Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Because the Greeks are so stupid? (Score 1) 311 311

by Spazmania (#50015307) Attached to: Greek Financial Crisis Is an Opportunity For Bitcoin

And you're going to convert those paper Euros to bitcoins how exactly? Other than, you know, mailing the bills in an envelope.

If you had your Euros in a bank outside of Greece, you could write a check, transfer money through paypal or engage in most any other transactions with them, capital controls be damned. Without having to convert the Euros to bitcoin.

Basically, all these things you can magically do by converting your Euros to bitcoin, you can do without bitcoin.

Comment: Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap (Score 1) 371 371

by Spazmania (#49971745) Attached to: Recycling Is Dying

The problem is that mixed paper is worth less than the cost to collect and recycle it. Cheaper to plant trees and bury used paper. Though the article only alludes to it with "dual stream recycling," the rest of the materials on their own (glass, plastic, metal) recycle profitably.

"Source sorting" consumes vastly more manpower than the mechanized sort at the recycling center. That manpower has a cost either way. Even if you coercively steal the manpower, that doesn't make it free.

Comment: Re:I support PBS (Score 1) 8 8

by Spazmania (#49959883) Attached to: you dirty girl

Exactly. Favoring PBS' superb programming and supporting donation and sponsorship to keep it going is a separate issue from disapproving of government funding.

Ron Paul supporters are against government funding for a lot of activities they strongly support. That's kinda the whole idea of libertarianism: personally support the stuff you like but get the government out of it.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 1064 1064

Div by zero means my program encountered an error. If it continues anyway, it could corrupt its database or misbehave in other destructive ways. Worse, it could provide the operator with incorrect results leading to real-world destruction.

So yeah, I want divide by zero to throw an exception and I don't wish to ignore the exception.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

by Spazmania (#49937499) Attached to: First Net Neutrality Lawsuit Will Target Time Warner Cable

That sounds so reasonable. Just one problem: those customers you took where you found them paid you to take them where you found them and connect them to the Content networks. Refusing to provide that paid-for service (or throttling it) until the Content networks _also_ pay you is fraudulent double-billing.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

by Spazmania (#49937469) Attached to: First Net Neutrality Lawsuit Will Target Time Warner Cable

Outbound traffic is much cheaper than inbound traffic. You can dump outbound traffic off at the nearest meeting point with its destination network. But you have to carry inbound traffic from wherever the source network gives it to you.

That's a half-truth.

At any connection with the source network, you advertise the destinations you're willing to accept traffic for. Nothing requires you to accept packets for your entire global network at every location where you interconnect; that's something you choose (or choose not) to do.

Sending packets for destinations you did not advertise has long been deemed a violation of any peering agreement, subjecting the transgressor to disconnection.

Likewise, most service providers respect the destination network's advertised priority for each of its destinations. If the "AS path" is "shorter" at the distant connection point, packets are sent to the distant interconnection, not the nearby one. When offered at the same priority from each interconnection point, the packets do of course travel to the nearer one.

The few networks who disregard these advertised priorities and just send to the nearest interconnect tend to suffer from greater malfunction and customer ire.

They might agree to not exchange any money so long as each of them carries about 50% of the packages across the ocean. But if the US post office carries 80% of the packages across the ocean, some money is going to have to change hands to keep it fair.

That's totally disingenuous. The postal systems are sender-pays systems. Of course a portion of that payment must be passed forward to each of the postal systems in the delivery chain.

The Internet is a meet-in-the-middle system in which both sender and receiver pay to reach any of the midpoints where packets are exchanged. Regardless of any ratios, the packets transiting those interconnects have already been paid for in both directions.

If you want to convert to a sender-pays system where everybody gets free gigabit fiber in their homes but Netflix has to pay for access then sure, your example would make sense.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers