Slashdot Mirror
San Fran Mayor Declares Wireless for All
arvind s. grover writes "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated yesterday in his state of the city address that every San Francisco resident will have free wireless internet access. They don't seem to have much set up yet, and no proposal was laid out for the installation of access points in every nook and cranny of the city. I wonder what vendor is going to get that contract...You might be better off finding a wireless node using NodeDB or this oddly-titled site: cheesebikini."
Is this mayor going to pay for this.
Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class
Good idea and San Francisco is a great place to visit, but shouldn't they do something to help the unemployed and homeless in that town? And when I say "help the homeless", I mean REALLY help them, like get them a place to live and a way to make a buck, not just handouts, which they've done in the past.
I was wondering how on earth was the mayor of such a town was going to provide wifi access to EVERYONE or in the written words "ALL"... but I guess all takes on a new meaning to refer to everyone in a small area like a city or county. go figure.... I never would have guessed.
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
I mean, the wireless isn't "free", taxdollars are paying for it. Unlike private solutions, people who don't use it will still have to pay for it. I'm not quite sure I like the government providing a non-essential service when there are already alternatives. Now the question is, does it mean increased revenue from tourism, better reputation, etc counterbalance the costs of the wireless access points/maintenance? Will some prosumers even want to use this service(as it may not be as reliable)? TFA was short on details, I'm willing to bet the mayor is trying to get re-elected, so he probably hasn't answered any of these questions yet.
Monstar L
Now that they've won the war on the homeless, they can move on to the next big challenge.
I know it's OT, but go look at news.google.com. "Spitzer's iron wrist shits to music industry" is one of the headlines under entertainment. There's an article about the San Fran Mayor on there too btw.
"We will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to free wireless Internet service,"
"He said the city had already made free WiFi service available at Union Square, a central shopping and tourist hub"
So, everyone run down to the chopping center and get your free wifi. Problem solved.
Mark
I guess that means that THIS guy will finally get online! http://www.dkrupa.com/comics/28.jpg
How many spammers live in San Francisco? How many will move there?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
let's go warflying dudes.
He's got the circuses part covered. Where's the bread?
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Yeah, it's mildly funny. Especially since they misuse the word 'shits' in the text of the article too.
---
Spitzer's iron wrist shits to music industry
www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-24 16:06:47
BEIJING, Oct. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office now shits their attention to the music industry, particularly its practices for influencing what songs are heard on the public airwaves.
Spitzer has recently taken on a procession of corporate powers from Wall Street analysts to mutual funds to insurance brokers. He began this investigation whether the United States' largest record companies are skirting payola laws by hiring middlemen to influence which songs are heard on the public airwaves.
Investigators in Mr. Spitzer's office have served subpoenas on the four major record corporations - the Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, the EMI Group and the Warner Music Group - seeking copies of contracts, billing records and other information detailing their ties to independent middlemen who pitch new songs to radio programmers in New York State.
According to people involved, the inquiry encompasses all the major radio formats and is not aiming at any individual record promoter. Enditem
...does the population of San Francisco get sued?
I wonder what the local ISPs think about this. If it's wrong for microsoft to include a free web browser, is it wrong for the government to provide free internet access?
of course, the BEST place to find AP's is WiGLE.net, the database has listings for 1,847,784 APs.
We already have a decent, FREE, and fast wireless network in The City: SFLan.org.
Do you really want to be bound by the government's TOS, for a service "sold" as free that you are in fact paying for, whether you use it or not?
Of course, using public money for questionable ends is nothing new... but dear Gavin already invests far too much of our money waging war on the poor (no, not on poverty... on the poor).
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
-p.
I have never been to San Fran myself, but my dad has on numerous occasions. And from his stories, the terrain in SF is "pretty hilly" to say the least. I have had problems at home with my wireless sometimes reaching from one floor to another without messing around with the antenae all the time. It seems like they're going to need a heck of a lot of repeaters/ap's for this to work out at all in that terrain.
Wouldn't it be cheaper just to run hard-wired fiber into every building, and drop off a linksys wireless router to everyone? Probably not really, but it sure seems like it is going to be very difficult to get a good wireless network in that terrain.
is there an election coming up in SF that this guy is trying to get votes for?
2) This will be a freebie to the criminal elements of San Francisco and a huge cost to the law abiding, non-ubergeek. Consider yourself "pwned".
