News You Can Bruise for 2008 December

I can see the thought process--it's certainly eye-catching, and if it weren't Elmo it might even be disturbing--but I don't know how they got the Elmo picture in particular. An image search for "doll suicide" pulls up arty pictures and goth porn. Someone had to think to search for "elmo suicide", and at that point you're really in on the joke.

I don't remember what my character, setting, and problem were, which is odd because I'm pretty sure I wrote a story using them. Maybe not!

To fix this, I have to go into the cookie 'Exceptions' and figure out which decision to undo. Usually it's the decision for 'domain.com', the site I'm trying to use, so the process is annoying but not terribly difficult. Sometimes I need to check for both 'domain.com' and 'www.domain.com'. That's not a big deal either.

But sometimes the magic cookie domain turns out to be "r.a.ndom.subdomain.domain.com", a subdomain I've never heard of that's just used for authentication. r.a.ndom.subdomain.domain.com doesn't show up in the 'Exceptions' list near domain.com, and so I don't know it exists. It was shown to me once but I was hitting deny, deny, deny and didn't see it. The only way to see it again is to run Live HTTP Headers, reload the page, and see which of the 50 HTTP responses try to set a cookie.

What I'd really like to do is call a do-over. Reload the page and have Firefox ask me all the cookie questions again. If I miscalculate which cookies are actually necessary to use the site, I just call another do-over.

This was much easier to explain once I realized that the right word was "do-over". Thanks, schoolyard fecklessness.

Anyway, I went through the games section of ndshb.com, or another site much like it, dumped a bunch of games on my mini-SD card, and played them (or tried to) over the course of several plane flights. I'm pretty sure it wasn't ndshb.com, actually, which means I could do another one of these. Anyway, here are the games I was 1) able to get working and 2) entertained by. My list includes helpful hints like WHAT THE POINT OF THE GAME IS, a tidbit sometimes omitted from official game documentation.

• robotfindskitten ds: still the acme of human achievement.
• As mentioned earlier, Portal ripoff StillAliveDS is still the champ of DS homebrew. Remember, drag and throw to move a crate!
• As with Linux in the early 2000s (and today, I guess), a lot of homebrew DS games are clones of preexisting games. Unfortunately they're often clones of lame games, like Simon or Same Game. One exception is Lemmings DS, which takes a good game that feels right under the DS pointer and does a faithful port of it. Bonus: includes levels from all the Lemmings spin-offs in one game.
• Plus, physics simulation clones! There's a "World of Sand DS" that doesn't seem to have an official site. If only World of Sand could somehow be combined with World of Goo. And Pocket Physics is a Crayon Physics clone that is an immense amount of fun.
• Grafoon is a gravity game that omits the gravity but leaves in place the cave, the spaceship, and the dying if your sprite enters the vicinity of any wall sprite. It took me a while to figure it out, but read the official website instead of whatever list of games I was using and you'll see quickly that your job is to act as a taxi service for the "Hobbels", collecting them all and discharging them on the red platform. I still find it frustrating to control the spaceship, but it's a fun game.
• The Linux version of the Roguelike POWDER was reviewed in a 2007 Game Roundup. It's about the same on the DS as it was on Linux.
• ASCII WAR, aka ASCII WARS (official site is gone) is a very interesting idea for a Roguelike--you're actually hunting down rogue ASCII characters in a computer's memory--but it's not well-adapted to the DS. You could do a Roguelike with a super-stripped-down action set, or a Roguelike like POWDER where the actions are available as icons on the touch screen. Or you could even do a Roguelike in which the touch screen displayed a keyboard, though it would be annoying. But in ASCII WAR[S] you have to bring up the keyboard by hitting R! Otherwise there's nothing on the bottom screen! Oh well.
• Anguna (did you mean: angina?) is a Zelda-type game that just doesn't have enough stuff to bear comparison with a real Zelda game. It starts off well enough with a dungeon escape scenario but when you get into the overworld it's pretty sparse. This is something that could be fixed just by adding more stuff to make each overworld screen unique, so I'm not saying you shouldn't check out Anguna.
• Meteora is an action game where you and the computer basically throw space junk at each other. After playing the tutorial I knew what was going on, but I couldn't wear down the computer's shields in a real game. Worth further study, I think.
• Warcraft: Tower Defense is the first "tower defense" game I ever played. I've avoided such classics as Desktop Tower Defense because of all the people who posted to their weblogs about how much time they'd wasted playing tower defense games. But an airplane trip is a welcome opportunity to waste huge amounts of time, so I fired it up. It turns out I'm not very good at tower defense games, so I was unable to waste very much time on it. I can tell this is a good game though.

