If you're into homage, there's always the option to name your daughters 2jane, 3jane, etc.
Also, it doesn't take a bad A.P. Rilfools joke to come up with bad names. My friend's late mother taught primary school, and one of her students (whose parents were from another country) had a name pronounced SHI-thee-ad, but unfortunately spelled Shithead. Hand to God.
I know, I'm an evil man for giggling at both a stranger's culture and his misfortune, but there's a dearth of intelligent humor today so the fourth-grade stuff will have to do.
The title of this Slashdot story, as well as most of the comments, have missed the point.
I spoke with Lada Adamic Wednesday, and she gave a talk on this and several other of her research directions. They are not out to determine whether people plagiarize. They are interested in information flow within complex networks. That is to say, if I want to find good information, where should I look? The typical answer has been "those who agglomerate".
It is no surprise to the HP group or anyone that some information sources are simply aggregating agents. But if your area of research is information flow in complex networks, this type of study contains many insights. For example, a common question is "what information nodes are important?". This study seeks to look beyond the naive answer "high-degree nodes" and attribute some importance, in an informational sense, to lower-degree nodes that act as sources for the network.
The iRank scheme mentioned several times in the article, which I read, demonstrates this thrust. A scheme like PageRank will almost always rank most highly the aggregates, because they are highest-degree in terms of backlinks. But who is to say that such a ranking is optimal? If you care about quickly scanning much information, it probably is. But if you care about seeking more detailed or perhaps more well-informed sources of information on a topic, iRank may well be a closer-to-optimal scheme.
The comments regarding this story have been a straw man excercise if i've ever seen one on Slashdot. HP doesn't spend its research money to find out that some information sources gather information from many others and distribute it widely. It does spend its money to find out more about how complex networks operate and how the flow of information can be analyzed and exploited to improve query responses in those networks.
I know this is offtopic, but I think it's reasonable since the actual article disappeared. There was a "From the future' article about the Linux supercomputer at PNNL, but now it's gone. Here's a link:
Agreed. Even if the label is selling music in breach of the contract terms, it's a label problem-- not a distributor problem. It would be no different if Virgin Records started selling Fugazi records to Best Buy. You can bitch at Best Buy, but they're just going to (correctly) pass the buck on to the label (and perhaps take the albums off the shelves if it is that obvious that the label is misbehaving). Is buymusic just supposed to take Jody Whitesides' word for it that she indeed wrote and performed the music, and that its sale to buymusic was in breach of contract? Of course not; it's not even clear from her gripe whether it's even in breach to begin with!
However, the customer service anecdote raises more serious issues with buymusic. Fortunately, most (perhaps all, I don't know the payment setup) customers will use credit cards to purchase music, and Americans enjoy credit card rights that protect us from faulty or undelivered products. (It's too bad that customer mentioned both calling her credit card company and publicizing the mishap in a weblog; it would have been interesting to have seen which of those two threats made buymusic buckle.) Moreover, the nature of the service is such that most customers will 'try it out' first buying just a song or two, or maybe a whole album, so the risk is reduced further.
For example, one hint was to use the vars() function creates a dictionary of the local namespace. This makes it useful when string formatting:
Even cooler than that, (thanks to O'Reilly's Python Cookbook) is the ability to evaluate expressions embedded in strings. My copy of the Cookbook is at work (I hack Python for a living, woo), but there's an 'Eval' recipe that I use constantly for converting run-time parameter values into input files for older codes that have to be run via the OS.
The Eval class uses three handy Python concepts. First, it uses sys._getframe(1) to get the namespace of the current frame (actually the caller's frame, since we are in an instance method). Then it uses the flexible typing of Python to 'act' like a dictionary, by defining the __getitem__ special method to evaluate whatever hash key (i.e., string) is passed in as Python code. Lastly, Python string formatting can be fed a dictionary, and the format arguments are looked up in that dictionary. But our 'dictionary' is actually (an instance of) the Eval class, which knows about the caller's namespace and which can eval() statements dynamically.
Obviously, if this were some kind of code where security was important, the Eval class is no good. But in our (trusted) applications, it is an insanely handy way to dump lots of different (but similar-looking) files without having to do a lot of weird variable naming.
When I have to make a seventy-line input file that repeatedly combines trigonometric functions in several different combinations, this recipe allows me to skip (1) slowly piecing together the string one line at a time and (2) deciding on the operations that will define the string format arguments ahead of time. So I can make the metastring in an input file rather than having to open up a real module every time I want to change the way some (other program's) input file looks. Variations exist; sometimes I don't want to use the current namespace, but I do have a dictionary of values and I'd still like to embed the expressions in the metastring.
If you are totally new to Python, but have some experience in other languages, I recommend finding the Cookbook at a bookstore or library and just having a seat for a while and skimming through some of the recipes. It's a good way to find out why so many people like the language, as well as a good introduction into the 'Pythonic' way of things. The chapter 'Programs about Programs' has some neat tricks, as do the 'Algorithms' and 'Functional Programming' (or some variant) chapters.
