Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:28:24 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: terry@lambert.org, ben@narcissus.ml.org, nate@trout.mt.sri.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking Message-ID: <199702231828.LAA06486@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <12622.856657876@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 22, 97 04:31:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's not to say that human behavior cannot be categorized - you do
> have all your basic fear response, sex drive, and pack instinct
> indices to rely on when you're trying to predict things such as
> whether one group is likely to jump on another anytime soon, and
> they're generally not far wrong. Where it falls down as a science is
> in basically the same place that political science breaks down - on
> the smaller (and I daresay more practical) scale where the brownian
> motion of individual human quirks is too great an influence on events
> to allow a linear set of rules to operate reliably. In other words,
> you just have to pick a basic direction and roll with the random
> punches as they come from all conceivable directions.
Someone I respect very much once said "God does not play dice with the
universe".
Brownian motion in gasses and in fluids are *precisely* where
application of statistical (rather than linear) mathematics
becomes useful. There is an entire field of study, fluidics, that
is dedicated to the study and prediction of such motions.
I would also argue that if you can "predict things such as whether
one group is likely to jump on another anytime soon", and be "generally
not far wrong", then you can predict similarly for the class of
activity -- for instance, whether a subgroup is likely to schism
from the main group, any time soon. At one point in the recent past,
I not only predicted the cusp, I overtly acted to influence the
outcome. In general, I can act with a higher degree of finesse, but
I have to say, the liberty to finesse is proportional to the length
of fuse remaining, and it's not getting any longer.
I tend to lump Monte-Carlo algorithms, chaos theory, fuzzy systems
theory, and gross application of Clifford Algebras and Chebenchev
Polynomials into the category "statistical tools". Perhaps this
is an error in tool classification on my part, but the fact remains
that the tools are useful in modelling society-society interactions
in the large, and group dynamics -- the punishment/reward criteria
for individual group member behaviour modification -- in microcosm.
> > Sociology *can* be a science, since it *can* predict, as long as it's
> > applied statistically. Most sociologists fail to apply it statistically.
>
> Oh sure, just apply more-a them-there statistics and all the numbers
> come out right. Why didn't they think of that! :-)
>
> Needless to say, I heartily disagree.
There is, it seems, a general non-mathematician's distrust of
statistics, which I blame on statistics being used on intentionally
slanted raw data, typically when the tool is employed by non-scientists.
We can argue whether or not statistics are a valid tool, or we can
step back and note the relative financial success of insurance
companies and casinos, who rely on the application of statistics the
tool to actuarial and mathematical modelling data, respectively, to
have achieved that success. There can be no doubt that the tool,
when properly applied, works.
> > I can predict that a social construct like FreeBSD operate in a certain
> > fashion based on its organizing principles, based on observation of
> > other social constructs with similar organizing principles. In the
> > same way I can predict a rock will fall on Mars by observing that rocks
>
> Heh, somehow I doubt that the greatest periods of accelleration or
> decelleration in FreeBSD's future will have much to do with its
> organizing principles. I suspect that most people will continue to go
> on in much the same way they have these last 3-4 years, quietly fixing
> bugs and adding features to the system as they deem it appropriate.
> Where the greatest potential changes lie are in passing comets - some
> event external to the project sucking one or more project members
> away, or perhaps more positively funding its development in some
> specific direction.
And you arrived at these doubts and suspicions utilizing what rational
mathematical and scientific basis?
In the larger US society, the current big hype attempting to become a
social motivator on the order of JFK's moon-landing effort, now that
the cold war is no longer useful in that capacity, is protecting the
Earth from passing comets and asteroids. Organisms are inherently
lazy, and need to have their fight-or-flight reflexes triggered to
motivate them to any action whatsoever. Especially social organisms,
which are made up of lazy individual organisms.
Nevertheless, even though the underlying motivations of the advocates
may be suspect, protecting our one basket in which we have irrationally
chosen to keep all our eggs is an intuitively obvious need.
Can you argue that, if you are right, and the danger is in the passing
comets (and asteroids), that FreeBSD should not likewise defend itself?
Immature religions (such as the FreeBSD group) tend to discourage
religious scholarship in much the same way that the Catholic Church
reacted to Galileo's revelation that the Earth was not at the center
of the universe: anything which could not be immediately reconciled
with their existing dogma must be suppressed and ignored until it
could be reconciled. What pissed off the power structure was not
the revelation, but that it had been published in Italian ("Principia
Mathematica") instead of in Latin, the language of the power structure,
where it could take time to spin-doctor it before releasing it in
Italian. In many ways, publication on the Internet holds the same
dangers for existing political power structures that publication in
Italian held for the Catholic church.
I am reminded of the Reagan/Bush era political commercials claiming
that "the democrats are out of gas". In them, a passenger is trying
ever more deperately to get the driver to pull over at each gas station
they approach, without success. The driver dismisses the passenger as
alarmist, mumbling "don't worry..." and "plenty of gas..." and similar
platitudes, until the car jerks to a fuel-less stop, a look of utter
astonishment and dismay on the drivers face.
> Who knows? Least of all, I suspect, Terry. :-)
You're right; I don't know. I don't even claim to have identified
all of the potential threat vectors. Which is why I suggest you guard
against all the identifiable possibilities by building defenses now.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702231828.LAA06486>