You keep saying "free", but I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Tax-funded" != "free". And here we'd have a situation where a lot of people who won't have any use for wi-fi will be forced to pay for it. And just because 1 more than half of the people say they should be forced to pay, that doesn't make it right.
As long as "fascist telecom monopolies" cannot force people to buy their service, they cannot compete with a government service.
Funny, I'd say that "facist monopoly" applies very aptly to an organization that can force people to pay for their service and drive away private enterprise.
In other words, the "haves" (those who can afford computers with wireless internet) can now choose to force the "have nots" (those already struggling to pay their taxes, let alone afford a new computer) to pay for their internet access. Sounds like a justifiable use of tax dollars to me!
Municipal wireless isn't just bad for Evil Conglomerates. It's got the potential to be bad for a lot of ordinary folks.
1. A lot of people don't have computers, let alone a new enough one to have wireless NIC, likely due to economic reasons. Why should they be saddled with the additional burden of providing service to people who can afford newer computers?
2. What if the wireless service ends up like many municipal roads? Would people still be forced to pay for the crappy service? They wouldn't be able to turn to a Verizon or Comcast, because they will have been driven from the local market by the "free" service.
In short, municipal wireless has a lot of potential to be bad for low-income families, and is anticompetetive. Slashbots hate corporate monopolies; why do they support government monopolies?
A lot of injustices are carried out in the name of "economic development". Just look at how local governments abuse eminent domain laws.
Yes, I know it's popular around these parts to bash telco companies like Verizon, and many of you may see me as a "save the poor starving conglomerate" sympathizer.
But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?
Thank goodness that a sizable number of politicians at all levels of government are working so hard to erode our Second Amendment rights. It's simply intolerable that ordinary citizens may be able to overthrow the government.
Because businesses don't exist to provide as many jobs as possible to society. They exist to provide as much money as possible to owners and shareholders.
How they accomplish that is up to the said owners and shareholders, not some third-party (government?) committee.
Are you suggesting that government should now regulate profit? I hear they tried that in the Soviet Union too, and we see how well that worked out.
So in other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with an alternative energy production solution that meets the unrealistic requirements of environmentalists.
Yes, we should investigate what footprint we might leave in any endevour like this, but it seems these days that environmentalists dismiss anything, out of hand, that has ANY impact, no matter how minimal.
The largest impediment to developing alternative energy sources, these days, seems to be environmentalists.
"Unfortunately mice are one of the most overlooked computer peripherals, while in reality should be one of the first places where your hard earned cash should be invested in."
You represent the United States Government! NEVER end a sentence with a preposition.
"What makes an Iranian or Saudi inherently more dangerous than a Mexican, Indian, Russian, German, etc?"
Call me racist, xenophobic or whatever, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that those two countries harbor many groups and individuals who publicly wish to do America harm.
Not saying this policy is a good thing, just answering your question.
"In what way is it more precise or more insightful to say that they are selling us?"
Using a clean, efficient, ad-free environment, Google cultivated a huge customer base, which they then (for all practical purposes) sold to advertisers. Google's user base is their product.
Except, perhaps, people who are being increasingly inundated with ads.
Yes, Google exists to make money, and content providers do too. I don't expect a sanitized, ad-free internet, but the popular myth around these parts that Google is "for the people" is just that: a myth.
Google is no longer a search engine/content delivery service. WE are now the product being sold by Google.
Sure it's no different fro how television and radio stations make money, but I think we need to face the fact that Google now exists primarily to sell ads.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep saying "free", but I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Tax-funded" != "free". And here we'd have a situation where a lot of people who won't have any use for wi-fi will be forced to pay for it. And just because 1 more than half of the people say they should be forced to pay, that doesn't make it right.
"government competition"
As long as "fascist telecom monopolies" cannot force people to buy their service, they cannot compete with a government service.
Funny, I'd say that "facist monopoly" applies very aptly to an organization that can force people to pay for their service and drive away private enterprise.
Fine, as long as the people who don't want to use the municipal wi-fi aren't compelled to pay for it.
But of course, we know that's not how taxation works.
