Adam: Hey Jamie, there's this Anonymous Coward on slashdot that says crappy code makes it into OSS project as easily as into closed source stuff.
Jamie: What? Does this guy have a clue about how these projects work? Does he not get that OSS projects are essentially benevolent dictatorships? That commit privileges aren't given to everyone? Get the camera guys up. We've got a myth to bust.
I'm sure it's my mathematics background, but when I saw the headline I assumed the author would be discussing something involving the square root of negative one, to which my response was, "Silly author, you can't visualize four dimensions. (Sober.)"
Agreed. I was just pointing out that the figures needed some examination. As described below, the figure is probably closer to $3,000 per person, and maybe as high as $6,000 per taxpayer.
Fair enough. By the time all this spending is done, it will be over that, I'm certain. I will even concede that the number of working Americans is a lot less than 300M, making the burden on taxpayers that much more.
Yes, props for remembering the Allegory of the Cave. It's funny that you mention detractors of Plato. An author I know just finished working on a book he called The Platonic Idiom. It's available through lulu.com: http://www.lulu.com/content/3614575. I look forward to reading his finished version.
I read the list in TFA, and generally agree that these are decent to good projects, but I think articles like this miss the point in large measure. I use gvSIG and Quantum GIS for part of my job (GIS). I use Drupal for another part of my job (web admin). Most people, even open source advocates, are likely not aware of all of these projects. They are all open source, but they cater to niches. Thus, they don't make lists. That's fine though. Open source has found its way into every dark corner of software development. I think the phrase "paradigm shift," before it was a buzz phrase, describes what has happened. That these projects and hundreds like them are thriving tells me more about the victory of open source than any top ten list.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I hadn't noticed that Net Applications (hitslink.com) was one of the five sites included in the Wikipedia article. It is the one that is actually the most favorable to Mac.
That's the funny thing about statistics. If you torture the numbers sufficiently, they will eventually confess. Let's begin with methodology. Please go to the hitlink.com homepage and scroll down to the section titled "About Our Market Share Statistics." As you read, ask yourself the question, "What indicates this methodology is unscientific?" I found several indicators, and I bet you will too.
Secondly, what makes hitslink.com the authoritative source for OS statistics? There is a decent wikipedia article that cites statistics from five other websites similar to hitslink.com. Their numbers range from 0.47% to 3.80% for Linux and 3.66% to 8.87% for Mac. That there is such a wide range of estimates of operating system usage (factor of almost eight for Linux, factor of more than two for Mac) should be a clue about how all of these numbers should be viewed.
Having said that, let us assume there is truth in the hitslink.com numbers you cite and take them at face value. Linux began the year at 0.65% and ended at 0.85%, which is a 30.77% increase. Mac began the year at 7.46% and ended at 9.63%, indicating a 29.09% increase.
Macs have a huge one-month (0.8%) and two-month (1.4%) rise while Linux is flatline.
Your statement is not quite true. Month to month increase for Mac was 8.04% for November and 8.47% for December. For Linux the increase was 16.9% and 2.41% respectively.
That's a truly insightful post, but I think you are actually overestimating the usable energy in gasoline. Depending on who you ask, one gallon of gasoline produces 33 to 37 kWh of heat energy (giving 555 kWh for 15 gallons, which is close to your figure). However, gasoline engines can only utilize perhaps 10 kWh per gallon since the rest is consumed in engine/transmission friction. This means that to truly compare the two, 15 gallons of gasoline only has the equivalent of 150 kWh of motive energy. This means that the electric/supercap vehicle potentially has more range than a typical gasoline fueled car. Let's just hope the technology meets the claim.
Though I am enjoying relief from $4.00/gallon gasoline as much as the next guy, I would hold off on prognostications until summer arrives. I doubt oil will remain cheap for long. The current low is likely due to more factors than just demand destruction. Matt Simmons (author of Twilight in the Desert [no, not playing at a theater near you]) suggests the current lows have more to do with settling derivatives trades between oil companies more than anything else.
Damn straight. Dark Energy seems to have a lot more in common with magic than science. I, for one, view it as a conjecture patch to fix a broken theory.
Slashdot Mirror
"seagull populations decrease..."
I was indifferent to wind generation before, but now I'm all for it. Are you aware of anything that could kill crows?
"And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst."
/.
I agree. If there is hope for Congress it is here. It is a brainchild of Larry Lessig, who needs no introduction on
Adam: Hey Jamie, there's this Anonymous Coward on slashdot that says crappy code makes it into OSS project as easily as into closed source stuff.
