Providing free WiFi is a whole shitload cheaper than any of the other services that you mentioned. Anyway, most everyone in SF rents, and water, electric and sewer are usually covered by the landlords. If SF offered those services for free (or discount) it would only benefit the well off owners of properties, and not the renters who need the assistance.
...and this is what sucks about living in San Francisco. Between my wife and I, we are above the $125,000 mark, and below the $160,000 mark. Right now, we could not afford a mortgage on anything in SF proper. To give you a sense of the real estate market, a small 2 bedroom loft in a not so nice neighborhood will cost you $550,000. Parking, backyard and second bathroom are not included.
How in the hell are we supposed to afford that? Even more to the point, how are we supposed to afford that if we also want to raise children at some point?
So we are completely screwed out of buying a place and there is no chance in hell that there will be any financial assitance by the government because of the salary that we bring in.
And so, when we want to buy, we will be moving to Oregon, Colorado, AZ or wherever, and once we arrive, the locals will bitch about another ex-Californian moving to the neighborhood.
There's a huge difference between "on the street poor" (which SF has a big problem with as well) and "working poor," who can pay for the basics, but not much else.
Although, like everything else, this WiFi move is political, it also makes sense for San Fran. I think San Francisco sees internet connection as becoming another basic utility. San Francisco can provide this utility to their population for cheap, so why not?
San Francisco and Silicon Valley do place a heavy emphasis on being tech savy. There is a big divide here between those who have basic tech ability, and those who dont. Gavin (the mayor) is betting that WiFi for all will help those on the wrong side of the divide catch up.
Another, (and in my view, more problematic) political undercurrent in SF is that our fair city's government wants to take everything they can under local government control. The city is trying to take back the electric and gas utilities from private hands, and they put additional regulations on business who work in the city(i.e. companies must avoid "sweatshop labor" for any products they purchase overseas if they want a city contract,there is higher minimum wage for those who work in SF than the rest of the state) even though the state of California is already on of the most regulated states in the union. If the city government can grow by adding a "San Francisco Department of WiFi," it will make them happy. In fact, it will make everyone in the city happy. There is no anti-big government in San Francisco politics. It's big government (Democrats) vs. even bigger government (Green Party). Republicans aren't even on the SF political map.
In light of the politics in San Francisco, there is no downside for the mayor to do this.
Gmail, websearch and maps aren't philanthropic. All of these tie in advertising, which is what provides Google with income. You may not be paying money for these services, but Google is making money off of these services. It's just like your over the air broadcasts of television. You don't have to pay for it, but the TV companies are making money because of the advertising. TV companies certainly do not provide you "free" service to be philanthropic.
As a company, Google could only justify free wireless, if they could make a profitable business case for them. Their case would go something like this:
1. Give free wireless
2. Make wireless connection default to Google website
3. Increase Google web traffic
4. Increase advertising dollars
5. PROFIT!!!!
Google would not do this to be philanthropic, but because they believe that in the long run, it will make them more money.
If you believe this is philanthropy, you do not understand the meaning of the word.
As a corporation, Google can only justify something like free wifi if they can prove it is in the best interest of their shareholders to do so. If they can not prove this to be the case, then they can not do it.
Let me provide another seemingly more "philanthropic" endeavor of Google's. Over this summer Google encouraged their programers to work on non-work related programing (Open source, etc.) for one day of the week. Google chooses to do this because it increases the warm fuzzy feelings that people feel about the brand (which encourages more companies to want to advertise with them), it creates a more enjoyable work experience and allows Google to lure better programers and it also may produce products that will be benefical to Google in the long run.
Google does these things because they are profitable. Of secondary consideration is the fact that it is "good." There are different ways to go for profit. Google tends to choose the high road, but make no mistake, they are ultimately obligated to pursue profit for their shareholders. That is the obligation of Corporate entities.
If it was, Google would really be screwing their investors.
It's one thing to be an individual philanthropist, but it is another thing entirely to take the money that investors have given you for your company and give it away.
