Bill SB3974

in tennesee.
they're going after students. they evidently want to make accessing any copyright material via college networks illegal - so they'd have to expel you for getting that pdf of a journal article out of the library. keep up the good work guys.



Pancake_Repairman is an actual person whose username apparently is, in some circles, a synonym for a certain type of 'anorak' erudition:
I think the bigger worry is that ppl on SLSK will spawn a generation of Pancake_Repairman. If you're on SLSK, you know what I mean: library of congress knowledge with mall punk taste.
as indicated in the comments on this interesting article.



spiral hair in the strange and beautiful movie uzumaki.

all your scene releases are dupes to us

another nfo, i like this one because it's so opposed to the conventional 'keep the scene alive, don't spread to p2p lamerz' line so often taken (like here). i especially like the third thing p2p made them realize. also, they have a relatively interesting 'oral' emphasis, in contradistinction to the more conventional 'anal' role allocation interest - see, for example, every nfo sq ever put out - this one for instance (scroll down).
if you were wondering, i don't really listen to psytrance, though i'll give this a whirl. as you probably know, gabbers hate trance:

cooler than thou, like when mods and rockers used to beat each other up by brighton pier. not that i'm a gabber, but i'm definitely more gabber than trance. but i digress.




goats are wicked awesome

goats are wicked awesome, i just remembered. face it. i was offered one at the nobber fair last summer for 150 euro, in kid and riddled with worms. good thing i didn't buy her now i guess, as we're moving out and all, there'd be nowhere for her (and the kid) to go.
they are hardier than cattle, nibble at everything, they climb over everything, they have horns and amazing eyes, they smell, the cheese is great, goats are just wicked awesome.


stuff white people like

stuff white people like.
'this blog is devoted to stuff that white people like'.
even though it's really about fairly narrow subsections of american, middle-class white people. 'white' is a bit of a slippery marker here, but this site has generated a lot of discussion online. as some astute commentators have pointed out, white people like blogs about what white people like (or else they like to dislike such blogs).


commercial break: frogs.



artbreaker: bea sides ep

'roughneck ragga-jungle, breakcore, and leftfield broken beat based music':
the artbreaker: new kind of poetry
the artbreaker: open up
(open up has some crazy, kind-of-familiar synth sound that i really like)
the artbreaker: rrrrun

more here.


nfo database

search parameters too narrow. but look how many there are on a given day.



online social research ethics

Allen, Christina. 1996. “What’s Wrong with the ‘Golden Rule’? Conundrums of Conducting Ethical Research in Cyberspace. The Information Society vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 175-187.

Bakardjieva, M. & Feenberg, A. (2001). "Involving the virtual subject." Ethics and Information Technology. 2(4): 233- 240.

Banks, Will, & Eble, Michelle F. (2007). Digital spaces, online environments, and human participant research: Interfacing with institutional review boards. In McKee, Heidi A., & DeVoss, Danielle Nicole (Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 27-47). Cresskill: Hampton.

Bassett, E. H. & O'Riodan, Kathleen (2001, December). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE), http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bas_full.html.

Beaulieu, Anne. 2004. “Mediating ethnography: objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet.” Social Epistemology vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 139-163.

Berkman, Robert. 2003. Digital Dilemmas: Ethical Issues for Online Media Professionals. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bortree, D. (2005, March). Presentation of self on the web: An ethnographic study of teenage girls' weblogs. Education, Communication & Information, 5 (1), 25-39.

Bruckman, Amy S. (2001, December). Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE), http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bru_full.html.

Buchanan, Elizabeth A. (Ed). (2004). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Information Science.
Buchanan, Elizabeth A., and Zimmer, M., “Internet Research Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-internet-research/
Capurro, Rafael & Pingel, Christoph (2001, December). Ethical Issues of Online Communication Research. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_cap_full.html

Couser, G. Thomas (2004). Vulnerable Subjects: Ethics and Life Writing. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Efimova, Lilia (2005, October). Not documenting, doing: blogging as research. Presented at the meeting of the Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations, Association of Internet Researchers, Chicago IL.. http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=238&cf=3.

