Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

ESA is still at the forefront of space debris developments. But we do have a brilliant idea from the public: "Pay Communist China to shoot it down."

Just in case you don't realise, it's the one which model is next to the Space EXPO :-) Quite a piece of debris...

his day to day research experience must be relatively unusual highlights include: - Bust size and hitchhiking: a field study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18380130 'The effect of a joke on tipping when it is delivered at the same time as the bill' http://nicolas.gueguen.free.fr/Articles/JASP2002.pdf "Love is in the air": Effects of Songs With Romantic Lyrics on Compliance to a Courtship Request. http://nicolas.gueguen.free.fr/Articles/PsyMusic2010.PDF and the mostly confusing 'Presence of Various Figurines on a Restaurant Table and Consumer Choice: Evidence for an Associative Link.'

Now that's what I call applied science... will consider applying to his lab for a post-doc!

another stat on publication comparisons - this time physics

see, it's not just football where Scotland compete separately from england

It seems we cannot add a publication automatically (eg with bibtex) if it's not on pubmed. Bit useless for non medical sciences...

what a pity ...

nice ... hacking a 1024-bit RSA key in 100 hours .... Francesco will like this one

I forwarded the link to my experimental colleagues and here is the comment from Sergei (the master himself:) "this is what Igor has been doing - an array of plasmonic nanocables. This basically works as a wire-medium slab. All their epsilon and mu are rubbish." * If Sergei is as strict as in this comment, then it IS rubbish. He's not one of the notorious complainer (as e.g. myself.) * Please DO NOT FORWARD this to anybody else, Sergei's comment is NOT FOR PUBLIC USE!

UPDATE: I had a short chat with Sergei and Pekka, Sergei noticed that there is an increasing number of papers on metamaterials, especially in Nature and Science, which are simply wrong, this one being an example. * The idea is based on a very well known effect of wired media. What appears to be interesting about this paper is that they manage to make an optical analogue with aparently low losses. This could be interesting. * The whole interpretation as NIM, "wrong" refraction etc. is total nonsense.

wow, good to know ! But for the privacy you should be aware that this is a public group, so anyone has access to our comments i think !

includes some discussion on the aftermath of NASA's arsenic paper

May be an interesting reading for those who add auxiliary on-line materials to their publications. This reminds me... results of my topology study aren't on-line yet :-)

Who are the most ruthless capitalists in the western world? Whose monopolistic practices make Walmart look like a corner shop and Rupert Murdoch a socialist? You won't guess the answer in a month of Sundays. While there are plenty of candidates, my vote goes not to the banks, the oil companies or the health insurers, but - wait for it - to academic publishers.

fully agree ... "But an analysis by Deutsche Bank reaches different conclusions. "We believe the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process … if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available." Far from assisting the dissemination of research, the big publishers impede it, as their long turnaround times can delay the release of findings by a year or more." very nice also: "Government bodies, with a few exceptions, have failed to confront them. The National Institutes of Health in the US oblige anyone taking their grants to put their papers in an open-access archive. But Research Councils UK, whose statement on public access is a masterpiece of meaningless waffle, relies on "the assumption that publishers will maintain the spirit of their current policies". You bet they will. In the short term, governments should refer the academic publishers to their competition watchdogs, and insist that all papers arising from publicly funded research are placed in a free public database. In the longer term, they should work with researchers to cut out the middleman altogether, creating - along the lines proposed by Björn Brembs of Berlin's Freie Universität - a single global archive of academic literature and data. Peer-review would be overseen by an independent body. It could be funded by the library budgets which are currently being diverted into the hands of privateers. The knowledge monopoly is as unwarranted and anachronistic as the corn laws. Let's throw off these parasitic overlords and liberate the research that belongs to us."

It is a really great article and the first time I read something in this direction. FULLY AGREE as well. Problem is I have not much encouraging to report from the Brussels region...

Stephanie Forrest awarded $3.2 million by DARPA to further develop her work on automated software repair through evolutionary computing (papers)

To be published in 2010 by Cambridge Press. Seems quite interesting (small words etc.), there's also a link to download the pre - publication version of 800 pages

Withdrawing a paper 52 years after publication. Brave guy.

is a groundbreaking weekly publication that provides a timely, concise, and understandable analysis of the scientific content and commercial potential of the most important translational research papers from across the life science literature.

Public role game engine. It could be useful for creating a strategy game inspired on ESA.

Curiosity Cloning? This is 2006 but are there any publication related? Can someone track the results of this research?

here comes the next step ...

interesting story with many juicy details on how they proceed ... (similarly interesting nickname for the "operation" chosen by our british friends) "The spies used the IP addresses they had associated with the engineers as search terms to sift through their surveillance troves, and were quickly able to find what they needed to confirm the employees' identities and target them individually with malware. The confirmation came in the form of Google, Yahoo, and LinkedIn "cookies," tiny unique files that are automatically placed on computers to identify and sometimes track people browsing the Internet, often for advertising purposes. GCHQ maintains a huge repository named MUTANT BROTH that stores billions of these intercepted cookies, which it uses to correlate with IP addresses to determine the identity of a person. GCHQ refers to cookies internally as "target detection identifiers." Top-secret GCHQ documents name three male Belgacom engineers who were identified as targets to attack. The Intercept has confirmed the identities of the men, and contacted each of them prior to the publication of this story; all three declined comment and requested that their identities not be disclosed. GCHQ monitored the browsing habits of the engineers, and geared up to enter the most important and sensitive phase of the secret operation. The agency planned to perform a so-called "Quantum Insert" attack, which involves redirecting people targeted for surveillance to a malicious website that infects their computers with malware at a lightning pace. In this case, the documents indicate that GCHQ set up a malicious page that looked like LinkedIn to trick the Belgacom engineers. (The NSA also uses Quantum Inserts to target people, as The Intercept has previously reported.) A GCHQ document reviewing operations conducted between January and March 2011 noted that the hack on Belgacom was successful, and stated that the agency had obtained access to the company's

I knew I wasn't using TOR often enough...

Cool! It seems that after all it is best to restrict employees' internet access only to work-critical areas... @Paul TOR works on network level, so it would not help here much as cookies (application level) were exploited.

Summary of the critics: the project cannot but fail, its a waste of money that will dry funds for serious research and will thus create an enormous disappointment in the public opinion that is, ultimately, the real funder of the project

Told you from the very beginning...

nice video and nice story, no revolution in physics and somehow surprising that not done/tried earlier (maybe just again good MIT public relations work?)

CSI writers will have to up the ante now.

it was probably already done... by the NSA

The first study of payments to Chinese scientists for publishing in high-impact journals has serious implications for the future of research