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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you can see this combination because you can get cheap/free computers capable of wifi reception but to escape public housing you might need an extra $3-4 hundred a month in income.
Of course a lot of people, including the poor, are cellphone only these days.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
There are several programs that specialize in recycling PCs to those in need - one of which I administer in my neighborhood. When a local rent control building wanted to setup a hotspot, we supplied them with free computers. I don't think supply is that big of an issue, especially when a Pentium II will do the job. We're not talking gaming here - just a conduit to the possibilities of the Internet. Of course, they all run Linux ;)
I also reply below your current threshold.
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.
Whoever modded this Funny is truly ignorant and is renforcing the stereotypes in today's society.
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
Answers to your questions:
25%, 90%, Your careless attitude is part of the reason we still "ghettoize" our poor in this country. To hate and villify the poor for being poor is about as selfish and selfcentered as you can be.
To give them free wifi can only help. Think about all the municiple services that are available on-line these days. With out web access you are forced to wait on line for hours to get forms to even apply for services.
This public housing is an example of the new style that doesn't throw everyone up in a highrise, but Camfield Estates is different. This is the model of what public housing should be.
The Wi-Fi acccess is NOT a gov't project. It is all donated by companies and non-profits.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
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
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.
do not have a worry. All of this stuff is free. We do not pay for it: the government does.
Why would we spend tax dollars spent trying to improve people's lives when we could spend hundreds of times that much to bomb countries with more oil than we have?
What a screwed up sense of priorities you have. You don't want to spend a few dollars to provide tools to help someone out of ignorance and poverty. But you're probably fine with paying many times that much for police and prisons when, uneducated and unskilled, the person turns to a life of crime.
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?
Oil has nothing to do with it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
When you educate a criminal, you get a better-educated criminal.
When you educate a person, you give them a chance to earn a living and support themselves without crime. What the hell is so wrong with a child who lives in poverty getting the same chance to use the Internet as a child born to upper middle class parents? Or are you just trying to make sure that your kid has an advantage when it comes time to do homework?
You are forgetting the real reason they turn to crime: they are mean and/or greedy.
No, that's the reason that people vote Republican.
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. :)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. It's so easy to use anonymous potty mouth or mod down when you disagree with something posted.
My mistake about the government participation. The public housing attribute threw me off. As far as "villifying the poor", give me a break. Yeah there's a few unfortunate souls that, through handicaps or illness, are unable to support themselves and must live off the charity of others. Open your eyes the next time you pass thru the ghetto. For every one of those unfortunate souls are 10 healthy, able-bodied people who choose not to work. They continue to make the decisions that keep them in that state of entitlement, all the while pleading to the bleeding hearts about how damn unlucky and misfortunate they are. These people "ghettoize" themselves with a culture that glorifies violence and a predator mentality. It's got nothing to do with selfish people like me that choose to get an education, choose not to do drugs or alcohol, choose not to be sloven, and choose to be employed.
No matter though. It's still an income redistributing hand-out. So the money doesn't come from tax dollars - it is actually donated by "generous" corporations, which in turn increase the prices of their products and services to the people who actually pay for them. May as well call it a tax.
I have no problem with them spending that money upgrading public Internet access in places like libraries and community centers (part of which was done in this case). There is a minority of public housing residents that will seek out these centers and use them to gain a leg up from a bad home situation. That is truly a great and wonderful thing. However, funding wireless access for "home users" is just over the top and an abuse of charity. Computers and high speed Internet are enablers, not life's necessities. This is no different than someone in front of me at the grocery store buying premium cuts of meat with food stamps. It's a smack in the face to anyone that has to pay for those premium services out of pocket, or buys the products of the companies that subsidize the abuses.
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.
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.
A free computer with wireless is not a free ticket out of the projects by itself, but it can be an opportunity if it is done right. It looks like the wireless project in the article is more than just "lets give 'em a computer and a wifi card and let 'em do whatever" -- there is a community computer center with volunteers to show and teach the use of computers and the internet.
If the kids learn a little web design, programming, how to do research on the net, etc. that can only help them find a way out of poverty. Using a computer and the net will improve reading skills, writing skills (research can be done and a paper written at home), and even communications skills improved. Yes, there might be some pr0n downloading going on, but overall the good outweighs the bad, especially if they work on maintaining a sense of community in their project.
This community wifi program will not guarantee anyone that any of the kids will go to Harvard or Boston College, but done right, it sure helps in breaking the poverty cycle!
Beware of Sleestak
"letting" lower class ? what country do you live in ? if kids can learn from using the internet, then why not ? do you need any better reason ?
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
Well, oil has nothing to do with the U.S. Iraq policy.
Way too many learned people disagree with you on that one. After the Gulf War, guess who was in Iraq rebuilding the oil rigs. Haliburton, with then-CEO Dick Cheney at the helm.
We can start at the top with Ken Lay. Oops. he was a criminal, there goes your theory of poverty and crime.
I never claimed that only the poor committed crimes. However, you won't find someone like Ken Lay having to choose between committing a crime or having his kids go to be hungry. The rich commit crimes out of greed. The poor often do it to keep from starving or freezing.
No, people vote Republican because they believe in national defense,
Translation: Funnelling huge sums of money over in corporate welfare to giant corporations.
in equal rights for all regardless of race,
Translation: Making sure that rich white suburbanites and impoverished minorities get exactly the same level of assistance from the government.
and that people should keep what they work for instead of giving it over greedy elites.
"Greedy elites" being poor families in subsidized housing in this case.
Want to see a good example of giving to "greedy elites." Look at the Bush tax cuts. The latest one he's pushing is elimination of taxes on stock dividends. Does that benefit the lower class? No. They have no stock investments? Does it benefit the middle class? No. The vast majority of them hold stock through mutual funds held in retirement plans. The mutual funds just reinvest the dividends. But the middle class will pay taxes on all of those dividends when they start drawing from the retirement accounts. So who does it help? The greedy elites. Had there been no taxes on stock dividends last year, Dubya would have saved over $40,000 on his taxes while Cheney would have saved over $100,000.
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!
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)
We are badly overtaxed.
Relative to what? You're just stating an unsubstantiated opinion.
But I have studied the work of scientists with very well-conceived opinions opposite of yours. Quite well informed.
Provide attributed quotes or links. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you are just lying.
If you knew anything about it, you would know that the "missile defense will never work" idea is proposterous.
So you are saying that the scientists who oppose it at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program know nothing about the program?
So he did something in the name of good science for the wrong reasons. *Shrug*
If your reading comprehension is that poor, this is a waste of time.
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.
You have provided nothing to support your claims.
So far, you have been just about entirely wrong on everything else.
I have seen no evidence or logic provided by you to refute any of my claims. You've simply spouted your opinions.
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)
Then refute what I claimed with facts or logic rather than just yelling "is not! is not!"
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
I'm informed on civics and I vote. A liberal's worst enemy.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly does not make you informed. Having strongly held opinions does not make you informed. (Hell, you didn't even know what fascism was, but you were sure willing to use the term.) Sadly, I do believe your claim that you do vote.
Aside from the fact that only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich
I don't care about the numbers of people. I care about the dollar figures. What percentage of the dollars went where? An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, revealed that the wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers get 45 percent of the total Bush tax cuts, or approximately $54,480 per year on average.
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.
Yes, it is a gift. When you exempt people from paying their fair share of taxes, it is a gift. Would you consider it a gift to me if the IRS said that I was exempted from paying taxes (while you were not)? I bet you would.
So much for any analysis based on facts and figures.
You said "only a minority of those who keep more with Bush tax cuts are rich". You were careful not to quantify "more" because that would undermine your argument. Allow me to rephrase: "only a minority of those who keep significantly more with Bush tax cuts are not rich." A pittance of the tax cuts goes to the vast majority of taxpayers while the lion's share goes to the rich.
As non-partisan as the NRA or Democratic Leadership Council!
If you feel that Citizens for Tax Justice is partisan, then show me how. That they disagree with the Republicans' current position does not make them partisan.
They are in fact a partisan pressure group interested in making the tax system less just by making it greedier.
No, they are interested in seeing that the taxation system is fair, not that more taxes be levied. In fact, their main focus is seeing that the rich don't get huge tax breaks while the poor and middle class get nothing of substance.
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?
The rich. Under the Bush 2003 tax plan, the top 1% would realize cuts averaging $30,127 while 48% of couples and singles would get less than $100. In fact, 31% would get no tax cut. You talk about fair and percentages. The numbers don't look nearly so pretty as your vague generalizations about who gets "more."
How is it fair to take the same percentage from a millionaire and from someone struggling to pay their rent and feed their family? It reminds me of a famous quote by Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
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.
That is why they oppose tax cuts which end up increasing tax revenue from the resulting economic growth.
Tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth, as has been made clear during this Presidency. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts and the economy had done nothing but get worse. All we are left with is interest on a soaring national debt. 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.
Clinton added 2 trillion onto the debt before the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal responsibility.
Either the President gets credit/blame or the Congress does. I'm tired of the Republican bullshit of shifting blame/credit. According to the right wing, when the economy sucks, it's the Democrats' fault, whether they control the House, Senate, or Presidency. If the Democrats don't control any of them, then it's the fault of some previous Democratic administration. Republican Presidents are powerless to stop spending by Congressional Democrats (we'll just conveniently ignore veto powers). If the economy is rosy, well that's attributed to Republicans in the House, Senate, or Oval Office. If there are none, it's the result of deficit spending under some prior Republican administration. Well, Bush pushed through his tax cut and he is the one that proposed the budget that is bleeding red ink. The economy did well under Clinton because he was not a dumbass who pushed through tax cuts while increasing spending.
Let's examine the "it's-not-the-government's-money" crap that Bush spewed throughout his campaign. We were in an economic boom. Wages were up. Unemployment was down. Of course the IRS was bringing in more income taxes than needed. Ever heard of saving for a rainy day? Well Bush obviously has not because he immediately pushed through a big tax cut. Now, lo and behold, we no longer have enough money to cover the budget that he proposed. He wants to lower taxes when we are in an economic boom because the government shouldn't have a surplus (and he would never consider taking any of that surplus to pay down the debt). When the economy is lagging, he wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Just when does he propose increasing taxes? We cut in boom times. We cut during recessions.
Even the right-wing Cato institute says that Bush Budget Reveals Serious Overspending Problem calling his administration "the biggest spending administration in decades."
Give George W Bush the line-item veto.
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.
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
I couldn't care less. I'll just call his won "Dubya" to avoid the typing.
Do you have an exact quote?
Yes. While discussing the U.S. government, you wrote: You can have a very fascistic government that is democratic as long as a slim majority approve of its actions.
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).
So you believe that Canada, which has socialized medicine, if a fascist state? Since the health plan proposed by Hillary Clinton was not enacted, it actually disproves your claim of a fascistic government. If our government was fascist, Bill Clinton (as the dictator) would have simply decreed that we would go over to that system.
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.
Having the support of undereducated poor people does not mean that something will help the poor. It just means that they believe that it will.
Again, I will repeat the same (unanswered) points that I made earlier:
Because all current and proposed voucher plans provide limited funds, the vouchers will not cover the tuition at good private schools -- and the poor are not going to be able to make up the difference. Furthermore, few private schools are located in the nation's inner cities or other economically depressed areas, so the parents won't even be able to get their kids to the schools. It's just a handout for the rich.
Would you support vouchers if they were means-tested?
No, for two reasons:
1. 85% of private schools are religious in nature. It is improper to hand public funds over to, for example, a Catholic school where they preach about creationism and the evils of condom use.
2. Fixed costs. Removing students, and money, from public schools will only make the schools worse. Taking 10% of the students out does not reduce the heating costs by 10%. It does not reduce the cost to repair the roof by 10%. It does not reduce the groundskeeping costs by 10%. If you have one music teacher, you can't cut their salary by 10%.
And those who use the term Slick Willy can attest to its accuracy and it not being an insult.
I won't dignify that with a retort.
I note that you did not address the point about innocent detainees in our "war on terror." Would it kill you to concede a point?
That was a troll, right?
The early labor-related decision that protected worker rights, especially those of workers who are often forced to join political organizations
They referred to that as "Union busting" in the old days -- and the people that did it were not popular heroes.
The more recent defense of workers rights against Democrats who wanted to force "Homeland Security" workers into unions against their will
How many of them said that they did not want to be unionized?
The decision to stop wasting taxpayer dollars "Exporting" abortion overseas
What a bunch of crap. Bush signed an executive order denying federal funding to any charity which so much as mentioned abortions. And how is it "wasting" anything to deal with global overpopulation?
Weighing in with the Supreme Court against the University of Michigan's blatantly racist admissions policy
It's not the job of the Executive branch to comment on upcoming Supreme Court decisions -- even though I agree with Bush's position on this issue.
Filing a brief with the Supreme Court to try and help stop the erosion of the 2nd Amendment.
Since learned legal scholars have spent decades trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment, I don't think that Bush's administration had much to offer. In fact, Ashcroft's public (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was simply inappropriate.
Appointing someone like Mr Powell to the FCC, who is resisting those who want to censor views by ownership regulations and "fairness doctrines".
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? Censoring views is exactly what the fairness doctrines are intended to prevent. People in a town should not have all of their news provided by a single source. Or did you prefer the "Radio Moscow" model of informing the public?
Appointing Judge Pickering.... not once, but twice. Despite the objections of those with baseless objections.
Are you a KKK member or what? Pickering advocated closing the only loophole in Missisipi law banning interracial marriage. Pickering served as a Mississippi State Senator from 1972 through 1979. During that time, he voted in lockstep with the majority of the Senate in resisting implemenation of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Bzzt. Cato is libertarian, not right-wing. Of course they criticize any government spending at all.
Wrong. There are over 75 adjunct Cato scholars, including ultra-conservative law professors Richard Epstein (University of Chicago) and Henry G. Manne. Dick Armey (R-TX), has frequently given speeches at Cato in the past several years. Oh, and a little hint for you: Libertarians are often right-wing.
You conveniently forget the economic downturn that started in Clinton's last year.
It doesn't matter why there was a downturn. Bush's tax cut did nothing to reverse it.
That you oppose cutting waste spending shows you are the one lacking the intelligence.
I do oppose waste spending and would have happily given Clinton the line-item veto to prevent it. Bush, on the other hand, has cut funding for numerous environmental programs, scientific studies, and even stem cell research. Wasteful spending? Look what we've already blown on the whole Iraq debacle.
I am your intellectual superior. That you are too ignorant to see that is not my problem.
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.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT! The Republican Congress did everything that they could to undermine Clinton's success, constantly pushing for tax cuts to force the government into deficit spending. 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.
Hopefully, never. He can learn from daddy's mistake.
So you think that taxes should just be cut and cut and cut. I guess you figure that a tax rate of 0% will result in an economy that is infinitely stimulated, right? What a buffoon. Who the fuck do you think will be funding the Republican war on terror/Iraq/drugs (pick one)?
Only when they actually are to blame. As they certainly are now, with Daschle making sure that the economy stays down on purpose.
Bullshit again. Give me specifics.
You need to understand that money borrowed by the federal government also produces tax revenue. For example, if a GI is paid with borrowed money and he buys a new car, there are tax revenues produced from this borrowed money the same as if it had come from a balanced budget. The worker that made the car would pay taxes. The salesman that got the commission from selling the car would have paid taxes into our Treasury, etc. 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. Revenues did increase during the Reagan years. And if we had borrowed another trillion dollars, they would have increased even more.
But that's probably way over your head.