Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, October 19, 2006 - 4:39 PMSounds to me like ComCast has bought a number of SF Pols... -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, October 19, 2006 - 5:05 PMComcast my ass. SF is one f-up'ed bureaucracy in general. Just try and do any type of semi-major contruction in this area and see what I mean.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Sat, January 13, 2007 - 1:31 PMLOL
Santa Monica says they will have what they call CITY WIFI throughout the city by summer. People who use it just laugh. The shit never works. You have to reset the IP address all the time. No way of letting them know it's down.
City WIFI down here in Santa Monica sucks ass. A cable company is providing that as well. SO I am sure it will be the same deal for SF.
It's a great idea and when City WIFI works. AWESOME!!!!! but most times your just flippin the finger -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Mon, January 15, 2007 - 12:16 AMInteresting, good to know. Let's hope they do a more respectable job in SF.
I know the city just agreed to terms with Google/Earthlink now the agreement has to get approval from the SF board of supervisors. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 3:34 PMHow funny is this
Santa Monica is also talking with Google.
-
-
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 8:27 PMi just love how quickly people are hopping on this idea of free wifi for an entire city while completely disregarding the fact that we have _no idea_ what sort of long-term effects this level of irradiation might have on us all.
sorry. my health is more important than my internet connection, and it's a DAMN good reason to hate.
~e. -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 1:30 PMYou could make that argument about anything.
Ever heard of radio waves?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/techn...6676129.stm -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:09 PMtalking down to total strangers works really well in support of your point.
meanwhile, cancer rates are skyrocketing in the united states, and you still haven't addressed the fact that no one knows anything about the long-term health effects of something like this. you can't make that argument about just anything because the truth is, we've not had any long-term mass exposure to something like this.
i don't see the use in subjecting an entire city when you run the risk of putting everyone's health in jeopardy. better that we should know for sure before going ahead with something on this massive a scale because, if the public interest is what is in mind, shouldn't it be in mind across the board? or are you into the idea of flipper babies?
seriously. it's common sense. don't irradiate the public without knowing what it will cause.
~e. -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:38 PMYou are still making a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. That isn't a reason, it's a fear. This is why I'm "talking down" to you. -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:29 AMi love how you honestly believe that you're justfied. that's really the best way to start a dialogue. slam doors in people's faces for disagreeing with you or saying that it would be prudent to proceed with extreme caution. that's not fear. that's being reasonable. there are a million reasons why it makes sense not to push for this one to go ahead so rapidly, but because you want something and this is your thread, it's your job to be _more_ right than everyone else. in fact, it makes you SUPER right.
look at you go! you're totally winning!
look, i'm not saying that this isn't one of those things where it would be a great public service . . . if it were to work well.
i'm saying that, if we're ignorant about what could happen [hi, remember studies have shown that radiation from cell phone towers actually _can_ be dangerous if people are exposed for extended periods of time?], we shouldn't just jump the gun on this one. besides, don't we have bigger fish to fry?
when i said that my health is more important than my internet connection, i wasn't just saying that being irradiated is detrimental to my health. i was also saying that . . . the internet isn't THAT important. i'd rather see cars eliminated and public transportation improved. i'd rather see more people riding bikes and getting their fat asses healthy. people in the united states are dying because all they do is sit around staring at their stupid computers [if not their televisions], waiting for something good to come to them. fuck that. and moreso than that, fuck bringing free internet to everyone when we could all be going outside and enjoying life.
~e. -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:58 AMoh, and i did read that article. it's not like i don't see your point. i mean, for chrissakes, no one in sf has a land line, so this certainly is something to keep in mind:
"The Health Protection Agency has said that sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year results in receiving the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call."
HOWEVER.
presently, we don't have free public wifi. we don't have a free, completely open internet connection that can be accessed easily from _any_ location in the city. so, presently wifi is such that, yeah, what's at my house or yours is what i would consider "low level." fine. but at what point do we surpass "low level" and start calling it "high level"? i guess that's what i'm saying.
your article says:
"The type of radiation emitted by radio waves (wi-fi), visible light, microwaves and mobile phones has been shown to raise the temperature of tissue at very high levels of exposure - called a thermal interaction - but there is no evidence that low levels cause damage."
what i'm saying is, how do we regulate this so that we stay at those low levels? how do we make sure that, if it has been proven that heavy exposure _can_ be detrimental, that something on this massive of a scale doesn't put people at risk? and isn't going ahead as planned diametrically opposed to the public interest? yes, with wifi as it is, presently, the risk to public is negligible. but nowhere in the article you cited does it say that studies have been done regarding wide-spread, heavy exposure. and with scientists saying that exposure does cause a risk, it's just a matter of knowing how highly-exposed you have to be to start seeing negative effects, that's a slippery slope toward danger if limits aren't put into place and studies aren't conducted that make it clear that we aren't doing more harm than good.
look, what i'm mostly saying is, science is our friend. let's use it to make sure we don't fuck it up for everyone. we've done that far too many times as it is, and look at the messes we've gotten ourselves into because of it.
~e.
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:59 AM> subjecting an entire city when you run the risk of putting everyone's health in jeopardy
As far as the health of the entire city goes, I'll take free WiFi but lets completely eliminate all private cars and other motorized vehicles. I know that pollution is impacting my health and others as well as putting us at risk of being run over. -
-
Re: The dream of free SF wi-fi Internet
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:33 AMi totally agree with you, there.
i ride my bike, rather than owning a car, and it's great.
and it's not like i'm saying that we're all gonna die of radiation poisoning because of free, public wifi. i'm saying that there's risk involved in going ahead with something on this large of a scale without having done any studies on what the effects would be on public health. if it turns out that it's innocuous, awesome! but why would you implement something like that without knowing?! that's so foolish!
~e.
-
-
-
-