Slashdot Mirror

The announcement today means that Assange was completely 100% wrong.

Forget this week - the 2001 case of Sweden handing people over to the CIA to be tortured makes all of Assange's fears entirely reasonable. Anyone who claims otherwise is either woefully ignorant of relevant events or is purposely turning their brain off, and accept more BS from the same sort of people that lied you into Iraq. That one example of shenanigans is more than enough, but there are plenty more where that came from. And each one doubles the willful ignorance involved, like that old story about a kid getting a grain of rice from a greedy king, except each day that grain of rice would double:

• There's the fact that Assange was questioned and cleared to leave Sweden by investigators, only for another, more politically motivated prosecutor to step in. And get an INTERPOL warrant. For a couple of women who asked for an STD test.

  There's the fact that Sweden has refused for years to either interview Assange remotely, or to send investigators to interview him in London - as they've done dozens of other times since Assange took refuge in the embassy.

  There's the fact that Sweden has refused Assange's offer to return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the United States. A promise that would be easy to make, given America's fondness for torture. Speaking off...

  There's the fact that Obama had Chelsea Manning tortured with a year and a half of solitary confinement.

  There's the fact that the UK has spent millions of pounds to watch one person for...jumping bail. And pressured Sweden to keep up the investigation instead of dropping it.

  Then there's the fact that Sweden went to great lengths to nab a founder of the Pirate Bay from a non-extradition country - and as soon as he was on Swedish soil, interrogated him at length without a lawyer for an alleged crime in another country. Which meant it was their plan to do so all along. And as soon as his Swedish sentence was up, deported him to said other country (Denmark).

And that's off the top of my head, there's probably some more I'm forgetting. But you're already at an entire kingdom's worth of willful dumbfuckery, based facts that have been readily available for years.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

It's kind of already been done, and Disney were not happy.

There is a shorter account of the incident under the heading The Air Pirates.

Of course technology moves on, so it's probably time for an animated version rather than a couple of comic books but I'm not sure who'd be 'brave' enough to host it...

"I'll show you my link if you show me yours."

Well here are four separate studies that all reach the same conclusion.
https://repository.law.umich.e...
https://www.ussc.gov/research/...
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mu...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

I can probably find more if needed.

Ads are obvious - even the slashvertisements.

They're not obvious to everyone, in fact it'd seem they're not obvious to most people. There haveve been a few studies done on how well people, especially young people recognize sponsored content as an ad and the results are quite far from it being obvious:

In the study, published in the December Journal of Advertising, Bartosz W. Wojdynski and Nathaniel J. Evans, both assistant professors in the Grady College, conducted two experiments using online news articles to examine the differences that the language and positioning of the disclosure labels make in determining whether consumers recognize sponsored articles as advertising content.

In the first study, only 17 of 242 viewers, or 7 percent, identified the content as advertising, and in the second eye-tracking study, only 17 percent identified the articles as advertising.

"I think that many publishers and advertisers assume that just because they put a label on the content, consumers will automatically understand that the article they're reading is a paid advertisement," Wojdynski said. "These results show that's not the case at all, although the design of the disclosure label can make a big difference."

The first study invited subjects to read online content featuring two stories: one that was editorial content and one that was a native ad featuring a quote from the executive of a fictitious company. Twelve versions of the second story were presented, all with varying disclosure label language-"advertising," "sponsored by," "brand voice" and "presented by"-and different positions for the disclosure label-on the top, middle and bottom of the article page.

The study found that readers were seven times more likely to identify as advertising those articles that used "advertising" or "sponsored content" in the disclosure label compared with those that used terms like "brand voice" or "presented by."

The second study used eye tracking to determine the best position for disclosure labels within native advertising articles. When a native advertisement disclosure was at the top of the page, only 40 percent of the viewers looked at it, but when the disclosure was in the middle of the page, 90 percent looked at the label. Sixty percent of the viewers noticed advertisement labels at the bottom of a page.

As adblocking has become easier than ever advertisers have evolved and sponsored content is the new trend, and even though to you or me it's blatantly obvious to pick these out, many people are easily deceived. So if we want to make sure advertisers cannot deceive consumers emphasizing correct labeling is important.

Let us be honest here and give credit where the credit is due

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt...

