text:
\section{INTRODUCTION}

Mrk\,501 ($z\sim$\,0.034) is a blazar belonging to the subclass of the high frequency peaked BL\,Lac objects (HBL). Its emission is strongly variable in all energy bands from radio up to very high energies (VHE, E$>$100\,GeV), where it was discovered as the second extragalactic source in 1995 \cite{Whipple1995_1996ApJ...456L..83Q}. Its synchrotron and inverse Compton (IC) peaks are known to move towards higher energies during high flux states. In particular, the synchrotron peak can shift up to two orders of magnitude \cite{Pian1997_1998ApJ...492L..17P}. As a consequence, a flux dependent spectral hardening has been observed in both X-rays and in the GeV-TeV band \cite[\textit{e.g. }][]{Pian1997_1998ApJ...492L..17P, CAT_1997_1999A&A...350...17D, FERMI_mwl2008_2009_2011ApJ...727..129A, cologna_2015arXiv150904458C}.

Mrk\,501 has been extensively monitored over the years, often in multiwavelength (MWL) campaigns in order to characterize its spectral energy distribution (SED). In 1997, a prolonged high state was detected \cite[\textit{e.g. }][]{CAT_1997_1999A&A...350...17D, Whipple1997_1997ApJ...487L.143C, Whipple1997_1998ApJ...501L..17S, HEGRA_1997A&A...327L...5A, HEGRA1997_spectrum_1999A&A...349...11A, HEGRA1997_temp_char_1999A&A...342...69A} and the historical highest flux was measured. Comparable high fluxes have been observed in short events on a few occasions, as in 2005 \cite{MAGIC_2005_2007ApJ...669..862A}, 2012 \cite{MAGIC_ICRC_2013} and 2014 \cite{cologna_2015arXiv150904458C}. During flares, the VHE flux variability can be as short as a few minutes \cite{MAGIC_2005_2007ApJ...669..862A, nachi_2015arXiv150904893C}.

\section{OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS}

\textbf{VHE} In 2014, the continuous monitoring of Mrk\,501 with FACT \cite{FACT_design_2013JInst...8P6008A} lead to the detection of several high state events with fluxes above a few Crab units (c.u.). In every one of these cases, flare alerts were issued, two of which triggered Target of Opportunity (ToO) observations with H.E.S.S.. A flare with flux comparable to the 1997 historical maximum was detected by both instruments on the night of June 23-24 2014.
Mrk\,501 was observed in wobble mode with the full HESS\,II array on several nights between June 19-25 and on July 29-30, and a total of 21 runs (observations with a typical exposure of 28 minutes) were collected. 18 runs pass the standard quality cuts, for a total livetime of 7.7\,h (7.1\,h when corrected for acceptance). The mean zenith angle is 63.8$^\circ$ causing the energy threshold of the observations to be very high, above 1\,TeV. In \cite{cologna_2015arXiv150904458C}, only events detected with the CT1-4 telescopes were extracted from the observations. Here, the information coming from all five telescopes are considered. The Model analysis \cite{deNaurois2009APh....32..231D} was used to reduce the stereo data. \textit{Very Loose} cuts were used in order to obtain the lowest possible energy threshold. This choice does not raise any issue regarding background contamination since the background level is very low.
An excess of almost 1900 photons is detected with high significance. Spectral analyses have been carried out on the total dataset and on the flare (four runs in one night) and low state (all runs in the remaining five nights) separately using the forward-folding technique \cite{Piron_2001A&A...374..895P}. All results have been cross-checked using a different software and an independent calibration.
The FACT monitoring provides valuable pre- and post-flare information. Thus, FACT observations between May 24 and August 4 are presented in this work alongside the H.E.S.S. observations. A total of 204 h in 63 nights have been collected. For the conversion to c.u., data with zenith angle smaller than 45$^{\circ}$ and only limited amount of moon light have been selected, leaving 144.5 hours of data in 59 nights. Rejecting bad weather data as described in \cite{dorner_2013arXiv1311.0478D} and excluding all data suffering from calima (the effect of calima on IACT data is described in \cite{dorner_2009A&A...493..721D}), 104 hours of data from 41 nights remain with an average zenith angle of 21.6$^{\circ}$. In the night of the flare, 4.1 hours of data were recorded. To allow for fast flare alerts, FACT has a quick-look analysis (described in \cite{dorner_2015arXiv150202582D}) providing results with low latency.

\textbf{HE} The Large Area Telescope (LAT) onboard the \textit{Fermi}\, satellite provides the data at high energies (HE, 100\,MeV\,$<$\,E\,$<$\,100\,GeV). The observations collected in a four months period centered on the VHE flare have been analysed with the ScienceTool software package version \verb|v9r33p0|. Events belonging to the 'Source' class within 15$^\circ$ from the position of Mrk\,501 were selected, and cuts on the zenith angle (100$^\circ$), rocking angle (52$^\circ$) and distance from the Sun (5$^\circ$) were applied. The instrument response functions \verb|P7REP_SOURCE_V15| and the standard Isotropic and Galactic diffuse emission background models iso\_source\_v05.txt and \verb|gll_iem_v05 rev1.fit| were used for the binned maximum-likelihood spectral analysis. Mrk\,501 was not sufficiently bright for sufficiently long time in order to derive short time-scale spectra or lightcurves with time bins shorter than one week.

\textbf{X-rays} X-ray data collected with \textit{Swift}-XRT in WT mode between May 23 and August 6, 2014 (obsIDs: 00035023026-00035023078) have been analysed for this work using the HEASoft software package v.\,6.16 (\url{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft}) with CALDB v.\,20140120. The events were cleaned and calibrated using \verb|xrtpipeline| and the data in the energy range 0.3-10\,keV with grades 0-2 were analysed. For the spectral fit, the events were grouped in bins with at least 30 counts using the \verb|grappha| tool and were fit using XSPEC v.\,12.8.2 with a single power-law model and Galactic hydrogen absorption fixed to $n_H=1.58\cdot 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$ \cite{Kalberla05_gal_abs}. The lightcurve flux values (Figure\,\ref{fig:longterm}) were calculated integrating the spectra of single snapshots between 2 and 10\,keV. The relation between fluxes and spectral indices shows a clear harder-when-brighter behaviour, as expected from the literature (e.g. \cite{Pian1997_1998ApJ...492L..17P}). Most of the X-ray and FACT observations are simultaneous or at least contemporaneous, while X-ray and H.E.S.S. observations are typically offset by $\sim$\,90\,minutes in the nights with coverage of both instruments.

\textbf{Optical} Observations in optical R band have been collected with the 70\,cm telescope of the Abastunami Observatory (Georgia), which is equipped with an Apogee 6E camera. The data has been analysed with the Daophot II reduction software using an aperture diameter of 10$^{''}$ \cite{omar_1999bmtm.proc...25K}. Also in this case, nights of contemporaneous data with H.E.S.S. and FACT exist. Notably, strictly simultaneous observations have been taken during the flare peak on June 23, 2014.

\section{MWL LIGHTCURVES}

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{lightcurves_mrk501_gamma2016.png}
  \caption{From \textit{top} to \textit{bottom}. First panel: VHE night-wise lightcurves from H.E.S.S. (black) and FACT (red). The fluxes are estimated above different energy thresholds: 2\,TeV and 750\,GeV, respectively. The FACT fluxes are provided in c.u. only. The flare is clearly visible at MJD 56831-32. The five nights of "low" state in the H.E.S.S. dataset represent a state of moderate activity. Second panel: \textit{Fermi}-LAT weekly lightcurve. One point is missing due to too low exposure caused by technical problems on the spacecraft and by pointed-mode observations on another source. Third panel: 2-10\,keV \textit{Swift}-XRT X-ray lightcurve showing high variability. Fourth panel: optical lightcurve from the Abastunami Observatory. These are observed magnitudes, not corrected for the host galaxy contribution. No particularly high flux values or strong variability are detected in correspondence of the simultaneously observed TeV flare. The spread of the values within one night represents the uncertainty of the observations.}
  \label{fig:longterm}
\end{figure*}

The regular monitoring of Mrk\,501 by FACT ensures dense sampling, which is of primary importance in providing valuable pre- and post-flare information, as in the current case.
The high sensitivity of H.E.S.S. on the other hand allows for minute dissection of the flare itself, probing timescales down to a few minutes.

In Figure\,\ref{fig:longterm}, the multiwavelength lightcurves spanning 80 days around the June 23 flare are shown: VHE data from H.E.S.S. (black, E\,$>$\,2\,TeV) and FACT (red, E\,$>$\,750\,GeV) in the top panel, HE data from \textit{Fermi}-LAT (0.1-500\,GeV) in the second panel, X-ray data from Swift (2-10\,keV) in the third panel and optical R-band data from Abastumani in the bottom panel. As can be seen in the top panel, the H.E.S.S. and FACT observations cover the flux rise from less than 1\,c.u. before June 19 to $\sim$\,5\,c.u. of the peak emission on the night of June 23, as well as the following sharp decline to sub c.u. levels.