If this sounds good to you, you'll totally love my new plan:
1. Forward this note to five of your friends and send me and the ten people before me on this list a dollar and an mp3. Maybe on one of those cute little CDs. Then your friends will send you a dollar and an mp3, and soon you will have forty gazillion dollars (3. Profit!) and so many THUMPIN' TUNES that you won't ever have to buy another Now That's What I Call Music until they're at, like, eleventy billion. (What? They are at eleventy billion? Well, then infinity raised to the eleventy billion.)
2. Seriously, I mean do you know what five times five times five times five times five is? That's huge! And that's just how much you'll have after just five 'links in the chain'. But if you don't forward this right away, you'll have lots of bad luck. Oh and also I have testimonials, but I forgot to put them here, but they are totally convincing. Oh and we'll sell stock for $20 at our IPO, no problem. Just 'cause I'm totally awesome.
DON'T BREAK THE CHAIN!!! OR RIAA AND SATAN WILL PREVAIL!!!
3. Profit!
But seriously, no matter how you slice it, Fair Use does not involve making money, even if you try to dance around with some sort of 'public ownership' hogwash. The legal restrictions on what one (or many) can do with a copyrighted work seem much more well-defined and far-reaching than the rights that one enjoys, and no reasonable judge is going to swallow this. Moreover, no sizeable popular base will get behind it because it so obviously screws the musicians (even more than they are already being screwed).
When the power players abuse the intent of the law in favor of the letter, we all cry foul. But those cries carry less weight if we start sniffing around for loopholes of our own. The real problem, as always, is that the power players get to write the laws. They have the muscle to close our loopholes, whereas all we can do is find somewhere to bitch about theirs. Until that changes, any legal tomfoolery that we manage to abuse will just distract attention from the more fundamental problems.
That said, I would jump on the chance to have a wristwatch-ringer for my cellphone. Not even a tone-ringer, just vibrate. For starters, it's discreet; it eliminates the need to ever turn your ringer on in public. You feel a slight vibration on your wrist, look at your watch (which displays caller info), and decide whether to get your phone out and take the call. Secondly, it eliminates the problem of being unable to hear/feel your phone in loud and busy places. I think women who carry a phone in a purse might appreciate this even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Video of Will Wright's Spore Demo (~35 min): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372603330 420559198&q=spore
PA's take: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/05/27
Also, it doesn't take a bad A.P. Rilfools joke to come up with bad names. My friend's late mother taught primary school, and one of her students (whose parents were from another country) had a name pronounced SHI-thee-ad, but unfortunately spelled Shithead. Hand to God.
I know, I'm an evil man for giggling at both a stranger's culture and his misfortune, but there's a dearth of intelligent humor today so the fourth-grade stuff will have to do.
I spoke with Lada Adamic Wednesday, and she gave a talk on this and several other of her research directions. They are not out to determine whether people plagiarize. They are interested in information flow within complex networks. That is to say, if I want to find good information, where should I look? The typical answer has been "those who agglomerate".
It is no surprise to the HP group or anyone that some information sources are simply aggregating agents. But if your area of research is information flow in complex networks, this type of study contains many insights. For example, a common question is "what information nodes are important?". This study seeks to look beyond the naive answer "high-degree nodes" and attribute some importance, in an informational sense, to lower-degree nodes that act as sources for the network.
The iRank scheme mentioned several times in the article, which I read, demonstrates this thrust. A scheme like PageRank will almost always rank most highly the aggregates, because they are highest-degree in terms of backlinks. But who is to say that such a ranking is optimal? If you care about quickly scanning much information, it probably is. But if you care about seeking more detailed or perhaps more well-informed sources of information on a topic, iRank may well be a closer-to-optimal scheme.
The comments regarding this story have been a straw man excercise if i've ever seen one on Slashdot. HP doesn't spend its research money to find out that some information sources gather information from many others and distribute it widely. It does spend its money to find out more about how complex networks operate and how the flow of information can be analyzed and exploited to improve query responses in those networks.
I know this is offtopic, but I think it's reasonable since the actual article disappeared. There was a "From the future' article about the Linux supercomputer at PNNL, but now it's gone. Here's a link:
2 7070828.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/0308
Was it a repeat?
Agreed. Even if the label is selling music in breach of the contract terms, it's a label problem-- not a distributor problem. It would be no different if Virgin Records started selling Fugazi records to Best Buy. You can bitch at Best Buy, but they're just going to (correctly) pass the buck on to the label (and perhaps take the albums off the shelves if it is that obvious that the label is misbehaving). Is buymusic just supposed to take Jody Whitesides' word for it that she indeed wrote and performed the music, and that its sale to buymusic was in breach of contract? Of course not; it's not even clear from her gripe whether it's even in breach to begin with!
