So, can I put all my N-1 votes on the same candidate, making it like now but much more votes? Or is it a maximum of one vote per candidate, meaning that you vote for EVERYONE but your single least favorite candidate? Neither case sounds practical.
Both cases are practical and allowed/work fine. The case where you vote for everyone but a single is equivalent to taking away a vote from that candidate. It's like a "scorned vote" in that instance.
Maybe everyone can't fully inform themselves of 15 different candidates. But that's definitely a better problem than having two candidates to choose from.
The problem is the voting system only allows one vote per voter. You can prove, mathematically, that a "pluralistic" voting system winds up electing better candidates. It also makes it hard/impossible for a 2 party system to push out 3rd party candidates.
There's a number of ways to do it. One is to give every voter N-1 votes and let them assign their votes to amongst the N candidates. Another is to have them rank the candidates in order of preference. (I.E. Johnson > Obama > Paul > Romney might be one ranking.)
Almost every physics professor in every university I've attended or visited uses either a Mac or Linux. I don't know what science you're talking about?
He's probably talking about business or other math-light fields.
So what if Linux played a role in their server operations. Microsoft was used in all the ways that made the money donated to the project. So once again Linux users talk about "free" when they really mean "provided for by someone else."
Overly broad connection is bizarre. You see, in the academic world professors tend to use the best tool available or make a better tool. The LHC is a good example of that, since it simply didn't exist until a group of academics turned their efforts to creating it. I guarantee LHC researchers have refined and contributed back to many OSS projects. If anything, Linux and BSD thrive off of contributions made by researchers (academic and otherwise). It would be more noteworthy if Linux played a minimal role at a scientific project like the LHC.
No, I'm not long out of the school you're talking about. It's hell, and often the schools are modeled after PRISONS, but it's not as simple as I'm just older or more mature.
fart
Did you see it? I made a fart joke...obviously it isn't *maturity* on my side;)
my guess is that this site has just pushed some readers/commenters away. Maybe it's the content or a change of readership...
The concept kind of negates itself. So even if you have no real use for a top of the line programmer ("To a programmer, “hacker” simply means a great programmer"), you should still hire one and have him/her sit around all day looking for exploits on your network?
1.) I'm not sure that hacker great programmer. 2.) Anyone ranking very high on competency for a specific field is going to be hard to find, let alone hire. 3.) Once you've expended all of these resources finding a laborer...what's their day to day task? nmap all the machines on the network and look for outdated software? Sounds like an IT job...
Caveat: i make no claim to be an IT expert, but this sounds like poor planning or hiring.
Me, I don't think we can ever go back. There are too many Apple and Microsoft enthusiasts here now, meaning people who either fanboy or have their livelihood tied to the proprietary software world.
Yeah, that is weird and sorta plausible. At least the part where people just do *not* see outside their personal preferences...and fail to empathize for others'.
I've been an unemployed math graduate for 3 years now. Instead of education, I went for an economic's master's after the math degree. I found these comments helpful, thanks.
I can't believe the comments I'm reading here. The crime, as I understand it, is that a Chinese citizen used his trusted access to US government goods to STEAL US government goods. I don't care what it is...if he stole staples, it's still stealing.
The comments here all seem to think that, simply because the US government paid for the code at some point *then* everyone in the world should have access to that code. Surely you're joking, right?
He said to the FBI that he did so that the code would be available to him in the event of losing his job, and to use it for his private business, which is teaching computer programming.
So, as I understand it, his defense is that he stole the code for his own commercial use. He admits to stealing code "for his own commercial use". I put the second half in quote, because we have no proof as to his ultimate intentions. He could have been planning to bring that code back to China with him and share it with the Chinese government in a private, espionage sense. It doesn't matter if the code is the most boring, useless code...it's still US government property. Even if all US government property is "US public property" - you still have to be a US citizen to legally lay use to that property in any legal way. What he did was illegal and highly suspicious.
I, for one, do not want the overpriced, often delayed, over managed & under performing software my taxes pay for to be 'free' for anyone, any company or any country. Let them overpay and wait for their own.
Hmm, maybe 'free use' for any of the US naturalized/tax paying citizens.
this is one of those rare cases where I think GPLv3 is useful..
If other countries or entities then want to use it, they can, but any changes they make would have to be made available. Which can then be determined whether it's useful to its original creators and included in the main branch. Same goes for other individuals or organizations doing it.
