In high school in 1980, we were writing and trading source code written on Apple ]['s, and happy to be sharing our knowledge and learning from each other. So maybe it was Steve Wozniak who started open-source/free-software/whatever, because he made the conscious decision that Applesoft would be interpreted to encourage sharing of source code. He had a history of open technology, like with wiring diagrams in the old Homebrew Computer Club (?). True enough, RMS was espousing it around the same time.
Then again, they were just following in the age-old intellectual tradition of sharing knowledge, like how academia is supposed to be. Like what a civilized society does. It comes quite naturally to any cooperation-minded person.
Yes, that's true. The trouble is Gore exaggerates as he breathes:... [bunch of examples]...
This is great! That's the sort of thing we should be documenting, instead of beating the Internet misquote to death (which really just sounds stupid and desperate).
I'm all for keeping all politicians honest. I saw a well-documented book of lies by Reagan, with specific references to public records, published articles, dated interviews, etc. You could do something similar with all the examples you list above, on a Web page or something. I think that kind of thing is a lot more constructive than false criticism, which is itself a lie. Whenever Republicans harp on the Internet thing, or pass around so-called "Gore quotes" which are really Quayle quotes, I wonder "is this the worst they can find on him?"
[rolling eyes] this, from a member of a clinton administration??
I suppose it depends what the meaning of the word IS is?
OK, if you wanna get partisan...
If you know history, you know the Nixon and Reagan administrations beat the pants off the Clinton years in terms of lying. Nixon, well, we all know about him. Reagan said "I don't recall" about a zillion times under oath. Something like 100 or more members of his staff resigned while under investigation. Someone gave me a book entirely composed of made-up statistics, anecdotes, and other lies he charmed us with. Made up. Thin air. As in, 74.8% of statistics are made up on the spot. This book lists them, and gives references to well-established data that prove them to be lies. Yet, he swayed votes and national/global policy with them.
George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA. Hell, lying is their business.
Not that any of this makes lying any more excusable. But lying about a private blow job isn't in the same league as Watergate or Iran-Contra.
Thank you. I don't mind the joking about it (hey, Gore himself does), but it gets old when people still hold it against him and forget his record. It shows they don't have the facts and the actual quote.
In legislative context (e.g. Congress), an "initiative" is a formal step that's part of making something law, before it gets voted on by the entire body. When Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet", it was a miswording and political exaggeration, not an outright lie. I'd say he "sponsored the initiative to extend the Internet to the general public." Whether or not those initiatives deserve any credit is another point of debate (but I certainly give no credit to the business world, as another poster does).
And he popularized the term "information superhighway", which of course we all find annoying. But he did communicate the concept to a lot of unwired people.
No, I'm not a Democrat, I'm just tired of misinformation. Criticize Gore (and Bush and others) for real problems, not made-up ones. Jokes I have no problem with; I liked the SatireWire article and the Letterman appearance (the first funny Letterman in a while, eh?).
He seems to buy the Microsoft marketing line that gives them credit for the computer revolution. I strongly disagree.
Computer hardware and software (including OS's) would be developing just as rapidly without MS. The opportunities are obvious and are there to be had, just like in a gold rush. Some would argue that development would have been faster without MS keeping a stranglehold as the incompetent gatekeeper. They certainly haven't prevailed on the quality of their OS products.
To credit MS, Intel, and other heavyweights with the computer revolution is like crediting wealthy gold miners for the existence of gold-- the gold and opportunities are there, regardless of who takes the most advantage of it. If it wasn't them, it would be someone else. In the case of the OS market, I wish it had been someone who could play better with others.
The big question though is whether this is an example of particularly poor government performance or just typical of what you'd find in most Internet-linked systems.
... or, more likely, it's a report done by a Republican Congress to discredit a Democratic administration. They've been doing this all year. For example, when Bill Richardson (a Hispanic and therefore politically valuable) was a front-runner for the Democratic VP slot, Congress brought as much media blame as possible on him for apparent security leaks in the Energy Department.
FYI, Congressional panels and committees are generally controlled by the majority party of that branch of Congress, even when they're called "non-partisan".