A second round of reviews coming eventually.

By now it's a cliche to observe that allegedly "RESTful" web services like Amazon's SimpleDB and the Flickr web service and the del.icio.us web service aren't really RESTful. But there's something about them that makes their creators distinguish them from SOAP-based web services (by calling them "RESTful"), and there's something about those services that users love despite the possibility of, eg. deleting data by accident.

Rather than say one service is more or less "RESTful" than another, attempting to quantify an easy-to-misuse term that wasn't even intended to be used in relation to web services, I've found it useful to judge web services based on how many of the web technologies they adopt. Think of the World Wide Web as having a technology stack that looks like this:

Hypermedia (ie. HTML)

HTTP

URI

In every case I know about, people build web services from the bottom of the stack. They pick some point on the stack and take the technologies below that point seriously. The technologies above that point are not considered important. They're ignored, or used to the minimum extent you can get away with and still technically be a "web service".

XML-RPC and SOAP services are at level zero. They don't take any of the web technologies seriously. They use one URI, one HTTP method, none of the interesting features of HTTP, and they have no notion of hypermedia.

URI

The web services I mentioned at the beginning of this entry are at level one. They take URIs seriously and assign a URI to every aspect of the system. But they only use one HTTP method (GET) and don't use any of the interesting features of HTTP. Nonetheless, people love these web services, because people love URIs.

HTTP

URI

Amazon S3 is at level two. It has problems (or so I've heard) with its use of HTTP, but it takes HTTP seriously. It uses URIs to designate objects in the system that can be operated on with different HTTP methods. It takes advantage of HTTP's features like conditional requests. But there's no hypermedia. All the information about how to manipulate the resources, and how to detect the connections between them, is in English documentation that you have to read when writing your custom S3 client.

Hypermedia

HTTP

URI

Most of my current thinking is hypermedia-related. Useful here is the formal definition of hypermedia, from 4.1.3 of the Fielding dissertation: "Hypermedia is defined by the presence of application control information embedded within, or as a layer above, the presentation of information."

Services like the Web, AtomPub, the Netflix web service, and the Launchpad web service are at level three. They serve documents with embedded "application control information": links and forms that give a more or less generic client hints about how to manipulate this particular web service.

There are degrees of quality within these levels. For instance, big parts of the Web use URIs to name operations, rather than the objects those operations can act on. I think that's bad design, but that's a problem on level one. It doesn't negate the value of HTTP or hypermedia. Similarly, when we have the well-worn argument about which HTTP methods a web service should expose, we're having an argument on level two, not an argument about who's more RESTful. In fact, almost all the currently raging arguments are level one or level two arguments, which is unfortunate as there are some really great flamewars to be had on level three.

I don't intend to defend this classification technique in detail. It's a set of heuristics. In theory you could take URI and HTML seriously but not HTTP; or HTML and HTTP but not URI. But the heuristics are useful in that they 1) encapsulate a fact about how people tend to design web services, 2) make it easy to classify an argument or problem, 3) let you make a snap judgement of how much Web knowledge went into a web service, 4) make it easy to think about RESTfulness (an abstract meta-architectural concept) in terms of specific technologies you should know about already, technologies that are probably the reason you care about REST in the first place.

