DR MICHAEL H WONG
ASSISTANT RESEARCHER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ASTRONOMY DEPARTMENT
BERKELEY CA 94720-3411
510/642-0388 (voice)
510/642-3411 (fax)
|
The Group.
POSTED: Wed Sep 17 13:26 PDT 2008
I recently made cartoon versions of my closest planetary science collaborators at Berkeley using the Face Your Manga portrait generator:
 |
Name: Imke de Pater
Favorite solar system object: Jupiter, but likes everything in the outer solar system
|
 |
Name: Phil Marcus
Favorite solar system object: Anything with rotating fluids
|
 |
Name: Franck Marchis
Favorite solar system object: Little ones
|
 |
Name: Mike Wong
Favorite solar system object: Jupiter
|
 |
Name: Máté Ádámkovics
Favorite solar system object: Titan
|
 |
Name: Xylar Asay-Davis
Favorite solar system object: Jupiter, but favoring Earth lately
|
|
|
|
On August 28, we had a special Astronomy Colloquium
where everyone who wanted to could show one slide for 60
seconds while they discussed their research. That format is
great for an astroblog post, so here's my slide and script:

I am an Astronomy Assistant Researcher, and
one of my main projects is this study of Jovian
anticyclones. With Astronomy Professor Imke de Pater and
amateur observer Chris Go in the Philippines, we have
collected high-resolution images of Jupiter's anticyclones
over the past three years. With M.E. Professor Phil Marcus
and new astronomy postdoc Xylar Asay-Davis, we've retrieved
high-quality velocity fields revealing the circulation of
these vortices, which relates to Jupiter's otherwise
unobservable atmospheric structure and deep water
abundance. The color change of Oval BA in 2006 is confined
to an outer ring, consistent with our vortex circulation
model and Phil Marcus' prediction of climate change on
Jupiter.
|
|
|
False color "bee-vision" green/blue/UV image of Jupiter, 10 May 2008. HST WFPC2.
Jupiter's red spots, like some flowers, absorb in the
ultraviolet. Bees, and the Hubble Space Telescope's WFPC2,
can see ultraviolet coloring like this. I put together this
bee-vision image, because "as any nature film crew knows,
we can gain an insight to the bee colour world by
converting the red, green, and blue channels of a video
camera into UV, blue, and green channels" (according to
this University of Bristol page, which also
says that birds perceive a four-plane color space instead
of the three-plane RGB world that we see).
I feel a little tacky doing this, but hey, Details says self-promotion is
key. So here's a list of places our Jupiter images got
picked up by. But this is not unusual for
Berkeley. Marayam, who works down the hall from me, was
recently interviewed on All
Things Considered for capturing a supernova from
the beginning.
ORIGINAL SOURCES -- STScI (their WFPC2 snapped these
shots) -- Imke de Pater (the boss) -- Chris
Go (helped us figure out where these things would
be) -- Keck Observatory (near-simultaneous
infrared images) -- UC Berkeley (Go Bears!)
NEWS FEEDS -- Astronomy Picture of the Day
(the public media fully accept
the possiblity of climate variability on Jupiter) -- New Scientist (perhaps the most
interesting story, includes new velocity measurements
by the New Horizons team) -- Reuters (gives props to the Asians on the
team, but hard to tell which spot they are talking about
sometimes) -- cnet -- msnbc (I like it, they call the
newest red spot "baby") -- Science Daily (the first story to liken
the spawning of new spots to a disease outbreak) -- io9 (never heard of this site before,
but the user comments on the Jupiter post are hilarious) -- National Geographic (they wanted to know how big the new spot is: about 4800 km, the size of the USA and China side-by-side)
|
|
|

FITS files are the "bread and butter" of astronomers: an
image and metadata file format that's used by all
observatories I've ever worked with, on the ground or in
space. I came across this cool Photoshop plugin "FITS
Liberator," developed by the European Southern
Observatory, that lets you play with astronomical images in
Photoshop.
Unfortunately this nifty utility doesn't have the ability
to write back out into FITS format. That's what I was
originally searching for: the ability to edit pixel masks
in Photoshop, and then import them back into scientific
analysis codes. Maybe someday. Currently we're editing pixel
masks with specialized IDL code (written by student
researcher Patrick Lii) that is great for processing
batches of HST/WFPC2 data.
|
|
|
I just discovered that I am part of an academic kickback
scheme. However, I just want to say that I think it is
totally ethical, because it demonstrates the cooperative
nature of scientific research. Here's how it works.
