I can tell you have never worked in a K-12 environment. The objective of education is suppose to get people ready for life. Guess what, the vast majority of kids are going to work in an environment where Windows is used. Linux has it's place and it is not on the desktop, yet.
I would bet that kids who grew up using Linux would have more general skills, and a clue about problem-solving (frequently by seeking help from one another) then they would under MS. Quite simply, using Linux induces an undercurrent of learning about computers in general, for example, by getting to grips with how to read man pages, and make proper use of search engines. This would not translate into immediate familiarity with MS, this is true, but the more general problem-solving skill would be of immense value in life.
To forsake an inherently educational environment for one with the "right learning packages" is not necessarily a good bargin.
As for kitting children for the future, a single school would gain a niche advantage, and a cluster of schools would change the baseline for employers in the area. Also, measuring future employment opportunities according to current demand is not necessarily reliable. Far better to attempt to educate the kids with more generic skills.
Maths has a language, but it is a lot more, or a lot less, depending upon which way one want to look at it.
Maths is the art of finding what must be true within a system often expressed in liguistic form, but whereas a language is a local (though often approximately copied) utilitarian structure that binds meaning together; mathematics is a one-to-one mapping of a structure that is found to be the same by all practicing mathematicians (which is pretty close to objectivity if you ask me) onto an agreed linguistic form. When mathematicians use different symbols and reasoning, they still find the same things to be true as they find when they use the original set. That is: the linguistic element is arbitary to a high degree; it is not the important thing; rather: the underlying structure that exists before it is expressed symbolically is what is important.
If you believe maths to be, rather than having a language, you will not be a very competent mathematician, for you will be inclined to engage in symbolic manipulation as an arbitary and bizzare exercise without intuiting the underlying nature of mathematical truth.
When I say that maths can be viewed as being less than a language, I mean that the above-mentioned structure is highly restrictive. The potential of using mathematics for conveying "human meaning" (to do with day-to-day judgement and decision-making) is extremely poor. Insofar as mathematics is used to help in everyday matters, it does so by analysing a system that is intuited to have the right properties. Normal language and reasoning is then used to build an analogy with the phenomenon under consideration, but common language and understanding build the bridge, not mathematics.
The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs,sometimes by people trying to justify what the are doing.
I agree that the motive is frequently self-justification, although sometimes its more abstract, such as a challenge to the primacy of the concept of property per se vis-a-vis freedom, but it is hardly a matter of splitting hairs whether the owner keeps the original or not: it is a matter of great importance, especially to the owner!
I'm surprised that the main article doesn't mention this previous article where MIT Urges the Brazilian Government to use Linux for its educational value!
For the report to focus entirely on costs is a little myopic. Free Software might be free as in beer, but its greatest value to education is that of software freedom: the children can tinker, investigate, and learn skills for real future competence with computers...
Really, the report should be looking to ROI, rather than merely cost. This would be the real opportunity of and for Free Software.
The article didn't mention the likes of blastwave.org, so there was no indication that the Sun Developers were actually refuting the vapourware claim, but rather only denying it.
I accept that the existance of such projects is a refutation for all intents and purposes. However, the linked article, in itself, contained insufficient information to make the case.
DTrace is an important factor, but is not the whole thing.
The pilot scheme is a strongly indicative move, which makes it likely (rather than certain) that Solaris will be openned to everyone.
I'll have to say that "Q2 isn't over yet" isn't proof, but lack of disproof.
I am not claiming that OpenSolaris is a mirage; I am complaining about the sloppiness of the headline. I am a mathematician by training, and these things irk me.
I agree that municipals can compete unfairly, but bureaucracy is not a a public-only phenomenon. Emptying bins is a local activity; the nature of telecom is that it is non-local, and its bureaucracy can easily become overweight.
Efficiency is a result of process, not incentives, although incentives are sometimes required so that the process changes take hold. Whoever the municipal hire to supply access will want to keep their own costs down, so the incentives are still there. Competition is still active, as local authorities won't all go with the same provider. If the hardware is owned by the authority, they can hire anyone to operate it.
Wireless access can easily be an incremental process; the barriers to entry are few (add bandwidth as required). Municipal access therefore doesn't prevent there being private access, and as the bandwidth is likely to be limited per user, there'll still be plenty of demand for another service.
