There is another paper out of UCLA that is similar to this one except with somewhat opposing results. In which, the authors show analytically that the rich-get-richer phenomenon does exist. http://oak.cs.ucla.edu/~cho/papers/cho-bias.pdf
It seems tough to reconcile these two sets of findings, and this new paper even makes mention of this:
"The connection between the popularity of a page and its acquisition of new links has led to the well-known rich-get-richer growth paradigm that explains many of the observed topological features of the Web. The present findings, however, show that several non-linear mechanisms involving search engine algorithms and user behavior regulate the popularity of pages. This calls for a new theoretical framework that considers more of the various behavioral and semantic issues that shape the evolution of the Web. How such a framework may yield coherent models that still agree with the Web's observed topological properties is a difficult and important theoretical challenge."
Maybe the moderators just wish it wasn't the case profs had to kiss asses like they do. Because that unfortunate reality is one of the flaws in an otherwise perfect occupation.
I'd like to add I saw RMS do a seminar at the CFP 1998 conference (Computer Freedom and Privacy) at Austin with many people from the University's law program present, and I found his statements there more in line with what he states in his response then to what Al3x thought he had said.
At the conference he said things acknowledging the difference in the kinds of law reform that should be applied to different types of copyrights (i.e. written media, online media, and software) and also towards patent laws. He didn't ever say destroy all these types of IP law, he really just proposed changes like shorting the copyright down a couple of decades from its current obscene mickey-mouse's lobbying levels, and considered ideas of making software copyrights much shorter than other copyrights (say 15 years) since it wasn't going to be that big a deal if you gave your sister a copy of dos 2.0 to put on her spare intel 286...
I don't recall what he said in response to patents because something kind of funny was taking place at that time so I probably didn't pay enough attention then.
Note that this was over 4 years ago.. His general ideas seem to be in line with those of 4 years ago, or even further back considering the inception of the FSF and his actions go much further back all seemingly steming from the same general philosophy.
You know I never got the feeling that RMS constructed arguments to appeal to emotion like you claim. In fact I've found most of his arguments to be based on rather well structured reasoning which he usually makes a good deal of effort to present what that line of reasoning is he doesn't seem to do a lot of hand waving or jedi mind tricks like you seem to feel.
Also I don't think he was trying to buy anything off those examples of previous civil rights activists, other then to point out that its hasn't always been a losing strategy.
I don't feel he was trying to elevate the DRM issues to the level of the enormous civil injustices of past.
To make my point clearer refer to RMS's comment he states his actions were "mild" on the scale of those kind of disobeidences.
People take the measures they deem nessacary to a certain situation right?So if you needed to cut a vine in your back yard you might use a simple pocket knife and if you were cutting down big jungle brush you might invest in a machate right?
I think any one whose ever been in the same room as RMS, and the many who have read his statements, essays, etc.. know he's a pretty intense guy and he can feel pretty strongly about things. As passionate as he gets about many of his political beliefs. I imagine if he were protesting an some large scale unhumane action, like say torture and mass killing, RMS is moved enough by his views about an issue... That in the case of that kind of issue I'd be willing to bet he'd be one of the protesters chained to something, then being tear-gassed and dragged away. He'd filled enough by his passion to abandon his own safety.
Cygnus makes money don't they.. I think there are many standard software types that could follow a free software model. I'm not so sure it would work in every single situation. But surely theres many companys who center themselves aroudn proprietary software, and whose to say they couldn't work a free software model. But I'm going a little further than that, and I'm saying that many of the companys that come to mind could manage under some other free-software model that
just needs a little thinking and hard work implementing.
Explain software bugs then.. When they get out of hand people get pissed.. then its not understandable.. but when someone lets something small past them and not a thousand little bugs resulting in repetitve crashes or annoying behavior.. people understand.
I think here the equivalent is more like if AG contiually fucks up in this way then they're being negligent, but missing something that gave the impression of being legit by looking like a legit dll that came with a non spyware bundle, is acceptable. So as I try to point out in my previous comment is that AG is going to have to take more measures in the future to avoid making such a mistake..
A mistake is just that, and should be treated as one.. in your car analogy, you wouldn't be executed you woulnd't be a murderer you'd get charged with involentary man slaughter, the case gets treated differently depending on how it happens..
But lets put this in a better context rather than a life or death situation like yours above.. if your are at work at your job and your not a habitual fuck-up, and you make a silly mistake and overlook a small detail.. do you want your boss to yell at you and ride you, perhaps even fire you.
no you'd call that an unreasonable boss...
The world would be a better place if people learned to be a little more understanding, but still balanced that with some sternness. Thats all I'm saying.
Unfortunately the free has two meanings in english, one to do with money, and one to do with free-dom.
Free software is about the free-dom part, but coincedentaly most is also very free as in money.
This probably has more to do with the fact that of who is developling free software right now, but if more companies developed business models around
free software, this distinction would be easier seen.