I'm not endorsing Democrats or slamming Republicans here, I'm just pointing out politics as I see them. The same thing might happen if the parties' roles were reversed. I am neither Democratic nor Republican.
One vote has more effect than you calculate
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 2
Since the universe is highly uncertain, and there are tens of thousands of voters in most democratic elections, the gross expected benefit of voting is damn close to zero already, and the net benefit rapidly turns negative when you incorporate the hour it takes to go and vote, the gas for your car, the forgone income or quality time with your family, etc.
Actually, I think you're highly underestimating the effect of one vote. It turns out that it's a tiny chance at a very big change, sort of like a lottery that pays off more than 100%.
In one of my philosophy courses, we read that some researcher (I forget who) had estimated the odds of one single vote affecting the outcome of a US presidential election to be about 1 in 200 million. But then, that outcome makes a difference to the entire US population, which at the time of the research was about 200 million. So using a risk analysis, the expected benefit of one vote is roughly the benefit of the preferred outcome to one person. Given those odds, I vote.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing "negligible" with "zero". (Negligible)x(big number) may no longer be negligible.
Like when Intel hired Perl's own Randal Schwartz, who then found security problems onsite. When he tried to tell them, he embarrassed some manager somewhere. In response, Intel pressed charges and ended up sentencing Randal to jail, plus major fines, plus other penalties. No lie.
That's why I won't work for Intel, if they treat consultants that way.
Generally Hatch is a respectable upstanding guy with real not-bought principles. I just don't happen to agree with him too often.
Actually not, unfortunately. When McCain was talking about limits on soft money, Hatch said something like "If soft money is limited, it will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it." I agreed with him on the Microsoft thing, but let's just say that newspapers listed him as "R-Novell".
Plus his words are so shrewdly political almost all the time... he always sounds really sleazy and manipulative to me. Condescending and smug, too. Ick.
1) Teach science, math, or computers at a school in your area. Pick a school that really needs it (school funding varies widely by district). Many schools desperately need teachers in these subjects.
2) Hook up with organizations whose goals you support, either local or national. Most seem to be extremely underfunded, so computer expertise is way out of their budget. Attend a meeting or two, then offer your skills and ask if they know how you could help. Be ready for their being unprepared for your offer-- most have adjusted to shoestring computer operations, if any at all, and many can't even think in terms of how computers can help. But computers almost always can! (C'mon, you're a programmer, you can make almost any office run smoother.) So spend time at their office to examine their processes and what you could automate. Many of these places run more on individual initiative than on strong management. Be sure you make things easier, more than you get in the way.
My own choices would be organizations helping children, the homeless, housing (I'm in San Francisco), environmental causes, media awareness/empowerment groups, certain causes and political groups, and many others. But I'm not proselytizing here (beyond encouraging volunteerism in general); choose organizations you want to help, according to your own values. If the first ones you choose are so lucky as to already have enough help, don't stop looking.
Hey, if you're not satisfied with this, you could set up an operation that helps programmers get in touch with those who need them! Don't forget to account for those who aren't tech-savvy-- you may need to do some active outreach, since they won't find your Web site on their own.
Why is it that people always feel that everything has to fit according to statistics or all is not well. Gender imbalance reminds me a lot of the so called Digital Divide...lots of liberal middle class whites who feel that the poor underclass must be forced to be as technically inclined as they are. Frankly, I'm black and I have lived amongst and known black people all my life, and being computer savvy is not high on the average black person's to-do list. No amount of government intervention is going to turn the average poor black person into some cybersurfing, net junkie simply to balance some statistic chart.
Uh, dude... I know some black folks think it's hip to whine about "liberal middle class whites", but geez, that sounds dumb and gets old. Those "liberal whites" are usually supporting issues first brought up by black activists like Jesse Jackson, Mumia, Al Sharpton, Chuck D, King, Malcolm,.... You don't have to like all those guys, but they sure think these are important issues, even if you don't. (Usually their issues are as much about rich/poor as they are about black/white, including the "digital divide".)
What, you'd rather white people be "conservative whites"? You think that's better? Time to start figuring out who your friends are.
