Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 2) 135

Old content has numerous rights issues from the way that residuals are paid in movies/TV (but not music). Therefore, it costs money to clear each old release for streaming. Therefore, some old content just isn't worth the effort.

New content, of course, has residual structures that take into account an "Internet" and "computers" and even "cellphones/tablets"

Comment Re: What a load of BS (Score 1) 571

so far nothing you have said on this topic is true.
you've said nothing but hearsay and "well I say it's so, so its so".
nothing you have said has been confirmed by the FBI.

No, there was no humint (and using the acronym doesn't make you look smart).
No, no one has likely been likely been killed, no the FBI did not confirm that.

and in fact the CIA has even publicly rebuked Gowdy for implying there was by redacting documents himself even after he was told they weren't sensitive.

(you also seem to continually confuse the FBI with the CIA)

in short: you are completely talking out of your ass making up BS as you go

Comment Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score 1) 151

To elaborate:

Media Shouldn't Be Fooled By Fake Neutrality Bill Backed By Broadband Industry

IBT: GOP Legislation Would Undermine FCC's Ability To Enact Net Neutrality Regulations. As the International Business Times reported, the legislation proposed by congressional Republicans purports to ban broadband providers from blocking or speeding up certain content, or from charging content providers for faster access -- but in reality, undermines the FCC's ability "to impose stricter regulations on broadband companies" by establishing open-Internet rules. [International Business Times, 1/21/15]

Free Press: GOP Legislation "Undermines The Open Internet It Claims To Protect." In a January 21 statement, Free Press Action Fund noted that the GOP legislation would "declaw the one agency responsible for protecting the public interest in communications," rather than "safeguard Net Neutrality," as it claims to do:

Despite what they claim, this legislation won't safeguard Net Neutrality. The bills instead would undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users by removing broadband and wireless companies from nearly all agency oversight.

"The legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open Internet violations but opens the door to new industry abuses. It claims to give the FCC limited adjudication powers but removes the agency's ability to adopt and adapt rules to fit the changing landscape for high-speed Internet access. [Free Press, 1/22/15]

The Hill: GOP Bill Will Undermine Future Consumer Protection Efforts And Prevent Broadband Development. In a January 21 op-ed, experts at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation explained that the GOP legislation would "strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of crucial legal authority that protects consumers and small businesses on the internet," by limiting the FCC's ability to "adapt to evolving consumer harms." They also explained that the narrowly-written legislation would "eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband":

Making matters worse, the legislation would leave the FCC powerless to protect consumers from other broadband harms not specified in the bill text, such as those that are already occurring in the interconnection context. When the FCC enacted net neutrality rules four years ago, few anticipated that ISPs would congest their own networks as a strategy to extract fees from edge services like Netflix. But that's precisely what happened throughout 2013 and 2014, according to data collected by the Measurement Lab (a research consortium that includes the Open Technology Institute). The congestion harmed millions of Internet users whose connection speeds slowed to the point of unusability -- but the FCC had no mechanism in place to help these consumers. This prolonged, damaging behavior by multiple ISPs demonstrates why the FCC needs the flexibility to respond to problems as they evolve.

The bill would also eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband. This is a blow to municipalities that want to offer broadband service to their residents, particularly those currently restricted by state barriers to municipal broadband projects. The Open Technology Institute has consistently found that some of the fastest and most affordable broadband service in America comes from cities that have invested in their own infrastructure. Congress should be figuring out ways to support local government. Instead, the Thune-Upton bill prohibits the FCC from responding to communities that have asked for help. [The Hill, 1/21/15]

New Republican Bill Is Network Neutrality in Name Only

But, as written, the Republican bill provides network neutrality in name only. At first glance, the bill purports to ban paid prioritization, throttling, and blocking and applies the same rules to fixed and mobile networks, echoing language used by President Obama[4] and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler[5] to describe their network neutrality proposals. But on closer examination, the bill is so narrowly written that it fails to adequately protect users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, discrimination, and access fees.

A meaningful network neutrality regime requires bright-line rules prohibiting all forms of access fees, application-specific discrimination, and blocking. Unfortunately, the Republican bill is insufficient along each key dimension required to achieve real network neutrality, thereby dramatically departing from the network neutrality consensus that emerged over the past year. Thus, as currently written, the bill does not constitute an alternative to the adoption of meaningful network neutrality rules by the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act, coupled with appropriate forbearance.

