Slashdot Mirror

Radiolab, yes. Episode called Stochasticity.

I never took statistics, so your talk of Chi^2 is (wait for it) Greek to me, but I do know this: your sequence looks less like the results of chance than either of the other two. At no point does your sequence have more than 2 of the same digit appearing in a row (run of 2), while both of the other methods do. If I'm interpreting your statistical analysis correctly, you looked only at the distribution and not the actual sequence, which is important: if any of the sequences had its numbers arranged from 1 to 6 its randomness would be highly suspect even if its distribution was consistent with randomness. The same is true for the opposite of having no adjacent identical numbers given the small pool you're working with. For your sample size I estimate that one run of 3 is probable, and certainly more than three runs of 2--see how the physical and virtual dice each have six of those?

I learned about this from my high school physics course. Our teacher gave us homework consisting of performing 100 coin tosses and turning in the results. He then proceeded to look at each paper and accurately tell if the student actually performed the experiment or merely wrote a "random" series of H's and T's. A similar experiment is detailed in the first third of this radio program: the experimenter had one group toss a coin and the other simply make theirs up, and she didn't know which was doing what. She said that the way she found who performed the coin tosses was to first look for a run of 4 or more. I'm sure it gets more complicated if she didn't see one in either group, but the point is that the order matters and randomness looks less random than you'd think--in 100 coin tosses the chance that you'll get 7 of the same face in a row is one in six, which is more likely than it feels like it ought to be.

Randomness is tricky!

I think "play tricks" might be a better phrase than "play jokes" because jokes imply verbal humor. Anyone who has had a playful cat can provide stories of being startled by its leaping at them from some hidden place--I would be surprised if you haven't encountered it. Certainly the cat gets amusement out of scaring the bejesus out of its human. The line between "play" and "humor" seems fuzzy to me, so I'll leave it to you to decide where you think my example falls, but the latter is certainly an extension of the former. IMO, that sort of trick is a form of slapstick--not a particularly high brand of humor but one that many humans never progress beyond either.

As for laughter: the first segment of this radiolab episode talks about the laughing rats of Dr. Jaak Panksepp. IIRC he saw rats wrestling, nipping, scurrying around after each other and wondered if they were playing or fighting--it looked like play to him, but it was dead silent. One of his grad students had the idea of using a bat detector to listen to high frequencies, and they found that "it sounded like a playground at 30 kHz!" They ended up tickling the rats, which made them reproduce their laughter, and when they stopped tickling the rats would chase after their hands wanting more.

That's the only one in that episode I caught, and it was definitely interesting. It's this one, Act Three.

For another, better show focusing often on psychology and science, check out Radiolab. They have a huge backlog by now, and you can listen for free at that site. I spent a month listening to Radiolab instead of music in my car...

WNYC's Radiolab recently did a story on this subject too. The program is split into 3 parts, and the last one is about these foxes. To get a better sense of what the program is about, I would suggest listening to the whole episode. An hour well spent.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02

Death penalty would be rational in such a case. Listen to the second segment of the Radiolab episode new normal. Apparently, long standing peaceful cultural change in a baboon troop is possible when the alpha males die out suddenly. The third story about selective breeding in foxes to make them "nice" (only ten generations required) is also quite interesting. The clear implication is that the world could be changed to a much better place if all leaders/politicians/sociopaths etc were killed off right at once.

According to the Radio Lab show After Life the Vatican decides on your dead/alive status based on your heartbeat, so I guess there's a new papal decree in the works⦠Will a child born by a pulseless woman be human or considered an ex utero demon spawn?

I heard a segment about this study on Radio Lab a while back. Very interesting, but the conclusions aren't quite as dramatic as the summary really makes them out to be

No, there is more evidence (anecdotal as opposed to scientific) for Bigfoot than there is for homeopathy. I was discussing the placebo effect, which homeopathy (IMO) relies on. There is also more anecdotal evidence for the placebo effect treating "real disease" (as opposed to problems "all in your head") than there is for Bigfoot.

