Michel Gokan Khan

@Trish Thanks Trish. You are of course right. No extra punishment apart. but if you put in money then story might be different. E.g., the group travel half a city to reach the restaurant paying 10€ each for taxi (10x10=100€ in total) and restaurant just simply say “no service” then it can be a form of putting money in. At least in Sweden, even if you don’t put in money, some restaurants fine you in case of no show, so I suppose it’s the same the other way around too. But you don’t have to repeat about the contract argument, Ive got your argument

@MarkJohnson All your points are valid, except that you are neglecting the fact that the reservation was separately CONFIRMED for 8-9 PM NOT 7:30-9 PM.The point of this question is not whether their staff missed the special request field or not,there is no question on that since they also apologised.The point is whether or not someone is entitled for damages caused by breach of agreement.Also consider the opposite scenario:what if someone book a table for 10 people and then they don't show up at all?I can refer you to many legal cases that the customer gets fined for no show!

@MarkJohnson In this hypothetical question, the kitchen supposed to be closed at 8:15, customer arrived at 8 so serving supposed to be possible. Also, they confirmed the order, and for them not reading the “message/special request section” before confirming is just not acceptable.

Thanks for your answers

@Trish Thanks for your answer again! Actually the restaurant kitchen, according to their website, supposes to be closed at 8:15! The cashier said today we had to close sooner, and can only provide takeaways. they even apologized! Regarding your other example: it was not a "comment" field! if you order a green cardboard box, and in the ordering form they specifically have a "message/special request" section, and after ordering there is going to be a second "confirmation email" afterward, then it's just not acceptable for them to not read the "message/special request" section.

@MarkJohnson I understand your point but in the "message/special request" part it's been mentioned that arrival time will be at 8, and it's been "confirmed" by restaurant staff! So technically the reservation was for 8, and the customer was in the restaurant on time! If the resturant couldn't fulfil the customer's wish, they should have called them and informed them or cancel the reservation!

The point of this question was basically that if someone makes an online booking in a resturant, even if it's not a "legal contract", isn't the customer entitled for any harm caused by breach of that "agreement"?

The customer wrote in the designated message filed clearly "we will arrive at 8-8:15". Shouldn't restaurant staff suppose to read the message before confirming a reservation? The confirmation email had been received several hours before arrival.

The message field was together with the reservation, my name, phone number and other stuff. So the fact that they didn't read the message is really not the customer's fault. Staff supposed to read the reservation details before confirming it, isn't it?

Thanks for your answer @Trish. Consider that it's been written in the message section that the time of arrival is at 8-8:15. In case they couldn't fulfil the thing written in the mssage section, they supposed to reply. So actually the reservation is from 8-9, not 7:30-9, isn't it?

@Bogd What matters is that they let the conference chair know that it is not against the rules and regulations to publish a preprint in arXiv with appropriate copyright notes. The conference chair is convinced now. The email itself doesn't really matter :-)

@MassimoOrtolano, I see. My personal experience was that if someone cites the preprinted version in arXiv, at least Google scholar is smart enough to count that citation for the original published paper (if it has the same title and authors (and probably abstract?)). Actually that's one of the benefits of publishing preprints: to gain citations. But if that's not the case and citing the preprinted version is not always counted, then I think it's a major drawback for publishing preprints. I didn't encounter this issue yet (or heard of it), but now that you mentioned it, I'll investigate this...

@MassimoOrtolano Thanks for the comment. To be honest, I disagree. Publishing in credible venus/journals takes months, if not years and I still believe publishing preprints somewhere like arXiv is extremely beneficial for both the research community and the researcher. We have all the rights to do so and the stupidity of an incompetent chair shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing. That's just my view, but you probably have much more experience than me :-)

@MassimoOrtolano ArXiv rejected my collegues request for withdrawing the paper! They replied "Please note that having a paper under review or newly published is not a sufficient reason for withdrawal, as previous version(s) will still be available to users. arXiv is an electronic repository for research papers, and announced papers are meant to be available in perpetuity. The license applied by the submitter to the work cannot be revoked. As a result, you request has been denied". My colleague is now waiting for IEEE response to see what they can do to fix this issue.

