Actually, you're right. The interesting thing is my list comes from the guys own spreadsheet that also included the other list that this article is mostly about. My issue was the worthlessness of counting degrees per square mile. I should have known that this persons entire study was pure bs based before I quoted more of his "statistics".
Instead of measuring human capital or college degree holders as a function of population, he measures it as a function of land area -- that is, as college degree holders per square mile.
So, high density urban areas have a higher density of $EDUCATIONAL_ATTAINMENT. Well, blow me down. I'd bet that if you looked at the density per square mile of the people that don't have an eighth grade education, the chart would be virtually the same.
Seems to me that degrees per capita would be a much more useful metric.
Apple sells to yuppies, hipsters and wanabe cool middle-aged moms.
You think this description encapsulates the millions upon millions
of iPhone and iPod buyers out there? I find that very hard
to believe. As a matter of fact, of the people I know right off
hand that are owners of these devices including a couple of Macs for
good measure, none of them fit your description.
The official volume applet now is actually a part of the indicator
applet. Add that to the panel and the volume will show up. The
gnome-volume-manager-applet is the old one.
Oh, I see. You made the mistake of reading what I said completely
out of context by not reading what I actually replied to and inserting your own meaning to it. Thanks for
clearing that up.
Just for posterity, I'll quote my respondee again:
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing, which is highly proprietary.
Now, let me break that down for you.
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing,
The second thing about GNU/Linux - was the ease with which things could be copied. There are very few things innovative about linux other than the way it was created. Open Source is innovative way of creating software but the created software for example - linux, is much less so.
So I think Joy is right - open source will not be the place to look for innovation in solar/bio/green technology.
Let me be the first to point out that GNU and Linux do not sum up
the entirety of open source. Now that that's laid to rest:
I don't think it really makes sense to make a statement like, "Open
source is less innovative than closed source." In many ways the
two are very much orthogonal. I would buy framing it as, This particular innovation is closed source or that one is open source. Not open/closed
produced this. It really has to be looked at on a much more granular
level than that. Furthermore, many of the "innovations" predate the
entire concept of closed/open source and are just coming back into vogue. There is also the point that closed
source development outnumbers open source many times to one so of
course you would expect a bit more diversity in the ideas. Do you know why some projects start
out open source and some do not? If I'm a guy in a basement that discovers some
new thing, do I open source it or do I take the money and run? Does this
even play into the statistic of open source vs closed source innovation?
I don't think so.
This is a subject that has many layers and gets very complicated
very quickly. There's no way to do it justice in a web forum post
and for even a luminary such as Bill Joy to just make a blanket statement of open vs closed argument in
one sentence borders on nonsensical.
Nevermind the fact that Microsoft can't STOP selling product to HP. They may lose preferential pricing deals, but they'll still always be able to buy Windows at OEM prices.
If HP had to buy Windows at the standard OEM price, they might as well
just give up. The profit margins these days are too thin to sustain
a mass market presence in Wintel computers against the likes of Dell,
Acer, Asus and all the rest while paying significantly more for the most
expensive part of the entire computer, namely the Windows OS.
And the way to cure that problem is to leverage yourself into a market where MS doesn't control your survival.
When MS sees tablets, they see a laptop with an added touch screen and the keyboard lopped off, i.e., a device that Windows could be running on.
The only possible way HP could get around the wrath of MS would be if they
completely swear off Intel processors on their slates. If they ship
with Atoms, and it gets real traction, Ballmer will be so far up their asses,
he'll practically be wearing them. But, see, that is a catch 22.
What if Intel makes a breakthrough that puts them ahead of ARM? What's
HP to do?
HP wants to own the Datacenter, and a little WebOS isn't going to change the HP->Microsoft relationship there at all.
Yeah, for now. But what if, say, the WebOS slate really takes off. I mean,
like netbooks did. At first, with netbooks, MS didn't care because they
didn't see the market. But when they really started selling and they
were almost all shipping with Linux, MS got scared. Cue the corporate
jets heading for Taiwan. They punked out the Taiwanese manufacturers so
bad that the head guy for Asus, I think it was, actually apologized
for having a netbook running Android on display at a trade show. I don't
know what they told the guy but whatever it was, he probably had to
change his shorts afterwards. Don't think for a second that they won't
do the same to HP.
See, the real problem is, every decision HP makes regarding the Slate
will have to be made in the context of their relationship with MS.
