Controvery erupts

OK, so I take him to task in a somewhat pedantic fashion about "information wants to be free" -- which is ridiculous, information doesn't _want_ anything, it isn't sentient. I propose an interesting alternative about memes and evolution and he doesn't like that either.

Perhaps "ridiculous" is too strong a word. But I don't think that "information wants to be free" is at its heart a commentary on the difficulty of treating information or ideas as property. I think it very much flows from an economic point of view. Now while I tentatively agree with it, I don't think can be accepted as an a priori assumption for further debate.

We have reached a small dilemma. The original topic of cybot's post was about the usefulness of information flow monitoring. We segued into the whole information-meme thing (completely bypassing the Big Brother aspect of the monitoring) and left me with a somewhat breathless annoyance at the clumsiness of comments.

So now I have four posts to write -- none of which are simple "well lookey here boys and girls" bits. Curse you, nude cybot.

1) information flow
2) free as in beer?
3) sigils and the 3M corporation
4) big brother is watching you.

Sigh. It will have to wait for another day.


nudecybot said...

I agree that the comment architecture sux, thats why my response to your comment had to become a post. Awkward!

I also believe that at the end of the day, we agree on most or all of these issues. We may differ in semantics.

Save perhaps the "big brother is watching you" one perhaps we should choose to debate that.

Looking forward to you writing a post that exceeds 40 of your own words ;)

nudecybot said...

Oh, look at that! Your 'controversy erupts' post qualifies.

See? Controversy=healthy.