So, INSPIRE beta might look a bit naff (note the heavily downplayed significance of citations? Interesting huh?), but thank god it's faster than SPIRES, which has of late become the search equivalent of an overweight sloth with a sore foot. When there's something really good on the TV.
For those who want to set up a "search keyword" in Firefox for INSPIRE, it seems a little tweaking is needed. Using the default "add a keyword" dongle in Firefox means extra typing. For example, if your keyword was "spires", then you would have to type
spires find a witten and d 2010
to get hold of Witten's work from last year. Alternartively, if you can't be bothered typing two keywords, and I know I can't, then use this as your bookmark:
http://inspirebeta.net/search?ln=sv&p=find+%s&f=
Note the adition of the "find" in there. Now you just need to type
spires a witten and d 2010
There. That's less typing.
Monday, 21 February 2011
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Copy editing.
After the third version of my proofs were returned by Phys.Rev. without serious mistakes being corrected, I resorted to begging.
The mistakes were not mine, let's get that out of the way. What was accepted by the journal was 3.5 pages of nicely formatted and carefully checked LaTeX. What came back was, surprisingly, 4.5 pages of space gobbling elvish script which, after a cursory examination, was revealed to contain entirely different equations to the ones I had submitted.
No really. My Dirac matrices had been re-ordered. "p" had become "q". Subscripts had changed from "2,3" to "1,2". All inexplicable.
These kind of changes can presumably be explained by how copy editing works, but I'm honestly not sure. I presumed at first that these chaps were using LaTeX, but this is perhaps not the case -- I suppose its more likely that they "import" the TeX file into some kind of grown up proper publishing program (read "poorly designed, bug ridden, memory hogging Mircrosoft trash") which produces proper grown up printable pages (read "a mess of grossly ugly type and mis-spaced equations"). This import won't be perfect and presumably some equations have to be reformatted by hand.
Fine. So why don't the lazy buggers check what they have changed? Why don't they have, wait for it, both files open at the same time, and then move their eyes between those files to check if they are the same? Why not do that, which is, presumably, let's see, their job, rather than just guessing what should go into the equations and then sending it back to me so that I can whittle a few more months off my life with the added stress of having to do someone else's fucking job?
The next time I'm sent such a bucket of shite I'm going to ask "aps beacon" to pay me fucking overtime.
It is disputational death to convey the impression of superiority these days. You can't claim that one job is better than another for fear of being accused of intellectual discrimination. So let's clear that up too: nowhere do I claim that typesetters have an easy job. I am certainly not claiming that I could do their job -- I couldn't, I don't have the patience or a careful enough eye. But if I did have to do their job for a month, I'd at least be concientious enough to check that I wasn't so fucking lazy as to have actually turned someone else's effort into TRIPE.
Feckless, apathetic morons.
Maybe there are other explanations. If it's not incompetence or apathy, then maybe it's some kind of bad juju dark magic.
In which case I want it, because I could use that to scupper my rivals. With that:
Blessed be the mighty god Zarnax, lord of copy editors, I give praise to his name and humbly request he bestow his splendiferous talents upon me, so that I too may off-handedly fuck around with the science which someone else has poured sweating, irreplacable hours of their sodding lives into.
(Ah, I have a PRD proof waiting for me.... this should be a hoot.)
The mistakes were not mine, let's get that out of the way. What was accepted by the journal was 3.5 pages of nicely formatted and carefully checked LaTeX. What came back was, surprisingly, 4.5 pages of space gobbling elvish script which, after a cursory examination, was revealed to contain entirely different equations to the ones I had submitted.
No really. My Dirac matrices had been re-ordered. "p" had become "q". Subscripts had changed from "2,3" to "1,2". All inexplicable.
These kind of changes can presumably be explained by how copy editing works, but I'm honestly not sure. I presumed at first that these chaps were using LaTeX, but this is perhaps not the case -- I suppose its more likely that they "import" the TeX file into some kind of grown up proper publishing program (read "poorly designed, bug ridden, memory hogging Mircrosoft trash") which produces proper grown up printable pages (read "a mess of grossly ugly type and mis-spaced equations"). This import won't be perfect and presumably some equations have to be reformatted by hand.
