Agreed. You have to give shows a certain respect when they are willing to do that; especially outside the predictable season premier/sweeps/finale times. The tension of an unknown outcome makes for incredible viewing.
Example: Did you see the X-Files finale? (um, oh yeah, spoiler warning) That scene, with Krychek and Mulder in the parking garage? That was AMAZING. Why? Because you didn't know what was going to happen. There was the possibility that Mulder could die there, that it really could be his end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Free Software Foundation exactly the type of organization we're talking about? They're non-profit, specialized in taking care of donated code, and they actively encourage people to transfer the copyright of their GPL'd projects to the FSF.
A few paragraphs later: "It is sad to say, but there are people out there who get a big kick out of the challenge of finding flaws in systems."
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but that statement should apply to ANY engineer. And remember when MS was bragging that they were employing a dozen people to do exactly that for W2K?
The next sentence: "And when they can get their hands on the source code itself that makes it even easier for them."
Call this a potshot, but having the source doesn't seem to help any Windows developers in finding flaws. You know the old debugging routine: run the program again and see if it still happens!Then one looks through the code for errors, and its still damn hard.
But finding flaws based on code alone...oh, noooo, that's easy! Especially code that other people might have actually looked at (*gasp*)! </sarcasm>
Although... a bit further back, it was the tobacco companies that, seeing a threat to their business, successfully lobbied for the outlawing of marijuana...
I hope and am quite confident that MS is replaying the more modern situation, and that the Right Side will win in the Information War that we're quickly sliding into.
I agree, the "write the book, we'll take care of the other details" assistance that a publisher brings is definitely helpful... But online publishing combined with a model like the Street Performer's Protocol (SPP) has the potential to make those moot points.
Distribution: They go to your website and get it. That's it. No problems there; only the cost of hosting and bandwidth.
Editing: There probably are (or soon will be) niche for-hire editing services that you can contract to edit your work. When using the SPP, you just use some of that money you have built up to pay them.
Market Research: If there's really no demand, then noone's going to give you the money to write the book anyway. The tricky part is getting the word out, and showing them your idea... so that, if interested, they can give you money. That's going to be one of the bigger problems... Spreading the word. At least until you get/.'d:) Word of mouth works well on the Internet -- provided people talk.
The content Freenet will reflect the desires of its populace... If that populace accepts kiddie porn, so be it. If implemented on a large scale, it would serve to corrupt our existing morals (information-wise), and replace them with ones that more accurately reflect our overall desires.
Right now, many people guiltilly think/read/watch things that "they know is wrong", but do so anyway because that's what they want. They just don't come out and say it because society would shun them. However, what about cases where most people do desire this (or at least don't mind it) but no one has yet taken a stand? In the current system, someone has to boldly declare his contrary opinions and gradually win people over to his view of thinking, "opening their eyes" to a new moral belief. This has happened continuously -- but usually quite grudgingly, at great costs -- throughout history.
With Freenet, in many cases, it would quickly become obvious (given a great availability of such info) when people really believe that something's OK. This, coupled with the anonymity of both accessing and distributing the data, should help speed up the process -- especially when most people REALLY DO want a change but they're too backwards/afraid to promote (or even accept) it.
However, in other cases, where there is no clear "better" opinion, the ideological battle will continue -- the plus will be that everyone can be honest in acting (ie. vote-caching, writing) on his opinions. The drawback will be the fact that in many cases, it takes a martyr to motivate a movement, and Freenet will eliminate "accidental" martyrs. That said, people who really believe in their cause can write their names, embrace the consequences, and still be a martyr if they want:)
Take the copyright example: many people here have said that the Freenet will destroy copyright. If this happens (personally, I think its happening without Freenet), then it is the will of the people to abandon the idea of copyright... For warez to proliferate on Freenet it takes a) people to crack & upload it, and, more importantly, b) lots of people to download it. If lots of people d/l it, then lots of people believe its OK.
We need to accept these differing beliefs -- and if we refuse to accept them, then the only way to stop them is to argue against them. You can no longer simply state that what they're doing is "wrong" (even if it seems like common sense), make a law, and lock 'em up. You must appeal to those who act contrary to your morals -- tell them why you think what they do is wrong. Might (of numbers) cannot claim its rightness. It's an eternal ideological free-for-all: Sure, lots of people might agree and form their own nations of belief systems, but in the end everyone's fighting on his own by choosing what to read and writing what he thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. You have to give shows a certain respect when they are willing to do that; especially outside the predictable season premier/sweeps/finale times. The tension of an unknown outcome makes for incredible viewing.
Example: Did you see the X-Files finale? (um, oh yeah, spoiler warning) That scene, with Krychek and Mulder in the parking garage? That was AMAZING. Why? Because you didn't know what was going to happen. There was the possibility that Mulder could die there, that it really could be his end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Free Software Foundation exactly the type of organization we're talking about? They're non-profit, specialized in taking care of donated code, and they actively encourage people to transfer the copyright of their GPL'd projects to the FSF.
A few paragraphs later: "It is sad to say, but there are people out there who get a big kick out of the challenge of finding flaws in systems."
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but that statement should apply to ANY engineer. And remember when MS was bragging that they were employing a dozen people to do exactly that for W2K?
The next sentence: "And when they can get their hands on the source code itself that makes it even easier for them."
Call this a potshot, but having the source doesn't seem to help any Windows developers in finding flaws. You know the old debugging routine: run the program again and see if it still happens! Then one looks through the code for errors, and its still damn hard.But finding flaws based on code alone...oh, noooo, that's easy! Especially code that other people might have actually looked at (*gasp*)! </sarcasm>
Reading /. for a fair opinion of Microsoft is like watching CNN for a fair opinion of Ted Turner. It just doesn't happen.
Or like reading Microsoft reports for a fair comparison between Linux and Windows? That's the real flamebait in this topic.
...I'm surprised; I wouldn't have thought that Penny Arcade would be this affected by a small mention in a story.
True; the parallelism shines through.
Although... a bit further back, it was the tobacco companies that, seeing a threat to their business, successfully lobbied for the outlawing of marijuana...
I hope and am quite confident that MS is replaying the more modern situation, and that the Right Side will win in the Information War that we're quickly sliding into.
Cheers,
Wes
The content Freenet will reflect the desires of its populace... If that populace accepts kiddie porn, so be it. If implemented on a large scale, it would serve to corrupt our existing morals (information-wise), and replace them with ones that more accurately reflect our overall desires.
:)
Right now, many people guiltilly think/read/watch things that "they know is wrong", but do so anyway because that's what they want. They just don't come out and say it because society would shun them. However, what about cases where most people do desire this (or at least don't mind it) but no one has yet taken a stand? In the current system, someone has to boldly declare his contrary opinions and gradually win people over to his view of thinking, "opening their eyes" to a new moral belief. This has happened continuously -- but usually quite grudgingly, at great costs -- throughout history.
With Freenet, in many cases, it would quickly become obvious (given a great availability of such info) when people really believe that something's OK. This, coupled with the anonymity of both accessing and distributing the data, should help speed up the process -- especially when most people REALLY DO want a change but they're too backwards/afraid to promote (or even accept) it.
However, in other cases, where there is no clear "better" opinion, the ideological battle will continue -- the plus will be that everyone can be honest in acting (ie. vote-caching, writing) on his opinions. The drawback will be the fact that in many cases, it takes a martyr to motivate a movement, and Freenet will eliminate "accidental" martyrs. That said, people who really believe in their cause can write their names, embrace the consequences, and still be a martyr if they want
Take the copyright example: many people here have said that the Freenet will destroy copyright. If this happens (personally, I think its happening without Freenet), then it is the will of the people to abandon the idea of copyright... For warez to proliferate on Freenet it takes a) people to crack & upload it, and, more importantly, b) lots of people to download it. If lots of people d/l it, then lots of people believe its OK.
We need to accept these differing beliefs -- and if we refuse to accept them, then the only way to stop them is to argue against them. You can no longer simply state that what they're doing is "wrong" (even if it seems like common sense), make a law, and lock 'em up. You must appeal to those who act contrary to your morals -- tell them why you think what they do is wrong. Might (of numbers) cannot claim its rightness. It's an eternal ideological free-for-all: Sure, lots of people might agree and form their own nations of belief systems, but in the end everyone's fighting on his own by choosing what to read and writing what he thinks.
Let the Idea Wars begin.