Now that the PS3 has been jailbroken, both restoring OtherOS to any PS3 and cracking the Hypervisor for OtherOS app access to RSX, VRAM and all 7 Cell SPUs, I wonder whether Android would be a better OS than Linux for the PS3. Even with the jailbreak, the PS3 has only 256MB RAM ( + 256MB VRAM) for apps, which makes it a lot more like a mobile phone than a PC - despite all its other differences. If Android is going to run apps developed for a "Playstation Phone", maybe those apps would be a better library for PS3 than the Linux apps that largely will not run in the small RAM available on PS3. And since now the only basic OS component missing on PS3 is an RSX video driver that will have to be written, maybe it would be better to write the driver for Android than for Linux.
If you pass a pizza you own over to your friend or family member with detergent (that you own) in it, the government will not only confiscate whatever they can of it, but they will use it to put you in a government jail.
Property is real, and subject to some control by some people other than its owner. There is no freedom like the one that you can't even think of a word for. That's because you're making up something that doesn't exist, except in the dreams of children and libertarians.
No, you are lying. The Swedish government has issued a warrant to detain Assange to be questioned for allegations of rape, which is what Assange has said. The distinction between that and being arrested for charges of rape is really no more meaningful than the difference between the Swedish and English words used to describe it.
Assange does claim the US government is behind it, which is a perfectly reasonable claim, especially considering the extrajudicial (and possibly illegal) actions the US government took against Wikileaks, shutting it down repeatedly.
But whether Harris is imagining his persecution has absolutely nothing to do with whether Assange is, or with anything else for that matter. It's totally irrelevant.
So you're lying about Assange, and you're not making any sense about Harris. But since even being confronted with that reality isn't shutting you up, it's clear that you are mentally ill. And I will not be dignifying your craziness anymore.
That person's claims have absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks, and are not proven to be more than claims.
Show me some evidence of anyone downloading anything from Wikileaks being hassled at all. Or quit making "absolute" claims about consequences that you're just making up.
No it doesn't. Ownership doesn't mean totally exclusive control and totally independent freedom. You are changing the meaning of the word "ownership" to mean something it doesn't.
The real world is a lot more complex than these libertarian fantasies dream it could be.
And in private how different is the PM's statements? Or does it really matter? The PM didn't tell the public that such an assassination is prohibited and outrageous. Like if the PM's government prosecutes that advisor for calling for the assassination on TV.
The leaks show the importance of what they say in private, vs the BS in public like that advisor's public retraction.
That's a distinction without a difference, and a public retraction without credibility, as these leaks have shown they're just lying to the public while doing things like murderous drone strikes in private.
That's your list. Other people have their lists, perhaps overlapping. You have no more standing than anyone else to claim yours is the correct list.
As for the value of the Karzai assessments and English prince quips, they are what has focused public attention on these leaks, including the ones you agree are worth releasing. Without the gossipy ones, the corporate mass media of the world would ignore all of it, except as headlines about Assange himself, which would be largely attacking him, and counterproductive to getting the public to look at the leaks.
Which is in fact the main problem, that's now exposed. The NY Times wasn't directly given copies of these leaks, because they spun the last leaks to make it harder to get leaks to the public, the opposite of their role as supposed journalists. Most US media was exposed as at least subservient to government messages, however false and even inane, attacking the releases, and in many cases actively collaborating with the government to protect it from public perception. That's the government's job, to protect itself, and mixing the two is the most seriously bad fact exposed by this leak. It should now be perfectly clear to a lot more people that in the normal course of events our journalists collaborate with government on propaganda, rather than inform the public about what's done supposedly in the service of the people. Probably the greatest defect in our society, directly protecting the two others: bribery and reckless debt at every level.
