Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

T-Mobile's Binge On Violates Net Neutrality, Says Stanford Report (tmonews.com) 217

An anonymous reader writes: The debate over whether or not Binge On violates Net Neutrality has been raging ever since the service was announced in November. The latest party to weigh in is Barbara van Schewick, law professor at Stanford University.

In a new report published today — and filed to the FCC, as well — van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct rule." She goes on to make several arguments against Binge On, saying that services in Binge On distorts competition because they're zero-rated and because video creators are more likely to use those providers for their content, as the zero-rated content is more attractive to consumers.

Comment Re:Side Effects (Score 3, Informative) 41

I have a friend with Friedrich's Ataxia, and CRISPR is one of the silver bullets she's praying for. FA cripples then kills you: wheel chair by 25, dead by 40 is often the case (it hardens the heart so it can't pump). While CRISPR has some unknowns and risks, having FA is a certainty. FA affects a single gene pair, so if you can replace either side of that gene, you have solved the problem, the mitochondria will start producing frataxin again, and the nerves will stop being slowly destroyed.

There are no treatments and since it is so rare (1 in 50,000 have it in the US, 1 in 30k in Europe, almost no one in Africa or Asia), few are investing in finding a cure or treatment. FA isn't the only orphan disorder like this. So yes, I'm quite happy to see CRISPR move forward.

Comment Re:No (Score 2) 269

You forgot margin. They have incredible margin on their products. Their concern is total profit, not units sold. They could easily drop their prices in other markets to keep market share, but the net profit to them might be lower. It isn't like iPhones prices are anything relative to their cost. Their price is based on what people will pay.

Comment Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. (Score 5, Insightful) 208

I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.

They're lunatics, hiding them won't help. We need to out this insanity, and it helps that they're doing a great job of demonstrating what religious fanaticism is capable of.

Censorship is evil. Period.

Comment Re: too much $, but no, 3 months pay (Score 1) 186

Bill the city/state? Are you an idiot? The police department doesn't just "fix crime" and send a bill to the tax payers. They ask for more and more funds all the time, so that would get lost.

Whether or no 36k is reasonable or not, the courts can decide. It sounds a little high, but not extraordinarily high.

Comment Humble obervation from an external viewer.. (Score 5, Interesting) 555

The problem is your constitution's second amendment.

Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.

This has been done in the past, even the recent past. (e.g. prohibition).

Why can't it be done now?

If the amendment is not possible, then you will have a discussion about weapons, and as a nation, accept the consequences of those actions - it may will be that the defense of liberty is such that the collateral damage is acceptable to many. This seems fundamentally more honest than the approaches being put forth by the executive branch.

I haven't heard this in the discussion, and it's puzzling.

$0.02 cdn.

Comment Re:So name them already (Score 1) 265

You are mistaking an actual example (my office) with a stereotype. I didn't say all offices are like mine, I'm saying his stereotype is inherently false and gave a specific example to refute his central claim that the stereotype exists. In the world of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement , that would be considered in the top tiers of how to debate a topic, ie: using more than contradiction and instead providing evidence.

Comment Re:The first time didn't help. (Score 1) 265

You would be shocked how often that backfires. They have lawyers on staff, paid to take chicken shit threats and shove them back down your throat. They can outspend you in a second flat, and run you into the poor house defending yourself. No, threatening a company and making claims they intentionally did something bad (particularly when you really don't know the whole story) is just a good way to end up broke and defeated.

Comment Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! (Score 1) 265

They aren't followed up my malicious activity unless their is a vulnerability to exploit. My guess is all this port scanning has forced the guy to lock his system down pretty tight. It might now be safer due to all the port scanning.

Excessive port scanning is abuse, but your ISP isn't going to address it, only the other guy's ISP is going to because that is where it originates, and only they can threaten to pull their access if they don't stop it. Efforts on this end are useless; keep hammering their ISP and their company, but don't expect a lot of result.

Comment Re:The first time didn't help. (Score 2) 265

Expect the CEO to send it to IT because he doesn't understand it, and for it to simply disappear. CEOs are about making money, they don't like being the complaint dept. unless it is a complaint from a huge customer that is threatening to not give them money. They don't make the big bucks because they can deal with port scans.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no future in time travel.

Working...