Nintendo used to be a productive company that focused on satisfying its customers. Now it appears to be just another non-productive company that figures IP is an easy way to milk the legal system and benefit from government-sponsored privilege.
Usually the "replacement" for directories in these FSs is considered "Saved Searches". i.e. You have a set of what appears to be folders, but they're really just result sets from a pre-saved search. This provides an easy way to have the same files show up in multiple categories.
That's going to be real fun when trying to support people who make multiple versions of the same document. Talk about help desk job security...
I work in tech support. If you expect people who have tremendous difficulty even describing what's going wrong on their computer to actually perform a relevant keyword search, then you're -- well, I'll be polite and just say "unjustifiably optimistic".
Every day, I lose count of the number of people I have to explain to that the folders in the Outlook folder list are not file folders, that attachments are not files and that by making elaborate hierarchies of subfolders based on sophisticated topical ontologies all within ONE freakin'.pst file "personal folder" they're just asking for trouble. Then they scream for twenty minutes about how it's "not fair" that their 2 gig monstrosity went corrupt. You want stuff to be easy to find? Give the users Prozac and a 5th grade reading level.
And people wonder why I use Linux when I get home...
And it shows that OSS really is like communism because it has a dictator.
Nahhh. It shows that Linux is like Christmas. Some vaguely Nordic person with a pleasant demeanor takes charge of making sure things get done, so that a great set of gifts can be bestowed upon all humanity. He couldn't do it without all his little helpers, though. The best thing is, Linux doesn't only come once a year.
The forests which are best-preserved in Europe are those which were kings' hunting grounds, closed for other people.
All this tells us is that Europe has for centuries been a place where only kings enjoyed any stable, long term respect for their property claims (and in times of war, probably not even then).
<sarcasm>And we all know how Europe has been such a free place, respecting the property rights of the common people for centuries, and that if it wasn't for the heroic actions of the State, which in turn had such a negligible impact on society (being as it was composed of three schoolgirls and a tame mouse) that it never shaped any social conditions that might have resulted in deforestation, even that pitiful strip of forest wouldn't exist.</sarcasm>
All local authorities on the spot gripe with desire to take the forest in their hands
And local "authorities" don't count as part of the State when they do things you don't like, apparently.
I find this absurd. The spectrum is just a number, a wavelength, for God's sake. It was not made by anybody, it was discovered by scientists who were acting for the benefit of science, not for their own personal profit, and yet people want to make profit from it. It's like somebody wants to have property rights to sun rays, or oxygen particles in the air we breathe.
And a plot of land is defined solely by imaginary lines and measurements -- yet the real estate industry buys and sells those all of the time.
The point of the article is that we may be on the edge of a post-scarcity era with respect to spectrum (due to more sophisticated receivers being better able to discern individual signals). The article sets forth the notion that this may open the door to an era of much more relaxed controls and decentralized power (in the social sense) with regard to this resource. That won't be the case however, because governmental control of spectrum was never really about scarcity of spectrum (as a market based system would handle scarce spectrum both more efficiently and justly anyway). It has been about control -- and they'll just find another deceptive rationale for control, even in a post-scarcity situation.
Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. There's a perfectly good road connecting two points, and you want someone else to make another road to foster competition?
So you would prefer a monopoly? That would leave people vulnerable to precisely the sort of problems that are typically cited as concerns. Seems a bit disingenuous to argue that a market system wouldn't work when the reason it wouldn't work would be the constraints you'd seek to impose on it yourself.
But having lots of roads is just silly.
By definition, if you have fewer roads than people are willing to voluntarily pay for, there is a *scarcity* of roads. Arguing in favor of mandatory scarcity maintained by force (of government) doesn't seem very nice.
It makes a lot more sense to have the roads be properly designed for the traffic that needs them. It's better for the environment (less roads built), better for private land owners (who wants to live next to a freeway?) etc, etc.
Any material good can be over or under produced. Without a market system, it's guaranteed that one or the other will happen pretty consistently -- because no one has any way of effectively determining demand for a good without market feedback.
As opposed to what? The stellar results produced by the "stewardship" of land by privately held interests? You know, the ones that clear-cut their privately owned lands? Strip-mine their private mountains?
Actually, that sort of wasteful, short-sighted approach is typically the direct result of getting political approval to exploit "public" lands. When you actually own something, you have a vested interest in maintaining its value. Getting short term, politically-dependent permission to access a "public" resource encourages the "grab the goods and run" mentality. Google the phrase "tragedy of the commons" for more in-depth info.
And I don't need to back off on anything until I'm sleepy or bored.
Your philosophy would argue that the National Forests,the water we drink, the air we breath should all be "managed" by Private Industry.
No, my philosophy argues that bandit gangs that hide behind flags and call themselves "government" to confuse the weak-minded are quite poor managers of the resources that they've stolen from the people -- and that they shouldn't steal from the people in the first place.
