" How do you reconcile that our current marriage laws give special treatment to heterosexual couples over gay couples? Aren't heterosexual couples just as sinful as homosexual couples, why are they given special treatment by state endorsement?"
Yes, heterosexuals are just as sinful as homosexuals. Does that mean that we should keep sinning on purpose? No. My faith and beliefs won't allow me to say that homosexual marriage is OK.
" What part of "equal rights" don't you understand?
It's not about special recognition, it's about equal rights. The right to marriage, for example."
Apparently you didn't understand my first post. By my believing that homosexuality is a sin, I don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry. I believe that marriage is sacred.
Like all Christians who believe that the Bible is the truth, I think that the act of being gay/lesbian is a sin. I would oppose any legistlation that gave special recognition to gays and lesbians.
That being said, I don't think that gays and lesbians are more sinful than myself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
If people don't subscribe to an ISP because it is too expensive, then they have other problems to worry about. Like paying for health care, putting food on the table, paying the gas/electric bills, credit cards, etc.
Access to the Internet is a priviledge, not a right.
This will absolutely destroy the small wireless ISPs in that area. Governments should not be involved in providing NONESENTIAL services when the private sector can provide them.
This is all starting to sound very familiar. What kind of economic policies are we supposed to be creating: capitalist or communist?
RTFA: "Note: the photos shown here depict a pre-production version of the DP-310 supplied by Via last fall. Via has not yet responded to requests for photos of the production version.
If the city government ran the ISP/network. Would that give the police department free access to the logs on all users? After all, the police dept is part of the city government. They wouldn't need a court order or anything to track you since it's their network.
"Firstly, you assume that all municipalities are run by people who cannot provide any services without cost overruns and huge waste."
Where did I say or even imply that?
"You are assuming that the government is running a network server, when all these governments are attempting to do is to provide a conduit."
Again, I said nothing of servers. However, they will have to keep logs on all users just like current ISPs do.
"Let me ask you, should government construct highways?
Yes they should. Just like they have since the beginning of roads in this country. The government has been involved in all highway construction. The government did create the initial structure for the Internet but does not have anything to do with the backbone, expansion or service providers of the Internet.
"But it seems to me that profit-based corporations with lobbyists are staging a takeover on the State level that is unprecedented."
If you think that this has begun only recently then you are in for a rude awakening. The lobbyists as we know them today are a mere shadow of what they once were. The government and lobbyists used to be much more corrupted than they are now because of the information age.
"And that is probably due to the fact that they see a loss of profit in municipalities providing a low-cost taxpayer-based service."
I agree completely which just shows that it would be unfair competition. The government-run ISPs would be able to undercut the private companies prices and absorb the losses through tax increases. How is that fair?
It would also end up stifling innovation. And what incentives would there be for the government to upgrade or add new services if the competition was gone? Starting to sound familiar?
I don't think the majority of people on here knows what it's like to grow up dirt poor. Both of my parents and my wife's parents grew up poor (by their time's standards, not today's standards for poor which is actually not that bad).
You don't need cable TV, satellite TV, cell phones, internet access, more than one car, and all of that crap. You don't have a right to own any of that crap. Don't you get it? THEY'RE NOT NECESSATIES!!! Our sense of reality has become so warped that we don't even know the difference between "wants" and "needs".
Here is what is truly needed in this day and age: -a roof over your head -water, food, gas, electricity -basic appliances (stove, oven, refrigerator, maybe a microwave/washer/dyer - maybe) -one car -maybe local telephone service. -TV/radio with an antenna
Here's what I consider "icing on the cake" or "wants": -cable/satellite TV -cell phones -computer/internet access -PS2/Xbox & other toys -more than one car I could go on and on...
If we don't need it then the government shouldn't be providing it. It would be a huge waste of tax payers money to build a city wifi network.
Just think for a moment about all of the stuff you pay for now that's not a "need". Now add up all of the money you would save every month/year. That's a lot of money in the bank, isn't it? Now do you understand why some of the jobs are being outsourced? We think we need to be payed more so we can afford all of our "wants". We're becoming too damn expensive to support ourselves and the jobs are going overseas to people who actually use the money for "needs".
Cities do not need more infrastructure to keep track of. Hell, most cities have a hard enough time keeping money flowing for water, sewer, roads, police, fire fighters, schools, etc...
Internet access is not a necessity. You have no guaranteed rights for cheap/free broadband acess. You pay what you can afford just like everyone else. What? You can only afford 56k access? Then that's what you get until you can afford $30-$40 a month for faster access.