I think its very possible to make money releasing free software, but conservative companies aren't going to take risks, and people aren't getting creative enought to find the business opportunities. Sounds a lot like how the PC started, less to do with previous business models adapting to a new idea, and more to do with people with BALLS and creativity making it happen.
I think its more important to mention this wouldn't happen in Free Software, not because "more eyeballs" or different mindsets. Its because real Free software or software libre, allows you to make modifications and re-release the modified code freely. Thank you RMS.
This VERY important, perhaps defining characteristic, of "free software" would be a direct reason preventing wide-spread spyware. Say a GPL'd program had spyware built in, someone might not even see the source, run a binary, notice the wierd behavior or network activity. After its brought to peoples attention that could definately motivate someone else to modify the code, re-release it, and then as word got out people would be downloading the privacy ensured version instead. Making the spyware version pointless even to the people spying since they have no one to spy on.
don't run windows so I can't test to see.. but it could of been another program that happened to install it.. If you got the newest version of AG from their site, then I'd bet you it wasn't AG that installed vx2 on your machine.
Slipped past the guys at AG, but understandable
on
Spyware in Audio Galaxy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having worked at Audiogalaxy this past summer, I can assure you its not the case that they meant to bundle this, it had to have happened by accident.
Its bundling goes against their views of making all bundled software opt-in, meaning the user must check a little box to opt-in otherwise the default setting is to not install bundled stuff.
After reading the wired article, I think its pretty understandable how this slipped past the guys at Audiogalaxy. The spyware mentioned is just one little file vx2.dll. Since it came with onflows advertising software, To the guys at AG it must of looked like it was a dll that onflow dynamically linked their code to. It just goes to show you how sneaky companies like vx2 are. I bet spyware companys just try and sumberse themselves further like the parasite they are, and just go tag their BS onto legit dll's.
Knowing how the folks at AG are they'll be taking a fine comb thorough their bundleware to maintain that opt-in philosophy.
You should be running the unstable tree if
you want to keep up with the latest versions of
stuff. Unstable already has the gnome 1.4 packages available.. Testing is a frozen set of
packages, so the versions there aren't gonna
change much. Omar El-Domeiri
I still don't think that 2.4 will be out by fall. Althought its only been a few months since 2.2 came out and 2.3 is already about to be frozen. There was a lot of new features being worked on and not merged with the main kernel months before 2.2 came out when 2.1 was frozen, and were shot into 2.3 as soon as it was open season.
Slashdot Mirror
There is another paper out of UCLA that is similar to this one except with somewhat opposing results. In which, the authors show analytically that the rich-get-richer phenomenon does exist. http://oak.cs.ucla.edu/~cho/papers/cho-bias.pdf
It seems tough to reconcile these two sets of findings, and this new paper even makes mention of this:
"The connection between the popularity of a page and its acquisition of new links has led to the well-known rich-get-richer growth paradigm that explains many of the observed topological features of the Web. The present findings, however, show that several non-linear mechanisms involving search engine algorithms and user behavior regulate the popularity of pages. This calls for a new theoretical framework that considers more of the various behavioral and semantic issues that shape the evolution of the Web. How such a framework may yield coherent models that still agree with the Web's observed topological properties is a difficult and important theoretical
challenge."
Dear god people, its not that they don't have backups... its that they feel the backups might be compromised as well.
Maybe the moderators just wish it wasn't the case profs had to kiss asses like they do. Because that unfortunate reality is one of the flaws in an otherwise perfect occupation.
I'd like to add I saw RMS do a seminar at the CFP 1998 conference (Computer Freedom and Privacy)
at Austin with many people from the University's law program present, and I found his statements there more in line with what he states in his response then to what Al3x thought he had said.
At the conference he said things acknowledging the difference in the kinds of law reform that should be applied to different types of copyrights (i.e. written media, online media, and software) and also towards patent laws. He didn't ever say destroy all these types of IP law, he really just proposed changes like shorting the copyright down a couple of decades from its current obscene mickey-mouse's lobbying levels, and considered ideas of making software copyrights much shorter than other copyrights (say 15 years) since it wasn't going to be that big a deal if you gave your sister a copy of dos 2.0 to put on her spare intel 286...
I don't recall what he said in response to patents
because something kind of funny was taking place at that time so I probably didn't pay enough attention then.
Note that this was over 4 years ago.. His general ideas seem to be in line with those of 4 years ago, or even further back considering the inception of the FSF and his actions go much further back all seemingly steming from the same general philosophy.
You know I never got the feeling that RMS constructed arguments to appeal to emotion like you claim. In fact I've found most of his arguments to be based on rather well structured reasoning which he usually makes a good deal of effort to present what that line of reasoning is he doesn't seem to do a lot of hand waving or jedi mind tricks like you seem to feel.
Also I don't think he was trying to buy anything off those examples of previous civil rights activists, other then to point out that its hasn't always been a losing strategy.
I don't feel he was trying to elevate the DRM issues to the level of the enormous civil injustices of past.
To make my point clearer refer to RMS's comment he states his actions were "mild" on the scale of those kind of disobeidences.
