Have you ever had been frustrated because you have a great idea but so-called "time commitments" or "lack of qualifications" prevent you from executing it?

Look no further than the internet. It has literally been staring you right in the face this entire time! (Unless you're like me and you get your RSS feed dictated to you by robot servant while you close your eyes in bed each morning).

The internet is an undrank milkshake worth of people who have a lot of time on their hands. You don't have to look very far to be convinced of that [link to Digg comment flame-war here]. For that reason alone I implore all idea hoarders to go out on a limb and release their conceptual burdens in blog form for the joy of others.

• Best case: someone does a great job with your idea and gives you credit.
• Worst case: someone gets rich off your idea and doesn't give you credit. Good thing it's time-stamped on your blog! You may not get any credit, but you get to be bitter that they stole your idea and you get to learn the lesson that money isn't everything in life, money can't buy happiness, happiness is a warm gun, or something along those lines.

So make the internet a better place and blog your ideas! If you need some encouragement check out the great work being done at the Free Idea Factory. But what's with all this art stuff? What can art retarded scientists do?

Don't look at me. I have no time to make a "Free Science Idea Factory" (time-stamped on July 31st, 2008), but here's a nice idea I had recently.

In the same vein as the Molecule of the Day blog, an Equation of the Week blog written by a savvy mathematician would be fantastic! I've noticed that Built on Facts has a Sunday Function, but I was thinking something a little more elaborate...

Every week an equation could be chosen and profiled with any of the following:

• Using it in a worked through example
• Linking to current popular science articles which rely on it
• Discussing what makes it unique
• Explaining its applications in different fields
• Discussing social significance (Perhaps an equation that made the moon landing possible)
• Mentioning it's history, first time it was published, or story of discovery
• Fancy graphical depictions and plots
• Discussing it's limitations (Where it's relevant and where it's not)

Most people agree that owning a poofy kitty or a slobbery poochie can be extremely rewarding. Companionship, pre-warmed furniture, a lap-full of shedded fur...the list of pet benefits is both long and heart-warming.

However, it is really moral to keep animals locked in our houses, mostly for our own enjoyment? Furthermore, is it moral to genetically alter (i.e. breed) animals to look "cute" or "handsome", even if that means creating in serious health risks for the animals?

Based on the picture above, I'm inclined to say that the moral risks are well-worth the hilarious pet-wig payoffs. For the sake of argument, here's a run-though of the various moral justifications I've heard from pet-owners, along with my zoological retorts:

1. "Pets live much better/more comfortable/longer lives in human homes than they would in the wild."

This one is tough to defend. It rests upon the anthrocentric idea that humans, being all-mighty, must know what's best for animals and how to give them the most fulfilling lives possible. But how can you ever know whether or your dog is truly better off in your house versus the lush woods?

2. "Dogs and cats have been selectively bred to enjoy the company of humans. My dog loves it at home!"

The problem with this that is assumes that the behavior the animal has been selected to express (amicability to humans) is truly reflective of the animals thoughts/"feelings" (i.e. that they really do enjoy the company of humans, rather than simply behave that way).

3. "Working animals, such as seeing-eye dogs, increase the owner's quality of life dramatically."

This is probably true. However, it doesn't change the fact that the animal is born into a life of servitude.

4. "It has been suggested that dogs may have domesticated themselves. They've got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out."

I haven't thought of a clever response to this yet. I was thinking about using "Its only a theory!", but we all know where that leads.

So, it seems that the keeping of animals as pets is, at least in some ways, difficult to defend from a moral standpoint. In spite of all my zoological musings, Chris sent me the following video that blew my arguments to smitherines:

Did you know that scientists have created artificial DNA? Just for the record, that's only one step away from inserting the DNA into a cell and bringing it to life. However, this area of research is still in it's infancy so we won't have any soulless synthetic human puppets for very much longer a long time.

Most recently, the synthesis of a meager 500,000 base pair bacterial genome was explained in detail by the researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute. The size of the bacterial genome pales in comparison to our hulking 3 billion base pair human genome of champions but it's a step in the right direction. Naturally, stepping in said direction is a cause for bioethical concern but I'm more interested in the new possibilities for biocrime!

