However, only the receiver is damaged directly by an interfering transmitter, so only the receiver can authorize legal action against the newcomer.
So someone broadcasting for commercial gain is not directly damaged by an interfering transmitter? They have been using that spectrum to communicate, yet when their transmission is overwhelmed by another broadcaster, there is no problem with that?
The idea is quite simple: the use of a resource in a certain way over time confers the (property) right to continue using it in that same way in the future.
This precludes the notion that someone can purposely not use the property in question; then anyone who comes along and uses that property could claim that they are "homesteading". How does one mediate claims of intentional disuse against claims of "homesteading" rights?
You are arguing against a straw man, not knowing my true position on the matter.
No, it's not a straw man. Your argument was based on that assumption; I do not believe the assumption is valid. To quote again:Blockquote>A "truly free-market" system would protect existing users of a radio channel (frequency/bandwidth/location) from interference by newcomers.
Maybe I should have asked you to define "users" since now that apparently only means receivers...
As for your true position, you are essentially granting squatters' rights to radio spectra receiving capability? Please correct me if I misunderstand.
Also to go back once again to that original response:
What you describe -- "let the strongest signal win" -- is a complete absence of property rights relating to radio and electronic interference, and in the absence of property rights there is no market, free or otherwise.
Market for what? For spectra? For broadcast or receival rights? For communication potential? Only by defining the commodity can we begin to discuss the terms of the market in question. It seems to me that we're discussing different markets, and what may enable a free market for one commodity (like your example of the market for receival rights) can cripple the free market of another commodity (for example, broadcast rights as per what was originally being discussed in this thread).
This was really what I was trying to get at with my original post -- I should have spelled it out in block letters, I guess. A truly unfettered marketplace leads to some rather un-free markets.
Heh. You've got to define the spectra as property first, then everything falls into place.
Why should the government keep the fees for taking and selling a public property?
The government is the people (snort!). By allowing the government to keep the fees, we're offsetting another expense, so we're getting the money by not having to borrow those funds or raise taxes for whatever they get spent on.
Thanks for getting my point. You didn't notice the tongue-in-cheekiness of my post? "If one believes"... I thought this would be enough to make it clear that I don't beleive that...
I believe regulation is necessary, and was making the point that to bring free market ideology into the spectra question is filled with problems, since extending the free market ideology further results in useless spectra. I was taking the GP's idea that the free market is the answer by taking it to it's natural conclusion.
Interestingly, having a free market in some areas makes it impossible to have a free market in others - which makes an ideal free-market world impossible.
An ideal free market is impossible anyway, since it requires full knowledge of the market by all participants. My point (thanks for catching it!) is that a free-market stance on spectra precludes a free-market stance on communications via those spectra, since allowing ownership of the spectra constitutes restrictions on how spectra are used.
I'm definitely not a free-market idealogue. I wanted to make the point that if you take free markets as the ideal, legislating a "free" market in one related good often restricts the market for another.
A "truly free-market" system would protect existing users of a radio channel (frequency/bandwidth/location) from interference by newcomers.
Absolutely false. Artificial barriers to entry are anathema to both an ideal free market and to the free market ideology. This is free market economics 101.
You make the assumption that radio spectra are equivalent to land, that property rights should apply. Your point is only valid if this assumption is true -- but it doesn't need to be true. We do not inherently need to assign property rights to the spectra.
The spectra market is tied to the communications market (this is the last definable single end use of the spectra). By assigning property rights to the spectra, you then are restricting the communications market, in violation of free market principles.
The company strategy is still about helping the consumer as little as possible and screwing them over as much as possible; it just happens that that is now most easily done with an open network
Well, I'm a cynic, but isn't that how it's supposed to work? They act to maximize their profits, you act to maximize the value you get for your hard-earned $$.
You can always go to another provider... competition should cause the value you get to increase.
The problem isn't Verizon... the problem is the oligarchy of cell phone providers. With too few participants on their side of the market, they do not face enough competitive pressure to make your cell phone experience better. The answer is to either regulate them better, or to open up the market to more competitors (which probably wouldn't work, due to high barriers to entry).
Never had that problem, but it was a small-ish office (~30 people). Dead weight was not tolerated, maybe I was just lucky to be in a group where if someone was slacking, they got flack from their teammates -- and if it continued, they were encouraged to find another employer.
Make a simple little graphing program that will maximize distance between
employees that are never supposed to interact and minimize the distance
between those that are always supposed to interact.
This doesn't take into account lost productivity from personality conflicts, workstyle, close access to necessary hardware (scanners, etc). Far better IMO to let it sort itself out; with proper management of workflow, employees will arrange themselves in a very efficient manner.
In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson signed the odious Sedition Act of 1918 and Franklin Roosevelt interred citizens unsuspected of crimes. All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic.
And after each war ended, the US Supreme Court found that the acts were unconstitutional. Are you saying that simply because peoples' rights were violated in the past, we have a duty (or a dispensation) to ignore the principles that we supposedly stand for?
Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar.
Enemy combatants? Sorry, what enemy? A criminal organization? A foreign state? A mythical bugaboo composed of all the world's terrorists?
Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened
I'm sorry, you have it backwards. Rights are innate, not granted by statute. Please provide the federal statute that permits the US to ignore the enumerated (and unenumerated!) rights of these people.
Assuming the existence of a free-market economy, an auction is an *excellent* way to allocate a limited resource.
No, a free-market economy precludes auctioning off a public resource to be used by a single entity. The US government is not auctioning off a good, they are auctioning off the right of use for a good theoretically available to all. By definition, this is not free-market. A truly free-market stance would open up the spectrum to all, and let the strongest signals win.
This is not to say that I don't think it's the best course of action (I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about spectrum auctions and that market to make that call), but by definition it is counter to the principles of a free market.
This also in no way resembles the activity in an ideal free market, which is something different and not to be confused with free-market idealogy. There is restriction on supply, there are barriers to entry, and there is less than perfect information about the market available to the actors within it.
In order for spectrum auctions to be a bad idea, we would either need to have a non-free market or spectrum would have to be a non-limited resource.
It is a non-free market; it is government restrictions that prevent participants from acting at will for each of the spectra. Government, in this case, dictates the terms of use for the spectra -- how is this free-market? As for a non-limited resource, again it is government action that limits the resource. Were the spectra open to all, it would in effect be a less-limited resource than now. If one buys into the theory that a free market results in the most efficient allocation of resources, the best course of action would be to open up the spectra, correct?
How the hell is it easier to round up the team when no one has a known location?
People tend to sit in the same area each day, and they tend to sit near those they interact with frequently. If someone knows they'll need to interact a lot with a certain team on a specific day, they'll sit near/with that team for the day.
Imagine working as a programmer, trying to concentrate on a problem, while you can hear the people stacking boxes talking about what goes where, the constant BEEEEPing of their barcode reader, the guy next to you who is working from home today didn't set his phone to "away", so it's ringing constantly, and the boss of one of the other groups is having a loud meeting at his desk behind you.
Sounds like two problems, one cultural and one with implementation. A quiet office culture would work out much differently than a loud one; and good implementation requires conference rooms or other ~soundproof areas for meetings and discussions. The common area should really feel like a library.
Not just about better utilization of space. Also about better productivity. FTA:
Productivity also is up, said Larry Matarazzi, Cisco's senior director of workplace resources. Ted Baumuller, a senior manager in Cisco's information technology department, agrees. He said the time it takes to make decisions has been cut by 25 to 30 percent because it's easier to round up the team, and collegial relationships have improved by working in a more open environment.
It's a double win for mgmt. As stated in the article, they can redesign to have more conference rooms, they can add more staff to the same location -- and they also get productivity enhancement.
Still, I'm not sure why you view this so negatively, or have such bad feelings towards management. I've worked in open floor plans when my role was conducive to it (requiring lots of interaction, etc). Now my role is much more autonomous, and I really need uninterrupted time to get my time-sensitive work done (hence relishing office privacy and coming to work at 6 AM). My experience with unassigned floor plans was that I got more accomplished, and thus felt better about my work -- AND I enjoyed better relationships with my coworkers. The downside was inhibited ability to hunker down and cram out work -- this was solved by setting aside a portion of the office as a DND area. Except for real emergencies, DND was observed by everyone.
Their future is too bad to let happen and it won't because it will be too expensive.
What? Whose future? The authors?
OK, so the authors' future won't happen because it's too expensive. But since their future is too bad to let happen, it's a good thing that it's too expensive to take place, right?
We can all be happy that the cheap future not invisioned by the authors takes place?
Rather than trying to find some cloak of invisibility he should be preparing his defence with his lawyer.
You're not American, are you?
It should be noted that America's laws re: libel and slander are much more permissive than those in Britain or most formerly British colonies.
This is most certainly political speech, and anonymity is important to preserving free speech when fear of retribution is a factor (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65 (1960).
See Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. App.Div. 2001) for establishment of criteria underwhich the state of NJ can/should overturn the right of anonymity in favor of the defamation claims.
It's also important to note that the NJ Constitution is even more protective of free speech rights than the US Constitution -- the state (and local governments) have much less right to abridge free speech in NJ.
Samsung said the new chips consume 1.5 volts, making them about 20 percent more efficient than GDDR 3 chips.
What poor science reporting. Nothing "consumes volts."
No no, you misunderstand. The author of the article meant that this chip can eat one standard AA battery. After that, it gets full.
*Results may vary for AAA, C, and D batteries. B batteries are only a myth, anyone who believes in them probably also believes that P=IE is some EE's recipe for a tasty tart.
11 + 3.6 = 14.6. 14.6 million PS3s shipped by the 31st of March 2008, which means around 14 million sold to consumers
It means 14.6 million PS3s shipped to retailers. It's not unreasonable to expect that >>.6 million PS3s will be in wholesale/retail inventory as of 3/31. Don't forget that D-J-F are huge retail sales months for consumer electronics in the US.
Also don't forget that they have dropped/are dropping prices.
I'm not saying that the numbers don't appear wacky; but, those figures could be within the realm of what's really expected. I think once they get December sales results, they will adjust their figures accordingly... but they may also be counting on the Wii shortage to pump up their sales a bit.
What if I sent a swab from a perspective mate to see what genetic anomalies she may contribute to offspring?
I'm all for it -- now I won't be deceived about my mates' genetics due to the work they've had done by their plastic surgeons.
I'm sick of the genetic fraud being perpetrated by these gold-diggers, I want to know up-front if my kids will be hit by the ugly stick on their way out of the womb.
What the owner of land could do would be to rent to land for a royalty, say $.01 per kilowatt hour.
Which leads to an incentive to *wait* until solar is more efficient... why have someone build out on your property now when your returns will be much greater if you wait ten years before allowing construction. This would laos lead to an additional disincentive to upgrade genration capability, since it will increase operating costs. Fixed rents will encourage more efficient generation, and will also encourage earlier buildout.
Screwing over the foreigners is apparently OK, because they don't have any rights under the US Constitution.
Not true. Under the US Constitution, all people have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, plus unspecified rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
The problem is that the Constitution no longer applies -- it is dying the death of a thousand papercuts.
Slashdot Mirror
This precludes the notion that someone can purposely not use the property in question; then anyone who comes along and uses that property could claim that they are "homesteading". How does one mediate claims of intentional disuse against claims of "homesteading" rights?
As for your true position, you are essentially granting squatters' rights to radio spectra receiving capability? Please correct me if I misunderstand.
Also to go back once again to that original response:
The government is the people (snort!). By allowing the government to keep the fees, we're offsetting another expense, so we're getting the money by not having to borrow those funds or raise taxes for whatever they get spent on.
Thanks for getting my point. You didn't notice the tongue-in-cheekiness of my post? "If one believes"... I thought this would be enough to make it clear that I don't beleive that...
I believe regulation is necessary, and was making the point that to bring free market ideology into the spectra question is filled with problems, since extending the free market ideology further results in useless spectra. I was taking the GP's idea that the free market is the answer by taking it to it's natural conclusion.
I'm definitely not a free-market idealogue. I wanted to make the point that if you take free markets as the ideal, legislating a "free" market in one related good often restricts the market for another.
