We are reprinting what we consider to be the most influential scientific papers in history. Please check out our campaign and let us know what you think.
Maybe if I put the link in...
http://kck.st/1PsoSfo
Do you think non-hipsters will buy it?
>>7691463
I think its kinda cool honestly but not cool enough to put up my own money.
If you are reprinting "the most influential scientific papers in history," I would think the following paper would be immensely important:
http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.74.230
It would also be hilarious to see printed in the form you have here.
>>7691484
"kinda cool" why? do you seriously think any of those papers make for great references to keep in your bookshelf nicely printed? do you honestly think they're better than books which later developed the theory more completely, formally and extensively?
... have you even read any of them or study a related field?
>>7691412
>multiple takes stitched together
*vomit*
Ha, thanks for your honest opinions. I completely understand where you are coming from.
>>7691484
Do you have any suggestions about how to make the product better?
>>7691411
>Turing
>relevant
faggot detected
>>7691475
Honestly, probably not. When we started this we said we were going for the same market as people who buy Edison bulbs (those ones with long filaments which are super inefficient, cost $15 and last 6 months).
Please stop making money off dead people onegai
>>7691489
We looked into reprinting Moore's Law, I've even got the .pdf but decided that it was too short for the initial run. Thanks for the paper, we were thinking of doing a collection at a later stage and that will be perfect.
>>7691491
>everything has to be practical don't you understand!
>>7691501
Idk m8. Like other anons pointed out this stuff isn't really practical, these papers are historic but there not really valuable as reference any more since many advancements have been made since then, basically your selling something that potentially has historical and artistic value but not really scientific. You might be better off just asking non autists about it who you know don't look at everything in the light of "is this valuable reference material?"
>>7691506
Oh then you've done it pretty well I think. They look amazing, and scream "pretentious hipster" even harder than thick glasses and a macbook in starbucks.
It's going to be hard to improve the product further, think of better ways to go about selling it and marketing it around imo.
>>7691411
>>7691501
I'm not the type of person to shit all over another guy's ideas, unless they're beyond retarded, but I really don't see the point.
Sure, I guess it's aesthetically pleasing, but who'd buy them aside from tryhards who don't even know the relationship between relativity and E&M?
If you want to make something more worthwhile, why not make non-shit desktop gadgets or busts or something.
A bust of Landau, now that's something I'd buy.
>>7691494
Lol
>>7691505
Sounds like something a computer would say...
>>7691517
It's for tryhards specifically, see >>7691506
>>7691513
>asking non-autists
then you're just going to get "LMAO why the fuck do i want more science out of school haha"
almost everyone you ask is going to tell you it's useless because too pop and old, or useless because ew science. it's for hipster autists.
>>7691517
Like this?
>>7691523
That a good point, but I do think there's a value to nice things which also serve some sort of educational purpose, or at least a foundation of education.
>>7691539
>Like this?
> 330px-Landau_carriage,_1816.jpg
>Landau carriage
I really hope that's just a poor joke.
>>7691547
I'm just trying to give my potential customers what they want. This is me btw.
>>7691547
I wanted to publish Bohr's - On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules but we decided it was a little too esoteric for the first run.
>>7691411
Papers that are still worth reading already have print forms
ex:
http://www.amazon.com/Claude-E-Shannon-Collected-Papers/dp/0780304349/
http://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Laws-Thought-George-Boole/dp/0486600289/
http://www.amazon.com/Revolutions-Heavenly-Spheres-Great-Minds/dp/1573920355/
Also, I could (and have) print out the material myself and attach them to cardboard too
>>7691555
Listen here, friend.
/sci/ is more hospitable than most of the other boards, but we're still quite arrogant.
In reality, your idea of selling these things isn't exactly that bad, you'd definitely catch the attention of the wannabe Sheldons and Tyson-fanboys.Your papers look aesthetic and, depending on the specific ones you publish, can be quite the thing people would buy just to have.
If you want something that would catch the general populace (IFLS, or whatever the facebook group is), then what you're doing is fine.
But if you want to be more unique, and appeal to the more scientifically minded people, do things that are practical or otherwise desirable but rare (again, worthwhile desktop trinkets and maybe busts of those mainstream individuals never heard of).
Do you even have the rights to reprint these? If not you're in for a fun wakeup call.
>>7691411
Many old influential materials are already available on Project Gutenburg, and people stupid enough to try to learn a subject from this collection will be confused by the cultural context and assumptions of the author's day.
In the field of philosophy, there exists supplementary material to describe the ideas the original authors were portraying; so readers could get the gist of the idea without spending 4-8 years studying a particular person (even then it's just a better gist).
Supplementary material in science comes in the form of literature reviews. These are citation dense and hard for non-scientists to read.
tl;dr This collection is like buying a painting for your wall. Neat to look at & horrible to try to interpret.