Corporations exist to make their shareholders money. If that it not their intent, then the corporation is basically performing an illegal act. If the Google founders really did intend the company to be a philanthropic organization, they never would have sold shares of the company in the first place.
Philanthropy is good, corporations are good, but corporations that are philanthropic is very bad.
"They're just selling additional shares to bring that $300/share price down a bit. You don't want to have your stock all held by the big boys of investing who will turn on you and your company on the proverbial dime."
So to decrease their risk they are selling more of their own stock to the speculative stock traders????
What they are actually doing has the opposite effect of what you said. More of their stock on the market makes the stock price more volitle. If they are worried about too much speculation on their own stock, they would buy their own stock back, instead of selling more to investors.
The fact that Google is selling more stock without a clear explaination of what they are going to do with the revenue is problematic. By selling more stock they will dilute the earnings per share, yet they have not provided an explaination of how they expect to use this investment to improve earnings per share in the long run. Ultimately, it looks like Google knows the stock price is out of whack, and wants to sell their stock now to take advantage of the inflated price.
That seems a bit troubling from an investing standpoint.
$400? Ugh. They need to do something about pricing.
I just wonder how many gamers are in my situation. Right now my computer is a little dated, and when I think about it, I could easily dump $400 into my computer to make it better performer for games while retaining all of its other useful functions. On the other hand, I could buy the Xbox 360 with that $400 for games and still be saddled with a dog of a PC.
Why wouldn't I update my PC instead of getting the Xbox 360? I could get a damn sweet graphics card with that sort of cash.
Xbox 360s and PS3s should not try to be all things to all people. They should do games very well, and leave the rest of the "convergence" crap to the computers. It's just a bad deal for the consoles to run up against the PCs. It's especially bad for MS, who is ultimately putting their xboxes against the windows OSs.
If movies have taught me anything, it's that FedEx should hire this fellow to train their pilots how to make survival gear out of FedEx boxes just in case they are stranded on an unmarked deserted island for years and years.
WILSON!!!!
I stand corrected. 4 video card options for one system (power mac) and a single option for a second (Mac Mini). Compared to x86, that is pathetic.
The point of my original comment was that someone with XP will not have driver issues if they stay within mainstream hardware providers. In the x86 world, products from mainstream providers are very plentiful.
Ultimately the driver issues for XP are overblown and even if XP users have to limit their options to Nvidia and ATI, they still have many more options than their Apple counterparts.
There is no hero here. In this instance, they both suck. Google sucks becuase it allows this personal information to be available to anyone and CNet sucks because they disclosed a person's personal information to a huge audience of people to try and prove a point.
If CNet is against the disclosure of personal information, then they should reflect this in their own reporting.
Like I said, in this instance, they both suck...not surprising for CNet, as they generally suck, but a bit out of place for Google.
Yeah, but for home networks it doesn't really matter that WEP and MAC address aren't all that effective.
It reminds me of when I was in college (in the late 90's) and I had a 1970's era ten speed. To lock it up, I took a chain and tied it into a knot and no one ever tried to take it even though my "security" was not very robust. Why? Because the target was so uninviting that very few people would bother untying the knot to take the bike.
Wireless security only needs to be secure enough to convince hackers that the hoops to jump through are not worth the time and effort considering the value of the target. Who would want to get into your home network? To steal those pictures from your visit to grandmas? To garner props for breaking into someone's HOME network? There isn't a lot or reward for breaking into a home network.
However, corporate WiFi security is another matter altogether considering that they make a far more juicy target.
I have the same protection on my wifi as you. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Think about it in terms of this analogy:
There are three cars in a parking lot. Two are honda civics, and one is a porsche 911. Of the two honda civics, one has the window rolled down, the keys in the ignition and no one around. The second civic has the doors locked, the windows up and no keys to be seen. The porsche has the same security as the second civic and maybe a club on the wheel.
Of the three, which is the least likely to be stolen? Hopefully you said the locked civic. Your wifi and your neighbor's are pretty much similar targets, but most likely your neighbor is a more inviting target because he is broadcasting, isn't using MAC ids and no WEP.
