The Diving Bell and The Savages: Thoughts of Mortality
496689
Two films tackle a subject that Hollywood usually prefers to avert its eyes from
587890
Putting the recent collapse in perspective.
49357
Subhed: Q&amp;A: A new book on 'The Gospel of Judas' reveals sharp divisions among early Christians on issue of death as a validation of faith. TIME's David Van Biema discussed the issue with author Elaine Pagels
642200
Newspaper sympathy ads illuminate complex attitudes to death, privacy and power.
470507
I just woke up in Paris, it's 5:34AM here, but back in California, it still never ceases to amaze me, the day hasn't yet flipped. You guys haven't even gone to bed yet! Now that's amazing to me. What perseverence! Keep up the good work everybody.  I just started posting a couple of twits that really should be a blog post, so let's get started. First at some point, after a suitable period of mourning, I'd like to rasie the issue of what's to happen with Marc Orchant's web presence. Which of course is a way of focusing attention on all of our web presences.  None of us like to think of it, but truth is none of us are going to live forever. Yet if you read this, it's likely that you're creating a digital body that can and imho should continue to exist even after your physical body stops existing. People are humble, no one wants to come out and say their work has any value that's worth preserving past their death, but come on, we know that's not true. If Shakespeare were alive today, he'd be writing on the web. As would Hemingway or Faulkner, Vonnegut or Mailer, John Lennon or Dylan Thomas, Carl Sandberg or Robert Frost. Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. You think there isn't any great literature out there on the web? I wouldn't be so sure about that. What if there is? And what if a baby born today becomes a great creative force? Or what if there's a social disaster like the Holocaust? Did you know that there are preserved diaries from pre-revolutionary America? Writings of ordinary people can be of enormous help to historians. And if we believe in citizen journalism (I do) why not citizen historians? Shouldn't we be thinking out into the future? We should! With all possible humility, I'd like to tell you that a few days after I die my entire web presence will likely disappear. My servers require some attention from me from time to time. The first time that happens, poof, there goes 10-plus years of Scripting News, and all the docs for the OPML Editor and the OPML spec, the XML-RPC site, to name just a few. Anyway, within a couple of months it will all certainly disappear, unless someone pays my hosting and DSL bills. Maybe someone will, but isn't it ridiculous that that's what it depends on? And when my sites disappear so will my uncle's. He died in 2003. His site is still accessible because I keep it that way. When I die, who will will take over for me? I'm sure the world will survive without his writing, but why? If I love the memory of my uncle, and I do, what can I do to reserve a place for him in the archive of the future. It seems such a small thing, but it's most of what remains of his life.  And what of academics, Nobel Laureates and others? I know for a fact that a great university (Harvard) has no plan to protect their web-based work after they pass. It's so ironic that the web offers an archival solution for non-digital work, yet the web information is more fragile than the physical stuff. Preserving our digital heritage is going to require some foresight, some planning, but it seems possible and we surely can do much better. Marc's fate awaits us all. While we're still alive, there's still time to solve this problem. When we're gone, it will be too late. Part of his legacy can be that he helped focus us on this issue, and his life work could be a great test case. Do we want to see his work preserved? And if so, how will it be done? PS: The RSS 2.0 site will likely persist, because I gave it to Berkman, and then used it as a test case to learn about future-safing. It seems likely to continue to exist, knock wood, praise Murphy, as long as Harvard exists.
370610
There's an old parable that goes like this:A man is sentenced to death by the king. In desperation, he asks that his life be spared if he can teach a pig to sing. The king agrees, and gives the man a year. Walking the man back to his cell, a guard comments that it seems like a foolish bargain; he doesn't really expect to be able to do it, does he? The man replies, "A lot can happen in a year. The king could die. I could die. Or who knows, maybe the pig will learn to sing."(Maybe it's an allegory. Or a fable. I can never keep these things straight.)I'm using the pig story to segu&#233; into Bayesian spam filters. But first, a quick trip back to spam filters in general. E-mail spam has been around for a while, and different schemes have been developed to determine whether a piece of e-mail is (probably) legit, or whether it's spam. One way is to create a blacklist of senders: Nothing from, say, 123junk.com is allowed into your inbox. Another is a whitelist: If you aren't an approved sender (e.g., mom, dad, Cousin Jimmy), you're mail won't go through. A third is the 'word search,' which looks for the kinds of words that rarely make it into a legitimate e-mail: "Viagra" springs to mind, and there are plenty of others that can't be printed on a family Web site. All of these anti-spam techniques have problems, mostly because they were either too narrowly focused to be effective, or because they were too easy for spammers to get around.But then came a different kind of spam filter - one based on the work of an obscure mathematician from the 18th century. One that works.Reverend TomThomas Bayes was an English Presbyterian minister and mathematician who lived from 1702 to 1761 in and near London. He only published two things while he was alive: a paper that tried to prove that God wants everyone to be happy, and another defending the accuracy of the calculus. After he died, though, is when Bayes's most important work was published. Called "Essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances," it was discovered by an acquaintance (one Richard Price, for those of you who like the details) who sent it to the Royal Society which published it in its Philosophical Transactions in 1763.Out of that paper came what's called Bayes's Rule or Bayes's Theorem. It's a formula for guessing how likely it is that something will happen based on two or more independent events. Imagine you want to know what the chances of your 1986 Toyota Corolla making it cross country. Some "independent events" that might stop you are your engine failing, your transmission failing, your tires failing, and so on.To apply Bayesian probability here, you would figure the odds of each of those things, then input those numbers into Bayes's formula (which, by the way, is fairly simple). Let's say you figure the chance of your engine failing is 10%, the chance of your transmission failing is 15%, and the chance of your tires failing is 30%. Popping the numbers into Rev. Tom's formula tells you that the chance of your trip being ruined by any one of these things is actually less than 1%. Happy trails.(Is this counterintuitive? Maybe. Check out another example at Process Software.In 2002, Paul Graham changed the spam war forever when he published an article called "A Plan for Spam". In it, he demonstrated how Bayes's work could be used to sort out spam from legitimate e-mail.Instead of calculating the odds of whether your car will make it across the country, Graham used Bayesian techniques to determine how likely a piece of mail is to be spam. It bases this on how likely each word is to be in a spam message.(By the way, the word "word" is misleading. Bayesian filters also take into account things like Web links, text colors, and font size.)Thus, the more spam messages (and good messages) you get, the more information a Bayesian filter has and the better it gets at identifying junk. A lot of very good anti-spam products are based on Bayesian techniques.And they work very, very well.Basic trainingFirst, a Bayesian filter has to be trained; you need to tell it these are legit messages and these are spam. (Every Bayesian filter has a simple way to do this, usually by having you put all your spam in one mailbox. It then scans that Spam box for spam, and your Inbox for legit mail.)The filter looks at the words in every message to get an idea of what spam looks like. For example, if the word "buy" appears in 100 spam messages and only one legit message, it might be given a score of .99 - there's a 99% chance a message with "buy" in it is spam.On the other hand, the word "column" would (for me) be the opposite; it might appear in 99 legit messages and only one spam, and thus get a score of .01 or one percent.After going through this training process, the Bayesian software ends up with a list of words and their spammish probabilities (often called a "corpus"). When a new message arrives, the filter looks through the words in it and gives each a score based on those 'training' messages. Then it uses Bayes's formula to come up with a score for the message as a whole. If that's above a certain threshold, the message is tagged as spam and either marked, deleted, or separated.But the real beauty of the Bayesian-filter system comes next, when spam gets through. It's bound to do that, because spammers always try new tricks - they put in long passages of poetry, or try to disguise words with odd misspellings, or come up with other ways to sneak by. When a piece of spam ends up in your Inbox, a Bayesian filter has an extra option: one to mark it as junk. Sometimes it's a button or menu choice, other times you just need to move the message to a Spam folder. It also works the other way: Legit messages may land in the Spam box for various reasons, and they must be re-routed. Either way, the filter now knows what the newest kind of spam looks like.Bayesian filters work because they aren't dependent on things that might change: the way words are spelled, or where a message comes from. All they care about is what you say is spam. At least one filter, POPFile, actually lets you set up categories beyond just 'spam' and 'not spam,' so you can teach it to automatically sort out messages on a particular topic.There are a lot of technical ideas out there for curbing the flow of spam, but I'm willing to bet that none of them will work very well. Stopping spam is up to us, and Reverend Bayes has given us a powerful tool.Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
760810
By S.J  I REFER to the report "The life drains out of Pedu Lake" (NST, Jan 31).   The failure of the resorts at Pedu Lake has little or nothing to do with the discovery of old graves, lack of promotion or remoteness as claimed.
709383
By ALLEN THOMAS  Intermittently for the past week, I've been mulling in my mind the shooting of a sea lion by a spring chinook fisherman in the Willamette River. The use of the word "vigilante'' in connection with this incident stings .
127270
Henry Jenkins  and his observations on social responsibility in Chinese video game culture.
380080
The human impact of the tsunami disaster in sound and pictures.
735454
A statistical look at the Dec. 26 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster:
455286
A new awareness of promoting Âan image of joy and wellness.Â
421703
For more than half a century,  historian Raul Hilberg has studied the Holocaust, arguably the  most savage episode in human history. He has tried to distance  his personal life from his work but says on occasion, he has  been overtaken by the pathos of his subject.
533338
By Dr Koshy Philip  IF statistics are anything to go by, alarmingly more lives have been lost to cancer than to war. And this status quo may continue.
304043
The forensic science of processing and identifying the dead
745096
The tragedy of the tsunami's child victims
346548
The pathos engulfing the death of Parveen Babi marked not just an individual's demise. It also symbolised the passing of a philosophy, a culture and a lifestyle that defined the late 60s and much of the 70s.