I personally don't give a rat's ass if my little paper is cited, but I'm not in academia right now and the fact that I have a paper is enough. I do understand that academics are particularly interested in their impact factors and citations. So obsessing over getting your own papers cited, as described by FSP here, is understandable.
What was really annoying was getting chewed out for not citing a professor's (out of date) paper for a class project. Seriously, dude? You're supposedly a big fancy professor with your name on about a zillion papers, but you're going to throw a hissy fit because I didn't cite something one of your students wrote in 1991?
I didn't need an A on that damn project anyway.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Time Life - Planet Earth
I'm still catching up with blogs from my internet absence, and this somewhat old post at Magma Cum Laude on geological books caught my eye.
Unlike Jessica, I didn't grow up fascinated by geology (as I discussed here). So I don't have a list of favorite geology children's books.
There was one geology-related series that I loved when I was a kid. I started out by looking at the pictures and the captions, and only got into the (fairly dense) text when I got older: Time-Life's Planet Earth series. My ever-patient parents even let me get first crack at them when each new one arrived in the mail. The binding is pretty crappy and I pretty much wore out the "disaster" books, which freaked me out, especially the earthquake volume.
I thought that this was a pretty common thing to have in your library if you had a scientifically-minded household in the 1980s (and beyond). But then I realized that the only other place I've seen the series is at my dad's best friend's house, and since that series was right up GF's alley, it may not be that common in the general population. Does this series ring a bell for anyone else?
Unlike Jessica, I didn't grow up fascinated by geology (as I discussed here). So I don't have a list of favorite geology children's books.
There was one geology-related series that I loved when I was a kid. I started out by looking at the pictures and the captions, and only got into the (fairly dense) text when I got older: Time-Life's Planet Earth series. My ever-patient parents even let me get first crack at them when each new one arrived in the mail. The binding is pretty crappy and I pretty much wore out the "disaster" books, which freaked me out, especially the earthquake volume.
I thought that this was a pretty common thing to have in your library if you had a scientifically-minded household in the 1980s (and beyond). But then I realized that the only other place I've seen the series is at my dad's best friend's house, and since that series was right up GF's alley, it may not be that common in the general population. Does this series ring a bell for anyone else?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
wikipedia meme
I'm a sucker for a silly meme. This is from Silver Fox:
“Click on the first link not in parentheses in any Wikipedia entry. Keep doing this and eventually, you end up at Philosophy."
So, let's see... pulling random terms from the closest work document at hand:
landfill
1. Landfill
2. waste
3. materials
4. matter
5. physical objects
6. physics
7. natural science
8. naturalistic
9. philosophical
10. philosophy
Ok, maybe not something physical. What about the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water?
1. maximum contaminant level
2. standards
3. standardization
4. technical standards
5. norm
6. society
7. related
8. limerence (?)
9. psychologist
10. clinical professional
11. dysfunction
12. mental disorder
13. psychology
14. science
15. knowledge
16. which links to... (although not the first link)...philosophy!
Bouncing around wikipedia is a perfect way to waste time while waiting for our apple crisp to finish baking...
“Click on the first link not in parentheses in any Wikipedia entry. Keep doing this and eventually, you end up at Philosophy."
So, let's see... pulling random terms from the closest work document at hand:
landfill
1. Landfill
2. waste
3. materials
4. matter
5. physical objects
6. physics
7. natural science
8. naturalistic
9. philosophical
10. philosophy
Ok, maybe not something physical. What about the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water?
1. maximum contaminant level
2. standards
3. standardization
4. technical standards
5. norm
6. society
7. related
8. limerence (?)
9. psychologist
10. clinical professional
11. dysfunction
12. mental disorder
13. psychology
14. science
15. knowledge
16. which links to... (although not the first link)...philosophy!
Bouncing around wikipedia is a perfect way to waste time while waiting for our apple crisp to finish baking...
Monday, June 13, 2011
one space, two space
EcoGeoFemme has a new post up concerning the number of spaces you add after a period when typing.
I always used one space after typing. I didn't know that two spaces were a valid option, and not a mistake. So when I collaborated with someone who used two spaces (but not totally regularly, and occasionally up to four spaces), I was convinced that he was just a sloppy typist. I kept getting rid of the extra spaces I came across, and finally they annoyed me enough that I did a "replace all" to get rid of all of them. My co-author never said anything. He probably figured it wasn't worth getting into an argument for.
I'm a keyboard-pounder. My sweetie always teases me about it because I appear to be an angry typist, but it's really because I'm going too fast to be subtle about it. With my clunky keyboard at work, you can hear my typing clear across the office. I'm far too fast to be slowed down by an extra space between sentences...