The first version of Algebra was known as Rhetorical Algebra, where equations are written in full sentences. For example, the rhetorical form of x + 1 = 2 is "The thing plus one equals two" or possibly "The thing plus 1 equals 2". Rhetorical algebra was first developed by the ancient Babylonians

I know that the moslem apologists out there would do anything, even to the point of telling BOLD FACE LIES , to promote that satanist cult - but fortunately, math don't lie, and Rhetorical Algebra was invented many centuries before the parents of that profart of theirs started to copulate

Actually boys outperform girls in science and math testing whereas girls outperform boys on reading and writing testing. However, girls are GRADED better than boys in all areas. Check out this study from University of Georgia and Columbia University

A study by researchers from the University of Georgia and Columbia University, which evaluated 5,800 elementary school children, came to the opposite conclusion as these Israeli researchers. Researchers analyzed data from 5,800 elementary school students and found that boys performed better on standardized exams in math, reading and science than their course grades reflected.

From the above-referenced study:

The gender differences in grades emerge early in all subject areas and favor girls in every subject. Because boys out perform girls on math and science test scores, it is surprising that girls out perform boys on teacher grades in math and science by nearly 0.15 standard deviations. Even more surprising is that the girl boy gap in reading grades is over 300 percent larger than the white black reading gap and the girl boy gaps in math and science teacher grades are about 40 percent larger than the corresponding white black grade gaps.

and

the inconsistency between test scores and grades is largely accounted for by non-cognitive skills. White boys who perform as well as white girls on these subject-area tests and exhibit the same attitude towards learning as white girls in the classroom are graded similarly.

So, in short, if a boy acts and has a similar learning style as girls, he will get the same grades as girls. Women dominate the teaching profession - 84% of teachers are women. In Kindergarten it's even worse - 98% of teachers are women. Therefore, women apparently value students whose learning style is similar to their own.

In another study, boys were awarded lower grades by women teachers than by external examiners. Whereas male teachers gave girls the same marks as external examiners.

On the political side, in 1972 there were 17% fewer women graduates of college programs than men and this was considered something of a crisis and Title IX was passed to ensure equal opportunities for education regardless of gender. Today, 25% few men than women graduate from college and President Obama calls this a "great accomplishment."

No, it's definitely teachers actively screwing boys. They're literally being graded worse just for being boys.

?? "just for being boys"? Did you miss the part that said: "it's because of their classroom behavior, which may lead teachers to assign girls higher grades than their male counterparts."? It was in the second sentence fer crissake.

No, it's definitely teachers actively screwing boys. They're literally being graded worse just for being boys.

Linear algebra is not required to figure out Islamic inheritance. The primary rule is that sons get twice as much as daughters, because men are worth twice as much as women. Here are some sample problems: http://www.deltacollege.edu/de...

Here's another take on it: http://intermath.coe.uga.edu/t...

It was not groundbreaking mathematics. I think you probably underestimate how advanced mathematics was in ancient times. And people like al-Kwarizmi -- from whom we get the names for "algorithm" and "algebra" -- did very little original mathematics themselves. His book on algebra, called "Calculation by Restoration and Reduction," was talking about a method known to the ancient Babylonians 2000 years before Islam existed.

Of course, the section of the bible you quoted originally refers to the battle between Tiamat and Marduk: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSMarduk.html

That passage was pulled into the bible by the Jews who were living in Babylon at the time - hence the Babylonian gods.

And not to be contradictory, but the story restarts at Genesis 2.4, with a different retelling of the creation.

Initial indications are of harm from glyphosate residues and retained b.t. toxin, at least in pregnant women in the latter case.

You are referring to this study. That study doesn't even try to attempt to find out where the Bt they claim to detected came from. It could have been from organic food, which also uses Bt. Of course, since the levels of Bt they found were below the detection limit of the test they used, among other flaws, I'm not convinced they found anything but an artifact. We do know the effects, at least for the commercially approved crops, and at least as well as can be know without proving a negative. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean people won't still spread misinformation and publish the occasional shoddy paper though.

1. before lyrics sites, listeners simply didnt have access to much of the lyrical content of the music they were exposed to. industry cronies like the RIAA didnt give a shit if the poetic art of a song was conveyed legibly or eloquently; the tipper sticker is still at their discretion and used liberally to bump or kill a song or artists popularity. These lyrics sites stepped up and helped promote artists directly by engaging their listeners with informative and open information in most cases as to the content of a song, not just the sound of it. lyrics sites had forums dedicated to the meanings of songs as well as where to purchase them. As a parent, you appreciated these sites because it let you enforce or relax certain censorships against your child without having to resort to a vague and condescending sticker on the tin which of course, is not present on mp3s.

