Just curious: do you also support the forced resignations of O'Reilly, Coulter, and the other pundits (including some on the left, I just can't recall the names right now)? These are guys who are paid to communicate and most of them can't do it for a hill of beans, either. More important, they can't do it in their medium. (Whereas we don't know how this guy teaches, just that he sometimes gets angry and unprofessional in emails.)
Agreed. I also find it rather unsettling that the editor of the file was apparent just called "Merck" in the installation of Word. It could be that Merck really does make the user name "Merck" on all of its machines, but I can't help but feel that this looks like a half-assed framing attempted. Not that I think Merck is innocent, just that it has a surreal quality to it.
Ok, absolutely. Heck, you could even say "suicidal tendencies" and I'd buy that. But the statement that was quoted doesn't make sense is all I'm saying. And while I might assume that they mean "depression", I can't be sure and merely wish that they'd been clearer.
Wait, are you disagreeing that all coffee has caffeine? I can't tell. But as far as I know, all decaffeination processes merely reduce the caffeine levels, they don't remove it entirely. Decaff coffee has about 5 mg of caffeine per 8-oz cup. That's a serious reduction from the usual levels, but it's still detectable to some people. (My father, for example, has to avoid caffeine even at those levels thanks to his migraines.)
Actually, I'm still waiting on three of my four rebates from CompUSA on a router I purchased. The first check arrived two or three months ago (the rebates went into the mail four months ago). I'm not saying that I won't get them, but let's just say I'm entertaining that possibility. Worse, I can't return the router without the reciept. Since the router was giving me no end to the troubles, that was also rather vexing.
When you get right down to it, FOUR rebates to mail in is ridiculous. The all went to the same building, as I recall, just to different PO boxes. There's no reason for that as far as I can see. Even if there is, I propose that the retailers ought to tell you when you'll be having to send in more than one rebate form (and how many, in that case).
B5 had three of the five (JMS, Gaiman, and Peter David), although not all together in collaboration.
Most of The Twilight Zone was written by a handful of staff writers, including Rod Serling. I don't think that there ever was a stretch where any of them wrote anywhere near 50 episodes in a row. (And it is also worth recalling that TZ was a half-hour show, so that's roughly half the writing per episode. In theory.)
So why did you read this story, let alone bother to post? You're welcomed to your opinion of the show, of course, but it seems like a significant effort. Particularly as you're merely stating an opinion, without any analysis. So apart from annoucing your view, you've accomplished nothing.
You can actually see the influence that B5 had on other shows. I'm convinced that DS9's writing staff learned as their series progressed from what B5 was doing. As B5's methods and approaches to television became clear, you could see them echoed in DS9. (Note that the longer plot arcs didn't appear in DS9 until after B5 was on the air, for example.)
The creators of Farscape openly acknowledge B5 as an influence in creating their show, and I think that that shows, too. Stargate also seems to have picked up the idea, although it seems like it took them quite a while to do so.
I noticed that too. The poster meant "all of seasons three and four and all but one episode of season five." And also failed to note that he only stepped aside in season five for Neil Gaiman.
Besides the basic inaccuracy of your point, you're understand of libel is also wrong.
The only places you can commit libel and be protect from lawsuits is if you do it in a clearly humorous context.* (The Onion, for example, or The Daily Show.) Wikipedia does not proport to be a humorous. Just because it doesn't claim to be a newspaper, doesn't make it free from libel laws any more than I am as a private citizen.
* Assuming you aren't a member of Congress, of course.
Figure "fast" is a period of less than a few tens of hours. Earth, Mars, the giant planets and their moons are pretty good in that respect. Venus and Merucry... not so much. It turns out that a slow rotator actually has a very different average temperature, but that's because a blackbody emits as T^4 rather than linearly with temperature. (The difference is therefore a factor of something like the fourth-root of 2, if I'm doing this right. I might be, hard to say with this headache. I might also be summoning a dark lord, so feel free to put any requested favors just in case.)
In effect, the thing to remember is that the temperature is set by incoming and out going energy balances. The temperature only enters that formula as its effect on the outgoing energy.
As for Titan: I don't know for sure. But I'd wager that the data are going public no later than a year after they were acquired. So I'm guessing 1 April is the delivery of the DVDs to JPL and then JPL should have it up... er, depends on how fast JPL is. Assuming that these data are going to be archived the same was as NASA data are, mind you. (Were we talking Cassini data or Huygens data? That might make a difference.) I'd keep an eye on the Planetary Data System around that time.