However, the customer service anecdote raises more serious issues with buymusic. Fortunately, most (perhaps all, I don't know the payment setup) customers will use credit cards to purchase music, and Americans enjoy credit card rights that protect us from faulty or undelivered products. (It's too bad that customer mentioned both calling her credit card company and publicizing the mishap in a weblog; it would have been interesting to have seen which of those two threats made buymusic buckle.) Moreover, the nature of the service is such that most customers will 'try it out' first buying just a song or two, or maybe a whole album, so the risk is reduced further.
I'm sorry, but opening any headline with the phrase "Hardly Anyone Cares About..." just doesn't grab my attention.
New Mozilla Release: Who Gives a Shit?
Old News: Bush a Liar
Linux More Stable Than Windows, Sphincter Clicks Here
Even cooler than that, (thanks to O'Reilly's Python Cookbook) is the ability to evaluate expressions embedded in strings. My copy of the Cookbook is at work (I hack Python for a living, woo), but there's an 'Eval' recipe that I use constantly for converting run-time parameter values into input files for older codes that have to be run via the OS.
The Eval class uses three handy Python concepts. First, it uses sys._getframe(1) to get the namespace of the current frame (actually the caller's frame, since we are in an instance method). Then it uses the flexible typing of Python to 'act' like a dictionary, by defining the __getitem__ special method to evaluate whatever hash key (i.e., string) is passed in as Python code . Lastly, Python string formatting can be fed a dictionary, and the format arguments are looked up in that dictionary. But our 'dictionary' is actually (an instance of) the Eval class, which knows about the caller's namespace and which can eval() statements dynamically.
Obviously, if this were some kind of code where security was important, the Eval class is no good. But in our (trusted) applications, it is an insanely handy way to dump lots of different (but similar-looking) files without having to do a lot of weird variable naming.
So, assuming the Eval class exists:
When I have to make a seventy-line input file that repeatedly combines trigonometric functions in several different combinations, this recipe allows me to skip (1) slowly piecing together the string one line at a time and (2) deciding on the operations that will define the string format arguments ahead of time. So I can make the metastring in an input file rather than having to open up a real module every time I want to change the way some (other program's) input file looks. Variations exist; sometimes I don't want to use the current namespace, but I do have a dictionary of values and I'd still like to embed the expressions in the metastring.
If you are totally new to Python, but have some experience in other languages, I recommend finding the Cookbook at a bookstore or library and just having a seat for a while and skimming through some of the recipes. It's a good way to find out why so many people like the language, as well as a good introduction into the 'Pythonic' way of things. The chapter 'Programs about Programs' has some neat tricks, as do the 'Algorithms' and 'Functional Programming' (or some variant) chapters.
If this sounds good to you, you'll totally love my new plan:
1. Forward this note to five of your friends and send me and the ten people before me on this list a dollar and an mp3. Maybe on one of those cute little CDs. Then your friends will send you a dollar and an mp3, and soon you will have forty gazillion dollars (3. Profit!) and so many THUMPIN' TUNES that you won't ever have to buy another Now That's What I Call Music until they're at, like, eleventy billion. (What? They are at eleventy billion? Well, then infinity raised to the eleventy billion.)
2. Seriously, I mean do you know what five times five times five times five times five is? That's huge! And that's just how much you'll have after just five 'links in the chain'. But if you don't forward this right away, you'll have lots of bad luck. Oh and also I have testimonials, but I forgot to put them here, but they are totally convincing. Oh and we'll sell stock for $20 at our IPO, no problem. Just 'cause I'm totally awesome.
DON'T BREAK THE CHAIN!!! OR RIAA AND SATAN WILL PREVAIL!!!
3. Profit!
But seriously, no matter how you slice it, Fair Use does not involve making money, even if you try to dance around with some sort of 'public ownership' hogwash. The legal restrictions on what one (or many) can do with a copyrighted work seem much more well-defined and far-reaching than the rights that one enjoys, and no reasonable judge is going to swallow this. Moreover, no sizeable popular base will get behind it because it so obviously screws the musicians (even more than they are already being screwed).
When the power players abuse the intent of the law in favor of the letter, we all cry foul. But those cries carry less weight if we start sniffing around for loopholes of our own. The real problem, as always, is that the power players get to write the laws. They have the muscle to close our loopholes, whereas all we can do is find somewhere to bitch about theirs. Until that changes, any legal tomfoolery that we manage to abuse will just distract attention from the more fundamental problems.
I'm not interested in talking into my watch.
That said, I would jump on the chance to have a wristwatch-ringer for my cellphone. Not even a tone-ringer, just vibrate. For starters, it's discreet; it eliminates the need to ever turn your ringer on in public. You feel a slight vibration on your wrist, look at your watch (which displays caller info), and decide whether to get your phone out and take the call. Secondly, it eliminates the problem of being unable to hear/feel your phone in loud and busy places. I think women who carry a phone in a purse might appreciate this even more.
From the library, the tour moved to the stock room, where Edison bragged that he had anything he needed to make any conceivable invention.
Do I make the obvious six-legged chair joke, or the obvious Interoceter joke? Hmm... I'd say Edison was more of an Exeter than a Homer...