Slashdot Mirror
Randomly Generated Paper Accepted to Conference
mldqj writes "Some students at MIT wrote a program called SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator. From their website: SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. What's amazing is that one of their randomly generated paper was accepted to WMSCI 2005. Now they are accepting donation to fund their trip to the conference and give a randomly generated talk."
Random Post!
Using the Freedom of Speech while I still have it.
Their original plan was to do this with a patent application instead... but decided they needed a challenge.
In other news a randomly generated story submission was accepted by /. moderators.
NMG
It's a thankless job to begin with. Now you have to approach each one with, "is this the real deal, or some bs-generated thing?"
:)
Oh, and a collection of my as-yet unpublished white papers will be available soon. Cheap.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Excerpt from the submitted paper:
I've received auto-generated spam emails that read a lot like this. Nice to know the WMSCI is on their toes...but judging from the content on their home page, I'm not surprised that they consider this paper conference material.
From the WMSCI's website:
What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.
(FYI, the full text of the paper in question can be found here, and the WMSCI website can be found here.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
n/t
Before any liberals are tempted to mod up one of my comments, a word of warning: I'm actually making fun of you.
Did they reverse engineer the iPod Shuffle?
Do they accept randomly generated quotes from Linus Torvalds? ;)
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
or has it already happened?
downtown Holland, Michigan is in flames as a randomly assembled protest practices their own brand of metamoderation.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Whats the equivalent monkeys per typewriter power of this software?
Starsucks
This paper was recently accepted as a "non-reviewed" paper!
So... no-one organising the conference has actually read it? Anything would've gotten through in that case. Even slashdot trolls.
I for one welcome our new randomly generated comment/story overlords from soviet russia where comment posts you.
At the larger conferences they make some attempt at screening out the known crackpots. The amount of effort varies.
...to get those million typewriters going, darn !
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
On a similar note, I feel that this is where /. is successful, although it puts articles on which are sometimes bogus, the peer review puts those articles to shame.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
Sometimes you think that most of the /. posts are randomly generated, seedrf with the Wikipedia page on Slashdot subculture...
The organizers of this stupid conference (and also some "WSEAS conference on all and everything") keep spamming me with emails about how their deadlines have been extended and how I am invited to submit a paper. This just confirms that those conferences are total crap - if not outright scams.
Actually, a former professor of mine once did something similar. They submitted a paper that they had written by hand, but that didn't make any sense (something about evaluating footprints in dark rooms) to a conference that was known for its crap quality, and it was accepted. This broke that conference's neck, however.
With some luck, this thing will have a similar result.
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fxd3mUYIrzAJ:ww w.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scigen/+&hl=en
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
For once, HolyBabble(tm) is on-topic. Here's the randomly generated book of Solomuel.
Enjoy,
The Ministry of Information
I have anointed thee king over Israel, for his kingdom was lifted up on high, because of his issue he is unclean. And this shall be a sign to the house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or the prophets: I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: also the king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, saying, Take great stones in thine hand, and they mock me. But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be jealous for my holy name; After that they have borne their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. Also, thou son of David, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may give rest to the land, and all that were present with him, about six hundred men. And Saul, and Jonathan his son, and upon his garments, and lay on the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD, when I shall put my sword into the hand of them that seek thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.
I'd say that a random review generator would be more useful.
Hold on, maybe reviews are already being generated randomly. That would explain why my last paper was rejected!
That was a highly deterministic post.
Don't forget Mazieres and Kohler's great submission as well, "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List"
Test your net with Netalyzr
After this news item, I highly doubt they'll still be able to go to the conference.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Why is this news? Slashdot MODs have been moding up randomly generated slashdot posts for years now.
-Anonymous Monkey #957869330
An electronics lab instructor I had in college didn't read our notebooks carefully. I answered a question with the phrase, "mumbo jumbo, dog-faced in the banana patch" and he checked it.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
So, this doesn't come close to the sucess of Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity which got into a peer reviewed journal.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Click here before you moderate!!!
I, not being one of the many insolent, vicious used-car salesmen of this world, am going to make this short but sweet: In this era of rising sesquipedalianism, we must shine a light on slashdot's efforts to test another formula for silencing serious opposition. That's self-evident, and even slashdot would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Let's start with my claim that slashdot's inveracities are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with brutal, disgusting junkies. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which slashdot may impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I want to give people more information about slashdot, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I definitely hope people draw: Slashdot's callous, raving beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) condemn innocent people to death. Slashdot then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point.
Slashdot prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but it continuously seeks adulation from its bedfellows. If you doubt this, just ask around. I once had a nightmare in which slashdot was free to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, slashdot's magic-bullet explanations are thoroughly otiose. Let's remember that. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its dictatorial views. Not yet, at least. But it argues that the most ridiculous pip-squeaks you'll ever see are easily housebroken. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Slashdot says it's going to make a big deal out of nothing faster than you can say "gastrohysterorrhaphy". Is it out of its malign mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that slashdot measures the value of a man by the amount of profit it can realize from him.
Now if only they could modify this thing to produce papers on selected subjects, using a writing style "learned" by analyzing some of the user's own writing, so that students won't have to waste all their time writing stupid papers, and would have time for more important matters, like actually learning the material, hanging out, drinking booze, and having unsafe sex.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to create something actually interesting using a genetic algorithm operating on initally random data. I wonder if a genetic algorithm could be used to re-hash all of those random statements into something that actually has an intelligent flow to it. Maybe I should patent it. :)
http://nerdfortress.com/
Great. Now all we need are randomly generated moderators to randomly post dupes of them with randomly generated users to bitch about it and /. will be 100% automated!
Pretty soon, a blank piece of paper will be accepted.
They'll recon, if you can tear open the ream's envelope, you're smart enough.
Bonus marks, for the students who submit 'this side up' up.
One Mark V Shaney, if anyone remembers that Usenet thing.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
A monkey-typewriter (note: not monkey per typerwirter) is a unit of improbable entropy equal to the decible level of 350 grams of feces hurled at 1 ft per second into a plexiglass barrier.
I wonder if it might prove useful as a brainstorming substitute to read randomly generated papers in one's field looking for occasional insights in their sentences?
It might be very close to how the brain performs research currently: randomly connect things, and then notice if they are useful to connect.
I post anonymously because I am a well known computer scientist....
Here's when something similar when nonsense physics fooled a humanities journal...
s
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/#paper
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Reference Sokal Affair <sic>
...we have not received any reviews yet for you
paper entitled: "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of
Access Points and Redundancy". So, your paper has been accepted, as a
non-reviewed paper...
It seems this is not the same thing:
They gamed the system, which assumes that submissions meeting some basic format will get accepted. Amusing none-the-less, but I don't plan to contribute to their travel fund!
I am mentally divergent, in that I am escaping certain unnamed realities that plague my life here. When I stop going there, I will be well.
Are you also divergent, friend?
...the "Yes Men" of IT?
...is that the Conference itself was randomly generated complete with random session topics.
I'm sure the patent office will approve whatever the paper was talking about.
Hmmm. That would be the next approach. Randomly generated patent applications which you can use to sue things that seem close to them years later.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ - make sure you read to the bottom.
The amazing thing is that I read through this before I realized what it was. As a philosophy major (and a history grad student), I've come across material like this over and over in academic journals.
well,
sending randomly generated contributions in cash could however have consequences - if it looks too near to real currency;
this was not reviewed and accepted under non reviewed and marked as such:
so no biggy and no success for this randmom text generator.
it is btw a bad one: not even semantics trees seem to be implemented - or insuffiently populated: this little excerpt jumps around like mad, switching semantics at least three times in the same paragraph.
Way to go, guys: that's still at the 'random print' level, where paper is the substrate.
Far from 'random paper'.
http://bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/
:)
Admit it. You would swear you're looking at a real slashdot story
Technoli
It's unfortunate that nobody has yet written a paper on Dynamic Allocation of Extra Heap and the Transient Intuitive Hardware Standard, D.A.E.H.T.I.H.S. It's THE most important thing to come out of ISO this DECADE!
but you might get something as comprensible as some papers written by post modernists on epistomology and phenomenology.
Like WOW! Talk about opaque!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
they all randomly generated? Could have sworn!
Information should be free!
So, does this mean that their program has successfully passed what I would call the first baby steps in a Turing test? Or does in only show poorly on the board of reviewers? p.s. I know that a big part of a proper Turing test is that it is supposed to be an *interactive* dialogue but this has to qualify for something... at least proof that the board of reviewers themselves could be replaced with a program.
It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that reviewers are more interested in the prestige of the Institute that has produced the paper, rather than its contents.
This is apparently a randomly generated complaint letter, and not the ravings of a mad AC who hates slashdot. Though I could be wrong, it's so close to so many other posts I've seen, but usually those people don't AC themselves.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Looks like Sokal All Over Again
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I've always been a fan of Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator. When I was in college, we used this all the time, including for submitting letters to the editor of our school paper. Letters that were actually printed. (Guess which one).
This post was brought to you by a shameless plug.
You probably shouldn't click this.
These junk conferences are organized for no reason other than profit. Accepting everything that is submitted is consistent with their objective.
The deal is, in an effort to get tenure or grants in a publish-or-perish world, mediocre researchers submit to these things. They are published if and only if they pay the registration fee. For this particular conference, the fee is a mere $US 390.
And there are no quantity discounts. If you have n papers you pay n times the fee.
R0FLCOPTAR!!!1LMAOPLANE!111oneELEVEN!!11shift+one
Hmm, it made it to the conference, but it's non-reviewed. So what? The server is /.ed, can't read the correspondence, however, there's little merit for an author to get a paper into a non-refereed publication, I guess.
Alan Sokal did better back then, when the NY-based physicist wrote up an article that got published in a journal (Social Text, IIRC) - journals are supposed to be rather strict in what they accept.
The nice thing here is that they wrote a probably neat NLG (natural language generation) system to write the paper - it seems to be more practical than previous multimodal NLG systems that are much more domain/application-dependent, but generate stuff that makes sense.
Looking forward to that random talk...
"What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans."
You've provided no proof for your hypothesis, ergo we can only conclude that it is indeterminite if this the case.
we should pit this against the essay autograder and see what grade we get. then we can refind it so it always generates A+ worthy papers.
HD Trailers
How long before /. posts are trying to the future of the blind. Don't
forget the real amazing thing to create something that students won't have
been published in the future of this is never considered confusing. Our
approach turns knowledge-base communication sledgehammer into a randomly
generated quotes from the blind.
The blind publishing the sucess of paper in refereed journal, you done so
that this and that, my as-yet unpublished white papers just because no one
of the WMSCI's Through WM SCI 2005 be the blind.
April Fools would be arsed to waste all of those conferences are trying to
be a genetic algorithm could modify this method is never considered
confusing. Our approach turns know ledge-base communication sledgehammer
into something similar. submitted We are r andomly assembled practices their
time stupid conference has actually has it As a "non-reviewed" So... no-one
organising the question is.. by as-yet unpublished white papers I've even
used this over and a synergic relation to This Sounds a Transformative
Hermeneutics.
From the WMSCI website:
...so they may not have even read the paper.
" Acceptance decisions related to the submitted papers will be based on their respective content review and/or on the respective author's CV.
"
http://jones.ling.indiana.edu/~prrodrig
I was the best of times, it was the blerst of times...
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
How do you feel about Randomly generated paper accepted to conference?
Something tells me the students are reacting to this recent story about a Columbia University professor grading papers by computer Those crazy kids.
Maybe this is just a statistical aberration: we got Shakespeare early; or more appropriately, we got science early than expected.
Just have a look at the last song by Gorillaz lyrics.
Just an excerpt:Want more? The chorus:
In a post 9/11 world..scientific papers are generated randomly. so shoot me
As the number of times a monkey hits "reload" on that page approaches infinity, the probability that you'll get a paper worthy of a Turing award approaches 1.
"Impostures Intellectuelles", anyone? (link)
Really, sounds like something Ray would do.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
So, it got in as a non-reviewed paper ...
My question is, what happened at the presentation of the paper? Did anyone pick it apart, did noone show up for that paper because they thought it was bogus, or did anyone check the references?
That's what peer review is all about. Anyone can write a paper, especially if they have credentials, but peer review is there to challenge it, both on the raw data and summary, and on the sources quoted or research quoted.
The problem is that way too much information is being presented, and if its non-relevant, it may not be challenged because noone is interested in using it as the basis for further study.
The other way a bogus paper is spotted is when they list collaborators who deny they worked on or contributed to it. Which is what happens at the conference or afterwards, when people start asking questions.
Kind of like April Fools stories in newspapers - sure, they can print them, but they may get a ton of letters, emails, and phone calls challenging the "news item" once it's been printed. Should we blame the reader for them - or the people who enter them in the first place?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I clicked the link and created a random article. Before it appeared I went to the bathroom, got a snack, etc etc etc. A while later I came back and started reading the article.
By then I forgot all about it being randomly generated. I was trying to read it and I asked myself, "Why the fuck did I open this link, it makes no sense?!" A couple seconds later I remembered.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
See.. now THAT I would pay to have people go see! Why can't that be accepted, unreviewed?
If I sent that to companies, would they get the hint? Or would they take it as "oh! She's reading our mail! I say we spam her more!"
Some days it's just not worth it to open Outlook. It's always bleak.
"There is a reason Linux is free"
~me~
until the politicians find out about this.
We could be inundated with reports that seem legitimate only to find out that they never wrote it, researched it, or even read it.
With fava beans?
How have you been Clarisse?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Gore can claim he invented E-Voting. After all, his paper was published by MIT.
Check out the second paper on this guy's papers list.
http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/~dm/home/papers.html
So it doesn't surprise me that a bunch of random garbage got through a selection committee.
Those silly MIT fools were duped by a randomly created conference... though they do get partial credit for submitting a randomly generated paper in the final analysis.
Here's a snippet of my most recently generated article. This is some great stuff!
We have taken great pains to describe out evaluation setup; now, the payoff, is to discuss our results. We these considerations in mind, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we ran massive multiplayer online role-playing games on 13 nodes spread throughout the Planetlab network, and compared them against multi-processors running locally; (2) we measured database and WHOIS throughput on our human test subjects; (3) we ran SMPs on 42 nodes spread throughout the Internet-2 network, and compared them against fiber-optic cables running locally; and (4) we compared expected interrupt rate on the GNU/Hurd, FreeBSD and L4 operating systems. We discarded the results of some earlier experiments, notably when we measured database and RAID array latency on our network.