Despite the different energy thresholds and not complete simultaneity, the average nightly fluxes recorded with H.E.S.S. and FACT in the same nights correlate well (Figure\,\ref{fig:correlation}, \textit{left}). In this period, there was no significant activity either in the optical or at HE. The comparison of the average nightly optical magnitudes with the fluxes measured by FACT (Figure\,\ref{fig:correlation}, \textit{middle}) shows no correlation. In particular, the optical emission is stable on the average value during the strictly simultaneous observations of the peak of the flare. The harder-when-brighter behaviour detected in X-rays can in principle explain these findings, since it requires the variability at lower energy to have a lower amplitude. On the other hand, it is known that the source shows activity also in optical. This suggests that at least two zones or mechanisms are necessary to explain the variability in VHE and in optical.

Figure\,\ref{fig:shorttime} shows the flaring state on June 23 on minute level time scale. The H.E.S.S. and FACT lightcurves have bins of 4 and 10 minutes, respectively.
There is evidence of fast variations on timescales of a few minutes at TeV energies. Doubling times below 10 minutes are obtained from the H.E.S.S. data. This favours a lepton induced emission at VHE.
It is interesting to note, however, that the correlation expected between X-ray and TeV fluxes, indicative of synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission, is violated by the right-most point in Figure\,\ref{fig:correlation}, \textit{right}. Again, this suggests that the source state during the 2014 flare is different compared to the rest of the campaign in terms of the physical parameters of the emitting region or of the particles responsible for the $\gamma$-ray emission.

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{correlation_hess_fact_night_mean_cu.png}
  \includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{correlation_opt_fact_night_mean.png}
  \includegraphics[width=0.32\columnwidth]{correlation_xrays_fact_night_mean.png}
  \caption{Comparison of the nightly average fluxes in different energy bands. \textit{Left}: a simple linear correlation is recovered as expected between H.E.S.S. and FACT. \textit{Middle}: The optical emission level seems to have no relation with the VHE one. \textit{Right}: A positive correlation can be seen between X-rays and VHE. It is violated by the right most point, suggesting differences in the physical parameters leading to the $\gamma$-ray emission during the flare with respect to the rest of the campaign.}
  \label{fig:correlation}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{lightcurves_mrk501_gamma2016_slices_2.png}
  \caption{Zoom in of the H.E.S.S. (black) and FACT (red) lightcurves during the June 23 flaring event. The binning is 4 and 10 minutes for the two instruments, respectively. While minute-scale variability is hidden by the low sensitivity of FACT, flux doubling times below 10 minutes are detected by H.E.S.S. . Note the different energy range used.}
  \label{fig:shorttime}
\end{figure*}

\section{TeV SPECTRA}

In \cite{CAT_1997_1999A&A...350...17D} and \cite{MAGIC_2005_2007ApJ...669..862A}, flux dependent spectral variability has been reported. In those publications, it was determined mostly at energies below 2\,TeV. In the present work, the high energy threshold above 1\,TeV and the very high maximal energy reached allow for a flux dependent spectral analysis at energies complementary to those of previous publications. Besides the total 2014 dataset, also the flare and the low state nights have been analysed separately.

Power law (PL) spectral fits provide very poor results, in line with the previous findings by, \textit{e.g.}, \cite{CAT_1997_1999A&A...350...17D, HEGRA1997_spectrum_1999A&A...349...11A, MAGIC_2005_2007ApJ...669..862A}, and with the consideration that the intrinsic emitted spectrum must have been absorbed through the interaction with the extragalactic background light (EBL). In fact, despite Mrk\,501 being a close source, a significant optical depth for EBL absorption $\tau\gtrsim$1 is expected at the highest energies observed from the source. Unsurprisingly, the curved power law (CPL) and the exponential cut-off power law (ECPL) spectral shapes fit the data satisfactorily. However, being the optical depth significant, the intrinsic spectra will differ from the observed ones. For this reason, fits including EBL absorption from \cite{Franceschini_2008A&A...487..837F} have been performed.

The spectra are best described by an EBL-absorbed PL. The photon indices are $1.91\pm0.04_{stat}\pm0.2_{sys}$ for the flaring state, and $2.32\pm0.06_{stat}\pm0.2_{sys}$ for the low state. The respective normalizations at 3.5\,TeV are $13.9\pm0.3$ and $2.7\pm0.1$ 10$^{-12}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$. There is no evidence of intrinsic curvature nor intrinsic cut-off up to 25\,TeV. These results show how a flux dependent spectral variability exists for energies extending significantly beyond 10\,TeV, up to 20\,TeV on a nightly time interval. The fact that the intrinsic spectrum is best described by a simple hard PL during the 2014 flare also indicates that there is no sign of being in the Klein-Nishina regime even at these high energies.

\section{LORENTZ INVARIANCE VIOLATION STUDIES}

The 2014 flare data set with an energy coverage extending significantly up to 20\,TeV has naturally been used to put constraints on Lorentz invariance violation (LIV).

Deviations from Lorentz invariance could appear at an energy scale beyond our current grasp. A generic approach to introduce such effects consists in adding effective terms in the dispersion relation of particles, \textit{i.e.} for photons
\begin{equation}
E_\gamma^2 = p_\gamma^2 \left[1 \pm \left(\frac{E_\gamma}{E_{\mathrm{LIV}}} \right)^n\right],
\label{eq:LIV_Dispersion}
\end{equation}
where $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ is the hypothetical energy scale at which Lorentz symmetry could stop being exact, and $n$ is the leading order of the perturbation. In some approaches to quantum gravity, $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ is expected to be of the order of Planck energy
$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Planck}} = \sqrt{\hbar c^5 /G} \simeq 1.22 \times 10^{28}$\,eV \cite{amelino_2013LRR....16....5A}.

Energetic astrophysical $\gamma$-rays can be used to constrain $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ as Equation\,\ref{eq:LIV_Dispersion} would lead to non-negligible observational effects. The most direct approach in searching for LIV is to look for energy-dependent time delays in the arrival time of $\gamma$-rays. Constraints obtained with this approach using the 2014 flare data set are described in \cite{cologna_2015arXiv150904458C}. These results are comparable with the best time-of-flight constraints for the linear case ($n=1$) derived from AGN observations \cite{liv_pks2155_2011APh....34..738H}, and are currently the best time-of-flight constraints for the quadratic case ($n=2$).

An attractive alternative possibility to test Lorentz invariance takes advantage of the fact that the presence of LIV would affect the kinematics for the $e^+e^-$ pair production of TeV $\gamma$-rays on the EBL, resulting in a modified opacity. In the subluminal case we consider here (minus sign in Equation\,\ref{eq:LIV_Dispersion}), the threshold energy for the pair creation process is increased. This would reduce the EBL absorption and result in an excess of transparency for $\gamma$-rays at the highest energies with a specific spectral signature \citep[see \textit{e.g.}][]{Jacob_2008PhRvD..78l4010J}.

The spectral characteristics of Mrk 501 during flares and its low redshift allow for the detection of the most energetic extragalactic $\gamma$-rays, making this source ideal to investigate LIV through spectral studies,
as has already pointed out by, \textit{e.g.}, \cite{Stecker_2001APh....16...97S,biteau_2015ApJ...812...60B,Tavecchio_2016A&A...585A..25T} using the 1997 outburst, or by \cite{Fairbairn_2014JCAP...06..005F} discussing the sensitivity of CTA to LIV.

Optical depths using the EBL model of \cite{Franceschini_2008A&A...487..837F} are computed considering modifications due to LIV for the subluminal case. A log-likelihood spectral fit is performed on the H.E.S.S. 2014 flare dataset assuming an intrinsic power-law and letting the spectral index and the normalization free to vary. Values of $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ are scanned logarithmically in the range of interest for linear and quadratic scenarios. More details can be found in \citep{matthias_2016arXiv160608600L}. As the data show no evidence for a high-energy upturn, LIV-free optical depth values are preferred and log-likelihood profiles reach plateaus corresponding to the standard case. This allows to compute exclusion limits on $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$, as summarized in Table\,\ref{tab:LimitsTable}.

\begin{table*}[b]
\centering
\caption{Exclusion limits on $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ at different confidence levels obtained from the spectral analysis of the 2014 flare data set.}
\label{tab:LimitsTable}
\tabcolsep7pt\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
  \hline \\[-0.8em]
       & 2$\sigma$                                                      & 3$\sigma$                                                     & 5$\sigma$     \\[0.2em]
  \hline \\[-0.8em]
  n=1  & $3.3\times 10^{28}$\,eV ($2.67\times\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Planck}}$) & $2.6\times 10^{28}$\,eV ($2.13\times\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Planck}}$) & $1.7\times 10^{28}$\,eV ($1.37\times\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Planck}}$)     \\[0.2em]
  n=2  & $8.7\times 10^{20}$\,eV \hspace*{\fill}                         & $7.8\times 10^{20}$\,eV \hspace*{\fill}                        & $6.3\times 10^{20}$\,eV \hspace*{\fill}      \\[0.2em]
  \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

For the linear case, the 5\,$\sigma$ lower limit is at $1.7\times 10^{28}$\,eV ($1.37 \times \mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Planck}}$). It is the best limit obtained using an AGN and confirms the result obtained with time delays using GRB\,090510 \cite{liv_grb_2013PhRvD..87l2001V}: the standard photon dispersion relation holds up to the Planck energy scale in the case of linear perturbations.
For the quadratic case, the 5\,$\sigma$ lower limit is at $6.3\times 10^{20}$ eV, which increases the current limits obtained with both AGNs and GRBs. These strong constraints naturally come from the exceptional spectrum of the 2014 flare data-set where the power law intrinsic emission extends up to 20 TeV with no sign of deviations from standard EBL absorption.

