May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0427 Wednesday, 6 May 1998. [1] From: Pete Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 12:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Perl-Proven Anagrams Challenged [2] From: John Owen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 14:38:16 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0424 Re: Anagram [3] From: Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1> Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:42:05 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 9.0424 Re: Anagram [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 12:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Perl-Proven Anagrams Challenged I have long admired the scholarship and the inventiveness, shall we say, of Mr. Peschko but in this case, if you will forgive my cavil, I must object. While perl is suitable and even to be preferred for many applications, I submit that the anagram script, while not an absolute abomination, could be better written in the modern C or even the postmodern C++ language. It's well known, after all, that interpreted languages, of which perl is the premier example (and an outstanding interpreted language it is, to be sure) are, shall we say, turgid of execution and prodigal of machine resources. For a program that is certain to be run as often as the anagram program, most experienced programmers will want to take advantage of the much faster execution-faster by literally hundreds of thousands of nanoseconds-of a compiled language like C. Even better, today's knowledgeable programmers will favor the postmodern programming paradigm (PPP) and will choose C++ thereby to employ the eagerly-sought (but rarely gained) advantages of an object-oriented realization with its attendant polymorphism and, especially, the code reusability so very attractive in applications like the anagram program. With all kindest regards, Pete Wilson (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ) [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Owen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 14:38:16 EDT Subject: 9.0424 Re: Anagram Comment: Re: SHK 9.0424 Re: Anagram >Oh boy.. hope that after this message, you don't curse me as a wanton >waster of bandwith... If you take the first sentence: >To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind >to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.... >and break it into its component letters, you get: >a a a a >b b b >d d >e e e e e e e e e e e e >f f f f >g g >h h h h h h > i i i i i i >l l >m >n n n n n n n n >o o o o o o o o o o o o >q >r r r r r r r r >s s s s s s s s >t t t t t t t t t t t t t t >u u u u u >w w Yes I get the point now, I just don't get the point of it all. Is this one of infinite those monkeys pecking away on infinite typewriters would write Hamlet arguments? [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1> Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:42:05 -0600 (MDT) Subject: 9.0424 Re: Anagram Comment: Re: SHK 9.0424 Re: Anagram PS: Regarding the anagram checker, it looks like the email formatter cut things up so the lines were only seventy-five or so characters long. Hence, > while ($char = substr($line1, $xx++, 1)) > { # go through output a character > a time should be: > while ($char = substr($line1, $xx++, 1)) > { # go through output a character a time and so forth... The script will not work unless you 'tie together' all of these comments so they are on one line. Ed
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0426 Wednesday, 6 May 1998. [1] From: Ed Pechter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 10:55:50 -0800 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0419 Re: Elizabethan Staging [2] From: Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:46:42 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging [3] From: Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 20:52:50 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Pechter <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 10:55:50 -0800 Subject: 9.0419 Re: Elizabethan Staging Comment: Re: SHK 9.0419 Re: Elizabethan Staging I'm finding the "Elizn staging" discussion really interesting but (and?) confusing. It might be useful to disconnect two threads. One is the potential interest for production of changing rehearsal procedures that HAPPEN to resemble some things we know (or think we know) about Renaissance production. The other is the resemblance itself-is this authentic? I'm skeptical about the latter. Even if we could replicate certain procedures, they'd be in a different context. Improvisation, non-choreographed productions etc. wouldn't mean the same thing to us post-Stanislovski (and Artaud & Brecht) as to Renaissance people even if they were exactly the same procedures ("exactly the same" could be scanned). Years ago Bernard Beckerman in Shakespeare and the Globe said that the whole debate about Renaissance acting (artificial vs. natural) was confusing means and ends-it probably still is. Anecdote: I spent a day of my diminishing life this winter scribbling into notebooks to be used in a David Hare play (Skylight). One of the characters was a teacher, and her lover or ex lover throws notebooks across the stage. It was important (to the director?) that the scribbles in these notebooks have real meaning-so I found myself copying school kid exercise about the Romantic poets, provided to me. But no one-certainly no one in the audience-was going to see this other than (maybe) as squiggles. "Why are we doing this, exactly?" I asked my wife, more in sorrow than in anger. "Because we were told to." There's a moral here about tradition and authenticity, I think, probably discouraging. On the other hand, trying to produce plays in ways that may happen to approximate what we know or think we know about Renaissance production practice or in a NEW stage setting like the "Restored" Globe just might lead to interesting theatrical possibilities. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 19:46:42 EDT Subject: 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging Comment: Re: SHK 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging Small contribution to Elizabethan Staging question: Yes, from evidence of the few surviving examples, actors received their parts as "sides" with only their speeches and a few cue words. No, this was not to prevent pirating. Paper (made only from rags, not wood-pulp) was v-e-r-y expensive, as was the service of copyists. Traffic on a big stage gets sorted out easily by folks who play together consistently over the years. Watch an experienced ball team adjust to new conditions moment-by-moment. And rehearsal time may have been used to work out the knotty bits such as battles or odd excitements like the moment when Hastings' head is brought onstage in RICHARD III (note the Q & F alternatives for the giddy possibilities in the Monty Python vein). Also, the British actors were known for their excellence above other European troupes for the way they worked with playwrights and their own leading fellows, solving these problems of staging.) The joys of improvising increase when they can happen within the disciplined confidence gained from long experience and common purpose. Ever, Steve Dionysowitz [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale Lyles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 20:52:50 EDT Subject: 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging Comment: Re: SHK 9.0416 Q: Elizabethan Staging I used sides when we did Much Ado many, many years ago as an experiment. I took two paperback copies and just hacked them up and glued them down. The actors learned their lines in record time, having to listen closely as they did for their cue, but one side effect was that none of them read the entire play. My Antonio never knew what the rest of the show was about. But then he never did that with Neil Simon either. It was a comfortable experiment, not one that I have repeated as being vital to interesting work onstage. We do too much work on thematic material and such to deprive the cast of the entire script. Dale Lyles Newnan Community Theatre Company
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0425 Wednesday, 6 May 1998. From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, May 6, 1998 Subject: Edward Gero Wins Hayes Award On Monday night, SHAKSPERean Edward Gero won the prestigious Helen Hayes award for outstanding leading actor in a resident play for, as Lloyd Rose in *The Washington Post* writes, his "dominating performance of the restless, suffering protagonist of 'Skylight'" at the Studio Theatre. Rose continues, "Gero beat a strong field, including Ted van Griethuysen as Prospero in the Shakespeare Theatre's 'The Tempest' and Patrick Stewart in the lead at that same theater's 'Othello.'" Gero, a member of the Shakespeare Theatre's resident company and theatre instructor at George Mason University, has been a long-time member of SHAKSPER. Congratulations, Ed! PS: Rose's complete account of the Hayes Award Ceremony can be found at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-05/05/028l-050598-idx.html>
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0424 Tuesday, 5 May 1998. [1] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 04 May 1998 13:37:40 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 9.0391 Re: Illustrated Hamlet [2] From: Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1> Date: Monday, 4 May 1998 15:37:39 -0600 (MDT) Subj: Re: SHK 9.0414 Re: Anagram [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 04 May 1998 13:37:40 -0400 Subject: 9.0391 Re: Illustrated Hamlet Comment: Re: SHK 9.0391 Re: Illustrated Hamlet I recall that in the 50's Mad Comic Book (before it was a magazine) had a "primer" version of Hamlet, or, perhaps, a lampoon of the Classics Comics version. It might still be available in one of the book reprints. [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Peschko <epeschko@den-mdev1> Date: Monday, 4 May 1998 15:37:39 -0600 (MDT) Subject: 9.0414 Re: Anagram Comment: Re: SHK 9.0414 Re: Anagram > I'm from Missouri... show me! Oh boy.. hope that after this message, you don't curse me as a wanton waster of bandwith... If you take the first sentence: To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.... and break it into its component letters, you get: a a a a b b b d d e e e e e e e e e e e e f f f f g g h h h h h h i i i i i i l l m n n n n n n n n o o o o o o o o o o o o q r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t u u u u u w w ignoring punctuation marks. You get the same thing with the second sentence. Here's a small script I used to generate the above output, to check it out (for those who are unix-ites, you can check it out by saving it after 'cut here', naming the resulting file 'anagram_check.p' and running: perl anagram_check.p <file> <file2> where <file> and <file2> are files containing the text you wish to check for anagram-ship. If run on: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....' and 'In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should output: To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.... = a a a a b b b d d e e e e e e e e e e e e f f f f g g h h h h h h i i i i i i l l m n n n n n n n n o o o o o o o o o o o o q r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t u u u u u w w ------------------------------------------------------------- In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten. a a a a b b b d d e e e e e e e e e e e e f f f f g g h h h h h h i i i i i i l l m n n n n n n n n o o o o o o o o o o o o q r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t u u u u u w w ------------------------------------------------------------- The two statements are anagrams! If you don't trust the script, try changing any of the letters, adding or deleting, or whatever. I dare you... Ed Here's the script: -- cut here -- undef $/; # slurp everything in a file in one step open (FH, "$ARGV[0]"); # open first file open (FH2,"$ARGV[1]"); # open second file $line1 = <FH>; # slurp first file $line2 = <FH2>; # slurp second file while ($char = substr($line1, $xx++, 1)) { # go through output a character a time $char = lc($char); # lowercase it $charhash1{$char} .