Thus, the nerfing will begin. "We can't make it too general purpose, MS
won't like that. We can't modify it and run it on laptops/desktops, MS
won't like that." And on and on. With that holding it back, the platform
is doomed because it can never reach its full potential. Contrast that with
Android, ChromeOS, OSX, iPhone OS, etc. where Apple and Google not
only don't give a rat's ass what MS thinks but actually take active
delight in bringing heartburn to MS brass.
In closing, I'll just say that I would love nothing more than for WebOS
to be a massive success. If there is anything this industry needs it's
more diversity in operating systems. I'm an exclusive Linux user and I
willingly suffer everyday from the monoculture that is Windows. I have
to be careful what I buy when it comes to peripherals; I'm shut out of
netflix online services, I can forget about playing $AWESOME_GAME to its fullest potential, etc. I'm a realist though and I can assure you, MS are not
even remotely stupid. They employ not only world class developers but
their corporate strategists and marketing skills are also some of the
absolute best money can buy. If HP pulls this off, in my opinion, it
will be nothing short of legendary. We'll see.
It's like learning to tell time by staring at a gear.
First clue someone has no idea what they are talking about? They immediately resort to flawed analogies.
It would be kind of hard to figure out how a clock worked without
looking at the individual pieces and seeing how they interrelate now
wouldn't it? Or should we just have Silvia Browne explain it to us?
No it doesn't, troll. It actually stands for "I'd like a nice
pleasant and attractive Linux experience out of the box that I don't have to dick
with for 3 weeks to get it set up." And, you know what? It
succeeds stupendously. So take your childish, Ubuntu is for noobs
trolling elsewhere, thank you.
Fair enough. I call a truce. You have your way of seeing things
and I have mine. The ad hominems were a bit overboard, admittedly. It's just an internet message board though and what's life
without a little passion?
This is why I love open source. We don't try to hide behind the veil of secrecy. Of course, it lets guys like you and the rest of the 'softies go around and crow about "OMG!!11 LInux has teh flaws!" because we actually disclose rather than try to hide in obscurity.
And I'm not saying that it is more secure by mere virtue of it being open source.
See, the thing is, I fully expect more vulnerabilities to be
exposed in open source software than closed source. People look through it, find flaws and the next thing I know, my update manager fires up and tells me what to do. That means the system
is working. When vulns stop getting found is when I start getting worried.
The fact that they are being found and patched and all I have to do is click yes to the little update box just helps me sleep better at night. Contrast that with closed source. How many years have certain vulnerabilities gone unpatched? Who knows? And you may never know. Yet thousands of people get owned daily running closed source OS's.
So, you keep going around with your bs studies and your links just make sure you keep that McAfee updated... Oh, my bad. Too soon? All the while, us open source guys will just keep getting work done.
No, I didn't read the article you linked to. I'm already well versed
on what the bystander effect is so I don't have a particular need for an about.com
re-hash of the wikipedia article on it. I know enough about it to also realize that it has very little to any relation to what happens during the life cycle of major open source software, re apache, linux kernel, x server, ssh, etc.
Despite my trust and the fact that my computers run all of that software, I have yet to get hacked into once. Somebody must be paying attention because every so often, my update manager pops up and tells me to update them. I do and life goes blissfully on. Don't get me started on when I used to run a certain proprietary OS.
Closed source might not be any better but if you are buying from a company that has a reputation and a monetary stake in the matter then you at least have some leverage and some recourse if something goes wrong.
Your sociobabble bs doesn't impress me. And furthermore:
secure
is as meaningless as any other word that denotes an absolute yet
objectively unattainable ideal. Check this out, if the source
is open, you have the opportunity to get closer to the ideal than
if the source is closed, i.e. doing the inspection work yourself or
paying someone else to do it.
What you said and what I took issue with was this:
And when is the last time you looked at every single line of code for a major open-source application and made sure that it was totally and completely safe? Do you just use them, assuming that someone else did it for you?
That's a shill statement trying to make the debate look like it's just
a black and white issue. It isn't. Again, if the software is important
enough, somebody has. If you have proof otherwise, I'd like to see it, else it's just my opinion versus yours. And at the end of the day, with open source, I can pay somebody to check it. Closed source?
This seems like a useful purpose for rfid. Make it so if the phone is out of
range of your person for more than say 30 minutes or so, auto-wipe. As long
as you're keeping backups somewhere, it shouldn't be too much hassle for the
once every so often that you leave it at home, right?
Bull-fucking-shit! Point me to the package in the Debian
or Ubuntu repo that is malware. IPhone apps have been outed
over and over for harvesting user data.