The same LIV analysis using the EBL model of \cite{Dominguez_2011MNRAS.410.2556D} leads to very similar exclusion limits, showing that the results are not significantly affected by the choice of a specific EBL model. We have considered LIV affecting only photons \cite[as in ][]{Tavecchio_2016A&A...585A..25T,Fairbairn_2014JCAP...06..005F} and not electrons since the constraints on LIV for electrons are very stringent \cite{Liberati_LIV_2003Natur.424.1019J}.
Relaxing this condition and considering LIV affecting electrons and photons equally amounts to a rescaling of $E_{\mathrm{LIV}}$ by $(1-2^{-n})$ \citep{Jacob_2008PhRvD..78l4010J}.

\section{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
\footnotesize{The H.E.S.S. Collaboration acknowledges: The support of the Namibian authorities and of the University of Namibia in facilitating the construction and operation of H.E.S.S. is gratefully acknowledged, as is the support by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), the Max Planck Society, the German Research Foundation (DFG), the French Ministry for Research, the CNRS-IN2P3 and the Astroparticle Interdisciplinary Programme of the CNRS, the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), the IPNP of the Charles University, the Czech Science Foundation, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the South African Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, and by the University of Namibia. We appreciate the excellent work of the technical support staff in Berlin, Durham, Hamburg, Heidelberg, Palaiseau, Paris, Saclay, and in Namibia in the construction and operation of the equipment.
The FACT Collaboration acknowledges: The important contributions from ETH Zurich grants ETH-10.08-2 and ETH-27.12-1 as well as the funding by the German BMBF (Verbundforschung Astro- und Energy Physics; the Laboratory Astroteilchenphysik) and HAP (Helmoltz Alliance for Astro-particle Physics) are gratefully acknowledged. We are thankful for the very valuable contributions from E. Lorenz, D. Renker and G. Viertel during the early phase of the project. We thank the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias allowing us to operate the telescope at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma, the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik for providing us with the mount of the ormer HEGRA CT3 telescope, and the MAGIC collaboration for their support.
G.C. and M.M. are members of the International Max Planck Research School for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg (IMPRS-HD) and the Heidelberg Graduate School of Fundamental Physics (HGSFP).
N.C. acknowledges support from Alexander von Humboldt foundation.
The Abastumani Observatory team acknowledges financial support by the Shota Rustaveli NSF through project FR/577/6-320/13.}

\bibliographystyle{aipnum-cp}%

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
144 minutes | crime drama | R
Director: Erick Zonca
Writers: Michael Collins, Camille Natta (adaptation), Erick Zonca (writer), Aude Py (co-writer)
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Aidan Gould, Saul Rubinek, Kate del Castillo
The film was inspired by the John Cassavetes film Gloria. Julia, 40, is an alcoholic. She is a manipulative, unreliable, compulsive liar, all strung out beneath her still flamboyant exterior. Between shots of vodka and one-night stands, Julia gets by on nickel-and-dime jobs. Increasingly lonely, the only consideration she receives comes from her friend Mitch, who tries to help her. But she shrugs him off, as her alcohol-induced confusion daily reinforces her sense that life has dealt her a losing hand and that she is not to blame for the mess she has made of it. Glimpsing imminent perdition, and after a chance encounter with Elena, a Mexican woman, Julia convinces herself–as much in panic and despair as for financial gain–to commit a violent act. As the story unfolds, Julia's journey becomes a headlong flight on a collision course, but somehow she makes the choice of life over death.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This automatically update list of homes for sale in McAllister Park gives you access to the latest listings to hit the market. Click on an image to view more information about the home, including photo galleries and listing details.
*For a complete list of available homes in McAllister Park please contact our McAllister Park Real Estate Specialist or sign up for listing notifications below.
Feature Your McAllister Park Home Here!
Don't miss the latest listings in McAllister Park. Sign up for our email notifications to receive new listings in your inbox as soon as they hit the market!
*This list of homes for sale in McAllister Park, Lacey WA may not represent all of the available inventory in the neighborhood. For an accurate list of homes for sale in McAllister Park please contact our neighborhood specialist.
Your home for McAllister Park homes for sale and neighborhood information!


The Malta Financial Services Authority yesterday published the Financial Instrument Test, and its respective guidelines, that applies to issuers offering DLT assets to the public as well as to individuals providing services in the context of the VFA Act or the financial services legislation generally. Such a test aims at establishing whether a DLT asset can qualify as an Electronic Money, a Financial Instrument, a Virtual Financial Asset or a Virtual Token.
Interested parties and users are invited to send their queries and feedback to the Authority by no later than the 13th of August 2018. Click here to view the press release as issued by the MFSA.


text:
Traffic deaths in Georgia during the Christmas travel period are up over 2017.
Photo: Savannah Morning News
This year's Christmas highway deaths up in Georgia over 2016
Steve Burns, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
With hours remaining, traffic-related deaths in Georgia in the Christmas travel period have surpassed the 2016 total, according to state figures.
There have been 11 fatalities on state roadways since the travel period began Friday at 6 p.m., according to a Twitter post by the state Department of Public Safety. The 102-hour window ends Tuesday at 11:59 p.m.
Last year, eight people lost their lives during the Christmas period, officials said in a news release.
Christmas Holiday Travel Count as of noon is 11. Worked by Post 32-Athens (1) & Post 33-Milledgeville(1). Slow Down & Buckle Up Everyone, Everytime. #gsp #gamccd
— Georgia DPS (@ga_dps) December 26, 2017
However, the period is 24 hours longer this year, Georgia State Patrol spokeswoman Tracey Watson said Tuesday.
Officials won't have the number of crashes and injuries available until after the period closes, Watson said.
Last year, the GSP reported 392 crashes with 208 injuries during Christmas travel, according to a news release.
"Most fatal crashes during a holiday period in Georgia involve an impaired driver, speed, or the person killed not utilizing a seat belt," Col. Mark McDonough, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, said in the release.
In some crashes, a combination of contributing factors is involved, he said.
The New Year's travel period, which is 78 hours, begins Friday at 6 p.m. and runs through Monday at 11:59 p.m.
Know what's really going on with crime and public safety in your metro Atlanta community, including breaking news, trial coverage, trends and the latest on unsolved cases. Sign up for the AJC's crime and safety newsletter delivered weekly to your inbox.
The Atlanta rapper continued his tradition of giving back during the holidays.


Drum roll please… it's alive! Welcome to the fresh new look SIPR website. There's still some tweaks to be made and updates to finish, but overall we are up and running. If you experience any bugs or see any errors, please let us know. That's all part of the growing pains and your assistance and patience is greatly appreciated.
Check back next week (and keep an eye on our social media sites) when entries for the 2018 race will be open. Potentially with online entry forms.


text:
Hasbrouck Heights Streetscape project halted by the state
Work on the Boulevard streetscape project has been stopped until further notice due to the governor's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) shutdown.
Work was being performed on phase eight of the Boulevard streetscape project when the borough received the shutdown order, Borough Engineer Ken Job said. Job said the work being performed was in the middle of sidewalk and curb replacements on Boulevard between Madison and Lasalle avenues.
All projects were ordered to stop on July 9 at 12 a.m. by executive order from Gov. Chris Christie. The shutdown was ordered "in the wake of the state Senate's failure to act on the Assembly Transportation Trust Fund package that would have provided every New Jersey family two broad-based tax cuts that exceed the legislation's proposal for a dedicated gas tax increase," according to a press release from the state.
The work has been stopped and the sidewalks have been secured with yellow safety tape and construction blocks to make the site safe for pedestrians.
"As governor, I am entrusted with the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state, as well as the responsibility to aid in the prevention of damage, loss, or destruction of property in the event of emergencies affecting the state. As this executive order states, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this state, it is necessary that the remaining amounts held by the TTF not be spent on any transportation project that is not absolutely essential," Christie stated in signing the executive order.
Hasbrouck Heights has been receiving grant money from the NJ Department of Transportation (DOT) and working on the streetscape transformation since 2009.
The borough received $149,000 in 2014 from local state aid grants from the municipal transportation trust fund projects for phase seven and in 2015 received $149,000 for phase eight. The borough recently received $116,590 in April for phase nine of the streetscape project.
Job said only projects deemed an "emergency" were able to continue during the shutdown, which doesn't apply to the Boulevard streetscape.
Phase eight will continue work on the northern side of Madison and Lasalle avenues on both sides of the streets and on Madison Avenue to Washington Street on the west side of the street. Job previously said the streetscape will skip over the Exxon gas station and the funeral parlor on the Boulevard.
Phase seven continued the streetscape work to Division Avenue and Raymond Street. The continuation will conform to the rest of the Boulevard where streetscape work has already started. Work will include replacement of sidewalks, decorative brick pavers, new lighting, benches and the replacement with trees to match the other streetscape streets. There will also be a crosswalk with a red brick type material that is more durable.
Phase nine is planned for the westerly side only and will continue the streetscape project on the Boulevard from Lasalle to Paterson avenues, which is along the front of the high school.
"In the absence of a legislative solution to replenish the Transportation Trust Fund and consistent with Executive Order No. 210, it is necessary to stop work temporarily on ongoing projects funded by the TTF by 11:59 p.m. on July 8," the state's press release issued on July 6 said. "DOT and NJT should use the intervening days to assess and prioritize the list of projects to obtain the greatest effect out of the remaining TTF funds."
The plan exempts projects deemed essential for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of all citizens and will not impact projects funded through federal sources.
Email: cattafi@northjersey.com


