> On Apr 16, 10:14 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Apr, 10:01, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> > > ..
>
> > > >> The reasons to cite a reference on usenet include:
>
> > > >> 1) Providing a reviewed, readily available source.
>
> > > > Obtaining the paper requires access to IEEE archives.
> > > > You have in previous posts presented the view that
> > > > paying $10-$15 to get that access is a neglectable
> > > > issue. I happen to disagree.
>
> > > > Could you please, for the benefit of those who don't
> > > > have access to the paper through IEEE archives, give
> > > > a short summary of why it is worth $10-$15 to read
> > > > about these N-period windows, and why they are relevant
> > > > in contemporary applications?
>
> > > Or, go to the bottom of this page:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function
>
> > > Find the link to the Harris paper, and download it. As it is scanned,
> > > some of the figs have lost definition; apart from that is is very readable.
>
> > As a matter of principle, I don't endorse copying and
> > re-publications of copyrighted material. Whatever other
> > differences of opinion there might be between Dale and
> > me, I would be very surprised if we disagree on this.
>
> > Rune
>
> We agree. However, the bottom line of the first page as published in
> the Proceedings by the IEEE states:
> "US Goverment work not protected by U.S. copyright."
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Rune
Reply by dbd●April 16, 20092009-04-16
On Apr 16, 10:14 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 10:01, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> > ..
>
> > >> The reasons to cite a reference on usenet include:
>
> > >> 1) Providing a reviewed, readily available source.
>
> > > Obtaining the paper requires access to IEEE archives.
> > > You have in previous posts presented the view that
> > > paying $10-$15 to get that access is a neglectable
> > > issue. I happen to disagree.
>
> > > Could you please, for the benefit of those who don't
> > > have access to the paper through IEEE archives, give
> > > a short summary of why it is worth $10-$15 to read
> > > about these N-period windows, and why they are relevant
> > > in contemporary applications?
>
> > Or, go to the bottom of this page:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function
>
> > Find the link to the Harris paper, and download it. As it is scanned,
> > some of the figs have lost definition; apart from that is is very readable.
>
> As a matter of principle, I don't endorse copying and
> re-publications of copyrighted material. Whatever other
> differences of opinion there might be between Dale and
> me, I would be very surprised if we disagree on this.
>
> Rune
We agree. However, the bottom line of the first page as published in
the Proceedings by the IEEE states:
"US Goverment work not protected by U.S. copyright."
This is also found on some other publications by authors such as
Nuttall and Carter who, like harris, performed some of their work as
employees of the U.S. navy labs. In fact, these papers were published
originally by the labs previous to IEEE publication.
This makes the harris paper convenient to cite when it's content
applies.
Dale B. Dalrymle
Reply by Martin Eisenberg●April 16, 20092009-04-16
Rune Allnor wrote:
> Nevertheless, I prefer *not* to download material
> that obviously violates some copyright.
Neither Wikipedia nor MIT, who host that copy, would tolerate such a
violation. Indeed, along the bottom of the first page runs the line,
"U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright".
Martin
--
Quidquid latine scriptum est, altum videtur.
Reply by Rune Allnor●April 16, 20092009-04-16
On 16 Apr, 20:25, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> ..
>
> >> Find the link to the Harris paper, and download it. As it is scanned,
> >> some of the figs have lost definition; apart from that is is very readable.
>
> > As a matter of principle, I don't endorse copying and
> > re-publications of copyrighted material. Whatever other
> > differences of opinion there might be between Dale and
> > me, I would be very surprised if we disagree on this.
>
> "Try before you buy?". Perhaps after you have skim-read it, you will
> consider it worth the purchase?
That particular question was debated at length here
a few weeks ago. Suffice it to say that I and IEEE
disagree with the pricing policy of their articles.
Nevertheless, I prefer *not* to download material
that obviously violates some copyright.
Rune
Reply by Richard Dobson●April 16, 20092009-04-16
Rune Allnor wrote:
..
>> Find the link to the Harris paper, and download it. As it is scanned,
>> some of the figs have lost definition; apart from that is is very readable.
>
> As a matter of principle, I don't endorse copying and
> re-publications of copyrighted material. Whatever other
> differences of opinion there might be between Dale and
> me, I would be very surprised if we disagree on this.
>
"Try before you buy?". Perhaps after you have skim-read it, you will
consider it worth the purchase? Especially if the money actually goes to
the author.
Richard DObson