<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_2317239</id>
	<title>PageRank-Type Algorithm From the 1940s Discovered</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1266407700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>KentuckyFC writes <i>"The <a href="http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf">PageRank algorithm</a> (pdf) behind Google's success was developed by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998. It famously judges a page to be important if it is linked to by other important pages. This circular definition is the basis of an iterative mechanism for ranking pages. Now a paper tracing the history of iterative ranking algorithms describes a number of earlier examples. It discusses the famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITS\_algorithm">HITS algorithm</a> for ranking web pages as hubs and authorities developed by Jon Kleinberg a few years before PageRank. It also discusses various approaches from the 1960s and 70s for ranking individuals and journals based on the importance of those that endorse them. But the real surprise is the discovery of a PageRank-type algorithm  for <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24821/">ranking sectors of an economy based on the importance of the sectors that supply them</a>, a technique that was developed by the Harvard economist Wassily Leontief in 1941."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes " The PageRank algorithm ( pdf ) behind Google 's success was developed by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998 .
It famously judges a page to be important if it is linked to by other important pages .
This circular definition is the basis of an iterative mechanism for ranking pages .
Now a paper tracing the history of iterative ranking algorithms describes a number of earlier examples .
It discusses the famous HITS algorithm for ranking web pages as hubs and authorities developed by Jon Kleinberg a few years before PageRank .
It also discusses various approaches from the 1960s and 70s for ranking individuals and journals based on the importance of those that endorse them .
But the real surprise is the discovery of a PageRank-type algorithm for ranking sectors of an economy based on the importance of the sectors that supply them , a technique that was developed by the Harvard economist Wassily Leontief in 1941 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes "The PageRank algorithm (pdf) behind Google's success was developed by Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998.
It famously judges a page to be important if it is linked to by other important pages.
This circular definition is the basis of an iterative mechanism for ranking pages.
Now a paper tracing the history of iterative ranking algorithms describes a number of earlier examples.
It discusses the famous HITS algorithm for ranking web pages as hubs and authorities developed by Jon Kleinberg a few years before PageRank.
It also discusses various approaches from the 1960s and 70s for ranking individuals and journals based on the importance of those that endorse them.
But the real surprise is the discovery of a PageRank-type algorithm  for ranking sectors of an economy based on the importance of the sectors that supply them, a technique that was developed by the Harvard economist Wassily Leontief in 1941.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178874</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265032680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday, just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her.</p></div><p>You are measuring the wrong thing.  Google isn't measuring who is 'better,' it is trying to measure what page is more interesting to a web surfer, and pages tend to be more popular because they are more interesting to more people.  Thus if you do a search for Brittany, you are more likely to find Brittany Spear's fan club than you are an academic study of why her beautiful innocence was so popular (and oh yes was it beautiful!). People who are looking for more specific academic things learn to add extra search terms to their query, like "Brittany analysis" or "Why is Brittany popular?"<br> <br>
The way to solve this problem better is for Google to get to know you and your preferences: if Google knows that you are mainly interested in academic sorts of things, then it can automatically return that sort of thing when you do a search for Brittany.  This is convenient, but drives certain people crazy because of privacy issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me , but I do n't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday , just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her.You are measuring the wrong thing .
Google is n't measuring who is 'better, ' it is trying to measure what page is more interesting to a web surfer , and pages tend to be more popular because they are more interesting to more people .
Thus if you do a search for Brittany , you are more likely to find Brittany Spear 's fan club than you are an academic study of why her beautiful innocence was so popular ( and oh yes was it beautiful ! ) .
People who are looking for more specific academic things learn to add extra search terms to their query , like " Brittany analysis " or " Why is Brittany popular ?
" The way to solve this problem better is for Google to get to know you and your preferences : if Google knows that you are mainly interested in academic sorts of things , then it can automatically return that sort of thing when you do a search for Brittany .
This is convenient , but drives certain people crazy because of privacy issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday, just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her.You are measuring the wrong thing.
Google isn't measuring who is 'better,' it is trying to measure what page is more interesting to a web surfer, and pages tend to be more popular because they are more interesting to more people.
Thus if you do a search for Brittany, you are more likely to find Brittany Spear's fan club than you are an academic study of why her beautiful innocence was so popular (and oh yes was it beautiful!).
People who are looking for more specific academic things learn to add extra search terms to their query, like "Brittany analysis" or "Why is Brittany popular?
" 
The way to solve this problem better is for Google to get to know you and your preferences: if Google knows that you are mainly interested in academic sorts of things, then it can automatically return that sort of thing when you do a search for Brittany.
This is convenient, but drives certain people crazy because of privacy issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179076</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a second rule of advice that goes with this, but that unfortunately usually is forgotten:</p><p>Don&rsquo;t imitate. Innovate!</p><p>Yes, it is a good idea to not reinvent the wheel. But it&rsquo;s even better to invent an airplane! (You know: Thinking outside the box. &ldquo;Inside the box&rdquo; would be a square wheel.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a second rule of advice that goes with this , but that unfortunately usually is forgotten : Don    t imitate .
Innovate ! Yes , it is a good idea to not reinvent the wheel .
But it    s even better to invent an airplane !
( You know : Thinking outside the box .
   Inside the box    would be a square wheel .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a second rule of advice that goes with this, but that unfortunately usually is forgotten:Don’t imitate.
Innovate!Yes, it is a good idea to not reinvent the wheel.
But it’s even better to invent an airplane!
(You know: Thinking outside the box.
“Inside the box” would be a square wheel.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182512</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1266496440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>It would be a problem if your search for "Billie Holiday" would return links to American Idol. Pagerank is not the WHERE clause, it's the ORDER BY clause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me , but I do n't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday It would be a problem if your search for " Billie Holiday " would return links to American Idol .
Pagerank is not the WHERE clause , it 's the ORDER BY clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday It would be a problem if your search for "Billie Holiday" would return links to American Idol.
Pagerank is not the WHERE clause, it's the ORDER BY clause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178500</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1265029620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you hate Google: Yes. If you don't: No. If you want Bananas: Get them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hate Google : Yes .
If you do n't : No .
If you want Bananas : Get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hate Google: Yes.
If you don't: No.
If you want Bananas: Get them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179450</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values' logs.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, but if you look back at my GP post, I explained that I'm not talking about taking the log of the final result (which would be irrelevant for sorting).
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values ' logs .
Yes , but if you look back at my GP post , I explained that I 'm not talking about taking the log of the final result ( which would be irrelevant for sorting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values' logs.