Elgesem, Dag (2001, December). What is special about the ethical issues in online research? In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_elg_full.html.

Ess, Charles, and the AoIR ethics working group. 2002. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committeehttp://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.

Ess, Charles (2001, December). Internet Research Ethics Introduction. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE), http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_ess.html.

Ess, Charles (2004). The cathedral or bazaar? The AoIR document on internet research ethics as an exercise in open source ethics. In Mia Consalvo (ed.), Internet Research Annual Volume 1: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Ess, Charles (2005). International Restrictions Affecting Internet Research: Conflicts, Risks, Resolutions? Charles Ess's Academic Homepage. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.drury.edu/ess/NCEHR_CNERH/ESS.htm.

Ess, C. (2007). Internet research ethics. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 487-502). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (downloadable here).

Ess, Charles. 2009. Digital Media Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Eysenbach, Gunther, and James Till. Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7321/1103.
Fossheim, Hallvard, and Helen Ingierd (eds.) (2015) Internet Research EthicsCappelen Damm Akademisk, http://press.nordicopenaccess.no/index.php/noasp/catalog/book/3.
Frankel, Mark S. & Siang, Sanyin (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research in cyberspace: Report of a Workshop. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf. 
Hine, C. (2005). Virtual Methods and the Sociology of Cyber-Social-Scientific Knowledge. Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet, edited by C. Hine. Oxford, Berg. 
Hudson, James, and Amy Bruckman. (2004). " Go Away": Participant Objections to Being Studied and the Ethics of Chatroom Research. The Information Society, 20(2), 127-139. 
Hunsinger, Jeremy, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, John Logie, Monica Murero, & Leslie Regan Shade (Eds.), Internet Research Annual: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002 (pp. 95-103). New York: Peter Lang. 
Jankowski, Nicholas, and Martine van Selme (2007). Research ethics in a virtual world, pp. 275-284 in Media Technologies and Democracy in an Enlarged Europe, edited by Nico Carpentier et al. Tartu University Press, http://www.researchingcommunication.eu/reco_book3.pdf. 
Johns, Mark D., Shing-Ling Sarina Chen, and G. Jon Hall (2004). Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, and Ethics. Peter Lang Publishers, New York

Jones, Robert Alun (1994). Internet research (Online). Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 4(3)

King, Storm A. (1996, June). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12 (2), 119-127

Kraut, Robert, Judith Olson, Mahzarin Banaji, Amy Bruckman, Jeffrey Cohen and Mick Couper. 2003. Psychological Research Online: Opportunities and Challengeshttp://www.apa.org/science/apainternetresearch.pdf.
Mackay, H. (2005). New Connections, Familiar Settings: Issues in the Ethnographic Study of New Media Use at Home. Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. C. Hine (ed.). Oxford, Berg.

Maczewski, M., Storey, M.-A., & Hoskins, M. (2004). Conducting congruent, ethical, qualitative research in Internet-mediated research environments. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 62-79). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Mann, Chris, & Stewart, Fiona. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage. 
McKee, Heidi A., & DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole (eds.). (2007). Digital writing
research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues. Creskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.

McKee, Heidi, and James Porter. 2009. The Ethics of Internet Research: a Rhetorical, Case-Based Approach. New York: Peter Lang.

McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, Jim. 2010. Feminist Research Practices in Cyberspace. In Schell, Eileen, and K.J Rawson (Eds.), Rhetorica in Motion: Feminist Rhetorical Methods and Methodologies. University of Pittsburgh Press.

McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, Jim. (2008). "The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach." College Composition and Communication
v59 n4 p711-749

McKee, Heidi A..
2008. Ethical and Legal Issues for Writing Researchers in an Age of Media Convergence. Computers and Composition 25: 104-122.

