After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>
>>> These companies have always been just about the money, but they
>>> forgot that people choose Linux for freedom, not just price. They
>>> chose to take Microsoft's money and play on Microsoft's team. I
>>> continue to boycott them. Some people are forgiving simply because
>>> they don't know enough (and the Microsoft-influenced press does not
>>> help here).
>>
>> Google for "linux camp" (using the quotes):
>>
>> Linux Camp Divided on Microsoft Deals - OSNews.com
>>
>> Linux Camp Joins Google in Anti-Microsoft Fight
>>
>> NewsForge | Controversy brews in Linux camp over number of bugs
>>
>> Linux Online - Linux camp rages over Novell pact
>>
>> Linux Camp Takes New Tack on Kernel
>>
>> Now "microsoft camp":
>>
>> Microsoft camp shows technology is women's work, too
>>
>> Microsoft Camp Studies Blog Search
>>
>> wcco.com - Microsoft Camp Seeks To Inspire Girls
>>
>> Microsoft camp to show new mobile designs - 04 Jan 2007 - IT Week
>>
>> Byte and Switch - CommVault - Network Engines Joins Microsoft Camp
>>
>> Atlas : AJAX for the Microsoft camp. - Web Forefront
>>
>> Quite amazing, the difference in tone.
>
> And that's because the Google results reflect reality: MS markets and
> promotes technology in a positive way, while Linux idiots promote anti-MS
> hatred.
Far more likely is that the IT rags promote MS markets and technology in
a positive way, while portraying the Linux community as a bunch of
raging zealots, probably as a result of astroturfing and smurfing.
> btw, you do understand why those results come up first in a Google search?
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation
Academic citation literature has been applied to the web, largely by
counting citations or backlinks to a given page. This gives some
approximation of a page's importance or quality. PageRank extends this
idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing
by the number of links on a page. PageRank is defined as follows:
We assume page A has pages T1...Tn which point to it (i.e., are
citations). The parameter d is a damping factor which can be
set between 0 and 1. We usually set d to 0.85. There are more
details about d in the next section. Also C(A) is defined as the
number of links going out of page A. The PageRank of a page A is
given as follows:
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))
Note that the PageRanks form a probability distribution over web
pages, so the sum of all web pages' PageRanks will be one.
Of course, that explains /nothing/ about how the citations and backlinks
were created. And the very next section in the document above seems to
me to be somewhat of a self nuke, although they claim it isn't.
2.1.2 Intuitive Justification
PageRank can be thought of as a model of user behavior. We assume
there is a "random surfer" who is given a web page at random and
keeps clicking on links, never hitting "back" but eventually gets
bored and starts on another random page. The probability that the
random surfer visits a page is its PageRank. And, the d damping
factor is the probability at each page the "random surfer" will get
bored and request another random page. One important variation is to
only add the damping factor d to a single page, or a group of pages.
This allows for personalization and can make it nearly impossible to
deliberately mislead the system in order to get a higher ranking. We
have several other extensions to PageRank, again see [Page 98].
--
Tux rox!
|
|