3) Expect this project to cost 10x what it is initially claimed. Gavin Newsom has a lot of paybacks for getting himself into power in San Francisco. Cost overruns will be massive.
4) This is best suited by corporation competition not government largess. Do we really want municipal Ma Bells all over the country?
If you want to do this on the cheap, make the homeless wear waypoint hats for their welfare checks. (insert joke about the waypoints keeping the government satellite signals out of their heads).
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
be happy this isn't the political section. you'd get modded -1 flamebait there
I'm sorry, but I refuse to read a story about San Francisco containing that phrase.
the tinfoil crew will flock to these beacons of shinney delight, as they dance the day away to outkasts bombs over baghdad on-top of milk crates in union square... ... extends 32 ounce plastice cup
Does everybody in SF already has free medical facilities ? Free shelter ?
- mritunjai
There is nothing that the government does/offers that is 'free'.
You have paid for service via your tax dollars..
And until politicians stop treating our money as such, the waste and over taxation will continue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Another site listing Wi-Fi is WiFiMaps.com. This covers mainly the US, and data is updated by our users who upload their wardriving scans.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
"Free" wireless? Try "taxpayer funded" wireless. This is yet another taxpayer funded wealth redistribution program. But, as a geek, I don't mind so much, because its free interent. As an economist, the connective power of the Internet has economic benefits for society the same way the highway system and public streets do.
By the way, its good that michael didn't post this. When Bush proposed universal high speed access for all Americans, michaels left wing-nut two cent comment was "but he doesn't say how he's going to pay for all this".
attributed to Nikola Tesla.
/. had been around, in Tesla's time:
I can see it now. If
"what about the poor who can't afford light bulbs?"
"and who is going to pay for it?"
"if you're too poor to afford a light bulb, you don't need electricity, and besides, those who can afford the light bulbs will be payig the tax."
"i have visited the USA but never again if they offer free electricity."
"it will only lead to a reduction in individual privacy because the GOVERNMENT will now know how much electricity you are using"
"if you're doing nothing wrong, why should it matter if the government knows? I bet you're one of those criminals who grows reefer under lights!"
ad nasuem
Well.As the west coast may get the Nintendo DS earlier than anyone else in the country. All I can say is that I expect them to make use of this opporunity to test the cr@p out of the thing and hack it however they can before i finally get mine.
Need to know what exactly it can and can't do in WiFi.
While many people today view their personal networks as private things that must be guarded, many people are today starting to view wireless access points as public goods instead of something that needs to be protected.
A free everywhere wireless network is quite possible. I've heard quote a few people say things like "Well, if my ISP goes down it's OK, I got two neighbours who also have their networks open". Opening your network to everyone is not unsafe or a bad idea, it's a question of overall security. Allowing ANYONE who happen to be behind your firewall access to a service is stupid. The right thing to do is to secure the service with passwords regardless of who or what uses it. Viewing all networks as public and securing properly according to this is much better than the old firewall approach.
So, you are secured and it is OK for anyone to access your LAN, just open it up. Let anyone use the public Internet through your access point!
If everyone who has the Internet at home would do this in a mayor city then anyone there would be able to get the Internet free - anywhere - today!
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Here is Dave Letterman, before he got his free wireless.
This is just another attempt to socialize a service. Now in the short term it seems like a great idea because the more people you have in the funding pool the less money it costs. Being a very capatalistic person, I find it very disturbing that so many people in this country find it so equally conveniant to give their "wants" into the hands of the government. In the case of a government emergency, a private vender is more likely to continue service where as the government could use it as a tool against the people. I just thought it would be interesting to see the right side of the idea. Louie
I'm going to file this under the same heading as the "sunshine for the masses" law that Berkeley has on the books. Living in the bay area is a strange experiance indeed.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
All the links in the story end in ".nyud.net:8090", in an attempt to use Coral. The problem is, that is appended after everything else, which makes it irrelevant.
r i?what evere r.nyud.net: 8090
Remember, its:
http://hostname.com.nyud.net:8090/rest/of/u
not
http://hostname.com/rest/of/uri?whatev
Strangely enough, in this case all the links seem to work faster than their coral counterparts.
Fixed coral links:
Reuters story
NodeDB
cheesebikini
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
Mayor sit in the bar and said. - "And Wireless for All!". And he start to drink his beer.
Yeah. Finally. They have found a use for all those millions of AOL CDs taking up city space. No landfill or dump will take them. So distribute them to the citizens of the city, and let them deal with the problem.
FREE INTERNET FOR EVERYONE!
Anytime these kinds of things pop up, two questions should be raised :
:
1)Is this going to reduce competition (i.e. it favors one company at the expense of others).
Question #1 then leads to this
2)If it reduces competition down to one or two vendors, at that point will content be censored/restricted - i.e. If you only have one provider, and it is the city or run through the city, is the city going censor content or access in some way, or monitor what goes on?
What about the rest of the Bay Area? I thought I heard something about great net access in Palo Alto a while ago, can anyone remind me what I'm thinking of?
What are the odds our illustrious Mayor , Comrade Ken , will offer this or something similar to bribe Londoners to support the olympic bid.
,Coca Cola et al with an advertising podium.
I think Londoners dont want to pay extra council taxes for the next 8 years for the priviledge of providing Samsung
Wanted : A Signature.
... is the real alternative sucks.
Citys aren't doing this to squeeze out private companys that want to offer service to everyone.
Cities aren't even competing with companies that want to offer service to everyone making above 30,000 $ a year, or to neigherborhoods where everyone owns their home.
Cities are looking at getting into providing access because the companies in their areas are generally targeting the top 5% of the market only. They are tired of dealing with companies that want to wire broadband only to people making 200,000 $ a year plus, and living in sufficiently large groups of interested users.
My city dropped plans to create a utilities model wireless service when the local Bell brought in a multi-tiered ADSL system that swiftly ended up competeing with local cable internet. Before that, we'd seen such problems as a small high speed provider that wanted to connect up just a few new streets, only to see the economic downturn hit, the local developers put off building houses on those streets, and their investmwent go down the toilet.
While I'm qute happy that we have some competitive interest in this area and didn't end up setting up a new local utility, we waited about 4 years for the situation to resolve itself. 4 years of businesses that weren't interested in profit margens of less than 15%, and didn't recognize when they were taking bigger risks by cherry-picking than they would have by trying to provide service to the majority.
Who is John Cabal?
That you put the government in the control of the flow of information when you let them provide you with Internet access?
Is everyone ignoring China and what's happening there?
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
For everyone that wanks off over the greatness of competition and the private sector, think about how worthless America's cellular phone infrastructure is. I lived in China back in 2000 and they already had much better service, coverage, and prices in a crappy 3rd world country than we have NOW. The reason was because they didn't let a bunch of corporate asses each roll out redundant but incompatible network infrastructure while rewarding execs with massive paychecks and handouts. (those good old private sector telecoms fought for 5 years to keep cellphone users from having number portability and various other consumer rights)
A similar private sector redundant waste exists in our healthcare system where the number of parasites (aka insurance people, administrators and paperwork handlers) increased by about 2,500% in 30 years while the number of VALUABLE WORKERS (docs and nurses) didn't even double. That massive waste and inefficiency would be eliminated with a single payer health insurance system which means the government is the ONLY HEALTH INSURER and EVERYONE BUYS(if able) AND HAS INSURANCE (it doesn't mean the government has any control over doctors or hospitals, only with paying the bills). Here are some benefits of single payer (eliminating for-profit health insurance):
(i consider it an evil when massive profit is made by insurance executives and shareholders while 45 million Americans lack insurance)
It's all about a SHARED RISK POOL.
Now, LET'S GET ON WITH THE WIRELESS. First of all, wireless is powerful because of its 2 or 3 dimensional nature. A single access point doesn't just serve one room or outlet but instead blankets a large area. SF is a TINY CITY of only 49 square miles (SF is squished on a peninsula). So relatively few access points are needed to cover the entire city with decent bandwidth.
NOW, SOMETHING YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW is that SF will be excavating and replacing its ancient sewer system over the next five years. It will be easy for the city to lay fiber optic cable trunks simultaneously and get THE CITY ITSELF into the ISP business, bypassing the current cable & phone utilities. For most of the 750,000 San Francisco citizens some sort of "free" (small taxation) wireless access would be perfectly adequate since they just check email or browse internet. For the bandwidth hogging downloaders and low-latency craving gamers, they could pay a nominal fee for a wired city ISP (it's predicted the city could offer city broadband for only $5 / month). This undercuts the $40-$50 charged by the cable and DSL thieves.
