What about major publishers spending huge amounts on modern web interfaces? @sciencemagazine @Marcia4Science #Comment #Fail It would appear that you're falling down on the job and allowing trolls like CPO_C_Ryback (and even CPO_C_Rybacks_Mother) to destroy your own value on your own website (particularly http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone). It's appalling and atrocious that you're apparently "moderating" comments, yet the potential thoughtful discourse is being shouted down.

#Comment #Fail @sciencemagazine You'll allow CPO_C_Ryback to troll comments, but won't approve reasoned thought? http://boffosocko.com/2016/04/29/some-thoughts-on-academic-publishing/

@kylewm RE: Archaeology - This was actually the _easy_ part and is one of the greatest values of webmentions in general: once I'd found/seen the original post, having access to all the comments & mentions of that post in social media and other locations actually made it a no-brainer to find the conversation with the solution! (Though I do notice that there's a display issue on that original post with how my more recent webmentions from Known are showing up -- but that's another problem altogether.)

@jdblundell @photomatt @WordPress @automattic Akismet filters out webspam from webmentions exactly the same way it works for comments

Happy New Year to you!

RE: Your blog vs. G+, what if I told you that you might have your cake and eat it too? I too have a WordPress blog, but I've tacked a few bits on to the back end and this allows me to use my blog as the primary hub for my work as you're suggesting you plan on doing. I then use platforms (walled silos) like Google+, Twitter, and Facebook to syndicate my material out to allow for a broader reach by leveraging social networks effects to my benefit. Even better, I've got things set up so that comments on platforms like Google+ feed back to my blog, which allows me to not only live on my own site, but it also allows me to "own" all of the content and commentary that's generated from it. (This way if Google+ is shut down next month, I'd still have all of the generated commentary, which could live indefinitely on my own site.) Thus your followers who prefer to read your material on other platforms (G+, in your case) aren't left without the content you're generating, but their commentary also appears back on the blog to add to the larger conversation.

First, consider using the "Jetpack" module (free software built by the same company that makes WordPress) and its publicize functionality to connect your G+ account and auto-post (syndicate) your Azimuth content automatically to G+. (This also frees up a good bit of time to not have to do it manually.) If nothing else, this will help to keep some of your audience engaged.

Second, to port the comments from the syndicated G+ post back to your original post on Azimuth (comments from G+ will show up as comments in WordPress that you can approve/delete just like other WP comments; this also prevents you from spending so much time in G+ after you turn off comment notifications) you can follow the details at the IndieWebCamp site (http://indiewebcamp.com/Getting_Started_on_WordPress) to add/configure a few simple plugins as well as to connect http://brid.gy to allow social networks to communicate with your blog.

If you need help/assistance to make the technical hurdles a bit lower, I'm happy to help walk you through the details or even do it for you (gratis) if you'd like. All of the modules I've mentioned are free and open source and under very active development.

For a simple example see the comments on this post http://boffosocko.com/2014/07/05/the-mnemonic-major-system-and-gregg-shorthand-have-the-same-underlying-structure/#comment-27045 which originated from G+
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisAldrich1/posts/ZfvtRPmwhtj

For a brief overview, you might appreciate the opening few paragraphs of http://indiewebcamp.com/.

<i>Manny wrote: "I see Jacobson was an expert on Lie algebras... yes, that might certainly be useful! Thanks..."</i>

Many/most graduate math texts on Lie Groups/Algebras utilize manifold theory as their basis, which can make the field more daunting for physicists. As a result, I recommend looking at books that take a more linear algebraic bent to the subject, which can make some of the quantum mechanics related areas more transparent. I've used [book:Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction|1051566], [book:Matrix Groups for Undergraduates.|1162374], and [book:Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Some of Their Applications|424103] for these types of applications and viewpoints.

About a year ago, I took a two quarter sequence at UCLA on Lie Groups from an ("easier") matrix group perspective which I imagine you may find somewhat useful in your reading on quantum mechanics. Several engineers, programmers, amateur mathematicians, physicists, and quantum mechanics enthusiasts had spent several years coaxing the professor into teaching it from this perspective. It was geared toward the advanced undergraduate level, and based on your comments here and your reading of Shankar, should be relatively easily followable.