They appear to be suggesting that the municipal will compete unfairly; in truth, they simply fear a large buyer with the clout to get a better deal from them for the end consumer.
The "initial spark" can easily be seen as evolutionary advantage over inorganic matter. Accidental self-replicating forms don't need a separate theory: they are in themselves a successful adaptation of dead stuff, naturally selected for propensity to replicate.
After a quick Google search, it appears that initial spark is suprisingly apt! Accident, it appears, was helped along...
Being trusting of a single large vendor may appear to be contrary to the spirit of paranoia, but this is to ignore what paranoia really is:
Paranoia is the misordering of priorities though irrational fear. For example, I am posting to Slashdot using links2 run from a Gentoo livecd from my second machine. If I was doing this for any reason other than because my main system had suffered disk failure, requiring a reinstall, or random geek value, I would be seriously paranoid, for I'd focused so strongly upon having an unhackable system over implementing anonymisation over ipv6.
More seriously, being excessively slowed down though having to jump through security hoops, and having your mindspace taken up can end up reducing productivity, and risks seriously eating into profits. Hence we have security specialists, who call themselves "paranoid" because they would be, if they had a normal (meaning non-security) job. It is entirely possible that someone in security is too paranoid for security, and trusts those that they should be weary of on grounds of insufficient competence because of irrational fears of those who's motives they do not trust.
Avoiding obviously taking sides, it's clear to [Democrats|Republicans] that [Republicans|Democrats] are paranoid about various risks. This isn't just relativism: those who seek power tend to perceive a greater need to control the masses than the rest of us. Someone has to be getting it wrong!
Efficiency isn't cheapness; it is the best use of resources.
Er, well, no, not quite. Close, but you don't define what "best" means here. Efficiency is the ratio of productive output divided by the amount of input needed to create that output (if you really want to be pedantic, it's really that value divided by the theoretical maximum value).
And thus, the most efficient laborer is usually one who is producing while being given a minimum of resources in compensation.
Efficiency is what you say it is from the perspective of an individual company, but not from the perspective of the economy at large. As much aggregate wealth is created, regardless of worker compensation, all other things being equal (including worker motivation et. al); but all things are not equal: the renumeration offered affects what the workers choose to do. Wealth is maximised when that most closely reflects the aggregate demand. That demand properly includes the demand for work, so that a job that in other respects generates more wealth can in fact generate less wealth in aggregate if the worker would rather be doing something else, in exchange for a lower wage.
Similarly, slavery is inefficient, for it prevent slaves from moving into more productive work.
Well, no, this isn't necessarily so. All it does is change the person responsible for the decision (from the person performing the labor to the person supervising the laborer).
Actually, who makes the decision makes a big difference. The company doing the hireing is not trying to maximise aggregate wealth, but rather, that of its shareholdes (subject to internal politicial factors). Competition is a factor that can help both to redistribute wealth (in this case workers who could get more renumeration elsewhere can do so), and cull inefficient practice that would otherwise persist through inertia. If slavery fails to maximise wealth, there is no corrective mechanism, as long as the workers cannot move, at least not in the short-term. Eventually, workers would be moved into other fields, but as slaves are likely to be less creative, so generating less wealth.
If what you said were strictly true, then most companies would not employ a top-down authoritarian power structure. Unless you want to argue that companies in general are horribly inefficient compared to ones which don't employ such a power structure...
I believe that hierarchy are moderately efficient when subject to competative forces. There are factors that lead to inefficiencies within hierarchies, such as the natures of those who are attracted to management, but these are to some extent kept in check by the fact that workers can jump ship. This means that extremely destructive management practices cannot be sustained for nearly as long as it could be if the workers were slaves, for example.
If someone on a minimum wage can afford better food because of that minimum, for example, they will require less hospital care, and also be more productive. This needs a law, because the employer doesn't typically gain from their long-term health; more likely, another will.
Well, no. The "employer" that gains from someone else's long-term health is just as likely to be the employer in question, because that employer will constantly be employing people who also benefit from the law in question. So you can't argue that a sane employer will be opposed to minimum wage laws on these grounds.