On the other hand, businesses may use better security, like WPA, but they are still more likely to be hacked because they are more inviting targets. As long as your system is more secure than systems similar to your's, you will have a incredibly low probability of being hacked.
Whenever I need reassurance, I just search for the networks around me. Granted, I live in SF, but I can pick up about 7 networks from my place and 2 of them have no security. Why would anyone hack my system when I have created three or more extra hurtles for hackers to overcome compared to my neighbors. I am feeling pretty safe these days.
It seems like there is a whole host of reasons for Apple to leave IBM and PPC. Cost and performance issues, IBM making it apparent to Apple that they aren't much of a priority. Having difficulties running head to head with Msoft because no one want to port to your system.
I'd say the big question isn't why apple left IBM, but rather why did they go with Intel instead of AMD.
You are attacking a strawman, rather than my actual argument. My statement was that there were are significant number of "christians" who were founding fathers. I did not in any way state that they were all Christians. In fact, I specifically held up Jefferson as someone who was not one.
Again, my argument is simply this. To state that all of the founding fathers, or even most of them, were theists, is to overstate the fact. To say that all of the founding fathers were "christians" is also incorrect. The truth lies somewhere in between. I don't think my point is very controversial, nor very difficult to grasp.
You stated previously that the framers were theists and not Christian, not the bait and switch that you are now proposing.
As a religous person, I am happy that the constitution does not refer to the ten commandments, the seperation of church and state and does not create a state defined religion. Yet, SHOCKINGLY, I am not a theist.
You previously implied that the founders were theist, which you further implied was not to be equated with "christian." Now your evidence for this is that the consitiution supports the seperation of church and state, and does not include the ten commandments? That is an awful arguement. Any person with their head screwed on straight can see the benefit in not having a state recognized religion even though they personally may have a particular (in this case Christian) faith.
Well documented by whom? How exactly can you definitively determine who is a theist and who is not when reviewing the history of our founding fathers when we can't definitively ascertain the beliefs of our modern day presidents.
Liberal Christians distance themselves from Bush by stating that he doesn't have true belief. Conservative Christians distance themselves from Clinton by coping the same argument.
Just because you believe something to be true does not mean that what you are relying on isn't revisionist history. Ben Franklin would definitively be a theist, and certainly others (Jefferson is another that comes to mind). But, a large majority? I don't think you have the historical backing on that.
I certainly agree that they were libertarians and political radicals for their time.
Unless you are far to the right and desire more activist judges, you should be very thankful that Rehnquist is still there.
There isn't a chance in hell that Rehnquist will be replaced with a more intellegent and legally sound justice. When you read his rulings, even if you disagree with him philosophically, you have to respect the guy for his noggin.
Slashdot Mirror
Providing free WiFi is a whole shitload cheaper than any of the other services that you mentioned. Anyway, most everyone in SF rents, and water, electric and sewer are usually covered by the landlords. If SF offered those services for free (or discount) it would only benefit the well off owners of properties, and not the renters who need the assistance.
How in the hell are we supposed to afford that? Even more to the point, how are we supposed to afford that if we also want to raise children at some point?
So we are completely screwed out of buying a place and there is no chance in hell that there will be any financial assitance by the government because of the salary that we bring in.
And so, when we want to buy, we will be moving to Oregon, Colorado, AZ or wherever, and once we arrive, the locals will bitch about another ex-Californian moving to the neighborhood.
Although, like everything else, this WiFi move is political, it also makes sense for San Fran. I think San Francisco sees internet connection as becoming another basic utility. San Francisco can provide this utility to their population for cheap, so why not?
San Francisco and Silicon Valley do place a heavy emphasis on being tech savy. There is a big divide here between those who have basic tech ability, and those who dont. Gavin (the mayor) is betting that WiFi for all will help those on the wrong side of the divide catch up.