Moore, Chris, and Ruth Walker (eds.). 2010. "Special Issue: Digital technologies and educational integrity." International Journal for Educational Integrity vol. 6, no. 2. http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/issue/view/127 
Morris, Jeremy and Middleton, Catherine (2005, October). The Net Generation? Exploring the Complexities of Innovation Adoption among Youth. Presented at the meeting of the Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations, Association of Internet Researchers, Chicago IL., http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=220&cf=3.

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). (2001). US Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46.

Ploug, Thomas (2009). Ethics in Cyberspace. London: Springer.

Polancic Boehlefeld, Sharon. 1996. “Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Cyberspace Research.” The Information Society vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141-152.

Reid, Elizabeth. 1996. “Informed Consent in the Study of On-Line Communities: A Reflection on the Effects of Computer-Mediated Social Research.” The Information Society vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 169-174.

Rosser, B. R. Simon, Laura Gurak, Keith J. Horvath, J. Michael Oakes, Joseph Konstan, and Gene P. Danilenko. 2009. “The Challenges of Ensuring Participant Consent in Internet-based Sex Studies: A Case Study of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS-I and II) Studies.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 602–626.

Sapienza, Fil (2007). Ethos and positionality in studies of virtual communities. In McKee, Heidi A., & DeVoss, Danielle Nicole (Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 89-106). Cresskill: Hampton.

Sharf, Barbara F. (1999). Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research (pp. 243-256). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Thomas, Jim. 1996. “When Cyberresearch Goes Awry: The Ethics of the Rimm ‘Cyberporn’ Study.” The Information Society vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 189-198.

Thomas, Jim (2003). Reexamining the Ethics of internet Research: Facing the Challenge of Overzealous Oversight. In Mark D. Johns, Shing-Ling Sarina Chen, & G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, & Ethics (pp. 187-202). New York: Peter Lang.

Walther, Joseph B. (2001, December). Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_wal_full.html.

White, Michele (2001, December). Representations or People? In. Lancaster UK: Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries (CEPE). Retrieved December 14, 2001, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_whi_full.html.

White, Michele (2002). "Representations or people?" Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3) pp. 249-266.
assembled partly from the aoir list. if you have access (i don't), there is this special issue of the journal of information ethics. no doubt there's also others i've missed. and don't forget the aoir wiki, the aoir ethics working group, the ijire, the jcmc, and the macquarie online ethics training module. also the excellent institutional review blog, and internet research ethics.

surveyfail is a classic case study in how spectacularly badly online research can be done, and how an online community can respond to it with brilliance. you can find out more about it by investigating through here, say, or here.

this list is also incorporated with further resources on the topic here.
last updated 27/03/15.



now that's what i call hellfish vol. 2
deathchant CHANT lp 008, released feb 8, 2008.


sage drm

look what sage publishing did to this guy. here and here. i actually like some of the things sage puts out, but this is absurd.


the pitch

Book Proposal: Coprolalia and Shibboleths: musical and textual interaction in the Breakcore room.

Dr. Andrew Whelan


This book is an ethnographic account of a musically oriented online milieu: a chatroom dedicated to ‘breakcore’, a genre of electronic dance music, on a longstanding peer-to-peer program. A rapidly developing and highly contested social and cultural context to new music production, peer-to-peer is a global phenomenon, which furnishes a multi-modal ‘space’ in which young fans and musicians learn, debate, distribute, and source musical material. The book utilises sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, and ethnomusicology, to explore the text-based interaction of amateur electronic musicians or ‘bedroom producers’ within this controversial, disembedded locale. Through analysis of this interaction, the book discusses cultural and identity politics, musical and discursive signification, the role of technology in music production, and copyright and creativity in electronic dance music culture, as these issues are manifest in dialogue and exchange in this environment. In particular, the book explores bedroom producer social identity and culture as this is instantiated linguistically and musically, with specific attention paid to the role played by gender. The often obscene or offensive dialogue of bedroom producers online – invariably young men – is extensively cited and discussed; through doing so, a reflexive theory of speech genre is developed, informed by the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, Julia Kristeva and Valentin Vološinov. Online interactions of a vituperative character are treated as competitive ritual exchanges, through which a fratriarchal subcultural ‘space’ is constituted. The analysis is data-driven throughout, and draws critically on a spectrum of social theory, engaging with the work of Theodor Adorno and Max Weber on music, discussing Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological approach to meaning, and exploring the application of Erving Goffman’s frontstage/backstage distinction to online interaction.