The SOI and Jupiter data have been delivered to JPL long since. (It was due, and it was in, by 1 July.) I know that for a fact since I know the person who delivered it and I have no reason at all to think he has lied to me that he mailed the DVDs and the JPL acknowledged receiving them. If it hasn't been put on the PDS yet, then that's JPL's failure, not ours.
As I've said, the one year propriatary period is standard NASA contract. And as much as you might think it's unfair, it would also be unfair to the people who spend years of their lives putting these missions together to not get first pass at the data. This prorpriatary period is how we establish our names and that's how we end up landing grants to pay our salaries, after all. If you spend time making the mission happen, that's time you're not publishing papers and therefore falling behind your collegues in this competition. And you'll notice that there isn't a lot of bitching about the one-year period from the scientists (even ones not on the teams). That should tell you something.
ISS has agreed to release the JPEGs as they come down on the JPL site so that amateurs can play with them right away. As I said, that's above and beyond the contract and it means that a lot of our discoveries get announced by the amateurs before we can get the releases through the NASA bureaucracy, rather muting our impact. But still you want more. Getting greedy there, aren't you?
And sure, the current system lets some people screw others. Want to show me a system that doesn't? You're proposed system is as bad, probably worse.
Excellent. Sounds like you definitely need to get out of there. Like I said, many of the scientists I've known at (or once at) JPL thought it was hell, too.
My point about screwing scientists was more about your argument that the data should go public as soon as it hits the ground rather than observe the standard priopriatary period. As I've argued, that's there to keep the scientists behind the mission from getting screwed for their efforts.
And the scientists are usually caught in the middle of the crap that flies around from the NASA administrators. Believe me, there's politics all around, here. I can point out cases of engineers within NASA pulling all kinds of shit at the expense of science, if it came to it. Although I have yet to hear anyone complain about the Cassini engineers, so be proud:)
Trouble is, NASA has become a bureaucracy, plain and simple.
And, yes, if they used your figure, you deserve credit for it. I can't speak for things much outside of my own involvment, but I know that here at ISS any support staff who helps crunch data or produce figures for a paper gets an acknowledgement in the paper in the very least. I know of a number of cases where they have recieved co-authorship. So, yeah, sounds like you got screwed there. But I hope you aren't translating that into a feeling that all scienstists should be screwed as revenge.
And I hope you turn you feelings of oppression from above into proper treatment of the support staff who are nominally below you. I've noticed a tendency for people who complain they way you just did to be just as bad to the people below them as they claim the people above them are to them. (And for engineers who complain about being treated like second-class citizen to treat people outside of science and engineer with just as much distain as they claim they get. Just a personal observation that I found very frustrating when I noticed it.) But I am going to assume that you don't fall prey to those mistakes.
Uh, no. Whatever the guys out there at JPL are feeding you, it's wrong. Which wouldn't surprise me; JPL has a lot of complaints about the Cassini teams operating their instruments from off-campus and I've noticed that the people they are sometimes rather hostile towards the instrument teams. (Admittedly, we probably play politics right back at them at times, but the hostility I've experienced seems to go beyond ordinary politics.)
If the data were set up by and for Nav, they get the actual data. I have been assured this by our people, here. In any case, there is no way we could keep them from JPL since JPL gets all data before we do. Hell, data used for navigation is seldom very useful for science since they tend to (intentionally) over-expose the images of the moons.
Which moons do you consider "rocks", anyway? As far as I can recall of the top of my head, they're all icy at Saturn.
So you're saying someone on the team didn't *analyze* the data fast enough? That's not what you originally claimed. You originally claimed that we sat on the data itself. Any data needed by the Nav team is (or at least should be) taken by the Nav team. We don't hold on to that data. (Hell, if we tried to hold on to any data that wasn't ours, JPL would just give it to whomever is supposed to have it. All data goes through JPL before we get it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious: do you also support the forced resignations of O'Reilly, Coulter, and the other pundits (including some on the left, I just can't recall the names right now)? These are guys who are paid to communicate and most of them can't do it for a hill of beans, either. More important, they can't do it in their medium. (Whereas we don't know how this guy teaches, just that he sometimes gets angry and unprofessional in emails.)
