Re:The Ipod and Itunes are for idiots anyway.. l
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
First of all, there's no rule saying you have to get the music on your iPod from iTMS. How about importing a CD, carrying over a friend's tunes on a flash drive, or getting it from BitTorrent?
And what do you mean, too stupid to upload to another media device? I upload the songs on iTunes... to my iPod.
Promoting the iRiver, huh? Blatant name ripoff notwithstanding, that's an MP3 player that got bad reviews pretty much everywhere. iPods are popular because they're good MP3 players, not because people like being locked into using iTunes.
Remeber when Gmail was new and one of the biggest concerns was that Google was "reading" your emails?...and then remember that they said that it was only a computer scanning it in order to place relevant ads in the email?
And then remember how nobody cared anymore?
I'm having the weirdest sense of déjà vu here....
Even though Verizon blocked government-sponsored Wi-Fi in Philadelphia, could this be just the first of cities with free Wi-Fi? Could we see other major cities like New York, Chicago, or LA coming next?
I think we can agree that it would be awesome if we did. However, it's doubtful that Google will be the one supplying this for every major city in the US. Would all the corporations be as generous as Google, or would some start charging for it?
In light of this, you have to question Google's motives for doing this. What do they have to gain? They say it's for testing purposes, which is an acceptable reason. But this also means that should their test prove successful, they could start charging for access when and if they start moving to other cities.
If this were the case, competition would be good. Companies like, say, Optimum Online could offer faster or more reliable connections than Google, for example. The companies would be trying to provide the best service possible, rather than seeing that they supply the Wi-Fi for the entire country and letting the quality of their service drop.
Once you have competition, though, legal issues start to come into play. Is it for a company like Verizon to sign a deal with Phoenix that grants them exclusive rights to provide a Wi-Fi network for the city? Yes. Although if you look at the country, Verizon might not have a monopoly, the residents of that city would have no choice but to use Verizon's network, along with whatever inherent security or connection issues it comes with, not to mention price. The residents of Phoenix would be able to choose their ISP in their homes, but would be helpless outside the range of their home network if they didn't subscribe to Verizon's service. If city-wide Wi-Fi gets to be something we all take for granted, like an internet connection in our homes, this would become a huge
problem.
If the cities' governments created and regulated these Wi-Fi networks, the problem would be solved. Anyone would be free to use the network, and there would be no monopolizing among the companies. The network could be paid for in the same way the street lights are paid for (taxes). After all, shouldn't bandwidth be (relatively) free?
So, could this be the first of many city-wide Wi-Fi networks? Yes. They would first appear in major cities and slowly expand to include the suburbs. However, should the city governments own all the Wi-Fi networks as opposed to private companies? The answer to that is also yes.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, there's no rule saying you have to get the music on your iPod from iTMS. How about importing a CD, carrying over a friend's tunes on a flash drive, or getting it from BitTorrent?
And what do you mean, too stupid to upload to another media device? I upload the songs on iTunes... to my iPod.
Promoting the iRiver, huh? Blatant name ripoff notwithstanding, that's an MP3 player that got bad reviews pretty much everywhere. iPods are popular because they're good MP3 players, not because people like being locked into using iTunes.
Remeber when Gmail was new and one of the biggest concerns was that Google was "reading" your emails? ...and then remember that they said that it was only a computer scanning it in order to place relevant ads in the email?
And then remember how nobody cared anymore?
I'm having the weirdest sense of déjà vu here....
Strange that at the same time they released a video-capable iPod, they release an iMac with a built-in webcam. It's the ultimate porn combo!
Even though Verizon blocked government-sponsored Wi-Fi in Philadelphia, could this be just the first of cities with free Wi-Fi? Could we see other major cities like New York, Chicago, or LA coming next?
I think we can agree that it would be awesome if we did. However, it's doubtful that Google will be the one supplying this for every major city in the US. Would all the corporations be as generous as Google, or would some start charging for it?
In light of this, you have to question Google's motives for doing this. What do they have to gain? They say it's for testing purposes, which is an acceptable reason. But this also means that should their test prove successful, they could start charging for access when and if they start moving to other cities.
If this were the case, competition would be good. Companies like, say, Optimum Online could offer faster or more reliable connections than Google, for example. The companies would be trying to provide the best service possible, rather than seeing that they supply the Wi-Fi for the entire country and letting the quality of their service drop.
Once you have competition, though, legal issues start to come into play. Is it for a company like Verizon to sign a deal with Phoenix that grants them exclusive rights to provide a Wi-Fi network for the city? Yes. Although if you look at the country, Verizon might not have a monopoly, the residents of that city would have no choice but to use Verizon's network, along with whatever inherent security or connection issues it comes with, not to mention price. The residents of Phoenix would be able to choose their ISP in their homes, but would be helpless outside the range of their home network if they didn't subscribe to Verizon's service. If city-wide Wi-Fi gets to be something we all take for granted, like an internet connection in our homes, this would become a huge problem.
If the cities' governments created and regulated these Wi-Fi networks, the problem would be solved. Anyone would be free to use the network, and there would be no monopolizing among the companies. The network could be paid for in the same way the street lights are paid for (taxes). After all, shouldn't bandwidth be (relatively) free?
So, could this be the first of many city-wide Wi-Fi networks? Yes. They would first appear in major cities and slowly expand to include the suburbs. However, should the city governments own all the Wi-Fi networks as opposed to private companies? The answer to that is also yes.