AC said: "Well you need to reread the article then moron."
You didn't get the/your parent (my grandparent) post, did you? That post said:
"I missed the part where he rejected all scientific research.
All I caught was a rejection of macroevolution."
The implied point of the post = (macroevolution != scientific research) | (macroevolution ALL scientific research). In either case (first is what many people on/. are debating about, but the second is obvious) it was a correct statement and you are the moron (or at least a troll).
"Science attempts to explain why things are and, by extrapolation and interpolation, why they might change. Evolution does this very well. It does not require you to "believe". It simply states what is."
You are 100% correct, assuming you're talking about micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, attempts to explain hot how things change, but how they DID change in the PAST. The past isn't very easy to observe, test, etc. and many scientists believe evolutionists (macro, not micro) are throwing a little too much faith/belief into the mix to come to the conclusion that macro evolution really is a scientific throry and not just a neat hypothesis.
The real scientific throries I'm aware of can be observed (i.e. General Theory of Relativity). Micro evolution can be observed, I am aware of no observed/proven instances of macro evolution. The "theory of evolution" assumes millions of such instances occured in the past, that such instances occured in parallel so the resultant species could continue to exist (i.e. have offspring), that enough of them occurred to create all of the life on earth, and all this happened without leaving billions of transitional fossils behind as evidence.
It is a fact that if I jump off a building there will be gravitational force on me and I'll fall unless there are enough opposite forces exerted on my body to prevent that (regardless, gravity still effects me). This has been observed, made into a theory/hypothesis, tested, and proven. We can measure it (dependent on the mass of the bodies being attracted to each other).
Evolution:
Evolution is a theory about how known things (like micro evolution) combine to explain some other thing (macro evolution). I don't go so far as to even consider "macro evoltion is how we came to be" a theory, but more a hypothesis as it is a statement about the past. The past (unless/until we can time travel) cannot be observed, tested, and proven in the same way that we can observe other complex systems (like birds common to this age) work.
"It's when you start dissing evolution that we've got a problem: now the burden of proof is yours."
Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Evolution is the assertion (theory) being made, which has not been proven. The burden of proof is on those making the assertion (macro evolution) not those questioning it. You are making a logical fallacy, my blindly-following-unproven-theories friend. The person being interviewed hit the nail on the head:
"At the end of the day, you can't prove the existence of God factually, and so whatever you believe is still based on faith. But at least the Christians can admit that - I just wish the evolutionists would too."
That is not an exception, but a perfect example, of what the parent to your post was complaining about - namely, a site that does not rezise with the browser. (resizing text != resizing browser window)
When I map Baptist Road near Monument, CO with MSN Virtual Earth the road names and highlights are way off. I'm wondering if there is some mis-matching of coordinates with images because of the altitude (>6000ft) and angle the pictures were taken.
Regardless of the cause/excuse...this is pretty poor.
Did he get a raise??? Did he get a "cut" of the savings???
Come on, these are one of probably 2-3 CORE job responsibilities of CIOs and anyone in IT. It is OUR JOB to do things efficiently, and do them more efficiently in the future (so there is capital and resources to do other things).
This guy's reward is that the company he saved money is going to succeed, instead of die, and probably has $$ to give him, his staff, and other parts of the company raises now and in the years to come...instead of going belly-up and leaving him and many others without that income.
So, this guy is and will be getting his raises, performance bonuses, etc...but to say that he should get half, or they should just distribute half of the savings among the people in IT to make them feel good just doesn't get business and economics. They will get some of the money but much of the money needs to be re-invested (to do things like this for the rest of the company), given to shareholders (cause they own the company and expect return), and used in several other ways to ensure this company continues to exist, grow, and turn a profit (so it's employees and shareholders can continue to get what they deserve).
IT is not about hitting the jackpok by saving a company $$ once...it's about continual savings, capability, and effenciency.
This might be extra-ordinary performance...but it is what should be expected of IT and the CIO.
...it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana
- dissenting when the SCOTUS
...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.
If you look at how "liberal" (not to be confused with classical liberalism) judges view the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as a "living document" that much change with the times and social moreys) and contrast it with how the conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR (as things to be interperited/implemented as the authors intended) it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights (as an antequated idea), welcome socialism (as a replacement for the limited government defined in the constitution), and otherwise head down many other slopes that lead away from what the US was founded on.
I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.
1. Analog inputs + refresh rate != 60 will cause display problems. If you're using analog inputs, set your refresh rate to 60.
