Abstract:
Using Bob Brown's reading machine and the prepared texts for his machine, called readies, both designed in 1930, as an example of scratch turntablist techniques, suggests an alternative to narrow definitions of literacy and new ways to appreciate the history of scratch techniques. Brown's machine resembles the turntablist’s ability to rapidly shift reading (its direction, speed, and repetition) rather than slowly flipping the pages of a book. Punctuation marks, in the readies, become visual analogies. For movement we see em-dashes (—) that also, by definition, indicate that the sentence was interrupted or cut short. The old uses of punctuation, such as employment of periods to mark the end of a sentence, disappear. The result looks like a script for a turntablist’s performance, and dj Herc starts to sound like a reading teacher. An online simulation of Brown's machine, http://www.readies.org, reproduce, or approximate, the motion, scratch, jerking, flickering, and visual effects produced or illuminated with the machine. Those supplemental aspects of reading are always already part of reading. The supplement (movement, visuality, mechanicity) to traditional notions of literacy usually remain part of an implicate process. The reading machine and scratch techniques are not simply a new conduit for the same supposedly natural process. The scratch reading highlights what Jacques Derrida calls the "virtual multimedia" (of reading print) on paper. The increasing prevalence, even omnipresent and [to some critics] epidemic, use of text(ing) machines, something outside or beside traditional literacy, the scratch-meaning becomes foregrounded. Brown's machine puts the natural process of reading under erasure or scratch (simply by adjusting the speed, direction, and layout). dj Herc did the same for music.

Abstract:
Satake has constructed compactifications of symmetric spaces D=G/K which (under a condition called geometric rationality by Casselman) yield compactifications of the corresponding locally symmetric spaces. The different compactifications depend on the choice of a representation of G. One example is the Baily-Borel-Satake compactification of a Hermitian locally symmetric space; Baily and Borel proved this is always geometrically rational. Satake compactifications for which all the real boundary components are equal-rank symmetric spaces are a natural generalization of the Baily-Borel-Satake compactification. Recent work (see math.RT/0112250, math.RT/0112251) indicates that this is the natural setting for many results about cohomology of compactifications of locally symmetric spaces. In this paper we prove any Satake compactification for which all the real boundary components are equal-rank symmetric spaces is geometrically rational aside from certain rational rank 1 or 2 exceptions; we completely analyze geometric rationality for these exceptional cases. The proof uses Casselman's criterion for geometric rationality. We also prove that a Satake compactification is geometrically rational if the representation is defined over the rational numbers.

Abstract:
This expository article is an expanded version of talks given at the "Current Developments in Mathematics, 2002" conference. It gives an introduction to the (generalized) conjecture of Rapoport and Goresky-MacPherson which identifies the intersection cohomology of a real equal-rank Satake compactification of a locally symmetric space with that of the reductive Borel-Serre compactification. We motivate the conjecture with examples and then give an introduction to the various topics that are involved: intersection cohomology, the derived category, and compactifications of a locally symmetric space, particularly those above. We then give an overview of the theory of L-modules and micro-support (see math.RT/0112251) which was developed to solve the conjecture but has other important applications as well. We end with sketches of the proofs of three main theorems on L-modules that lead to the resolution of the conjecture. The text is enriched with many examples, illustrations, and references to the literature.

Abstract:
Consider the middle perversity intersection cohomology groups of various compactifications of a Hermitian locally symmetric space. Rapoport and independently Goresky and MacPherson have conjectured that these groups coincide for the reductive Borel-Serre compactification and the Baily-Borel-Satake compactification. This paper describes the theory of L-modules and how it is used to solve the conjecture. More generally we consider a Satake compactification for which all real boundary components are equal-rank. Details will be given elsewhere (math.RT/0112251). As another application of L-modules, we prove a vanishing theorem for the ordinary cohomology of a locally symmetric space. This answers a question raised by Tilouine.