Government ownership of a resource guarantees that its allocation will be at the mercy of the politcal process -- which has a pretty consistent track record of less than stellar results. When you say you want those forests to stay public, you're saying that you're willing to throw them in the kitty at the electoral poker game every few years. Some of us care more about forests than that.
Re:You forgot to minus out the saved lives.
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 1
At this point forming conclusions about the impact of the war is the epitome of short-sightedness.
ADDENDUM: Killing innocent people doesn't make you more popular. If it did, you wouldn't be disputing the figures -- you'd be bragging about them.
Re:War isn't about making friends.
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Source?
Governmental authorites officially stopped counting in Iraq after the first several thousand.
Looking at fatalities alone, Iraqbodycount.net maintains a set of low and high estimates with a database and documented methodology to back it up -- the low end being currently 11,510 and the high end being 13,483. That figure alone leaves out the civilian casualties from an entire other war (Afghanistan).
The 9/11 fatality figures from september11victims.com follow:
Putting the statistics aside, though, the point is that the person who chose to take things off on this tangent set forth the odd notion that these two wars have made the US more popular. When it was pointed out that was not the case, the response was an iteration of the truism that war is not about making friends (which really kind of accentuated my point).
One could just as equally say the whole debate should be about how to the get the government to do its job, an necessary precondition for fair privatization, which would then illimnate the injustice which makes privatization look attractive.
Well, government by nature being a means of oppressing and expropriating from the masses, it does its "job" fiendishly well.
Both justice and efficiency are valid concerns, and they need not be at odds with each other (witness the opposite -- the horrible mismanagement of the old Soviet economy and the repression that went hand in hand with it).
The State having a necessity of preserving the facade of democratic rule (for the sake of its own preservation) opens the door to prying things from governmental control. Even in the worst private hands, market pressures would at least present a "centrifugal" set of forces that can result in decentralization of power over that resource. Government, however, will always rule in its own perceived interest -- and screw things up along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo used to be a productive company that focused on satisfying its customers. Now it appears to be just another non-productive company that figures IP is an easy way to milk the legal system and benefit from government-sponsored privilege.
my computer can only count to one, that never stopped it
Actually, your computer can only count to 1.
# And one post actually offering helpful information.
Thank you.
So, it turns out that Linus was really telling the truth? That Linux was made by Santa Claus?!
I can't believe that I'm THE ONLY ONE who has noticed that you never see both Linus and Santa Claus IN THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME!
Get a clue, people!
Take up smoking. Tobacco will give you a legitimate reason to worry about your health and deaden your sense of smell.
Usually the "replacement" for directories in these FSs is considered "Saved Searches". i.e. You have a set of what appears to be folders, but they're really just result sets from a pre-saved search. This provides an easy way to have the same files show up in multiple categories.
That's going to be real fun when trying to support people who make multiple versions of the same document. Talk about help desk job security...
I work in tech support. If you expect people who have tremendous difficulty even describing what's going wrong on their computer to actually perform a relevant keyword search, then you're -- well, I'll be polite and just say "unjustifiably optimistic".
Every day, I lose count of the number of people I have to explain to that the folders in the Outlook folder list are not file folders, that attachments are not files and that by making elaborate hierarchies of subfolders based on sophisticated topical ontologies all within ONE freakin'
And people wonder why I use Linux when I get home...
And it shows that OSS really is like communism because it has a dictator.
Nahhh. It shows that Linux is like Christmas. Some vaguely Nordic person with a pleasant demeanor takes charge of making sure things get done, so that a great set of gifts can be bestowed upon all humanity. He couldn't do it without all his little helpers, though. The best thing is, Linux doesn't only come once a year.
What a demonstration! MS has to SPECIFICALLY TRY to come up with something EVEN WORSE to make XP look good by comparison.
Pity that there isn't a trading floor for Washington state food stamp futures...
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Kerry... they're all the same.
The forests which are best-preserved in Europe are those which were kings' hunting grounds, closed for other people.
All this tells us is that Europe has for centuries been a place where only kings enjoyed any stable, long term respect for their property claims (and in times of war, probably not even then).
<sarcasm>And we all know how Europe has been such a free place, respecting the property rights of the common people for centuries, and that if it wasn't for the heroic actions of the State, which in turn had such a negligible impact on society (being as it was composed of three schoolgirls and a tame mouse) that it never shaped any social conditions that might have resulted in deforestation, even that pitiful strip of forest wouldn't exist.</sarcasm>
All local authorities on the spot gripe with desire to take the forest in their hands
And local "authorities" don't count as part of the State when they do things you don't like, apparently.
I find this absurd. The spectrum is just a number, a wavelength, for God's sake. It was not made by anybody, it was discovered by scientists who were acting for the benefit of science, not for their own personal profit, and yet people want to make profit from it. It's like somebody wants to have property rights to sun rays, or oxygen particles in the air we breathe.
And a plot of land is defined solely by imaginary lines and measurements -- yet the real estate industry buys and sells those all of the time.