A steadily increasing number of ethnographies of ‘online communities’ are currently available, but this one has a number of characteristics that make it different. Firstly, there is its setting: peer-to-peer, a demonised and criminalised technology about which very little empirical academic work has been published. This work addresses the economy of musical commodities within this environment, the interaction which occurs therein and what it tells us about contemporary subcultural identity, and perhaps most crucially, the relationship between peer-to-peer circulation or ‘piracy’ and the extraordinary genre development (particularly, though not exclusively, in sample-based electronic music) which it facilitates.

Secondly, although there is a body of work on online interaction, this text will be the first to develop and apply an empirically grounded theory of speech genre to account for homosocial discursive violence in online environments, and to relate this directly to the troubled relationship between forms of subcultural masculinity in contemporary popular culture and the mediated modes of interaction afforded by computer-mediated communication. Utilising such a theoretical perspective, the ritual function and cultural location of transgressive interaction of a sort generally eschewed in academic writing becomes contextually explicable and comprehensible (this sort of ‘dirty’ talk is in the text subsumed under the label ‘coprolalia’, a term reflexively juxtaposed with academic writing as the ‘clean’ metalanguage par excellence).

Thirdly, this work is innovative in its interdisciplinary approach, assessing the deployment and contestation of three key units of meaning or ‘shibboleths’, two linguistic-discursive and one musical or ‘musematic’ (a ubiquitous drum break). Through consideration of these shibboleths, an entire ‘cybersubculture’ is evoked and situated in terms of an explanatory theoretical mechanism, fratriarchy, which conceptualises both interactional and musical elements as features of ritual homosocial contest.


As a case study of an online music community, this book could be used as a recommended text in several sorts of undergraduate and postgraduate level courses, principally in the subject areas of new media and Internet studies, the sociology of popular culture and subcultural studies, and courses in gender, discourse and language use. The book would appeal primarily to digital humanities students and researchers working on computer-mediated communication and virtual community, alongside those working on the sociology of contemporary popular music. Popular musicologists would use the book as a means of learning about subcultural communities of practice and how they debate and defend the boundaries of their genre. Sociologists interested in communication and technology would find the book relevant for its discussion of existent online communities and their interaction, particularly given that the ‘field setting’ for the research was peer-to-peer. For both musicologists and scholars of online interaction, the book would be useful in terms of its timely empirical elaboration of digital music distribution and production and the forms of social engagement they afford. The emphasis on the role played by gender, in interaction, and in the elaboration of subcultural authenticity, means that the book would also be appealing to students and researchers interested in discursive and sociolinguistic approaches to gender and masculinity.

Related/Competing titles

There are several recently published texts warranting comparison. Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Anarchist in the Library (2004, 256 pages, Basic Books, £15.99), for example, exemplifies much work on peer-to-peer. Unlike this body of work, however, which generally emphasises the consequences of peer-to-peer in terms of copyright and intellectual property (often in a somewhat polemical style), my book considers how the technology is actually used creatively by practitioners and how that use ought best be assessed. It is the social and cultural, rather than legal, ramifications which are here put under scrutiny. Peer-to-peer has had a massive impact on genre development in electronic music, in terms of contact between musicians and especially access to software and material for sampling, but this impact is rarely discussed in any grounded detail.

