I'd like to add, that most journals have a post-publishing commenting processes. Open letters, comments and critics may be addressed regarding published articles. Following those errata and replies may be published. This process is, in my opinion, underestimated and under-used.
Also, editors should be contacted if obvious ethical problem should arise with already published articles.
(OT: and sorry for the few typos in the above post.)
I have a real problem with the concept of anonymous peer review without editorial oversight or not included in a due peer review process. That said, I do recognize the interest for post-publication peer review due to lacks in the commonly used review processes, although I do not believe this should be allowed to be done anonymously.
Anonymous review is usual in the peer-review processes of most journals, but these comments are in general non-public or at least reviewed by an editor before publication. Some reviewers choose to do their peer-review work without the cover of anonymity and I encourage this. If you have constructive criticism on the work of an other and can this criticism is well founded, you can very well do it openly.
I believe that the best why to process with peer-review is with a two steps process, where first the submitted paper is published in an open discussion paper. Comments from the official reviewers are public and any one can comment on the papers. Following the peer review process, the paper is published in the official paper which may be with or without open access (I prefer those with open access). Such a process encourages quality and brings the whole community in the peer-review process, but under the oversight of editors.
Something like PubPeer is extremely tricky. It's an open door to abuse and for commenter to wash their dirty linen in public. I don't know if such a platform is a good idea, especially with anonymity. I'd rather have a good review of the peer-review processes commonly used.
The probe is in orbit around the comet, and a quite peculiar orbit too. So regardless of what the comet does, from the reference point of the probe, it is "rotating".
I understand that in most states, no proof of damage must be given. In many states, the statement itself suffices. An audience is not necessary.
But hey, IANAL. And especially defamation legislation is tricky in the US. Regardless I would press charges (which is more accurately said than "sue them").
I use a car every they. I guess that makes me a bank robber. You know, could use it as a get away car.
My neighbor also suspect me of murder an cannibalism. He saw me through the kitchen window with a butcher knife and used the BBQ the whole summer. Furthermore, the other neighbors haven't been seen since beginning of the vacation period. All hard evidence...
Seriously, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or sarcastic... but I hope it was either one of those.
Obviously, any email discussing the existence and raising concern about highly classified programs will be also classified as such. Most likely these emails would be removed or redacted to before any review of the email could take place. I am pretty certain emails shouldn't contain highly classified information, hence the people reviewing the emails will most likely not have the security clearance to review highly classified materials. Assuming they are classified as such, not only do they not have to admit of their existence, they are not allowed to admit it.
I am really not a fan on conspiracy theories, nor do I prone propagating them. On the contrary. Although this might sound like one, for me it feels more like standard procedures and due process that turned out to be quite convenient.
Your example has as nothing to do with accuracy. I'll help you.
According to Oxford:
The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.
In other word, the accuracy of a model results tells you how good it represents the real world. What you (and all others who so kindly replied to my original comment) are referring to is precision.
So, following your example, both model A and B would be inaccurate, but model B would be more precise than model A. Using ISO terminology, model A and B would show a bad trueness, and A would be less precise than B.
Exactly correct. In addition, a believe the commenter wanted to point out that it IS an established term, albeit one not often used in the context of quantum physics.
Every one who followed a lecture on solid state physics should know what a phonon is. And I mean a first year lecture, not one of those fancy specialization. This implies a lot of people never heard of it... but also that a lot of people did (or should have).
No. If you have stable equations, you have stable equations. Period. It only means that the result will not strongly diverge with a small perturbation.
How these equations represent the real world (ie. how accurate the results are) has nothing to do with their stability. And this is exactly what the point of the whole story is... the equations, regardless if stable or not, do not represent the observed reality.
To say you can calculate quite accurately an expected value makes no sense a all. I can only understand that they estimate the value using models and believe these models to be accurate. Any other signification is senseless and it would be pointless to argue over it.
Furthermore, you can't asses the accuracy of an estimation with a model. The model is, as you point it yourself out, what gives the estimated value. Only a measurement can validate the estimation and the model. Their models gave prediction for the other elements and observations showed that the model was pretty much spot on. Using the same approach for Li, they assumed (or hope for) a similar accuracy. Observation now show that it wasn't the case.
But the point of the statement was that the believed it would be accurate (again, because any other interpretation of the sentence makes no sense at all). If it is not based on other results using the same model or technique, how do you believe they would have that confidence on the accuracy of their expectation?
Correct wording would have been "Astronomers believe they can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe based on their experience with other elements."
or something along those lines. The second part, i'm not sure, but the "believe they" really makes the whole point.
You can expect a magnitude of +11.5 according to some sources. So no, definitely not visible to the naked eye. Should be easy with a good motorised telescope.