Does the GPL have any standing in international courts? International IP/licensing law and enforcement might make the GPL a fairly naive tool to ensure modified changes are shared by all. For all I know, international law is only as good as the respect the relevant countries place in it...and I'm under the impression that it's up to the countries to choose what they do and don't legally enforce/respect.
Of course, I reserve the right to be completely naive and wrong about how international law 'works' - but when we're talking about sovereign entities.
What's the reward for doing well in school if income security is obviously off the table?
Artificially cheap oil is primarily to blame. If the cost of importing goods accurately portrayed the relevant costs, then we would see a push to do more locally. (And then there's the out of whack currency market.)
Do you really want anything on the internet to directly decide public US government policy/law?
The answer, of course, is NO! We can't even trust the internet to cast votes properly. And you want these petitions to be met with more than a couple paragraphs of response? Please. This is not the proper forum for policy making.
"This is a jobs issue. Startups and midsize business need access to federally funded technology research"
Yeah, sure, it's nice that businesses hire people that can read and I'm sure they do important work. Blah blah blah.
This is a public good. We're talking about basic research funded with public funds. Everyone who pays taxes should have access to works published from that funding (within reason). (Maybe if you don't pay US taxes you shouldn't have access, but that's a point for another time.)
To be specific, science should communicated to the public. I don't mean that the public should be viewed as having a "say" in what gets studied/published or not - that's for peer review and ethics boards. Feynman talks about how important this is. If your hypothesis can't ever be communicated to someone outside the discipline, then just maybe it's not a sound hypothesis. (I'm not sure he said that exactly, but that's as I see things.)
Why killbirds/bats and fuck up the landscape with windmills, or destroy ecosystems with hydro?
Well, there's not really great evidence to completely negate the use of windmills and hydro. Meanwhile, there is GREAT evidence to not drill oil in the deep sea (and easily remembered): the Deep Horizon oil drill from 2 (?) years ago.
The problem with nuclear is public sentiment. Oddly, despite all the horrible oil spills, there isn't nearly as much negative public sentiment toward oil. If you mention nuclear anything people freak. People freak about nuclear, in part, because politicians have used nuclear power as a political hockey puck for decades. (This is at least in the US.) To some extent, nuclear deserves the critical view it gets. (Because everything deserves a good, critical view when it comes to replacing oil.) But some of that criticism is pure over reaction. People still think nuclear plants can blow up like nuclear bombs, or worse. To add insult to injury, there are so many nuclear plants out there that are out of date and should be made more safe. (And partially because of political pressure, they can't be updated.) Don't forget that we need a way to store nuclear waste.
Nuclear's a long ways from being portable, mind you. The entire US grid could change to nuclear power, and still we would rely on lithium or older/outdated batteries to transport that energy. I say there's a double problem to energy: creation and storage. Everyone loves to talk about sources of generating energy, but few talk about transporting it. I guarantee there's as much or more money in moving energy as there is in storing it (in the future).
I think it's not so much that it sucks, as there's no Microsoft or Apple really competently trying to improve Linux. The best OSS OS I've ran was FreeBSD, and even it has a miserable installer (if you want a more modern install, anyway).
The bits that interface with the user...those are the bits that count:
-installer
-OS upgrade
-program installation/removal
-GUI
-system and GUI configuration
If you screw any of those up...your OS wont be a popular desktop.
> Would these locations prefer a windmill farm or coal fired plant.
Oh, wow. This is the most blatant example of a false dichotomy I have seen for days. There are many other options, all of them more practical.
In the sense that there are other ways to generate electricity than wind and coal fired plants, I agree. There are other options, I can't say they're all more practical. Windmills are here, today, while we're still working on solar panels (in all its forms) and 'clean coal' doesn't even exist ('cleaner coal' isn't 'clean coal').
I think your best point is "[we] can't cover every square mile of the planet with wind towers". Right, so we should be working on ways to distribute energy, correct? This is kind of a false question. No one's expecting one energy source to be the replacement for coal/gas/oil. Oil currently solves the energy distribution problem by being readily convertible to energy: just burn it.
Slashdot Mirror
So, can I put all my N-1 votes on the same candidate, making it like now but much more votes? Or is it a maximum of one vote per candidate, meaning that you vote for EVERYONE but your single least favorite candidate? Neither case sounds practical.
Both cases are practical and allowed/work fine. The case where you vote for everyone but a single is equivalent to taking away a vote from that candidate. It's like a "scorned vote" in that instance.
Maybe everyone can't fully inform themselves of 15 different candidates. But that's definitely a better problem than having two candidates to choose from.
