Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashback: ODF Wars, Duval Layoff, French DRM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Mar 22, 2006 06:59 PM
from the changing-the-world-one-commitee-at-a-time dept.
Slashback Microsoft Apple Linux
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including a response from Mandriva's CEO, Apple responds to French DRM legislation, Microsoft possibly undermining ODF ISO approval, a more in-depth look at Fedora Core 5, more thoughts on the GPLv3, and Britannica strikes back at Wikipedia -- Read on for details.

Mandriva CEO responds to Duval Layoff. UltimaGuy writes "Duval has detailed his side of the story, 'Fired. Yes. Simply fired, for economical reasons, along with a few other ones. More than 7 years after I created Mandrake-Linux and then Mandrakesoft, the current boss of Mandriva "thanks me" and I'm leaving, sad, with my two-month salary indemnity standard package. It's difficult to accept that back in 1998 I created my job and the one of many other people, and that recently, on a February afternoon, Mandriva's CEO called to tell me that I was leaving.' Mandriva's CEO has responded, stating that 'Gael was not fired. This term would imply something wrong on his part, which was not the case. He was laid off.'"

Apple responds to French DRM legislation. Sardon writes "In the aftermath of France's move to force companies to open their DRM, Apple has shot back. Calling the proposed legislation "state-sponsored piracy," Apple complained loudly about the prospects of opening up their DRM, arguing that DRM interoperability tools would just increase piracy. However, as the article points out, DRM interoperability isn't likely to make a significant contribution to piracy, seeing as how P2P networks are already flooded. If the measure passes the French Senate, Apple may consider closing its music operations in France."

Microsoft possibly undermining ODF ISO approval. Andy Updegrove writes "If you haven't been paying attention to the odf(oasis) vs. xmlrs(microsoft) format wars, here is what is happening... Both formats need iso approval. This process is very thorough all complaints and gripes are heard and reviewed, which takes quite a bit of time. It is easy for voters to slow this process down considerably. And, our good friends Microsoft joined a very small subcommittee called 'V1 Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface.' It just so happens that this small subcommittee (six companies - including Microsoft) is the entity charged with reconciling the votes that are being cast in the ISO vote to adopt the OASIS OpenDocument Format. So, presumably, Microsoft is going to delay ODF's ISO approval in hopes of xmlrs getting approval first and being the chosen format in Europe."

A more in-depth look at Fedora Core 5. LinuxForums has posted a much more in-depth look at the install process and functionality of the new Fedora Core 5 release. From the article: "I have to say though: this distribution impressed me in a way that no other distribution did before. Some things should of course be improved, such as the automatic hardware detection or, as mentioned above, the menus. But apart from these little details I can confidently say that Fedora Core 5 is the best desktop GNU/Linux distribution available at the moment."

More thoughts on the GPLv3. Guttata writes "Forbes has an interview with Richard Stallman on the upcoming GPLv3, which touches on Linus' stance on keeping the kernel at GPLv2. The article also shows Stallman's take on DRM, especially in reference to areas such as TiVo." Relatedly Glyn Moody writes "The FSF's General Counsel, Eben Moglen, explains why there is no situation in which the brokenness or otherwise of the GPL is ever an issue. Thanks to copyright law, GPL violators are always in the wrong."

Britannica strikes back at Wikipedia. tiltowait writes "Remember that study published by Nature magazine which likened Wikipedia's reliability to that of Encyclopedia Britannica? Well, Britannica has released -- not corrections -- but a corporate response stating that 'Nature's research was invalid [...] almost everything about the Nature's investigation was wrong and misleading.' So then, is this just one more example of how refereed journals can't be trusted?"

