Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Government running a serious deficit? (Score 2) 324

Not really. What I'm saying is don't make spending commitments that you do not have a source of revenue to back it up with. Government is great at spending money that they don't have when they know all they need to do is steal some more from the public at a later date and everything will work out for them in the end.

Comment Government running a serious deficit? (Score 2) 324

I am absolutely shocked. How about they cut their goddamn spending and subsist on the taxes they are already collecting before instituting a ridiculous "per-GB" internet tax. FFS, does the idea of spending less money ever even cross a government's mind? Now, before I get branded some evil right-winger racist luddite tinfoil hat wearing neanderthal, I don't disagree with taxes that perform a function.

If the government is providing a service or function, such as roads, technological infrastructure, schools, etc. I fully agree with taxes to support them. But taxing arbitrary goods/services provided by third parties just because you want to keep living high on the hog? That, to me, is a sickening example of why spending needs to be scrutinized and real fiscal responsibility needs to be in place in government. It's just too easy to keep spending when it's everyone else's money.

Comment Re:Easy question (Score 2) 478

This is what scares me the most about Ebola. It's that the government is telling me that there's nothing to worry about and that everything is going to be just fine. I know that when they say I should run for my life and be scared shitless of something that it isn't a real threat. I assume the opposite rhetoric means that it really is a threat and I should probably be scared shitless hiding out somewhere until it all blows over.

Comment Re:Both are guilty (Score 1) 208

I know how it fucking works at this moment. The whole point was that it should work a different way.

Why am I constantly surrounded by damned dirty apes?

So, it should work in a way where the authorities can do whatever they want to prove someone guilty of a crime? Do you realize what would happen in a country such as the United States where for-profit private prisons exist, should your little childish scenario come into play? The punishment for "illegal search" would be a day's paid vacation for the police and a $25 fine, whereas if they uncovered some minor malfeasance by a citizen, it'd be a minimum of 3 years hard labor in a prison factory.

This is somehow better for you?

Comment Re:Critics should take positive action (Score 2) 993

If you use Debian, trust it, and love it, and Debian has made this change, and you abhor the change, it's a good wakeup call opportunity.

Because I love something, doesn't mean I trust it blindly. You can love your wife, but if you see signs that things might be going amiss, you would dig a little deeper to determine if there is really something nefarious going on or if there is just change happening. Or at least, I would. If your wife's phone is going off all hours of the night and she's been working "late" every night for the last 3 months with no history of having done that in the past, would you just blindly trust that everything is fine, because you love her? Give me a break.

I don't particularly care about systemd either way, as I use BSD, but I see things like this happen all the time, not just in tech. A vocal minority of people who think they know what's best for everyone comes along and starts forcing changes down everyone's throats. There is no input from the vast, silent majority who just want to get by day-to-day, so the only people who end up voicing their opinion are the diehard zealots and fanatics, and boy are they loud and obnoxious.

The problem is that once the worst people stand up against something, it makes it hard for anyone level-headed, sane, or logical to do the same thing, lest they be branded in with the psychopaths. If you really want to demonize a group of people, just take their position and be as radical and destructive as possible. People aren't smart enough to actually look at real issues and facts and make decisions, it's all emotional. People with real issues, real beefs, real reasons to oppose the radical and dramatic move away from what has been the standard will now be drowned out by those who will just call them names. And then the vocal minority, those who have no real motives other than their own self-interest at heart, get their way. It happens constantly, and it has nothing to do with Linux or anything tech related.

It's human nature, and it sucks, because people who are, indeed, moderates are always being subjected to the whims of the polarized fanatics.

Comment Re:WiFi Calling? (Score 1) 730

My BlackBerry on T-Mobile had Wi-Fi calling in 2007 that would hand off between the Wi-Fi and cellular network. Of course, now that the device using it has a piece of fruit on the back of it, it's magically "usable". Come to think of it, it was tough to use the feature on my old BlackBerry, you know, you just had to leave the Wi-Fi on and whenever you were in range of a suitable AP it would work automatically. I'm sure Apple has made it much easier than that.