You really think that employers are that rational? Try arguing with a middle-class house-owner that rising house-prices make no difference because any house that you move into is also going up in value. It just doesn't compute.
Also, it is entirely plausible for there to be both an increase in efficiency and a redistribu
I agree that an international minimum wage would be a good thing, but your argument needs to recognise that supply and demand is a two-sided process, and that some laws are an effect of greater wealth, rather than a cause, in that they tend to be enacted when they can be afforded. Unless the law is intrinsically wise, it can in fact diminish wealth that would have competed up wages and standards. Employers compete for employees as well as vice versa.
Intelligent regulation is a good thing, but the "us and them" mentality isn't going to help regulation become more intelligent. Deliberate ignorance over market factors that help the unemployed and the poor are going to mean that regulation will be counterproductive, for it no longer is a matter of truth, but rather which side you are on.
As for the meaning of efficiency, the concept isn't defined until you decide what is of value. But I know that you're using the concept sarcastically, so let me address that:
Efficiency isn't cheapness; it is the best use of resources. Even if maximising GDP is your measure of efficiency, it's no good people being paid less than what they could get elsewhere, for the job that paid more pays more because it is generating more wealth, ie., for them to stay in the less-well-paid job harms both themselves and the economy: it is inefficient. Similarly, slavery is inefficient, for it prevent slaves from moving into more productive work.
In saying this, I am not your foe, though: I do not measure progress by GDP, which makes me support certain laws (and oppose others) more strongly than if I did. But even by a GDP measure, a number of laws make sense. If someone on a minimum wage can afford better food because of that minimum, for example, they will require less hospital care, and also be more productive. This needs a law, because the employer doesn't typically gain from their long-term health; more likely, another will. Safety standards are required because otherwise risk to workers will be seen equally with other (financial) risks. As startups fail nine times out of ten, safety won't become important for a while. Since a startup failure isn't a major economic failure (others will replace it), safety laws restore efficiency.
Someone should tell zealots like Perens... should come first, since otherwise your logic breaks: it's not just a 'very happy' two-way deal when the product is the result of teamwork, where many of those working with you disagree with you.
If you start with stuff about free software zealots, then the will of those involved in the project can be ignored, since they're clearly not reasonable in their opinion, Hell, maybe they should give up on that stupid project of writing a free kernel, since there are perfectly good proprietry alternatives.
Sorry, mate. Species is a fuzzy concept, and to be of the same species is not infinitely transitive. Our attempts to put creatures in the same category is flawed, as the world is a clustered continuum.
However, you can observe genetic drift, and human selection has been relied upon for centuries. Natural selection has been observed, although the Google obscures the result with copious quantities of debate, and there's plenty of evidence for macroevolution.
Proof by forcing artifical categories and finding that they don't work doesn't get you very far:o)
I'd rather be right about evolution being wrong rather than wrong about evolution being right.
I believe that this is quite a common stance. The flaw becomes obvious if you sustitute "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" for "evolution"; it is a motivation that is likely to pull you away from the truth. If you thinking is rife with such reasoning, it will deny you the ability to weigh facts fairly in many situations.
You motivation has little baring on the facts and the logic of what you say, but it is the kind of motivation that the truth-seeker should be weary of, and possibly even deliberately compensate for.
Share-alike is good: it undermines the kind of exploitation that I care abount. However, in many other respects, the licence is too strict; it promotes the interests of the BBC as an institution above those of the taxpayer. Helping your competitors, for example, would promote creativity a good deal more than having a non-commercial licence. Derogatory use is fair comment; much excellent art is a devivative work that the creator might not find palatable.
I am aware that the BBC feel that they have a financial need to restict derivative works, for they resell much of their programming. But the money that isn't made isn't lost; it makes other channels more viable; indeed, it might push up the rest of the quality of their programming: a real service to the licence-payer! The UK restiction is probably justified for commercial ventures: few licence-payers live outside the UK, so it is reasonable to seek revenues upon those ventures. Non-commercial use beyond our shores has to be good, though: mixing our cultural output with that of others must be of great and mutual benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read my criticisms as being aimed at whoever is making the decisions.
To forsake an inherently educational environment for one with the "right learning packages" is not necessarily a good bargin.