Earlier this year I quietly retired Rubyful Soup because I think _why's hpricot does a better job of being a Rubyish screen-scraping parser than RS can be. But nothing similar has happened in Python, mainly because BS is the market leader. I want to keep that going, but I also want to take advantage of the work that's gone on in this field since 2004.

So, what are the useful features of Beautiful Soup?

1. It can build an object model out of bad HTML.
2. It can build an object model out of bad XML, if you tell it the rules of your XML vocabulary. (This is just the general case of #1.)
3. It can convert almost any encoding into Unicode, usually in the absence of an explicit encoding marker or the presence of an incorrect one.
4. It exposes a useful API. It's easy to learn, more Pythonic than CSS selectors or XPath, and it includes most common ways of traversing the tree.

Of these, the only one I really care about is #4. If I could rid myself of the need to handle all the edge cases in #1-#3, edge cases that in many cases have outstripped my ability to solve them with my current tools and sanity, I'd be happy.

Fortunately, there's html5lib, which is supposed to be as good at parsing HTML as a web browser.

My current plan is to write something that goes on top of html5lib and gives the BS API to whatever DOM you've built. This would take care of #1 and #3. It's not clear to me how you tell html5lib the rules of your XML vocabulary; maybe it only parses valid XML. But BS is relatively rarely used to parse invalid XML, so if I could outsource all the HTML and Unicode crap to html5lib I'd be much more inclined to hack randomly on BS, so I think it's a fair trade.

html5lib already has a "beautifulsoup" tree builder, which creates a tree of Beautiful Soup objects. So in theory I would just need to maintain those objects? I'll find out soon enough.

Interestingly enough, made by the same company that makes the best cheese, Humboldt Fog.

If you believe in the superiority of some other cheese or cheese name, you know what to do.

By popular demand (from Susanna), I also put up pictures from Thanksgiving, including a bonus video where my niece Maggie destroys a truck.

How do I know your emails are stupid if I can't read Chinese? Well, 1) you're spamming me with them, and 2) they say "SOA." Yeah, I'm a regular Chinese Room.

1. Convert the codebase to Python 3; or rather, convert it to Python 2 that can be automatically converted to Python 3.
2. Aaron DeVore has a number of interesting additions to the API. They need to be added.
3. Separate the tree-walker from the tree-builder. Start getting out of the business of writing tree-builders.
4. Simplify the API.

Aaron is doing the integration work. I'm doing the conversion. Once that's done we'll have a big soup that people can use into the distant future if they don't like what I do in steps 3 and 4, or if I give the whole thing up, which is a distant possibility.

Step 3 is still a mystery. Apparently html5lib is even slower than SGMLParser, so generic is probably the way to go. Maybe something with bindings to lxml and html5lib (this is why you may not like what I do in this step and may want to stick with the all-Python, not-as-slow-as-html5lib version).

What's going to happen in step 4? Ian Bicking wrote an appreciation of lxml that ties in with my Beautiful Soup angst. Mostly to do with the tree-builder, but also rightly bashing BS's primitive CSS matcher. Implementing CSS selectors or XPath is another business I don't want to be in, but I wouldn't mind bundling with someone else's strategies for walking the tree according to CSS selectors or XPath.

I'm not terribly motivated to make these changes because I don't really use Beautiful Soup anymore. Partly because I don't do as much non-work programming as I did pre-Canonical, and partly because the sites I used to screen-scrape back in 2004 have wised up and developed web services or syndication feeds. Redoing the library doesn't feel like a fun use of my end-of-year vacation; I'd rather write stories.

But here's where I start when I think about the changes. For me, the core users of Beautiful Soup are the total newbies, people for whom BS is their first or second Python library. I've never made a secret of the fact that BS is slower than other parsers, and although coupling it with a C tree-builder would speed it up a lot, I'm totally serious when I say the point of BS is to save programmer time at the expense of processor time. If you need speed, you've got options. My overriding concern is people who've just realized they can get the information they need off a web site by writing a computer program.