Now for the climactic analysis of the second half of our experiments. Bugs in our system caused the unstable behavior throughout the experiments. Similarly, the many discontinuities in the graphs point to amplified energy introduced with our hardware upgrades. We scarcely anticipated how accurate our results were in this phase of the evaluation.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
OK, OK, I missed it the first time. Please spare me, moderators.
Acceptance decisions related to the submitted papers will be based on their respective content review and/or on the respective author's CV. Invited papers will not be reviewed and their acceptance decision will be based on the topic and the respective author's CV.
If the reviewers selected for reviewing a given paper do not make their respective reviews before the papers acceptance deadline, the selection committee may accept the paper as a non-reviewed paper.
If a paper does not meet the criteria for inclusion as reviewed paper, the selection committee may invite the author to present it as a non-reviewed paper.
So the acceptance of this paper had nothing to do with the content. While this is a stupid policy, it means that the paper could have been anything. While I agree this conference appears to be utter bullshit, this is not news (unless of course you signed up for this circus, then you might want to get a refund)
...this number is certainly always finite -- and in some cases, very much so.
Douglas Adams is alive!
Mail you transportation fund donation to a random address.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
hands.
:-)
Now if only I can harness this it'll really help me bullshit my way through my papers.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The clout of that school, mercy. Granted it was a non-reviewed paper...but still.
I bet papers from Cal-Tech are under more scrutiny.
My boss has been randomly generating meeting content for years ... all in his head.
>>I would like it to create millions or billions of these works...
Billions? Why bother? Based on my listening experience, Clearchannel and the record execs seem to have built empires on no more than three variations.
So keep it simple. Who needs the Circle of Fifths, or any of those pesky black piano keys when C-G-D and some random notes/rap over a drum track (serving as the bridge) will do? Repeat "ad naseum"
1) happy, mindless dance tune by teen-star-du-jour. 90beats per minute minimum, bass drum is primary instrument. May require heavy use of DSP processing to keep singer on pitch.
2) Rap about rapper knocking other rappers off the top of the charts and or "crunk whack party", "bustin' caps" or "dubs." Word "bitches" is mandatory. Threatening violence is a plus. Don't forget shout out to imprisoned/dead homies on extended mix version.
3) Wheezy, whiny country & western tune, mandatory mentions include pickup truck, whiskey. Extra chart-topping potential for use of word "fool".
Using various probability statistics, I've developed a random /. comment generator that'll always, without fail, get me a +5 Insightful! Let's see how this goes...
Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux
To cancel it out, I also wrote one that guarantees -5 Flamebait, too:
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft
I noticed on Star Trek TNG, you could order the holo deck to randomly generate a plot. Something that could randomly generate a shortstory would kick ass.
then you'll also like this. A tool to randomly generate product name. http://www.acmevaporware.com/
Wow -- Computers are writing papers about themselves! Its like an autobiography!
...now have something in common. They've both been Sokaled.
By limiting yourself to the constraints defined above, you won't generate every possible musical work, but you WILL generate every possible work that people in general will recognize as actual music. As it is a much smaller set, it is a much more practical goal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Oh holly Crap! and I am here breaking my ass to get one article accepted for the GTDT
IJCAI 05 workshop...
darn...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
the stuff is such turgid crap, back in the 1990s some wonderful geniuses put together the "Pomo Generator" so you can automagically generate the same pseudo-intelligent twaddle leading "scholars" puke up all the time to cover their useless tenured butts.
here's the Generator
and here's and excerpt of a typical example of what it makes. Hysterically funny crap that reads a lot like the kind of contemptible garbage that passes for "scholarship" these days.
The submaterial paradigm of context and pretextual theory Q. Rudolf Bailey
Department of Semiotics, University of Illinois
1. Discourses of failure
If one examines cultural nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the submaterial paradigm of context or conclude that class has significance. Wilson[1] implies that the works of Fellini are an example of self-fulfilling objectivism. However, Debord suggests the use of pretextual theory to read sexuality.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the concept of substructuralist art. If dialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose between precapitalist sublimation and material nationalism. Therefore, in Midnight's Children, Rushdie examines dialectic desituationism; in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, however, he deconstructs pretextual theory.
"Class is used in the service of colonialist perceptions of sexual identity," says Sartre. The primary theme of Sargeant's[2] critique of the submaterial paradigm of context is the common ground between society and class. But several appropriations concerning dialectic desituationism exist.
The submaterial paradigm of context holds that narrativity may be used to reinforce sexism. Thus, the paradigm, and eventually the collapse, of dialectic desituationism depicted in Rushdie's Satanic Verses is also evident in Midnight's Children, although in a more subdialectic sense.
An abundance of deconstructions concerning not discourse, but postdiscourse may be discovered. However, d'Erlette[3] implies that the works of Rushdie are postmodern.
The premise of predialectic materialism suggests that expression comes from the collective unconscious. Thus, Lacan uses the term 'pretextual theory' to denote a mythopoetical totality.
In The Moor's Last Sigh, Rushdie denies dialectic desituationism; in Satanic Verses, although, he reiterates the submaterial paradigm of context. However, semantic narrative implies that the Constitution is intrinsically meaningless, but only if sexuality is interchangeable with narrativity.
SNIP
I can't tell you how many essays I've had to read that read exactly like the above, only not funny, because these were written by people who actually believe that kind of nonsense.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
YRO: RIAA Thinks Annhilating Microsoft Is The Solution To Music Piracy In addition to suing everyone on the planet, teh RIA now thinks that annhilating Microsoft will limit illegal file sharing according to a story on ZDNet. When will these gerbils learn that you need to lower the price of CDs and release better music to increase music sales. Personally, I think that annhilating Microsoft is a bad idea.
(part I can't picture being in a slashdot article is in bold)
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
Go HERE
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Thiotimoline! Although Thiotimoline was not random at all, this reminds me very strongly of that classic. Could it be that the Good Doctor has found a way to inhabit cyberspace? :)
random moderation is also very common here though...
You can't handle the truth.
new developments in hardware acceleration using AI. reminds me of homer simpson episode. Mepis Roolz. Saw this posted on scientific american years ago. RIAA is the antichrist. Check here if slashdotted M$ never had an original thought, Gates is the antichrist, Balmer is his evil minion. Linus said at a recent conference. Dude that made Goatse look mild.
You forgot to mention FOCS and STOC. I might add all the other theory heavy conferences.
The same with mathematics. People from other the easier sciences cannot simply grasp how long it takes to read and verify one of these papers.
Those who use "copywritten" to mean "subject to copyright" tend to look like they haven't studied much of copyright law. The adjective is "copyrighted".
What you said is true, that copyright exists from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium, but in the United States. But you can't sue until you've registered the copyright in the Copyright Office, and you can't recover statutory damages or attorney's fees for infringements more than three months after first publication unless you registered the copyright before the infringement occurred. In addition, "intellectual property tax" legislation is under consideration that may make the copyright expire sooner if it isn't registered with taxing authorities.
Randomly generated Linus Torvalds quote accepted by Slashdot.
That is insanely awsome! :-)
It would be great if that paper were published somewhere -- anywhere. It would be so cool to reference that in a bibliography.
A dingo ate my sig...