Computer savvy is now a major source of power in this world, not to mention money. Hell yes, I want everyone to have access if they want it-- rich or poor, black or white or latino, man or woman. If they don't want it, OK, but I want them to have the choice. If someone chooses against it, don't blame me if they can't get a job because they don't have computer skills. I'm not against changing things so that other jobs pay better, I'm just talkin' about how it is now.
Maybe you're totally misunderstanding those "self-righteous" people you're so tired of. Maybe they're not trying to mold anyone in any image or force anyone to do anything they don't want to. Maybe they're trying to help people who ask for it. If you're not gonna help, then at least get off their backs.
Magic 8-ball is much more powerful than we thought
on
Quickiefest 2000
·
· Score: 5
I mean, back in the 70's it was predicting the nature of software in the 90's-- "Outlook not so good".
MP3 is the current popular format, but it will surely be extended with more features. I hope all these dedicated MP3 players have an easy way to upgrade them to support new formats. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the old formats, because lots of people will have players that only play MP3's, so content providers won't use newer formats because they don't want to lose part of their audience.
(a) In a slashdot discussion a few weeks ago, someone pointed out that Intel and possibly other CPU's provide an analog white-noise random data source, providing something like 75K/second of random data.
(b) If you need a random number between 1 and 50 billion, then use rand(). Humans should never try to pick random numbers on their own; there are too many biases and patterns.
If you buy a PC with Windows on it, you have bought a license for that piece of software, and you should be able to install it on whatever machine you want.
If you buy another PC two years later, you should be able to install that same copy of Windows on it, because you paid for the license! You don't need to buy a new copy of the software for every machine you buy, just as you don't for any other piece of software.
Somehow, almost no consumer ever thinks of this. Maybe it's because the act of buying Windows is seldom a conscious decision; the tax is slipped in under their noses without giving them a chance to think about it.
If you buy a new PC to run Windows, save money by installing your old version of Windows on it.
The Internet is a complex system that relies on every one of several components: long-distance trunks, local phone access, router hardware, end-user hardware, end-user OS, domain-name registration, and others. A monopoly or oligopoly over any one of these components lets a company hold the Internet hostage, effectively. (I.e. if a company can prevent the Internet from happening, they can charge up to the full value of the Internet to the customer, by free market dynamics. Thus their gain is almost complete, and the customer's gain is marginal.)
The long-distance backbone market has been getting more and more monopolized for a while, and some people have tried to draw attention to it. But not many people noticed, because it's a sector that's not obvious to a layman.
Don't forget, these companies didn't "build it all themselves" like they claim, and are not innocently trying to get a return on their investment. Some, like phone and cable companies, were granted their monopolies and rights-of-way by our government, supposedly to use them for the public good. It's like broadcasters "owning" a broadcast frequency. They now claim to own what was originally public property by its very nature, either tangible or intangible.
So are you saying that the only power for change comes from within the system? This seems like a rather.. ignorant (?) statement to me.
That's not at all what I said, there's no reason to start the insults. Read my post again. I agree there are many other ways to effect change; I'm just saying that voting is one of them, and shouldn't be discarded. It can work in concert with other methods. I also agree that it's not enough to merely vote and sit back complacently.
It doesn't matter to us, but of course it matters to the people who want to get elected!
I think your point is that the candidates are indistinguishable. What that means is that we need to find or create new candidates. Don't be afraid to vote for "third-party" candidates-- even if they lose, your vote affects future elections. If enough people vote the way you do, then at the least you become a voting block that the big candidates court.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
I think it's misplaced to blame these on democracy. Do you think it would have been better if those people hadn't been voted in? You're almost promoting the dictators with this argument. True, the bad guys successfully manipulated the voting process, but if not for that I think they would have found another way to get in power (like, with guns and torture).
Speaking of which, part of what makes those dictators so bad is that they remove the democratic process. If FAIR elections were regularly held, there wouldn't be nearly as much brutality.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government around, except for all the other forms of government." OK, a benevolent dictatorship has merits, but that's awfully tricky to guarantee and perpetuate.
Voting for leaders is worthless. Why waste the time?
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
The more of us don't vote, the more our adversaries will stay in power. For one, the reason the religious right has such power in the US is because their voting turnout is something like twice the national average.
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
I will not be voting in the next election, nor in any election after that. I refuse to give my name to a system which can so easily be diverted and corrupted.
So if you disagree with capitalism, are you going to throw away all your money?
A lot of people feel the way you do, but it's the wrong way to go about it. You're throwing away what power the system gives you. You can use that power to change the system itself, if you disagree with it. Find someone you want in office, or create legislation you want passed, and use the ballot box to do it. Your lack of vote is interpreted by politicians as apathy. If you don't want that, then distinguish yourself from apathy somehow, maybe by voting for a non-Republicrat candidate, or something else creative.
Merely taking a government agency and turning it into a private company doesn't help the situation. It actually makes it worse, because now they're a monopoly who can be blatantly self-interested with no restraint. At least a government agency ostensibly has oversight, ultimately by the voters (I know I know, big problems there but way beyond the scope of this note). A private monopoly has no oversight and zero incentive to provide a good product or service.
For privatization to be an improvement, effective competition has to be part of the picture. No matter where you fall on the government-vs.-free-market debate, almost anyone would agree that a private monopoly is worse than either a government agency or a competitive free market. Anyone pushing for privatization needs to remember that and to incorporate competition into any plan for privatization.
Nothing against the post above, just bringing up a point that's usually overlooked.
Slashdot Mirror
In high school in 1980, we were writing and trading source code written on Apple ]['s, and happy to be sharing our knowledge and learning from each other. So maybe it was Steve Wozniak who started open-source/free-software/whatever, because he made the conscious decision that Applesoft would be interpreted to encourage sharing of source code. He had a history of open technology, like with wiring diagrams in the old Homebrew Computer Club (?). True enough, RMS was espousing it around the same time.
Then again, they were just following in the age-old intellectual tradition of sharing knowledge, like how academia is supposed to be. Like what a civilized society does. It comes quite naturally to any cooperation-minded person.
This is great! That's the sort of thing we should be documenting, instead of beating the Internet misquote to death (which really just sounds stupid and desperate).
I'm all for keeping all politicians honest. I saw a well-documented book of lies by Reagan, with specific references to public records, published articles, dated interviews, etc. You could do something similar with all the examples you list above, on a Web page or something. I think that kind of thing is a lot more constructive than false criticism, which is itself a lie. Whenever Republicans harp on the Internet thing, or pass around so-called "Gore quotes" which are really Quayle quotes, I wonder "is this the worst they can find on him?"
I suppose it depends what the meaning of the word IS is?
OK, if you wanna get partisan...
If you know history, you know the Nixon and Reagan administrations beat the pants off the Clinton years in terms of lying. Nixon, well, we all know about him. Reagan said "I don't recall" about a zillion times under oath. Something like 100 or more members of his staff resigned while under investigation. Someone gave me a book entirely composed of made-up statistics, anecdotes, and other lies he charmed us with. Made up. Thin air. As in, 74.8% of statistics are made up on the spot. This book lists them, and gives references to well-established data that prove them to be lies. Yet, he swayed votes and national/global policy with them.
George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA. Hell, lying is their business.
Not that any of this makes lying any more excusable. But lying about a private blow job isn't in the same league as Watergate or Iran-Contra.
In legislative context (e.g. Congress), an "initiative" is a formal step that's part of making something law, before it gets voted on by the entire body. When Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet", it was a miswording and political exaggeration, not an outright lie. I'd say he "sponsored the initiative to extend the Internet to the general public." Whether or not those initiatives deserve any credit is another point of debate (but I certainly give no credit to the business world, as another poster does).
And he popularized the term "information superhighway", which of course we all find annoying. But he did communicate the concept to a lot of unwired people.
No, I'm not a Democrat, I'm just tired of misinformation. Criticize Gore (and Bush and others) for real problems, not made-up ones. Jokes I have no problem with; I liked the SatireWire article and the Letterman appearance (the first funny Letterman in a while, eh?).
Computer hardware and software (including OS's) would be developing just as rapidly without MS. The opportunities are obvious and are there to be had, just like in a gold rush. Some would argue that development would have been faster without MS keeping a stranglehold as the incompetent gatekeeper. They certainly haven't prevailed on the quality of their OS products.
To credit MS, Intel, and other heavyweights with the computer revolution is like crediting wealthy gold miners for the existence of gold-- the gold and opportunities are there, regardless of who takes the most advantage of it. If it wasn't them, it would be someone else. In the case of the OS market, I wish it had been someone who could play better with others.
That reminds me-- I've been meaning to print up bumper stickers that read "My other startup is up my nose."
... or, more likely, it's a report done by a Republican Congress to discredit a Democratic administration. They've been doing this all year. For example, when Bill Richardson (a Hispanic and therefore politically valuable) was a front-runner for the Democratic VP slot, Congress brought as much media blame as possible on him for apparent security leaks in the Energy Department.
FYI, Congressional panels and committees are generally controlled by the majority party of that branch of Congress, even when they're called "non-partisan".
I'm not endorsing Democrats or slamming Republicans here, I'm just pointing out politics as I see them. The same thing might happen if the parties' roles were reversed. I am neither Democratic nor Republican.
Jeez.
Actually, I think you're highly underestimating the effect of one vote. It turns out that it's a tiny chance at a very big change, sort of like a lottery that pays off more than 100%.
In one of my philosophy courses, we read that some researcher (I forget who) had estimated the odds of one single vote affecting the outcome of a US presidential election to be about 1 in 200 million. But then, that outcome makes a difference to the entire US population, which at the time of the research was about 200 million. So using a risk analysis, the expected benefit of one vote is roughly the benefit of the preferred outcome to one person. Given those odds, I vote.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing "negligible" with "zero". (Negligible)x(big number) may no longer be negligible.
That's why I won't work for Intel, if they treat consultants that way.
Actually not, unfortunately. When McCain was talking about limits on soft money, Hatch said something like "If soft money is limited, it will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it." I agreed with him on the Microsoft thing, but let's just say that newspapers listed him as "R-Novell".
Plus his words are so shrewdly political almost all the time... he always sounds really sleazy and manipulative to me. Condescending and smug, too. Ick.
2) Hook up with organizations whose goals you support, either local or national. Most seem to be extremely underfunded, so computer expertise is way out of their budget. Attend a meeting or two, then offer your skills and ask if they know how you could help. Be ready for their being unprepared for your offer-- most have adjusted to shoestring computer operations, if any at all, and many can't even think in terms of how computers can help. But computers almost always can! (C'mon, you're a programmer, you can make almost any office run smoother.) So spend time at their office to examine their processes and what you could automate. Many of these places run more on individual initiative than on strong management. Be sure you make things easier, more than you get in the way.
My own choices would be organizations helping children, the homeless, housing (I'm in San Francisco), environmental causes, media awareness/empowerment groups, certain causes and political groups, and many others. But I'm not proselytizing here (beyond encouraging volunteerism in general); choose organizations you want to help, according to your own values. If the first ones you choose are so lucky as to already have enough help, don't stop looking.
Hey, if you're not satisfied with this, you could set up an operation that helps programmers get in touch with those who need them! Don't forget to account for those who aren't tech-savvy-- you may need to do some active outreach, since they won't find your Web site on their own.
Uh, dude... I know some black folks think it's hip to whine about "liberal middle class whites", but geez, that sounds dumb and gets old. Those "liberal whites" are usually supporting issues first brought up by black activists like Jesse Jackson, Mumia, Al Sharpton, Chuck D, King, Malcolm, .... You don't have to like all those guys, but they sure think these are important issues, even if you don't. (Usually their issues are as much about rich/poor as they are about black/white, including the "digital divide".)
What, you'd rather white people be "conservative whites"? You think that's better? Time to start figuring out who your friends are.
Computer savvy is now a major source of power in this world, not to mention money. Hell yes, I want everyone to have access if they want it-- rich or poor, black or white or latino, man or woman. If they don't want it, OK, but I want them to have the choice. If someone chooses against it, don't blame me if they can't get a job because they don't have computer skills. I'm not against changing things so that other jobs pay better, I'm just talkin' about how it is now.
Maybe you're totally misunderstanding those "self-righteous" people you're so tired of. Maybe they're not trying to mold anyone in any image or force anyone to do anything they don't want to. Maybe they're trying to help people who ask for it. If you're not gonna help, then at least get off their backs.
*rimshot*
MP3 is the current popular format, but it will surely be extended with more features. I hope all these dedicated MP3 players have an easy way to upgrade them to support new formats. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the old formats, because lots of people will have players that only play MP3's, so content providers won't use newer formats because they don't want to lose part of their audience.
Hyperlinking started at least as early as Hypercard, maybe earlier. As someone pointed out, analog versions of linking go back thousands of years.
(a) In a slashdot discussion a few weeks ago, someone pointed out that Intel and possibly other CPU's provide an analog white-noise random data source, providing something like 75K/second of random data.
(b) If you need a random number between 1 and 50 billion, then use rand(). Humans should never try to pick random numbers on their own; there are too many biases and patterns.
If you buy another PC two years later, you should be able to install that same copy of Windows on it, because you paid for the license! You don't need to buy a new copy of the software for every machine you buy, just as you don't for any other piece of software.
Somehow, almost no consumer ever thinks of this. Maybe it's because the act of buying Windows is seldom a conscious decision; the tax is slipped in under their noses without giving them a chance to think about it.
If you buy a new PC to run Windows, save money by installing your old version of Windows on it.
The long-distance backbone market has been getting more and more monopolized for a while, and some people have tried to draw attention to it. But not many people noticed, because it's a sector that's not obvious to a layman.
Don't forget, these companies didn't "build it all themselves" like they claim, and are not innocently trying to get a return on their investment. Some, like phone and cable companies, were granted their monopolies and rights-of-way by our government, supposedly to use them for the public good. It's like broadcasters "owning" a broadcast frequency. They now claim to own what was originally public property by its very nature, either tangible or intangible.
That's not at all what I said, there's no reason to start the insults. Read my post again. I agree there are many other ways to effect change; I'm just saying that voting is one of them, and shouldn't be discarded. It can work in concert with other methods. I also agree that it's not enough to merely vote and sit back complacently.
I think your point is that the candidates are indistinguishable. What that means is that we need to find or create new candidates. Don't be afraid to vote for "third-party" candidates-- even if they lose, your vote affects future elections. If enough people vote the way you do, then at the least you become a voting block that the big candidates court.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
I think it's misplaced to blame these on democracy. Do you think it would have been better if those people hadn't been voted in? You're almost promoting the dictators with this argument. True, the bad guys successfully manipulated the voting process, but if not for that I think they would have found another way to get in power (like, with guns and torture).
Speaking of which, part of what makes those dictators so bad is that they remove the democratic process. If FAIR elections were regularly held, there wouldn't be nearly as much brutality.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government around, except for all the other forms of government." OK, a benevolent dictatorship has merits, but that's awfully tricky to guarantee and perpetuate.
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
The more of us don't vote, the more our adversaries will stay in power. For one, the reason the religious right has such power in the US is because their voting turnout is something like twice the national average.
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
So if you disagree with capitalism, are you going to throw away all your money?
A lot of people feel the way you do, but it's the wrong way to go about it. You're throwing away what power the system gives you. You can use that power to change the system itself, if you disagree with it. Find someone you want in office, or create legislation you want passed, and use the ballot box to do it. Your lack of vote is interpreted by politicians as apathy. If you don't want that, then distinguish yourself from apathy somehow, maybe by voting for a non-Republicrat candidate, or something else creative.
Merely taking a government agency and turning it into a private company doesn't help the situation. It actually makes it worse, because now they're a monopoly who can be blatantly self-interested with no restraint. At least a government agency ostensibly has oversight, ultimately by the voters (I know I know, big problems there but way beyond the scope of this note). A private monopoly has no oversight and zero incentive to provide a good product or service.
For privatization to be an improvement, effective competition has to be part of the picture. No matter where you fall on the government-vs.-free-market debate, almost anyone would agree that a private monopoly is worse than either a government agency or a competitive free market. Anyone pushing for privatization needs to remember that and to incorporate competition into any plan for privatization.
Nothing against the post above, just bringing up a point that's usually overlooked.