Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Where does the data live? (Score 4, Informative) 26

Thanks for your questions, Freenet caches data but it isn’t meant to be a long-term storage network. It’s better to think of it as a communication system. Data persists as long as at least one node remains subscribed to it. If nobody subscribes (including the author), it will eventually disappear from the network. So yes, if only your node subscribes then the data will only exist there and won’t be available when your machine is offline. But if other nodes subscribe it will be replicated automatically and remain available even if your node goes offline.

Submission + - New Freenet Network Launches With River Group Chat (freenet.org)

Sanity writes: Freenet’s new generation peer-to-peer network is now operational, along with the first application built on the network: a decentralized group chat system called River.

The new version is a complete redesign of the original project, focusing on real-time decentralized applications rather than static content distribution. Applications run as WebAssembly-based contracts across a small-world peer network, allowing software to operate directly on the network without centralized infrastructure.

An introductory video demonstrating the system is available on YouTube.

Slashdot previously covered the reboot of Freenet in 2023 in this article.

Comment Armchair Scientists (Score 2) 39

I love how all the armchair scientists come out when stuff like this is mentioned. "What's going to keep it from just floating back out?", "It's probably going to use more energy and create more CO2 than it's going to store"... as if no one has ever had that thought yet... and the UK government just made.

There are _thousands_ of scientists all over the world studying every aspect of this (and every other scientifically informed climate change action) for MANY years. The published results from those scientists are used in policy making. That policy making takes _years_ and is hotly debated on all sides before something like this makes its way through.

On CO2 sequestration, it's been studied and re-studied and re-analyzed for over 20 years now. There is a huge body of published research on every aspect (including the "net" energy use and CO2 net balance) this is a good overview that cites tons of other papers you can go read on it: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

PLEASE don't assume that you can "use your intuition" on these extremely complex issues.

Comment Re:A better idea.. (Score 1) 207

Thank you for this post. As a (nuclear) scientist it drives me crazy that people who are not part of the scientific publishing ecosystem purport to know how it works... and make claims like "intimidation" against publishing something against currently accepted theories.

Many... MANY... of the papers that go to journals these days are directly trying to refute accepted theories. Like you said, if you get it right you can become famous overnight. There is no shortage of people that are trying in every field (and definitely climate-related fields). However, the burden for these papers is that there must be factual, evidential, proof of what you are claiming.

Scientists _love_ to prove each other wrong! It's the way science works. That we haven't had any journal articles factually refuting human-caused warming in reputable journals is _proof_ itself that the current theory is correct. I can guarantee you that it's not for lack of submissions - it's just that those submissions don't withstand peer review due to not having evidence.

And anyone that thinks "peer review" means "I don't like what you're saying" does not know what they're talking about. Technical peer review is a very difficult thing to do, you have to have just as much evidence for what you are saying in your review. In fact, in my experience, I spend WAY more time writing negative reviews that positive reviews. A positive review will just get a few critiques and suggestions. A negative review turns into an entire treatise on the subject with many citations to back up my claims.

Peer review is not the wild west - and there are many stopgaps. If a reviewer doesn't properly justify their review the editor will toss it and find another reviewer.

Ok - I'm droning on now. It was just refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot that actually understand how science works!

Comment Re: Arguing a strawman... (Score 1) 145

This is why Iâ(TM)m not going to have shareholders. Iâ(TM)m currently setting up a new service (founded the company in January)⦠and Iâ(TM)m going to price it hella cheap because I donâ(TM)t need to make millions right away⦠but Iâ(TM)m going to keep the company small and Iâ(TM)ll be profitable within this first year with a small number of users. I can just hang out and let revenue/profit grow at a reasonable pace. No need to try to play pricing games.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother. - Kahlil Gibran

Working...