Well, no. Not at all.
The pathologist has said she cannot consider an unlawful killing verdict. Because there's not a shred of evidence showing that.

Doesn't mean nothing dodgy happened. Just means the job of a coroner is not to wildly speculate. Unlike the fucktards in the press. Or that twat of a fucking lawyer the bloke's family are using. "killed by someone praciced in the dark arts?" this isn't harry cunting potter. The bloke should be disbarred for being a sensationalist moron.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:03, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

THATS WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!

( Peej, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:04, Reply)

no, it's not.
It's the press, yet again, not having the faintest fucking idea how these things work but writing SENSATIONAL EXCLUSIVE SHIT AGAIN.

Cunts should be thrown in bear bit.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:22, Reply)

AH! BUT THATS WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!

( Peej, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:56, Reply)

What are your thoughts on this?
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/open-free-access-academic-research
If you get past the political posturing, it's a solid idea that should have happened years ago.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:17, Reply)

It's a good idea
But the problem is the highest-rated journals are not open access. RCUK have put in a rule now that any funding they pay for (which is a large amount of UK scientific reseach) must be published in open access journals by next year I think. But things like Nature aren't open access, and the quality of the journal you publish in affects firstly my career and secondly how much money my uni gets for me from other sources.

It needs to happen but it's cart before horse right now. The top journals have to be forced to be open access somehow.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:21, Reply)

Isn't the ultimate point of research, usually, to monetise it at a later date?
Doesn't sharing the research then make this more difficult to be first?
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:24, Reply)

no, not really.
That's the ultimate point of most of my research, which gets me in trouble becuase I don't publish a lot of the stuff I do, I patent it instead. But a lot of academics just do blue sky stuff for "the knowledge expansion" so they just publish all the time, if it has no commerical worth.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:27, Reply)

Fair enough.
Whilst noble and raising us further away from the rest of God's creation, I would prefer to see the taxpayer turning a profit on state funded research. There's a recession on you know.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:30, Reply)

Take his pension, Stunned!

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:32, Reply)

I think you'll find that's my area of expertise.

( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Wed 2 May 2012, 11:37, Reply)

You always do see a profit.
It attracts inward investment and strengthens the economy, plus high reseach impact attracts overseas students and academics who also contribute financially. Only a fucking idiot reduces scientific research funding in a recession. Or Osborne. Oh, no, wait, I covered him the first time.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:35, Reply)

That article said govt investment on research had been protected for the life of the Parliamant?

(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:38, Reply)

The article was written by David Willets.
He's a Tory politician.

It hasn't. Believe me, it hasn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 12:00, Reply)

for journals (or magazines) like Nature
are you allowed to publish a longer form follow-up paper elsewhere? I thought this was the case with letter journals.
(Zoz prayed for twink on, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:28, Reply)

Possibly, it would rather depend
but that's not really the point. It's not just Nature. Anything with an impact rating worth bothering with currently isn't open access.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:30, Reply)

Yes, indeed
I think researchers could make their work very accessible to the public while still publishing in high impact journals. Unfortunately it would require a lot of extra work and wouldn't really do anything for their h-index or future job prospects so there is a lack of incentive there.
(Zoz prayed for twink on, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:42, Reply)

It's nothing to do with your second sentence
You can't publish in more than one place because it breaches copyright and breaches several scientific ethics codes.

And most of us deliberately keep our stuff out of the mainstream press when we can becuase idiot journalists/press offices misrepresent what we say.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 12:02, Reply)