The general chair still believes it’s against the law without further explanation. Paper is withdrawn, and IEEE has been notified.

@MassimoOrtolano The chair was clear in the email (I'm quoting): "This violates IEEE rules." ... so, I agree with darijgrinberg! My colleague followed your suggestion and withdrawn the paper from arxiv (it's not an immediate procedure though and arxiv scheduled the withdrawal for August 3). He also sent an email to the chair for clarification and I hope he doesn't have to go into the fight or escalate the problem to IEEE. I will share their reply here as soon as I receive one...

@Arno Even though you are suggesting the correct way of approaching this issue if my colleague was a professor or something, but as Massimo mentioned, he is definitely not in such a position. This is his first experience of publishing a paper, and if he fails the fight (for whatever reason), it would negatively affect his career.

@Buffy Good point! I updated that update with more clarifications!

@Anyon I understand your point here. But do you think it would be better to re-explain/re-define/copy-paste those notations and explanations in the new paper though? I don't why, but I feel like the opposite...

@BryanKrause Okay, I meant "a pure Open Access journal allow the author to retain the copyright in their articles." I'll check that once more with my journal though.

@DaveLRenfro I see. That was really helpful. Thanks for that. I'll certainly look into papers related to CS within the results of your provided search query.

@BryanKrause You are absolutely right. In this case, it's an open-access paper and I'm holding the copyright.

@BryanKrause Okay, as in this case I'm citing my own paper, there will be no copyright issue. So if I understood correctly, your recommendation is that I still mention something like "In this paper, we follow the notation blah blah" and put a summary of that notation and system model in appendix with proper citation?

@BruceET I meant that if I have to use the exact same explanation for the notations and the system model in my current paper verbatim, then it may be considered as a form of self-plagirism unless I re-word it and do proper citations. That's the question actually: how to do it properly?

@BryanKrause I understand. Since my model and notation set is relatively complex, would it be fine if I just say "In this paper, we follow the notation and system model explained in our previous paper [cite to that paper]"? However, if I have to put the system model and notations in appendices, then do I still need to mention this is from previous paper?

@BryanKrause If I choose to do that, how can I write it the way that it doesn't look like plagiarism? Maybe construct a new set of notation? or explain the exact same model in different words? Re-explaining a large model for one more time is not very pleasant...kind of redundant to me. I was hoping there can be a way to re-use the same model/notations...

@PeterJ Thank you so much :)

@PeterJ You had a sad story Peter :( ... I think I have my tragedy now :(

Another odd behavior ... if I connect RX to RX and TX to TX, and send any character with my terminal program, it response with double dots ".." ... for example if I send +++ it gives me "......" if I send "AT+WSCAN" response with ".ª.Q....." ... why its functioning like this ?

Then I think its blown :(. Its an expensive device BTW :( thanks

but now its blown

Maybe I was lucky that time ...

Maybe you are right ...

No. you made me doubtful :-s

@AnindoGhosh I just asked another question related to your assumption: electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/64108/…

i'm sure its not blown because I tested it before with that voltage and it works just perfectly ... ( the time that I didn't have this new converter with 3.3v mode capability )

@AnindoGhosh its working right now ... its blinking the lights is up and its trying to search wifi network, it cant be blown. hmm ?

you mean maybe my module is malfunctioned and thats why its not working ?

let me test it right now in one minute

hmmm

( I tried both modes :( but want to know which one is correct ? )

BTW I just want to know is the schematic right ? I mean should I connect grounds together or not ?

maybe I should migrate to my homeland ;)) Armenia

and also here , in Iran, its really really expensive module to buy another one

I'm sure the module is working properly because I used it before

anybody can help me find any solution here for this question ? electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/64093/…

helloo

anybody here ?

hello there

he is really sad :( ... thanks anyway ... goodbye :)