bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to bokamba
Re: universal access to info a fundamental right
said by bokamba  :said by bmn :People have the right to be able to get to the information of the world What or who gives people that right? Well, it depends on the context... The government, for example, has the Freedom of Information act which grants the right to people to access government information.
As for non-government information, the right to access that information is given by the people who produce that information. For example, if someone rights a paper or article and makes it available to the world, the right to access the information is granted.
And some information, by its own existence, grants the right... For example, the facts about scientific phenomenon are open access. No one can say that you don't have the right to know how the Sun works or how the ocean currents flow.
--
This space intentionally left blank... |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to bmn
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
Then again, one could consider the relevant success and/or failure of the economics of capitalism and socialism as practiced by two resource rich nations (the US and the USSR) and their respective NATO and Warsaw Pact followers.
That would, of course, confuse the theorists with the results of actual implementation.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to John Galt
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idiot:
Not that I agree with the original poster's premise, but I believe he was speaking of the Internet as the "most revolutionary technology," and WiFi was the "access" to it.
At least it reads less crazy that way.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to Combat Chuck
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
said by Combat Chuck :said by Titus Pullo :You, and those that hold your opinion, are exemplary of a growing segment of this society that extols their intolerance as a virtue. Sigh, if only scientists looked at everything with the level of emotion you fools looked at everything we would have all starved to death long ago worrying about the suffering of wheat. I'd love to know how the belief that profits, as a reward for those who do more with less, therefore lowering the costs of living (Hyundai anyone?) and losses, as the door hitting those who haven't on the ass on the way out, is intolerant. It's not, that's just your way of keeping people from taking a step back and looking at the situation from a realistic (ie: not emotional) standpoint. This is your response? and to only 1/20 of my post?
You just keep hittin 'em out of the park. Don't you, Chuck?
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :Then again, one could consider the relevant success and/or failure of the economics of capitalism and socialism as practiced by two resource rich nations (the US and the USSR) and their respective NATO and Warsaw Pact followers. One could... The problem with doing that, however, is that how one defines economic success and failure is not objective, but pure a subjective exercise. It depends on what one views as important. For example, is employment level an important factor or not?
That would, of course, confuse the theorists with the results of actual implementation. Everything looks good on paper... Its taking it from paper to practice where the problem is.
--
This space intentionally left blank... |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | I was thinking about which nation and which alliance survived, and which ones shattered....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by calvoiper :I was thinking about which nation and which alliance survived, and which ones shattered.... Ahh, but, would that not be a function of governing style and less of economic style ?
--
This space intentionally left blank... |
|
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to bmn
Re: universal access to info a fundamental right
said by bmn :No one can say that you don't have the right to know how the Sun works or how the ocean currents flow. You've basically just said that nobody owns such information, which I don't dispute. In other words, you shouldn't be prohibited to accessing public information. That doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to provide you with the information without proper compensation. If the mayor wants the city of San Francisco to provide Wi-Fi for free, that's fine, as long as someone is willing to foot the bill (i.e. taxpayers). But based on the way he's phrasing things, he thinks he should be able to force a company to provide access at zero price. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to bmn
And defining "access" as a "right" causes me concern, because nobody has a "right" to my medical records, your diary, or the school Principal's oil change records, but all of these are still "information".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to Titus Pullo
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
said by Titus Pullo :This is your response? and to only 1/20 of my post? You just keep hittin 'em out of the park. Don't you, Chuck? He knows a troll when he sees one...
No point wasting time, effort and energy on a zealot.
--
A is A |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to bokamba
Re: universal access to info a fundamental right
said by bokamba :said by bmn :No one can say that you don't have the right to know how the Sun works or how the ocean currents flow. You've basically just said that nobody owns such information, which I don't dispute. In other words, you shouldn't be prohibited to accessing public information. That doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to provide you with the information without proper compensation. Oh, I agree... I don't think you should be able to force people to release information they created for free if they don't want to, but that depends on the type of information...
For example, I don't think that Microsoft should be forced to release their source code because its theirs... However, I don't think that scientific infomation should be locked up the same way (probably because I work in scientific fields).
If the mayor wants the city of San Francisco to provide Wi-Fi for free, that's fine, as long as someone is willing to foot the bill (i.e. taxpayers). But based on the way he's phrasing things, he thinks he should be able to force a company to provide access at zero price. You are completely correct. He shouldn't be able to do that, but I don't get the impression that is what he is looking to do. And of course, it looks like even if he wanted to do that, it would be pointless to try since people are already offering free, open internet access.
