Slashdot Mirror
Free Broadband For NYC Public Housing?
First time accepted submitter nomad63 (686331) writes "Earlier this week, the NY Times reported that a group of city and leaders, with NYC public advocate Letitia James at the helm, are pushing for a commitment from Comcast to provide free broadband to the city's public housing and to extend its low-cost Internet Essentials plan (which was created as a condition of the NBC deal). While New York City might be the center of finance and commerce in the U.S., about 1/3 of households don't have an Internet connection, highlighting the huge "digital divide" between the city's wealthy residents and those who can't afford broadband service.In addition to the free service for public housing, the group wants gratis access at shelters for the city's homeless and its victims of domestic violence."
how has public housing worked out? that's what i thought.
1, isn't this a dupe?
2, how about free internet access for all? it would be a genuinely useful thing for a local government to provide, and it would help them stay in touch with the citizenry. My net access still sucks, they're going to have a better connection than I am most likely
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And still misses the real issue here. If you want to narrow the "Digital Divide" stop granting monopolies to companies like Comcast. Once you have some real competition in the market there's no reason that people who need the internet won't be able to buy it for themselves.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Is there any reason that internet in NYC should cost 4 times what it does in Zurich or Seoul, except and exploitative monopoly ? The U.S. has places were the population density will make any kind of communication service more expensive but NYC is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet and is not one of them.
You can't even apply for a job at Burger King without an Internet connection these days.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Yeah that will help.... /sarc
That will so help the family who uses food stamps as a way to pay for food.
That will so help the family who friends and family encourage you to not bother with high school.
That will so help the family whos father is a crack head.
That will so help the family whos father is not around.
That will so help the family who domestic violence is a way of life.
That will so help the family whos children have to go thru metal detectors every day to go to school.
That will so help the family whos only hope of getting out of it is to have one of the kids hit the lottery ticket of the NBA/NFL.
That will so help the family who has the brother hooked on heroin who hawked the computer to pay for his habit.
Now that I have said that it might help some. But the real core issues is a lack of jobs and a tax system that encourages poor behaviors and discourages good behavior. We have done more to harm the poor than help them with hand out programs. We have created whole generations of people who will not bother to do better. Who yearn and hope for the luck of the draw to lift them out of poverty. Either by 'i can sue someone' or 'win the lottery' or 'my kid got into college on a sweet scholarship so he can go onto the NFL'. Instead of giving people the tools to do better. The rich can deign upon the chosen few some riches and feel special they are helping.
How about I dupe my comment? Two wrongs don't make a right. The whole thing stinks.
What would have been better is blocking the merger, and if the city council is feeling generous, negotiating a low-cost bulk deal to provide internet to public housing. Perhaps even paying that low cost out of the city's budget. There's got to be room in the budget from all the 0.1%-er property taxes on the penthouse suites. Any other alternative stinks, reeks, nauseates.
the group wants gratis access...
Say what you will about Comcast (actually, please don't - we all know), this is nothing but a tax. Why not just be honest and make it an internet service tax like the ones we all see on our cell phone bill that pay for Obama Phones?
Free quality education, free quality medical care and free child care would help more.
t seems to me that if you're going to give a company a de facto monopoly of both television distribution and Internet, it would be a fair trade-off to require that they provide a very basic level of service to poor people for free. We can quibble over the details, but for example, providing the over-the-air channels and a 1mbps symmetrical connection seems fair.
These companies don't like to admit it, but they're providing exclusive access to public infrastructure. I think they should be counting their lucky stars that they're not as regulated as other utilities.
Now it's, "give the people who vote for me free stuff so I can stay in office so I can be wine and dined by lobbyists."
...on spying. Why not? Perhaps giving them all internet access the government can get a clearer picture on the activities inside public housing projects. Besides that its a humane thing to do to empower the people at the bottom of the food-chain with knowledge. Internet access should be a right for every person, not a privilege!
We'll give you Free Broadband at the lowest tier, feel free to pay for fast lanes later.
And since we're grateful enough to get more business, you need to legalize extortion if we do it.
