Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Better definition of planet (Score 1) 165

by AK Marc (#49159177) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet

But under the definition you grew up with where Pluto is a planet, there are over 100,000 planets in our solar system alone.

Nope. You must have grown up in a different dimension than me. Pluto was a planet when I grew up, and there were 9 planets. And fewer inconsistencies in the definition than we have today. Though the definition was just as arbitrary as today's.

Comment: Re:how ? (Score 1) 213

by AK Marc (#49159129) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Does One Verify Hard Drive Firmware?

You can't, but you can be quite sure that the manufacturer will take serious measures to make sure this doesn't happen.

I worked for HP when every computer re-imaged in their repair shop was sent out with a virus. Other makers have essentially recalled new PCs for the same thing. I can't give cites, because it's covered up. 10x the budget of the repair department was spent to hide the problem. To convince people it can't happen. Must trust the chain of trust. Even when it's broken.

Comment: Re:Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint (Score 1) 119

by AK Marc (#49159101) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?

Well, as someone once told me "Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun."

Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

If your argument was unrelated to your completely wrong accusations of fraud against Mega, then why fly into the sun to post something so obviously and trivially proven false?

I thought that was your posting style, lead with the outlandish claim, that grabs the attention. But that's what you complain about.

That, and there's proof of the pressure against some lines of business. That they've done it before doesn't mean they are doing it now. What proof do you have that it's the government, and not the media companies, putting the pressure on them? What proof do you have there's any outside pressure being put on them?

Comment: Re:And still (Score 1) 165

by AK Marc (#49159055) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet
No. You are using your definition of "planet", then calling it stupid. I'll agree with you there. Your definition of planet is stupid.

Also, if you are too dumb to think of a single definition of "planet" that includes the traditional 9 planets, then you are too dumb to bother to argue with, there's nothing I could say that would matter. Your tiny, petty little mind is made up and closed, and has no more room for discussions to sway it.

I said "the rules are arbitrary" and you took that as something I didn't say. Obviously you have trouble understanding, anyway. Another reason logic and reason won't work on you.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 371

I believe that Net Neutrality rules specifically tell an operator how to configure their networks.

Yes, like telephone networks. It's illegal for your phone company to see you are dialing 1-800-coca-cola and redirect your phone call to 1-800-pepsi-co. But for your Internet connection, that was 100% legal (and done, in many cases).

They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain QoS configurations.

Yes. They are not allowed to use abusive QoS configurations. They are perfectly allowed to use every QoS configuration I've ever seen someone assert is illegal. You can prioritize voice over video, and both over HTTP, or whatever you want. What you can't do is prioritize *your* video service over a competitor's video service. You can still block (or set QoS to the absolutel losest level) P2P and the other things that many were saying they couldn't do.

So, what QoS profile were you looking for that you think is illegal now? If it's not one that benefits your service at the expense of a competitors, or is used for extortion practices, it's legal. So I don't believe you that there's a reasonable QoS profile that is now illegal. Sure, there are some that aren't allowed, but those are only the abusive ones.

They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use certain policing/metering configurations.

policing is QoS, so I don't understand how this is different than the previous statement, also I only hear "metering" as a user billing issue, and it's unrelated to any "configuration" in the network.

They specify that a network operator is not allowed to use influence the routing of traffic within their network.

No, they don't. You can still influence the routing within your network.

Sounds like all your problems with it are from your misunderstanding of it. The reason you were called a Republican is that you are parroting all the disproved talking points the Republicans are using. But not bringing up any valid objections.

Comment: Re:Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint (Score 2) 119

by AK Marc (#49157575) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account, despite 5+ "convictions of fraud" (repeated bankruptcies).

And Mega has never been convicted of fraud. Because of such accusations, Kim Dotcom arranged the business structure such that he has no real influence on it, and may not even have any financial stake in it at all, in addition to no control.

So where are these frauds you assert, and when did Mega commit them? Or are you lying because you hate Kim Dotcom so much you can't think straight?

Comment: Re: Hard to believe (Score 1) 165

by AK Marc (#49152613) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine

. The standard File/Edit/View/Window menu is not in there.

Are you lying, or just an idiot? Have you ever tried it? You still have the File/Edit/View menus when you delete ie.exe in older versions of windows. I haven't tried on the newest, but older ones would actually load IE in File Explorer (all the menus across the top, the E logo, and all, no idea about bookmarks, didn't think that would be such an issue years later for some jackass on the Internet), when IE.EXE was deleted and you browsed in File Explorer to a web site.

Comment: Re: Hard to believe (Score 1) 165

by AK Marc (#49152609) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine
I said "the user interface of the presentation of [...]" but you ignored that for your incorrect rant about what a browser is.

You are wrong. A program that renders is a browser. For Windows, that's the OS.

The proof you are wrong? You mentioned bookmarks, but what about cache? If the OS puts things in IE cache with IE deleted, wouldn't that indicate that the application function of caching is still active? Or is bookmarks a application function, but cache isn't. If bookmarks are required to differentiate a browser from rendering? Then Lynx is a rendering engine, but not a browser, because the last time I used it, it didn't have bookmarks. Oh, and my Android phone will save bookmarks, even if you delete all the browsers off it. So your arbitrary metric isn't consistent or useful. But it wasn't chosen for being a useful metric, but just to try to prove someone else wrong to distract from the fact that you are the only one that's wrong.

Comment: Re: Hard to believe (Score 1) 165

by AK Marc (#49152331) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine
The user interface of the presentation of the rendering is the application. That application survives if you delete IE. Deleting the TCP stack doesn't kill the rendering engine, you can still render C:\example.html without TCP or IP.

You've over-thought it to the point you are 100% wrong, and your only point is that you don't know what a browser is.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 617

by AK Marc (#49143361) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
They also didn't provide The Internet (initially). They were a portal service that provided a white-list of services, most of which had to pay to get on the list.

nor ransom high-bandwidth websites that were supposed to be part of your monthly service.

I thought that's exactly what AOL did in the early days.

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.

Working...