Friday, January 18, 2013
Marathon Man
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer?currentPage=all
Kursh had a blog, and on August 6, 2010, he posted a blind item about Litton titled “Another Rosie Ruiz?”—a reference to the scammer who was briefly heralded as the winner of the women’s division of the 1980 Boston Marathon, before it was determined that she’d jumped onto the course less than a mile from the finish. Kursh wrote in a follow-up that he had been exchanging concerns with other race directors, adding, “I smell a rat.”
In an e-mail exchange initiated by Kursh, Litton claimed that photographs of him would be hard to find, because his shirt had covered his racing bib. He added, “Wasn’t there a timing mat at the turnaround?” Kursh ultimately decided to disqualify him, explaining, “From your comment here it is pretty obvious that you have NO idea where the timing mats were on route. They definitely were not at this turn-around point.”
On occasions when Litton responded to such pointed challenges, he never did so in a hostile or nakedly defensive manner. After a disqualification, he simply deleted the result and the recap from his Web site, as if he had never registered for the race. His default demeanor was equable mystification.
Monday, January 14, 2013
On the Evolution of Memes
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2012/11/30
Here on the internet, we have things called memes. They are essentially insides jokes that separate those of us that live in the internet from those of you that don't.
However, every once in an while a ornery old man will come along and point out that memes don't just mean 'stupid internet joke'. The term meme was actually coined by Richard Dawkins in his book the Selfish Gene in 1976.
The meme was a type of memory gene (hence the name). The idea being that ideas spread through a culture and evolve over time to more persistent forms. I seem to recall he gave as an example some song that he sang at his school as a kid that his father had known from his time as a kid and that was still sung, perhaps with minor changes.
The key point was that in any system where things are copied, but with occasional mistakes, 'better' forms will tend to replace other forms. Here, 'better' simply means more likely to be copied for whatever reason. This is frankly, pretty obvious in retrospect, and is the central idea of evolution.
As another example I like to use the line "Luke, I am your father." from Star Wars. If you are a pedantic nerd like me, you likely know that line never appears in the movies. This is the exchange:
Darth Vader: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke Skywalker: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
Darth Vader: No. I am your father.
If you examine the actual dialogue it should be clear why the modified version is more well known. Simply saying "No. I am your father." might not be a clear enough reference to Star Wars, and people might not get the joke. By replacing 'no' with 'luke' it makes it clear that it's the Star Wars quote.
Another example is the line "Beam me up, Scotty", which never appears in the original Star Trek Series. Similar version were used on the show, and I won't speculate as to why that one become most prevalent. Regardless, the wiki page has this interesting set of examples:
If you were alive prior to 5 years ago, you are probably aware that the word meme is a recent addition to most people's vocabularies. This, despite the fact that we know it has existed for close to 40 years.
The point I'm getting at here, is that the word meme itself is a perfect example of memes in action. Originally it had a specific meaning with respect to this idea of cultural evolution, but now it has evolved to simply mean 'repeated, sometimes modified joke'. This form is clearly better adapted to flourish in culture. Those who oppose it in favor of the original meaning clearly never understood the point.
Here on the internet, we have things called memes. They are essentially insides jokes that separate those of us that live in the internet from those of you that don't.
However, every once in an while a ornery old man will come along and point out that memes don't just mean 'stupid internet joke'. The term meme was actually coined by Richard Dawkins in his book the Selfish Gene in 1976.
The meme was a type of memory gene (hence the name). The idea being that ideas spread through a culture and evolve over time to more persistent forms. I seem to recall he gave as an example some song that he sang at his school as a kid that his father had known from his time as a kid and that was still sung, perhaps with minor changes.
The key point was that in any system where things are copied, but with occasional mistakes, 'better' forms will tend to replace other forms. Here, 'better' simply means more likely to be copied for whatever reason. This is frankly, pretty obvious in retrospect, and is the central idea of evolution.
As another example I like to use the line "Luke, I am your father." from Star Wars. If you are a pedantic nerd like me, you likely know that line never appears in the movies. This is the exchange:
Darth Vader: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke Skywalker: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
Darth Vader: No. I am your father.
If you examine the actual dialogue it should be clear why the modified version is more well known. Simply saying "No. I am your father." might not be a clear enough reference to Star Wars, and people might not get the joke. By replacing 'no' with 'luke' it makes it clear that it's the Star Wars quote.
Another example is the line "Beam me up, Scotty", which never appears in the original Star Trek Series. Similar version were used on the show, and I won't speculate as to why that one become most prevalent. Regardless, the wiki page has this interesting set of examples:
"Beam me up, Scotty" is similar to the phrase, "Just the facts, ma'am", attributed to Jack Webb's character of Joe Friday on Dragnet, "It's elementary, my dear Watson", attributed to Sherlock Holmes, "Luke, I am your father", attributed to Darth Vader, or "Play it again, Sam", attributed to Ilsa Lund in Casablanca and "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" attributed to Gold Hat in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. All five lines are the best known quotations from these works for many viewers, but not one is an actual, direct quotation.It doesn't matter why any of these are used instead of the originals. What matters is that they are all examples of ideas evolving to more persistent forms.
