Click here: http://jvz2.com/c/247269/114792
RunClick Webinar Software Reviewe is a self-hosted app that turns Google Hangouts into your very own webinar service. Complete with Autoresponder Integration, Evergreen systems and more. One Fee. Lifetime Use. ·
This is my review of "Amazon Search Dominator" - a new program for writers by Tony Norton.
Find out more here: http://warriorplus.com/o/a/jz50sp/gnvsb
It is a very comprehensive manual for all authors with some really surprising and ingenious ideas for getting your book to the top of Amazon.
Please watch the video for my full report. ·
The good: The HTC One goop incorporates a huge screen that is bright, colorful, and sharp. The camera is jam-choked with options and takes photos quickly, and the phone incorporates a powerful set of stereo speakers.
The bad: The HTC One goop is giant and significant and therefore the integrated tip reader usually fails to acknowledge finger swipes. The phone's battery isn't removable either, and therefore the One Max's parts do not match its high worth. ·
Son of God (2014) is a new movie refreshing the epic religious tale of the Jesus Christ. The movie is going to be released in theater on 28 February 2014. The soulful story combines the whole life of the Jesus Christ in a very tempting way. Every incident confronted by Jesus Christ from his birth to crucifixion has shown in Son of God (2014). ·
Physical Review A (PRA) provides a dependable resource of worldwide developments in the rapidly evolving area of atomic, molecular, and optical physics and related fundamental concepts. The journal contains articles on quantum mechanics including quantum information theory, atomic and molecular structure and dynamics, collisions and interactions (including interactions with surfaces and solids), clusters (including fullerenes), atomic and molecular processes in external fields, matter waves (including Bose-Einstein condensation), and optics, both quantum and classical. ·
This document describes the efforts of the StratusLab project to better understand its target communities, to gauge their experience with cloud technologies, to validate the deﬁned use cases, and to extract relevant requirements from the communities. In parallel, the exercise was used as a dissemination tool to inform people about existing software packages, to increase the awareness of StratusLab, and to expand the our contacts within our target communities. The project created, distributed, and analyzed two surveys to achieve these goals. They validate the deﬁned use cases and provide detailed requirements. One identiﬁed, critical issue relates to system administrators’ reluctance to allow users to run their own virtual machines on the infrastructure. The project must deﬁne the criteria to trust such images and provide sufﬁcient sand-boxing to avoid threats to other machines and services. ·
If you think research and knowledge are as vital to humanity as air, water, bread and freedom, then you probably know what Peer Evaluation is about.
Peer Evaluation is about giving Open Access to your primary data, working papers, articles, media and having them all reviewed and discussed by your peers. Peer evaluation is a strong supporter of qualified peer reviewing and is, in that respect, a valuable supplement, inspiration and hub for peer reviewed journals and publications. Finally, Peer Evaluation is an independent and community interest project. ·
It is often said that peer review is one of the pillars of scientific research. It is also well known that peer review doesn't actually do its job very well, and, every few years, people like me start writing articles about alternatives to peer review. This isn't one of those rants. Instead, I'm going to focus on something that is probably less well known: peer review actually has two jobs. It's used to provide minimal scrutiny for new scientific results, and to act as a gatekeeper for funding agencies.
What I would like to do here is outline some of the differences between peer review in these two jobs and the strengths and weaknesses of peer review in each case. This is not a rant against peer review, nor should it be—I have been pretty successful in both publications and grant applications over the last couple of years. But I think it's worth exploring the idea that peer review functions much better in the case of deciding the value of scientific research than it does when acting as a gatekeeper for scientific funding. ·
Kevin Heng, and Adam P. Showman. (2014)cite arxiv:1407.4150Comment: Submitted to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 16 pages, 9 figures, 1 table. Posted with permission from the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Volume TBD by Annual Reviews, http://www.annualreviews.org. Comments welcome.