Except that the example given is of people who privately own a company making a choice to allow their employees to take time off to serve a community function (firefighting). None of the things in the definition you gave apply: "cooperatve enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership". Nope, the companies are privately owned and the owner chooses to give the volunteer firefighters time off to fight fires.
"relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic...affairs" Nope, the guy who owns the company is very clearly the boss and if you do not do what he says, you're fired.
Except the volunteer fire department is still a socialist enterprise, regardless whether a firm allows their employees to participate (there are indeed benefits to the employers in this arrangement) or not. Anyone (or any firm) who participates need not be coerced for it to be socialism. There is even a branch of socialism called Liberterian Socialism, which is based on free association. For purposes here a volunteer fire department and its volunteers are sufficiently socialist, even if they otherwise work for wages in a capitalist firm.
No, they are not an example of socialism, because everyone involved voluntarily makes whatever sacrifice they make. As far as I am aware, there are no laws requiring employers to allow firefighters to leave the job to go fight fires. This is the mistake that progressives make all the time, they think that being forced to do something is interchangeable with doing so voluntarily.
You're confusing socialism with something else. from Wikipedia:
Socialism play/solzm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.
I'm not stupid; I understand that vaccines train the immune system. My point is that the kind of 'training' vaccines introduce is military in style: a strict vaccination schedule trains every single immune system on the same precise schedule, with identical doses of genetically identical antigens.
You're taking that analogy too far. There are a couple of things that you're getting wrong.
1. Benefits conferred by vaccination are not inherited, therefore your immune system is not made less sophisticated because of vaccination.
2. Adaptive immunity factors (i.e. receptors) are more or less randomly generated and "trained" by the body. Vaccines do not change that. (see Somatic Hypermutation.)
Vaccination gives your body a head-up on diseases. It gives your body an opportunity to develop adaptive immunity toward the disease in question. It does NOT affect how the immune system fundamentally works.
Adaptive Immune System is a fascinating part of biology. You should really spend some time understanding it.
While it is true that there is no evidence for horizontal transfer of the genes inserted into GM plants for selection, the fact remains that antibiotic resistant genes do have something to do with GMO. I was responding to the assertion that antibiotic resistant genes and GMO are completely exclusive topics.
The genetic modifications often involve inserting fungal or bacterial antibiotic synthesis genes into to the plants. That is, the GMOs produce antibiotics, which can lead to more antibiotic resistant bacteria.
I think it is somewhat dishonest to brush off both atheists and fundamentalists, equally, claiming that you find both their arguments puerile. The atheists and fundamentalists are arguing in response to each other. Just because the atheists have to respond to repeated assertions about the validity of the genesis story, does not mean that they somehow are responsible for it, or that it makes them equally bad as the fundamentalists. If anything, you can be rest assured that the fundamentalists will, for all time, use more or less the same type of arguments. It's sad that anyone who responds will inevitably look like an idiot, but that's simply the way things are.
Well, that's only true if you ignore the period in between when the religious groups decided to hunt down and torture anyone who disagreed with their tenets. Even in the pre-WWII America, to be a successful scientist, you had to at least pay lip service to religion. I'm not sure citing an ancient Greek philosopher would've helped them much.
While I agree that for-profit schools are not necessarily bad, the point you're making is moot. Much of the massive marketing in recruiting students. even by land grant institutions, is due to competition in the market, mostly from the emerging for-profit sector. Today, schools compete for students as much as students compete for schools, a trend sharply different from earlier parts of the 20th century. The whole college selection process is almost a farce.
I agree that this behavior will bring the downfall of society. The number crunching does not always account for the value of liberal arts majors or other non-STEM majors and when colleges market education, it will be to increase your income, make you more attractive, raise your popularity and not to make you a well rounded human being. It's ironic that marketing targets emotions, but the exploration of the emotions like arts, theater and literature are all but worthless to the capitalist educators.
In Michigan there is (almost) no funding for the state parks system from the legislature, and they have to rely exclusively on the admission fees. While it's holding together for now, it sorta like a Dinghy in a hurricane, ready to fall apart at the first sign of trouble. Yeah, long live the state parks indeed.
What about people who have their emails automatically filed through filters (like Sieve on the IMAP server) and search them when they need to? Their productivity must the through the roof.
T-Mobile has pretty bad coverage. But if you don't mind paying a little extra for a smartphone (I believe even some non-smartphones support this) you can get one with UMA support, like Bold 9700, and wherever you have wifi (even abroad), you have cell coverage. You don't have to pay anything extra with T-Mobile. Some AT&T phones support this too, but I don't know if they'll bleed you dry for it.
Trees are a renewable resource, as are fish. There's also nothing wrong with humans expanding to every corner of the globe. Are you another one of those self-loathing liberals who hates mankind?
Not if you clear cut the forest so that entire species get wiped out or troll the seas so that all that will be left are mussels and algae. Renewability requires that people who use the resource act within the natural restraints of the system. But anyways, as far as any aliens are concerned, so far, we may not have existed at all.
...That's just blatantly obvious... you know, because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.
You're refuting a argument of your own making. The OP said regulations are there to save lives, not so much money. That's just a hypothetical positive side effect. In this case what we're left with is wishful thinking. Wouldn't it be nice if I could get a heart transplant at the back of a Chinese restaurant for 200 bucks and live!
Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."
I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.
From Wikipedia: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a multi-part professional exam sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Medical doctors with an M.D. degree are required to pass this examination before being permitted to practice medicine in the United States of America.[1]
Both FSMB and NBME are independent organizations much like UL. The doctors are tested by a third party. In licensing them the state simply verifies that they have passed the tests from these organizations. Getting back to the topic, no matter how much you wish you can get your broken finger completely fixed for mere 50 dollars by the hedge witch, reality may strongly disagree with you.
I think you are missing the point. Genetics only makes sense in light of evolution. While you may not have explicitly had a section called evolution, it is implicit and informs the entire topic of genetics or microbiology. Mutations and polymorphism, inherited diseases, phylogenetic releationship are all brought together by evolution. You do not need to spend a semester studying finches in Galapagos to discuss evolution, rather it is the best explanation for common phenomena such as antibiotic resistance, variation among individuals, etc. While the the word evolution may never have to be mentioned in a basic biology class, it is understood to be relevant. Furthermore, for advanced classes, evolution MUST be taught. The days of biology as simple observation and cataloguing are disappearing, instead much of current biology research focuses on modeling, and elucidation of the "big picture". This reseach is driven by an understanding of evolution. If you agree that we ought to teach children the best current understanding of a subject, evolution is unavoidable.
I'm not suggesting that the current way of things are right or that we continue keep doing it. I simply wanted to point out that people don't like to let go of things they have sunken time and money into. Fallaciously reasoned or not. If we are to change the way we live, it's only reasonable that we explore paths that do not require catastrophic changes. Agorism requires overthrow of present institutions. No one is willing to cede the power and position that they have acquired without a struggle. Neither are they going to allow such a dramatically different alternative to society to exist anywhere within their reach. The Soviets ticked off America from day one.
You may find that it is difficult to get people to accept that there are no authorities than not. If there are no explicit authorities then implicit ones will exist. It's simply that people who seem to know a thing or two will get listened to. (Sometimes.) Despite the assertion, telling the difference between good doctors and quacks is not an easy thing. Sometime the cost of that is your or someone else's life. A bad doctor is more likely to kill you than a bad sysadmin. I'm not trying to introduce fear, but I doubt that most people are willing to give up the certainty that they have now (whether valid or not) so they can supposedly have more freedom. And your solution seems to rely on the availability of perfect information, a fallacy if anything. Since no such thing exists.