And when is the last time you looked at every single line of code for a major open-source application and made sure that it was totally and completely safe? Do you just use them, assuming that someone else did it for you?
It doesn't matter if I do it; if it's an important enough
piece of software, somebody has. And if it's really important,
more than a few somebodies. And if it's really really
important, I can pay somebody to do it. And it's not an either/or
problem like you frame it. You may not realize this as you seem to
be a bit of a noob in regards to security but security requires a
multi-layered approach. Having the source is just one. Surely you
aren't foolishly arguing that I'm better off not having it.
At least with a major author they have a physical presence, buildings, investors, publicly traded, cash in the bank.
That's your argument? Really? I offer this in rebuttal. How many coupons would you like?
How exactly would this stand up to the scrutiny of Debian or Red Hat
or Canonical for any appreciable amount of time? Somebody has to actually hand maintain the packages
in those repositories. Software doesn't just get willy-nilly thrown onto the servers.
If FOSS is ever going to become the norm, you have to interact with non-free components for the time being. C# interop for Thunderbird and OOo, anyone?
I know, right? I mean, I was trying to switch my Aunt Tilly over
to OpenOffice last week and the first thing she asked was how
well it worked with C#.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you're right. The interesting thing is my list comes from the guys own spreadsheet that also included the other list that this article is mostly about. My issue was the worthlessness of counting degrees per square mile. I should have known that this persons entire study was pure bs based before I quoted more of his "statistics".
Rank City % Above Expected Concentration
1 Oklahoma City 544%
2 Nashville 167%
3 Jacksonville 156%
4 Salt Lake City 87%
5 Kansas City 84%
6 Seattle 78%
7 Raleigh 73%
8 San Francisco 61%
9 New Orleans 54%
10 Atlanta 50%
11 Austin 48%
12 Virginia Beach 46%
13 Washington 45%
14 Charlotte 43%
15 Louisville 42%
16 Portland 35%
17 Birmingham 32%
18 San Diego 31%
19 Minneapolis 30%
20 Orlando 28%
21 Denver 27%
22 Boston 22%
23 St. Paul 13%
24 Indianapolis 11%
25 Richmond 9%
26 Tampa 9%
27 San Jose 8%
28 Pittsburgh 6%
29 Oakland 6%
30 Columbus 5%
31 Cincinnatti -3%
32 New York City -10%
33 Sacramento -11%
34 Houston -11%
35 Memphis -12%
36 Dallas -12%
37 Chicago -15%
38 Los Angeles -17%
39 Phoenix -23%
40 Providence -23%
41 San Antonio -25%
42 St. Louis -25%
43 Balitmore -30%
44 Miami -32%
45 Las Vegas -34%
46 Riverside -37%
47 Buffalo -38%
48 Philadelphia -41%
49 Milwaukee -43%
50 Cleveland -61%
51 Hartford -62%
52 Detroit -68%
I find this much more interesting than the face palm-esque pop. density ranking original list. Interesting how 7 of the top ten are southern cities.
Instead of measuring human capital or college degree holders as a function of population, he measures it as a function of land area -- that is, as college degree holders per square mile.
So, high density urban areas have a higher density of $EDUCATIONAL_ATTAINMENT. Well, blow me down. I'd bet that if you looked at the density per square mile of the people that don't have an eighth grade education, the chart would be virtually the same.
Seems to me that degrees per capita would be a much more useful metric.
In all, it's a genuine mystery as to why these tablets were in such rough shape.
From the fracking title of that article you quoted...
Android tablet prototypes not yet ready for prime time
Sheesh, man, try to be a little more honest next time. Lying by omission is still lying.
We certainly will. And thanks again for your support!
Apple sells to yuppies, hipsters and wanabe cool middle-aged moms.
You think this description encapsulates the millions upon millions of iPhone and iPod buyers out there? I find that very hard to believe. As a matter of fact, of the people I know right off hand that are owners of these devices including a couple of Macs for good measure, none of them fit your description.
The official volume applet now is actually a part of the indicator applet. Add that to the panel and the volume will show up. The gnome-volume-manager-applet is the old one.
I was reacting to what you said, not anyone else
Oh, I see. You made the mistake of reading what I said completely out of context by not reading what I actually replied to and inserting your own meaning to it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Just for posterity, I'll quote my respondee again:
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing, which is highly proprietary.
Now, let me break that down for you.
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing,
True that.
which is highly proprietary.
No.