Unfortunately, about 30% of those people have some specific need that goes beyond the simple API you see in Beautiful Soup 1.x, and over time those additional ways of searching got stuck into the API, and you get the Microsoft Word problem. The complexity of the API is now itself costing programmer time. It needs to stop. (But after I get Aaron's additions in so that I'll have more raw data to do my redesign with.)

So what I'd like to try is a stripped-down Beautiful Soup based on list comprehensions, with a little bit of syntactic sugar for total newbies. Matching is done by calling a factory function that returns the equivalent of a SoupStrainer. The factory functions contain most of what's currently in searchTag. Additional factory functions can implement CSS selectors or XPath, except at this point you should be able to just use a parser that has its own support for CSS selectors or XPath.

Don't even get me started on what I need to do to NewsBruiser eventually...

I looked over the bare junk-laden room with shards of strange models and fragments of unprofessional drawings, paused by the door to poke my shoe at the folder bearing the smudged legend Absolutely Secret. Burn Before Reading, and went on.

It's an excellent book full of the deadpan fantastic I love so much. I got it from Susan McCarthy, who keeps books in her attic and puts corks from wine bottles on the deadly nails sticking through the attic roof. "One day anthropologists will come up here," she says, "and they'll say 'I guess she came up here and got drunk and read.'"

"Star Hustler" did in fact change to "Star Gazer" in the late 90s, for pretty much the reason given in the skit. Anyway, Jack Horkheimer was a stock character for us along the lines of this 1997 Onion story, but the other day I saw on clickolinko "The Many Phases of Jack Horkheimer", a riveting story from the 1982 Miami Herald that will, if not shaming you into stopping making dumb jokes about Jack Horkheimer, at least give his character incredible new depth.

I can't improve on what Kris says about that article: "[T]hat is urban legend stuff. I thought it was a Chuck Norris-type gag at first. The dude kept looking up longer than I would have."

A single proposition isn't a theory, it's a slogan; and what some philosophers do isn't theorizing, it's slogan-honing. What is this labor for? What confusion would be dissipated, what advances in outlook would be created, by success in this endeavor? Do you really need something to print on your T-shirt?

--Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

Nonlocalized consciousness (not the real term) makes it legitimate to think of other people as existing inside you to the extent that you've internalized their mental processes. Which is always really not very much at all, but better than nothing. One implication of this is that fictional characters can exist inside you in the same sense. That seems reasonable to me. Fictional thoughts are thoughts.

But Hofstadter says that you can (and do) actually internalize another person's consciousness on a coarse-grained level: the "strange loop" that drives that person's consciousness. And so not only do (your copies of) other people and fictional characters exist inside you, they are actually conscious inside you, because their strange loop is running on your hardware.

Stipulating the strange loop thing, I guess fictional characters could be called conscious if you simulated their thought processes in enough detail, but is that really what's happening? Do you ever know enough about someone else's thought process to internalize their consciousness, a thing so inaccessible that the person themself can't describe it? When I make up a character I have, in theory, complete control over their mental states, but I don't create a strange loop for them. I use my own, preexisting consciousness to simulate them. That's different. I'm pretending to be them, with greater or lesser success.

I'm not as old as Hofstadter, so I don't have as much practice, but I've known Sumana for about eight years and I do have an internalized Sumana that acts kind of like the real Sumana. But I wouldn't say I've internalized a copy of Sumana's consciousness, her sleep number strange loop. I'm using my own strange loop as the simulation engine.

So my intuition is that my Sumana-symbol, my symbols for dead people I used to know, and my symbols for fictional characters are the same kind of symbols as I keep for other complex entities like the World Wide Web. Not the kind that forms an "I". I can be surprised by something one of my fictional characters does, but it's the same kind of surprise as when I come up with an idea some other way. I don't see where Hofstadter argues that our representations of other people have this unusual property, but a lot of the book assumes it.

I'm explicitly not saying that mental simulations of consciousness would not be conscious. They would be. And I could believe that someone with eg. multiple personality disorder had multiple strange loops in their mind. I just don't think that's what happens when we think about a dead person we used to know.

