Space X states that they are working on creating the rocket that is designed to be used over and over again. They do state that they have not fully created the rocket yet, but are in the process of doing so. This is to ensure their possible customers that the product is being created and not to search for other possibilities while it is being created.

Space X uses one of the best ways to show the cost effectiveness of their product that I can ever seen. They describe that the cost of a commercial airliner is about the same as the rocket for a space-destined vehicle. However, the commercial airliner is used thousands of times before going out of service, while the rocket is only used once. By stating this, the audience can see that the cost effectiveness is so much better if the rocket can become reusable. This is where Space X's product would come in.

The wording used is very important. It does not attempt to supply the belief as a fact. It is simply stating that this is what the company as a whole believes. However, Space X also repeats the benefit to its product, which makes sure that this is clear in the audiences mind. One of the biggest issues people have with NASA is that their money is being taxed to fund them. By offering a technology that will reduce those costs, your average citizen may be more supporting if they believe that they will not have to pay as much for the program.

This is a quote from Elon Musk. Musk is the founder and owner of the Space X company. It is a very important quote because it does several things. It describes the main mission of space X that is currently going on. By doing so, we know exactly where the company is coming from. It also talks about the benefit of what it is working on, most importantly the cost cutting it could do to the space program. It also clearly demonstrates the article's audience. The audience are those interested in the product of reusable rockets who may want to purchase the technology, as well as educating the public to what the product means to the industry.

"Reusiability: The Key To Making Human Life Multi-Planetary." Space X. 10 June. 2015 Web. 10 July. 2016.

The fist thing that must be said is that this article is not fully scholarly. It is informative, but biased. It does not have a specific author and it comes from a company that is attempting to sell a product. However, there is an incredibly important reason for using this article; it supplies a possible solution to the funding of NASA. As a result, it is a different stakeholder position from the previous article.

Finally, Grady finishes her article with establishing another benefit to the mission that might get more people on board with funding NASA. She states that there is room for high end jobs, to help with unemployment. She also makes special mention that female engineers are wanted, that may appeal to the female demographics as well.

Grady does several things here. One of the main arguments against funding for NASA is that people do not see probes circling other planets of important. Sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon was impressive and exciting, but this wasn't. However, she stands as a voice for her field, and is attempting to show her audience that this is just as important of a mission.

Grady mentions the Voyager missions. This shows that the mission is complementing previous mission information, showing the cost of the mission isn't just to tread old ground. By doing so, Grady is building a case that the money is truly being spent to gain and improve our information on the planet of Jupiter.

Grady is stating the importance of this mission. The reason this is important is because it covers one of the stakeholder positions that will be covered in my paper. It describes the valuable information that NASA and the space exploration community will gain from this mission. By explaining that the mission will give more information than any of the previous explorations to Jupiter so far, it is justifying why the cost of this mission is important. This will in turn show that funding towards space programs is being used responsibly and that the money is not being wasted on treading old ground.

Grady is now getting to the heart of the article. She writes very technically and factual from her on out. It is unbiased as there is no opinion being thrown in. She describes some of the many issues that surround the mission and how much money it has cost to get to the point it is today.

She now brings the viewer back to the main purpose of the article; to talk about the Juno mission. She does so by expressly stating what the mission is.

Grady attempting to further connect with her audience, people interested and invested in space exploration, by talking about something other than the mission. she refers to Independence Day, a popular sci-fi action movie that also happens to refrence the day the real life mission of Juno became successful.

Grady does several things with this statement. First, she adds to her credibility for reporting on this topic. By working on a mission similar to this one, she is showing that she has an insider's view on missions such as this, instead of being purely an outsider. She also establishes emotion into the article by going into more detail into the excitement that goes on within these missions, and how she had a genuine emotion to the announcement and reaction of the mission.

Grady starts the actual article by talking about just how impressive the Juno mission is in of itself. The fact that the success of the mission was an exciting announcement to the entire world speaks volumes as to how impressive this mission has become.

Article gives a brief biography of who the author is, and points to a leader in the field, showing a reputable and scholarly source. Open University is an accredited university that offers online schooling for European countries, verifying the author is in fact a professor.

Grady, Monica. "How Nasa's Juno Jupiter probe could be about to solve the solar system's biggest mystery of all." The Telegraph. 10 July. 2016. Web. 10 July. 2016.

Grady uses a title that helps support her overall point of this paper. This mission is incredibly important for NASA, as well as our understanding of the solar system that Earth inhabits.

I struggle with annotating texts that are potentially controversial. For example, last semester we annotated some texts on GamerGate. It's such a touchy subject that I felt that I couldn't express my full opinions, I had a fear of retribution.

Yes, being able to take your annotations "anywhere" is a definite plus!

This is a neat idea, but do you think that this inhibits some of the students from annotating to their full potential? If I had a great idea, I might save it for myself instead of having someone else "steal" it.

Cool thing is. Udell and the gang are pretty open to suggestions, it sounds like. At the same time, it’s quite possible that webmentions wouldn’t fit in their overall vision of the tool.

Had missed this announcement. The annotation scene has this interesting ambivalence between being old and new, forward-looking and somewhat nostalgic. Wish Diigo were forward-looking enough to get into Open Annotations.

That dream does live on. Since Vannevar’s 1945 article on the Memex, we’ve been dreaming of such tools. Our current tools are quite far from that dream.

This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

A group of experts got together last year at Daghstuhl and wrote a white paper about this.