SO WHY IS IT PROBABLY VALUABLE FOR SAN FRANCISCO TO PROVIDE WIRELESS TO THE CITY? Societies build value by building infrastructure. For 95% of San Francisco citizens the ISP is a total parasite that rips them off for way more $$$ than they really use on the network. How else do crapheads like Comcast have enough SPARE $$$ to nearly purchase Disney (though Eisner fought them off i think) ?? It's simple. Our municipalities sell off the rights to monopolize and then these private utilities in turn rip off consumers and dole out dividends, options, and huge pay to their own
There was a time when the church ruled and everyone believed in god... this time is known as the Dark Ages. --?
WiFi-Roni, the San Franscisco treat!
for those who don't know what we are talking about, "coralizing" a url protects the hosting servers from getting overwhelmed by the sudden traffic from slashdot. info on Coral here.
another helpful site is MirrorDot, which mirrors all the links in slashdot articles each day. good idea...
----
my adventure in blogging
some company already has this mayor in their pocket, and now they will get huge contract to do something that wouldnt really cost that much at expense of taxpayers... what about companies that make a living providing wireless to customers... now they are paying taxes to have big brother drive them out of business.. this is so criminal but unfortunately most people know nothing about economics and think this is wonderful.. communism sounds wonderful too... and we are getting there. the road to serfdom is being built
or pull over and use mapquest, then it's definitley a good thing. I think it will bring people to the city. It can't be bad for tourism.
Grandparent is a moron parrot.
Jeez. The humorless liberals are really out in full force this am!
Gosh, FREE!!! wireless Internet access?
So nobody is paying for it?
So the routers, APs, switches, and bandwidth is all just going to appear ex nihilo (out of nothing) to San Francisco? Out of the ether?
I don't think that's what is meant by the term "ethernet"...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Something tells me that monitoring the Internet activities of the citizens of San Fransisco is about to get a lot easier. Who needs Echelon when the government can route all traffic through it's own system by giving away the access for free?
This sounds like it is going to be another bloated public project where a private firm will end up with some sort of monopoly over some aspect of the service.
IMO, there is a better way---
Provide a publically run wireless network and then allow people to choose internet service providers on it. THis would help to drop prices and increase service, not by outsourcing to the private sector (this approach by itself doesn't work) but by promoting competition.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
is he your lover?
Tin foil hat time.
If the government starts becoming the gateway to the "information superhighway" won't it feel more justified or even obligated to try to regulate it?
No matter where you go here you usually don't have too much trouble finding unsecured wireless networks, often named "linksys" or something similar... =)
A typical 802.11b wireless access point, mounted in a public area, will only give about a 100 to 300 foot range. Remember that these things will always have to go through walls (unless everyone is expected to go outside to get internet access). That means it will take from 350 to 2500 Access Points per square mile. For 49 square miles, that's 20,000 to 125,000 Access Points to cover the city. So, truely covering the city with WiFi could easily run 12 million dollars for just the access points. Most hardware like this costs more to install than to purchase (imagine putting up an access point on a street pole using a bucket truck and a city employee -- that has to be at least $300 to wire it, screw it down, and configure it). Add another $5 million to provide a wired infrastructure for the APs, another $1M per year for management, and 1/5th of the initial cost per year for replacing dead units. Grand total -- $50 Million plus $10 Million per year. If you draw a 100% coverage Access Point grid on a map, you'll see an Access Point in front of nearly every building in the whole city. It would be cheaper in the short run and FAR cheaper in the long run to simply run fiber to everyone's house. Philadelphia is planning something similar. They estimate $10 Million to put it up and they plan to put up 16 Access Points per squre mile. Draw it on a map and you'll see that puts each Access Point 1320 feet from the nearest one. By my estimation, that will provide WiFi for a whopping 3 to 10% of the residents of Philadelphia. If you live on a street corner, you'll get a signal. The rest of the houses won't get anything without a pringles can.
In a non-related note: Y Kant Slashdotterz spell?!
-- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --
But the marginal cost of each added node is miniscule. The cost of setting up a city-wide LAN is far, far less than the cost of each of the 800,000 San Franciscans each getting wireless service. Or even, I daresay, less than the cost of 80,000 San Franciscans. That's the way infrastructure works. Do you want to have to pay, personally, for every square inch of road you drive over?
Its not the laws of economics that I have a problem with.
I realize that we all have a 'shared responsibly', and have no trouble with that.
The trouble I have is with the cavalier attitude the government in general has with our money. Its not theirs, its OURS.. and they should act responsibility.