We had a great time with the spinach soup, mushroom cube, crispy tofu, popcorn pudding, etc. And it'll probably get even better once they have gas. I guess waiting for the gas to get turned on is the restaurant equivalent of waiting for Internet access after you move.

sgmllib doesn't exist in Python 3, so I switched to HTMLParser, which has gotten a lot better at parsing bad HTML. With my hacks in place, only 3 of my unit tests pass under sgmllib but fail under HTMLParser. That's acceptable given that my switching to HTMLParser creates part of the framework I'll use so that you can write a plugin for lxml, html5lib (not as slow as I'd thought), or some other parser. Eventually I'll get rid of the HTMLParser plugin, or at least strip it down so that it doesn't know anything about HTML, making my life easier.

What's left is some minor syntax problems and some huge problems dealing with the way strings work in Python 3 as they go in and out of encodings. At this point I need to stop hacking on BS and do some experiments to get a good understanding of the string changes.

But I don't mind you looking at our bookmarks, so long as you don't consider it a "publication" of mine, and there's so much interesting stuff that didn't make it into NYCB I thought I'd do a series of posts highlighting the most interesting bookmarks from 2008 that are still interesting and whose links still work. Here are the best links from January and February of 2008. I'll post one of these a day.

• Fractal sculpture and fractal cookies. I await the Mandelbrot set rug.
• An official copy of "As We May Think".
• Real-time "strategy" games are actually tactics games, because the fighting is divorced from political context.
• The papers of Benjamin Franklin, made available under an oppressive "personal study" click-through license. Is that legit?
• Coveted LeGo sets of yore, of which I had five. (#3-#7)
• An excerpt from Born Standing Up, the best book Steve Martin has ever written. Contemporaneous comment: "Analyzing a joke kills it, but Steve Martin kills jokes as a matter of course, so it works out."
• The first ninety days in a new job.
• "Apologies All Around", the first story sold by my VP buddy Jeff Soesbe.
• Build your own magazine box.

• Remember how much you liked the Iron Man trailer? If you're not me, I mean.
• The Futurist Manifesto in translation. Live the not-well-thought-out-ness! "[S]trong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes."
• Hidden Palace is still putting out ROMs of old unreleased and prototype console games.
• Speaking of old game consoles, I still rely on racketboy.com as a guide to which old games are worth my time.
• The Video Game Name Generator. Video games made using a VGNG name as a starting point.
• A lot of datasets.
• Some Spamusement cartoons for which the captions have been lost.
• Norman Mailer's lEGO city.

A child, a child shivers in the cold
Let us bring him silver and gold

How about bringing him a blanket?

I think a couple people were confused by my earlier statement that you'd be able to "write a plugin for lxml [or] lib5html." I'm talking about using another parser to drive Beautiful Soup tree generation. Turning events generated by some other parser into a generic set of "start tag", "end tag" type events. Thus giving you an alternative to the okay-for-2004-but-not-for-2008 Beautiful Soup rules about parsing bad HTML, and eventually getting rid of those rules altogether, because I don't want to be in that business.

In 1961, he introduced Silly Putty to thousands of excited Soviets in Gorky Park. "They went absolutely nuts when they saw it," said Peter.

A few years ago the twittering was about The 8bits of Christmas (that really does seem to be the best way to link to it; scroll down to "8bp038"). And this guy puts out a Christmas album every year. There's also this "8 Bit XMAS 2008" which actually comes on an NES cart. If you ask me the first two albums I linked to are the best, but nobody asks me these things.

Sumana listened to some of the music and said, "You won Christmas!"

As my Christmas present to the Internet I'm soliciting submissions for a new speculative fiction anthology, Thoughtcrime Experiments. Sumana will read slush, I'll select and edit the stories, and we'll publish online under a Creative Commons license.

If you're a spec-fic writer, and there's some story that people you've shown it to have liked, but that you've been unable to find a publisher for, send it to me. If I like the story enough to spend $200 on it, I'll buy it for $200. I hope to buy five stories. Details at the anthology page. Rationale follows.