2. litigation cannot stop the internet much as cloistered catholic monks could not stop the spread of literacy. many lyrics sites will go dark to avoid litigation, but one can reasonably expect the site owners have an absolute plethora of other names and domains they can fall back on. Remember, the music industry trade association in question isnt proposing a solution to the problem of the lack of song lyrics in popular culture, theyre just enforcing trade and copyright at the behest of their stakeholders. lyric databases can be created and dissemenated across tor or through magnet links in bittorrent if need be.

3. a smaller point but the university of georgia's music industry shill happens to be david lowery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lowery
David is a musician famous mostly for the song 'low.' as far as most are concerned hes a relatively one hit wonder. so Yet another internationally renowned, nationally proven and locally beloved music figure has joined the staff this semester, and heâ(TM)s no slouch next to the other big names already there. 2 years later he just so happens to work on a project to help litigate lyric sites? it feels like the university of georgia might be a 'stacked deck' in this case used to justify litigation under the guise of academic research. Seeing as hes not published and his algorythm as well as its findings lack peer review outside a multi million dollar industry litigation agency, if he really is the researcher then we've got problems. if hwoever hes just a semester instructor, http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/releases/david-lowery-to-teach-spring-semester-course-for-ugas-music-business-certif
then id like to know the engineer or scientist and see more of their work.

IMHO, lowery has an axe to grind and is being used nicely by the industry to grind it (Metallica anyone?) hes not a top 10 for any label, so if this one fails theres no chance we lose a major investment...after all this is a guy on his blog who equates playing low-budget venues with serving in iraq
http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/48-friends-3-guys-walk-into-a-bar-in-canoga-park-why-being-backstage-at-a-low-grade-music-festival-is-like-being-in-iraq
hes also posted tabs and lyrics to the songs from his band, Cracker. now correct me if im wrong, but your label owns that song. they own the tabs, they own the melody, they own your stage presence and likeness. http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/45-movie-star-and-get-off-this-cracker-more-on-selling-out-the-marc-jacobs-edition-m1-tank
if Sony or the RIAA took any of this se

Fire ants do interbreed.

http://www.caes.uga.edu/commodities/fieldcrops/forages/events/FC13/03/ANR-1248%20Fire%20ants%20and%20cattle.pdf
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/07/fire_ants_joes_outdoor_office.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=vxt5BqOKEAIC&pg=PA510&lpg=PA510&dq=fire+ants+interbreed&source=bl&ots=8eWZaSkLp_&sig=uJHTanPl1LV7mhieoReC1eX0plc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dwiYUdimJ-rI0gHttIGwBQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=fire%20ants%20interbreed&f=false

Also, they do bite before stinging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ants

Different plant "species", such as of pine, do interbreed as well. The distinction of species vs. sub-species is often blurred in the wild.

The first amendment to the US Constitution specifically mentions the right of speech in redress of grievances and our courts have a long history of allowing pro se representation in cases heard before them as part of that right. The record for pro se defendants, especially in criminal matters, is not as bad as generally believed. For example, only 26 percent of the pro se defendants in one study ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies (see TFA). A college educated adult probably stands as good a chance as most public defenders when arguing their own case and may even have certain tactical advantages over the prosecutor, especially in a jury trial where careful and well reasoned arguments may serve to elicit additional sympathy from the jury for the "honest citizen" representing himself.

There was another event that led to modification of the natural isotopes in North America:

http://ie.lbl.gov/paleo/paleo.html

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html

Not having read TFA, I hope that the summery given is a simplified version of what he meant.

The world is too complex and interdependent for something to be all good (with no drawbacks), or all good (with no benefits), and he seems to be insinuating that GMO foods have no drawbacks, which is just as wrong as saying the have no benefits.

But, other than that, I basically agree with his assessment that we NEED (or will need) it.

The world population is growing too fast for our current food production methods to keep pace with demand forever, and unless we are willing to sit passively by during mass starvation on scales never before seen, wars breaking out over farmland, crops, seeds and food animals, and extinction as local peoples turn to endangered species for food, we will REQUIRE GMO foodstuffs that can mature faster, grow larger, and sustain themselves on less, and/or in different environments.