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing, which is highly proprietary.
What you pulled out of your ass:
I think he's been realizing the fact that despite those points the mindshare (and excitement) in the space is with what Apple is doing.
My retroactive FTFY:
More of the excitement [] in mobile computing, [] is highly proprietary.
Is that what you thought you saw?
More of the excitement now is in mobile computing, which is highly proprietary.
The largest and the fastest growing mobile OS's are both open source. Where've you been?
The second thing about GNU/Linux - was the ease with which things could be copied. There are very few things innovative about linux other than the way it was created. Open Source is innovative way of creating software but the created software for example - linux, is much less so.
So I think Joy is right - open source will not be the place to look for innovation in solar/bio/green technology.
Let me be the first to point out that GNU and Linux do not sum up the entirety of open source. Now that that's laid to rest:
I don't think it really makes sense to make a statement like, "Open source is less innovative than closed source." In many ways the two are very much orthogonal. I would buy framing it as, This particular innovation is closed source or that one is open source. Not open/closed produced this. It really has to be looked at on a much more granular level than that. Furthermore, many of the "innovations" predate the entire concept of closed/open source and are just coming back into vogue. There is also the point that closed source development outnumbers open source many times to one so of course you would expect a bit more diversity in the ideas. Do you know why some projects start out open source and some do not? If I'm a guy in a basement that discovers some new thing, do I open source it or do I take the money and run? Does this even play into the statistic of open source vs closed source innovation? I don't think so.
This is a subject that has many layers and gets very complicated very quickly. There's no way to do it justice in a web forum post and for even a luminary such as Bill Joy to just make a blanket statement of open vs closed argument in one sentence borders on nonsensical.
Nevermind the fact that Microsoft can't STOP selling product to HP. They may lose preferential pricing deals, but they'll still always be able to buy Windows at OEM prices.
If HP had to buy Windows at the standard OEM price, they might as well just give up. The profit margins these days are too thin to sustain a mass market presence in Wintel computers against the likes of Dell, Acer, Asus and all the rest while paying significantly more for the most expensive part of the entire computer, namely the Windows OS.
And the way to cure that problem is to leverage yourself into a market where MS doesn't control your survival.
When MS sees tablets, they see a laptop with an added touch screen and the keyboard lopped off, i.e., a device that Windows could be running on. The only possible way HP could get around the wrath of MS would be if they completely swear off Intel processors on their slates. If they ship with Atoms, and it gets real traction, Ballmer will be so far up their asses, he'll practically be wearing them. But, see, that is a catch 22. What if Intel makes a breakthrough that puts them ahead of ARM? What's HP to do?
HP wants to own the Datacenter, and a little WebOS isn't going to change the HP->Microsoft relationship there at all.
Yeah, for now. But what if, say, the WebOS slate really takes off. I mean, like netbooks did. At first, with netbooks, MS didn't care because they didn't see the market. But when they really started selling and they were almost all shipping with Linux, MS got scared. Cue the corporate jets heading for Taiwan. They punked out the Taiwanese manufacturers so bad that the head guy for Asus, I think it was, actually apologized for having a netbook running Android on display at a trade show. I don't know what they told the guy but whatever it was, he probably had to change his shorts afterwards. Don't think for a second that they won't do the same to HP.
See, the real problem is, every decision HP makes regarding the Slate will have to be made in the context of their relationship with MS. Thus, the nerfing will begin. "We can't make it too general purpose, MS won't like that. We can't modify it and run it on laptops/desktops, MS won't like that." And on and on. With that holding it back, the platform is doomed because it can never reach its full potential. Contrast that with Android, ChromeOS, OSX, iPhone OS, etc. where Apple and Google not only don't give a rat's ass what MS thinks but actually take active delight in bringing heartburn to MS brass.
In closing, I'll just say that I would love nothing more than for WebOS to be a massive success. If there is anything this industry needs it's more diversity in operating systems. I'm an exclusive Linux user and I willingly suffer everyday from the monoculture that is Windows. I have to be careful what I buy when it comes to peripherals; I'm shut out of netflix online services, I can forget about playing $AWESOME_GAME to its fullest potential, etc. I'm a realist though and I can assure you, MS are not even remotely stupid. They employ not only world class developers but their corporate strategists and marketing skills are also some of the absolute best money can buy. If HP pulls this off, in my opinion, it will be nothing short of legendary. We'll see.
It's like learning to tell time by staring at a gear.
First clue someone has no idea what they are talking about? They immediately resort to flawed analogies.