Yes, but if you look back at my GP post, I explained that I'm not talking about taking the log of the final result (which would be irrelevant for sorting).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183716</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1266505320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If you pay attention to the moderation scheme on here, that isn't very likely.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "moderators" are any average user.  They get 10 points at a time to spend as they'd like.  If they write a comment to a particular story, they can't moderate on that story.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; "Metamoderation" lets you re-evaluate moderations, but you get limited information on the comment, basically the comment itself.  Only 10 of these really count.  More metamoderations can be done, but don't count as high.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In your first post, it was insightful, until you said that it should help your karma.  Trolling for karma doesn't really help you out.  Write good comments on a regular basis, and it will help you out.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I've seen your posts before, and from what I recall, they've been good ones.  If you feel like commenting, then do it.  Don't worry about your karma score.  Maybe you've picked up an enemy or two.  You can't satisfy everyone all the time.  For example, I'm sure this will be scored down, because it is off-topic.  Oh well, shit happens.  For me, it's heavily outweighed by the number of good on-topic posts that I do.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Even my good posts get scored wildly.  It's funny to look at the moderation that can send the score fluctuating from a -1 to a 5, but in the end, good posts end up with high scores, because so many people are moderators.  I don't lose any sleep over it, and neither should you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    If you pay attention to the moderation scheme on here , that is n't very likely .
    " moderators " are any average user .
They get 10 points at a time to spend as they 'd like .
If they write a comment to a particular story , they ca n't moderate on that story .
    " Metamoderation " lets you re-evaluate moderations , but you get limited information on the comment , basically the comment itself .
Only 10 of these really count .
More metamoderations can be done , but do n't count as high .
    In your first post , it was insightful , until you said that it should help your karma .
Trolling for karma does n't really help you out .
Write good comments on a regular basis , and it will help you out .
    I 've seen your posts before , and from what I recall , they 've been good ones .
If you feel like commenting , then do it .
Do n't worry about your karma score .
Maybe you 've picked up an enemy or two .
You ca n't satisfy everyone all the time .
For example , I 'm sure this will be scored down , because it is off-topic .
Oh well , shit happens .
For me , it 's heavily outweighed by the number of good on-topic posts that I do .
    Even my good posts get scored wildly .
It 's funny to look at the moderation that can send the score fluctuating from a -1 to a 5 , but in the end , good posts end up with high scores , because so many people are moderators .
I do n't lose any sleep over it , and neither should you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    If you pay attention to the moderation scheme on here, that isn't very likely.
    "moderators" are any average user.
They get 10 points at a time to spend as they'd like.
If they write a comment to a particular story, they can't moderate on that story.
    "Metamoderation" lets you re-evaluate moderations, but you get limited information on the comment, basically the comment itself.
Only 10 of these really count.
More metamoderations can be done, but don't count as high.
    In your first post, it was insightful, until you said that it should help your karma.
Trolling for karma doesn't really help you out.
Write good comments on a regular basis, and it will help you out.
    I've seen your posts before, and from what I recall, they've been good ones.
If you feel like commenting, then do it.
Don't worry about your karma score.
Maybe you've picked up an enemy or two.
You can't satisfy everyone all the time.
For example, I'm sure this will be scored down, because it is off-topic.
Oh well, shit happens.
For me, it's heavily outweighed by the number of good on-topic posts that I do.
    Even my good posts get scored wildly.
It's funny to look at the moderation that can send the score fluctuating from a -1 to a 5, but in the end, good posts end up with high scores, because so many people are moderators.
I don't lose any sleep over it, and neither should you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178916</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>j1m+5n0w</author>
	<datestamp>1265033040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it didn't seem right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect compared to a single inbound link</p></div></blockquote><p>Pagerank isn't just a citation count; it's defined recursively, such that a link from a page with a high pagerank is worth more than a link from a page with low pagerank.  Similarly, a link from a page with many outlinks is worth less than a link from a page with the same rank but few outlinks.

</p><p>It does turn out to be more of a popularity contest than a quality metric, though.  I think you're absolutely right about that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it did n't seem right for a * million * inbound links to have a * million * times the effect compared to a single inbound linkPagerank is n't just a citation count ; it 's defined recursively , such that a link from a page with a high pagerank is worth more than a link from a page with low pagerank .
Similarly , a link from a page with many outlinks is worth less than a link from a page with the same rank but few outlinks .
It does turn out to be more of a popularity contest than a quality metric , though .
I think you 're absolutely right about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it didn't seem right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect compared to a single inbound linkPagerank isn't just a citation count; it's defined recursively, such that a link from a page with a high pagerank is worth more than a link from a page with low pagerank.
Similarly, a link from a page with many outlinks is worth less than a link from a page with the same rank but few outlinks.
It does turn out to be more of a popularity contest than a quality metric, though.
I think you're absolutely right about that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178756</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>Ibiwan</author>
	<datestamp>1265031660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a naive, off-the-cuff armchair analysis, it seems to me that PageRank only serves as a way to provide ordering of search results.

Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values' logs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a naive , off-the-cuff armchair analysis , it seems to me that PageRank only serves as a way to provide ordering of search results .
Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values ' logs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a naive, off-the-cuff armchair analysis, it seems to me that PageRank only serves as a way to provide ordering of search results.
Funny thing... sorting on positive values will always yield the same ordering as a sort on those values' logs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179992</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P.S.  And the reason I'm being targeted (I believe) is because of my comments yesterday that I consider Linux to be inferior to Windows and Mac (as far as ease-of-use by the average John Q. Customer).  Heaven forbid you criticize the Holy Bible, Sacred Koran, or the Beloved Ubuntu.</p><p>The zealots will stone you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
And the reason I 'm being targeted ( I believe ) is because of my comments yesterday that I consider Linux to be inferior to Windows and Mac ( as far as ease-of-use by the average John Q. Customer ) . Heaven forbid you criticize the Holy Bible , Sacred Koran , or the Beloved Ubuntu.The zealots will stone you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
And the reason I'm being targeted (I believe) is because of my comments yesterday that I consider Linux to be inferior to Windows and Mac (as far as ease-of-use by the average John Q. Customer).  Heaven forbid you criticize the Holy Bible, Sacred Koran, or the Beloved Ubuntu.The zealots will stone you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31180132</id>
	<title>link to the actual paper</title>
	<author>phossie</author>
	<datestamp>1265043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summaries were intriguing but lame. Here's the real thing (preprint):</p><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2858" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2858</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>Author's page is here:</p><p><a href="http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~massimo.franceschet/" title="uniud.it" rel="nofollow">http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~massimo.franceschet/</a> [uniud.it]</p><p>Interesting stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summaries were intriguing but lame .
