Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Open Access rules (Score 1) 100

by JakiChan (#41424249) Attached to: Verizon-Branded iPhone 5 Ships Unlocked, Works With Other Networks

Right, but AT&T is doing LTE, just as VZW is, on different bands. Their "4G" HSPA+ rollout is much larger than their HSPA+ network, but eventually you'll probably see two pretty strong LTE networks. VZW just has a headstart.

Having the two biggest networks on the same technology is nice - someday, if they both do LTE only (and get rid of their legacy networks) then you could have a multi-band NA handset that you really could take between carriers.

AT&T not having bought any of the new spectrum makes them even harder to swallow now. They can be as anti-consumer as they want. I wonder if VZW being forced to be pro-consumer will make AT&T start to relax a bit?

Comment: Things folks don't think about. (Score 4, Informative) 165

by JakiChan (#38631426) Attached to: Employee-Owned Devices Muddy Data Privacy Rights

There are a few things that the users who want company (email/data/whatever) on their personal (iCrap/PC/whatever) don't think about.

1) Is the remote wipe functionality such that if I have to zap your device it will only nuke the company data? Are you willing to lose ALL the data on your phone? I've heard about folks suing their employers over this.

2) If I suspect you're up to no good and you're using a company device I can take that device and conduct forensic analysis on it. If it's your personal device I can't force you to surrender it.

3) Are you willing to pay for whatever security software IT mandates?

I know there are some Mobile Device Management packages out there working on this, and hopefully the best practices will all be sorted out soon. However coming up with these best practices (and buying the software/etc to support them) is not free. So to the employee they think "Hey, this doesn't cost you anything! I bought the phone!" But they don't see the TCO at all.

User Journal

Journal: in which i am a noob all over again 17

Journal by CleverNickName

I haven't posted a journal here in almost three years, because I couldn't find the button to start a new entry. ...yeah, it turns out that it's at the bottom of the page.

So... hi, Slashdot. I used to be really active here, but now I mostly lurk and read. I've missed you.

Comment: Who, exactly, is losing money? (Score 4, Informative) 141

by JakiChan (#37646224) Attached to: MS Buying Yahoo? Bad Idea, Even At a Discount

Say what you want about Yahoo! but it is not "money-losing". Yahoo! is profitable. Yes, top-line growth has been a problem but management of the bottom line has driven profits UP not DOWN. Bing may be losing money hand over fist but Yahoo! is still bringing in the cash.

I bet the folks who love to keep beating on Yahoo! also kick puppies for fun...

Comment: Re:CGN will kill content providers (Score 1) 583

by JakiChan (#33818192) Attached to: Can Large Scale NAT Save IPv4?

tell her to plan on upgrading both her computer and her first-mile provider service in the next couple years

1. You have a choice in first-mile providers? Must be nice. I live in the middle of Mtn. View, home to Google. The heart of Silicon Valley. I can get nothing more than 1.5Mbps from AT&T. If I want something faster (which I do) Comcast is the only game in town. So no, changing carriers doesn't solve any problems.
2. Neither broadband carrier here currently offers native v6.

Kinda sad, isn't it?

Staying IPv4-only is just plain going to cost more in the long-run than moving to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack.

This I agree with. I think CGN is not a solution and is a stupid and lame attempt by carriers to avoid switching to v6. However, you were the one who seemed to think it was fine. Just put your ad servers in their address realm you said.

The fact is that v6 is not going smoothly. I'm involved from the CP side and it's a bitch. However, it's a necessary evil. Trying to postpone things with CGN will not only just drag out the inevitable but it will jack things up for a lot of people It is pure fail.

Comment: Re:CGN will kill content providers (Score 1) 583

by JakiChan (#33817644) Attached to: Can Large Scale NAT Save IPv4?

And I won't have much sympathy for the people don't like being nickle-and-dimed for searches but can't bother to run a modern IP stack on a modern network that provides IPv6 service.

You may not care about them, but the CPs do since that's where their money comes from. Or are you gonna tell you grandma to get a tunnel to HE because Comcast, one of the biggest residential providers out there, doesn't have v6 yet? Well, *you* probably would. Normal people wouldn't.

Comment: Re:CGN will kill content providers (Score 1) 583

by JakiChan (#33817406) Attached to: Can Large Scale NAT Save IPv4?

Google has production IPv6 service now...

Well, if by "production" you mean that their load balancers are proxying v6 connections, yeah. The content providers are deploying v6 and not CGN.

The ISPs are way slower. I've been signed up for a Comcast trial forever and not heard anything.

Oh well...I'm sure Google's price-per-search will be pretty low. They'll probably offer discount packages like cell phone carriers...

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...