If you were alive prior to 5 years ago, you are probably aware that the word meme is a recent addition to most people's vocabularies. This, despite the fact that we know it has existed for close to 40 years.
The point I'm getting at here, is that the word meme itself is a perfect example of memes in action. Originally it had a specific meaning with respect to this idea of cultural evolution, but now it has evolved to simply mean 'repeated, sometimes modified joke'. This form is clearly better adapted to flourish in culture. Those who oppose it in favor of the original meaning clearly never understood the point.
Ancient Roman Graffiti
http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm
"Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!"
"Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!"
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Mailinator Inbox Generator
Yesterday, I wrote about Mailinator. This was spurred by my writing a simple page to help generate random Mailinator inboxes.
Mailinator is super useful for websites that force you to register just to see content. Usually I just use the same simple username/pass combo on all these. Sometimes, that is already taken so I have to use a random one. The mailinator homepage gives a random inbox name, but it's annoying to select it, and to select just the username part. I made a page that uses the 1000 most common first and last names and generates a random combo and gives all the fields you would need to register in easy to copy fashion.
http://daleswanson.org/things/mail.htm
Some notes: It generates the password based on the md5 hash of the username, limited to whatever password requirements you give it. Nice for sites that force digits or upper case letters. It also means you can find the password in the future if you need it by recalculating the md5 hash yourself. If you find out the requirements after putting in the other info you can change the parameters without it updating new random info.
There is also a checkbox to add a random 3 digit number to the end of the usernames. This is nice for sites where every username is taken. I tested the gmail registration and every single combo given was taken, none of the ones with random numbers were though.
It also gives an alternative domain to use if mailinator.com is blocked. If the alternative is blocked as well it lets you get another one without changing all the other info.
Mailinator is super useful for websites that force you to register just to see content. Usually I just use the same simple username/pass combo on all these. Sometimes, that is already taken so I have to use a random one. The mailinator homepage gives a random inbox name, but it's annoying to select it, and to select just the username part. I made a page that uses the 1000 most common first and last names and generates a random combo and gives all the fields you would need to register in easy to copy fashion.
http://daleswanson.org/things/mail.htm
Some notes: It generates the password based on the md5 hash of the username, limited to whatever password requirements you give it. Nice for sites that force digits or upper case letters. It also means you can find the password in the future if you need it by recalculating the md5 hash yourself. If you find out the requirements after putting in the other info you can change the parameters without it updating new random info.
There is also a checkbox to add a random 3 digit number to the end of the usernames. This is nice for sites where every username is taken. I tested the gmail registration and every single combo given was taken, none of the ones with random numbers were though.
It also gives an alternative domain to use if mailinator.com is blocked. If the alternative is blocked as well it lets you get another one without changing all the other info.
Mailinator
Apparently, I've never written here about Mailinator before. It is a great service for those websites that force you to register to see content. The idea is simple. Enter any random email address @mailinator.com in the registration, and then any emails sent to it are publicly viewable for 24 hours, allowing you to click to confirmation link. For example here are some inboxes:
monkeys@mailinator.com
MileyCyrus@mailinator.com
StinkyDog@mailinator.com
Just to be clear, you don't have to set up anything before hand. Just enter anything you want and end it with @mailinator.com and then you (or anyone else) can check the mail.
There are some additional useful features. First, it has alternate domain names, which still go to the same inboxes, but allow you got get around admins who block @mailinator.com. For example monkeys@devnullmail.com will go to the same inbox as monkeys@mailinator.com. Here is an amusing story about how the guy who runs mailinator handled people trying to scrape all the alternate domains to block them.
Another interesting feature is that you can point the mx record of any domain you own to mailinator, and it will function the same as the above alternative domains. In other words, I could set up daleswanson.org's mx record such that emails to monkeys@daleswansonson.org go to the same inbox as above.
Lastly, there are alternative inbox names. This means that every inbox has an alternative "secret" name, which is displayed on the inbox's page. For example the alternative for monkeys@mailinator.com is M8R-b8esq@mailinator.com. Emails sent there will go to the same monkeys@mailinator.com inbox that I've been using as an example. The point of this is to allow you to think up a somewhat long and random inbox name, and then only give out the alternate one. This, in effect, makes your inbox name a password, and gives you some privacy.
monkeys@mailinator.com
MileyCyrus@mailinator.com
StinkyDog@mailinator.com
Just to be clear, you don't have to set up anything before hand. Just enter anything you want and end it with @mailinator.com and then you (or anyone else) can check the mail.