The West Bengal HS result 2018 has been published by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (WBCHSE) today on the official website at 10:00 am. Therefore, candidates who are waiting for their Higher Secondary Result 2018, WB HS Class 12th Results 2018, WB 12th Result 2018 can check it on the official website of WCHSE. The Board has announced the results streamwise like West Bengal Class 12 Science Result 2018, West Bengal Class 12 Arts Result 2018, West Bengal Class 12 Commerce Result 2018 today.
However, the result link for the same is available now, which means all the students of West Bengal Class 12th can check their results now.
This year, the overall passing percentage registered at 83.57%. The topper of the WBCHSE Class 12th is Granthan Sengupta from Jalpaiguri District School (Arts stream) bags the first position while the second position secures by Ritvik Kumar Sahu, who scored 98.6% in Science stream.
1. Open the official website of WBCHSE at wbresults.nic.in.
Last year, the overall passing percentage of students who had appeared for the West Bengal HS exam in 2017 was registered at 85.65%. In 2017, there were 7.4 lakh students had appeared for the WBCHSE HS exam. This year also around 7 lakh students had appeared for the examination.


Outgunned and overrun, I first executed the angling equivalent of a full-scale military retreat on Oregon's ballyhooed Deschutes River during the Salmonfly blitzkrieg. A well-executed retreat, incidentally, is purported to be the most difficult of all military maneuvers. My retreat was imperfect but honorable. I simply turned tail, bow pointed downriver, and stroked out of there.
If this sounds like an inauspicious way to begin a spiel celebrating Pteronarcys californica, aka the Salmonfly, you're right. But what I haven't said, until this very moment, qualifies as something of a confession: a mumbling, eyes-downcast disclosure of having been spoiled rotten by year after year of relatively unpeopled but decidedly pyrotechnic Pteronarcys hatches. That, of course, was back in the good old days.
Yes, it only happens in the West. Nevertheless, the Salmonfly hatch amounts to an annual spring rite that beckons—no, demands—the attention of anglers from every corner of the continent. What is it that compels this kind of enthrallment? For one thing, it's the Salmonfly's bigger-than-other-bugs size—not just the individual insects but their collective emergence as well. On rivers like Montana's Big Hole and Madison, and the Deschutes, to name just some of the most famous few, the word "abundance" doesn't do the hatch justice. "A plethora of protein on the wing" does.
There's a reason some wags in the Rockies claim that the Salmonfly is Montana's state bird. While guides and anglers claim the typical Salmonfly is 60 to 80 millimeters long, killjoy biologists put the true measure at 30 to 50 millimeters, with a wingspan of 50 to 84 millimeters. Equipped with disproportionate wings, fluttering so resolutely as to seem in slow motion, Salmonflies in flight resemble miniaturized helicopters throbbing through the haze.
Though most Salmonflies range in hue from an overall gray-ochre to mocha—depending upon the mineral complexion of the stream bottom—with a dusty-amber underbelly, there are also darker variants the color of burnt toast, all adorned with bright orange-peel collars that make them look clerical. Without exception, Salmonflies live in higher-velocity rivers, usually below 7,000 feet in elevation, and prefer medium unconsolidated substrate (freestone and cobble), which functions as a nursery for the eggs and hatchling nymphs. Unlike the nymphs of most other species of stonefly, which, prior to emergence, spend only a year grazing stream bottoms, Salmonfly nymphs develop over a three-year time span. In spring—or, in some regions, in early summer—the mature nymphs trundle more or less en masse toward shore. Migration and emergence—whether strung out all day or, more typically, at dawn and dusk—tend to be a clumsy affair, with many losing their footing in the turbulent currents. Thus the nymph fisher, using basic black or dark brown patterns, will almost always be in the ball game. That said, no matter how productive it may prove to probe the front of the hatch, there's some question as to the worth of traversing the continent in order to straight-arm nymphs. It's the air show that unhinges anglers' jaws.
After shore-bound legions of nymphs split free of their shucks, clusters of adult Salmonflies end up draped everywhere along the stream bank, clinging to willows and wild rye, grappling for perches on rocks and limbs, crawling up your neck and shirt cuffs. At this stage their one and only mandate is procreation, and they take up to three weeks to lock in a mate. During this lengthy period of courtship, Salmonflies assume the unenviable role of generously dispersed, winged kibble for every bank-cruising bird, mammal, and reptile. Following the mating ritual, female Salmonflies—laden with egg sacs so full their abdomens sag ponderously—shamble over the river, looking for slicks where they may deposit their precious cargo. Now we're talking airborne trout chow; now we're talking dry-fly mayhem.
However, there's a catch; because Salmonflies descend both haphazardly and rather unhurriedly, trout soon adopt acute attentiveness: studying the goods and becoming firmly wired into what's real and what's not. Patterns imitating adult Salmonflies must be right, or close to right, in every way, including size, silhouette, color, and attitude on the water. Hatch-matching can get intense, dude. Bird's Stonefly, for instance, even takes into consideration the right sound effects: the more than slightly audible splat of a Salmonfly blundering, or, in the case of a gravid female, controlled crashing, into the river.
There can be no lucid discussion of the Salmonfly phenomenon without broaching the subject of timing. So many variables are involved—weather, water temperature, snowmelt, runoff—that accurately predicting the hatch amounts to delusional thinking. There's a solution. You know that old saying "Better late than never"? Well, in regard to the Salmonfly hatch, it's better late, period. Simply tarry until rumor turns to clamor—there's no muzzling news of the hatch—and then abide another few days until less of a carnival atmosphere prevails and the trout are no longer glutted like Roman emperors. In short, follow the uproar, but not too closely (trout memory comes stamped with a 10-day expiration date).
With the most flamboyant aquatic hatch on the continent, there's something both oddball and electrifying about the convergence of angler, trout, and insect, all drawn into a singular, cross-purposed mass. Nonetheless, if you find it hard to be enchanted while jockeying for position, the Salmonfly frenzy might not be your scene. But you should know there's a good reason that throngs make annual pilgrimages to the Deschutes, Big Hole, Madison, and Colorado. If you hit it right—archangel insects, risen fish—it's truly a religious experience. And how many of those do we get in this life?


text:
Simon Cowell >
Simon Cowell 'renting out £18m mansion after it failed...
Simon Cowell 'renting out £18m mansion after it failed to sell'
By Bang Showbiz in Lifestyle / Showbiz on 25 October 2022
Follow Simon Cowell
Simon Cowell Lauren Silverman
Simon Cowell is reportedly renting out his £18 million home in London after it failed to sell.
The property in the south of the city was put on the market last year for the sum with estate agent Fuller Gilbert following an extensive makeover.
According to the Daily Mail on Tuesday (25.10.22), it is now being let out while Simon "focusses on a new talent discovery venture with TikTok".
Simon, 63, bought the seven-bed mansion for £15 million in 2019, but is thought never to have lived in the property.
It's believed the 'X Factor' creator had been intending to set up home there with his fiancée Lauren Silverman, 45, and their eight-year-old son Eric, as well as her boy Adam, 16, from her previous marriage to businessman Andrew Silverman.
But the Mail reports after a trial journey to King's College School – where Simon, who also has a home in LA, is thought to have wanted to send Eric – took two hours, he decided not to move into the property with his family.
A source told the publication: "Simon spent around £1 million tailoring it to meet his and his family's needs, so he was definitely planning to make it his base in the UK.
"However, when he realised that London traffic could make the relatively short trip so arduous, he determined it wasn't the place for him and put it on the market.
"The fact that nearby Hammersmith Bridge, which closed in 2020 over safety fears, has still not reopened to cars certainly doesn't help the already congested surrounding roads."
The Mail said details of how much it costs to rent Simon's home are being kept private, similar properties are being let for around £14,000 per month.
Simon recently teased his return to the music business after stepping back for the sake of his health, saying he was going to "announce something soon".
It's believed he was referring to the new platform StemDrop, which Simon has launched with TikTok and which allows big-name musicians to "give a song to the world" so aspiring producers can rework it and create their own versions.
Simon Cowell's spontaneous wedding
Simon Cowell teases wedding plans
Simon Cowell to receive philanthropy award
Harry Styles deserves his success, says Simon Cowell
Simon Cowell wants to work with Britney Spears again
Simon Cowell: 'I had my first drink and smoke aged eight'
Simon Cowell's son 'transformed his life'
Simon Cowell teams up with TikTok for new talent-discovery programme StemDrop
Simon Cowell bribed Max Martin with a Mercedes to try and own this Britney hit
Simon Cowell thinks he can reunite One Direction
Cheryl Tweedy seeking career advice from Simon Cowell
Simon Cowell is on the mend after breaking his back: 'He's taken some steps'
Simon Cowell's brother pokes fun at electric bike accident
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping - Teaser Trailer
With the passing of each decade, the music industry is constantly set alight by the...
One Direction: This Is Us Movie Review
Filmmaker Spurlock (Super Size Me) is known for his investigative wit, but there's none of...
One Direction: Going Our Way Trailer
British pop heartthrobs One Direction became a worldwide sensation when they were thrust together on...
One Direction: This Is Us Trailer
Niall Horan, Zayn Malik, Liam Payne, Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson may make up the...
People Index: 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