Another, (and in my view, more problematic) political undercurrent in SF is that our fair city's government wants to take everything they can under local government control. The city is trying to take back the electric and gas utilities from private hands, and they put additional regulations on business who work in the city(i.e. companies must avoid "sweatshop labor" for any products they purchase overseas if they want a city contract,there is higher minimum wage for those who work in SF than the rest of the state) even though the state of California is already on of the most regulated states in the union. If the city government can grow by adding a "San Francisco Department of WiFi," it will make them happy. In fact, it will make everyone in the city happy. There is no anti-big government in San Francisco politics. It's big government (Democrats) vs. even bigger government (Green Party). Republicans aren't even on the SF political map.
In light of the politics in San Francisco, there is no downside for the mayor to do this.
As a company, Google could only justify free wireless, if they could make a profitable business case for them. Their case would go something like this:
1. Give free wireless
2. Make wireless connection default to Google website
3. Increase Google web traffic
4. Increase advertising dollars
5. PROFIT!!!!
Google would not do this to be philanthropic, but because they believe that in the long run, it will make them more money.
If you believe this is philanthropy, you do not understand the meaning of the word.
As a corporation, Google can only justify something like free wifi if they can prove it is in the best interest of their shareholders to do so. If they can not prove this to be the case, then they can not do it.
Let me provide another seemingly more "philanthropic" endeavor of Google's. Over this summer Google encouraged their programers to work on non-work related programing (Open source, etc.) for one day of the week. Google chooses to do this because it increases the warm fuzzy feelings that people feel about the brand (which encourages more companies to want to advertise with them), it creates a more enjoyable work experience and allows Google to lure better programers and it also may produce products that will be benefical to Google in the long run.
Google does these things because they are profitable. Of secondary consideration is the fact that it is "good." There are different ways to go for profit. Google tends to choose the high road, but make no mistake, they are ultimately obligated to pursue profit for their shareholders. That is the obligation of Corporate entities.
It's one thing to be an individual philanthropist, but it is another thing entirely to take the money that investors have given you for your company and give it away.
Corporations exist to make their shareholders money. If that it not their intent, then the corporation is basically performing an illegal act. If the Google founders really did intend the company to be a philanthropic organization, they never would have sold shares of the company in the first place.
Philanthropy is good, corporations are good, but corporations that are philanthropic is very bad.
So to decrease their risk they are selling more of their own stock to the speculative stock traders????
What they are actually doing has the opposite effect of what you said. More of their stock on the market makes the stock price more volitle. If they are worried about too much speculation on their own stock, they would buy their own stock back, instead of selling more to investors.
The fact that Google is selling more stock without a clear explaination of what they are going to do with the revenue is problematic. By selling more stock they will dilute the earnings per share, yet they have not provided an explaination of how they expect to use this investment to improve earnings per share in the long run. Ultimately, it looks like Google knows the stock price is out of whack, and wants to sell their stock now to take advantage of the inflated price.
That seems a bit troubling from an investing standpoint.
"Horses, Ned, it's the four horses of the apocalyse."
I just wonder how many gamers are in my situation. Right now my computer is a little dated, and when I think about it, I could easily dump $400 into my computer to make it better performer for games while retaining all of its other useful functions. On the other hand, I could buy the Xbox 360 with that $400 for games and still be saddled with a dog of a PC.
Why wouldn't I update my PC instead of getting the Xbox 360? I could get a damn sweet graphics card with that sort of cash.
Xbox 360s and PS3s should not try to be all things to all people. They should do games very well, and leave the rest of the "convergence" crap to the computers. It's just a bad deal for the consoles to run up against the PCs. It's especially bad for MS, who is ultimately putting their xboxes against the windows OSs.
If movies have taught me anything, it's that FedEx should hire this fellow to train their pilots how to make survival gear out of FedEx boxes just in case they are stranded on an unmarked deserted island for years and years. WILSON!!!!
The point of my original comment was that someone with XP will not have driver issues if they stay within mainstream hardware providers. In the x86 world, products from mainstream providers are very plentiful.