There are some additional useful features. First, it has alternate domain names, which still go to the same inboxes, but allow you got get around admins who block @mailinator.com. For example monkeys@devnullmail.com will go to the same inbox as monkeys@mailinator.com. Here is an amusing story about how the guy who runs mailinator handled people trying to scrape all the alternate domains to block them.
Another interesting feature is that you can point the mx record of any domain you own to mailinator, and it will function the same as the above alternative domains. In other words, I could set up daleswanson.org's mx record such that emails to monkeys@daleswansonson.org go to the same inbox as above.
Lastly, there are alternative inbox names. This means that every inbox has an alternative "secret" name, which is displayed on the inbox's page. For example the alternative for monkeys@mailinator.com is M8R-b8esq@mailinator.com. Emails sent there will go to the same monkeys@mailinator.com inbox that I've been using as an example. The point of this is to allow you to think up a somewhat long and random inbox name, and then only give out the alternate one. This, in effect, makes your inbox name a password, and gives you some privacy.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Federal prisoners use snitching for personal gain
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/jailhouse-informants-for-sale/1762013/
Snitching has become so commonplace that in the past five years at least 48,895 federal convicts -- one of every eight -- had their prison sentences reduced in exchange for helping government investigators, a USA TODAY examination of hundreds of thousands of court cases found. The deals can chop a decade or more off of their sentences.
How often informants pay to acquire information from brokers such as Watkins is impossible to know, in part because judges routinely seal court records that could identify them. It almost certainly represents an extreme result of a system that puts strong pressure on defendants to cooperate. Still, Watkins' case is at least the fourth such scheme to be uncovered in Atlanta alone over the past 20 years.
Those schemes are generally illegal because the people who buy information usually lie to federal agents about where they got it. They also show how staggeringly valuable good information has become -- prices ran into tens of thousands of dollars, or up to $250,000 in one case, court records show.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Great Minds
I recently read Nate Silver's newest book, The Signal and the Noise: Why Most Predictions Fail – But Some Don't, which was good if you're wondering. Chapter 11 is about the stock market, and he points out that there is some correlation between one day's rise or fall and the next's. He then calculates that one could make quite a bit of money investing based on this fact, but that fees would kill it. Finally, he notes that the correlation has disappeared recently, making the whole plan worthless.
Assuming you've memorized all my posts, you should now be realizing I made a post about the same thing. His book came out September 27, and my post was on October 13, so it would seem pretty obvious that I read the book and got the idea from there (even though I didn't). I'm surprised no one pointed this out in the comments. I can only assume that this is due to a lack of readership of his book.
In another case, I recently discovered this post on the expected value of a Mega Millions ticket. He calculates the expected value of the lesser prizes, calculates the amount of the jackpot one would actually get after taxes, and then uses the Poisson Distribution to calculate the expected value of the jackpot. He then fits a polynomial model to the past data in order to predict what various jackpot's values will be. In other words, exactly what I did.
The key difference is he didn't spread his through 3 long posts, filled with math, and no visual breaks in the wall of text. Also, he didn't include anunnecessary free lesson on the guts of Linear Algebra. I'll leave it to the masses to decide which approach is better.
I made my first post on the subject in April 2012, and he made his in January 2011. So it's debatable who copied who.
Time-machine-assisted plagiarism aside, it is interesting to see someone else tackle the same problem, and do it largely the same way, and produce very similar results. One example of a difference is he calculated an expected value from the non jackpot prizes of $0.10, whereas I calculated $0.15. The difference is he applied taxes to all the prizes, whereas I exempted the $150 and below prizes from taxes. It is interesting how much of a difference that makes.
Assuming you've memorized all my posts, you should now be realizing I made a post about the same thing. His book came out September 27, and my post was on October 13, so it would seem pretty obvious that I read the book and got the idea from there (even though I didn't). I'm surprised no one pointed this out in the comments. I can only assume that this is due to a lack of readership of his book.
In another case, I recently discovered this post on the expected value of a Mega Millions ticket. He calculates the expected value of the lesser prizes, calculates the amount of the jackpot one would actually get after taxes, and then uses the Poisson Distribution to calculate the expected value of the jackpot. He then fits a polynomial model to the past data in order to predict what various jackpot's values will be. In other words, exactly what I did.
The key difference is he didn't spread his through 3 long posts, filled with math, and no visual breaks in the wall of text. Also, he didn't include an
I made my first post on the subject in April 2012, and he made his in January 2011. So it's debatable who copied who.
Time-machine-assisted plagiarism aside, it is interesting to see someone else tackle the same problem, and do it largely the same way, and produce very similar results. One example of a difference is he calculated an expected value from the non jackpot prizes of $0.10, whereas I calculated $0.15. The difference is he applied taxes to all the prizes, whereas I exempted the $150 and below prizes from taxes. It is interesting how much of a difference that makes.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)