Fine. So why don't the lazy buggers check what they have changed? Why don't they have, wait for it, both files open at the same time, and then move their eyes between those files to check if they are the same? Why not do that, which is, presumably, let's see, their job, rather than just guessing what should go into the equations and then sending it back to me so that I can whittle a few more months off my life with the added stress of having to do someone else's fucking job?
The next time I'm sent such a bucket of shite I'm going to ask "aps beacon" to pay me fucking overtime.
It is disputational death to convey the impression of superiority these days. You can't claim that one job is better than another for fear of being accused of intellectual discrimination. So let's clear that up too: nowhere do I claim that typesetters have an easy job. I am certainly not claiming that I could do their job -- I couldn't, I don't have the patience or a careful enough eye. But if I did have to do their job for a month, I'd at least be concientious enough to check that I wasn't so fucking lazy as to have actually turned someone else's effort into TRIPE.
Feckless, apathetic morons.
Maybe there are other explanations. If it's not incompetence or apathy, then maybe it's some kind of bad juju dark magic.
In which case I want it, because I could use that to scupper my rivals. With that:
Blessed be the mighty god Zarnax, lord of copy editors, I give praise to his name and humbly request he bestow his splendiferous talents upon me, so that I too may off-handedly fuck around with the science which someone else has poured sweating, irreplacable hours of their sodding lives into.
(Ah, I have a PRD proof waiting for me.... this should be a hoot.)
Friday, 31 December 2010
MUAH HA HA HA!!
P.R.L.! Wooo hooooooooo! Suck on that, crappy wrong over-paid professor type!
You should see the reviews. They are glittering.
The thorn in this particular rose is that the copy-editors are atrocious (I suspect they are in the employ of disgruntled rubbish professor physicist impersonator, either that or they're pissed at having to work over christmas). I'll talk about this shortly.
You should see the reviews. They are glittering.
The thorn in this particular rose is that the copy-editors are atrocious (I suspect they are in the employ of disgruntled rubbish professor physicist impersonator, either that or they're pissed at having to work over christmas). I'll talk about this shortly.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Lazarus.
The comment has become a letter. Problems resolved, everything solved, and its dripping in physics which is, lets see, correct.
Now to wait for the reply from PRL which will surely crush any remaining will I have to ever do physics again.
Now to wait for the reply from PRL which will surely crush any remaining will I have to ever do physics again.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Submission for dummies.
Dear authors,
When submitting your paper to the arxiv, please collect your bibliography data from SPIRES. This way, the arXiv will be able to recognise your references and attribute appropriate citations automatically. Whereupon, the authors you have cited will wake up to some happy news, rather than the arduous task of reformatting your bibliography and exchanging hopeful, pleading e-mails with SPIRES Corrections.
Special note to older physicists. You don't like the format? Oh dear. Well, never mind, you get yourself snuggled up by the fire and let us get on with the work. It's easier for us, you see, because we have more time: we only care about being cited, not the format the citation takes, so we don't have to waste hours of our time changing "," to "", for example, and so we can just get on with the physics.
You settled in there? Good. Cup of tea? Co-co? Oh dear, little accident, I'll get a mop...
Lots of love,
Other authors.
When submitting your paper to the arxiv, please collect your bibliography data from SPIRES. This way, the arXiv will be able to recognise your references and attribute appropriate citations automatically. Whereupon, the authors you have cited will wake up to some happy news, rather than the arduous task of reformatting your bibliography and exchanging hopeful, pleading e-mails with SPIRES Corrections.
Special note to older physicists. You don't like the format? Oh dear. Well, never mind, you get yourself snuggled up by the fire and let us get on with the work. It's easier for us, you see, because we have more time: we only care about being cited, not the format the citation takes, so we don't have to waste hours of our time changing "," to "", for example, and so we can just get on with the physics.
You settled in there? Good. Cup of tea? Co-co? Oh dear, little accident, I'll get a mop...
Lots of love,
Other authors.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Grand Designs.
Notice the irreverent title? Comparing Hawking's latest book with reality TV trash? Good, just checking.
Love this paragraph from the NY times review of the book:
"The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is."
Good commentry by Woit over at Not Even Wrong.
Love this paragraph from the NY times review of the book:
"The real news about “The Grand Design,” however, isn’t Mr. Hawking’s supposed jettisoning of God, information that will surprise no one who has followed his work closely. The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is."
Good commentry by Woit over at Not Even Wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)