Thanks! You've made my case for me, better than I could have hoped to :)

And you have illustrated mine, so my thanks are likewise in order. Don't you just love mutual incomprehension? I knew that stating my opinion about Bigfoot was risky, but I did it anyway because the body of evidence I have reviewed, once all the easily identified and explainable hoaxes are culled, really does point to the existence of a shy, unidentified species of great ape (or something very nearly like it) that lives in deep woods. I'm not going out and attempting to find it and it won't be a huge blow to my conscience should I be wrong, and I'm just as skeptical as you are of claims to have found it. But when I come across evidence that has been vetted but not disproved I don't say, "Well it must still be a hoax because the creature doesn't exist."

If keeping an open mind and taking a position outside of the mainstream invalidates what someone says, then God help civilization: its progress has historically relied on these oddball perceptions for its advancement. You look back and see reams and reams of studies and data, but you ignore the decidedly unscientific "that's strange..." moments that prompted the studies in the first place.

If you're at all interested in further exploration of the placebo effect, Radiolab did an episode on it which can be listened to for free at that link. If not, feel free to ignore me =)

This man is a beautiful dreamer. I don't think his rather Platonic vision of the perfect math class will ever be acheivable. But there are a bunch of half steps that I think would really help math and address his fundamental point that math, as it's currently taught, is boring as all heck and does nothing for the vast majority of us who don't use calculus or even algebra in our day-to-day lives. I mean really, the last time I did anything more than basic algebra was tutoring others! And while learning math so that you can help someone elses' kids study for a test is a fine goal, I'm not sure it's really worth the thousands of hours I spent taking math!

First, *use* math to solve real problems and explain real scientific principles. Radio Lab (THE official National Public Radio show for geeks everywhere) had a great little episode where some student "discovers" that the periodicity of a pendulum forms a parabola when charted on a graph. Wow! That's heady stuff. (It's the first story of this episode.) Understanding the interaction of science and math -- the universe, really -- is something that we can teach. Integration of math and science gets us part of the way there.

Second, incorporate the history of math into math class. Math advances all occur because of some historical context. Combining the two is a half-step that will get students to understand "why" we created this math, even if they never quite get the quadratic formula down. Combine these two principles, and it would go a long way.

That was my first thought as well. There's an episode of Radiolab all about laughter, and they have a video on that page of a researcher tickling rats.

Fair enough, but I would still disagree :-)

I expected nothing less, nor am I disappointed by it! I enter into debates (arguments, conversations, whatever) with the goal of making things clearer. I hope that there will be people out there who agree with me or are persuaded by my words, but I don't set out to make converts. I'd usually rather talk to people with differing viewpoints because then we actually have something to discuss.

For this reason, I am not sure that I have much else to offer on the topic. There comes a point where we will either end up talking in circles (which I am in danger of beginning if I respond to you about ethics) or simply proselytizing. I have a few final comments, though I won't be making any more arguments below.

Religion is ultimately about power, control over others, even if the practitioners don't realize it in themselves

Certainly there is an aspect of organized religion that is about power. Some of the less hierarchical religions like Buddhism do not suffer from this problem, so I cannot lump them all together as you have. Interestingly, even in Christianity there has been a slow, unsteady march away from hierarchy: a rebellion against the rigorous Catholic Church hierarchy gave rise to the Reformation and Protestantism while even more recently there has been a reaction to Protestant hierarchies through the emergent church movement. This is to say that while I acknowledge the power structures in place and that they tend to do more harm than good, they are not central to what a religion is. A religious hierarchy is much like the power structure you mentioned that pushes for cures over preventions: it isn't really science but it influences science, and in this case not in a good way.

On the topic of sums and wholes: here again I think we are at an impasse. Let me use a chunk of your text:

Consider a hydro dam. The river, by itself, won't generate electricity. Neither will the dam, nor the generators. However, put them all together, and you have something new - electrical power from gravity acting on water.

From my perspective, I take your words at face value when you say "you have something new." I think that all of the constituent parts plus a certain configuration expresses a new whole that cannot be understood except for in and of itself. That is, it is a hydroelectric dam only when it is fully assembled and operational (and yes, I see a "broken hyrdro dam" as being a wholly different yet related thing). Unfortunately I haven't thought about the topic long enough or clearly enough to be able to articulate what I mean other than a sense of wonder that here is this thing that was not here before yet is now. That same wonder drives inventors, scientists, thinkers, and others by leaps and bounds to bring more originality to the world, so I don't plan on giving it up.