Deal?
God spoke to me
Trolls sure have itchy trigger fingers in these municipal wifi threads. Don't bring up comcast? Why, because you'd be obligated to defend them? Nice appeal to vague conservative outrage with the obama phone namedrop, though.
In reality, there are many poor areas where no one can afford broadband, and sedentary ISPs like comcast have no incetive to develop infrastructure or lower their prices. That's the problem--not a bunch of poor folk who want "hand outs".
What they should do is put together a municipal broadband system and let the citizenry choose.
I wish governments would use taxes to pay for benefits for the poor instead of making us pay through hidden costs by forcing companies to give "free" or reduced cost services, which are made up for in higher fees for the service. The same goes for "affordable housing" where developers have to provide reduced cost housing, which is paid for in higher cost of housing for everyone else.
I have no problem with providing benefits, but If governments want to provide these benefits, then provide them through taxes where they are shared among all taxpayers (why should a Comcast customer pay to subsidize "free" interenet for the poor, while an AT&T UVerse customer does not?), everyone can see what they are paying to the full cost of providing these benefits is known, and the local taxes are tax deductible themselves.
"These people already have housing assistance, now they want INTERNET????"
http://rumahprediksimbaphoer.blogspot.com/2014/11/sarang303-sbobet-ibcbet-casino-338a.html
I see nothing "hyperbolic" about that. Seems like an accurate assessment to me.
I call bullshit that they "don't have broadband". Sure they do (at the public library)... it's just not convenient.
I applaud our public officials working to make sure poverty isn't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Of course, I pay $70/month for my broadband, I guess that makes me a chump.
-Styopa
When I did not have an ISP I went to the Library , and coffee houses. McD has connections in some restaurants. Can you give me free ISP ? 11 million UNDOCUMENTED workers as DEMS call them will need free ISP too. Actually I heard it could be 34 million UNDOCUMENTED workers. So if 34 million (illegals) will ask 318 million USA citizens to flip the bill ? This is coming to all states under President Obama ? Comcast will tax the working USA taxpayers to make up cost. Do you think we can take in all the poor of the world if there are 7000 million in the world. 318 million in USA est. pop. without UNDOCUMENTED (illegal) citizens as Democrats call them. WE can take this further: demHouse demPhone demObamacare demISP demEBT demSNAP demCAR demCashforclunker demFreeSolarPanels
"These people already have housing assistance, now they want INTERNET????"
Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?
Don't worry, it's the "we gave them free Internet and now they want a free computer as well????" step that they're concerned about...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So sorry that you're poor, here, have some comcast.
Simply an observation:
When the geek posts about poverty or gender issues, he seems to come down somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh.
so we have people who robbed a bank for 1$ to Get Health Care in Jail / prison.
In fact the government should pay you to sit home and replicate.
What the NY politicians are trying to do is make themselves look good to the public and to Comcast at the same time.
In exchange for some minor concessions that make the politicians look good with the public they will simultaneously restrict competition resulting in higher rates for everyone else and increasing Comcast profits.
Comcast was likely the ones who made this proposal to the NY politicians in the first place.
... More free stuff.
Lets assume we gave all the people in public housing 100 percent of everything they want/need free.
Have we encouraged them or given them the opportunities to better their lives?
Nope.
Public housing should be seen as a temporary solution to temporary problems in a person's life. That or permanent if someone is very disabled which most of the people in PHing are not.
People are raising SECOND generations of children in public housing. That is madness. Get these people out of public housing if they've been in it for more then a couple years.
That might mean encouraging them to leave big cities they can't afford to live in. Tough. If you're poor, why would you think you can afford to live in places with high costs of living?
PHing the way it is implemented is bad on so many levels. I almost don't know where to start with it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Not +4 anymore. Apparently Liberals only believe in freedom of speech when the words are what they want to hear.
Slashdot beta sucks! I keep deleting beta.slashdot.org from my cookie stash and reloading www.slashdot.org, and I've gotten beta four times now.
Somebody needs to be fired.