It has been 20 years since DNA evidence was first admitted in court which lead to a death sentence. Similarly, it has been a recurring plot device for television crime drama for just as long. Being exposed to such shows, today's criminals know better than to leave saliva, blood, or semen at the scene of a crime if they can help it. Although, with the advent of synthetic DNA, bodily fluids may be making an unexpected comeback...

Everyone knows that planting DNA evidence like hair or fingernail clippings is a straight forward way to frame someone for a crime they didn't commit, but let me walk you through a more intriguing scenario:

1. Almost half a billion DNA profiles of offenders are contained in the FBI's CODIS National DNA Index.
2. A crooked cop or hacker mastermind leaks criminal DNA profiles to the internet. 
3. A regular joe (RJ) obtains a DNA profile of regular criminal (RC) on parole in his area.
4. RJ has DNA synthesized en masse and inserted into cells by a private lab.
5. RJ commits his crime of choice, stealing a rhubarb pie from a windowsill, without leaving any trace of his own DNA (easier said than done).
6. The forged DNA is left at the scene of the crime.
7. Forensic scientists find a direct DNA match with RC using the CODIS National DNA Index.
8. Assuming RC has no significant alibi, he is considered a repeat offender and found guilty of grand theft pastry.
9. RJ, pretty hungry at this point, consumes pie and sends an anonymous thank-you card to J. Craig Venter Institute without ever having made contact with RC.

This scenario may seem far fetched but it's undeniable that the validity of DNA evidence relies on the fact that people assume DNA cannot be tampered with. Much like the questionable admissibility of digital photography and digital video in court due to computer forgery, DNA evidence will one day be under high scrutiny. 

PirateBay is the Paris Hilton of anti-copyright organizations. Somehow, mainly due to the lenient copyright laws, they are still serving up the hottest uncensored videos even after a constant barrage of publicity. Well, to be more precise, PirateBay doesn't actually serve up any copyrighted material they simply host and track torrent files.

Torrent files are instructions to find other people on the internet with the latest Radiohead album (bad example) that you want to download. A torrent application of your choice assembles chunks of the files you get from others and simultaneously sends those chunks to others in the same boat as you. Before you know it you have "the gentlest, prettiest Radiohead set yet" (Entertainment Weekly).

It's hard not to weep a little for the directors, producers, musicians, actors, and technicians which I am indirectly stealing from but I reverse-weep when I think of the percentage of money that goes to said individuals when I purchase a CD or DVD. So, I go back to weeping, but with joy, as I witness Cloverfield in the theatre and The Roots live in concert.

However, the real question is, who would I be weeping for if I could download scientific literature on a site like PirateBay without having to pay expensive journal subscription fees (subscription required) that Universities are required to pay?

I might weep for the niche journal publishers and some peer reviewers for a little while, but my tears would instantly evaporate at the thought of the greater good. It's no question that the merits of open-access science are hotly debated but who actually stopped to consider a business model for downloading TV shows on the internet before just doing it?

It's called piracy! It's not really a complicated thing. What you do is go ahead and download using your new and innovative distribution method like Torrents and 12 months later companies realize this and adapt in order to stay in business. They advertise online, they sell shows on iTunes, they stream shows with commercials on their websites, ...whatever! The same should be true with scientific publishing. 

This idea was already started by Joanna Karczmarek in like 2005. With permission from Arxiv, she grouped up entire categories of Arxiv as torrent files and hosted them at UBC. Of course, Arxiv is free to begin with but the concept is the same.

Having a local copy of all high energy theoretical physics papers (a mere 9GB at Arxiv) would be mind boggling for a researcher in that field. One could research entirely offline, free from any institution, with search speeds as fast as ones hard drive could read. Journal subscriptions could be automatically synchronized to a local copy and scientists across the world could all be on the same page (an electronic page).

So, with Arxiv already dealt with, one has only a few more journals left to go! Of course, you'd want to specify what journals are relevant to your field, but I'm estimating that all of Nature in PDFs will be 143GB (20mb per issue with 7193 issues). Similarly, I expect Science will be 117GB (20mb per issue with 5878 issues). With disk space costing about $200 for a single 1000GB drive this isn't so unreasonable.

Of course, there are minor technicalities in obtaining 100's of gigabytes of science papers, but putting that aside, pirating science is entirely PloSable. It may be just the shady underhanded approach to open-access science that people are looking for.

Thank goodness for Sweden! 

Edit: Lots of great comments on this article at http://reddit.com/r/science/info/6jmij/comments/