The problem is the voting system only allows one vote per voter. You can prove, mathematically, that a "pluralistic" voting system winds up electing better candidates. It also makes it hard/impossible for a 2 party system to push out 3rd party candidates.
There's a number of ways to do it. One is to give every voter N-1 votes and let them assign their votes to amongst the N candidates. Another is to have them rank the candidates in order of preference. (I.E. Johnson > Obama > Paul > Romney might be one ranking.)
Almost every physics professor in every university I've attended or visited uses either a Mac or Linux. I don't know what science you're talking about?
He's probably talking about business or other math-light fields.
So what if Linux played a role in their server operations. Microsoft was used in all the ways that made the money donated to the project. So once again Linux users talk about "free" when they really mean "provided for by someone else."
Overly broad connection is bizarre. You see, in the academic world professors tend to use the best tool available or make a better tool. The LHC is a good example of that, since it simply didn't exist until a group of academics turned their efforts to creating it. I guarantee LHC researchers have refined and contributed back to many OSS projects. If anything, Linux and BSD thrive off of contributions made by researchers (academic and otherwise). It would be more noteworthy if Linux played a minimal role at a scientific project like the LHC.
If you must believe in hell then hell must not exist in your country as an actuality.
Therefore, your country probably doesn't have a very high crime rate.
No, I'm not long out of the school you're talking about. It's hell, and often the schools are modeled after PRISONS, but it's not as simple as I'm just older or more mature.
fart
Did you see it? I made a fart joke...obviously it isn't *maturity* on my side ;)
my guess is that this site has just pushed some readers/commenters away. Maybe it's the content or a change of readership...
edit: "I'm not sure hacker = great programmer"
The concept kind of negates itself. So even if you have no real use for a top of the line programmer ("To a programmer, “hacker” simply means a great programmer"), you should still hire one and have him/her sit around all day looking for exploits on your network?
1.) I'm not sure that hacker great programmer.
2.) Anyone ranking very high on competency for a specific field is going to be hard to find, let alone hire.
3.) Once you've expended all of these resources finding a laborer...what's their day to day task? nmap all the machines on the network and look for outdated software? Sounds like an IT job...
Caveat: i make no claim to be an IT expert, but this sounds like poor planning or hiring.
Me, I don't think we can ever go back. There are too many Apple and Microsoft enthusiasts here now, meaning people who either fanboy or have their livelihood tied to the proprietary software world.
Yeah, that is weird and sorta plausible. At least the part where people just do *not* see outside their personal preferences...and fail to empathize for others'.
Every comment I've read is either abrasively sarcastic or downright mean. What gives? This used to be the land of OSS/free speech.
To be sure, /. has never been exactly "nice". But, come on guys! This kind of negativity needs to stop.
When the announcement is about the new release of KDE 4.9?
Bizarre.
I've been an unemployed math graduate for 3 years now. Instead of education, I went for an economic's master's after the math degree. I found these comments helpful, thanks.
I can't believe the comments I'm reading here. The crime, as I understand it, is that a Chinese citizen used his trusted access to US government goods to STEAL US government goods. I don't care what it is...if he stole staples, it's still stealing.
The comments here all seem to think that, simply because the US government paid for the code at some point *then* everyone in the world should have access to that code. Surely you're joking, right?
He said to the FBI that he did so that the code would be available to him in the event of losing his job, and to use it for his private business, which is teaching computer programming.
So, as I understand it, his defense is that he stole the code for his own commercial use. He admits to stealing code "for his own commercial use". I put the second half in quote, because we have no proof as to his ultimate intentions. He could have been planning to bring that code back to China with him and share it with the Chinese government in a private, espionage sense. It doesn't matter if the code is the most boring, useless code...it's still US government property. Even if all US government property is "US public property" - you still have to be a US citizen to legally lay use to that property in any legal way. What he did was illegal and highly suspicious.
I, for one, do not want the overpriced, often delayed, over managed & under performing software my taxes pay for to be 'free' for anyone, any company or any country. Let them overpay and wait for their own.
Hmm, maybe 'free use' for any of the US naturalized/tax paying citizens.
this is one of those rare cases where I think GPLv3 is useful..
If other countries or entities then want to use it, they can, but any changes they make would have to be made available. Which can then be determined whether it's useful to its original creators and included in the main branch. Same goes for other individuals or organizations doing it.
Does the GPL have any standing in international courts? International IP/licensing law and enforcement might make the GPL a fairly naive tool to ensure modified changes are shared by all. For all I know, international law is only as good as the respect the relevant countries place in it...and I'm under the impression that it's up to the countries to choose what they do and don't legally enforce/respect.
