And this public Wi-Fi is different than a park that you aren't compelled to visit, a sculpture you aren't forced to admire, a library book you aren't cajoled to read, a public pool you don't soak in, or a bikeway you don't cruise, how?
No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on.
Actually, it is the same to me, because I couldn't care less what your local government does with your taxes (unless it's my local gov't too). But did you not have the right to vote for someone who reflects your beliefs? Did you not have the right to run for office yourself (if you care so much)?
I'd like them to do that as little as possible, because, frankly, I think they don't do a very good job
Fine. I'd like my local government to do what it takes to make my community, and its economy, thrive by attracting new business and residential development. If that means I pay for some "attractive" amenities I don't use, then so be it. Why should what you "like" dictate what the majority can vote for and fund? And I think my local government has done some excellent work in my community, by recently adding several beautiful parks, a highly useful community center, a few public sculptures, and many other amentities.
people are never as diligent or efficient as spending *other* people's money as they are at spending their own
People are never as diligent, efficient (or realistic) about voluntarily paying what they owe for the public resources they use, as they are when the state bills them for it.
And I don't know where you live, but from where I sit, people are not at all efficient about spending their own money. I'm one of the very, very few people I know who carries zero balance monthly on my credit cards. But, hey, along with their crushing debt, my friends have nice clothes, cars, and homes...for now.
Finally, communities invest in improvements to attract people and businesses. If a park, a pool, a library, or wireless attracts 300 new residents, that's 300 new employees for new or existing businesses. That's economic growth, and a wealth opportunity for any local entrepreneur.
How are you defining "unsafe"? There are security concerns, yes, but your tone is a bit shrill. Especially regarding eavesdropping, which is actually *harder* to accomplish in a VoIP environment, even when that environment includes the public internet.
With POTS, tapping only requires a "buttset" (available at Home Depot) to clip onto your line anywhere between your home and the nearest pole or pedestal, for a third party to be able to listen freely. Or they could use a cheap RF scanner to pick up cordless chatter. Whatever works.
With a VoIP connection, you'd have to transparently insert yourself into the middle of the packet flow, which requires physical access to a network node with a monitoring port. Then you'd need to mirror the flow towards your own listening station, which has to have the correct interface type (DS1/DS3/OCN/FE/GigE). Finally, you must have your listening station configured to decode the RTP/IP stack and the correct voice media algortithm, G.7XX etc. Quite a bit more daunting, no?
Thanks to VoIP, any script kiddy can turn off your phone service!
Uh, thanks to scissors, any *person* can turn off your phone service.
Why, knowing all this, someone might even say, "POTS is UNSAFE!"
2. Wireless access IS UNSAFE!
Unsafe for what? Yes, there are more ways to passively listen to wireless traffic, and yes that is a major privacy concern. However, IPSec is widely implemented for encrypted tunnels to "secure" networks, and SSL browser-to-server encryption is ubiquitous amongst reputable ecommerce/ebanking sites. You might say that public wireless access can be used with privacy (safely) , but it is not private (safe) by default. However, I'd have trouble trusting privacy on any network that I didn't control, wired or not.
The deployment of these technologies should definitely be held up
I'd say overreacting to security concerns is just as irresponsible as under-reacting.
Huh. I'm supposed to feel chastised that the depth, breadth, and flexibility of the English language just happened to save your ass when you used the "wrong" word for the context? I don't.
Egoism most commonly refers to a principle in ethics which states that each person should act to promote their own interest. Egotism most commonly refers to inflated sense of self-worth. Using a word uncommonly, in this sense, is just poor communication, and your technical correctness is, well, unimpressive.
And it's not racist because Indians are caucasians, too.
True. Racist was a poor word choice on my part. But it's a worthless semantic dodge on your part. You're still generalizing traits across 1.1 billion individuals. What would you call that? I mean, other than ignorant.
Also, you cannot refute observed data.
When your sample size (18,000) is a meaningless fraction (0.0016%) of your population size (1.1B), your observations are 100% purely worthless and any "unequivocal" conclusions drawn from them are completely asnine. And that's allowing for the wholy irrational assumption that all 18,000 workers are actually incompentent.
They are incompetent. If they were competent, they would be finishing projects.
Why would I ever take your word about anyone else's competency when you only provide worthless anecdotal evidence to support your claims? And it sounds like they completed at least one project; they attracted 18,000 jobs from your company to India, eh?
You cannot say that the sky is not blue, because it is plainly obvious that the sky is blue. It is also plainly obvious that they are not finishing projects. The projects are not finished. Should I continue or is this point finally getting through your thick skull?
Nice rant. Funny!
Also, I didn't say we were still sending them work. In fact, I said implicitly that we were NOT sending them more work because they could not do the work that they had already been given. What I said was that they were ASKING for more work...
So you have 18,000 employees doing either incompetent work, or no work, but you still employee them? Now I think I understand why *you* work there.
Moving right along, we are not dealing with contract firms. They are employees of our Indian offices that are solely owned and operated by us.
You're right. Clearly I made a mistake. I should have said, "If your company hired crappy employees, then it's your own fault. Your company should have better hiring practices." Totally makes you look better, eh?
Continuing further in handing your ass to you,
Really? Do you *really* think so? Really?
I have no part in the decision making process in terms of where work is done.
By "you", I was referring to you as the only representative of your company with whom I'm currently communicating. I would have thought that was obvious to someone who regards reading comprehension skills so highly.
Those decisions are made by idiots like you, which, unfortunately, there are plenty of in the ranks of upper management at my company.
Good, get it out. You'll feel better.
Just a suggestion, and I really am trying to be constructive here, but I think you would do well for yourself to go take some classes in reading comprehension and discourse. Then maybe you can understand the things that you read.
Sounds like fun. Hey, maybe I'll run into you coming out of Remedial Logic for Rednecks 101? We could get lunch!
1) The Indian offices constantly beg for more work, but they cannot deliver on the work they have already been given. This projects the notion that they are not able to estimate or honestly evaluate their own capabilities. Being eager to work does not make you a good worker, necessarily.
Likewise, being "local" does not make you a good worker, necessarily.
Work ethics and competencies worldwide range from awful to awesome. If your company hired a crappy contract firm, then it's your own fault. Your company should have better contracting practices.
What makes you think painting Indian contractors with such a broad brush is not simply ignorant as hell?
2) The work they do deliver is poor quality and almost 100% of it has had to be redone by domestic engineering departments. The initiatives started 4 years ago and there has yet to be a single customer-deliverable product returned from India.
They haven't produced for four years, and you still send them work? That speaks to your competence more than theirs.
And again, why do you paint all workers from a country 3-4 times the population of our own, with a single brushstroke?
3) Rising costs: it costs 3x as much today as it did 4 years ago to move work to India. Egoism runs rampant among Indians (there are enough of them in my office here in the States that I can say unequivocally that this is an accurate observation), they think the world of themselves and attempt to charge accordingly, even though #1 and #2 are contraindicative.