Ultimately the driver issues for XP are overblown and even if XP users have to limit their options to Nvidia and ATI, they still have many more options than their Apple counterparts.
If CNet is against the disclosure of personal information, then they should reflect this in their own reporting.
Like I said, in this instance, they both suck...not surprising for CNet, as they generally suck, but a bit out of place for Google.
But, on my x86, I can choose any ATI Card or Nvidia card and I most certainly will not have XP update issues.
Apple "controlling" their hardware market is unfortunately limiting your choices for no good reason.
I know California seems like a exotic and bizarre place to the rest of the world, but this hardly looks like progress...
Funny, you should mention Bill Gates though, he is a rich sonofabitch.
It reminds me of when I was in college (in the late 90's) and I had a 1970's era ten speed. To lock it up, I took a chain and tied it into a knot and no one ever tried to take it even though my "security" was not very robust. Why? Because the target was so uninviting that very few people would bother untying the knot to take the bike.
Wireless security only needs to be secure enough to convince hackers that the hoops to jump through are not worth the time and effort considering the value of the target. Who would want to get into your home network? To steal those pictures from your visit to grandmas? To garner props for breaking into someone's HOME network? There isn't a lot or reward for breaking into a home network.
However, corporate WiFi security is another matter altogether considering that they make a far more juicy target.
There are three cars in a parking lot. Two are honda civics, and one is a porsche 911. Of the two honda civics, one has the window rolled down, the keys in the ignition and no one around. The second civic has the doors locked, the windows up and no keys to be seen. The porsche has the same security as the second civic and maybe a club on the wheel.
Of the three, which is the least likely to be stolen? Hopefully you said the locked civic. Your wifi and your neighbor's are pretty much similar targets, but most likely your neighbor is a more inviting target because he is broadcasting, isn't using MAC ids and no WEP.
On the other hand, businesses may use better security, like WPA, but they are still more likely to be hacked because they are more inviting targets. As long as your system is more secure than systems similar to your's, you will have a incredibly low probability of being hacked.
Whenever I need reassurance, I just search for the networks around me. Granted, I live in SF, but I can pick up about 7 networks from my place and 2 of them have no security. Why would anyone hack my system when I have created three or more extra hurtles for hackers to overcome compared to my neighbors. I am feeling pretty safe these days.
I'd say the big question isn't why apple left IBM, but rather why did they go with Intel instead of AMD.
Again, my argument is simply this. To state that all of the founding fathers, or even most of them, were theists, is to overstate the fact. To say that all of the founding fathers were "christians" is also incorrect. The truth lies somewhere in between. I don't think my point is very controversial, nor very difficult to grasp.
You stated previously that the framers were theists and not Christian, not the bait and switch that you are now proposing.
As a religous person, I am happy that the constitution does not refer to the ten commandments, the seperation of church and state and does not create a state defined religion. Yet, SHOCKINGLY, I am not a theist.
You previously implied that the founders were theist, which you further implied was not to be equated with "christian." Now your evidence for this is that the consitiution supports the seperation of church and state, and does not include the ten commandments? That is an awful arguement. Any person with their head screwed on straight can see the benefit in not having a state recognized religion even though they personally may have a particular (in this case Christian) faith.
Liberal Christians distance themselves from Bush by stating that he doesn't have true belief. Conservative Christians distance themselves from Clinton by coping the same argument.
Just because you believe something to be true does not mean that what you are relying on isn't revisionist history. Ben Franklin would definitively be a theist, and certainly others (Jefferson is another that comes to mind). But, a large majority? I don't think you have the historical backing on that.
I certainly agree that they were libertarians and political radicals for their time.
or to put it another way:
"Just because you wish the framers were left wing theists doesn't make it so;"
Oh... for a second there I thought you said "Vote for Pedro"
You might want to read this interesting article on the liberal love for our man Rehnquist. http://www.slate.com/id/2121352/
There isn't a chance in hell that Rehnquist will be replaced with a more intellegent and legally sound justice. When you read his rulings, even if you disagree with him philosophically, you have to respect the guy for his noggin.