Basically the idea is that the data, the code, the protocol/analysis/method, and the narrative should all exist as equal objects on the appropriate platform. Code in a code repository like Github, Data in a data repo that understands data formats, like Mendeley Data (my company) and Figshare, protocols somewhere like protocols.io and the narrative which ties it all together still at the publisher. Discussion and review can take the form of comments, or even better, annotations just like I'm doing now.

Die LIBREAS-Redaktion möchte gern, dass sämtliche und möglicherweise besonders dieser Artikel mit hypothes.is annotiert wird - vgl. diesen Tweet.

You can annotate as a single user (Post to Only Me), keeping notes private to you (of course, you would not see this note if I did so), to a Group (we use, PSGTusers) or to Public; the latter is visible to everyone.

Beyond global access and pricing advantages of online publishing of "Processes in Structural Geology and Tectonics", flexible presentation, linking, add-ons and annotation are among the game-changers. Especially the latter, annotation, needs more development, but opportunities for user and community value-added are plentiful. We have opted to use Hypothes.is, which is free and open platform.

Kind of surprised not to see other [h] annotations, here.

Shoutout to h?

As a teacher, I don't know that I want this prefabricated, though....

And annotate, I believe.

Flattery will lead us nowhere… But it’s still a warm and fuzzy feeling to be in such illustrious company.

That's done to accommodate sites who's DOM changes either over time or during user interaction (single page apps, etc).

This blog post explains the current approach and thinking behind it in Hypothes.is: https://hypothes.is/blog/fuzzy-anchoring/

Il y a de belles expériences open qui sont en cours, dont celle de la revue Vertigo (tu les as peut-être vues avec le tutoriel) : open peer review avec hypothes.is

https://hypothes.is/blog/annotating-to-extract-findings-from-scientific-papers/

https://via.hypothes.is/http://vertigo.hypotheses.org/1891

et chez hypothes.is, ils travaillent avec des éditeurs scientifiques https://hypothes.is/blog/a-coalition-of-over-40-scholarly-publishers/

On en discute sur le facebook de HackYourPhD, si ça t'intéresse.

Vraiment, je suis ravi que cet outil attire ton attention !

This is a test

Here is what "they" are saying. Due to the increasing temperature of the ocean because of climate change, specifically El Nino, many populations of marine species are being diagnosed with diseases and dying. As seen by a research studies done by Cornell University, sea star wasting disease has become more prevalent. It's affects are devastating as many as 20 species of sea stars along the U.S. coast. Another study also claims that with temperatures continuing to increase, there will eventually be an increase in shell diseases in lobsters found off the Gulf Coast. The rest of the article goes into potential ways to address the issues at hand in special ways.

Berwyn, Bob. "Study Links Warming Ocean with Increased Marine Diseases." Summit County Citizens Voice. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article as stated by author Bob Berwyn is that because of climate changes such as the increasing temperature of the ocean, marine life is being put in danger and is dying off.

I like that Berwyn has shown an example of the economic effect of the increasing temperatures rather than just environmental ones. I think this helps appeal to the audience better because it has shown the effects of climate change in a more relate able way, as people's well being and lifestyles will change along with the marine life. Perhaps this will get people to start taking this issue more seriously if they realize it will start effecting them economically and even socially.

This is a substantial statistics. It's an example of ethos as it is using statistical data to help argue the seriousness of climate change and warming water.

The author of this article is different then most of the other sources I've done because he is not a scientist, but rather an influential editor and reporter of the Summit County Citizens Voice. The Summit County Citizens Voice is a news website that has reported "uncensored" and "unfiltered" news since 1996. It specifically reports on news related to the environment.

Berwyn, as a reporter and editor, is well respected as his work has appeared or been featured in top magazines and news sources across the country. For example, "he has reported for the Denver Post, the Summit Daily, the Summit Times, the Summit Independent, the Vail Daily Trail, the Aspen Daily News, the Durango Herald and the Telluride Daily Planet. His stories have also appeared in High Country News and 5280 magazine". Because of his extensive resume and connections, I find him to be a credible source who reports valid information.

http://summitcountyvoice.com/about/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-berwyn-b624ab9

According to the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology website provided by the University of California Santa Barbara, "Sea star wasting syndrome is a general description of a set of symptoms that are found in sea stars. Typically, lesions appear in the ectoderm followed by decay of tissue surrounding the lesions, which leads to eventual fragmentation of the body and death. A deflated appearance can precede other morphological signs of the disease. All of these symptoms are also associated with ordinary attributes of unhealthy stars and can arise when an individual is stranded too high in the intertidal zone (for example) and simply desiccates". The scary thing about this particular disease is that it can kill a sea star in as little as a few days. It seems to be very aggressive and quick targeting to marine life.

That’s something we’ve been doing, yes.

Obvious case for h. Imagine the possibilities of linked open data used in annotating presentations which would be part of scholarly books along with all the necessary material? The mind wanders…

Funny how frequently this terms comes up, when talking about Genius. The difference between annotation platforms is significantly a matter of usage. Usage of Genius has a lot to do with snarky comments made by “the smart kid at the back of the class”. My perception of Hypothesis is that it’s much more oriented towards diversifying voices. But that has less to do with technical features of the platform than with the community adopting it.

Just got in touch with @DoyleOwl. Neat approach to annotation. My sense is that Genius can have a useful effect similar to that of those programmes using basketball to keep kids off the streets.

