* “The new atomic age we need,” a particularly useful piece given the venue.
* “Four tough things universities should do to rein in costs.” Or, alternately, “Four tough things columnists should do before writing about universities.” Can both be right? And at what margins? I tend to buy the first link more than the second.
* The Generic City: Boring landscapes impede on our biological need for intrigue. So why are so many buildings so hideous?
* University President: ‘This Is Not Day Care.’ A point that is useful and yet depressing that it is worth making.
* Why the ballpoint pen was such a big deal.
* What happens to countries that vote for socialists.
* SM on what’s happening among humanities peer-reviewed journals.
* In light of recent events: “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths. ”
Thanks! I won’t say that most papers on archaeology or dead languages are important to people who don’t already think that the topic is fun, but I am not sure that a lot of the mathematics papers on arXiv are either.
It is also good to know that it is difficult to get funds to put previously published sources online, because that does not count as ‘research.’ So people can do it as a hobby ( http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/home.html ), or persuade some kind of institution with an established source of funds to take on their project ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/about ), or pierce together grants awarded for experimenting with innovative technology/establishing international collaboration/surveying the corpus of … and spend them on digitizing sources ( http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/general.php ).