Slashdot Mirror
Rural Oregon Leads the Way for Large-Scale WiFi
atkulp writes "While cities and incumbent telecommunications operators are fighting it out over municipal WiFi, it looks like rural Oregan is leading the way for large-scale deployments of WiFi and WiMax." The privately funded $5 million dollar wireless network services a modest 700 square miles and seems to be the only show in town.
"it looks like rural Oregan is leading the way" let's spell it Oregon
A bribe in my dictionary is something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
The case in point: a law maker makes a law in return for campaign contributions. The law maker would not have made the law without the contributions. The contributor would not have contributed without getting the law.
That is bribery.
HTH
threadeds blog
Yeah this brings us back to Bill Gates quotes paralleling my pr0n res hypothetical to be good enough to suit us (like the 640KB did), but, I mean, c'mon, won't that video quality suffice?
The answer is yes, until the market fully adopts 3D holograph pr0n that will require some more zeros and ones.
I mean, c'mon.
Time to take OFF the tin-foil hat. Think security gaurds watching the video feeds from remote sites.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
are the retardation number and stupidity factors constants or varaible to different communities?
I think it's more like: "Stop talking politics! What happened on Big Brother last weekend. OMG look what the girl is wearing!? Fat people SHOULD NOT be wearing Abercrombie and Fitch!?!" Wow. (Sorry, OT rant...) (Most) Americans are elusive and close-minded when it comes to politics. We have the big guys patting us on the head saying, "Everything will be ok. Don't think. Don't question. Go about your regular daily routine and everything will be fine." I met a 26 year old last night that said, "The President will pass the law for Christians. He can do anything!" My response: "No, he is not a dictator. Bills must be passed through the H.O.R and the Senate first." Her response: "Who are they!?!?" She could probably tell me Tom Cruise's foot size and what Jennifer Aniston had for breakfast on the second Monday in August though... Anyways, it looks like its starting to hit the fan finally with Rove, DeLay, Brown and all these other morons. About time. I thought the checks and balances system was done for. These people need to be strung up, cause the little guys are always footing the bill. (Now if I could just figure out a way to get high-speed from a non-conglomerate...) BTW, I'm from Dayton, OH--I think it was more like 45 degrees this weekend Alex...!
The only way to address this is to stip all parties of all funding, and then allocate money for campaigning from tax revenue.
Do we really give the same amount to every party (wasting my tax dollars on everybody from the Socialists to the Reform party) or do we give more money to the more popular parties (thus writing the current Republicrat party oligarchy into law)? It sounds like you're in favor of the former - what prevents me from starting my own "Ilikemoneycrat" party tomorrow? It would be great to rant on TV commercials instead of Slashdot comments.
Do we prevent people from publishing their own political statements with non-tax-dollars (thus infringing everyone's freedom of speech) or do we only prevent people from giving money to others to have political messages published (thus infringing everyone but the rich's freedom of speech)? I can't afford to buy a TV commercial right now, but I can find a hundred people willing to combine our contributions to buy one. If you limit our ability to pool that money together, all you'll do is limit political advertisements to the people rich enough not to need anyone else's money.
When you equalize "media access", how are you going to determine what gets counted as access? Does a documentary about the unibomber have to be balanced with one about abortion clinic bombings, so we don't unfairly show too low a ratio of right-wing to left-wing nutjobs? If a news show's guest economist says that the President's Social Security plan is horrible, does that count as "access" for all his challengers? If so, then the big media conglomerates can game the system by burning up airtime on weak support for candidates they dislike. If not, then the big media conglomerates can own the system by being the only corporations with unlimited influence on mainstream political discussion.
But for that matter, how do you define "media"? Do Daily Kos and Little Green Footballs balance each other out, or do each have to give "equal access" to opposing viewpoints? Could you or Slashdot be in trouble if your own globally published comments are too partisan? If so, what does that do to your freedom of speech? If not, wouldn't that be a great loophole for paid hordes of astroturfers to slip through?
Everybody's got their own pet solution for half of the world's problems (I'm no exception - in the political arena my hobby horse is Condorcet voting), and nobody can foresee every one of the unintended consequences which their proposed reforms would bring, but please at least try! You'll quickly see just how hard a problem campaign finance reform is. It's not as easy as calling all the money "bribery", because it isn't being spent on fabulous mansions for Congressmen. It's being spent on political speech, and any restrictions on political speech can only exacerbate the problem or replace it with something worse.
There is no way to make representation in any way equal for every candidate. That's why we should spend our time and energy making voters more educated and reasonable. That will minimize the advantage billion dollar campaigns have, as well as decrease the likelihood that companies can bribe officials and avoid having the public find out.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.