I got burned because I was a reference for a guy who had some pretty bad ethics, and had gotten into trouble. He convinced me that he had changed his ways by doing some good work for me, but at the next place he work he got in trouble for getting around the firewall by tunneling out in some way that made him feel very clever. I realized that basically I was at fault for recommending him. From that point on, no matter how old the indisgression I would never recommend such a person.
That IS a short list, I agree. And most of the good papers are old, and I would argue that the more recent ones are not earth shattering. Try comparing it to the list of great papers in physical review.
Science and Nature = stamp collecting journals, and have degenerated into media machines.
RTA. It has a long description of John Pendry and how famous he is for using negative index of refraction for cloaking. If that's impossible his cloak won't come close to work if it is ever built.
Another important point - no one discusses that the experiments in cloaking and negative index of refraction have been minimal, and no real successes. Two experiments, one at Berkeley, and one at Toronto (microwave) that are possible of being interpreted as something other than nior anyway. People in the article talk about it likes its been done. It hasn't, theoretically or experimentally.
Right, that's the right reason to believe something - because the journal has a fine pedigree. Hence you should look the other way when they do a crappy job.
And, as far as I know, Einstein and the other early 20th century physicists published in physics journals, not that hodge podge stamp collecting journal that you think is so great.
Interestin offer. I dunno about neck cancer, but we sure cut our ears a lot of those old tomato cans. You think we can make a run at Heinz? My ear looks like I went 15 rounds with Mike Tyson.
The jetliner experiment isn't just astronomy - it's a test of general relativity, which is just like testing a basic principle like F=ma.
People might think twice when they attack the string theorists for not having experimental evidence for their theories. They do in fact have an infinite number of theories which get rid of the divergences that occur in quantum gravity, so give them some credit for that.
But this means that "fish" allows, for example, the extinct species of giant armored fish, which includes the deadly Xiphactinus, as featured in the BBC's "Sea Monsters", as well as "National Geographic's Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure". Now was that on your list? NOO it was not. But it's allowable for putting in sushi and calling it sushi in the good old US of A. Touche'!!!
Sushi, and other words, are defined by how people use them. And in the US that means rice and raw fish wrapped in seaweed for 99% of the population. Then english language, unlike C, does not have an ansi standard. It's all fluid.
Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle. It's been out for years, even earlier than this arxiv paper:
No. Let's be clear about this. These jellyfish has bred near a nuclear reactor, and in addition to being intelligent, are quite evil. They did it. And they did it on purpose.
Colonize? I think you mean conquer, and enslave the troglodites populations to mine dilithium for our fast than light ships. Hopefully we'll be able to genetically modify navigators for them. Or find some handsome young captains to fly around and defeat gods.
Slashdot Mirror
I got burned because I was a reference for a guy who had some pretty bad ethics, and had gotten into trouble. He convinced me that he had changed his ways by doing some good work for me, but at the next place he work he got in trouble for getting around the firewall by tunneling out in some way that made him feel very clever. I realized that basically I was at fault for recommending him. From that point on, no matter how old the indisgression I would never recommend such a person.
That IS a short list, I agree. And most of the good papers are old, and I would argue that the more recent ones are not earth shattering. Try comparing it to the list of great papers in physical review.
Science and Nature = stamp collecting journals, and have degenerated into media machines.
RTA. It has a long description of John Pendry and how famous he is for using negative index of refraction for cloaking. If that's impossible his cloak won't come close to work if it is ever built. Another important point - no one discusses that the experiments in cloaking and negative index of refraction have been minimal, and no real successes. Two experiments, one at Berkeley, and one at Toronto (microwave) that are possible of being interpreted as something other than nior anyway. People in the article talk about it likes its been done. It hasn't, theoretically or experimentally.
Right, that's the right reason to believe something - because the journal has a fine pedigree. Hence you should look the other way when they do a crappy job.
And, as far as I know, Einstein and the other early 20th century physicists published in physics journals, not that hodge podge stamp collecting journal that you think is so great.
Interestin offer. I dunno about neck cancer, but we sure cut our ears a lot of those old tomato cans. You think we can make a run at Heinz? My ear looks like I went 15 rounds with Mike Tyson.
Cellphones?!! Bah!! When I was a kid we used two tin cans tied together with a string!
The jetliner experiment isn't just astronomy - it's a test of general relativity, which is just like testing a basic principle like F=ma.
People might think twice when they attack the string theorists for not having experimental evidence for their theories. They do in fact have an infinite number of theories which get rid of the divergences that occur in quantum gravity, so give them some credit for that.
Don't trust Jetman! I think he is working with Bizarro and Solomon Grundy!
Allow ads!
Not really. College professors force young people to do similar calculations already.
Send More Funding
But this means that "fish" allows, for example, the extinct species of giant armored fish, which includes the deadly Xiphactinus, as featured in the BBC's "Sea Monsters", as well as "National Geographic's Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure". Now was that on your list? NOO it was not. But it's allowable for putting in sushi and calling it sushi in the good old US of A. Touche'!!!
Sushi, and other words, are defined by how people use them. And in the US that means rice and raw fish wrapped in seaweed for 99% of the population. Then english language, unlike C, does not have an ansi standard. It's all fluid.
This controversy story is definitely a controversy.
Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle. It's been out for years, even earlier than this arxiv paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613
Thing is, even though it is a famous problem, no one cares enough to check. So this notion of "famous" is shaky.
I was suggesting that it would be much better than google. But perhaps something like Ackermann(google, google) would have been better.
Yeah. They should have named it 10^1000.
And he probably has family or friends. They can be harmed too.
He leaves Russia asap!
Godzilla's not the problem. He's the solution. Mothra is the problem.
My wifes a vegatarian and I keep telling her that she can eat beef, since it's made of grass...
Not if those humans were planning on creating an army of killer jellyfish to take over the solar system.
No. Let's be clear about this. These jellyfish has bred near a nuclear reactor, and in addition to being intelligent, are quite evil. They did it. And they did it on purpose.
Colonize? I think you mean conquer, and enslave the troglodites populations to mine dilithium for our fast than light ships. Hopefully we'll be able to genetically modify navigators for them. Or find some handsome young captains to fly around and defeat gods.
God dammit! Why can't we just settle on the algae planet?