"Car-petrol"?

Is that Californian or Chinese?

Haven't read the whole thread, so the chances are that neither have you, in which case you may not be reading this.

I've got at this moment 32505 tunes in my library, just shy of 148 gigs. I'm pretty much obsessive about filling in the fields myself (and by the way, why does the "comments" field *still* cut off at 256 characters, lopping off the end of anything longer you've typed or pasted in? [end of rant.]) -- I've created all kinds of wacky genres and categories, I've got "smart" playlists that depend on various tags saying certain things.

So why would it be a good idea to have software go through my library and relabel things, without asking me to approve the changes? There are a LOT of mistakes on Gracenote. I correct them if I catch them... Do these programs uncorrect them?

After my library's been cleaned, can I revert to my original library if I decide this wasn't such a good idea?

I can see it working well with some categories, like composers. In my library, composers are listed last name first, or last name only, or with a first initial. Some classical pieces give the birth and death date of the composer. Teams are joined by &s and by ands, with slashes and with hyphens... I'd love to be able to standardize that mess of nomenclature.

All in all, I'm dubious. And this is my friend, Dubin.

But seriously folks, I dunno. It takes 12 hours to automatically do a library comparable to mine. If it's stopping and asking for feedback and approval (as aren't we all?) it'll take way longer.

It's a great idea, and looks very cool, but I just dunno.

Say goodnight, Dubin.

readers suggested that he try it himself

This reader suggests that Mssrs Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Yoo, Addington, etc., etc., try it too.

Coupla things, kind of OT, but at this point in the thread, what isn't?

People who cry out "conspiracy theory" might stop and think. A conspiracy is people working together (in secret) to do something. Deleting -- sorry, "unpublishing" -- VB's posts was done by a group (the BBers) behind the scenes. My theory: that's a conspiracy.

People on the web use "conspiracy theory" the same way they use Godwin's Law -- to squash whatever someone's saying, ignoring the non-Nazi-referencing parts of what they have to say. In this case Hitler's been replaced by Orwell, with people shrieking that this is NOT "1984." No, it isn't... but "unpublishing" is still doublespeak.

It amuses/annoys me when "conspiracy theory" is the buzzword aimed at people on the web who talk (not that I necessarily agree with them) about, shall we say, alternative narratives behind 9/11 or the motivations for the Iraq war. Of COURSE there were conspiracies in those cases. The question is, who conspired?

The use of "conspiracy theory" as an argument-ending putdown started, I think, with the JFK assassination -- although, 45 years later, we still don't know if there WAS a conspiracy there.

Not to elevate the BB/VB dustup to that kind of historical level or anything. But let's use words to mean what they mean. This was (self-)censorship. Whether or not it's justified is another question. And it was a "conspiracy" too. No reason to shut down debate.

Personally, I agree with all the commenters who've said that BB was within its rights, but handled this stupidly.

Finally... after reading 300+ comments, here's a simple key to who's wrong here. The many commenters who put apostrophes in the wrong place are wrong. Disregard them. Also the ones who leave out apostrophes that should be there.

Unless, of course, the apostrophes were merely "unpublished" by Boing Boing.

Maybe (MAYBE!) you could argue that Milt Stein outdrew Carl Barks. Maybe.

But you'd be wrong.

There MIGHT be a LITTLE something to it if you compare the BEST frames from the Supermouse book with some of Barks' weaker frames.

But Barks' genius went WAY beyond his awesomeness as a draftsman of individual frames. He freed his comics from the prison of regularly shaped frames -- the kind that make the layouts in Supermouse boringly the same from page to page. A page of Barks is likely to include a huge, frame-breaking panorama, or a series of offbeat compositions. And his stories were brilliant as well.

No need to hype the unknown, obviously talented Milt Stein by putting down one of the true geniuses of the field.

Like Barks, I remain a Duck Man.

So Janet Jackson's breast is subject to Fair Use?

Some decades ago, I worked at the Doubleday book store on 5th Ave. & 57th St. in Manhattan.

One day, an older (50s?) guy came in with a much younger woman. He told one of the salespeople that he was setting her up in an apartment, and needed books to fill the shelves. He didn't care what books — just books.

So, he bought the entire hundred-and-something volumes of the Modern Library for starters, along with many, many other books. The whole time, his companion, presumably his mistress, never said a word, just clung to her book sugar daddy.

I don't know if he or his tootsie ever read any of the tomes, but I somehow doubt it.

Could this (with a few tweaks) become the CatCam that I've long dreamed of putting on my pussycat?

There's already something on my exterior walls, called "windows."

The book idea is harder to pull off in a warm climate (LA, in my case), where the windows are bigger than those dungeon-sized jobs that are usual in colder places. On the other hand, we don't have to crank as much heat here.

Maybe this explains the alarming number of houses in LA with no books whatsoever.

There's a performer who's appeared on the Letterman show a couple of times who does pretty much the same thing, but with roller skates!

He's performed this stunt on 53rd St between Broadway and 8th, next to the Ed Sullivan Theatre. He sets up two long parallel rows of bottles and then skates down the middle, with wires or sticks (or something) attached to his skates playing the music, which I believe was some kind of classical warhorse along the lines of the William Tell Overture or a Sousa march.

