We are fortunate to have, in this issue's Problems and Techniques section, three papers that should be of interest to all SIAM Review readers. The first paper, "A Fast and Stable Solution Method for the Radiative Transfer Problem," by P. Edstrom, treats the interaction of radiation with turbid media, an important and longstanding scientific problem. (The first citation is a 1905 paper on radiation through a foggy atmosphere.) For readers unfamiliar with the term, in common parlance something "turbid" contains foreign particles that are stirred up or suspended, as in "I leave a white and turbid wake" (Chapter 37 of Moby Dick); in the present context, a turbid medium is highly scattering. Transmission as well as absorption and multiple scattering must be considered in a turbid medium, and several steps are needed to obtain an appropriate mathematical formulation and efficient numerical solution methods. The paper guides the reader through the motivation for and connections among the resulting multiple procedures: application of Fourier analysis to a fundamental integrodifferential equation, discretization using numerical quadrature, transformation to an algebraic eigenvalue problem, and preconditioning strategies for the equations that define boundary and continuity conditions. Special attention is given to techniques for speeding up the computation, and the solution method described has been implemented in a MATLAB code used in the paper and printing industries. This paper features references that are unusually broad in time (starting with an 1871 paper by Lord Rayleigh) and application (ranging over optics, astrophysics, neutron transport, nuclear engineering, and atmospheric science). The second paper, "Reviving the Method of Particular Solutions," by T. Betcke and L. N. Trefethen, presents a readable and engrossing tour of the authors' successful quest to understand and overcome the difficulties experienced by the method of particular solutions (MPS) defined in a classic 1967 paper from the SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis by L. Fox, P. Henrici, and C. Moler. As carefully explained in the present paper, the problems are caused by the MPS's inability to ensure that an eigenfunction is nonzero in the interior of the domain; ambiguities and ill-conditioning arise from the existence of linear combinations of functions that are close to zero everywhere, even when the associated parameter is not an eigenvalue. A modified method, based on constraining the problem so that admissible functions are bounded away from zero in the interior, is presented that allows reliable detection of spurious approximate eigenfunctions. (The contrast between Figures 4.1 and 5.4 tells the story.) The authors then go on to describe both a geometric interpretation and the connections between the constrained minimization problem and angles between subspaces. Kac's famous 1966 question "Can one hear the shape of a drum?" is used as an example for the modified MPS on several isospectral examples, including an H-shaped domain. The paper also contains a discussion of error bounds, generalizations, open questions, and very recent related work. Krylov subspace methods for linear systems, featured in last issue's Problems and Techniques section, appear again, this time for eigenvalue problems, in our third paper, "Convergence of Polynomial Restart Krylov Methods for Eigenvalue Computations," by C. A. Beattie, M. Embree, and D. C. Sorensen. Like the other two papers, this paper first presents an illuminating summary of both history and state-of-the-art before moving to its heart: analysis of the angles made by an approximating Krylov subspace of a matrix A with a desired invariant subspace, and convergence of polynomial restarting methods that project A onto a Krylov subspace and modify the starting vector using a polynomial in A. Setting an engaging tone by declaring their interest only in the "good" eigenvalues, the paper provides an explanation of how a Krylov space might converge to an associated good invariant subspace, as well as a discussion of how to assess the proximity of subspaces. After defining the "maximal reachable invariant subspace," the authors consider both the gap between this subspace and the $\ell$th Krylov space as $\ell$ increases, and the dependence of the gap on the polynomial that defines a restart filter. Among the results of this analysis are insights into the design of effective polynomial filters and numerical confirmation of the complications that arise when restarting iterations for nonnormal matrices. The reader is encouraged to examine the pseudospectra in Figures 4.8 and 4.10 for visible evidence of these subtleties.