{.size-large .wp-image-14147 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“14147” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2017/05/31/sauropod-neural-canals-are-weird-part-1-when-the-neural-arch-um-isnt-one/camarasaurus-dorsal-from-ostrom-and-mcintosh-1966-modified-by-wilson-and-sereno-1998/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/camarasaurus-dorsal-from-ostrom-and-mcintosh-1966-modified-by-wilson-and-sereno-19981.jpg” orig-size=“555,524”

This is an important question, and one that is all too easy to overlook. No doubt the editorial board of Lingua assumed that they owned and controlled their journal, right up to the moment they decided to find a different publisher who would help them transition to reasonably priced open access.

Step 1: Include the Share-Alike provision in your Creative Commons license, as in the mysteriously popular CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA. Step 2: Listen to the crickets. You’re done. Congratulations! No-one will ever use your silhouette in a scientific paper, and they probably won’t use your stuff in talks or posters either. Luxuriate in your obscurity and wasted effort.

Using physical units and how to appropriately scale a model is a top question users ask when beginning with Underworld. The equations Underworld solves are stated in a physically correct form, they remain valid as long as every material constant, geometry, time, etc., are expressed in the same system.  There is no explicit concept of units no scaling in Underworld, the choice is entirely left to the user.

{.size-large .wp-image-12466 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“12466” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2015/09/19/fighting-apatosaur-art-1-brian-engh/rearingpinkdiplodicids/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/rearingpinkdiplodicids.jpg” orig-size=“1096,836” comments-opened=“1”

{.size-large .wp-image-14133 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“14133” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2017/05/23/omnh-2162-probable-dorsal-2-of-the-big-apatosaur/omnh-2162-apato-d2-anterior-view/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/omnh-2162-apato-d2-anterior-view.jpg” orig-size=“2272,1704” comments-opened=“1”

Here is your occasional reminder of how very misleading feathers can be in understanding the true shape of an animal.

This tired old argument came up again on Twitter this evening, in light of Elsevier’s me-too announcement of a preprint archive: And elsewhere in the same thread: So what’s the problem? Mendeley and SSRN are still around, right Yes, they are. But they continue to exist only by the grace of Elsevier. At any moment, that could change. And here’s why.

For a long while, there has been a lot of anger among researchers and academic librarians towards the legacy publishers: the big corporations that control access to most of the world’s scholarly output. But what exactly is the problem? Let’s briefly consider several possibilities, and see if we can figure out which ones really matter.

In honour of Hans Mühlhaus' 70th birthday this month, here are some shear band simulations made with Underworld. We are investigating the role of dilatancy in the geometry of the shear bands for a box of material when a small trapdoor is opened. The extent to which large-scale deformation is needed to release material through the trapdoor depends on how much the material dilates when shear bands form.