There also exists a problem in defining what constitutes a paper influential enough to make your list.
>>7691509
I would look into the copyright on things like this. I know it is old, but copyright is a bitch and while the APS is rather lax about making their papers available for free, they probably won't take kindly to people trying to sell them.
>>7691590
A good point would be to consider your audience OP.
Scientists do not gain value from old science. Artists do gain value from old art. Ask an artist.
>>7691561
Yea, there's definitely nothing stopping you from doing that, we hope to provide an easier and cheaper way to do it via scale.
>>7691573
Thank you, I really appreciate your response. It's quite a bit different getting the 4chan treatment when it's your thing. We do have some ideas for the future which are a little more complicated (new content) but are just trying to sort out the infrastructure.
>>7691582
Haha, excellent question, due to where we are based (Australia) the papers are out of copyright.
>>7691590
This is definitely a problem for us. Our solution was to write an abstract outlying why the paper was important and where the field has moved to since it's publication.
>>7691610
That's an excellent point, I just read Origin of Species, do not recommend.
>>7691613
> where the field has moved to since it's publication.
Are you doing 1 per field? How did a previous paper in time not influence the next? What are the bounds of what a field is?
ex. The structure of DNA is a bioinformatics, biological, biochemical, biophysical, topological mathematics, and more.
>why the paper was important
Are you just using an ordinal value scale?
>>7691627
The current papers were picked primarily due to how famous their authors were and the level of knowledge that a 'lay person' would have about them. Everyone know's who Einstein is, Rutherford is not as famous to non-scientists. These choices were made to maximise the chances of us making the Kickstarter target. Once the Kickstarter has finished (for better or worse) we intend to publish lesser known authors.
Why the paper was important is just to try give someone who has no knowledge of the topic an understanding of what the paper was about. As >>7691590 correctly pointed out, interpretation of these requires a level of cultural understanding of the time they were written.
>>7691642
There is a glaring issue that not all of a person's published work, even though influential, is still accurate. You are essentially feeding misinformation.
You mentioned Einstein, so here is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJsFsjSWYx0
>>7691463
This.
the most influential scientific papers are what's being taught at universities and your average luddite is too stupid to understand the paper.
literally all college courses are a translation of some genius's papers.
I'm okay with this idea... I have pic related and like it. I'll point out that a lot of those papers are going to be public domain, so... yeah. I may have read many of them already. Are you doing new translations?
>>7691517
How has relativity and E&Ms relationship done anything for anyone? That shit, and its derivatives, is underwater basket physics if you ask me.
>>7691671
Thank you!
Not at this stage, we hope to get some really interesting original content after the initial run while also widening the scope of papers printed, new translations will feature in somewhere I'm sure.
>>7691678
Haha, I was about to contradict you but at this stage in human development you are pretty right. I'm assuming Mendel is more your thing then?
>>7691642
>were picked primarily due to how famous their authors were and the level of knowledge that a 'lay person' would have about them.
Do you have statistical modelling for a poll or is this just asking your friends?
>>7691688
Just discussions among ourselves, I don't know if we got it right but we launched so quickly that setting up a poll would have pushed us way behind schedule. Not to mention all the issues with trying to get a representative sample.
>>7691672
>We intend to cover any errors in the abstract
By what means? Do you have a peer-review process where multiple professors agree with the current beliefs in their field for your abstracts?
>>7691694
So this collection is essentially: What my american friends and I think are important papers leading up to XXXX date, for all of science.
>>7691696
Maybe in the future, while I was writing in this thread I thought how cool it would be to get current professors to write the abstracts. At this stage no, just what the convention is. An example could be explaining why Einstein fudged the equations to stop expansion in his theory and what we now consider to be true.
>>7691704
>just what the convention is
So what you remember from university classes + wikipedia information?
>>7691700
Well apart from two of us being Kiwi's and two Australians the papers also needed to be reproducible and able to fit in the limitations of our current printing method. These are also just the first 5 of what we want to produce.
Yes, you're right.
>>7691710
Alright. Write it down somewhere now, think of ways to improve, and act on those ways.
>>7691709
Ha, with two Masters, a post grad dip and a few other diplomas on the team I think we can be a little more rigorous than that. Are you offering to help out?
>>7691714
Any suggestions for us?
>>7691411
Elsevier here, we're gonna stomp you like we did with libgen. YOU GONNA GET FUCKED!
>>7691716
>Any suggestions for us?
>Define your audience
>Defining the bounds of your system (What is a field?)
>statistical modelling for a poll what scientists are popular
>peer-review process for errors in corrections
>>7691720
>know your competition
>>7691721
Cool, thanks.
>>7691720
There are ova 7000 of us
