This isn't what the article says though. What it says is that in games where the system is on 32.1% of pitches are called strikes by the umpires. In games where the system is off, the number of pitches called strikes by the umpires is 31.4%. It doesn't say what percentage of the pitches are called strikes by the machine. (Note: The summary of the article is also wrong.)
I heartily second the recommendation to visit electionmethods.org. That site has much more information and analysis than the rather skimpy article. The arguments for Condorcet voting are incredibly compelling. I believe Debian uses it for its elections.
Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life". Why is it that I am blissfully happy then ?
Because you enjoy being supported by you super-model wife?
Moreover, according to the letter in the link, the Free Software Foundation said precisely nothing. An attorney who has worked for the FSF issued an opinion letter that he was engaged by Vidomi to write. This is a completely different thing, and unless there is something else that I didn't read the blurb is extremely deceptive.
According to their FAQ commercial software is good because it produced US$28.2 billion in tax revenue worldwide in Year 2000. (They have a source for this number and I won't pretend to have any idea whether this is true or not.)
But by this logic wouldn't we all be much better off if Microsoft increased all its prices by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or more? Think of all the extra tax revenue!
I'm no business-as-usual Republican, but even I would agree that the economy improves as goods and services become cheaper. It's true that by using GPL software companies can save lots of money, but that money won't simply disappear, it can be used to expand the business itself or to give employees raises or be paid in taxes as a portion of the increased revenues accruing to owners. I guess all these are bad now.
I cannot help thinking that the author is using the same logic that brought us the language Esperanto. (One way to do it, complete consistency, very few rules, etc.) I think the problem is that humans themselves are not really that way.
I suppose it is a criticism of the English language, just as it is of, say, Perl, that in different contexts the same word means different things. Many might argue that this is not a defect and that people intuitively use English despite all its modes because they are so well practiced in it.
This is not to say that computers should not be designed to be easier, merely that there is perhaps some utility in having different programs function differently. And even having one program respond differently to the same input at different times. For instance vi and emacs (and other programs for editing code) respond differently to a carriage return depending on the situation, by tabbing to a different point in the following line. Though I could disable this feature, I do not since it is so useful.
OK OK... Posting to Slashdot... What an experience.
I agree that $103Million is a LOT of money. And I agree with point that the way the patent office is financed may well create problematic incentives for it.
I only wanted to correct the impression some might have formed from your post that the US government was dependent on patent office revenue for, say, national defense.
I hope that the distinction I'm making is a little clearer now.
Year 2000 Federal Revenues: $1,821,000,000,000
Year 2000 Federal Outlays: $1,761,000,000,000
(From Congressional Budget Office)
Year 2000 Patent Office Fees collected: $984,000,000
Year 2000 Patent Office expenditures: $881,000,000
Remaining for contribution to general revenues: $103,000,000
(From the Patent Office)
Orders of magnitude difference between available revenues from Patent Office and total federal expenditures: ~4
Note that a lot of niceties have been left out of the above. Nevertheless, we reach the following
Conclusion: In terms of federal revenues excess fees available for general outlays are fiddling small change.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't what the article says though. What it says is that in games where the system is on 32.1% of pitches are called strikes by the umpires. In games where the system is off, the number of pitches
called strikes by the umpires is 31.4%. It doesn't say what percentage of the pitches are called strikes by the machine. (Note: The summary of the article is also wrong.)
Considering the maximum number of people who will ever possibly sign this is one, they will have pretty compelling proof of who spilled the beans.
"g??" encrypts/decrypts one line in vim.
I heartily second the recommendation to visit electionmethods.org. That site has much more information and analysis than the rather skimpy article. The arguments for Condorcet voting are incredibly compelling. I believe Debian uses it for its elections.
Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life". Why is it that I am blissfully happy then ?
Because you enjoy being supported by you super-model wife?
I'm sorry, but if you're going to make a pissy post like this, at least learn to spell "irrigation" which is far from a tricky word. Thank you.
Yep. Once it was posted on Slashdot it was inevitable that it would be an example of the artistic technique known as praecisio. Complete silence.
Moreover, according to the letter in the link, the Free Software Foundation said precisely nothing. An attorney who has worked for the FSF issued an opinion letter that he was engaged by Vidomi to write. This is a completely different thing, and unless there is something else that I didn't read the blurb is extremely deceptive.
According to their FAQ commercial software is good because it produced US$28.2 billion in tax revenue worldwide in Year 2000. (They have a source for this number and I won't pretend to have any idea whether this is true or not.)
But by this logic wouldn't we all be much better off if Microsoft increased all its prices by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or more? Think of all the extra tax revenue!
I'm no business-as-usual Republican, but even I would agree that the economy improves as goods and services become cheaper. It's true that by using GPL software companies can save lots of money, but that money won't simply disappear, it can be used to expand the business itself or to give employees raises or be paid in taxes as a portion of the increased revenues accruing to owners. I guess all these are bad now.
I cannot help thinking that the author is using the same logic that brought us the language Esperanto. (One way to do it, complete consistency, very few rules, etc.) I think the problem is that humans themselves are not really that way.
I suppose it is a criticism of the English language, just as it is of, say, Perl, that in different contexts the same word means different things. Many might argue that this is not a defect and that people intuitively use English despite all its modes because they are so well practiced in it.
This is not to say that computers should not be designed to be easier, merely that there is perhaps some utility in having different programs function differently. And even having one program respond differently to the same input at different times. For instance vi and emacs (and other programs for editing code) respond differently to a carriage return depending on the situation, by tabbing to a different point in the following line. Though I could disable this feature, I do not since it is so useful.
OK OK ... Posting to Slashdot ... What an experience.
I agree that $103Million is a LOT of money. And I agree with point that the way the patent office is financed may well create problematic incentives for it.
I only wanted to correct the impression some might have formed from your post that the US government was dependent on patent office revenue for, say, national defense.
I hope that the distinction I'm making is a little clearer now.
Year 2000 Federal Revenues: $1,821,000,000,000
Year 2000 Federal Outlays: $1,761,000,000,000
(From Congressional Budget Office)
Year 2000 Patent Office Fees collected: $984,000,000
Year 2000 Patent Office expenditures: $881,000,000
Remaining for contribution to general revenues: $103,000,000
(From the Patent Office)
Orders of magnitude difference between available revenues from Patent Office and total federal expenditures: ~4
Note that a lot of niceties have been left out of the above. Nevertheless, we reach the following
Conclusion: In terms of federal revenues excess fees available for general outlays are fiddling small change.