carrie russell


I couldn’t hold this back anymore. I fucking love the daddyfell thing @kimiwillsinforever is dishing!

My gosh! Russel is so dang cute! Ahhh h h h~ I had to draw Carrie interacting with him. If there’s one weakness Carrie has its definitely babies. Poor girl is simply helpless TT///u///TT

p.s: I’m sorry Kimi, I don’t know how to draw your sona properly. I did my best (;//u//;)

anonymous asked:

Could you explain this tfw no ZF joke? I really dont get it... :D

Get ready for a long explanation! For everyone’s reference, the joke (supplied by @awesomepus​) was:

Q: What did the mathematician say when he encountered the paradoxes of naive set theory?
A: tfw no ZF

You probably already know the ‘tfw no gf’ (that feel when no girlfriend) meme, which dates to 2010. I’m assuming you’re asking about the ZF part.

Mathematically, ZF is a reference to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which is a set of axioms commonly accepted by mathematicians as the foundation of modern mathematics. As you probably know if you’ve taken geometry, axioms are super important: they are basic assumptions we make about the world we’re working in, and they have serious implications for what we can and can’t do in that world. 

For example, if you don’t assume the Parallel Postulate (that consecutive interior angle measures between two parallel lines and a transversal sum to 180°, or twice the size of a right angle), you can’t prove the Triangle Angle Sum Theorem (that the sum of the angle measures in any triangle is also 180°). It’s not that the Triangle Angle Sum Theorem theorem is not true without the Parallel Postulate — simply that it is unprovable, or put differently, neither true nor false, without that Postulate. Asking whether the Triangle Angle Sum Theorem is true without the Parallel Postulate is really a meaningless question, mathematically. But we understand that, in Euclidean geometry (not in curved geometries), both the postulate and the theorem are “true” in the sense that we have good reason to believe them (e.g., measuring lots of angles in physical parallel lines and triangles). Clearly, the axioms we choose are important.

Now, in the late 19th and early 20th century, mathematicians and logicians were interested in understanding the underpinnings of the basic structures we use in math — sets, or “collections,” being one of them, and arithmetic being another. In short, they were trying to come up with an axiomatic set theory. Cantor and Frege were doing a lot of this work, and made good progress using everyday language. They said that a set is any definable collection of elements, where “definable” means to provide a comprehension (a term you’re familiar with if you program in Python), or rule by which the set is constructed.

But along came Bertrand Russell. He pointed out a big problem in Cantor and Frege’s work, which is now called Russell’s paradox. Essentially, he made the following argument:

Y’all are saying any definable collection is a set. Well, how about this set: R, the set of all sets not contained within themselves. This is, according to you, a valid set, because I gave that comprehension. Now, R is not contained within itself, naturally: if it is contained within itself, then it being an element is a violation of my construction of R in the first place. But R must be contained within itself: if it’s not an element of itself, then it is a set that does not contain itself, and therefore it is an element of itself. So we have that R ∈ R and also R ∉ R. This is a contradiction! Obviously, your theory is seriously messed up.

This paradox is inherently a part of Cantor and Frege’s set theory — it shows that their system was inconsistent (with itself). As Qiaochu Yuan explains over at Quora, the problem is exactly what Russell pointed out: unrestricted comprehension — the idea that you can get away with defining any set you like simply by giving a comprehension. Zermelo and Fraenkel then came along and offered up a system of axioms that formalizes Cantor and Frege’s work logically, and restricts comprehension. This is called Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (or ZF), and it is consistent (with itself). Cantor and Frege’s work was then retroactively called naive set theory, because it was, of course, pretty childish:

There are two more things worth knowing about axiomatic systems in mathematics. First, some people combine Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice¹, resulting in a set theory called ZFC. This is widely used as a standard by mathematicians today. Second, Gödel proved in 1931 that no system of axioms for arithmetic can be both consistent and complete — in every consistent axiomatization, there are “true” statements that are unprovable. Or put another way: in every consistent axiomatic system, there are statements which you can neither prove nor disprove. For example, in ZF, the Axiom of Choice is unprovable — you can’t prove it from the axioms in ZF. And in both ZF and ZFC, the continuum hypothesis² is unprovable.³ Gödel’s result is called the incompleteness theorem, and it’s a little depressing, because it means you can’t have any good logical basis for all of mathematics (but don’t tell anyone that, or we might all be out of a job). Luckily, ZF or ZFC has been good enough for virtually all of the mathematics we as a species have done so far!

The joke is that, when confronted with Russell’s paradox in naive set theory, the mathematician despairs, and wishes he could use Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory instead — ‘that feel when no ZF.’

I thought the joke was incredibly funny, specifically because of the reference to ‘tfw no gf’ and the implication that mathematicians romanticize ZF (which we totally do). I’ve definitely borrowed the joke to impress friends and faculty in the math department…a sort of fringe benefit of having a math blog.


Keep reading

this is way longer than i intended it to be whoops

AU in which you meet 10k and the group in the middle of S1 (this is pre Garnetts death) 

i wasnt given a lot of specifications so i just rolled with it i hope you like it

requested by @notdreamingnow

the word count 2.4k its so long im so sorry

You hear the truck pull up. You climb to your feet, grabbing your knife. Peeking through the front door, where you have 13 Z’s chained up, you see them get out of the large black SUV. One of them looks like a Z, but he’s talking to them, so he must be alive.

You back up, scooting behind one of the aisles, breathing slowly.

People usually walk away. With the dozens of Z bodies littered out front, and the 13 chained in front, most people are turned away. They don’t want to deal with it. A crushed box of cereal, which is the most they believe is in here, isnt worth the effort.

But these are different.