Agreed. I also find it rather unsettling that the editor of the file was apparent just called "Merck" in the installation of Word. It could be that Merck really does make the user name "Merck" on all of its machines, but I can't help but feel that this looks like a half-assed framing attempted. Not that I think Merck is innocent, just that it has a surreal quality to it.
"Fly, yes!
Land, no!"
Ah, thanks. I was probably reading what I expected to see rather than what was there.
Ok, absolutely. Heck, you could even say "suicidal tendencies" and I'd buy that. But the statement that was quoted doesn't make sense is all I'm saying. And while I might assume that they mean "depression", I can't be sure and merely wish that they'd been clearer.
Wait, are you disagreeing that all coffee has caffeine? I can't tell. But as far as I know, all decaffeination processes merely reduce the caffeine levels, they don't remove it entirely. Decaff coffee has about 5 mg of caffeine per 8-oz cup. That's a serious reduction from the usual levels, but it's still detectable to some people. (My father, for example, has to avoid caffeine even at those levels thanks to his migraines.)
Wait... *suicide* is an illness now?
"You could be trading your teeth for a healthier liver, right?"
And, hey, teeth are relatively easy to replace. No organ donor is even required.
Yeah, it is. Also, it's in all-caps, but I had to re-type it because apparently Slashdot won't accept too many caps in a post.
Actually, I'm still waiting on three of my four rebates from CompUSA on a router I purchased. The first check arrived two or three months ago (the rebates went into the mail four months ago). I'm not saying that I won't get them, but let's just say I'm entertaining that possibility. Worse, I can't return the router without the reciept. Since the router was giving me no end to the troubles, that was also rather vexing.
When you get right down to it, FOUR rebates to mail in is ridiculous. The all went to the same building, as I recall, just to different PO boxes. There's no reason for that as far as I can see. Even if there is, I propose that the retailers ought to tell you when you'll be having to send in more than one rebate form (and how many, in that case).
Yeah, from the article it's 0.4%. The error was on the part of the poster, not the researcher.
B5 had three of the five (JMS, Gaiman, and Peter David), although not all together in collaboration.
Most of The Twilight Zone was written by a handful of staff writers, including Rod Serling. I don't think that there ever was a stretch where any of them wrote anywhere near 50 episodes in a row. (And it is also worth recalling that TZ was a half-hour show, so that's roughly half the writing per episode. In theory.)
So why did you read this story, let alone bother to post? You're welcomed to your opinion of the show, of course, but it seems like a significant effort. Particularly as you're merely stating an opinion, without any analysis. So apart from annoucing your view, you've accomplished nothing.
tromptromptromptromptromp
wamwamwamwamwam
tromptromptromptromptromp
Betcha we're the only people who know what that means...
You can actually see the influence that B5 had on other shows. I'm convinced that DS9's writing staff learned as their series progressed from what B5 was doing. As B5's methods and approaches to television became clear, you could see them echoed in DS9. (Note that the longer plot arcs didn't appear in DS9 until after B5 was on the air, for example.)
The creators of Farscape openly acknowledge B5 as an influence in creating their show, and I think that that shows, too. Stargate also seems to have picked up the idea, although it seems like it took them quite a while to do so.
I noticed that too. The poster meant "all of seasons three and four and all but one episode of season five." And also failed to note that he only stepped aside in season five for Neil Gaiman.
Besides the basic inaccuracy of your point, you're understand of libel is also wrong.
The only places you can commit libel and be protect from lawsuits is if you do it in a clearly humorous context.* (The Onion, for example, or The Daily Show.) Wikipedia does not proport to be a humorous. Just because it doesn't claim to be a newspaper, doesn't make it free from libel laws any more than I am as a private citizen.
* Assuming you aren't a member of Congress, of course.
Figure "fast" is a period of less than a few tens of hours. Earth, Mars, the giant planets and their moons are pretty good in that respect. Venus and Merucry... not so much. It turns out that a slow rotator actually has a very different average temperature, but that's because a blackbody emits as T^4 rather than linearly with temperature. (The difference is therefore a factor of something like the fourth-root of 2, if I'm doing this right. I might be, hard to say with this headache. I might also be summoning a dark lord, so feel free to put any requested favors just in case.)
In effect, the thing to remember is that the temperature is set by incoming and out going energy balances. The temperature only enters that formula as its effect on the outgoing energy.