We loosely followed Hall's textbook and portions of [book:Matrix Analysis|647523], which will give you some of the advanced linear algebra you could possibly be missing depending on your background. If it helps, here's a link to a downloadable pdf copy of the notes for the first class with the audio of the lecture embedded (using Livescribe.com digital pen technology which should let you click on the notes and jump to the audio portion related to where you've clicked): http://bit.ly/1KMxj0R. If it's useful, let me know and I can give you links for others. You may need to open it up in a more recent version of Acrobat Reader to be able to access the audio portion of the lecture, which will go a long way to assisting the clarity of the notes.)

Having this background may make Weyl and Woit's developing textbook more easily manageable. My guess is that Woit is doing a more thorough job of developing the math than typical physics-oriented texts like [book:Geometry, Topology and Physics|439357] which do a lot of hand-waving at the math in an effort to get to the physics more quickly, but at the detriment of understanding what is happening mathematically.

I've dipped into some of Weyl's work in the past, but also keep in mind that some of his notation and definitions can be dated in relation to more modern presentations.

Sorry for the delay, but my work schedule and travel have been awfully heavy lately. It does sound like the issue I'm having is somewhat related to the discussion on https://github.com/raamdev/independent-publisher/issues/155

I've got two separate installs with the same IndieWeb plugins installed. One uses Independent Publisher and the other is a slightly older version of the Academica Theme (v1.2.3 downloadable from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ym0c78uyzltpeu1/AAByejNd8MG83I2MVOFXOuPaa?dl=0) which is outputting the facebook likes, twitter favorites, and reposts properly (or at least as I would expect.)

For some reason Independent Publisher isn't outputting Brid.gy likes, favorites, or resahares from Twitter and Facebook out of the box the way that Academica (or even WP common themes like Twenty Fourteen or Twenty Fifteen) does. They're not showing up at all. On the site with Academica Theme, I've tried doing a "Live Preview" of the Independent Publisher theme and there, it also seems to be "eating" (not showing) these additional comments from Brid.gy while all the other traditional comments do show up.

However, while you're tracking down the issue(s), you might also consider tweaking one additional output issue with respect to these types of comments. From a UI standpoint for themes using IndieWeb, I would recommend that the comment section sort out the comments and display them somewhat differently. For simple Facebook likes and Twitter favorites, it might be best to aggregate all of them into a facepile [http://indiewebcamp.com/facepile] with a simple header ("Liked on Facebook"/"Favorited on Twitter") followed by the photo icons of the people who liked/favorited the article within those platforms. (This is similar to how most Wordpress sites handle Likes/Stars natively within WordPress.) Following this it could create a facepile of people who reposted/reshared the post. Then after this the rest of the comments should be sorted by date/time as comments traditionally are as this will allow people to more easily read/consume the actual commentary.

This post has an example of a combination of likes/favorites/reposts and actual comments that would be better sorted into a facepile section followed by a more "traditional" comments section. http://boffosocko.com/2015/07/27/algebraic-number-theory-ucla-extension/

I'm supposing that it's how Independent Publisher is rendering the output of wp_commentmeta into its comment section that causes some of these brid.gy-fed likes/favorites/reposts to disappear.

If it helps, I'll also point out a previous and possibly related issue I'd run across vis-a-vis IndieWeb and output of comments: https://github.com/pfefferle/wordpress-webmention-for-comments/issues/1. The solution was most likely the way that the Semantic Linkbacks plugin (an IndieWeb WP-specific plugin) was handling its output. Here it's likely that @dshanske or pfefferle may be of more assistance in sorting things out if necessary.

This popped up a few weeks ago in my little free library, and expecting that it fell into a similar category as my friend P.M. Forni's works, I thought I'd give it a quick read. Given the title, it certainly wasn't being marketed to me directly, but I suspect the writer lost the battle with the publisher for giving it a more sophisticated subtitle.

In particular, it comes out in the category of books fashioned from tying together ideas from a commonplace book(s). It's well written and covers a broad variety of ideas and research, which most are unlikely to be aware.

It's a bit more prescriptive and accessible to most in comparison to [book:Thinking, Fast and Slow|11468377], though I prefer the later for its depth. I was somewhat disappointed that her references were primarily from writers living after the 1400's while I initially expected to see more material from 400 BCE to 500AD, but one can obtain many of these from the aforementioned [author:P.M. Forni|148299] references. I was disappointed that her one passing mention of <i>eudaimonia</i> was for its simple existence as a word rather than for its relation to the thesis of the overarching text.