Throwing around the word 'free', is indicative of the larger problem... not the specific subject at hand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I live in San Francisco. One of the reasons I voted for Gonzales instead of Newsom was that Gonzales supported the creation of a Municipal Utility District, which would have had the authority to build its own central offices for telecom services.
Does Newsom want to take away the monopoly rents for the telecom and electricity utility companies in San Francisco as the Raker Act requires? No. Now he says I'm going to get "free wireless Internet" service everywhere in San Francisco.
You know what this really is all about? They want to put up a wireless network for city emergency response teams, and they don't have the technical stones to make it an access-controlled network. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Cheeseballing hypocrit! Grrr.
jhw
Well, at least not in my city, please. It sounds cool at first, but there is no such thing as "free."
This is going to end up costing all the taxpayers of the city millions more than originally speculated. Many may not use it.
It will also be wonderfully "regulated" by the city government and used to spy on the taxpayers who are paying for it.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
When the day comes for an uprising, you won't be able to trust your phone or your computer or your local air carrier to help you out.
The idea of Capitalism being an instrument of freedom is an illusion sold to stupid people.
By the way, you should learn how to spell. It makes you sound as half-assed as your ideas.
-FL
Does everybody in SF already has free medical facilities ? Free shelter ?
There are so many posts like the parent under this article that I started wondering - when did Slashdot stop being a geek site and become a political whining ground?
When I read articles like this, the primary instinct in me is to say: 'hey, this is so cool, I wish I lived in SF' because I'm a geek first and foremost. And on the prime geek web site of the world, I would expect the discussion to be about the technical aspects of the solution, projected capabilities etc. But instead there's a bunch of whining about universal healthcare! What's up with that?
When men used to be men
Instead of doing it here, and be OT, check out my journal explaining what the militia is, and why my paraphrasing doesn't change the amendment's intent at all. It serves to express the actual right that is guranteed, and to cause people to think...
.. yet..
I do agree, veering back on topic, that in time all internet access will end up being a governmental subsidized/regulated public utility.. But that point hasn't arrived
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There is a REASON governments want entire population bases bathed in specific types of EM radiation.
You stupid fucks.
I'm almost looking forward to watching you all get liquidated as the temperature continues to rise. Have you all had your mercury-laced flu shots yet? Perhaps you ought to eat another carb and sugar-rich blitz of fast food and wash it down with a refreshing diet soda complete with brain melting sweeteners. Heck, just settle down in front of your CRT's tuned to hypnotically open your minds for the insertion of socially damaging messages! --You know, to enhance your ability to think (vote) clearly.
MAN, I'm feeling grouchy today! I've really been noticing recently the millions of morons out there molding reality with their thoughtless actions, and it's annoying the PISS out of me.
The Christian Right, under Bush, WANTS the apocalypse to come. This is why they want all the Jews in Israel and all the Moslems out and they are giving them 10 billion bucks a year to help make it happen. Bush is a fucking born again right wing Christian lunatic, and this is not a joke.
But yeah, wireless sure is 'cool' man. Hope my city installs a fucking microwave tower every three hundred meters and that all my neighbors install microwave generators in every nook and cranny so that I cannot escape being exposed to the mass brain-dulling even when I choose not to participate in the wonders of technology.
When you are gurgling in painful death throws under the heel of the impending police state, I hope you'll remember my bitching and feel appropriately stupid.
-FL
What tourists don't understand is that there probably isn't a better place in the USA to be homeless than in SF. They receive more assistance, the weather is mild, and the wealthy liberal citizens are generous in their handouts.
Seeing a homeless person on the street doesn;t bother me in the least, in fact I don't even notice them anymore. But they sure seem to bother the people from the clean quiet suburbs of the midwest.
believe me, if they didn't have traffic lights, Jay walking would be safer. Because the city would be a constent gridlock.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The local providers will be competing with a free service. This means:
a) Cheaper then it is now.
b) More Value add services.
c) better customer service.
If it is a city service, it will be very hard to be banned.
If the City has someone running the project with to brain cells, they will set it up so you can't use it as a host.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
on how they go about it. They could use incentives for the smaller group who are already setting up there own small wireless system to expand.
In twenty years, people looking back will think how progressive and forward thinking this was.
"It will also be wonderfully "regulated" by the city government and used to spy on the taxpayers who are paying for it."
thats a little paranoid. It is also another issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Pull numbers out my ass man!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
For more info, see Mayor Newsom's press release regarding WiFi at Union Square:
r ancisco/archives/mayor/soc102104.rm
http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_page.asp?id=27481
Or see his State of the City Address from a few days ago:
http://real.streaming.ipolis.net:8080/ramgen/sanf
I don't know if Our Mayor (Yes Fresno's mayor really is "In the Heat of the Night's" Alan Autry) even knows what Wi-Fi is.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Thank you. I read his comment and was all set to go postal until I thought to check the replies :)
There are times where traffic lights are the safest solution to traffic problems. However in many cases a stop sign or a roundabout would be safer. However the light allows the city to control which drivers get to go.
Unfortunaly in the US we don't have many, meaning that people don't know how to react the few times they see them. Having more would make them safer here. In Europe they already have them often enough to see the safety benefits.
They all still work because they end in a ? or a # character before you tack on the "nyud.net:8090", this means you could tack on "tubgirl.com" or "goatse.cx" and nothing would happen.
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
http://www.gayshamesf.org/home.htm
by the time something like this actually gets implemented, wimax will be in the beginning stages of mass adoption. with this possibility over the immediate horizon, it would seem almost nonsensical to devote so much money to technology which will be obsolete faster than something like this project can be implemented and supported.
Dear Newsance er Newsome.
Your efforts though admirable and I love wifi like a Good Geek(tm) but perhaps you could do something about the ungawdly conditions of MUNI. The crazy lady at my doorstep. The insane cost of living. The complete and utter lack of jobs. The crazy things that I have to do get a job.
Yours truly resident geek.
My neighbourhood (Midtown Terrace) is one of those challenges. It's *extremely*hilly, and TV / Radio reception is zilch thanks to Sutro tower. One would think that living unter a TV tower would give me great reception, but, well... it doesn't work that way. My wife's car opener doesn't even work because of all the RF fro mthe damn thing. So, be tween the hills and the RF from Sutro- we're fucked. We don't even get cable TV, because the cable just act as a huge antennae for Sutro. It's a fucking mess.
On top of all that, we're really far fro mthe nearest phone building, so the only DSL we get is 384. You'd think that living literally in the middle of SF, we'd be inundated with techno gizmos, but, no.
I *DO* hope that they find a way to make this work. Although, I had to build weird faraday cages around my living room and wrap my speaker wire in lead to keep my stereo from buzzing...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
There are 157 Starbucks locations within 20 miles of 94111 (Financial District)
:P
San Francisco is *not* that big of a city.
All they need is a WiFi point in each Starbucks, and they'll pretty much cover everything in the city.
GIVE ZEEZ PEPOL VIRELESS!!!
So, you live in San Francisco, and you want to find a free wireless hotspot? Here are a few links to get you started.
? id=27481
i -fi.html
And for those who think SF is already covered in wi-fi, I live smack in the center of the Sunset district (population 70,000), and the nearest hotspot (paid or free) is almost a mile away.
Union Square becomes Wi-Fi hotspot
http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_page.asp
SFLan Community Wireless project
http://www.sflan.org/
Sean Savage's Free Wi-Fi Cafes list
http://www.cheesebikini.com/wifi-cafes
BayAreaFreeFi Hotspot Listing
http://www.bayareafreefi.com/
Webdog's Free Sunset Wi-Fi Hotspot Listing
http://www.webdog.com/assets/sunsetfreew
If everyone above the median makes $75000, and one person below the median dies, the median remains $75000. If everyone above the median makes 7.5 million, and one person below the median dies, the median is now 7.5 million. Statistically, the person you are responding to is correct, it's just that what he is saying is a tautology.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Posting system errors. Comment in segments. A problem is that you seem to believe Socialist nations are the same as Communist nations, this is not accurate. Also, the greatest individual's wealth is not an applicable measure of a social democracy. As most of the current Socialist precept derived nations are, with the exceptions of the formerly agricultural Peoples' Republic of China and the failed Stalinist-style Communism of Cuba are social democracies, the majority degree of wealth and minimum quality of life are greater measures. Resource division is different because the goals are to increase the standard of living of the citizenry, not the individual citizen's wallet width. Consider a purely capitalist, laissez-faire, nation with 40.000 citizens and 100.000 total resources, as a measure. 10.000 individuals may be able to acquire by any necessary means 90.000-9 each, leaving only 10.000 for the 30.000 remaining individuals-1/3 or 0.3 each. If wealth were the single criteria, this nation would be superior. Consider a socialist democracy with the same figures, 40.000 citizens and 100.000 resources.