2. When using analog inputs and an LCD screen you have to set the screen up right to make sure the pixels fall on the appropriate boundaries. (It sounds like you've done this since OSX can drive it correctly.)
3. If your video card supports digital DVI-I out, use DVI-I to feed your LCD screen.
4. Don't run at any other resolution than the maximum resolution of your LCD screen (or multiples of it) or things will look funny because pixels cannot be mapped 1:1 (or 1:2) - generated pixels to real pixels. You say you have a 1600x1200 LCD screen...so you should only be using 1600x1200 or 800x600 (not that you'd want to use the latter, but at least you'd get crisp pixels)
You maybe already know all this (and your complaint is really about the fonts), but I know otherwise-intelligent people who either don't know the above or simply prefer to punish their eyes.
The reason to break the law is of course, the law is written and paid for BY the companies that benefit from those laws.
The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.
There are ways to "not play the game" besides breaking the law. Just don't buy the music or give them any of your $$. Is the latest top-40 album so important to you that you'll shell out $15 to an organization fighting to take away your rights? I've been getting along for, oh, about 5 years just fine without "popular" music (don't download it, don't buy it, don't share it, etc).
If you are breaking the law to listen to the music, I would argue you're way too attached to it...a sign of addiction if you will. Even though you are not paying them for it, you're still sucking at their tit. It's a symbiotic relationship and eventually they'll get your $$ (concerts, merchandising, ad revenue to stations that play the crap, etc). You've got to ween yourself. There is plenty of music out there that is good to listen to which doesn't support the RIAA.
Sensorship is coming from the left as well (I'm not saying the right is not guilty, they are...just that the left is also). As more and more institutions are socialized (education, welfare, health care, etc) the government all of a sudden has great control over what can be said in these establishments (i.e. the complete abolishment of any religion except secularism/athiesm from schools, etc). The real answer to censorship from both left and right is a more libertarian view of government and a less socialist or authoritarian view of government. If the state is limited in the reach of it's laws and pocket book, sensorship via the government is much more difficult.
I agree with you, but "you can't compete with free" is a misnomer. It should be "you can't compete with someone who has the ability to throw people in jail if they don't pay up, regardless of use."
I would say you're making poor assumptions that show a lack a basic attempt at an intellictual understanding of ID. A God that is powerful enough to create matter out of nothing surely would not be limited to creating a world where Europe and the Americas were initially attached. I imagine this God would have the power and freedom to decide to put them 240 meters closer than they are today.
I think you're making poor assumptions about what a new created world and an evolved world would look like. You're assuming they would look different, when there is no reason to believe they couldn't look EXACTLY the same. If God can create the universe and everything in it in 6 days, is he limited to creating only living matter and forbidden from creating some matter in a partially or fully-decomposed state?
Problem is that Jefferson, if he were alive today, would probably consider secularism to be a religion, and would think that it's the one being endorsed by the government. The forbiding of religion is the same thing as endorcing secularism/athiesm. The founding fathers wanted government to be 100% blind to religion (to neither forbid or force religion).
The fear they had was well founded (given history) - that those in power would forse their beliefs onto others. We, today, are forbiding religion from virtually anything that receives tax dollars. That is forcing one's beliefs onto othes, and is what Jefferson feared.
"I have met a number of people who claim to believe the Bible to be literally true, but when asked about specifics say that those passages are metaphorical."
Try reading the Bible, it's not that hard. When you see a phrase that goes like this: "The kingdom of heaven is LIKE...", you know it's a simile. Generally speaking one can determine if a given verse is literal, figurative, metaphorical, or other by by looking at it's context...much like any piece of good writing. If you try and take things out of context, that's when you get in trouble.
You can do this with about anything. Got some video of a politician roasting themself...cut it right and you can make it look like the person is a real jerk (but anyone who has seen the prior 30 seconds or the following 30 seconds knows the context).
So, when you read the bible, please don't put on blinders, ignore context, and come to the prejusiced conclusion that people who do read it are inconsistant or ignorant...they've simply paid attention to the previous and former 30 seconds so they make sure to take the clip in proper context.
You're incorrect about Lutherans. They believe the bible is the literal word of God...and they believe in creationism (in 6 days, not creation + evolution).
Just a question for you... What do you think a newly-created world would look like (how does one distinguish a newly-created world from one billions of years old)?
Would a God capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it not be able to create a world with what appears to be decayed organic matter?