It's "egotism". And, I'm sorry, but it's plainly racist to believe that: 1) Egotism is ubiquitous to a whole people, and 2) your narrow exposure to those people gives you "unequivocal" accuracy regarding, well, anything f**king thing at all.
So, there are talks behind closed doors to start moving most of the 18000 jobs we have offshored in the last 4 years back to the states.
Good. With any luck, they'll discover some redundancies and sh*tcan your redneck a** in the process. If karma exists, you'd likely be replaced by a recent immigrant.
I also concur. Last game I bought was RR Tycoon II. Not long after, new game specs started exceeding my (then) desktop's specs. So I got a PS2 and never looked back.
I have a question though--
a 1000M network card with a 100M internet connection
I for one agree with you here. BFD if you get your fingerprint scanned for library access.
If it's no BFD for them to have my fingerprint, can I also assume it's no BFD for them not to have it? Good, then.
Unlikely that its going to happen anyways,
Is your opinion based on the current trend of government agencies wanting less access to citizen's personal information, and less investigative power? Oh, wait...
Since when did we as citizens decide to trust the government so blindly? Our founding fathers based a lot of their work on a deep-seeded mistrust of governing powers. Wisdom lost to the ages, maybe?
other places have been using fingerprints for years. My mother was a substitute teacher, until they started requiring fingerprints
Public and private sector employers are engaging employees in business contracts for compensation. That's a very different relationship than a library has with a patron.
Oh, and sorry about your mom. Is she up for parole soon?:^D
How many privately funded parks are there in your community?
Well, if you count neighborhood associations as "private" organizations, as I do, then there's almost two dozen scattered about town. They also do their own walks and bikepaths. And that's in addition to the municipal ammenities I've mentioned.
As soon as you fund it with taxes, you're forcing someone else to pay for it who doesn't want it. It doesn't matter what the thing is. It could be a park or a road or a library or wifi. Forcing someone else to pay for something that you want is theft.
And here we are; at the root of it. Libertarian, are we?
You may want to define taxes as theft. I won't. I define taxes as contribuitions to community resources. If you benefit from it, you should help pay for it, whether you want to pay or not, e.g. taxation.
If your money is your most important asset, fine. Protect it by voting with your money and your feet.
I would say my most important asset is my community. It attracts businesses, including one that employs me (for good money), and more that offer goods, services, or entertainment. It attracts them using many tax funded projects. My community also provides quality police and fire services that protect my personal safety, and my private investment in property and goods, as well as my tax investment in schools, roads, parks, and libraries. Some of those taxes also pay for this protection.
But theft is still wrong.
It's simply not theft. It's private contribution to shared public resources.
Moreover it's not effective.
This education-related example contradicts that unfounded assertion.
Forcing someone to pay for something that you want means that they're not free to pay for only the things that they want. Multiply this by a community and businesses that might be sustained because there's a population that wants their services can't run.
Huh. Well, where I live, the local government is dominated by local business owners, and they tend to favor funding a variety of community enhancements. They seem to be under the impression that attracting more development investment with a higher quality of life will net them additional business profits, and also gives them a nicer place to do business. Perhaps the actual math isn't on your side, eh?
This might be tolerable if the public provision of things was efficient. But it's not. The government is the highest cost producer.
Sorry, it just isn't the case. And one economist's opinion is an absolutely meaningless datapoint in the argument. Funny how he rails on education, which seems to be actually getting better results (i.e. from my example) with additional funding in the last 10 years.
Additionally, the illusion of a free lunch results in over consumption.
Your link leads to a worthless and flawed straw man analogy. If it's not based on actual cited data, it's not worth the bits on the wire to me. So don't bother.
I could be wrong about this next part,..[snipped list]
As a network engineer and planner for a privately incorporated telco, and as a broadband consumer myself, I'm familiar with this list of complaints. They're common and have little to do with anything.
For what it's worth, the muni wireless I get at home costs 62% less than my cable broadband did, with an indiscernible connection quality difference, even at peak utilization times.
Especially after all of the for profit wifi providers have left town.
And, of course, there's a whole slew of them beating down the door of every town.
When a muni provides wireless communication, as long as they fund it entirely out of the revenue generated by the service, then you're right. It's fair competition.
No. If the muni is providing the service as a community enhancement to attract new development (commercial and/or residential) then I'm right--regardless of how they fund it. Fair competition has nothing to do with it, because hindering "private business" is the diametricly opposite goal.
What motivation would be behind a desire to squash private competitors? It can't be revenue, because building the tax roles with new business and residential development is magnitudes more lucrative than offering cheap wireless internet to a small population.
But as soon as taxes are used to fund the muni wireless network, then that's the government squashing private business.
No, that's a local government funded project. If it hinders private business, then it's counter-productive and ill-advised. And if it really angers local businesses and residents, that's a quick and dirty route out the door at election time.
Why? Because everyone is forced to pay for the service (through taxes) whether they want it or not...
Forgive me, but this argument is just nonsense.
My town has parks I've never set foot in. It has miles of sidewalks, walking, and biking trails I've never explored, and miles I have. There's many streets I've never driven down. Then there's the buses I've never ridden, the library books I've never checked out, the beaches I've never combed, the sports fields I've never played on, and the community education classes I'll never take. Nevermind whole portions of a community center that I'll never use, because I hate racquetball and nobody wants me ice-skating near them or their loved-ones. Yet, I'm taxed to pay for these things that I don't, and in some cases won't ever, personally use.
But that's okay, because it's how a representative government with taxation functions. Taxpayers don't get line item funding control over their tax money, but they get to elect like-minded folks to represent their budgeting preferences.
And, since these things enhance the quality of life in a community, taxpayers benefit even when they don't personally use services or ammenities. Higher quality communities attract people and business e.g. money, and the local economy benefits. They also reduce crime rates, which has clear benefits too.
Because the service is being subsidised...
Through statutory incumbancy regulations, through mandated right-of-way access to customer locations, through tarriffed rates and fees, through reduced or waived building permit fees, through commercial property/income tax breaks/incentives...oh, oops, I forgot we weren't talking about standard telecom, cable, and utility businesses.
taxation by those who don't want or need the service
Yes. Right. Unfair taxation by an elected representitive government. Of course. Do continue...
the muni based wireless can offer the overall service for cheaper to the general population?
Here's another reason this tax subsidy argument is nonsense: Tax subsidies are directly related to tax revenues. Those revenues fluctuate based on political and economic climates. No stable service (or monopoly, for that matter) could be based on such unstable revenues. A muni would be dooming the service to fail. That's why they heavily favor self-sufficiency through user fees.
If this weren't the city government, we'd all be screaming "Monopoly".
Would we? I don't hear anybody screaming monopoly over other community funded ammenities, like parks, playgrounds, paths, libraries, band shells, riverwalks, public lakefronts, community colleges...
Forcing someone to be a customer is generally going to result in expensive and crappy service.