Assuming graduated extremes rather than absolute equality as would occur with state management that you attribute to a socialist nation incorrectly and that belongs to a Communist nation, the same 10.000 individuals would have perhaps 60.000-6 each. This leaves 40.000 for the remaining 30.000 citizens-4/3 or 1.3 each. A more balanced system of social democracy would provide 30.000 for 10.000 for 3 each and 70.000 for 30.000 for 2.3 each. Distribution changes would likely be through specific particular and differential taxes (both luxury goods and essential goods as well as graduated based on income taxation to provide a universal basic income or equivalent).
A comparison of the masses of the laissez-faire capitalist system and a light social democracy has 0.3 or 1.3 for 30.000 citizens, respectively. Between laissez-faire capitalism and a social democracy the comparison of the rich has 9 or 6 for 10.000 citizens, respectively. Of course, in a social democracy the rich are rewarded based on their genuine productivity rather than by accident of birth.
Do you believe, for instance, that a system with 1.3 for 30.000 rather than 0.3 is not effective if the 10.000 who each have 6 had 12-30 before the inception of the social democracy's precepts or if in other nations that predominantly refuse those precepts have 5.000 with nearly 20 each and 35.000 with less than 1 each, assuming the same population and resources for simplicity (in actuality a comparison is between the majority of the nations of Europe that are social democracies and in sum have 300+ million citizens, and the United States that has 200+ million citizens and general absence of history with tragic extremes)?
This latter theoretic situation is the ultimate result of absolute laissez-faire capitalist economics after all, the rich minority with capacity for investment gather the great majority of all newly developed and redistributable resources while the majority poor are left to their own devices for survival; such would not make a stable nation- a study of the actions and fates of the last Russian Tsar or Chinese Emperor should make that clear. Socialist precepts are the method to regulate Communist revolutions, Bismarck, one of the greatest of the classical conservatives understood this. This is unfortunately desirable as Communist revolutions have proven to be easily corrupted. The corrupted systems of Communism, separate from socialism and social democracy, seem to be what you base your argument against. A proper response now?
You can post all of the psuedo-intellectual garbage you want, Anonymous Coward...you still haven't answered to what I said in the previous post.
This is the interesting trait I have noticed amoungst the more liberal-leftist minded people I deal with...they like to try to side-step and twist the points in an argument into something where they actually appear to have a point. Complete with made up and over-simplified figures to try to back it up. (If only the system was so simple...) You don't, however...you have the gall (as an anonymous coward, no less) to ask me for a proper response without giving me one. It's a nice try...but it's very revealing with respect to your mindset.
I am going to say this one more time - look at the numbers. Lets take Germany for example. Germany would be by far more damaged finacially by losing the U.S. market than they U.S. would be by losing the German market. You have to look at the numbers proportionatly, but you will find that it's true. Considering they are having less than stellar economic growth as it is, I am sticking to my original assertion that socialist countries are almost dependant on the existance of capitalist countries to deal with just to even sustem them as they are.
The original posting I responded to was actually almost scarey in a sense...the nation gets the best deal by using maximum buying power - that is only a small step away from that nation saying "Hey...it will be even cheaper if we just have state make what we need for us." I don't mean to throw out a strawman argument - but it has always seemed to be a slippery slope to me.
I'm sticking with a free-market economy without too many rules for entry, and without excess overhead via taxes for services I want nothing to do with...I own a business on the side. The American system is business friendly enough to make it a very very easy thing to do for yourself.
I am not responding to an Anonymous Coward anymore...this is fruitless.
Divided post. An additional reply is not necessary. You have attempted insult rather than rebuttal, my interest in your responses has ended. The final question was on judgment of the post made as "Well...that's a reply I guess," was written previously. To make clear the point, you-perhaps unintentionally-implied that because a socialist nation was incapable of producing a concentration of extreme wealth in individuals who did not engage in either cartel or extensive international business that it means the nation is not successful as a nation. The wealth of an individual is irrelevant on national scale. Success for a nation includes object goals that it was formed for and against, and those that have been assigned to it by political ideologies-it must be stable to be successful as it must be able to gather an armed force with the actual support of its populace for the nation's defense, by ideology a socialist democracy or social democracy also improves the greatest number of people as possible, given that the nation is a representative of those same people it is only logical that it work to provide benefit as many as possible.