Related Stories

[+] France To Force iTunes to Open to Other Players? 325 comments
JordanL writes "It appears that France is pushing through a law that some feel may force Apple to open iTunes to other players. From the article: 'Under a draft law expected to be voted in parliament on Thursday, consumers would be able to legally use software that converts digital content into any format. It would no longer be illegal to crack digital rights management -- the codes that protect music, films and other content -- if it is to enable to the conversion from one format to another.'"
[+] Nitpicking Wikipedia's Vulnerabilities 545 comments
tiltowait writes "A lot of Wikipedia critics point to hypothetical situations when giving reasons for not valuing the site. Wikipedia even has a 'Replies to common objections' article set up to field these. I'd rather look at some real examples of applying the same level of scrutiny to materials often held up as the Platonic ideal of 'scholarship,' such as peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, established journalism sources, monographs, and print encyclopedias. Even these have disclaimers because they can be can be vandalized or have their reliability and accuracy questioned. As dangerous as it is to trust unverified information, it can be just as bad to make prior judgments discounting information because the source happens to be anonymous. The above examples illustrate that all materials existing along a continuum of valuable information formats. Wikipedia articles can be useful for quickly obtaining factual overviews or as a starting point to further research. But that's just one librarian's opinion. How do tech-savvy people view Wikipedia?"
[+] Science: Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica 418 comments
Raul654 writes "Nature magazine recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare 42 science-related articles. The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's." Interesting, considering some past claims. Story available on the BBC as well.
[+] Linux: Mandriva Fires Founder Gael Duval, Who Plans to Sue 267 comments
Otter writes "Mandrake Linux founder Gael Duval has confirmed that Mandriva has let him go." A few hours later, Newsforge (owned by the same company that owns Slashdot) did an exclusive IRC interview with Gael in which he said he plans to sue his former employer for "abusive layoff." This is a sad day for Mandriva -- and for GNU/Linux in general. Gael was the founder and heart of the original Mandrake (now Mandriva) project, which was the first Linux distribution designed to be easy for non-technical users to install and administer. There is plenty of consternation in the Mandriva Club Forums about whether the company will go on supporting individual desktop users as strongly as it has in the past.
[+] Your Rights Online: Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance 256 comments
Jim writes "Microsoft has joined a committee that has a key role in the ratification of OpenDocument as an international standard, leading to accusations that it intends to sabotage the process. Microsoft has denied this accusation, claiming that the only reason why Microsoft employee Jim Thatcher has joined the group was to get involved in the ISO standardisation of its own file format." From the article: "'There sits Microsoft, waiting, like a spider,' wrote Jones, in a posting on her site. 'I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, did you mean this or that?, getting bogged down in minutia until, lo and behold, either Microsoft's XML makes it as an ISO standard first, or they arrive neck and neck.'" More information here on a subject we touched on in a recent Slashback. update a few readers have asked for the clarification that MSFT has not joined ODF, but rather the "INCITS/V1 Technical Committee"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Slashback: ODF Wars, Duval Layoff, French DRM 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • Gael was not fired. (Score:2, Funny)

    by mctk (840035)
    He was reassigned. He won't need to come into the office. He can do this job from home. Call it early retirement, but without pension.

  • Uhh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jb.hl.com (782137) <joe AT joe-baldwin DOT net> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:09PM (#14977025) Homepage Journal
    I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the P2P-ftw free-the-culture anarcho-whatever shite that gets punted around here sometimes, but for Christ's sake what is Apple on? People have been using Hymn and the like for ages, and if they're stripping the DRM out of bought files for use on other players they are still buying from Apple and giving Apple money for the privilege. By definition, they wouldn't be going to P2P. If anything, if they up and leave France, all that will happen is that either P2P will become the only option for iPod owners or people will buy Creative/Archos/other PlaysForSure players and Napster or whatever will get their money. The only way this could become a win for piracy is if Apple makes it one.

    • Re:Uhh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BillyBlaze (746775) <tfelker2@uiuc.edu> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:40PM (#14977249) Homepage
      It used to be common to hear the argument, "Apple doesn't like DRM, they only use it because otherwise the popular music oligopoly wouldn't let them sell their music." Now we know that isn't true. Apple likes DRM just as much as the big music companies, just for a different reason - Apple wants iTunes purchases to work only on the iPod.
      [ Parent ]
      • How anyone could seriously believe a disney man would hate DRM is beyond me. Well not really beyond me. I am too old and bitter and cynical and paranoid for that. People are stupid.

        MS is doing DRM but also fights it. As a gigantic player it knows deep dow

    • Re:Uhh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tbo (35008)
      People have been using Hymn and the like for ages, and if they're stripping the DRM out of bought files for use on other players they are still buying from Apple and giving Apple money for the privilege

      Apple doesn't make much money (directly) from the iTun

      • You actually believe that? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ahnteis (746045)
        And for some reason people still believe that line.

        Yet Apple refuses to license (for more money!) their DRM and let someone ELSE sale music that will play on the ipod.

        They're obviously either making money or planning to make money from music sales.

      • Re:Uhh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by shark72 (702619) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:52PM (#14977962)

        "Apple doesn't make much money (directly) from the iTunes Music Store--Steve Jobs himself has said this."

        To clarify... Steve said that more than a year ago, when the iTMS was in startup mode. Analysts state that it's making money now.

