I have spent quite a lot of time being one of those bums in the street that you claim has no right to elected representation.
I said no such thing. What I did say, however, was a statement on human nature, and how those that seek power seek out those who can help them hold onto, and gain more power.
Nowhere have I said a street bum does not deserve representation. I simply pointed out how street bums do not receive it due to human nature and the goal seeking behavior of those who seek power.
Now go take a reading comprehension class and your meds.
You can form governments, write constitutions, espouse ideals, and preach the utopia that we would all live in if everyone had equal representation, but in the real world, we all have a representative, who is human, and has human flaws, and human behaviors, and human nature will value the advice of a corporate CEO over that of a street bum so close to 100% of the time it might as well be 100%.
No need to crucify me for pointing it out. Having caused the problem, and being to blame for the problem, is not the same as simply being aware of the problem.
Being able to board a train or bus without having my bag be searched (ostensibly for weapons, but really for drugs).
You can board a train or bus without being searched, if YOU OWN the plane or bus in question. If someone else owns it, then you are going to follow their rules or be denied service, just like you as the owner of a vehicle can refuse to give anyone you want a ride for any reason. Nothing here has changed.
Being able to post a video criticizing Universal Studios copyright policy with licensed music by famous artists without having it be taken down.
You can post a video on your own website that is critical of any company you want using whatever content you have legal right to publish. If it is youtubes website then you will follow youtubes rules or be denied service. If the criticism you post is baseless, you may be subject to lawsuits. Nothing here has changed.
Be able to play games on a decent computer without having that computer run software that spies on me and makes sure I'm not doing something the company would prefer I not do.
You can play games on a computer without being spied on. Disconnect it from the internet and write your own game code. If its someone elses game code, and they require internet for communication, and you agree to have info communicated, then accept the terms or don't purchase or play the game. Nothing here has changed.
Being reasonably confident that my representative cares more about what I and 50 of my neighbors say than what his or her corporate sponsor says (though that's been a serious problem for more than 20 years).
Have people who sought and gained and wielded power ever cared what the bum in the street thinks ? No. The bum in the street brings nothing to the table, and odds are high he speaks from a position of ignorance and irresponsibility, not from a position of success and responsibility, and this is why the street bums voice is ignored. He can't manage his own life, let alone national policies. Nothing here has changed.
Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.
Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.
In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.
There's no workflow or business model for people who could live with waiting 6-12 weeks to get back a replacement drive with whatever data could be recovered copied to it for a halfway sane price. It's overnight-at-unlimited-cost, or data-gone-forever, with no real middle ground between the two extremes.
Are you daft ? It's called "backups" and "spare parts" and it's how the entire world maintains uptime.
Failure to make backups and/or keep spare parts for critical applications, is your process issue.
Floods wipe out facilities, act of god expense incurred.
Temporary supply shortage + stable demand = prices go up.
Forced to prioritize, manufactures bring production online first, before warranty repair.
Newly restored manufacturing lines not fined tuned enough to estimate failures as before.
Many, many factors... none of which are "wall streets" fault. The "environment" changed.
As for the root cause of the need to produce a profit, it has shit all nothing to do with "wall street" and everything to do with property taxes levied on land / improvements, by the government, designed to insure productive use of said land, a burden we all bear.
The US is fairly tolerant of those who don't physically harm others.
You can be a drug addict, or a mentally deranged individual, wander the streets, urinate in public, and exhibit any number of other behaviors that polite society would consider 'undesirable' or 'disgusting' and you won't receive the death penalty.
Only approximately 100 or so individuals were given the death penalty last year. Of those 100, I'd say more than half probably have a good chance of never actually receiving the punishment.
That said, if you outlawed the death penalty, I would imagine that some of the people who deserve it ( by current standards ), would still receive it. By this, I mean, say a criminal broke into a house and killed the wife and daughters. The husband returns home, and knows ( or at least thinks he knows ) who did it. If the husband knows the justice system won't punish the offender with the death penalty, he may very well take care of it himself.
What are the ethics of forcing the public to sustain the life of the handful of members of society who have proven by their own actions they don't value the lives of others ?
In your view, it's perfectly ethical to take money from grandma to feed a deranged serial killer indefinitely.
When you produce a 100% effective treatment for deranged serial killers, that will convert them into productive, or at least, harmless self-supporting members of society, then the death penalty will no longer be necessary.
When the government licenses the spectrum to a public company, financed by public investors, in exchange for public funds, so that the public company, can offer services to its public customers, exactly how much more friggin public can you make the process of utilizing a public resource ?