I have lived in a place where your connections and likability are more important than the rule of law. If anything it's worse or equally bad as the cruel, cold, alienating society. At least they will leave you alone if you keep your head low. Without a proper outlet for people dissatisfaction (like lawsuits or appearance of justice) people will react violently.
The point is, the majority won't let you have your utopia. No matter how perfect and foolproof. They like what they have and know. They won't join it. And if you force them, one day the unenlightened will have their revenge (again look what happened to the Communists).
Why don't you look at your personal life first? It's probably more relevant to your feelings of powerlessness. Is there something you've been meaning to say or do in your personal life but been to afraid to do? Someone that you associate with that just won't respect your needs?
Now there are systematic factors that push people towards an empty lifestyle. Inflation drives over-consumption by making saving less rewarding.Compulsory schooling teaches that you should judge yourself by how much you are like others, and who well you please authority. Property tax makes it so that you are never secure in your own home. Zoning and occupational licencing makes it difficult (but not impossible) to secure a living that fits your interests, skills, and schedule. Government intervention continues to increase prices of vital services like healthcare by limiting the supply of doctors and limiting the sorts of services a non-MD can provide even though they are qualified, and the cost of diagnostic chemistry and mechanics go down. Patents create monopolies everywhere and prevent innovation and competition
The solution is to stop asking permission to be an adult. Find a community where they won't rat you out or hate you for the slightest disobedience, and offer goods and services to them and without permission (licensing ) or paying extortion (taxes) if reasonably safe to do so. NH is a good place to start, but agoras can be made or found just about anywhere.
That idea seems equally misguided. The main purpose seems to create your own artificial tribe that is against most things that the society supports. One might be able to find meaning in that, but it's only a matter of time before the harsh reality catches up.
Yes, property taxes mean that you can never be secure in your home, but it is simply a side effect of what we have done. My parents' house is in the middle of a drained swamp. There are houses in Nevada that are in the middle of the desert. These modern houses and the people in them cannot survive naturally. Millions of dollars are needed to ensure that these houses don't sink into the swamp or disappear among the sand. The drains, pumping stations, etc. cost more money that one person or even a small group can muster. Primitive people built a small number of houses at the very few rare locations that were safe and survived floods and droughts. That meant fewer humans, today, people can choose to live in places that are naturally unfit for human occupation but it allows us to flourish (at least in numbers).
I don't believe that making yourself less powerful (as in forming a small group, which leads to loss of accumulated knowledge) does much for survival. If anyone can be a doctor and you don't know what a proper doctor should be like, you are more likely to be deceived by a charlatan. The fact is that there are assholes, and small groups are less powerful against them and they are also less powerful against the forces of nature. This Liberterian utopia, it seems, will turn into nightmare before you know it.
+1 for MediaTomb. I built it on Ubuntu and couldn't get the javascript stuff to work, so I wrote a shell script to enumerate my media and create organized folders with symlinks. cron runs the script at an interval and now I can have media group by the date they were added and such. Ideally either with the javascript or a shell script, one should be able to create multiple organizational schemes, based on filesname (or metadata--given cli tools exist to read them.) It may not be the sexiest way to organize things, but these days even the kitchen sink has DLNA support and being able to use your media anywhere is really nice.
PS: If you use Adobe Acrobat (the horror!) to read pdfs, in Preferences, in the Documents category, you can set it to 'Restore last view settings when reopening documents' which will 'bookmark' the books you're reading, very useful when reading long eBooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the example given is of people who privately own a company making a choice to allow their employees to take time off to serve a community function (firefighting). None of the things in the definition you gave apply: "cooperatve enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership". Nope, the companies are privately owned and the owner chooses to give the volunteer firefighters time off to fight fires. "relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic...affairs" Nope, the guy who owns the company is very clearly the boss and if you do not do what he says, you're fired.
