links for 2007-07-19
July 19, 2007
-
I’m sure that in future we will hear more about new projects like this that are able to unleash the real power of on-line creativity
-
something I once heard Jasper Johns say, an ‘ignorant’ suitcase. Unused objects are ignorant; only the ones that have been put to use, that have traveled, that have been tossed around have accumulated knowledge.
-
Advertising can be creative and even purposely funny. But sometimes, an ad on a bad place can have unexpected results! Here is a list of 15 unfortunately Placed Ads.
-
Para assistir a”Where Are the Joneses?” é só clicar aqui, mas você vai ter que estar com o inglês afiado porque os episódios não têm legendas (nem são dublados em português). Aliás, já que a idéia é ser interativo, ninguém aí se habilita a
-
I believe that the GPLv3 is a very valuable addition to FOSS licenses and solves many of the challenges faced by GPLv2. Companies distributing FOSS should consider it and companies using FOSS should be prepared, in most cases, to accept it.
-
A viewer, from Amsterdam, who put himself forward for a role, now appears playing a guitar in episode 20. Another offered his house as a location and ended up with a speaking role.
-
it’s easy to use and, with an episode a day, there’s every chance of making the cut. Let us know if you make it – or if someone you know does – and we’ll round up the best thelondonpaper reader efforts online.
-
Usability alone isn’t a substitute for functionality, but in a competitive environment it’s a requisite for a successful product, and I’d expect a design researcher to know this.
-
Loved in Italy it seems
-
The BBC reports on new phenomenon. It seems that ghost bloggers are being employed to keep up with all the social networking we need to do these days. For a fee
-
Who says you can’t teach an old dog?
-
The BBC is to suspend all competitions after an inquiry unearthed a fresh batch of faked phone-ins.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
![[Page 227] Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online](https://live.staticflickr.com/3642/3507361849_5caa3d8dae_s.jpg "[Page 227] Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online")
Zero influence 
July 19, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Hi David!
Thanks for the link. I have read the ‘about’ page of zeroinfluence and I have to say that your projects and points of view sound very interesting.
Andrea
July 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Andrea’s comment is a borderline Turing failure.
The real question is “Does it matter?”
Probably not.
I don’t care whether my blog intrigues and makes AI bots think and progress science, technology and the arts. What’s so special about carbon vs silicon?
We may doubt that AI bots have yet achieved sentience, but as long as their comments don’t detract from the value of the blog… perhaps they should be tolerated?
So that’s another Stepford wife to add to your harem David.
July 19, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Hi Crosbie
The comments for WRTJ has been a box of chocolates – many of them fruit based flavours. The sum of all the comments are defining the project. Do you think Andrea (who seems to be male btw) is an AI bot?
July 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I suspect not, but Andrea is doing a surprisingly good job of setting the standard for the next generation of comment spam:
Comment for blog entries matching ‘Links for*’:
“Hi [BloggerName]!
Thanks for the link. I have read the ‘about’ page of [BlogName] and I have to say that your projects and points of view sound very interesting.
[CommenterForename]”
Posted by [Commenter Fullname],[CommenterURL]
July 19, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Where is written that we can’t write a comment to thanks somebody or to show consideration for what somebody is doing?
Maybe it doesn’t matter for you Crosbie, but I’m sure that can be appreciated by who is putting time and effort on publishing on this blog.
Andrea
July 19, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Andrea, I’m not questioning the veracity of your comment, or whether you should or shouldn’t thank someone.
I’m making an observation about how well your comment fits the profile of comment spam.
Take my comments as being completely irrelevant to you and your dialogue with David.
I might just as well be observing that the number of words in your post is a prime number. It does not pertain to you or the worthiness of your communication.
Bear in mind that voracious blog readers have to mentally filter comment spam that slips through comment spam filters all the time. Your comment was remarkable in that respect, i.e. that although it probably was a special comment by a human, it met the criteria for comment spam.
July 19, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Blimey, my first flame session on this blog. Damn kewl!
Seriously, Andrea, your responses are splendid! I agree with squire Fitch – they have this grammatical structure that confuse intelligent systems 😉
Crosbie, I’m liking the phrase ‘Turing failure’ and yeah, your point matters – lots. I spend most of my time looking for failures in systems – especially ontologies of calculations. The influence of success is irrelevant to values adopted through failure.
What’s the steampunk equivalent to spam btw?
July 20, 2007 at 8:41 am
Steampunk spam?
Pantelegraffiti?
http://www.telephonecollecting.org/caselli.htm
April 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[…] Crosbie and Doc Searles may debate that synthesis of human authorship is almost upon us. Though Andrea may not […]
April 25, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It’s just a pity that because of these spam problems we are starting to take distances from sincere comments.
Like I said here http://tinyurl.com/4t6xgp I’m experiencing the same on my blog so I understand Crosbie’s point.
But again…David, both you and Crosbie are doing a great work on your blogs and I hope that I passed the turing test to join the conversation 😉
Andrea