You were asked a question but you don't want to spend time answering it. This list maybe helpful.1. What is the typical time scale? 2. What are the error bars in this figure? 3. What is the quantity on the x/y axis? 4. What is the role of the magnetic field? 5. Are your results consistent with the n-th law of thermodynamics? 6. What is the typical size? 7. How did you select your sample? 8. What does the x mean in you equation? 9. What is the role of turbulence in this respect? 10. How realistic are your assumptions? 11. Can these results constrain the value of the Hubble constant? 12. Is this object a binary? 13. Is this a 1 or 2 sigma result? 14. How does your result compare with the model of Chebnyakow & Yokomoto? 15. What are the relevant selection effects? 16. Did you include the pondemorotive force? 17. Did you take relativistic effects into account? 18. What are your future plans? 19. Can I see the third viewgraph again? 20. Where is the Crab in this picture? 21. Is that a background source? 22. How does this apply to star formation? 23. Is this an evolutionary effect? 24. What do you want to explain with this research? 25. Is there anything new in this? 26. What is the physics behind this? 27. Are the observations consistent with the theory? 28. Did you subtract the continuum? 29. What does the source look like in other wavelengths? 30. What is your spatial resolution? 31. Did you correct for extinction? 32. How do you treat your boundaries? 33. Are the results consistent with the observations? 34. Is the result unique? 35. What did you take for the initial conditions? 36. Is your selection stable? 37. Is this a SEDFG code? 38. Are you planning to expand your code to 3D? 39. Are the results self-consistent? 40. How did you define your normalizations? 41. What is the effect of non-linearity?
Now the answers to the questions:1 - That is the typical length over the typical velocity 2a - I don't make errors 2b - We excluded them for clearness 2c - Smaller than the symbols 3 - Can't you tell, buy glasses 4 - It complicates things 5 - Only in the relativistic limit 6 - Typical timescale times the typical velocity 7 - Using the Monte-Carlo method 8 - It is the unknown variable 9a - It acts like the magnetic field 9b - Aha, you drink black coffee 10a - I've assumed them to be real 10b - Mind your own business 11 - Yes, if the distance to the objects is known 12 - No, but its companion is 13 - Sleep on, I've only one data point 14 - Do you mean the 1972 or the 1982 paper? 15a - Objects should be observable 15b - That our sample is incomplete 16a - No, why bother 16b - It is beyond the scope of this research 17 - No, but Einstein did 18a - Mind your own business, don't get personal 18b - You mean the one with Naomi Campbell or the one with your wife... 18c - I'll tell you next year 19 - Your place or mine 20 - Did you say crap ?? ... (throw something) 21a - Did you never see a picture of the Moon? 21b - No, that's the object of interest 21c - No, it's a coffee stain 21d - Depends on the distance 22a - We don't know how stars form, do we? 22b - We can't rule out that stars indeed do form 23 - Not in this steady state model 24a - 42 24b - That you're wrong 25a - Let me show you the 3rd sheet again 25b - I bought a new tie for this talk 26 - Didn't you read Chebnyakow & Yakamoto? 27a - We need more data 27b - That's beyond the scope of this research 28 - Huhh,... No, ... but ehhh, we added some. 29 - Different 30a - Less than 4 pi sterrad 30b - Depends on H0 31a - What's your point 31b - Of course not, that's difficult 32a - The solution is periodic, you fool 32b - Since they are often at the edge of the simulation volume, they are 33 - We need more free parameters 34 - Yes, we are inconsistent with all previous studies 35a - 42 35b - A pioneer fellowship 36 - As long as you don't perturb it 37 - RTFM !!!! 38 - And DROP one dimension ????? 39a - We need more data 39b - Ask Popper 39c - I'll come to that later 39d - I only started this research last year 40a - Every constant of nature was set to 42 40b - In a very normal way 41 - It is a second order effect
We also compiled a list of answers to questions which you didn't understand, or which are not relevant to your subject at all.* Yes ... eh ... No. * We need more data. * I'll come back to that later * Mind your own business * Read my annual review * Your guess is as good as mine * I think you might had a point * I do not want to make a strong statement out of that * The errorbars are denoted at the bottom left part of the diagram * In about half the dynamical timescale * That's beyond the scope of this research * I'm working on that now * 42 * I've only started my Ph.D. project half a year ago * We'll discuss that after the talk (While you think:"I have to catch the bus") * Maybe "de directeur" knows. * It's a second order effect * Within a factor of 2 * You got me there * Only God or Einstein knows * That is work my collaborator did