Hmm? Are you insinuating that giving cheap housing in locations that normally even upper middle class people can't afford, sometimes in houses that the same upper middle class would never dream of affording regardless of where they are located, is a bad idea?
How dare you!
Right now, if your house is burning down, you can call the fire department, and they put it out free of charge. It's a government service that is paid for, usually primarily by tax dollars and rarely by specific usage fees.
Most government services are paid for by a combination of usage fees, general fees, usage taxes, and general taxes. For instance, transportation is paid for about fifty percent from usage taxes (like gas taxes) and about fifty percent from general taxes, with a bit also paid for by usage fees (like toll bridges and carpool lanes, registration fees, et cetera). Something similar is true of public transportation, which comes about 50% from usage fees (usually in the forms of fares) and about 50% in the form of general taxes.
Right now, the road outside my house is, for the intent of what the OP meant by "free" provided gratis by the government. The government makes sure that I can walk, drive, or bike from my house to wherever I want to go by maintaining public roads. Everyone pays for it in one way or another, but nobody makes me pay a bill every month to walk to the subway station or drive my car to the grocery store.
Absolutely nothing would stop a municipality from doing the same for the internet. Provide basic service to every home in town from the tax general fund, like we do with roads. Charge residences a premium for broadband speeds and raised data caps, charge businesses, and provide discounts or free broadband speeds to children enrolled in school or poorer residents.
It is hardly "impossible". It is really nothing more than a question of some city deciding to actually do it.
Prisons= Free room, free meals, free medical, free education, free fitness.
... More free stuff.
Lets assume we gave all the people in public housing 100 percent of everything they want/need free.
Have we encouraged them or given them the opportunities to better their lives?
Nope.
Public housing should be seen as a temporary solution to temporary problems in a person's life. That or permanent if someone is very disabled which most of the people in PHing are not.
People are raising SECOND generations of children in public housing. That is madness. Get these people out of public housing if they've been in it for more then a couple years.
That might mean encouraging them to leave big cities they can't afford to live in. Tough. If you're poor, why would you think you can afford to live in places with high costs of living?
PHing the way it is implemented is bad on so many levels. I almost don't know where to start with it.
Absolutely correct. There has to be another way. And of course there is. I'd like to propose a solution. A proposal for preventing the poor people in the United States from being a burden to their parents or country. It would also make them beneficial to the public at-large. I've posted my thoughts online for public comment. I think we should push ahead with due haste, don't you?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It is far worse then that.
It distorts the economy of the city.
It puts a heavy tax burden on the city which makes it less affordable for everyone self supporting.
It chains the people in it to a life of subsistence because they can only live in that environment with subsistence.
It distorts labor pools.
It damages the culture of both the people providing subsistence because they think they're better and it distorts the culture of the people getting subsistence because they think they're worthless.
It distorts the political system because politicians can LEGALLY buy votes by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another in return for votes.
Generally it is just a really really bad policy.
People in these situations should be encouraged to move to more rural areas where the cost of living is substantially lower and they might have a chance as self supporting. Also getting some fresh air and not being stuck in high rise crack dens.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument offensively retarded.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why isn't Google running fiber to all of them for free?
if there's not difference between rich and poor there's no _reason_ to. Lord, the things that get up modded on /. these days. Go read a few studies on the affects of poverty and remind yourself how lucky you are. There's a reason they say people who grew up poor and made good 'escaped'...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Free Broadband For NYC Public Housing?
Not everyone lives in a city.
Everybody living in New York City lives in a city by definition.
That might mean encouraging them to leave big cities they can't afford to live in. Tough. If you're poor, why would you think you can afford to live in places with high costs of living?
How is one supposed to get to work if one lives outside the reach of public transit?
Only a retard or sumone focused on brainwashing would believe that outsourcing childcare is a good thing. And Obama? Which category is he in? Making rent is very important. Buying groceries is important. But, why is it assumed that everyone should work, and that therefore raising your children is not work? If we didn't have needlessly dual income families, unemployment would be gone.
... This is like asking how one is to eat without McDonalds.
