Please mod this guy down a few points. It's one thing to do physics as a hobby, it's another to be a professional getting written up in Science.
They'll just pop up again somewhere else like bad mushrooms.
It's only one solar dia away at it's closest - more than enough room for a light tan!
Wish we were all in Alaska.
Making it public is always a choice, and it's the harder of the two obvious choices.
One of the things that has kept minorities silent for so long is the fact that they were intimidated to raise their voices.
One of the powers of the web is the fact that it does create instant communities where none existed. In this case, a flippant insult that would have normally been passed off as 'normal' macho behavior. To her credit, Dr. Lee has turned that instant into an social event where Scientific American becomes the one on trial. Why SciAm? They implicitly sided with the macho ingnoramus by trying to silence her. Then they tried to deflect their own actions on the basis of some journalistic or moral code, that doesn't exist. Finally, they seem to be coming around to the fact that this insulting event is causing them true harm in the form of degrading the brand. (I was a long time subscriber, and sent them a letter yesterday saying goodbye, and equating them to the status of "People" or "Us." I certainly don't mean to insult those other magazines, though.)
Science is about open communications. By going public, Dr. Lee has helped further science, in some small sense. We may not agree with her theories, her discipline, or anything else about her. But as reasonable beings we must respect her, and help her put down those who do would do harm to her, and indirectly, to the rest of us.
Thank you for going public Dr. Lee.
Seems to me that the Circuit court's job was to evaluate the application of law by the inferior court - not reappraise the penalty. It wasn't a question of law, so SCOTUS was right to reject it. OTOH, the 1st Circuit shouldn't have overridden the lower court's decision.
The JoC is bogus as far as I can tell. Hidden publishers, a headline asking if Jesus can explain evolution, and lots of dubious articles. They even claim Sir Roger (Penrose) as a sometimes editor. I wonder if he knows?
The point is that we've seen unknown conservative entities hijack 'liberal' academic institutions in an attempt to legitimize their own agendas.
TO THE EDITORS AND READERS OF
please don't fall prey. This is one of the last
bastions of true skeptics. Don't believe me?
Run the whois on these guys. Find the editorial
board. Run the academic background of the
referees who would "peer review" an article
BEFORE it is published.
The rest of the world is counting on you.
I agree with Darien. It's important for every geek, but especially scientists living at the grace of the public, to remember that you have to tell some kind of story with what you know and learn.
A great book on the subject is Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Tufte. The same principles, along with the addition of an intriguing story line would make far more interesting material for everyone.
I hubbely recommend that you try taking Darien up on his offer and see what kind of story you can weave into your anaglyph.
Good luck and keep up the great work!