= " $char"; # save it in a hash ((aka dictionary). } # $dog{'name'} = 'spot'; # print $dog{'name'}; # prints spot.) $xx = 0; while ($char = substr($line2, $xx++, 1)) { # do same for second thing (really $char = lc($char); # should be a function) $charhash2{$char} .= " $char"; } %combined = (%charhash1, %charhash2); # get a combined hash, with both of # the lines letters foreach $key (sort grep(m"[a-z]", keys(%combined))) # look through each letter { # in both of the anagram if ($charhash1{$key} ne $charhash2{$key}) # candidates. { # If not equal, note as $output1 .= "> $charhash1{$key}\n"; # such. $output2 .= "> $charhash2{$key}\n"; $not_anagram = 1; } else { # we have a match for that $output1 .= "$charhash1{$key}\n"; # letter. $output2 .= "$charhash2{$key}\n"; } } print "$line1\n=\n"; # print everything out. print "$output1"; print "----------------------------------------------------------\n"; print "$line2\n=\n"; print "$output2"; print "----------------------------------------------------------\n"; if ($not_anagram) # Make our judgement. { # based on all the facts. print "The two statements are NOT anagrams!\n"; } else { print "The two statements are anagrams!\n"; }
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0423 Tuesday, 5 May 1998. From: Mark Perew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Monday, 4 May 98 16:55:42 GMT Subject: Caliban and Sycorax: Moons of Uranus Cornell University News Service Contact: David Brand Office: (607) 255-3651 E-Mail:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. FOR RELEASE: May 1, 1998 Caliban and Sycorax: Astronomers propose names for their two recently discovered icy moons of Uranus ITHACA, N.Y.-Cornell University astronomer Philip Nicholson and his colleagues have proposed names for the two recently discovered moons of the planet Uranus. They are Caliban and Sycorax, both characters in Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." The names are likely to be approved by the International Astronomical Union. The astronomers detail their discovery of the two moons in a report in the April 30 issue of the magazine Nature. They confirm that Caliban and Sycorax are the faintest planetary moons yet imaged by ground-based telescopes. The discovery of the two moons was reported on Oct. 31 by Nicholson and colleagues Joseph Burns, professor of engineering and astronomy at Cornell, Brett Gladman of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Toronto, and J.J. Kavelaars of McMaster University, Canada. The team used light-sensitive semiconductors, called charge-coupled devices, attached to the 5-meter Hale telescope on Mount Palomar, Calif., to track the irregular, or non-circular, orbits of the two moons. Regular satellites orbit near a planet's equatorial plane. The two moons are the first irregular satellites discovered around Uranus. Both Caliban and Sycorax, the astronomers write, are unusually red in color, which suggests a link with the recently discovered populations of comet-like bodies called trans-Neptunian objects, which orbit the sun beyond the orbit of Neptune, and Centaurs, which cross the orbits of the outer planets. Both trans-Neptunians and Centaurs, say the researchers, have a wide range of reddish colors, perhaps resulting from the bombardment of their organic-rich icy surfaces. Nicholson says this bombardment could be from cosmic rays or from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. The methane on the moons' surfaces, he says, would be "cooked" by the radiation into hydrocarbons, showing up as a dark red through a telescope's filters. The two moons, say the researchers, are presumed to have been captured by Uranus early in the history of the solar system. "My guess is that the moons were once trans-Neptunians and they became Centaurs and were captured by Uranus and became satellites," says Nicholson. Since the newly discovered moons are likely to have been captured by Uranus soon after its formation, the Nature article notes, "their physical properties may provide clues to conditions in the early solar system." The process of capture could have taken two forms, Nicholson says. The moons could have been trapped by Uranus gravity as they came close to the planet. Another theory, he says, is that in the early days of the solar system Uranus might have been surrounded by a gaseous nebula that would have caused a drag on the objects' movement as they came close to the planet. Nicholson estimates that Caliban, the smaller of the two moons, has a diameter of 60 kilometers (37 miles) and is orbiting Uranus at an average distance of about 7.2 million kilometers (4.5 million miles), taking 1.6 years to complete one revolution. Sycorax, he estimates, has a diameter of 120 kilometers (74.5 miles) and takes 3.5 years to complete one orbit of Uranus at a mean distance of about 12.2 million kilometers (7.5 million miles) from the planet. However, he says, Sycorax has a much more elliptical orbit than Caliban, bringing it as close as 6 million kilometers (3.7 million miles) to the planet. The composition of the two moons, says Nicholson, "is probably a plum-pudding mixture of rocks and ice." All 15 previously known satellites of Uranus lie on fairly evenly spaced, nearly circular orbits. Most recently Voyager 2, in 1985 and 1986, discovered 10 small, dark inner moons. Jupiter has eight known irregular satellites, of which the last, Leda, was discovered in 1974. Saturn has one, Phoebe, discovered in 1898, and Neptune has one, Nereid, discovered in 1949. To see images of the two newly discovered moons of Uranus, go to Gladman's page on the World Wide Web at http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~gladman/uranus.html.