How do you think everyone gets to work outside major cities? Do you think we go to work by training hamsters, making little carts out of sticks, discarded cans, and duct tape... and then getting them to move forward by tossing peanuts in front them?
First off, small towns generally do have mass transit. Buses are very common.
Second, for very small towns you don't need mass transit because you can literally just walk anywhere in the town in about 5 to 10 minutes.
Third, cars are not that expensive especially if you out of the big cities. It is very common for people in trailer parks to have cars. Not great cars... but cars that can get them where ever they need to go. And because it is an area with low congestion they spend ZERO time in traffic and they probably aren't that far away from work anyway which means they might only be in the car for 10 to 20 minutes tops. Compare that to city commutes which can top two hours WASTED going to and from your place of work every day. When I was in Los Angeles, I would often spend upwards of an hour commuting sometimes EACH WAY. And that is STILL considered normal in LA.
I just don't know where to start with your question. It is as if you think we didn't have civilization at all until subways were invented.
And are you under the impression that everyone outside cities are rich? Think about that. There are poor people that don't live in cities. How do they get to work every day without mass transit.
Come... the fuck... on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First off, small towns generally do have mass transit. Buses are very common.
Buses in a particular city of about 200,000 people don't run at night, on Saturday evenings, or on Sundays. This can become hard for people who hear "We have no openings unless you're willing to work the night shift or on Sundays" from multiple employers. I imagine it's even worse in smaller towns, or what am I missing?
for very small towns you don't need mass transit because you can literally just walk anywhere in the town in about 5 to 10 minutes.
Yet other Slashdot users have kept telling me to move to a bigger city if no employers in my desired field are located in my city.
Third, cars are not that expensive especially if you out of the big cities.
A new driver still has to obtain the state-required 50 hours (which varies from state to state) of supervised driving experience somehow. My state's BMV's web site doesn't manage to explain how someone without a roommate who also drives would get this supervised driving experience in the first place. And even if a bus pass vs. motor fuel and scheduled maintenance is a wash, a driver still has to pay per year for plates and insurance.
I'm on disabiliity in Saskatchewan, which is run by the same people as social services/welfare. I get an extra $200 a month compared to someone on welfare. I have a freezer full of food, wear nice (but not fancy name-brand) clothes, paid for my own glasses, and pay for an upgraded internet connection (mid-tier) as well as my landline. I have a modest single bedroom apartment, but not in one of the big apartment blocks where they gouge you on rent.
A friend of mine is also on disability, and gets the same, but is in subsidized housing so her rent is $200 a month cheaper than mine. Yet while I can afford my internet and have $100/month left over for spending money, she's perpetually broke. Why? She smokes like a chimney.
Most of the people I knew on social services or disability in Regina were also perpetually broke, because come pay day they'd buy a bottle of booze, a case of beer, and order a pizza instead of going shopping for food they could cook themselves.
I know for a fact you can get by on what the programs provide -- I've done so for years. There is no excuse for "suffering" and "having no food" or "not being able to afford the internet". You choose to party it up, go out to bars, and buy frozen foods instead of learning to cook.
So suffer.
You'll not get one whit of sympathy from me.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
it's the legal H1-Bs taking for jobs I used to have a shot at that I'm worried about. I don't plan on taking Pablo's place at the meatpacking plant, but I sorta had my eye on of of those cakewalk DB admin jobs that now go exclusively to H1-Bs.
Average household income in the US is $69,821. Google it. You pay $70k/yr in income tax? You're doing pretty well for yourself. Also your accountant sucks. That said, why the hell don't you stop asking why you pay so much in taxes and start asking why you're not getting anything for it? I got news for you, it's not Pablo's $20/mo free internet. Maybe it's all those swank tax shelters you aren't rich enough to qualify for?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We don't need our africans sending it from the homefront as well!
Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument offensively retarded.
Satire motherfucker, do you get it?
With apologies to Quentin Tarantino.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
When IT geeks can't get a decent job it's "blame corporate policies" and "blame biased laws" and "eliminate employment-driven wealth". But when it's people who can't be a10-hour wage-slave or part of the knowledge-based workforce, the solution is Mitt Romney all-over again: They "don't pay tax" and are therefore the problem.