The point of the article is that we may be on the edge of a post-scarcity era with respect to spectrum (due to more sophisticated receivers being better able to discern individual signals). The article sets forth the notion that this may open the door to an era of much more relaxed controls and decentralized power (in the social sense) with regard to this resource. That won't be the case however, because governmental control of spectrum was never really about scarcity of spectrum (as a market based system would handle scarce spectrum both more efficiently and justly anyway). It has been about control -- and they'll just find another deceptive rationale for control, even in a post-scarcity situation.
Ahhh, but don't forget...
At this point forming conclusions about the impact of the war is the epitome of short-sightedness.
Dumbass.
how many dicks in your life you suck?
Relax. Nobody is challenging your world record.
Smarter = more expensive. Always.
Price of a mainframe in the 70s --> stratospherically high
Price of a much "smarter" PC today --> affordable for the average individual
Always? Apparently, we have transcended Time itself.
Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. There's a perfectly good road connecting two points, and you want someone else to make another road to foster competition?
So you would prefer a monopoly? That would leave people vulnerable to precisely the sort of problems that are typically cited as concerns. Seems a bit disingenuous to argue that a market system wouldn't work when the reason it wouldn't work would be the constraints you'd seek to impose on it yourself.
But having lots of roads is just silly.
By definition, if you have fewer roads than people are willing to voluntarily pay for, there is a *scarcity* of roads. Arguing in favor of mandatory scarcity maintained by force (of government) doesn't seem very nice.
It makes a lot more sense to have the roads be properly designed for the traffic that needs them. It's better for the environment (less roads built), better for private land owners (who wants to live next to a freeway?) etc, etc.
Any material good can be over or under produced. Without a market system, it's guaranteed that one or the other will happen pretty consistently -- because no one has any way of effectively determining demand for a good without market feedback.
As opposed to what? The stellar results produced by the "stewardship" of land by privately held interests? You know, the ones that clear-cut their privately owned lands? Strip-mine their private mountains?
Actually, that sort of wasteful, short-sighted approach is typically the direct result of getting political approval to exploit "public" lands. When you actually own something, you have a vested interest in maintaining its value. Getting short term, politically-dependent permission to access a "public" resource encourages the "grab the goods and run" mentality. Google the phrase "tragedy of the commons" for more in-depth info.
And I don't need to back off on anything until I'm sleepy or bored.
Your philosophy would argue that the National Forests,the water we drink, the air we breath should all be "managed" by Private Industry.
No, my philosophy argues that bandit gangs that hide behind flags and call themselves "government" to confuse the weak-minded are quite poor managers of the resources that they've stolen from the people -- and that they shouldn't steal from the people in the first place.
Government ownership of a resource guarantees that its allocation will be at the mercy of the politcal process -- which has a pretty consistent track record of less than stellar results. When you say you want those forests to stay public, you're saying that you're willing to throw them in the kitty at the electoral poker game every few years. Some of us care more about forests than that.
At this point forming conclusions about the impact of the war is the epitome of short-sightedness.
Sure. Make the same reply to this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117917&cid=99
See above. The claim was made that the Iraq War had made the US more popular in Iraq. That is clearly not true.
...and thereby maintaining State control, power, prestige, ability to use that resource as a tool to continue oppression of the productive class, etc.
False consciousness legitimizes nothing in actuality.
ADDENDUM: Killing innocent people doesn't make you more popular. If it did, you wouldn't be disputing the figures -- you'd be bragging about them.
Source?
Governmental authorites officially stopped counting in Iraq after the first several thousand.
Looking at fatalities alone, Iraqbodycount.net maintains a set of low and high estimates with a database and documented methodology to back it up -- the low end being currently 11,510 and the high end being 13,483. That figure alone leaves out the civilian casualties from an entire other war (Afghanistan).
The 9/11 fatality figures from september11victims.com follow:
CONFIRMED DEAD: 2948 REPORTED DEAD: 24 REPORTED MISSING: 24 TOTAL: 2996
Putting the statistics aside, though, the point is that the person who chose to take things off on this tangent set forth the odd notion that these two wars have made the US more popular. When it was pointed out that was not the case, the response was an iteration of the truism that war is not about making friends (which really kind of accentuated my point).
It's about killing your enemies. We've been very successful.
...and in the process, killed and maimed many times more innocent people than even Osama bin Laden has. Smooth move, there, rocket scientist.
One could just as equally say the whole debate should be about how to the get the government to do its job, an necessary precondition for fair privatization, which would then illimnate the injustice which makes privatization look attractive.
Well, government by nature being a means of oppressing and expropriating from the masses, it does its "job" fiendishly well.
Both justice and efficiency are valid concerns, and they need not be at odds with each other (witness the opposite -- the horrible mismanagement of the old Soviet economy and the repression that went hand in hand with it).
The State having a necessity of preserving the facade of democratic rule (for the sake of its own preservation) opens the door to prying things from governmental control. Even in the worst private hands, market pressures would at least present a "centrifugal" set of forces that can result in decentralization of power over that resource. Government, however, will always rule in its own perceived interest -- and screw things up along the way.