Since my response elicited only a single recommendation despite being highly suggestive and sort of secretly profound (story of my life), I copy it here:
Write a paper analyzing your different responses if the name on the paper were a) Jesus b) Mohammed c) Abraham Lincoln d) your mother. Consider whether you would be as willing to step on Jesus's name if you understood that those around you were horrified at the thought though you yourself are indifferent. Think about what your different responses would be to the demand that you step on the name of Jesus you wrote yourself, or that the teacher wrote, or that was given you as a printed paper. Describe your response as compared to being asked to step on (or step into) a pair of Jesus brand jeans. Consider your willingness to step on Jesus's name after watching fellow students step on Jesus's name a) with casual indifference; b) hooting with laughter; b) grimacing, covering their eyes, and weeping. Respond to the question "I believe my teacher when he tells me that refusing to participate in this experiment will not affect my grade." Extra-curricular credit: Gather with fellow students and keg and decide what names you would be so ready to stamp on.
Here it touts the enormous changes that the chiplet has over the chip:
Moreover, the research could have tremendous economic consequences — feeding the emergence of a new digital era in manufacturing, much as laser printing transformed publishing three decades ago.
By replacing the circuit boards now assembled in factories, the technology would vastly compress a supply chain that spans the globe and employs hundreds of thousands of workers.Progress!
Anyway -- suggestions?
Journals and conferences are given names hard to tell from the respectable ones. A librarian in Colorado is keeping a black list of these journals:
One publisher on Beall’s list, Avens Publishing Group, even sweetened the pot for those who agreed to be on the editorial board of The Journal of Clinical Trails & Patenting, offering 20 percent of its revenues to each editor.
I think I might have smoked that one out.
Some of the smart people who commented on that original back in the dim days of 2009 have not visited here lately. Sigh.
“Same-sex couples have every other right,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, sounding inane for a big brain. “It’s just about the label in this case.” He continued, “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”
This is entirely unintelligible to me. It sounds like the remark of someone who hasn't thought before speaking. What's the difference between telling a child he has to be someone's friend and making him say it? What is the analogy here? WHo in the real-world analog is the child, who is the friend, and who is the person saying the child must be a friend? What definition has been changed by asserting a lie?