Here are some of the problems with the bill.
[note: article goes into a lot of detail, these are just the headings. this is the most thourough of the articles]

1. The bill doesn’t actually ban “paid prioritization” (aka access fees).
2. The “no throttling” rule prohibits only a subset of ISPs’ harmful discriminatory practices.
3. The bill’s exception for reasonable network management does not require application-agnosticism, opening the door to discriminatory network management practices.
4. The bill leaves “user choice” undefined, and this vacuum could be filled by ISPs’ problematic definition of the term.
5. Interconnection is left out of the bill—and can never be addressed.
6. “Specialized services” are vague and largely unregulated, potentially creating a loophole in the network neutrality rules.
7. The bill ties the FCC’s hands—in network neutrality and other emerging broadband telecommunications policies.

As this piece illustrates, the bill would require a significant overhaul to ensure that it adequately protects users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, harmful discrimination, and access fees.

Backdoor Scheme Against Net Neutrality

But all of this apparently sent chills though the new Republican Congress and key segments of a communications industry that as a whole pumps an average $350 million-plus into lobbying every year and spent almost $100 million on the midterm elections. (Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are three of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics’ top 10 corporate lobbyists).

Together, the ISP companies and Congress have come up with a plan to legislatively derail Net neutrality that would bring a smile to the lips of Machiavelli.

As Hamza Shaban wrote recently at The Verge: “Simply put, the popularity of net neutrality poses a problem for Republicans. While the GOP maintains a general opposition to government rules in economic life, the principle of treating all web traffic equally enjoys wide, cross-partisan support. As it has become clearer that only new regulation can ensure net neutrality, Republicans risk not only appearing as obstructionists, but worse, obstructionists that side with the likes of Comcast.”

So Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – the two main committees charged with Internet oversight — have introduced legislation that on the surface seems to wholeheartedly embrace Net neutrality. But at the same time, it gives a big thumb’s down to using Title II to reclassify ISPs and effectively neutralizes the ability of the FCC to regulate.

Shaban notes, “By avoiding a reclassification of broadband and working to render the FCC impotent, the new Republican Congress suggests it doesn’t really want net neutrality. It just wants to look like it does.”

Comment Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score 1) 151

Just cause they wrapped a turd with a pretty pink bow that said "Net "Neutrality" on it doesn't mean it was actually Net Neutrality.

Let's be clear: the GOP bill was NOT net neutrality.
It WAS a turd.

It was one of the most blatant examples of BS legislation naming ever proposed, only surpassed by the Patriot Act.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 135

It's kinda harsh to go back to 1976. We're primarilly talking about things being made now. Because that's what most people pirate, and where most of the money we're talking about is. And stuff shows up on Netflix like a year after theaters. HBO Go first.

I don't think anyone really cares about incentivizing studios to remaster the Breakfast Club for Bluray. I think people are talking about people pirating unreleased movies, etc.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 2) 135

Movie companies would do (empahsis added) a much better job if they stopped trying to squash any sort of piracy, and focused more on providing what people want, in the form they want, when they want it, at a convenient price

Really? For like $20 a month, you have ad-free Hulu and Netflix. That's like a huge portion of content right there. How much more do you need before you can call "won" on the "can stream whatever I want from home for cheap"

Comment Re:Fixable - Easily (Score 3, Interesting) 48

redefining the float_t to being double is the problem, when it is already defined as something else

It's not being redefined. Because of the way the C compiler works, it has different values at different points of compilation, but never does one definition get overwritten by another one. (Analogous to many wrong API based errors). The fact you would think it's checked against by the compiler makes this cleverer, because you'd expect the machine to throw a warning if it was actually redefined.

And float_t is supposed to define (at least as wide as a float) the commonly used float type in this environment. According to the given spec, the min float type was supposed to be a double. If that were consistently included in all files, it would have actually triggered errors if you ever used a regular float function. The problem was not enough redefining

Comment Re:So winner's solution overrides standard type (Score 2) 48

They carefully didn't include math.h (where float_t is normally defined) in the same file (but did elsewhere, to create the error.)

Even better, the floating point precision was defined in the spec as being a double. Therefore, the error looks benign. Certainly, a quick code review may thing it's actually setting the precision of the math library.

And, if discovered, it looks super-innocent.

This kind of solution is why I didn't enter. I had some ideas (all based around NaN poisoning), but knew that I didn't have a clear and clever solution like this.

Maybe next year

Comment Re:New York Taxi Workers' Alliance (Score 1) 179

I've had to yell at Uber drivers for trying to take the long way around.

Most of the problems with taxis arose from making them internalize costs. Like the cost of being out in a snowstorm and not charging $700 for a ride. Or the cost of having to pick up a woman and take her to the hospital to give birth. Heck, in may places, taxi drivers need to take special emergency driving courses for if they hurry someone to the hospital.

That's leaving aside the fact that they take into account the freal costs of labor and depreciation.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27

Working...