I recently discovered a wonderful radio show called Radiolab, and the episode I heard most recently was about emergence (unrelated to the emergent church I linked above, but oddly enough this is what gave me the idea to include that in my response and not the other way around). The whole show can be listened to or downloaded from that link and there is a good summary as well; a hypersummary would be "Ants, neurons, cities: who is in charge and how do they solve problems? Nobody and we're not really sure." It's certainly not required listening, but it touches on what we have been discussing, it evokes in me the sense of wonder I mentioned above, and you may find it interesting (the same goes for anyone else who is still reading through this thread).

I am glad that we were able to have a discussion because although we still disagree, I sense that you don't think I'm as much of an idiot as you did when we started, and I definitely think more highly of you for your willingness to hear me out and understand the position I take, especially as it is one that isn't easy to pin down even for me.

The public radio show Radio Lab did an amazing show on similar issues, looking for a neurological explanation to why people react strangely to new and unexpected sounds: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21.

One of the most interesting segments of the show recounted the near-riot that occurred when Stravinsky debuted his "Rites of Spring" in 1913. The music was so discordant to Parisian audiences, that they reacted -- in some cases violently -- to the oddness of the new music.

Check it out -- the entire show is awesome. Entirely consistent with the professor's findings here.

Radio Lab did a great bit about this a while ago. Check it out here: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/06/08/segments/71872

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

Already heard it ;) But yes, RadioLab is an excellent podcast. Along with AstronomyCast, one of a very few I listen to regularly.

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

Already heard it ;) But yes, RadioLab is an excellent podcast. Along with AstronomyCast, one of a very few I listen to regularly.

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

Already heard it ;) But yes, RadioLab is an excellent podcast. Along with AstronomyCast, one of a very few I listen to regularly.

It's funny, there was just a RadioLab show on NPR on this subject. They talk about another guy who had a different type of brain damage (tumor removal) which seemed to leave him normal at first, but made him horribly indecisive. They figured out that his emotional response center was damaged. Without the emotional push to make a decision, he would never feel pressure or other emotional drive to make the decision, and couldn't do it. The emotional part is apparently just as important as the logical part in making a decision.

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

There's also an episode of NPR's RadioLab on memory, with a segment on Clive. (Audio file.)

I highly recommend listening to it (and other episodes of RadioLab), it's a great show.

The Brian Lehrer show, a popular New York City talk show, had a program on health care in the election, and they invited the listeners to post suggestions to a Wiki.

The Wiki came out pretty good http://issues.wnyc.org/wiki/index.php/Health_Care:_Whose_Plan_Rules%3F (and the subsequent radio program was also pretty good).

The best part is a lot of links to the New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/ which has lot of (free-access) articles on health care in the elections in the recent editions.

If you want to read one good article to understand the health care system, I'd recommend http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/6/549 7 Feb 2008, 358(6):549, Perspective: Market-based failure -- a second opinion on U.S. health care costs.

A lot of people thought that both Obama and McCain were missing the point -- we need a Canadian-style, single-payer, Medicare for all system, which would cost 1/2 to 2/3 as much as our current insurance-based system (depending on how you calculate it).

One of the people who argues for single-payer is Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor who just won the Nobel Prize in economics.

Radiolab recorded a good show that featured this work more than a year ago. Check it out:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/06/08/segments/71872

If the person tells the truth, they're recalling the events. If they're lying, they're constructing a scenario in their head.

Except that current scientific evidence points to the fact that *all* memories are reconstructions. When you remember something, you are actively rebuilding the scenario in your head. (See this Radiolab show for more.)

I think one of these stories might be fun. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/06/15

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/06/15

You may get various diseases as a result of those activities, but a there is no "Alcoholism" disease which has caused you to unwillingly drink yourself into a stupor every night.

Actually, alcohol is one of the few genuine addictions, where continued use causes changes to the nervous system such that the drug must be present for normal functioning. Alcohol withdrawal can kill, so I'd say that's evidence of a genuine disease.

