Fair enough dude. Apple is out to make profits just like every other firm, what else is new? The point is that the people working at Apple are excited and interested in what they are doing. Not every programmer is sitting down at his desk 9-5 writing up proposals of how to make cash, that's something for the big wigs. So why do profit and exuberance need to be mutually exclusive?
Granted, but I think where we disagree is whether this is really an example of natural monopoly. Presumably, if there are already wireless, television, cable, whatever providers on the island, the supply of internet service wouldn't necessarily increase the fixed costs a great deal, right? It's not really a matter of setting up pipelines.
The thing is that if the government becomes the sole supplier of internet (cause who's going to pay for land-line service when the purchase of a wireless card gives you your tax money's worth?) there isn't going to be much incentive for good service, new technology, or efficient production.
I haven't RTFA yet, but as far as I understand (according to my hazy memory of ECON 101 a couple of weeks ago) this is hardly the "free market at work." Presuming that this plan costs the government any money at all (and you can be sure it does) it's a sure bet that every citizen is going to be paying some sort of a "wireless tax" to pay for governmental infrastructure, staffing, cables, transmitters, etc. Whether this is good for the average consumer is a simple question of comparing those taxed costs with the costs of a competitive private industry. Knowing government wages here in the US, it's entirely likely that, not a private monopoly, but a competitive industry of wireless providers could hook up the entire island for a lot less.
In other words, when the government hands out a contract like that they're creating an artificial monopoly = bad bad idea.
The point is: this is not a victory for the free market. The free market would have been a little... more free.
Of course, it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to control your website, but I think the way you're approaching hypertext is missing a lot of its elegance. I mean, theoretically the act of browsing in and of itself gives the reader a certain amount of authorial power, and if web developers learned to abstract their designs and fully embrace XML and CSS, the display of a site should be completely customizable by the user (with a custom style sheet.)
Of course, the chances of this happening are next to nil, and who's to say that the web would be any better for it? In any case, though, I think that the best way to work towards a good/useful internet in the future is to cede as much authorial power as possible to the readers.
Anyway, I drag on. Should probably stay away from slashdot after an all-nighter.
While I most definitely agree about avoiding the equation of hackery with terrorism, maybe this just points to a disturbing trend. I mean, how does the internet going down for a time get people this riled up? Sure, we wouldn't be able to get our slashdot dose on the hour (half hour?), but it's not like, having collapsed the pillars of the mystical internet, it wouldn't be up and running for most people within 24 hours.
All purely hypothetical, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough dude. Apple is out to make profits just like every other firm, what else is new? The point is that the people working at Apple are excited and interested in what they are doing. Not every programmer is sitting down at his desk 9-5 writing up proposals of how to make cash, that's something for the big wigs. So why do profit and exuberance need to be mutually exclusive?
A little cold water over here, Greg, please....
Granted, but I think where we disagree is whether this is really an example of natural monopoly. Presumably, if there are already wireless, television, cable, whatever providers on the island, the supply of internet service wouldn't necessarily increase the fixed costs a great deal, right? It's not really a matter of setting up pipelines. The thing is that if the government becomes the sole supplier of internet (cause who's going to pay for land-line service when the purchase of a wireless card gives you your tax money's worth?) there isn't going to be much incentive for good service, new technology, or efficient production.
I haven't RTFA yet, but as far as I understand (according to my hazy memory of ECON 101 a couple of weeks ago) this is hardly the "free market at work." Presuming that this plan costs the government any money at all (and you can be sure it does) it's a sure bet that every citizen is going to be paying some sort of a "wireless tax" to pay for governmental infrastructure, staffing, cables, transmitters, etc. Whether this is good for the average consumer is a simple question of comparing those taxed costs with the costs of a competitive private industry. Knowing government wages here in the US, it's entirely likely that, not a private monopoly, but a competitive industry of wireless providers could hook up the entire island for a lot less. In other words, when the government hands out a contract like that they're creating an artificial monopoly = bad bad idea. The point is: this is not a victory for the free market. The free market would have been a little... more free.
Of course, it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to control your website, but I think the way you're approaching hypertext is missing a lot of its elegance. I mean, theoretically the act of browsing in and of itself gives the reader a certain amount of authorial power, and if web developers learned to abstract their designs and fully embrace XML and CSS, the display of a site should be completely customizable by the user (with a custom style sheet.) Of course, the chances of this happening are next to nil, and who's to say that the web would be any better for it? In any case, though, I think that the best way to work towards a good/useful internet in the future is to cede as much authorial power as possible to the readers. Anyway, I drag on. Should probably stay away from slashdot after an all-nighter.
While I most definitely agree about avoiding the equation of hackery with terrorism, maybe this just points to a disturbing trend. I mean, how does the internet going down for a time get people this riled up? Sure, we wouldn't be able to get our slashdot dose on the hour (half hour?), but it's not like, having collapsed the pillars of the mystical internet, it wouldn't be up and running for most people within 24 hours. All purely hypothetical, of course.