Jamie: What? Does this guy have a clue about how these projects work? Does he not get that OSS projects are essentially benevolent dictatorships? That commit privileges aren't given to everyone? Get the camera guys up. We've got a myth to bust.
I'm sure it's my mathematics background, but when I saw the headline I assumed the author would be discussing something involving the square root of negative one, to which my response was, "Silly author, you can't visualize four dimensions. (Sober.)"
Am I the only one who read that as 200 milliamp? For a moment I was astounded by the home's efficiency.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that the figures needed some examination. As described below, the figure is probably closer to $3,000 per person, and maybe as high as $6,000 per taxpayer.
Fair enough. By the time all this spending is done, it will be over that, I'm certain. I will even concede that the number of working Americans is a lot less than 300M, making the burden on taxpayers that much more.
I saw the same email you did, and the originator wasn't very good at math. It is closer to $400 per American, not $300,000.
Yes, props for remembering the Allegory of the Cave. It's funny that you mention detractors of Plato. An author I know just finished working on a book he called The Platonic Idiom. It's available through lulu.com: http://www.lulu.com/content/3614575. I look forward to reading his finished version.
So that's the equivalent of what, three Red Bull's?
So is curiosity a good thing or a bad thing?
[holds hand to rumbling stomach]
Where can I get these chickens and eggs to which you refer? Hmmm. It occurs to me that I have skipped dinner.
Yes, believe that! Mwuhahahaha! -- Sentient Google Farm
I read the list in TFA, and generally agree that these are decent to good projects, but I think articles like this miss the point in large measure. I use gvSIG and Quantum GIS for part of my job (GIS). I use Drupal for another part of my job (web admin). Most people, even open source advocates, are likely not aware of all of these projects. They are all open source, but they cater to niches. Thus, they don't make lists. That's fine though. Open source has found its way into every dark corner of software development. I think the phrase "paradigm shift," before it was a buzz phrase, describes what has happened. That these projects and hundreds like them are thriving tells me more about the victory of open source than any top ten list.
Me too. Sadly, it's probably one of my family members in the moving van.
Yeah! WASPs prefer Ryder trucks full of ammonium nitrate.
Read, then apply.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I hadn't noticed that Net Applications (hitslink.com) was one of the five sites included in the Wikipedia article. It is the one that is actually the most favorable to Mac.
That's the funny thing about statistics. If you torture the numbers sufficiently, they will eventually confess. Let's begin with methodology. Please go to the hitlink.com homepage and scroll down to the section titled "About Our Market Share Statistics." As you read, ask yourself the question, "What indicates this methodology is unscientific?" I found several indicators, and I bet you will too.
Secondly, what makes hitslink.com the authoritative source for OS statistics? There is a decent wikipedia article that cites statistics from five other websites similar to hitslink.com. Their numbers range from 0.47% to 3.80% for Linux and 3.66% to 8.87% for Mac. That there is such a wide range of estimates of operating system usage (factor of almost eight for Linux, factor of more than two for Mac) should be a clue about how all of these numbers should be viewed.
Having said that, let us assume there is truth in the hitslink.com numbers you cite and take them at face value. Linux began the year at 0.65% and ended at 0.85%, which is a 30.77% increase. Mac began the year at 7.46% and ended at 9.63%, indicating a 29.09% increase.
Your statement is not quite true. Month to month increase for Mac was 8.04% for November and 8.47% for December. For Linux the increase was 16.9% and 2.41% respectively.
I've got 6:46 local time. Oh, I get it.
You aren't the only one thinking that way: http://genxy.blogspot.com/2008/12/peak-oil-and-transportation.html
That's a truly insightful post, but I think you are actually overestimating the usable energy in gasoline. Depending on who you ask, one gallon of gasoline produces 33 to 37 kWh of heat energy (giving 555 kWh for 15 gallons, which is close to your figure). However, gasoline engines can only utilize perhaps 10 kWh per gallon since the rest is consumed in engine/transmission friction. This means that to truly compare the two, 15 gallons of gasoline only has the equivalent of 150 kWh of motive energy. This means that the electric/supercap vehicle potentially has more range than a typical gasoline fueled car. Let's just hope the technology meets the claim.
What's this? An implicit car analogy? Much respect.
Though I am enjoying relief from $4.00/gallon gasoline as much as the next guy, I would hold off on prognostications until summer arrives. I doubt oil will remain cheap for long. The current low is likely due to more factors than just demand destruction. Matt Simmons (author of Twilight in the Desert [no, not playing at a theater near you]) suggests the current lows have more to do with settling derivatives trades between oil companies more than anything else.
Damn straight. Dark Energy seems to have a lot more in common with magic than science. I, for one, view it as a conjecture patch to fix a broken theory.