Slashdot Mirror
Using WiFi to Bridge the Digital Divide
andori writes "CNN is running a story about how WiFi is enabling low-income residents Internet access. The project is set at a public housing development in Boston, Massachusetts. Residents buy the WiFi NIC, and the access if free. It is nice to see people making an effort to expand the reach of the Internet to a broader audience."
Will this do any more than free dialup access did?
until all the spammers move into that apartment building, that is.
So, if the people in the public housing have a WiFi NIC (and, presumably, a computer), why are they in public housing?
Now not only the people in rich neighborhoods get free internet! I love my neighbors, and their 802.11b wireless internet =D
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
yeah the thought is there, but i wasn't aware that the avg low income person had a computer and a WiFi NIC hehe.
"Many people point to issues of democracy and public participation and dialogue, and having access to what the Internet brings is really important, she said."
I agree. Pr0n is important.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
The apartments I live in are inhabited by a bunch of broke ass young adults such as myself. Me and 7 or 8 of my geek friends in this all pitch in on a leased line and then operate a WiFi hotspot for anyone in the apartment to use.
The problem we run into most is still the cost of the hardware. For people who don't make alot of money, getting started can really take some sacrafice.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Isn't it a fundamental right to be able to d/l porn?
This rules - another way we can keep information free to all, especially to people who can use it to improve their lives. Someday broadband will be a reliable public utility.
I also reply below your current threshold.
Why the Speakeasy logo for the article?
With projects like these it is no wonder that there are millions of newbies trying to play online games. Just the other day some newbie told me he could kick my ass in Quake 3... well one thing lead to another, and now he's dead. Moral of the story, some people shouldn't be on the internet.
cheap second-hand computers. And wi-fi adapters can be found for under $30.
I also reply below your current threshold.
How many thousands of people read Slashdot every day?
Considering the enormous number of people who will be momentarily confused by that misplaced "if," would it be too much to ask to spend 10 seconds to correct blatant error such as this?
I admit, I'm about ready to give up on the misplaced apostrophe's, the mispeelings, and the run on sentences that just go one forever without even a semicolon, you know what I'm talking about?
But give me break That's not even the right word!
Considering the enormous number of people who will be momentarily confused by that misplaced "one" would it be too much to ask to spend 10 seconds to correct blatant error such as this?
Allowing free access like this seems to have the potential for chaos. Accountability for who is doing what over the connection would be a painful process at best. Hopefully they'll incorporate some type of authentication with a pre-registration required, even if it is free, just to create a sense (even if it ends up being false) of accountability.
Just the other day some newbie told me he could kick my ass in Quake 3... well one thing lead to another, and now he's dead.
Do you mean "dead" within the game and will respawn in five seconds, or "dead" outside the game, never to respawn?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I carried my ass to a library for internet access.
We can all hope that this new breed of pauper online gaming will give us plenty of lamers on crappy wifi connections and shoddy boxes trying to stop themselves being spawn killed at ridiculously low resolutions in software mode on U2k3
"die AOL wifi lamer"
but I really doubt this will be very useful in improving many low-income families lives. I mean, sure, having Intenet access is fun and all, but I mostly see it being used for music-sharing, IM, and porn.
There's always a few people who really take an affinity to tech, and will run with it, and maybe start a career, but they'd probably do it without WiFi.
Anyways, my point is the money could probably be used better somewhere else, either in the USA or elsewhere in the world, like the countless refugee camps throughout Asia and Africa, where people have really fucked-up lives.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
ok so you want the janitors to be nazi's on the submissions as well as the posts???? you obviously didnt put much thought into it.
check out the nocat project for something free which can be used to keep tabs on the users of the free service.
nocat.net
"The world causes it, information overload, all the electronics around you poisoning the airwaves, technological fucking civilisation, but we still have all this shit because we can't live without it."
-- Spider's response to Johnny when questioned about the 'black shakes', from Johnny Mnemonic the movie.
Of course a lot of people, including the poor, are cellphone only these days.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
to dig through the mountains of spam and useless pointless desperate marketing that is infused in the internet? I could be considered an experienced internet user and I still can't get my normal content-to-spam ratio down to a useable level. People unexperienced with the web or modern technology I think would be horribly confused as to what to do with the web or email if they got it. I think that the equipment and the airwaves would go largely unused unless they focus on either
A. educating the masses about the ways of the internet, including "street smarts" about all the types of spam and popups and embeded ads and/or
2. working on legislation that would help curb the flow of unsolicited advertising, maybe convincing these advertisers to make a good product rather than mass-market and hope for that 0.1% to respond to the ad for a cell phone booster anteanna
since this is government run, they're probably about as "street smart" as Steve Erkel, stick with working on the commercial sector
-P
"It is nice to see people making an effort to expand the reach of the Internet to a broader audience"
Forget that. I need all the bandwith I can get for my pr0n, PS2, and MP3 P2P.
Now how about free internet for the middle-class? eh? eh? C'mon, I live out in the sticks and the fastest internet available to me is 56k :(
GIVE ME BANDWIDTH!!!!
What about the millions of poor Americans in rural areas who have no chance at 'high speed' internet access? Are we now going to give them DirecWay dishes?
How many public housing residents will actually have a computing device to plug a wireless NIC into? Or have the requisite 1st grade education to use one? Or even put the crack pipe down long enough to even care?
Free as in no cost for the end user, maybe.
"The project, mostly paid for with a $200,000 grant from the Kellogg Foundation and supported by companies like Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft as well as public and nonprofit entities..."
So we have evil corporations, nonprofits, and public (funded by you and I) entities. The label "free access" sounds as if the bandwidth fairy visited Boston last week.
that we are giving our underprivilaged free access to steal music and download porn. This won't greatly improve anyones life. The internet isn't some savior of the masses, a neccesity, or even a really useful tool. For people that do business on the internet it is useful, to everyone else it is just a pretty neat toy. These are low income housing dwellers that can't even afford a place to live without it being subsidized. I am not saying we shouldn't give them internet access for free, that is a nice gesture. But will it really affect their lives positively? Do we need to herald this as a great thing? We have just subjected a whole new batch of people to spam that were previously unaffected.
I'm Brian Fellows!!
Its the killer app for the bangin broad band gehto crowd.
Except that it is impossible to steal music using the Internet. Copy, yes. But steal, no. Duplication can never be theft, it does not meet the definition.
In fact, music theft becomes less likely if you give people Wifi. Without it, they might heave their worthless non-connected machines through store windows and actually steal music.
errrr.... or not.
Now they can work crushing hours doing horrible manual labor, then come home after their 12 hour shift and read slashdot, where they'll find out that they're poor because they're "lazy". Great that they'll now have a place to listen to spoiled rich kids whine about how the government steals their money and gives it to all those undeserving poor people.
Maybe the goal is to get all the drive by crews who war dial into wireless networks to camp out or move in. And that should certainly solve the problem of the hardware being the biggest short term cost.
This is not a government project.
Do you have the requisite 1st grade education to post to slashdot? Try reading the story before you post.
And didya know that your stereotypical view of poor people is a pretty inaccurate and shitty perspective?
Well, it's about time someone did something about that. The gap between "1" and "0" has always struck me as one which needs to be narrowed...
Perhaps if we build the subsidized housing projects containing WiFi out of chalk, then we get rid of the need to warchalk the buildings themselves.
The whole deal with the internet and slashdot is anonymity and the right to privacy. Why would we want to feel more accountable, or care about feeling that way. Especially when you are talking about the free speach aspect of the internet. Then less accountability is better. I don't want people to know that I just posted that my neighbor is a drug dealer to help get him run out of the complex, especially my well armed neighbor. Granted that is a little contrived, but you get the picture. Free speach is all about anonymity, or the ability to be anonymous if one wants to be. Without it, most discourse, political discourse especially, would be dead.
do not have a worry. All of this stuff is free. We do not pay for it: the government does.
Is it just me, or has an article like this one been posted nearly every week for months now... WiFi blah blah blah, Speakeasy blah blah blah, Neighbors sharing internet blah blah blah! We know already.
If at first you don't succeed... How does that go again? Ah, forget it.
All of this may change with things like MIT OCW, but as it stands now the internet is a piss poor medium for education. When I was 12 years old, I used the internet for email, porn, videogames, and conceptually copying reports for school. I suspect I would have been an mp3 fiend if they'd been around.
Sometimes it bothers me the way people talk about the internet. It takes just as much intelligence and discipline to learn from the internet as it does to learn from books and teachers. It's nice that they're giving these people internet access, but I'm under no illusion that this will help children develop in any significant way.
"My Homies on Broadband!"
Hammer of Truth
"...the boy-wonder techie...
That's quite a label for someone who wrote a basic compiler that's no longer used, and since has bought or borrowed code, or hired others to code the remainder of his company's technical products.
When you live out in rural areas unless you are a bazillionaire high speed access is completely out of the question. I have a friend who has DirecWay, he's about ready to turn it into a big bowl for dips when he has party because that's all its good for.
Anything that can cross that last mile, over the river, through the woods, and above the cow into my house with real speed, not a laggy, delayed trashed out bandwidth that vanishes when it rains is a plus.
So, if the people in the public housing have a WiFi NIC (and, presumably, a computer), why are they in public housing?
Ah yes... the usual debate. As in, why are they buying anything like this if they are poor?
Think about it this way - if you have kids, you just opened up a whole new set of possibilities for them by purchasing a used PC (at the pawnshow, used computer store, etc - used hardware is CHEAP unless you want top of the line.) That and Internet access now allows them to at least try and keep up with the other kids nationwide that have access to the Internet. Heck, even if it's not used for direct learning (IE, they are playing games or downloading music, etc., instead of reading text books line ;-) the act of becoming familiar with the way things work will allow them not to fall behind nearly as much. You might not think about it much, since you are at least somewhat computer and Internet savy (Hey, you are posting on /. - that could say either good or bad things about you ;-)
And as for adults using it... well, I personally use mine for more than just crusing porn and downloading music. In fact, I don't do much of either one o' those - instead, I use it as a learning tool of sorts (Got a C++ question? Google It. Got a medical question? Google it. Need to know what a phrase in a contract means? Google It.), and to run an online company (my game company). The latter wouldn't to apply to nearly as many people as the former - just about anything you want to know is there. And that's only ONE application of the Internet. It's a great enabler for people, and I think it's a wise investment on anyone's part to hook up - even if it means scraping together the cash for some really cheap hardware over the process of months.
NOT getting Internet access, IMHO, is the mistake.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Yet, he has presided over creation of software that the vast majority of developers and end-users prefer over the alternatives.
I can't believe the number of people I see here who are speaking out "against" wide-spread, free, broadband internet-access. And the majority of the people with something negative to say, seem to be saying it because they don't feel that "poor people" are responsible enough to use the internet.
You can think I'm over-reacting, but you should just reread some of the messages that have been posted here. I think free, broadband access in the homes of people who can't afford it is just great.
I think the internet is one of the keys to providing better education and opportunity to those people born into such circumstance that opportunities are rare. Will some people abuse it? Sure...but so? Better they are sitting at home surfing for free porn then some of the other alternatives they could be doing with their lives.
There have been times in my life when money was tight. Because I haven't always had priviledge, does that mean I'm not responsible enough to have as broad a spectrum of rights and opportunities as others? Open your minds...
Craenor
It is nice to see people making an effort to expand the reach of the Internet to a broader audience.
Yet we complain about AOL being the downfall of the net.
U.S. Department of Commerce data from 2001
indicated that 78.9 percent of people in families
making $75,000 or more had Internet access,
compared to 25 percent of people from households earning less than $15,000 a year.
being familiar with DOC and their reports, how much do you want to bet the 'access'
that the 25% have, is at the local library, 30 minutes a day-when they can get there
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I think that this is a great thing. My parents made a great sacrfice several years ago to purchase our computer. It spawned a love for computers, programming and technology. Needless to say, a few years later, I was graduating college with a BS in electrical engineering. My starting salary was more then my parents probably will ever make combined.
And I thought that the 1996 telecommunications act renewed our government's support for this concept. Didn't they include internet service in the 1996 plan?!!
I live in one of the more desirable suburbs of my city. But I am screwed as far as having any access to highspeed internet service. Even as a paying customer!
WHY AREN'T WE ENFORCING THE LAWS WE HAVE ALREADY TO FIX THIS SITUATION?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I have a 486 and a Mac, both of which were given to me as being "worthless." Every trash day sees a new crop of perfectly functional PII's sitting by the curbside.
If you wish to buy, the second hand tech store three blocks from public housing in my city has PIII's lined up for $175, wiht monitor. For an extra *2* bucks they'll install Red Hat or Mandrake for you.
This isn't necessarily a good deal though, since the Walmart is selling new Linux systems for as little as 200 bucks. That's cheaper than a 19" TV.
Sure, *you* might think of PC's as being multithousand dollar items, but that's your bias. It isn't the case.
KFG
A lot of people here are criticizing the plan as a waste of money, but instead of making a cost vs benefit calculation most seem to be implying no benefits at all.
Anything that gets more information into a poor kid's head sounds like a benefit to me. Even if you only look at improvement in helping a kid with his homework, that's a great benefit right there. I know my childhood would have been a lot different if I had such easy access to information (it wasn't really around until my late teens).
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
wonder if you have to be on xp to log in
The only benefit I see to letting lower class have internet access in their homes is that they have greater access to information for things like school reports and homework. However, considering almost every school in the US has a decent connection to the internet, not to mention libraries give you public internet access as well, the money spent here could be much better spent on other things.
Oil has nothing to do with it.
"But you're probably fine with paying many times that much for police and prisons when, ...."
When you educate a criminal, you get a better-educated criminal (all the better to move up to white collar scams). The high cost of prisons and prisons is easily taken care of by increasing the fines on criminals and prison labor programs. Make the criminals pay for it. NOT by bubbleheaded criminal-coddling theories that loose the crooks on the streets.
"when, uneducated and unskilled, the person turns to a life of crime."
You are forgetting the real reason they turn to crime: they are mean and/or greedy. All the college in the world does not change this.
90% of these poor need to get off their ass and take responsibility for their lives.
Yeah, that's real practical after their inner-city public school "education" and no money for college or trade schools. You were probably happy to have mommy and daddy feed you good meals and provide you with all of the luxuries of life while you went to school.
Broadband internet access is a luxury (hell the internet is a luxury), and if you can't afford it don't place the burden of payment on the working class of this country.
You really enjoy having people to look down on, don't you? You wouldn't want them to learn something. You would not want their kids to be able to use the Internet to do research for their school projects. It's important to keep them and their kids down. To hell with society and a civilization. If someone is born into poverty, we need to make sure that they stay there, right?
Food is more important than Internet access.
What about cable TV? Should that be free too so anyone who is poor can watch PBS?
Whatever happened to books?
What? Yeah, maybe one or two residents will use that connection for decent ends. Here's how the rest go: "Hey, let's go download that new Ja Rule song on Kazaa!"
I am hoping to do something similar in my school district to help bridge the divide. The plan would be to place WiFi nodes on the schools in low-income neighborhoods. Have WiFi laptops that are configured to connect to these nodes available for the kids to take home for the night. The laptops would be used in class during the day and in homes at night. Our bandwidth usage is only heavy during school hours. The fiber connection from the schools to the gateway is already in place. We would place vlan restrictions on the port where the WiFi is connected to limit access to the gateway only, and time of day the port is active. All I need is some cash from TitleI.
The lack of a phone does not impede my ability to setup a wireless router. :)
What poor people need more than cheap bandwidth is computer literacy. Some poor people can't read, much less read a computer or software manual. Even highly literate people won't take the time to read their manuals.
I think any such program should be accompanied by training on basic computer use. Great idea, though.
Corporations when you get right down to it do not pay taxes. When a business is taxed, it is always forced to make someone pay for it on the other end, usually with some combination of increased price, diminished product, or laid-off workers.
This is the dynamic aspect of this, quickly overlooked by those who see increased taxation of corporations as "social justice" while ignoring that it forces companies to fire workers and cut corners in other areas.
I still don't buy into this digital divide crap. There are plenty of things that low-income residents would like, but can't afford. Since one of the arguments presented in the article is that they can use it to get news. Is there then also a "Cable TV Divide" that prevents them from learning from the news channels and other programming (such as Junkyard Wars and Monster Garage)!
So long as this remains funded by private industry and charities, more power to them. It's the danger that this "digital divide" concept might be pushed into the social responsibility realm where the perception is that it should be funded with tax dollars. It makes me about as pissed as the moment I realized that some of the subsidized housing here in Atlanta was better than the apartment I was living in - it's not about necessity, it's become something completely different.
I feel obligated to quote Michael Powell, "I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like one, but I can't afford it."
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
With a diminishment of actual poverty, those who profit from social strife have to push the bar ever and ever higher. Instead of a divided between the haves and the have nots, we get a divided between the have-mores and the haves.
The fact that Jim has 2 cars in his garage and Joe has 15 in his garage thus become a social crisis, evidence of the failure in capitalism which requires much greater government control of our lives.
I am perfectly and exactly correct. To be theft of an item it requires taking of the item. Creating and taking a duplicate of the item is not theft of the actual item. To call such things "theft" really twists the meaning of the word. Do some research into the meaning of the word before you open your mouth on the subject again.
If I park in the street by your house tonight, and sit there and create an exact copy of your car that is in your driveway, and then drive off with the copy, did I steal your car? Of course not. It is pretty bizarre to say something is stolen when you still have it.
"Officer! Come quick! Someone stole my TV". Officer arrives. "Bud, your TV is still sitting there!". "But Officer, they made a copy of my TV and took the copy!". Officer shakes head and leaves.
yeah, and meth recipies. Don't forget the meth recipies.
These people have whole communities meshed with free access!
Kingsbridge Link
Seattle Wireless
This guy has been putting out CDs for years now
MeshBox Central, Locustworld
More links and a project for low cost mesh platforms Gateway-AOL-Appliance, I-Opener, WebSurfer wireless
MeshNet Project
And what's so bad about filesharing without the internet at 2 to 4Mbs BOTH WAYS? (most cable systems limit up stream to 128Kbs or less, meaning your DOWN link sucks) put up a node today!
Why fight WiFi?
Music copying does not meet the first part (the owner of the copy is the one taking the copy). Unlawful? Yes, it can meet that part. But it is only one part of the definition, shared with arson and murder. Next part about property being removed? Nope. the original stays. Complete possession by the thief (the last part)? No. the thief never even sees, let alone controls, the original.
No rich person has ever been able to rob someone of money without having government to back him up and protect him. Government is the agent of evil time and time again yet some people refuse to look at historical patterns and instead focus on hate mongering and violent or psuedo-violent measures that only hurt their stated "cause."
Unless you can see the futility and hypocricy of robbing from one man to give to another then you will never be part of the solution... you will always however be the problem.
If you really feel strongly about supporting those who have less then feel free to help organize support for those with less. Or you can cop out and just give some money... labor is always better but please give anything you can.
This amazing example of how a mind can type such a great syntactically correct sentence (well, close at any rate) yet be so void of logic and reason is exactly the problem. It is indeed a good thing when someone who is of the traditional "have not" can realistically assess themselves and their situation and say, "Damn, this may suck but it is a good suck. Not the kind of suck where I have to fight to survive, scrounge to eat and build my own huts in which to live while I defend it all from predators, other people and the elements." When "have not" is that they do not have a big screen TV and the latest Nike's then I think our society is progressing along quite nicely. The difference between a consciously compassionate person who's love is the driving force (but never the stearing... that is logic and reason) behind their actions to help others and the self-loathing, guilt ridden liberal is this: Liberals only add to the problem and hypocritically require all (even others who are much MUCH poorer than they) to give to those who refuse to ever work for what they get. The compassionate fellow understands that you do not define help as "providing a crutch to the guy that you just previously broke both his arms and legs."Put down the manifesto and start using that brain.
You are responding to my item. However, if you read it carefully, you will see that this concern over the difference between the have and the have-mores is something I deplore, and is not a concern I have. I am instead concerned, like you are, about those who see such a problem.
if they can't even afford computers
Dell offers financing at $18/month for a $700 machine. If they give up smoking and drinking malt liquor they can afford several.
I know you're a troll, but I'm sure there's at least one idiot who will think you have a point, so I'll respond.
Unlike Cable TV, I think it's pretty obvious that the Internet can be used as a tool to better oneself.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
but I really doubt this will be very useful in improving many low-income families lives. I mean, sure, having Intenet access is fun and all, but I mostly see it being used for music-sharing, IM, and porn.
What a pathetically closed-minded response. Maybe that's what you use it for, but there are so many, uncountable numbers, that need access for education and research, and they really don't have time for games like you obviously do.
As someone who has worked in public schools for several years now, I can tell you, without a doubt, that it is the poorer kids who stay after school, or show up first thing in the morning, just so they can have access to a computer. The rich kids get to go home and hang out in their cushy bedrooms, waiting for Mom to yell 'Dinner's ready.'
School gets out around 1:30/2:00 for most US secondary schools, but I maintain a policy that as long as kids are willing to stay and work, I will stay and keep the lab open. I am often there until 4:00 or 5:00 each and every day, and these kids are working their butts off, occasionally emailing friends, but they are certainly not wasting their time downloading music or surfing for porn. I find it quite heartbreaking that they have to stay after, day after day, just to type a paper, or finish a presentation, or work on their personal web project, when others have access willy-nilly and get to do what they please.
And what about the elderly? I pity you when you age, because you will really have no clue. They now have access to health information and subscription plans. Are you aware how many low-income elderly (and most of them are) pay close to 1000 per month in prescription just to stay alive? Do you care? How about getting sick, being told you have prostrate cancer? They can now log on and share their fears with dozens of others. Retired military - groups and messages everywhere, a time to reminisce and swap stories.
Don't ever belittle technology, especially here, and say it is just for music and porn, and most especially don't ever say that is all the poor will do with it.
I know slashdot has no graphic artists, but they just ripped the tower image from another site. www.skystream.com
Of course they are probably going to get a cable/dsl modem and then complain when they get their access shutoff for reselling.
You want to be an internet provider, provision a damn line for one. Don't slum off the residential customers.
Not that I have anything against the impoverished, but...
These people are living in PUBLIC housing projects? Housing that you and I pay for with our tax dollars? I'm in a pretty nice income bracket, living in the middle of Dallas, but I can't get DSL because I'm too far from the CO. However, people we have to subsidize by giving them a place to live (among other subsidies) deserve (probably) high-bandwidth wireless Internet access?
Perhaps we should be more concerned with these people supporting themselves (for instance, paying for their own housing, food, power, etc.) rather than sitting around browsing the Internet.
I'm sure I'll get flamed, but this is only slightly less ridiculous than trying to get broadband internet into third-world countries...
quote from poster...
"I find it quite heartbreaking that they have to stay after, day after day, just to type a paper, or finish a presentation, or work on their personal web project, when others have access willy-nilly and get to do what they please."
-------
That's heartbreaking? That student's have access to maybe $1,000 computers to use for free at school to check email, instant message, and do school work?
While I applaud the effort to bring technology use and understanding to others, I condemn the ludricrous belief, that giving someone a computer, internet access, etc, will allow him somehow make him technically proficient or better his life.
Perhaps we should give away free hammers? Then the poor could build their own houses. Or we could give away airplanes, and then the poor can all become airline pilots. The tools are worthless without understanding.
I can see this benefitting a small group of people however.
1)Poor families with an older child. The child likely has some technical instruction at school and can bring his knowledge of the computer home to benefit his parents.
2)Someone who has completed some vocational training and who can legimately justify the cost of computer equipment as a business expense to further their knowledge of office applications.
3)The home-bounds that due to injuries are unable to work, or unable to leave home, yet still had knowledge of how to operate a computer, or had someone to help them along. THis would enable them to interact with the outside world, keep up on current events.
And I'm glad to see that part of this includes the party having to buy equipment. We've all seen someone grab something for free (to them) that they couldn't use, just to have it. People who invest in something have some motivation to use it, benefit from it, and keep it working.
Still, the biggest drawback to a program that gives away technical this or that is always that the people targeted to benefit from it are untrained to use it.
I had a neighbor who's "cousin" reportedly would get him "good deals". He'd always come home with faxes and 10 year old useless computers and ask me if they were any good, or if he could do this or that on them. They were junk and useless to him. A skilled computer operator could have put them to some use, but it was useless to his needs, and he wouldn't have had any idea how to run the software, even if it had worked on the machine. If he had this offered to him, he would have signed up, bought himself a WiFi card, and then the thing would have sit there when it broke and he couldn't afford to fix it, and didn't know how. Then he'd also be out the $100 that he could have used for a new winter coat, or a decent suit for a job interview.
Plans like this are neat, interesting, and a great way to look for grants to let you play with tech. However, it's probably not the most efficient way to better the situation of people living at poverty levels.
When you consider that public libraries, schools, often community centers, provide free computer and internet access to the public, it is almost a vanity to assume that a new plan to give internet access to the poor, as long as they buy a computer, and wifi card.
And I agree with some other posters, that considering these other options already being available, that public internet access via a WiFi point and targetted towards the poor, might innappropriate use of tax dollars that might be spent on better programs. These funds could be put into more community computer classes at libraries. Funds could be used to provide more training for teachers at school, so that those teachers could provide more technical training.
And I am involved in technical training at a school in a "poor" neighborhood, so i have given this type of thing quite a bit of thought.
York (PA) Dispatch -- January 17, 2003:
"Closing 'digital divide'
Crispus Attucks gets $500K to link with community
By TED CZECH Dispatch/Sunday News
The Crispus Attucks Association says it's now one step closer to bridging the "digital divide" it says exists in York County.
Late last week, the association learned it will receive a $500,000 grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development.
Crispus Attucks intends to use the money to build and maintain wireless Internet access for York County schools and other area organizations, a plan that dovetails with the association's mission to educate and provide opportunities
for jobs, said Christina Ginder, director of the association's technology solutions department.
"So many of our York County residents do not have Internet access for one reason or another -- it could be socioeconomics, or they don't understand computers," said Ginder.
"The majority of those people surround Crispus Attucks. We want to make sure those people have the same advantages of those who can afford it."
The new network, based at Crispus Attucks, also will serve residents who live beyond where fiber-optic cables have been installed, Ginder said.
She said through the network, Internet service will be faster than dial-up or cable modems, with a lower fee than commercial wireless Internet companies charge.
Area organizations interested in linking with the wireless network include several school districts, the York County Library System and Lincoln Intermediate Unit.
Obtaining the grant allows the association to purchase computer equipment and install transmission towers, Ginder said.
Phases: Designing the network -- determining how many and where the towers will go -- will begin when the entities that have expressed interest in the wireless network agree they would like to be a part of it.
"We just got the grant. We are going around and talking with them right now," said Ginder.
She said that in York City, a tower may be erected either on top of the Crispus Attucks building at 605 S. Duke St., or at the former Dallmeyer building at 540 S. George St., which the association has acquired.
Ginder said several school districts are interested in joining the network, although some may have contracts with other Internet services.
Online in July: She said the association expects to have all of the equipment needed by May, with testing beginning in June and the network running in July.
That's what Ginder calls phase one, which will be financed by the grant.
In phase two, the network will be expanded to the outlying areas of York County without Internet access.
The association hopes to hire someone with wireless experience who can solve network problems, Ginder said."
I especially like that last part -- "The association hopes to hire someone with wireless experience who can solve network problems."
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Since everyone is going ape-shit, the broader point I was trying to make was that in America, we worry about stupid shit like the "Digital Divide", and in the process are creating a nation of lazy asses demanding their entitlements, while ignoring masses of humanity around the world who really have had a bad-hand dealt to them.
Case in point, I was approached yesterday by a "homeless" guy about as white, young, and fat as CowboyNeil - asking for money for food of all things. After I very politely refused, this guy gave me shit about it, like I owed it to him. My wife standing next to me mind you, grew up in Vietnam and refugee camps in the Phillipines. Her and her family had jack-shit growing up, and were lucky to even have food, let alone a God-damned computer. And guess what? The kids all graduated from college after they moved here, one even in CS.
Just go visit Vietnam, Cambodia, et al. see how fucked-up the real world can be.
So call me an asshole, but I think it's fucking pathetic to spend money on giving a nicety like WiFi away to Americans when there's the real poor in the world suffering and starving due to circumstances totally beyond their control.
BTW, who says they can't use free dial-up for God's sake? And how you brought in the totally off-topic part $1000 prescriptions for the elderly - that's a real gem, you should be a politician.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
I think one of the most basic rights that would be considered if it were to all happen again these days is freedom of information.
I dont think anyone would argue that the world wide web is the most powerful communication tool in existance these days. Radio, Books revolutionised (I speak Australian English) the world in their own ways but nothing compares to the power of this immense mass of linked information.
The only thing which I believe can possibly hold and does hold the potential of the internet back is the way that individuals one way or another have to pay telecommunication companies for access.
I believe that wireless could change everything (i know thats hardly an original point of view) as it removes telecommunications companies and any potential for censorship from the picture.
Getting back to a point, I believe that a country which was truly free would recognise that the internet should be free for all, and if any technology has a potential to make this happen it is wireless.
If the USA constitution was written / ammended to today it wouldn't be hard to imagine a protection for the right of everyone to access the internet for free.
Surely this would protect freedom and the american way far better than the 14th (? - the freedom to bear arms in case i got it wrong) ammendment.
Sorry if this was too long winded but its an idea I wanted to see discussed.
~Loki
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
Bravo, wish I had modpoints becuase you'd get all of them.
Banaaaana!
without a doubt, that it is the poorer kids who stay after school, or show up first thing in the morning, just so they can have access to a computer.
I take offense to the way you stereotype 'rich kids' especially after you criticize the former poster for being 'pathetically closed-minded.'
I am from a middle-class family in a poor neighborhood, so I was considered a rich kid. At my school most of the kids from good family studied very hard and preformed well in school. Our Honors program was 90% what you would label rich kids and a few others whose parents were probably on welfare. The poor kids were certainly not the hardest workers as you implied.
And after all that work, what do I get? The reward of not only paying for internet access but paying for WiFi for those same people who didn't work hard in school.
Wireless Leiden is the first Dutch free (libre/gratis) wireless internet facility to cover a complete city. It was engineered by a couple of amateur enthousiast and financially backed by individual donations as well as sponsoring from University and municipal office.
Lots of howtos and faqs (though probably less accessible to non-Dutch speakers)
great, now they can surf porn instead of looking for a job.
No, they do not. That is why they oppose tax cuts which end up increasing tax revenue from the resulting economic growth.
"The borrow-and-spend Republicans simply do deficit spending and run up the national debt"
You mean tax, borrow and spend Democrats. Clinton added 2 trillion onto the debt before the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal responsibility. "Pay down the portion of the debt run up under Reagan/Bush(Sr.)"
And ignore the trillions added by Clinton? Why don't we pass the balanced budget amendment and take care of the problem? Give George W Bush the line-item veto. But it turns out that the Democrats always have opposed the balanced budget amendment (no surprise; they oppose balancing the budget).
Yes, there is some blame for George Bush the elder for some of the debt problem. He raised taxes (breaking his good promise) and caused a recession by doing this.
By the way, George H.W. Bush is not "George Sr" that you called him. He's not a Sr, and his son is not a Jr, as they actually have different names.
Just as if a mugger steals your wallet, the money is not yours any more. End of story.
"And they don't "dig deep.""
Certainly they do. We are badly overtaxed.
"We have one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world."
So? All this means is that the other countries overtax a lot more. The statistic you are referring to is a matter of pride, but there is much room for improvement.
"Boy, you put your foot in it that time. My most recent contract was developing satellite firmware and test procedures so I know a whole lot more about this subject than do you"
No, I did not. If you knew anything about it, you would know that the "missile defense will never work" idea is proposterous. It is like the yahoos standing by Goddard telling him his rocket will never fly. Sure, you know nuts and bolts here and there, but you don't know a thing about the big picture.
"You do not know more about Star Wars than scientists who worked on the program and researchers at MIT, so quit spouting your ill-conceived opinion on the subject
But I have studied the work of scientists with very well-conceived opinions opposite of yours. Quite well informed. "Soon after, Clinton capitulated, signing the 1999 National Missile Defense Act. So, he signed it reluctantly and not because it was good science."
So he did something in the name of good science for the wrong reasons. *Shrug*
"The 11 scientists, some of whom have worked in government missile programs, said the proposed system, in which a land-based missile would intercept an incoming missile carrying a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon, would not work."
Just like the experts laughing at Goddard and the Wright Brothers. The earth is flat! Don't sail off the edge! "Are you on drugs? Teachers are paid horribly low salaries"
Some are. Many are not. In places with unions, the teacher wage is boosted way above the real value of the work, forcing increases in class size and even closing of schools. Nothing stupid about this.
Then why is it you who keeps saying things for which the opposite is true?
"Just trust me on that one because I know more about it than you do."
Earn the trust. So far, you have been just about entirely wrong on everything else.
"You think that subsidizing school lunches for children who could not afford one otherwise was a new way to waste money?"
There is certainly waste in the school lunch program. It can easily be cut by a large percentage: too much of it goes to non-needy kids. However, the Republicans proposed increasing funding (yet the Democrats called it a cut)
"You believe that providing food stamps so that poor families were better able to afford to eat was a waste of money?"
Actually, I like this program. I also like the voucher program for education for the same reason; as it is designed to improve educational opportunities for the poor. (it has nothing to do with the middle class, a claim you made elsewhere)
"What is wrong with you?"
I'm informed on civics and I vote. A liberal's worst enemy.
Aside from the fact that only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich, you committed a huge whopper there:
A tax cut is not a gift. It is never a gift to take less from someone. A gift is when you give what you already own to someone. Certainly not when you decide to swipe less of some else's property.
So much for any analysis based on facts and figures.
"An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan"
As non-partisan as the NRA or Democratic Leadership Council! They are in fact a partisan pressure group interested in making the tax system less just by making it greedier.
"Yes, it is a gift. When you exempt people from paying their fair share of taxes, it is a gift"
Actually.... no. Look up the words. There is no giving involved in taking less from someone. Fair share? The rich, after the Bush tax cuts, pay a much higher amount in actual dollars (you were concerned about dollars, right) and percentage of income and percentage of the overall tax picture. Who is not paying their fair share?
"Would you consider it a gift to me if the IRS said that I was exempted from paying taxes (while you were not)?"
Of course not. It does not meet the definition of a gift. I can find things to say about it, but I will not call it what it is not. It is your money, and your keeping it is not a gift. You earned it.
No, did not speak of him. "Also, I didn't see anything about fascism being a government that collects taxes and has programs designed to help the poor."
You conveniently overlook the part of the definition that included centralization of authority and stringent controls. Any time the greedy rulers take more from the people, we go into that direction of fascism. Help the poor? Bwaha. That is the they would like you to believe. In reality, the taxes go to enrich the ruling bureacracy first. The poor get the crumbs. How gullible: They come to your door and say "gimme all your money. It is just to help the poor" and you believe them. And you oppose programs designed to help the poor such as vouchers.
"On the other hand, "belligerant nationalism" certainly seems to sum up world opinion of Dubya's behavior as of late. "
More insults? You dislike Limbaugh, yet you have his problem of refusing to use someone's real name. So what about the opinions of uninformed people in countries with government-controlled media and censorship? Uninformed it certainly is, as "Slick Willy's" successor (to get down to your level and insult presidents) is not beligerent (he is only responding to year after year of unprovoked attack from Saddam, and Iraq's attacks against neighbors). Nationalism? No. He does not want to put Iraq under U.S. control. The plans are well spelled out to where Iraq will be under Iraqi control as it has never been. The U.S. is, as it has been, strongly anti-imperialist.
Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship sounds a lot like locking people up for months on end without charges"
Except we all know these Al Quada guys locked up are quite guilty. You'd have a case if they were not.
You said that Congress has a right to levy taxes, in defense of the idea that it is a gift when Congress lets you keep something? It follows that everything we own is a gift from our Great Leaders.
Yes, you did. You said that our government was fascistic. The core definition of fascism is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator." So, if you don't think that Bush is the dictator of our supposedly fascistic government, then who is?
And you oppose programs designed to help the poor such as vouchers.
School vouchers don't help the poor. I've already proven that with arguments that you were apparently unable to counter.
to get down to your level and insult presidents
"Dubya" is used to distinguish him from his father while "Slick Willy" is clearly an insult.
He does not want to put Iraq under U.S. control.
Wrong. According to the article:
Except we all know these Al Quada guys locked up are quite guilty. You'd have a case if they were not.
Then it looks like I have a case.
Bzzt. Cato is libertarian, not right-wing. Of course they criticize any government spending at all.
"Let's examine the "it's-not-the-government's-money" crap that Bush spewed throughout his campaign"
Crap? That's basic civics.
""We were in an economic boom. Wages were up. Unemployment was down."
You conveniently forget the economic downturn that started in Clinton's last year. You also forget Bush's attemps to stop the downturn that have been killed by Tom Daschle who believes that Democrats win better in a damaged economy.
"So that he line-item veto funding for environmental and social programs while signing legislation for military build-ups? No thanks. He lacks both the morality and intelligence to use such power."
That you oppose cutting waste spending shows you are the one lacking the intelligence.
"The economy did well under Clinton because he was not a dumbass who pushed through tax cuts while increasing spending."
No, the economy did well as a result of the "Year of the Informed Voter" 1994. Thank you, Newt. It is quite obvious that Clinton's attempt to wreck the economy with punitive taxes were counterproductive, thank you Newt for blunting this.
"When the economy is lagging, he wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Just when does he propose increasing taxes?"
Hopefully, never. He can learn from daddy's mistake.
"According to the right wing, when the economy sucks, it's the Democrats' fault"
Only when they actually are to blame. As they certainly are now, with Daschle making sure that the economy stays down on purpose.
"Tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth, as has been made clear during this Presidency"
Another person fooled by Tom Daschle, someone who does not realize that the Democrat Party made sure the tax cuts were so small they did not help.
"Even Greenspan stated that the most recent tax cuts were a bad idea unless balanced with tax increases in other areas to offset the revenue loss."
Good old Greenspan. I bet you were not quoting him when he was supporting the Bush tax cuts a couple of years ago.
Do you have an exact quote? What I mean was that the government is acting fascistic when it takes our power from us (increasing taxes, annexing part of economy a la Hillary health care plan).
"The core definition of fascism is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator."
Certainly, the increased centralization of authority is a step toward fascism, correct? As it makes things closer to the definition?
"School vouchers don't help the poor.
Yes they do. They were designed in fact to help the poor. It is no surprise that poor people strongly support them, especially urban populations. They provide the poor educational opportunities denied to them when they are stuck in inferior government-run schools. Would you support vouchers if they were means-tested?
""Dubya" is used to distinguish him from his father while "Slick Willy" is clearly an insult."
And those who use the term Slick Willy can attest to its accuracy and it not being an insult.
"He does not want to put Iraq under U.S. control. Wrong"
The article you mentioned has temporary control, yes. Like West Germany and Japan. But not permanent control, not colonization.
No, it does not, as the tax cut is proportional to the amount overpaid.
Allow me to rephrase: "only a minority of those who keep significantly more with Bush tax cuts are not rich."
Yet, after the cut, the rich pay more:
in total dollars
in percentage of their income
as a group, of the entire tax picture.
Hardly friendly to the rich.
"A pittance of the tax cuts goes to the vast majority of taxpayers while the lion's share goes to the rich.
You can't cut what isn't paid in the first place. Of course a fair percentage rate reduction will let a rich guy (f.e.) keep $64,000 more and a non-taxpayer keeps nothing more (or a lower middle class person keeps $64 more, for example).
"In fact, 31% would get no tax cut"
How many of these are the persons who do not pay taxes anyway, so a tax cut is not applicable?
". You talk about fair and percentages. The numbers don't look nearly so pretty as your vague generalizations about who gets "more.""
Specific facts, not vague, actually. I agree it does not look pretty after the cuts are done since the rich still pay much more than the fair share that would be paid under a better system such as the flat tax.
"How is it fair to take the same percentage from a millionaire and from someone struggling to pay their rent and feed their family"
Actually, I favor a truly progressive change such as the Forbes flat tax. A system in which those who are struggling as you describe do not even pay taxes due to large personal excemptions, and once the exemptions are exceeded the rate is flat.
The early labor-related decision that protected worker rights, especially those of workers who are often forced to join political organizations
The more recent defense of workers rights against Democrats who wanted to force "Homeland Security" workers into unions against their will
The decision to stop wasting taxpayer dollars "Exporting" abortion overseas
Weighing in with the Supreme Court against the University of Michigan's blatantly racist admissions policy
Filing a brief with the Supreme Court to try and help stop the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
Appointing someone like Mr Powell to the FCC, who is resisting those who want to censor views by ownership regulations and "fairness doctrines".
Appointing Judge Pickering.... not once, but twice. Despite the objections of those with baseless objections.
Libertarianism is an ideology on a tangent from the left-right spectrum. A fairly pure ideology, they basically want much less government. I do not know Epstein, but is his ideology more libertarian or more right-wing?
Oh, and a little hint for you: Libertarians are often right-wing.
Nope. I've known many Libertarians. None of them were right-wing. I've some some right-wingers with libertarian tendencies, however.
"It doesn't matter why there was a downturn. Bush's tax cut did nothing to reverse it."
The reason being that it was gutted by the Senate Democrats. He never got to do what he wanted.
"I do oppose waste spending and would have happily given Clinton the line-item veto to prevent it."
Clinton actually had it for a while. Good for him. It was taken away for invalid "separation of powers" reasons. These reasons are invalid since this shift of power from Congress to Executive was something initiated by Congress.
"BULLFUCKINGSHIT! The Republican Congress did everything that they could to undermine Clinton's success
A Clinton success is a defeat for the country. So of course the 104th Congress stood between Clinton and the country when Clinton tried to ravage it. On better things, like welfare reform, they worked together. But on worse things... Remember the Clinton "emergency stimulus package" that included fish atlases and swimming pools?
"We now have a Republican administration, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. Bush's budget is bleeding red ink, the economy is in the toilet, and he's wasting what little tax money is still collected on the military."
Barring fillibusters, this Republican situation should mean recovery once they get their proposals passed. Wasting tax dollars? Sorry, that is one of the few legitimate places to spend it.
"Bullshit again. Give me specifics."
Look at Daschle's inactions and actions when Bush tried to get the economy going again.
"So, we can state with some certainty that many of the revenues paid into the Treasury after the Reagan tax cut were paid from borrowed money. "
Hardly any of it. The real reason for the revenue growth was the growth in successful business under the Reagan economic climate. Defecits? Yes. Blame Reagan for signing bad budgets Democrats gave him (and blame Democrats for putting them in front of him). He should have vetoed.
So the unions will be "busted" if only those people who want to be members are the ones who join? What pathetic unpopular organizations they must be if they only get numbers through coercion! No, sorry, this is not busting. Unfair "union busting" is when you prevent union members from working at a place.
I don't hate unions. I just feel these groups should be on the same footing as Common Cause, Sierra Club, NRA, Right to Life, ACLU. Unlike the unions at this time, these are all legitimate organizations. Unlike the unions, no one is being forced to join or give them money. I'd be pissed if people were forced to join the CATO Institute, and I'm pissed that people ARE forced to join these unions.
"During that time, he voted in lockstep with the majority of the Senate in resisting implemenation of the Voting Rights Act in 1965."
If you are going to drag up the 1960s to call people KKK, are you letting Senator Byrd get a free pass (he was actually a member)? or Clinton and his segregationist hero Fullbright?
The fact is that plenty of people in politics then were on the very wrong side of things and are not anymore, not for a long time. Democrats and Republicans both.
"You don't honestly think that having Clear Channel Communications own every radio station in the U.S. will foster a plurality of opinions, do you?"
I've seen said on Slashdot that Clear Channel owns all the stations. I did some checking. I'd probably have to drive hundreds of miles just to find one, and Clear Channel's ownership numbers add up to a small percentage of all the stations out there. Double the ownership, and it is still a minority (The numbers I found were not precise; if you have different numbers do let me know)
"Censoring views is exactly what the fairness doctrines are intended to prevent."
Censoring views is what the "Fairness Doctrine" did. When it was in place, issues-oriented radio was RARE. After it was repealed, issues-oriented radio programs flourished. The listeners decide what is fair, as it should be. Under the fairness doctrine, "fairness" was decided through frivolous lawsuits and actions against stations: strong encouragement never to air anything but music. That is how it worked.
Unlike you, I'd rather have Rush on the air than stale polkas. I'd rather have Jim Hightower on the air than "Cool Hits of the 1960s". I'd rather hear "Pacifica" than hear KISS metal festivals.
"People in a town should not have all of their news provided by a single source."
I agree. And since the 1970s, the number of voices and outlets has greatly increased.
"What a bunch of crap. Bush signed an executive order denying federal funding to any charity which so much as mentioned abortions"
You mean promoted abortions. This executive order is good. It is not far out of line with one Clinton signed.
"And how is it "wasting" anything to deal with global overpopulation?"
It is my opinion that killing living people is not an acceptible way to deal with overpopulation. Might as well send bullets to Pol Pot while we are at it.
Certainly. I agree. Therefore, the public funds should get handed to parents. The parents end up making the school decision and funding it (even if the school has a religion we personally don't like). No government decision involved.
I'd respond to the rest, but I'm tired of it. I responded at great length twice but each time a browser/site bug lost it before it was sent. To respond at length a 3rd time is to risk it being lost again.
Unlike you, I am tolerant and interested in opposing views. I find value in reading National Review and The Nation both. I find value in listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading Jim Hightower's newspaper column (as his radio show is dormant). Listening to any of these can only make you more informed.
And there is certaily no need for a "fairness doctrine" whose result and current intent is the wholesale silencing of issues-oriented talk radio.
O'Reilly? A centrist muck-raker. Not sure why you made him part of this argument. I learn less from him as he goes on the nut attacking the indefensible (like Ludacris and Michael Jackson and catholic priests who rape). That is too easy.
No, I am in favor of people choosing to pay for things themselves. Not people being forced to pay.
"That's why I favor public funding"
This is why I oppose public funding, unless the payment is voluntary.
"Then you don't end up with a small percentage of generous people trying to fund every program to help the poor while the "not with my money" crowd just buys themselves more toys."
What is wrong with this? It seems like people's rights are protected. "Help the poor" is misleading; as the money goes to enrich and empower the already rich and powerful in government who are taking the money while claiming (whether they do or not) to help the poor.
This would not be a problem if the money went directly to the poor, or to valid charities not run by and for millionaires (instead of to organizations that put their own power and wealth first).
"That's why I favor public funding. Then you don't end up with a small percentage of generous people trying to fund every program to help the poor while the "not with my money" crowd just buys themselves more toys."
Never try to explain computers to a layman. It's easier to explain
sex to a virgin.
-- Robert Heinlein
(Note, however, that virgins tend to know a lot about computers.)
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...