "sources".
Some other civilization (let's say the Arabs) comes to America and puts us in a system analogous to apartheid, where the groups are whites on bottom and arabs on top.
In that hypothetical, would your opinions be different?
In that case my opinion would go from "fck apartheid" to "fck the system analogous to apartheid". I would support the Americans in their fight against Arabs (never thought I would live to say that!). I would still not condone hurting innocent people and feel that a punushment would be justified.
> for all I know Mandela pretty much deserved to go to jail.
TBH, while he did break the law, I think his course of action against the state was justified. That's obviously not an excuse that will fly in court, but saying "he deserved to go to jail" is a bit disingenuous given the context.
Mandela pleaded guilty to the charges against him (sabotage of various state and military instruments). The state was looking for evidence of him having a hand in killing/hurting civilians because they wanted to hang him. They couldn't find any, so they settled on life imprisonment.
Yeah, I should not have let that remark fly without further elaboration: For all I know mr. Mandela was directly connected to bombings that made innocent victims, such as the Church Street bombing. In my book that warrents jail sentence.
I am not too sure how to feel about an institution of the apartheids regime being the judge to this. Right and wrong get mixed up in my head.
For the fact that he and others resisted this regime, they deserve the praise they are getting. Sure some laws have been broken, but who made and interpreted these laws? That is not why I was saying he deserved punishment. It is innocent victims that make the difference. I was definitely not clear on that.
Btw I just did some reading up on the ANC bombings and it turns out I might be all wrong and just made an ass out of myself.
> For all I know mr. Mandela was directly connected to bombings that made innocent victims, such as the Church Street bombing.
FYI, he was not connected to that bombing. He was in prison at the time and only heard about it through the news and visitors. Some websites claim that he stated in his autobiography that he personally approved of the bombings. This is obviously false. His autobiography is available on the net for everyone to read.
"Deserve" has little to do with going to jail. Going to jail is a legal matter. A moral man committing a moral act that happens to break an immoral law will go to jail according to that law, but does he "deserve" it?
It's important to note the date of this speech at his trial, April 20 1964, _before_ the passing of the US civil rights act (July 2 the same year); so at this time parts of the US had apartheit-like conditions.
It does a disservice to the facts of apartheid to compare the US in 1964 to SA at the same time. While, yes, there were many many racial problems in the US, there were no race-based federal laws. The Civil Rights Act was passed to prohibit racial laws at the state level. Meanwhile, in South Africa:
All citizens had to carry a card identifying their race. (Population Registration Act)
It was specifically legally allowed to segregate public facilities (parks, hospitals, transportation, etc.). In addition, facilities were specifically allowed to be unequal for different races or even non-existent. (Reservation of Separate Amenities Act)
Property was legally divided by race and you could only live in areas alloted to your race. (Group Areas Act)
Federal law controlled which jobs you were allowed to hold based on your race. High skill jobs were reserved for whites and blacks were prohibited from holding them. (Mines and Works Act, Native Building Workers Act)
Blacks were legally prohibited from striking or forming unions. Whites had no such restriction. (Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, Industrial Conciliation Act)
Schools were legally segregated by race, which led (either intentionally or not) to radically inferior schooling for blacks. In the 70s, per capita spending on black education was one-tenth of the spending on white. (Bantu Education Act, Extension of University Education Act et. al.)
It was a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison to engage in inter-racial sex involving a white person. Inter-racial marriage was likewise outlawed. (Immorality Act, Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act)
And this is just the beginning. There were dozens of other pieces of legislation that specifically encoded race-based selection into federal law. It's astonishing how horrendous South Africa was in a time where most other developed countries were what we think of as "modern".
There is nothing modern about the way the US treated race politics in the 1960s. It was appalling and a lot worse than many other countries - South Africa being a notable exception. It still puzzles me the amount race comes up in American TV shows. They are loaded with lame race based jokes which indicates to me that all still isn't right, and how could it be when my parents' generation can remember events of the 1960s.
I live in New Zealand, and it would be untrue to claim race and racism aren't a problem here, but I think that the situation is slightly better although we have appalling stats for Maori and Pacific Islanders where health, life expectancy, poverty and education are concerned. I could be wrong but it recall reading that the Maori are the worlds most imprisoned race.
Or supplement it at the very least. The profitability they enjoy with advertising is hard to achieve in any other existing industry, so they try to be a front runner for new industries: Self-driving cars, robotics and green energy.
That is not to say they do not believe in the ad business. For the ad business the model seems to have moved towards getting more people online and have them do more online. Google put a smartphone into a billion hands. They wire up African and American cities to fiber. They made browsers far more capable and performant. They plan to fly balloons over the whole globe. All investments connected to the online business.
As a fellow Dutch native speaker, let me shed some light on this. Here is how Ben explained stuff:
" To me as a non-native speaker, the difference between 'him' and 'them' seems academic but hey (...)"
The difference here is not so much in language as in culture. The Dutch language has similar gender distinctions as English. Subtle differences are that:
- Our nouns are male/neutral or female, similar to French 'le' or 'la'
- We cannot make neutral possessive ('its') and are limited to 'his' or 'her'
For the rest it is pretty much like English, including 'him', 'her', 'they' and 'them'. Also Ben should have good knowledge of English as any young and educated dutchman.
The difference is more likely cultural. Americans seem much to be much more easily triggered by signs of potential gender inequality or racism. The Dutch are more tolerant/rude and the humor often flirts with political incorrectness. In short Ben (and I) would not have sensed this as a potential agitator.
I am surprised that Dart is not mentioned as a comparison in any of the comments. It is also heralded as a better and more performant Javascript. Is it because the use-case of ASM more limited? I would imagine that DOM integration in ASM would be tricky so that would set Dart apart.
asm.js is not "a better JavaScript". It's not "JavaScript with better performance". In most senses that people would use, it's not even JavaScript, really.
asm.js is not a faster jQuery. It's not for doing yellow-flash alerts, or for more quickly selecting and manipulating DOM elements.
asm.js is a way to ship traditionally desktop-type software, including software which was originally written in a language like C or C++ and compiled into asm.js from that source, to a web browser, to be run in the web browser.
asm.js is (a subset of) JavaScript's syntax, used as a transport/intermediate representation for that code. It will execute just fine as JavaScript, and well-optimized JavaScript engines can do quite well with it (hence it is fully backwards-compatible, if not as fast, in a browser which supports JavaScript but not asm.js), but the intent is primarily to treat it as an IR, with the browser performing the final step of compiling that IR to native code before executing it as native code, rather than executing it as JavaScript.
How does Ionic relate to different screen sizes, orientations and resolutions? Would responsive layouts be viable or is that out of the scope? The way I see it now is that it is targeted at phones and not so much at tablets.
BTW, the word 'which' is in the wrong place on the components page: "The advantage here is that the devices Ionic which supports, all support flexbox."
BTW2: in the Getting Started guide, chapters 4 and 5 have no link to the next chapter at the bottom.
Same goes for sending takedown notices. If you are technically in breach, you are in breach.
If you don't want to do business with Elsevier, that is fine. If you don't want others to do so, that is fine too. This is just being sad.