The phrase tipping point or angle of repose is a sociological term that refers to that dramatic moment when something unique becomes common. It [has also] become applied to the popular acceptance of new technologies and serves as a good explanation of the success of VHS over Betamax, for instance. Adopted from Wikipedia.
It is only a matter of time. If the open source community learns the critical lessons offered by the VHS/Betamax wars, the adoption histories of analog to digital sound and imaging, and the marketing stratagies of IBM & clones vs Apple, then the result is ordained.
If the open source community doesn't learn those lessons? Oh well....
The problem lies in the differences between the perceptions and expectations of men and women who spend their lives outside of the narrow confines of Technovokia. Men who are not coders, analysts, engineers, etc. see a world where technical capability is still a basic requirement and, for the most part, go about developing that capability. Women who choose careers in non-technical fields, however, are less likely to develop the same capability. This is not inate, but is a reflection of the society at large.
This is not a huge problem, at least not yet, but it will be unless effective counter-measures are taken. As technologies, of all stripes and hues, continue to work their way into the daily life of everyone, those who are on the most familiar terms with those technologies will profit while those who are not will be marginalized.
Yep, so let's all be code talkers. I mean we already use languages nobody else understands, right? It wouldn't be too hard to make up another one, complete with arcane rules, inverted verbs, improper nouns, indefinite articles.......
Now all we need to do is figure out to get all the code talkers their new decoder rings. Maybe in pints of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
Damn! No wonder I love polysyllabic words, am logically emotional, and see differentiating similarities everywhere: I'm a fucking Vulcan! My circumcision as an infant apparently extended to my ears, that's all.
That's interesting. A friend of mine and his wife switch - his avatar is female and hers male. It's funny to hear her tell her hubby "Hay hon, shake your ass a little. (he does) She giggles "Isn't that cute?"
1. On a pedestrian level everyone's thinking is limited by what they know, whatever "know" means, yet on a more fundamental level it certainly is not. Witness intuition, flashes of "Where'd that come from?" creativity, and mental states that can only be described as super-sets of what we "know."
2. More than one scientist, of the non-pseudo variety, would hold that the "world we normally observe cannot [help but] be extrapolated from the world of the subatomic [given the appropriate level of description]." I'm referring to thinkers as diverse as Brian Green, Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, David Bohm and David Chalmers. Well sure, Chalmers is a philosopher, but cut me a break on that one, okay?
3. The world is an empirical fact? So then, you are from the Samuel Johnson "I refute it thus." school, I assume. Dr. Johnson made a point, getting a sore toe in the process, and proclaimed his theory to be superior to that of poor Bishop Berkeley, but given what we theorize today, he would be the first to admit that a return to the drawing board would be in order.
4. I'll go with you completely that the universe is part of an unknowable and encompassing whole. A favorite quote: "The universe is not only stranger than we know, it is stranger than we can know." But the basis of that quote, and any like reasoning, isn't empiricism, but rather proofs such as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
While we're discussing "big" things, consider the "bigness" of that thing that's considering these words - your brain. Think of the number of subatomic particles in a grain of sand, of the billions of electrons, neutrons, protons, and all their myriad variants and constituents that make up such a small thing. Now think of something larger, like the entire beach where you found the grain of sand. Think of how many more subatomic particles there are in something so large - a truly vast number. Keep going though, through all the beaches that there are, the oceans, all the land, the entire planet, out through all the planets, the Sun, and then roam even more. Think of all the particles that constitute all of the 400 billion stars in this average galaxy, and of all the particles in the billions of of galaxies that exist throughout the entire universe. Keep that thought.
Your brain, that three pound lump of meat between your ears, consists of about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. Very large numbers indeed but small compared to the number of subatomic particles that make it up, and vanishingly tiny when compared to the scales above. Yet it is not the sheer number of neurons and synapses that should take your breath away, that should boggle your mind, because the magic strong enough to do that is in the number of possible interconnections; the combinations and permutations that underpin everything that makes you, well, YOU. The number of neuronal/synaptic combinations and permutations in your brain, the thing thinking of these words, exceeds the total number of subatomic particles in the entire universe by three orders of magnitude! Now that's a large structure, and makes 200 million light-year wide amoebae puny by comparison.