Keep reading

I was on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday to talk about libraries and e-books, along with Allan Adler from Association of American Publishers, Jeremy Greenfield from Digital Book World and Vailey Oehlke, director of the Multnomah County Library (OR).  Allan and I were live in the studio and Jeremy and Vailey called in by phone. Vailey was great! Our host, Frank Senso, was very skillful in taking the conversation in a direction that he wanted it to go.  It was quite amazing to see how he managed that – no wonder radio and television hosts and spokespeople are called “the talent.”

Hear the show:

Of course, I was a bit nervous but colleagues told me that the hour being “live” on the radio would fly by.  This is so true.  I wanted to continue the discussion.  I did not have the opportunity to talk about business models, the library-publisher dynamic, user accessibility, and the social value of a book sold to a library. Wait!  I have more things to say! I was prepared to promote the “library position” – complete with well-conceived sound bites and compelling data.  Some things I really wanted to mention—the role of public libraries in a community, the value of libraries to democracy, the important role of sharing—were handled by the other panelists and radio listeners.

What? I didn’t have to pitch libraries. People were pitching libraries.  Fantastic!

Okay but has this been posted? Because I finally paused on it and I’m cackling.

Dear Jonathan,
I have been thinking of you to no small extent these last days and have concluded that it is terribly inconvenient of you men to have these wars so far away from London. Simply from an administrative perspective, I think it would be far better that this business is carried out, say, in Russell Square, so that a wife might see her BELOVED HUSBAND, have him well supplied with hard boiled eggs, or at least get some small note of comfort(?) that he is alive. True, these […] small complaints regarding […] machinery of war […] but I for one […] PREFER IT


Free Copyright Webinar for School Librarians and Educators [full]

Can I copy a textbook that I have and make copies for my students? Can I be thrown in jail for copyright infringement? These are just some of the questions that educators and school librarians have about use of copyright law in school environments. Oftentimes, they do not receive helpful guidance on the subject, which leads them to make overly conservative decisions.

To assist educators and librarians who prepare learning materials for students, the American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy will host Complete Copyright for K–12 Librarians and Educators, a free interactive webinar developed specifically for instructors and school librarians on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, from 4:00-5:00p.m. EST (registration is now closed as we have reached our maximum participants).

Bestselling copyright authority Carrie Russell will host the webinar and discuss common copyright concerns explored in her newly released book of the same title. The webinar will offer clear guidance on ways to legally provide materials to students and explore scenarios often encountered by educators in schools, such as using copyrighted material in lesson plans, classroom assignments, school plays and performances.

Webinar participants will learn:

  • Copyright must-knows for librarians and educators
  • Fair use
  • Creation of the copyright law
  • Use of copyright materials in school settings
  • Copyrighted content in the social media age

We have reached the maximum number of registrants for the free webinar. However, the full webinar will be recorded and posted to District Dispatch after the session is complete. In the meantime, we encourage you to take a look at Carrie’s book, Complete Copyright for K–12 Librarians and Educators.

Today: Copyright Law Book Available for School Librarians and Educators

This has been a good week for Carrie Russell, director of the American Library Association’s (ALA) Program on Public Access to Information. In addition to securing a guest spot on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show on August 21, 2012, the ALA released Complete Copyright for K–12 Librarians and Educators, a copyright law guidebook specifically written for teachers and librarians. The book, put forth by the Office for Technology Policy, addresses the challenges that school librarians and teachers face concerning copyright-protected print and online materials at schools and outside of the traditional educational environment.

Continue reading


For @etave​, who like me, had her Jonathan/Arabella shipper heart broken in this scene.

[And on a lighter note, has anyone else noticed the contents of the letter which Arabella is about to send off here (and which Mr Norrell later has no qualms in reading)? The attention of the props department to detail is just superb, even though it’s onscreen for a few seconds at the very most:

Dear Jonathan,
I have been thinking of you to no small extent these last days, and have concluded that it is terribly inconvenient of you men to have these wars so far away from London. Simply from an administrative perspective, I think it would be far better that this business be carried out, say, in Russell Square, so that a wife might see her BELOVED HUSBAND, have him well supplied with hard boiled eggs…

So all those hard boiled eggs we see TV!Jonathan constantly eating? It’s a deliberate running gag in the series…I love it.]


On October 29, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, a dispute over the importation and re-sale of cheap foreign editions of textbooks. At the heart of the case is the “first-sale doctrine,” the provision in copyright law that makes it possible for libraries to lend books and other copyrighted material, for students to sell used textbooks, and for any rightful owner to sell or lend the copyrighted works they own. Because it touches such a fundamental aspect of copyright law, the decision of this case could have sweeping, profound effects for libraries, calling into question whether materials printed abroad can circulate legally. For more details about the case and its implications for libraries, read the Library Copyright Alliance’s amicus curiae brief (PDF).
Warning: You Are About to Enter the Ebook Zone

While there is no evidence that library lending negatively affects sales, we do know that book borrowers are also book buyers. An April study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Society Project (“The Rise of E-Reading”), ebook enthusiasts read more books than the average print-book reader and prefer to purchase what they want to read, although some start their search for reading material at their library. People discover books at the library. With the demise of the local bookstore, the library becomes a welcome spot where book borrowers and buyers can browse. They can also be a point of sale for borrowers who are also buyers. Libraries are starting to offer a purchase option right in their catalogs in return for a share of the revenue. And why not? It’s time for libraries to claim more credit for the work we do promoting books and authors.

I guess there was a general assumption on the part of many of us that with advanced digital technologies, many of the access problems for people with disabilities would be resolved—at least there was this hope. For librarians who value equitable access to information for all, accessibility for people with disabilities should be second nature. We should automatically think about accessibility when buying resources for our library communities, including e-readers.

But for the most part, we don’t.

Read more