Glad this was mentioned. To the Eric Raymonds of this world, such a response sounds “perfectly legitimate”. But it’s precisely what can differentiate communities and make one more welcoming than the other. Case in point: Arduino-related forums, in contrast with the Raspberry Pi community. Was looking for information about building a device to track knee movement. Noticed that “goniometer” was the technical term for that kind of device, measuring an angle (say, in physiotherapy). Ended up on this page, where someone had asked a legitimate question about Arduino and goniometers. First, the question:

Trying to make a goniometer using imu (gy-85). Hoe do I aquire data from the imu using the arduino? How do I code the data acquisition? Are there any tutorials avaible online? Thanks =)

Maybe it wouldn’t pass the Raymond test for “smart questions”, but it’s easy to understand and a straight answer could help others (e.g., me).

Now, the answer:

For me, google found 87,000,000 hits for gy-85. I wonder why it failed for you.

Wow. Just, wow.

Then, on the key part of the question (the goniometer):

No idea what that is or why I should have to google it for you.

While this one aborted Q&A is enough to put somebody off Arduino forever, it’s just an example among many. Like Stack Overflow, Quora, and geek hideouts, Arduino-related forums are filled with these kinds of snarky comments about #LMGTFY.

Contrast this with the Raspberry Pi. Liz Upton said it best in a recent interview (ca. 25:30):

People find it difficult to remember that sometimes when somebody comes along… and appears to be “not thinking very hard”, it could well be because they’re ten years old.

And we understand (from the context and such) that it’s about appearance (not about “not thinking clearly”). It’s also not really about age.

So, imagine this scenario. You’re teacher a class, seminar, workshop… Someone asks a question about using data from a device to make it into a goniometer. What’s the most appropriate strategy? Sure, you might ask the person to look for some of that information online. But there are ways to do so which are much more effective than the offputting ’tude behind #LMGTFY. Assuming they do search for that kind of information, you might want to help them dig through the massive results to find something usable, which is a remarkably difficult task which is misunderstood by someone who answer questions about goniometers without knowing the least thing about them.

The situation also applies to the notion that a question which has already been asked isn’t a legitimate question. A teacher adopting this notion would probably have a very difficult time teaching anyone who’s not in extremely narrow a field. (Those teachers do exist, but they complain bitterly about their job.)

Further, the same logic applies to the pedantry of correcting others. Despite the fact that English-speakers’ language ideology allows for a lot of non-normative speech, the kind of online #WordRage which leads to the creation of “language police” bots is more than a mere annoyance. Notice the name of this Twitter account (and the profile of the account which “liked” this tweet).

Lots of insight from @BiellaColeman on people who do things “for the lulz”. Her work is becoming increasingly relevant to thoughtful dialogue on annotations.

Same experience, even in the Genius guidelines. The tool’s affordances (and name) revolve around snark. In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with that. We need spaces for people to have fun, even if it’s at the expense of others. But the startup is based on a very specific idea of what constitutes useful commentary. That idea is closer to pedantry, snark, intellectual bullying, and animated gifs than on respectful exchange.

A “well-informed citizenry” require journalistic assistance. Which is why US elections are such a neat context to discuss literacy, public opinion, agency, representativeness, and populism.

That part never worked. But maybe these annotations will? That’d be neat.

It may annoy many, but overtagging can be playful.

Martin Luther King points out the major inconsistencies that were prevalent and existent within the debate of the purpose, meaning, and tactics of the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King compares of his teachings versus the hypocritical stance of the Vietnam War. He uses his teachings of non-violent practices when fighting for a purpose in comparison to the violence that is being required for the people to use in Vietnam. He hates and showcases his uneasiness when trying to explain the reasoning for the violence, but there is no particular reason for the violence when fighting for a cause. His uncertainty resembles the uncertainty of President Johnson when he decided to go into a war that really did not possess a certain reason for a war besides the domino theory of communism even though Vietnam was truly out of our hands. The acts of the Vietnam War not only go against the morals of the United States but the morals of Martin Luther Kings, his teachings, and the people as well.

We’re here! We’re always here. You can hide us, but we’re in your webpages, annotating away.

In my wishlist to Jon Udell (still in draft), these two modes can be separate phases with Hypothesis. But in reverse order. First pass is the distributed commentary about the whole piece, similar to social bookmarking and potentially affording a very cursory look (or even just a glance at a headline). It says: “Hey, please read this and tell me what you think!” The second pass could be the deep reading, with one’s personal comments visible, but not influenced by other comments. Then comes the “fun part”, which is also a form of distributed commentary, but is much more conversational. “Distributed” might not be as appropriate, though. At least in computer lingo.

This one remains to be demonstrated. As we keep saying, exclusion may be passive but inclusion is by definition active. Open annotations may not sound so exclusive for those who appropriated it as a technology, the same way literacies are often taken for granted. But we often tend to take “democratization” as a given.

Despite an important continuity.

Could soooo imagine a presentation on using #Hypothesis with #PressBooks!

Annother possible inquiry question: While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

This also sheds some light on the view of fishermen and how the pollution of the ocean is directly affecting themas well.

This article mainly focuses on the stakeholder view of environmentalists. It examines the negative effects of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the environment and how it is severely affecting the marine organisms.

This increases the credibility of the author by discussing a scientific study.

What information was found by this study? How is it beneficial to the authors claim?

By brining in information from a University this increases the credibility of the author.

Here the author uses logos. They are showing the harsh reality of how close our oceans are to having severe consequences due to our own pollution.

Another possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

Shouldn't we be morally obligated to take care of the ecosystems that surround us and play a major role for life on planet earth?

A possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

"Rising Ocean Pollution Levels Are Making Fish Drunk." The Inquisitr News. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a popular source, therefore we can expect an informal approach to gain audience attention. The claim of this article is that the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean due to climate change is negatively affecting that fish that live in these marine environments and giving them a drunken affect.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while presenting credible and relevant information to support their claim. They present the view of the stakeholder position of environmentalists and researchers.

(http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php)

The link above is an article that discusses acidification and global warming. Although the two are slightly different they are both similar in the way that they are caused by the emission of CO2. Plastic products are known to release CO2 into marine environments. This scholarly journal also discuses the carbon cycle and how plastics are responsible for some of the excess CO2 being released (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S092181810800012X). Plastic also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a major cause of global warming as well. Because of the CO2 emitted by plastic in both marine ecosystems and into the atmosphere, the Thompson and Hamer discuss how it is also a main stressor present in seabirds and how it is negatively affecting these organisms.

This also increases the authors' credibilty. Here they discuss an experiment that took place over an eight year period of which seabirds in the tropical Pacific stomachs' were examined to see exactly what kinds of plastics were being digested and how the birds were being affected by it.

The authors increase their credibility (ethos) by citing information from other scholarly articles and researchers. This also allows the authors to further support their claim with relevant and reliable information suggesting that plastics are a main stressor to the seabirds.

Thompson, David R., and Keith C. Hamer. "Stress In Seabirds: Causes, Consequences And Diagnostic Value." Journal Of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery 7.1 (2000): 91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a scholarly article written by two credible authors, one from the University of Durham and one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The title indicates that the article will be discussing the causes, consequences and diagnostic values of stress present in seabird. I believe that the claim of this scholarly journal is that, seabird are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, however the amount of stress present in these birds is increasing due to various stressors that are being introduced into their environment.

The authors argue that a big misconception about ocean pollution is that is only affects the organisms that live beneath the surface. They state that while that statement is somewhat true, ocean pollution also affects the organisms that feed off of other species such as fish.

This article is focusing on the stakeholder position of environmentalists. It shows how they view the topic of ocean pollution, specifically by plastic, and why it is such an important issue that is rising in generation.

Here the author uses more statistics to talk about how more could be done to decrease plastic pollution in oceans, and around the world in general. They state that 58% of paper and 90% of iron and steel get recycled whereas only 14% of plastic does.

What are some solutions to this? Maybe the general public is not as informed about the requirements of recycling. There is a significant emphasis placed on paper products being recycled to "save the trees". Maybe if the public were to become more aware that plastic is recyclable to, and if a movement such as something along the lines of "save the fish" or "save the dolphins" were to be started, then possibly more plastic products would get recycled.

"Plastic For Dinner?." Earth Island Journal 31.1 (2016): 11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This source is a periodical, or a scholarly source. By reading the title it is pretty evident what the article is about, it even almost indirectly states the claim. I think the claim is that there will soon be so much plastic in the oceans that fish and other marine organisms will be "having it for dinner" and how it is going to effect the marine ecosystem, fishermen and pescatarians.

Although its a scholarly source, it appeals to readers in a more simplistic and understandable way. Rather than appealing to students and other researchers, this article seems to focus more on appealing to the general public that may be concerned about the increasing problem of ocean pollution. This article also does a fairly good job at remain objective while presenting information in a less formal way, but also keeping it credible.

( http://patch.com/new-york/northfork/countywide-single-use-plastic-bag-ban-pitched-suffolk-legislator)

Here the author brings in a the side of a CEO from a Plastic Pollution Coalition to increase their credibility. She states that one of the biggest problems is single use and disposable plastic. The article linked above discusses the negative effect of single use plastic as well as focusing on a proposed ban of single-se plastic bags in New York.

Here the author uses ethos and logos. They use ethos by using a World Economic Forum to get statistical support for their claim. They then use those statistics in the form of logos, stating "8 millions tons of plastic end up in our ocean each year". This both increases their credibility and gives the audience statistical information. The author also uses and analogy to connect with their audience by comparing the amount of plastic present in the oceans to the amount plastic dumped into the ocean by a dump truck per minute. This allows the reader to better understand how much plastic is actually being released into the marine ecosystems.

This is the main idea that the author will be discussing throughout the article. It also can be seen as a hook that pulls in more readers by gaining their interest in something they might see as an exaggerated statement. The reality of it is that its a potentially true statement that is supported by evidence throughout the article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

The authors show that the reader can trust them right away by giving examples of their more direct claim which is that many victims are blamed especially if they are rape victims.

This is the general claim of the article.

" Violence Against Women ". Vaw.sagepub.com. N. p., 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

"Violence Against Women (VAW) peer-reviewed and published monthly, is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of research and information on all aspects of the problem of violence against women. VAW assumes a broad definition of violence; topics to be covered include, but are not limited to, domestic violence, sexual assault, incest, sexual harassment, female infantcide, female circumcision, and female sexual slavery."

Hockett, Jericho M., et al. "Rape Myth Consistency And Gender Differences In Perceiving Rape Victims." Violence Against Women 22.2 (2016): 139-167. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

In the other popular article, the author said Sony could put an end to this. I responded by saying I was confused as to why Sony would want the bad publicity and this sentence backs that up.

I am curious to know how this case ended.