Actually, my community is quite nice. I liked it enough to build a new 4BR
What "free"? I think you've got a limited impression of what muni wireless networks look like. My muni's wireless service is a very cheap residential/business broadband internet connection, but it's not free. You're thinking of city-wide public hotspots, which is not the model for most muni wireless networks currently deployed.
the security is terrible on wireless networks.
I don't want managed security from my ISP. I want connectivity to other networks aka "the internet".
You would have to lock down the PC to the point where it was barely usable anyway.
And you don't lock down every internet connected computer you own?! How is wireless access different with regard to your computer's inherent security? You're confusing network security with host security. The act of sniffing wireless traffic requires and implies no more access to your computer than the access offered by DSL or cable.
Secondly, you would still want a home network in most cases.
Behind my muni wireless internet, I've got a wired LAN with thirteen Ethernet jacks scattered throughout my home, a segregated 802.11G LAN for guests, plus a third p2p 802.11G network for just for AirTunes.
For security, I use a SOHO "hardware" firewall protecting mostly MacOS X boxen, encryption wherever prudent, and I'm following the best wired/wireless network security practices available for my consumer-grade (and priced) hardware. Not perfect, but not any less secure than DSL or cable.
Last but not least is speed. I don't think I'll be getting the 1M download rate I currently enjoy with cable on a municiple wireless connection.
That's odd. I get what I pay for--a shared access 802.11B wireless internet connection shaped to 2M down/512K up. Admittedly, it does slow down (only) a bit at peak usage, just like cable internet or DSL through a DSLAM with a congested uplink. And I pay $17/month.
If the city is sellign this as a way for the average user to have an internet connection they are sadly mistaken.
That is not my experience.
They might say it is as easy as connecting, which it is. The people that would want the simplicty of connection are the same ones that don't have a clue how to secure themselves, therefore they would be worse off in the end.
Let's talk about clue. You've confused host and network security several times now. They're quite different. Wireless internet connections don't compromise hosts any more than wired internet connections compromise hosts.
But what gives the government the right to squash any private business
Interesting way to frame the discussion. It's completely backwards and inaccurate, but interesting in a fun way.
How does a muni providing a value-add wireless communications service designed to attract commercial and residential development translate to "squashing" private business? That's a really bass-ackwards perspective, since the underlying goal is to attract new businesses and residents.
It's no different than parks, festivals, community centers, bike paths, etc.
just because they believe they can do the job better?
You've assumed a false proposition that muni's want to compete with, and beat, private companies. This doesn't make any sense, as it contradicts ubiquitous goals of community growth and economic prosperity (especially for any local business owners holding prominent public offices.)
The list of points you responded to were referring to IE, not "any browser".
Not as I read it. His run-on sentence grammar leaves room for interpretation, but I believe the clauses referring to IE are subordinate asides to the original clause regarding "browsers".
Or did you think he wanted you to turn off ActiveX in Lynx?
Is it just me, or are you being intentially peckish and combative?
Of five points, this is the only IE-specific advice. Point one refers to firewalls. Point two actually *says* "browser", not "IE". Point four refers (presumably) to SSL cert warnings. Point five refers to browsing habits. Do you always ignore 80% of the evidence when you argue? (See, I can be combative too.)
I completely agree with you on your point.
Super. That's usually a good tack.
However you seem to think your statement somehow negates mine.
Careful there; you can't assume what I think.
It does not.
You're right. It was a clumsy reply. What I meant was:
If the user is smart enough, IE can be pretty safe. True.
False. You can not qualify anything's safety by the skills or intellect of a user. To use the OP's analogy, a car is just as safe, or dangerous, with either a careless teen or a professional racer at the wheel. The teen is just a lot more likely to crash at 120MPH, due to lack of skill and experience.
So you can say that using IE safely is possible, but that doesn't make it "safe".
While NAT is a huge culprit in breaking e2e connectivity where layer three info is buried in higher layer headers, a non-NAT stateful firewall can cause significant problems as well.
H.323 voice/video, of course, requires NAT-hacks (i.e. "fixup" at the terminal/NAT device) galore. But even traversing a firewall is difficult for several reasons:
1) Call setup where the terminal outside the firewall initiates the call. You've got to open T1720 inbound to your H.323 terminal(s). Besides poking holes in your security policy, this kills intra-enterprise system mobility for terminals on wheels. And if you're trying to peer H.323 gatekeepers through a firewall, it's the same deal with U1719.
2) RTP (voice/video media) UDP ports are established in H.245 protocol fields above layer three. A stateful firewall examining only layer three will fail to dynamically allow the correct UDP ports inbound. Voice/video media flows drop into the bit bucket. Firewall vendors going to layer seven usually run into interoperational trouble as most vendors implement their own "version" of any given standard. It's the old "should/may/must" verbage problem.:^/
3) Jitter/Delay. Even if you work around or solve problems one and two, most stateful firewalls cause awfully large and often inconsistent amounts of delay in RTP flows. Both are application killers in this case.
So, no, I am not confused. I am experienced. Doing realtime interactive (non-text) applications across firewalls is not a fun or productive endeavor.
I also think that essentially advocating a default permit policy on reasonably secure anything is a mistake but that's just me.
I generally think that firewalls and NAT are security hacks and workarounds for sysadmins who are either unable or unwilling to secure the actual servers and workstations they wish to secure.
I do admit, though, that for the underskilled, overworked, under-budgeted, and understaffed, administering a few firewalls is a wonderfully fine option to securing tens, hundreds, or thousands of hosts.
The parent clearly said that IE can be "pretty safe", not "totally safe". Thus your entire post is straw man
The poster clearly said: "Browsers can be totally safe..," to which I replied, in essense, "Nonsense." And I stand by it.
Some browsers have more secure default behaviors and more securely written and compiled source, but safety is never total.
If the user is smart enough, IE can be pretty safe.
What a funny way to qualify a browser's safety. Shouldn't the average user be able to use factory preloaded software with factory default settings, for its intended use, without being exposed to major security risks?
Arguments like, "Don't *ever* use ActiveX," or, "Don't download and run malicious applications," make absolutely no sense to me.
Why would my browser allow me, by default, to do consistently high risk things?
"Totally" is an interestingly finite word that tends to boomerang on the unwise.
1:USE A FIREWALL
Firewalls just impede end-to-end connectivity. There's a lot of cool stuff you can't do through a firewall (i.e. protocols that bury IP addressing info in layers four through seven.) A reasonably secure network and a reasonably secure OS running reasonably secure software can do these protocols quite nicely without a firewall.
2: update your browser
Now, why would a "totally safe" browser need updates?
3:disable ActiveX, any site that uses it is a site you should learn to live without.
What's ActiveX? Sounds like fun. What does it run on?
4: (the one most often broken) DONT CLICK YES ALL THE TIME, warnings are there for a reason.
What if I click yes anyway? A "totally safe" browser should allow that, no?
5: Dont DL and run STUPID executables
Perfect! I won't every DL and run anything clearly labelled STUPID. Good thing all malicious software is so clearly marked, eh?