Once the city gets involved it will be one big clusterfuck. How much money gets poured into this project? What about support? Will there be a help desk to call 24/7? (If it's government you can bet that support will only be available from 8am-5pm M-F execpt for all holidays) What about controlling virii and trouble makers on the government-controlled network? How do you keep trouble makers off of the network? What about content filters? Am I allowed to surf porn on a government controlled network?
Just let the private sector provide the non-essential services. Just look at the prices of dialup now. $10 a month for 56k access. Access is getting cheaper all of the time.
As everyone knows, broadband actually means several analog signals multiplexed together (frequency division). So run fiber instead that will use a digital (time division) signal. There's your loophole.
I knew that as soon as morons started equating broadband with "fast internet access" that we would have a problem. The actual meaning of Broadband does not garauntee any type of speed. Everyone keeps saying that they want broadband. I don't. I want baseband. I want fiber to my house.
The word "intercept" means: " To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of" (http://www.answers.com/intercept&r=67)
If the messages were truly "intercepted" then the intended receiver of the message would not have received the message. Therefore, that law would not apply.
That may be nitpicking, but lawmakers purposefully use elaborate wording in the laws, trying to look intelligent but actually end up leaving loopholes.
In a time where city, county, and state governments are strugling to provide the basic services of police, fire fighters, education, roads, etc. I would like to know where all of this money is coming from. This is wasteful spending because IT IS NOT NEEDED! Let the private sector pay for the extra crap. The goverment should be involved in ONLY ESSENTIAL services.
Everyone bitches about paying higher and higher taxes, but they also want the government to spend money on crap like this? I just don't get it.
I'm assuming that the tests were run a fresh machine. I guarantee that if these tests were run in "real" environments (read: IE is crippled from Spyware/Adware) then Firefox would easily win.
Here's a better idea for a test: Take two grade school kids, middle school kids, high school kids, college kids, and a 20-something people. Give each of them identical hardware/software with the exception that one group gets IE and the other Firefox. Have them surf the web for a week (normal surfing habbits). Bring the computers back into the lab and then determine which browser is faster. I'm willing to bet a good chunk of money that the firefox computers will be able to render the pages faster than the IE computers infested with spyware/adware.
The last time I checked I could also get Internet access from my cable TV company, independent dial-up providers, independent wireless providers. In fact, in my town of 26,000 we have approximately 10 ISPs that are not telephone companies.
Makes me wonder what the hell they're doing in Philly if my little town in Iowa has all of these options available and all of the companies are making profits.
"You say it's a non-essential service. That's your view. I'm sure there are a fair number of users out their who consider it to be an essential serivice (me being one of them, I telecommute occasionally)."
If it's essential for business than the company should pay for it.
"I believe the recent articles on this topic are referring to small towns setting up their own broadband. They're not interested in filtering content, they're interested in just getting broadband."
Give it time. Their city councils will soon be swamped with people complaining about porn and values.
"Broadband, I think, is extremely important. Especially if you want to attract other businesses to your town.
Every town already has broadband access. It may not be in the form of DSL or cable modems though. It might be in the form of frame relay, T1 or other services.
"While I can not debate the OSHA regulations exemption, I can debate the "first class" part. Nothing is preventing me from sending a letter via FedEx to someone (as I have done in the past)."
But you can't leave the letter in the mailbox for them to take. The USPS is the only service allowed to use mailboxes, all other uses are illegal considered a federal offense. The USPS has a monopoly on "normal" mail.
I think that municipalities should not offer free access. If they want to offer a pay service, that's fine. If the do offer a pay service then it needs to be operated only by the funds it takes in. Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
Also, as much of a geek as I am I have to say that I don't want my government spending more money on a non-essential service. Internet access is not a right, it's a priviledge. I would rather have more policeman, fireman, teachers, road repairs, water repairs, sewer repairs, etc than wireless internet access that is controlled by the government. Plus there will be more fighing over what should be filtered on a government-controlled network. I just don't think it's worth the $$$ or headaches.
This would defintely be more expensive in the long run compared to fiber. Also there are too many unknowns. Close to one gigabit per second? How close? What about the "ideal" conditions? Are we talking about weather conditions, wire conditions, ??? Requires that power lines be modified? I'm sure the electric companies are just itching for a reason to replace all of those lines.
Fiber is already here. It's faster, immune to all interference, and constantly getting cheaper. Wait, did I mention that fiber's faster?
Slashdot Mirror
acoustix
passw.....wait a second!
DAMN YOU!
The rules of the Bible are the laws that I try to live by.
-Nick
Yes, heterosexuals are just as sinful as homosexuals. Does that mean that we should keep sinning on purpose? No. My faith and beliefs won't allow me to say that homosexual marriage is OK.
-Nick
Apparently you didn't understand my first post. By my believing that homosexuality is a sin, I don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry. I believe that marriage is sacred.
-Nick
Like all Christians who believe that the Bible is the truth, I think that the act of being gay/lesbian is a sin. I would oppose any legistlation that gave special recognition to gays and lesbians.
That being said, I don't think that gays and lesbians are more sinful than myself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
-Nick
There is. It's called 56k dial-up access. Dial-up access is available everywhere and cost between $10-15 a month.
-Nick
If people don't subscribe to an ISP because it is too expensive, then they have other problems to worry about. Like paying for health care, putting food on the table, paying the gas/electric bills, credit cards, etc.
Access to the Internet is a priviledge, not a right.
-Nick
This will absolutely destroy the small wireless ISPs in that area. Governments should not be involved in providing NONESENTIAL services when the private sector can provide them.
This is all starting to sound very familiar. What kind of economic policies are we supposed to be creating: capitalist or communist?
-Nick
640x480? That's strange because the lowest resolution that I have ever been able to get on XP is 800x600.
-Nick
He's right.
-Nick
There you have it.
-Nick
If the city government ran the ISP/network. Would that give the police department free access to the logs on all users? After all, the police dept is part of the city government. They wouldn't need a court order or anything to track you since it's their network.
-Nick
Where did I say or even imply that?
"You are assuming that the government is running a network server, when all these governments are attempting to do is to provide a conduit."
Again, I said nothing of servers. However, they will have to keep logs on all users just like current ISPs do.
"Let me ask you, should government construct highways?
Yes they should. Just like they have since the beginning of roads in this country. The government has been involved in all highway construction. The government did create the initial structure for the Internet but does not have anything to do with the backbone, expansion or service providers of the Internet.
"But it seems to me that profit-based corporations with lobbyists are staging a takeover on the State level that is unprecedented."
If you think that this has begun only recently then you are in for a rude awakening. The lobbyists as we know them today are a mere shadow of what they once were. The government and lobbyists used to be much more corrupted than they are now because of the information age.
"And that is probably due to the fact that they see a loss of profit in municipalities providing a low-cost taxpayer-based service."
I agree completely which just shows that it would be unfair competition. The government-run ISPs would be able to undercut the private companies prices and absorb the losses through tax increases. How is that fair?
It would also end up stifling innovation. And what incentives would there be for the government to upgrade or add new services if the competition was gone? Starting to sound familiar?
-Nick
I don't think the majority of people on here knows what it's like to grow up dirt poor. Both of my parents and my wife's parents grew up poor (by their time's standards, not today's standards for poor which is actually not that bad).
You don't need cable TV, satellite TV, cell phones, internet access, more than one car, and all of that crap. You don't have a right to own any of that crap. Don't you get it? THEY'RE NOT NECESSATIES!!! Our sense of reality has become so warped that we don't even know the difference between "wants" and "needs".
Here is what is truly needed in this day and age:
-a roof over your head
-water, food, gas, electricity
-basic appliances (stove, oven, refrigerator, maybe a microwave/washer/dyer - maybe)
-one car
-maybe local telephone service.
-TV/radio with an antenna
Here's what I consider "icing on the cake" or "wants":
-cable/satellite TV
-cell phones
-computer/internet access
-PS2/Xbox & other toys
-more than one car
I could go on and on...
If we don't need it then the government shouldn't be providing it. It would be a huge waste of tax payers money to build a city wifi network.
Just think for a moment about all of the stuff you pay for now that's not a "need". Now add up all of the money you would save every month/year. That's a lot of money in the bank, isn't it? Now do you understand why some of the jobs are being outsourced? We think we need to be payed more so we can afford all of our "wants". We're becoming too damn expensive to support ourselves and the jobs are going overseas to people who actually use the money for "needs".
Just think about that.
-Nick
Cities do not need more infrastructure to keep track of. Hell, most cities have a hard enough time keeping money flowing for water, sewer, roads, police, fire fighters, schools, etc...
Internet access is not a necessity. You have no guaranteed rights for cheap/free broadband acess. You pay what you can afford just like everyone else. What? You can only afford 56k access? Then that's what you get until you can afford $30-$40 a month for faster access.
Once the city gets involved it will be one big clusterfuck. How much money gets poured into this project? What about support? Will there be a help desk to call 24/7? (If it's government you can bet that support will only be available from 8am-5pm M-F execpt for all holidays) What about controlling virii and trouble makers on the government-controlled network? How do you keep trouble makers off of the network? What about content filters? Am I allowed to surf porn on a government controlled network?
Just let the private sector provide the non-essential services. Just look at the prices of dialup now. $10 a month for 56k access. Access is getting cheaper all of the time.
-Nick
As everyone knows, broadband actually means several analog signals multiplexed together (frequency division). So run fiber instead that will use a digital (time division) signal. There's your loophole.
I knew that as soon as morons started equating broadband with "fast internet access" that we would have a problem. The actual meaning of Broadband does not garauntee any type of speed. Everyone keeps saying that they want broadband. I don't. I want baseband. I want fiber to my house.
-Nick
The word "intercept" means: " To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
(http://www.answers.com/intercept&r=67)
If the messages were truly "intercepted" then the intended receiver of the message would not have received the message. Therefore, that law would not apply.
That may be nitpicking, but lawmakers purposefully use elaborate wording in the laws, trying to look intelligent but actually end up leaving loopholes.
-Nick
In a time where city, county, and state governments are strugling to provide the basic services of police, fire fighters, education, roads, etc. I would like to know where all of this money is coming from. This is wasteful spending because IT IS NOT NEEDED! Let the private sector pay for the extra crap. The goverment should be involved in ONLY ESSENTIAL services.
Everyone bitches about paying higher and higher taxes, but they also want the government to spend money on crap like this? I just don't get it.
-Nick
I'm assuming that the tests were run a fresh machine. I guarantee that if these tests were run in "real" environments (read: IE is crippled from Spyware/Adware) then Firefox would easily win.
Here's a better idea for a test:
Take two grade school kids, middle school kids, high school kids, college kids, and a 20-something people.
Give each of them identical hardware/software with the exception that one group gets IE and the other Firefox.
Have them surf the web for a week (normal surfing habbits).
Bring the computers back into the lab and then determine which browser is faster. I'm willing to bet a good chunk of money that the firefox computers will be able to render the pages faster than the IE computers infested with spyware/adware.
-Nick
The last time I checked I could also get Internet access from my cable TV company, independent dial-up providers, independent wireless providers. In fact, in my town of 26,000 we have approximately 10 ISPs that are not telephone companies.
Makes me wonder what the hell they're doing in Philly if my little town in Iowa has all of these options available and all of the companies are making profits.
-Nick
If it's essential for business than the company should pay for it.
"I believe the recent articles on this topic are referring to small towns setting up their own broadband. They're not interested in filtering content, they're interested in just getting broadband."
Give it time. Their city councils will soon be swamped with people complaining about porn and values.
"Broadband, I think, is extremely important. Especially if you want to attract other businesses to your town.
Every town already has broadband access. It may not be in the form of DSL or cable modems though. It might be in the form of frame relay, T1 or other services.
-Nick
But you can't leave the letter in the mailbox for them to take. The USPS is the only service allowed to use mailboxes, all other uses are illegal considered a federal offense. The USPS has a monopoly on "normal" mail.
-Nick
There's a difference between essential services like water and frills like internet access. What's next? Gas stations? Supermarkets? -Nick
I think that municipalities should not offer free access. If they want to offer a pay service, that's fine. If the do offer a pay service then it needs to be operated only by the funds it takes in. Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
Also, as much of a geek as I am I have to say that I don't want my government spending more money on a non-essential service. Internet access is not a right, it's a priviledge. I would rather have more policeman, fireman, teachers, road repairs, water repairs, sewer repairs, etc than wireless internet access that is controlled by the government. Plus there will be more fighing over what should be filtered on a government-controlled network. I just don't think it's worth the $$$ or headaches.
-Nick
This would defintely be more expensive in the long run compared to fiber. Also there are too many unknowns. Close to one gigabit per second? How close? What about the "ideal" conditions? Are we talking about weather conditions, wire conditions, ??? Requires that power lines be modified? I'm sure the electric companies are just itching for a reason to replace all of those lines.
Fiber is already here. It's faster, immune to all interference, and constantly getting cheaper. Wait, did I mention that fiber's faster?
-Nick