Except the volunteer fire department is still a socialist enterprise, regardless whether a firm allows their employees to participate (there are indeed benefits to the employers in this arrangement) or not. Anyone (or any firm) who participates need not be coerced for it to be socialism. There is even a branch of socialism called Liberterian Socialism, which is based on free association. For purposes here a volunteer fire department and its volunteers are sufficiently socialist, even if they otherwise work for wages in a capitalist firm.
No, they are not an example of socialism, because everyone involved voluntarily makes whatever sacrifice they make. As far as I am aware, there are no laws requiring employers to allow firefighters to leave the job to go fight fires. This is the mistake that progressives make all the time, they think that being forced to do something is interchangeable with doing so voluntarily.
You're confusing socialism with something else. from Wikipedia:
Socialism play /solzm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.
I'm not stupid; I understand that vaccines train the immune system. My point is that the kind of 'training' vaccines introduce is military in style: a strict vaccination schedule trains every single immune system on the same precise schedule, with identical doses of genetically identical antigens.
You're taking that analogy too far. There are a couple of things that you're getting wrong.
1. Benefits conferred by vaccination are not inherited, therefore your immune system is not made less sophisticated because of vaccination.
2. Adaptive immunity factors (i.e. receptors) are more or less randomly generated and "trained" by the body. Vaccines do not change that. (see Somatic Hypermutation.)
Vaccination gives your body a head-up on diseases. It gives your body an opportunity to develop adaptive immunity toward the disease in question. It does NOT affect how the immune system fundamentally works.
Adaptive Immune System is a fascinating part of biology. You should really spend some time understanding it.
While it is true that there is no evidence for horizontal transfer of the genes inserted into GM plants for selection, the fact remains that antibiotic resistant genes do have something to do with GMO. I was responding to the assertion that antibiotic resistant genes and GMO are completely exclusive topics.
Though I have to concede that the second part of my reply, while theoretically possible, however seems to be false in practice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21722080
The genetic modifications often involve inserting fungal or bacterial antibiotic synthesis genes into to the plants. That is, the GMOs produce antibiotics, which can lead to more antibiotic resistant bacteria.
I think it is somewhat dishonest to brush off both atheists and fundamentalists, equally, claiming that you find both their arguments puerile. The atheists and fundamentalists are arguing in response to each other. Just because the atheists have to respond to repeated assertions about the validity of the genesis story, does not mean that they somehow are responsible for it, or that it makes them equally bad as the fundamentalists. If anything, you can be rest assured that the fundamentalists will, for all time, use more or less the same type of arguments. It's sad that anyone who responds will inevitably look like an idiot, but that's simply the way things are.
Well, that's only true if you ignore the period in between when the religious groups decided to hunt down and torture anyone who disagreed with their tenets. Even in the pre-WWII America, to be a successful scientist, you had to at least pay lip service to religion. I'm not sure citing an ancient Greek philosopher would've helped them much.
Yep. Until that process balances out, we'll have massive unemployment. Let's starve them straight. Yay!
While I agree that for-profit schools are not necessarily bad, the point you're making is moot. Much of the massive marketing in recruiting students. even by land grant institutions, is due to competition in the market, mostly from the emerging for-profit sector. Today, schools compete for students as much as students compete for schools, a trend sharply different from earlier parts of the 20th century. The whole college selection process is almost a farce.
I agree that this behavior will bring the downfall of society. The number crunching does not always account for the value of liberal arts majors or other non-STEM majors and when colleges market education, it will be to increase your income, make you more attractive, raise your popularity and not to make you a well rounded human being. It's ironic that marketing targets emotions, but the exploration of the emotions like arts, theater and literature are all but worthless to the capitalist educators.
In Michigan there is (almost) no funding for the state parks system from the legislature, and they have to rely exclusively on the admission fees. While it's holding together for now, it sorta like a Dinghy in a hurricane, ready to fall apart at the first sign of trouble. Yeah, long live the state parks indeed.
The 3.0.4 Update was released today (Oct 18).
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/18/hp-touchpad-gets-webos-3-0-4-update-now-able-to-answer-calls-fr/
Check the Software Manger for OTA update.
