would suggest that, in turn, your argument could also be used for anything.
Except that I'm not using it to justify anything, so your counter-counter argument doesn't work.:) I'm dissing the old boilerplate anti-tax agrument of "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for something I don't use! Whaaaa!"
For any government service or program, I apply a simple two part test:
Does the public derive sufficient benefit from the program/service to justify its costs?
Is the public's money being used with reasonable efficiency?
So as long as the cost isn't too unreasonable, I would say city wide wi-fi would add enough to the "quality of life" to the city that it makes sense to pay for it wether you use it or not. For example, I live in a town of about 100,000 people. Get a tax that works out to about 10 bucks per person per year, and you've got a million dollars that will buy a lot of access points and a lot of T-1's to service them.
And it's not like this will wipe out traditional broadband isp's. There will be plenty of gamers who want low latency, lots of downloaders who want high bandwidth, and lots of businesses who will want dependability. The only ones that are going to "suffer" are companies like Verizon, because they wont be able to peddle crappy access at high prices with high margins of profit.
And like I said, Texas could go ahead and pass a law that would be fair - but it needs to require voter approval of municipal wi-fi rather than banning it. Texas isn't preserving choices for consumers, they're preserving the "right" of companies to make profit, which I don't think they have any business doing.
And what you've just described is nothing more than jack-booted thuggery.
If by "jack-booted thuggery" you mean "protecting their secrets from those who break NDA's and those who encourage them to do so", then yes.
since the leaker didn't sign an NDA or have any other kind of legal relationship with Apple Corp
Wtf are you talking about here? I doubt you could so much as get a job mowing grass at Apple's headquarters without signing an NDA. There is NO WAY someone would have access to one of Apple's top future products without singing one.
Just one problem with your post: businesses have no right to profit. If they can't compete against a government funded services, TFB. The Texas legislature should be passing a law that requires municipal wireless to be approved by voters, not gauranteeing the right of Verizon to make money.
The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use. The service isn't "free", it is forced on all of the citizens who have to pay for it....funded with stolen money and then graciously provided as "free" by the politicians.
This argument could be used for anything. I never drive through your neighborhood, so wtf should I pay for maintenance on the road that goes past your house, or your fire and police protection?
Municipalities are run by elected officials. If you don't want to wait till the next election to vote out office holders you don't like, push for a bill that requires voter approval for cities to start offering these services. Boom, problem solved.
In addition, no private company can compete with a solution
That's what this bill is really about: government guaranteeing an industry's right to profit, which government has no business doing.
...you'd have a good point. But we aren't so you don't. A state run service would presumably negociate with a single company to install access points and provide internet service to a large number of cities, and inefficiency and waste would inevitably result.
But we're talking about municipalities here, cities, which are an entirely different kettle of fish. A few dozen access points in one city are a lot easier to manage than dozens of access points in dozens of cities. There is no reason why a muncipality couldn't buy a few T-1's, buy some base stations and offer internet access for pennies on the dollar compared to what Verizon would want individual customers to pay.
It's obvious that's he's talking about the ban on municipal wireless networks.
The very purpose of the bill is to promote alternatives
If by "alternatives" you mean "the sacred right of businesses to make money anywhere they can by any means necessary, even to the detriment of public", then yes. Besides if private enterprise is always so much better and effecient than government, then Verizon and friends will just come out with a much better wireless network and everyone will want to throw money at them.
I as a single male do not make use of the school system yet of course pay school taxes.
That's because everyone benefits from public schooling regaurdless of wether or not you actually have kids. Do you like having a middle class? Do you like having a large middle class to purchase whatever goods/services your employer produces? Would you rather these kids get a decent education and become bankers or accountants and make a decent wage, or would you rather they make 7 bucks an hour at Wal-Mart? The more they pay in taxes the less you have to pay, and the more Social Security you'll be collecting when you retire.
Not wanting to pay for schooling just because you don't have children is simply being shortsighted and greedy. This is why states with no income taxes, like Texas, suck. Just because you don't use something directly doesn't mean you don't derive massive benefits from it.
If Halo or Halo 2 showed you anything, it was that vastly large maps were certainly possible on the Xbox. Therefore I can only conclude that the tiny tiny maps of Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 were the engine's fault (both of which happened to be the same engine, by the way).
I know, same engine and same studio. Yes, Halo 1&2 have larger levels, but less detail. It all depends on where you put your polygons; the DOA games and Rumble Roses have great looking charachter models, but the environments aren't as detailed.
And the "suckiness" I was referring to are the controls. First person shooters need a keyboard and mouse, just as racing or fighting games need a controller.