Abstract:
L-modules are a combinatorial analogue of constructible sheaves on the reductive Borel-Serre compactification of a locally symmetric space. We define the micro-support of an L-module; it is a set of irreducible modules for the Levi quotients of the parabolic Q-subgroups associated to the strata. We prove a vanishing theorem for the global cohomology of an L-module in term of the micro-support. We calculate the micro-support of the middle weight profile weighted cohomology and the middle perversity intersection cohomology L-modules. (For intersection cohomology we must assume the Q-root system has no component of type D_n, E_n, or F_4.) Finally we prove a functoriality theorem concerning the behavior of micro-support upon restriction of an L-module to the pre-image of a Satake stratum. As an application we settle a conjecture made independently by Rapoport and by Goresky and MacPherson, namely, that the intersection cohomology (for either middle perversity) of the reductive Borel-Serre compactification of a Hermitian locally symmetric space is isomorphic to the intersection cohomology of the Baily-Borel-Satake compactification. We also obtain a new proof of the main result of Goresky, Harder, and MacPherson on weighted cohomology as well as generalizations of both of these results to general Satake compactifications with equal-rank real boundary components. An overview of the theory of L-modules and the above conjecture, as well as an application to the cohomology of arithmetic groups, can be found in math.RT/0112250 .

Abstract:
Let X be a locally symmetric space associated to a reductive algebraic group G defined over Q. L-modules are a combinatorial analogue of constructible sheaves on the reductive Borel-Serre compactification of X; they were introduced in [math.RT/0112251]. That paper also introduced the micro-support of an L-module, a combinatorial invariant that to a great extent characterizes the cohomology of the associated sheaf. The theory has been successfully applied to solve a number of problems concerning the intersection cohomology and weighted cohomology of the reductive Borel-Serre compactification [math.RT/0112251], as well as the ordinary cohomology of X [math.RT/0112250]. In this paper we extend the theory so that it covers L^2-cohomology. In particular we construct an L-module whose cohomology is the L^2-cohomology of X and we calculate its micro-support. As an application we obtain a new proof of the conjectures of Borel and Zucker.

Abstract:
In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked.NPRC was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. One of the working groups addressed whether it was possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but was not accepted (perhaps because it was not within the scope of the first journal, or not sufficiently novel to merit publication in a general journal and therefore better for a specialty journal) to send a revised manuscript together with its first round of reviews to a new journal for the second round. This would speed up the review process and reduce the work for reviewers and editors.The working group not only designed a framework for transferring reviews among journals, but also implemented it as the NPRC. By the fall of 2007, more than a dozen major journals had signed onto the NPRC, sufficient to launch the experiment in January, 2008. As of the autumn of 2008, 33 journals belong to the Consortium (Table 1). For details about the NPRC, you can go to its website at http://nprc.incf.org webcite. You will find information for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers there, as well as the information on how journals can join the Consortium.The editors of Consortium journals were recently polled to determine how the NPRC has been working. They responded that during the first nine months about 1–2% of manuscripts that they received had been forwarded from another Consortium journal. A similar number had been sent out from each journal to other participants. In most cases, the papers had been expedited, because the editors at the second journal felt the previous reviews, and the authors' response to

Abstract:
In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked.NPRC was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. One of the working groups addressed whether it was possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but was not accepted (perhaps because it was not within the scope of the first journal, or not sufficiently novel to merit publication in a general journal and therefore better for a specialty journal) to send a revised manuscript together with its first round of reviews to a new journal for the second round. This would speed up the review process and reduce the work for reviewers and editors.The working group not only designed a framework for transferring reviews among journals, but also implemented it as the NPRC. By the fall of 2007, more than a dozen major journals had signed onto the NPRC, sufficient to launch the experiment in January, 2008. As of the autumn of 2008, 33 journals belong to the Consortium (Table 1). For details about the NPRC, you can go to its website at http://nprc.incf.org webcite. You will find information for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers there, as well as the information on how journals can join the Consortium.The editors of Consortium journals were recently polled to determine how the NPRC has been working. They responded that during the first nine months about 1–2% of manuscripts that they received had been forwarded from another Consortium journal. A similar number had been sent out from each journal to other participants. In most cases, the papers had been expedited, because the editors at the second journal felt the previous reviews, and the authors' response to