At first, I just thought this was a contract issue. I thought it was ridiculous how even in this extreme of circumstances, a judge wouldn't release Kesha from the contract. In every article about this current event that I have read, I have noticed one common factor and that is the mistreatment of women and sexism in business and industries.

Even though statistics can sometimes be questionable, the author uses ethos by doing her research. Even though she is biased, she has evidence and data to back up her claim.

One of the biggest differences between the scholarly articles and the popular sources is the objectiveness, The scholarly articles remain pretty objective and it's a little challenging to find a bias of any sort. However, with this article, the author makes her bias known within the first few sentences.

This is exactly what my inquiry question is. It is very sad to see that the health, emotionally and physically, of humans can be compromised by a contract.

This is really sad because unfortunately, the word "alleged" has to be used. There really isn't any hard evidence but that raises a question that everyone is thinking: why would she lie?

The author addresses an important counter-argument that the mosquitoes are not in their maximum capacity during the time of the Carnival, but quickly counters this by stating that it takes just a few infections to cause an outbreak in a new area.

Authors state the issue that they are reporting on the virus' major outbreak area.

This is the authors' claim as they believe that the meeting of massive amounts of people for the Olympic games in Brazil could prompt the spread of this virus worldwide.

The authors exhibit ethos as they show the exact scale of the gathering of people in the coming years. They show that millions of people will be gathering in close proximity in various locations around the world. If the virus infects travelers coming to Brazil for the Rio Carnival or for the summer Olympics then the spread of the virus to the traveler's homeland is likely. This poses big problems for the world as the virus could spread worldwide very easily with the infection of mosquitoes in areas that didn't originally have the virus. An example of this would be if someone from Egypt were to go and be a spectator at the Olympic games and were to get bitten by a mosquito carrying the virus. If the now infected Egyptian were to travel back home and get bit by a domestic Egyptian mosquito then now the mosquito would contract the virus. The mosquito would continue to feed on people all the while spreading the disease to these unsuspecting hosts. All of these newly infected hosts are bitten by different mosquitoes and the trend continues. The mosquitoes also would be reproducing during this time and creating massive amounts of Zika vectors. There is a clear snowball effect here as this new hypothetical area has become a new ground-zero for the virus on another continent.

Elachola, Habida, et al. "A Crucial Time For Public Health Preparedness: Zika Virus And The 2016 Olympics, Umrah, And Hajj." Lancet 387.10019 (2016): 630-632. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Apple.com is not regarded as a popular, reliable source, except for in this case. Because this letter to Apple customers came directly from Tim Cook himself, this makes this the strongest source regarding Apple's stance on the case.

Cook is explaining what exactly an encryption by Apple would mean to millions of Americans, and even international Apple customers. This violates laws of privacy, and would mean increased surveillance and government understanding of our whereabouts at all times. This is important because Cook is educating his audience, particularly Americans, as to why they're publicly denying assistance with a terrorism. Cook is seeing the bigger picture here, and is asking his fellow Americans to do the same.

I can see myself using this source in the future to include Apple's side of why they're not including themselves within the case, directly from the CEO. Cook provides evidence for his claim, and it allows for sympathy from his audience.

Cook, Tim. "Customer Letter - Apple." Apple.com. Apple, 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Tim Cook is an American Business Executive, and the CEO of Apple Inc. Cook also serves on the Board of Directors at Nike, and the National Football Foundation. In 2014, Cook became the first Chief Executive of a Fortune 500 company who was publicly gay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook

The author's claim argues that by allowing the government access to our personal information, yes it may be able to solve the San Bernardino case, but the personal privacy implications are not worth the risk.

This is where Cook addresses the second "they": the FBI. He explains the implications of what the FBI is demanding, and how they can affect all customers, especially Americans.

Here, Cook is using pathos to clarify that, despite his stance on the encryption piece, they still sympathize with the victims of the San Bernardino case, and their families. This is where Cook addresses one of the "they's," being those who were directly affected by the case, or those who believe Apple should comply in order to get justice.

This paragraph is a good example of how these contracts work. It talks about a decision made in the United States v. Paramount Pictures which ended up to be landmark. Paramount Pictures was forced to restructure the whole company which resulted in no more long term contracts with actors. Instead Paramount has to hire actors for each individual film and all the actors that were under contract became free agents. This seems like it would be a good thing but because the actors were freed from the contract, they no longer had the protection or support from the company. Because of this, people had to depend on something else entirely to protect their identities.

This scenario is probably a lot more common then people think. It matches up almost perfectly to what Kesha is going through. When someone is in a contract, it seems like not only do you lose your right of publicity, but you also lost your individuality and originality. What is going on with Kesha currently is proof that this does exist and it does happen.

Here, Coyle suggests a new way to study the right of publicity. He's talking about contracts within the entertainment industry which lines up with Kesha's situation. It seems like Coyle is saying that while in a contract, one loses their right to publicity in a way.

This is the author's claim, some could argue that there is a solid foundation for the right of publicity. The definition of the right of publicity stated in the first sentence of the introduction gives a pretty concise idea what that is so there could be room for debate about whether or not it could be explained better. The author is letting the reader know that the paper will be about his view about what he thinks a better way to perceive the right of publicity is.

"Bklyn Law Review - Brooklyn Law School Law Journals: Impact Factors And Citations - Libguides At Brooklyn Law School". Guides.brooklaw.edu. N. p., 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“The Brooklyn Law Review is a scholarly journal of analysis and commentary covering a broad range of current legal issues. The flagship journal of Brooklyn Law School, it has 77 volumes (one a year) dating back to 1932.”