NOTHING can protect you from yourself,
I don't need protection. It's my data and my OS that could really use some. Fortunately for them, the software and OS I choose offers more protection by default than the package the average consumer uses, even after some tweaking.
I once had a permit. The first time my mom took me out to a parking lot to learn to drive, I had a headache after six minutes. By a half hour in, not only did the headache become unbearable, but I was also missing stop signs at parking lot speeds. What should I have done differently?
This is a different reason than not being able to afford auto insurance. Although you have absolutely no obligation to share personal information with a stranger, it would have been more honest to cite "health reasons".
However, I really appreciate the honesty of this last post. I am choosing to take your questions literally and not as sarcasm. If they were meant sarcasticly, I apologize in advance for any unwelcome advice.
If a health condition is making it difficult to learn to drive, then my only advice is to work closely with whatever support network (doctor/family/friends) you have, and to tackle it in the safest way possible. If driving a car is not going to work out, then perhaps other transportation methods may be better. You would know which ones might work better than I would, and I won't patronize you with lame suggestions.
That would be two years. Four of those six years since I graduated from high school were spent earning a BS in computer science
My sincere congratulations. Computer Science is a tough major to complete in four years. Took me five years to complete a BA in Journalism and 2.5 more to finish a BS in CSci. As I said, I was "meandering mid-twenties guy".
What would you suggest that I do to overcome these hurdles?
AS sounds like a real challenge.
What I would do is find a mentor and advocate, preferably in the industry you hope to enter, who also understands AS. They could help you find and communicate with prospective employers.
Employment agencies and headhunters could help get you in the door, but also prepare a potential employer with supportive information about your condition prior to your interview.
Finally, if you're really experiencing illegal discrimination, you could play the ADA card through the Equal Opportunity Employement agency.
BTW, don't settle for the opportunities your hometown paper may offer. If you must, look in nearby metros (Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, C* Ohio, etc.) and get your resume out. You may have to move away from home to find work. That's what many, many people do. Send hundreds of letters and resumes out each month. Hundreds.
This all depends on you accepting that you may have to get way outside your comfort zone to achieve forward progress, which obviously is easier said than done. But I assure you it's well worth the extreme effort you put into it.
Whenever you're up to it...I'll reply to what we've got so far:
In many cases, shipping and insurance costs more than the good itself. And this doesn't help with face-to-face services such as Wal-Mart's vision center and hair salon putting local independent optometrists and barbers out of business.
No one said being a consumer is easy. I live in the upper midwest, within minutes of several of the largest malls in the country (hint,hint), and I still have to drive 50 miles roundtrip to find the hiking boots I like. That's life. It doesn't mean you're being censored, or that stores are governing authorities.
Not everybody is capable of driving a car.
Not everything is Wal-Mart's responsibility. Most people have access to some transportation.
I'm 24 and I still live with my parents and don't know how to drive because I can't afford car insurance because all I get from employers is "Sorry, despite your qualifications, we went with another candidate", even when applying for a position as a cashier at a home improvement store chain.
Ahah! The meandering, shiftless mid-twenties guy. I know that guy. I was that guy. My advice, gleaned from the decade between 25 and 35: YOU have GOT to get your s**t together, because noone else will group your poop for you.
You've had about ten years to learn to drive a car. And you don't need to buy and insure a car prior to learning how to drive. Just go get a permit, have a friend or relative take you out to a Wal-Mart parking lot and have at it man. That'll cost about $20 for the permit plus some gas money if your friend/family member is a bastard.
Regarding the job problem: I assure you that the problem is with you and is for you to solve. Assuming typical HS or college graduation times, you've had somewhere between one and six years to find work. There's a reason you're not attractive to employers. Fix it.
Have you read The Grapes of Wrath? If Wal-Mart is the only store in town...
Steinbeck's depression-era landscape was quite different than today's. With our maturing global telecomunications, media and transportation environments, even the rural towns on Route 66 aren't isolated or insulated anymore. There is no such thing as the "only store in town" anymore.
It does if it bribes local governments so much with promises of tax dollars and/or campaign contributions that it makes the local government into a figurehead.
Wal-Mart surely lobbies local governments to create conditions favorable to its success and to the failure of its competitors. There's no reason to be naive enough to believe Wal-Mart will act in the best interest of host communities--or its own employees, or customers, or suppliers--or in anyone's interest but its own. However, Wal-Mart's political influence *requires* government cooperation and ends there because it has no legal authority to direct uncooperative governments. Hence, Wal-Mart is neither a government nor a state. Period.
"Legitimate": no formal sanctions taken against the entity for its actions.
That, my friend, is not the definition of "legitimate". You can't define the positive, i.e. legitimate, as the absense of consequence for being the negative, i.e. illegitimate. That definition would result in crimes being "legitimate" activities so long as the associated criminals were never punished.
Here's the actual definition: "Legitimate":according to law, established legal forms and requirements; or according to recognized principles, accepted rules and standards
"Lethal force": includes the power to deny the essentials of life.
Weak definition. Regardless, Wal-Mart has no such power.
"Territory": the area formerly serviced by mom-and-pop shops that Wal-Mart drove out.
Ah, but the shopper's "territory" is much larger than that--what with telephones, mail, the internet, and motor vehicles and all.
But Walmart isn't editing the content. It's the music/movie distributors who own the rights to the content, and who want oodles of cash from selling oodles of CDs/DVDs. I assure you, they modify the content voluntarily to satisfy Walmart corporate buyers.
When the content providers voluntarily change the content themselves, it's not censorship. It's "editing the content in exchange for (lot's of) money."
So a multi-million dollar repackaging was set in order.
But you've left out a major part of this story. Let me suggest this modification:
"My girlfriend's company wanted a gagillion-million dollars from selling oil on Walmart shelves worldwide, so they voluntarily initiated a multi-million dollar repackaging project to satisfy Walmart's corporate buyers."
BTW, is it still not censorship if I have to go to another country to see or get something?
Is an authoritative body here (i.e. some executive branch of local/state/fed government) preventing you, by statute, from seeing or getting it here? Then that's censorship.
Is it just a rare, unimported, overseas version of Shania's latest? Then that's inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
And this public Wi-Fi is different than a park that you aren't compelled to visit, a sculpture you aren't forced to admire, a library book you aren't cajoled to read, a public pool you don't soak in, or a bikeway you don't cruise, how?
No - all in all, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer other people (a council in this case) did *not*, on my behalf, take my money and decide what they want to spend it on.
Actually, it is the same to me, because I couldn't care less what your local government does with your taxes (unless it's my local gov't too). But did you not have the right to vote for someone who reflects your beliefs? Did you not have the right to run for office yourself (if you care so much)?
