Just had a good discussion with Randy and Bruce regarding how to assess the quality of questions we create for students to solve in class. It's a tough problem. The simplistic answer is to look at outcomes or "transferance" on summative assessment, but I think that leaves out a variety of factors. The problem with summative assessment is that you generally don't know why students answered a question the way they did. Did they answer a question because they understood the issue, or did they merely remembered that this question must be answered this way? Good in-class questions will provide a foundation for students to learn for understanding and discourage trying to merely remember answers. Affective factors, such as whether the question seems important, timely, and relevant, are almost certainly important. A big part of what makes a good question is fit with the students' zone of proximal development: you want most of the students to not quite be able to solve the problem without a little help, either from other students or the instructor. Another factor is whether the question has some problem that distracts students from the key issues you want them to focus on. Often these problems are semantic, but they can also be related to conflicts or controversy associated with the example used in the question. An example we remembered was a set of questions about metabolism where the students became fixated on whether or not the number of hydrogen atoms was balanced, rather than the issues the instructor wanted to talk about.
Fortune has a 
great article about the future of wireless. Here's a paragraph about Scott Rafer, the CEO of Wifinder.
"Think of Wi-Fi like air conditioning," he says. "You don't make money off it, but it seems to be most everywhere." That's the world we're headed for, he believes. He expects that Starbucks, for example, one of the most aggressive purveyors of hot spots, will eventually decide it's more important to have the service—which will cause users to linger and drink $4.50 coffees—than to make money from it per se. Rafer says giving service away costs as little as $3.50 a day, while charging for it can be more than $30 a day. "The equipment is on a Moore's law curve, but the billing systems are not," he adds.
It costs more to manage the billing system so you can charge people than it does to provide the service! And if you do charge for it, you just drive people away. He doesn't say "community wireless", but that's the message I'm getting.