Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
...I myself was always FOR net neutrality, but I'm aware this kind of initiatives (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) would suffer if N.N. is fully enforced.
It should read:
"...I'm aware this kind of initiatives would suffer if N.N. (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) is fully enforced..."
Is "data against cap" the same as net neutrality? I don't see the relationship.
I live in one of the two countries where a pilot program from Internet.org was tested, namely, that traffic to and from Facebook (later also extended to WhatsApp) doesn't add to your data cap. The way it works is that the mobile operator inspects the traffic (nothing too deep, just checks whether the connected endpoint IPs belong to a whitelist) and if the traffic comes from FB or WhatsApp, it's "free" (as it does not use your quota). This is of course discrimination by origin, and it goes against net neutrality. I myself was always FOR net neutrality, but I'm aware this kind of initiatives (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) would suffer if N.N. is fully enforced.
THIS is a streaming service.
I see what dun deere.
There is ZERO evidence that a trial would not be fair. Like it or not, our criminal legal system works just fine and generally produces the right results. If anything, our system favors the accused and we let a lot more people walk who did it than punish those who didn't. Snowden would be fairly tried.
There cannot be "evidence" of something that hasn't happened yet.
There are hints though, and opinions from knowledgeable people, that he wouldn't have a fair trial, for he'd be tried using a law intended to deal with spies, not whistlebowers.
These days, the common model is that the employee is paid a miserable wage, but would make up the rest in tips.
Sure, but WHY is that? Why is the employee's compensation not included in the cost of the service, like (say) a retail associate's in a department store?
Until someone starts offering a flat fee for payment processing somewhere close to cost of the transaction, which is microscopic
So you'd want a company to float you the money during the transaction for up to thousands of dollars, cover all the real costs of the transactions, and handle any fraud prevention and losses all by charging a few pennies? That sounds like a sweet investment deal to be had!
You mean like Dwolla?
It would be interesting, if somehow the exchange functionality were built into the protocol and entirely P2P. Getting rid of these centralized exchanges seems like it would really stabilize the currency. I don't know how remotely feasible that would be, it is far too early in the morning without coffee.
Effectively, what you describe is the protocol(which is p2p as well), except that the protocol does not address the issue of matching prospective buyers and prospective sellers (a protocol that does this, without a central market-operator, would be neat; but bodging one into a protocol for transferring virtual coins without double-spending would probably be unwieldy, though clients that implement both would be logical).
Uhm... isn't Ripple supposed to be that decentralized exchange?
...Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France.
This statement doesn't make any sense, and unfortunately nullifies your entire argument. Invading Poland was the plan all along (to reach the USSR eventually). Why would Hitler start by invading France if the lebensraum was on the East?
When will the UN indict Bush, Blair and Cheney for that?