Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Alternative explanation (Score 2) 398

Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose (as illustrated in a recent /. article), so there can be no other reason apart from extorting money. And for the speed to actually going down with time it probably means that instead of "upgrading" capacity they are probably doing the opposite to force Netflix. And they are lowering the speed slowly otherwise their customers would figure it out and start rioting (but many don't have any recourse as in, alternative ISP).
Remember, Netflix actually offers installing their servers within the ISP's network for free, which would mean no interconnection.
And, finally, this is 1 week old "news for nerds". I have read about it in so many tech sites, I was certain it would be a dupe (but a quick search seems to indicate it is not).

Comment Right, how dare they... (Score 1) 127

Let's all gather here, on this #1 geek news website and protest. Because how dares the IAU only implement this pointless naming platform exclusively in English! Just be careful to only use Latin characters in your protest. At least for now, because after 15+ years of development we might be close to Unicode support - who knows!

Comment Re:Things are simple... (Score 1) 309

Well, I did mention "bailout" didn't I? I wasn't talking just about retail stores. Obviously if a bank tries to make more profit by taking more risk, it should not be bailed out when that risk backfires, otherwise you compromise the basis of our economy - we would all be investing on a casino's roulette and expect to be safe when the ball does not go our way.
Similarly, bailing out one of the worst-performing car manufacturers in the world is not a good idea, no matter how big they are. Turns out there were deep-rooted reasons they were doing so bad, including incompetence, negligence, malice etc.
And you should not even stop there. Protectionism is bad in other areas too, not just regarding corporations. For example subsidizing a crop that is not useful will lead to all sorts of cascading effects, like a nation replacing sugars with what looks like an unhealthier substitute, or the ethanol craziness, or in other cases the casual destruction of the extraneous production etc.

Comment Things are simple... (Score 5, Insightful) 309

You should never try to protect at an overall cost an established business, however small, cute etc it is. Bookstores have to close. Not all of them, but a lot of them. The ones that actually provide value to the customer will stay due to people actually visiting them. For example I love Amazon, however there is one small local bookstore that provides a great personalized experience and does not gouge prices to which I go first. I see a lot of people not minding a surcharge when they get even more value out of the experience, so this bookstore will servive. Also that small bookstore has found things to bring that Amazon doesn't have etc. Protecting or bailing out failing businesses is always bad for the community as a whole in the long-run. Yes, poor buggy whip makers will be out of jobs in the short term, but we can't all be riding carriages into the future...

Comment Re:That's only an excuse. (Score 1) 65

Sorry, but you are wrong. The AC mentioned Experian, so I guess this is a quick example: http://www.experian.com/screening-services/tenant-credit-check.html Only name and address needed (and annual income if you want them to make a decision for you, but not for the credit check). But you could also ask the hordes of people who are surprised when they find out their car dealer ran their credit with only their name and address (hint: if they never gave permission they can pursue the FCRA violation).

Comment Re:Detect this sarcasm (Score 3, Interesting) 364

Ok, so there are no rules in place that would make Comcast enforce net neutrality. But I don't understand, why wouldn't their customers have a good class-action case against them? I mean, I am paying a (decent in the case of Comcast customers) monthly service fee and I have a reasonable expectation of being able to access whatever I want at a reasonable speed. Why aren't Comcast/Verizon customers recruited for a good ol' class action, since they are essentially paying a monthly fee just to be added to the pool of Comcast/Verizon customers that those companies can "dangle" in front of the likes of Netflix in order to extract more fees. I am not in the US right now, but when I had a TWC (=another crap ISP) contract, it didn't say that TWC could decide what I could download at slow or fast speeds - is that no longer the case?

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Working...