Amen. Why would anyone really care for the opinions of the BSD people regarding RMS? Don't they have their own Ryandian hell to deal with.
What about people who have their emails automatically filed through filters (like Sieve on the IMAP server) and search them when they need to? Their productivity must the through the roof.
Don't forget Kindle touch wifi for $99, about $30 less than nook touch wifi.
You linked to Rain Man, I think you meant Repo Men.
T-Mobile has pretty bad coverage. But if you don't mind paying a little extra for a smartphone (I believe even some non-smartphones support this) you can get one with UMA support, like Bold 9700, and wherever you have wifi (even abroad), you have cell coverage. You don't have to pay anything extra with T-Mobile. Some AT&T phones support this too, but I don't know if they'll bleed you dry for it.
Trees are a renewable resource, as are fish. There's also nothing wrong with humans expanding to every corner of the globe. Are you another one of those self-loathing liberals who hates mankind?
George Carlin on saving the planet
Not if you clear cut the forest so that entire species get wiped out or troll the seas so that all that will be left are mussels and algae. Renewability requires that people who use the resource act within the natural restraints of the system. But anyways, as far as any aliens are concerned, so far, we may not have existed at all.
There is a recent case that shows the opposite. The FDA wanted to revoke the approval for Avastin for use in metastatic breast cancer threapy due to the severe side effects and almost no measurable benefits, not to mention the expense. But some people went hysterical claiming that the FDA is taking away a valuable drug (lot of name calling and mud slinging there) despite that fact that the drug only made you more miserable while the prognosis did not change. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000352/ http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm193900.htm
...That's just blatantly obvious... you know, because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.
You're refuting a argument of your own making. The OP said regulations are there to save lives, not so much money. That's just a hypothetical positive side effect. In this case what we're left with is wishful thinking. Wouldn't it be nice if I could get a heart transplant at the back of a Chinese restaurant for 200 bucks and live!
Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."
I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.
From Wikipedia: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a multi-part professional exam sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Medical doctors with an M.D. degree are required to pass this examination before being permitted to practice medicine in the United States of America.[1]
Both FSMB and NBME are independent organizations much like UL. The doctors are tested by a third party. In licensing them the state simply verifies that they have passed the tests from these organizations. Getting back to the topic, no matter how much you wish you can get your broken finger completely fixed for mere 50 dollars by the hedge witch, reality may strongly disagree with you.
I think you are missing the point. Genetics only makes sense in light of evolution. While you may not have explicitly had a section called evolution, it is implicit and informs the entire topic of genetics or microbiology. Mutations and polymorphism, inherited diseases, phylogenetic releationship are all brought together by evolution. You do not need to spend a semester studying finches in Galapagos to discuss evolution, rather it is the best explanation for common phenomena such as antibiotic resistance, variation among individuals, etc. While the the word evolution may never have to be mentioned in a basic biology class, it is understood to be relevant. Furthermore, for advanced classes, evolution MUST be taught. The days of biology as simple observation and cataloguing are disappearing, instead much of current biology research focuses on modeling, and elucidation of the "big picture". This reseach is driven by an understanding of evolution. If you agree that we ought to teach children the best current understanding of a subject, evolution is unavoidable.
I'm not suggesting that the current way of things are right or that we continue keep doing it. I simply wanted to point out that people don't like to let go of things they have sunken time and money into. Fallaciously reasoned or not. If we are to change the way we live, it's only reasonable that we explore paths that do not require catastrophic changes. Agorism requires overthrow of present institutions. No one is willing to cede the power and position that they have acquired without a struggle. Neither are they going to allow such a dramatically different alternative to society to exist anywhere within their reach. The Soviets ticked off America from day one.