I've been in a writing group for over a year, and read about thirty stories and a novel because of it. I've mentioned before that half the stories are "a rewrite away from publication quality". What does that mean, really? It means I could easily imagine reading those fifteen stories in a magazine or anthology. But of those fifteen stories, there are only two I want to buy for three cents a word and publish myself.[0] It's different when it's your own money.

Thoughtcrime Experiments is an an experiment with my own money. How hard is it to find five stories that I really want to buy? Given those stories, how hard is it to put together an anthology people will want to read? At the tor.com holiday meetup I cornered Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Joseph Adams, and asked them whether my plan was feasible.

My takeaway from those conversations is that the toughest part of putting together an anthology is A) getting some "name" writers to promise to contribute stories to anchor the anthology[1], and B) getting a publishing deal.[2] Well, I don't need either of those to consider this project a success, so let's do this. Send your best unpublished story to thoughtcrime.experiments@gmail.com. I'll start promoting this anthology more in the new year, when people come back from vacation and start paying attention again, but it's open for submissions now.

I'm also going to try to write a story for John's current anthology, "Federations", and a pro market wants me to do a rewrite on a different story (yes!). So, busy vacation.

[0] I think one of those stories has sold, as has the novel.

[1] At VPXI Elizabeth Bear told the story of how she broke into the relatively-big time by filling in for a name writer who'd flaked out on an anthology promise. And then eventually found herself being the name writer and flaking out on anthology promises of her own, leaving room for other up-and-coming writers.

[2] Anthology creation, at least the way John does it, seems like you nail down the name contributors, pitch the book to a publisher using the name writers as collateral, put everything together, send out the checks, and submit the manuscript. For some reason I always imagined someone at the publisher coming up with the anthology idea and gathering the stories. But it's more like a novel that you subcontract out.

• I thought I'd bruised this but apparently not. Wolverine comic book covers in the style of barrel-scraping Batman and Superman covers.
• The 2000 email that led to my job at CollabNet.
• A headline you don't see anymore: "STEAM WORKERS FEAR REDS; Healy Says Soviets Seek Control of City's Power Plants." From the 1919 New York Times.
• All I want for Christmas is this Earthbound cross-stitch.
• Susan McCarthy's book is part of The Web's Least Wanted Painting.

I haven't found a way in Python 2 code to indicate that a string should be converted into a byte string when the conversion script runs. In some cases I can stick .encode() onto the end and it works in both 2 and 3, but some of my tests have random binary data that's not in any particular encoding. And in some cases calling .encode() is just ugly. Kind of frustrating because about 40% of my test failures ultimately boiled down to marking such-and-such a string as a byte string. So I'd appreciate any ideas.

• Bootleg copy of Thomas Disch's "Fun With Your New Head", in memoriam.
• The weblog that dissects Lifetime movies is still running.
• At some point somebody started a rap group called Robot Finds Kitten. Please, Crummy readers, find me the meta-kitten that is their Liars Paradox-riffic CD, "Rap Is Dead".
• Now is probably a good time for me to reread Jaron Lanier's "You Can't Argue With A Zombie"
• A Siskel and Ebert outtake that turns into a witty, profane joint rant against WASPs.
• Target: Women: still awesome. Plus, in the most recent episode, Sarah Haskins moons everybody.
• Unwinder's Tall Comics is great and usually includes some embedded fictional comic or other work.

• Internet Archived webpage of a defunct band whose CD I do have, Lawsuit. It's unclear to me whether the lyrics to "North Dakotachrome" suitably convey the pun-pocalypse that is the song, so maybe I'll do another Music Piracy Minute. I've felt for a while that with the right marketing, North Dakotachrome could have become a cultural touchstone for the presidential election. "Alaska politician, do you talk to anyone?"
• Of the many things available for free on Hulu (within the US), one of the best is The Film Crew.
• A long time ago I read something about the quantum state of Saturn's moon Hyperion that didn't make any sense. I thought it would remain a mystery forever, the kind of mystery where you think you might have hallucinated the mystery in the first place, but then I found this weblog entry explaining it.
• A gorgeous Nintendo-Power-like guidebook to Mother 3. Still not for sale yet. I guess making all those clay models takes time.