In other words, the "haves" (those who can afford computers with wireless internet) can now choose to force the "have nots" (those already struggling to pay their taxes, let alone afford a new computer) to pay for their internet access. Sounds like a justifiable use of tax dollars to me!
Private business cannot compete with government because private business must EARN revenue, whereas government need only raise taxes.
And why would people pay for a private service when they're already paying for the municipal service?
Puh-leeze.
Public Water != bottled water
Libraries != bookstores
Fire/Police != private security firms
In other words, your analogies, along with the rest of your argument, are crap.
Municipal wireless isn't just bad for Evil Conglomerates. It's got the potential to be bad for a lot of ordinary folks.
1. A lot of people don't have computers, let alone a new enough one to have wireless NIC, likely due to economic reasons. Why should they be saddled with the additional burden of providing service to people who can afford newer computers?
2. What if the wireless service ends up like many municipal roads? Would people still be forced to pay for the crappy service? They wouldn't be able to turn to a Verizon or Comcast, because they will have been driven from the local market by the "free" service.
In short, municipal wireless has a lot of potential to be bad for low-income families, and is anticompetetive. Slashbots hate corporate monopolies; why do they support government monopolies?
A lot of injustices are carried out in the name of "economic development". Just look at how local governments abuse eminent domain laws.
Yes, I know it's popular around these parts to bash telco companies like Verizon, and many of you may see me as a "save the poor starving conglomerate" sympathizer.
But what gives the government the right to squash any private business just because they believe they can do the job better?
...yet scientists keep building the damned things! Are you prepared for the inevitable?
Either it's free or it isn't. Software that comes with an expectation of payment (even if it's a donation) is not free.
You're not going to get very good teachers for $20k.
Thank goodness that a sizable number of politicians at all levels of government are working so hard to erode our Second Amendment rights. It's simply intolerable that ordinary citizens may be able to overthrow the government.
Thank goodness that, by then, our economic system will be almost entirely socialistic.
When you have only a rich "greedy" class and a poor "victim" class, it makes the confiscation and redistribution of wealth much easier.
Because businesses don't exist to provide as many jobs as possible to society. They exist to provide as much money as possible to owners and shareholders.
How they accomplish that is up to the said owners and shareholders, not some third-party (government?) committee.
Are you suggesting that government should now regulate profit? I hear they tried that in the Soviet Union too, and we see how well that worked out.
And that's perfectly reasonable to an extent. However at what point do you decide that a solution is "good enough"?
If the only acceptable solutions must have ZERO impact on the environment, the cause of alternative energy is already dead and buried.
So in other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with an alternative energy production solution that meets the unrealistic requirements of environmentalists.
Yes, we should investigate what footprint we might leave in any endevour like this, but it seems these days that environmentalists dismiss anything, out of hand, that has ANY impact, no matter how minimal.
The largest impediment to developing alternative energy sources, these days, seems to be environmentalists.
I hope you're trolling, but in case you're not, of what importance is it that "geeks all over the world" know about this power failure?
It's a pretty safe bet that those in a position to fix the problem are already aware of it. They don't need Slashdot's help.
You represent the United States Government! NEVER end a sentence with a preposition.
...otherwise I might have thought that the submitter's editorial was funny.
Call me racist, xenophobic or whatever, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that those two countries harbor many groups and individuals who publicly wish to do America harm.
Not saying this policy is a good thing, just answering your question.
*sigh* and I thought we, as a society, were past the Goatse landmines...
Using a clean, efficient, ad-free environment, Google cultivated a huge customer base, which they then (for all practical purposes) sold to advertisers. Google's user base is their product.
Except, perhaps, people who are being increasingly inundated with ads.
Yes, Google exists to make money, and content providers do too. I don't expect a sanitized, ad-free internet, but the popular myth around these parts that Google is "for the people" is just that: a myth.
That's called "lip service". It's like selling a bunch of e-mail addresses to a spammer and "suggesting" that they not be used for spam.
Google is no longer a search engine/content delivery service. WE are now the product being sold by Google.
Sure it's no different fro how television and radio stations make money, but I think we need to face the fact that Google now exists primarily to sell ads.