        "Oh, sure, people can use Hymn, but Joe User isn't that sophisticated."

        Spot on. The GP used the "everybody is like Slashdotters" fallacy. I'm fairly non-technical. I could use Hymn or buy-burn-rip to get content from iTMS to my Creative player, but it's not worth the hassle of learning new software, or the effort. So, my next player will be an Apple. If interoperatability were legislated where I live, I would buy a Creative player, not an Apple player, next time. Simple as that.

        [ Parent ]

    • Re:Uhh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Krach42 (227798)
      if they're stripping the DRM out of bought files for use on other players they are still buying from Apple and giving Apple money for the privilege. By definition, they wouldn't be going to P2P

      The issue isn't that Apple would still get money for the music.

  • French pirate babes (Score:5, Funny)

    by babbling (952366) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:10PM (#14977029) Homepage
    Ho ho ho. "State sponsored piracy!" I like it. It has a nice ring to it. A bit like "state sponsored terrorism". Those bastard French people are trying to take away our freedom by taking restrictions out of DRM! Oh, wait...

    Yes, naughty little French pirates. They need to be punished. They need to know what it feels like. I implore all Slashdotters to head over to Google Video and pirate some Alizee music videos [google.com]. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past couple of years, Alizee is a hot French babe... uhh, I mean, PIRATE!

    • Re:French pirate babes (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Since it is stae sponsored wouldn't they be music-privateers?
    • They used the wrong term. State sponsored pirates are called Buckaneers. At least that's what I've learned they were, someone feel free to beat me over the head with Wikipedia.
      • Phwoar. Hot French buckaneer Alizee!! For some reason, putting it in those terms does even more for me than when it was "French pirate babe Alizee!"

        Good work! :-)

      • Let the beatings begin. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Eevee (535658)

        The term you want is privateer [wikipedia.org]. Privateers had letters of marque which legitimized their attacks as being sponsored by a government. (Except for the Spanish, who had a habit of refusing to honor letters of marque and just hanged them as common pirates.) B [wikipedia.org]

    • Jeeezzz.. (Score:3, Funny)

      by jd (1658)
      You'll be telling us next that we should go round to France and collectively punish the French pirate babes by spanking them, or something. You're weird.

    • Re:French pirate babes (Score:5, Informative)

      by Exaton (523551) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:56PM (#14977358) Homepage
      Take this video in particular [google.com], for example. Gotta have some reason to love France... And my God guys, you should understand the lyrics... It's all about her relaxing in a bubble bath, her soft skin, etc. (not kidding). See that "2" logo in the top right ? That's France 2, the most important public channel (and in this country the public channels are neck to neck with the private ones for popularity). Still not kidding.

      Now for the less jowful news. I happen to live in France, as you might have gathered, and I'm a bit surprised by the international analysis of the DADVSI law (since that's it name) that indeed got through Parliament tuesday evening.

      The fact is that the government has :

      • legalized DRM,
      • set up a standard parking-ticket style fine for downloading pirated stuff and another for making content available to others (38 and 150 euros respectively, about 45 and 180 USD),
      • decided that P2P software makers were liable to pay 300'000 euros and spend 3 years in prison,
      • given up on the "monthly subscription to be allowed to download legally" deal, under pressure from the local RIAA associates that forced a vast majority of artists to back them,
      • completely forbidden copying of a DVD, even as a personal backup,
      • and simply required that DRM'd files be interoperable, which is where Apple's beef is.

      I'm very flattered by all the positive light this is being shown in internationally, it's not every day the world has nice things to say about this country, but I must point out that IT enthusiasts over here are miserably decrying this law, and would probably be in the streets themselves if they weren't already chocablock with students demonstrating :-(
      [ Parent ]
  • MS is in danger of becoming the company on the outside looking in. Their document formats have been a nightmare to tech support and average people over the years, and with an open ISO standard looming in the next years, every office product under the sun
    • Your last sentence is exactly what MS is going to stall or prevent at all costs. MS is good at this game. Don't be surprised if they manage to stall ODF all the way until the next, NEXT version of Office is out.
  • I'd be a little more convinced by Brittanica's argument if they'd submitted it as a letter to the editor or some other peer reviewed article, either to Nature or somewhere else. Why should we believe their claims carry more weight than those written in Na

  • Fired (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Audent (35893) <audent@ilovebisQ ... .com minus punct> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:11PM (#14977043) Homepage
    let go...
    relieved of command...
    disestablished...
    made redundant...
    surplus to requirements...

    it all amounts to the same thing at the end of the day: Yer Outta Here.

