internet access is not a public service anymore than cable tv is a public service.
making sure you can download pr0n, play World of Warcract; or, god forbid, post on slashdot, at the fee of taxpayers does not qualify as a public service
hmm.
i live in orlando, too; and have known about the free wifi since it's inception. but i live downtown, so maybe that's why.
as far as the service goes, i could access from lake eola; but, the rest of downtown wasn't very accessible.
in the end, i preferred to either use other open networks (like your neighbor) or i just used panera bread's free wifi (everyone knows that all panera's have free wifi, yes?) http://www.panerabread.com/wifi.aspx
arguments are being made across the country about what responsibility a company has toward it's products. mcdonalds gets sued over transfat, hot coffee, and making people fat; tobacco companies for false advertising and causing cancer. bar owners can get sued for allowing their clientele to drink and drive. people want to sue gun manufacturers for drive-by shootings. so why can't people sue media companies for the influence their products have on a consumer? are we suggesting that they have NO influence; or, are they exempt from responsiblity?
if research determines that prolonged exposure to certain environments (GTA / MTV / Pr0n) can influence behavior or perceptions of reality to a certain extent, then why wouldn't a company have a liability concern?
Slashdot Mirror
internet access is not a public service anymore than cable tv is a public service.
making sure you can download pr0n, play World of Warcract; or, god forbid, post on slashdot, at the fee of taxpayers does not qualify as a public service
hmm. i live in orlando, too; and have known about the free wifi since it's inception. but i live downtown, so maybe that's why. as far as the service goes, i could access from lake eola; but, the rest of downtown wasn't very accessible. in the end, i preferred to either use other open networks (like your neighbor) or i just used panera bread's free wifi (everyone knows that all panera's have free wifi, yes?) http://www.panerabread.com/wifi.aspx
arguments are being made across the country about what responsibility a company has toward it's products. mcdonalds gets sued over transfat, hot coffee, and making people fat; tobacco companies for false advertising and causing cancer. bar owners can get sued for allowing their clientele to drink and drive. people want to sue gun manufacturers for drive-by shootings. so why can't people sue media companies for the influence their products have on a consumer? are we suggesting that they have NO influence; or, are they exempt from responsiblity? if research determines that prolonged exposure to certain environments (GTA / MTV / Pr0n) can influence behavior or perceptions of reality to a certain extent, then why wouldn't a company have a liability concern?