Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:socks arent all malevolent (Score 1) 68

more attention needs to be lent to dealing with controversial articles on the RIAA, the trans continental partnership, and the nature of large entities that can afford to muddle their tracks. For example, how many edits to the Coca Cola wiki article have been made and by whom? What edits get made to pages on the gulf oil disaster and on Time Warners article

And you don't think pages like Barack Obama or George W. Bush are immune to these problems by political fanatics either? What about the religious fanatics that get into edit wars over theology, or the Wikipedia pages on Scientology? Frankly what I see for from these shills working for advertising agencies is trivial compared to the huge damage that a well invested fanatic on many other topics can do to Wikipedia articles, most of them not getting any sort of pay for their activities.

It also isn't the famous articles that are the real concern though. It is the articles that have perhaps two or three active editors that have ever worked on that article and then the article is hijacked to support a strong point of view. It might get caught if it is on somebody's active page watch list or somebody aggressively looking at recent changes, but mostly it will slip through the cracks and become mostly permanent to Wikipedia. This includes some rather substantive articles I might add, but by its nature is usually non-controversial (hence why so few people are bothering to edit it too).

Comment Re:Irony (Score 1) 68

That edit history is already built into the MediaWiki software and has been there for years. it is in fact one of the ways you can track down the activities of a user, and that edit history is for the most part even available to the general public. Here is the edit history of one of the more infamous Wikipedia editors of the past as an example.

Admins get some minor additional pieces of information, and can look up deleted pages (at least pages not visible to everybody) to review what might have happened in the past that got them on the bad side of another administrator or even police bad actions by admins themselves. It is tedious for even one admin to fight another admin (called wheel warring) but it can be done.

Your suggestion already exists.

Comment Re:after the right people (Score 2) 129

Even more interesting is the attorney who's pursuing this. Carl Crowell (based out of Salem, IIRC) is pretty damned prolific about this - enough that he has a rather slick operation (see article) that chews through a lot of these each month. I find it interesting that they're willing to settle for $750/ea (though IMHO that's still a bit too high), while most settlements average $5k-$7.5k or so.

Like most copyright suits, he almost always gets the money via settlement. It all still hinges on IP addresses, the ISP, and how well they keep records, though. I'm guessing that Popcorn Time likely blares your IP addy out nice and loud for the world to see by other torrenters, though one would wonder about sharing a movie in order to sue other sharers over the same movie...

Comment Re:Old enough doesn't matter (Score 1) 203

Phone contracts are 1 or 2 years typically (though now they're going out of vogue) ...

People 'grandfathered' in to various perks are left alone for PR reasons I assume...that or because many old plans are probably more profitable and it's easier to leave them all alone. There's no reason a cell carrier can't tell someone 'we no longer offer your xyz 'grandfathered' plan; you will need to pick a new one from our current choices.'

Comment Re:Limited unlimited (Score 1) 203

On the surface, I agree but when you dig a bit deeper it's not entirely true.

Individual uplinks aren't the issue here, neither is (to a larger degree) neighborhood level traffic. It's your ISP's connection(s) into the backbone and thus to netflix itself. This is why netflix offers ISPs cache boxes to reduce traffic going out of their network.

So Ch. 4 might "cost" more locally to stream but it's not using any actual internet bandwidth (except maybe a single stream inwards on a dedicated line which feeds all their customers).

Then again, assuming there's a netflix cache your netflix stream isn't 'costing' the ISP either. Then again again all the lawsuits about equal priority for internet traffic.

In the end I think it's ridiculous that ISPs are now trying to impose caps on wired bandwidth. They see all the big $ that the wireless carriers are getting out of the same scam and cry big crocodile tears.

Comment Re:Older browsers (Score 1) 33

Nobody's saying leap to Windows 10 here. We're saying stop using a browser that's over THREE TIMES AS OLD as an obsolete computer (e.g. 2001 for IE6)

Obsolete? Let me check my main computer.
% grep name /proc/cpuinfo
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) III CPU family 1133MHz

A browser three times that age would have had to be made in 1973...

But it's not even obsolete. It runs up-to-date patched software, does all its tasks, and handles admirably. It's no more obsolete than a well maintained car from 2001 is.

Comment Not true. (Score 1) 163

There are airborne optical alternatives that can beat the * out of fiber - provided the weather is clear.

Fibre provides more frequency and better SNR than you'll get in the air, thus more bits

But a single fiber provides ONE PATH. Optics can provide MANY paths.

Imagine ten thousand fibers. Now imagine the ends poking out of a billboard in a 100x100 array - behind a 100x100 array of collimating lenses that beams the light toward your house. At your house imagine a telescope imaging that billboard onto a slide containing another 100x100 array of fiber ends. (Of course the fibers work both ways0 The air path may be of lower quality than physical fibers, but it's hard to beat a four orders of magnitude more paths. You'd need to run an actual bundle of hundreds or thousands of fibers from the billboard site to your house to beat it.
Now go back to the billboard and insert another 100x100 array of fibers through it - slightly offset so the same set of lenses but beams toward your next-door neighbor's house. (We'll assume the array is spaced out sufficiently that an optical telescope can resolve the two houses.) Repeat for ALL the houses served.

Not practical as described, of course. But it shows the principle: Wireless paths can multiplex spatially and reuse the bandwidth a hysterical number of times.

(Of course a real system using spatial multiplexing could be expected to use various wave-mechanical hacks rather than actual resolved paths - just as MIMO does down at radio frequencies.)

Comment Con Crud (Score 2) 77

Everybody who goes to conventions, especially conventions for hobbies, SF, fantasy, mystery, gaming or media interests knows what con crud is. It's a type of cold or flu-like disorder that many people come down with either at those conventions or just after. Not everybody gets it, of course, and few people get it every time, but as long as there are a few people there who are in the contagious stage, it's going to be passed around. I've been lucky, so far, because in several decades of attending SF and media cons I've never come down with it. I also try to make sure that I get adequate sleep while I'm enjoying the con and that just might be why I've been immune to it. Remember, if you want to come home healthy, don't insist on partying all night, every night and be sure to eat at least one healthy meal every day.

Comment Re:Count me in (Score 1) 77

The early morning starts are doing the children a huge disservice...

Don't blame that entirely on the school system. Parents who let their children stay up late and don't make sure that they get enough sleep (Children need more sleep than adults do.) are just as much at fault, if not more so.

Comment Just a money grab (Score 4, Insightful) 203

The only reason they are making any changes is because the FCC is considering doing something.

As a point for comparison where I live there are two cable providers, Cox and Comcast, covering different parts of the city. Cox has a data cap, but it is 2TB. Also that is a soft cap. If you hit it, nothing happens. They may call and complain at you if you do it too much, but that's all. It is there to try and keep people reasonable, and so they can cut off someone in truly egregious cases (I've never actually heard of anyone getting cut off).

Now somehow both these companies can make money, yet only Comcast charges for overages and yet has much lower caps.

It is just a money grab. While some kind of soft cap or throttling can be needed to make sure people play nice (we can only have Internet fast and cheap if people share, otherwise the backhaul is prohibitively expensive) low hard caps with overage fees are just used to try and make more cash.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.