Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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: Can't be enforced. (Score 0) 607

by goombah99 (#49140119) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

I can think of a zillion loopholes by which this will be evaded.

Is there a definition of what is THE internet? surely comcast can create a parallel construction and sell however they wish like a private toll road. It could have discrete points where it could tap into the "real" internet. Thus amazon or netflix or whomever could connect into this autobahn on the goes-into side and pop out into "the" internet at some Comcast hub in the customers town.

Picture it like FED Ex, transporting a package 90% of the way, then mailing it. the postoffice might not charge differently for different customers and Fed Ex might not either (or they could) but only customers with valuable deliveries would be willing to pay the cost of the combined service, which would be dominated by the Fed Ex high speed service.

That's effectively what companies like Akamai sell already and those are not part of the discussion of Net Neutrality.

It might be easy to regulate comcast if comcast is the parent company of both halves of this real and shadow internet. But if these services are split into two companies then what? Even if the shadow company is privately held by comcast this is going to be hard to regulate.

Eventually the shadow compaines won't even bother with their own hardware. They will lease a certain number of dedicated switches from Comcast for their own uses. these will be cut out of the real internet.

An alternative way around this is by selectively enforcing the tragedy of the commons. In principle Netflix could prioritize its packets on a neutral interenet by emitting 100 times as many packets where each packet is sent 100 times. the receiver ignores all but the first one of the redundant packets. This of course would be retaliated by others now squeezed out doing the same thing resulting in 100x the traffic for the same data and no gain for anyone. COmcast would come down hard on these miscreants but would it be selective?

Comment: or not (Score 1) 186

by goombah99 (#49127745) Attached to: Jury Tells Apple To Pay $532.9 Million In Patent Suit

Since no on knows who owns VitnetX, it would be surprising if you did. The Technology appears to have been developed by SAIC under govt contract and has been licesenced to Microsoft and others. Now that jury award has been nullified on appeal. So either by liscening or not, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping people from using the technology. So if that's the NSA objective here it seems to have not succeeded or perhaps there nver was an NSA agenda and it was simply about making money off invented technology?

Comment: Re:errr. huh? (Score 1) 531

by Nutria (#49099473) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression

It was a possible outcome.

The words "possible" and "chance" don't give a responsible scientist the right to claim that the sky is falling.

It wasn't a prediction.

Of course it was. That's why he wrote an Op Ed in a major East Coast newspaper.

and a paper on volcanic eruptions?

Where the hell did I say that his paper was on volcanic eruptions?

What was in that koolaide, mercury and lead paste?

What's this fixation you have with koolaide[sic]?

Comment: Re:errr. huh? (Score 1) 531

by Nutria (#49099263) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression

Did he ever say that volcanic eruptions and petroleum fires are the same thing?

If he didn't think the oil fires would not cause an "Oil Fires Winter" just like nukes would, why then would he then sound the alarm about the global catastrophe from the oil fires?

Did anybody say the academic paper was "on volcanic eruptions?"

Have you already forgotten what you wrote just 2 hours ago? Carl Sagan... is actually an expert on the subject, with academic papers on nuclear winter effects that analyze known past events like volcanic eruptions.

Comment: Re:errr. huh? (Score 1) 531

by Nutria (#49098993) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression

because he doesn't say anything incorrect.

Except for stuff like:

The fires would burn out of control until they put themselves out...

and:

This endangerment of the food supplies... appears to be likely enough that it should affect the war plans...

But, you say, he wrote an academic paper on known past events like volcanic eruptions. Except that he didn't know enough to realize that petroleum fires aren't volcano eruptions and still played Chicken Little.

Why do you hate Carl Sagan?

I hate Carl Sagan as much as I hate politicians pontificating outside of their own fields of expertise.

Comment: Re:errr. huh? (Score 1) 531

by Nutria (#49098485) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression

discovered you're probably a credulous right-winger, or ...

or I'm actually reading his own quotes instead of relying on someone else to interpret them..

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7124.htm

"Quickly capping 363 oil well fires in a war zone is impossible. The fires would burn out of control until they put themselves out... The resulting soot might well stretch over all of South Asia... It could be carried around the world... [and] the consequences could be dire. Beneath such a pall sunlight would be dimmed, temperatures lowered and droughts more frequent. Spring and summer frosts may be expected... This endangerment of the food supplies... appears to be likely enough that it should affect the war plans..." - Sagan in op/ed he co-authored with Richard Turco, The Baltimore Sun, January 31, 1991, commenting during the Gulf War on the impact of oil well fires

Comment: They should charge their customers for the removal (Score 1) 266

by goombah99 (#49094949) Attached to: Lenovo To Wipe Superfish Off PCs

That's ATT's new model. In Kansas you can get a $70, gigabit connection from ATT but if you want to opt out of the customer abuse plan they charge you $30/mo extra. No I'm not making that up, but they don't call it the customer abuse plan, but that's what it is. The $30 is so they don't track you and monetize you with the scrutiny that only an ISP can do (see Verizon's tracking cookies).

Lenovo should just say the truth: the laptop was $200 cheaper than it would have been because of SuperFish. If you want to opt out of da'Fish then you gotta pay. Nobody gets hurt okay.
http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Comment: Don't forget samsung (Score 5, Informative) 266

by goombah99 (#49094849) Attached to: Lenovo To Wipe Superfish Off PCs

http://www.pcworld.com/article...

Samsung also got caught this month injecting ads into TV viewing. They only got caught because they screwed up the algorithm and injected ads into people's personal ad-free videos. And then samsung's genius engineers biffed again by sending the TV microphone pickups back to samsung (which is okay--that's what siri, alexa, cortana, and google do) but doing so unencrypted.

Obviously parasitic ad injection is the the single most lucrative way to earn money on the internet. Your doing it just like google does for nearly all its revenue, selling ads and harvesting click-thru data, but your doing it without the associated cost of attracting customers with a product. No wonder Lenovo wanted this action.

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...