Here 's the real thing ( preprint ) : http : //arxiv.org/abs/1002.2858 [ arxiv.org ] Author 's page is here : http : //users.dimi.uniud.it/ ~ massimo.franceschet/ [ uniud.it ] Interesting stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summaries were intriguing but lame.
Here's the real thing (preprint):http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2858 [arxiv.org]Author's page is here:http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~massimo.franceschet/ [uniud.it]Interesting stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178492</id>
	<title>Just more proof...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nil novi sub sole</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nil novi sub sole</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nil novi sub sole</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179810</id>
	<title>creativity always builds on the past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>creativity always builds on the past -- okay, redundant using subject line in body, my bad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>creativity always builds on the past -- okay , redundant using subject line in body , my bad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>creativity always builds on the past -- okay, redundant using subject line in body, my bad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179028</id>
	<title>I did the same thing, albeit not in the 40s</title>
	<author>BoberFett</author>
	<datestamp>1265033940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the late 90s I created a relevance ranking system for my employer to rank the output of our legal research system. Similar to a hyperlink, legal documents have a unique references. Sometimes they're created by the publisher such as West (now Thomson) and their Federal Supplement and other times for unpublished documents it's a docket number from the court. Long story short, the documents were indexed and at run time using a combination of hit density and the number of times a document was referred to by other documents, we had a fairly accurate relevance engine. I even took it a step further and for the documents that referenced the found document, looked to see if the original search term was present in the linking document. If so, we assumed that it was linking to the found document for reasons related to the search rather than for some other reason, as court cases often are referenced for reasons outside of their main ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the late 90s I created a relevance ranking system for my employer to rank the output of our legal research system .
Similar to a hyperlink , legal documents have a unique references .
Sometimes they 're created by the publisher such as West ( now Thomson ) and their Federal Supplement and other times for unpublished documents it 's a docket number from the court .
Long story short , the documents were indexed and at run time using a combination of hit density and the number of times a document was referred to by other documents , we had a fairly accurate relevance engine .
I even took it a step further and for the documents that referenced the found document , looked to see if the original search term was present in the linking document .
If so , we assumed that it was linking to the found document for reasons related to the search rather than for some other reason , as court cases often are referenced for reasons outside of their main ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the late 90s I created a relevance ranking system for my employer to rank the output of our legal research system.
Similar to a hyperlink, legal documents have a unique references.
Sometimes they're created by the publisher such as West (now Thomson) and their Federal Supplement and other times for unpublished documents it's a docket number from the court.
Long story short, the documents were indexed and at run time using a combination of hit density and the number of times a document was referred to by other documents, we had a fairly accurate relevance engine.
I even took it a step further and for the documents that referenced the found document, looked to see if the original search term was present in the linking document.
If so, we assumed that it was linking to the found document for reasons related to the search rather than for some other reason, as court cases often are referenced for reasons outside of their main ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178652</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gives a rats ass<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a rats ass .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a rats ass ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Meshach</author>
	<datestamp>1265029680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google's patent?</p></div><p>From my read of the linked article it seems that Sergey and Larry cited the previous art in their publications.  So it looks like there was no plagiarism, just building a new idea using the tools provided by an earlier idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google 's patent ? From my read of the linked article it seems that Sergey and Larry cited the previous art in their publications .
So it looks like there was no plagiarism , just building a new idea using the tools provided by an earlier idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google's patent?From my read of the linked article it seems that Sergey and Larry cited the previous art in their publications.
So it looks like there was no plagiarism, just building a new idea using the tools provided by an earlier idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31180068</id>
	<title>re-inventing the wheel or searching for the wheel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some would like to dev<br>some would like to search</p><p>just no one knows all in all<br>and why<br>patents blockage<br>humans blockage</p><p>so no improvement overall</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some would like to devsome would like to searchjust no one knows all in alland whypatents blockagehumans blockageso no improvement overall</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some would like to devsome would like to searchjust no one knows all in alland whypatents blockagehumans blockageso no improvement overall</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178914</id>
	<title>Peer Review</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1265033040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is all page rank is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is all page rank is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is all page rank is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179140</id>
	<title>I can show you one form the ~10s  or ~20s</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1265035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called being a Movie star.  Your importance is ranked by how many people really like you.   And it can be gamed just like the Google one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called being a Movie star .
Your importance is ranked by how many people really like you .
And it can be gamed just like the Google one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called being a Movie star.
Your importance is ranked by how many people really like you.
And it can be gamed just like the Google one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31185704</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1266513360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes</p></div><p>I think you just reinvented the principle of marginal gains in utility of information gathering.  It's in every Microeconomy 101 text book, in the paragraph about asymmetry of information.</p><p>And I just reinvented the exploding irony-meter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule , it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimesI think you just reinvented the principle of marginal gains in utility of information gathering .
It 's in every Microeconomy 101 text book , in the paragraph about asymmetry of information.And I just reinvented the exploding irony-meter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimesI think you just reinvented the principle of marginal gains in utility of information gathering.
It's in every Microeconomy 101 text book, in the paragraph about asymmetry of information.And I just reinvented the exploding irony-meter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179470</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent?</p><p>I think the way the Google maintains its search superiority has more to do with massive banks of machines and keeping their algorithms secret rather than sending lawyers after anyone.  The PageRank algorithm is little more than a useful application of Markov Chains... hardly seems patentable.  (Of course, RSA doesn't seem like it should have been patentable either...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent ? I think the way the Google maintains its search superiority has more to do with massive banks of machines and keeping their algorithms secret rather than sending lawyers after anyone .
The PageRank algorithm is little more than a useful application of Markov Chains... hardly seems patentable .
( Of course , RSA does n't seem like it should have been patentable either... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent?I think the way the Google maintains its search superiority has more to do with massive banks of machines and keeping their algorithms secret rather than sending lawyers after anyone.
The PageRank algorithm is little more than a useful application of Markov Chains... hardly seems patentable.
(Of course, RSA doesn't seem like it should have been patentable either...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.</p><p>You just described my engineering job in a nutshell.  I no longer create anything myself, but instead just search the internet for already-existing circuits, or cour through my company's back designs since the project has most-likely been done already.</p><p>As for ranking pages by links to other important pages, that's rather flawed?  It would mean that foxnews.com and glennbeck.com would be ranked much, much higher than they deserve to be.   [There that should earn me some bonus points and boost my damaged karma.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Do n't reinvent the wheel .
Look around , search for what 's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.You just described my engineering job in a nutshell .