  • http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060321 1 63230297 [groklaw.net]

    The www.consortiuminfo.org blog links to her, but I know some /.'ers won't RTFA, but maybe Grok Law will get their attention.

  • Laid off!? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:23PM (#14977127) Homepage
    Gael was not fired. He was laid off.

    I'm sorry but the founder is not laid off. He quits if he tires of the company's direction or he's fired if he becomes an obstacle but he's not laid off. It's a question of morale: If the founder himself is of so little value that he can be laid off then every other employee is worthless too. When your employer shows they don't value your presence its past time to jump ship.

    • Re:Laid off!? (Score:2, Informative)

      by XaXXon (202882)
      This is an irrational statement. Anyone who is in the position to be fired can be laid off. "Founder" doesn't mean jack once you start giving out bits of your company to other people. This puts you in a position where you aren't responsible for making t

  • Troubling statement from RMS.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swift Kick (240510) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:23PM (#14977133)
    After reading the RMS interview with Forbes, what really stuck out was the following question and his reply:

    Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?

    It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).

    Am I the only one that sees this statement as a dangerous precedent? I mean, for all intents and purposes, RMS feels that 'stealing' copyrighted code is justifiable, if it's done with the intent to "liberate it".

    Maybe you might consider this a trolling or a flame, but I think that it is quotes such as these that may end up bringing the most amount of trouble for the RMS crowd... I think the man is losing touch with reality, and approaching a point where zealotry is clowding his judgment to a dangerous level. How can we convince businesses that using the GPL and open source is a GOOOD THING if one of the main characters is in effect condoning IP theft if done for the 'right reasons'?

    • Re:Troubling statement from RMS.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aralin (107264) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:47PM (#14977302)
      If you don't consider making code proprietary to be ethical, you clearly cannot consider liberating the code to be unethical. But if you noticed, he is still aware, that although he considers it ethical, it is illegal and thus it should not be done. The comment is perfectly in check with his moral views and he could not in a clear conscience make any other statement. The fact that your moral values are different does not make him lunatic. You could call Christians lunatics, just because they hold different moral values. Not that some people wouldn't, but that does not make it right. Stop complaining and show some respect for man that has firm moral believes and stands up and speaks out for them. You might disagree, but do so respectfully.
      [ Parent ]
    • But, conversely, how can one claim to believe in something if they don't follow it through to its logical conclusions? What if 100 years from now the concept of intellectual property is long gone and considered archaic. We'd consider RMS's statement logi

    • Am I the only one that sees this statement as a dangerous precedent? I mean, for all intents and purposes, RMS feels that 'stealing' copyrighted code is justifiable, if it's done with the intent to "liberate it".

      It's not a "dangerous precedent," as you

    • How can we convince businesses that using the GPL and open source is a GOOOD THING if one of the main characters is in effect condoning IP theft if done for the 'right reasons'?

      I hope you make the difference between ethical and legal. RMS never said it was

    • Maybe you might consider this a trolling or a flame, but I think that it is quotes such as these that may end up bringing the most amount of trouble for the RMS crowd... I think the man is losing touch with reality, and approaching a point where zealotry

  • Privateer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HaeMaker (221642) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:24PM (#14977141) Homepage
    I believe the word Apple is looking for is "Privateer". A state-sponsored pirate is a privateer.

    • Re:Privateer (Score:4, Funny)

      by Experiment 626 (698257) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:28PM (#14977163)

      I believe the word Apple is looking for is "Privateer". A state-sponsored pirate is a privateer.

      I like it! Maybe France will start granting people Letters of Marque.

      [ Parent ]

  • GNU/Linux (Score:2, Troll)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997)
    heh...Stallman is still at his old game of "if I tell people it's mine over and over, someone will eventually believe it."

    The FSF has already had its chance to bundle their tools around their own kernel with Hurd and that has failed miserably after MANY ye
    • It's unfair to say Stallman is trying to tell people something that isn't his is. He's just a stickler for precise thought, and doesn't like the (admittedly fuzzy, but convenient) practice of calling the Linux kernel, plus a bunch of stuff from GNU, (and

    • Re:GNU/Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2006, @08:22PM (#14977541)
      If DRM is permitted in works distributed under the GPL, then the GPL has no effect. A corporation can take your GPLed code, add DRM to it, and re-release it; then nobody else (including you) can modify/reuse that version as was intended by the GPL.