Now, does having a disease mean that your drinking is "unwilling"? That's a whole different question. Certainly it provides a strong motivation - "if I don't drink, I feel very ill, and indeed might die. Bottoms up!"

But alcoholism is quite likely overdiagnosed, a confusion of alcohol abuse with alcohol addiction.

Placebos / drugs work because they're empowering - I'm doing something, I'm taking something, things will get better.

A friend of mine recently remarked that she feels better just having the prescription for some of these drugs. She never even fills them. It's the ultimate in homeopathy!

I heard a tremendously interesting episode of Radiolab a few days ago dealing with the placebo effect, worth checking out.

People think that the brain is solely the repository of who they are, but the body is an integrated unit. A computer with just a copy of the state of the neurons *might* be intelligent, but it wouldn't be human any longer, and wouldn't respond as a human does.

People think that the brain is solely the repository of who they are, but the body is an integrated unit. A computer with just a copy of the state of the neurons *might* be intelligent, but it wouldn't be human any longer, and wouldn't respond as a human does.

Shooting someone violates old deep seated morality. Moving data does not. Check out the portion on the inner chimp.

Scientific presentations can easily fall into a certain formula that excludes the lay audience and may bore even the initiated. This presentation brilliantly demonstrates the issue. It could be said that the opportunity to publicize is already out there; presenters may have to focus more on making the concept accessible and interesting, perhaps along the lines of a shorter, more thorough Radio Lab.

Married, but childless by choice, and a strong gay and lesbian advocate for someone who claims to be unbiased. During her Lynn Cheney interview she only wanted to talk about gay rights, even after the woman had repeatedly declined further comment. She mentions the general confusion about her orientation in her book, and implies that she's straight, although she's "flattered by the assumption" that she's gay. So we don't know for sure, and you don't need to get mad in any case.

Not that it matters.

Brian Lehrer had the Left Behind authors, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, on his show November 27 to talk about the Left Behind series, their new book series, and the video game. Within the first 10 minutes, the authors clearly state that all non-believers will be slaughtered during the end times, including but not limited to Jews and Muslims. Their idea of not being biblical literalists is that they don't think Jesus will actually be mowing them down with a sword in his mouth. So, the game doesn't seem to stray too far from the authors' intents.

I think of myself as an antagnostic, my wife is a secular Jew, I live in New York, and I listen to the Devil's music, so I probably have every right to be offended by the books and the game, but I think they're funny in a campy way, similar to Jack Chick tracts. I'm going to pick up a used copy for my Satanist brother just to tweak him. I don't think the game should be banned any more than any other violent game, and it's good to know how all those Ned Flanders types really feel about the rest of us in their heart of hearts.

It got me to thinking that I should create my own spiritually inspired video game. It'll be a giant pray button that takes over the screen, and you can't minimize it or quit it. Why would you want to do anything else?

Bloomberg has been one of the biggest fundraisers for Bush

Yeah, and look what it got us New Yorkers. Thanks Republicans!

I got an invite to the ACLU, who's currently running this campaign is apparently buying mailing lists from the public radio station I support. Compiling lists of data from non-customers/members for abuse while blaming other people for the problem isn't exclusive to the spyware industry.

Well, right now, I'm listening to a recording of Schickle Mix that my computer made last night. Once again, Saturday night at 10.00 isn't the best time for interesting classical music, but Sunday afternoon is.

I mean, I'm a member of my local NPR station, and they actually provide podcasts of their self-produced shows - so it stands to reason that I should be able to make my own for the remainder.

Oh, I managed to get a hit with the google terms "in a world" "movie trailer". I guess it helps that I've heard the guy's name before.

Here's a text interview with him.
http://www.thetrailertrash.com/donlafontaine.html

And here's a radio interview with him.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/061820 04

I can't seem to find the NPR interview, though.

If Ipod looks basically like a hard drive once mounted (which i think it does), I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to use streamripper and then snag say WNYC's NPR mp3 stream automatically for whatever shows you want and then move the appropriate streams to your automounted ipod drive in HFS.

If shows that you like are run overnight you could probably cron script this whole thing into a 5 line script that does exactly what you want.

Or better yet, have a script generate the cron scripts for you for each show you want and have a sync script sync it for you.. -bloo

As far as I know, fuck and shit have never been allowed on public television. If you want to hear those words en masse, pay for HBO and watch the Sopranos.
"Fuck" is rare to the point of extinction on PBS. "Shit" is not so rare, as implied by this transcript of an interview with PBS producer Rebecca Eaton.

Usually, it's the broadcast networks who've been squeamish about "bad language," for fear of offending advertisers. PBS's sponsors have usually done so for the prestige factor-- and pulling one's sponsorship or insisting on censorship can have a tendency to backfire.

For instance, my local public television station was quite willing to show Blackadder episodes uncut. When Comedy Central shows them, some of the coarser dialogue may get cut, which, of course, interferes with the delayed punchlines two scenes later.

HBO is a commercial enterprise, and as such, is not immune from commercial pressure. The films HBO shows are almost invariably ones with a proven commercial record of success, while PBS, at least occasionally, shows material of some artistic but little commercial value.

Given, also, that Dreyfuss and Black read from prepared statements, I would suggest that they planned for such an event, and had hoped to use it to gain publicity for a program that, being aired on PBS, was guaranteed a low Nielson rating.

There's little sense in not being prepared. Perhaps these preparations were started because of rumors. BTW, PBS doesn't use Neilson ratings. The individual stations may occasionally survey their members, however.

1. PRX does not distribute music. As you all know, this is a sticky subject and thus conveniently outside of our brief.

2. As befits a publicly-funded site, anyone can listen to pieces and offer a review. We encourage it. Like the great Soviet enterprise we are, we demand it. Submit.

3. It is possible to believe strongly in both public radio and the free market. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is public broadcasting the sole province of liberals.

4. PRX is not Internet radio. We use a web platform to allow nonprofit radio stations to browse for content that they can license, download and broadcast.

5. We're in the midst of rethinking how parts of the site work, particularly the search function and reviews/moderation. We welcome comments. The relationship between the popular vote and the judiciary may or may not be germane to this discussion but hey, it's your Constitution too.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In 1977, the very first pre-recorded videotape to go on sale was pornographic. It took another year for a non-porn tape to hit the market, and how about those clumsy camcorders - those expensive, unreliable, early VCRs. Who bought those? Do-it-yourselfers, says Coopersmith, which explains why even the earliest models had a low-light adjuster.

JONATHAN COOPERSMITH: If you think about it, there are very few children's birthday parties which are really done with very low levels of light.

See "On Venus Have We Got A Rabbi" by William Tenn in the story collection called Wandering Stars. Or hear it at this link.

As an avid WNYC listener and member, I applaud the choice to move away from Windows Media format. However, MP3 is a patented format that is not Free (as in Freedom). I am sure that I am in the minority here, but I can't help but feel that in some way I am being slighted. In my opinion, the principles involved in my choice to use Free Software on my computer are much akin to the reasons I choose to listen to Public Radio.

mp3licensing.com states:

"A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like)."

"However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."

How does this apply to WNYC? I for one prefer not to have my contributions to be used to pay support this kind of thing, when it is against my social and political ideals. Especially when there are free (as in beer and speech) alternatives such as the Xiph project.

It is my hope to not second guess the current decision to standardize on MP3, but to perhaps begin a dialogue for openness in media formats in the future of public radio. For now I can live with MP3. I will have to compromise and add non-free software to my computer, for now.

As an avid WNYC listener and member, I applaud the choice to move away from Windows Media format. However, MP3 is a patented format that is not Free (as in Freedom). I am sure that I am in the minority here, but I can't help but feel that in some way I am being slighted. In my opinion, the principles involved in my choice to use Free Software on my computer are much akin to the reasons I choose to listen to Public Radio.

mp3licensing.com states:

"A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like)."

"However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."

How does this apply to WNYC? I for one prefer not to have my contributions to be used to pay support this kind of thing, when it is against my social and political ideals. Especially when there are free (as in beer and speech) alternatives such as the Xiph project.

It is my hope to not second guess the current decision to standardize on MP3, but to perhaps begin a dialogue for openness in media formats in the future of public radio. For now I can live with MP3. I will have to compromise and add non-free software to my computer, for now.

If you live in or visit NYC, there's a venue that sort of specializes in experimental instruments and music, some free jazz and other stuff. It's Tonic, on Norfolk in the Lower East Side, and they've earned a solid reputation for hosting some great musicians of lesser known genres. John Zorn has played there many times.

One night I saw a guy put a cello bow to a tiny wooden contraption with audio pickups attached. He proceeded to produce some eerie and beautiful music. Others followed with homebrew synthesizers. Weird, intriguing night.

Columbia University has a computer music program, and some of the students there host a monthly demo called dorkbot, for people making experimental music, audio, video, robots etc.. It's held in a dozen other cities, check the website.

Two radio stations that carry new and experimental music programs are WFMU and WNYC. FMU has numerous programs which spotlight other music, while WNYC carries a single show, quite good, called New Sounds, hosted by John Schaefer. It's a bit on the pedigreed end of the spectrum, and although John Zorn is a frequent reference point, I haven't heard him as a guest on the show, though I'm not a regular listener. Most definitely worth a listen, it's on each night at 11pm ET.

Both can be heard online, and both stations maintain archives of their shows.

If you live in or visit NYC, there's a venue that sort of specializes in experimental instruments and music, some free jazz and other stuff. It's Tonic, on Norfolk in the Lower East Side, and they've earned a solid reputation for hosting some great musicians of lesser known genres. John Zorn has played there many times.

One night I saw a guy put a cello bow to a tiny wooden contraption with audio pickups attached. He proceeded to produce some eerie and beautiful music. Others followed with homebrew synthesizers. Weird, intriguing night.

Columbia University has a computer music program, and some of the students there host a monthly demo called dorkbot, for people making experimental music, audio, video, robots etc.. It's held in a dozen other cities, check the website.

Two radio stations that carry new and experimental music programs are WFMU and WNYC. FMU has numerous programs which spotlight other music, while WNYC carries a single show, quite good, called New Sounds, hosted by John Schaefer. It's a bit on the pedigreed end of the spectrum, and although John Zorn is a frequent reference point, I haven't heard him as a guest on the show, though I'm not a regular listener. Most definitely worth a listen, it's on each night at 11pm ET.

Both can be heard online, and both stations maintain archives of their shows.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it on the web, but I would really love to see the entries to this this reinterpreted-trailer contest, particularly the winner, by Kevin Halleran:

CAPTAIN VON TRAPP: This is your new governess, and these are my children.

MOTHER SUPERIOR: His wife died several years ago, leaving him alone with the children, and I understand he's had a most difficult time managing to keep a governess there.

CAPTAIN VON TRAPP: You are the 12th in a long line of governesses.

MARIA: What's wrong with the children, sir? [WOMAN SCREAMING]

MARIA: Oh-- oh-- spiders!?

CAPTAIN VON TRAPP: [ECHOING] There's nothing wrong with the children.

CHILDREN: [S L O W L Y SINGING] RAIN DROPS ON ROSES AND WHISKERS ON KITTENS BRIGHT COPPER KETTLES [THUNDER] AND WARM WOOLEN MITTENS...

CAPTAIN VON TRAPP: What's that?

MARIA: The children. [GHOSTLY VOICES]

The weekend NPR show On The Media recently added a free mp3 format download of their show. I think many npr shows are reluctant to do this because they have an alternative income source by selling mp3s at audible.com.

Perhaps the recent significant contribution to npr by the McDonald's widow, and president Bush's new found appreciation for the NEA, has loosened the noose a little.

You can find mp3 streams of various npr affiliates via shoutcast.com, but I think we would all love to have a national stream, and individual shows in an open format.

The only way to get this is to A) Pledge, and B) Suggest it.

It would also be nice to download official Nova episodes in an open format.

REPORTER: Mr. President, in light of the, the New York Times editorial today, tell me why--

GEORGE W. BUSH: Let me stop you, Wendell, I don't read those editorials, [LAUGHTER] so you're going to have to-- maybe you ought to ask the question not in that context but in another context.

Listen online. Most npr stations have online listening capabilities (Realplayer and Quicktime, respectively, usually both).

Here's one, here's mine, and here's one more.