home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
- From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
- Subject: Re: Crackpot update, New Scientist
- Message-ID: <1992Dec15.010621.10521@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
- Organization: University of Virginia
- References: <1gh38uINN93b@chnews.intel.com> <1992Dec14.190618.20263@galois.mit.edu> <Dec.14.18.39.47.1992.8473@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:06:21 GMT
- Lines: 62
-
- In article <Dec.14.18.39.47.1992.8473@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
- >I tracked down the New Scientist squib on sci.physics, T**E H*S I*****A,
- >and the crackpot index ... it's in "Feedback," a gossipy page at the
- >back of the magazine (p.80, 5 Dec 1992). Reprinted without
- >permission ... all errors are theirs and theirs alone.
- >
- >from the "New Scientist," 5 Dec 1992:
- >--------
- > All editors know that when they receive a letter written in green ink
- > and capital letters, it's likely that the writer will turn out to be
- > persecuted by microwaves from the Russian Embassy. The world of
- > electronic communications has its equivalent: the message on your
- > screen liberally sprinkled with capitals.
- >
- > For some reason the physicists' area of the academic network Internet
- > attracts more than its share of this. Prompted by an especially
- > striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that TIME has
- > INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index. Forewarned is
- > fore-trashed.
- >
- > You get 40 points for claiming a revolutionary theory that gives no
- > concrete, testable predictions; 10 for comparing yourself favourably
- > to Einstein or Darwin (but 20 for Newton); 10 for claiming that
- > special or general relativity, quantum mechanics or the theory of
- > evolution are fundamentally misguided; 5 for each word in caps and for
- > each string of exclamation points; 10 points for pointing out that you
- > have been to college, as if this was evidence of sanity; 30 for
- > claiming that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy
- > to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved recognition; 20
- > for stating that you deserve a Nobel prize; and so forth.
- >
- > Naturally, someone took the time to write a program to mark messages
- > automatically. Due to the difficulty of getting a computer to
- > understand the concept of "favourably", the programme gives you points
- > just for mentioning Newton, Darwin, Velikovsky, or the Bermuda
- > Triangle.
- >
- > The result? A bundle of spoof messages aiming for maximum score.
- > And the index's author himself ranked number 6 in the crackpot league
- > table.
- >
- >--------
- >Well, John Baez may be thankful his name wasn't mentioned, anyway.
- >It's too bad that Ab**n gets all the credit for prompting the
- >crackpot index, I'm sure mc*lwre, H*nnu, et al. had something to
- >do with it. And does anyone know why New Scientist use both "program"
- >and "programme"?
-
- You know it's funny. They seem to have gotten the difference
- between the programme and the program right, as in the programme
- of Baez's that constitutes the crackpot index vs. the program
- someone wrote (I have forgotten who, apologies) to perform
- an indexing based on lexical analysis.
-
- I wonder if the use of the two words was intentional?
-
- dale bass
- --
- C. R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu
- Department of Mechanical,
- Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
- University of Virginia (804) 924-7926
-