Shows that the journal has some history and has had enough popularity to stay around for nearly 200 years.

The journal is focused on all things science and medical. The Lancet umbrellas multiple different journals that are specific to different subjects such as pathology, neurophysiology etc.

http://www.thelancet.com/about-us

Again gives very little information, but shows that she has background in vector work.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constancia_Ayres/info

This is all of the information I can find on this author as I do not speak Spanish and her bio is published in a Brazilian University Biology department. She has 45 publications and 1450 reads. With this extent in popularity she must be a credible author as she has been able to get 45 papers published which is not an easy task.

She backs up the Logos she made in the previous statement with the use of Ethos, explaining the difference between a carrier and a vector of the virus and giving a clear example. She presents the example in a way that the reader can understand whether or not the reader has a background in science. This source is a heavily research based article and there is not a lot of audience appeal as Constância F J Ayres is really just stating the facts and research.

In this paragraph the author both ties her research back to her original claim and states what is important to consider moving forward in the fight against this virus. She makes the point that the world must not overlook other possible vectors as it could lead to the continual spread and lack of control of this very infectious virus.

Author addresses the counter argument for her claim in this statement as it is possible that these organisms that carry the disease are not able to transmit it to another host rather they are just infected with it.

The author exhibits Ethos here as she supports her claim that there are many carriers of this disease including several different types of mosquitoes. She uses other experts to appear more credible by presenting their research in a way that it applies to her claim that there are many vectors of the virus.

This is how I would use this source in my Twine Essay. By showing that scientists are proving the reasons for the rise in intense oceanic temperatures, I can give validity to the concept of climate change, Additionally, I think that it would be interesting in looking at further research to see if we could predict future events or help stop the dramatic effects of them.

If the scientist's claims are correct, when would they predict the next switch in climate conditions to take place? Also, can they predict the severity of the next cycle?

This adds credibility. It validates the claim, while also showing how the experiment is important and how it came to its conclusions.

This is a specific pieces of information that confirms the reporters claim.

Good point. It important to show that the counter argument is being acknowledged.

This is the counter argument. As stated in the article, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) hypothesized that from 1998-2012, the temperature should rise at a rate of 0.21 degrees Celsius per decade. Instead, the temperature only rose .04 degrees Celsius during that time period. Therefore, differing perspectives are claiming that instead of having a consistent global warming increase, the world goes through periods of climatic fluctuations. Furthermore, because of this evidence, scientists conclude that global warming effects are being overestimated and overstated.

The refutation against Tollefson's claim is stated pretty early on in the article.

Here is what "they" are saying. Because evidence has shown a decline in global-warming for years, scientists are wondering if perhaps its a myth. However, others are saying that global-warming is not in decline, but is rather being stored in places such as the world's oceans. Because of this, the events like El Nino and El Nina exist and are becoming more aggressive each time they occur.

Jeff Tollefson has quite the impressive resume as a reporter on issues like energy, climate, and the environment. His work in this article is definitely valid and is credible. As seen on the Nature about the editor website, "Jeff has won a number of accolades, including New Mexico press awards for pieces on pollution and nuclear-weapons work at Los Alamos National Laboratory". He has many years in his field reporting on numerous environmental issues and/or concerns.

http://www.nature.com/nature/about/editors/

The Nature International Weekly Journal of Science is a well know journal that focuses on innovating science and technology. Their mission statement as found on their website states their responsible "First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life". The journal itself is high cited and has won awards for their scientists.

http://www.nature.com/nature/about/

Tollefson, Jeff. "Climate Change: The Case Of The Missing Heat." Nature 505.7483 (2014): 276-278. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article as stated by the reporter Jeff Tollefson, is that there has been a lack of confidence in the field of climate change over the years due to the fact that temperatures today are in conflict with previous models. Because the new temperatures are straying from the previous records, some are claiming that global warming is beginning to stop; however, others believe it still to be alive, but it is being stored in another way. Therefore, this idea of "The Missing Heat" is being hypothesized to be stored in the world's oceans.

This is the targeted group of stakeholders. People whose lives have been or will be affected by climate change.

This is how I see me using this reference in my Twine Essay. If I could show people potential actions they could take or that our nation could take to help climate change maybe it will cause them to try and make more of an effort.

I would be interested in looking into this and seeing how successful it is.

Again, another issue with the EbA approach. If we are trying to help the environment now, we also want to ensure that the future environment will be safe no matter what we use on it now to help fix it. We want to help fix and support the environment, not just temporarily deal with the issue at hand.

This is setback against EbA. If it is not flexible enough to address future issues rather than just the ones human face now that could be a potential problem. It will cost time and money. Hopefully, research will continue to be done to help address this issue.

I like that the authors make the point that this EbA approach not only helps individuals with the physical effects of climate change, but it will also help will providing economic, social, and environmental effects as well. This could potentially better a nation because it doesn't just address climate change, but it fixes all of the problems associated with it.

The authors bring up this idea of ecosystem-based approaches that consist of combing both soft and hard approaches. Ultimately, the result will consist of a broad scope that will use natural infrastructure to provide adaptation services. This approach is valuable because it is effective while at the same time flexible, cost-effective, and seen at a national and international levels.

Here is what "they" are saying. The authors are stating that there is funding that has been created to help with the effects of climate change on individuals throughout the world. This money; however, needs to be divided into groups such as soft and hard approaches. The soft approaches as stated in the journal, will focus on "information, policy, capacity building, and institutional function." The hard approaches, on the other hand, will focus on technology and actions that will be taken to physically control and/or help the effects of climate change.

