I'm fine with that as long as the book opens with a brief preface serving as a linguistic history lesson
Twain already did this:
EXPLANATORY
IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
THE AUTHOR.
That's really the irony here: Twain starts the book by making it crystal clear that the dialog is calculated and deliberate, and essential to the narrative.
I'm sitting in the Charlotte, NC departure lounge right now. They had a few people going through the backscatter machines at ORD, but shut them down while I was in line and sent everybody through the magnetometers instead. Pretty clearly, the TSA backed off on universal body-scanning for the holiday.
Funniest thing I saw in Chicago was the guy in front of me trying to opt-out of the metal detector, and get a pat-down instead. He was a little confused.
I remember being told a long time ago that some researchers will basically make several permutations of the same paper to submit to a bunch of different places. It's essentially the same paper, with nothing new in it, but if you can get several places to publish it, you can pad out your publications list.
So what? You can't plagiarize yourself. Researchers put out multiple, nearly identical papers all the time, especially those published in conference proceedings. (For example, this guy just go elected vice president of the American Physical Society.) It's also very common to recycle review material from one paper you have written to use in another.
This is entirely distinct from university academic misconduct policies which require papers and so forth submitted in fulfillment of course requirements to be original, i.e. not submitted to other courses.
COBE and RELIKT-1 (the latter might be one sad example of another type of clumsy PR - apparently already gave us large part of the results for which COBE is praised, but...)
RELIKT-1 saw the quadrupole, but only at 90 percent confidence. COBE rightly gets credit.
Really, statistically speaking, if you wanted to look on a hard drive for encrypted data, your best bet would be to go looking for blocks of high entropy data.
...which is why my new encryption algorithm maps all input files to zeros. They'll never suspect.
First off -- I applaud your use of open-note exams. That is the ONLY real-world way to learn and demonstrate knowledge. There is almost never a situation in the professional world where one must solve a problem with absolutely no references
Except, oh, the GRE, or the MCAT. Which is why 90% of the students in this guy's class are there.
However, inflation does more than just explain existing phenomena - it predicted a spectral index between 0.98 and 0.92, and COBE/WMAP bring it in at around 0.96.
Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Inflation makes no such prediction. For example, Linde's "Hybrid" inflation model predicts a spectral index greater than 1.0, and is pretty much ruled out by WMAP. Similarly, so-called "Natural" inflation models can easily accomodate a spectral index as low as 0.7 or so. See for example this paper for a nice general review, and this paper specifically for the Natural Inflation case.
Inflation does robustly predict adiabatic, superhorizon perturbations, and this is borne out by the data. This is powerful enough evidence without having to overstate the predictivity of the theory.
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
You have it ass-backwards. Correlation does not imply causation (as in the pirates and global warming), but a lack of correlation does provide evidence for a lack of causation, even in the presence of uncontrolled variables. This is because causation does imply correlation. If two things are statisically uncorrelated, it is very difficult to argue that they have a causal relationship, since any uncontrolled variables would have to conspire to mask what would otherwise be a real correlation.
Capture orbits have to do with loss of energy by way of gravitational radiation. Gravity around a black hole is just like gravity anywhere else. They do not magically suck things in.
That's completely untrue. Capture orbits exist for black holes without considering gravitational radiation or other backreaction. They're present in the fully conservative system. This is not Newtonian physics.
The device sounds interesting but the reporter's notion of gravity is utter nonsense.
Huh? The description you quote seems like a pretty reasonable qualitative description of an astrophysical black hole to me. Black holes have a region of capture orbits outside the horizon, where nearby matter spirals inwards.
Not that astrophysical black holes have anything whatsoever to do with the electromagnetic devices referred to in the article, of course.
Wouldn't the moon be accreted from the ring? Why would Phoebe be shedding material?
Impacts. Stuff gets kicked up from Phoebe and accreted by Iapetus:
The study's authors speculate that meteoric impacts on Phoebe's dark, heavily cratered surface liberate the particles that form the ring. That assertion might explain the anomalously two-toned surface of Iapetus, a Saturnian moon inside Phoebe's orbit. The smaller particles of the Phoebe-generated ring should migrate inward, where they would eventually be swept up by Iapetus, coating the inner moon's leading face with dark material--a prediction knocked about for decades that jibes with observation. The presence of the debris ring implies that this process is ongoing.
I don't know what a 's/he' is. I know what 'he' means, I know what 'she' means. Referring to this unspecified professor as "she" is saying something that isn't true.
I don't know of any NSF grants that go towards writing textbooks. Or ONR. If it isn't part of the grant, the grant isn't paying for it.
I don't know about ONR, but many NSF grants specifically include outreach activities, which might well mean a textbook or a popular science book. And even if the grant criteria do not specifically include such activities, NSF grants are reviewed on twin criteria of (1) intellectual merit, and (2) broader impact. Books could easily be grant-related under the broader impact criterion.
If she doesn't want to open-source a book, she simply doesn't claim it as a grant-related activity,...
You mean if he doesn't want to have his grants audited and renewals denied, he doesn't claim non-grant-related activities as "grant progress". And I will point out that women aren't the only ones required to file grant reports.