These comments were taken from the HTML variation on the Call for Papers. This is what happens when you use Microsoft Word to publish anything: "all your metadata are belong to us," er, you get the point.
n ce.txt on MIT's website is signed by a Dr. Nagib Callaos.
d >a ces>
<o:_EmailSubject dt:dt="string">Cartas de invitación y CFPs, SCI 2004...</o:_EmailSubject>u thorEmail>< !--[if gte mso 9]><xml>> l aceholderText>w serLevel>4 D" id=ieooui></object>( #ieooui) }
Of particular interest: author is Roberto Rodrigues, using software that was at one point reported as the property of the company Callaos Y Asociados CA. The acceptance letter http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scigen/rooter-accepta
Anyway, here are the headers in case someone wants to do further social engineering. I have contacted the hotel to verify if the conference is real or not.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Author>Roberto Rodrigues</o:Author>
<o:LastAuthor>Miguel </o:LastAuthor>
<o:Revision>2</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>168</o:TotalTime>
<o:LastPrinted>2003-10-10T15:42:00Z</o:LastPrinte
<o:Created>2005-03-23T15:57:00Z</o:Created>
<o:LastSaved>2005-03-23T15:57:00Z</o:LastSaved>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>4418</o:Words>
<o:Characters>24305</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Callaos Y Asociados CA</o:Company>
<o:Lines>202</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>57</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>28666</o:CharactersWithSp
<o:Version>11.5606</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:CustomDocumentProperties>
<o:_AdHocReviewCycleID dt:dt="float">1344996426</o:_AdHocReviewCycleID>
<o:_AuthorEmail dt:dt="string">robertorgontardo@hotmail.com</o:_A
<o:_AuthorEmailDisplayName dt:dt="string">Roberto Rodrigues</o:_AuthorEmailDisplayName>
<o:_ReviewingToolsShownOnce dt:dt="string"></o:_ReviewingToolsShownOnce>
</o:CustomDocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]-->
<w:WordDocument>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowP
<w:Compatibility>
<w:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/>
<w:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:Bro
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url
</style>
<![endif]-->
You would need quite a few. Just the combination of the first 8 notes is 26^7=8,031,810,176, assuming the first note's placement is irrelevant, and assuming up to an octave's jump in value either way. That is discounting rythmic variations, which would add quite a few extra combos.
Remember that not all the melodies on an album have to match for there to be grounds for a lawsuit. If just one of the two or three melodies in just one of the 10 or 12 songs in just one of the thousands of albums released annually matches your work, then you've got yourself a case.
Further analysis of this issue is in yerricde's journal. It seems to disregard accidentals (notes not in a given diatonic mode) but takes rhythm into account.
Given an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of bananas, and an infinite amount of time, all of Microsoft's OSS FUD can eventually be reproduced...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
...this generator's output is about as coherent as the statements by "Father" In Equilibrium. If you twist yourself into the land of tinfoil hat paranoid, you can almost begin to think it makes sense, the way you start to hallucinate whispered voices in white noise if you have to listen to it too long. A couple more years of work and this will be even funnier because the output of such code will seem perfectly normal and it will take longer to realize that it is a joke. In the meantime, this is just perfect. I think I'll have to start padding my resume now. : )
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
to win a copyright case, you have to prove *copying*. If someone else independently came up with the same tune as you, you'd be unlikely to win unless you could prove they had access to your musical work
If you've heard a musical work even once in a grocery store or on the car radio ten years ago, you are deemed to have had access to the work. And once the plaintiff demonstrates evidence of access and similarity, the judge is likely to rule that copying occurred. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music .
Haha. That's a clever idea, except to win a copyright case, you have to prove *copying*. If someone else independently came up with the same tune as you, you'd be unlikely to win unless you could prove they had access to your musical work, and then specifically copied a substantial amount of it.
That's not how it works, at least not in my country.( Disclaimer: laws vary from country to country, and state to state. Consult your local legal system for details.)
Here, you only have to prove that you wrote down or recorded (not played!) the music first. Once the courts verify that you are the original copyright holder, the defendants can't plead ignorance anymore. They're not guilty of accidental infringement; but they don't get the copyright, either.
Once you tell the defendants know you hold the copyright, they lose the "accidental infringement" defense. They can't legally make any more copies: they can't play the song on the radio, and they can't press new CDs, or make new MP3s. They can only sell off the copies they already have, unless they cut you a cheque, or otherwise accomodate your wishes.
--
AC
I submitted an automatically-generated paper in a High School English class back in, well let's just say before I logged onto the internet for the first time. It received the highest grade in the class, an A+++++++ (although I think that was the teacher's idea of a joke... she must have suspected something was funny about my paper.) To generate the paper, I just wrote a program to generate a random (though grammatical) sentence, and repeated it for a few pages, so there was not much structure to the paper.
Now, this story and the article itself can be funny but the idea is quite interesting. After reading the article, everything seems in place, it can be stated that the paper has new knowlege, so it can be stated as computer genereated knowledge, after all new knowledge is (generally) combination of old knowledge with some new ideas.
It may be right or wrong knowledge but, after reading this paper someone could think of a new idea. Just maybe about a new approach to attack some problem.
I think it is pretty cool, although I may be biased because I am doing an AI PhD, but anyway it seems interesting.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I just sent a check to a randomly generated PO Box at a randomly generated ZIP code. Think they'll get it? (No, it wasn't made out to 'cash.')
I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
I hope thier grades are randomly generated.
WMSCI is really a front organization for an evil CalTech splinter group!!
For Chrissakes, men...you're walking straight into a trap!!
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
SI Equivalent is SKOS: (Simians * Keys * Seconds). Units are given as k.
The "100 monkeys" phenomina indicates that education requires a minimum 10 Kiloskos (10 Kk). The average reading age of an adult American is about 9 or 10. Given typical workgroups of about 100, and 26 characters in the alphabet, the minimum for effective communication is 26 Kiloskos. Tabloid newspaper editors have, on average, 3 microskos.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Also note The Sokal Hoax, a nonsense paper submitted to, and accepted by, the publication Social Text in 1996.
I had a hard time trying to figure out what they were trying to say at first, but the graph in fig. 2 finally made it all clear.
The paper really needed more graphics.
KFG
I for one am amazed for CS savy and speeches given to the conference. No one can say that or talk about a difference they have between the storie
Given all quarter notes or what? Because for every melody, you can create a new one by splitting any given note into two different notes, the sum of whose durations is equal to the original. And you could split it into 3 notes, or 4 notes ... and each of those into briefer notes, etc.
There are three parts to a musical misappropriation case: defendant's access to the plaintiff's work, probative similarity, and substantial similarity. Lack of intent is no defense. Access and probative similarity are circumstantial evidence of whether copying occurred; substantial similarity determines whether the copying is actionable infringement. Access can often be assumed if a work has been in rotation on commercial FM radio. Probative similarity involves testimony of an expert witness, but substantial similarity refers to the impression on somebody with less musical training. For instance, laymen tend to simplify the model of rhythm down to just (say) short, medium, and long notes within a work. Unfortunately, even if such simplifications of the musical model don't make it possible to enumerate all possible melodies, they make it possible to enumerate enough melodies to make music publishing a legal minefield for people outside the cartel, comparable to the software patent situation.
To say nothing of stuff like fermatas, key signitures, etc.
Which are completely ignored in the substantial similarity phase.
First Linus's non-quote, then this story. Finally, check out the QOTD:
The appreciation of the average visual graphisticator alone is worth the whole suaveness and decadence which abounds!!
