What is the difference between the following?

Data Sheet

Technical Reference Manual



In a project, we hit a lot of issues, and in the process, we need to quickly refer to some documentations as a first measure towards addressing the issue. Sometimes, when a small overview is required, we may end up opening a Reference Manual which has an ocean of Information with tremendous detail, and searching for what I am looking for may be tedious. Instead, if the objective behind the different types of documents is made clear, we may probably be more efficient in finding things which are relevant to us, instead of wasting effort in the wrong direction.

Please also indicate whether the types of documents I mentioned are the standard list or whether the name of these documents differs from one product to another

To be honest, i’m not sure how exactly to word my question in order not to cause any miss-understanding.

During my literature review sometimes i encounter with researches which propose an approach with promising results. Then when i try to use it or to investigate its theoretical principles i notice it is not as straightforward as it was mentioned in the paper to expect such great results. Then i contact the guy asking for more details about the method or even for the code to implement the approach and reproduce the results, but i hear no answer from them or some thing like “sorry we do not know where the code is now!” or “we have no right to give the code” or some wage answer which is not helpful.

Well, these papers always have tables and numbers related to real data to support their hypothesis, but sometimes i wonder if it is even rarely possible than the authors were faking something? or i’m totally wrong about it?

Even some of these papers are published in high ranked conferences which makes it harder to be skeptical about them!

I started my BSc (major Engineering of automatic systems, in a world top-30 college) in 2010 and, one 1.5 years in and around 25% done, I left to cope with growing family problems (multiple severe health issues amongst close relatives). It was not a light decisions, I was part of a great student research team and really loved the people around me, but being left unable to concentrate by all the struggles at home I had no other option.

During the time not in college I founded, along with a friend, a startup company out of personal research in the field of HMIs of systems for beta testing and got acquired by a much larger company and my product is now in worldwide usage within the parent group.
The deal was/is satisfactory from an economical point of view and getting a technical vision that i truly believed in to grow was a fantastic experience but I started to find myself really disliking the corporate job very when, due to company reorganization, I was moved from product development to a more white collar job.

This experience made me realize that what I love is critical thinking around technical problems, so, around 3 years ago, I re-enrolled in college while holding on to my position in the company; at age 26 a strong economical independence is fundamental to me, especially because it allows me a great independence from the problematic family environment and to make one of my childhood dream -flying gliders- come true.

It has been 3 years of exhausting studying 9pm – 1 am 5 days a week and, slowly, I managed to reach around 80% completion of my degree, even if with a low GPA (22/30) and hopefully I`ll graduate within 1.5 years.

Questions time:

My current objective is to pursue a higher level of education, I`d like to know how does such a twisty academical career affects my chances of getting accepted in a good Master program around 2 years from now.

Moreover, I`d also like to know what is a legitimate level of “help” that I could ask for to a professor of a mandatory course that I am finding extremely difficult (e.g. recommending area of focus and exercises to pay special attention to) , since being unable to attend lessons makes it way harder to know what to focus on while preparing for tests.

Thankyou for your help

I usually mention the journals I’m reviewing for, as it can counts as a position of trust (i.e. to improve the quality of science).

My question is, how connected is the reputation of a journal someone is reviewing for, with that part of his/her CV. What effect would it have to the CV (and whoever reads it) adding low quality journals in the list of journals where the person is a reviewer?
Would you consider it negative, neutral or positive?

I think that if they are only bad journals, the lack of good ones might be considered a bad thing, so avoiding mentioning the journals the person is a reviewer might be preferable.

If it’s 1-2 in a list of a few respectable ones, then it would be neutral or even positive, as you try to improve the not respectable journals.

I am curious about how the submission process works for the cvpr conference.
Actually, it is not clear to me what should be the abstract which is due on Nov 8th and how to submit it. Is it an extended abstract? In some conferences when they require a paper abstract (which is usually an extended abstract) submission, they give to the authors information about the criteria of the abstract.
Even if you create an account on the submission website, there is only a link to submit a new paper where you have to upload your manuscript but there is no information about the abstract.

Could anyone explain what is that deadline for the abstract and how to submit it and is there a criteria that authors should follow.

Hi I wish to ask for advice regarding the role of an academic supervisor nowadays. Current I am pursuing my Master in a physical science school in one of the university in the South East Asia.

While my academic supervisor is an energetic man and enthusiastic about his research, his research interest is very wide and that each of his students (including me) is working on a title that is only remotely connected to each other. Even he himself is working on a completely different topic than the rest of us. One would expect that we as students would at least get some useful advices from him, but it occurs to us that he is also not clear on background of the research he assigned to us in the first place. While we understand we, as the person who conduct the in depth research, will be more knowledgeable about the field in the end, we notice that he does not understand the basic terminology and theory of the particular field, which I feels is on the level of undergraduates. He would expect us to explain all the basic theory and terminology in our field to him, without bother to study for himself for a thing that is easily reachable even in Wikipedia.

Another thing I observe is his reluctance to search for verification of his current knowledge. He would like to speculate on a thing (which is an established and obvious stuff) based on his own limited knowledge on the said area, completing disregarding our counter arguments based on established facts. Only by exposing the current literature and references (which is simply a google search) did he reluctantly accept his flaws. As a result, this have made us to be skeptical every time he presents an argument.

I would expect my case is uncommon and standalone, until my friends said almost the same things happen to him. Apparently this situation is applicable for other academic supervisors as well. Practically we have to complete our research by ourselves, with the purpose of academic supervisors reduced to providing a working space (I do appreciate that) and stamping their approvals for our paperworks.

An even worse news to hear to that my friend told me that, after his discussion with some experienced international industrial personnels, this seems to be the current trend in area of research in physical science even in overseas, that we are supposed to carry out our research without expecting “useful” suggestions for our work.

Sorry for the long post, as I am confused about the state of the research community right now. Is this to be a norm to be accepted, and that I am expecting too much?

I have submitted my major revision to a top journal. Two days after the revision submission, I discovered I had given a wrong reference number while answering a query by the reviewer. Actually in the revised manuscript the reference number was changed. I have contacted the journal board and they told me as it is under review it cannot be changed. I am worried. Can my paper be rejected for that, though my original manuscript is ok?