I appears many readers are failing to read the links. That, or do not understand the values being espoused in the various articles.
Freedom as being described in these articles, isn't the same freedom many of us are accustomed to. Rather, it is being declared in a very atypical self-censored form.
This freedom is more clearly labeled Freedom 0, as O'Reilly does in his original article. A limited freedom in the sense that it is a freedom of choice to be exercised; a freedom of choosing and not a freedom of acting.
Most governments have established freedom for their citizens insofar as that freedom does not interfere with that same freedom in others. But as a whole, we have really failed to analyze the types of freedom this empowers us with, and the freedoms we are limited to.
It would appear RMS is reembracing this application of freedom, in only the strictest sense.
"The freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins" as another reader so eloquently put it. It would appear Freedom 0 is only an attempt to analyze where exactly our faces begin; where exactly do we limit the freedoms we have previously, commonly accepted. And perhaps moreso, a new obersavation asserting that our faces are far closer to the swinging fists than we previously accepted. And so, as a new standard to be raised in the light of the digital age, where new freedoms are discovered, but still under the threshold of out-dated control, in a realm that continuously promises new freedoms.
It is impossible to make that same examination-the assertion of only Freedom 0-in a Democratic Capitalistic society, such as the US, because of the many contradictions it would bring to light. Capitalism cannot suceed without the unipmeded effort to exploit the resources of the masses for personal gain.
The very freedom RMS espouses is contraindicative of a capitalist society. And in my opinion, only in the borderless benevolent anarchy of the internet can such a freedom be exhorted, as it now is.
It cannot apply to our physical world, at least not in the way commonly accepted by the various World Powers. But in the indefinite information space that is shared by all does this concept deserve its greatest relevance.
Freedom 0 can not work without common acceptance. It would be hypocritical of this limited freedom to be forced upon ourselves, without all parties first declaring a willingness to be limited by it.
So in the sense that this new formula for freedom is an expression of power itself, it is my personal opinion, that under willing acceptance it is not so.
As has been previously recounted, freedom is only an idea, an abstraction that has no basis for our real world interactions, but rather only on our choosing of them.
It is only under common acceptance of freedom, that we can govern in its name.
So too, is this also with Freedom 0.
One must withold their right to freely define freedom, to afford the benefits its acceptance can provide.
So the very concept of freedom itself is quite paradoxical, or at least contradicting, there is no question of that. It is only in its acceptance by many, does freedom really materialize in an expressable shape.
This is pretty sad.
Firstly, you're an idiot if you still haven't realized staff comments aren't in italics.
Secondly, Beowulf clusters were only mentioned because they are the complete opposite of the subject matter:
Beowulf clusters bring the computing power of several computers together for a single task, whereas with this a single computer could be used for several isolated tasks.
Some of you should hand over your geek badges, right now.
Well that would be pretty damn cool, and I would participate, but only under one condition:
Shares could be used as currency to motivate the company to support special features.
How 'bout a special site where stockholders can converge and agree upon features they'd like to see in the distro? They could then pool together in the agreed upon feature set category and wager support by allocating x shares to features they want to see.
14 shares added for journaling file system support
5 shares added for extended wireless networking features
etc
While you may only wager so many shares on a specific feature you'd like to see, if there were enough people that wanted to see that feature supported as well, it could add up.
Not only that, but one could get a visual idea of the support of the distro, and a representation of paying sponsors.
But in the end this can only help out movements such as open source and free software.
The second they almost literally force people to need their software to accomplish business - instead of unfairly weighing software decisions in their favor - is the day they will bring over the last of the converts.
Some people are just waiting to install linux and the bsd's. But up until then(now) they haven't had a good enough reason. No one wants to spend a large fortune on microsoft crap, but a small fortune will slide. If microsoft forces their necessity it will be the last straw that draws over the majority of MS users to freer alternatives.
You mean you don't hold it by the prongs? Then what part do you eat off of?.... oh
People don't play Diablo II for realism. Is there anything - anything - even closely realistic in the Diablo series?
<sarcasm>
Oh ya, I'm the devil. Pretty much the most scheming evil entity of all existance. Uh oh! The heroes are going to attempt to slay me! Maybe I should send a few of my monsters out at a time to try and vanquish them......
You know instead of sending out all several thousand of them at once. That would be just too easy. Heck, I might even have a chance at winning! Me, the devil, winning! Can you believe that!? </sarcasm>
I thought Aimster was named after the creator's daughter, Aimee?
I saw it in the last wired, I think. I couldn't find the same article on the web, but I found a related article.
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441,00.html
I believe you to be right in the aspect that only one frequency could be utilized at a time if reliability was desired, but I don't think that necessarily draws the same impact it does in the wired world.
Consider: Nodes in a wireless network are spaced from each other not just by their actual physical distances, but also by their recieving and transmitting power. This means that some nodes may be more intensively active in more than the sense of just a fatter pipe, which differs from a wired network. Considering the fact that typical citizens can not transmit with any power worth a damn without a license, this does not limit the current standings on what width of frequency we can meagerly trasnmit on.
So, what does that mean? It means every user has the potential to have the bandwidth to be a user and a router. And good thing too, because we'll need all that routing for peer to peer hops over an everyman's wireless network.
With the continued decrease in cost of equipment, I think you'll see more and more consumers realizing the freedom and efficiency wireless conectivity entails.
Personally, I'd love to see an entirely new wireless networking protocol that utilizes anonymous addresses via dynamic namespaces and integrated routing buffers. Trusted centralized nodes could be used for authentication purposes, so that nodes could verify themselves to eachother for short term purposes while still retaining long term anonymity. Public and private key encryption with local node key holders.
No corporations to pull down nodes. Truly a people's network, in every democratic sense of the word. It could float on top of the internet and be tied in via landline access. You could access your ISP from your laptop free from anywhere in the city with a substantial but not impractical number of hops. I could order a pizza or check my slashdot.
My first slashdot post, I hope it comes out ok.
I'm a moron without a job - just my two bits.
Slashdot Mirror
Offtopic, but makes for a highly intelligent read, nonetheless.
mod this up
Wil, get back to work.
This is cool, because it makes it much easier to haul a complete system to a LAN party.
No lugging a huge seperate TV for networked console games.
All you need then is a room and power outlets to plug into and you're up and racing!
In short, Sony may be the company that finally makes Linux on the desktop a reality.
If that's what you're saying, I agree. And I think it's definitely cool.
Freedom as being described in these articles, isn't the same freedom many of us are accustomed to. Rather, it is being declared in a very atypical self-censored form.
This freedom is more clearly labeled Freedom 0, as O'Reilly does in his original article. A limited freedom in the sense that it is a freedom of choice to be exercised; a freedom of choosing and not a freedom of acting.
Most governments have established freedom for their citizens insofar as that freedom does not interfere with that same freedom in others. But as a whole, we have really failed to analyze the types of freedom this empowers us with, and the freedoms we are limited to.
It would appear RMS is reembracing this application of freedom, in only the strictest sense.
"The freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins" as another reader so eloquently put it. It would appear Freedom 0 is only an attempt to analyze where exactly our faces begin; where exactly do we limit the freedoms we have previously, commonly accepted. And perhaps moreso, a new obersavation asserting that our faces are far closer to the swinging fists than we previously accepted. And so, as a new standard to be raised in the light of the digital age, where new freedoms are discovered, but still under the threshold of out-dated control, in a realm that continuously promises new freedoms.
It is impossible to make that same examination-the assertion of only Freedom 0-in a Democratic Capitalistic society, such as the US, because of the many contradictions it would bring to light. Capitalism cannot suceed without the unipmeded effort to exploit the resources of the masses for personal gain.
The very freedom RMS espouses is contraindicative of a capitalist society. And in my opinion, only in the borderless benevolent anarchy of the internet can such a freedom be exhorted, as it now is.
It cannot apply to our physical world, at least not in the way commonly accepted by the various World Powers. But in the indefinite information space that is shared by all does this concept deserve its greatest relevance.
Freedom 0 can not work without common acceptance. It would be hypocritical of this limited freedom to be forced upon ourselves, without all parties first declaring a willingness to be limited by it.
So in the sense that this new formula for freedom is an expression of power itself, it is my personal opinion, that under willing acceptance it is not so.
As has been previously recounted, freedom is only an idea, an abstraction that has no basis for our real world interactions, but rather only on our choosing of them.
It is only under common acceptance of freedom, that we can govern in its name.
So too, is this also with Freedom 0.
One must withold their right to freely define freedom, to afford the benefits its acceptance can provide.
So the very concept of freedom itself is quite paradoxical, or at least contradicting, there is no question of that. It is only in its acceptance by many, does freedom really materialize in an expressable shape.
And I, for one, am all for Freedom 0
Firstly, you're an idiot if you still haven't realized staff comments aren't in italics.
Secondly, Beowulf clusters were only mentioned because they are the complete opposite of the subject matter:
Beowulf clusters bring the computing power of several computers together for a single task, whereas with this a single computer could be used for several isolated tasks.
Some of you should hand over your geek badges, right now.
Now that would be fanfreakingnice to see. Half-life and Counterstrike in Linux.
I know a lot of people who keep Windows partitions just for Counterstrike.
I for one had to give it up for Linux. There's no point in keeping a 2 gig partition just to play a game, even if it is the best game ever made.
Loki, saving Linux users from Partition grief since 1998.
Missing fingers is a disability.
Not being able to type is not.
I don't think this is addressing the physical inability to type, but rather the incompetent inability to type.
You're missing the obvious.
Shares could be used as currency to motivate the company to support special features.
How 'bout a special site where stockholders can converge and agree upon features they'd like to see in the distro? They could then pool together in the agreed upon feature set category and wager support by allocating x shares to features they want to see.
14 shares added for journaling file system support
5 shares added for extended wireless networking features
etc
While you may only wager so many shares on a specific feature you'd like to see, if there were enough people that wanted to see that feature supported as well, it could add up.
Not only that, but one could get a visual idea of the support of the distro, and a representation of paying sponsors.
The second they almost literally force people to need their software to accomplish business - instead of unfairly weighing software decisions in their favor - is the day they will bring over the last of the converts.
Some people are just waiting to install linux and the bsd's. But up until then(now) they haven't had a good enough reason. No one wants to spend a large fortune on microsoft crap, but a small fortune will slide. If microsoft forces their necessity it will be the last straw that draws over the majority of MS users to freer alternatives.
You mean you don't hold it by the prongs? Then what part do you eat off of? .... oh
<sarcasm>
Oh ya, I'm the devil. Pretty much the most scheming evil entity of all existance. Uh oh! The heroes are going to attempt to slay me! Maybe I should send a few of my monsters out at a time to try and vanquish them......
You know instead of sending out all several thousand of them at once.
That would be just too easy. Heck, I might even have a chance at winning! Me, the devil, winning! Can you believe that!? </sarcasm>
I thought Aimster was named after the creator's daughter, Aimee? I saw it in the last wired, I think. I couldn't find the same article on the web, but I found a related article. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43441,00.html
Usually you can change that in the bios. Same with my Vaio Z505R.
Consider: Nodes in a wireless network are spaced from each other not just by their actual physical distances, but also by their recieving and transmitting power. This means that some nodes may be more intensively active in more than the sense of just a fatter pipe, which differs from a wired network. Considering the fact that typical citizens can not transmit with any power worth a damn without a license, this does not limit the current standings on what width of frequency we can meagerly trasnmit on.
So, what does that mean? It means every user has the potential to have the bandwidth to be a user and a router. And good thing too, because we'll need all that routing for peer to peer hops over an everyman's wireless network.
With the continued decrease in cost of equipment, I think you'll see more and more consumers realizing the freedom and efficiency wireless conectivity entails.
Personally, I'd love to see an entirely new wireless networking protocol that utilizes anonymous addresses via dynamic namespaces and integrated routing buffers. Trusted centralized nodes could be used for authentication purposes, so that nodes could verify themselves to eachother for short term purposes while still retaining long term anonymity. Public and private key encryption with local node key holders.
No corporations to pull down nodes. Truly a people's network, in every democratic sense of the word. It could float on top of the internet and be tied in via landline access. You could access your ISP from your laptop free from anywhere in the city with a substantial but not impractical number of hops. I could order a pizza or check my slashdot.
My first slashdot post, I hope it comes out ok.
I'm a moron without a job - just my two bits.