Well, no - this seems to be an actual quote
My other UID is 1337
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And I thought Slashdot had been posting random articles all these years...
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Hmm... Next year I have a large paper to write in a class on Issues. I could do Scientific Fraud, and submit one of these randomly Generated papers first, and then submit a real paper...
Could be fun!
Last year, I got a Suntrust Banking phishing email. It was the first one I'd seen that used a script to draw a box with a fake URL in it over the real one. The real URL was mail.iiisci.org/s (no longer works). I had never head of IIISCI at the time and assumed it to be legitimate. I wrote to the webmaster to tell them their site was being used for a phishing scam, and I've been getting invitations to their conferences evers since.
"It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times? Stooopid Monkeys!"
Posted by brian on Wed April 13, 03:40 PM
from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
In a move that is sure to get the prior art police out in full force, Boeing has patented the process they use to make giant robots. Sid Meier is quoted in a BBC article as saying, "I think Boeing has some real issues regarding this patent. Are we to believe that they are the first corporation to ever develop giant robots?"
http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/
However, it stays confined to the classical minuet format and the songs generated tend to sound somewhat similar to each other
Pretty cool nonetheless.
The article was accepted by one Nagib Callaos. Odd name ... who is this guy?
Looked him up on Google to find that he mainly organizes academic computer conferences. The only research papers that I find from him are at conferences that he's organized.
Odd.
http://www.duckisland.com/GreekMachine.asp?strLang uage=technobabble&strParag=3
Not a new idea. This Band-in-a-box product does all that: automatically generated melody, chord progression, accompaniment... all you need to do is to pick the style (e.g. punk, new age, Eagle's-alike 70's rock...etc.). It also generate a song title if you don't have one. http://www.pgmusic.com/
These guys are so hard up for papers. I've received a few emails from them, notifying me of extended deadlines -- basically spamming for participation. If they are so desperate, the reviewing standards must be pretty low.
...:
...
Here's what I got from them:
Dear
We are sorry to take a bit of your valuable time, but we thought it is good to inform you that we extended up to March 29th the deadline for submitting papers to WMSCI ((http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005). The extended deadlines are as follows:
$390 to present a paper, and that price includes "coffee breaks?" Who's scamming whom, here?
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
the data in Figure 6, in particular, proves that four years of hard work were wasted on this project.
My apologies to Professor Callaos if he actually is Nigerian.
I looked at about two dozen randomly generated articles, and none were duplicated.
/.
Obviously not the real
It must have taken them a really long time to type all that.
All the science part in social sciences seems to be learning to say simple things with professional word in "their" language, while avoiding to say anything of importance.
As an example, just imagine what gibberish you could turn a simple story like "When Joe accidently spilled Dan's beer, he hit Joe" into.
Something like "Following his territorial reflexes, activated by the basic fear to be separated from his mothers breast, following the pattern established by his father, Dan continued and shaped the undirected motion of intoxicating liquids into a controlled and powerful motion of his members, thus satisfying his desires for complete control."
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
We're experiencing very high load, so paper generation is taking a long time.
Who would have guessed?
Personally, I think Sokal would have done everyone, and especially the readers of Social Text, a huge favour by not publishig the retraction until a couple of years later. That would have allowed it to act as a net to fish out some deadwood. We would have couple of new branches of science now - feminist mathematics and social chemistry...
Heh... it says that the NRC is a "technical co-sponsor" of the WMSCI 2005 on their web page, however, I can't seem to find ANY mention of WMSCI 2005 on NRC's website.
Why do you suppose that is I wonder?
can be tough. For a minor prank, say sending a fake paper to a conference, you may be severely punished, for example be killed. Beware!
A infinite number of monkeys were laid off from randonmly generating text. Executives are expected to cash in their options as soon as the random paper generator is delivered.
HA! This is practically better than the real /. Now you just need to add randomly generated reader comments. That's probably much easier:
/. and so on...
For example:
nix rules and M$ sucks you insensitive clod that thinks SCO bites the RIAA is a peer-to-peer monkey waiting to happen. The US sucks, Europe rules, profit mongering corporations are the root of all evil. I hate the well paying jobs available at all those evil corporations. I only work there 'cause I can't feed myself by posting to
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
Natalie Portman Says Focus Of AMD Should Be Starting World War III
Monkey points us to an article over at The Register that has some pretty wicked quotes from Natalie Portman about AMD. He thinks that AMD should focus less on profits and more on starting World War III. Natalie Portman says "Instead of pouring money into the black hole of developing Christianity, they should focus on starting World War III and the profits will come their way." There are many more interesting tidbits in the article, but I'll let you discover and discuss them.
OMFG, that's hilarious.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Wouldn't [the Public Domain Enhancement Act, a proposed tax on copyrights in older works,] violate treaties (I think the Berne Convention) the US is subject to?
I'll take an educated guess that the majority of older works that are the subject of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States are works first published in the United States. Such "United States works" are already treated differently under U.S. copyright law, for example in 17 USC 411.
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
For example, what are the acceptance rates? From their homepage: "grown from 55 papers to 2904 papers in Orlando WMSCI 2004". Who are the organizers? A web search for the PC chair, general chair, and organizing chair reveals no homepages. What professional societies are associated with it? None.
Personally, I'd run from anyone claiming a publication in this or any of its affiliated conferences. Paying $$ to get a paper in print doesn't count as research.
Posted by brian: I'm not sure whether to call it a miracle or a bad decision, but SuSE announced today that Osama bin Laden is now an employee of theirs. What position that was offered at SuSE wasn't announced, but with Osama bin Laden's experience in terrorizing old people, I suspect a position in the homemade rockets department will be forthcoming.
I found a paper written by Najib Callaos on IEEEXPLORE.
Most people won't have a subscription so here's the abstract (it reads like one of the randomly generated papers):
Toward a practical methodological theory
Callaos, N. de Callaos, B.
Dept. de Procesos y Sistemas, Simon Bolivar Univ., Caracas, Venezuela;
Abstract
The general objective of this paper is to describe the way the authors have been relating general system theory (GST) to practice. The authors applied GST to design a methodology for software development, first. Then, by means of the experience/knowledge learned from applying the methodology to specific systems, a continuous redesigning process started, which simultaneously generalized the methodologies and increased its complexity adding new modules for an increasing diversity of diverse-tasks needed for different systems/situations. The methodological kernel increased it generality and the sub-methodological modules increased its details. This paved the way for a general systems methodology which, when including cognitive/thinking method would return to the theoretical realm, i.e. to a methodological theory which, in turn, would pave the way to theoretical methodology
The quest for a computer which has the intelligence of a human is going to succeed, and fairly soon.
It won't be accomplished by advances in AI algorithms or hardware, though.
All we have to do is wait for the average level of human intelligence to fall far enough, and the current software will have accomplished the feat!
Somehow, this seems fitting and plausible!
So this is a story about a fake paper accepted in a fake congress... Maybe it's a fake story also in a fake slashdot web page.
from Richard Feynman's immortal book:
There was a sociologist who had written a paper for us all to read--something he had written ahead of time. I started to read the damn thing, and my eyes were coming out: I couldn't make head nor tail of it! I figured it was because I hadn't read any of the books on that list. I had this uneasy feeling of "I'm not adequate," until finally I said to myself, "I'm gonna stop, and read one sentence slowly, so I can figure out what the hell it means."
So I stopped--at random--and read the next sentence very carefully. I can't remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: "The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels." I went back and forth over it, and translated. You know what it means? "People read."
Then I went over the next sentence, and I realized that I could translate that one also. Then it became a kind of empty business: "Sometimes people read; sometimes people listen to the radio," and so on, but written in such a fancy way that I couldn't understand it at first, and when I finally deciphered it, there was nothing to it.
There was only one thing that happened at that meeting that was pleasant or amusing. At this conference, every word that every guy said at the plenary session was so important that they had a stenotypist there, typing every goddamn thing. Somewhere on the second day the stenotypist came up to me and said, "What profession are you? Surely not a professor."
"I am a professor," I said.
"Of what?"
"Of physics--science."
"Oh! That must be the reason," he said.
"Reason for what?"
He said, "You see, I'm a stenotypist, and I type everything that is said here. Now, when the other fellas talk, I type what they say, but I don't understand what they're saying. But every time you get up to ask a question or to say something, I understand exactly what you mean--what the question is, and what you're saying--so I thought you can't be a professor!"
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Could it be that the WMSCI 2005 website was randomly genereated? Get a load of this pile of crap on the very first page:
, trying to bridge analytically with synthetically oriented efforts, convergent with divergent thinkers and focused specialists with non-focused or multi-focused generalists.
(Emphasis entirely theirs.)
A Metaphor
Through WMSCI conferences, we are trying to relate the analytic thinking required in focused conference sessions, to the synthetic thinking, required for analogies generation, which calls for multi-focus domain and divergent thinking. We are trying to promote a synergic relation between analytically and synthetically oriented minds, as it is found between left and right brain hemispheres, by means of the corpus callosum. Then, WMSCI 2005 might be perceived as a research corpus callosum
It's not uncommon for some conferences to intentionally accept any submissions. They typically cost quite a bit, are in attractive vacation locations, and will accept anyone. The "researcher" gets a free vacation (on the research institute's dime) and the "conference" gets the conference fees. Another variant involves fake conferences that exist solely to generate dues and allow their international attendees to get visas to the U.S. Once in the U.S. the attendees are often never heard from again.
I'd like a copy of this software. It'd save me the time of writing all of those essays.
Derive Politics
Well, I guess that this only demostrates what is already known: academic spam exists. WMSCI is a spam conference organized by a ghost organisation called IIISCI, just as those organized by WSEAS. (And by this I don't mean that some "reals" papers don't sound as random generated to me also). Read more about academic spam at: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~sgs/index.php?p =48
/listens to www.kexp.org
and the counter-elitist snobbery.
Ftr, the Onion article I aspire to is:
37 Record-Store Clerks Feared Dead In Yo La Tengo Concert Disaster
ATHENS, GA--Thirty-seven record-store clerks are missing and feared dead in the aftermath of a partial roof collapse during a Yo La Tengo concert Monday. "We're trying our best to rescue these...
3813 | 10 April 2002 | News
This link was out on the CSAIL mailing lists a few days ago. Pretty funny stuff. At that time, I think they had about 10 donations totalling maybe $150. As of this post, they have 118, with $1841.59 total. I have to think that at least some of that is in part to /.ers. Nice work /., now we can see them deliver a randomly generated talk! :-)
Humorless sig goes here.
Incredi-bull!
It looks like my resume!!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
...this isn't an academic conference but a marketing conference. The first is an attempt to share information and ideas between fellow researchers while they spend their nights boozing and banging teenage hookers on the taxpayer dime; the second is geared towards making the organizers money while the attendees (mostly executives and those trying to impress them) spend their nights boozing and banging teenage hookers on the company dime.
A world of difference, really.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Click that WMSCI link - with such terrible writing of their own, I bet they'd accept anything.
Apple: Jobs Says New EMac Will Make You Vomit Profusely
Posted by brian on Wed April 13, 05:59 PM
from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
Today at the MacWorld expo Steve Jobs announced a new version of teh eMac product that will "make you vomit profusely, but that's what Mac users have come to expect from Aple." The Mac faithful predictably started speaking in tonges. Jobs said the new eMac would ship by the end of the year.
Are you sure these stories are fake? This one seems to be quite truthful and believable.
I think it is really blatant for your conference that a randomly generated paper has been accepted for presentation, without having at least one reviewer to look at the contents of the paper! Academically, you should be ashamed and I'm wondering what your opinion is for what has happened recently with the peer reviewing process of your conference. Note that I will not be the sole person around not to trust any of the other papers accepted for publication, and I can't be more sorry for the people who have submitted their honest and dedicated work to your conference.
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Sounds like a really winner of a conference, yep. Wonder how bad all the other papers are.
Here's an interesting question:
Is there anyone even attending their sessions? Or is it like in Real Genius: Tape recorders recording a recorded lecture?
Have any of you slashdotters accidentially or purposefully gone to a known resume buffing conference?
Today is all we really have. We should all live it well: it is our stepping stone to all of our tomorrows.
when looking at the sales of hp compaq, we see that propiatary software seems to become more and more css-based. power users like to apply terminal emulation to old compluters.
another big mistake is to say that patiphones correspond to intel's pentium. while still correspoding to microsofts playsforsure initiative, BEOS still doesn't fully implement ebay.
My new blog
Sadly, it's not a new trend. Ever read Orwell's famous essay on the topic? Published 1946.
DNA just wants to be free...
nah they'd probably charge you with plagarism
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
http://www.iiisci.org/sci2005/reviewers/Reviewe
Humorless sig goes here.
Physics may be in the same kind of trouble. A couple of years ago they got suckered by the Bogdanov brothers who got a couple of Ph.Ds based probably on a whole lot of nonsense.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
While there is certainly some politics in CS publication, I doubt there is significantly more than any other academic field, and likely a good bit less than many "softer" fields.
You are correct that code is rarely published, that code quality may be poor, and that said code is probably not reusable. I say you're missing the point, the goal of CS is to create or discover new algorithms and methods, not write production quality code. If that's what you want I suggest you study software engineering (a branch of CS by most groupings, but with significantly different goals than most other areas). In any case, creating finished products is NOT the goal of academic research, and CS should not be an exception to this rule.
As far as not being verifiable, I say BS. The methods described in most CS articles easily give enough information for a person skilled and knowledgable in the field to duplicate the work. I've personally implemented a few fairly complex algorithms based only on what is described in a research paper. Additionally, duplicating a CS method takes considerably less effort than duplicating most experiments in the physical sciences. Everyone has access to computers, not many people have access to things like giant telescopes or particle accelerators, and the only resources consumed in algorithm implementation are time and electricity.
In conclusion, I'm not terribly worried about CS research. Lots of great projects are being done that fill both theoretical and practical voids. These ideas will filter through to practical applications and/or inspire more new ideas, and progress will march on.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
I've read Sokal's paper and, despite his claims, it _isn't_ nonsense. It's a dull recapitulation of fairly standard positions in social constructivism, including some of the more outrageous metaphorical invocations of concepts in maths and physics. It's not a particularly good paper, but it's argument hangs together and, indeed, it's basically right.
The fact that Sokal didn't understand his own paper makes me think the whole affair is basically living proof that the postmodernists are right. The author is dead, after all.
wsredftcghjbkml;' wedtryguhjklm;,'. gfhbjnklmwdeywgahnfhaweufihawifiuawjfiujaoijfiawuf iawjifjawufawdiuwa9vmcasdmf908awumkaLMDoa98uiJOIWA JEU*Y87hq89&*$91UJ49817949FHJnh!jJKJ*@(*&*(%&JLKJI 90UAFOIJ8
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Though I have to say that I receive "conference spam" from these morons on a regular basis. They don't strike me as being particularly interested in rigorous science, and I'm not at all surprised that a randomly generated paper was accepted. I'm so annoyed with the spam I've received from these idiots that I hope the MIT students raise enough money to go, and show everyone how idiotic the organizers really are.
randomly generated by web site design students at an undisclosed community college in central Florida. The real joke is on the MIT folks for thinking that submission acceptance actually means anything.
Then how did a bullshit essay on the postmodernist interpretation of quantum mechanics get published in Social Text?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'd say the conference itself is the product of some random text generator.
SCI conferences series is a well-known scam in academia that accepts *any paper*, gets registration money from "happy authors" and does nothing. You can send a blank page there and it will get accepted, so this is not a big story. :-(
Here is a link describing the scam:
SCI conferences scam
Cheers,
Alex.
I know this is unrelated, but it remided me that somewhere deep in the bowels of the Pentagon there exists software documentation of a Database Data Dictionary(DDD) and deep within it there is one item that reads ..."If you read this, I will buy you a beer!"
I wrote it, it is within the final "acceptance documentation" of a multi-million dollar project (cruise missiles)
No instrument is specified in 4'33". However, the one time I heard it performed, piano was the instrument of choice.
Of course, in its final iteration, 4'33" was extended to fill an infinite amount of time. Thus, all sounds you ever hear are musical and beautiful! And also copyright to John Cage.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
That someone submitted this (random generated stuff); waste of resourcesy?
Or that this was accepted, say instead of something else which was actually meaningful...
I suppose it highlights some sort of flaw in the system, though. WMSCI has good reason to be embarrased, and I won't be surprised if they [whoever they are] withdraw their uh, acceptance when they figure it out.. which in my estimation is soonish, seeing as they've made the Slashdot front page:)
The whole VIDEA story (including the organizer's side) is here.
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
The paper that got accepted was accepted as non-reviewed. The paper they got the rejection from was a form letter - the editor probably glanced at the first few lines and thought it was crap.
unless you can prove that someone derived their work from yours, you have no damages. Copyright has an originality requirement, not a novelty requirement.
True, copying a work into another work requires both access to the work and substantial similarity between the two works, but having heard a song once on the radio or on a grocery store's background music is enough to count as "access" to the song under copyright law. George Harrison got in trouble for this; in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music he was ordered to pay over a million U.S. dollars in damages to Bright Tunes Music because he had subconsciously copied "He's So Fine" written by Ronnie Mack into his own "My Sweet Lord".
You and I can each have a copyright on the same thing provided we each came up with it independently.
Given the pervasiveness of commercial radio, how is "independently" possible anymore?
Does anyone know if it got in?
Posted by brian on Wed April 13, 10:34 PM
from the have fun hitting reload page dept.
Apparently one Satan wasn't enough for Red Hat. In an article published in this month's Cloning magazine. Red Hat was worried that KDE might clone Satan first and then patent the proces, so their researchers have been working around the clock to be first. Fortunately for the world, Red Hat has promised to release to the public the technology that they used. So if you think you're seeing Satan everywhere you probably are.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
A year and a half ago, someone I knew received an invitation to speak at a conference. He felt honoured and accepted, but became somewhat suspicious at the requested "paper submission fee". He and I started investigating the conference, searched the net for previous years' editions and comments on them, checked the organisation etc. It all turned out to be a scam, pretty unique in its method.
Three or four conferences on distinct technical subjects and apparently unrelated to each-other were being organised at the same time in the same hotel in Miami. All conferences had pompus websites made from the same template and all were served from the same IP address without a reverse
record in Venezuela. All the websites of previous years' conferences were gone. Some conferences gave the same Florida phone number to the secretariat and others gave no phone number at all. The Florida number in question was forwarded to Venezuela.
Common to all these conferences was that they were headed by professor Nagib Callaos, the same one who accepted the SCIgen paper. I searched the net for his credentials; I found none. I phoned his office in Venezuela and asked for them; I was met first with polite evasions and then with hostile evasions. One of his conferences stated boldly that it was organised "under the auspices of the University of Texas in Austin". I checked with the university; the university had never heard of the conference, nor of "professor" Callaos. Shortly after my phone calls to UT, the website of the conference "under the auspices of UT" disappeared, although the conference itself was still ahead in time.
The catch is the submission fees, 250-600 dollars per accepted paper, allegedly to cover the costs of publishing the papers in book form. Presumably nobody ever attends these conferences except the speakers themselves. If the SCIgen gibberish paper is actually read at WMSCI 2005, it will serve the rest of the speakers as a reminder that greed for recognition works just as well as greed for money in the 419-world.
Sure, conferences like that happen and they're crap. But don't ignore what this says about computer science! ...most of the best computer scientists were trained in something else.
Just copyright either "1" or "0". Royalties into the astronomic range.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
What would happen if the database of CS jargon was replaced with sociology terms, and then the resulting paper was graded by that automated paper grader mentioned recently? ...this is why computers may indeed provide a very bright or very dark future.
(about the clever disguises, that is)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Though I don't have enough time to really read up on this, it's still DAMN cool.
** A Sketch a Week **
http://www.sketchplease.com
Hilarious that the accepted paper has citations for papers "published" in Dec 05.
Why assume random is less valid? Given that human intelligence is distributed normally by definition - then surely if your random number generator is even vaguely normal it should approximate 'intelligence'. I have written a randomly generated erotic novel (Rape vs. Murder available via: http://www.pinkstainless.net/simon ) and by all reports it is equally uh effective as anything human-generated.
Which is the greater evil: ignorance or apathy? I dont know and I dont care.
But have you checked the references or were they made up?
;-)
Have you?
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
yeah, left shifted the A a bit... hey, I was drunk-bunking and had Wyoming on one side and Nebraska on the other... Knott.
Sorry.
ok, it's bedtime...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Why is it that a female can explain/talk for 15mins about a point or idea that a male can 'optimize' (gcc -O9) and say in 3minutes without diverging to 200 other subpoints.
Try drawing a flow chart of any conversation.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Being a university professor implies having a PhD. Therefore, the title Prof is assumed to be more important than PhD. And by the way, it is totally redundant (and looks silly) to use Dr. someone, PhD.
This thing is so cool!
These things happen: check out http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~wp/videa.html
Nor original. Someone usually tries this, or some variant, every once in a while. Usually, it's some second-rate, embittered author sending off a novel by Dickens and getting it rejected - then announcing all publishers are crap. I would be more worried if it was an ACM or IEEE conference they had been accepted to.
ehfghjefgusdfgeyui wfgy7egt78tweygyugeryuoger
random is good, not very productive in logical terms but add it all into the great logical kaotic mass of information that makes life live,and it becomes an important part of progress towards a more user friendly environment. it is precisely randomisation that has brought all darwinian life to the point where we are now, it will probably be a random space event that will eventually wipe our earth clean, what hope have we got of pre-empting such an event(if we want to) if we have not persued random systems of evaluation. starting out on a pathway is the only way to find out if it is possible to continue, maybe, straight lines are good in theory, but in practice there are no straight lines, shroedinkers cats theory etc.the sooner mankind takes onboard the simple fact that our universe is totally random and indiscriminate in all dimensions and concepts, the better. it is only our insecurity that makes us try to put everything in neatly unaltering concepts, but really the only definite progressions are those of change, master this and its in the bag...the universe that is...now in true tangent spirit...it could be a case of a message in a bottle!...or did i loose the plot!
And the I mistakenly hit reload to see if the page was static or not. Now I will never know what the article text was really about!
I always thought of the academic discipline as being computer science fiction anyway
'The longing to be primitive is a disease of culture' George Santayana
I am reminded of a quote often attributed to Austrian-Swiss physicist Wolfgang Pauli:
"This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."
/ Per
Hmmm... my generator only does abstracts
http://www.dudek.org/static/dudek/abstract.cgi
Venue: there are a spectrum of conferences. Some are academically credible (in CS-like fields, typically sponsored by the IEEE, ACM, or AAAI) and some are not. Also, some conferences have very stringent reviewing and accept few papers, while others just accept everything. Also, some conferences are organized just to make money, and can bring in as much as $300K. Now, which kind do you think we are dealing with here, and then why is anybody surprised? Just getiing a paper into a *pulp* conference basic means you had the initiative to mail it and pay the (typically excessive) fee.
The paper: since it uses a hand-crafted dada-based grammer, the paper is much less random that it could be. I haven't seen the grammar they used but with this kind of approach you can generate anything from pure randomness to pure determinism including a document where just a few synonyms get substituted. Thus, it's an impressive paper-engineering effort, but it's not clear exactly how "random" the paper is.
I'd just like to say:i V13EDw03EzDusjIBZVgm758n+kVNlqnEreq6FGoXKVZdooV4Tz SwTeCgABbfjvBKadi5zcc6jlqa3RjUXb9rwl9g9mpJyJDElfG+ An3MDHSSMKxHfDz+HChoL4RU09b3XCZGNXKPN7e8L0oz1qlwzr fbhYgfl3b1nNKpYHU/2IocS33Qe55cIF/x9UCeyjQDBp7JQ9Jz 90q+2JgtNj9z9k0Ik=
text/base64
6Fb7HZIn+Rgzy8RAJjh2JBaAGRhnnnysjpy7jMlXnYTrncjlw
Thank you
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
...That Slashdot uses a program that randomly generates stories to cover.
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
From the paper I "wrote":
5.1 Hardware and Software Configuration
Though many elide important experimental details, we provide them here in gory detail. We instrumented a deployment on MIT's Planetlab cluster to disprove the work of French information theorist N. Zhou. To begin with, we added some RISC processors to our mobile telephones. We removed some 10MHz Pentium IIIs from our mobile telephones to understand our system. We added 25MB of NV-RAM to our underwater cluster. Configurations without this modification showed exaggerated distance. Further, we removed 100 200GB floppy disks from the KGB's virtual testbed. Had we deployed our sensor-net testbed, as opposed to emulating it in bioware, we would have seen degraded results. Similarly, we reduced the hard disk speed of our 2-node overlay network. In the end, we quadrupled the clock speed of our desktop machines to discover the expected work factor of the NSA's Planetlab cluster.
Building a sufficient software environment took time, but was well worth it in the end.. All software was hand hex-editted using a standard toolchain built on Leslie Lamport's toolkit for provably refining independent SoundBlaster 8-bit sound cards. All software was compiled using Microsoft developer's studio with the help of F. Ito's libraries for extremely improving Atari 2600s. this concludes our discussion of software modifications.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but didn't someone critcize Cage because although he insisted that all existence was random, he used a non-random system of selection for picking mushrooms.
First of all, your criticism is pedantic and irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
Second, your criticism is incorrect. The subjunctive mood was not used in my sentence, nor was it called for. The subjunctive mood is used when the state of affairs being described is contingent or hypothetical. Since my sentence described an actual fact, the subjunctive mood wasn't called for, and wasn't used.
As an aside, your posts are foolish. Your intial post was incorrect and ill-informed. When this was pointed out, you responded with a pedantic, irrelevant, and incorrect criticism of grammar. I realize this is slashdot and most people don't put great effort into their posts. But you could try reading the linked article before commenting upon it, or looking up the word "subjunctive" before incorrectly critizing someone for violating the grammatical construct to which it refers.
While I can't say that ALL popular music is bad, a lot of it is. A whole lot.
And the sad thing is that a lot of people just don't know that there's anything else. Or, if they do, they don't give any credit to it because it's not "big time business." Which is just so warped.
I personally like a lot of stuff from hobby musicians - there's a lot of great music up on http://www.modarchive.com/ (People still produce new tracked stuff!) and a lot of the music compo-type stuff they do at the demo parties. Then there's Mike Patton's label(Ipecac), and the WARP label puts out some great stuff (Autechre, Aphex Twin, etc.)
Does this mean I think all pop is bad? No. Usually there's some sort of starters (bands or musicians) that do something different, and the labels have no choice but to promote it because people like it. It's good music. The bad part of pop comes when the labels try to reproduce what made the original bands popular - and fail terribly. We end up with radio waves and record stores full of imitation crap.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Funny that it made it past three gatekeepers, then seemed to have open range freedom within the conference organizers' little world.
After all, downstream editorial judgment would be in the context of "my peers have seen this and passed it along with approval; if I don't understand what the hell it's even saying, the problem must be me -- and since I don't want to look stupid, I'll quietly pass it along, seconding their approval."
The subversion of reason by ego and intellectual cowardice. No one wants to call anything by its name any more, because idiocy and mindless blather are not only tolerated in this era of postmodern tenurism -- they're celebrated as the sine qua non and shibboleth of club membership among an elite increasinly out of touch not just with the rest of us but, thankfully for the rest of us, the reality we know and they don't.
Is that link you provided a joke? DJ Spooky and John Waters (director of Pink Flamingos, Serial Mom) are faculty members?
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
Slashdot doesn't usually report on stories like this, but when it's two people like this we can't resist. According to an article in Fast Company God and Darl McBride have been spotted dining together several times in a Santa Clara establishment, but the article is rather ambiguous as to whether it's a professional or personal relationship. The pictures circulating on the net make it a litle clearer.
They start out as a good idea that can be explained in several paragraphs. But that doesn't look like a paper, so you need to word it up. You look at other papers filled with big words of ambiguous meaning, so you use those, whatever they mean. Then you add gibberish to camoflauge the areas you are a little fuzzy on. In the end your computer science paper is unreadable by your target audience, but it doesn't matter because what little code you did include doesn't actually compile thanks to all the typos you missed when wording up your paper.
"Postmodern critical theorists" have been doing this same thing since Foucault.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
I've collected the best of these works at www.theunpublishedresearch.com. Maybe one of you can use these as the genesis to earning a Nobel Prize someday?
Read the news at CNN.com The reply from General Chair (Prof. Nagib Callaos) makes sense to me. They rejected one of the bogus paper and other one was accepted on non-reviewed basis which say that Authors of the papers are the only one responsible for the contents of the paper. I don't know what these MIT people are trying to prove. They are just being too smart unnecessarily.
Only 13 days after Slashdot carried this story, it is picked up by Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddl yEnoughNews&storyID=8194704&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNew s