Ok, I am an evil soul. I really think it would be quite some fun. And I know how to handle such a world.
What makes you think so? I don't care how well you can "handle" yourself (whatever that means), the more violence in the environment the greater the chances you will be one of the casualties.
I *GAVE* them a damned idea that would save MILLIONS and cost very little to implement. I even did the research myself. And THIS is what they're getting? My idea would've generated ten times the amount of power, at FAR LESS COST.
The notion that you can "gift" (or "buy") your way to being rich without doing any hard work, or having a creative idea, is so completely stupid that anyone who believes it, assuming they're in full control of their mental faculties, deserves what they get.
There are plenty of rich investors who do nothing but give money to creative and hard-working people who don't have money, in return for future profits.
When, really, did you ever see an example of anything else - instances where society promotes homosexuality itself rather than tolerance for it?
For a while there gay culture was booming (South Park even did that metro-sexual episode). Maybe it is still booming, I don't know, I stopped paying attention to culture. Oh, and hot lesbians, society can get behind that.
Btw, do you like troll sticks? Yeah? I thought so, because you are such a Gay Troll...
Because he has a viewpoint you vehemently disagree with? If you find yourself using the word troll, reconsider.
The major problems with threads isn't the java.lang.Thread API, it's the shared-state model and the whole concept of threads in general. The new concurrent utilities are just that, utilities. You still have to be very careful about shared variables and locking. Once you have two threads running you have to be sure that every single line of code that they call is thread-safe. Good luck with that.
Yeah, it's nice to have the utility classes to help avoid a few bugs, but they aren't the panacea you're making them out to be.
This is a bit more than wiki spam, it's chopping up data in segments, encrypting them, and distributing them across a range of sites for storage.
I just watched a 2006 Google Tech Talk video yesterday, which argues for the same thing. One of the examples given was something like a plane flying overhead can carry your data. Anyways, the principles at work aren't new. You see similar ideas in protocols like BitTorrent or Freenet.
Even worse than filtering of comments is rewriting of comments. I experienced this first hand in the Los Angeles Times comments section. During the 2008 election I wrote a controversial post and they changed it into something like "Obama is the change we need". What drivel.
The Slashdot comment system is the best. No editing, no filtering, say what you want, and moderation keeps it readable.
I'm not all that up on the history of the Boston tea party, but I don't think it was intended to terrorize anyone.
Ok, I'll grant that "terrorist" isn't a very good label, though I'll note that the tea certainly wasn't a military target. Also, property damage is always a violent act, even if nobody gets hurt. Finally, the government likes to throw around the word terrorists for exactly the kinds of acts like the Boston Tea Party:
A terrorist attacks civilian targets. Freedom fighters attack military targets. There is a big difference.
You can be a freedom fighter and a terrorist. When will American history books call the people behind the Boston Tea Party terrorists? There's also the matter of a couple of nuclear bombs on Japan, and the fire bombing of Dresden.
Though android uses Linux and gets some value from that the Linux kernel specifically is not required and does not give android something that another similar kernel would not.
But the Linux kernel does provide essential functionality. It doesn't matter that it could be replaced with another implementation. What counts is that the GPL implementation is used and distributed. Reference the "in part contains" which I bolded in my quote of the GPL.
There is, as I understand it, an established principle that userspace programs calling public kernel APIs does not constitute derived works under the GPL, I think the FSF has said as much in approximately as many words.
Again, reference my original quote. "in part contains or is derived". Notice how "contains" is mentioned explicitly, in addition to "derived".
It is in no way necessary for userspace to comply with the kernel's license. Windows apps are not derivative works of the Windows kernel, either.
Poor analogy. Windows apps don't distribute the kernel along with the application. Android is distributed as a complete platform, including the kernel. The only permission given to redistribute the Linux kernel is via the GPL, which must apply to the whole work.
If you think that all programs running on Linux in general should be considered derived works then please take your FUD somewhere else.
When programs are distributed as part of a whole which includes GPL parts, then they must be distributed under the GPL, whether they are derivative or not. When they are distributed separately the GPL need not apply.
You are saying that the userland should "comply with" GPLv2, implying that the kernel license and the userland license have something to do with one another.
Yes, this is my exact position. Android is a whole made up of parts. It wouldn't be functional without the kernel. When you choose the GPL for parts, you have to make the whole GPL. If you don't understand this then you don't understand the GPL, though that is not surprising as there is an urban myth that GPL only comes into play when explicitly linking. Note that the GPL wisely never talks about anything as specific as linking.
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
He's been coached. Or he's been given a presentation.
Of course, all senators are on all issues. Yes, it's unfortunate some of them only listen to paid lobbyists, and Stevens sounds like this kind of senator.
But I hardly believe he understands what he's saying much less making a sane argument.
First off, I acknowledge he's rambling and nearly incoherent, and is not familiar with the technology. However, I can look past that and get at what he's saying, and he clearly understands the basic principles, and the argument he makes is sane.
He believes that there is a "personal Internet." And is shocked and abhorred that the Internet is being used for commercial purposes - suggesting said content delivery services should consider building their own Internet for those purposes. Thus, avoiding the cluttering of personal communications.
I understood what he was saying. He's talking about how the Internet is based on a "network of networks". He does mention the word "local". What he's saying is that one company streaming video across the network impacts the whole network it runs across, not just the endpoints. This is the basic argument of net neutrality. Should individual networks be allowed to manage traffic that flows across their network or not? I'm not going to get into the debate, but I'm sure Stevens understood all that I've laid out.
But even worse is that he's supposed to be at least somewhat knowledgeable in this field as a chair for the committee that oversees the Government's involvement in it and an author of a bill that does just that.
I agree that somebody with a firm grasp on the technology should be in charge, and clearly he isn't it, but the tubes vs pipes thing tends to show the ignorance of those who laugh loudest at him for that particular analogy. I think Jon Stewart would probably fall into this camp, and probably quite a few ignorant Slashdotters (though definitely not you).
People can't spend what they don't have; expecting people who've just lost their job and don't see a new one coming any time soon to spend their savings for the greater good is madness. The idea that the economy is dependant on confidence is just a form of magical thinking.
But there are people who have jobs and extra income that aren't spending as freely because of all the bad economic news. Self-fulfilling prophecy, vicious circle, etc. There's no magic in that.
Just because you use a term, doesn't mean you're getting it right.
He understood the basic principles, though. Any network has limited capacity. It is ironic that he was mocked most for using a funny sounding phrase with the word "tubes" that captures the same meaning as the more common "pipes".
Unfortunately, with the typical 'drone' American citizen today, that can be led by the nose via TV, this means a person of this type, will never get elected.
The funny thing is that both Kucinich and Ron Paul (who my siblings mention) are elected officials. Ok they'll never be President, but they did get elected. It counts for something.
Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here?
This is a "what the fuck" moment for me. This whole argument started based on a quote from Diderot that you posted where he used the word priest. Seriously, I can't argue with you any more if you can't keep track of the most basic premises. Bye.
Which shows exactly why Andy Kaufman wasn't really funny. Funny in the abstract, not in the execution. It's funny to hear the story of the joke being played on it's audience. It's absolutely painful to watch.
Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this?
No, it wasn't me. Oxford is not the only dictionary in existence, and I found the word supernatural in another dictionary. Even so, let's look at Oxford's:
"1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."
Obviously 1 refers to the supernatural. According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this. Anything can, even science (note how some theists like to say scientist have their own religion). It's an incredibly weak argument, and doesn't fit in with your "kings and priests" quote. In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.
I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written.
I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion, not the third. I also note that he was imprisoned for his anti-religious texts. That might make him more inclined to call for violent revolution, even under the guise of "poetic imagery".
I was arguing against capital punishment
I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this. The post you replied to said "All kings and queens should be beheaded in this day and age, be them British or Thai." And you provided a naked quote of "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." The casual reader is supposed to see this as arguing against capital punishment?! Especially when, throughout history, kings and priests have been murdered in violent overthrow?
Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.
Maybe you should learn to argue honestly, instead of calling an adult a child, or claiming I don't know how to read.
I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.
I could do so, but that would require a somewhat significant amount of effort on my part to dig them up. My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them or my argument, given the kind of arguments that I've seen from you so far. If I don't believe the other side is arguing honestly, it is not worth my effort. This will probably be my last reply as is for these very reasons.
And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story.
That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story. Without it there is no story. There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish, but that doesn't mean that the device of the clothes themselves can't be referred to. They often are in contemporary usage: http://www.google.com/search?q=emeperor+has+no+clothes
Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?
The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary. If you read up on Buddhism you'll see there are many supernatural aspects. Zen just happens to be the most unlike a religion and more like a philosophy, though even Zen has a few appeals to traditional Buddhist supernatural concepts.
That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty. You had to reach for the most "unlike a religion" religion to try and back up your point, and still failed.
The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality.
Just because you don't agree with the viewpoints doesn't make the argument religion. The argument is based on looking at specific realities such as class struggles. There is no appeal to the supernatural. You may find fault with the conclusions, or argue with the premises, but at no time does religion come into the picture.
Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more.
Seriously, I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote. What counts is how a message is taken when presented in context. Do you think even 10% of the people are familiar with the philosopher you quoted? Killing kings and priests is pretty common in history. It's a reasonable interpretation that this kind of violence is being condoned in that quote.
The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.
Quite recently on Slashdot, and multiple times, I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes. People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way. Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues.
As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes.
I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist. I wasn't trying to draw the deeper moral. Though in fact, I misremembered the story, as I had last read it as a child. I remembered it as the clothes were of such a fine (as in super-thin silk) material, that they couldn't actually be seen. In the actual story, they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people. So I'll concede my analogy was stretched even further by a faulty memory.
Slashdot Mirror
Never said they were a panacea. Said they were more powerful and easier to use.
You incorrectly pinned the bad reputation of threads on the java.lang.Thread API. That just scratches the surface.
It's still a significant improvement.
No, it's minor. Just to put a rough number on it, I'd say around a 10% improvement.
Ok, I am an evil soul. I really think it would be quite some fun. And I know how to handle such a world.
What makes you think so? I don't care how well you can "handle" yourself (whatever that means), the more violence in the environment the greater the chances you will be one of the casualties.
I *GAVE* them a damned idea that would save MILLIONS and cost very little to implement. I even did the research myself. And THIS is what they're getting? My idea would've generated ten times the amount of power, at FAR LESS COST.
Then publish your research and promote it.
The notion that you can "gift" (or "buy") your way to being rich without doing any hard work, or having a creative idea, is so completely stupid that anyone who believes it, assuming they're in full control of their mental faculties, deserves what they get.
There are plenty of rich investors who do nothing but give money to creative and hard-working people who don't have money, in return for future profits.
When, really, did you ever see an example of anything else - instances where society promotes homosexuality itself rather than tolerance for it?
For a while there gay culture was booming (South Park even did that metro-sexual episode). Maybe it is still booming, I don't know, I stopped paying attention to culture. Oh, and hot lesbians, society can get behind that.
Btw, do you like troll sticks? Yeah? I thought so, because you are such a Gay Troll...
Because he has a viewpoint you vehemently disagree with? If you find yourself using the word troll, reconsider.
The truth is out there
I'd find it but I trust no one.
I was hoping that article would be a stub with no references or citations, but alas, it's true!
Reminds me of the The Nude Bomb.
The major problems with threads isn't the java.lang.Thread API, it's the shared-state model and the whole concept of threads in general. The new concurrent utilities are just that, utilities. You still have to be very careful about shared variables and locking. Once you have two threads running you have to be sure that every single line of code that they call is thread-safe. Good luck with that.
Yeah, it's nice to have the utility classes to help avoid a few bugs, but they aren't the panacea you're making them out to be.
This is a bit more than wiki spam, it's chopping up data in segments, encrypting them, and distributing them across a range of sites for storage.
I just watched a 2006 Google Tech Talk video yesterday, which argues for the same thing. One of the examples given was something like a plane flying overhead can carry your data. Anyways, the principles at work aren't new. You see similar ideas in protocols like BitTorrent or Freenet.
A New Way to look at Networking
August 30, 2006 Van Jacobson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840
Even worse than filtering of comments is rewriting of comments. I experienced this first hand in the Los Angeles Times comments section. During the 2008 election I wrote a controversial post and they changed it into something like "Obama is the change we need". What drivel.
The Slashdot comment system is the best. No editing, no filtering, say what you want, and moderation keeps it readable.
I'm not all that up on the history of the Boston tea party, but I don't think it was intended to terrorize anyone.
Ok, I'll grant that "terrorist" isn't a very good label, though I'll note that the tea certainly wasn't a military target. Also, property damage is always a violent act, even if nobody gets hurt. Finally, the government likes to throw around the word terrorists for exactly the kinds of acts like the Boston Tea Party:
When protesters become 'terrorists'
A terrorist attacks civilian targets. Freedom fighters attack military targets. There is a big difference.
You can be a freedom fighter and a terrorist. When will American history books call the people behind the Boston Tea Party terrorists? There's also the matter of a couple of nuclear bombs on Japan, and the fire bombing of Dresden.
That cash mountain that you're referring to actually belongs to the shareholders.
I thought it belonged to the top executives who find ways to funnel the money to themselves.
Though android uses Linux and gets some value from that the Linux kernel specifically is not required and does not give android something that another similar kernel would not.
But the Linux kernel does provide essential functionality. It doesn't matter that it could be replaced with another implementation. What counts is that the GPL implementation is used and distributed. Reference the "in part contains" which I bolded in my quote of the GPL.
There is, as I understand it, an established principle that userspace programs calling public kernel APIs does not constitute derived works under the GPL, I think the FSF has said as much in approximately as many words.
Again, reference my original quote. "in part contains or is derived". Notice how "contains" is mentioned explicitly, in addition to "derived".
It is in no way necessary for userspace to comply with the kernel's license. Windows apps are not derivative works of the Windows kernel, either.
Poor analogy. Windows apps don't distribute the kernel along with the application. Android is distributed as a complete platform, including the kernel. The only permission given to redistribute the Linux kernel is via the GPL, which must apply to the whole work.
If you think that all programs running on Linux in general should be considered derived works then please take your FUD somewhere else.
When programs are distributed as part of a whole which includes GPL parts, then they must be distributed under the GPL, whether they are derivative or not. When they are distributed separately the GPL need not apply.
You are saying that the userland should "comply with" GPLv2, implying that the kernel license and the userland license have something to do with one another.
Yes, this is my exact position. Android is a whole made up of parts. It wouldn't be functional without the kernel. When you choose the GPL for parts, you have to make the whole GPL. If you don't understand this then you don't understand the GPL, though that is not surprising as there is an urban myth that GPL only comes into play when explicitly linking. Note that the GPL wisely never talks about anything as specific as linking.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
(Any bold was added by me.)
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Go ahead and find a transcript of the infamous speech.
I just listened to the speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
He's been coached. Or he's been given a presentation.
Of course, all senators are on all issues. Yes, it's unfortunate some of them only listen to paid lobbyists, and Stevens sounds like this kind of senator.
But I hardly believe he understands what he's saying much less making a sane argument.
First off, I acknowledge he's rambling and nearly incoherent, and is not familiar with the technology. However, I can look past that and get at what he's saying, and he clearly understands the basic principles, and the argument he makes is sane.
He believes that there is a "personal Internet." And is shocked and abhorred that the Internet is being used for commercial purposes - suggesting said content delivery services should consider building their own Internet for those purposes. Thus, avoiding the cluttering of personal communications.
I understood what he was saying. He's talking about how the Internet is based on a "network of networks". He does mention the word "local". What he's saying is that one company streaming video across the network impacts the whole network it runs across, not just the endpoints. This is the basic argument of net neutrality. Should individual networks be allowed to manage traffic that flows across their network or not? I'm not going to get into the debate, but I'm sure Stevens understood all that I've laid out.
But even worse is that he's supposed to be at least somewhat knowledgeable in this field as a chair for the committee that oversees the Government's involvement in it and an author of a bill that does just that.
I agree that somebody with a firm grasp on the technology should be in charge, and clearly he isn't it, but the tubes vs pipes thing tends to show the ignorance of those who laugh loudest at him for that particular analogy. I think Jon Stewart would probably fall into this camp, and probably quite a few ignorant Slashdotters (though definitely not you).
People can't spend what they don't have; expecting people who've just lost their job and don't see a new one coming any time soon to spend their savings for the greater good is madness. The idea that the economy is dependant on confidence is just a form of magical thinking.
But there are people who have jobs and extra income that aren't spending as freely because of all the bad economic news. Self-fulfilling prophecy, vicious circle, etc. There's no magic in that.
I tend to think of D as C++ done right, although I like Scala more, for mostly different reasons.
Now you've peaked my curiosity. Why do you prefer Scala over D?
Just because you use a term, doesn't mean you're getting it right.
He understood the basic principles, though. Any network has limited capacity. It is ironic that he was mocked most for using a funny sounding phrase with the word "tubes" that captures the same meaning as the more common "pipes".
I know. I have not seen a valid software patent.
RSA seems worthy. That's the only one I've ever come across.
Unfortunately, with the typical 'drone' American citizen today, that can be led by the nose via TV, this means a person of this type, will never get elected.
The funny thing is that both Kucinich and Ron Paul (who my siblings mention) are elected officials. Ok they'll never be President, but they did get elected. It counts for something.
Why would you think what Diderot thinks about religion is relevant here?
This is a "what the fuck" moment for me. This whole argument started based on a quote from Diderot that you posted where he used the word priest. Seriously, I can't argue with you any more if you can't keep track of the most basic premises. Bye.
Which shows exactly why Andy Kaufman wasn't really funny. Funny in the abstract, not in the execution. It's funny to hear the story of the joke being played on it's audience. It's absolutely painful to watch.
Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this?
No, it wasn't me. Oxford is not the only dictionary in existence, and I found the word supernatural in another dictionary. Even so, let's look at Oxford's:
"1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."
Obviously 1 refers to the supernatural. According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this. Anything can, even science (note how some theists like to say scientist have their own religion). It's an incredibly weak argument, and doesn't fit in with your "kings and priests" quote. In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.
I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written.
I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion, not the third. I also note that he was imprisoned for his anti-religious texts. That might make him more inclined to call for violent revolution, even under the guise of "poetic imagery".
I was arguing against capital punishment
I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this. The post you replied to said "All kings and queens should be beheaded in this day and age, be them British or Thai." And you provided a naked quote of "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." The casual reader is supposed to see this as arguing against capital punishment?! Especially when, throughout history, kings and priests have been murdered in violent overthrow?
Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.
Maybe you should learn to argue honestly, instead of calling an adult a child, or claiming I don't know how to read.
I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.
I could do so, but that would require a somewhat significant amount of effort on my part to dig them up. My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them or my argument, given the kind of arguments that I've seen from you so far. If I don't believe the other side is arguing honestly, it is not worth my effort. This will probably be my last reply as is for these very reasons.
And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story.
That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story. Without it there is no story. There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish, but that doesn't mean that the device of the clothes themselves can't be referred to. They often are in contemporary usage: http://www.google.com/search?q=emeperor+has+no+clothes
Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen, for example, doesn't deal at all with the supernatural. Are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion?
The word "supernatural" is straight from the dictionary. If you read up on Buddhism you'll see there are many supernatural aspects. Zen just happens to be the most unlike a religion and more like a philosophy, though even Zen has a few appeals to traditional Buddhist supernatural concepts.
That you are equating political arguments to religions shows your intellectual dishonesty. You had to reach for the most "unlike a religion" religion to try and back up your point, and still failed.
The tenets behind socialism is an ideal not observed in reality.
Just because you don't agree with the viewpoints doesn't make the argument religion. The argument is based on looking at specific realities such as class struggles. There is no appeal to the supernatural. You may find fault with the conclusions, or argue with the premises, but at no time does religion come into the picture.
Only the fact that you clearly didn't know who he was or anything at all about him. Also, a reminder to you to get out more.
Seriously, I don't care about the details of some minor philosopher that you quote. What counts is how a message is taken when presented in context. Do you think even 10% of the people are familiar with the philosopher you quoted? Killing kings and priests is pretty common in history. It's a reasonable interpretation that this kind of violence is being condoned in that quote.
The fact that you would think that someone who argues against capital punishment as such would argue for killing anyone is odd, to put it mildly.
Quite recently on Slashdot, and multiple times, I have seen people who purportedly are against capital punishment call for lynch-style justice for political crimes. People who wouldn't execute somebody for being a serial killer but would for election fraud or passing a law in a underhanded way. Fact is people who normally would abhor murder as a means can get riled up over the pet issues.
As I said, you really need to read more about the emperors new clothes, you see, other than on an utterly superficial level, the "story" has nothing at all to do with clothes.
I was only alluding to the fact that the clothes couldn't be seen because they didn't in fact exist. I wasn't trying to draw the deeper moral. Though in fact, I misremembered the story, as I had last read it as a child. I remembered it as the clothes were of such a fine (as in super-thin silk) material, that they couldn't actually be seen. In the actual story, they were magic and could only not be seen by stupid or incompetent people. So I'll concede my analogy was stretched even further by a faulty memory.