So, are you a one space person? Two spaces? Or, God forbid, an erratic space person?
I always used one space after typing. I didn't know that two spaces were a valid option, and not a mistake. So when I collaborated with someone who used two spaces (but not totally regularly, and occasionally up to four spaces), I was convinced that he was just a sloppy typist. I kept getting rid of the extra spaces I came across, and finally they annoyed me enough that I did a "replace all" to get rid of all of them. My co-author never said anything. He probably figured it wasn't worth getting into an argument for.
I'm a keyboard-pounder. My sweetie always teases me about it because I appear to be an angry typist, but it's really because I'm going too fast to be subtle about it. With my clunky keyboard at work, you can hear my typing clear across the office. I'm far too fast to be slowed down by an extra space between sentences...
So, are you a one space person? Two spaces? Or, God forbid, an erratic space person?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
presentation tech
I have an itinerant teaching/presenting gig that I enjoy tremendously. For early readers (i.e. those who read this post), this may come as a surprise. It came as a surprise to me, too.
I've encountered every type of A/V setup you can imagine - everything from a barren room with a few inconveniently-located outlets to a fully kitted out system with multiple huge plasma screens. Sometimes, the barren room is easier - I bring my own little projector and my own laptop, so in case of emergency, I can aim the thing at a bare wall.
So I was interested to see what the NY Times' resident tech guru does for presentations. David Pogue claims here that he does a lot of public speaking, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the setup he describes.
Pogue uses a Mac which requires a specific dongle to connect to a standard AV setup. He needs to have his laptop with him so that he can read his notes on the laptop. He relies on his notes for new talks. His notes are on his laptop only, not on paper.
And he expects this to work?
I realize that the venues that I instruct at are not as fancy as his. Maybe he's always found armies of AV experts at his beck and call when he arrives to give presentation, but that's certainly not been my experience.
If you're getting paid to present or teach, it would behoove you to be able to present whatever it is without relying entirely on notes or (horrors!) just reading slides. The whole point of standing in front of a group of people, explaining something, is the interaction, which you lose if you're glued to your notes. So here are Short Geologist's helpful hints for other itinerant presenters:
1. Bring lots of backup: your laptop. At least one memory stick. Copies of your presentation in multiple formats (.ppt? .pptx?). Pre-printed handouts. Printed notes. Check in to make sure there's a whiteboard, blackboard, or big pad of paper if you're going to be drawing something. And if one's available to you, bring a projector that you are familiar with and that plays well with your laptop.
2. Practice! I read my notes, then, I put them down and go through the whole presentation as if I were giving it right there. Where do I lose my train of thought? Expound on something in great detail and then realize I'm supposed to cover it in another slide? For those things, I put a little sticky note on my copy of the paper handouts so that I can revisit them before the presentation.
3. Remember these magic words: "I don't know." Followed by some variant of "that's an interesting question - I'll have to think about that" or "I'll do some research/ask my colleagues and get back to you". You are not omniscient! It's ok! Better to smoothly admit that you don't know than to freeze in panic or make up some BS. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody else in the room knows either.
I've encountered every type of A/V setup you can imagine - everything from a barren room with a few inconveniently-located outlets to a fully kitted out system with multiple huge plasma screens. Sometimes, the barren room is easier - I bring my own little projector and my own laptop, so in case of emergency, I can aim the thing at a bare wall.
So I was interested to see what the NY Times' resident tech guru does for presentations. David Pogue claims here that he does a lot of public speaking, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the setup he describes.
Pogue uses a Mac which requires a specific dongle to connect to a standard AV setup. He needs to have his laptop with him so that he can read his notes on the laptop. He relies on his notes for new talks. His notes are on his laptop only, not on paper.
And he expects this to work?
I realize that the venues that I instruct at are not as fancy as his. Maybe he's always found armies of AV experts at his beck and call when he arrives to give presentation, but that's certainly not been my experience.
If you're getting paid to present or teach, it would behoove you to be able to present whatever it is without relying entirely on notes or (horrors!) just reading slides. The whole point of standing in front of a group of people, explaining something, is the interaction, which you lose if you're glued to your notes. So here are Short Geologist's helpful hints for other itinerant presenters:
1. Bring lots of backup: your laptop. At least one memory stick. Copies of your presentation in multiple formats (.ppt? .pptx?). Pre-printed handouts. Printed notes. Check in to make sure there's a whiteboard, blackboard, or big pad of paper if you're going to be drawing something. And if one's available to you, bring a projector that you are familiar with and that plays well with your laptop.