I'm not nostalgic. I went in university in 1999. There were no slide rules anywhere to see, I can assure you of that. But there was a lot of students quickly typing numbers on their calculator without taking a second to think if the order of magnitude even made sense.
Thing is, I doubt that a single type of calculator can be assumed as "the right one". As AC posted just before you, graphical calculator enables the resolution of complex calculus problems and can be a very powerful tool. It doesn't answer the question if it is really needed or the best for the learning process.
But back to your point, I wasn't thinking about your generation in general, but rather about engineers (and maybe physician) of your generation. Whether you consider the whole ensemble or just this particular subset, makes a huge difference. And I can assure your that engineers of your generation have a much better intuition with order of magnitudes. Sure, experience also plays a role (they are older after all), but I doubt this is the whole story. They work and think numerical problem through in a totally different way than anyone I studied with. They may also take more time to solve problems, but they mostly always get them right the first time. This is based on my professional experience and observation of a particular group of people.
I never understood why a graphical calculator is needed in school. We had them too in 10th and 11th class. It brought me pretty much nothing. Plus I was already used to RPN at the time, so I hate the TI calculators. It would have been a fail investment had I bought one. It was our luck that the things were part of the school material and not our own.
In my opinion, graphical calculators do not belongs in school classes any more than smartphones. It's really not the way to go to promote understanding of concepts, which is as important as learning concepts. The understanding part seems to be systematically ignored by the school system... and its getting worse with every modernisation of schools (at least from what I saw in two different countries where I lived).
But I doubt I'm the right person to ask; I have a rather odd view of this on this topic. I would go as far as to suggest to ban calculators from engineering schools and re-establish the use of slide rule. At least students would perhaps regain some notions of order of magnitude and intuition for it.
I've been using RPN since grade 9, to the great distress of my teachers. With the time collected what I would call a small stockpile of HP RPN calculators (35, 15C, 32S, 42S to name just a few). Although I love the 2 line display of the 42S, I mostly use the 15C, regardless of the speed. I find it a shame that the "landscape" format was not further explored.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to add, that most journals have a post-publishing commenting processes. Open letters, comments and critics may be addressed regarding published articles. Following those errata and replies may be published. This process is, in my opinion, underestimated and under-used.
Also, editors should be contacted if obvious ethical problem should arise with already published articles.
(OT: and sorry for the few typos in the above post.)
I have a real problem with the concept of anonymous peer review without editorial oversight or not included in a due peer review process. That said, I do recognize the interest for post-publication peer review due to lacks in the commonly used review processes, although I do not believe this should be allowed to be done anonymously.
Anonymous review is usual in the peer-review processes of most journals, but these comments are in general non-public or at least reviewed by an editor before publication. Some reviewers choose to do their peer-review work without the cover of anonymity and I encourage this. If you have constructive criticism on the work of an other and can this criticism is well founded, you can very well do it openly.
I believe that the best why to process with peer-review is with a two steps process, where first the submitted paper is published in an open discussion paper. Comments from the official reviewers are public and any one can comment on the papers. Following the peer review process, the paper is published in the official paper which may be with or without open access (I prefer those with open access). Such a process encourages quality and brings the whole community in the peer-review process, but under the oversight of editors.
Something like PubPeer is extremely tricky. It's an open door to abuse and for commenter to wash their dirty linen in public. I don't know if such a platform is a good idea, especially with anonymity. I'd rather have a good review of the peer-review processes commonly used.
The triangular path is only the approach path. The goal is to reach a stable orbit around the comet,.
The probe is in orbit around the comet, and a quite peculiar orbit too. So regardless of what the comet does, from the reference point of the probe, it is "rotating".
Perhaps doing both would actually be the right course, but I initially meant "pressing charges". sorry for the confusion.
I understand that in most states, no proof of damage must be given. In many states, the statement itself suffices. An audience is not necessary.
But hey, IANAL. And especially defamation legislation is tricky in the US. Regardless I would press charges (which is more accurately said than "sue them").
I guess the (other) neighbours will be back from vacation any day know.
I use a car every they. I guess that makes me a bank robber. You know, could use it as a get away car.
My neighbor also suspect me of murder an cannibalism. He saw me through the kitchen window with a butcher knife and used the BBQ the whole summer. Furthermore, the other neighbors haven't been seen since beginning of the vacation period. All hard evidence...
Seriously, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or sarcastic... but I hope it was either one of those.
I would sue them for defamation, if I were one of their Tor-using customer.
It's a grave offence to imply someone is engaged in criminal activity, without actually having evidence of such activity.
Forget the tinfoil hat.
Obviously, any email discussing the existence and raising concern about highly classified programs will be also classified as such. Most likely these emails would be removed or redacted to before any review of the email could take place. I am pretty certain emails shouldn't contain highly classified information, hence the people reviewing the emails will most likely not have the security clearance to review highly classified materials. Assuming they are classified as such, not only do they not have to admit of their existence, they are not allowed to admit it.
