Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 4 Sep 2006 15:55 In article <32909$44fbd929$82a1e228$28877(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > >>This: "Sorry, mr. de Bruijn, it is _us_ who do the research here". > > > > Any professor speaking English ought to have said > > "It is _we_ who do the research here". > > Yep. It has become a poor translation of a sentence in (perfect) Dutch. I suspected as much. English must be quite difficult to learn as a second language, as it is so idiomatic.
From: John Schutkeker on 4 Sep 2006 18:19 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in news:87u03ncwga.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > >> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in >> news:67cc1$44fc3af4$82a1e228$23396(a)news1.tudelft.nl: >> >>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >>> >>>> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >>>> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he >>>> is tempted to publish a different article for each small advance >>>> rather than a single article describing his research output is one >>>> swell foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes >>>> overwhelmingly important, of course.) >>> >>> Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content >>> of an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": >>> >>> http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& >> >> You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. > > Nothing to do with fatalism. The fact that administrators mistake > quantity for quality is a bad thing. It pushes researchers to publish > often rather than to publish well. > > That's not to say that there's an obvious fix. Universities want good > research but administrators are ill-suited to determine research > quality. So they go for the next best thing they can find: require > regular publication and let the referees figure out what's worth > publishing. But the system has many problems and it isn't "fatalism" > to point that out. It's fatalism to say "Screw the journals, and publish on the web."
From: fernando revilla on 4 Sep 2006 15:13 DontBother wrote: > Don't patronize me, sport. If you can't answer the > question I actually > asked instead of some question you wish I'd then > don't reply. > > ~v~~ TEST. A master of Zen pointing to a table asked: What is this ? A table, answered one student. No it is not, said the master, table is a sound; is sound a sound ? Answers a) Yes, sound is always a sound. b) No, the master is trying to lie us. c) Others. Hint: Language it is not exactly the same than feelings. Fernando.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 4 Sep 2006 20:54 John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote in > news:87u03ncwga.fsf(a)phiwumbda.org: > >> John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: >> >>> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in >>> news:67cc1$44fc3af4$82a1e228$23396(a)news1.tudelft.nl: >>> >>>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>>> The result of publish-and-perish is that academic publications >>>>> suffer. It is in the researcher's interest to publish often, so he >>>>> is tempted to publish a different article for each small advance >>>>> rather than a single article describing his research output is one >>>>> swell foop. (Teaching suffers too as research becomes >>>>> overwhelmingly important, of course.) >>>> >>>> Very much affirmative! And I would like to add to this the content >>>> of an old response to "JSH: At the Annals": >>>> >>>> http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/073c83c6b330f28c?hl=en& >>> >>> You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. >> >> Nothing to do with fatalism. The fact that administrators mistake >> quantity for quality is a bad thing. It pushes researchers to publish >> often rather than to publish well. >> >> That's not to say that there's an obvious fix. Universities want good >> research but administrators are ill-suited to determine research >> quality. So they go for the next best thing they can find: require >> regular publication and let the referees figure out what's worth >> publishing. But the system has many problems and it isn't "fatalism" >> to point that out. > > It's fatalism to say "Screw the journals, and publish on the web." You said that there were two "fatalists" and "quitters" in this thread, but only one person advocated web-publishing instead of journals. And it weren't me. But your post sure makes it look like it's directed to me as well as Han. -- Jesse F. Hughes "But you probably aren't a person with the ability to make any kind of checks for yourself. But you do talk a lot in posts on Usenet where you probably live out some fantasy." --James S. Harris is funning, no?
From: Han de Bruijn on 5 Sep 2006 04:45
John Schutkeker wrote: > You're nothing but fatalists. Quitters, even. Perelman is a quitter as well. The next step is to think about why. Han de Bruijn |