Not much was available about the professional lives of each author, but I was able to determine that each author published on the Nature Climate Change website is a PhD- level scientist. Additionally, all work is reviewed by an 'External Advisory Panel in the areas of social sciences, policy and economics to provide advice on submissions in these areas in the initial few months." Therefore, I find this publication to be written by credible sources.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/index.html

Furthermore, The Website, Nature Climate Change, mission statement states they are, "dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research on the science of climate change, its impacts and wider implications for the economy, society and policy." The journal reports on a wide range of scientific topics and only published original interdisciplinary work.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

Jones, Holly P., David G. Hole, and Erika S. Zavaleta. "Harnessing Nature to Help People Adapt to Climate Change." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 26 June 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article by the authors is that people need to learn about the tools and/or steps they can take to help them tackle the threats that climate change causes to people, their lives, and livelihood.

This quote can be used to showcase the exact severity of the disease as health officials are not just advising that people try and stay safe from contracting the disease, but also advising that they refrain from getting pregnant. This is due to the fact that there is an anticipated risk that the pregnant women in these areas may contract or already have contracted the disease. This also addresses what the government is saying. By issuing this statement the governments of these regions are not only indicating that there is a risk of Zika infection, but they are also indicating that the populous is not in control of whether or not they will contract the virus. If the government thought the disease were preventable by the civilians' efforts to stay safe then they would have released a statement indicating people to remain extra safe during pregnancy or if there is risk women may become pregnant. This is a showcase of how the Virus' spread is actually not able to be contolled by the people.

Ingrid Torjesen's claim is that this outbreak of Zika virus that is currently occurring in the Americas (primarily South America) is something that the world should be incredibly concerned about.

The Author brings the statement of the World Health Organization's director general to support her claim and justify the exact severity of this outbreak. The quoted Margaret Chan also speaks to the fact that a direct linkage of the disease during pregnancy to microcephaly has not yet been established, but it is largely observed and should also be worried about. Linkage of microcephaly would appear in the form of birth defects, neurological problems, and death of a newborn baby that has been affected by this disease. Microcephaly would also include linkage to Guillain-Barre.

Torjesen, Ingrid. "Zika Virus Outbreaks Prompt Warnings To Pregnant Women." BMJ: British Medical Journal 352.8042 (2016): i500-2. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

This looks really bad for law enforcement in the case that they would ever try to defend themselves against these allegations. This is also just more proof of the author's claims that there is a biased against women not only in a courtroom, but also in a police station where people should feel safe.

In the case of Susan Estrich, it seems pretty obvious that the police didn't really focus on what actually happened when she was raped, but they focused more on the fact that it was an armed robbery which was "much better than a rape."

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

Dylan Ruan is an Environmental Communication and Media Strategy major from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Most of his work focuses consists of taking notable faculty researchers and publicizing their work through written publication. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dylanruan

"The Santa Barbara Independent is a true community newspaper with a market penetration higher than almost every other "alternative" weekly in the country" (Reliable Popular Source). http://www.independent.com/history/

The newspaper has continually grown over the years and penetrates a wide variety of audiences. They report using a unique voice that resonates with independent and involved individuals in the community. It is an innovative newspaper, that knows how to properly report current events.

The author/authors represent PBS which has always been on the conservation side of things. They do have a good track record of looking at more then one angle whether they are objective or not. This line represents that clearly. Science will provide the answers. And in this case science somewhat supports both sides of the arguments.

It is impossible to get a credible stakeholder side of this argument from the pro Rhino horn market. I had to choose this article because it was the only one with some facts supporting Asian medicine and its use of Rhino horn.

The Author is definitely against the use of Rhino horn, but is just objective enough or has read "I Say They Say" to incorporate a bit of scientific fact about the horns use in medicine. The claim is not well stated but when you think about the article as a whole, the claim is : Yes there is a small merit to Eastern medicine's use of the Rhino horn for certain ailments, but the dosage amount to yield actual results is not practical and not practiced.

On a personal belief: The human brain is an amazing thing, it has power that we cannot harness as of now. What we do have is the placebo effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo. Our thoughts can be so powerful that we think we are better and sometimes that's all we need to become better. A lot of old medicine revolves around this. You take something so rare and unique and say it has these powers, you have to believe, at least a little, because you don't know. It then makes it's own belief and spreads and maybe if you can get some it will work, even if you know it doesn't, you worked so hard to get it or have given so much to get it, you can't just admit that it doesn't work so you say, "yes, it really works." and this just keeps perpetuating itself until the resource is wiped out.

"What" is also being stated is the economists believing there to be a correlation between opinion and discourse on the subject to be related. There are differing conceptions of how this hypothesis should be portrayed. For example some believe that the more talked about the subject, the more the people engaged will have the same belief. However, on the other hand, there is differing belief that engaging in public discourse is separate in relationship to one's political stance/party. Therefore Shreck and Vedlitz, are hoping to determine a correlation in the relation in public discourse and personal opinion/ belief. This however, is to be looked at when controls on societal, economic, and environments roles are still in action.

I'd like to hear discussion around the term "open" here. How exactly are you using it @remiholden? To mean public as opposed to private?

For me, open has specific infrastructural connotations: it's about a variety of annotation clients like hypothes.is conforming to certain wider standards so that web annotation--like the web itself--is an interoperable system.