I no longer create anything myself , but instead just search the internet for already-existing circuits , or cour through my company 's back designs since the project has most-likely been done already.As for ranking pages by links to other important pages , that 's rather flawed ?
It would mean that foxnews.com and glennbeck.com would be ranked much , much higher than they deserve to be .
[ There that should earn me some bonus points and boost my damaged karma .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Don't reinvent the wheel.
Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.You just described my engineering job in a nutshell.
I no longer create anything myself, but instead just search the internet for already-existing circuits, or cour through my company's back designs since the project has most-likely been done already.As for ranking pages by links to other important pages, that's rather flawed?
It would mean that foxnews.com and glennbeck.com would be ranked much, much higher than they deserve to be.
[There that should earn me some bonus points and boost my damaged karma.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178846</id>
	<title>additional ranking algorithm in the 1940s paper</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1265032260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>allowed pages to be ranked and categorized according to whether it was "insightful," "interesting," "informative," "funny," "flamebait," or "troll."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>allowed pages to be ranked and categorized according to whether it was " insightful , " " interesting , " " informative , " " funny , " " flamebait , " or " troll .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>allowed pages to be ranked and categorized according to whether it was "insightful," "interesting," "informative," "funny," "flamebait," or "troll.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178858</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Weirsbaski</author>
	<datestamp>1265032560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs</i>, and patent it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this is actually pretty good advice for any developer ; Do n't reinvent the wheel .
Look around , search for what 's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs , and patent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel.
Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs, and patent it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178994</id>
	<title>Quite a difference from theory to practice!</title>
	<author>BillKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess previous work had the idea right, but actually building a system which can handle millions of links and reply in no time is not a small feature.</p><p>This reminds me of the discussion we had previously about the gap from research prototype transistors to having factories actually deliver them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess previous work had the idea right , but actually building a system which can handle millions of links and reply in no time is not a small feature.This reminds me of the discussion we had previously about the gap from research prototype transistors to having factories actually deliver them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess previous work had the idea right, but actually building a system which can handle millions of links and reply in no time is not a small feature.This reminds me of the discussion we had previously about the gap from research prototype transistors to having factories actually deliver them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181840</id>
	<title>Sociologists use it in social networks too</title>
	<author>dominious</author>
	<datestamp>1266488940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality#Eigenvector\_centrality" title="wikipedia.org">Eigenvector centrality</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Eigenvector centrality [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Eigenvector centrality [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182918</id>
	<title>Knew about this before I first used google</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266500820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A librarian described the new google thing to me back then as being like the science citation index only applied to the web in general instead of published papers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A librarian described the new google thing to me back then as being like the science citation index only applied to the web in general instead of published papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A librarian described the new google thing to me back then as being like the science citation index only applied to the web in general instead of published papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179966</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm beginning to suspect I'm being targeted.  Nearly every one of my posts has been demodded -1 point (which drops me down to (0) score).</p><p>And there's nothing "offtopic" about agreeing with the previous poster's statement: "Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs."  That really is what I do in my day-to-day routine as an engineer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm beginning to suspect I 'm being targeted .
Nearly every one of my posts has been demodded -1 point ( which drops me down to ( 0 ) score ) .And there 's nothing " offtopic " about agreeing with the previous poster 's statement : " Do n't reinvent the wheel .
Look around , search for what 's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs .
" That really is what I do in my day-to-day routine as an engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm beginning to suspect I'm being targeted.
Nearly every one of my posts has been demodded -1 point (which drops me down to (0) score).And there's nothing "offtopic" about agreeing with the previous poster's statement: "Don't reinvent the wheel.
Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.
"  That really is what I do in my day-to-day routine as an engineer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178542</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1265029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, since the one from 1941 didn't say "on the internet" or "with a computer".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , since the one from 1941 did n't say " on the internet " or " with a computer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, since the one from 1941 didn't say "on the internet" or "with a computer".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178844</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>Shaterri</author>
	<datestamp>1265032260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why PageRank 'has to be' linear is essentially mathematical; treating importance as a linear function of the importance of inbound links means that the core equations that need to be solved to determine importance are linear and the answer can be found with (essentially) one huge matrix inversion.  If you make importance nonlinear then the equations being solved become computationally infeasible.</p><p>What's interesting to me is how close the connections are between PageRank and the classic light transfer/heat transfer equations that come up in computer graphics' radiosity (see James Kajiya's Rendering equation); I wonder if there's a reasonable equivalent of 'path tracing' (link tracing?) for computing page ranks that avoids the massive matrix inversions of the basic PageRank algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why PageRank 'has to be ' linear is essentially mathematical ; treating importance as a linear function of the importance of inbound links means that the core equations that need to be solved to determine importance are linear and the answer can be found with ( essentially ) one huge matrix inversion .
If you make importance nonlinear then the equations being solved become computationally infeasible.What 's interesting to me is how close the connections are between PageRank and the classic light transfer/heat transfer equations that come up in computer graphics ' radiosity ( see James Kajiya 's Rendering equation ) ; I wonder if there 's a reasonable equivalent of 'path tracing ' ( link tracing ?
) for computing page ranks that avoids the massive matrix inversions of the basic PageRank algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why PageRank 'has to be' linear is essentially mathematical; treating importance as a linear function of the importance of inbound links means that the core equations that need to be solved to determine importance are linear and the answer can be found with (essentially) one huge matrix inversion.
If you make importance nonlinear then the equations being solved become computationally infeasible.What's interesting to me is how close the connections are between PageRank and the classic light transfer/heat transfer equations that come up in computer graphics' radiosity (see James Kajiya's Rendering equation); I wonder if there's a reasonable equivalent of 'path tracing' (link tracing?
) for computing page ranks that avoids the massive matrix inversions of the basic PageRank algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</id>
	<title>linearity</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1265030340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that it was linear. I felt that this just had to be wrong, because it didn't seem right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect compared to a single inbound link. Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday, just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her. If it was me, I'd have used some kind of logarithmic scaling. I think people do usually describe page ranks in terms of their logarithms, but that's taking the log on the final outcome. I'm talking about taking logs at each step before going on to the next iteration.</p><p>To me, this has an intuitive connection to the idea that the internet used to be more interesting and quirky, and it was more about individuals expressing themselves, whereas now it's more like another form of TV.</p><p>Of course that's not to say that I want to go back to the days before page rank. God, search engine results were just horrible in those days.</p><p>From an elitist snob point of view, one good thing about page rank is that it doesn't let you just vote in a passive way, as Nielsen ratings do for TV. In order to have a vote, you have to do something active, like making a web page that links to the page you want to vote for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that it was linear .