If virtually everything could be done with software on a power-sipping cpu
This is being done already. But instead of thinking CPU, as in desktop/laptop computer, think CPU, as in custom reconfigurable DSP/FPGA combination specifically designed for implementing radio.
I'd like to add, that arguing that there should be limits, and then arguing that the limits don't actually limit anything, is an insult to the intelligence of the majority of slashdot readers.
I suspect you've never run a business, or at least not handled the accounting side of one. Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expenses is exactly what you want.
I suspect you've never managed an economy.
If you place a cap on the amount of time a company can recover its spectrum expense, you limit the scope and scale of potential services for that block of spectrum.
Furthermore, as the government ( the public ) is the one holding the auction, placing a time limit also caps the amount of money that can be raised for the treasury today.
If you want to experience the joyous wonders of a planned economy, move to North Korea.
Check your vast expanse of business acumen at the door.
I was just about to mention SDR and Fractal Antennas.
That said, anything "new" will be "more expensive" in the near term. As soon as unit qtys ramp up and it becomes "the norm" it should be no more expensive than any device made now.
Might as well get some street justice along the way.
So if a person is uneducated and frustrated and is failing to adapt to their environment, or find their place in society, then it's a good thing if they freak out and kill innocent people as they self destruct ?
Really ? If the drug addict, or the alcoholic, or the guy with a failed marriage and ruined finances down the street, gives up on life, and kills you or one of your family members, then this is a good thing in your opinion ? Really ?
Slashdot Mirror
and FYI ... I was homeless at one point in my life. Nobody cared.
Not only did they not care, but people shouted "get a job" while I was walking to the bus station to look for a job.
I have spent quite a lot of time being one of those bums in the street that you claim has no right to elected representation.
I said no such thing. What I did say, however, was a statement on human nature, and how those that seek power seek out those who can help them hold onto, and gain more power.
Nowhere have I said a street bum does not deserve representation. I simply pointed out how street bums do not receive it due to human nature and the goal seeking behavior of those who seek power.
Now go take a reading comprehension class and your meds.
You can form governments, write constitutions, espouse ideals, and preach the utopia that we would all live in if everyone had equal representation, but in the real world, we all have a representative, who is human, and has human flaws, and human behaviors, and human nature will value the advice of a corporate CEO over that of a street bum so close to 100% of the time it might as well be 100%.
No need to crucify me for pointing it out. Having caused the problem, and being to blame for the problem, is not the same as simply being aware of the problem.
I apologize for not responding to each reply individually, but I'm tired of my posts being marked -1 troll for simply pointing out the truth.
Being able to board a train or bus without having my bag be searched (ostensibly for weapons, but really for drugs).
You can board a train or bus without being searched, if YOU OWN the plane or bus in question. If someone else owns it, then you are going to follow their rules or be denied service, just like you as the owner of a vehicle can refuse to give anyone you want a ride for any reason. Nothing here has changed.
Being able to post a video criticizing Universal Studios copyright policy with licensed music by famous artists without having it be taken down.
You can post a video on your own website that is critical of any company you want using whatever content you have legal right to publish. If it is youtubes website then you will follow youtubes rules or be denied service. If the criticism you post is baseless, you may be subject to lawsuits. Nothing here has changed.
Be able to play games on a decent computer without having that computer run software that spies on me and makes sure I'm not doing something the company would prefer I not do.
You can play games on a computer without being spied on. Disconnect it from the internet and write your own game code. If its someone elses game code, and they require internet for communication, and you agree to have info communicated, then accept the terms or don't purchase or play the game. Nothing here has changed.
Being reasonably confident that my representative cares more about what I and 50 of my neighbors say than what his or her corporate sponsor says (though that's been a serious problem for more than 20 years).
Have people who sought and gained and wielded power ever cared what the bum in the street thinks ? No. The bum in the street brings nothing to the table, and odds are high he speaks from a position of ignorance and irresponsibility, not from a position of success and responsibility, and this is why the street bums voice is ignored. He can't manage his own life, let alone national policies. Nothing here has changed.
Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.
Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI ... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.
In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.
future value of policy changes ... severe problem solved.
There's no workflow or business model for people who could live with waiting 6-12 weeks to get back a replacement drive with whatever data could be recovered copied to it for a halfway sane price. It's overnight-at-unlimited-cost, or data-gone-forever, with no real middle ground between the two extremes.
Are you daft ? It's called "backups" and "spare parts" and it's how the entire world maintains uptime.
Failure to make backups and/or keep spare parts for critical applications, is your process issue.
Floods wipe out facilities, act of god expense incurred.
... none of which are "wall streets" fault. The "environment" changed.
Temporary supply shortage + stable demand = prices go up.
Forced to prioritize, manufactures bring production online first, before warranty repair.
Newly restored manufacturing lines not fined tuned enough to estimate failures as before.
Many, many factors
As for the root cause of the need to produce a profit, it has shit all nothing to do with "wall street" and everything to do with property taxes levied on land / improvements, by the government, designed to insure productive use of said land, a burden we all bear.
Which is alot like saying, even tho theft of corn from farmers fields has gone up, farmers are growing more corn than ever.
The US is fairly tolerant of those who don't physically harm others.
You can be a drug addict, or a mentally deranged individual, wander the streets, urinate in public, and exhibit any number of other behaviors that polite society would consider 'undesirable' or 'disgusting' and you won't receive the death penalty.
Only approximately 100 or so individuals were given the death penalty last year. Of those 100, I'd say more than half probably have a good chance of never actually receiving the punishment.
That said, if you outlawed the death penalty, I would imagine that some of the people who deserve it ( by current standards ), would still receive it. By this, I mean, say a criminal broke into a house and killed the wife and daughters. The husband returns home, and knows ( or at least thinks he knows ) who did it. If the husband knows the justice system won't punish the offender with the death penalty, he may very well take care of it himself.
I disagree.
What are the ethics of forcing the public to sustain the life of the handful of members of society who have proven by their own actions they don't value the lives of others ?
In your view, it's perfectly ethical to take money from grandma to feed a deranged serial killer indefinitely.
When you produce a 100% effective treatment for deranged serial killers, that will convert them into productive, or at least, harmless self-supporting members of society, then the death penalty will no longer be necessary.
Are you saying patent royalties are the only expense when it comes to new technology ?
thanks for the propaganda update
If you want to *experience* the reality of business, start a company.
If you want to *fantasize* about the evil greedy drama of business, watch a movie.
It's abuse of a public resource for private gain.
When the government licenses the spectrum to a public company, financed by public investors, in exchange for public funds, so that the public company, can offer services to its public customers, exactly how much more friggin public can you make the process of utilizing a public resource ?
Did you go to public school or something ?
If virtually everything could be done with software on a power-sipping cpu
This is being done already. But instead of thinking CPU, as in desktop/laptop computer, think CPU, as in custom reconfigurable DSP/FPGA combination specifically designed for implementing radio.
I'd like to add, that arguing that there should be limits, and then arguing that the limits don't actually limit anything, is an insult to the intelligence of the majority of slashdot readers.
You, and the other poster, are horribly confusing the practice of accounting, with the practices of investing an innovating.
I suspect you've never run a business, or at least not handled the accounting side of one. Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expenses is exactly what you want.
I suspect you've never managed an economy.
If you place a cap on the amount of time a company can recover its spectrum expense, you limit the scope and scale of potential services for that block of spectrum.
Furthermore, as the government ( the public ) is the one holding the auction, placing a time limit also caps the amount of money that can be raised for the treasury today.
If you want to experience the joyous wonders of a planned economy, move to North Korea.
Check your vast expanse of business acumen at the door.
Its not "sold" .. its licensed. They are also working to reclaim, and re-license unused parts of the spectrum.
Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expense, will have those unintended consequences you claim you don't want.
And how is this any different than the people who camped outside for days waiting for the first iPhone ?
Early adopters pay more. It has always been this way.
I was just about to mention SDR and Fractal Antennas.
That said, anything "new" will be "more expensive" in the near term. As soon as unit qtys ramp up and it becomes "the norm" it should be no more expensive than any device made now.
it was easier to sell people houses they couldn't afford
Yeah. That so totally was dumb. You should write your congressman, as it was the government that was responsible for it.
before capital, corporations, and currency even existed.
These things have always existed, they just take on different forms.
Movies "The Corporation", and "Steal this film" come to mind.
Um ... those are movies. Movies != reality.
revolution against repression
In matters concerning revolution and repression, might makes right.
Might as well get some street justice along the way.
So if a person is uneducated and frustrated and is failing to adapt to their environment, or find their place in society, then it's a good thing if they freak out and kill innocent people as they self destruct ?
Really ? If the drug addict, or the alcoholic, or the guy with a failed marriage and ruined finances down the street, gives up on life, and kills you or one of your family members, then this is a good thing in your opinion ? Really ?