I'd like them to do that as little as possible, because, frankly, I think they don't do a very good job
Fine. I'd like my local government to do what it takes to make my community, and its economy, thrive by attracting new business and residential development. If that means I pay for some "attractive" amenities I don't use, then so be it. Why should what you "like" dictate what the majority can vote for and fund? And I think my local government has done some excellent work in my community, by recently adding several beautiful parks, a highly useful community center, a few public sculptures, and many other amentities.
people are never as diligent or efficient as spending *other* people's money as they are at spending their own
People are never as diligent, efficient (or realistic) about voluntarily paying what they owe for the public resources they use, as they are when the state bills them for it.
And I don't know where you live, but from where I sit, people are not at all efficient about spending their own money. I'm one of the very, very few people I know who carries zero balance monthly on my credit cards. But, hey, along with their crushing debt, my friends have nice clothes, cars, and homes...for now.
Finally, communities invest in improvements to attract people and businesses. If a park, a pool, a library, or wireless attracts 300 new residents, that's 300 new employees for new or existing businesses. That's economic growth, and a wealth opportunity for any local entrepreneur.
1. VoIP is UNSAFE!
How are you defining "unsafe"? There are security concerns, yes, but your tone is a bit shrill. Especially regarding eavesdropping, which is actually *harder* to accomplish in a VoIP environment, even when that environment includes the public internet.
With POTS, tapping only requires a "buttset" (available at Home Depot) to clip onto your line anywhere between your home and the nearest pole or pedestal, for a third party to be able to listen freely. Or they could use a cheap RF scanner to pick up cordless chatter. Whatever works.
With a VoIP connection, you'd have to transparently insert yourself into the middle of the packet flow, which requires physical access to a network node with a monitoring port. Then you'd need to mirror the flow towards your own listening station, which has to have the correct interface type (DS1/DS3/OCN/FE/GigE). Finally, you must have your listening station configured to decode the RTP/IP stack and the correct voice media algortithm, G.7XX etc. Quite a bit more daunting, no?
Thanks to VoIP, any script kiddy can turn off your phone service!
Uh, thanks to scissors, any *person* can turn off your phone service.
Why, knowing all this, someone might even say, "POTS is UNSAFE!"
2. Wireless access IS UNSAFE!
Unsafe for what? Yes, there are more ways to passively listen to wireless traffic, and yes that is a major privacy concern. However, IPSec is widely implemented for encrypted tunnels to "secure" networks, and SSL browser-to-server encryption is ubiquitous amongst reputable ecommerce/ebanking sites. You might say that public wireless access can be used with privacy (safely) , but it is not private (safe) by default. However, I'd have trouble trusting privacy on any network that I didn't control, wired or not.
The deployment of these technologies should definitely be held up
I'd say overreacting to security concerns is just as irresponsible as under-reacting.
Actually, it *is* "egoism,"
Huh. I'm supposed to feel chastised that the depth, breadth, and flexibility of the English language just happened to save your ass when you used the "wrong" word for the context? I don't.
Egoism most commonly refers to a principle in ethics which states that each person should act to promote their own interest. Egotism most commonly refers to inflated sense of self-worth. Using a word uncommonly, in this sense, is just poor communication, and your technical correctness is, well, unimpressive.
And it's not racist because Indians are caucasians, too.
True. Racist was a poor word choice on my part. But it's a worthless semantic dodge on your part. You're still generalizing traits across 1.1 billion individuals. What would you call that? I mean, other than ignorant.
Also, you cannot refute observed data.
When your sample size (18,000) is a meaningless fraction (0.0016%) of your population size (1.1B), your observations are 100% purely worthless and any "unequivocal" conclusions drawn from them are completely asnine. And that's allowing for the wholy irrational assumption that all 18,000 workers are actually incompentent.
They are incompetent. If they were competent, they would be finishing projects.
Why would I ever take your word about anyone else's competency when you only provide worthless anecdotal evidence to support your claims? And it sounds like they completed at least one project; they attracted 18,000 jobs from your company to India, eh?
You cannot say that the sky is not blue, because it is plainly obvious that the sky is blue. It is also plainly obvious that they are not finishing projects. The projects are not finished. Should I continue or is this point finally getting through your thick skull?
Nice rant. Funny!
Also, I didn't say we were still sending them work. In fact, I said implicitly that we were NOT sending them more work because they could not do the work that they had already been given. What I said was that they were ASKING for more work...
So you have 18,000 employees doing either incompetent work, or no work, but you still employee them? Now I think I understand why *you* work there.
Moving right along, we are not dealing with contract firms. They are employees of our Indian offices that are solely owned and operated by us.
You're right. Clearly I made a mistake. I should have said, "If your company hired crappy employees, then it's your own fault. Your company should have better hiring practices." Totally makes you look better, eh?
Continuing further in handing your ass to you,
Really? Do you *really* think so? Really?
I have no part in the decision making process in terms of where work is done.
By "you", I was referring to you as the only representative of your company with whom I'm currently communicating. I would have thought that was obvious to someone who regards reading comprehension skills so highly.
Those decisions are made by idiots like you, which, unfortunately, there are plenty of in the ranks of upper management at my company.
Good, get it out. You'll feel better.
Just a suggestion, and I really am trying to be constructive here, but I think you would do well for yourself to go take some classes in reading comprehension and discourse. Then maybe you can understand the things that you read.
Sounds like fun. Hey, maybe I'll run into you coming out of Remedial Logic for Rednecks 101? We could get lunch!
1) The Indian offices constantly beg for more work, but they cannot deliver on the work they have already been given. This projects the notion that they are not able to estimate or honestly evaluate their own capabilities. Being eager to work does not make you a good worker, necessarily.
Likewise, being "local" does not make you a good worker, necessarily.
Work ethics and competencies worldwide range from awful to awesome. If your company hired a crappy contract firm, then it's your own fault. Your company should have better contracting practices.
What makes you think painting Indian contractors with such a broad brush is not simply ignorant as hell?
2) The work they do deliver is poor quality and almost 100% of it has had to be redone by domestic engineering departments. The initiatives started 4 years ago and there has yet to be a single customer-deliverable product returned from India.
They haven't produced for four years, and you still send them work? That speaks to your competence more than theirs.
And again, why do you paint all workers from a country 3-4 times the population of our own, with a single brushstroke?
3) Rising costs: it costs 3x as much today as it did 4 years ago to move work to India. Egoism runs rampant among Indians (there are enough of them in my office here in the States that I can say unequivocally that this is an accurate observation), they think the world of themselves and attempt to charge accordingly, even though #1 and #2 are contraindicative.
It's "egotism". And, I'm sorry, but it's plainly racist to believe that: 1) Egotism is ubiquitous to a whole people, and 2) your narrow exposure to those people gives you "unequivocal" accuracy regarding, well, anything f**king thing at all.
So, there are talks behind closed doors to start moving most of the 18000 jobs we have offshored in the last 4 years back to the states.
Good. With any luck, they'll discover some redundancies and sh*tcan your redneck a** in the process. If karma exists, you'd likely be replaced by a recent immigrant.