You make the assumption that radio spectra are equivalent to land, that property rights should apply. Your point is only valid if this assumption is true -- but it doesn't need to be true. We do not inherently need to assign property rights to the spectra.
The spectra market is tied to the communications market (this is the last definable single end use of the spectra). By assigning property rights to the spectra, you then are restricting the communications market, in violation of free market principles.
You can always go to another provider... competition should cause the value you get to increase.
The problem isn't Verizon... the problem is the oligarchy of cell phone providers. With too few participants on their side of the market, they do not face enough competitive pressure to make your cell phone experience better. The answer is to either regulate them better, or to open up the market to more competitors (which probably wouldn't work, due to high barriers to entry).
Never had that problem, but it was a small-ish office (~30 people). Dead weight was not tolerated, maybe I was just lucky to be in a group where if someone was slacking, they got flack from their teammates -- and if it continued, they were encouraged to find another employer.
Enemy combatants? Sorry, what enemy? A criminal organization? A foreign state? A mythical bugaboo composed of all the world's terrorists?
I'm sorry, you have it backwards. Rights are innate, not granted by statute. Please provide the federal statute that permits the US to ignore the enumerated (and unenumerated!) rights of these people.
This is not to say that I don't think it's the best course of action (I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about spectrum auctions and that market to make that call), but by definition it is counter to the principles of a free market.
This also in no way resembles the activity in an ideal free market, which is something different and not to be confused with free-market idealogy. There is restriction on supply, there are barriers to entry, and there is less than perfect information about the market available to the actors within it.
It is a non-free market; it is government restrictions that prevent participants from acting at will for each of the spectra. Government, in this case, dictates the terms of use for the spectra -- how is this free-market? As for a non-limited resource, again it is government action that limits the resource. Were the spectra open to all, it would in effect be a less-limited resource than now. If one buys into the theory that a free market results in the most efficient allocation of resources, the best course of action would be to open up the spectra, correct?
Still, I'm not sure why you view this so negatively, or have such bad feelings towards management. I've worked in open floor plans when my role was conducive to it (requiring lots of interaction, etc). Now my role is much more autonomous, and I really need uninterrupted time to get my time-sensitive work done (hence relishing office privacy and coming to work at 6 AM). My experience with unassigned floor plans was that I got more accomplished, and thus felt better about my work -- AND I enjoyed better relationships with my coworkers. The downside was inhibited ability to hunker down and cram out work -- this was solved by setting aside a portion of the office as a DND area. Except for real emergencies, DND was observed by everyone.
OK, so the authors' future won't happen because it's too expensive. But since their future is too bad to let happen, it's a good thing that it's too expensive to take place, right?
We can all be happy that the cheap future not invisioned by the authors takes place?
It should be noted that America's laws re: libel and slander are much more permissive than those in Britain or most formerly British colonies.
This is most certainly political speech, and anonymity is important to preserving free speech when fear of retribution is a factor (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65 (1960).
See Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. App.Div. 2001) for establishment of criteria underwhich the state of NJ can/should overturn the right of anonymity in favor of the defamation claims.
It's also important to note that the NJ Constitution is even more protective of free speech rights than the US Constitution -- the state (and local governments) have much less right to abridge free speech in NJ.
That one's going up on a plaque in my office.
Although, I'm not sure what side Gandhi would be on re: this article, to whit:--Gandhi
A modern Gandhi might say he believes in equality for everyone, except reporters, photographers, and bloggers.
*Results may vary for AAA, C, and D batteries. B batteries are only a myth, anyone who believes in them probably also believes that P=IE is some EE's recipe for a tasty tart.
Also don't forget that they have dropped/are dropping prices.
I'm not saying that the numbers don't appear wacky; but, those figures could be within the realm of what's really expected. I think once they get December sales results, they will adjust their figures accordingly... but they may also be counting on the Wii shortage to pump up their sales a bit.
I'm sick of the genetic fraud being perpetrated by these gold-diggers, I want to know up-front if my kids will be hit by the ugly stick on their way out of the womb.
The problem is that the Constitution no longer applies -- it is dying the death of a thousand papercuts.
Very good point.
:)
Wish I worked with more people with the same attitude