Of course, I reserve the right to be completely naive and wrong about how international law 'works' - but when we're talking about sovereign entities.
What's the reward for doing well in school if income security is obviously off the table?
Artificially cheap oil is primarily to blame. If the cost of importing goods accurately portrayed the relevant costs, then we would see a push to do more locally. (And then there's the out of whack currency market.)
The "scam" is that you can't make an online poll be law...yet.
(sarcasm)
Do you really want anything on the internet to directly decide public US government policy/law? The answer, of course, is NO! We can't even trust the internet to cast votes properly. And you want these petitions to be met with more than a couple paragraphs of response? Please. This is not the proper forum for policy making.
"This is a jobs issue. Startups and midsize business need access to federally funded technology research"
Yeah, sure, it's nice that businesses hire people that can read and I'm sure they do important work. Blah blah blah.
This is a public good. We're talking about basic research funded with public funds. Everyone who pays taxes should have access to works published from that funding (within reason). (Maybe if you don't pay US taxes you shouldn't have access, but that's a point for another time.)
To be specific, science should communicated to the public. I don't mean that the public should be viewed as having a "say" in what gets studied/published or not - that's for peer review and ethics boards. Feynman talks about how important this is. If your hypothesis can't ever be communicated to someone outside the discipline, then just maybe it's not a sound hypothesis. (I'm not sure he said that exactly, but that's as I see things.)
Why killbirds/bats and fuck up the landscape with windmills, or destroy ecosystems with hydro?
Well, there's not really great evidence to completely negate the use of windmills and hydro. Meanwhile, there is GREAT evidence to not drill oil in the deep sea (and easily remembered): the Deep Horizon oil drill from 2 (?) years ago.
The problem with nuclear is public sentiment. Oddly, despite all the horrible oil spills, there isn't nearly as much negative public sentiment toward oil. If you mention nuclear anything people freak. People freak about nuclear, in part, because politicians have used nuclear power as a political hockey puck for decades. (This is at least in the US.) To some extent, nuclear deserves the critical view it gets. (Because everything deserves a good, critical view when it comes to replacing oil.) But some of that criticism is pure over reaction. People still think nuclear plants can blow up like nuclear bombs, or worse. To add insult to injury, there are so many nuclear plants out there that are out of date and should be made more safe. (And partially because of political pressure, they can't be updated.) Don't forget that we need a way to store nuclear waste.
Nuclear's a long ways from being portable, mind you. The entire US grid could change to nuclear power, and still we would rely on lithium or older/outdated batteries to transport that energy. I say there's a double problem to energy: creation and storage. Everyone loves to talk about sources of generating energy, but few talk about transporting it. I guarantee there's as much or more money in moving energy as there is in storing it (in the future).
I think it's not so much that it sucks, as there's no Microsoft or Apple really competently trying to improve Linux. The best OSS OS I've ran was FreeBSD, and even it has a miserable installer (if you want a more modern install, anyway).
The bits that interface with the user...those are the bits that count:
-installer
-OS upgrade
-program installation/removal
-GUI
-system and GUI configuration
If you screw any of those up...your OS wont be a popular desktop.
> Would these locations prefer a windmill farm or coal fired plant.
Oh, wow. This is the most blatant example of a false dichotomy I have seen for days. There are many other options, all of them more practical.
In the sense that there are other ways to generate electricity than wind and coal fired plants, I agree. There are other options, I can't say they're all more practical. Windmills are here, today, while we're still working on solar panels (in all its forms) and 'clean coal' doesn't even exist ('cleaner coal' isn't 'clean coal'). I think your best point is "[we] can't cover every square mile of the planet with wind towers". Right, so we should be working on ways to distribute energy, correct? This is kind of a false question. No one's expecting one energy source to be the replacement for coal/gas/oil. Oil currently solves the energy distribution problem by being readily convertible to energy: just burn it.
You're probably talking about the fact that an ordered field with the least upper bound property is equivalent to the real numbers
Yes..."without loss of generality" we can name any ordered field the real number system, for convenience. Thanks for completing my reference.
C = cross product of R with R (where R represents the real numbers/'line') = { (a,b) such that a, b are in R }
With the assumed property that (a1,b1) * (a2,b2) = ( (a1*a2-b1*b2), (b1*a2 + a1*b2) ) and + is defined 'as usual'.
oops - that should be "follows logically" not "follows logical"...