Having read many of her references including having been a fan and proponent of Benjamin Franklin's system for several decades, I didn't learn too many ideas I wasn't previously aware of, though it did make for a relatively interesting biography, in great part because of a large overlap in my interests and the author's.

I ran across many poor reviews of the work which seemed to focus on the writer's privileged background and her choice to write on this particular topic. I find this generally disingenuous as I seriously doubt any of these critics would have leveled similar barbs at any of the better known philosophers from ancient Greece onward and every one of those authors also held positions of power, prestige, and/or wealth. The real difference between the groups of writers is that this is a meta-analysis and general recipe for a modern approach to happiness while prior efforts by the classical writers were generally of a more straightforward philosophical bent.

I wasn't a fan of the inserted comments from the author's blog as a general narrative construct, though they did serve to provide additional ideas outside of the direct sphere of the author's experience to give unimaginative readers ideas about how they could use the advice to structure their own program.

As very few are aware of and even fewer have tried to implement Franklin's system, I could easily recommend this to a variety of people, though given the title and the marketing viewpoint of the book, I'm not sure many would take the content as seriously as they ought. I would rarely read, much less recommend a "self-help" title, but though I wish the references to the science of happiness were more thorough here there is some great underlying scientific material, so I would recommend this to anyone who wants to contempalate how to live a happier life.

I'm still attempting to understand the larger world of indieweb code for WP, but I'm relatively sure that the issue I'm seeing is potentially coming out of the WP Semantic-Linkbacks plugin.

The issue:
Likes from Facebook as well as likes and RT's from Facebook are feeding into the the WP comments dashboard from brid.gy properly, but once being approved, aren't actually showing up in the comments section of the related WP post.
I've done a quick test with a comment with text on the same Facebook post and don't seem to be seeing the same issue and it seems to show up fine in the comments on the post once approved.

Example:
WP post: <a href="http://lfl8424.boffosocko.com/2015/08/20/todays-books-august-20-2015/">http://lfl8424.boffosocko.com/2015/08/20/todays-books-august-20-2015/</a>;
Associated facebook post: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ChrisAldrich/posts/10100846770831315">https://www.facebook.com/ChrisAldrich/posts/10100846770831315</a>;

As this is a relatively new site, perhaps there's some small thing that I'm missing or forgetting? I set it all up with the WP IndieWeb plugin (v2.2.0) and everything within it is current and installed/configured (except Hum and Micropub).

Its possible that it's something similar to a related issue I'd had before on a different WP install (see: https://github.com/pfefferle/wordpress-webmention-for-comments/issues/1) though that seemed to be fixed (by itself?) shortly thereafter.

Within the WP admin interface, (http://lfl8424.boffosocko.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=25)
in the editable comment section, I'm seeing something similar to the following:

<code><a href="http://lfl8424.boffosocko.com/2015/08/20/todays-books-august-20-2015" rel="nofollow"></a>
<a href="http://lfl8424.boffosocko.com/2015/08/20/todays-books-august-20-2015/" rel="nofollow"></a></code>

So there is data there, it's just not being parsed/rendered properly somewhere.

Since I've got another WP set up that seems to be operating properly with the same general set up, has anyone got any ideas?

I recall a few other resources in the same category as this. Here are a few links for meta-coverage on them, which may provide more beneficial than spending hours trying to delve into how to use them:
VidBolt: http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/annotate-video-on-the-fly-a-review-of-vidbolt/56787
Socialbook: http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/using-video-annotation-tools-to-teach-film-analysis/57171

Other tools of interest, which you'll see notes on in the comments to the two above articles:
VideoAnt: http://ant.umn.edu
ULBPodcast: https://github.com/ulbpodcast and http://ezcast.ulb.ac.be (open source code available)
Genius.com: http://boffosocko.com/2014/04/08/rap-genius/ Particularly take a look at http://lit.genius.com/ which is a great tool for classrooms to do small scale shared annotations and close reading with the benefit of full texts (in particular, try looking up the various creation stories, eg: Gilgamesh [http://genius.com/Epic-of-gilgamesh-tablet-1-the-coming-of-enkidu-annotated; Letters of Paul [http://genius.com/Laura-nasrallah-the-pauline-epistles-contents-annotated], which was part of HarvardX religious studies course and is an excellent example of using the platform for education]). There's also http://genius.com/history-genius.

#BigHistory