Turning to popular musicology, I would single out Keith Kahn-Harris’ recent Extreme Metal (2007, 224 pages, Berg, £17.99). My book endorses the position taken by the latter author insofar as we share an interest in describing and theorising forms of social exclusion within music scenes. However, one of the values of my work is that the research is wholly focussed on a scene which is concentrated online; a phenomenon which can only be expected to expand. Furthermore, much work in the sociology of popular music focuses on mainstream material and its reception. One of the implications of online distribution is the increased visibility of ‘vernacular’ scenes, such as that at the centre of my research, where there is little significant distinction between producers and consumers.

As regards contemporary work on gender and discourse, many of the authors assembled in Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner’s collection Men’s Lives (2007, 672 pages, Allyn and Bacon, £39.99) share with me an interest in the relations between masculinity, social power, interaction and discourse. However, the extent to which my work draws directly on synchronous chatroom data and the emphasis placed on the linguistic instantiation of gender implies a greater degree of specificity and empirical focus than found in these texts, which tend to be broader in scope and more general in orientation.

This brings me to research on virtual community and online identity. Of this rapidly growing body of work, I would highlight Lisa Nakamura’s Cybertypes (2002, 192 pages, Routledge, £17.99), Nancy Baym’s Tune in, Log on (2000, 264 pages, Sage, £29.00), and finally Lori Kendall’s Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub (2002, 309 pages, University of California Press, £12.95). To varying degrees, these three authors share concerns embodied in my own work. The distinction is perhaps one of degree as well as orientation. Although Kendall and Nakamura touch on the often vituperative style of online interaction and its relation to forms of masculinity, they do not, on the whole, explicitly engage with or analyse examples of this style. Baym presents a fascinating account of online fandom and virtual community, but she overemphasises the mechanisms of inclusion and their relation to gendered interactional styles. To my mind, this research downplays the extent of confrontation and dispute in online environments, and wholly fails to consider the role played by such dispute. In contrast, my book demonstrates how argumentative interaction not only serves to exclude, but also generates a constitutive inside and a solidary ‘we’.

Similarly, whilst Kahn-Harris and others in popular musicology have sought to address ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’ performative modes and content in popular-musical subcultures, they often gloss over the fundamental roles of misogyny and homophobia within them. This research differs, in its direct attempt to critically address these forms, and in the structure of this attempt, considering them as both features of interaction and of musical style and structure. My book is predicated on the argument that computer-mediated communication is not only crucial to the study of social interaction, but to the development of signifying practice itself. Computer-mediated communication demonstrates and facilitates the global distribution of a ‘masculinist’ youth-cultural idiom and related interactional forms, yet the multi-modal character of these forms is often elided by accounts of both computer-mediated communication and youth culture. My book is the first extended scholarly treatment of the ‘bedroom producer’ phenomenon, and is also unique in the theoretical account it develops of the relationship between masculinity, interactional form, and subcultural identification.

hip-hop tunes

good ones.

third sight: crawl space

mike jones: sittin on bogey
the mantra-like lines are also taken up in uk grime. the guy is from houston. this tune actually has another name, presumably it's proper one: "still tippin'", on who is mike jones? (2005). this is the version from crunk and grime mashes (houston damage control, 2005), puts the vocal on a bouncey grime instrumental. i like the original too though, but i think i prefer this one. mike jones.the diagrammatic representations come courtesy of jamphat.
ptpm: almost as cool as stealing prosthetic legs
ok, so preschool tea party massacre are actually a grind band from new jersey. it's a hip-hop tune, and a fairly nasty one at that. at least i didn't post 'nuck if you warp'.


language, interaction and culture cfp

14th Annual Conference on Language, Interaction, and Culture
May 22-24, 2008

University of California, Los Angeles

Presented by the Center for Language, Interaction, and Culture Graduate Student Association (CLIC-GSA) at the University of California, Los Angeles and the Language, Interaction, and Social Organization Graduate Student Association (LISO-GSA) at the University of California, Santa Barbara

Plenary Speakers:

Asif Agha

Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania

Kris Gutiérrez
Education, University of California, Los Angeles

Douglas Maynard
Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Suzanne Wertheim
Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles; University of Maryland

Submissions should address topics at the intersection of language, interaction, and culture. Approaches include, but are not limited to, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, ethnomethodology, interactional sociolinguistics, language ideologies, and language socialization.