I also concur. Last game I bought was RR Tycoon II. Not long after, new game specs started exceeding my (then) desktop's specs. So I got a PS2 and never looked back.
I have a question though--
a 1000M network card with a 100M internet connection
Who's your 100M internet connection provider?
I for one agree with you here. BFD if you get your fingerprint scanned for library access.
:^D
If it's no BFD for them to have my fingerprint, can I also assume it's no BFD for them not to have it? Good, then.
Unlikely that its going to happen anyways,
Is your opinion based on the current trend of government agencies wanting less access to citizen's personal information, and less investigative power? Oh, wait...
Since when did we as citizens decide to trust the government so blindly? Our founding fathers based a lot of their work on a deep-seeded mistrust of governing powers. Wisdom lost to the ages, maybe?
other places have been using fingerprints for years. My mother was a substitute teacher, until they started requiring fingerprints
Public and private sector employers are engaging employees in business contracts for compensation. That's a very different relationship than a library has with a patron.
Oh, and sorry about your mom. Is she up for parole soon?
BTW, I meant my last comment in good humor, but in my rush forgot to add the :^)
Respect and regards,
Big_Al_B
And it appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree...
I'm always happy to amicably disagree, and I won't disrespect by claiming any sort of victory in the debate.
How many privately funded parks are there in your community?
Well, if you count neighborhood associations as "private" organizations, as I do, then there's almost two dozen scattered about town. They also do their own walks and bikepaths. And that's in addition to the municipal ammenities I've mentioned.
As soon as you fund it with taxes, you're forcing someone else to pay for it who doesn't want it. It doesn't matter what the thing is. It could be a park or a road or a library or wifi. Forcing someone else to pay for something that you want is theft.
And here we are; at the root of it. Libertarian, are we?
You may want to define taxes as theft. I won't. I define taxes as contribuitions to community resources. If you benefit from it, you should help pay for it, whether you want to pay or not, e.g. taxation.
If your money is your most important asset, fine. Protect it by voting with your money and your feet.
I would say my most important asset is my community. It attracts businesses, including one that employs me (for good money), and more that offer goods, services, or entertainment. It attracts them using many tax funded projects. My community also provides quality police and fire services that protect my personal safety, and my private investment in property and goods, as well as my tax investment in schools, roads, parks, and libraries. Some of those taxes also pay for this protection.
But theft is still wrong.
It's simply not theft. It's private contribution to shared public resources.
Moreover it's not effective.
This education-related example contradicts that unfounded assertion.
Forcing someone to pay for something that you want means that they're not free to pay for only the things that they want. Multiply this by a community and businesses that might be sustained because there's a population that wants their services can't run.
Huh. Well, where I live, the local government is dominated by local business owners, and they tend to favor funding a variety of community enhancements. They seem to be under the impression that attracting more development investment with a higher quality of life will net them additional business profits, and also gives them a nicer place to do business. Perhaps the actual math isn't on your side, eh?
This might be tolerable if the public provision of things was efficient. But it's not. The government is the highest cost producer.
Sorry, it just isn't the case. And one economist's opinion is an absolutely meaningless datapoint in the argument. Funny how he rails on education, which seems to be actually getting better results (i.e. from my example) with additional funding in the last 10 years.
Additionally, the illusion of a free lunch results in over consumption.
Your link leads to a worthless and flawed straw man analogy. If it's not based on actual cited data, it's not worth the bits on the wire to me. So don't bother.
I could be wrong about this next part,..[snipped list]
As a network engineer and planner for a privately incorporated telco, and as a broadband consumer myself, I'm familiar with this list of complaints. They're common and have little to do with anything.
For what it's worth, the muni wireless I get at home costs 62% less than my cable broadband did, with an indiscernible connection quality difference, even at peak utilization times.
Especially after all of the for profit wifi providers have left town.
And, of course, there's a whole slew of them beating down the door of every town.
When a muni provides wireless communication, as long as they fund it entirely out of the revenue generated by the service, then you're right. It's fair competition.
No. If the muni is providing the service as a community enhancement to attract new development (commercial and/or residential) then I'm right--regardless of how they fund it. Fair competition has nothing to do with it, because hindering "private business" is the diametricly opposite goal.
What motivation would be behind a desire to squash private competitors? It can't be revenue, because building the tax roles with new business and residential development is magnitudes more lucrative than offering cheap wireless internet to a small population.
But as soon as taxes are used to fund the muni wireless network, then that's the government squashing private business.
No, that's a local government funded project. If it hinders private business, then it's counter-productive and ill-advised. And if it really angers local businesses and residents, that's a quick and dirty route out the door at election time.
Why? Because everyone is forced to pay for the service (through taxes) whether they want it or not...
Forgive me, but this argument is just nonsense.
My town has parks I've never set foot in. It has miles of sidewalks, walking, and biking trails I've never explored, and miles I have. There's many streets I've never driven down. Then there's the buses I've never ridden, the library books I've never checked out, the beaches I've never combed, the sports fields I've never played on, and the community education classes I'll never take. Nevermind whole portions of a community center that I'll never use, because I hate racquetball and nobody wants me ice-skating near them or their loved-ones. Yet, I'm taxed to pay for these things that I don't, and in some cases won't ever, personally use.
But that's okay, because it's how a representative government with taxation functions. Taxpayers don't get line item funding control over their tax money, but they get to elect like-minded folks to represent their budgeting preferences.
And, since these things enhance the quality of life in a community, taxpayers benefit even when they don't personally use services or ammenities. Higher quality communities attract people and business e.g. money, and the local economy benefits. They also reduce crime rates, which has clear benefits too.
Because the service is being subsidised...
Through statutory incumbancy regulations, through mandated right-of-way access to customer locations, through tarriffed rates and fees, through reduced or waived building permit fees, through commercial property/income tax breaks/incentives...oh, oops, I forgot we weren't talking about standard telecom, cable, and utility businesses.
taxation by those who don't want or need the service
Yes. Right. Unfair taxation by an elected representitive government. Of course. Do continue...
the muni based wireless can offer the overall service for cheaper to the general population?
Here's another reason this tax subsidy argument is nonsense: Tax subsidies are directly related to tax revenues. Those revenues fluctuate based on political and economic climates. No stable service (or monopoly, for that matter) could be based on such unstable revenues. A muni would be dooming the service to fail. That's why they heavily favor self-sufficiency through user fees.
If this weren't the city government, we'd all be screaming "Monopoly".
Would we? I don't hear anybody screaming monopoly over other community funded ammenities, like parks, playgrounds, paths, libraries, band shells, riverwalks, public lakefronts, community colleges...
Forcing someone to be a customer is generally going to result in expensive and crappy service.
Actually, my community is quite nice. I liked it enough to build a new 4BR
Providing free wireless....
What "free"? I think you've got a limited impression of what muni wireless networks look like. My muni's wireless service is a very cheap residential/business broadband internet connection, but it's not free. You're thinking of city-wide public hotspots, which is not the model for most muni wireless networks currently deployed.
the security is terrible on wireless networks.