- Obi Wan Kenobi, Star Wars.
Abstract: It has been claimed that many of the great leaps forward in astronomy have been made serendipitously - someone just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Here I undertake an analysis of some of the most commonly cited examples of "luck" in astronomy and argue they were no such thing - but rather attention directed in the right place; careful observation and problem encountering and solving where required. Luck is either everything, or it is nothing. I argue here for the primacy of the human mind over mere "luck" in pushing science forward.
Sundown. November 14, 1572. The sky darkens but another log on the fire to keep them warm would brighten the library. Those who did not head to bed would stay here. It was the warmest place now that the kitchen was closed. Herrevad Abbey was comfortable enough and now that his uncle Sten had paid for a paper laboratory to be built, Tycho had a place he could retreat to when the other workers would stay late drinking in an attempt to keep the winter cold at bay. The laboratory was one of the darkest places of all - for Tycho did not permit any candles to be carried in there and so workers would have to feel along the walls to find the covered lamps. Most could not be bothered and kept themselves in other parts of the abbey that were brighter. But here Tycho could watch the skies and keep his most recent notebooks hidden among the fresh paper.
And so here Tycho found himself once more - another November night. Perhaps as cold as most, as dark as most and as clear as most winters' nights in olden Denmark. Here in a monastery; a monastery without monks praying to the heavens but rather a scientist seeking to understand them.
Tycho Brahe's observation of a supernova on November 15th, 1572 from an ex-monastery in what is now Southern Sweden changed human understanding of the heavens forever. Once properly appreciated through careful analysis, this "new star" changed the unchangeable. The heavens were not perfect and immutable for Tycho new that this "new star" was located far beyond the moon in a region that was supposedly perfect and so not capable of change (Krause et al, 2008). But the heavens could change. Aristotle had been falsified. Tycho discovered this. Seemingly, as luck would have it, the great observer of the heavens observed what only very few human beings have seen with the naked eye in recorded history: the violent death of a super massive star. Only around 8 such events have been observed with the naked eye in the last thousand years (PlaitWeb). To be a person fascinated by the heavens and witness such an event is rare indeed. As the question before us suggests - in the case of "discovering" supernovae, someone must be in just the right place at the right time.
Tycho it would appear, was lucky. Galileo never witnessed a supernova. Nor did Copernicus or Newton (Keplar did however). Only a serendipitous stroke of fortune seemingly put Tycho in the right place at the right time. He had spent his whole life preparing for this moment. Tracking the motions of the planets and stars as they wheeled overhead. He knew what he was looking at perhaps more than anyone else in history before him. It is likely there had never been a human better placed to notice even the slightest change in the heavens. But it would not have taken a Tycho to notice this change. Indeed no fewer than five other astronomers contemporaneous with Tycho observed this star and indeed even a layperson would have noticed this dramatic new light in the sky. One can only imagine the religious hysteria that would have been stirred up by this event. What distinguished Tycho, however, was the accuracy of his measurements. He was an observer without peer when it came to recording celestial data with the naked eye. It did take work however for Tycho to establish the true significance of the event. After all, the Aristotelean world view would permit only objects closer than the moon to undergo change. This new star was a change. Ergo: This new star must have been "sub lunar". And yet, painstakingly accurate measurements led Tycho to the inescapable conclusion: this new star was among the heavens. It was far, far more distant than the moon. Although it seems luck brought the discovery to Tycho, it required work for Tycho to bring the discovery into scientific understanding.
Serendipity is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way". We may see that throughout the history of astronomy such happy or beneficial chance events seem common. Some have even claimed that astronomy itself can be seen as a science of serendipity (see for example Fabian (2009) and Lang (2010)) To remain with just one flavor of serendipitous discovery; the appearance of supernovae might seem to be a rare event in astronomy, but with the advent of modern technology, a professional observer in the business of cataloging these explosions might think it a poor day indeed were less than one per week recorded by computerized measuring devices. In 1998, the High-z Supernova Search team reported observations on 10 very distant supernovae and were expecting to uncover evidence about the extent to which our universe was open, closed or flat (Riess et al, 1998). This team was effectively in a race with the Supernova Cosmology Project to determine the mass density of the universe. What neither team, nor any in the astronomical community at the time expected to find was an accelerating rate of expansion. But that is precisely what both teams did find. However someone has to be first and for the Hi-Z Supernova Search Team the stars aligned and they have been awarded the proverbial blue ribbon. Both teams were equally hard working, and operating with similar equipment, technology and expertise. The difference in who gets the credit for first discovering an accelerating expansion? That falls to simply being in the right place at the right time - surely this too is a sign of serendipity at work in discovery?
And yet, as with Tycho's Supernova, the act of observation alone is not enough for such occurrences to be called scientific. To be scientific the discovery must form part of a theory for which there is evidence. When Tycho or the High-Z team observed their supernovae, it was not until the data had been explained could the observations be considered part of science. If they were, then all observations are equally a part of science if all that matters is observation. Plainly that would be a philosophy of scientific nihilism. Although we do not want to needlessly constrain what we mean by the word science having a definition that is as broad as to include any observation is unhelpful. Much hard work needs to be done on the observations of supernovae to conclude that they lay among the stars and that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Serendipity then would appear to play a minor role. In terms of Tycho's observation of De stella nova the appearance of serendipity seems to be little more than blind luck initially. Anyone alive under that supernovae in 1572 was provided with a similar dose of luck, it would appear. So what differentiated them from Tycho? Hard work, a corpus of scientific measurement and (most of all) the ability to explain something that no one else was able to: this new star really was in the distant heavens.
Let us turn our attention to an example from the history of astronomy that seems to fit a more textbook, classical notion of the role of serendipity in astronomy.
Clearly Penzias and Wilson did not know what they should have been looking for or what they were looking at. The other physicists who did, did not yet have the eyes to see (at least their 'enhanced vision' was not yet sufficiently fine tuned to have produced results). Penzias and Wilson stumbled across the CMB like a couple of petty thieves in the night tripping over a bag of cash left at the entrance to a house. They weren't looking for it, didn't mean to find it - but a windfall with no effort whatsoever was theirs. A serendipitous stroke of fortune.
This is our third example, after Tycho and the High-Z Supernova Search team to have apparently been given a helping hand by serendipity as though it were like the long lost tenth Greek Muse handing out favors to fortunate researchers. Throughout the history of astronomy there seems to have been degrees of serendipity involved in scientific discovery. Serendipity might range from playing a minor role (such as its contribution to the discovery of an accelerating universe. An argument could surely be made that the major part of this discovery was hard work by a huge team of specialists all toiling towards knowledge creation with highly sophisticated equipment) to being the most significant factor (the chance explosion of a star at just the right time and place such that thousands of years later on the other side of the galaxy it could be witnessed by an astronomer better positioned than any other at the time to record it and discuss its philosophical and cosmological significance). The ways in which serendipity enlightens scientific discovery in astronomy seems to vary from fully illuminating a solution to merely adding to the full spectrum of hard work, expertise and equipment that must all come together to shine a light on the problem.
At least this is how the role of serendipity is presented classically. In no less a publication than Science and only recently in 2010 was serendipity credited with varying degrees of importance to the progress of astronomy. Lang (2010) writes of how the moons of Jupiter simply "appeared" to Galileo through his telescope, Hershel's discovery of Uranus is described as "unanticipated" and Slipher "unexpectedly" discovered the red shift of galaxies which led to Hubble's explanation that the universe was expanding - to confine myself to just the first 3 paragraphs of the article. Similar sentiments can be found in Cambridge Radio Astronomer A.C Fabian's (2009) piece "Serendipity in Astronomy" where he writes of the discovery of extra-solar planets. "The problem lay in everyone's expectations which supposed that other solar systems would resemble our own." he writes, "In the first extrasolar system found, it was a Jupiter-mass planet in a 4-day orbit!" The exclamation mark of surprise A.C Fabian uses is not uncommon in articles and discussions ranging from Science through to Wikipedia which maintains an article that runs to 75 discrete examples of serendipity in science. Examples in astronomy make up 7 of those as of this writing May, 2011. Examples of the latter include all that I have already mentioned plus: Jansky's single handed initiation of the entire field of radio astronomy, having discovered radio waves coming from the centre of the Milky Way while investigating static interference on short wave radio and the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon by James Christy when he took a second look at a photographic plate he was about to throw out. There is one more - and that is the 'serendipitous' discovery of Gamma Ray Bursts by military satellites. It is to this discovery I will turn later in some detail.
All of the preceding discussion aims to present the consensus that seems to exist among writers on the topic all the way from professional scientists working in the field itself, through to science journalists and all the way down to casual commentators: Serendipity is a real and functioning part of the scientific process and no where is this more evident than in astronomy. So we seem to have two possible tiers of contribution: Serendipity can be an essential component of discovery or it can be but a minor component and and there can be gradations anywhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. That serendipity has these varying roles to play seems obvious and the consensus about its role in science - whether large or small - seems universal. This does not, however prevent this common sense vision of the scientific process from being utterly false.
Serendipity does not have a big role in science. Nor does it have a small role. It would even be generous to say that serendipity has no role for this still suggests that serendipity has some reality all it own when in truth serendipity is an illusion - it is a label that is applied to various parts of the scientific process - erroneously - with nothing to unify those parts besides a very subjective feeling. And that feeling is "surprise". When a scientist, journalist, commentator - essay writer personally feels that a discovery is surprising then to the extent that the discovery feels surprising it is labelled serendipitous. To the degree that a discovery feels peculiarly unexpected it is labelled serendipitous. This feeling is an essential component of what it is for a thing to be labelled serendipitous for we are told by the very definition that serendipity evokes the emotion of happiness.
My thesis here, therefore - is that although events are physically real, serendipity is not. But what is my criteria for real? Here I turn to David Deutsch's definition (Deutsch, 2011), "a particular thing is real if and only if it figures in our best explanation of something." Now events are real: they figure in our best explanation of space and time. Discoveries are likewise real. They are the events which figure at the beginning of the scientific process. Serendipity I will show is not real in this way as it does not figure in the scientific process.
Before we come to my argument in full, consider by way of analogy the concept of a surprise party. Now the party has an objective reality. It is an event. But in what sense does the "surprise" exist except as a function of the psychological state of the "surprisee"? In other words, is a surprise party really surprising? I contend the question makes little sense. Most people in attendance at a so-called surprise party are, of course, unsurprised - they were invited. Indeed, sometimes no one at a so-called surprise party is surprised if the secret is not kept hidden. I hope to show in what follows that serendipity is just like this. Much seems to be made of its role at times in scientific discovery - especially in astronomy but this stems from a basic misunderstanding of the scientific process - even from those engaged in science. It will therefore be my contentious that although there exist discoveries in an objective sense (just as there exist parties), it is questionable as to whether there is, or can be, such a thing as a serendipitous discovery in astronomy unless one wants to label all discoveries in science serendipitous in which case we may as well do away with the word if it is to be tautologically appended to every instance of the word discovery signifying little more than that discoveries are unpredictable.
Much ink has been spilled and philosophical discourse occupied with the question as to how - and (sometimes with more than a dose of irrationality) if - science creates knowledge. While there has been academic disagreement, it seems that with some minor modifications, the idea that science makes progress should be uncontroversial for any engaged in research. Karl Popper is frequently credited with once and for all finding the demarcation line between science and non-science and so determining what it is about a scientific theory that makes it scientific. Its ability to be falsified. But this caricature of Popper sells his epistemology far short. Popper embraced an inclusive philosophy of science that sort to place on a rational foundation a description of how knowledge is created and grows. It is important for my subsequent argument about the role of serendipity in science that we take seriously the ideas of the most respected philosopher of science ever to have lived. Not because he is the most respected philosopher of science but rather because, with few adjustments, his ideas about the growth of knowledge accurately describe the scientific process. It is beyond the scope of the present essay to go into the many critics of Popper and the obsession that the humanities have with the work of Thomas Kuhn - I have argued about these elsewhere and provide a note for the reader to consult my work on this in a brief appendix at the conclusion of this piece. Hence, I am simply taking here seriously the notion Popper has correctly described how science proceeds and I will see where that takes me. It is also worthy of note that the question writer for our present project sees that there is indeed a distinction to be drawn between "the steady progression of ideas" and "serendipity". I take "steady progression of ideas" to be what science is about. It is not so much the "steady" which is important but rather progression that sets science apart from any alternative way of trying to create knowledge. Science makes progress. There are objective differences between scientific theories and the direction of change is one towards general improvement (i.e: an increase in verisimilitude to use Popper's vernacular).
Some philosophers needlessly constrain the scope of science and I think it important to clarify what we mean by the word science. Science is just our best attempt to understand reality and so in this way there is no meaningful divide between science and rationality more generally. Science is a continuum of ideas about the nature of reality - but not just any ideas. In order to understand some aspect of reality one needs explanations and this is what scientific theories are. Scientific theories are our best explanations of reality. There are some features of scientific theories that make them superior to other explanations. One feature is testability (i.e: experiments can often be performed - at least in theory - to compare a theory with physical reality). Another is coherence (i.e: it is preferable that scientific theories generally mesh well rather than contradict one another). But how are scientific theories generated in the first place? I take the scheme - represented as a flow chart on the following page - from David Deutsch (1997) who is summarizing the view of scientific progress given to us by Karl Popper (1963). This sees the generation of scientific theories as a problem solving process. In this scheme our 'discovery' might be the Problem or it might be the Conjectured Solution. It might even be the Experimental Test. It is important for us to attempt find the location of scientific discovery in this scheme, because it is discoveries that are labelled as serendipitous. And so it is in this scheme that we seek to find serendipity playing a role.
The significance of my diversion into the philosophy of science should be apparent. Where in this scheme do we locate serendipity? If serendipity has a place in astronomy and astronomy is a science and science is adequately described by the picture of Popperian Epistemology given to us above and we are to take all of our best theories seriously - then serendipity should appear here. If not explicitly then at least implicitly, somewhere in the course of scientific discovery. Let us revisit Brahe's supernova and try to locate 'serendipity' in this scheme.