I felt that this just had to be wrong , because it did n't seem right for a * million * inbound links to have a * million * times the effect compared to a single inbound link .
Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me , but I do n't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday , just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her .
If it was me , I 'd have used some kind of logarithmic scaling .
I think people do usually describe page ranks in terms of their logarithms , but that 's taking the log on the final outcome .
I 'm talking about taking logs at each step before going on to the next iteration.To me , this has an intuitive connection to the idea that the internet used to be more interesting and quirky , and it was more about individuals expressing themselves , whereas now it 's more like another form of TV.Of course that 's not to say that I want to go back to the days before page rank .
God , search engine results were just horrible in those days.From an elitist snob point of view , one good thing about page rank is that it does n't let you just vote in a passive way , as Nielsen ratings do for TV .
In order to have a vote , you have to do something active , like making a web page that links to the page you want to vote for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that it was linear.
I felt that this just had to be wrong, because it didn't seem right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect compared to a single inbound link.
Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me, but I don't feel that the latest American Idol singer is really a thousand times better than Billie Holliday, just because a thousand times more people listen to him than to her.
If it was me, I'd have used some kind of logarithmic scaling.
I think people do usually describe page ranks in terms of their logarithms, but that's taking the log on the final outcome.
I'm talking about taking logs at each step before going on to the next iteration.To me, this has an intuitive connection to the idea that the internet used to be more interesting and quirky, and it was more about individuals expressing themselves, whereas now it's more like another form of TV.Of course that's not to say that I want to go back to the days before page rank.
God, search engine results were just horrible in those days.From an elitist snob point of view, one good thing about page rank is that it doesn't let you just vote in a passive way, as Nielsen ratings do for TV.
In order to have a vote, you have to do something active, like making a web page that links to the page you want to vote for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179138</id>
	<title>NetCraft confirms it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Latin is dead</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Latin is dead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latin is dead</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178992</id>
	<title>Vistas in Information Handling, Spartan Press 1962</title>
	<author>ArmchairAstronomer</author>
	<datestamp>1265033640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most amazing computer book ever.   It has Doug Englebart's first description of &ldquo;augmenting the human intellect&rdquo; using computers.  It describes what we know now as windows (generic) with pointing devices. It has an early linear document retrieval system using page ranks based on word co-occurrences and it has an early language translation system (Russian to English with examples of translating Soviet missile papers).  What a preview of things to come.</p><p>It is worth a read just to get into the heads of some of the computing pioneers.</p><p>Another required reading book for all aspiring CS students should be John Von Neumann&rsquo;s the &ldquo;Computer and the Brain.&rdquo;  Dated, but again this is what they were thinking.</p><p>We have a lot to be humble about given the hardware and compilers they had to work with.  Not to mention primitive development environments, a.k.a. the card punch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most amazing computer book ever .
It has Doug Englebart 's first description of    augmenting the human intellect    using computers .
It describes what we know now as windows ( generic ) with pointing devices .
It has an early linear document retrieval system using page ranks based on word co-occurrences and it has an early language translation system ( Russian to English with examples of translating Soviet missile papers ) .
What a preview of things to come.It is worth a read just to get into the heads of some of the computing pioneers.Another required reading book for all aspiring CS students should be John Von Neumann    s the    Computer and the Brain.    Dated , but again this is what they were thinking.We have a lot to be humble about given the hardware and compilers they had to work with .
Not to mention primitive development environments , a.k.a .
the card punch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most amazing computer book ever.
It has Doug Englebart's first description of “augmenting the human intellect” using computers.
It describes what we know now as windows (generic) with pointing devices.
It has an early linear document retrieval system using page ranks based on word co-occurrences and it has an early language translation system (Russian to English with examples of translating Soviet missile papers).
What a preview of things to come.It is worth a read just to get into the heads of some of the computing pioneers.Another required reading book for all aspiring CS students should be John Von Neumann’s the “Computer and the Brain.”  Dated, but again this is what they were thinking.We have a lot to be humble about given the hardware and compilers they had to work with.
Not to mention primitive development environments, a.k.a.
the card punch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179042</id>
	<title>Prior art?</title>
	<author>ridgecritter</author>
	<datestamp>1265034120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. member who is an IP attorney comment on whether  this might constitute prior art that could open up relevant Google patent(s) to an invalidation attack based on obviousness?  Which, in my limited understanding, would go something like:  "Well, a person skilled in the art as of the date of Google's patent application would have known of the Leontief work (published, knowledge therefore presumed) and it would have been obvious to implement the Leontif work on a computer.".

And for extra interest, could anyone with "standing" (which could be any of us who use Google) file a petition for re-examination of the patents with the USPTO?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could some / .
member who is an IP attorney comment on whether this might constitute prior art that could open up relevant Google patent ( s ) to an invalidation attack based on obviousness ?
Which , in my limited understanding , would go something like : " Well , a person skilled in the art as of the date of Google 's patent application would have known of the Leontief work ( published , knowledge therefore presumed ) and it would have been obvious to implement the Leontif work on a computer. " .
And for extra interest , could anyone with " standing " ( which could be any of us who use Google ) file a petition for re-examination of the patents with the USPTO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could some /.
member who is an IP attorney comment on whether  this might constitute prior art that could open up relevant Google patent(s) to an invalidation attack based on obviousness?
Which, in my limited understanding, would go something like:  "Well, a person skilled in the art as of the date of Google's patent application would have known of the Leontief work (published, knowledge therefore presumed) and it would have been obvious to implement the Leontif work on a computer.".
And for extra interest, could anyone with "standing" (which could be any of us who use Google) file a petition for re-examination of the patents with the USPTO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178736</id>
	<title>Markov Chains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Markov Chains were introduced in 1906 according to Wikipedia. That's the origin of PageRank. People have also been using these tools for ages to rank the impact of journals, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Markov Chains were introduced in 1906 according to Wikipedia .
That 's the origin of PageRank .
People have also been using these tools for ages to rank the impact of journals , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Markov Chains were introduced in 1906 according to Wikipedia.
That's the origin of PageRank.
People have also been using these tools for ages to rank the impact of journals, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179046</id>
	<title>other prior work</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1265034180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mathematics of PageRank go back a century.  There have been many different applications since then, including to hypertext and the web.  From Wikipedia:</p><blockquote><div><p>PageRank has been influenced by citation analysis, early developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s at the University of Pennsylvania, and by Hyper Search, developed by Massimo Marchiori at the University of Padua (Google's founders cite Garfield's and Marchiori's works in their original paper[5]).</p></div></blockquote><p>As such, the algorithm wasn't new, but Google was the first to build a working, large-scale search engine around it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mathematics of PageRank go back a century .
