Philosphically, this is something I have done some questioning and research over. Why are there few great Linux games? (But lots of mediocre ones.)

Partly, it has do with market share. Linux games reach fewer users than other platforms.

But even more than that, it has to do with the conflicting goals. FOSS is ... open. It is openly discussed. it is openly worked on. There are some core coders but the whole idea is that anyone can add their bits.

On the other had, entertainment software, including games, requires the element of surprise to some extent. It needs to be new and interesting. It needs to draw in the player with an uncertain future. In other words, it is closed and secret to maintain the illusion.

In fact, game programmers in the private sector usually enjoy gaming...but not on their own games. They know too much. It's old and boring long before the final version. And yet they continue to work on it it until completion because, in part, they are paid highly to keep going. There is pleasure in the coding and the testing. But not in the game. In MMO gaming, they usually have a separate crew (not the central coders) to beta test in part for that reason.

So for an open-source game, one would have to find a large number of coders and artists wanting to work long arduous hours on a game they won't like themselves, but outsiders would enjoy. That is a tough combo. Most open-source programmers want to use the very product they work on. Only after the game is finished and released, would they also release the source code. I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just not likely. Just my opinion.

Having had my nose pushed into actual regulatory politics over the last seven years, I'd like to add a cautionary note.

Don't be surprised that the first truly large forms of Internet censorship on a large scale occur because of net neutrality legislation. Ironic.

Right now, the government is not responsible for Internet content to any real extent. A net neutrality law essentially says 'Government, you make things right about that content stuff'. At first, this will be a good thing. "No censorship" it will say. But then, the politics show their true form. Someone will say, "you can't censor child porn because of net neutrality laws". The conservatives will push through an exception that forces censorship of child porn. Think of the children. Someone will say, "you can't censor pro-tobacco messages to children because of net neutrality laws". The liberals will push through an exception to censor tobacco messages. Think of the children. Then the next thing. Then the next. The government will, over time, take it to levels that today's QOS policy for VOIP look like innocent play.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but it opens a Pandora's box. Governments love laws. Lobbyists love laws. So, the question I ask myself is: is the net neutrality problem today better or worse than the net neutrality problem we would get with a law? Hard to predict. I suspect that things are not bad enough yet to make a law a good idea.

Yep. In fact, its a social phenomena that is not limited to talent-based industries. It effects governments, non-profit organizations, religious groups, clubs...you name it.

Strangely, I rarely hear talk of it. For reference, see something called the Dunbar Number.

Any organization that grows over 150 (or so) people either fails or forms a personality-stomping bureaucracy to survive. It doesn't happen right away, but it always seems to happen. And, ahem, the U.S. Army has way way more than 150 people :).

I don't really see He3 being particularly rare or earth-specific if interstellar travel is easy for them.

But allow me to posit something that actually is unique to us: our specific history.

In other words, a full scan of us and extrapolation of our history and individual stories might be of entertainment value. It might be of interest or perhaps even the alien equivalent of humorous. Or it could be the inspiration of what we would anthropomorphically think of as a mini-series.

Yep. The aliens might be bored.

In fact, they might have already visited and are secretly collecting material.

Smile.

Yes, it's true that USENET has lots of spam and Google Groups has a poor web interface. But that does not address the underlying problem. Fact is, USENET had tons of spam in the late-90s also. And the web interfaces were never anything to be thrilled with.

No, what killed USENET for most technical subjects is a social one: there was no social cost for posting, thus every uneducated random wanderer posted on it. Not just spam, but also posts from real persons who only had a vague notions of what whatever subject the group was about. Literally, but putting all discussion in one heirarchy was one of its biggest faults.

So where is such discussion now? Some of it, as had been said already, is in specialized web sites; most of those are moderated. But for many subjects, it has moved to old-fashion email lists. One has to be willing to risk filling your inbox with unwanted messages to even see the list much less post to it. So, few people do. Only the folks truly dedicated to that subject take that risk...and that is good. Now the discussion is between committed insiders and the signal-to-noise ratio improved greatly.

So, if you are willing to commit to your subject, find the narrow mailing list that covers it and subscribe. (Disclaimer: not all subjects have these hard-core lists, do a Google search first.)