At the risk of getting into an argument (which I'm not going to do), and in an effort to be clear (which, apparently, I wasn't): you do not agree with me. I was joking, poking fun at what I regard as a distinction without an ethically substantive difference.
Well, I can see how it could be construed in that way, but that wasn't my intent. My premise (intended to be humorous) was that the people of China, a country whose government is commonly regarded as being repressive in many respects, had been kept in the dark about where they lived. If such were the case, the premise continued, the residents might be nonplussed to find out that they had been deceived, and their government, anticipating this, might be concerned about how they would react. I was a little concerned that my post would be interpreted as a negative commentary on China itself, and your response has certainly borne out that anxiety. I haven't visited China, but would certainly like to, and I harbor no ill will against the country or its people.
While I find this line of argument compelling in a lot of instances, this isn't one of them. Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government. IANAL, but my understanding is that this comes bundled with a number of obligations under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of which is to provide universal service. So, in this instance, it's not a simple as "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". Under current law, they do owe us some things, though I'm not sure easy-to-read bills is one of them.
Where I live, I actually haven't found any coffee shops that give away WiFi. That's OK, I'm willing to pay on the rare occasions when I need it, and to buy a coffee that I don't really want, and to limit my stay if the place is busy. I figured that made me a pretty good citizen. Turns out I'm also obligated to make friends with everyone?
Sorry, no offense to anyone, but I don't go there for that; if they didn't have WiFi, I probably wouldn't be there at all. If I was, computer or not, I'd drink my coffee and leave without talking to anyone, unless I ran into someone I knew (and I know and am friends with many people). Some people are extroverts, some aren't. It doesn't have anything to do with stuff.
Does that somehow limit the ability of others to engage in conversation? Not that I can see, but maybe I'm missing something. If you sell coffee and WiFi, you attract people who need coffee and/or WiFi, and lot of them might not know that they are also supposed to be giving warm fuzzy feelings to the owners and the rest of the clientele.
Slashdot Mirror
regards, Grandpa.
Good poets borrow; great poets violate copyright, which is nothing like stealing!!!
Does this mean that Second Life can cure users of their Phantom Sexual Attractiveness Pain?
Well, I can see how it could be construed in that way, but that wasn't my intent. My premise (intended to be humorous) was that the people of China, a country whose government is commonly regarded as being repressive in many respects, had been kept in the dark about where they lived. If such were the case, the premise continued, the residents might be nonplussed to find out that they had been deceived, and their government, anticipating this, might be concerned about how they would react. I was a little concerned that my post would be interpreted as a negative commentary on China itself, and your response has certainly borne out that anxiety. I haven't visited China, but would certainly like to, and I harbor no ill will against the country or its people.
Aren't they afraid of how all those people are going react when they find out they live in China?
While I find this line of argument compelling in a lot of instances, this isn't one of them. Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government. IANAL, but my understanding is that this comes bundled with a number of obligations under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of which is to provide universal service. So, in this instance, it's not a simple as "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". Under current law, they do owe us some things, though I'm not sure easy-to-read bills is one of them.
el buf.
I don't quite get this.
Where I live, I actually haven't found any coffee shops that give away WiFi. That's OK, I'm willing to pay on the rare occasions when I need it, and to buy a coffee that I don't really want, and to limit my stay if the place is busy. I figured that made me a pretty good citizen. Turns out I'm also obligated to make friends with everyone?
Sorry, no offense to anyone, but I don't go there for that; if they didn't have WiFi, I probably wouldn't be there at all. If I was, computer or not, I'd drink my coffee and leave without talking to anyone, unless I ran into someone I knew (and I know and am friends with many people). Some people are extroverts, some aren't. It doesn't have anything to do with stuff.
Does that somehow limit the ability of others to engage in conversation? Not that I can see, but maybe I'm missing something. If you sell coffee and WiFi, you attract people who need coffee and/or WiFi, and lot of them might not know that they are also supposed to be giving warm fuzzy feelings to the owners and the rest of the clientele.
ElBuf