I downloaded Mishchenko et al.'s T-matrix scattering
code. It was very useful in some modeling of particles
in Jupiter's ring (Wong et al. 2006). The scattering code
is obviously the result of years of very competent work. Of
course I referenced Mishchenko and Travis (1998), as any
responsible scientist would. But in the code distribution,
there was also a message that Mishchenko would appreciate
hearing directly from anyone who used his code. So I guess
I must have followed through and emailed him, because I
just saw that our paper was referenced by Mishchenko et al. (2007), which is
basically a list of everyone who has used his code.
So the kickback cycle is that I reference Mishchenko, he
gets a citation count (BONUS!). He keeps track of all the people
using his code, and puts out a publication (BONUS!) demonstrating
the relevance of his years of work (BONUS!). The citation from his
publication (BONUS!) then rewards me for acknowledging the utility
of his T-matrix solver.
It's like bloggers and linkbacks, or gratuitous
testimonials/wall posts on Web 2.0. Thanks, Mishchenko !!
|
|
|
Eclipse 2008A.
POSTED: Thu Feb 21 20:46 PST 2008
A bunch of little kids and random community members
showed up last night to view the total lunar eclipse with
the San Francisco Amateur Astronomers at
the Randall Museum. We were plagued by
clouds most of the night, but I snapped this "digiscope"
image through one of the telescopes that were set up.
|
|
|
Further observations of 2007 WD5 led to
a reduced impact probability of around 1 in 10,000. This
development isn't surprising, given the previous large uncertainty
region from 2007 data, but now I have an
unexplained desire to blow something up.
|
|
|
Chance of impact: 1 in 350 (estimated in early
December), 1 in 77 (21 December), 1 in 26 (28 December). As more and more data are
being used to estimate the orbit of asteroid 2007 WD5, the
chances of collision with Mars keep improving.
The graphic above uses white dots to show the possible
locations of 2007 WD5 when it crosses Mars' orbit. The
large spread in the positions of the white dots shows that
there is much room for improvement in the orbital estimate,
but even a near miss could be exciting. Although I would
rather see the formation and evolution of a crater on Mars
(Do the ejecta form a lobate pattern? Is methane released
from the heated post-impact soil?), a near-miss with
orbital deflection and/or SL9-style tidal disruption of the
asteroid would be cool too.
|
|
|
My fan mail.
POSTED: Mon Nov 19 18:07:39 PST 2007
Earlier this month, on a day when I was particularly
frustrated with proposal-writing, I was cheered to find a delightfully
unusual letter
in my inbox. A parent of one of my summer students wrote in
to tell me that I had gotten his daughter excited about
astrobiology, and thanked me for my influence on her life.
As I told Doug, educators are always delighted to have
students who are genuinely interested in the
material. Catherine was one of those advanced high school
students who enrolled in UC Berkeley Summer Sessions. She
stayed after class several times to chat about things that
we covered in lecture, and conversations like these give
teachers the feedback they need to build a good class. So I
didn't expect any more reward or recognition, but getting
parent fan-mail takes this to another level. Here are some
gratuitous quotes about how awesome I am (Doug said it was
OK to post these):
I wanted to take the time to write you and thank you for
the time you spent with my daughter outside of class...
you may have changed her life forever.
She has found her life's calling as an "astro biologist." I
remember she called me the day she met with you and I had
never heard her so fired up before. She had taken an
Astronomy class at the local community college, but
I never heard her excited like this before.
I wish you continued success in your most fascinating
career and hope you will never lose the ability to reach
out to students in the way you did with my Catherine.
-- Doug Traub
|
|
|
If anyone's interested,
NASA is looking for an astronaut.
|
|
|
I am about to hit the "submit" button for a Fall AGU
abstract of this title. They have a new submission form,
which allows you to include one URL per abstract. So my URL
points here, where you can see quite clearly that the
equatorial cloud cover has changed significantly between
2000 and 2007, when Jupiter's global upheaval was in full
swing.