I don't want managed security from my ISP. I want connectivity to other networks aka "the internet".
You would have to lock down the PC to the point where it was barely usable anyway.
And you don't lock down every internet connected computer you own?! How is wireless access different with regard to your computer's inherent security? You're confusing network security with host security. The act of sniffing wireless traffic requires and implies no more access to your computer than the access offered by DSL or cable.
Secondly, you would still want a home network in most cases.
Behind my muni wireless internet, I've got a wired LAN with thirteen Ethernet jacks scattered throughout my home, a segregated 802.11G LAN for guests, plus a third p2p 802.11G network for just for AirTunes.
For security, I use a SOHO "hardware" firewall protecting mostly MacOS X boxen, encryption wherever prudent, and I'm following the best wired/wireless network security practices available for my consumer-grade (and priced) hardware. Not perfect, but not any less secure than DSL or cable.
Last but not least is speed. I don't think I'll be getting the 1M download rate I currently enjoy with cable on a municiple wireless connection.
That's odd. I get what I pay for--a shared access 802.11B wireless internet connection shaped to 2M down/512K up. Admittedly, it does slow down (only) a bit at peak usage, just like cable internet or DSL through a DSLAM with a congested uplink. And I pay $17/month.
If the city is sellign this as a way for the average user to have an internet connection they are sadly mistaken.
That is not my experience.
They might say it is as easy as connecting, which it is. The people that would want the simplicty of connection are the same ones that don't have a clue how to secure themselves, therefore they would be worse off in the end.
Let's talk about clue. You've confused host and network security several times now. They're quite different. Wireless internet connections don't compromise hosts any more than wired internet connections compromise hosts.
But what gives the government the right to squash any private business
Interesting way to frame the discussion. It's completely backwards and inaccurate, but interesting in a fun way.
How does a muni providing a value-add wireless communications service designed to attract commercial and residential development translate to "squashing" private business? That's a really bass-ackwards perspective, since the underlying goal is to attract new businesses and residents.
It's no different than parks, festivals, community centers, bike paths, etc.
just because they believe they can do the job better?
You've assumed a false proposition that muni's want to compete with, and beat, private companies. This doesn't make any sense, as it contradicts ubiquitous goals of community growth and economic prosperity (especially for any local business owners holding prominent public offices.)
The list of points you responded to were referring to IE, not "any browser".
Not as I read it. His run-on sentence grammar leaves room for interpretation, but I believe the clauses referring to IE are subordinate asides to the original clause regarding "browsers".
Or did you think he wanted you to turn off ActiveX in Lynx?
Is it just me, or are you being intentially peckish and combative?
Of five points, this is the only IE-specific advice. Point one refers to firewalls. Point two actually *says* "browser", not "IE". Point four refers (presumably) to SSL cert warnings. Point five refers to browsing habits. Do you always ignore 80% of the evidence when you argue? (See, I can be combative too.)
I completely agree with you on your point.
Super. That's usually a good tack.
However you seem to think your statement somehow negates mine.
Careful there; you can't assume what I think.
It does not.
You're right. It was a clumsy reply. What I meant was:
If the user is smart enough, IE can be pretty safe. True.
False. You can not qualify anything's safety by the skills or intellect of a user. To use the OP's analogy, a car is just as safe, or dangerous, with either a careless teen or a professional racer at the wheel. The teen is just a lot more likely to crash at 120MPH, due to lack of skill and experience.
So you can say that using IE safely is possible, but that doesn't make it "safe".
You are confusing a firewall with NAT.
:P
:^/
I am doing no such thing, TYVM.
While NAT is a huge culprit in breaking e2e connectivity where layer three info is buried in higher layer headers, a non-NAT stateful firewall can cause significant problems as well.
H.323 voice/video, of course, requires NAT-hacks (i.e. "fixup" at the terminal/NAT device) galore. But even traversing a firewall is difficult for several reasons:
1) Call setup where the terminal outside the firewall initiates the call. You've got to open T1720 inbound to your H.323 terminal(s). Besides poking holes in your security policy, this kills intra-enterprise system mobility for terminals on wheels. And if you're trying to peer H.323 gatekeepers through a firewall, it's the same deal with U1719.
2) RTP (voice/video media) UDP ports are established in H.245 protocol fields above layer three. A stateful firewall examining only layer three will fail to dynamically allow the correct UDP ports inbound. Voice/video media flows drop into the bit bucket. Firewall vendors going to layer seven usually run into interoperational trouble as most vendors implement their own "version" of any given standard. It's the old "should/may/must" verbage problem.
3) Jitter/Delay. Even if you work around or solve problems one and two, most stateful firewalls cause awfully large and often inconsistent amounts of delay in RTP flows. Both are application killers in this case.
So, no, I am not confused. I am experienced. Doing realtime interactive (non-text) applications across firewalls is not a fun or productive endeavor.
I also think that essentially advocating a default permit policy on reasonably secure anything is a mistake but that's just me.
I generally think that firewalls and NAT are security hacks and workarounds for sysadmins who are either unable or unwilling to secure the actual servers and workstations they wish to secure.
I do admit, though, that for the underskilled, overworked, under-budgeted, and understaffed, administering a few firewalls is a wonderfully fine option to securing tens, hundreds, or thousands of hosts.
The parent clearly said that IE can be "pretty safe", not "totally safe". Thus your entire post is straw man
The poster clearly said: "Browsers can be totally safe..," to which I replied, in essense, "Nonsense." And I stand by it.
Some browsers have more secure default behaviors and more securely written and compiled source, but safety is never total.
If the user is smart enough, IE can be pretty safe.
What a funny way to qualify a browser's safety. Shouldn't the average user be able to use factory preloaded software with factory default settings, for its intended use, without being exposed to major security risks?
Arguments like, "Don't *ever* use ActiveX," or, "Don't download and run malicious applications," make absolutely no sense to me.
Why would my browser allow me, by default, to do consistently high risk things?
Browsers can be totaly safe,
"Totally" is an interestingly finite word that tends to boomerang on the unwise.
1:USE A FIREWALL
Firewalls just impede end-to-end connectivity. There's a lot of cool stuff you can't do through a firewall (i.e. protocols that bury IP addressing info in layers four through seven.) A reasonably secure network and a reasonably secure OS running reasonably secure software can do these protocols quite nicely without a firewall.
2: update your browser
Now, why would a "totally safe" browser need updates?
3:disable ActiveX, any site that uses it is a site you should learn to live without.
What's ActiveX? Sounds like fun. What does it run on?
4: (the one most often broken) DONT CLICK YES ALL THE TIME, warnings are there for a reason.
What if I click yes anyway? A "totally safe" browser should allow that, no?
5: Dont DL and run STUPID executables
Perfect! I won't every DL and run anything clearly labelled STUPID. Good thing all malicious software is so clearly marked, eh?
NOTHING can protect you from yourself,
I don't need protection. It's my data and my OS that could really use some. Fortunately for them, the software and OS I choose offers more protection by default than the package the average consumer uses, even after some tweaking.
