While you could choose to publish in non-Elsevier journals, you can't realistically avoid citing papers published in those journals. A substantial fraction of the research in my field (Planetary science) are published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters and Icarus, both of which are Elsevier journals. You can't just ignore an entire body of literature, when it's likely to be fundamental background to your own work.
When you publish in a scientific journal, you typically have to transfer the copyright (but not other rights) to the journal before they can publish it.
The Copyright Law enacted in 1978 requires the American Geophysical Union to obtain specific rights to articles published. This legal requirement does not alter in any way the long-standing relationship between AGU and its authors, nor does it change the philosophy behind our practice of copyrighting our journals and books.
AGU's philosophy recognizes the need to ensure that authors have a say in how their works are used and the necessity to foster
broad dissemination of scientific literature while protecting the viability of the publication system. Authors still retain all proprietary rights other than copyright (such as patent rights), the right to present the material orally, the right to reproduce figures, tables, and extracts properly cited, and the right to deny subsequent commercial use of the paper."
The asteroid belt wasn't a planet that broke-up. There are dramatic chemical variations between different asteroids. Also, from the wikipedia article you linked to: "The large amount of energy that would have been required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon, do not support the hypothesis." It probably never formed as a planet at all.
While a giant impact might kill us off, it's hard for me to imagine an impactor large enough to _destroy_ the Earth. The moon-forming impact didn't destroy the Earth (although the impact made Earth uninhabitable for a while). That impactor was the size of Mars. I don't think any rogue objects that size are expected anymore. The entire Kuiper belt combined is only about the mass of Mars.
Yeah, but if we found an object like the Moon orbiting the Sun by itself, we might call it a planet. Should an object's classification depend on where we find it, rather than what it's made of? I don't mean to be sarcastic; that's a legitimate question. I'm fine with people using the term "planet" to describe objects that would be planets except that they happen to be orbiting a larger planet. They can be moons also. Maybe "planetary body" is a better generic term. For the record, IAAPS (I am a planetary scientist).
I had a PhD advisor who was from China, and spoke English as a second language. He once told me he found it easier to give talks in English, because all of the jargon (geophysics) is in English and doesn't translate well.
Below is a marginal summary of the process. My colleagues will no doubt correct me where needed. For the record, IAAPS (I am a planetary scientist). It's a terrible system, but it's better than any of the alternatives.
Congress gives NASA some amount of money each year (~0.6% of the total budget). The bulk of this goes to the shuttle and space station programs, but a significant fraction is leftover for science and mission operations. This is portioned out to the various programs (Outer Planets Research, Planetary Geology and Geophysics, Mars Fundamental Research, etc.).
Scientists at their various institutions (including JPL) write grant proposals to one of the NASA programs to fund their research and spacecraft missions. Yes, JPL is a NASA center. Yes, this means that NASA employees still have to write to NASA asking for funding.
Each program convenes a panel of scientists (who have not submitted proposals to that program that year) to evaluate the proposals. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, panel members recuse themselves from discussion of any proposals by members of his/her institution. The NASA program manager selects which proposals to fund based on the panel's evaluations.
But on the atmosphere on the Proterozoic Earth wasn't like this and there was plenty of life. Oxygen didn't start to appear in the atmosphere until ~2.2 billion years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean hydrocarbons? The primary ingredients of petroleum?
In Soviet Russia, mythology reads children!
No capes!
Yes, I learned the hard way that after chopping chile peppers, you need to wash your hands BEFORE you go to the toilet.
While you could choose to publish in non-Elsevier journals, you can't realistically avoid citing papers published in those journals. A substantial fraction of the research in my field (Planetary science) are published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters and Icarus, both of which are Elsevier journals. You can't just ignore an entire body of literature, when it's likely to be fundamental background to your own work.
Holy water can still have lithium in it. You just have to boil the hell out of it. Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Of course if you're an astrophysicist anything heavier than helium is considered a "metal". Even things that are not actual metals.
When you publish in a scientific journal, you typically have to transfer the copyright (but not other rights) to the journal before they can publish it.
From the American Geophysical Union's copyright transfer form:
We'll approach from the direction of the Sun, effectively blinding ... oh, wait.
The asteroid belt wasn't a planet that broke-up. There are dramatic chemical variations between different asteroids. Also, from the wikipedia article you linked to: "The large amount of energy that would have been required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon, do not support the hypothesis." It probably never formed as a planet at all.
While a giant impact might kill us off, it's hard for me to imagine an impactor large enough to _destroy_ the Earth. The moon-forming impact didn't destroy the Earth (although the impact made Earth uninhabitable for a while). That impactor was the size of Mars. I don't think any rogue objects that size are expected anymore. The entire Kuiper belt combined is only about the mass of Mars.
Tbat's why scientists raised the speed of light in 2214!
Yeah, but if we found an object like the Moon orbiting the Sun by itself, we might call it a planet. Should an object's classification depend on where we find it, rather than what it's made of? I don't mean to be sarcastic; that's a legitimate question. I'm fine with people using the term "planet" to describe objects that would be planets except that they happen to be orbiting a larger planet. They can be moons also. Maybe "planetary body" is a better generic term. For the record, IAAPS (I am a planetary scientist).
As long as they get Stephen Colbert for his voice actor.
I had a PhD advisor who was from China, and spoke English as a second language. He once told me he found it easier to give talks in English, because all of the jargon (geophysics) is in English and doesn't translate well.
He's obviously had _hundreds_ of space stations named after him.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
But Colbert's said he's not a big fan of facts. It's in space. They should name it Alpha Squad 7.
Those are two separate tasks.
Only if the GP's voice actually sounds like the Professor's.
The first three stations blew apart. The fourth one disappeared. I'm just sayin'.
The launch is typically a significant fraction of the cost of any mission, if not the majority of the cost. Rocket fuel is expensive.
Just FYI, NASA _is_ the funding agency.
Below is a marginal summary of the process. My colleagues will no doubt correct me where needed. For the record, IAAPS (I am a planetary scientist). It's a terrible system, but it's better than any of the alternatives.
Congress gives NASA some amount of money each year (~0.6% of the total budget). The bulk of this goes to the shuttle and space station programs, but a significant fraction is leftover for science and mission operations. This is portioned out to the various programs (Outer Planets Research, Planetary Geology and Geophysics, Mars Fundamental Research, etc.).
Scientists at their various institutions (including JPL) write grant proposals to one of the NASA programs to fund their research and spacecraft missions. Yes, JPL is a NASA center. Yes, this means that NASA employees still have to write to NASA asking for funding.
Each program convenes a panel of scientists (who have not submitted proposals to that program that year) to evaluate the proposals. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, panel members recuse themselves from discussion of any proposals by members of his/her institution. The NASA program manager selects which proposals to fund based on the panel's evaluations.
At first, I misread you subject line as "Slashdot has a high burden of proof." ...
Time to be having more coffee
I haven't read the book for a long time, but I believe it was Iapetus, not Titan.
But on the atmosphere on the Proterozoic Earth wasn't like this and there was plenty of life. Oxygen didn't start to appear in the atmosphere until ~2.2 billion years ago.