- Cosmo-torun - cosmo.torun.pl

RE: [Cosmo-torun] Re: MNRAS - ME1299
by Elizabeth Hoffman 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Dear Dr Roukema Thank you for your email regarding ME1299. However we cannot give the paper further consideration. Regards Dr Hoffman Monthly Notices > -----Original Message----- > From: Boud Roukema [mailto:boud@astro.uni.torun.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:28 AM > To: Elizabeth Hoffman > Cc: cosmo-torun(a)cosmo.torun.pl > Subject: Re: [Cosmo-torun] Re: MNRAS - ME1299 > > Dear Dr Hoffman, > Has MNRAS come to any decision following our request? > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-December/000314.html > > Best regards, > Boud > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Boud Roukema wrote: > > > Dear Dr Hoffman, > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Elizabeth Hoffman wrote: > > > > > Dear Dr Roukema > > > > > > Regarding your paper ref. ME1299. We have recently > discovered that > > > a paper on the same subject, by K. Gorski et al., has > been submitted > > > to and accepted by the Astrophysical Journal. A preprint of this > > > paper was posted on astro-ph/0409513 on September 21, some time > > > before your paper was received by Monthly Notices on November 12, > > > but you did not cite this paper in your own. This prior > submission > > > must take precedence over > > > > The reason we did not cite that paper is that Gorski et > al's new paper > > (astro-ph/0409513) was consequent, not precedent, to our paper, and > > covered essentially the same material. We sent our paper to those > > authors on 8 September 2004 proposing co-authorship. > > > > 8 September 2004 is precedent to 21 September 2004. > > > > > yours, and I regret that we must therefore reject your paper for > > > publication in Monthly Notices. If you consider that your paper > > > contains significant new material beyond that presented > in the paper > > > by Gorski et al., then we may be able to consider a significantly > > > revised version, but such a paper would be treated as a > new submission. > > > > On 8 September, we invited Gorski et al. to be coauthors of > our paper. > > You can verify this either on the public archives of our > mailing list: > > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000254.html > > or by asking any of the subscribers to the mailing list: > > > > [Note: replace " at " by "@" - this is anti-spam-robot protection > > throughout this email.] > > * amr at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * bartosz.lew at astri.uni.torun.pl > > * boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * jarekr at ncac.torun.pl > > * magda at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * mhanasz at astri.uni.torun.pl > > * michalf at ncac.torun.pl > > * motylek at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * ssober at phys.uni.torun.pl > > * tavi at astro.uni.torun.pl > > * tkato at kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp > > * xlenka at poczta.fm > > or the HEALPix authors: > > * Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > * Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > * Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > *"Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu> to check > their email > > archive from 8 September 2004. > > > > While not many of the people listed here are necessarily "neutral", > > the nature of the date and content of the email sent on 8 September > > 2004 consitute an easily falsifiable claim (in the sense of > Karl Popper). > > > > Below you will find the email including full header > information, but > > the most relevant part of the email is as follows: > > > > > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at > > > astro.uni.torun.pl > > > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we > invite you > > > to be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way > to publish > > > this paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix > > > collaboration. We would be most happy to include your names as > > > co-authors, if that is what you wish. > > > > > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 > September, then > > > we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Boud, Bartek > > > > > > Gorski et al. made the choice of not being co-authors with us, but > > their submission of an article, with a preprint on astro-ph on > > September 21, clearly shows that they submitted their > article in full > > knowledge of our work, and they submitted their version one > day before > > our deadline in order to "officially" be able to claim publication > > precedence. > > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it> started a constructive > > discussion with us (which ended with his choosing not to be a > > co-author with us); he would probably be someone from > "Gorski's group" > > willing to confirm the chronology here. > > > > On 22 September, we submitted our own article to Astronomy & > > Astrophysics, but Astronomy & Astrophysics was unwilling to > consider > > the chronology we have mentioned and was unwilling to send > the article > > to a neutral referee for peer review, which is why we only > submitted > > to MNRAS several weeks later, hoping for a more objective > response to > > our article which was precedent to Gorski et al's article. > > > > In our humble opinion, the most constructive solution would be to > > consider this to be simultaneous submission by two groups, with one > > group (us) openly and publicly offering cooperation to the other, > > which failed to respond and instead deliberately published a day > > before our proposed deadline. Maybe you could discuss this with > > Astrophysical Journal editors to find a constructive solution. > > > > It would be appreciated if you could consider the fully chronology > > here. > > > > Best regards, > > Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew > > > > > > Enclosed (text) (to avoid filling your mailbox, the MIME attachment > > has been removed, but we, or any of the recipients cited above who > > have kept the email in his/her mailbox, can forward the > full email to > > you including the MIME attachment if you wish): > > [Note: "@" is replaced by " at " - this is anti-spam-robot > protection > > throughout this email.] > > > > > > > > > From cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Sep 8 > > > 15:26:00 2004 > > > Return-Path: <cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Delivered-To: boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > (newton.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.7]) > > > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674A82FC92 > > > for <boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl>; Wed, 8 Sep > 2004 15:26:00 > > > +0200 (CEST) > > > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (sympa at > localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP > id i88DGZsX026233; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:36 +0200 (MET DST) > > > Received: by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i88DGXCb026231; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) > > > X-Authentication-Warning: newton.astro.uni.torun.pl: sympa set > > > sender to cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl using -f > > > Received: from adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > (adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.40]) > > > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP > id i88DFOsX026212; > > > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:15:24 +0200 (MET DST) > > > Received: by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix, from userid 1000) > > > id BB9DD2FC93; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > > > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP > > > id A1A6A2FC92; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at > > > astro.uni.torun.pl > > > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > > > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > > > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > > > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > > > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > > > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > > > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0409081520170.855 at > > > adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; > BOUNDARY="1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855" > > > X-Loop: cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > > > X-Sequence: 274 > > > Precedence: list > > > X-no-archive: yes > > > List-Id: <cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Help: <mailto:sympa at > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=help> > > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=subscribe%20cosmo-torun> > > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=unsubscribe%20cosmo-torun> > > > List-Post: <mailto:cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Owner: <mailto:cosmo-torun-request at > > > newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > > > List-Archive: > <http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/arc/cosmo-torun> > > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 > > > tests=MIME_NULL_BLOCK,CBYI,RCVD_IN_ORBS version=2.20 > > > X-Spam-Level: *** > > > Status: RO > > > X-Status: > > > X-Keywords: > > > X-UID: 68 > > > > > > This message is in MIME format. The first part should > be readable text, > > > while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without > MIME-aware tools. > > > Send mail to mime at docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. > > > > > > --1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855 > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we > invite you > > > to be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way > to publish > > > this paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix > > > collaboration. We would be most happy to include your names as > > > co-authors, if that is what you wish. > > > > > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 > September, then > > > we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Boud, Bartek > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cosmo-torun mailing list > > Cosmo-torun(a)cosmo.torun.pl > > http://cosmo.torun.pl/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-torun > > >

1 0

Re: MNRAS - ME1299
by Boud Roukema 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Dear Dr Hoffman, On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Elizabeth Hoffman wrote: > Dear Dr Roukema > > Regarding your paper ref. ME1299. We have recently discovered that a > paper on the same subject, by K. Gorski et al., has been submitted to > and accepted by the Astrophysical Journal. A preprint of this paper was > posted on astro-ph/0409513 on September 21, some time before your paper > was received by Monthly Notices on November 12, but you did not cite > this paper in your own. This prior submission must take precedence over The reason we did not cite that paper is that Gorski et al's new paper (astro-ph/0409513) was consequent, not precedent, to our paper, and covered essentially the same material. We sent our paper to those authors on 8 September 2004 proposing co-authorship. 8 September 2004 is precedent to 21 September 2004. > yours, and I regret that we must therefore reject your paper for > publication in Monthly Notices. If you consider that your paper contains > significant new material beyond that presented in the paper by Gorski et > al., then we may be able to consider a significantly revised version, > but such a paper would be treated as a new submission. On 8 September, we invited Gorski et al. to be coauthors of our paper. You can verify this either on the public archives of our mailing list: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000254.html or by asking any of the subscribers to the mailing list: [Note: replace " at " by "@" - this is anti-spam-robot protection throughout this email.] * amr at astro.uni.torun.pl * bartosz.lew at astri.uni.torun.pl * boud at astro.uni.torun.pl * jarekr at ncac.torun.pl * magda at astro.uni.torun.pl * mhanasz at astri.uni.torun.pl * michalf at ncac.torun.pl * motylek at astro.uni.torun.pl * ssober at phys.uni.torun.pl * tavi at astro.uni.torun.pl * tkato at kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp * xlenka at poczta.fm or the HEALPix authors: * Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, * Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, * Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, *"Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu> to check their email archive from 8 September 2004. While not many of the people listed here are necessarily "neutral", the nature of the date and content of the email sent on 8 September 2004 consitute an easily falsifiable claim (in the sense of Karl Popper). Below you will find the email including full header information, but the most relevant part of the email is as follows: > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: proposed co-authorship > > Dear colleagues, > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way to publish this > paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix collaboration. We > would be most happy to include your names as co-authors, if that is > what you wish. > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 September, > then we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > Regards, > Boud, Bartek Gorski et al. made the choice of not being co-authors with us, but their submission of an article, with a preprint on astro-ph on September 21, clearly shows that they submitted their article in full knowledge of our work, and they submitted their version one day before our deadline in order to "officially" be able to claim publication precedence. Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it> started a constructive discussion with us (which ended with his choosing not to be a co-author with us); he would probably be someone from "Gorski's group" willing to confirm the chronology here. On 22 September, we submitted our own article to Astronomy & Astrophysics, but Astronomy & Astrophysics was unwilling to consider the chronology we have mentioned and was unwilling to send the article to a neutral referee for peer review, which is why we only submitted to MNRAS several weeks later, hoping for a more objective response to our article which was precedent to Gorski et al's article. In our humble opinion, the most constructive solution would be to consider this to be simultaneous submission by two groups, with one group (us) openly and publicly offering cooperation to the other, which failed to respond and instead deliberately published a day before our proposed deadline. Maybe you could discuss this with Astrophysical Journal editors to find a constructive solution. It would be appreciated if you could consider the fully chronology here. Best regards, Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew Enclosed (text) (to avoid filling your mailbox, the MIME attachment has been removed, but we, or any of the recipients cited above who have kept the email in his/her mailbox, can forward the full email to you including the MIME attachment if you wish): [Note: "@" is replaced by " at " - this is anti-spam-robot protection throughout this email.] > From cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Sep 8 15:26:00 2004 > Return-Path: <cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > Delivered-To: boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (newton.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.7]) > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674A82FC92 > for <boud at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:26:00 +0200 (CEST) > Received: from newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (sympa at localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i88DGZsX026233; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:36 +0200 (MET DST) > Received: by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i88DGXCb026231; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) > X-Authentication-Warning: newton.astro.uni.torun.pl: sympa set sender to cosmo-torun-owner at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl using -f > Received: from adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl [158.75.6.40]) > by newton.astro.uni.torun.pl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i88DFOsX026212; > Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:15:24 +0200 (MET DST) > Received: by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix, from userid 1000) > id BB9DD2FC93; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP > id A1A6A2FC92; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:24:27 +0200 (CEST) > From: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl> > Reply-To: Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > To: Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, > Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, > Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, > "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>, > Bartek Lew <blew at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > Boud Roukema <boud at astro.uni.torun.pl>, > cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: proposed co-authorship > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0409081520170.855 at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855" > X-Loop: cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl > X-Sequence: 274 > Precedence: list > X-no-archive: yes > List-Id: <cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Help: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=subscribe%20cosmo-torun> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl?subject=unsubscribe%20cosmo-torun> > List-Post: <mailto:cosmo-torun at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Owner: <mailto:cosmo-torun-request at newton.astro.uni.torun.pl> > List-Archive: <http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/arc/cosmo-torun> > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.7 required=5.0 tests=MIME_NULL_BLOCK,CBYI,RCVD_IN_ORBS version=2.20 > X-Spam-Level: *** > Status: RO > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > X-UID: 68 > > This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, > while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. > Send mail to mime at docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. > > --1268656134-1928451780-1094649867=:855 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear colleagues, > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way to publish this > paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix collaboration. We > would be most happy to include your names as co-authors, if that is > what you wish. > > However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 September, > then we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. > > Regards, > Boud, Bartek

1 1

grant KBN deadline UMK wtorek 25.01 ?
by Boud Roukema 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Witam, Circus time again! It seems to me that the KBN deadline is Tuesday 25.01 for sending to the rectorat. Do we try for a common grant proposal? Or separate ones once again? We have a cosmic topology result + other cosmic topology papers which make the case for cosmic topology fairly strong, IMHO, and this includes the topology-AGN connection. Time is getting short, so i'll assume by default we make separate proposals as we tried last year (unsuccessfully). Hmmm, in the last round, there were three cosmo applications that succeeeded: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~kst/konkursy.html Demianski 200.000 zl Juszkiewicz 411.000 zl Lokas 102.000 zl If we fail again, then IMHO it will be time to activate cosmo-pl@..., this is a community problem and will require a community solution if it remains unsolved... pozdr boud

2 2

WMAP gossip
by Boud Roukema 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

witam, There's some very interesting WMAP gossip - e.g. why the 2nd year data have not been released yet, here: http://www.geometrygames.org/ESoS/CosmologyNews.html i say "gossip" (,,plotki" ?) because there are no links to astro-ph articles, conference proceedings, etc. (but a relevant article is: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353) pozdr boud

1 0

jasna definicja: universe domain vs multiverse GFR Ellis et al
by Boud Roukema 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

Witam, W odpowiedź do pytania o termina ,,cały wszechświat", przypominam jeden z bardzo rzadko artykuły (moim skromnym zdaniem), który jasnie mówi o różnica między dwomi pojęciami: (1) ,,wiele domen 'wszechświatowy' wewnątrz jednym przestrzeń ciągly" vs (2) ,,zbiór [ensemble] wiele wszechświatów, jak niezależnych przestrzeni" Chyba angielski będzie trudny dla wielych, ale lepiej czytać artykuł (en) który jest jasny (chociaż głęboki) zamiast artykuł z wielymi słowami dwuznacznymi. Jest Multiverses and physical cosmology Authors: G.F.R. Ellis, U. Kirchner, W.R. Stoeger http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292 i już jest (od dawno) na strony CosmoNews: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews pozdr boud

1 0

cosmdist-0.2.0.tar.gz
by Boud Roukema 04 Dec '04

04 Dec '04

Witam, http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/cosmdist-0.2.0.tar.gz Pakiet dla: comoving distance (radial) comoving distance (arc length 1 radian) = proper motion distance time as functions of z + their inverses + horizon, radius of curvature -> either command line (if you have glibc) otherwise both C library and (C wrapper which functions as) a fortran library are here Enjoy! :) (and modify, redistribute etc according to the GPL) pozdr boud

1 0

--- SPAM --- 2005 doctors directory plastic surgery, oncology, 40,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors.
by Clarence Montano 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (5.4 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000]

1 0

--- SPAM --- 2005 doctors directory plastic surgery, oncology, Direct mail, disease, surgery, obstetrics, physicians.
by Jerrold Alfaro 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (5.4 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000]

1 0

--- SPAM --- cd version doctor's american directory, 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors.
by Belinda Haskins 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (6.1 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 0.7 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no X-Mailer

1 0

--- SPAM --- genralpractice, 40,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors
by Neil Christensen 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. Each record is indexed by such features as name, address, phone and fax. The database is available in Excel format on CD Rom. It is designed for mailing lists and merges. The data can be selected by state or other criteria such as type of practice. It can be used on an unlimited basis. For the past 14 years, MedCom has maintained the most comprehensive healthcare lists. Our directories are 100% telephone verified and updated every quarter. MedCom continues to hold the nation's most extensive and reliable databases of key decision-makers in the health care market. Available exclusively on CD-Rom (Excel), the data can be used on an unlimited basis. It is easily exportable to other programs for mailing or faxing purposes. For a limited time, this extensive database is offered at an introductory Price of $195 (reg. $745). To order, please print this e-mail, complete the information below and fax it to 416-765-0029 (tel: 416-765-0028). NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: POSTAL: TEL: FAX: EMAIL: Spam detection software, running on the system "galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block similar future email. If you have any questions, see postmaster for details. Content preview: The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare Database includes comprehensive information on more than 7,000 hospitals, 25,000 nursing homes and 400,000 doctors. It is the most extensive and reliable mailing list and database of key decision makers in the health care market. [...] Content analysis details: (9.5 points, 4.5 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 5.4 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% [score: 1.0000] 4.1 FORGED_RCVD_NET_HELO Host HELO'd using the wrong IP network

1 0

copying algorithms: GNU Scientific Library vs Numerical Recipes
by Boud Roukema 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

Witam, What can be legally (and morally) copied from a program under a restrictive copyright is "the algorithms, the ideas" but not the particular way of expressing them. So the practical question is: where is the borderline? In the GSL (GNU Scientific Library), http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/, GNU provides, e.g. in Version 1.1.1, the version below of NR's ran0 routine. i'm sure most of us have access to a legal copy of the NR routine, or else a little googling shows e.g. http://cc.oulu.fi/~tf/tiedostot/pub/nrf/ran0.f Well, to me these look extremely similar to one another. Even the constants: static const long int m = 2147483647, a = 16807, q = 127773, r = 2836; static const unsigned long int mask = 123459876; are exactly identical to those in the NR routines, they even have the same names, except for the "i". Is this really a different "expression"? In any case, IMHO noone can deny that the authors of the GSL routines (there is also ran1, ran2, ran3) have very likely had access to the NR source code. Sure, they translated it to C and added some stuff, but it's the same algorithm, it's essentially the same sequence of steps. Anyway, GSL has lots of really cool stuff. :) Let's defend scientific software freedom! pozdr boud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- /* rng/ran0.c * * Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 James Theiler, Brian Gough * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at * your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU * General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. */ #include <config.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <gsl/gsl_errno.h> #include <gsl/gsl_rng.h> /* This is an implementation of the algorithm used in Numerical Recipe's ran0 generator. It is the same as MINSTD with an XOR mask of 123459876 on the seed. The period of this generator is 2^31. Note, if you choose a seed of 123459876 it would give a degenerate series 0,0,0,0, ... I've made that into an error. */ static inline unsigned long int ran0_get (void *vstate); static double ran0_get_double (void *vstate); static void ran0_set (void *state, unsigned long int s); static const long int m = 2147483647, a = 16807, q = 127773, r = 2836; static const unsigned long int mask = 123459876; typedef struct { unsigned long int x; } ran0_state_t; static inline unsigned long int ran0_get (void *vstate) { ran0_state_t *state = (ran0_state_t *) vstate; const unsigned long int x = state->x; const long int h = x / q; const long int t = a * (x - h * q) - h * r; if (t < 0) { state->x = t + m; } else { state->x = t; } return state->x; } static double ran0_get_double (void *vstate) { return ran0_get (vstate) / 2147483647.0 ; } static void ran0_set (void *vstate, unsigned long int s) { ran0_state_t *state = (ran0_state_t *) vstate; if (s == mask) { GSL_ERROR_VOID ("ran0 should not use seed == mask", GSL_EINVAL); } state->x = s ^ mask; return; } static const gsl_rng_type ran0_type = {"ran0", /* name */ 2147483646, /* RAND_MAX */ 1, /* RAND_MIN */ sizeof (ran0_state_t), &ran0_set, &ran0_get, &ran0_get_double}; const gsl_rng_type *gsl_rng_ran0 = &ran0_type; ----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 4

puzzled about healpix software and Numerical Recipes
by Boud Roukema 17 Nov '04

17 Nov '04

Witam, i am aware that at least one person felt that an earlier version of a package i released contained "expressions (particularly any arbitrary or stylistic choices)" identical to those in Numerical Recipes routines. My own judgment had been that the expression was different, only the "ideas, methodology and algorithm" were identical to the Numerical Recipes routines. In NR's own words, this is perfectly acceptable within the definition of copyright. And, of course, there were clear warnings that the code was inspired from NR. Nevertheless, i followed the concern, and stopped distribution. In order to avoid any ambiguity, i (and any other volunteers) will rework the code using routines from the GSL (GNU Scientific Library): http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/ComputerLanguages… which Michał Frąckowiak brought to our attention :)) and will reexpress any remaining algorithms, possibly changing the algorithms themselves, even though this is not necessary. However, you might want to note that there seems to be something curious about a certain non-free package called Healpix_1.20. i suggest to people with a copy of this package to have a look at two files, which, apparently, exist in this package: Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 and also at the copyright notice Healpix_1.20/READ_Copyrights_Licenses.txt and then to look at the Numerical Recipes guidelines for redistributing their routines, whether binary or as source code: http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html Apparently, the file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 contains the source code for the routines: dsvbksb dpythag dsvdcmp isort A quick search on google on, e.g., "dsvbksb" shows that NR probably cannot control distribution of these files: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=dsvbksb&btnG=Szukaj+z+Google&lr= Nevertheless, there *are*, apparently, NR routines provided as source code in the file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/mod/num_rec.f90 which is *claimed* to be NR code, including one-line copyright notices from NR. In principle, redistributing NR routines without permission from NR is a violation of copyright - stating the copyright notice is not enough to satisfy NR. Of course, it could, in principle, be the case that the Healpix collaboration have paid "a fixed fee" for this and have permission to redistribute. However, first note the cases in which NR provides permission: http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html > if you want to make available to your users a subset of Recipes in > object, or individually callable, form, but not including source > code. We consider such requests on a case-by-case basis, with > permission more likely when they are for fewer than 20 Recipes used in > this manner. > > * In most cases of specialized software, we charge only a nominal > flat fee per Recipe for each use (unlimited number of copies). > > * The copyright notice is required, as above, and we also request that > the printed manual contain words to the effect "the procedures [your > procedure identifiers] are based on routines in Numerical Recipes: The > Art of Scientific Computing, published by Cambridge University Press, > and are used by permission." Note: "not including source code". Also: the full copyright notice (not just one line, see "EXACT WORDING OF REQUIRED COPYRIGHT NOTICES" on http://www.numerical-recipes.com/com/info-permissions.html ) is required. However, for distributing *source code*: > Finally, there is the case where our source code, or source code > based in copyright on our code, is to be made available to users. We > consider these requests on a case-by-case basis, but the success > rate of these requests is not high. ... > # If permission is given, you will need to include a notice similar > to the sample below as a comment in each routine that is based on a > Numerical Recipes routine. So Healpix_1.20 could, in principle, redistribute NR source code (probably for a fixed fee). However, this is only considered "on a case-by-case basis" and "the success rate of these requests is not high". Moreover, there would need to be the full copyright notice, and, apparently, the file Healpix_1.20/READ_Copyrights_Licenses.txt does not contain any reference to Numerical Recipes. Also, the full copyright notice needs to be included "as a comment in each routine". (GNU recommends including a big copyright announcement at the top of each routine, not just one line.) There could be one way around this: since Healpix is non-free, and requires personal email between applicants and authors, the authors could restrict distribution to people who declare that they already have access to a legal copy of NR. i'm not sure if NR would be happy, but it might work. However, this is not our problem. But it does demonstrate why an open model of code development has advantages: people worried about copyright issues are more likely to speak up earlier in an open model compared to a non-free model. Now that Healpix is so widely used, the authors might have a problem negotiating with NR based on the large number of copies already distributed. It would seem to me that their options are either to negotiate with NR and pay whatever fee is required (i'm sure ESO could pay this), or else to rewrite the parts that need NR recipes. Of course, that is their problem, not ours. pozdr boud PS: It would also seem that Healpix has been using Mahatma Gandhi's "illegal civil disobedience" technique in protest against the patent on the LZW compression algorithm for making gif files. This file Healpix_1.20/src/f90/lib/gd.c apparently contains the ppmtogif.c code The code itself is freely redistributable. However, *usage* of the code was probably illegal, since the *algorithm* was patented. This is different from copyright, which only protects the expression of an algorithm and not the algorithm itself. See http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/ppmtogif.html > If you use ppmtogif without the -nolzw option, you are using a > patent on the LZW compression method which is owned by Unisys, and > in all probability you do not have a license from Unisys to do > so. Unisys typically asks $5000 for a license for trivial use of the > patent. Unisys has never enforced the patent against trivial > users. The patent expired in the US in 2003 and is due to expire in > other countries in 2004. So the patent has now expired (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3007862.stm ) but for many years, more "conservative" GNU/Linux groups like GNU, Debian recommended using PNG instead of GIF, or else used a pseudo-GIF format. More radical software groups and probably millions and millions of users (probably including you!) simply used the algorithm despite the patent. A big battle is continuing against software patents in Europe. Go to http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatplEn to see info on what Polish poseł in the European parliament are doing or http://kwiki.ffii.org/FfiiprojEn or http://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.pl.html for more on what you can do concretely.

2 2

looking for hints on velocity distribution of electrons in relativistic jets
by Bartosz Lew 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Hi everybody, I'm interested if anybody has some quick nice references or ideas regarding - as in the subject - what the velocities in relativistic jets can be - what this can depend on from theoretical considerations/modelling? The bottom line is, can we have some constrainst on these velocities from models, or models and ovservations (if so - what observables are needed) and what this can depend on ? Is it very bad to assume that these can span from say some arbitrary value to one in \beta space with flat statistical distribution ? Can we have some hints on this distribution ? Motyl, I could use your help here ? I don't have time for getting through tons of papers. Bartek

2 1

Fw: mobcap
by Walker Albert 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

I noticed this email in my inbox, is this what you meant? http://www.yourrealworkscenter.com/info.html You can download full CD's, dvd's and games. Ive downloaded 6 dvd's so far. Once you've seen it get ahold of me, I want to hear your reaction - you'll go batty I know it. They walk you through the entire process of burning them to CD. I know this, the movie section has movies in it that are still in theates - I dont know about you but thats seriously impressive. See you this weekend. Candy

1 0

isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz ready for testing and comments, feedback
by Boud Roukema 08 Nov '04

08 Nov '04

Witam, A GNU GPL (not GNU, just GNU GPL!) package which implements the algebra in A Solution to the Isolatitude, Equi-area, Hierarchical Pixel-Coordinate System http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409533 is now ready. I've put it here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz It would be nice to have some precise, constructive comments regarding this. (Sure, negative criticisms are also welcome, but are most useful when accompanied by constructive suggestions...) Today is Mon 8 November. If there are no objections within a week, i.e. before Mon 15 November, then i will make a more formal proposal (with deadline two weeks later) for a formal consensus decision about continued distribution of the isolat package under the GNU GPL. i realise that this open method of communication means that we give a chance to "competitors"; however, i think it is best to trust in an open community. Most of us want to do good, free (as in speech) astronomy research, so IMHO we should trust our peers. In the long term, there will be more benefits than problems IMHO. BTW, just a reminder once again: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-October/000269.html Numerical Recipes: http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf ; Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those ; ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas ; consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the ; necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of ; those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or ; stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any ; other derivative works. ; ; If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those ; ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new ; program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those ; programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. Isolat is *not* based on analysing the ideas in a certain non-free code which will remain unnamed here, though it *is* based on the algebraic solution to an electronically published sphere-pixelisation system. However, even if it *were* based on analysing the ideas in a certain non-free code, there would be no copyright problem, since to the best of my knowledge, the code is a "completely different implementation" to that non-free code. Of course, it must be more or less equivalent in the basic "ideas", even though the methodology and algorithm is almost certainly different, given the way the algebra is written in the paper inspired from our paper: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 Nevertheless, if anybody is concerned about this, please *look at the code*, don't just rely on rumours of A said that B said that C said that ... . The code is here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/GPLdownload/dodec/isolat-0.1.10.tar.gz The library part of the code is the part which codes the actual pixel number <-> spherical coordinate calculations. There is lib/getang.f pixel -> angular coordinates and lib/getpix.f angular coordinates -> pixel and lib/fr2pol.f converts a fraction in the square to phi/pi, sin(th) or inversely The total number of lines in these three routines, apart from comments and blank lines can be found by typing: cat lib/getang.f lib/getpix.f lib/fr2pol.f |grep -v "^[cC]" |grep -v "^$" |wc It is: 409 lines, 1240 words. That's not much. If anyone finds anything in these 409 lines which is considered to be "an expression (particularly any arbitrary or stylistic choices)" similar to that in any non-free software package, please say so and we can correct this. Simply making vague comments is not going to be constructive. The code is there and corrections can of course be made: this is the whole idea of GNU GPL, the idea of coming up with perfect code right from the beginning is not the way the system works. pozdr boud

1 0

PROPOSED new list for skeptics discussion DEADLINE Thu 11 Nov 18:00
by Boud Roukema 04 Nov '04

04 Nov '04

Witam, Bartek is interested in opening a discussion list on adjani for something like a "sceptics' society". Sceptics' societies around the world are a mix of scientists and ordinary citizens curious about claims of events seen outside of the laboratory which seem to violate the known laws of physics, e.g. walking on hot coals and not having your feet burnt, UFOs, crop circles, etc. Have a look at http://www.skeptic.com and you'll see that even the aliens are convinced that the skeptics exist ;). The goal is to show to society that scientists are not just "dogmatic believers" who refuse to believe in events outside of our "narrow-minded" way of thinking, and to treat the claims seriously, and this way educate the public into the scientific method, maybe help develop better intuition of statistics and probability among ordinary people. There is a prize of Aus$100 000 (about 250 000 PLN) waiting since 1980 for someone able to prove they have psychic or paranormal powers: http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/challenge.htm There is also a US$1M prize (about 4 000 000 PLN): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#The_.241_million_challenge Some astronomers (e.g. Jayant Narlikar in India) are strongly supportive of skeptics' societies. And, who knows, a skeptics society might just possibly discover a real effect showing the next step beyond the Standard Models of physics and cosmology. (OK, personally i'm rather sceptical, but my mind is open, in principle...) Since this *could* be controversial, and i'm trying to implement consensus-method decision-making, here is the proposal: ###################################################################### PROPOSAL: new list for skeptics discussion DEADLINE Thu 11 Nov 18:00 We'll open a mailing list on adjani with a name like sceptyk-l at cosmo.torun.pl and Bartek will be the list admin. Purpose of list: discussion group to see if people in Toruń, especially scientists, are willing to spend the time setting up properly controlled experiments, writing them up properly, doing the proper statistical analyses, communicating them in public meetings etc., and communicating with other skeptics' groups around the world - especially if someone wants to try for the 250.000 PLN Australian prize money or the 4 000 000 PLN James Randi Foundation prize money. ###################################################################### Like any discussion group, IMHO it is most likely to be efficient if it is self-organising, and it will only work if there are enough people willing to spend enough time on it. But it can't hurt trying. pozdr boud

1 0

wrapped space
by Bartosz Lew 28 Oct '04

28 Oct '04

interesting... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/21/warped.spaceII/index.html BL

2 1

propozycji tematy licencjat/magister
by Boud Roukema 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Witam, Propozycji dla licencjat/magister są tu: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/LicMag Dzięki do Bartka dla komentarza :) Andrzej Strobel: Żeby możesz klejić do dokumenta tekstowy, treści jest tu, na dolę. pozdr boud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Supervisor: B. Roukema (boud at astro.uni.torun.pl) Number of students: up to 3-4 students is possible Observational Cosmology Masters/Licencjat Project - General Outline Description: There are many possible projects which could be done as a master's thesis project, in using publicly available archival data from observational surveys to constrain one or more of the local or global cosmological parameters, either those related to shape (curvature, topology) or maybe also those unrelated to shape ("dark energy" or "dark matter"). The precise projects would be chosen in discussion with the masters students during Nov-Dec 2004. Please see http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoProjects for projects Boud is working on and http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews for ideas on the hottest topics in cosmology research - any of these would be appropriate if the student is sufficiently interested. Examples (1) Topology of the Universe Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402608, it seems that we may have measured the shape of the Universe, since certain parts of the cosmic microwave background seen by the WMAP satellite appear to be seen twice in different directions on the sky, due to topological lensing. The purpose of the masters/licencjat project is: * Aim: Propose and apply a further test using WMAP data which further tests the hypothesis. This requires: o Reading/writing/managing the WAMP data file with free software computer programs o Statistical analysis o Independently checking that the computer code does the algebraic and statistical analyses correctly (2) Dark Matter Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405282 the 7 year results of the DAMA/NaI dark matter direct detection experiment show a signal significant at 6.3? according to the authors. An explanation for why a signal from mirror-baryonic matter should be expected in this experiment but not in others with similar cross-section detection parameters is presented in http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0403043. * Aim: Check the experimental and theoretical claims and propose further tests o Try to find an alternative explanation for the DAMA/NaI results without going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics o Check whether the Foot et al. calculations of mirror matter properties are consistent with all the experimental data as the authors claim o Extend the Foot et al. calculations to find, e.g. a non-gravitational effect of mirror matter in stellar physics, e.g. symbiotic stars (gravitational effects of dark matter are already well studied) * More info: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/NonBaryonicDarkMa… (3) Cosmic String Detection * In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410073 Kibble discusses the http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/302547 possible detection of a cosmic string which seems to gravitationally lens a background galaxy (Sazhin et al.) In http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406516 the extra pairs of lensed galaxies predicted by the hypothesis are discussed. * Aim: Understand the basics about (1) cosmic strings, (2) gravitational lensing versus cosmic string lensing, and test the hypothesis o Calculate the probability of seeing the original pair by chance o Check whether the statistics of expected numbers of lensed images are correct o Propose an independent test of the hypothesis, e.g. using radio observations and prepare an observing proposal General Requirements: * basic knowledge in astronomy, physics, mathematics, computing skills * desire to measure something about the shape of the Universe and/or dark matter or dark energy and/or cosmic strings * willingness both to learn from and to teach others interested in observational cosmology at TCfA * willingness to learn the following practical skills: touch-typing, emacs, \LaTeX, usage of wikis and/or mailing lists for communication, GPL compatible programming * participation in the "Shape of the Universe" monograph course and/or Bronek Rudak's semester 9 "Kosmologia" course: o http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/MonographCosmo o http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~bronek/KOS.html * Nie ma problemu jeśli student magistera lub licjencacki (jeszcze) nie dobrze mówi po angielsku, ale potrzeba znać czytać i rozumieć po angielski naukowcy ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

projects for licencjat/magister students
by Boud Roukema 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

witam, Apparently i should give this to Andrzej Strobel "before the end of the week" - i guess this means tomorrow (Friday) afternoon is OK. http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/LicMag i've including internal twiki links with the full URL so that Andrzej Strobel will (hopefully) include this in the text he distributes. Any comments (you could edit the twiki directly if you wish...)? pozdr boud

1 0

cosmic string detection from close pairs of galaxies ?
by Boud Roukema 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Witam, We have an interesting candidate for Dark Matter. It seems there is also an interesting candidate for cosmic string detection: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CosmoNews#cosmic_… (i've shifted CosmoNews to the twiki, so that it's easier to edit etc.) pozdr boud

1 0

Re: Journal Club
by Boud Roukema 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

Witam, Agnieszka: i think what Bartek and i answered to your question about OGLE/MACHO/EROS was wrong - if MACHOs are mirror matter, then there is no problem with violating nucleosynthesis. As far as nucleosynthesis constraints are concerned, Omega_MACHO *could* be as big as 0.20, provided that it is *not* baryonic. So it seems to me, anyway. So the possible argument against MACHOs being mirror matter and providing Omega_MACHO=0.20 (Omega_m - Omega_baryon = 0.25 - 0.05 =0.20) depends on which observational/Galaxy-structure analysis of OGLE/MACHO/EROS you believe. E.g. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303100 Afonso et al 2003 say expected "optical depths" towards the Galactic Bulge are something like 4e-7 for "ordinary" stars and 8e-7 if there is a population of brown dwarfs, probably just citing these from Paczynski 1991 and Griest 1991. What they find is about 9e-7, while the first OGLE results (1994) found 33e-7 which is about 4 times higher, and Afonso et al say they can't calculate an optical depth for OGLE II because the experimental parameters (detection efficiency) are not published. Even if Afonso et al are right, there's still the possibility that the Om_b/Om_b' \approx 0.5 is right (instead of 0.2) and that there are at least two different non-baryonic types of dark matter in significant quantities (the Universe often turns up out complicated than we expect, at least in terms of new particles...), in which case Omega_mirror \approx 0.1 instead of 0.05 and it could be the MACHO population. So probably the challenge is to see if there is some experimental way of distinguishing a baryonic MACHO from a mirror-baryonic MACHO... pozdr boud On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Agnieszka Slowikowska wrote: > Witam, > > zapraszam na kolejny Journal Club, ktory odbedzie sie w najblizszy piatek > o godzinie 10.15 w sali seminaryjnej kamieniczki CAMK. > > Boud Roukema opowie nam o "Mirror matter and the 7 yr DAMA NaI results: > has DM already been detected?". > > > Pozdrawiam, > aga > >

2 2

The universe may be revealing its shape, new findings suggest
by Andrzej Marecki 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Have you seen this?? http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/041005_univshape.htm am

1 0

content of journal club talk
by Boud Roukema 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

hi, i think Agnieszka forgot to send the abstract of my talk (this seems to be the habit here - only title, no abstracts...) pozdr boud > Witam, > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Agnieszka Slowikowska wrote: > > > Witam, > > > > bardzo prosze wszystkich spikerow Journal Clubu o przesylanie tytulow > > Proponuję spikować (jak spikerem, muszę spikować) o: > > "Mirror matter and the 7 yr DAMA NaI results: has DM already been detected?" > > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl:9673/zwicky/CosmoNews > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405282 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211067 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403043 > http://de.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402267 > > Chyba będę przygotować coś w pdf przez pdflatex. > > pozdr > boud > > > wystapien. Program mozna znalezc na stronie: > > > > http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~aga/Journal-Club.html > > > > Przypominam, ze wystapienie nie powinno byc dluzsze niz 20 minut i powinno > > dotyczyc ciekawych osiagniec astronomicznych lub astrofizycznych > > opublikowanych ostatnio w profesjonalnych magazynach astronomicznych. > > > > Journal Club odbywa sie w CAMKu o 10.15 w piatki. > > 1 pazdziernika nie ma JC, poniewaz jest inauguracja roku akademickiego > > 2004 / 2005. > > > > Pozdrawiam, > > aga >

1 0

AA/2004/2055 (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Witam, Well, A&A has come up with a new excuse: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:03:30 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/2055 > > 13/10/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > Dear Boud, > We were not aware of this paper in astro-ph by the Healpix team. > Now that this is published, we do not think it possible for A&A to > consider publishing a similar paper, even if you derived it > independently, with different details. > The motivation you had to publish it, is now gone. So you can > understand that we can not unfortunately consider further your paper > for A&A, > > with best wishes, > The Editors > The motivation you had to publish it, is now gone. So you can Hmmm... In this case, it seems to me that the A&A Editors are stating that they consider electronic publication as important as refereed journal publication and that peer review of scientific papers is unnecessary! It is clear that some time we are going to have to reorganise the methods by which A&A editors make decisions. After all, it's we the astronomers who are supposed to run A&A, not the other way around. When the Editors start saying that peer-reviewed publications is unnecessary, we have a problem... However, that's something for the long term. pozdr boud

1 0

Re: AA/2004/2055
by Boud Roukema 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Dear Editors, On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 aanda.paris at obspm.fr wrote: > 29/09/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > > Dear Boud, > > We are sorry that we cannot consider your paper for publication in > A&A, since it is based on the HealPix software, that has been The second half of the above statement is false. Our paper contains algebra regarding a system of pixelising the sphere which is independent of any software implementation. It is not based on the HealPix software. It is based on the cited paper: Gorski et al. (1999a/b), which presents the outline of a pixelisation system but not its full solution. The solution requires a small, but original and highly necessary (given its non-availability to astronomers) amount of algebra and elementary calculus. Nevertheless, it is understandable that you are worried that the derivation in our paper might be just an extract of the non-free-software (see below) HEALPix software package. In principle, some part of the solution in our paper probably is, in some indirect sense, implicitly present in the HEALPix package. However, in the context in which free software is receiving increasing support, even from governments in Western Europe, it is unreasonable to expect astronomers to search through non-free code in order to find the necessary algebra. Surely it is more useful for them to see the algebraic derivation directly as a solution to the only partially solved problem in Gorski et al. (1999a/b), so that they neither have to rederive it algebraically, nor search through non-free computer code. A similar situation occurs when, say, an article A is submitted to A&A which has content which solves an unsolved problem in an article B cited in the bibliography, but it is well-known that the authors of the cited article B are aware of the full solution to their problem; and it is also known that many astronomers C communicate directly with B, in private, but other astronomers D need to independently rederive the solution if they do not wish to enter into a direct working relationship with authors B. Wouldn't it in this case be reasonable to send the article to an independent referee, independent of all astronomers known to be close colleagues of any of the authors A or B, while asking the referee to judge whether or not the content is independent of the non-freely distributed work of authors B? Please note: > developped by Gorski et al, and is still actively developped and > improved, and is widely distributed on the web (now on the ESO web > site), and is widely used. It is distributed freely, with all the The Gorski et al software is *not* distributed under a free software licence (see http://www.gnu.org). It is formally correct that it is distributed at zero cost, but it is *not* "free software"; it may not be redistributed without the permission of its authors. This violates software freedoms 2 and 3: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (en) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html (fr) All four software freedoms (0, 1, 2, 3) are part of the fundamental basis of the GNU/Linux free software system. > could have done this paper, and if they have not judged it worth > while, you have just to convince them to do so, or at least > collaborate with them to do so. A paper like this, with them as > co-authors, would not have this problem. But apparently they judge > that the publication on the web as it is now is sufficient, Surely the authors of a non-free software package related to a cited paper are not in a neutral position regarding algebra derived from that cited paper; they may (either correctly or wrongly) believe that any related work is necessarily unoriginal. If a paper is submitted, which, for example, is stated to be based on Bloggs et al. (1995n) and it is suspected that the submitted paper contains similar content to Bloggs et al. (1996d), then is it reasonable to insist that the submitting authors collaborate with Bloggs et al. (1996d), even if Bloggs et al. "could have done" the submitted paper and "have not judged it worth while"? Or would it not be more reasonable to send it to a referee independent of both the submitting authors and Bloggs et al. ? Finally, you might also want to note that Gorski et al. themselves have implicitly *approved* the scientific value of publication of our paper. On 8 Sep 2004, we proposed co-authorship to the HEALPix software authors (Krzysztof Gorski <Krzysztof.M.Gorski at jpl.nasa.gov>, Eric Hivon <efh at ipac.caltech.edu>, Frode Hansen <Frode.Hansen at roma2.infn.it>, "Benjamin D. Wandelt" <bwandelt at uiuc.edu>) http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000523.html (first message in http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/ ) and we pointed out that if we did not hear any response by 22 Sep, we would presume that they were uninterested. We had a constructive discussion with Frode, and he chose not to be a co-author, at least pending possible future discussion. The others did not reply directly, but they replied one day before the 22 Sep deadline, by publishing a paper similar to the one we had already sent them: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 In this paper, BTW, in formulae (13) and (14), there is an inspiration from our own notation in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of our paper, but without citation. Their derivation is clearly independent work from ours (while they were clearly motivated and inspired by our work, they were clearly capable of doing it independently); our work is clearly independent from theirs. However, the fact of their publishing (electronically, at least) in response to receiving our paper suggests that they consider the content valuable to the scientific community and *not* present in their non-free software package. Their paper 0409513 is presented in ApJ referee format; would it be reasonable that one independent derivation is published in ApJ but a second independent derivation is *not* published in A&A? Best regards Boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE mon 11 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1 1

Meudon Workshop on Cosmic Topology
by Jean-Pierre Luminet 07 Oct '04

07 Oct '04

Dear colleagues, I am organizing a mini-workshop (2-3 days, a dozen of participants) about the recent developments in cosmic topology, and I would like very much to invite one of you (Andrzej Marecki, Bartosz Lew, Magdalena Cechowska) to this workshop for giving a talk. (I have already invited Boud Roukema, who has accepted.) The place will be Meudon, the date will be 8-10 march 2005. Your travel expenses as well as your hotel would be taken in charge. Other speakers/participants will be Jeff Weeks, Marcelo Reboucas (from Brazil), Jesper Gunderman (a Danish mathematician working on eigenmodes), and of course the French group : Marc Lachieze-Rey, Alain Riazuelo, Roland Lehoucq, etc. See the enclosed preliminary program. It would be really a great opportunity to meet altogether and resume the state-of-the-art of this fascinating field of cosmology together with future perspectives and collaborations. I really hope that one of you will be able to accept - please decide amongst yourselves who is most interested in participating, and confirm before 1 november. Yours, Jean-Pierre -- Jean-Pierre Luminet Directeur de recherches au C.N.R.S. Laboratoire Univers et Théories (LUTH) Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, 92195 Meudon cedex, France --- tel:(33) 01 45 07 74 23, fax:(33) 01 45 07 79 71 --- http://www.luth.obspm.fr/luminet.html

1 0

Re: AA/2004/2055
by Boud Roukema 05 Oct '04

05 Oct '04

Witam, IMHO the A&A editors are rather confused - here's their letter in response to our algebra paper http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409533. Why did they write such a confused letter? IMHO that sort of speculation is probably better not discussed publicly. The fact is that they sent me a confused letter, and IMHO there should be a reply. Note that our paper does not contain any reference to software at all. > From aanda.paris at obspm.fr Fri Oct 1 17:28:03 2004 > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:50:39 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/2055 > > 29/09/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > > Dear Boud, > We are sorry that we cannot consider your paper for publication in > A&A, since it is based on the HealPix software, that has been > developped by Gorski et al, and is still actively developped and > improved, and is widely distributed on the web (now on the ESO web > site), and is widely used. It is distributed freely, with all the > code sources (in fortran 90 or in C, etc..), and therefore your > publication could be considered as a plagiat. The authors themselves > could have done this paper, and if they have not judged it worth > while, you have just to convince them to do so, or at least > collaborate with them to do so. > A paper like this, with them as co-authors, would not have this > problem. > But apparently they judge that the publication on the web as it is > now is sufficient, > > with best wishes, > > The Editors For the moment this is only a *proposal* of a reply to A&A. However, it is a public discussion with the aim of finding consensus using the formal consensus method. Having a secret discussion is pointless when we are doing public science and education. Anyway, here's the proposal. Comments, suggestions, welcome. Deadline: Fri 8 October 2004 (of course, if anyone needs a longer deadline, please say so). pozdr boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE fri 8 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Dear Editors, On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 aanda.paris at obspm.fr wrote: > 29/09/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn F. Roukema > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > > Our Ref. : AA/2004/2055 > > > Dear Boud, > > We are sorry that we cannot consider your paper for publication in > A&A, since it is based on the HealPix software, that has been The second half of the above statement is false. Our paper contains algebra regarding a pixelisation system which is independent of any software implementation. It is not based on the HealPix software. > developped by Gorski et al, and is still actively developped and > improved, and is widely distributed on the web (now on the ESO web > site), and is widely used. It is distributed freely, with all the This status of the Gorski et al software package is irrelevant regarding the scientific value of the algebra - "ideas, principles, algorithms" - behind the pixelisation system. This is independent of any software implementation. Nevertheless, since you refer to that software, you might like to note that the Gorski et al software is *not* distributed under a free software licence (see http://www.gnu.org). It is formally correct that it is distributed at zero cost, but it is *not* "free software". The Gorski et al software licence may not be redistributed without the permission of the authors. This violates software freedoms 2 and 3: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You are certainly aware that Astronomy & Astrophysics is a European journal, and many European governments are now committed to using free software. One of the most powerful elements of free software is the GNU General Public Licence, issued by the Free Software Foundation. I think it is relevant in this case to quote the GNU Manifesto, which you may not have read: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html ; "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" ; ; If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity ; can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to ; use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating ; innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if ; they restrict the use of these programs. (in French: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html ) Gorski et al restrict the use of their programs. Again, however, this is unrelated to our paper, which has nothing to do with software: it only regards algebra. > code sources (in fortran 90 or in C, etc..), and therefore your > publication could be considered as a plagiat. The authors themselves Our paper contains no reference to software, so it is difficult to understand your reference to "plagiat". Please consider the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC) of THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, http://www.scaramanga.co.uk/archives/directive-91-250-EEC.html : Whereas, for the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only : the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and : principles which underlie any element of a program, including those : which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under : this Directive; : : Whereas, in accordance with this principle of copyright, to the extent : that logic, algorithms and programming languages comprise ideas and : principles, those ideas and principles are not protected under this : Directive; : : : 2. Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the : expression in any form of a computer program. Ideas and principles : which underlie any element of a computer program, including those : which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under : this Directive. There is no computer program *expressed* in the submitted paper, though there are clearly ideas in the paper which *can* be expressed in a computer program. If our paper is correct, and this can only be independently decided by an independent referee, then the ideas in our paper must correspond to the non-free software package distributed at ESO. However, this is the task of the referee to decide, not the Editors. You might also like to note the point of view of Numerical Recipes: http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf ; Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those ; ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas ; consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the ; necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of ; those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or ; stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any ; other derivative works. ; ; If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those ; ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new ; program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those ; programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. Note that here, Numerical Recipes state that they have used the ideas and algorithms of computer programs devised by others - "not entirely of our own devising" - but have implemented them in their own style. Yet let us return to our article: it does not concern software - it only concerns the solution to a system of coordinates, which the authors chose to publish in 1999 without including the full algebra of the system. Calculating the algebra requires a bit of work - that is what is presented in the paper so that other cosmologists can profit from this without having to rederive it from scratch. > could have done this paper, and if they have not judged it worth > while, you have just to convince them to do so, or at least > collaborate with them to do so. A paper like this, with them as > co-authors, would not have this problem. But apparently they judge > that the publication on the web as it is now is sufficient, We did propose co-authorship to the authors of the software on 8 Sep 2004: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2004-September/000522.html and we pointed out that if we did not hear any response by 22 Sep, we would presume that they were uninterested. On 21 Sep, some of those authors chose to publish a paper similar to the one we had already sent them: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 In this paper, BTW, in formulae (13) and (14), there is a clear inspiration from our own notation in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of our paper, but without citation. However, back to the subject. Our paper is based on solving the unsolved definitions in Gorski et al 1999a, 1999b. It is completely independent of any software. Moreover, the effect is to make it possible for cosmologists to implement software solutions for a pixel-coordinate system which monopolises cosmological observational data and presently is not implemented in free software. The algebraic solution to this pixel-coordinate system has not been published in any astronomical journal. It is difficult to understand how Astronomy & Astrophysics can refuse to publish original work which is useful and practical for cosmologists wishing to avoid the use of non-free software. The opinions of the authors of non-free software are irrelevant for Astronomy & Astrophysics. Any article published in Astronomy & Astrophysics must contain a bibliography. What is the meaning of this bibliography? In many cases when an article is cited, it means that the authors of the article have used some of the ideas and algorithms in the cited articles, and it is considered normal scientific practice to give credit to those authors of the cited articles, while nevertheless showing how those ideas can be improved and/or corrected, and possibly arguing that the ideas in the cited article are fundamentally wrong. What does A&A normally do when an article is accompanied by a bibliography (i.e. nearly every article, IMHO), especially in the case where the authors of the submitted article and those of the cited article may have different points of view on the correctness or usefulness of those ideas or how to implement them in scientific research? IMHO, it sends the article to an independent referee. It does not tell the authors of the submitted article that use of ideas which are, in principle, implicitly present in another article could be considered "plagiat" and that consent of the authors of the cited article is necessary for publication of the submitted article. At least, that is my understanding of how A&A works. Software has no extra copyright protection to text. But again, it should be made clear: if you read our submitted paper, you will see that it is independent of any software. Please read it. Best regards Boud %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF PROPOSED REPLY TO A&A %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEADLINE fri 8 oct 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2 8

shift from sympa@astro to mailman at adjani
by Boud Roukema 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Witam, To make less work for Andrzej M in managing sympa on newton, and also as he and i discussed initially (a looong time ago), i've started shifting the mailing lists to adjani. So for the moment please use: cosmo-torun at adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl or use the alias cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl The cosmo.torun.pl alias should also work for the adjani www pages - the general domain names we use here really are quite ridiculously long IMHO. i thought that cosmo.pl would be a bit too pretentious - but hopefully we have enough cooperation between CAMK and CA-UMK that we can together use cosmo.torun.pl. :) i've automatically described people who were on cosmo-torun at astro to cosmo-torun at adjani - but i haven't (yet) shifted the other lists. IMHO it is also worth thinking of what the best way of having lists is - the aim is to that we have good communication and are motivated by what each other is doing, and that on useful subjects it is easy to find info, but at the same time to avoid spamming. So far, i haven't really used any lists for much real work on a project, even though that was my idea. i realise that these were dictatorial decisions - but my feeling is that people are probably more concerned about decisions on scientific content, or for the undergrad students, decisions on course organisation and exams. Any thoughts, please comment. (Nothing about bramki on these lists, though. ;) pozdr boud

2 2

cosmo-torun test
by Andrzej Marecki 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

If this gets posted on cosmo-torun list then cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl still works as before although is is now an alias to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl am

1 0

test to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl
by Boud Roukema 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

1 0

test to cosmo-torun at cosmo.torun.pl
by Boud Roukema 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

1 0

the WMAP pixelisation algebra is free now :)
by Boud Roukema 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Witam, Just one day before our deadline of 22 Sep, in response to our paper, the HEALPix people submitted a paper inspired by our work: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409513 So here's our version: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409547 The algebra is free (as in speech) now :). pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 1

Re: proposed co-authorship
by Boud Roukema 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Hi Frode, Bartek, On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Frode K. Hansen wrote: > > Dear Boud and Bartek > > > Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to > >be co-authors. > > > > Thank you for the invitation. I would be happy to participate as > co-author (who else is participating?) I'm not sure what the scope of > the paper is, if it is only the part which you have attached or if you > intend to include more stuff. As Kris already knows, I have a lot of > material for a paper which we started on some years ago but never > finished. This includes testing of the numerical precision of the > Healpix algorithms. If you intend to include this, I would be happy to > provide you with it (I still need to check that I have all of it after > all these years....). Great! For me it would be fine to have the paper in two parts: (1) the algebra of the pixelisation system (2) testing of numerical precision of the HEALPix software but let's hear what Bartek thinks. i should make it clear, to avoid any misunderstandings, that Kris and i have different points of view on different levels of freedom in software licencing issues (GNU GPL versus what Debian terms "non-free" licences), but IMHO there is no reason for this to be a problem with having both (1) and (2) in our paper. (1) The algebra is independent of any software at all, and (2) while personally i prefer GNU GPL, there are a huge number of cosmologists using the software under its present licence and it is clearly in their interests to be aware of numerical precision tests that have been done. Since you've done the work, and it's useful, it should be published. And there's no need to unnecessarily multiply the number of articles published (even if that helps with job committees, but i have a job now :). In that case we'll need a new title. How about something like this? "An algebraic derivation of the healpix pixelisation scheme and numerical precision of the HEALPix software" This way it clearly says that one bit is algebra, independent of any software, and the other bit is hands-on software stuff, useful to users of the software. Any better suggestions? We haven't heard back from any of the other people who seem to be "official" HEALPix collaborators (i didn't contact Tony Banday directly, because he requested not to receive emails from me - if you wish to contact him, please feel free to do so). Bartek: do you have any comments on including Frode's work in our paper? Cheers boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

proposed co-authorship
by Boud Roukema 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

Dear colleagues, Please find attached the draft of a paper of which we invite you to be co-authors. It is felt that the most consensual way to publish this paper would be to include the members of the HEALPix collaboration. We would be most happy to include your names as co-authors, if that is what you wish. However, if we hear nothing from you by Wednesday 22 September, then we will assume that you do not wish to be co-authors. Regards, Boud, Bartek LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

superluminal motions & H_0 - comments from Ajk - Bartek's IAP talk
by Boud Roukema 30 Aug '04

30 Aug '04

Witam wszyscy, Andrzej Kus is sceptical about using superluminal motions for estimating (local) cosmological parameters. Good :). Andrzej K - please correct me if i'm wrong, but what i understand of your arguments are something like: -> jets are bent, not systematically, nobody knows why, sometimes helical, very complex -> superluminal expansion speed is highly variable -> depends on which blobs are in which place, some blobs are fast, some are slow --> especially in mm data -> on month scale changes very rapidly - some blobs just stop for some time, and then start up again. My initial reaction is that in a statistical sample these should average out, provided that the errors are random and symmetrically distributed. Alternatively: can we try to statistically correct for this? Given that blobs stop and then start again, or change direction, but are only *detected* when they are moving superluminally, then it would seem to me that the true average speed is slower than estimated from the doppler factor. Most practical cosmology is about statistical corrections - it requires careful modelling and correct statistical analysis, but it can be done. Is it reasonable to use the observational data which *shows* the erratic behaviour of these objects to statistically model this? If yes, then we would have the necessary correction factor. Anyway, here's a link to Bartek's IAP talk: http://www2.iap.fr/Conferences/Colloque/col2004/Docs/20040629_Lew.pdf Andrzej K suggested that Bartek give a presentation on this (a Monday talk?) - seems a fine idea to me, and doesn't require much preparation from Bartek's side (except to take account of Andrzej's comments). pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

2 4

IAP CMB meeting talks online
by Boud Roukema 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Witam, The IAP talks are available online: http://www2.iap.fr/Conferences/Colloque/col2004/program.html pozdr boud LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

Ciemna materia - seminarium (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

hi i'm sure there's an error in the date - it's probably Tue 29 June (not April) See http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl:9673/zwicky/CosmoNews for recent articles on dark matter. DAMA/NaI results interpreted as "Mirror matter" looks good to me: DM candidate: mirror matter http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211067 - evidence for mirror matter from Eros??? - Foot, R. Mitra * http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403043 - claim that mirror matter H' or He' halo with some O' better fits DAMA/NaI? energy spectrum than WIMPs? - Foot * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402267 - b to m from mirror matter implies ~1eV scale suggests relation to neutrino oscillations - Foot, Volkas poydr boud : ---------- Forwarded message ---------- : Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:55:56 +0200 : From: jiwanisz at phys.uni.torun.pl : To: staff at astri.uni.torun.pl, schmidt at ncac.torun.pl, : at phys.uni.torun.pl, Jacek Karwowski <jka at phys.uni.torun.pl> : Subject: Ciemna materia - seminarium Szanowni Panstwo, W najblizszy wtorek goscic bedziemy w Instytucie Fizyki prof. Leszka Roszkowskiego z Sheffield w Anglii. Jest on wybitnym specjalista pracujacym na pograniczu fizyki czastek elementarnych i astrofizyki (astroparticles). Zajmuje sie takze problemami dotyczacymi wysokich energii we Wszechswiecie oraz kosmologii. W trakcie swej wizyty, w ramach specjalnego Kolokwium Fizycznego, prof. Roszkowski wyglosi referat dotyczacy badan ciemnej materii. Poniewaz temat moze byc interesujacy dla Panstwa, dlatego przesylam o nim informacje i w imieniu kierownika Zakladu Mechaniki Kwantowej IF prof. Jacka Karwowskiego serdecznie na nie zapraszam. Lacze pozdrowienia, Jan Iwaniszewski %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SPECJALNE KOLOKWIUM FIZYCZNE (Seminarium Zakładu Mechaniki Kwantowej) w dniu 29.04.2004 r. (wtorek) o godz. 12.15 w sali 20 Prof. Leszek ROSZKOWSKI (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Anglia) wygłosi referat pt.: PO CIEMNEJ STRONIE WSZECHŚWIATA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LISTNAME: cosmo-torun HELP: send an email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa(a)astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"

1 0

gemoview
by Boud Roukema 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

witam, geomview has been installed on adjani. It's in principle good for interactively viewing 3D shapes in flat, spherical or hyperbolic space. There are example files but you probably need to understand the stuff about cameras, lighting etc in order to do something really useful. See file:///usr/share/doc/geomview/html/index.html for documentation. pozdr boud

1 0

paper formally accepted
by Boud Roukema 31 May '04

31 May '04

Hi, our topology paper has now been formally accepted by A&A. :) Hopefully there'll be some new stuff ready in a week or so to start thinking about the followup paper. pozdr boud

2 1

Whipple + CANGAROO-II - Re: DM from INTEGRAL satellite? - Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: Integral voit-il la matičre noire ? (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 26 May '04

26 May '04

Witam, Annihilating dark matter from TeV photons from Whipple + CANGAROO-II ? Or is it just from 3EG J1746-2851 (EGRET source)? This is from a much smaller length scale around the GC - a few tens of parsecs, *not* 1 kpc - compared to what seem to be the INTEGRAL results. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404205 Have Atmospheric Cerenkov Telescopes Observed Dark Matter? Authors: Dan Hooper, Ignacio de la Calle Perez, Joseph Silk, Francesc Ferrer, Subir Sarkar pozdr boud On Mon, 10 May 2004, boud wrote: > Discovery of dark matter by INTEGRAL? > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) > > From: Luc Blanchet <blanchet at iap.fr> > > To: users_all at iap.fr > > Subject: [X-UNKNOWN] Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > > Int[X-UNKNOWN] egral voit-il la matičre noire ? > > > > > > Nous vous annonçons la seconde édition des rencontres d'Ile de France : > > Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > > http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~bouquet/CAG.html > > > > ======================================== > > le 18 mai 2004 de 14h ŕ 18h > > Amphithéâtre de l'Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris > > 98bis, Bd Arago - 75014 Paris > > ========================================= > > > > > > ============================ > > INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire ? > > ============================ > > Does INTEGRAL see dark matter? > > > > > Résumé: > > ------------ > > Les récentes observations menées par le satellite INTEGRAL dans le > > domaine des rayons gamma confirment l'émission d'un rayonnement > > d'annihilation de paires électrons-positrons extręmement intense dans > > les régions centrales de la Galaxie. La résolution angulaire et > > Recent INTEGRAL observations in gamma show very intense > electron-positron pair annihilation radiation in central regions of the > Galaxy. > > > spectrale sans précédent de ce satellite ont permis de caractériser le > > milieu dans lequel ont lieu ces annihilations et l'étendue spatiale des > > INTEGRAL has better angular resolution and spectral resolution than > earlier instruments/telescopes. > > > sources. Outre la trčs grande difficulté d'alimenter le centre > > galactique en positrons au taux requis par les observations, les > > modčles astrophysiques traditionnels se heurtent au problčme important > > de la distribution spatiale des sources de rayonnement, dont INTEGRAL a > > démontré qu'elles s'étendaient sur au moins 1 kpc autour du centre > > The sources are distributed up to at least 1 kpc from the G Centre - > which is difficult to explain from traditional astrophysical models. > > > galactique. Comment produire autant de positrons (10^43 s'annihilent > > chaque seconde !) et comment les disperser sur un aussi vaste volume ? > > How can so many (10^43) positrons annihilate per second? > How can they be distributed over such a large volume. > > > Un scénario faisant intervenir une composante légčre de matičre noire > > pourrait apporter une réponse simple et fascinante ŕ ces questions. > > One scenario is with a "light [non-heavy] component" of dark matter. > > > Alors, INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire du centre galactique? > > > > La demi-journée se déroulera comme suit : > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 14h00-14h40 : P. Jean (CESR-Toulouse) > > Observations de l'émission d'annihilation > > e+/e- galactique > > 14h45-15h25 : M. Cassé (IAP-Paris, CEA/Sap-Saclay) > > L'énigme des positrons du bulbe galactique : > > Hypernovae ou matičre noire légčre? > > 15h30-16h10 : C. Boehm (Oxford) > > Comment tester le scénario de matičre noire légčre ? > > 16h35-17h15 : D. Hooper (Oxford) > > Evidence for particle dark matter ? > > 17h20-18h00 : P. Fayet (ENS/LPT-Paris) > > Physique des particules et matičre noire légčre: > > une nouvelle interaction ? > > > > > > > > En espérant vous voir le 18 mai, > > > > Le comité d'organisation : L. Blanchet, A. Bouquet , Y. Giraud-Héraud, > > B. Guiderdoni, J.-Ch. Hamilton, E. Parizot

1 0

AA/2004/0337 - referee report (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 24 May '04

24 May '04

Witam :)) i think we should have no problem with these minor corrections. :)) The only question is whether or not to make changes based on the further tests made since we submitted the paper. Regarding the further tests which i started making, remember that in our paper we have: > However, the plots are striking and it seems prudent to release > them to the scientific community while a companion paper is prepared > with formal statistical analyses. So IMHO it is clear that we intend to publish a companion paper which goes into more detail in statistical tests, and there's no need to make things difficult for ourselves (and slow down publication) by adding more significant material now. How about a cafeplus this Friday to talk more on this + also about Bartek's jet idea? (not electronically public ;) Plus also whatever else cosmo/extragalactic related. # 21.05.2004 09.00g # Place: Radio building http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/CafePlus pozdr boud > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:12:50 +0200 > From: aanda.paris at obspm.fr > To: boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Subject: AA/2004/0337 - referee report > > 17/05/2004 > > Dr Boudewijn Roukema > Torun Centre for Astronomy, UMK > ul. Gagarina, 11 > PL-87-100 Torun > POLAND > > boud at astro.uni.torun.pl > Our Ref. : AA/2004/0337 > > Dear Dr Roukema, > > The manuscript entitled : > > "A hint of Poincaré dodecahedral topology in the WMAP first year sky map" > > was submitted to a competent referee who recommended publication following minor revision (see enclosed report). > > Please make the requested improvements and send us the revised version (please set line spacing to double spacing referee's format for language editing) at your earliest convenience. Instructions for resubmitting can be found at address https://mms-aanda.obspm.fr/is/aa. > > > > In your cover letter, please indicate precisely all the changes made in the revised version (p^df or ps.gz file), and mark them clearly (e.g., using boldface) in your manuscript. > > Please make sure that your manuscript is prepared according to the rules given in the Instructions to Authors (see the first Main Journal issue of the year), otherwise the publication of your paper will be delayed. > > Further instructions will be given to you once the paper is accepted. > > With best regards, > > Anthony Jones > A&A Editor > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Referee report > --------------- > > This paper contains new and important results and should be > published. There are however some minor points which should be > clarified before the paper could be published. Second sentence of > Section 3.2 "Errors would occur only if, for example, converting > the angular radius of a circle, alpha into a comoving distance in > megaparsecs, or using the inverse cosine of the ratio of the > in-radius, r_, to the distance to the surface of last scattering, > r_{SLS}, to infer the angular radius of a matched circle, i.e. > alpha \\sim cos^{-1}(r_/r_{SLS}) ", this sentence seems to be > missing something. > > There is a full stop after eq.(6), while it should be a comma. > > Second sentence after eq.(6) is "Moreover, the unknown physics of > the cosmological constant (or quintessence) makes it hard to em a > priori exclude any fluctuations in \\Omega_{\\Lambda}, especially > with an amplitude so close to that of matter fluctuations. " - > need to be corrected. > > Full stop after eq.(10) should be replaced by a comma. > > To make the list of References more balanced it should include at > least reference to J. Weeks book The Shape of Space (where there > is a nice discussion of the Poincare dodecahedral space).

6 12

astro-ph/0310233 (apparently) accepted to PRL
by Andrzej Marecki 13 May '04

13 May '04

Nb. this is astro-ph/0310233. However it looks now as if it has been accepted by PRL. am ----- Forwarded message from physnews(a)aip.org ----- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:50:16 -0400 From: physnews(a)aip.org PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 685 May 12, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein OUR UNIVERSE HAS A TOPOLOGY SCALE OF AT LEAST 24 Gpc, or about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with some repeating shape, around which light rays might wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense that, as in video games, something might disappear off the left side of the screen and reappear on the right side). A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana State, and Case Western looks for signs of such "wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible universe," and the place in deep space whence comes the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should show up in the microwave background. But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis. The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of 10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish, Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, cornish(a)physics.montana.edu) [...] ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

DM from INTEGRAL satellite? - Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: Integral voit-il la matičre noire ? (fwd)
by boud 10 May '04

10 May '04

Discovery of dark matter by INTEGRAL? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Luc Blanchet <blanchet at iap.fr> > To: users_all at iap.fr > Subject: [X-UNKNOWN] Rencontres Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > Int[X-UNKNOWN] egral voit-il la matičre noire ? > > > Nous vous annonçons la seconde édition des rencontres d'Ile de France : > Cosmologie-Astroparticule-Gravitation: > http://cdfinfo.in2p3.fr/~bouquet/CAG.html > > ======================================== > le 18 mai 2004 de 14h ŕ 18h > Amphithéâtre de l'Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris > 98bis, Bd Arago - 75014 Paris > ========================================= > > > ============================ > INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire ? > ============================ Does INTEGRAL see dark matter? > > Résumé: > ------------ > Les récentes observations menées par le satellite INTEGRAL dans le > domaine des rayons gamma confirment l'émission d'un rayonnement > d'annihilation de paires électrons-positrons extręmement intense dans > les régions centrales de la Galaxie. La résolution angulaire et Recent INTEGRAL observations in gamma show very intense electron-positron pair annihilation radiation in central regions of the Galaxy. > spectrale sans précédent de ce satellite ont permis de caractériser le > milieu dans lequel ont lieu ces annihilations et l'étendue spatiale des INTEGRAL has better angular resolution and spectral resolution than earlier instruments/telescopes. > sources. Outre la trčs grande difficulté d'alimenter le centre > galactique en positrons au taux requis par les observations, les > modčles astrophysiques traditionnels se heurtent au problčme important > de la distribution spatiale des sources de rayonnement, dont INTEGRAL a > démontré qu'elles s'étendaient sur au moins 1 kpc autour du centre The sources are distributed up to at least 1 kpc from the G Centre - which is difficult to explain from traditional astrophysical models. > galactique. Comment produire autant de positrons (10^43 s'annihilent > chaque seconde !) et comment les disperser sur un aussi vaste volume ? How can so many (10^43) positrons annihilate per second? How can they be distributed over such a large volume. > Un scénario faisant intervenir une composante légčre de matičre noire > pourrait apporter une réponse simple et fascinante ŕ ces questions. One scenario is with a "light [non-heavy] component" of dark matter. > Alors, INTEGRAL voit-il la matičre noire du centre galactique? > > La demi-journée se déroulera comme suit : > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 14h00-14h40 : P. Jean (CESR-Toulouse) > Observations de l'émission d'annihilation > e+/e- galactique > 14h45-15h25 : M. Cassé (IAP-Paris, CEA/Sap-Saclay) > L'énigme des positrons du bulbe galactique : > Hypernovae ou matičre noire légčre? > 15h30-16h10 : C. Boehm (Oxford) > Comment tester le scénario de matičre noire légčre ? > 16h35-17h15 : D. Hooper (Oxford) > Evidence for particle dark matter ? > 17h20-18h00 : P. Fayet (ENS/LPT-Paris) > Physique des particules et matičre noire légčre: > une nouvelle interaction ? > > > > En espérant vous voir le 18 mai, > > Le comité d'organisation : L. Blanchet, A. Bouquet , Y. Giraud-Héraud, > B. Guiderdoni, J.-Ch. Hamilton, E. Parizot

1 0

constructive ideas on cosmo/relativistic political problems?
by Boud Roukema 09 Apr '04

09 Apr '04

Dear Martin, Alvaro, Reva, All three of you have made a great effort - and risked being labelled as "troublemakers not interested in science" - by publishing your experiences in present-day astronomy, especially cosmology/relativistic astronomy. You may already know me, or if not, a quick search on astro-ph for "Roukema" will tell you more about my cosmo stuff. Just like you, i also would prefer just to do pure science and not have to worry about all this meta-stuff of how we organise and communicate, and now that i have a faculty position here at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy (TCfA), Nicolas Copernicus University, Poland (observationally we're working on the OCRA project which will hopefully soon be able to do a Sunyaev-Zeldovich survey), i no longer have a Damocles sword hanging over me regarding having to find my next job. :) (But trying to get the younger students up to speed is taking quite a bit of time...) IMHO people like us, who are willing to speak out openly and honestly in the interests of our common sense of scientific ethics, should find ways of coordinating our thoughts and maybe generating suggestions for making things better. At the moment i'm spamming (sorry) our general cosmo-torun mailing list because i don't think this sort of discussion should be secret, but i think that further discussion should go off to a discussion forum which will not bother people on the main list. IMHO, a wiki is one of the best ways of communicating on this sort of stuff - it's more structured than a mailing list - anyone can reorganise the pages and make them clearer - but it's much less formal than posting articles on arxiv.org. Anyway, i've put links to all three of your articles here: http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/AstroPolitics and it would be great if you could add your comments on the page, reorganise it, (or even rename it if you don't think "AstroPolitics" is the best name for the page), or put in a link to an electronic place where you think these sorts of questions can best be discussed. Hoping to hear from you (maybe on the twiki?), and keep doing good science :) boud

1 0

(1) censorship only for extreme cases; (2) censorship itself uncensorable
by Boud Roukema 08 Apr '04

08 Apr '04

Hi Andrzej Kus, Grzegorz, Bartek, everyone, The purpose of a university is the collection and analysis of empirical information, its analysis and integration into theory, the development of theory, and the learning/teaching process between researchers and students. (1) IMHO, censorship is something that should not be taken lightly, and IMHO the minimum that is reasonable in the internet era is that (2) the ***process of censorship*** itself is public. This is why i would be most comfortable in discussing this on cosmo-torun rather than by private, secret emails. ***Please send any responses to cosmo-torun at astro.uni.torun.pl *** i have violated netiquette in forwarding this private email to the list, but i think this is acceptable since censorship is only something that should done, IMHO, in very extreme circumstances. Censorship was (AFAIK, i didn't live in Poland at the time) very common during the PRL period, and IMHO a university should be one of the places where academic freedom is most vigorously defended. If information on a web page is uninteresting or irrelevant, that is a very poor reason for censoring it. However, a polite request to someone who has published uninteresting or irrelevant information is surely sufficient if someone feels that the information needs to be hidden. Let us respect each other as intelligent adults! On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Grzegorz Hrynek wrote: > Jako administrator serwisu internetowego Katedry Radioastronomii i z > upowaznienia Kierownika Radioastronomii prof. A. Kusa informuje, ze > odwolanie z glownej witryny serwisu KRa do strony internetowej o adresie > > http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl/~blew/ > > zostalo zablokowane. > > Strona o powyzszym adresie zostala stworzona przez Bartosza Lwa. > > Powodem zablokowania strony jest umieszczenie informacji i zasobow > prywatnych nie majacych zadnego zwiazku z dzialalnoscia wykonywana w KRa. KRA is part of UMK. UMK is a university. Knowledge can only very artificially be split between subjects. How can one study astronomy without knowing physics? How can one study physics without understanding mathematics? How can one use efficient learning methods without being aware of the research being done in psychology and pedagogy at the university? We have a research/teaching department in Pedagogy which investigates the efficiency of using the internet for teaching, for creativity in learning - http://www.ped.uni.torun.pl/kognityw/ Would there be a problem in publishing useful pedagogical information on KRA web pages? In any case, there is talk of extending UMK by uniting with an institute in Bydgoszcz - it would be rather inconsistent to claim that we want a bigger university when at the same time we try to discourage "cross-talk" and interdisciplinary discussion. As for the expression "informacji i zasobow prywatnych", those pages (which Bartek has chosen voluntarily to hide) concerned anecdotal documentation of ethnological information. Since he chose to publish them, they are no longer private information - the term "private information" refers to things like someone's private address, telephone number, bank account number, etc. In the case of publication of that sort of private information, a request to censor the information would be much more reasonable. We have a department of Ethnology: http://www.his.uni.torun.pl/wydzial/program/etnologia/progetno.shtml The fact that Bartek is a doctoral student in KRA rather than ethnology is, IMHO, not a good reason to ask him to hide the pages. A more valid point would be that the pages are only anecdotal rather than systematic. They do not claim (AFAIR) to constitute a systematic study of any given social group, and so are probably not terribly useful for quality ethnological research. However, whether this justifies requesting Bartek to hide the pages is not obvious to me. A more constructive suggestion would have been to propose to Bartek that he contact the Ethnology department (URL above) and find out if his documentation can be useful to them. The argument of wasted resources is a different argument: the amount of disk space and bandwidth used for the (now hidden) pages would IMHO be negligible compared to what we do which is directly cosmo related. On the contrary, sharing resources with resource-poor departments like Ethnology makes sense - we're here to work together, not compete with one another. (OK, OK, i know that among us we have divergent points of view on the validity of competition in an E=mc^2 society living on a planet with a climate system going into a non-linear warming phase.) > Zobowiazuje Bartosza Lwa do jak najszybszego usuniecia informacji prywatnych > z komputera adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl Well, they are not private information, IMHO, but in any case, Bartek seems to have chosen to hide them. > Informuje ponadto, ze do prezentacji wlasnych prywatnych materialow i > przekonan sluza serwisy platne swiadczace tego typu uslugi. There is no need to use commercial web servers, i don't think we should be encouraging people to commercialise information. We are a university, not a hypermarket. There are zero-cost servers like: http://geocities.yahoo.com/ http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/learn2/HowItWorks4_Free.html and probably on http://www.wp.pl, http://www.onet.pl etc it is possible to host quite a few images at no cost (apart from having to accept advertising). > Ponadto zwracam sie z prosba do administratora komputera > adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl - Bouda Roukema - o nadzor nad ta sprawa i jak > najszybsze wyjasnienie zaistnialego problem z uzytkownikiem Bartoszem Lwem. Well, i don't understand the urgency - in any case Bartek is a good cosmologist and an intelligent adult and as i understand it, he decided that fighting censorship in this case is probably not worth it. That's his decision. The important thing is that rumours do not start going around of students' web pages being arbitrarily censored. Hopefully in this case it is clear that a polite request has been made, and that any such requests can be publicly discussed and we can trust each other to make reasonable decisions based on constructive discussion - even if having highly diverging viewpoints. Please remember that creativity is an important part of the learning process. Creativity is not just poetry: it is something that can be measured (to some extent, e.g. see the recent PhD thesis (March 2004) by D. Siemieniecka-Gogolin consisting of empirical measurements of "creative attitudes" and "creative abilities" among Polish school teachers regarding the use of computers and the internet in teaching, in the Pedagogy Department of the University of Nicolas Copernicus (URL above, no direct link to thesis, sorry)). If a bunch of web pages showing a few photographs of personal travels stimulates the creativity of a doctoral student doing excellent work in trying to make a step forward in the problem of dark matter, i really do not understand the problem. The bubble chamber for detecting high energy particles is said to have been inspired by physicists driking beer and looking at the bubbles. Killing off creativity is appropriate for an army, not for a university. Creativity is certainly *not sufficient* for good science, but most scientists would agree that it is *necessary* for good science. KRA is part of a university, just as that same university exists as part of euro-asian-african-american-australasian civilisation, which exists on the planet Earth over a time interval of a few kyears and into an unknown, possibly very short time interval in the future (relative to our local space-time position), which formed about 4.6 Myears ago around the Sun which formed in a molecular cloud according to a process of star formation which is still poorly understood, in a galaxy which formed inside of a dark matter halo which virialised from a primordial density perturbation in a perturbed Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Universe. Let's not forget the context. We are a university, not an army. pozdr boud

1 0

Re: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 31 Mar '04

31 Mar '04

witam, Michał wrote: > Boud Roukema wrote: > > >>what is the purpose of GPL? creating better, community driven software. > >>imho it is more than a license, it is a philosophy. your "software" just > > > > > > It is not philosophy. It is politics, because it relates to the power that > > some people have over other people, and the power that people do *not* > > have over other people. > > > > The intention is to minimise the power that people have over others to > > the minimum necessary - in the context of computer code. > > > > It depends what you mean by "politics" and "philosophy" I believe. in > fact it is both. but developers seem to prefer the term "philosophy" > since it is more positive in meaning. i guess this may be an anglophone/francophone difference. Personally i prefer precision rather than political correctness. > >> do not fit GPL. it is a set of mathematical operations. > >>how the hell do you want people to use it/trace bugs/improve when you > >>only provide hardly readable code?????? > >> > >>we could argue about the quality of the code but I do not think will do > >>any good. > > > > > > The point is not to argue about the quality of the code. > > > > The whole point of the GNU GPL is that concrete discussion of the > > code can happen according to rules which encourage improvement of the code. > > > > Without distribution under GNU GPL, it is difficult to get the *feedback* > > that someone has the opinion that the code is "hardly readable". > > > > I agree. :) > but without providing high-quality code and docs it is hard to > get useful feedback. It's sufficient to improve by the same fraction. Consider a code of low initial quality p(0) = 0.3 with low docs quality q(0)=0.3, versus code with high initial quality p'(0)= 1.0 and high initial docs quality q'(0) = 1.0. In the first case there is on average one iteration of feedback each week which yields moderate improvement in the combined quality x = pq of 10% (alpha = 1.1), in the second case the initial version is only distributed after one year, and then gets feedback yielding improvements of 10%. p(0)=q(0)=0.3 p'(0)=q'(0)=1.0 x(t) = p(0)q(0) alpha^n (n= weeks) x'(t) = p'(0)q'(0) alpha^(max(0,n-52)) which gives for t \ge 52: x(t)= 12.8 alpha^(n-52) x'(t)= 1.0 alpha^(n-52) Conclusion: many iterations through a positive feedback loop starting from an imperfect beginning can give a better result than waiting a long time for a "perfect" beginning to be ready. > > On the other hand, if there is a delay of between several days and > > a few weeks for having the right to use the code, and then a further > > delay of unknown length to redistribute modified versions, the cooperation > > between X, Z, W and U is unlikely to happen, especially given that Y > > feels unhappy with the code and may influence the delays. > > > I can bet that Kriss would be more that happy to accept any help with > porting his software to other languages. Have you tried to chat with him > about licence issues? If you wished to be a neutral, third party moderator to discuss with a certain person regarding certain software, for a publicly archived discussion (like this one) regarding porting of cosmologically useful software to a version distributed under the GNU GPL or a compatible licence, and if you convinced that person and other people interested that you would be a good moderator (meaning that you clarify the discussion, stop different people from flaming or threatening each other, ask them to apologise or find other ways of getting people to cool off if they start flaming, etc.), i would be happily accept this. My prediction is that this would be not be accepted by some of the people, but i would be glad to be wrong. > As I still am quite sure about there is no licence that suits scientific > software and gpl is not the best. that is why some people refuse > gpl-ing. I myself would be very happy having a nicer licence for sci soft. Personally i'm not convinced of the need. I'm aware that if you spend a lot of time on software and don't write many publications, you need to get credit for the software. The GNU GPL already guarantees that the original author's name remains, and IMHO the cosmo community is small enough that people writing, or more importantly, maintaining good software do get credit. Just because it's not formally part of these strange formulas attempting to measure scientific productivity in PL, does not mean the credit is not there. However, you want a modified licence, so please have a look at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL What do think of a licence which is identical to the GNU GPL, but we remove the preamble (unless FSF agrees that we may include it in our modified version after discussion), we modify the end-wording, and we add a term/condition like: SSL-13.0 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software must contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- and then write to licensing at gnu.org to ask for advice. My guess is they would only complain about the compatibility question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible In which case i would suggest in addition: SSL-2.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- identical with GNU GPL v2 term/condition 2. except for the following: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when ... wrote it. " %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% becomes %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of either this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it, or of the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation (either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version) whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. If you apply the GNU General Public License rather than this License to the whole, then you are requested (but not required) to include a file called README.acknowledgments in the machine-readable source code which includes the text of term/condition 13. below, with the phrase "Any publication ... acknowledgment:" replaced by "It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment:" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In short, this means that if an SSL protected package is combined with a non-GNU GPL package, then: - if the other package is also under SSL, the new one can also be SSL - if the other package is GNU GPL, then the new one *must* be GNU GPL (condition 2 of GNU GPL), but the user is *requested* to add a file converting term/condition 13 into a README.acknowledgments file which *requests* the user to write an acknowledgment - if the other package is under some other licence, it may or may not be possible to distribute the combined package, it depends on that other licence. IMHO, this is as strong as we could get while retaining GNU GPL compatibility. If we try to make the request into a requirement, then my worry is it would be GPL incompatible. In fact, compatibility is one of the big issues of the GNU GPL. It enables modules to be combined together in ways far beyond what the original authors ever could do alone. Remember: there are 6 billion of us. That's a lot. Anway, you wanted a licence: what do you think of this one? If we go through a few iterations, with a bit of feedback :), then i'd be happy to write to licensing at gnu.org, point them to our discussion, and see what they think. A simpler alternative to SSL-13.0 + SSL-2.1 would be: SSL-13.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." If you distribute this Program as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, and you apply the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to that whole, then you are kindly requested to copy this term/condition 13. to a file called README.acknowledgments (if it is not already present) and include it in the machine-readable source code. Since further distribution of the whole would occur under the GNU GPL, there would be no further obligation to include the file, only a kind request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- pozdr boud

1 0

2 topo articles on astro-ph in 1 day!
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

Hyperbolic Universes with a Horned Topology and the CMB Anisotropy Authors: Ralf Aurich, Sven Lustig, Frank Steiner, Holger Then http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 A Note on the Robustness of Pair Separations Methods in Cosmic Topology Authors: A. Bernui, G.I. Gomero, B. Mota, M.J. Reboucas http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403586 The Foot et al papers on mirror matter as a dark matter candidate are also starting to sound convincing (at least from the abstracts). Now it sounds like they get a good match for explaining the relative values of Omega_b and Omega_m which implies a 1ev energy scale and hints at a connection with neutrino oscillations: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402267 Any comments, Bartek? pozd boud

1 1

atto-cosmology: NOAA terrestrian warming goes non-linear?
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

atto-cosmology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix for "atto") NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA): http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=505798 > Global warming spirals upwards > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > > 28 March 2004 > > Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, > raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control. > > Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of > the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record > amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in > which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial > surge. > > Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken > place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming > is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in > carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even > higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that > this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of > any attempts to combat it. In other words, we may have reached d(\Delta T)/dt \propto (\Delta T) in which case \Delta T \propto \exp(t) . Of course, negative feedbacks will have to happen sooner or later, but the stable point in N-parameter space could be quite different from the stable point where we have been during the previous 2000 years... ... > The carbon dioxide measurements have been taken from the 11,400ft > summit of Hawaii's Mauna Loa, whose enormous dome makes it the most > substantial mountain on earth, by scientists working for the US > government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ... > The latest measurements, taken a week ago, showed that carbon dioxide > had reached about 379 parts per million (ppm), up from about 376ppm > the year before, from 373ppm in 2002 and about 371ppm in 2001. These > represent three of the four biggest increases on record (the other was > in 1998), creating an unprecedented sequence. They add up to a 64 per > cent rise over the average rate of growth over the past decade, of > 1.8ppm a year. > > The US scientists have yet to analyse the figures and stress that they > could be just a remarkable blip. Professor Ralph Keeling - whose > father Charles Keeling first set up the measurements from Mauna Loa - > said:"We are moving into a warmer world". i highly recommend the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming For people sceptical about the sources of the data (as we all should be), at the bottom of the page there are external web links classified by the biases of the different organisations: "Scientific" (NASA + NOAA) "United Nations" "Environmentalist" "Conservative-affiliated" "Industry-sponsored" "Independent (or receives too little support to constitute "sponsorship")" "Other" Environmental scientists don't seem to publish on http://arxiv.org or the equivalent, unfortunately. pozdr boud

1 0

astro-ph/0403111
by Andrzej Marecki 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

astro-ph/0403111 Date (v1): Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:41:19 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v2): Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:15:48 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v3): Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:04:28 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v4): Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:03:35 GMT (0kb,I) Problems with studying topology of the universe via circles from cosmic microwave background data. Authors: Evelise Gausmann, Reuven Opher Comments: This paper has been withdrawn -- Andrzej

2 1

fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me
by Michal Frackowiak 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

hi there! I have just downloaded the version of fealpix. here are my thoughts after a few minutes of browsing the sources and an attempt to compile things: - Boud: you claim the software to be GPL and attach the license. but the software itself is not in the spirit of GNU at all!!! the idea of gnu software is not: look at me, I can handle dozens of lines of code and several equations without a single line of comment! and that is the software you have created - extremelly unclearly coded, uderstanding hardly possible. with such attitude you simply discourage others to use/learn/modify the code. and that is not gnu. you should not release the code in that form and imho it is against gnu philosophy. - the code is not even comparable to HEALpix in both functionality and documentation - chosing "fealpix" as a name is not fortunate. it seems as a "negative campaign". - no docs, no examples, no comments - could you start using gnu autoconf? - I find "astropolitics" stuff inlcuded somehow improper. you permanently call HEALpix non-free and claim its authors to blindly follow rules of feudal reality. - I am very not sure about NR stuff you use and claim that simple rewrite of routines code makes it free. I have compared just one of the files with what can be found in NumericalRecipies and it is IDENTICAL (apart from changing the variables' names and some minor rearragement). you not simply use provided algorithms, you use provided code which is distributed under somehow more restricted license. that is not the way it should be. if all the gnu community acted like that the gnu software would be a patchwork from stolen code. fortunately others are more creative and write original software. you should not distribute those routines in the present form - the code is not yours. I see all this felapix was intended as a battle for "free software". but the way you fight turns against gnu in fact - by offending people, being extreme radicalist, mixing code and politics, writing unreadable code, stealing code and claiming yours. you should change the way you fight for "free software" because it does not do any good. do the Octave people constantly cry about Matlab beeing non-free???????? or Kaffe and Java?????????? or gcc and icc???? gjc and Java again???????? GNU is about creating BETTER software, not accusing proprietary software of being non-free. that is my oppinion. at this very moment I feel disappointed with what you do with GNU and GPL philosophy. regards - michal BTW: for NR, this is the license you are obliged to follow: If you are the individual owner of a copy of this book and you type one or more of its routines into your computer, we authorize you to use them on that computer for your own personal and noncommercial purposes. You are not authorized to transfer or distribute machine-readable copies to any other person, or to use the routines on more than one machine, or to distribute executable programs containing our routines. This is the only free license.

2 7

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Cosmo-torun