Clearly Brahe's observation of the supernova is the stage that we consider serendipitous. It was not Tycho's attempt to explain what he saw (his conjectured solution) rather it was the encounter with the Problem that was serendipitous. A Problem in the scheme given to us by Popper and Deutsch is the best synonym for discovery in this context. Let us take that seriously for a moment. Brahe's encounter with a Problem if truly serendipitous means that there are two types of scientific problems: Serendipitous Problems and Non-Serendipitous ones. Then what is it that makes a Problem Serendipitous? Well what are the qualities of serendipity that would meaningfully distinguish one kind of problem from others that are not serendipitous? We need to return to our OED definition which was uncontroversial at the outset: "the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way". Could "Events by chance" be the feature we need? Well, what does "events by chance" really mean? A chance occurrence is either every occurrence in the literal sense (that is, according to our best scientific theory, reality is governed by the laws of quantum theory which do have a probabilistic or chance nature - but this would get us no where) or rather events which are unpredictable. But, and here is the key - all problems in science are by their very nature unexpected in this way. A problem in science cannot be expected. Because if it was expected (i.e: not due to chance) it would be predictable - and so not a problem.
Once again I turn to Deutsch (2011), "Before a discovery is made, no predictive process could reveal the content or the consequences of that discovery. For if it could, it would be that discovery. So scientific discovery is profoundly unpredictable, despite the fact it is determined by the laws of physics." The importance of this for our present discussion is profound - there is nothing to distinguish one encounter with a problem from another in any substantive way. Consider again, Brahe's observation of the supernova. If this encounter with a problem (according to modern philosophy of science) was serendipitous then let us compare it to another encounter with a problem that was not. Clearly we cannot compare it to any other encounter with a supernova because the problem was identified with Brahe. No subsequent observations of supernovae were actually Problems in the same way as Brahe's. Subsequent observations were simply examples which fit the new theory (i.e: Conjectured Solution) that Brahe put forward. The prevailing cosmology of the time was that the heavens were immutable, perfect and unchangeable. The observation of the supernovae refuted (to use Popper's terminology) this world view. That is to say the observation of the supernova actually constituted an experimental test of the Aristotelean world view. The new theory (the heavens can change) was thus not challenged by any further sightings of supernovae. However New Problems immediately arose such as "What is a supernova?" And "Why do they occur?" and countless others. Of course Brahe and his contemporaries were more concerned about the impermanency of the heavens - they were not speaking or writing about supernovae as they did not know what they were to pose the question in just this way. The point is, there is nothing we can really compare Brahe's first observation of a supernova with to establish what role serendipity played. We cannot compare it to other, subsequent observations of supernovae - and we cannot compare it to other chance observations because all chance observations are just that: due to chance and so unexpected and equally deserving of the label serendipitous. It is only by a quirk of our human psychology and perhaps retrospective understanding that we choose to label some discoveries serendipitous. But it is we who do the labeling - we impose on the discovery the label - we do not find serendipity in the discovery like we find a star in the heavens. And (to bring this point into full view), because it is we who do the labeling there can be no role for serendipity in science because it has no reality of its own. Yet to read the writings of some others, serendipity seems to be almost a supernatural force, something akin to the Force from Star Wars, working in mysterious ways to guide the hand of scientific discovery to a greater or lesser extent. It is clearly not this. Or anything like this. It is an illusion. It is actually a by-product of the way we speak - it is, to use Ludwig Wittgenstein's terminology - a "bewitchment of language" (Wittgenstein, 1953) that allows us to speak about such a thing as though it really existed.
To firm up this picture of science, let us revisit the observation of the CMB by Penzias and Wilson. To Penzias and Wilson, they had encountered a Problem. Namely: What was causing the background noise on their antenna? Dicke et. al (1965) conjectured a solution. They had even devised a way of criticizing their solution with an experimental test (they had built an antenna). But now, as we know, Penzias and Wilson's Problem was actually Dicke et al's experimental test. Again, where do we find the serendipity here? Was it in the "events by chance"? No, for as we have already seen - all problems are equally unexpected in the sense that they are unpredictable - and so 'due to chance' in that sense. Is it then in the 'experimental test'? Again, no - the interference Penzias and Wilson detected did not become a test of Dicke et al's theory until Dicke et al learned of it. And here is where the second part of the OED's definition of serendipity begins to earn its keep - an event is serendipitous if the event occurs by chance "in a happy or beneficial way". Happy or beneficial. Again recall the contribution of the word surprise to 'surprise party'. It depends entirely on an individual perspective. The surprise applies only to the person who the party is being held for and even then only if all have kept the secret. In this sense there is no question that surprise could have an objective reality in the sense that the subjective feeling has an objective corollary in the brain of the person - neurotransmitter concentration increases, synaptic firings and so forth. But serendipity does not have even this much. Serendipity is not supposed to be a property of a person's brain but rather a property of an event. Consider that Penzias and Wilson's discovery of the CMB was not at all "happy or beneficial" for Dicke, Peebles et al. The Nobel Prize takes pride of place in the offices of the former, not the latter.
So serendipity is not a feature of a scientific discovery. Or of a scientific theory or its generation. Serendipity might best be described as a psychological attitude one can have towards certain discoveries or sequences of events - and even this is generous. It has nothing to do with the scientific process itself. Either serendipity is about chance (in which case all scientific discoveries are serendipitous in this sense) or it is about feeling happy about all such scientific discoveries (in which case this is a purely subjective feature of one's individual psychological disposition in which case - again - it is not an objective feature of scientific discovery and is not a part of the process).
To stay with the bewitchment of language argument for just a moment more.
Consider the sentence: Tycho is happy.
The subject as well as the object have real – that is to say – spatially and temporally located corollaries. Although "Tycho" is trivial to locate, some investigation reveals that "happy" refers to something that really exists. Although we do not know the actual relationship between conscious states of the mind and physical reality we know enough to say it has something to do with a state of the brain and the concentration of neurotransmitters (in particular serotonin). We can even run the experiment: if you deliberately block the uptake of serotonin, a person feels unhappy. Although happiness is a subjective state of the mind, we can speak objectively about its existence. There are objective facts to be known about certain subjective states. This is a distinction that philosopher John Searle has drawn attention to (I take the following from Harris (2010)). There are two very different senses of the subjective/objective distinction. There is the epistemological (how we know) and the ontological (what we know). In this way we can know objectively about the subjective state we call happiness. We are not speaking epistemologically subjectively (that is to say with bias or by deceiving ourselves and so forth).
It would appear that this sentence is very similar to the first. But this is misleading. Because we need only ask: What is the physical corollary of lucky? There isn't one. Lucky is a purely subjective (that is to say – in this sense biased, the result of opinion, unreliable, etc) term. Does luck exist? No more than magic. There is nothing in physical reality corresponding to lucky. And, given that the project question all but identifies serendipity as simply another term for luck, we can likewise conclude that serendipity has no objective reality either. Rather, mere personal preference for the use of the term (i.e: subjective bias) leads to the use of the term when labeling what can objectively be called scientific discoveries.
Consider: Daily the evidence of the existence of supernovae falls all about us. The evidence that the heavens beyond the moon are in constant flux is basically ubiquitous. The only thing that prevented anyone prior to Tycho Brahe from discovering this was the right technology. Certainly "In the fields of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" as Louis Pasteur quipped in a quote that has become synonymous with the claim that serendipity has a role in science - and in Brahe's case he knew what measurements to make given this observation. But had Brahe been given a telescope it would not have required a supernovae blast to deliver him - and humanity - from the parochial view that it was only the Earth that underwent change.
Let us turn then to a final text-book case of apparent serendipity in astronomy: the discovery of gamma-ray bursts. Here we shall see that although the discovery seems serendipitous it is merely a direct consequence of the scientific process. A new problem encountered requiring a solution.
At the very height of the cold war, the United States and the USSR signed a test ban treaty. In order to monitor the communists' compliance with the agreement, the USA launched a number of satellites into orbit which were designed to detect the gamma-ray signatures of nuclear blasts. These Vela spacecraft as they were named (Spanish for "watch") never detected terrestrial radiation which could be described as unambiguously consistent with nuclear explosions. However on July 2, 1969 gamma radiation was detected but it was unlike anything expected from a nuclear weapon. Between that date and July 1972, sixteen bursts of gamma radiation were recorded by the Vela equipment (Klebesadel, et al. 1973). As this was a military operation, it took some time for the results to be considered either scientifically interesting or fit for publication. Klebesadel et al were the first to detect gamma ray bursts and even conjectured and attempted to test for the presence of supernovae where the bursts had occurred. Their paper spawned an entire sub-field of astrophysics which set out to solve the mysteries of the gamma ray bursts.
The popular view seems to be: because the satellites were not designed to find gamma ray bursts, but did - then this constitutes serendipity. That is, the discovery was an unexpected happy chance to remain within our OED definition. For a final time, let us look carefully at this exemplar of scientific discovery from the point of view both of the contribution of serendipity and in light of our taking seriously Popperian Epistemology as a full account of how knowledge is created. In terms first of serendipity: what role did chance have to play in this? Again, consider that the evidence of the existence of gamma ray bursts (whatever their cause) had been striking the upper atmosphere of the Earth for billions of years and will continue to do so for billions of years to come. So it is hardly serendipitous (i.e: lucky) to have encountered it. Rather all that was needed was the right technology. This is a thread that runs through so many so-called serendipitous discoveries. The augmentation of the human perceptive systems (i.e: equipment to detect radiation we cannot see with the naked eye) leads to unexpected discoveries. But what else could it do? Surely the surprise would be finding nothing after having invented and deployed some new technology specifically designed for the purpose of detecting radiation we have never tried to detect from space before. In one sense this makes a lie of Pasteur's "chance favors the prepared mind". The operators of the Vela satellites were entirely unprepared for what they observed. So much so that they discarded the initial measurements. Here it might be argued chance favored unprepared minds.
Now let us look at this same event through the eyes of someone who believes Popper adequately captured exactly how science generates knowledge. The launch of the Vela satellites should be expected to produce problems with our current theories. The reason for this is because such measurements of that radiation had not been made from that place ever before. When Vela detected gamma radiation, this constituted a Problem. The problem is one requiring an explanation. How are we to square these gamma ray bursts with what we already know about astrophysics? Can they be adequately captured by our theories of supernovae? If not, do we need to create new theories (conjecture solutions) about their origin? These new conjectures must mesh (that is to say be coherent with) our current astrophysical theories as far as that seems possible. Hence theories about all gamma ray bursts being spherically symmetric seem to be ruled out leading to solutions like beaming of the gamma rays. Such theories lead to their own predictions and so we get closer to the truth. To a Popperian, the Gamma Ray Bursts were always out there waiting to be discovered. All that was required was the right technology. That is not a serendipity - it is a consequence of scientific progress itself. As science makes progress, technology increases and we will encounter ever more problems that we cannot predict because of the very nature of scientific discovery.
Indeed so it is with Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter, so it is with Penzias and Wilson's detection of the CMB and so it is with the discovery of Gamma Ray Bursts. Whoever first gets to use the technology for the first time, gets to see something before anyone else and in general they are not prepared for what they see for that would suggest they have an inkling - that is to say are able to predict what they will discover. And as has become a mantra now in my project: that would be a strict contradiction because no discovery is predictable. In the fields of observation, chance favors the unprepared mind particularly when that mind is connected to reality with technology none before have used.
When Klebesadel et al participated in the Vela Satellite program to detect high energy gamma radiation coming from the Earth, did they expect to find it coming from the heavens? It depends entirely upon what they knew about our best theories of astrophysics. The astrophysicists seemed to already know that supernovae would produce high energy gamma ray bursts (and indeed Klebesadel et al write in their paper about attempting to search for optical traces of high energy photons from supernovae after encouragement from theoreticians). Was this discovery serendipitous for them?
The persistence of serendipity featuring in popular accounts of the process of scientific discovery can largely be traced to what might be called "folk-philosophy-of-science". That is to say "common sense" ideas about how science proceeds include references to constructs such as serendipity. This might seem to be an overly academic ivory-tower position to take: that serendipity is merely a trick of our language and a term referring to an entity entirely devoid of any objective reality. However, although it may be fair to call what I am presenting here as a highly rarefied epistemological position about the abstract reality of a quantity relevant only to the academic study of the philosophy of science it is not merely that. Popular opinion and the way scientists and journalists write about scientific discovery affects research funding and so all parties involved in research should have access to the facts. As it turns out there are facts about epistemology and one such fact is that knowledge is created according to the scheme discovered and explained by Popper. And this scheme does not include serendipity as we have seen. Indeed serendipity does not exist in the way that most writers seem to think that it does. If we were to push the line that serendipity does have a role, then surely those holding the purse strings would rightfully wish to know where in the research grant proposal we can find allocation for serendipity. Or plans to ensure that serendipity is allowed to play a role.
A highly trained scientist with the best equipment does not make discoveries serendipitously. She makes discoveries because she is a highly trained scientist with the best equipment engaged in science. Much goes in to creating the opportunities for scientific discovery: education and hard work, a creative and inquisitive mind, painstaking analysis, access to new technology. At the conjunction of these things begins the creation of new knowledge.
Doroshkevich, A. G.& Novikov, I.D.,1964 Soviet Physics Doklady 9: 4292.
PlaitWeb: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Website http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1997/howmanysn.html accessed May 15, 2011.
Wittgenstein, L., 1953, Philosophical Investigations.
A reader asked me to consider writing my own philosophy of science, having criticized every version of the philosophy of science presented by them as being inadequate. I provide a link here to a blog site where I have posted a more full account of the position I take with respect to how science proceeds. That blog is likewise all my own work. It may be useful to the reader to consult this if they think I have been unfair in my dismissal of figures such as Thomas Kuhn who had much to say on the way in which science proceeds through revolutions and paradigm shifts. Many parallels can be drawn between the errors of the Kuhnian view of science and the misconception I have attempted to identify in this project about the role of serendipity in science.