I think our hypothetical scientist is suffering from a serious case of gender confusion.
This is a laudable notion, but it has a huge loophole: how do we determine that the time an author spent working on a book was funded by the government? Consider a university scientist on an NSF grant. Such a scientist is typically paid salary off the grant for two months per year, with nine months paid in university salary, and one month not at all. The scientist files grant progress reports every year indicating what she did with the grant money, aside from surfing porn. If she doesn't want to open-source a book, she simply doesn't claim it as a grant-related activity, and instead publishes it for-profit and keeps the royalties.
I suspect that this will only result in academic books being open-sourced which were already published at a loss, for example by university presses. Anything likely to make a substantial profit will still be closed source.
Slashdot Mirror
Nickel is on the wrong side of the curve of binding energy: energy is released from elements heavier than iron by fission, not fusion.
Snake.
Oil.
Twain already did this:
EXPLANATORY
IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech. I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
THE AUTHOR.
That's really the irony here: Twain starts the book by making it crystal clear that the dialog is calculated and deliberate, and essential to the narrative.
I'm sitting in the Charlotte, NC departure lounge right now. They had a few people going through the backscatter machines at ORD, but shut them down while I was in line and sent everybody through the magnetometers instead. Pretty clearly, the TSA backed off on universal body-scanning for the holiday.
Funniest thing I saw in Chicago was the guy in front of me trying to opt-out of the metal detector, and get a pat-down instead. He was a little confused.
Think of the autistic mosquitoes!
...does theTimes Square car bombing have to do with cybersecurity?
I remember being told a long time ago that some researchers will basically make several permutations of the same paper to submit to a bunch of different places. It's essentially the same paper, with nothing new in it, but if you can get several places to publish it, you can pad out your publications list.
So what? You can't plagiarize yourself. Researchers put out multiple, nearly identical papers all the time, especially those published in conference proceedings. (For example, this guy just go elected vice president of the American Physical Society.) It's also very common to recycle review material from one paper you have written to use in another.
This is entirely distinct from university academic misconduct policies which require papers and so forth submitted in fulfillment of course requirements to be original, i.e. not submitted to other courses.
RELIKT-1 saw the quadrupole, but only at 90 percent confidence. COBE rightly gets credit.
Except, oh, the GRE, or the MCAT. Which is why 90% of the students in this guy's class are there.
Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Inflation makes no such prediction. For example, Linde's "Hybrid" inflation model predicts a spectral index greater than 1.0, and is pretty much ruled out by WMAP. Similarly, so-called "Natural" inflation models can easily accomodate a spectral index as low as 0.7 or so. See for example this paper for a nice general review, and this paper specifically for the Natural Inflation case. Inflation does robustly predict adiabatic, superhorizon perturbations, and this is borne out by the data. This is powerful enough evidence without having to overstate the predictivity of the theory.
From The Onion.
What part of the fucking First Amendment don't you understand, motherfucker?
...nothing better to lock your bike to.
You have it ass-backwards. Correlation does not imply causation (as in the pirates and global warming), but a lack of correlation does provide evidence for a lack of causation, even in the presence of uncontrolled variables. This is because causation does imply correlation. If two things are statisically uncorrelated, it is very difficult to argue that they have a causal relationship, since any uncontrolled variables would have to conspire to mask what would otherwise be a real correlation.
Exactly. Right next to yer yarbles.
...already does this, although, as usual for Verizon, it's completely proprietary and locked down. It works pretty well, though.
That's completely untrue. Capture orbits exist for black holes without considering gravitational radiation or other backreaction. They're present in the fully conservative system. This is not Newtonian physics.
Huh? The description you quote seems like a pretty reasonable qualitative description of an astrophysical black hole to me. Black holes have a region of capture orbits outside the horizon, where nearby matter spirals inwards.
Not that astrophysical black holes have anything whatsoever to do with the electromagnetic devices referred to in the article, of course.
Impacts. Stuff gets kicked up from Phoebe and accreted by Iapetus:
How many libraries of Congress is that?
+1 Excellent sense of humor.
I don't know about ONR, but many NSF grants specifically include outreach activities, which might well mean a textbook or a popular science book. And even if the grant criteria do not specifically include such activities, NSF grants are reviewed on twin criteria of (1) intellectual merit, and (2) broader impact. Books could easily be grant-related under the broader impact criterion.
I think our hypothetical scientist is suffering from a serious case of gender confusion.
Can we perhaps agree that s/he is a tranny?
This is a laudable notion, but it has a huge loophole: how do we determine that the time an author spent working on a book was funded by the government? Consider a university scientist on an NSF grant. Such a scientist is typically paid salary off the grant for two months per year, with nine months paid in university salary, and one month not at all. The scientist files grant progress reports every year indicating what she did with the grant money, aside from surfing porn. If she doesn't want to open-source a book, she simply doesn't claim it as a grant-related activity, and instead publishes it for-profit and keeps the royalties.
I suspect that this will only result in academic books being open-sourced which were already published at a loss, for example by university presses. Anything likely to make a substantial profit will still be closed source.
I'm not really so sure about that.