If the equatorial cloud clearing is sustained for a
few years, it may enable us to figure out exactly how the
upper tropospheric haze is supplied. Is the haze composed
of fine cloud particles wafted up from below? Or is it
composed of a photochemical "smog" that is continually
produced and continually settling out of the atmosphere?
|
|
|
The globe above shows the view of the Earth from the
perspective of approaching Aurigid meteors at the time of
the shower peak, which will occur late Friday night (early
Saturday morning on September 1).
Annual meteor showers (like the Perseids) are typically
caused when the Earth passes through the trail of dust
debris left by a short-period comet. The Aurigid shower,
which is predicted to peak at 4:33 PDT, is a different
story. These meteors are debris from long-period comet
Kiess, which has perhaps only ever made two close
approaches to the Sun. The dust may have a more pristine
composition than short-period comet dust, which may explain
the green and blue colors associated with one report of
Aurigid activity in 1994.
In any case, the Aurigid shower is not predicted to
occur again within our lifetimes, so this is a unique
opportunity to witness this particular shower. Although
it's inconvenient to be up at 4-5am for most people, the
reward will be a relatively short burst of meteor activity,
probably with several bright meteors. Click on the globe
above for more info. Unfortunately I will miss this event
because I'll be in Michigan, where it will already be
daylight when the shower takes place (see above).
There is also a total lunar eclipse tonight
!! Below is a diagram showing the eclipse timing, as
well as a description from one of the professors in my
department:
Though the time of night isn't ideal (conflicts with sleep,
for most of you), there is a great opportunity to see a total
lunar eclipse this Monday night (Tuesday morning, Aug. 28) --
that's tomorrow night (or tonight, depending on when you
read this)!
The partial eclipse begins around 1:51 am PDT on Aug. 28
(Tues. morning). Totality will be reached at 2:52 am PDT, and
it will end at 4:22 am. The second partial phase will end at
5:23 am PDT, just before dawn on Tuesday, August 28.
Lunar eclipses are totally safe to watch, and no optical aid
is needed. Telescopes and binoculars can provide even better views,
but are not necessary. Just find a spot with clear skies and a
relatively unobstructed horizon (especially to the west), and
enjoy the view! If it's foggy in Berkeley/Oakland, try heading
inland (Walnut Creek, Livermore, etc.).
I hope you have a chance to see the eclipse, if only briefly.
-- Alex Filippenko
|
|
|
The summer 2007 session of Astro/EPS C12 is over... What am
I going to do now, research? The class was intense but
students said they learned a lot. Here is a pic from our
Perseid-viewing party. About 15 of us reclined in a parking
lot where it was dark enough to see the Milky Way, and we
saw quite a few spectacular meteors.
|
|
|
Last weekend I went to a San Francisco Mime Troupe performance
in Dolores Park. They are doing a pretty amusing production
commenting on the Iraq war, with a major plot thread
relating to the increase in Iraqi cancer rates as a result
of US use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. Apparently
this is true. I searched the web and found a light-hearted
2003 Guardian article about DU, an
old collection of BBC articles about DU, an
International Action Center page about
DU, with a link to the documentary Poison DUst, a
FAQ at the International Coalition to Ban
Uranium Weapons, numerous Christian media outlets such
as the Christian Science Monitor
investigating DU, a military site defending the safety of
DU, and an interview with a German doctor who
analyzed DU munitions.
And I had no idea about any of this.
Here are the depleted uranium facts I learned:
- Depleted uranium is called that because the
uranium-235 is removed for use in fission reactors, leaving
a bunch of uranium-238, which is less radioactive. Natural
uranium is mostly uranium-238 anyways, so depleted uranium
is only 40% less radioactive than natural uranium.
- Uranium is a very dense metal, so uranium artillery
rounds are very effective at penetrating armor. This is why
depleted uranium is used. US vehicles are also plated with
DU armor because of its high density.
- DU munitions were used a lot in conflicts in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq.
- DU has the property of being "pyphoric," which means it
gets so hot on impact it burns up, releasing fine particles
which can be dispersed by wind and enter the body. This is
what makes it so deadly, since the alpha particles given
off by DU decay are stopped by the skin.