Contrary, a capitalist nation imitating democracy does not care for the large part and only provides what the motivated groups of the past have forced from it for the citizens. Laissez-faire capitalist has the sole and driven purpose of furthering individual wealth against every other national purpose, and was specified to perhaps assist in your understanding of the point made.
This difference in goal was described with the admitted simplistic models, but then all models are simplistic and even the statistics you hold up for judgment can provide at best an overview of the limited segment surveyed. Yet, you did not understand any of this and instead attempted to make liberal, anti-monarchist, an insult-you are an American, as you have admitted, so this was inevitable. The social democracies have seen America's form before, and people remember the result of the nationalization of the other union of states with anti-socialist principals masquerading as socialist.
You have attempted insult rather than rebuttal, my interest in your responses has ended.
I have a different perspective on things. First and foremost, you didn't give me a rebuttal. You responded with something that disagreed with my conclusion, without arguing against a single point I made. If you want to handle this like a debate, that is a very very weak rebuttal.
It's ironic that you critisize me for my response when you initially did the exact same thing. It's also ironic that you say your interest in my repsonse has ended, and then you go on to keep typing...I admit, I had originally lost interest in this, but now I am just curious if you are insane or just a troll. It doesn't seem like you lost interest at all...in fact - you even posted another repsonse below this one.
by ideology a socialist democracy or social democracy also improves the greatest number of people as possible
Actually, this is technically correct, but flawed. It does do improve the greatest number of people - by ideology. Ideology and practice are very different, however. At least they mean well...they always do.
There are so many things overlooked in that one simple statement that I don't even know where to begin.
Think of me what you will, at least I am willing to post my opinion while logged in as myself so I can be held accountable for my opinion. I have very little respect for someone who hides behind their opinion with anonymity...it's very easy to be critical of others when no one knows who you are. Slashdot often proves that. I don't have to insult you in that matter...you are effectively doing that yourself.
Yet, you did not understand any of this and instead attempted to make liberal, anti-monarchist, an insult-you are an American, as you have admitted, so this was inevitable.
No...I understand pretty well actually. And I didn't attempt anything. I did or I didn't. Pick one.
I also am not an admitted American. I am an American. There is nothing to "admit" to. You are giving yourself away here - you sound as if you look at being an American as something someone should "admit" to, as if they should be ashamed of it. I am not, anymore than you should be ashamed of where you come from. I do not believe our originals make us special.
I am going to spell this out, in no uncertain terms:
I am an American. I am a Capitalist. I am a small business owner, as well as an employee of a corporation. I am not "admitting" anything. I am stating it. I am not ashamed of it anymore than you should feel ashamed of being from where ever you are from.
I am also somewhat successful at both of my financial endeavours.
I do not want to be held responsible for the health care of others unless they are willing to live their lives by my rules. I like the freedom of NOT being responsible for the healthcare of others who do not choose to lead as healthy of a life as I do. I want nothing to do with paying healthcare for a smoker. I don't smoke. I don't want to smoke. Who is a smoker to expect me to help pay their medical bills with my tax dollars when they go and give themselves cancer? Or a drunk who wrecks their car and is injured, when I don't drive at all if I have consumed alcohol. I don't want to pay for people who let themselves become obese. I don't want to pay for people to get abortions, because they were irresponsible - not me.
To me, this is freedom. I am largely free from paying for other people's vices. I only have to pay for my own.
I also like the companies offering me healthcare insurance to have to compete. I think the ideal solution to healthcare would be to create real competition in the industry. Currently, companies subsidize healthcare through one single provider - let the employees choose their providers and just offer an amount that the company will contribute instead. Competition will always give you a better result than a buearocracy full of union drones that almost can't lose their jobs. The key is specifying what they are competing to deliver explicitly. I am an engineer. We do this all the time, and the contracts get awarded to the lowest bidder who will deliver the product that we want - to the exact specifications that we want.
Competition would be the truely Captalist solution to healthcare. Capitalism by it's nature and ideology will always get things done as efficiently as possible. That is not to say that there should be no rules - it need not be Laissez-faire (actually, it should NOT be), but the rules should be as simple as possible, and as few as is needed to protect all parties involved.
My votes go for my interests. That is human nature. Deny it if you will, but doing so has a historical track record of ending badly in the long run.