Can I ask for a raise if I survived high-level layoffs?
We recently had major high-level layoffs at my company, and even my boss was let go. My new workload is significant, but no one mentioned a raise. I'm thankful that I'm still here and have the chance to take on more responsibility. Even so, is it reasonable to ask for more money? And should I do it now or wait until the annual appraisal in June?
Taking on more responsibility at the same compensation level may be appropriate if a company is struggling and laying off people — particularly when you consider the alternative: Most people would opt for a job with more responsibility and no raise rather than be unemployed. That said, it's completely appropriate to ask about added compensation. And I'd do so now. Since we're talking bottom line, it's better to get this clarified one way or the other now, so you aren't wondering and waiting. Worst-case scenario: You have a job with more responsibility, which makes you more marketable, and if you do well and the company succeeds, you'll likely benefit one way or another now or later. Good luck.
Someone I've worked with but who wasn't quite my boss is leaving. I liked working with her and want to give her a goodbye present. Is that appropriate? Or will it look as if I'm kissing up or be misconstrued, since I'm a man and she's a woman. You know how sensitive things are in the workplace nowadays.
What kind of "present" are you talking about?! A piece of jewelry or a dozen roses would be a little hard to "misconstrue." But some benign token of appreciation indicating that the person will be missed would certainly be appropriate and would be received in the right way. As for what others think: Well, were you planning on presenting this in a public forum or posting it on Facebook? How about just quietly walking into this woman's office and leaving it on her desk? Or inviting her out for a coffee or paying for her lunch? Regardless, who cares what others think? Just say, "Thank you! It was nice working with you and let's stay in touch." Life's long and you never know.