People take the measures they deem nessacary to a certain situation right?So if you needed to cut a vine in your back yard you might use a simple pocket knife and if you were cutting down big jungle brush you might invest in a machate right?
I think any one whose ever been in the same room as RMS, and the many who have read his statements, essays, etc.. know he's a pretty intense guy and he can feel pretty strongly about things. As passionate as he gets about many of his political beliefs. I imagine if he were protesting an some large scale unhumane action, like say torture and mass killing, RMS is moved enough by his views about an issue... That in the case of that kind of
issue I'd be willing to bet he'd be one of the
protesters chained to something, then being tear-gassed and dragged away. He'd filled enough by his passion to abandon his own safety.
So I think its settled they're still as opt-out as I said.
Cygnus makes money don't they.. I think there are many standard software types that could follow a free software model. I'm not so sure it would work in every single situation. But surely theres many companys who center themselves aroudn proprietary software, and whose to say they couldn't work a free software model. But I'm going a little further than that, and I'm saying that many of the companys that come to mind could manage under some other free-software model that
just needs a little thinking and hard work implementing.
Explain software bugs then.. When they get out of hand people get pissed.. then its not understandable.. but when someone lets something small past them and not a thousand little bugs resulting in repetitve crashes or annoying behavior.. people understand.
I think here the equivalent is more like if AG contiually fucks up in this way then they're being negligent, but missing something that gave the impression of being legit by looking like a legit dll that came with a non spyware bundle, is acceptable. So as I try to point out in my previous comment is that AG is going to have to take more measures in the future to avoid making such a mistake..
A mistake is just that, and should be treated as one.. in your car analogy, you wouldn't be executed you woulnd't be a murderer you'd get charged with involentary man slaughter, the case gets treated differently depending on how it happens..
But lets put this in a better context rather than a life or death situation like yours above.. if your are at work at your job and your not a habitual fuck-up, and you make a silly mistake and overlook a small detail.. do you want your boss to yell at you and ride you, perhaps even fire you.
no you'd call that an unreasonable boss...
The world would be a better place if people learned to be a little more understanding, but still balanced that with some sternness. Thats all I'm saying.
Unfortunately the free has two meanings in english, one to do with money, and one to do with free-dom.
Free software is about the free-dom part, but coincedentaly most is also very free as in money.
This probably has more to do with the fact that of who is developling free software right now, but if more companies developed business models around
free software, this distinction would be easier seen.
I think its very possible to make money releasing free software, but conservative companies aren't going to take risks, and people aren't getting creative enought to find the business opportunities. Sounds a lot like how the PC started, less to do with previous business models adapting to a new idea, and more to do with people with BALLS and creativity making it happen.
I think its more important to mention this wouldn't happen in Free Software, not because "more eyeballs" or different mindsets. Its because real Free software or software libre, allows you to make modifications and re-release the modified code freely. Thank you RMS.
This VERY important, perhaps defining characteristic, of "free software" would be a direct reason preventing wide-spread spyware. Say a GPL'd program had spyware built in, someone might not even see the source, run a binary, notice the wierd behavior or network activity. After its brought to peoples attention that could definately motivate someone else to modify the code, re-release it, and then as word got out people would be downloading the privacy ensured version instead. Making the spyware version pointless even to the people spying since they have no one to spy on.
don't run windows so I can't test to see.. but it could of been another program that happened to install it.. If you got the newest version of AG from their site, then I'd bet you it wasn't AG that installed vx2 on your machine.
Having worked at Audiogalaxy this past summer, I can assure you its not the case that they meant to bundle this, it had to have happened by accident.
Its bundling goes against their views of making all bundled software opt-in, meaning the user must check a little box to opt-in otherwise the default setting is to not install bundled stuff.
After reading the wired article, I think its pretty understandable how this slipped past the guys at Audiogalaxy. The spyware mentioned is just one little file vx2.dll. Since it came with onflows advertising software, To the guys at AG it must of looked like it was a dll that onflow dynamically linked their code to. It just goes to show you how sneaky companies like vx2 are. I bet spyware companys just try and sumberse themselves further like the parasite they are, and just go tag their BS onto legit dll's.
Knowing how the folks at AG are they'll be taking a fine comb thorough their bundleware to maintain that opt-in philosophy.
You should be running the unstable tree if
you want to keep up with the latest versions of
stuff. Unstable already has the gnome 1.4 packages available.. Testing is a frozen set of
packages, so the versions there aren't gonna
change much.
Omar El-Domeiri
Thank you for setting this straight.. I saw that paper and pen comment and just about spewed my grape jolt cola.
Omar El-Domeiri
I still don't think that 2.4 will be out by fall.
Althought its only been a few months since 2.2 came out and 2.3 is already about to be frozen.
There was a lot of new features being worked
on and not merged with the main kernel months
before 2.2 came out when 2.1 was frozen, and were
shot into 2.3 as soon as it was open season.
-Omar
Omar El-Domeiri