WFMU has ten separate podcasts:
Audio Kitchen with The Professor [NEW]
Antique Phonograph Music Program
Aerial View with Chris T.
Dave Emory [NEW]
Jonesville Station
Seven Second Delay with Ken and Andy
The Speakeasy with Dorian
Advanced D & D with Donna Summer
Downtown Soulville with Mr. Fine Wine [NEW]
Thomas Edison's Attic
I hate the degenerate nature of discussion areas as much as the next person who would like to actually colaborate and learn using this technology. Perhaps there's something about asynchronous chatting that encourages escalation. Why hold back when 1) you're correct and 2)there's no consequence for being a worthless jerk? But do you really think that there can be a "politically neutral" Internet? The Internet has never existed separate from polotics. Some say that ARPANET was funded by Cold War fears. Others would point out the Internet embodies the ideals of the Cerf, Kahn and others. We all make many arbitrary political choices that determine our action. The key is not to seek a politcally neutral space, because that ignores the extent to which we are always political, but to seek a space that is collaborative, not degenerative.
Yeah. A few high profile, especially pro-corporate, applications would be a very strategic move to protect this new technology. It's a shame that we'd have to go to this length, considering that many new technologies are brought into the mainstream by the fringe, e.g. pornography and video. I have been tossing around an idea (I'm sure I'm not alone, but I haven't found it yet) of using these new distributed filesystems (gnutella, freenet) as ways to expand the web. With the right XML programming and some encryption technology, we can code distributed auctions, search engines, or any type of application that benefits from a large, participatory userbase. We can make GPL versions (or whatever public license best applies) of any centralized web site.
I'd like to see a distributed version of consumer reports.
Geekcorp's approach is admirable because it will help increase worldwide participation in cyberspace. I think the Internet has previously-unimaginable potential for social reform, but it will not be realized with such disproportionate access. Check out the UN's 1999 Human Development Report. This link will show you a pie chart that illustrates the divide (plus alot of good docs)
The Internet can decentralize power, which could be such a boost to humanity. I think the dream will remain unrealized if the power will only spread amongst the top %20 of the world.
But, as with any method of intervention, there is the potential of harm. I personally agree with those who would dissolve/drastically reform the IMF and World Bank. These institutions generate tremendous wealth for financiers and externalize the substantial risk to industrialized tax payers. They loan to the foreign elite, but extract the payoff from the developing poor. It is not hard to imagine a program like this one creating a stronger dependency on the West, which is probably not in their best interest.
For the most part, I think Geekcorps embodies some great ideals (blending open source with philantropy and a species-centric view), but I'd like to see some more discussion re: How to make sure we are truly helping. I think we'll find it's a more difficult question than we think.
As this is the case, Amazon had no choice but to work within a flawed system. They had to attack B&N, and they have to defend themselves now. So this is all really evidence of a fundamentally flawed patent system.
We can't be satisfied with organizations who can't take responsibility for their practices and plead that they are bound to exploiting our legal loopholes in order to make money. As a society, we aught to demand more of the corporations we allow to exist. Like patents and copyrights, corporate charters were once very limited in their abilities.
If Amazon is smart, they will put some of those overinflated stock dollars toward fixing the broken patent system.
If Amazon had the ability to perform such a compassionate act, why wouldn't they save themselves the money (which they are apparently bound by law to do) and simply announce that anyone has rights to their patent? That would have a definite and immediate effect and would probably end the boycott. It's obvious that they are only devoted to money, and should receive none of our sympathy.
You cannot have free speech without tolerating speech that you personally don't agree with. If you don't want to risk aiding the distribution of "kiddie porn" (which is *already* freely distributed on the Internet anyway), then steer clear of Freenet - it's not for you.
So, in other words, "kiddie porn" is free speech. Really? I didn't know that. Guess ritual rape and mutilation is free speech too, and if done in a pointy hat with candles, it's a religious observance, too.
First, Freenet is not a place where rape and mutilation take place, but instead a place where they may be documented. Second, he made no claim that kiddie porn was free speech, but only that it would be necessary to tolerate it in order to support free speech. It's the same principle as "innocent until proven guilty." Even though someone is probably guilty (and Freenet will probably have horible information), we give them the benefit of the doubt because we think everyone has the right to a trial (and Freenet will be invaluable for certain people). We directly advance the notion of free speech without injuring someone else. This is a good trade off in my opinion.
not every form of expression falls into free speech . . . Ass-fucking a 10 year old boy is not "expression".
. . . and noone at Freenet would tell you otherwise. In fact, its quite impossible to ass fuck a 10 year old boy on Freenet. You see, the real problem takes place in our heads and in our communities. The representation is mostly a symptom and it's something we should learn from. It's quite possible that this anticipated documentation of taboo subjects will encourage us to understand why people act this way (and not simply be disgusted by it).
Developing a system whereby administrators (you can't even rightly call them that, since they "administer" nothing) have no control over content, you make a technically competent and interesting system that is *really* uninviting to operate, since your box can be the source of something nefarious (or something you disagree with, and do not wish to support). You are welcome to your ideas, but do *NOT* push them onto me.
You should really read the part where he suggests that people like you should stay away from Freenet.
Slashdot Mirror
WFMU is an independent freeform radio station broadcasting at 91.1 fm in the New York City area, at 90.1 fm in the Hudson Valley, and live on the web.
http://podcast.wfmu.org/
WFMU has ten separate podcasts:
Audio Kitchen with The Professor [NEW]
Antique Phonograph Music Program
Aerial View with Chris T.
Dave Emory [NEW]
Jonesville Station
Seven Second Delay with Ken and Andy
The Speakeasy with Dorian
Advanced D & D with Donna Summer
Downtown Soulville with Mr. Fine Wine [NEW]
Thomas Edison's Attic
that's been in since 7.2,
Release date: 2002-02-04
I hate the degenerate nature of discussion areas as much as the next person who would like to actually colaborate and learn using this technology. Perhaps there's something about asynchronous chatting that encourages escalation. Why hold back when 1) you're correct and 2)there's no consequence for being a worthless jerk? But do you really think that there can be a "politically neutral" Internet? The Internet has never existed separate from polotics. Some say that ARPANET was funded by Cold War fears. Others would point out the Internet embodies the ideals of the Cerf, Kahn and others. We all make many arbitrary political choices that determine our action. The key is not to seek a politcally neutral space, because that ignores the extent to which we are always political, but to seek a space that is collaborative, not degenerative.
Yeah. A few high profile, especially pro-corporate, applications would be a very strategic move to protect this new technology. It's a shame that we'd have to go to this length, considering that many new technologies are brought into the mainstream by the fringe, e.g. pornography and video. I have been tossing around an idea (I'm sure I'm not alone, but I haven't found it yet) of using these new distributed filesystems (gnutella, freenet) as ways to expand the web. With the right XML programming and some encryption technology, we can code distributed auctions, search engines, or any type of application that benefits from a large, participatory userbase. We can make GPL versions (or whatever public license best applies) of any centralized web site.
I'd like to see a distributed version of consumer reports.
Geekcorp's approach is admirable because it will help increase worldwide participation in cyberspace. I think the Internet has previously-unimaginable potential for social reform, but it will not be realized with such disproportionate access. Check out the UN's 1999 Human Development Report. This link will show you a pie chart that illustrates the divide (plus alot of good docs)
GLOBALIZATION WITH A HUMAN FACE
The Internet can decentralize power, which could be such a boost to humanity. I think the dream will remain unrealized if the power will only spread amongst the top %20 of the world.
But, as with any method of intervention, there is the potential of harm. I personally agree with those who would dissolve/drastically reform the IMF and World Bank. These institutions generate tremendous wealth for financiers and externalize the substantial risk to industrialized tax payers. They loan to the foreign elite, but extract the payoff from the developing poor.
It is not hard to imagine a program like this one creating a stronger dependency on the West, which is probably not in their best interest.
For the most part, I think Geekcorps embodies some great ideals (blending open source with philantropy and a species-centric view), but I'd like to see some more discussion re: How to make sure we are truly helping. I think we'll find it's a more difficult question than we think.
We directly advance the notion of free speech without injuring someone else. This is a good trade off in my opinion. . . . and noone at Freenet would tell you otherwise. In fact, its quite impossible to ass fuck a 10 year old boy on Freenet. You see, the real problem takes place in our heads and in our communities. The representation is mostly a symptom and it's something we should learn from. It's quite possible that this anticipated documentation of taboo subjects will encourage us to understand why people act this way (and not simply be disgusted by it). You should really read the part where he suggests that people like you should stay away from Freenet.