In mine as with some other states in the country, the primary process is constructed such that the primary vote may or may not be restricted to people registered with that party, possibly giving incentive to register with some other party than your favorite.
Example: I live in Kansas. Here, any Kansas citizen was allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. Only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican primary. Thus, it could be in the interests of some Democrats to register Republican, since that way they'd be able to vote in *both* primaries.
I don't know enough about Florida's election laws to know if this applies in that state, but consider this a reason to pause for thought when comparing registered voter party counts against votes for/against a given party.
Did you follow the link and read about the conference, or learn everything you needed to know from that one sentence? The conference is actually about Japanese pop culture, of which Godzilla is perhaps its longest-lived and best-known icon, and about the role of pop culture in immediately post-WWII Japan. The original Godzilla movie was a sort of sci-fi/fantasy flick built on the horrors of nuclear war. The American version had all the social commentary gutted and cut straight to the rubber suit monsters.
So... is it still true that you wouldn't catch KSU hosting such "fluff"?
When describing (or defending) Science Fiction to readers of other genres, I often say that Sci-Fi is the only genre (actually, "setting", but that's a digression) in which authors pose the question "What if?" and give readers the chance to look ahead and choose to do or not to do, for fear of an apocalyptic future, or what have you.
In your works of fiction, what lessons do you most hope that we readers will learn?
One reason that companies may wish to follow Google's guidelines may be to ride on the coattails of success. They could do so by declaring themselves and their products to be "Google Certified" in much the same way that movie theaters with the right sound equipment can declare themselves to be "THX Certified".
This presumes the continued (and increasing) success of Google and its internet presence, but if that's the case, then such a "certification" could do much for the marketing potential of an internet-related product.
I hope it doesn't come back to haunt the OO.org team, but the "okay" finger gesture in the mascot illustration may be ill-advised: The gesture is extremely rude in some cultures around the world, as a visual symbol for certain elements of the female anatomy. (no diagrams, I'll let you use your own imaginations)
Perhaps the ideas presented in this book are The Truth, and perhaps they're complete bunk. Either way, it would behoove us and the scientific community in general to not dismiss them out of hand. History taught us this lesson:
Several hundred years ago, it was commonly-accepted scientific truth that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the rest of the Universe could be accurately represented as a series of concentric spheres surrounding our planet. The motions of the sun, moon, stars, and other planets could be described and predicted according to this model. Mathematicians and astonomers worked very hard for many years to compile the formulae necessary to accurately predict when and where celestial objects would be at any given time. With some basic equations soaked in corrective bits and fragments of formulae, they succeeded.
Their initial concept model was fundamentally flawed, but yet they were able to devise laws and principles which could still provide accurate results.
Then, along came Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, et. al., who proposed another fundamental concept for the organization of our little neighborhood of the Universe. Using this new model, different (simpler) formulae were able to achieve results just as accurate, if not more so, than the ones before.
It's the nature of us to wonder how things work, and the nature of many of us to actually bother to try and work out the answer. For those people so inclined, they should never ever discount the possibility that it isn't the right formula which is eluding us, but that our fundamental point of view may be flawed.
Does Wolfram's work provide us with one of these Point of View leaps? I have no idea, I'm in no way qualified to answer that question. However, please don't discount such proposals out of hand simply because of their novelty. Else we resign ourselves to a science of tweaking what we "know" is the truth in an effort to conform to ever-more complicated facts, rather than one of discovery of new truths, wherein the most unfathomable may become obvious and rudimentary.
That said, it's time to go make some coffee and get back to programming.
One of the mantras of the Open Source Movement, if such a grand term applies, is that the "free" in "free software" doesn't mean zero cost, it's free as in "freedom". However, because we're speaking (er... typing) English here, the connection is inescapable. The two meanings will always apply whenever the phrase is used, and no amount of preaching to the choir will cure us of a simple homonym.
In this article which is only partly about encryption, really, in the same way that you could write an article about baking bread and call it an article about flour, much is made of the discrepancies between economic models of what Ought To Be, and models of What Is. The point which is made repeatedly in the interview concerns the absurdity of a situation where millions of people are paying cold hard cash for a product when the competitor's product is free and readily available. This is presented as one of the Great Economic Mysteries of our time.
Not so.
There are several underlying themes in the interview, so the collapse of this one point won't cripple the structure of the whole interview, but I do believe there is a fallacy here. It seems to me, non-economically-educated-layman that I am, that in Western Capitalist society, cost and price are equated with value and worth. The two ways something can be valuable, it can be worth money or it can be important to me, are blurred together on a constant basis. If the monetary value of a thing is low, then its practical utility must be low as well. They are the same, are they not? Of course they're not, but in Capitalist society they are. If it isn't worth money, it's worthless, in every sense of the word.
Now I, and most of you I would bet, disagree - "free" does not equate to "worthless". Far from it. The readers of Slashdot (I'm going out on a limb here) are likely to take a useful piece of code and be thankful for the use they get out of it, the fun they have with it, the work they're able to accomplish because of it, and not care in the slightest that they didn't pay a dime for it.
In the end, it comes back to education. Why do I choose software regardless of its cost? Because I know enough about computers and programs that I have other, better criteria with which to judge these products. However, if I go shopping for an electric drill, how do I know which is the best one? I don't trust the advertising, so all I have to go on is basic statistics and the price. Doesn't it make sense to assume the more expensive one is better? Like it or not, we all do it from time to time. If the bulk of society has equally little base knowledge with which to judge software, doesn't it make sense that they would make the same kind of evaluation?
I think that this can change, but that it will take a lot longer than the people involved in this interview seem to think. How long before people will stop thinking a free operating system is worthless?
Slashdot Mirror
In mine as with some other states in the country, the primary process is constructed such that the primary vote may or may not be restricted to people registered with that party, possibly giving incentive to register with some other party than your favorite.
Example: I live in Kansas. Here, any Kansas citizen was allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. Only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican primary. Thus, it could be in the interests of some Democrats to register Republican, since that way they'd be able to vote in *both* primaries.
I don't know enough about Florida's election laws to know if this applies in that state, but consider this a reason to pause for thought when comparing registered voter party counts against votes for/against a given party.
(disclaimer: I'm a KU alumnus)
Did you follow the link and read about the conference, or learn everything you needed to know from that one sentence? The conference is actually about Japanese pop culture, of which Godzilla is perhaps its longest-lived and best-known icon, and about the role of pop culture in immediately post-WWII Japan. The original Godzilla movie was a sort of sci-fi/fantasy flick built on the horrors of nuclear war. The American version had all the social commentary gutted and cut straight to the rubber suit monsters.
So... is it still true that you wouldn't catch KSU hosting such "fluff"?
When describing (or defending) Science Fiction to readers of other genres, I often say that Sci-Fi is the only genre (actually, "setting", but that's a digression) in which authors pose the question "What if?" and give readers the chance to look ahead and choose to do or not to do, for fear of an apocalyptic future, or what have you.
In your works of fiction, what lessons do you most hope that we readers will learn?
One reason that companies may wish to follow Google's guidelines may be to ride on the coattails of success. They could do so by declaring themselves and their products to be "Google Certified" in much the same way that movie theaters with the right sound equipment can declare themselves to be "THX Certified".
This presumes the continued (and increasing) success of Google and its internet presence, but if that's the case, then such a "certification" could do much for the marketing potential of an internet-related product.
I hope it doesn't come back to haunt the OO.org team, but the "okay" finger gesture in the mascot illustration may be ill-advised: The gesture is extremely rude in some cultures around the world, as a visual symbol for certain elements of the female anatomy. (no diagrams, I'll let you use your own imaginations)
Perhaps the ideas presented in this book are The Truth, and perhaps they're complete bunk. Either way, it would behoove us and the scientific community in general to not dismiss them out of hand. History taught us this lesson:
Several hundred years ago, it was commonly-accepted scientific truth that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and the rest of the Universe could be accurately represented as a series of concentric spheres surrounding our planet. The motions of the sun, moon, stars, and other planets could be described and predicted according to this model. Mathematicians and astonomers worked very hard for many years to compile the formulae necessary to accurately predict when and where celestial objects would be at any given time. With some basic equations soaked in corrective bits and fragments of formulae, they succeeded.
Their initial concept model was fundamentally flawed, but yet they were able to devise laws and principles which could still provide accurate results.
Then, along came Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, et. al., who proposed another fundamental concept for the organization of our little neighborhood of the Universe. Using this new model, different (simpler) formulae were able to achieve results just as accurate, if not more so, than the ones before.
It's the nature of us to wonder how things work, and the nature of many of us to actually bother to try and work out the answer. For those people so inclined, they should never ever discount the possibility that it isn't the right formula which is eluding us, but that our fundamental point of view may be flawed.
Does Wolfram's work provide us with one of these Point of View leaps? I have no idea, I'm in no way qualified to answer that question. However, please don't discount such proposals out of hand simply because of their novelty. Else we resign ourselves to a science of tweaking what we "know" is the truth in an effort to conform to ever-more complicated facts, rather than one of discovery of new truths, wherein the most unfathomable may become obvious and rudimentary.
That said, it's time to go make some coffee and get back to programming.
One of the mantras of the Open Source Movement, if such a grand term applies, is that the "free" in "free software" doesn't mean zero cost, it's free as in "freedom". However, because we're speaking (er... typing) English here, the connection is inescapable. The two meanings will always apply whenever the phrase is used, and no amount of preaching to the choir will cure us of a simple homonym.
In this article which is only partly about encryption, really, in the same way that you could write an article about baking bread and call it an article about flour, much is made of the discrepancies between economic models of what Ought To Be, and models of What Is. The point which is made repeatedly in the interview concerns the absurdity of a situation where millions of people are paying cold hard cash for a product when the competitor's product is free and readily available. This is presented as one of the Great Economic Mysteries of our time.
Not so.
There are several underlying themes in the interview, so the collapse of this one point won't cripple the structure of the whole interview, but I do believe there is a fallacy here. It seems to me, non-economically-educated-layman that I am, that in Western Capitalist society, cost and price are equated with value and worth. The two ways something can be valuable, it can be worth money or it can be important to me, are blurred together on a constant basis. If the monetary value of a thing is low, then its practical utility must be low as well. They are the same, are they not? Of course they're not, but in Capitalist society they are. If it isn't worth money, it's worthless, in every sense of the word.
Now I, and most of you I would bet, disagree - "free" does not equate to "worthless". Far from it. The readers of Slashdot (I'm going out on a limb here) are likely to take a useful piece of code and be thankful for the use they get out of it, the fun they have with it, the work they're able to accomplish because of it, and not care in the slightest that they didn't pay a dime for it.
In the end, it comes back to education. Why do I choose software regardless of its cost? Because I know enough about computers and programs that I have other, better criteria with which to judge these products. However, if I go shopping for an electric drill, how do I know which is the best one? I don't trust the advertising, so all I have to go on is basic statistics and the price. Doesn't it make sense to assume the more expensive one is better? Like it or not, we all do it from time to time. If the bulk of society has equally little base knowledge with which to judge software, doesn't it make sense that they would make the same kind of evaluation?
I think that this can change, but that it will take a lot longer than the people involved in this interview seem to think. How long before people will stop thinking a free operating system is worthless?