--
Tor server operator... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :And defining "access" as a "right" causes me concern, because nobody has a "right" to my medical records, your diary, or the school Principal's oil change records, but all of these are still "information". However, since that information is yours, you also have the right to control access to that information.
The two are not contradictory, but complementary.
Some information, however, can't be controlled because it can't be owned. Scientific information, for example, can't be owned because anyone can find it.
--
Tor server operator... |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | reply to bmn
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
No, it wouldn't just be "governing style". Those that shattered did so because they were broke, and that's an economic consequence.
We could digress into why socialism and totalitarianism go together (absence of individual choice) and why capitalism and democracy go together (individual choice and the responsibility for its exercise), but that would get us even further from the topic, wouldn't it?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to bmn
Re: universal access to info a fundamental right
Indeed, that's a sensible reply.
My concern is that if you define "access to information" as a right, then the Supreme Court might see it differently. They sure define "public use" differently than most of us.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to calvoiper
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
said by calvoiper :No, it wouldn't just be "governing style". Those that shattered did so because they were broke, and that's an economic consequence. True... It would be a combination of the two and the dicussion would disgress to whether economic system determines governing style or whether governing system determines economic system...
We could digress into why socialism and totalitarianism go together (absence of individual choice) and why capitalism and democracy go together (individual choice and the responsibility for its exercise), but that would get us even further from the topic, wouldn't it? Yeah, but I can say that its possible to have democratic socialism and that fascism is simply the totalitarian versus of capitalism...
But, yes, we're drifting from the topic, but if you want to continue this, there's IM.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :We could digress into why socialism and totalitarianism go together (absence of individual choice) and why capitalism and democracy go together (individual choice and the responsibility for its exercise), but that would get us even further from the topic, wouldn't it? Ah...finally. The fog is beginning to lift.
You know, sometimes I think that Karl the News Guy unleashes this stuff on us and then leans back in his chair at BBR Master Control, with a sly grin and an evil laugh, knowing what is going to transpire.
Usually he posts this kind of stuff on Friday so the pot can boil and be stirred all weekend.
Must be a slow news week...
--
A is A |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to calvoiper
There's nothing misleading about the question. Here, I'll make it as concise as I can.
Take any industrialized nation in the world today and compare their infant mortality rate with that of the USA. I don't need economics, political systems or anything else; just the numbers will do.
How then, does one answer why the sole superpower has higher rates than many of the other nations? Is that a "Culture of Life?" Or is it closer to a culture of growing intolerance? It's simply that simple.
Your question is piffle. No one benefits from carrying a large underclass. Look at what we're borrowing from the Chinese now to clean up NOLA. Next you'll tell us that the liberal left opposes any and all measures designed to help the poor that the republicans support. Liberals keep pushing for minimum wage increases and republicans keep telling us it will stifle growth, yet every increase in modern history has done nothing to slow growth.
Both parties are captive to corporatism, but I truly believe one is more likely to leave crumbs on the table than the other.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Actually, there's a good argument to be made that our "culture of tolerance" is to blame for infant mortality--specifically tolerance of drug use and tolerance of pre-natal abuse.
You talk about "help" for the poor the same way a drug addict talks about "help" for his withdrawal--please give me something to increase my dependence.
Finally, if you so reject our economic system as to only support the party that leaves more "crumbs" on the table, I doubt that we are even talking about the same things as goals. I don't want to see people eating crumbs, I want them to be eating bread--but I want them to have a choice of bread, and I'm not willing to give that up just so you and your pseudo-idealistic cronies can run the bakery and make only the kind of bread you like.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
mondoz
join:2000-08-26
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to bokamba
Re: universal access to info a fundamental right
said by bokamba
His use of the word "idiot" still applies. It would be nice if everyone had access to the Internet, but calling it a right means he thinks that by virtue of being a human, we deserve access to all the information of the world. That is idiotic.
But that's not what he said.
He said "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information,"
He didn't say 'all information of the world.'
Perhaps "Access to Information" should be an Amendment to the Constitution.
After all, if people have the right to have a gun, the right to at least know how to use it should go with it, why they have that right, and how they got it.
The government already provides libraries, some with Internet-connected computers for free.
Combining these two sources of information and calling them a 'right' doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.
Many people are within reach of a public library that has free Internet access, which is pretty nice already, eh?
He also didn't say that all content should be free or accessible, just the conduit to the information. In this case, he's only talking about state-subsidized wifi. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to calvoiper
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
You're not answering the question. I'm not arguing economic systems - I'm talking about how we treat human beings. How old are you?
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