      This is not some irrelevant issue. It's a significant loophole which the DRM-related clauses attempt to close.
      [ Parent ]

  • State Sponsored Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rossz (67331) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:34PM (#14977210) Homepage Journal
    That would be "privateering". A country would issue a letter of marque to a ship-owner/captain giving them leave to attack all of their country's enemies". Sometimes a priviteer's definition of "country's enemies" was a bit loose, though.

  • Apple responds to French DRM legislation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baseball_Fan (959550) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:36PM (#14977237)
    The world may close up tight. Imagine the day when different countries have different laws about how DRM can work. What is legal in the USA might be illegal in France. And what is legal in Canada might be illegal in England. China might decide to have government controlled DRM, a phone home system that tells government what you're installing and what you're doing. It might be somewhat easier for people to break the law, but when the law is directed at a company, the company must comply or shut down.

    I know in this instance France wants Apple to open their DRM. But who is to say that another state might want to close DRM?

    What we might end up with is worse than DVD's that are region coded. We might get the hardware that is region specific, and no other method of opening data (music, files, movies).

    I think the world will move in that direction. What other reason would Sony or Universal have for forcing regions with DVD's? Why are they opposed of me buying movies from Spain or Germany? And if a company is so paranoid, just imagine nation-states that are worried their culture is being corroded away.

  • From previous experience, the Fedora installation has been painfully slow. You can see the (lack of) activity when it's copying over packages from the CDROM. It copies the package, installs it to the hard drive, copies another package, installs that, and

  • Love the quality of spin (Score:4, Informative)

    by hayden (9724) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:53PM (#14977330)
    I think this comment from one of the engineers at ArsDigita directed to one of the VC suits that flew the company into the side of a mountain is appropriate:

    "You talk like a press release."
    -- David Rodriguez

    He was also "laid off" due to economic pressure (ie the new directors turned a profitable $20 million a year in revenue company into something that burned through twice that amount in less than a year before imploding). If you want to see the whole story it's here [waxy.org].

  • This is America (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paranoia Agent (887026) <keithmichael @ g m a il.com> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:56PM (#14977363) Homepage
    Call it "Freedom DRM".

  • S.O.P. for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:58PM (#14977377) Homepage
    They somehow think "competing" involves impeding the competitors rather than simply trying to be superior. And I think that's the crux of most people's problem with Microsoft.

    I am referring to, of course, Microsoft's strange participation in the subcommittee involved in getting ODF ISO approved. They declined any and all participation in creating ODF and yet somehow they are involved in getting it ISO approved? Microsoft is now something along the lines of the fox guarding the henhouse.

    And when I discuss Microsoft's "competitive" activities, I tend to think of elementary school kids running the 100 yard dash where Microsoft, instead of simply running as fast as it can, resorts to tying the laces of the shoes of other kids or to tripping them in some fashion.

    Although "Competing" and "Impeding" rhyme nicely enough, they are certainly VERY different approaches when trying to win and one of them is often cause for legal retaliation.

  • Britannica... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tktk (540564) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @07:59PM (#14977379)
    Was Britannica ever a big deal? I used it in elementary school and stopped once I got to junior high. In high school, our teachers specifically told use not to use encyclopedias for our papers. And this was in the 80s.

  • Britannica response (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teslatug (543527) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:02PM (#14977757)
    It's funny, Britannica says the reviewers did not provide any sources for their ascertions, and then they go and say for every criticism "We do not accept this." Well, as long as the all knowing Britannica does not accept it, it must be invalid. All bow to the true keepers of knowledge.

  • Science without review is Junk Science (Score:4, Informative)

    by olman (127310) on Thursday March 23 2006, @05:28AM (#14979283)
    http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/23/britannica_w ikipedia_nature_study/ [theregister.com] Register has nice write up about it all. Apparently Nature cooked the study in a manner worthy of WMD spinmeisters pre IRAQ invasion.

    And why should anyone be surprised? 14-year-old with too much time on his hands has as much weight in wikipedia as some 50-year-old senior academic in a given subject. More in practice as the said teenager can sit all night making revisions whereas the prof probably has classes and schoolwork to go over..

  • I know a bit about genetics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prizog (42097) <novalis-slashdotNO@SPAMnovalis.org> on Thursday March 23 2006, @09:52PM (#14985372) Homepage
    Reviewer comment: Yes, [Nature reviewer unclear here] in using the language of individual-level fitness and selection; but this was also a shortcoming of Hamilton's original formulation. Thus to say `They all carry the same genes...' (para 1) is misleading because what matters is not the totality of genes shared but the probability that relatives share a specific gene (strictly allele), in this case the one coding for the altruistic trait. By the same token, `individual fitness' is a proxy for allele fitness, again, in this case, specifically the allele for the altruistic trait. Kin selection is THE paradigm of the gene selection argument; it actually makes no sense when couched at the level of individual fitness. The problem cascades through the piece, thus: Par2, lines 4-5 - should be `A parent has a probability of 0.5 (or a half ) of sharing any given gene (again actually allele) with each progeny ...' and last line - should be `...because it increases the probability of transmission of the parental gene for caring.'

    Britannica response: There is no inaccuracy here. We stand by our author, Francisco Ayala, who insists that the reviewer is wrong through and through: the altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection because relatives share (in fractions depending on the degree of relatedness) all their genes.


    I can't see the original article (Britannica attacks Nature for not making their data available, but they're guilty of the same thing).

    But it sounds like the reviewer was saying that the Britannica article conflates individual fitness with allele fitness.

    Example: imagine a species S. A grenade is thrown at five individuals of species S. If one of them jumps on it, she will die but the other four will live. Else, each will die with probabilty 0.5. Should she do it? If we are looking at things from her individual point of view, she should not do it *no matter her relation to the other individuals*. Nobody's individual survival is benefitted by dying. But if we are looking at things from the point of view of her alleles, then her relation to the other four do make sense. If they are her clones, then the allele has a 0% chance of dying off at this moment if she does it, and a 1 in 32 chance if she doesn't. The average numbers of survivors is also higher: 4 vs 2.5.

    It's true that the presence of altruistic individuals increases everyone's survival odds -- nonetheless, altruism is not justified on an individual level -- if it were, it wouldn't be altruism.

    Ayala is wrong that altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection. Genes coding for altruistic behavior are favored; the behavior itself is not favored.

    The thing is, I'm pretty sure Ayala understands this. Ayala thinks he's saying the right thing: in his brain, "altruistic behavior" is a shorthand for "genes coding for altruistic behavior", because he's an expert in kin selection and thinks about this all day. He just forgot that he was writing for a general encyclopedia. At least, that's the only theory I can come up with for why he insists that he's right..

    Of course, if I later read the Britannica article and discover that it is correct, I'll be glad to retract this. Also, I'm not a geneticist -- I just like to think I understand some of genetics because I've read a bit about it; and this bit is basically game theory anyway. Perhaps a real geneticist will tell me that Ayala is using terms in the standard way, so the criticism fails on those grounds. If so, I'll accept that correction too.

    • They do have it all on their website, you know. I think you have to pay for full access, but it's a lot cheaper than a set of encyclopedias.

      Or you could buy the circa-$50 disk version, and install that, if you're running Windows or using a PPC Mac (as of

    • Re:Brittanica's problem isn't accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Wicked Priest (632846) on Thursday March 23 2006, @08:39AM (#14979807)
      I find I *do* get Wikipedia results near the top for many of my queries lately... and I've started going there directly and skipping Google sometimes. I agree, I'm rarely disappointed. If I consult several sources, Wikipedia is usually the best.

      More than that: Wikipedia is what Hypertext was originally meant to me. (See... well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext [wikipedia.org] ) And boy is it fun!

      Britannica may or may not be more reliable for the subjects it covers, but it's also limited in scope. Would Britannica have an article about Matisyahu [wikipedia.org], for example? Britannica's front page claims 120,000 articles; Wikipedia, over a million, just for the English edition.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Attribution and GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kryptkpr (180196) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @08:33PM (#14977595) Homepage
      I've moderated in this thread already, but I just have to respond to this.

      I think it's sort of implied that when you license code under the GPL, you have set it "free". What this means is that the code is no longer really yours, it belongs to the collective pool of free software, from which anyone may draw freely.

      It's true that there are some bad people out there who modify free software and re-sell it, but the problem is not them. It's is the people who have never heard of free software who are buying it. Why would you buy a copy of OpenOffice, or an office suite that looks exactly like it but is called something else?

      The solution here is user education, not a tightening of the license..
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Attribution and GPL (Score:3, Informative)

        by GlassHeart (579618)
        I think it's sort of implied that when you license code under the GPL, you have set it "free". What this means is that the code is no longer really yours, it belongs to the collective pool of free software, from which anyone may draw freely.

        No, you still

Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.