text:
Rebel MLAs Moved from Mumbai to Goa, One Threatens to Join BJP as Kumaraswamy Govt Hangs by a Thread
Of the 13 MLAs, 10 were holed up in a luxury hotel in Mumbai since Saturday and were joined by H Nagesh, one of the two Independent MLAs who quit, on Monday. All the legislators were headed to Goa by road.
Updated:July 9, 2019, 7:43 AM IST
JD(S) MLAs leave a hotel in Bengaluru on Monday (PTI)
Bengaluru: As the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka teetered on the brink of collapse, all the ministers quit Monday to give a free hand to Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy to reshuffle his Cabinet to include rebel MLAs while two Independent legislators also withdrew their support.
There was no immediate word from the rebel camp on the move to reshuffle the Cabinet in a bid to save the wobbly 13-month-old government, as the action shifted to Goa from Mumbai after 13 dissident MLAs — 10 of the Congress and 3 of the JD(S) — submitted their resignations to the Assembly Speaker's office on Saturday triggering a fresh political crisis.
Of the 13 MLAs, 10 — seven of them from the Congress — were holed up in a luxury hotel in Mumbai since Saturday and were joined by H Nagesh, one of the two Independent MLAs and a minister who quit, on Monday. All the legislators were headed to Goa by road.
Sources in Mumbai said the legislators were being accompanied by Mohit Bhartiya, president of the Mumbai BJP Yuva Morcha. According to JD(S) sources in Bengaluru, the party MLAs were being taken to a resort on the outskirts of the city.
The two Independent MLAs--H Nagesh and R Shankar--who were made ministers less than a month ago in a bid to give stability to the government resigned and extended support to the BJP, as resort politics returned to haunt the crisis-hit coalition.
Amid an allegation by Congress leader D K Shivakumar that the BJP 'hijacked' Nagesh, all eyes were on Speaker Ramesh Kumar, who is expected to examine on Tuesday the resignations by the 13 MLAs submitted to him on Saturday that triggered the latest political crisis in the state.
The ruling coalition faces the threat of losing its majority if the resignations of the 13 rebel MLAs are accepted. The JD(S)-Congress coalition's total strength after Nagesh and Shankar withdrew support is 116 (Congress-78, JD(S)-37 and BSP-1) besides the Speaker.
With the support of the two independents, the BJP has 107 MLAs in the 224-member House, where the half-way mark is 113. If the resignations of the 13 MLAs are accepted, the coalition's tally will be reduced to 103. The Speaker also has a vote.
Fighting hard to save one of its few state governments, Congress took the lead holding the meeting at the residence of Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara, which was attended by senior leaders, including AICC general secretary K C Venugopal.
At the end of the meeting, the party said all its 21 ministers resigned "voluntarily" to enable a reshuffle of the Cabinet and make way for the disgruntled legislators, in an apparent fire fighting exercise.
JD(S) followed suit later with nine of its Ministers resigning after Kumaraswamy met Congress leaders. "For the larger interest of the party, yesterday and today, we had detailed discussions with senior leaders and ministers," Venugopal told reporters.
The meeting was attended by Congress Legislature Party Leader Siddaramaiah, a former chief minister, among others.
Siddaramaiah too said all Congress ministers voluntarily resigned and have given "full freedom" to the party to reshuffle the ministry. "All ministers from #JDS have submitted their resignations just like the 21 ministers from #Congress. Cabinet reshuffle will happen soon," the Chief Minister's Office said in a tweet.
Kumaraswamy, who returned from his 10-day long US trip Sunday, put up a brave face, saying he was not afraid of the developments. "The government will survive," he said, alleging that the current situation is the work of the BJP high command.
Kumaraswamy told reporters he had "no fear" about the happenings and was concentrating on fulfilling his responsibilities. He evaded a direct answer to a question about the resignation of the 13 MLAs and merely said "Let's see".
According to Rajeev Gowda, a state Congress leader from Karnataka, UPA Chairperson and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi said she is "very very confident" that things will be back to normal in a couple of days.
The BJP, on its part, demanded immediate resignation of Kumaraswamy, saying his government was in 'minority'. "If at all he has dignity, honour and self-esteem, or if he is aware of Karnataka's culture and traditions, he should immediately resign... Do not try to stick on to the chair. You do not have the numbers," said former deputy CM R Ashok.
The Congress accused the BJP of trying to destabilise the state government. "This is the sixth time the BJP has tried to destabilise the coalition government in the state," Venugopal said.
The Centre denied any role in the political turmoil in Karnataka which echoed in the Lok Sabha where Defence Minister Rajnath Singh took a dig at Rahul Gandhi, saying the resignation drive was started by the Congress President.
"Whatever is happening currently in Karnataka, we have no relation with that," he said, replying to the issue raised by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury who alleged conspiracy. "Big leaders of Congress are resigning," Singh said.
Meanwhile, senior Congress MLA Roshan Baig on Monday threatened to quit the party and join BJP. "I'm hurt by the way Congress party treated me, I'll resign from my MLA post and join BJP," he said.
Congress-JDS government
Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara
'The Dish' That Covered the Apollo 11 Moonwalk, is Still Beaming 50 Years Later