There have been many different applications since then , including to hypertext and the web .
From Wikipedia : PageRank has been influenced by citation analysis , early developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s at the University of Pennsylvania , and by Hyper Search , developed by Massimo Marchiori at the University of Padua ( Google 's founders cite Garfield 's and Marchiori 's works in their original paper [ 5 ] ) .As such , the algorithm was n't new , but Google was the first to build a working , large-scale search engine around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mathematics of PageRank go back a century.
There have been many different applications since then, including to hypertext and the web.
From Wikipedia:PageRank has been influenced by citation analysis, early developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1950s at the University of Pennsylvania, and by Hyper Search, developed by Massimo Marchiori at the University of Padua (Google's founders cite Garfield's and Marchiori's works in their original paper[5]).As such, the algorithm wasn't new, but Google was the first to build a working, large-scale search engine around it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178908</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1265032980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"don't reinvent the wheel" is kindof dumb advice when you think about it.</p><p>If I didn't already have a wheel, it would take me a really long time to traverse the world in search of a wheel to see if it had been invented yet.  If it has, and it's got sufficient penetration into the market that I know about them already, then, sure, it's a no brainer not to reinvent it.  On the other hand, if no one in my immediate vicinity has ever heard of the wheel, then inventing one -- quickly -- is a lot smarter than traversing the known world until I run into a culture that already has wheels.  Especially if they might exploit their superior technology to subjugate and enslave my people.  Better to have a home-brewed shitty wheel to start off with, and upgrade quickly if I discover that there are other friendly cultures that have better wheels already, and have at least something if I don't discover anyone else, or discover hostiles who already have them.</p><p>As long as the cart is loosely integrated with the wheels I have, upgrading to better wheels when they are found to be available should be easy.  And I might just learn something about wheels while studying them that applies to other problems, or could even possibly improve the existing state of the art with respect to wheels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" do n't reinvent the wheel " is kindof dumb advice when you think about it.If I did n't already have a wheel , it would take me a really long time to traverse the world in search of a wheel to see if it had been invented yet .
If it has , and it 's got sufficient penetration into the market that I know about them already , then , sure , it 's a no brainer not to reinvent it .
On the other hand , if no one in my immediate vicinity has ever heard of the wheel , then inventing one -- quickly -- is a lot smarter than traversing the known world until I run into a culture that already has wheels .
Especially if they might exploit their superior technology to subjugate and enslave my people .
Better to have a home-brewed shitty wheel to start off with , and upgrade quickly if I discover that there are other friendly cultures that have better wheels already , and have at least something if I do n't discover anyone else , or discover hostiles who already have them.As long as the cart is loosely integrated with the wheels I have , upgrading to better wheels when they are found to be available should be easy .
And I might just learn something about wheels while studying them that applies to other problems , or could even possibly improve the existing state of the art with respect to wheels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"don't reinvent the wheel" is kindof dumb advice when you think about it.If I didn't already have a wheel, it would take me a really long time to traverse the world in search of a wheel to see if it had been invented yet.
If it has, and it's got sufficient penetration into the market that I know about them already, then, sure, it's a no brainer not to reinvent it.
On the other hand, if no one in my immediate vicinity has ever heard of the wheel, then inventing one -- quickly -- is a lot smarter than traversing the known world until I run into a culture that already has wheels.
Especially if they might exploit their superior technology to subjugate and enslave my people.
Better to have a home-brewed shitty wheel to start off with, and upgrade quickly if I discover that there are other friendly cultures that have better wheels already, and have at least something if I don't discover anyone else, or discover hostiles who already have them.As long as the cart is loosely integrated with the wheels I have, upgrading to better wheels when they are found to be available should be easy.
And I might just learn something about wheels while studying them that applies to other problems, or could even possibly improve the existing state of the art with respect to wheels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178658</id>
	<title>Or there's the number ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265030700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... of times one Pharaoh's cartouche was chiseled into the obelisks beloning to other Pharaohs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... of times one Pharaoh 's cartouche was chiseled into the obelisks beloning to other Pharaohs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... of times one Pharaoh's cartouche was chiseled into the obelisks beloning to other Pharaohs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181658</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1266487080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah, so it is a patent of the type:<br>"the same as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but now we do it on a computer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah , so it is a patent of the type : " the same as ... but now we do it on a computer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah, so it is a patent of the type:"the same as ... but now we do it on a computer"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178670</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would have been a pretty exhaustive search without google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been a pretty exhaustive search without google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been a pretty exhaustive search without google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179220</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1265035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not very likely, but as I have not seen details of either algorithm it's possible but not probable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not very likely , but as I have not seen details of either algorithm it 's possible but not probable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not very likely, but as I have not seen details of either algorithm it's possible but not probable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181996</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Ben1220</author>
	<datestamp>1266490440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why I would rather be a Computer Scientist working at a university or industrial research lab then a software developer.  Because I want to create real new stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I would rather be a Computer Scientist working at a university or industrial research lab then a software developer .
Because I want to create real new stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I would rather be a Computer Scientist working at a university or industrial research lab then a software developer.
Because I want to create real new stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179522</id>
	<title>ni6gA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Abaout outside and; reports and</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abaout outside and ; reports and [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abaout outside and; reports and [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183620</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1266504840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel.</p></div><p>That is some good folksy wisdom for your intrepid yound developer.  Also:</p><p>"Don't count your chickens before they're hatched!"<br>"A little too late is much too late!"<br>"A small leak will sink a great ship!"<br>"Lost time is never found!"<br>"A chain is as strong as its weakest link!"<br>"A bad broom leaves a dirty room!"</p><p>Anyway, my point is not that your advice is bad.  But are you seriously suggesting that Brin, when he had this idea, should have gone straight for the library until he found this 1941 Economics paper?  I wonder how long that would take?  How about this advice:</p><p>"Go ahead and reinvent the wheel.  If its useful enough, no one will care."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this is actually pretty good advice for any developer ; Do n't reinvent the wheel.That is some good folksy wisdom for your intrepid yound developer .
Also : " Do n't count your chickens before they 're hatched !
" " A little too late is much too late !
" " A small leak will sink a great ship !
" " Lost time is never found !
" " A chain is as strong as its weakest link !
" " A bad broom leaves a dirty room !
" Anyway , my point is not that your advice is bad .