It would be kind of hard to figure out how a clock worked without looking at the individual pieces and seeing how they interrelate now wouldn't it? Or should we just have Silvia Browne explain it to us?
That is the fastest game of Pac Man I think I've every played. I think I cleared the board in about 3 minutes. Fun times.
No it doesn't, troll. It actually stands for "I'd like a nice pleasant and attractive Linux experience out of the box that I don't have to dick with for 3 weeks to get it set up." And, you know what? It succeeds stupendously. So take your childish, Ubuntu is for noobs trolling elsewhere, thank you.
Fair enough. I call a truce. You have your way of seeing things and I have mine. The ad hominems were a bit overboard, admittedly. It's just an internet message board though and what's life without a little passion?
This is why I love open source. We don't try to hide behind the veil of secrecy. Of course, it lets guys like you and the rest of the 'softies go around and crow about "OMG!!11 LInux has teh flaws!" because we actually disclose rather than try to hide in obscurity.
And I'm not saying that it is more secure by mere virtue of it being open source. See, the thing is, I fully expect more vulnerabilities to be exposed in open source software than closed source. People look through it, find flaws and the next thing I know, my update manager fires up and tells me what to do. That means the system is working. When vulns stop getting found is when I start getting worried. The fact that they are being found and patched and all I have to do is click yes to the little update box just helps me sleep better at night. Contrast that with closed source. How many years have certain vulnerabilities gone unpatched? Who knows? And you may never know. Yet thousands of people get owned daily running closed source OS's.
So, you keep going around with your bs studies and your links just make sure you keep that McAfee updated... Oh, my bad. Too soon? All the while, us open source guys will just keep getting work done.
Closed source might not be any better but if you are buying from a company that has a reputation and a monetary stake in the matter then you at least have some leverage and some recourse if something goes wrong.
And get what for my troubles, some coupons and free downloads for more crap? I think I'll stick with what I have now.
it at least lends credence to my argument:
Well, here's something that lends some credence to mine. I'll quote the relevant bit to save you the trouble.
So at the end of the last day of the contest, only the Sony VAIO laptop running Ubuntu was left standing.
secure
is as meaningless as any other word that denotes an absolute yet objectively unattainable ideal. Check this out, if the source is open, you have the opportunity to get closer to the ideal than if the source is closed, i.e. doing the inspection work yourself or paying someone else to do it.
What you said and what I took issue with was this:
And when is the last time you looked at every single line of code for a major open-source application and made sure that it was totally and completely safe? Do you just use them, assuming that someone else did it for you?
That's a shill statement trying to make the debate look like it's just a black and white issue. It isn't. Again, if the software is important enough, somebody has. If you have proof otherwise, I'd like to see it, else it's just my opinion versus yours. And at the end of the day, with open source, I can pay somebody to check it. Closed source?
This seems like a useful purpose for rfid. Make it so if the phone is out of range of your person for more than say 30 minutes or so, auto-wipe. As long as you're keeping backups somewhere, it shouldn't be too much hassle for the once every so often that you leave it at home, right?
If ever there was evidence that remote wipe is a Good Thing(TM) and sorely needed as a native tool on Android, this is it.
Bull-fucking-shit! Point me to the package in the Debian or Ubuntu repo that is malware. IPhone apps have been outed over and over for harvesting user data.
And when is the last time you looked at every single line of code for a major open-source application and made sure that it was totally and completely safe? Do you just use them, assuming that someone else did it for you?
It doesn't matter if I do it; if it's an important enough piece of software, somebody has. And if it's really important, more than a few somebodies. And if it's really really important, I can pay somebody to do it. And it's not an either/or problem like you frame it. You may not realize this as you seem to be a bit of a noob in regards to security but security requires a multi-layered approach. Having the source is just one. Surely you aren't foolishly arguing that I'm better off not having it.
At least with a major author they have a physical presence, buildings, investors, publicly traded, cash in the bank.
That's your argument? Really? I offer this in rebuttal. How many coupons would you like?
How exactly would this stand up to the scrutiny of Debian or Red Hat or Canonical for any appreciable amount of time? Somebody has to actually hand maintain the packages in those repositories. Software doesn't just get willy-nilly thrown onto the servers.
If FOSS is ever going to become the norm, you have to interact with non-free components for the time being. C# interop for Thunderbird and OOo, anyone?
I know, right? I mean, I was trying to switch my Aunt Tilly over to OpenOffice last week and the first thing she asked was how well it worked with C#.