I am really not a fan on conspiracy theories, nor do I prone propagating them. On the contrary.
Although this might sound like one, for me it feels more like standard procedures and due process that turned out to be quite convenient.
Understanding your logic, The Spiegel must be republican-biased then. Interesting.
No I don't get it and you are wrong.
Your example has as nothing to do with accuracy. I'll help you.
According to Oxford :
The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.
In other word, the accuracy of a model results tells you how good it represents the real world. What you (and all others who so kindly replied to my original comment) are referring to is precision.
So, following your example, both model A and B would be inaccurate, but model B would be more precise than model A. Using ISO terminology, model A and B would show a bad trueness, and A would be less precise than B.
Exactly correct. In addition, a believe the commenter wanted to point out that it IS an established term, albeit one not often used in the context of quantum physics.
Every one who followed a lecture on solid state physics should know what a phonon is. And I mean a first year lecture, not one of those fancy specialization.
This implies a lot of people never heard of it... but also that a lot of people did (or should have).
No. If you have stable equations, you have stable equations. Period. It only means that the result will not strongly diverge with a small perturbation.
How these equations represent the real world (ie. how accurate the results are) has nothing to do with their stability. And this is exactly what the point of the whole story is... the equations, regardless if stable or not, do not represent the observed reality.
To say you can calculate quite accurately an expected value makes no sense a all. I can only understand that they estimate the value using models and believe these models to be accurate. Any other signification is senseless and it would be pointless to argue over it.
Furthermore, you can't asses the accuracy of an estimation with a model. The model is, as you point it yourself out, what gives the estimated value. Only a measurement can validate the estimation and the model.
Their models gave prediction for the other elements and observations showed that the model was pretty much spot on. Using the same approach for Li, they assumed (or hope for) a similar accuracy. Observation now show that it wasn't the case.
But the point of the statement was that the believed it would be accurate (again, because any other interpretation of the sentence makes no sense at all). If it is not based on other results using the same model or technique, how do you believe they would have that confidence on the accuracy of their expectation?
Correct wording would have been "Astronomers believe they can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe based on their experience with other elements."
or something along those lines. The second part, i'm not sure, but the "believe they" really makes the whole point.
I'm sure there's two side to this story.
Shhhhhh. You're giving that Rayair guy new passenger mnagement idees!
You can expect a magnitude of +11.5 according to some sources. So no, definitely not visible to the naked eye. Should be easy with a good motorised telescope.
All other source I've seen mention 0.0002664... AU or approx. 40'000 km. That would be above geosynchronous orbit altitude, not below.
For example, from JPL:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.c...
I'm not nostalgic. I went in university in 1999. There were no slide rules anywhere to see, I can assure you of that. But there was a lot of students quickly typing numbers on their calculator without taking a second to think if the order of magnitude even made sense.
Thing is, I doubt that a single type of calculator can be assumed as "the right one". As AC posted just before you, graphical calculator enables the resolution of complex calculus problems and can be a very powerful tool. It doesn't answer the question if it is really needed or the best for the learning process.
But back to your point, I wasn't thinking about your generation in general, but rather about engineers (and maybe physician) of your generation. Whether you consider the whole ensemble or just this particular subset, makes a huge difference. And I can assure your that engineers of your generation have a much better intuition with order of magnitudes. Sure, experience also plays a role (they are older after all), but I doubt this is the whole story. They work and think numerical problem through in a totally different way than anyone I studied with. They may also take more time to solve problems, but they mostly always get them right the first time. This is based on my professional experience and observation of a particular group of people.
I never understood why a graphical calculator is needed in school. We had them too in 10th and 11th class. It brought me pretty much nothing. Plus I was already used to RPN at the time, so I hate the TI calculators. It would have been a fail investment had I bought one. It was our luck that the things were part of the school material and not our own.
In my opinion, graphical calculators do not belongs in school classes any more than smartphones. It's really not the way to go to promote understanding of concepts, which is as important as learning concepts. The understanding part seems to be systematically ignored by the school system... and its getting worse with every modernisation of schools (at least from what I saw in two different countries where I lived).
But I doubt I'm the right person to ask; I have a rather odd view of this on this topic. I would go as far as to suggest to ban calculators from engineering schools and re-establish the use of slide rule. At least students would perhaps regain some notions of order of magnitude and intuition for it.
I've been using RPN since grade 9, to the great distress of my teachers. With the time collected what I would call a small stockpile of HP RPN calculators (35, 15C, 32S, 42S to name just a few). Although I love the 2 line display of the 42S, I mostly use the 15C, regardless of the speed. I find it a shame that the "landscape" format was not further explored.
Although, a tsunami has nothing to do with a storm or with weather and/or climate.