re: serious reviews?
>The question that came to my mind was whether we have actually done any
>"serious" reviewing of each other's work here. I think, in such a case,
>careful discussion of a work and the goals it sets for itself would be really
i think we have a little, you just stated
"It worked just fine,
but the text (the writing) on the background was hard to read, almost as if
words (colors) were bleeding."
this, to me is, very useful - very specific. the rest of my site is purely
personal; but these databases are meant to be practically useful. so i like
input on what's needed missing, etc. if its specific
It might take a week or so, but i'll start playing with the
To be blunt about it - Richards review was very vague. The work wasn't
'serious' - and something about the work not capturing the 'nonlinearity'
of the internet.
non-linear? the internet is a bunch of nodes connected by straight lines
and is 'stateless'. ... ugh, looking pretty linear from that perspective
... of course, whether something is linear or non-linear depends on what
one is measuring and the space to which one maps it .... but almost all the
modeling of the internet comes straight out of linear systems theory ... so
what does this mean ... something, but - like my backgrounds - hard to read
Richard had some sort of strong reaction ... so i think its useful to
discuss these things and i'm glad Richard posted what he did ... but i
think its important to try to be a little more specific ... 'cuz in my
experience very vague negative comments tend to lead to agruments and not
so 'contructive criticism' seems the keyword - but that's hard to to 'cuz
it forces us to mean what we say and say what we mean ....
anyhow, my $0.02
UCLA Youth Enhancement Service's political and media
dance, computing & chaos theory
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ Oo \~@
/_( \__/ )_\