I still think Wal-Mart could stomp on this if they really, really wanted to, collusion or no collusion. They could just appeal to the finanical sense, or failing that, greed, of the studios. Wal-Mart could call up Sony, and say:
"Hey Sony! Disney is being a dick about this new policy. We know you were thinking about it too, but if you drop it, we'll give you all of Disney's old shelving space, free prominent placement and advertizing, and pay you 5% more per movie for the next 6 months."
Then Wal-Mart calls Disney and says, "You make 20% of your retail profits from us. How would you like to lose that 20% profit over having to take back only 1,000 DVD's a year?"
My figures are of course made up, but I would think Disney would "buckle like a belt", and so would Vivendi and Time Warner, respectivly. But as you say, Wal-Mart benefits from this policy as well, so fat chance of this happening.
The only thing that's going to put a stop to this is public outcry and (hopefully) some nice class action lawsuits.
That and maybe states attorney generals, depending on how consumer-friendly they are and what the laws of the state are.
Because blocking pirates from upgrading Windows hurts Microsoft's paying customers too, as well as just about anyone who has an email account. Salon had a nice article talking about virtually the same points as the parent poster.
No, it's called inexcusable product defects. Active X, integrating IE into the system wherever possible, services running all over the place AND piss poor privledge seperation is a recepie for trouble. The blame rests entirely on Microsoft's shoulders.
graphics that are nearly on par w/ the best PC cards 2.5 years later
Huh? Maybe if your benchmark is Halo, which was a pretty half-assed port on the PC, but other than that I don't think so. Decent, yes, on par with the best, not so much. Aside from an old chipset, the XBox is also saddled with 64 megs of shared memory. The limitations are painfully obvious in Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2, where the levels are hacked up so the XBox can handle them. I say painfully because especially in Thief's case,just about the ENTIRE GAME could fit in a couple of the larger levels in Thief 2.
Okay, fine. Not her fault. Not every anyone's fault. I'm gonna go be a victim now
Don't be obtuse, that was already covered. Here it is again for the slow witted:
"Who's fault is it that this lady spilled coffee on herself? Hers. Who's fault is it that the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns? McDonalds."
Just like Ford and the infamous Pinto, who's gas tank had a nasty tendancy to ignite in low speed collisions. Who's fault is it for getting in a low speed collision? It was either your responsiblity or that of the other driver, not Fords. However, no gas tank should blow up in a 10 mph collision. Similarily, no food or beverage that is intended for IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION should be capable of burning you to the bone on contact.
otherwise how could it have managed to stand out from all of the other FPS' avalable on the system?
Because all FPS's suck on consoles, Halo included. Also, a lot of first and third person shooters are 'XBoxized', like Theif 3 and Deus Ex 2, and have tiny tiny maps.
ANYTHING that could impact a major issue of public policy could easily involve NDA protected information.
Too bad Apple's suit doesn't involve anything close to that.
You can't just arbitrarily decide beforehand what information may or may not be useful to the public in future.
In many cases it's pretty cut and dried. Like this one. This is the technical equivilant of the National Enquirer sneaking into some celebrity's backyard, taking pictures of said celebrity naked, and then publishing it for money.
No, you are out of your fucking mind. She wasn't scalded, she WAS BURNED TO THE BONE. That any food or beverage that is meant to be consumed immediatly can cause you severe burn injuries is inexcusable.
Who's fault is it that this lady spilled coffee on herself? Hers. Who's fault is it that the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns? McDonalds. Period. End of story. Deal with it.
nd since gas taxes have traditionally been justified as being necessary for road construction/repairs, switching to a road-use tax makes a certain kind of sense.
Not really. The kinds of vehicles that do the most damage to the roads also use the most gas, and the vehicles that use the least gas are also very light and therefore cause less damage. If you drive a 3,000 lbs Prius, wtf should you pay as much for road construction as someone who drives a 9000 lbs H2 Hummer?
Comon dude, this is fucking Wal-Mart. The corporation that recently closed an entire store rather than have it unionized. The "the studios make us do it" is just an excuse for them, as they could be just as ruthless to the movie studios. Wal-Mart could stomp on this in a second if they wanted to, if only because one of their suppliers tried to dictate terms to Wal-Mart, rather than the other way around.
but Halo 2 is defeniatly on my top 5 list of best FPS on any system (console or PC) ever.
The problems with Halo 2 are 1) the single player aspect is basically a mission pack for the first game and 2) all the new stuff in multiplayer could have ben accomplished with mods of the first game.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that I'm not using it to justify anything, so your counter-counter argument doesn't work.
For any government service or program, I apply a simple two part test:
- Does the public derive sufficient benefit from the program/service to justify its costs?
- Is the public's money being used with reasonable efficiency?
So as long as the cost isn't too unreasonable, I would say city wide wi-fi would add enough to the "quality of life" to the city that it makes sense to pay for it wether you use it or not. For example, I live in a town of about 100,000 people. Get a tax that works out to about 10 bucks per person per year, and you've got a million dollars that will buy a lot of access points and a lot of T-1's to service them.And it's not like this will wipe out traditional broadband isp's. There will be plenty of gamers who want low latency, lots of downloaders who want high bandwidth, and lots of businesses who will want dependability. The only ones that are going to "suffer" are companies like Verizon, because they wont be able to peddle crappy access at high prices with high margins of profit.
And like I said, Texas could go ahead and pass a law that would be fair - but it needs to require voter approval of municipal wi-fi rather than banning it. Texas isn't preserving choices for consumers, they're preserving the "right" of companies to make profit, which I don't think they have any business doing.
And what you've just described is nothing more than jack-booted thuggery.
If by "jack-booted thuggery" you mean "protecting their secrets from those who break NDA's and those who encourage them to do so", then yes.
since the leaker didn't sign an NDA or have any other kind of legal relationship with Apple Corp
Wtf are you talking about here? I doubt you could so much as get a job mowing grass at Apple's headquarters without signing an NDA. There is NO WAY someone would have access to one of Apple's top future products without singing one.
Just one problem with your post: businesses have no right to profit. If they can't compete against a government funded services, TFB. The Texas legislature should be passing a law that requires municipal wireless to be approved by voters, not gauranteeing the right of Verizon to make money.
The point of this bill is to prevent municipalities from taxing citizens to pay for a service most people will never use. The service isn't "free", it is forced on all of the citizens who have to pay for it. ...funded with stolen money and then graciously provided as "free" by the politicians.
This argument could be used for anything. I never drive through your neighborhood, so wtf should I pay for maintenance on the road that goes past your house, or your fire and police protection?
Municipalities are run by elected officials. If you don't want to wait till the next election to vote out office holders you don't like, push for a bill that requires voter approval for cities to start offering these services. Boom, problem solved.
In addition, no private company can compete with a solution
That's what this bill is really about: government guaranteeing an industry's right to profit, which government has no business doing.
Companies in the US are REQUIRED BY LAW to make a profit.
So what? The government is not required by law to guarantee those profits.
...you'd have a good point. But we aren't so you don't. A state run service would presumably negociate with a single company to install access points and provide internet service to a large number of cities, and inefficiency and waste would inevitably result.
But we're talking about municipalities here, cities, which are an entirely different kettle of fish. A few dozen access points in one city are a lot easier to manage than dozens of access points in dozens of cities. There is no reason why a muncipality couldn't buy a few T-1's, buy some base stations and offer internet access for pennies on the dollar compared to what Verizon would want individual customers to pay.
It's obvious that's he's talking about the ban on municipal wireless networks.
The very purpose of the bill is to promote alternatives
If by "alternatives" you mean "the sacred right of businesses to make money anywhere they can by any means necessary, even to the detriment of public", then yes. Besides if private enterprise is always so much better and effecient than government, then Verizon and friends will just come out with a much better wireless network and everyone will want to throw money at them.
I as a single male do not make use of the school system yet of course pay school taxes.
That's because everyone benefits from public schooling regaurdless of wether or not you actually have kids. Do you like having a middle class? Do you like having a large middle class to purchase whatever goods/services your employer produces? Would you rather these kids get a decent education and become bankers or accountants and make a decent wage, or would you rather they make 7 bucks an hour at Wal-Mart? The more they pay in taxes the less you have to pay, and the more Social Security you'll be collecting when you retire.
Not wanting to pay for schooling just because you don't have children is simply being shortsighted and greedy. This is why states with no income taxes, like Texas, suck. Just because you don't use something directly doesn't mean you don't derive massive benefits from it.
If Halo or Halo 2 showed you anything, it was that vastly large maps were certainly possible on the Xbox. Therefore I can only conclude that the tiny tiny maps of Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 were the engine's fault (both of which happened to be the same engine, by the way).
I know, same engine and same studio. Yes, Halo 1&2 have larger levels, but less detail. It all depends on where you put your polygons; the DOA games and Rumble Roses have great looking charachter models, but the environments aren't as detailed.
And the "suckiness" I was referring to are the controls. First person shooters need a keyboard and mouse, just as racing or fighting games need a controller.
- "Hey Sony! Disney is being a dick about this new policy. We know you were thinking about it too, but if you drop it, we'll give you all of Disney's old shelving space, free prominent placement and advertizing, and pay you 5% more per movie for the next 6 months."
My figures are of course made up, but I would think Disney would "buckle like a belt", and so would Vivendi and Time Warner, respectivly. But as you say, Wal-Mart benefits from this policy as well, so fat chance of this happening.Then Wal-Mart calls Disney and says, "You make 20% of your retail profits from us. How would you like to lose that 20% profit over having to take back only 1,000 DVD's a year?"
