Domain: mccmedia.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to mccmedia.com.
Comments · 5
-
Re:Losers!
You know, it's just a rumor that he said that. The source of the report, Capitol Hill Blue, has a poor reputation for accuracy:
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=22180
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/9/143434/049
http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-M on-20060109/034824.html -
Re:SETI paradox resolved
Nah, Earth is a type 13 planet - we're doomed!
http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-M on-20040607/019981.html
(sorry, that was the best link I could find for those of you who aren't lexx fans:-) -
Re:It's not my fault, IntelliAdmin started it...The pre-punch line is also featured in a song frequently played on Dr. Demento's syndicated radio show. The lyrics are reproduced here: Wet Dream. It's a series of puns about fish and other aquatic life.
The joke is a bit different:
My barracuda was in the shop
So I was in a rented stingray
And it was overheatingSo I pulled into a Shell Station
They said I'd blown a seal
I said, "Fix the damn thing and leave my private life out of it, OK pal?" -
Check back again in 220 years, please
It took a long time for the invention of printing to lead to the American revolution's pamphleteering. Paine and related authors were deeply inspired by Milton (see Areopagitica), who lived a century earlier... whose writings came about a century and a half after Gutenberg. Figuring that the Internet is at most 30 years old, the next Thomas Paine might not arise for 220 years, if the timeline is similar. However, a new Martin Luther might be here in just 20 years or so, leading the world out from under corporate, rather than church, dominance. Paul Saffo (Institute for the Future) makes a good case that it always takes technology 20-30 years to go from invention to widespread impact -- things just seem to move faster now. Patience, Jon.
-
This is backwards
Picking out the "irrelevant" words is much harder than creating tags that contain the most relevant ones, which is the main point of meta-tags. Most of us have brains that are trained to pick out what is important, not the opposite, so few people would bother to implement this. Language is hard, computers are dumb and few people have been willing to "explain" language to them to make search smarter. In other words, nothing like works on a significant scale if much effort has to go into it. Tagging important words can be semi-automated with summarization software, which will accomplish much more in terms of relevancy ranking than tagging the ones to ignore. And by the way, this proposal misunderstands robots.txt. The point isn't to conceal the existence of pages, it is to tell *robots*, not people, to stay away from them. (I'm the owner of the mailing list for it.