Paper Overload

I need to serously review my reading strategy. I have written here before about how hard it is to keep track of all the current pubs I want to be reading. The basic problem is that when I read an old interesting paper I find that it cites papers located not in one or two specialized journals but maybe 5 or 6 locations. All of which mostly specialize in something completely different.

Therefore if I want to see the kind of things I am interested in I have to sift through ~100 articles to see one or two good things. Of course there is no problem that one cant solve with enough money. In this case a mac with DevonThink would do the trick. Total cost ~$2000.

Meanwhile my solution is Bloglines and their wholely inferior search feature. But its better than before. Above is the journals category after a typical weekend!

New Ideas, Worthless or Stolen

My wife says that when I post my ideas here in my obscure little corner of the web someone might "scoop" me. They might take my idea and make it better and do what I didnt with it.
Well isnt that what science is about? Plus I doubt my ideas are worth much yet except to the crackpot community since they are so vague and misconcieved. But I'm slowly becoming more discriminating.
Latest Readings:
After studying scattering problems in quantum wondered about Lensed gamma ray bursts as probes of black holes. Did quick arxiv search and found:

• "Gravitationaly Lensed Gamma-Ray Bursts as Probes of Dark Compact Objects", Marani et. al., 1998
  

Obviously the idea isnt new but these guys had some really crummy data to work with. The theory had been worked out to some degree by Nemiroff in 1980 (et al. at other times). They looked at BATSE and Ulysses data but since they arent really angularly resolved they had to look for temporal correllations. Overall this seems like a rush job to get a pub. The graphs are Awefull.
I couldnt help reading some of Milgrom's newest.

• "MOND as Modified Inertia", Milgrom 2005

Hes the inventor of Modified Newtonian Dynamics. He decided that he liked changing newtons 3rd law instead of adding Dark Matter. Most people dont take this too seriously mostly because it explains spiral galaxies really well but starts to become harder to justify in cases like lensing by invisible galaxies. (If theres no dark matter how can there be invisible galaxies?) Not that one cant think of explainations but our stunted imaginations get hurt after a while.

Also real quick before I have to go, I read

• "Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model", Baryshev. 2005

An Ode to Me.