The other big problem is just the ridiculously broad sweep of secrecy in the US government. Secret "security letters" prohibiting people telling even their wives they've been indicted, let alone the public that is named as the complainant in the secret court cases. Secret wiretaps on everyone, web email and phone. "National security" excuses that kill lawsuits by people imprisoned and tortured for years without any evidence there's even a reason they were captured. All "secret", so immune to any due process, yet in reality available to something like three million people with "security clearance". At least one of whom wasn't reliable enough not to leak this stuff to Wikileaks. Securing so much info among so many authorized people is probably impossible, yet the government pretends that it's necessary and practical - a huge waste, as well as a severe security risk in the much smaller amount of info that really should remain secret, at least for a while.
Then there's the big problem in international diplomacy itself. That applecart is letting the Iraq War go into its 9th year, the Afghanistan War go into its 10th, military action spreading to many countries, Iran continuing towards a bomb, N Korea actually bombing S Korea, genocide continuing in Sudan, drug wars consuming Mexico without releasing Columbia or any other country already in it... That applecart needs to be upset. The amount of damage done by these mostly petty revelations mostly damages the counterproductive complacency that US diplomacy cruises under. Indeed, despite the government's various whiners about how damaging these leaks are, the State Department totally refused to help Wikileaks redact the leaks - proving they value whining about it more than whatever's damaged by it. More truth reported to the public along the way would make diplomacy better, more effective, more trustworthy instead of just an ocean of lies no one believes.
This leak was a purge. The actual damage was small and localized. The actual damage done by the systems it upset is much worse. There is no end in sight for that business as usual unless it's upset. This leak is a chance for that to be upset. And as we now enter the phase of actual recriminations against someone not in the club of domesticated "journalists", including arresting Assange for "rape" and terminating Wikileaks access to the Internet without any due process, and perhaps even assassinating him or someone close to him as people including the Canadian prime minister have called for in public, there will be more backlash. And a hell of a lot of backlash against this incompetent yet tyrannical security state is both earned and long overdue.
I think you're doing fine - I'm not usually as willing to retract, especially when I think the person demanding the retraction is posting "venom" at me in return.
True, the debt I'm discussing is the foreign held Treasury debt. The rest of the debt, that is owed to private individuals, corporations and (mainly) the US government itself (eg. Social Security Administration and government pension funds), does not give any foreign country any leverage over any US policy. Indeed, the debt held by US government offices does not give any leverage over any US policy, as those offices are entirely controlled by US policy.
The total debt on February 28, 2003 was $6,399.975B (under a statutory limit of $6.4T). On November 30, 2008 it was $11,315B. Which is again a 1.77x increase in total debt, while debt owed to China increased 3.44x. That analysis is exactly the same as what I described in terms of the foreign debt.
That's a very thorough and sincere retraction. I appreciate it. I didn't find your subsequent comments to be radically anti-government, and indeed a reasonably anti-government attitude is one of my pride American traits:). I was a little confused when you said that the government should fix what the telcos have left broken, so I'm not surprised you retracted that original statement. And I'm glad, because I despair of the rising tide of insanely anti-government crapola flying around especially on the Internet. Slashdot has actually gotten better than I think the general population has, which somewhat counter-intuitively I credit to its relatively young demographics, spiked with the interest of most "nerds" (geeks, really) in solving problems instead of using them to create more problems. Which is one reason I've returned to posting at Slashdot after spending more time talking about society, politics and economics at political blogs over the past few years.
So now that we're talking reasonably, what do you think the basic telecom problem is here? What do you think the government could do to fix it? What do you think the government could do to get private people to fix it, if anything? After all, the power of WiFi comes from the ease of anyone deploying it, without FCC license or spending significant money.
Who said anything about "the US goes down"? Only you did. That's bullshit. China's interest is in the US continuing to owe it that money, paying that steady interest, while using the US need to continue to sell debt to China to dictate US stay out of China's way. China wants a weak and compliant US, not a destroyed US. And that's what China's got.
Until the invasion, the US didn't owe China nearly as much, nor need China to continue to buy US debt to support ongoing operations (including the ongoing Iraq War).
