Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/07/09
2 hours of battery life? Given how generous most of these estimates generally are, I can only guess that the real battery life is significantly lower. No freaking way. I'd rather get a Lenovo Ideapad S10.
07/07/09
07/07/09
01/24/09
01/24/09
Obvious Gizmodo won't tell you that since their a bunch of socialist loving liberal Obama worshippers.
01/25/09
01/24/09
I liek to go on teh Googlez and look at the ranch.
01/24/09
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
When you put anything in the hands of the state and make it "free" (meaning, you still pay but with taxes...it'll just FEEL free), the quality of service goes in the toilet.
A call to the "Dept. of Wireless Internet" to complain about the shitty wi-fi signal in your area will be the equivalent of a complaint to an MTA employee because you just missed your subway, or you just lost your Metrocard.
After that, since everyone is taking advantage of the free shitty internet, all of the companies that were charging you for it (the same companies you could hold accountable when shit went wrong) would have no incentive to a actually carry the service since nothing beats the price of "free" and their entire high-speed internet business disappears because it's no longer profitable.
Thus, the nation is left with free shitty wireless that everyone uses and nobody cares to maintain because there's no incentive to do so since there's no profit involved.
Take away the profit, you take away the quality. That, my friends, is why socialism is bad. Not evil, but just bad. That said, I hope we can figure out socialized medicine because I think we can agree that going broke because you can't pay for chemo is worse than dealing with shitty internet....right?....right?
the end.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
So, are you Carl Lewis, or did you just steal his comment?
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
No one would be FORCED to do anything. It would be a government contract handed to the lowest bidder. Also, this would not be government run. You guys should really read the article.
The government would pay a private company to provide a service to people in the rural areas. It's a pretty straightforward deal when you think about it. But hey, kneejerk reactions are so much more fun, so why bother?
12/12/08
What is amusing to me is that this range of frequencies will basically have sweet spots and I'm guessing the top and bottom 12.5% of the spectrum will be reserved for this government service. It will ensure poorer reception, and encourage people to "pay" for the service.
(Ever notice why the station in the middle of your radio spectrum seems to get the best reception?)
12/12/08
Free libraries, as another source of information, weren't started by the government either. It was Andrew Carnegie and his steel money. Let Google pay for the free wifi, not our tax dollars.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
Why is it that conservatives believe charity is giving your own money, while a liberal believes charity is forcing someone else to give theirs?
12/12/08
Quick cheat sheet for you:
A conservative (as Goldwater might represent) American political viewpoint would align with:
- low spending by government
- less government regulation of industry, labor and commerce
- less government intrusion into people's lives: their religion, sexual preferences, gun cabinet
- avoidance of foreign wars and international alliances
- reliance on older, proven methodologies as less risky
- a perception that new ideas are inherently risky and unproven
A liberal(as Kennedy might represent) American political viewpoint would align with:
- a belief that government has a positive role to play in people's lives
- that commerce, industry and labor require some regulation
- that affirmative action today helps balance the inequalities and degradations experienced by marginalized minorities in the past
- that the USA has a positive role to play in the worldwide balance of power
- a perception that new ideas represent progress, and older methodologies must stay current with the times
There's nothing about "charity" there. I think your comment is echoing the "I don't want my tax dollars spent on [something I don't like]." And maybe that's what you're referring to as "charity". For example, my childless friend might vote against a mill levy to fund a teacher pay increase and music programs, seeing it as a giveaway of his money to overpaid union teachers and sniveling kids that someone else decided to have. I (also childless), however vote for it, and see it as a giveaway of my money to my community to see that the kids in the neighborhood have the kind of motivated teachers and learning programs that will make them more productive and law-abiding members of society. One of us is selfish and lacks empathy, the other is magnanimous and empathetic. One of us is conservative and the other is liberal. Can you guess which is which? Which one is being more "charitable"?
12/12/08
No.
You hear liberals all the time talking about raising people's taxes (or raising taxes on the "wealthy") and giving it to the poor because we need to help the poor. That would fall into your "a belief that government has a positive role to play in people's lives" category.
Where as conservatives say leave my money alone. I don't want the government taking my money to "help" anyone. Which would fall into your "less government intrusion into people's lives / low spending by government" type of category.
Yet, conservatives typically give more of their own money to charity. Why is that? Why are the "compassionate" liberals more apt to NOT give money unless the government does it for them?
12/12/08
If you live 6-7 miles outside the city, you can't get broadband period (outside of satellite).
12/12/08
Your argument is that because you don't have a choice with who provides your service, you should get government mandated wifi for free?
I know someone who lives in downtown Seattle who can't get cable or satellite, they can only get DSL. Should they get free wifi too because they have a lack of choice?
12/12/08
i dont think he's saying the government should provide wifi to him for free.
likely a national wifi network wouldn't cover my area - there are too few residents (maybe one per mile of road) and the mountains, with their torrential rain storms and treefalls and such make installing and maintaining new infrastructure virtually impossible.
and let us not forget, things provided by the government aren't 'free' - it's just that you've already been coerced into paying for it through taxes.
that goes for healthcare, too.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
Now, the readers whining about a "government-run" Wi-Fi won't have any excuses to post what is technically known in scientific circles as n amounts of douchebaggery cock.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
Plus, is there a proven technology for this band for such use currently?
I understand that we already subsidize phone/cable access for rural areas both at the Federal and Telecom levels. The telcos are basically required to provide service, and as such high density population areas subsidize the outlays for providing service to remote areas. I imagine the infrastructure cost (hardware not cabling) is probably steadily decreasing over time, but I'm not sure how much of that existing infrastructure is still being paid for, etc.
I just think that most areas at this do actually have broadband available, even if it isn't great for some uses (games).