- In one area, where DU weapons were used in the Kuwait
conflict, cancer rates increased by an order of magnitude:
"in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there
were 116 per 100,000 births," reports the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
I like America. Very much. But I don't like my tax dollars
being spent on the commission of what most people consider
to be war crimes.
|
|
|
That's me using the newly-created remote observing room in
the basement of the Berkeley Astronomy Department. In the
photo, taken with the basement iMac's built-in iSight, you
can only see four of the seven displays I am using. Yes, I
do need that many pixels.
I am here to collect Trojan asteroid lightcurve data, as
part of an effort to physically characterize these relics
of outer planet formation.
Remote observing is a trend being followed by pretty much
every observatory I've used. It conserves resources because
observers don't need to make expensive trips to distant
observatories, but I still have conflicting feelings about it
in general. I think all of us observers have had some
really enjoyable experiences at the observatories, and it
will be sad to have fewer of those experiences. For example...
Ghost story: I had always heard that the Ghost of
James Lick haunts the main hall at Lick Observatory. After
all, the man's corpse is buried under the 36-inch
refractor. Last time I was at the 40-inch Nickel telescope
(the same one I'm controlling remotely tonight), I went
down the hall to take out my contacts in the middle of the
night. On the way back to the control room, I heard noises
ahead. I walked quickly up to the end of the hall to see
what the noise was, because I thought I was alone in the
building. I was--of course--completely unafraid, yet I had
a tingly feeling all over my skin. At the end of the hall,
I saw the inside of the brightly illuminated elevator, and
the door quickly closed before I could see whether there
was anyone inside. I pressed the elevator call button, and
it didn't respond at all, yet it didn't go upstairs and
open either. Strange... Just in case it WAS a ghost, I
turned down my thumpin' house music in the control
room. That seemed to work, since I witnessed no more
unexplained mechanical occurrences.
|
|
|
This post does not
represent the opinions of the University of California, my boss,
your lawyer, or the oil cartels. The opinions represented here
belong exactly to me. This astroblog is getting increasingly
opinionated, so if you think I'm being stupid, please contact me
and tell me so.
I have to admit a terrible secret. I have read The State of
Fear (Crichton, 2004). Voluntarily. Even though I am an
atmospheric scientist. And I enjoyed it. I don't want to give too
much away, but basically I could not put the book down because I
am partial to cute octupi. Also it was fascinating, in the same
way Fox News would be fascinating if you had to pay $6.95 for
it. Daniel had read the book, probably as an act of last minute
international flight desperation, and then handed it on to me, so
in my defense, I hadn't directly paid for it. Even so it was
fascinating, just as fascinating as--for example--a story about
claims in modern Japanese textbooks that no atrocities had been
committed in China.
State of Fear is a pretty alert portrayal of how
the media thrive on perpetuating fear among the ignorant
masses. The sinister aspect was that in the book, media-generated
fear was a tool used to generate funding for corrupt
environmental charities. In real life, media-generated fear is
used to increase ratings and to elect corrupt candidates from
fear-mongering political parties who then pass laws that allow
petroleum corporations to plunder the environment from local to
global scales, thereby increasing corporate profits.
Then somehow this year I didn't notice that Crichton won a journalism award for the book
in February, from the AAPG. All you need to know about that acronym
is that P stands for Petroleum. Totally tangential fact: On the
AAPG website, the only advertising banners sold went to Shell and
ConocoPhillips.
I also didn't notice when in
September Eos published a declaration that this
award was inappropriate, presented by the Council of the AMQUA, and I
still wasn't paying attention when Eos published rebuttals
to the AMQUA Statement of Impropriety (same Eos excerpt
above, mirrored here just in case
the site is members only).
But I was flipping through the Halloween paper edition of
Eos, when I saw a highlight adverstising a moderated discussion in the online version,
on the topic of Eos's publication of comments on the award to
Michael Crichton. So here is my comprehensive but completely
biased paraphrase of the whole discussion:
The Declaration of Impropriety:
AMQUA: that award was bogus
AMQUA: the book is not journalism, and he blurred the line between fiction writer and scientific expert
AMQUA: the foo' went up in front of congress as a climate change expert witness !!
