WWWWH

The story I remember is that at the time she worked for Mars (developing the Mars ice cream), so one of the tabloids had the headline:

"Woman from Mars goes to space!"

I used to use this (still do really) as a technique when starting undergraduate lectures. They’re there, ready to listen, but chatting away and need a moment to focus their attention.

*SO* let me tell you further fun facts about carbonyl chemistry…

Works. Those Anglo-Saxons knew what they were about.

Surely this is gross professional misconduct? If one of my postdocs did this they would be at risk of being fired. I would certainly never trust them again. If I let it get through, I should be at risk.

As a reviewer, if I see the authors lie in this way why should I trust anything else in the paper? The only ethical move is to reject immediately.

I acknowledge mistakes and so on are common but this is different league bad behaviour.

Well yes, but just because that’s bad doesn’t mean this isn’t far worse.

Perfect. Right up there with, "but are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?"

You know I wondered who those guys throwing spears at the busses were. Thought they’d just come doon the watter.

I have a chloroplast for you on line two; can you hold?

I also wasted a lot of my youth playing Elite, so much fun. Check out the page--it also has annotated source code for Elite (a few different versions up there).

Check out the Open University then. It’s the real thing and online. It costs and there are time constraints but they are the experts in remote teaching

Yes, exactly! Just plot all the bloody data and be done with it. No one is doing this by hand anymore so it is no extra work.

To my mind, if you have a genuine EDA attitude you plot it all.

It's the same resource--he gives it away for free, but you can buy the book if you want (I did).

Really pleased to have a play with this--I've so often read comments that the agenda, the calendar, on this thing was better than almost anything since, it was interesting to go and have a look. I can see the point, the year view is really good in a way that my current calendar (fantastical) doesn't quite match.

And on some cases sugar sugar not syntactic sugar.

And Charlie Stross is not a particularly common name so you could hope for it to be more accurate then for most.

My name is somewhat more common (although not the full John Smith) and apparently:

1. I'm a multitalented artist ... "is not only a successful actor, but he's also a singer, songwriter, dancer, and businessman. He's released several music albums and singles, and he's also starred in numerous films and television shows."

2. And I'm also a style icon... "is known for his stylish fashion sense. He's always on point with the latest trends, and he's not afraid to experiment with different looks. He's also a fan of streetwear and luxury brands."

And so on.

For the record, I'm not even monotalented and my personal style is closer to cosplaying last of the summer wine than anything else.

The author was an interesting character (and a very prominent scientist--some of his work on enzymes is still taught to undergraduates) and a committed communist. Many of his essays were first written for the a newspaper. I think it was the Daily Star.