As for kitting children for the future, a single school would gain a niche advantage, and a cluster of schools would change the baseline for employers in the area. Also, measuring future employment opportunities according to current demand is not necessarily reliable. Far better to attempt to educate the kids with more generic skills.
Maths is the art of finding what must be true within a system often expressed in liguistic form, but whereas a language is a local (though often approximately copied) utilitarian structure that binds meaning together; mathematics is a one-to-one mapping of a structure that is found to be the same by all practicing mathematicians (which is pretty close to objectivity if you ask me) onto an agreed linguistic form. When mathematicians use different symbols and reasoning, they still find the same things to be true as they find when they use the original set. That is: the linguistic element is arbitary to a high degree; it is not the important thing; rather: the underlying structure that exists before it is expressed symbolically is what is important.
If you believe maths to be, rather than having a language, you will not be a very competent mathematician, for you will be inclined to engage in symbolic manipulation as an arbitary and bizzare exercise without intuiting the underlying nature of mathematical truth.
When I say that maths can be viewed as being less than a language, I mean that the above-mentioned structure is highly restrictive. The potential of using mathematics for conveying "human meaning" (to do with day-to-day judgement and decision-making) is extremely poor. Insofar as mathematics is used to help in everyday matters, it does so by analysing a system that is intuited to have the right properties. Normal language and reasoning is then used to build an analogy with the phenomenon under consideration, but common language and understanding build the bridge, not mathematics.
For the report to focus entirely on costs is a little myopic. Free Software might be free as in beer, but its greatest value to education is that of software freedom: the children can tinker, investigate, and learn skills for real future competence with computers...
Really, the report should be looking to ROI, rather than merely cost. This would be the real opportunity of and for Free Software.
I accept that the existance of such projects is a refutation for all intents and purposes. However, the linked article, in itself, contained insufficient information to make the case.
The pilot scheme is a strongly indicative move, which makes it likely (rather than certain) that Solaris will be openned to everyone.
I'll have to say that "Q2 isn't over yet" isn't proof, but lack of disproof.
I am not claiming that OpenSolaris is a mirage; I am complaining about the sloppiness of the headline. I am a mathematician by training, and these things irk me.
Just meta-modded 'Funny'. If you're meta-modding the 'Troll' mod, here is the intended link.
Anyway, the effects of minumum wage are far more complex than that. See my journal.
Efficiency is a result of process, not incentives, although incentives are sometimes required so that the process changes take hold. Whoever the municipal hire to supply access will want to keep their own costs down, so the incentives are still there. Competition is still active, as local authorities won't all go with the same provider. If the hardware is owned by the authority, they can hire anyone to operate it.
Wireless access can easily be an incremental process; the barriers to entry are few (add bandwidth as required). Municipal access therefore doesn't prevent there being private access, and as the bandwidth is likely to be limited per user, there'll still be plenty of demand for another service.
What you say is simply not possible.
They appear to be suggesting that the municipal will compete unfairly; in truth, they simply fear a large buyer with the clout to get a better deal from them for the end consumer.
After a quick Google search, it appears that initial spark is suprisingly apt! Accident, it appears, was helped along...
I'm obviously missing a trick; I want to see what is Insightful about this comment.
It affects my tax bill, but then, I'm European. I don't think that it'll be quite as expensive as you appear to be making out, though.
Paranoia is the misordering of priorities though irrational fear. For example, I am posting to Slashdot using links2 run from a Gentoo livecd from my second machine. If I was doing this for any reason other than because my main system had suffered disk failure, requiring a reinstall, or random geek value, I would be seriously paranoid, for I'd focused so strongly upon having an unhackable system over implementing anonymisation over ipv6.
More seriously, being excessively slowed down though having to jump through security hoops, and having your mindspace taken up can end up reducing productivity, and risks seriously eating into profits. Hence we have security specialists, who call themselves "paranoid" because they would be, if they had a normal (meaning non-security) job. It is entirely possible that someone in security is too paranoid for security, and trusts those that they should be weary of on grounds of insufficient competence because of irrational fears of those who's motives they do not trust.
Avoiding obviously taking sides, it's clear to [Democrats|Republicans] that [Republicans|Democrats] are paranoid about various risks. This isn't just relativism: those who seek power tend to perceive a greater need to control the masses than the rest of us. Someone has to be getting it wrong!