"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
--Albert Einstein
Slashdot Mirror
The phrase tipping point or angle of repose is a sociological term that refers to that dramatic moment when something unique becomes common. It [has also] become applied to the popular acceptance of new technologies and serves as a good explanation of the success of VHS over Betamax, for instance. Adopted from Wikipedia.
It is only a matter of time. If the open source community learns the critical lessons offered by the VHS/Betamax wars, the adoption histories of analog to digital sound and imaging, and the marketing stratagies of IBM & clones vs Apple, then the result is ordained.
If the open source community doesn't learn those lessons? Oh well....
Okay, I guess so, but:
The problem lies in the differences between the perceptions and expectations of men and women who spend their lives outside of the narrow confines of Technovokia. Men who are not coders, analysts, engineers, etc. see a world where technical capability is still a basic requirement and, for the most part, go about developing that capability. Women who choose careers in non-technical fields, however, are less likely to develop the same capability. This is not inate, but is a reflection of the society at large.
This is not a huge problem, at least not yet, but it will be unless effective counter-measures are taken. As technologies, of all stripes and hues, continue to work their way into the daily life of everyone, those who are on the most familiar terms with those technologies will profit while those who are not will be marginalized.
Yep, so let's all be code talkers. I mean we already use languages nobody else understands, right? It wouldn't be too hard to make up another one, complete with arcane rules, inverted verbs, improper nouns, indefinite articles.......
Now all we need to do is figure out to get all the code talkers their new decoder rings. Maybe in pints of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.
It is a dangerous time, and I am a dangerous law.
Damn! No wonder I love polysyllabic words, am logically emotional, and see differentiating similarities everywhere: I'm a fucking Vulcan! My circumcision as an infant apparently extended to my ears, that's all.
That's interesting. A friend of mine and his wife switch - his avatar is female and hers male. It's funny to hear her tell her hubby "Hay hon, shake your ass a little. (he does) She giggles "Isn't that cute?"
Good argument but let me add a few comments:
1. On a pedestrian level everyone's thinking is limited by what they know, whatever "know" means, yet on a more fundamental level it certainly is not. Witness intuition, flashes of "Where'd that come from?" creativity, and mental states that can only be described as super-sets of what we "know."
2. More than one scientist, of the non-pseudo variety, would hold that the "world we normally observe cannot [help but] be extrapolated from the world of the subatomic [given the appropriate level of description]." I'm referring to thinkers as diverse as Brian Green, Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, David Bohm and David Chalmers. Well sure, Chalmers is a philosopher, but cut me a break on that one, okay?
3. The world is an empirical fact? So then, you are from the Samuel Johnson "I refute it thus." school, I assume. Dr. Johnson made a point, getting a sore toe in the process, and proclaimed his theory to be superior to that of poor Bishop Berkeley, but given what we theorize today, he would be the first to admit that a return to the drawing board would be in order.
4. I'll go with you completely that the universe is part of an unknowable and encompassing whole. A favorite quote: "The universe is not only stranger than we know, it is stranger than we can know." But the basis of that quote, and any like reasoning, isn't empiricism, but rather proofs such as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
While we're discussing "big" things, consider the "bigness" of that thing that's considering these words - your brain. Think of the number of subatomic particles in a grain of sand, of the billions of electrons, neutrons, protons, and all their myriad variants and constituents that make up such a small thing. Now think of something larger, like the entire beach where you found the grain of sand. Think of how many more subatomic particles there are in something so large - a truly vast number. Keep going though, through all the beaches that there are, the oceans, all the land, the entire planet, out through all the planets, the Sun, and then roam even more. Think of all the particles that constitute all of the 400 billion stars in this average galaxy, and of all the particles in the billions of of galaxies that exist throughout the entire universe. Keep that thought.
Your brain, that three pound lump of meat between your ears, consists of about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. Very large numbers indeed but small compared to the number of subatomic particles that make it up, and vanishingly tiny when compared to the scales above. Yet it is not the sheer number of neurons and synapses that should take your breath away, that should boggle your mind, because the magic strong enough to do that is in the number of possible interconnections; the combinations and permutations that underpin everything that makes you, well, YOU. The number of neuronal/synaptic combinations and permutations in your brain, the thing thinking of these words, exceeds the total number of subatomic particles in the entire universe by three orders of magnitude! Now that's a large structure, and makes 200 million light-year wide amoebae puny by comparison.
"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --Albert Einstein