Abstracts for presentations and posters are welcome from graduate students and faculty. Presentations that include video and/or audio recordings of naturalistic interaction are encouraged. Speakers will have 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for discussion. A subset of papers presented at the conference will be published in the conference proceedings, Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, Volume 7, 2009.

Abstracts are due no later than Friday, February 22, 2008, by electronic submission only. The submission guidelines are provided below and on the CLIC-GSA website (http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/al/clic/).


Abstracts should be submitted through the CLIC-GSA website (http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/al/clic/abstractsubmit.htm ).
Please provide the following information:

- Whether the abstract is for a presentation or a poster
- The name(s) of the author(s)
- The affiliation(s) of the author(s)
- The preferred mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address for notification
- The title of the paper
- Any equipment requirements
- An abstract no longer than 500 words
- Any additional comments

Abstracts should clearly state the main point or argument of the paper; briefly discuss the problem or research question with reference to previous research and the work's relevance to developments in the field; and may include a short example to support the main point or argument. Conclusions should be stated, however tentative.

Abstracts should be accessible to a wide audience, as they will be reviewed by scholars from a variety of language-related fields, such as anthropology, applied linguistics, education, and sociology. Presentations and posters will be accepted based on reviewers' evaluations of the anonymous abstracts.

The deadline for the receipt of abstracts is Friday, February 22, 2008. Late submissions will not be accepted. Notification of acceptance or non-acceptance will be sent via e-mail in March 2008.



corrupted cause

soulseek records oo5. it's kind of old now but still the most incredible noise mix:
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
all files zipped.
the nfo reads:

corrupted cause

what: four sets of face-melting noise

who: created by soulseek records members
mixed by ps and apetit
artwork by rochie

why: because we hate your eardrums

when: collected in early to mid 2003,
mixed nearly a year later, FINALLY
released in april 2005

where: http://www.soulseekrecords.com

yeah, it's finally ready.
yeah, sets 1 and 2 are a different bitrate
than sets 3 and 4, big whoop, wanna fight about it?
we encoded our sets differently and then lost
the wav files. anyway, it's noise.. are you really
worried about audio fidelity?

-apetit, march 2005

we all often feel a dark need to destroy all things
in this world. soul corruption is induced by life;
it's unavoidable and undesirable - unless you're the
hardcore masochist artist type. Sadly we happen to
be somewhat of that type, and when discussing the
absence of such types amongst the regular soulseek
records artists we realized we all have our dark
side - just some are able to express it better than
others - so we decided to lead this expedition into
the worst sadomasochistic experience known to the
music lover man: to create a full length long mix of
the worst non melodic or rhythmic noise we could
persuade our friends to submit to our cause.
why? because we can.

-ps, april 2005


'the optimal strategy is the laziest'

from here:
If I am waiting for something, do I continue to wait or try something different?
In another example, how many times have you been in a slow-moving checkout line at a supermarket or retail store, and wondered whether you should move into another line or stay where you are?
Well, these three mathematicians state that you should take the lazy way out: stay where you are.
They developed a mathematical formula that tells you how long you should wait before trying something different. They found that when both options seem reasonable, you should stay where you are and do nothing but continue waiting.
In fact, the mathematicians state that even if it is frustrating to continue waiting, you are better off doing so.

the model is based around waiting for a bus. it is heartening, but dubious.


i'm my own grandpa

lonzo and oscar: i'm my own grandpa.
if you like sociolinguistics, semantics, anthropology, kinship systems, the incest taboo etc., you might like this clever and hilarious tune.
i've been looking for this one for ages, i first heard it on the radio almost ten years ago. finally it turned up, one of the many gems on va - crazy and obscure: novelty songs 1914-1946.