Would it be intellegent to create a world with matter in varying stages at the beginning (basically a world with it's ecology/geology already set in motion)? Would a God that's powerful enough to create matter be restricted to only creating living matter and then waiting for it to decompose...or could he create decomposed organic matter?
To say that fossles and fossel fuel are contradictory or mutually exclusive with creationism reflects a serious consideration/understanding of what creationists believe...and how powerful/amazing they see God as being.
One more point of clarification: The US is not a democracy, it is a republic. Democracies can be just as totalitarian as communism (if there's much difference between the two at that point). In the US the will of the people, the majorty, etc is not supposed to be able to infringe on the economic and social freedoms and rights of others (even the minority). In other words, the Constitution trumps the majority (the bar is set very high to change the constitution to help protect it and us from the majority).
I'm fairly certain that the effect of these bills (one is headed through my state as well) will be that wifi will remain to be funded mostly voluntarily (municipal won't be providing WIFI, companies and coops are opt-in).
The next step is to remove some of the subsidies that some telecom companies get and further deregulate the industry so the barriors of entry are lower so smaller firms can compete.
"modern democracies like the USA are full of socialist-like policies, and most people actually regard them as a good thing for society at large"
Yes, it is a sad, sad state of affairs.
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." - Thomas Sowell
Socialism, while present in democracies is actually quite contrary to the principles of democracy (just read sources like the federalist papers to understand this with historical perspective). It's also no coincidence that socialism ('from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs') is written into the Communist Manifesto.
"How is it communism if the majority of people choose to have the government provide certain services? That's a democracy if ever there was one."
Actually, it's socialism via democracy, aka "tyranny of the majority." It's something the founding fathers of the USA were concerned about and tried to avoid by spelling out the limited powers of government in the constitutions of the nation and individual states. This bill is seeking to re-assert similar limitations on governments that seem entirely too willing to overstep their roles.
The tyranny of the majority is where the majority (or those in with the power) gets to force it's will on the minority. In this case it's public (socialized) funding of WIFI. If you're in a muni where the majority wants muni WIFI, you HAVE to pay for it. This forces out competition and stagnates the given market. Tyranny of the majority is not just seen with respect to economic freedoms, but also social freedoms. Freedom of speech, religion, etc have all been victims of the tyranny of the majority at one point in time or another. A good example is Germany in the 1930s.
Those who advocate for municiplal WIFI are essentially advocating for the same principles of government... not too scary until you see how many intelligent people on/. support muni WIFI.
Are you pissed that this bill is necessary, that fellow texans are trying to stop it, or that slashdotters are trying to stop it. The bill essentially says that a city government can't run wifi. This is GOOD because when the government enters a market, it generally stagnates in that area, competition disappears, etc.
This bill does not prohobit coops or other means of citizens barring together to put up wifi for themselves and others...it only bars the government from doing this with tax dollars. It's not an infringement on your rights to start an ISP, COOP, give away WIFI, etc...it simply is a (much-needed IMO) clarification on the proper role of government.
" As a libertarian... municipal Wi-Fi is not a bad thing."
You, my friend?!? are not a libertarian.
"Free Wi-Fi is no more wrong than having free public libraries... or more relevantly, free internet at public libraries."
Why not free cars, houses, food, health care, computers, etc?
You're not a libertarian, just a selective socialist (I imagine you're selective for when it's beneficial to you, or when you simply don't understand how the principles of liberty and freedom might apply to a particular topic.
The problem with municipal WIFI (and why, as a consumer, I support bills like this to remind government of it's proper role) is something called "tyranny of the majority." Essentially the will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. In this case the purchasing choise of the "majority" (purchase this service through the government instead of a company) is not only forced on the minority (who want to purchase it from the free market or don't want it at all) but the majority gets to subsidize their choice with the monies of those in the minority (to the majority this makes the service seem "free" or at least cheap...while the minority carries the burden).
At the end of the day, this is a service that can be provided by/within the free market, and is not important enough to warrent sendind people to jail and taking their posessions if they choose not to fund it...so it is not an appropriate service for the government to fund using tax dollars. If a city council wants to compete with other ISPs, they can quit the council, get some VC funding or a business loan, and start a business like everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
AC said: "Well you need to reread the article then moron."
/. are debating about, but the second is obvious) it was a correct statement and you are the moron (or at least a troll).
You didn't get the/your parent (my grandparent) post, did you? That post said:
"I missed the part where he rejected all scientific research.
All I caught was a rejection of macroevolution."
The implied point of the post = (macroevolution != scientific research) | (macroevolution ALL scientific research). In either case (first is what many people on
"Science attempts to explain why things are and, by extrapolation and interpolation, why they might change. Evolution does this very well. It does not require you to "believe". It simply states what is."
You are 100% correct, assuming you're talking about micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, attempts to explain hot how things change, but how they DID change in the PAST. The past isn't very easy to observe, test, etc. and many scientists believe evolutionists (macro, not micro) are throwing a little too much faith/belief into the mix to come to the conclusion that macro evolution really is a scientific throry and not just a neat hypothesis.
The real scientific throries I'm aware of can be observed (i.e. General Theory of Relativity). Micro evolution can be observed, I am aware of no observed/proven instances of macro evolution. The "theory of evolution" assumes millions of such instances occured in the past, that such instances occured in parallel so the resultant species could continue to exist (i.e. have offspring), that enough of them occurred to create all of the life on earth, and all this happened without leaving billions of transitional fossils behind as evidence.
You ask what the difference is between scientific law and scientific theory:
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
Couple related examples explained by me...
Law of Gravity:
It is a fact that if I jump off a building there will be gravitational force on me and I'll fall unless there are enough opposite forces exerted on my body to prevent that (regardless, gravity still effects me). This has been observed, made into a theory/hypothesis, tested, and proven. We can measure it (dependent on the mass of the bodies being attracted to each other).
Evolution:
Evolution is a theory about how known things (like micro evolution) combine to explain some other thing (macro evolution). I don't go so far as to even consider "macro evoltion is how we came to be" a theory, but more a hypothesis as it is a statement about the past. The past (unless/until we can time travel) cannot be observed, tested, and proven in the same way that we can observe other complex systems (like birds common to this age) work.
WOW, I really screwed up that href...sorry.
Was supposed to be:
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/EDN566logical fallacies.html
"It's when you start dissing evolution that we've got a problem: now the burden of proof is yours."
l fallacies.html">http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/ED N566logicalfallacies.html
Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Evolution is the assertion (theory) being made, which has not been proven. The burden of proof is on those making the assertion (macro evolution) not those questioning it. You are making a logical fallacy, my blindly-following-unproven-theories friend. The person being interviewed hit the nail on the head:
"At the end of the day, you can't prove the existence of God factually, and so whatever you believe is still based on faith. But at least the Christians can admit that - I just wish the evolutionists would too."
Definition is From:http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/EDN566logica
#38 - SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
That is not an exception, but a perfect example, of what the parent to your post was complaining about - namely, a site that does not rezise with the browser. (resizing text != resizing browser window)
When I map Baptist Road near Monument, CO with MSN Virtual Earth the road names and highlights are way off. I'm wondering if there is some mis-matching of coordinates with images because of the altitude (>6000ft) and angle the pictures were taken.
Regardless of the cause/excuse...this is pretty poor.
Did he get a raise??? Did he get a "cut" of the savings???
Come on, these are one of probably 2-3 CORE job responsibilities of CIOs and anyone in IT. It is OUR JOB to do things efficiently, and do them more efficiently in the future (so there is capital and resources to do other things).
This guy's reward is that the company he saved money is going to succeed, instead of die, and probably has $$ to give him, his staff, and other parts of the company raises now and in the years to come...instead of going belly-up and leaving him and many others without that income.
So, this guy is and will be getting his raises, performance bonuses, etc...but to say that he should get half, or they should just distribute half of the savings among the people in IT to make them feel good just doesn't get business and economics. They will get some of the money but much of the money needs to be re-invested (to do things like this for the rest of the company), given to shareholders (cause they own the company and expect return), and used in several other ways to ensure this company continues to exist, grow, and turn a profit (so it's employees and shareholders can continue to get what they deserve).
IT is not about hitting the jackpok by saving a company $$ once...it's about continual savings, capability, and effenciency.
This might be extra-ordinary performance...but it is what should be expected of IT and the CIO.
...it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.
...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.
I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana
- dissenting when the SCOTUS
If you look at how "liberal" (not to be confused with classical liberalism) judges view the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as a "living document" that much change with the times and social moreys) and contrast it with how the conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR (as things to be interperited/implemented as the authors intended) it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights (as an antequated idea), welcome socialism (as a replacement for the limited government defined in the constitution), and otherwise head down many other slopes that lead away from what the US was founded on.
I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.
1. Analog inputs + refresh rate != 60 will cause display problems. If you're using analog inputs, set your refresh rate to 60.
2. When using analog inputs and an LCD screen you have to set the screen up right to make sure the pixels fall on the appropriate boundaries. (It sounds like you've done this since OSX can drive it correctly.)
3. If your video card supports digital DVI-I out, use DVI-I to feed your LCD screen.
4. Don't run at any other resolution than the maximum resolution of your LCD screen (or multiples of it) or things will look funny because pixels cannot be mapped 1:1 (or 1:2) - generated pixels to real pixels. You say you have a 1600x1200 LCD screen...so you should only be using 1600x1200 or 800x600 (not that you'd want to use the latter, but at least you'd get crisp pixels)
You maybe already know all this (and your complaint is really about the fonts), but I know otherwise-intelligent people who either don't know the above or simply prefer to punish their eyes.
The game is *fixed*, and you can't win playing a fixed game.
There are ways to "not play the game" besides breaking the law. Just don't buy the music or give them any of your $$. Is the latest top-40 album so important to you that you'll shell out $15 to an organization fighting to take away your rights? I've been getting along for, oh, about 5 years just fine without "popular" music (don't download it, don't buy it, don't share it, etc).
If you are breaking the law to listen to the music, I would argue you're way too attached to it...a sign of addiction if you will. Even though you are not paying them for it, you're still sucking at their tit. It's a symbiotic relationship and eventually they'll get your $$ (concerts, merchandising, ad revenue to stations that play the crap, etc). You've got to ween yourself. There is plenty of music out there that is good to listen to which doesn't support the RIAA.
Sensorship is coming from the left as well (I'm not saying the right is not guilty, they are...just that the left is also). As more and more institutions are socialized (education, welfare, health care, etc) the government all of a sudden has great control over what can be said in these establishments (i.e. the complete abolishment of any religion except secularism/athiesm from schools, etc). The real answer to censorship from both left and right is a more libertarian view of government and a less socialist or authoritarian view of government. If the state is limited in the reach of it's laws and pocket book, sensorship via the government is much more difficult.
I agree with you, but "you can't compete with free" is a misnomer. It should be "you can't compete with someone who has the ability to throw people in jail if they don't pay up, regardless of use."
I would say you're making poor assumptions that show a lack a basic attempt at an intellictual understanding of ID. A God that is powerful enough to create matter out of nothing surely would not be limited to creating a world where Europe and the Americas were initially attached. I imagine this God would have the power and freedom to decide to put them 240 meters closer than they are today.
I think you're making poor assumptions about what a new created world and an evolved world would look like. You're assuming they would look different, when there is no reason to believe they couldn't look EXACTLY the same. If God can create the universe and everything in it in 6 days, is he limited to creating only living matter and forbidden from creating some matter in a partially or fully-decomposed state?
Problem is that Jefferson, if he were alive today, would probably consider secularism to be a religion, and would think that it's the one being endorsed by the government. The forbiding of religion is the same thing as endorcing secularism/athiesm. The founding fathers wanted government to be 100% blind to religion (to neither forbid or force religion).
The fear they had was well founded (given history) - that those in power would forse their beliefs onto others. We, today, are forbiding religion from virtually anything that receives tax dollars. That is forcing one's beliefs onto othes, and is what Jefferson feared.
"I have met a number of people who claim to believe the Bible to be literally true, but when asked about specifics say that those passages are metaphorical."
Try reading the Bible, it's not that hard. When you see a phrase that goes like this: "The kingdom of heaven is LIKE...", you know it's a simile. Generally speaking one can determine if a given verse is literal, figurative, metaphorical, or other by by looking at it's context...much like any piece of good writing. If you try and take things out of context, that's when you get in trouble.
You can do this with about anything. Got some video of a politician roasting themself...cut it right and you can make it look like the person is a real jerk (but anyone who has seen the prior 30 seconds or the following 30 seconds knows the context).
So, when you read the bible, please don't put on blinders, ignore context, and come to the prejusiced conclusion that people who do read it are inconsistant or ignorant...they've simply paid attention to the previous and former 30 seconds so they make sure to take the clip in proper context.
You're incorrect about Lutherans. They believe the bible is the literal word of God...and they believe in creationism (in 6 days, not creation + evolution).
Just a question for you... What do you think a newly-created world would look like (how does one distinguish a newly-created world from one billions of years old)?
Would a God capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it not be able to create a world with what appears to be decayed organic matter?
Would it be intellegent to create a world with matter in varying stages at the beginning (basically a world with it's ecology/geology already set in motion)? Would a God that's powerful enough to create matter be restricted to only creating living matter and then waiting for it to decompose...or could he create decomposed organic matter?
To say that fossles and fossel fuel are contradictory or mutually exclusive with creationism reflects a serious consideration/understanding of what creationists believe...and how powerful/amazing they see God as being.
Yes, you are correct. I think the author of the parent (now grandparent) post confused "loopback" with "localhost."
::1 in v6)
"loopback" = the full 127/8 range
"localhost" = the standard domain name for 127.0.0.1 (or
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localhost
One more point of clarification: The US is not a democracy, it is a republic. Democracies can be just as totalitarian as communism (if there's much difference between the two at that point). In the US the will of the people, the majorty, etc is not supposed to be able to infringe on the economic and social freedoms and rights of others (even the minority). In other words, the Constitution trumps the majority (the bar is set very high to change the constitution to help protect it and us from the majority).
I'm fairly certain that the effect of these bills (one is headed through my state as well) will be that wifi will remain to be funded mostly voluntarily (municipal won't be providing WIFI, companies and coops are opt-in).
The next step is to remove some of the subsidies that some telecom companies get and further deregulate the industry so the barriors of entry are lower so smaller firms can compete.
"modern democracies like the USA are full of socialist-like policies, and most people actually regard them as a good thing for society at large"
Yes, it is a sad, sad state of affairs.
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." - Thomas Sowell
Socialism, while present in democracies is actually quite contrary to the principles of democracy (just read sources like the federalist papers to understand this with historical perspective). It's also no coincidence that socialism ('from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs') is written into the Communist Manifesto.
"How is it communism if the majority of people choose to have the government provide certain services? That's a democracy if ever there was one."
... not too scary until you see how many intelligent people on /. support muni WIFI.
Actually, it's socialism via democracy, aka "tyranny of the majority." It's something the founding fathers of the USA were concerned about and tried to avoid by spelling out the limited powers of government in the constitutions of the nation and individual states. This bill is seeking to re-assert similar limitations on governments that seem entirely too willing to overstep their roles.
The tyranny of the majority is where the majority (or those in with the power) gets to force it's will on the minority. In this case it's public (socialized) funding of WIFI. If you're in a muni where the majority wants muni WIFI, you HAVE to pay for it. This forces out competition and stagnates the given market. Tyranny of the majority is not just seen with respect to economic freedoms, but also social freedoms. Freedom of speech, religion, etc have all been victims of the tyranny of the majority at one point in time or another. A good example is Germany in the 1930s.
Those who advocate for municiplal WIFI are essentially advocating for the same principles of government
Are you pissed that this bill is necessary, that fellow texans are trying to stop it, or that slashdotters are trying to stop it. The bill essentially says that a city government can't run wifi. This is GOOD because when the government enters a market, it generally stagnates in that area, competition disappears, etc.
This bill does not prohobit coops or other means of citizens barring together to put up wifi for themselves and others...it only bars the government from doing this with tax dollars. It's not an infringement on your rights to start an ISP, COOP, give away WIFI, etc...it simply is a (much-needed IMO) clarification on the proper role of government.
" As a libertarian ... municipal Wi-Fi is not a bad thing."
You, my friend?!? are not a libertarian.
"Free Wi-Fi is no more wrong than having free public libraries... or more relevantly, free internet at public libraries."
Why not free cars, houses, food, health care, computers, etc?
You're not a libertarian, just a selective socialist (I imagine you're selective for when it's beneficial to you, or when you simply don't understand how the principles of liberty and freedom might apply to a particular topic.
The problem with municipal WIFI (and why, as a consumer, I support bills like this to remind government of it's proper role) is something called "tyranny of the majority." Essentially the will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. In this case the purchasing choise of the "majority" (purchase this service through the government instead of a company) is not only forced on the minority (who want to purchase it from the free market or don't want it at all) but the majority gets to subsidize their choice with the monies of those in the minority (to the majority this makes the service seem "free" or at least cheap...while the minority carries the burden).
At the end of the day, this is a service that can be provided by/within the free market, and is not important enough to warrent sendind people to jail and taking their posessions if they choose not to fund it...so it is not an appropriate service for the government to fund using tax dollars. If a city council wants to compete with other ISPs, they can quit the council, get some VC funding or a business loan, and start a business like everyone else.