But I'm curious the degree to which that matters to teachers and learners. And why? We're using hypothes.is, which promises to conform to standards being developed by the w3c, but could DIIGO do the trick even though they're system (for now) is closed?

Possible prediction to different wolf behavior and population due to predation patterns changing.

They do not only target one species of prey to feed. They have a distribution between their choice. Ethos and logos.

Relation to the post after this one.

Shows that wolves do not kill everything. They kill to eat and they kill the weaker for a reason. Gives hint to pathos and ethos to gain less hostility to wolves.

This can be used with the other articles as a logos and ethos perspective and give credibility to the evidence presented by other articles.

Gives background and insight to what this article is about.

Further proves claim with the hint of logos.

Stahler, DR, DW Smith, and DS Guernsey. "Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2006. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

This is the claim for this article. Showing a scientific approach to wolf behavior. This is a scholarly reliable source.

Gives the sad ending to gain sympathy: pathos. I even felt heartbreak.

Morell gives that her joy melted into despair once finding the real outcome. Pathos and ethos to support her claim.

Pathos and experience to the human race

Love this paragraph. I believe in this entirely.

Ethos; to show how human intervention cause major problems, to the animals and to our own race

Reliable source

Mentionable quote. Further proves my previous post.

I hate to even think about this, but it is true. It hasn't been that long where animals were seen as just that, animals. Now we know they are very similar to us humans. We both have emotions, personalities, and feelings.

Goes back to the other argument. The pathos side.

Morell continues on (from the last post) to show a logical side and gives sources (the wolf biologists) to gain reliability.

Harsh swiping of the fact the wolf was killed

Is not reliable source of statement but his occupation gives him credibility. The fact that he knows these wolves since 1995 also gives him credit.

Shows that not only does a powerful Alpha female was killed but another of the pack's mates. Ethos and pathos

Ethos and pathos! Morell is giving a background to the female wolf whom died. She shows that wolves can be different, just like people, and that something this "minor" can be very major.

This quote is likeable to me because of how Morell is beginning to tell her audience that animal welfare is almost highly important.

Gives one side of the argument, credibility increased

Falls back on claim

Pathos! Morell is giving a background to the lone wolf and explaining that he wasn't always like this. From the death of his mate, which was the cause of a hunter, did he change drastically.

Shows something has gone awry

Ethos and pathos; sympathy for the wolf and evidence to support her claim.

Using pathos and her own experience to get empathy. Her credibility with her experience increases, showing the reader(s) that she isn't just writing about it, she sees for herself what's going on.

This statement is biased but true. Morell is using pathos with ethos; she is trying to get sympathy and concern from her audience.

This shows some antagonism against FWS.

This is Morell's claim. She is asking how a single wolf could affect an entire pack or other wolves. Her question gives input of thought to readers that may or may not have occurred to them about animal welfare and their mental state.

I did not realize that Virginia Morell was the author of both my third and my fourth article. On the other article, she was very unbiased and not as much of a reliable source. Here, she seems to be more reliable considering how the website gives recognition to her books and other articles. In a psychological viewpoint, Morell is a reliable source.

Morell, Virginia. "When A Wolf Dies." Psychology Today. Psychology Today. 7 June 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

So the opposition (the wolf lovers) may not understand that livestock are very fickle and complicated creatures. You can't just buy some cows and start a heard, its hard work and work that needs constant re-evaluation. A cow might survive a wolf encounter but the stress associated with that could make her barren for a time. Stress also makes bovine lose weight which is bad when you get paid by the pound.

I think people go to the store or to MacDonalds and there's your beef. They don'y think about where and how that meat gets there. I mean come on there are people that honestly believe the meat is somehow magically made at the store.

The reason the statistics are so low is explained here. But even if you take the 1% number, their are almost 5 million cattle in Idaho and Montana, that is still 50,000 head of cattle killed (http://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-state-0-114255). And that is just cattle, not all other livestock and pets.

This also shows what the opposition base everything off of, just numbers and hearsay. The author is obviously from a ranch back ground with the niche words she uses but she does report both sides. That is good to get rid of the stubborn farmer stereotype.

The audience is definitely not the sierra club and its members but I believe it's anyone who has grown up in the rural West where you do still have predators. People who have grown up and raised any kind of feed animal or even pets, like dogs. In the city your pet goes missing... its either adopted by someone else, at the pound or hit by a vehicle. In the country when they go missing it's either a predator or a highway. So anyone who grew up in the rural West should be interested in this. We are the ones that have to deal with this disaster while the courts and organizations in the East, so far removed, keep these oppressions on the hard working ranches and farmers that feed them. I am certainly the audience here but I have much more of an elevated tone then the article.

Claim: Human involvement placed wolves in a small area but wolves are wolves and go where the want when they want and have the know how and stamina to do so. We humans like to think we can tweek nature to our foreseen outcome, but we are idiots. Nature solves itself one way or another. This wolf debacle is a fantastic example of how human involvement just creates more chaos. First off they forgot that there are multiple species of wolves and placed the big bad Canadian version in our back yard, the ones that are built to cover hundreds of miles a day and are bigger and hungrier then the small local population (which has now been killed of driven out by these new wolves). Whoops, now they are everywhere and livestock are being killed on a scale 5% more then usual and those beloved Elk and Deer that everyone loves to watch from their cars on the side of the highway, they are disappearing too.<br> This claim of the author may come of as sarcastic but it carries meaning if you understand that people in a totally different area and culture decide what to do with the land others have pioneered and fought out a living on.