But are you seriously suggesting that Brin , when he had this idea , should have gone straight for the library until he found this 1941 Economics paper ?
I wonder how long that would take ?
How about this advice : " Go ahead and reinvent the wheel .
If its useful enough , no one will care .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel.That is some good folksy wisdom for your intrepid yound developer.
Also:"Don't count your chickens before they're hatched!
""A little too late is much too late!
""A small leak will sink a great ship!
""Lost time is never found!
""A chain is as strong as its weakest link!
""A bad broom leaves a dirty room!
"Anyway, my point is not that your advice is bad.
But are you seriously suggesting that Brin, when he had this idea, should have gone straight for the library until he found this 1941 Economics paper?
I wonder how long that would take?
How about this advice:"Go ahead and reinvent the wheel.
If its useful enough, no one will care.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178436</id>
	<title>Very primitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The algorithm ran on pigeons that were the size of entire rooms, and with less processing power than today's pigeons which fit into the palm of your hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The algorithm ran on pigeons that were the size of entire rooms , and with less processing power than today 's pigeons which fit into the palm of your hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The algorithm ran on pigeons that were the size of entire rooms, and with less processing power than today's pigeons which fit into the palm of your hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179604</id>
	<title>there is nothing new under the sun</title>
	<author>skoony</author>
	<datestamp>1265038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>hey,
i thought of that.
just did'nt patent it.

we now are own you regards,

mike(hunkering down in the frozen north

)</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey , i thought of that .
just did'nt patent it .
we now are own you regards , mike ( hunkering down in the frozen north )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey,
i thought of that.
just did'nt patent it.
we now are own you regards,

mike(hunkering down in the frozen north

)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178734</id>
	<title>indeed it is not new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many different types of jobs, people use the counts the number of times their research papers have been referenced and quoted with different "points" depending on where it was quoted. Fx. someone working with medicine hos has his work referenced in The Lancet, counts more than a reference in local-hillbilly-news.<br>I belive there are sources collects this information. Sorry for being so vague, but I can't remember the specifics. (but hey, isn't that just what we do i Slashdot comments)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many different types of jobs , people use the counts the number of times their research papers have been referenced and quoted with different " points " depending on where it was quoted .
Fx. someone working with medicine hos has his work referenced in The Lancet , counts more than a reference in local-hillbilly-news.I belive there are sources collects this information .
Sorry for being so vague , but I ca n't remember the specifics .
( but hey , is n't that just what we do i Slashdot comments )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many different types of jobs, people use the counts the number of times their research papers have been referenced and quoted with different "points" depending on where it was quoted.
Fx. someone working with medicine hos has his work referenced in The Lancet, counts more than a reference in local-hillbilly-news.I belive there are sources collects this information.
Sorry for being so vague, but I can't remember the specifics.
(but hey, isn't that just what we do i Slashdot comments)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31195446</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266511920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slamming Windoze has gotten more than a few modded into oblivion as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slamming Windoze has gotten more than a few modded into oblivion as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slamming Windoze has gotten more than a few modded into oblivion as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179206</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the invention of Turbo Codes in the early Nineties for forward error correction for communication networks. It was later discovered that in the early Sixties, low density parity check (LDPC) coding was developed that performed a similar function but was not used because of the lack of computer power and memory back then.  The LDCP patents had expired by then, so now there are two technologies doing the same thing in a different way but one is patent-free.  In a similar vein, I read some years ago of a company in the UK who search through expired and current patents looking for inventions that meet their customers' needs.  They would often find solutions in a totally different field to the area being researched and a lot of  it was stuff  that was ahead of its time and its technology had been abandoned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the invention of Turbo Codes in the early Nineties for forward error correction for communication networks .
It was later discovered that in the early Sixties , low density parity check ( LDPC ) coding was developed that performed a similar function but was not used because of the lack of computer power and memory back then .
The LDCP patents had expired by then , so now there are two technologies doing the same thing in a different way but one is patent-free .
In a similar vein , I read some years ago of a company in the UK who search through expired and current patents looking for inventions that meet their customers ' needs .
They would often find solutions in a totally different field to the area being researched and a lot of it was stuff that was ahead of its time and its technology had been abandoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the invention of Turbo Codes in the early Nineties for forward error correction for communication networks.
It was later discovered that in the early Sixties, low density parity check (LDPC) coding was developed that performed a similar function but was not used because of the lack of computer power and memory back then.
The LDCP patents had expired by then, so now there are two technologies doing the same thing in a different way but one is patent-free.
In a similar vein, I read some years ago of a company in the UK who search through expired and current patents looking for inventions that meet their customers' needs.
They would often find solutions in a totally different field to the area being researched and a lot of  it was stuff  that was ahead of its time and its technology had been abandoned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462</id>
	<title>Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google's patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google 's patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it could be used as previous art to invalidate Google's patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178962</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>c0lo</author>
	<datestamp>1265033460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.</p></div><p>What if I need a cog or a chassis?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapheap\_Challenge" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Scrapheap Challenge</a> [wikipedia.org] rings a bell? With, in most of the occasions, better build the chassis yourself than struggle to get it free and work furiously to adapt it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't reinvent the wheel .
Look around , search for what 's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.What if I need a cog or a chassis ?
Scrapheap Challenge [ wikipedia.org ] rings a bell ?
With , in most of the occasions , better build the chassis yourself than struggle to get it free and work furiously to adapt it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't reinvent the wheel.
Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.What if I need a cog or a chassis?
Scrapheap Challenge [wikipedia.org] rings a bell?
With, in most of the occasions, better build the chassis yourself than struggle to get it free and work furiously to adapt it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31180390</id>
	<title>Journalists Finally Put Two and Two Together</title>
	<author>kmoser</author>
	<datestamp>1265046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of rating something based on the weighted reputation of those entities that endorse it ("endorse" being used in the general sense) has been around, well, forever. People do it all the time when they decide who to trust. TFA should have been titled, "Brin and Page Rediscover Leontief-Type Algorithm from the 1940s" with the subtitle, "Journalists Finally Put Two and Two Together."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of rating something based on the weighted reputation of those entities that endorse it ( " endorse " being used in the general sense ) has been around , well , forever .
People do it all the time when they decide who to trust .
TFA should have been titled , " Brin and Page Rediscover Leontief-Type Algorithm from the 1940s " with the subtitle , " Journalists Finally Put Two and Two Together .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of rating something based on the weighted reputation of those entities that endorse it ("endorse" being used in the general sense) has been around, well, forever.
People do it all the time when they decide who to trust.