I once had a permit. The first time my mom took me out to a parking lot to learn to drive, I had a headache after six minutes. By a half hour in, not only did the headache become unbearable, but I was also missing stop signs at parking lot speeds. What should I have done differently?
This is a different reason than not being able to afford auto insurance. Although you have absolutely no obligation to share personal information with a stranger, it would have been more honest to cite "health reasons".
However, I really appreciate the honesty of this last post. I am choosing to take your questions literally and not as sarcasm. If they were meant sarcasticly, I apologize in advance for any unwelcome advice.
If a health condition is making it difficult to learn to drive, then my only advice is to work closely with whatever support network (doctor/family/friends) you have, and to tackle it in the safest way possible. If driving a car is not going to work out, then perhaps other transportation methods may be better. You would know which ones might work better than I would, and I won't patronize you with lame suggestions.
That would be two years. Four of those six years since I graduated from high school were spent earning a BS in computer science
My sincere congratulations. Computer Science is a tough major to complete in four years. Took me five years to complete a BA in Journalism and 2.5 more to finish a BS in CSci. As I said, I was "meandering mid-twenties guy".
What would you suggest that I do to overcome these hurdles?
AS sounds like a real challenge.
What I would do is find a mentor and advocate, preferably in the industry you hope to enter, who also understands AS. They could help you find and communicate with prospective employers.
Employment agencies and headhunters could help get you in the door, but also prepare a potential employer with supportive information about your condition prior to your interview.
Finally, if you're really experiencing illegal discrimination, you could play the ADA card through the Equal Opportunity Employement agency.
BTW, don't settle for the opportunities your hometown paper may offer. If you must, look in nearby metros (Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, C* Ohio, etc.) and get your resume out. You may have to move away from home to find work. That's what many, many people do. Send hundreds of letters and resumes out each month. Hundreds.
This all depends on you accepting that you may have to get way outside your comfort zone to achieve forward progress, which obviously is easier said than done. But I assure you it's well worth the extreme effort you put into it.
I'm not ready to respond to all of your post
Whenever you're up to it...I'll reply to what we've got so far:
In many cases, shipping and insurance costs more than the good itself. And this doesn't help with face-to-face services such as Wal-Mart's vision center and hair salon putting local independent optometrists and barbers out of business.
No one said being a consumer is easy. I live in the upper midwest, within minutes of several of the largest malls in the country (hint,hint), and I still have to drive 50 miles roundtrip to find the hiking boots I like. That's life. It doesn't mean you're being censored, or that stores are governing authorities.
Not everybody is capable of driving a car.
Not everything is Wal-Mart's responsibility. Most people have access to some transportation.
I'm 24 and I still live with my parents and don't know how to drive because I can't afford car insurance because all I get from employers is "Sorry, despite your qualifications, we went with another candidate", even when applying for a position as a cashier at a home improvement store chain.
Ahah! The meandering, shiftless mid-twenties guy. I know that guy. I was that guy. My advice, gleaned from the decade between 25 and 35: YOU have GOT to get your s**t together, because noone else will group your poop for you.
You've had about ten years to learn to drive a car. And you don't need to buy and insure a car prior to learning how to drive. Just go get a permit, have a friend or relative take you out to a Wal-Mart parking lot and have at it man. That'll cost about $20 for the permit plus some gas money if your friend/family member is a bastard.
Regarding the job problem: I assure you that the problem is with you and is for you to solve. Assuming typical HS or college graduation times, you've had somewhere between one and six years to find work. There's a reason you're not attractive to employers. Fix it.
Humor aside....
Have you read The Grapes of Wrath? If Wal-Mart is the only store in town...
Steinbeck's depression-era landscape was quite different than today's. With our maturing global telecomunications, media and transportation environments, even the rural towns on Route 66 aren't isolated or insulated anymore. There is no such thing as the "only store in town" anymore.
It does if it bribes local governments so much with promises of tax dollars and/or campaign contributions that it makes the local government into a figurehead.
Wal-Mart surely lobbies local governments to create conditions favorable to its success and to the failure of its competitors. There's no reason to be naive enough to believe Wal-Mart will act in the best interest of host communities--or its own employees, or customers, or suppliers--or in anyone's interest but its own. However, Wal-Mart's political influence *requires* government cooperation and ends there because it has no legal authority to direct uncooperative governments. Hence, Wal-Mart is neither a government nor a state. Period.
"Legitimate": no formal sanctions taken against the entity for its actions.
That, my friend, is not the definition of "legitimate". You can't define the positive, i.e. legitimate, as the absense of consequence for being the negative, i.e. illegitimate. That definition would result in crimes being "legitimate" activities so long as the associated criminals were never punished.
Here's the actual definition:
"Legitimate":according to law, established legal forms and requirements; or according to recognized principles, accepted rules and standards
"Lethal force": includes the power to deny the essentials of life.
Weak definition. Regardless, Wal-Mart has no such power.
"Territory": the area formerly serviced by mom-and-pop shops that Wal-Mart drove out.
Ah, but the shopper's "territory" is much larger than that--what with telephones, mail, the internet, and motor vehicles and all.
Therefore, Wal-Mart is a "state" by definition
Wow...just...wow. [Exhale] Do you really believe that? Can you really rationalize that? Wow.
Define government.
Any standard definition will suffice.
If Wal-Mart is the only store in town, it can deny you at least some essentials of human life (food and clothing) if you don't shop there.
So you believe that there are places where people must either choose to shop at Walmart or they'll starve to death, naked to the elements? Wow.
Walmart corporation doesn't execute governing authority over any jurisdiction, therefore Walmart can't deny anyone access to human essentials.
Therefore, Wal-Mart is a "state" by definition (an entity that exercises control over legitimate use of lethal force in a territory).
Nevermind government, man. What definitions of "legitimate", "lethal force", and "territory" are you using here?! Wow.
That would be an "incorrect" guess. :^)
The * is a lazy man's (i.e. me) bold tag.
But Walmart isn't editing the content. It's the music/movie distributors who own the rights to the content, and who want oodles of cash from selling oodles of CDs/DVDs. I assure you, they modify the content voluntarily to satisfy Walmart corporate buyers.
When the content providers voluntarily change the content themselves, it's not censorship. It's "editing the content in exchange for (lot's of) money."
So a multi-million dollar repackaging was set in order.
But you've left out a major part of this story. Let me suggest this modification:
"My girlfriend's company wanted a gagillion-million dollars from selling oil on Walmart shelves worldwide, so they voluntarily initiated a multi-million dollar repackaging project to satisfy Walmart's corporate buyers."
BTW, is it still not censorship if I have to go to another country to see or get something?
Is an authoritative body here (i.e. some executive branch of local/state/fed government) preventing you, by statute, from seeing or getting it here? Then that's censorship.
Is it just a rare, unimported, overseas version of Shania's latest? Then that's inconvenience.