Conventional holography proves this is possible. Portions of the image of a hologram can appear at points both closer and farther than the plane of the hologram itself. Furthermore, reflection holograms can be recorded in opaque media, so the parts of the hologram that form farther the hologram plane appear to be "inside" the hologram. See, for example, this photograph of one of the first three-dimensional holograms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hologrammit.jpg . The hologram plane is demarcated by the sharp transition from red to black at the bottom, but the object in the hologram appear to be behind the hologram plane.

"Most of us who went to American grade schools can remember long hours of copying articles out of encyclopedias. 'The abode of the penguin is a hard and difficult one.' It was called doing research. Then in college we found that it was also called plagiarism."

-- Mary Claire van Leunen, "A Handbook for Scholars"

I forget when and why I started putting honey in the middle of KFC biscuits, but it's also surprisingly tasty.

Is there a thread of sarcasm I'm missing in this?

That's what the honey is for, isn't it?

Down now for TOS violation, but +1 anyway for the effort. Any chance of summarizing the infographic textually somewhere?

To crawl Google URLs of the form google.com?q=x would be to disregard http://www.google.com/robots.txt , which seems like bad netiquette to me.

They aren't crawling, just noticing what pages clients who visit google.com?q=xxx go to next.

If anybody's search toolbar checks a site's robots.txt before sending clickstream data, I would be very surprised.

A client-side robots.txt rule would also make anti-phishing features trivial to bypass...just put a robots.txt on your phishing site.

The page contents are being crawled and added to the index, but by Bing Toolbar users, not a computer program. I consider that to be an underhanded way to circumvent robots.txt, but others might not.

What makes you say that? We haven't seen anything to indicate Google search pages are in the Bing index.

Other claims that the author has previously made have allegedly been reproduced/explained by a group from Sharif University in Iran.

15/19; missed JavaScript, Groovy, Scala, and Erlang.

If you're willing to shell out a few bucks, I highly recommend mekentosj's Papers over Mendeley. Among the free options, I prefer CiteULike (web-based; http://www.citeulike.org ) or Bibdesk (Mac OS X; http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net ).

I had used Papers for a couple years off and on. I really thought it was worth the money, but after I discovered Mendeley, I found it more useful. The built in synchronization of Mendeley works better than using Papers + Dropbox (which didn't work well). Importing papers seemed easier with Mendeley and a browser. Also, I have a couple of personal Macs and an Ubuntu box at work and it's nice to be able to run Mendeley on both.

I might not be up to date on all the features of Papers but I am pretty sure they never added a better way to sync between computers.

Agreed, I dropped papers for mendeley and I'm recommending it to everyone.

The biggest problem with Papers is citations. Or better, the lack of a decent citation manager. Papers works good for sorting articles. But for most researchers the endproduct is an article with citations. I found it really hard to use Papers in combination with other citation managers.

In the last release Papers did add the possibility for citation export to Word, however managing the styling for different journals was far from ideal. I hope Mendeley will solve this for me.

Another notable book missing from that list is "Topology" by Munkres.

Interesting. You're the second recommendation I've been given for Munkres. This list of recommended books in topology: http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/Other/topologybooks.pdf suggests some other books over it, however.

Personally, I've just started reading Hocking & Young (Shocking and Fun!) and it seems quite good so far.

I've made some substantial progress in _Counterexamples in topology_ and it's really good... It's not really a textbook, just a thing booklet that goes over general topology, then goes through a lot of examples and provides all these really nice charts of topological spaces based on properties. I actually made a graph, mostly based off it: http://christopherolah.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/compactness-...

Oh, and Needham's _Visual Complex Analysis_ (in list) is awesome! Best math book I've ever read.

Munkres is okay – pretty readable, gets the job done, has enough interesting problems. I like Hatcher’s book though, so his recommendations (your first link) are probably solid.