Dumber than when an Anonymous Coward trolls hard for tougher laws against privacy? While your thinking about your own hypocrisy, chew on this for a while: it is possible to find criminals without making businesses keep Orwellian records of their customers. I'd quote Benjamin Franklin, but I'd wager that the quote is already in this thread already.
You may even remember approximately how far in from the front or back of the book the section is you're looking for
Absolutely. Not to mention the fact that frequently used pages will naturally open up when you get close. Kind of a pre-computer weighted search. It's pretty amazing how well designed books are.
Maybe Amazon should be targeting the smaller, single-use books in some way. Maybe buying individual chapter
Not a bad idea at all. Unfortunately, Amazon's impetus here isn't to make academia easier for students - it's to drive more sales of Kindles and Kindle media. Amazon loves the Kindle because they have a fat profit margin on books (shipping costs less than bandwidth, no material cost), and tighter control over distribution and dissemination. Combining your idea with Kindle content doesn't address the main complaint that was documented by the article. Namely, textbooks are not often read linearly. They require more random access, and that isn't as easy on a Kindle than in a physical textbooks (or chapter pamphlets as you suggest).
There were some real graduate students in the mix:
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering.
Honestly, I tend to agree. Not having tried a Kindle myself, my opinion means little. However, I strongly suspect that I would encounter the same frustration that these people did when using it instead of textbooks.
With regard to business school, Futurama said it best:
All I want is to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit... that's why I'm transferring to business school!
So he didn't check the features of a product he bought, and was then annoyed that it didn't have a feature he wanted?
Whoa there Captain Assumption:
Who said he bought it? It was given to him as a Christmas present.
He wasn't annoyed. He was simply startled that the iPhone, at a $500 unsubsidized starting price, didn't include such a basic feature as mass storage that even the most meek of smartphones have out of the box.
USB mass storage is merely an example (as I explicitly said in my previous post). In this case, it was straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Yet there are a whole host of things that his phone can't do that annoy him, and that he knows must be possible because my mother and I can both do them with our modest phones.
When I bought my first-gen iPhone
It seems to me that you're being overly defensive because you own one of these things. In fact, I suspect that many people who post and mod here are in the same position that you are, and when somebody like me posts, they feel personally attacked. I don't think I'm doing that, but I am trying to advocate that we vote our dollar. USB mass storage is, in the end, a trivial matter. However, there are much more important and unsavory things that Apple has done, and continues to do - too many things to enumerate here, but I bet you know them anyway since you post here. So, I will vote with my dollar not purchase from them as long as they persist.
Quite the contrary, we like competition here. What we don't like is anti-competitive behaviors, like those perpetrated by Apple recently.
These hatebois are so ardently rabid that they want the manufacturer of this product to be wiped off the map
Personally, what I'd like is for Apple to stop being stupid and fix some of the things that we (its users and developers) have been complaining about for a while now. I always prefer reform. However, if that fails to happen, extinction will do quite nicely. That is the path that all software companies who flagrantly ignore its users and developers should take, no exceptions (not even shiny, pretty ones).
who don't look at what people are purchasing, don't consider that using it may be enjoyable and don't think anybody is getting good value for money
Are you talking about iPhones or cheap cocaine? People are purchasing cocaine, and many of those people enjoy it for a brief time. But the experience of cocaine grows bitter after a time, and then it destroys lives. Overly dramatic? Yes - it is merely an illustration of the fact that people buying a product and enjoying it does not legitimatize it, especially not in the eyes of the people here.
Personally, I try to encourage people to choose more open options that will give them greater flexibility for the future.
Some of what you say makes sense, but it is worthwhile to cut through some of the disinformation.
They're selling a gazillion iPads
I thought the number is closer to 1-2 million at this point. I've read expectations for about 7 mil over the course of 2010. Certainly decent number, even without the hyperbole or fictional units. Might as well get it right. Just to provide some perspective, there were 5.2 million Android OS devices sold in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2010.
cell phone providers
I'm confused, do you mean service providers, cell phone manufacturers, or OS authors? Apple is the last two, but definitely not the first. I'm going to assume that you mean the last one (an operating system author), the one that most people here care about.
Apple is gaining grounds on the higher ranked cell phone providers
Android OS phones beat iPhone OS sales last quarter in North America (source). As that article states, there are several reasons that this was inevitable, but most of those factors will still be in play in a year. More interesting than the fact that Android pulled out a small victory is the fact that it increased its market share so quickly. It didn't get a serious hardware contender until Fall 2009, and they already overtook iPhone OS in sales domestically.
"the lay people" are clamoring for more as far as I can tell
The above information should show that this isn't entirely true. There are a ton of "lay people" who have honestly become sick of Apple and their buffoonery. Merely as an example: my father has a 1st gen iPhone. He regularly has to use USB flash drives as apart of his job, and liked the idea of using his iPhone instead for USB file transfer. The iPhone, magically, does not have Mass Storage capability out of the box. One has to download an app to make it work, an app that wasn't around since day 1 of the iPhone. Even now, this probably isn't an app that an average "lay person" even knows to look for. My father knows that my mother's phone (an ancient blackberry) and my phone (a G1) both do this without a problem. Moreover, when he asks whether the brand new iPhones can do this simple task out of the box, the answer will still be a resounding "no". He has expressed to me that for this and several other reasons, he will not be wanting another iPhone to replace his current one when it dies. In conclusion, I agree that many of those annoying Apple issues that us FOSS people complain about will mean nothing to the average "lay person", but there are more issues than you think that are visible to your average smartphone user.
Then again I guess Kia, BMW, Benz, Chrysler, Renault, and Fiat are loosing[sic] the Automotive Market because they're not Toyota (1), GM (2) or VW (3).
Apple, the Kia of computer manufacturers. Best analogy ever.
I understand that Apple hate is crazy high in Slashdot lately, but I'll say about 50% or more is all about blind fanaticism.
Funny, most of the "Apple hate" that I've seen at Slashdot lately has been perfectly cogent and justified. Of course, that could be due to the moderation system filtering out the cruft. I admit that the grandparent post was sensational and misleading, but in at least one case, it was a minor correction away from truth.
Meanwhile no apps can be accepted at the App Store if they even mention Google...
If you replace "Google" with "Android" in that quote, there is at least some precedent. This page claims that an author was asked to remove an [innocuous] Android reference from his iPhone application.
just like the Marine Corps can't protect people directly from shelling, it can protect them against some of the small arms fire, random bits of flying debris
Another effective way not to be shelled, shot, or hit by debris is to stay out of war zones. This is one of the ways in which suburban dwellers can justify not wearing body armor (except those living in Gary Indiana). Similarly, I choose not to use a virus scanner either because I find it cumbersome, and a poor performance to safety ratio.
It's nice to at least get an alert "Hi, program XYZ is attempting to send emails
Is that nice? I find that when my computer constantly questions me about what I am trying to do, I can become annoyed. For instance, I much prefer my Debian based systems that don't generate a pop-up every time one of my programs tries to make an incoming tcp port live.
You should still wear pants even though they don't stop bullets
I guess it's your turn to make an unsuitable analogy (perhaps the emoticon indicates you were doing so purposefully, I can't tell). Not all people should wear pants. Those who should wear them do so because it because (a) it's cold, (b) social pressures encourage modesty in some venues, or (c) local laws or dress codes sometimes require them. None of those has to do with safety. Virus checkers, unlike pants, don't really have any upsides beyond the supposed safety factors - don't pretend that any AV software is nearly as versatile as a comfortable pair of jeans.
I don't think there's any question that Stanford is the number one CS department in the world.
Wow, there's so much question, it's ridiculous. According to US News and World Reports 2008 (the most recent I could find), it was tied with Berkeley and MIT for #1, and even that is being generous. For a while, it was Carnegie and MIT alternating between 1 and 2 every year. Perhaps she meant "the best entrepreneurial CS program".
the only people who will be buying this to begin with already know what Boxee is
You may turn out to be right if D-Link doesn't market this properly, but your underlying assumption is false. By way of example, most people who buy Nokia phones didn't already know what Symbian is. All people have to know to buy it is that it can stream "CNN, Hulu, CBS, YouTube, MLB.TV, Netflix (coming soon), Comedy Central, and more!"
It is special - didn't you notice, there's no keyboard!
I once took the steering wheel off my car and tried to sell it for twice the price. Nobody bought it, but I think that's just because I screwed over a blogger right before I put it up for sale.
It's astounding that comments like this manage to get modded up so high when they contain unverified data. Like everybody else here, I implore you to give us the source of those numbers.
The following is hardly evidence, but merely an anecdote that may be typical of some Xbox users: I have an original xbox. I don't do much online play, but I do own a significant number of games (more than 10), and have played most of them through. After I noticed my Xbox starting to become irrelevant, I picked up a [legitimate] copy of Mech Warrior and soft modded it purely to install Xbox Media Center (now XBMC). Currently, XBMC is the only application that I use with the Xbox. I have never played a pirated Xbox game (on my system or otherwise), and I have never cheated on an Xbox game (on my system or otherwise). I certainly did not mod my Xbox in order to do either of those activities, and I do not plan to ever do those activities in the future. If I did play online and were banned, it would be unjust, unwarranted, and fiscally irresponsible from Microsoft's standpoint in that they would lose out on my monthly revenue. In fact, the main reason that I have refused to use Xbox Live is because of Microsoft's inane policies with regard to modding.
Re:Sorry, what you're asking for is too easy to ab
on
Reusing Old TiVo Hardware?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sorry, what you're asking for is too easy to abuse
Genuine question (I'm not being rhetorical): do you consider using hardware you own for personal, constructive purposes ever to be "abuse"?
That would be true, except that even crappy computer speakers these days can produce high frequencies just fine. Consider the following speakers that are among the least expensive on Newegg. They have an advertised frequency response of 100hz to 20,000khz, plenty of range to reveal encoding flaws. Yes, the actual frequency response might not be as good as advertised, but if they're anywhere close, they will not have any trouble revealing encoding flaws.
In my experience, medium-high frequency reproduction is probably the chief problem with poorly encoded music. From the article, "Some also noted that cymbals, hi hats and vocals in particular sounded better" (referring to the better encoded stream). Cymbals and hi-hats are dead on - they end up sounding like 60s sci-fi if encoded badly. Even the most modest of computer speakers and earbuds will reproduce a cymbal frequency range without breaking a sweat.
The grandparent is dead on here - sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race. Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.
I stand corrected sir. "Evidence" was not the correct thing for which to ask. It was an honest mistake, and I had no intention of employing a dirty debating tactic.
you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with
In this context, I would prefer not to. In truth, I have no interest in personal anecdotal reasoning for peoples' opinions. I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory. Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
Granted, my second paragraph was purely hypothetical. If that exasperates you, feel free to ignore it.
My last paragraph uses concrete facts about my particular metro area. We have 5 separate last mile broadband providers with their own infrastructure:
Verizon: DSL (phoneline), 3g (cellular)
AT&T: U-Verse (fiber), 3g (cellular)
Time Warner: Cable
T-Mobile: 3g cellular
Sprint: 3g cellular
This doesn't even count the dozens of localized 802.11 providers that we have in the area and a wimax provider we have in a nearby metro area.
So here's my argument with concrete facts: when even a modest metro area like mine already has so many last mile providers with their own infrastructure, why do we need to create even more competition through further government regulation? I submit that this kind of regulation is superfluous with market forces and technological advancements that encourage diversification and competition.
Good point. Also, if the profiles that the grandparent's ex created contain lies about him, they might fall under existing defamation laws. From what he said, that might be his larger concern.
Certainly, for some lines, some state money was used. I said as much in my response.
However, is this the case for all infrastructure? For instance, how about AT&T U-verse - did they accept state funding, and if so, how much of their costs was subsidized? Can you provide evidence for you claim?
Why does this need to be a felony? Support your claim with evidence. At the risk of sounding heartless, teen suicide is not sufficient evidence on its own; there is plenty of that when neither the internet nor harassment is involved.
More than that, can you show that this particular instance should be a felony?
Details of the incident weren't made available, but police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy.
That seems pretty vague to me. Should we throw every middle school student into the hoosegow? Typically, middle school is 3 years of constant harassment, and it definitely involves boys.
I'd bet money that this particular instance is a non-issue. The parents of the "victim" probably knew the sheriff.
I'm all for openness and competition, but allow me to play the devil's advocate here.
Suppose that some guy says that he'll pay you decent money if you install a huge slip 'n' slide over to his place. So, you pay $15,000 for a 2 mile slip 'n' slide, another $100,000 to get the dang thing buried, and finally $25,000 greasing the political wheels. Now, $140,000 later, the government steps in and says that anybody can use your slip 'n' slide as long as they pay you a fee. You are vaguely upset about this, but you're still making money from the infrastructure, so it's OK. However, the government then tells you that you can only charge $5 a month for the use of your infrastructure. Suddenly, your infrastructure costs cannot be reasonably recovered. The end result: you're pissed, broke, and not very likely to spend money upgrading your infrastructure ever again.
The point is that when the government exercises its power in this manner, this kind of crap happens all the time. Generally we don't feel bad about it because the companies who own the infrastructure tend to themselves be assholes. Also, we tend not to feel bad because some of these companies have themselves squandered government money. However, that doesn't make it right.
The real question is whether we need to enforce competition this way. Right now, there is already competition in some areas among several infrastructure owners (cable, fiber, telephone line, cellular towers, perhaps even power line). Add to this the emergence of wide area wireless infrastructure (non-cellular), and there might soon be a large plurality of broadband providers with their own infrastructure competing for your business. So, why mandate the sharing of infrastructure when there's already enough infrastructure to go around?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for making slashdot that much dumber.
Dumber than when an Anonymous Coward trolls hard for tougher laws against privacy? While your thinking about your own hypocrisy, chew on this for a while: it is possible to find criminals without making businesses keep Orwellian records of their customers. I'd quote Benjamin Franklin, but I'd wager that the quote is already in this thread already.
You may even remember approximately how far in from the front or back of the book the section is you're looking for
Absolutely. Not to mention the fact that frequently used pages will naturally open up when you get close. Kind of a pre-computer weighted search. It's pretty amazing how well designed books are.
Maybe Amazon should be targeting the smaller, single-use books in some way. Maybe buying individual chapter
Not a bad idea at all. Unfortunately, Amazon's impetus here isn't to make academia easier for students - it's to drive more sales of Kindles and Kindle media. Amazon loves the Kindle because they have a fat profit margin on books (shipping costs less than bandwidth, no material cost), and tighter control over distribution and dissemination. Combining your idea with Kindle content doesn't address the main complaint that was documented by the article. Namely, textbooks are not often read linearly. They require more random access, and that isn't as easy on a Kindle than in a physical textbooks (or chapter pamphlets as you suggest).
I like the sound of hexavalent chromium
Yeah, you and PG&E.
"You don't read textbooks in the same linear way as a novel," said Roesner, 23, a graduate student in computer science and engineering.
Honestly, I tend to agree. Not having tried a Kindle myself, my opinion means little. However, I strongly suspect that I would encounter the same frustration that these people did when using it instead of textbooks.
With regard to business school, Futurama said it best:
All I want is to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit... that's why I'm transferring to business school!
So he didn't check the features of a product he bought, and was then annoyed that it didn't have a feature he wanted?
Whoa there Captain Assumption:
When I bought my first-gen iPhone
It seems to me that you're being overly defensive because you own one of these things. In fact, I suspect that many people who post and mod here are in the same position that you are, and when somebody like me posts, they feel personally attacked. I don't think I'm doing that, but I am trying to advocate that we vote our dollar. USB mass storage is, in the end, a trivial matter. However, there are much more important and unsavory things that Apple has done, and continues to do - too many things to enumerate here, but I bet you know them anyway since you post here. So, I will vote with my dollar not purchase from them as long as they persist.
having competition in the market is a good thing
Quite the contrary, we like competition here. What we don't like is anti-competitive behaviors, like those perpetrated by Apple recently.
These hatebois are so ardently rabid that they want the manufacturer of this product to be wiped off the map
Personally, what I'd like is for Apple to stop being stupid and fix some of the things that we (its users and developers) have been complaining about for a while now. I always prefer reform. However, if that fails to happen, extinction will do quite nicely. That is the path that all software companies who flagrantly ignore its users and developers should take, no exceptions (not even shiny, pretty ones).
who don't look at what people are purchasing, don't consider that using it may be enjoyable and don't think anybody is getting good value for money
Are you talking about iPhones or cheap cocaine? People are purchasing cocaine, and many of those people enjoy it for a brief time. But the experience of cocaine grows bitter after a time, and then it destroys lives. Overly dramatic? Yes - it is merely an illustration of the fact that people buying a product and enjoying it does not legitimatize it, especially not in the eyes of the people here.
Personally, I try to encourage people to choose more open options that will give them greater flexibility for the future.
They're selling a gazillion iPads
I thought the number is closer to 1-2 million at this point. I've read expectations for about 7 mil over the course of 2010. Certainly decent number, even without the hyperbole or fictional units. Might as well get it right. Just to provide some perspective, there were 5.2 million Android OS devices sold in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2010.
cell phone providers
I'm confused, do you mean service providers, cell phone manufacturers, or OS authors? Apple is the last two, but definitely not the first. I'm going to assume that you mean the last one (an operating system author), the one that most people here care about.
Apple is gaining grounds on the higher ranked cell phone providers
Android OS phones beat iPhone OS sales last quarter in North America (source). As that article states, there are several reasons that this was inevitable, but most of those factors will still be in play in a year. More interesting than the fact that Android pulled out a small victory is the fact that it increased its market share so quickly. It didn't get a serious hardware contender until Fall 2009, and they already overtook iPhone OS in sales domestically.
"the lay people" are clamoring for more as far as I can tell
The above information should show that this isn't entirely true. There are a ton of "lay people" who have honestly become sick of Apple and their buffoonery. Merely as an example: my father has a 1st gen iPhone. He regularly has to use USB flash drives as apart of his job, and liked the idea of using his iPhone instead for USB file transfer. The iPhone, magically, does not have Mass Storage capability out of the box. One has to download an app to make it work, an app that wasn't around since day 1 of the iPhone. Even now, this probably isn't an app that an average "lay person" even knows to look for. My father knows that my mother's phone (an ancient blackberry) and my phone (a G1) both do this without a problem. Moreover, when he asks whether the brand new iPhones can do this simple task out of the box, the answer will still be a resounding "no". He has expressed to me that for this and several other reasons, he will not be wanting another iPhone to replace his current one when it dies. In conclusion, I agree that many of those annoying Apple issues that us FOSS people complain about will mean nothing to the average "lay person", but there are more issues than you think that are visible to your average smartphone user.
Then again I guess Kia, BMW, Benz, Chrysler, Renault, and Fiat are loosing[sic] the Automotive Market because they're not Toyota (1), GM (2) or VW (3).
Apple, the Kia of computer manufacturers. Best analogy ever.
I understand that Apple hate is crazy high in Slashdot lately, but I'll say about 50% or more is all about blind fanaticism.
Funny, most of the "Apple hate" that I've seen at Slashdot lately has been perfectly cogent and justified. Of course, that could be due to the moderation system filtering out the cruft. I admit that the grandparent post was sensational and misleading, but in at least one case, it was a minor correction away from truth.
Meanwhile no apps can be accepted at the App Store if they even mention Google...
If you replace "Google" with "Android" in that quote, there is at least some precedent. This page claims that an author was asked to remove an [innocuous] Android reference from his iPhone application.
It's a shame one can only achieve a maximum score of 5 for a post. That one deserves at least 10. You have made my day.
just like the Marine Corps can't protect people directly from shelling, it can protect them against some of the small arms fire, random bits of flying debris
Another effective way not to be shelled, shot, or hit by debris is to stay out of war zones. This is one of the ways in which suburban dwellers can justify not wearing body armor (except those living in Gary Indiana). Similarly, I choose not to use a virus scanner either because I find it cumbersome, and a poor performance to safety ratio.
It's nice to at least get an alert "Hi, program XYZ is attempting to send emails Is that nice? I find that when my computer constantly questions me about what I am trying to do, I can become annoyed. For instance, I much prefer my Debian based systems that don't generate a pop-up every time one of my programs tries to make an incoming tcp port live.
You should still wear pants even though they don't stop bullets
I guess it's your turn to make an unsuitable analogy (perhaps the emoticon indicates you were doing so purposefully, I can't tell). Not all people should wear pants. Those who should wear them do so because it because (a) it's cold, (b) social pressures encourage modesty in some venues, or (c) local laws or dress codes sometimes require them. None of those has to do with safety. Virus checkers, unlike pants, don't really have any upsides beyond the supposed safety factors - don't pretend that any AV software is nearly as versatile as a comfortable pair of jeans.
I don't think there's any question that Stanford is the number one CS department in the world.
Wow, there's so much question, it's ridiculous. According to US News and World Reports 2008 (the most recent I could find), it was tied with Berkeley and MIT for #1, and even that is being generous. For a while, it was Carnegie and MIT alternating between 1 and 2 every year. Perhaps she meant "the best entrepreneurial CS program".
Is this what you're looking for? Archos Android PMP
the only people who will be buying this to begin with already know what Boxee is
You may turn out to be right if D-Link doesn't market this properly, but your underlying assumption is false. By way of example, most people who buy Nokia phones didn't already know what Symbian is. All people have to know to buy it is that it can stream "CNN, Hulu, CBS, YouTube, MLB.TV, Netflix (coming soon), Comedy Central, and more!"
The technology would have to be extra special
It is special - didn't you notice, there's no keyboard!
I once took the steering wheel off my car and tried to sell it for twice the price. Nobody bought it, but I think that's just because I screwed over a blogger right before I put it up for sale.
It's astounding that comments like this manage to get modded up so high when they contain unverified data. Like everybody else here, I implore you to give us the source of those numbers.
The following is hardly evidence, but merely an anecdote that may be typical of some Xbox users: I have an original xbox. I don't do much online play, but I do own a significant number of games (more than 10), and have played most of them through. After I noticed my Xbox starting to become irrelevant, I picked up a [legitimate] copy of Mech Warrior and soft modded it purely to install Xbox Media Center (now XBMC). Currently, XBMC is the only application that I use with the Xbox. I have never played a pirated Xbox game (on my system or otherwise), and I have never cheated on an Xbox game (on my system or otherwise). I certainly did not mod my Xbox in order to do either of those activities, and I do not plan to ever do those activities in the future. If I did play online and were banned, it would be unjust, unwarranted, and fiscally irresponsible from Microsoft's standpoint in that they would lose out on my monthly revenue. In fact, the main reason that I have refused to use Xbox Live is because of Microsoft's inane policies with regard to modding.
Sorry, what you're asking for is too easy to abuse
Genuine question (I'm not being rhetorical): do you consider using hardware you own for personal, constructive purposes ever to be "abuse"?
That would be true, except that even crappy computer speakers these days can produce high frequencies just fine. Consider the following speakers that are among the least expensive on Newegg. They have an advertised frequency response of 100hz to 20,000khz, plenty of range to reveal encoding flaws. Yes, the actual frequency response might not be as good as advertised, but if they're anywhere close, they will not have any trouble revealing encoding flaws.
In my experience, medium-high frequency reproduction is probably the chief problem with poorly encoded music. From the article, "Some also noted that cymbals, hi hats and vocals in particular sounded better" (referring to the better encoded stream). Cymbals and hi-hats are dead on - they end up sounding like 60s sci-fi if encoded badly. Even the most modest of computer speakers and earbuds will reproduce a cymbal frequency range without breaking a sweat.
The grandparent is dead on here - sound reproduction is not a chain, it's a relay race. Any particular member of that race can single handedly improve or worsen the reproduction.
you tend to learn more* about the people you're conversing with
In this context, I would prefer not to. In truth, I have no interest in personal anecdotal reasoning for peoples' opinions. I would prefer to hear cogent reasoning based on sound moral theory. Reasoning of the form, "I like [x] governmental policy because it benefits me" bores me deeply.
My last paragraph uses concrete facts about my particular metro area. We have 5 separate last mile broadband providers with their own infrastructure:
This doesn't even count the dozens of localized 802.11 providers that we have in the area and a wimax provider we have in a nearby metro area.
So here's my argument with concrete facts: when even a modest metro area like mine already has so many last mile providers with their own infrastructure, why do we need to create even more competition through further government regulation? I submit that this kind of regulation is superfluous with market forces and technological advancements that encourage diversification and competition.
Good point. Also, if the profiles that the grandparent's ex created contain lies about him, they might fall under existing defamation laws. From what he said, that might be his larger concern.
State-funding was used for the lines.
Certainly, for some lines, some state money was used. I said as much in my response.
However, is this the case for all infrastructure? For instance, how about AT&T U-verse - did they accept state funding, and if so, how much of their costs was subsidized? Can you provide evidence for you claim?
More than that, can you show that this particular instance should be a felony?
Details of the incident weren't made available, but police say the harassment went on for a few months and involved a dispute over a boy.
That seems pretty vague to me. Should we throw every middle school student into the hoosegow? Typically, middle school is 3 years of constant harassment, and it definitely involves boys.
I'd bet money that this particular instance is a non-issue. The parents of the "victim" probably knew the sheriff.
I'm all for openness and competition, but allow me to play the devil's advocate here.
Suppose that some guy says that he'll pay you decent money if you install a huge slip 'n' slide over to his place. So, you pay $15,000 for a 2 mile slip 'n' slide, another $100,000 to get the dang thing buried, and finally $25,000 greasing the political wheels. Now, $140,000 later, the government steps in and says that anybody can use your slip 'n' slide as long as they pay you a fee. You are vaguely upset about this, but you're still making money from the infrastructure, so it's OK. However, the government then tells you that you can only charge $5 a month for the use of your infrastructure. Suddenly, your infrastructure costs cannot be reasonably recovered. The end result: you're pissed, broke, and not very likely to spend money upgrading your infrastructure ever again.
The point is that when the government exercises its power in this manner, this kind of crap happens all the time. Generally we don't feel bad about it because the companies who own the infrastructure tend to themselves be assholes. Also, we tend not to feel bad because some of these companies have themselves squandered government money. However, that doesn't make it right.
The real question is whether we need to enforce competition this way. Right now, there is already competition in some areas among several infrastructure owners (cable, fiber, telephone line, cellular towers, perhaps even power line). Add to this the emergence of wide area wireless infrastructure (non-cellular), and there might soon be a large plurality of broadband providers with their own infrastructure competing for your business. So, why mandate the sharing of infrastructure when there's already enough infrastructure to go around?