Otherwise we will outstrip our planet's ability to support us.

We've already stripped the oceans of their most bountiful harvests, and are eating and passing off fish we once called "Junk Fish", as the high-demand fish become scarcer and scarcer.

But we must keep in mind and learn from our experiences with adding new substances and quantities to diets, such as plastics imitating estrogen, and causing population crashes and mutations in animals like frogs, and crocodiles. Also brain diseases like BSD / Scrapie / CJD / Kuru.

BSE (Mad Cow), first appears in 1984 and makes clear that there are dangers to radically changing the long-term diets of animals and humans by introducing substances and quantities of substances that have never before been seen in their diets. In this case, the introduction of massive amounts of proteins from meat (and brains) to replace vegetable sourced proteins in low quality animal feed, deniers point out that cattle have likely eaten meat proteins (via bugs) from time immemorial, though never in the quantities found in modern feed.

Mad Cow (and it's human variant vCJD [not CJD]) came from the well known, and well contained, disease called "Scrapie" (because it caused, among other things, the infected to rub up against things and scrape off their fur) in sheep and goats. The source of the disease was not known, but what WAS known was that it was common in some places, had been known of for at least 250 years, and that the meat AND brains of the Scrapie infected were human edible with no ill effects.

Scrapie remained a rare, species specific, disease that had no effect on predators UNTIL the introduction of industrial farming methods, specifically the use of low quality feed (farming byproducts, rather than valuable crops) that needed it's protean content supplemented by slaughterhouse waste. This introduced the Scrapie Prion into cattle feed, and eventually produced "Mad Cow Disease". But something changed in the transfer of disease from one species to another. It changed from a single species, predator resistant disease, to a food transmissible disease to which predators were not immune. (FSE, the feline version was first discovered in the 1970's, when domestic cats developed it after eating BSE infected cat-food. FSE is also found in captive big cats, thought to have been feed BSE infected meat. As far as we know FSE is unknown in the wild.)

My own theory is that all natural predators have a natural immunity / resistance to "Spongiform Diseases", the prion's of which are found almost exclusively in nerve tissue. This means that catching i

I hope you understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander

I invite you to call my bluff on this one.

Other people don't let your wants and emotions rule them either. So they'll take your money regardless, and dump the suffering, problems, and costs onto you.

We call it "taxes". And yes, I've noticed.

I wager most people think just like you, and that's why most experiments in government systems of the last few hundred years have failed. The norm of humanity is for the elite few to rule over the rest. The USA experiment merely lasted a bit longer than most socialist/communist systems (but one could argue the USA as the Founding Fathers wanted it was long gone after the first 100 years or so, when US had to fight a civil war to end slavery)

And the non sequiturs come out. The obvious counter is that you are among the ones actually fucking these systems up. The "USA experiment" didn't have health care for at least 150 years and it worked just fine turning a large but backwards colony into a superpower that led in many different fields. And now that we do have this wonderful but oh so very expensive health fluff and related things, we see the experiment failing.

It's like cause and effect. Create a bunch of pointless, actively harmful wealth transfers (ignorant of basic human nature and economics, no less), divide the society's members against each other (since there are winners and losers in this wealth transfer game), and the society starts fraying at the seams. Who would have thought it? Well, someone who was actually thinking.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

When someone more than two centuries ago can predict today's problems with a simple observation, it does make you wonder what's wrong with people like you. I guess you are incapable of learning from other peoples' mistakes, perhaps not even from your own.

If you really want to save your self some money buy a bunch of canning supplies and learn how to can food your self. I can lots of stuff and this weekend I canned ~2 gallons of homemade pasta sauce, the previous weekend I canned up ~5 gallons of chile, and next weekend I am planning on making and canning a bunch of beef and Guinness stew. I will also can soups, other sauces, veggies, pickles, pickled peppers, jelly, etc. Typically they will keep for a over a year when stored in a cool dark place (basement closet) and it keeps my freezer space open. I end up splitting 1/4 of cow and 1/4 of a bison each year with my father as well as usually getting a deer so freezer space is a premium and before the next year's meat arrives I use the lower quality cuts (round steak and chuck roast) in stew and chile so that it won't get buried in the freezer. Also it is a great use of the fresh produce I grow in the garden so that it also doesn't go to waste. As an added benefit I have good food ready made (just reheat) that I can use when I don't feel like cooking fresh food. Over the course of the year my family will consume the food I canned so it's not like I have some retarded stockpile of food but if we lost power or had some disaster that lasted a few weeks we wouldn't have any problems. I also have a fair amount of tinned food that I bought at the store like some soups and baked beans (seriously why not stock up when it goes on sale if you actually eat it) as well as dried pasta that keeps just fine on the the pantry shelf. There are some foods that I buy in the grocery store that come in MRE packing but that is a brand of Indian food that is like $1.25 per package and one pack is a meal. They have various curries as well as rice dishes so if you have 2 people (or are really hungry) you make up a bag of rice and a bag of curry. One of the benefits I discovered about the Indian food in a bag is you can cook it while still in the bag so you don't even need potable water. This has come in handy when I last went up to the BWCA and brought some along instead of only relying on the traditional dehydrated, or packaged food the guide companies provide you with (even MREs would be a vast improvement over dehydrated powdered scrambled eggs).