TFA should have been titled, "Brin and Page Rediscover Leontief-Type Algorithm from the 1940s" with the subtitle, "Journalists Finally Put Two and Two Together.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</id>
	<title>Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel. Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs. Of course, as a last resort, one can design something new once he has done his homework and made sure nothing that has been done before may be re-used.</p><p>Through my life, I have seen a amazing high level of work that has been done in vain because it yielded poor results and that something doing the same better already existed anyway.</p><p>Don't get me wrong here, once you have made sure that nothing already existing suits your needs or can be reused, it is fine to innovate and create real new stuff. Just don't get caught trying to reinvent  the wheel unless you reinvent it better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this is actually pretty good advice for any developer ; Do n't reinvent the wheel .
Look around , search for what 's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs .
Of course , as a last resort , one can design something new once he has done his homework and made sure nothing that has been done before may be re-used.Through my life , I have seen a amazing high level of work that has been done in vain because it yielded poor results and that something doing the same better already existed anyway.Do n't get me wrong here , once you have made sure that nothing already existing suits your needs or can be reused , it is fine to innovate and create real new stuff .
Just do n't get caught trying to reinvent the wheel unless you reinvent it better ; - ) Also , an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule , it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this is actually pretty good advice for any developer; Don't reinvent the wheel.
Look around, search for what's been done before and adapt it to suit your needs.
Of course, as a last resort, one can design something new once he has done his homework and made sure nothing that has been done before may be re-used.Through my life, I have seen a amazing high level of work that has been done in vain because it yielded poor results and that something doing the same better already existed anyway.Don't get me wrong here, once you have made sure that nothing already existing suits your needs or can be reused, it is fine to innovate and create real new stuff.
Just don't get caught trying to reinvent  the wheel unless you reinvent it better ;-)Also, an exception to that principle could be allowed for trivial tasks that are really quick to implement and where searching for an existing solution might cost more than implementing it yourself but be really careful applying that exception rule, it is an open door that leads to trying to reinvent the wheel sometimes ;-))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182340</id>
	<title>Re:Good advice for all developers</title>
	<author>invalid\_user</author>
	<datestamp>1266494580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha, then you won't be able to publish any paper.</p><p>The research world is now filled with researchers who simply don't read others' works, and just keep writing. Even if it's been done before (or even if it doesn't make any sense at all), eventually they will be able to find a venue that will accept the paper, because no reviewer can know everything.</p><p>And worries not about citation! Those work will be cited because of exactly the same reasons, or even worse, because the party who cites it has performed work that has been superseded by other more advanced studies, and that shallow paper is the only one that can justify his (equally shallow) work.</p><p>Remember, in the end, it's the guy who publishes the most that wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha , then you wo n't be able to publish any paper.The research world is now filled with researchers who simply do n't read others ' works , and just keep writing .
Even if it 's been done before ( or even if it does n't make any sense at all ) , eventually they will be able to find a venue that will accept the paper , because no reviewer can know everything.And worries not about citation !
Those work will be cited because of exactly the same reasons , or even worse , because the party who cites it has performed work that has been superseded by other more advanced studies , and that shallow paper is the only one that can justify his ( equally shallow ) work.Remember , in the end , it 's the guy who publishes the most that wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha, then you won't be able to publish any paper.The research world is now filled with researchers who simply don't read others' works, and just keep writing.
Even if it's been done before (or even if it doesn't make any sense at all), eventually they will be able to find a venue that will accept the paper, because no reviewer can know everything.And worries not about citation!
Those work will be cited because of exactly the same reasons, or even worse, because the party who cites it has performed work that has been superseded by other more advanced studies, and that shallow paper is the only one that can justify his (equally shallow) work.Remember, in the end, it's the guy who publishes the most that wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178770</id>
	<title>Re:linearity</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265031840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that
  it was linear. I felt that this just had to be wrong, because it didn't seem
  right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect
  compared to a single inbound link. Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The algorithm is <b>not at all linear in the effect of inbound links</b>. Two inbound links don't have the same effect, instead their effects are first weighted by the
PageRank of each node of origin.
</p><p>
Now the distribution of PageRank among nodes is approximately power-law distributed on the web. Intuitively, this means that among all inbound links of a particular node, when that number is high, then 99\% have practically no effect on the rank of that node, exactly as you probably thought in the first place.
More precisely, you can expect a pareto (or similar) distribution for the influence of incoming nodes, which is not unexpected since these sorts of distributions occur a lot in social sciences.
</p><p>
That said, the PageRank algo is actually linear, but only in the sense of being a linear operator on weight distributions. If you normalize the weights after each iteration, the algo is actually affine (on normalized distributions) rather than linear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that it was linear .
I felt that this just had to be wrong , because it did n't seem right for a * million * inbound links to have a * million * times the effect compared to a single inbound link .
Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me , The algorithm is not at all linear in the effect of inbound links .
Two inbound links do n't have the same effect , instead their effects are first weighted by the PageRank of each node of origin .
Now the distribution of PageRank among nodes is approximately power-law distributed on the web .
Intuitively , this means that among all inbound links of a particular node , when that number is high , then 99 \ % have practically no effect on the rank of that node , exactly as you probably thought in the first place .
More precisely , you can expect a pareto ( or similar ) distribution for the influence of incoming nodes , which is not unexpected since these sorts of distributions occur a lot in social sciences .
That said , the PageRank algo is actually linear , but only in the sense of being a linear operator on weight distributions .
If you normalize the weights after each iteration , the algo is actually affine ( on normalized distributions ) rather than linear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  What really shocked me when someone first described page rank to me was that
  it was linear.
I felt that this just had to be wrong, because it didn't seem
  right for a *million* inbound links to have a *million* times the effect
  compared to a single inbound link.
Maybe this is just the elitist snob in me,

The algorithm is not at all linear in the effect of inbound links.
Two inbound links don't have the same effect, instead their effects are first weighted by the
PageRank of each node of origin.
Now the distribution of PageRank among nodes is approximately power-law distributed on the web.
Intuitively, this means that among all inbound links of a particular node, when that number is high, then 99\% have practically no effect on the rank of that node, exactly as you probably thought in the first place.
More precisely, you can expect a pareto (or similar) distribution for the influence of incoming nodes, which is not unexpected since these sorts of distributions occur a lot in social sciences.
That said, the PageRank algo is actually linear, but only in the sense of being a linear operator on weight distributions.
If you normalize the weights after each iteration, the algo is actually affine (on normalized distributions) rather than linear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31195446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31185704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2317239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31181996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31183716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31195446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31178908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31185704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31182340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2317239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2317239.31179140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