Obviously I don't remember the details too clearly, but no doubt Google does.

There's an episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show (early 60s) in which Rob Petrie, against everybody's advice, goes on a tough interview show that's clearly modeled after "Night Beat" — dark set with pin spot lighting, cigarette smoke, etc. — where the bulldog host corners him into spilling the beans about his boss, Alan Brady (as I remember it, he reveals that Alan wears a toupee).

It's not the giant arms that scare me. It's one of the other, uh, extremities.

I just bought the Orbicule "Undercover" software. Sounds like a great idea. When you report you Mac stolen, they turn on the software remotely (when the thief goes online — if that doesn't happen, there's a Plan B).

It takes periodic screenshots, and snapshots with the iSight camera, which are sent back to Orbicule, along with network info. They say that working with ISPs and cops, they can get your computer back. What the recovery rate has been is another question — their "success stories" page only has three of them. Anybody have experience with this?

I went a little nuts trying to figure out the Mona Lisa picture — I thought it had hidden words or images. Even crossed my eyes for the old "magic picture" effect. Then I realized it must be a frame from the video, which I watched. D'oh.

Anyway... this scheme requires the attacker to get hands on the actual computer. We're talking about robberies, break-ins, spies, moles, attack ferrets... scenes from crummy action movies.

If you can keep people away from your computer, then you don't have a problem. Just keep your belongings within your sight at all times, and do not accept packages from someone you do not know. And remember that the white zone is for loading and unloading only.

What I learned: Don't freeze my Macbook.

"...looks like it was designed by Apple..."

All the more because the video bites Apple's style: the white-on-white look, the supered text, the whimsical music. The same futuristic but soothing tone.

I love the title that says "listen your music."

The first thing that occurred to me was "what about music that's built on samples of other music?" And I can't figure out the answer.

To give an example, in the early 90s, De La Soul and their producer, Prince Paul, made masterpieces out of samples ranging from James Brown to kiddie records. They and others were sued, and lost. Thus ended the golden age of sample-based music.

But what category does that kind of reworking fall into? The work doesn't substitute for the original — it's an entirely new piece. Does it add value? Maybe. But it's indisputable that it takes value from the work whose content it's repurposing. It's appropriating the value of the original.

So I think we need a third category. Does it substitute? Does it add value? Does it appropriate?

And there we are again with the old three-body problem. Maybe it's just not that simple?

Please tell me why I'm wrong about this, so I can join the happy believers.

It's ok, he was visiting Le Crazy Horse Saloon.

73,000 bids?

As of a minute ago, the eBay page had a slightly different number.

38.

I'd call the 73,000 a ballpark figure, but they don't build ballparks that big anymore.

"Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson," said Holmes in a reminiscent voice. "It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared. But what do we know about vampires? Does it come within our purview either? Anything is better than stagnation, but really we seem to have been switched on to a Grimms' fairy tale. Make a long arm, Watson, and see what V has to say."

"The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire," by Arthur Conan Doyle

And of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra

"The Sunshine Makers" was on (b&w) TV constantly when I was a kid in NYC, along with the other Van Beuren cartoons. (For some reason, on TV, their Farmer Alfalfa character was always called Farmer Gray.)

In the late 60s, the light show people at Fillmore East would occasionally run "The Sunshine Makers" between sets, to the glee of the often very sunshiny audience.

They don't just make sculptures of bugs, they make sculptures out of bugs!

I went to the site and got extremely creeped when I realized that those are real insect parts in combination with the pimped out additions.

Look at the picture again. Those wings. Those hairy legs. Ewwww, I say.

Unless it's an amazing coincidence, this HAS to be the source for the famous, much-parodied Bufferin ads of the 1950s that used an almost identical cutaway man, with electrical equipment in his head and pipes running through his body.

Like everything else, it's on the web...

http://www.fulltable.com/VTS/i/imsc/aa/01.jpg

OK, I watched the video... which line have you been repeating?

Nice... I just made this image the cover art for my copy of "In Rainbows" in iTunes.

Mark...

The answer is in Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge comic "Land Beneath The Ground" from 1956.

Scrooge, Donald, Huey, Dewey, and Louie investigate mysterious ROUND ROCKS around the entrance to one of Scrooge's gold mines. They turn out to be creatures of two tribes, the Terries and the Fermies, who live underground, and who cause earthquakes by rolling into the columns that hold up the surface (Terries) or by pushing against them (Fermies).

No visuals on the web, but Google will turn up some references, including a Wikipedia article.

I suggest checking the earthquake-proofing of your home, pronto.

(First submitted anonymously by mistake, thought I was signed in...)

Wait a minute... are you saying it's okay for your computer to have sex without a trojan?

And they're perfect for earthquake country! Watch them dance!

Jill Krementz (Kurt Vonnegut's wife) did a book called "The Writer's Desk" -- b&w photos of the writing rooms of many famous authors, including Vonnegut, Updike, and dozens of others.

Amazon lists it as out of print, but of course it can be had at a price. (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Desk-Jill-Krementz/dp/0609000489/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8/102-6821976-1188128?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190371258&sr=8-8)