• The distinctive Halloween costume of my former co-worker, Brian Fitzpatrick.
• One of the themes of this series is me confessing my failure to find something cool and asking for help. I would really like to read this paper on Soviet attempts to build an Internet.
• A Digg-bait list of "bad" local TV ads, two of which (the first and fourth) are actually intentionally funny, and one of which (the third) at least makes sense once you know the local context. The guy in the third commercial has his own sketch-comedy sitcom on local TV which is really unbelievably bad, but even then he gets points for incorporating the employees of his furniture store into the sitcom.
• I wanted a mashup of the Last Supper with Dogs Playing Poker. Then I saw that very thing and stopped wanting it. I can only conclude that that picture causes anhedonia.
• A 13-part documentary on the history of Atari.
• A good guide to non-game homebrew DS software.

• A Symbol A Day: only exists as an RSS feed. Every day there is a new symbol.
• Back of the Cereal Box: essays on obscure pop culture topics. But they're the obscure topics my age cohort cares about, so bite me.
• Also cordially invited to bite me is Twitter. If it takes longer for me to context-switch than to read something, I'm not going to read it. The only Twitter feed I read is Rachel Chalmers's, and she protects her updates, so I can't link to them.
• At the opposite end of the attention spectrum are podcasts, which I don't really listen to except while cleaning the kitchen. For such a task I prefer the harsh cleaning power of Retronauts and The Children's Hour of Knowledge.
• Friend weblogs: Kirk, because the RSS feed finally kind of works and because I met him this year. Evan finally started his own weblog and now only comments on 60% of my entries.
• Comics: chainsawsuit and Hark! A Vagrant!
• The Brothers Brick aggregates cool LEGO pictures so I only have to skim one LEGO weblog.
• Cinemassacre. James Rolfe is prolific and funny.
• Susan McCarthy tells awesome stories about animal behavior, and sometimes about Soviet show trials.
• Topic: video games. I unsubscribed from Gamasutra and subscribed to sister site GameSetWatch instead, because 1) when there's something I'd be interested in on Gamasutra, GSW usually links to it, 2) the columns are great, 3) they link to my weblog sometimes, and Gamasutra never did that.

  I also subscribed to DS Fanboy and Nintendo Wii Fanboy and Tiny Cartridge so I wouldn't be wandering around in a haze with no knowledge of the games available for the game systems we got this year. I feel like I should get rid of one of those subscriptions, but if I had to choose I'd get rid of NWF, which would leave me without total platform coverage!

  Finally, Auntie Pixelante is great all the time, like if Jake Berendes made video games about B&D.

• Topic: science fiction. On the demand side, tor.com is much better than the fluffy Gawkeriffic io9. On the supply side, the specficmarkets Livejournal community.

I'm generally dissatisfied with the quality of the books I read in 2008, so I'm only going to mention a few that stood out: The Making of the Atomic Bomb (crummy.com Book of the Year), Anathem (the only fiction on this list), Consciousness Explained, Jimmy Carter's presidential memoir, and Sumana's friend John Morearty's self-published autobiography. Runner-up award to George Saunders, I guess.

A question, a conundrum if you will, about the quality issue. I've got a number of excellent books that I haven't read because I know I'm going to want to keep them. Instead I tend to read huge books that I know I'll discard after reading, to free up the maximum space on my bookshelf. A good strategy if I had infinite time, but I'll only live so long and I want to read books with a higher expected value. So I ask you, how do I force myself to read the books I think will be super good keepers in preference to the ones I just think might be good?

One idea I just thought of is to pick out the 30 books with the lowest expected values and hide them in a box. More room on the unread-book bookshelf = less pressure. And maybe one day I can just get rid of that box and not feel like I lost anything. Any other ideas?