An unfortunately uncommonly-
In this paper I take a multidimensional meta-
The intuition behind this hypothesis is simple enough. Files are to be downloaded to a reader’s computer, where they will usually join a large unsorted mess on the reader’s virtual desktop (analogous to the large unsorted mess on most readers’ physical desktop). Files that are named so as to make sense in the context of the author’s files
I’ve given these eigenvectors mnemonic names and subjective characteristic descriptions, so as to appropriately pad the length of this paper. The features are listed in order of magnitude in the PCA analysis.2
AR: Aggressive Reductionism
— characterized by the use of very short title elements, including idiosyncratic abbreviations, and a lack of dates; also includes gratuitous used of Greek letters, and having a shoe size of less than 7.
SE: Standards Exclusion
— characterized by the use of highly proprietary (.doc), archaic (.wp), or technically complex (.tex) formats for papers, over more common and less annoying formats, like .pdf; also includes using the incorrect file suffix (such as .rtf for .doc), or excessive margins (greater than one inch).
HO: Hyphen Obviation
— characterized by the lack of spaces or hyphens between words, or even the CommonCourtesy of CamelCase; also includes putting footnotes in particularly unreadable or small fonts, and having creepily long second toes.
LE: Letter Exclusion
— characterized by the use of mostly or only numbers rather than words in file names, making it difficult for readers to associate the content of the file with the name; also includes the inability to produce snappy footnotes, and a fondness for elderberries.
In conclusion, the intuitions behind the hypothesis have been borne out.3 After all, would anyone tolerate a reprint that merely said “LACUS 2009” across the top of the page, rather than indicating the title, author, date, and journal information? Of course not. File names are necessarily more restrictive as a medium, but to make no effort at all indicates a lack of respect for one’s intellectual colleagues and academic peers.
Besten, A. M. & Chalke, S. (2007) “I’m OK
Dewaele, J.-M. & Furnham, A. (1999) “Extraversion: The Unloved Variable in Applied Linguistic Research”, in Language Learning 49, pp. 509-544.
Entgegenjauchzen, X. (1996) “Computer File Formats for Dummies, Idiots, Fools, Morons, and Linguists”, in Proceedings of the 4th Annular Conference of the Computational Linguistics Society of Bolivia, pp. 197-212.
Gilbert, D. T. & Krull, D. S. (1988) “Seeing less and knowing more: The benefits of perceptual ignorance”, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, pp. 193-202.
Giles, G. (2010) “Introversion and Chronorefractive Alphabetic Difference Splitting: a new model of reference padding”, in Lazy Linguists Aperiodical 31, 32, or 34, pp. 214-187.
Gill, A. & Oberlander, J. (2002) “Taking care of the linguistic features of extraversion”, in Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 363-368.
Gill, A. & Oberlander, J. (2003) “Perception of e-mail personality at zero acquaintance: Extraversion takes care of itself; Neuroticism is a worry”, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 456-461.
Hitchcock, R. & Egyptians, T. (1984) “Uncorrected Personality Traits”, in The Journal of Normally Abnormal Psycho Linguistics 3, pp. 52-239.
Tiefauftönend, A. (2003) “Extraversion, Introversion, and Tongue-
2 For those not familiar with principle component analysis, well, you’re pretty much screwed if you are looking to a footnote to explain it, but the basic idea is to find a smaller number of independent features
3 Though I have to admit that the significant number of relevant foot- and footnote-
|Paradigmatically Encoded Logographs
|On the Taxonomic Classification of minimalistici
|SpecGram Vol CLXIII, No 1 Contents|