For the geeks tolerating welfare programs, the problem is one of necessity or cost. Posts on this thread imply policies and laws that obstruct a job-hunting geek magically disappear when poor people are job-hunting. Like capitalism has 2 competing outputs; what the market can bear and perfect supply. Like human capital has 2 competing effects; wages and profits. Like laws protect the rich more than the innocent and the important more than the commoner. Start talking welfare and the poor are blamed for being on the wrong side of those equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So you'd ship them to the south to work in the fields? What would you do with them?
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not going to ship them anywhere to do anything.
I'm suggesting that you simply scale back the subsidized housing. Do it slowly so there isn't a big shock. It took us a long time to get here, it is going to take a long time to get out of it.
Scale it back over 10 years or something. Lots of time. And have exceptions for people that really can't survive otherwise. But most people unless they are outright inferior to the rest of the active labor force... can support themselves. And for the record that should be about 90 percent of them.
A lot of them are going to realize they aren't going to be able to live where they're living. Some will move out to the periphery of the city. Some might talk to family members in other parts of the country and say "oh, maybe I'll start my new life over there." Others will take a chance in various places. They're not all going to move at once. Just a little bit at a time.
These are not children or cattle we're talking about here. I am not going to ship them anywhere. It is not my right to ship them. These are grown men and women. Adults. These are people we allow to vote.
If they're so stupid in your opinion that they are unable to solve rudimentary problems in their lives... then basically you're suggesting these people need to be institutionalized. That they must be given cradle to grave support by the rest of society because they're just too broken to be able to take care of themselves.
You made this rather stupid insinuation that I was shipping black people off to work on slave plantations. Well, ironically, you're the one suggesting that these same people are so stupid and inferior that you need to keep them in state institutions eating government jello for the rest of their lives like people with brain damage.
Am I racist for suggesting that grown men and women can take care of themselves or are you racist for saying they're inferior, unable to compete, and must be taken care of for the rest of their lives like children?
Kindly don't try that snarky shit with me again or I will rhetorically slap the shit out of you again.
You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. You don't know what I know.
All you did was project your own inherent racism onto me.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What good is a right to a free in home internet connection, when you don't have a device that can connect to it? So by typical liberal incremental policies, the next logical step is to give them a free computer or tablet. When they smash it up or trade it away for drugs. Give them another one. We've been giving them obamaphones, now they are going to get obama galaxy note 4s.
Federal taxpayers have already footed the bill for high-speed Internet in their local schools and libraries, in an effort to 'bridge the digital divide', now we need to wire up the projects with high-speed (broadband) Internet access... Who will pay for the laptops and desktops they will need to take advantage of this free Internet access?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Point taken. At the same time, Poe's Law notwithstanding, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is likely the most famous piece of English language satire. Ever.
Since I *linked* to it, and it was clearly attributed to its author, I never imagined that anyone with a modicum of English language education (which, of course , may not apply to you -- are you Dutch? German?) wouldn't recognize it as the famous satire it is. It is pretty much required reading in most American (and English, Canadian, Irish and probably Australian, I'd expect) secondary schools. My apologies for any confusion.
From the Wikipedia page on the work:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
More free shit for obama voters? How about no.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
We have it in Belgium, although in practice space is limited to the poor for ages 6 to 30 months. From 30 months, it is universal and free. I should note that basic health care is also free.
and while you're at it, hand out free Snickers bars at every stoplight from all your trucks...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Sigh... I quoted Poe's law and everything.
Fine.
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
Again. PERIOD.
And with that... there is clarity. :-)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Sigh... I quoted Poe's law and everything.
Fine.
I hear people making extreme arguments like that sincerely all the time. What is more, despite the citation being initially intended as saterial, that does not mean that someone citing it did not mean to use it as a slander against me. It does not mean that someone like yourself could not be using such a citation to imply that my own words were either evil or so comically wrongheaded that I had begun to sound like a satire of someone evil.