AMQUA: the AAPG is the only scientific society that denies the human-induced effects on global warming
AMQUA: the AAPG should just admit they're workin for the oil corporations and their politicians
The Rebuttals:
singer: hey you just said the karl et al. (2006) u.s. climate change science program report proved global warming
singer: but actually it only says that in the summary
singer: one of the figures actually contradicts this and proves there's no global warming
corbett: yo
corbett: AGU and AMQUA should mind their own damn business
corbett: AGU is the one fabricating science, not AAPG
corbett: environmentalists lie about global warming to advance their liberal agenda
corbett: broeker [sic] and stocker 2006 are the experts, and they proved that people didn't cause global warming
Online:
u-dub: uh...
u-dub: guess what corbett, in broecker and stocker 2006 they were talking about 6000BC to 1850AD
u-dub: like, before fossil fuel burning
u-dub: they weren't talking about after 1850
u-dub: don't use wally broecker's article to justify something they didn't say and wouldn't agree with
u-dub: that's RUDE !!
corbett: did you read the last sentence? it goes:
corbett: "the CO2 rise during the last 8000 years was 'natural' and not 'anthropogenic'"
corbett: you don't speak for walter broeker [sic] and tom stockman [sic]
corbett: so we'll chalk you up as another academic pseudo-scientist leading with a weak political argument and lazy and confused at best and dishonest at worst approach to citing the literature [note-- this one is verbatim]
sierra club: speaking of reading
sierra club: the article talks about how CO2 went up to 280 ppm from 240 ppm in 6000BC
sierra club: but since everyone knows that since 1850 it went up a lot more to 380...
sierra club: it's pretty clear they were only talking about pre-1850
rob quayle (retired): these climate change skeptics are not real scientists
singer: hey it's me again
singer: did you read my letter?
meier @NSIDC: corbett you're a scoundrel
meier @NSIDC: it clearly says they're talking about pre-1850
meier @NSIDC: IN THE FIRST SENTENCE
meier @NSIDC: citing this article in a discussion of industrial climate change is misleading
meier @NSIDC: corbett needs to join crichton in a class on how to read and cite scientific journal articles
created with giardiacorp.com/404002.html.
Is it just me or did that last guy from NSIDC practically
admit to reading State of Fear? Caught ya... But I'm sure
he's awesome, because the NSIDC makes these awesome 6" x 8"
yearly planners that they give out for free at Fall AGU
meetings. I can't live without their planners and their beautiful
monthly satellite images of Alaskan and Antarctic ice.
|
|
|

NASA released some spectacular images of Saturn's south
pole, which were taken by Cassini on October 11th of this
year.
The first image shows outer rings of clouds surrounding
the pole, as they cast shadows onto lower cloud decks. The
press release describes these as eye-wall clouds, like
those in terrestrial hurricanes. But the science writers
are now being careful to emphasize fundamental differences
between the system on Saturn and the very different
conditions applying to terrestrial hurricanes.
The second image shows the south pole at six different
wavelengths. I'm not involved in Cassini right now, but I
love these images because they are great proof (in case we
needed any) that Saturn's atmosphere is not boring.
|
|
|
I agree with the new definition of planet (within our Solar
System) in IAU's resolution 5A:
(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit
around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its
self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it
assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape,
and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its
orbit.
There is a bit of ambiguty in condition (c), because it's
not clear what "cleared the neighborhood" means. The Earth
hasn't "cleared" the Moon, Jupiter hasn't "cleared" the
Trojan asteroids, etc. But the Earth and Jupiter are
planets.
I interpret "cleared" in the context of Solar System
history. The current planets are the survivors of an
intense accretionary battle. I think condition (c) means
that a planet has cleared its neighborhood of anything
that could possibly challenge it in an accretionary
duel. So WHAT if Jupiter hasn't cleared the Trojans? Jupiter
SWALLOWED SL/9; the Trojans wouldn't stand a
chance. Neptune vs. Pluto? Neptune. Ceres may be large
enough to be round, but there are plenty of asteroids that
could probably disrupt it in a collision. This distinction
is important because both Jupiter and Ceres share the
"neighborhood around their orbits" with numerous small
Solar System bodies, yet of these two only Jupiter is
considered to have "cleared the neighborhood."
But there are others who disagree with resolution 5A. A
petition is being circulated among scientists, stating:
Petition Protesting the IAU Planet Definition
We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree
with the IAU's definition of a planet, nor will we use
it. A better definition is needed.
I am not posting the link to this petition because (a) I
don't agree with it and I don't want it to get signed and
(b) they asked for it not to be a public petition.