In February 2003, just before the US invaded Iraq, the Treasury owed China $121.8B, 9.9% of the $1236.4B US total. In November 2008, right before the banking collapse caused a competing top source of US debt, the Treasury owed China $713.2 of $2104.1B total, 33.9% of the total. During that time, China's share of the US debt increased by 3.44x, while the total debt increased only 1.7x.
The Iraq War cost more than the extra $867.7B in debt; indeed, at over a $TRILLION the Iraq War cost could have entirely eliminated the US debt to China.
This isn't "venom", it's criticism - that is directed at your comment, not at the other post.
I asked if there are non-legislative ways for Senators to do something, and your response did not show one, as I pointed out, and you haven't amended with one - because you can't. "Not as effective" is such "hyperbole" as to be meaningless: other than legislation, there's nothing senators can do that is effective at all.
You really should just agree that what you said wasn't legitimate - though getting you to admit it wasn't funny either is much less likely. "Wrong" isn't "hyperbole", and you don't have much credibility in arguing when you keep trying to avoid that fact. Your problem is that you said something in public that isn't supportable to someone who cares about people doing wrong by saying it - and by acting like it's true.
Blythely going around saying anti-government things while the country is lousy with anarchists both inane and insidious should draw a lot more confrontation with reality than it does. You shouldn't expect to get away with it, especially once it happens. Because the country still has quite a lot of us who agree with the founding American idea that the people create governments to protect its rights and to promote its welfare.
I'd like to have a discussion about the solutions to America's serious telecom infrastructure, especially since you do seem to agree that the government has a legitimate and constructive role. But just as Net Neutrality doesn't do much good when the networks can't handle equal access (they can), the government's role doesn't mean much when the people don't accept the restrictions on the government's power, and the power within those restrictions. If we can get to a basic agreement on the overall framework of what we're talking about, we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise it's impossible, and I won't bother.
You and I are both powerless to get anything done to the telcos without the government. That is why we have a government. The Senate help desk isn't going to get anything done about dropped calls that are the telcos fault without the government either, which means legislation.
Indeed, this Senate legislation protects more than just the phonecalls in the Senate. It works to solve a more general problem for all Americans, that happens to also affect the Senate. That kind of universal management is what we want from government, not just their using special advantages like a help desk that most people in America don't have for ourselves.
You might have been "aiming for funny", but it wasn't funny, mainly because it was wrong. Really you were looking to say something anti-government without being responsible for it being correct, which is what passes for "funny" among "Conservatives".
No, expenses come out of either profits or increased revenues. You're so stupid you don't even understand the most basic facts of business. And you're an asshole.
No, there are ways to make you stop owning the property. If you sell it to someone else, or otherwise agree they own it, then you don't own it anymore - but that doesn't mean you never owned it. Another way to stop owning something is if the state takes it from you. There are some obligations property owners have to the state that when violated result in the state taking ownership from the owner. If you use property to damage someone else the state can take ownership. If the owner fails to pay certain taxes the state can take ownership. That doesn't mean that the owner didn't own it, but that their ownership was ended.
The two points are not the same just because you say they are, just as ownership doesn't mean something different just because you say it does.
No, you own the land. But ownership of property doesn't mean unlimited, unencumbered control of it. You are using "own" to mean something it never means. The typical "libertarian" fantasy that is true only perhaps in Sim City, never in reality.
Legislation is the only way Senators have to get things done. It's the only power they actually have (except sleazy intimidation tactics that are backed up by threats of legislation).
You're not a Senator, so I'd like to hear the way you know for them to get things done that's not legislation.
No, the telcos don't have to pass the cost to the consumer. They can pay for it out of their profits, which are huge. If there's a problem with that, it's in the protections they have in a cartel, where they don't have to compete with each other. Which is probably the most essential reform that Congress should pass, and this kind of development forces that issue into the open.
The idea that all costs to business are simply transferred 100% to the business' customers, ignoring the source of funds in profits, is to be believed only by the same people who believe that tax cuts without service cuts are possible by ignoring the debt that's created instead.
We should go all the way, make a Federal law requiring counties and municipalities to deploy and operate a unified public WiFi network with complete coverage wherever the public access density exceeds some small number of people (the number in which at least 10 people an hour are statistically likely to be present). The Feds should back that mandate by hosting WiFi and Internet interconnect infrastructure in any Federal building at Federal cost, as designed by the municipality/county. And pay for the entire operation with a Federal tax on private wireless network businesses, like mobile telcos. The telcos should pay for the service to them that offloading to public WiFi delivers, but the public should organize the effort and reduce the cost with existing infrastructure.
You're not an exec or board member controlling America's industry. Those people might not even talk about him any more, but they did until about a decade ago. The mid 1990s was the last time I saw him present at an industrial conference, and all the bigwigs were listening quite closely. He was talking about what the Internet was about to do to industry, economies, and society. And he was right. Just like he was right in his three big books about the future, that are now mostly the past (and still the present).
Try reading his books. He was right, and people who followed his insight were advantageously prepared. Of course, that influence on the future helped ensure he was right, but it all worked. Toffler made specific predictions, not vague nostradomery, and you can see now in hindsight how accurate was his insight. He's not like Cayce, Tolkien or Moses/apostles. He's an industrial planner, and his plans worked in ways that can be seen quite clearly. Largely because his plans were developed from lots of very specific research into trends and pioneering developments, not "what if" speculation.
This kind of network would be very valuable. But there's little need to create a whole new network to deliver goods. Instead, robot submarines could run through the existing sewers. Upgrading it to deliver food and other stuff would require only fitting the sewers with a kind of "airlock" that the delivery sub fits into, separating the sewer outside the sub from the inside of the sub opening into the surface world.
And in case you think that's too disgusting, even if it's actually completely separated, you shouldn't look into just how most of this food is produced. You're already eating it every day, and knowing how sausages are made would push you to starve instead. Let's just say "chicken lips", and leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that the PS3 has been jailbroken, both restoring OtherOS to any PS3 and cracking the Hypervisor for OtherOS app access to RSX, VRAM and all 7 Cell SPUs, I wonder whether Android would be a better OS than Linux for the PS3. Even with the jailbreak, the PS3 has only 256MB RAM ( + 256MB VRAM) for apps, which makes it a lot more like a mobile phone than a PC - despite all its other differences. If Android is going to run apps developed for a "Playstation Phone", maybe those apps would be a better library for PS3 than the Linux apps that largely will not run in the small RAM available on PS3. And since now the only basic OS component missing on PS3 is an RSX video driver that will have to be written, maybe it would be better to write the driver for Android than for Linux.
If you pass a pizza you own over to your friend or family member with detergent (that you own) in it, the government will not only confiscate whatever they can of it, but they will use it to put you in a government jail.
Property is real, and subject to some control by some people other than its owner. There is no freedom like the one that you can't even think of a word for. That's because you're making up something that doesn't exist, except in the dreams of children and libertarians.
No, you are lying. The Swedish government has issued a warrant to detain Assange to be questioned for allegations of rape, which is what Assange has said. The distinction between that and being arrested for charges of rape is really no more meaningful than the difference between the Swedish and English words used to describe it.
Assange does claim the US government is behind it, which is a perfectly reasonable claim, especially considering the extrajudicial (and possibly illegal) actions the US government took against Wikileaks, shutting it down repeatedly.
But whether Harris is imagining his persecution has absolutely nothing to do with whether Assange is, or with anything else for that matter. It's totally irrelevant.
So you're lying about Assange, and you're not making any sense about Harris. But since even being confronted with that reality isn't shutting you up, it's clear that you are mentally ill. And I will not be dignifying your craziness anymore.
Goodbye.
That person's claims have absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks, and are not proven to be more than claims.
Show me some evidence of anyone downloading anything from Wikileaks being hassled at all. Or quit making "absolute" claims about consequences that you're just making up.
No it doesn't. Ownership doesn't mean totally exclusive control and totally independent freedom. You are changing the meaning of the word "ownership" to mean something it doesn't.
The real world is a lot more complex than these libertarian fantasies dream it could be.
And in private how different is the PM's statements? Or does it really matter? The PM didn't tell the public that such an assassination is prohibited and outrageous. Like if the PM's government prosecutes that advisor for calling for the assassination on TV.
The leaks show the importance of what they say in private, vs the BS in public like that advisor's public retraction.
That's a distinction without a difference, and a public retraction without credibility, as these leaks have shown they're just lying to the public while doing things like murderous drone strikes in private.
That's your list. Other people have their lists, perhaps overlapping. You have no more standing than anyone else to claim yours is the correct list.
As for the value of the Karzai assessments and English prince quips, they are what has focused public attention on these leaks, including the ones you agree are worth releasing. Without the gossipy ones, the corporate mass media of the world would ignore all of it, except as headlines about Assange himself, which would be largely attacking him, and counterproductive to getting the public to look at the leaks.
Which is in fact the main problem, that's now exposed. The NY Times wasn't directly given copies of these leaks, because they spun the last leaks to make it harder to get leaks to the public, the opposite of their role as supposed journalists. Most US media was exposed as at least subservient to government messages, however false and even inane, attacking the releases, and in many cases actively collaborating with the government to protect it from public perception. That's the government's job, to protect itself, and mixing the two is the most seriously bad fact exposed by this leak. It should now be perfectly clear to a lot more people that in the normal course of events our journalists collaborate with government on propaganda, rather than inform the public about what's done supposedly in the service of the people. Probably the greatest defect in our society, directly protecting the two others: bribery and reckless debt at every level.
The other big problem is just the ridiculously broad sweep of secrecy in the US government. Secret "security letters" prohibiting people telling even their wives they've been indicted, let alone the public that is named as the complainant in the secret court cases. Secret wiretaps on everyone, web email and phone. "National security" excuses that kill lawsuits by people imprisoned and tortured for years without any evidence there's even a reason they were captured. All "secret", so immune to any due process, yet in reality available to something like three million people with "security clearance". At least one of whom wasn't reliable enough not to leak this stuff to Wikileaks. Securing so much info among so many authorized people is probably impossible, yet the government pretends that it's necessary and practical - a huge waste, as well as a severe security risk in the much smaller amount of info that really should remain secret, at least for a while.
Then there's the big problem in international diplomacy itself. That applecart is letting the Iraq War go into its 9th year, the Afghanistan War go into its 10th, military action spreading to many countries, Iran continuing towards a bomb, N Korea actually bombing S Korea, genocide continuing in Sudan, drug wars consuming Mexico without releasing Columbia or any other country already in it... That applecart needs to be upset. The amount of damage done by these mostly petty revelations mostly damages the counterproductive complacency that US diplomacy cruises under. Indeed, despite the government's various whiners about how damaging these leaks are, the State Department totally refused to help Wikileaks redact the leaks - proving they value whining about it more than whatever's damaged by it. More truth reported to the public along the way would make diplomacy better, more effective, more trustworthy instead of just an ocean of lies no one believes.
This leak was a purge. The actual damage was small and localized. The actual damage done by the systems it upset is much worse. There is no end in sight for that business as usual unless it's upset. This leak is a chance for that to be upset. And as we now enter the phase of actual recriminations against someone not in the club of domesticated "journalists", including arresting Assange for "rape" and terminating Wikileaks access to the Internet without any due process, and perhaps even assassinating him or someone close to him as people including the Canadian prime minister have called for in public, there will be more backlash. And a hell of a lot of backlash against this incompetent yet tyrannical security state is both earned and long overdue.
I think you're doing fine - I'm not usually as willing to retract, especially when I think the person demanding the retraction is posting "venom" at me in return.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
True, the debt I'm discussing is the foreign held Treasury debt. The rest of the debt, that is owed to private individuals, corporations and (mainly) the US government itself (eg. Social Security Administration and government pension funds), does not give any foreign country any leverage over any US policy. Indeed, the debt held by US government offices does not give any leverage over any US policy, as those offices are entirely controlled by US policy.
The total debt on February 28, 2003 was $6,399.975B (under a statutory limit of $6.4T). On November 30, 2008 it was $11,315B. Which is again a 1.77x increase in total debt, while debt owed to China increased 3.44x. That analysis is exactly the same as what I described in terms of the foreign debt.
That's a very thorough and sincere retraction. I appreciate it. I didn't find your subsequent comments to be radically anti-government, and indeed a reasonably anti-government attitude is one of my pride American traits :). I was a little confused when you said that the government should fix what the telcos have left broken, so I'm not surprised you retracted that original statement. And I'm glad, because I despair of the rising tide of insanely anti-government crapola flying around especially on the Internet. Slashdot has actually gotten better than I think the general population has, which somewhat counter-intuitively I credit to its relatively young demographics, spiked with the interest of most "nerds" (geeks, really) in solving problems instead of using them to create more problems. Which is one reason I've returned to posting at Slashdot after spending more time talking about society, politics and economics at political blogs over the past few years.
So now that we're talking reasonably, what do you think the basic telecom problem is here? What do you think the government could do to fix it? What do you think the government could do to get private people to fix it, if anything? After all, the power of WiFi comes from the ease of anyone deploying it, without FCC license or spending significant money.
So does this jailbreak actually let Linux installed as OtherOS run apps that can call the RSX and read/write the RSX RAM?
Jailbreakable on a PS3 with firmware v2.2 or v2.41?
Who said anything about "the US goes down"? Only you did. That's bullshit. China's interest is in the US continuing to owe it that money, paying that steady interest, while using the US need to continue to sell debt to China to dictate US stay out of China's way. China wants a weak and compliant US, not a destroyed US. And that's what China's got.
Until the invasion, the US didn't owe China nearly as much, nor need China to continue to buy US debt to support ongoing operations (including the ongoing Iraq War).
In February 2003, just before the US invaded Iraq, the Treasury owed China $121.8B, 9.9% of the $1236.4B US total. In November 2008, right before the banking collapse caused a competing top source of US debt, the Treasury owed China $713.2 of $2104.1B total, 33.9% of the total. During that time, China's share of the US debt increased by 3.44x, while the total debt increased only 1.7x.
The Iraq War cost more than the extra $867.7B in debt; indeed, at over a $TRILLION the Iraq War cost could have entirely eliminated the US debt to China.
This isn't "venom", it's criticism - that is directed at your comment, not at the other post.
I asked if there are non-legislative ways for Senators to do something, and your response did not show one, as I pointed out, and you haven't amended with one - because you can't. "Not as effective" is such "hyperbole" as to be meaningless: other than legislation, there's nothing senators can do that is effective at all.
You really should just agree that what you said wasn't legitimate - though getting you to admit it wasn't funny either is much less likely. "Wrong" isn't "hyperbole", and you don't have much credibility in arguing when you keep trying to avoid that fact. Your problem is that you said something in public that isn't supportable to someone who cares about people doing wrong by saying it - and by acting like it's true.
Blythely going around saying anti-government things while the country is lousy with anarchists both inane and insidious should draw a lot more confrontation with reality than it does. You shouldn't expect to get away with it, especially once it happens. Because the country still has quite a lot of us who agree with the founding American idea that the people create governments to protect its rights and to promote its welfare.
I'd like to have a discussion about the solutions to America's serious telecom infrastructure, especially since you do seem to agree that the government has a legitimate and constructive role. But just as Net Neutrality doesn't do much good when the networks can't handle equal access (they can), the government's role doesn't mean much when the people don't accept the restrictions on the government's power, and the power within those restrictions. If we can get to a basic agreement on the overall framework of what we're talking about, we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise it's impossible, and I won't bother.
If the US hadn't borrowed over a $TRILLION from China that it spent on the Iraq war, the US might be a lot more free to defend itself from China.
You and I are both powerless to get anything done to the telcos without the government. That is why we have a government. The Senate help desk isn't going to get anything done about dropped calls that are the telcos fault without the government either, which means legislation.
Indeed, this Senate legislation protects more than just the phonecalls in the Senate. It works to solve a more general problem for all Americans, that happens to also affect the Senate. That kind of universal management is what we want from government, not just their using special advantages like a help desk that most people in America don't have for ourselves.
You might have been "aiming for funny", but it wasn't funny, mainly because it was wrong. Really you were looking to say something anti-government without being responsible for it being correct, which is what passes for "funny" among "Conservatives".
No, expenses come out of either profits or increased revenues. You're so stupid you don't even understand the most basic facts of business. And you're an asshole.
No, there are ways to make you stop owning the property. If you sell it to someone else, or otherwise agree they own it, then you don't own it anymore - but that doesn't mean you never owned it. Another way to stop owning something is if the state takes it from you. There are some obligations property owners have to the state that when violated result in the state taking ownership from the owner. If you use property to damage someone else the state can take ownership. If the owner fails to pay certain taxes the state can take ownership. That doesn't mean that the owner didn't own it, but that their ownership was ended.
The two points are not the same just because you say they are, just as ownership doesn't mean something different just because you say it does.
No, you own the land. But ownership of property doesn't mean unlimited, unencumbered control of it. You are using "own" to mean something it never means. The typical "libertarian" fantasy that is true only perhaps in Sim City, never in reality.
Legislation is the only way Senators have to get things done. It's the only power they actually have (except sleazy intimidation tactics that are backed up by threats of legislation).
You're not a Senator, so I'd like to hear the way you know for them to get things done that's not legislation.
No, the telcos don't have to pass the cost to the consumer. They can pay for it out of their profits, which are huge. If there's a problem with that, it's in the protections they have in a cartel, where they don't have to compete with each other. Which is probably the most essential reform that Congress should pass, and this kind of development forces that issue into the open.
The idea that all costs to business are simply transferred 100% to the business' customers, ignoring the source of funds in profits, is to be believed only by the same people who believe that tax cuts without service cuts are possible by ignoring the debt that's created instead.
We should go all the way, make a Federal law requiring counties and municipalities to deploy and operate a unified public WiFi network with complete coverage wherever the public access density exceeds some small number of people (the number in which at least 10 people an hour are statistically likely to be present). The Feds should back that mandate by hosting WiFi and Internet interconnect infrastructure in any Federal building at Federal cost, as designed by the municipality/county. And pay for the entire operation with a Federal tax on private wireless network businesses, like mobile telcos. The telcos should pay for the service to them that offloading to public WiFi delivers, but the public should organize the effort and reduce the cost with existing infrastructure.
You're not an exec or board member controlling America's industry. Those people might not even talk about him any more, but they did until about a decade ago. The mid 1990s was the last time I saw him present at an industrial conference, and all the bigwigs were listening quite closely. He was talking about what the Internet was about to do to industry, economies, and society. And he was right. Just like he was right in his three big books about the future, that are now mostly the past (and still the present).
Try reading his books. He was right, and people who followed his insight were advantageously prepared. Of course, that influence on the future helped ensure he was right, but it all worked. Toffler made specific predictions, not vague nostradomery, and you can see now in hindsight how accurate was his insight. He's not like Cayce, Tolkien or Moses/apostles. He's an industrial planner, and his plans worked in ways that can be seen quite clearly. Largely because his plans were developed from lots of very specific research into trends and pioneering developments, not "what if" speculation.
This kind of network would be very valuable. But there's little need to create a whole new network to deliver goods. Instead, robot submarines could run through the existing sewers. Upgrading it to deliver food and other stuff would require only fitting the sewers with a kind of "airlock" that the delivery sub fits into, separating the sewer outside the sub from the inside of the sub opening into the surface world.
And in case you think that's too disgusting, even if it's actually completely separated, you shouldn't look into just how most of this food is produced. You're already eating it every day, and knowing how sausages are made would push you to starve instead. Let's just say "chicken lips", and leave it at that.