The only thing that's going to put a stop to this is public outcry and (hopefully) some nice class action lawsuits.
That and maybe states attorney generals, depending on how consumer-friendly they are and what the laws of the state are.
Wow, somebody's got a mod-bomb fetish. A selective one, too.
why do you expect Microsoft to support you?
Because blocking pirates from upgrading Windows hurts Microsoft's paying customers too, as well as just about anyone who has an email account. Salon had a nice article talking about virtually the same points as the parent poster.
It's called due diligence.
No, it's called inexcusable product defects. Active X, integrating IE into the system wherever possible, services running all over the place AND piss poor privledge seperation is a recepie for trouble. The blame rests entirely on Microsoft's shoulders.
It's not bullshit
Yes, it is. It's a "so how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?" question.
Yes I would. If anyone ever laid a hand on my mother god help them
So if your son killed your mother you'd throw the switch just as gleefully? Nice work.
graphics that are nearly on par w/ the best PC cards 2.5 years later
Huh? Maybe if your benchmark is Halo, which was a pretty half-assed port on the PC, but other than that I don't think so. Decent, yes, on par with the best, not so much. Aside from an old chipset, the XBox is also saddled with 64 megs of shared memory. The limitations are painfully obvious in Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2, where the levels are hacked up so the XBox can handle them. I say painfully because especially in Thief's case,just about the ENTIRE GAME could fit in a couple of the larger levels in Thief 2.
Don't be obtuse, that was already covered. Here it is again for the slow witted:
- "Who's fault is it that this lady spilled coffee on herself? Hers. Who's fault is it that the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns? McDonalds."
Just like Ford and the infamous Pinto, who's gas tank had a nasty tendancy to ignite in low speed collisions. Who's fault is it for getting in a low speed collision? It was either your responsiblity or that of the other driver, not Fords. However, no gas tank should blow up in a 10 mph collision. Similarily, no food or beverage that is intended for IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION should be capable of burning you to the bone on contact.otherwise how could it have managed to stand out from all of the other FPS' avalable on the system?
Because all FPS's suck on consoles, Halo included. Also, a lot of first and third person shooters are 'XBoxized', like Theif 3 and Deus Ex 2, and have tiny tiny maps.
Kinda what Doom 2 was to Doom, right? And most of the stuff in Doom 3 has been modded into Quake using Terabrae.
And as soon as you find out where I mentioned Doom 2 or 3, you'll have a point.
What exactly were you expecting?
Non missionpackness from one of the "top five FPS's of all time". Duh.
What if that person killed (god forbid) was your mother
Well if you're going to bring up this line of bullshit, what if the person who killed his mother was your son? Would you throw the switch?
ANYTHING that could impact a major issue of public policy could easily involve NDA protected information.
Too bad Apple's suit doesn't involve anything close to that.
You can't just arbitrarily decide beforehand what information may or may not be useful to the public in future.
In many cases it's pretty cut and dried. Like this one. This is the technical equivilant of the National Enquirer sneaking into some celebrity's backyard, taking pictures of said celebrity naked, and then publishing it for money.
Are you out of your feaking mind?
No, you are out of your fucking mind. She wasn't scalded, she WAS BURNED TO THE BONE. That any food or beverage that is meant to be consumed immediatly can cause you severe burn injuries is inexcusable.
Who's fault is it that this lady spilled coffee on herself? Hers. Who's fault is it that the coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns? McDonalds. Period. End of story. Deal with it.
nd since gas taxes have traditionally been justified as being necessary for road construction/repairs, switching to a road-use tax makes a certain kind of sense.
Not really. The kinds of vehicles that do the most damage to the roads also use the most gas, and the vehicles that use the least gas are also very light and therefore cause less damage. If you drive a 3,000 lbs Prius, wtf should you pay as much for road construction as someone who drives a 9000 lbs H2 Hummer?
Comon dude, this is fucking Wal-Mart. The corporation that recently closed an entire store rather than have it unionized. The "the studios make us do it" is just an excuse for them, as they could be just as ruthless to the movie studios. Wal-Mart could stomp on this in a second if they wanted to, if only because one of their suppliers tried to dictate terms to Wal-Mart, rather than the other way around.
for what is essentially a walkman
Really? You could put a couple thousand songs on a Walkman at a time?
but Halo 2 is defeniatly on my top 5 list of best FPS on any system (console or PC) ever.
The problems with Halo 2 are 1) the single player aspect is basically a mission pack for the first game and 2) all the new stuff in multiplayer could have ben accomplished with mods of the first game.