The point is that you MUST give context to your comments. FUCKING PERIOD. END OF STORY. END OF LINE. DONE.
Savvy?
I can't see your face when you say things or pick up on voice intonation. I don't know you so I can't assume an implicit context.
You MUST state the context or you leave me to assume context and I CANNOT be held accountable for mistakes should I GUESS incorrectly.
Again. PERIOD.
And with that... there is clarity. :-)
Oh, I get it. Loud and clear. And yes, the satire was *most definitely* directed at you, sir. Your comments caused me to think of Swift's writing and now of Dickens':
--Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
With you, in the role of Scrooge.
Is that enough context for you to take my meaning, sir?
Have a lovely day
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Then I was correct in my original assessment of your intent and I repeat my reply to your statement:
""
Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument is offensively retarded.
""
Why did you correct me if I got guessed your context?
You complained giving the impression that you were just kidding...
I cite Poe's law.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
And then here we are full circle with it confirmed that my initial assessment was correct thus rendering your subsequent complains self contradictory.
*flicks frozen peas at adversary*
Try harder.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Then I was correct in my original assessment of your intent and I repeat my reply to your statement: "" Right because anything but the current model means I want to literally kill them and eat them.
Jesus fucking Christ this sort of argument is offensively retarded. ""
Why did you correct me if I got guessed your context?
You complained giving the impression that you were just kidding...
I cite Poe's law.
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
And then here we are full circle with it confirmed that my initial assessment was correct thus rendering your subsequent complains self contradictory.
*flicks frozen peas at adversary*
Try harder.
You do misunderstand. Clearly there's a reading comprehension issue going on, so I'll keep this to words of three syllables or less:
No. I don't accuse you of wanting to kill and eat babies. That's satire. However, your comments show you to lack empathy and seem to hold views that are almost as disgusting as those satirized in "A Modest Proposal" and "A Christmas Carol." What is more, you don't seem to realize how hateful and nasty your statements are.
We clear now, sport?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You attempt to brow beat me with your little question about whether or not I speak english as a first language.
I wasn't trying to brow-beat you, I was genuinely surprised that someone whose first language was English and who, presumably, is a product of an English language secondary school would be ignorant of such a famous piece of literature. I can only assume you're a high school drop out, your school sucked or you just weren't paying attention.
My sincere apologies for thinking that you might have a *valid* reason not to be aware of Swift's work -- such as not being from an English speaking country.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Because even two girls in two girls one cup work for a living!
No, you weren't trying to brow beat me... because apparently you never stopped trying because haven't realized it I'm fucking immune to that rhetorical nonsense.
I am very secure in my intellectual credentials. I am not a stupid or uneducated person. You are not going to rattle me with that crap.
As to your continuing attempt to use this line of logic, it is undermined pretty heavily by the fact that I properly interpreted your intention with the citation. You were indeed trying to associate me with such language which meant my initial response to it was correct.
So please... stop with the this sad attempt to try and get an intellectual one up on me. You tried to be clever and instead managed only to be crude and obvious.
Try again... with something completely different because everything you're using right now is addressed, labeled, and filed away into neat little boxes.
This conversation has moved on. Let it go.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Isn't this something that's available in the public libraries? Which is 'internet for free' since it's already being paid for by the taxes that support the library. They also have these nifty things called 'books' that people can read for 'free'. I can see requiring free broadband to the libraries since that has the greatest benefit to the city but to give it to individual households so they can watch Netflix and surf porn isn't quite .. quite.
Yes, I had you pegged right off the bat. I saw through you nonsense instantly and I apparently caught you off guard it happened so fast.
Next time be more subtle before you spring your little games on people.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm suggesting that you simply scale back the subsidized housing.
Why do so many other countries have more subsidized housing than the US without the problems you mention?
You don't know me. You don't know what I believe. You don't know what I know.
Then tell us. Instead, you play rhetorical games to attack others and claim you said nothing and implied nothing. If you are posting nothing, why bother?
You made this rather stupid insinuation that I was shipping black people off to work on slave plantations.