I googled Mothers Against Dumpy Drosphela and this site came up.

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/genes.html

You people are strange. I like you.

Gulf researcher Samantha Joye's paper has some quotes about oxygen: http://gulfblog.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Joye-et-al-NGeo-2011.pdf

There's are a lot of nutrients in the gulf, especially from the farm runoff (would be interesting to experiment with "bubblers" in the dead zone, but that's another topic). I've loaded your video (thanks!), but haven't watched it all yet.

Several of the pages I read last summer said the oxygen deprivation was serious... From my original piece, To Save the Gulf, Send the Enterprise:

Oil doesn’t consume oxygen especially quickly, but natural gas does. BP’s gusher is much more than crude oil – millions of cubic feet of gasses are also being released. These gasses rapidly consume all available oxygen.

“how serious is the oxygen depletion problem?” “Very Serious” “How much biodegredation appears to being observed for the oil plumes?” “There is a tremendous amount of oxygen consumption in the plumes. We have measured respiration rates in the plumes, above and below the plumes, and at control sites where plumes are not present. The respiration rates in the plume are at least 5-10 times higher than we see anywhere else.”

        -Hide and Seek

You know crime rates go through the roof around casinos right? http://www.uga.edu/news/newsbureau/releases/1999releases/gambling.html Also I think your title was meant to be "should be legal"

You should probably read up on various court cases involving Monsanto. There's more to it than just Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (holding over seed).

There are other problems for people not even "interested" in infringing Monsanto/Cargill/ADM technology. For example: Pollen Drift and the Bystanding Farmer: Harmonizing Patent Law and Common Law on the Technological Frontier:

Non-GMO farmers, however, run the constant risk of their crops being contaminated by pollen from patented genetically modified plants. If a farmer has a forward contract for non-GMO corn for sale in Europe, and her corn fields are pollinated by a neighbor’s genetically modified crop, then the farmer will have to breach her contract with the European buyer and possibly have to pay damages. At best, the anticipated premium from selling the non-GMO crop will be lost.

Well, two is traditional, but your title completely fucked up the rest of the traditional pronunciation.

"WEE-key WER-sa."

I'd never root for something that's bad for our country, but it certainly would be karmic if they were blamed for not being able to accomplish anything because of the other party obstructing them.

I suppose it could happen. One should remember however that the vast majority of relevant "obstruction" came from within the Democrat party. This is particularly true in the House, where the Republicans didn't have the votes on their own to obstruct bills or much ability to put subversive amendments into House bills. The latter was due to a change in House rules. Allegedly, the current House (which disbands in January) is the first House without any bills debated under "open rules". The significance of this is that debate under rules tends to favor the dominant party. From the PDF file just mentioned, page 6:

In this paper, we focus on the micro-level, two-step bargaining process over restrictive rules. The rst step involves examining which proposed amendments are allowed to be voted on under the restrictive rule. Second, we look at the success of these proposed amendments. Using a new dataset of all proposed amendments considered before the creation of a special rule in the 110th Congress, we nd that majority party Democrats are signicantly more likely than minority party Republicans to have their proposed amendments considered and successfully passed under restrictive rules. However, success is conditional on intraparty ideology. More conservative Democrats { like Stupak { were generally more successful than their liberal counterparts in getting their amendment considered under the rule and passed on the floor. The next section discusses the literature in greater detail.

In other words, the politicians with the most pull were Democrats who were on the ideological outskirts, followed by mainstream Democrats, followed by Republicans. That's not what I call a good case for attempting bipartisanship. Especially when you consider that the policy was apparently in place from day one of this Congress.

In the Senate, the Republicans did manage to have enough members for filibusters. Senate Democrats made several failed attempts to court individual Republicans, but not a serious attempt to engage with the Republican party. I don't see a reason for the Republicans to be anything other than staunch obstructionists in those circumstances.

The next Congress looks to me like it fixes the worst of the partisanship abuses, which were in the House and splits Congress, always a good thing. I doubt either branch of Congress is going to appear obstructionist relative to the other. We are more likely IMHO to see hostility to incumbent politicians than a particular reaction to one side. The wild card in all this is Obama. If he continues to be an ass, we could well see things swing even further to Republicans, perhaps even to a Republican dominated Congress and presidency. That's not a great outcome, but maybe they'll spend most of their scaling back the excesses of 2009-2011.

Note you are misreading Feist - the "originality" being discussed is in the selection and organization of facts, essentially a work of scholarship. This would not apply to merely typesetting an existing (public domain) text.

Again, "typographical arrangement" is an explicit concept in UK and Commonwealth law, typically with a relatively short term (e.g., 25 years). So far as I know, there is no such thing in U.S. law.

You mean the false one?

While our legal system is indeed complex enough to be measured in units of LoC, one does not need to master its entirety in order effectively defend oneself in the court of law.

Emprical evidence actually shows that self-representation is just as good, if not better, than counsel representation in criminal cases.

Michael Spivak is writing Physics for Mathematicians, of which the beginning can be downloaded. Videos of the lectures are supposed to be available, but I couldn't get them to load. Has anyone heard recent news of this book?

Many of the standard introductory undergraduate and graduate physics textbooks have been mentioned by other posters, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Michael Spivak's Elementary Mechanics from a Mathematician's Viewpoint , which is based on his Pathway Lectures at Keio University.

The article starts out blaming man and herbicides, but then has to conclude that even areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge."

What areas free from pesticides? Maybe you didn't read the article:

"Atrazine is one of the more mobile and persistent pesticides being widely applied. In fact, residues have been found in remote, nonagricultural areas, such as the poles."

Places that are "protected from pollution" are not free of it. You'd be surprised just how much pollution there is in national parks.

So that is blamed on global warming (no doubt man-made), causing the ponds to dry out. Neither of these are supplemented with facts, but is all speculative. Frogs and salamanders are dying, so we must be causing it.

Two problems with these statements:

1) A problem may have multiple causes.

It's a widespread mental disease of today that people demand that experts must find THE source of the problem and fix IT. The three problems identified in the article are all major, separate contributors to amphibian decline. Each one may affect different species in different proportions. Fixing one will not solve the problem for all species, but it is not pointless for the species that it will save. (They do leave out habitat destruction, though.)

2) What do you mean "all speculative" and "not supplemented with facts?"

For crying out loud, the article references specific scientific studies. I decided to go searching for them:

• Understanding the net effects of pesticides on amphibian trematode infections by Jason Rohr et al of the University of South Florida, Tampa
• Climate change, wetland degradation, and amphibian decline in the world's oldest national park by researchers at Stanford University.
• Neotropical tadpoles inuence stream benthos: evidence for the ecological consequences of decline in amphibian populations from UGA (full article, PDF)

Personally, I would like to have seen links to those studies in the article, but what more would you like to see? What is your standard for "speculation" v. "facts?"

We could have the perfect ecosystem for frogs and salamanders, and that would threaten some other species that found the weather too damp or warm to thrive. We blame ourselves for everything, when in fact there's no evidence that, if we all vanished tomorrow, animals wouldn't continue to die out as they always have.

Of course, they will continue dying out. That's nature. The issue is that they'll die out *much slower* than we're *currently* killing them off, and new species will evolve to fill the gaps. If you want to know what environment would be perfect for the frogs and salamanders, the answer would be the one they evolved to be adapted to. We're changing the world far faster than evolution can keep up.

Barstool Economics
...

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

From Prof Kamerschen's homepage:

Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics" or "Bar Stool Economics" or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits.

See: http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

And I hardly doubt it came from an economist.

Just to point out, David R. Kamerschen did not author the essay you quoted, and has no idea who did write it. There's an excellent article on Snopes about this essay and its history.

It's a humorous essay, though I'm sure some real economists might take issue with how it portrays taxation. Regardless, it would be better to not repost something that has been making the Internet rounds and may have landed in your inbox at some point. Although it was pretty damn funny.

Indeed. They should take advantage of the open-source textbooks that already exist... either by simply selecting one for their purposes, or putting together the best pieces from various sources into a coherent textbook that serves their purposes. Here are the open-source textbook (or related information) sites I'm aware of:

Pointers to Textbooks and Content:
http://textbookrevolution.org/
http://www.opentextbook.org/
http://www.theassayer.org/
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/
http://globaltext.terry.uga.edu/
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Books

Some available lecture notes:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html#languages
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/

"The various samplings from the bottom of Lake Cheko (P'yavchenko, Kozlovskaya) revealed extensive development of silt up to 7 meters deep, indicating an ancient origin for the lake (tentatively estimated at 5000 to 10,000 years), thus completely contradicting the hypothesis of the formation of the lake as a result of the Tunguska meteorite fall (V. Koshelev, 1960)."

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/tungmet.html

No, it doesn't. See sneak and peek warrants.

You can try encrypting all of your files but if they can gain physical access to the machine(s) in question without you knowing about it then it's a simple matter to install a keylogging device and obtain any passwords needed to decrypt your data.

The lab I work in is funded in part by a $125 million grant to study biofuels. This is actually just one of the three $125 million grants that were funded last year on biofuels making for a 375 million dollar investment.

http://www.uga.edu/aboutUGA/research-biofuel2.html

More scary is the fact that a lot of these compounds aren't removed completely by the water treatment process, and since most water is in some way reclaimed and reused they could be ending up in our drinking water. See this story, among many others. Especially long-lived include SSRIs and other anti-depressants.

Silt specimens from Lake Chekoand the lake in the bend of the River in the west morass were collected for subsequent stratigraphic study (P.N. Paley et al.) with a grab dredge and a swamp drill designed by N.I. P'yavchenko.

The various samplings from the bottom of Lake Cheko (P'yavchenko, Kozlovskaya) revealed extensive development of silt up to 7 meters deep, indicating an ancient origin for the lake (tentatively estimated at 5000 to 10,000 years), thus completely contradicting the hypothesis of the formation of the lake as a result of the Tunguska meteorite fall (V. Koshelev, 1960).

"Expeditions in the 1960s concluded the lake was not an impact crater, but their technologies were limited," Longo said.

Animals that have been dead a long time do tend to reek!

I dunno, she looks like a double bagger to me. Maybe with some make-up and a new hairdo.

What's wrong is that it isn't a progression, it's a branching tree.

I.e. it's not that man's ancestor was an ape, it's that apes and man have a common ancestor that was neither ape nor man.

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

Why should that keep little green men from evolving? Read this. It's an article about life on our own planet that lives in the boiling water around volcanic jets on the ocean floor.

When others leech your bandwidth you have to do this sort of thing, unfortunately. Whether you choose a joke like this, or Goatse, or a simple warning is really up to you. It's your image, after all.

I have a lot of reasonably large JPEG images on my site (800x600), and a number of MySpace users started to incorporate them directly into their own sites without having the decency to host them themselves. This is funny, because my CC license would have allowed most of them to use the images without even asking me, and the only real problem was that these JPEGs used a lot of bandwidth because visitors to countless MySpace pages were downloading them constantly. I didn't realize any of this until my site went down due to a bandwidth quota, after which I set up a rule to hand out an alternative image. A dose of Goatse would have been completely justified (and some of my friends were pushing for it), but I decided to make a small, low-quality JPEG containing information about what bandwidth leeching is and why it's rude. (Some people haven't noticed it yet, four months later.)

I have often wondered how much more efficient Cane Sorghum would be to convert over to ethanol than corn. It is easier to grow than Cane Sugar, and could be planted in a lot of areas in the United States. Its sugar content is high, and seems to me would make a great candidate for feedstock..
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

The University of Georgia has developed a open source XML-rich framework for writing based on Open office and firefox called Emma that seems to fulfill most of your requirements, and a good deal more.

http://www.emma.uga.edu/

From the site:
  (Electronic Markup and Management Application) enables

        * writing, editing and posting compositions
        * collaborating on and evaluating texts
        * web-based collecting, modifying, distributing, rendering and archiving of student and professional writing
        * creating and maintaining portfolios

  puts people and texts together.