On a result of D.W. Stroock

We show how to modify an argument of D. W. Stroock to show that an additive map from one separable Banach space to another, that is "universally Gaussian measurable", must be continuous (hence linear)

On measuring the impact of hyperlinks on reading

We increasingly spend a vast amount of time on the Web and much of that time is spent reading. One of the main differences between reading non-Web based text and reading on the Web is the presence of hyperlinks within the text, linking various related Web content and Web pages together. Some researchers and commentators have claimed that hyperlinks hinder reading because they are a distraction that may have a negative effect on the reader’s ability to process the text. However, very few controlled experiments have been conducted to verify these claims.In the experiments documented here we utilise eye tracking as a new methodology for examining how we read hyperlinked text. An eye tracker was used to observe participant’s behaviour while reading. The results showed that hyperlinked text did not generally have a negative impact upon reading behaviour. However, participants did show a tendency to re-read sentences that contained hyperlinked uncommon (low frequency) words. This suggests that hyperlinks highlight important information to the reader and the hyperlinks add additional content which for more difficult concepts, invites rereading of the preceding text

A Case of Orthostatic Albuminuria Treated by Exercise

n/

Protect Yourself: Why the Eleventh Circuit\u27s Approach to Sanctions for Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants

Litigants commonly struggle to balance the need to comply with discovery requests and the desire to protect valuable trade secrets. Protective orders to help strike that balance. Questions arise, however, when one of the parties violates that protective order and discloses the opponent\u27s confidential information. Chiefly, what remedies are available for a party whose invaluable intellectual property has been disclosed? At least one circuit has held the most common sanction, payment of attorney\u27s fees, is unavailable for a violation of a protective order. Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) governs sanctions for violations of discovery orders, but the text of that rule limits its applicability to orders to provide or permit discovery. Accordingly, violation of an order that does not provide or permit discovery cannot be sanctioned using a court\u27s rule-based authority. Circuits are currently split as to whether protective orders, as provided by Rule 26(c), fall within Rule 37(b)(2)\u27s scope. Namely, the Fifth Circuit has held that protective orders provide or permit discovery and any violation of those protective orders is sanctionable under Rule 37(b)(2), while the Eleventh Circuit has held the opposite. Both circuits\u27 reading of the rule has a reasonable basis in the text, but the Fifth Circuit\u27s approach should be adopted because it better effectuates the four original purposes of discovery sanctions: compelling discovery, punishment of culpable parties and attorneys, deterrence of others from engaging in similar behavior, and compensation for those parties who suffered because of the discovery abuse