For someone whining so much about what others presume about you, can you point to where I used the word "Black" or "plantations" or "slave"? Oh, I never did? You just assumed you knew what I believed, what I know, and did exactly what you complain about in others. You made stupid assumptions about others.
All you did was project your own inherent racism onto me.
I projected nothing.
These are not children or cattle we're talking about here.
So it's ok to treat children like cattle? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I can't know what you believe, so tell us.
Learn to love Alaska
They do have those problems. Notice the rather frequent riots in Paris as well as growing ethic problems throughout europe.
The concept is generally poor. And anyone that is paying any attention to it what so ever is already aware of the issue.
The idea is causing problems where ever implimented. Many cities actively don't report on the issue in the media.
For example, I've lived in Los Angeles which has hundreds of murders a year. Nearly all of them in the same square mile. And guess how many of those murders make it into the newspaper every day?
Pretty much none of them. Why? Because no one cares. Its boring.
Drug dealers killing drug dealers.
So little twits like you that don't pay attention actually don't know about it. Which is really quite sad.
I'm sorry if I'm being brief with you. But ignorance offends me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
They do have those problems. Notice the rather frequent riots in Paris as well as growing ethic problems throughout europe.Ah, so the riots in Paris are caused by public housing. Got it.
I also note that Singapore has large scale public housing, and had two riots in 40 years, both "race based". Or are you going to claim that agrees with your unstated hypothesis, since you are hinting racism at every turn ("ethic problems" and such), while denying race is an issue.
I'm sorry if I'm being brief with you. But ignorance offends me.
I get it. You are offended by yourself, so you move on to the next post as soon as possible.
So little twits like you that don't pay attention actually don't know about it. Which is really quite sad.
So because your little square of the world has a race problem (that's apparently not race-based), you generalize that to the rest of the world, and demand people prove you wrong, but are offended if people point out your race-based problem is race-based. Got it. As much as anyone can get it.
Learn to love Alaska
I can't speak to Singapore. I can speak to the US and Europe which is all I need to make my argument.
Good day.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And for "US" you mean your little corner of Los Angeles only, and for Europe, you mean the riots you know nothing about, other than what you think you read in the news about race riots that weren't related to government housing.
Learn to love Alaska
No. Strawman rejected for being a strawman.
Try again.
The saddest thing on the internet is being subjected to the seemingly endless hordes of fuckwits that don't know how to process a logical argument or think.
I mean... you're failing basic rhetoric here. Its sad. Try harder.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I mean... you're failing basic rhetoric here. Its sad. Try harder.
Ah yes, the Slashdot Concession. Rather than discussing the facts, you discuss the discussion. You win. You are obviously here to assert opinion as fact and harass anyone with a different opinion until they say they agree, so you "win" yet another argument. I'm not 12. It's not worth my time.
Learn to love Alaska
Wrong.
You saw an argument you didn't have a counter to and instead of accepting that or struggling to deal with something that was hard, you instead intentionally misrepresented someone else's argument.
You lied in an obvious and crude manner. I am right here. Did you think I wouldn't notice you moving my pieces on the game board?
That isn't how the game works. You move your pieces. I move mine.
When you move my pieces that is cheating.
Strawman is cheating. You do not get to define my argument. My argument is my argument.
What I did was slap your hand away from the game board and tell you to move YOUR pieces and leave mine alone. I asked you to play by the rules and not cheat.
I also assumed that you were a petulent child and would throw a temper tantrum when disallowed from cheating. I assume this because people that cheat in this manner are typically a mix of stupid and dishonest. Stupid because they don't know how to cheat more effectively and dishonest because they'd cheat in the first place.
And here you are... whining that you are being held to standards and being forbidden from just changing the rules whenever it suits you.
Tough shit, you whiny piece of shit.
Either play by the rules or fuck off.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
But better late than never. Few years ago, someone in the wise US government, approved that, poor people on government provided health insurance plans can get the little blue boner pills on the taxpayers' dime. Now getting access to free porn, they are closing the loop, making everyone happy :)
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals