Slashdot Mirror

Just adding a particular symbol ends up directly in copyright hell and can't be tuned to fit with a particular font.

Rather than a symbol every code needs a description of what that code is supposed to show so that each font creator can implement their own take on the symbol without the meaning becoming ambiguous.

On the contrary, differing implementations across devices/platforms is, in fact, one of the major sources of ambiguity when communicating with emojis.

Image copyright is definitely an issue. And beyond that different telecom/mobile OS companies would probably be loath to just settle on one (e.g. Apple Color Emoji) even if it were free to use (it is not). For example, rival phone mfrs may bristle at using the Apple Earbuds for the headphones emoji, or the iPhone lookalike for the smartphone emoji.

One solution might be a handful of openly licensed emoji fonts that are included by default across phone platforms (I dunno how to make that happen, short of getting a telecom consortium to agree to it, or getting the FCC, the states of New York and California, and various EU and Asian regulators to require it).

Make sure these are available as character keyboards, and include a font indicator/bit so the recipient's phone knows which open emoji font it should render with (with fallback on other platforms or where the font is lacking).

That seems like a lot of work, but I think to dismiss emojis (as some in the thread do) as unimportant trivialities is a huge mistake. Billions of people are using these things. On a scale from [affects something in my favorite emacs extension] to [affects the entire human race], it's much closer to the latter. Unicode is the right place for characters that are used on that scale, though presentation issues are rather thornier than with most other types of characters.

That was part of Hill & Shaw's assertion (see endnote in the original article). I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced.

I guess this page wouldn't be complete without a reference to WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance, a 2011 paper which contains a lot of interesting data related to all of this.

The point is that Wikipedia is rapidly being adopted as a first point of reference for information worldwide, and research has demonstrated that the bias in contributors has led to a bias in the actual content of the encylopedia.

Currently researching the whole are of E-Commerce recommendation systems and i can tell you the Amzon uses a system based on the ideas of automated collaborative filtering.

Tis technology was first invented by the group lens research team way back like 7 years ago.

http://www.grouplens.org/

Im currently in the process of doing one my self for final degree piece of work hard work but not innotavie so amazon deserve whats happening just surprised that it waasnt grouplens doing this.

I know they have sold their systems to many companies including GUS (Great Universal Stores).

Seriously, there's a reference in patent application to the article "Amazon.com Catapults Electronic Commerce to Next Level With Powerful New Features", dated September 23, 1997 -- barely two weeks after the patent filing date. And the odds are good that it took Amazon.com a lot longer than two weeks to develop, test, and deploy that functionality.

But wait it gets better... reading further in the PR blurb, we see that their group filtering technology was based on an existing product, called Grouplens. I assume that this is the same kind of functionality that Cendant is claiming as their own work; if so, surely Grouplens must have something to say as far as prior art goes...

Jay (=

As part of this, I found the movies with the greatest variance in ratings, and did some weighting to balance out movies that hadn't been rated much. Movies with the highest variance indicated the most disagreement as to whether people loved or hated the movie.

The movie with the biggest variance? (Assuming certain weighting, of course...) The Blair Witch Project. People either loved it or hated it. (I liked it, by the way.)

The top movies that divide us:

1. Blair Witch Project, The (1999)
2. Plan 9 from Outer Space (1958)
3. Rocky Horror Picture Show, The (1975)
4. Natural Born Killers (1994)
5. Dumb & Dumber (1994)
6. Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
7. Starship Troopers (1997)
8. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
9. Mars Attacks! (1996)
10. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999)
11. Armageddon (1998)

There is grouplens which does co-operative usenet rating, and there is prol which does a co-operative slashdot (don't like that article - vote it down) and then there was some overhyped stuff from some media wired woman which did co-operative movie reviews and got sold out to the Borg Empire IIRC, so I am not going to mention their URL.