2. Practice! I read my notes, then, I put them down and go through the whole presentation as if I were giving it right there. Where do I lose my train of thought? Expound on something in great detail and then realize I'm supposed to cover it in another slide? For those things, I put a little sticky note on my copy of the paper handouts so that I can revisit them before the presentation.
3. Remember these magic words: "I don't know." Followed by some variant of "that's an interesting question - I'll have to think about that" or "I'll do some research/ask my colleagues and get back to you". You are not omniscient! It's ok! Better to smoothly admit that you don't know than to freeze in panic or make up some BS. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody else in the room knows either.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
professional photos?
FSP has a new post here regarding professional pictures. For professional websites, how professional of a picture do you use? I struggled with this about a year ago when I needed a good picture of myself doing fieldwork for a proposal. My graduate advisor had a hilariously dated professional photo from the early 70s for our department website and only got an updated (and very nice) photo once he retired.
Do you have a stock professional picture of yourself? And if so, how formal is it - passport style with business suit, or standing ankle deep in mud?
In environmental consulting, the ideal picture is someone in the correct safety gear (as applicable), standing in front of a lovely rock formation/fancy piece of equipment, looking thoughtful, and wearing clean clothing. A google image search for "field geologist" provides a huge number of pictures that fit all of the criteria. We save the passport-style pictures for security badges.
I don't have a professional website (other than this one, har har!), but I could still use a stock photo of myself for linkedin, conferences, and proposals. I'm still not any closer to getting that ideal photo of myself.
Do you have a stock professional picture of yourself? And if so, how formal is it - passport style with business suit, or standing ankle deep in mud?
In environmental consulting, the ideal picture is someone in the correct safety gear (as applicable), standing in front of a lovely rock formation/fancy piece of equipment, looking thoughtful, and wearing clean clothing. A google image search for "field geologist" provides a huge number of pictures that fit all of the criteria. We save the passport-style pictures for security badges.
I don't have a professional website (other than this one, har har!), but I could still use a stock photo of myself for linkedin, conferences, and proposals. I'm still not any closer to getting that ideal photo of myself.
Monday, June 6, 2011
accretionary wedge - varves
Accretionary Wedge #35 is up at Georneys - the question is, what's your favorite Geology word?
I thought of a bunch of stupid ones right off the bat - the kind that ends up on t-shirts, like "gneiss schist" or "gneiss cleavage". And then the ones that just sound funny, like 'a'a.
But I wanted to pick a term that's cool and actually relevant to something I do. So my favorite geology word is varve. "Varve" sounds funny to my ear, because they only come in multiples.
Varves are very, very fine bands of sediment that usually represent seasonal variations in deposition in still water bodies that ice over in winter. In the warm months, sediment can fall down normally, leaving light colored, wider bands. Once the lake freezes over, nothing can enter the water and the very fine sediment is allowed to slowly filter down, leaving a dark layer. Cores can represent thousands of years.
Why Varves? Well, I don't work in an area of the world with terribly exciting geology. I'm dealing with contamination and dirt. I don't get to work in places with cool morphology because the geology is generally buried. But varves are cool because they're formed in quiet lakes - the perfect quiet location to hang out and just be. And they're just about the coolest non-anthropogenic material that I run into on a regular basis.
Varves are a lot cooler in person - the bands of color are generally so fine, they're hard to see. My examples didn't photograph well. So here's one from a paper...
And here's another - somewhat local!
I thought of a bunch of stupid ones right off the bat - the kind that ends up on t-shirts, like "gneiss schist" or "gneiss cleavage". And then the ones that just sound funny, like 'a'a.
But I wanted to pick a term that's cool and actually relevant to something I do. So my favorite geology word is varve. "Varve" sounds funny to my ear, because they only come in multiples.
Varves are very, very fine bands of sediment that usually represent seasonal variations in deposition in still water bodies that ice over in winter. In the warm months, sediment can fall down normally, leaving light colored, wider bands. Once the lake freezes over, nothing can enter the water and the very fine sediment is allowed to slowly filter down, leaving a dark layer. Cores can represent thousands of years.
Why Varves? Well, I don't work in an area of the world with terribly exciting geology. I'm dealing with contamination and dirt. I don't get to work in places with cool morphology because the geology is generally buried. But varves are cool because they're formed in quiet lakes - the perfect quiet location to hang out and just be. And they're just about the coolest non-anthropogenic material that I run into on a regular basis.
Varves are a lot cooler in person - the bands of color are generally so fine, they're hard to see. My examples didn't photograph well. So here's one from a paper...
And here's another - somewhat local!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