Paranoia is a strange thing...
Efficiency is what you say it is from the perspective of an individual company, but not from the perspective of the economy at large. As much aggregate wealth is created, regardless of worker compensation, all other things being equal (including worker motivation et. al); but all things are not equal: the renumeration offered affects what the workers choose to do. Wealth is maximised when that most closely reflects the aggregate demand. That demand properly includes the demand for work, so that a job that in other respects generates more wealth can in fact generate less wealth in aggregate if the worker would rather be doing something else, in exchange for a lower wage.
Actually, who makes the decision makes a big difference. The company doing the hireing is not trying to maximise aggregate wealth, but rather, that of its shareholdes (subject to internal politicial factors). Competition is a factor that can help both to redistribute wealth (in this case workers who could get more renumeration elsewhere can do so), and cull inefficient practice that would otherwise persist through inertia. If slavery fails to maximise wealth, there is no corrective mechanism, as long as the workers cannot move, at least not in the short-term. Eventually, workers would be moved into other fields, but as slaves are likely to be less creative, so generating less wealth.
I believe that hierarchy are moderately efficient when subject to competative forces. There are factors that lead to inefficiencies within hierarchies, such as the natures of those who are attracted to management, but these are to some extent kept in check by the fact that workers can jump ship. This means that extremely destructive management practices cannot be sustained for nearly as long as it could be if the workers were slaves, for example.
You really think that employers are that rational? Try arguing with a middle-class house-owner that rising house-prices make no difference because any house that you move into is also going up in value. It just doesn't compute.
Also, it is entirely plausible for there to be both an increase in efficiency and a redistribu
Intelligent regulation is a good thing, but the "us and them" mentality isn't going to help regulation become more intelligent. Deliberate ignorance over market factors that help the unemployed and the poor are going to mean that regulation will be counterproductive, for it no longer is a matter of truth, but rather which side you are on.
As for the meaning of efficiency, the concept isn't defined until you decide what is of value. But I know that you're using the concept sarcastically, so let me address that:
Efficiency isn't cheapness; it is the best use of resources. Even if maximising GDP is your measure of efficiency, it's no good people being paid less than what they could get elsewhere, for the job that paid more pays more because it is generating more wealth, ie., for them to stay in the less-well-paid job harms both themselves and the economy: it is inefficient. Similarly, slavery is inefficient, for it prevent slaves from moving into more productive work.
In saying this, I am not your foe, though: I do not measure progress by GDP, which makes me support certain laws (and oppose others) more strongly than if I did. But even by a GDP measure, a number of laws make sense. If someone on a minimum wage can afford better food because of that minimum, for example, they will require less hospital care, and also be more productive. This needs a law, because the employer doesn't typically gain from their long-term health; more likely, another will. Safety standards are required because otherwise risk to workers will be seen equally with other (financial) risks. As startups fail nine times out of ten, safety won't become important for a while. Since a startup failure isn't a major economic failure (others will replace it), safety laws restore efficiency.
-- No Text --
Get Perpendicular needs to be a link, I tell ya!
If you start with stuff about free software zealots, then the will of those involved in the project can be ignored, since they're clearly not reasonable in their opinion, Hell, maybe they should give up on that stupid project of writing a free kernel, since there are perfectly good proprietry alternatives.
However, you can observe genetic drift, and human selection has been relied upon for centuries. Natural selection has been observed, although the Google obscures the result with copious quantities of debate, and there's plenty of evidence for macroevolution.
Proof by forcing artifical categories and finding that they don't work doesn't get you very far :o)
You motivation has little baring on the facts and the logic of what you say, but it is the kind of motivation that the truth-seeker should be weary of, and possibly even deliberately compensate for.
I am aware that the BBC feel that they have a financial need to restict derivative works, for they resell much of their programming. But the money that isn't made isn't lost; it makes other channels more viable; indeed, it might push up the rest of the quality of their programming: a real service to the licence-payer! The UK restiction is probably justified for commercial ventures: few licence-payers live outside the UK, so it is reasonable to seek revenues upon those ventures. Non-commercial use beyond our shores has to be good, though: mixing our cultural output with that of others must be of great and mutual benefit.