You may find that it is difficult to get people to accept that there are no authorities than not. If there are no explicit authorities then implicit ones will exist. It's simply that people who seem to know a thing or two will get listened to. (Sometimes.) Despite the assertion, telling the difference between good doctors and quacks is not an easy thing. Sometime the cost of that is your or someone else's life. A bad doctor is more likely to kill you than a bad sysadmin. I'm not trying to introduce fear, but I doubt that most people are willing to give up the certainty that they have now (whether valid or not) so they can supposedly have more freedom. And your solution seems to rely on the availability of perfect information, a fallacy if anything. Since no such thing exists.
I have lived in a place where your connections and likability are more important than the rule of law. If anything it's worse or equally bad as the cruel, cold, alienating society. At least they will leave you alone if you keep your head low. Without a proper outlet for people dissatisfaction (like lawsuits or appearance of justice) people will react violently.
The point is, the majority won't let you have your utopia. No matter how perfect and foolproof. They like what they have and know. They won't join it. And if you force them, one day the unenlightened will have their revenge (again look what happened to the Communists).
I feel powerless because of the following:
Why don't you look at your personal life first? It's probably more relevant to your feelings of powerlessness. Is there something you've been meaning to say or do in your personal life but been to afraid to do? Someone that you associate with that just won't respect your needs?
Now there are systematic factors that push people towards an empty lifestyle. Inflation drives over-consumption by making saving less rewarding.Compulsory schooling teaches that you should judge yourself by how much you are like others, and who well you please authority. Property tax makes it so that you are never secure in your own home. Zoning and occupational licencing makes it difficult (but not impossible) to secure a living that fits your interests, skills, and schedule. Government intervention continues to increase prices of vital services like healthcare by limiting the supply of doctors and limiting the sorts of services a non-MD can provide even though they are qualified, and the cost of diagnostic chemistry and mechanics go down. Patents create monopolies everywhere and prevent innovation and competition
The solution is to stop asking permission to be an adult. Find a community where they won't rat you out or hate you for the slightest disobedience, and offer goods and services to them and without permission (licensing ) or paying extortion (taxes) if reasonably safe to do so. NH is a good place to start, but agoras can be made or found just about anywhere.
That idea seems equally misguided. The main purpose seems to create your own artificial tribe that is against most things that the society supports. One might be able to find meaning in that, but it's only a matter of time before the harsh reality catches up.
Yes, property taxes mean that you can never be secure in your home, but it is simply a side effect of what we have done. My parents' house is in the middle of a drained swamp. There are houses in Nevada that are in the middle of the desert. These modern houses and the people in them cannot survive naturally. Millions of dollars are needed to ensure that these houses don't sink into the swamp or disappear among the sand. The drains, pumping stations, etc. cost more money that one person or even a small group can muster. Primitive people built a small number of houses at the very few rare locations that were safe and survived floods and droughts. That meant fewer humans, today, people can choose to live in places that are naturally unfit for human occupation but it allows us to flourish (at least in numbers).
I don't believe that making yourself less powerful (as in forming a small group, which leads to loss of accumulated knowledge) does much for survival. If anyone can be a doctor and you don't know what a proper doctor should be like, you are more likely to be deceived by a charlatan. The fact is that there are assholes, and small groups are less powerful against them and they are also less powerful against the forces of nature. This Liberterian utopia, it seems, will turn into nightmare before you know it.
+1 for MediaTomb. I built it on Ubuntu and couldn't get the javascript stuff to work, so I wrote a shell script to enumerate my media and create organized folders with symlinks. cron runs the script at an interval and now I can have media group by the date they were added and such. Ideally either with the javascript or a shell script, one should be able to create multiple organizational schemes, based on filesname (or metadata--given cli tools exist to read them.) It may not be the sexiest way to organize things, but these days even the kitchen sink has DLNA support and being able to use your media anywhere is really nice.
PS: If you use Adobe Acrobat (the horror!) to read pdfs, in Preferences, in the Documents category, you can set it to 'Restore last view settings when reopening documents' which will 'bookmark' the books you're reading, very useful when reading long eBooks.
Actually, there is a significant Brazilian community in Japan