b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 10004517 (Thread)

# your right!I just checked you'd done the math
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:12, archived)
# Nice to see that university education being put to use.
Better than my last paper: pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cg9015349
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:18, archived)
# unlucky, Silvio
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:21, archived)
# haha
Boris - are you Jürg Hauser?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:25, archived)
# Nope!
Nor, Silvio.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:31, archived)
# Iwan Zimmermann?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:33, archived)
# Nope!
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:34, archived)
# Ted Bovis?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:36, archived)
# you must be Shi-Xia Liu then?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:37, archived)
# Errr.......
no.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:39, archived)
# I give up then
I know, I know - it says in your profile!
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:40, archived)
# :)
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:42, archived)
# you've made up at least 3 words in the title alone!
you are Poindexter AICMFP :)
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:22, archived)
# That's de rigeur for academic papers
In my field we had some fucking losers whose names I won't mention (step forward Katherine Freese) calling a "model" after the fucking Cardassians. WHO SAID COSMOLOGISTS AREN'T FUNNY *Hnnrk hnnrk*

Not that that's a comment on Boris' title.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:28, archived)
# THE GEEKS ARE REVOLTING!
RUN AWAY!
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:32, archived)
# Geeks have always been revolting
Except a few choice choices who are quite lovely.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:34, archived)
# Honest, didn't make those up!
Although my paper did get the 1st hit on google for that word...
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:33, archived)
# good god
one of my papers comes out first hit from google for a phrase in its title too. it's not *that* small a field. (i'll resist the urge to post anything more since i quite like the facade of anonymity here and there's only three authors on the paper.)
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:36, archived)
# is everyone called Boris a mad scientist?
you should do some research into that and publish a paper
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:38, archived)
# Boris Karloff wasn't
:(
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:44, archived)
# Only three authors?
Only?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:38, archived)
# Papers with 20+ authors are not that rare
though I'm in theory so 1-5 is more normal. My average is probably 2. In observational work you're beginning to look at about 100 authors.

A very quick hunt threw up this one with 34 authors, arxiv.org/abs/1003.0270
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:40, archived)
# A hundred is insane.
Mind you, I find the tradition in the sciences of senior members of staff getting authorship despite having made no material contribution insane.

I much prefer the humanities approach: you fuck off and write something, and possibly mention someone in the footnotes if you can remember their name.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:47, archived)
# we were talking about this over lunch today, actually
the conclusion was that the current system in our field is fucking lunatic but there's no easy way of dealing with it, and no good way of controlling senior professors getting their names added regardless of whether they've done anything or not.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:52, archived)
# I had an applicant for one of our Masters courses
who was a senior medical person from somewhere-or-other.

The publications section was 45 pages long.

Something tells me that he didn't have much involvement in most of the papers cited.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:55, archived)
# 'kin hell
that's a bit wrong
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:00, archived)
# Aye.
That's what I thought.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:06, archived)
# I've got a single-author paper on the way!
Yay me!

*crys a little*
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:41, archived)
# Me too :)
I don't think it's actually *publishable* but if I made it publishable it'd be about 60 or 70 pages long and, frankly, fuck that for a lark. So I'm splitting it in two.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:45, archived)
# Almost all my stuff is single-author.
I don't really like it any other way...
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:48, archived)
# Rare thing in my field.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:50, archived)
# I think you'll find that you have made it up!
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:36, archived)
# I've never made up words in the title.
But I have used awful puns.

And I know for a fact that there are several degree programmes and government or EU-funded projects that got their titles because of the need for a good acronym.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:35, archived)
# I'm going to write a paper titled
"Cosmological Unity and the Next Telescopic Surveys", which will be about the need for cosmologists to carefully plan future ground-based surveys to maximise the useful data we can recover from them without all the fractious bickering and girlish arguments that normally split these efforts apart.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:38, archived)
# I and a couple of colleagues once spent the best part of a day
trying to design a Masters course that'd fit around the acronym WEASEL.


We failed. But we did get a pub quiz team name.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:40, archived)
# And that's all that matters.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:43, archived)
# I believe you've been pipped, although inadvertently
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:40, archived)
# oh yeah i remember that
different field. i'll get away with it :)

I'd make one around "wankers" but that K is a killer.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:43, archived)
# Keratin
probably
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:45, archived)
# Not much use in cosmology, alas
"Killing" would work but has to be followed by "vector" or "tensor". "Kretschmann" would work but has to be followed by "scalar", "curvature" or "invariant". (Actually I'm buggerd if I know what the Kretschmann scalar for cosmology is. Quite possibly it's even zero.) There's a stupid theory called Kruskaton cosmology but I think may actually be spelled Cruscaton.



Edit: Hmmm. Waves, Anisotropies and Null-surfaces in Kundt-Einstein Riemannian Spacetimes. That one *almost* works and gives us an added "Kundt" in the title, but it's damn near meaningless.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:47, archived)
# Klingon?
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:01, archived)
# Hmmmm not a bad idea
I might email Katherine Freese and suggest a follow-up to the Cardassian model. They called it that because it "takes over the universe" and ends up dominating all other matter. Perhaps something that starts to take over the universe but then settles down would be a Klingon model.

This has legs.
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:05, archived)
# I EXPECT TO BE CREDITED
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:15, archived)
# You shall be in the acknowledgements
"The authors wish to thank Griffy Savalas for useful and constructive discussions."
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:17, archived)
# :D
(, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 16:19, archived)