Comment Re:The real reason, and it does make sense (Score 2) 533

I don't disagree about basic connectivity. I personally know plenty of people in those difficult last mile areas who would *love* to have a 4Mbit/sec downstream wired internet connection. But the difficult last miles are why we pay things like USF fees, we do things like grant monopolies, we provide tax breaks and other subsidies to those who claim they are going to provide that connectivity to the exurban and rural areas.

There was a high-profile examination of a similar situation, in New Jersey I believe, where the ILEC had taken millions in tax breaks and subsidies to provide universal broadband in their area of monopoly. Those deals dated back two decades, yet many areas of that state are still served by central offices that aren't even DSL capable. That's unacceptable. HEVC be damned, when you can't even get "broadband" (however you'd care to define it) to begin with. I'm fortunate enough to live in a suburban area in a large megalopolis served by Comcast. If it weren't for them, I'd be on a DSL line from a carrier I won't name that got stuck with the rotted physical plant left behind by the same company that took the money and ran in NJ.

Note that these same ILECs are the ones that fight tooth and nail against community and cooperative broadband in every state they do business in. If it weren't for the subsidies, tax breaks, and government-granted monopolies many of these areas would still have no POTS or electricity for that matter. The rest of the areas, the ones served by telephone and electricity cooperatives, never even got that until they did it themselves. This isn't about free market capitalism, it's about having a reliable national communications infrastructure. As it stands for broadband, the ILECs can't even do it when they have it handed to them on a silver platter.

I understand the last mile challenges are fierce, and I'm from the flat heartland of America. I know it's worse in more rural, less populated areas than I have seen anywhere even in my state. But I have no sympathy for these telcos. If we found a way to provide those folks with electricity and POTS, we can do it with fiber. Fiber runs are better suited for rural areas than copper, anyway, as the loss is negligible in comparison over longer distances. And if you are going to roll new lines, metal ones are so 20th century anyway. The rest of the world is moving on. Do we really want our rural brothers and sisters to be stuck with copper? I say make the definition of broadband 100Mbit! And force the telcos taking subsidies to get the goddamned job done or at the bare minimum, get the fuck out of the way and let a cooperative or muni do it who can and stop buying legislation to screw over the good folks out in the sticks.

Comment Re:wut? (Score 1) 533

"They" are not "stuck" with anything, including copper. "They" have the option of rolling out next-gen fiber or HFC just like Big Cable. What's that "they" say? "That" wouldn't be economically viable? Then maybe "they" should have been doing something besides stealing subsidies and pocketing every dime of profit for the last two decades rather than letting their plant rot into oblivion. If "they" were in charge of infrastructure in a first-world country, "they" would be in prison for breach of contract, embezzlement, and neglecting/sabotaging critical national infrastructure.

Comment Re:Logged in to email? (Score 1) 117

Because you haven't been able to set a SIM PIN since, say, SIM cards were invented, right? Just because no one uses the security mechanisms available doesn't automatically make it the cell network's fault when someone rips you off. Set a device PIN and a SIM PIN and you're all set. Takes about 10 seconds.

Comment Passively pushed to Fiber? (Score 2) 93

I'd gladly take fiber, if it were available.

The problem is, it isn't for the vast majority of the population.

Verizon and others are just letting the copper rot. There is no alternative. If you're lucky, you have a cableco co come in and provide a usable service. Luckily, I live in a Comcast territory and have had exactly zero service issues in the last 8 years and a speed increase every other year. Copper? Verizon sold this area to Frontier and you're still lucky if you can break one megabit on their DSL. Please, you wouldn't have to passively encourage me to get fiber if it were available. I'd already be on it.

If the telcos weren't so busy spending every last dime on C-level executives, lawsuits, advertising, and slithering out from underneath their commitments, even good old Verizon could have rolled fiber to everyone in their footprint. Even the ex-GTE areas like mine that had a stellar copper network before Verizon consumed them and left them for dead.

Comment Re:Good idea (Score 1) 147

I know this is modded flamebait, but I tend to agree to a point. The providers shouldn't be let off the hook for advertising/selling "unlimited" data plans when short of putting a micro-cell tower on every lightpole, such a thing is not economically viable. It's all false advertising at the least. But at the same time, P2P/torrenting over a cellular connection all the time is like pissing in the pool. It's probably cool if it happens occasionally, but when it's being done constantly it fucks everyone over.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Working...