The main objection to resolution 5A, according to the
email that is advertising the petition, is that it "uses
dynamics (location) rather than intrinsic properties to
decide if an object is or is not a planet. This result is
counter to other classification schemes in astronomy
(e.g., stars, galaxies, nebulae, even asteroids) in which
dynamical context does not play a controlling role." Also,
the petition's truly distinguished authors claim, demoting
Pluto is problematic.
Pluto's status is a problem that people can deal
with. Franck Marchis told me that asteroids initally were
considered planets as well, yet people managed to survive the
transition of their status to minor planets. And New
Horizons has already been launched to Pluto, so this
resolution shouldn't change anyone's funding status.
The petition's claim--that resolution 5A's condition (c)
is not based on "intrinsic properties"--does not take into
account the difference between planets and the other
astrophysical objects cited in the email. Planets are ONLY
formed around stars, and planets always result from
multi-stage, complex formation processes that include
accretion and dynamics. You cannot have a planet without
dynamical evolution. So I don't have a problem with
resolution 5A defining planets based on having completed
all the stages of the accretional process. The final
stage, in which one of the largest members of a
planetesimal population manages to become a planet by
accreting or expelling other planetesimals, is essentially
complete when there are no planetesimals left that could
accrete or eject the planet. Nothing in the asteroid belt
ever reached this stage, and nothing known in the Kuiper
belt, including Pluto, ever reached this stage.
|
|
|

Also available: supersize (986x986) near-IR image, supersize (986x986) thermal-IR image.
These are images we acquired with adaptive optics at Keck
last week. A press release is posted on the Keck
website. The false-color near infrared image (the one
showing Jupiter's full disk) is composed of frames taken in
three different filters. The spot on the upper right of
Jupiter is Io, which we used as the AO guide star. It looks
like a multicolored dot because it was moving closer to
Jupiter throughout the observations. The image didn't look
that great with the filter images loaded into the RGB
channels, so I loaded them into the magenta-chartreuse-blue
channels instead.
One of my main goals when I came to Berkeley as a
postdoc was to work on pretty pictures. I believe I've got
that one covered now. I mean, analyzing streams of
spacecraft data is fun too, but it's not the best blogging
material.
|
|
|
Wow so this is exciting. We have a press release about this
new red spot on Jupiter, at the HST front page and the Berkeley NewsCenter. Imke was really
nice because she forced the HST people to put my name on
the image credit. The press release front page shows a
hi-res image from Amy Simon-Miller's team; an additional
hi-res image from our team (deprojected by Sean Lockwood)
is on a secondary page.
So there was a bit of controversy when we were putting
together the press release. The STScI people wanted the
wide field image to resemble the hi-res image, even though
the hi-res image is practically true color (top left) and the wide field
image is false color (top right). In the wide field image, blue is actually
visible (502 nm, or cyan) and yellow is actually infrared (strong methane
band at 892 nm). The original image I put together for the wide field
(below)
used jarringly unrealistic colors, so that it would be
clear that the "red" spot looked red in that image because
of its altitude, rather than its chromophores. I used green
to represent visible and pink to represent infrared.
It's a lot more ominous, a lot more ... electroclash:
|
|
|
Most of my time recently has been spent frantically
preparing for HST observations of Jupiter's new red
spot. "Red Spot Jr." is not as great as the Great Red Spot,
but as you can see in the image taken below by
Chris Go,
it is as red. This oval was formerly white,
but sometime in February 2006, it changed color. Chris Go
discovered this color change at his home observatory, and
it was seen by other amateur astronomers in February as
well.
Unfortunately, we can't yet explain why the GRS or RSJ are
red. In fact, planetary scientists can't even agree on the
composition of the visible cloud layer on Jupiter!
|
|
|
Astroblog.
POSTED: Thu Apr 20 2006
Yay, it's a new redesign for this site. What you are
looking at now is an astronomy blog. This is kindof a
response to a statement in my advisor's latest CfAO
annual report, in which she stated,
We all keep an up-to-date website featuring our latest
research. (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~imke, http://astron.berkeley.edu/~fmarchis,
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~madamkov)
Of course when I read that I was mortified. Clearly I'm not
fulfilling my EPO job requirements, since I had no website
featuring my latest research.
As of now, I am no longer inadequate, webpage-wise.
Check out my latest research.
|