As for Titan: I don't know for sure. But I'd wager that the data are going public no later than a year after they were acquired. So I'm guessing 1 April is the delivery of the DVDs to JPL and then JPL should have it up... er, depends on how fast JPL is. Assuming that these data are going to be archived the same was as NASA data are, mind you. (Were we talking Cassini data or Huygens data? That might make a difference.) I'd keep an eye on the Planetary Data System around that time.
The SOI and Jupiter data have been delivered to JPL long since. (It was due, and it was in, by 1 July.) I know that for a fact since I know the person who delivered it and I have no reason at all to think he has lied to me that he mailed the DVDs and the JPL acknowledged receiving them. If it hasn't been put on the PDS yet, then that's JPL's failure, not ours.
As I've said, the one year propriatary period is standard NASA contract. And as much as you might think it's unfair, it would also be unfair to the people who spend years of their lives putting these missions together to not get first pass at the data. This prorpriatary period is how we establish our names and that's how we end up landing grants to pay our salaries, after all. If you spend time making the mission happen, that's time you're not publishing papers and therefore falling behind your collegues in this competition. And you'll notice that there isn't a lot of bitching about the one-year period from the scientists (even ones not on the teams). That should tell you something.
ISS has agreed to release the JPEGs as they come down on the JPL site so that amateurs can play with them right away. As I said, that's above and beyond the contract and it means that a lot of our discoveries get announced by the amateurs before we can get the releases through the NASA bureaucracy, rather muting our impact. But still you want more. Getting greedy there, aren't you?
And sure, the current system lets some people screw others. Want to show me a system that doesn't? You're proposed system is as bad, probably worse.
Excellent. Sounds like you definitely need to get out of there. Like I said, many of the scientists I've known at (or once at) JPL thought it was hell, too.
My point about screwing scientists was more about your argument that the data should go public as soon as it hits the ground rather than observe the standard priopriatary period. As I've argued, that's there to keep the scientists behind the mission from getting screwed for their efforts.
And the scientists are usually caught in the middle of the crap that flies around from the NASA administrators. Believe me, there's politics all around, here. I can point out cases of engineers within NASA pulling all kinds of shit at the expense of science, if it came to it. Although I have yet to hear anyone complain about the Cassini engineers, so be proud :)
Trouble is, NASA has become a bureaucracy, plain and simple.
And, yes, if they used your figure, you deserve credit for it. I can't speak for things much outside of my own involvment, but I know that here at ISS any support staff who helps crunch data or produce figures for a paper gets an acknowledgement in the paper in the very least. I know of a number of cases where they have recieved co-authorship. So, yeah, sounds like you got screwed there. But I hope you aren't translating that into a feeling that all scienstists should be screwed as revenge.
And I hope you turn you feelings of oppression from above into proper treatment of the support staff who are nominally below you. I've noticed a tendency for people who complain they way you just did to be just as bad to the people below them as they claim the people above them are to them. (And for engineers who complain about being treated like second-class citizen to treat people outside of science and engineer with just as much distain as they claim they get. Just a personal observation that I found very frustrating when I noticed it.) But I am going to assume that you don't fall prey to those mistakes.
Uh, no. Whatever the guys out there at JPL are feeding you, it's wrong. Which wouldn't surprise me; JPL has a lot of complaints about the Cassini teams operating their instruments from off-campus and I've noticed that the people they are sometimes rather hostile towards the instrument teams. (Admittedly, we probably play politics right back at them at times, but the hostility I've experienced seems to go beyond ordinary politics.)
If the data were set up by and for Nav, they get the actual data. I have been assured this by our people, here. In any case, there is no way we could keep them from JPL since JPL gets all data before we do. Hell, data used for navigation is seldom very useful for science since they tend to (intentionally) over-expose the images of the moons.
Which moons do you consider "rocks", anyway? As far as I can recall of the top of my head, they're all icy at Saturn.
Oddly, the scientists at JPL feel the same way about the administrators.
So you're saying someone on the team didn't *analyze* the data fast enough? That's not what you originally claimed. You originally claimed that we sat on the data itself. Any data needed by the Nav team is (or at least should be) taken by the Nav team. We don't hold on to that data. (Hell, if we tried to hold on to any data that wasn't ours, JPL would just give it to whomever is supposed to have it. All data goes through JPL before we get it.)