Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text
on
Supernova 1987A Decoded
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But the bigger "this article is crap" flag that should go off in your head is the question "what about the neutrinos?" Magnetic reconnection can't create neutrinos, and SN1987A had a flux of neutrinos way, way above background, and consistent with the majority of the energy of the collapse going into neutrinos.
You're right. However, I just wanted to point out how inaccurate the article was even on a basic level.
Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text
on
Supernova 1987A Decoded
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This article is pure crap. I, as an High-energy astronomer, will never give credito to an article stating that "It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse)." Pulsars that are the relic of supernovae (like the crab pulsar) are RADIO pulsars, meaning that they are mainly detected as pulsating sources at radio wavelengths. It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays (the crab pulsar is -again- a beautiful example), but a statement like the one in the article is completely misleading. I look forward a peer reviewed version of this article to come up on a serious journal. Until then, this is just crap (after all, we're on/., right?)
Well, I am an astrophysicist working outside the US, so I'll throw in some thoughts:
1) The preprint server arxiv.org is fundamental but still there is no peer review on papers. I can cite you more than one utterly ridiculous paper on astro-ph and gr-qc lists. So use it with care
2) Astrophysical journal IS charging non-US researcher with costs on a per-page basis. So I think that the PLOS politic is more than acceptable.
3) The copyright agreements traditional journals ask you to sign are as offending as a Microsoft EULA
So, in the end, I think the "author pays, everybody has access" approach seems to work pretty well, If we have to pay in some way for peer review and proofs correction.
This is DEFINITELY NOT an April's Fool joke. Mediaset refused to answer the trade unionists when they asked for the positions of the rfid-tracing antennas. They are concerned that mediaset will be using the data to screen the political behaviour of their workers (i.e. to learn how often an employee gets to the trade unions desk)
You got exactly the feeling I was trying to express: frustration over my work mostly thrown away, since 2005 will be somethig "transitional", and probably just few people will use it. And for Mdk 2006 I guess a LOT of work would need to be done (since merging in conectiva stuff will give us more headhache). I think that mandrake should raelly care more about communicating their strategic decisions on time to their users and contributors.
Yes, it WOULD if only they did not present us -the translators- a tight schedule for the 10.2 release. Then they silently canceled the release after delaying it a lot. This means I did a lot of rush work for nothing...
Scientists do not get any money for their publications, so I think it is at least unfair to charge the ridicolous amount of money that scientific publishers do charge institutions nowadays. About the scientist-pays-publication model: Think about scientists from developing countries or from places where scientific research is not properly funded, like Italy (thank you once more, Mr. Berlusconi). Actually, Ap.J. has a very high fee for publishing, so my group cannot afford to publish all of our papers there. We revert to free alternatives like A&A and MNRAS, or Nature when we've got something glamorous, but think about what will happen if all journals follow the pay-for-publishing scheme? I'd have to let someone from a rich U.S. university sign my work just for the purpose of finding the money to publish it? And what about people from, say, India or Brazil or Russia?
About scientists being well paid, well, speak for yourself (or for your country)...
And about peer reviewing.. everybody does paper refereeing FOR FREE. The only part of the structure that costs big money is the editing-proof correcting part, like in any decent newspaper.
Slashdot Mirror
But the bigger "this article is crap" flag that should go off in your head is the question "what about the neutrinos?" Magnetic reconnection can't create neutrinos, and SN1987A had a flux of neutrinos way, way above background, and consistent with the majority of the energy of the collapse going into neutrinos.
You're right. However, I just wanted to point out how inaccurate the article was even on a basic level.
This article is pure crap. I, as an High-energy astronomer, will never give credito to an article stating that "It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse)." Pulsars that are the relic of supernovae (like the crab pulsar) are RADIO pulsars, meaning that they are mainly detected as pulsating sources at radio wavelengths. It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays (the crab pulsar is -again- a beautiful example), but a statement like the one in the article is completely misleading. I look forward a peer reviewed version of this article to come up on a serious journal. Until then, this is just crap (after all, we're on /., right?)
ehm... Obviously it is h2G2 :(
I bet there is a reason if the evil side scoress EXACTLY 42 points the day before H2D2 hits the theaters...
Well, I am an astrophysicist working outside the US, so I'll throw in some thoughts: 1) The preprint server arxiv.org is fundamental but still there is no peer review on papers. I can cite you more than one utterly ridiculous paper on astro-ph and gr-qc lists. So use it with care 2) Astrophysical journal IS charging non-US researcher with costs on a per-page basis. So I think that the PLOS politic is more than acceptable. 3) The copyright agreements traditional journals ask you to sign are as offending as a Microsoft EULA So, in the end, I think the "author pays, everybody has access" approach seems to work pretty well, If we have to pay in some way for peer review and proofs correction.
This is DEFINITELY NOT an April's Fool joke. Mediaset refused to answer the trade unionists when they asked for the positions of the rfid-tracing antennas. They are concerned that mediaset will be using the data to screen the political behaviour of their workers (i.e. to learn how often an employee gets to the trade unions desk)
You got exactly the feeling I was trying to express: frustration over my work mostly thrown away, since 2005 will be somethig "transitional", and probably just few people will use it. And for Mdk 2006 I guess a LOT of work would need to be done (since merging in conectiva stuff will give us more headhache). I think that mandrake should raelly care more about communicating their strategic decisions on time to their users and contributors.
Yes, it WOULD if only they did not present us -the translators- a tight schedule for the 10.2 release. Then they silently canceled the release after delaying it a lot. This means I did a lot of rush work for nothing...
Sorry, no results were found containing "sgi octane"
No doubt, this is true M$ technology!
Scientists do not get any money for their publications, so I think it is at least unfair to charge the ridicolous amount of money that scientific publishers do charge institutions nowadays. About the scientist-pays-publication model: Think about scientists from developing countries or from places where scientific research is not properly funded, like Italy (thank you once more, Mr. Berlusconi). Actually, Ap.J. has a very high fee for publishing, so my group cannot afford to publish all of our papers there. We revert to free alternatives like A&A and MNRAS, or Nature when we've got something glamorous, but think about what will happen if all journals follow the pay-for-publishing scheme? I'd have to let someone from a rich U.S. university sign my work just for the purpose of finding the money to publish it? And what about people from, say, India or Brazil or Russia?
About scientists being well paid, well, speak for yourself (or for your country)...
And about peer reviewing.. everybody does paper refereeing FOR FREE. The only part of the structure that costs big money is the editing-proof correcting part, like in any decent newspaper.