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


Forgot your password?

Comment List (Score 1) 255

From the web:

Surprising omissions from the actor race this year included Idris Elba for “Beasts of No Nation,” Will Smith for “Concussion,” Michael B. Jordan from “Creed” and the many young actors in “Compton.” link

Will Smith was fantastic in "Concussion." I didn't see Idris Elba in "Beasts of No Nation," but I'm going to rent it just to thumb my nose at the Academy. No interest in "Rocky VI" (ahem) "Creed," but I think Stallone got nominated for his performance in that one. It seems to me he's milked all the Oscars he should get out of "Rocky." Were the leads up to the same level? Don't know. "Straight Outta Compton" is another one I mean to hit in rental. No idea if it was any good, though.

Seems suspect. Insidious, isn't it? Definitely worth talking about. Quotas are probably the wrong way to go, though. Public shaming is fair game.

Comment Re:"No" carbon emissions should be the goal. (Score 1) 346

Yes. I understand this would also optimize zero emissions technology, I just don't think that's the way the world works. I think we would just say, "Oh good, now we can burn a little less coal." i.e.: I think this would just make us boil the frog a little more slowly. We need to work on getting rid of the coal in this country, not make that technology more feasible and attractive.

Comment Re:Power line losses? (Score 1) 346

It will not address getting off of fossil technologies. It actually might backfire and prolong the use of carbon emitting tech, just making the endgame a little longer. Not even terribly much longer in the time scale of climate change, now that I think about it. "Boil that frog" slower, that's the solution. That is what will come of it, given the way the debate is currently being framed.

For $$X that we don't have in the next 20 years the way the economy is going. To help compensate for immature technologies like solar. Oops. Context also matters. Well, at least we know how to do wind at this point.

It seems to me that theorists should stop suggesting these "great ideas" to the public. It makes them sound judgmentally unreliable. At this point in the issue, that makes some people not trust them as to whether "climate change" even exists. We should whisper about ideas like this, as something that might occur in the distant future, when perhaps the world economy isn't on the brink.

Comment "No" carbon emissions should be the goal. (Score 1) 346

Have you looked at the national debt? Have you looked at the state of social services in the US? Have you seen our crumbling infrastructure? How in the hell can we justify retrofitting our electric grid like that? Why don't we just start generating electricity without carbon emissions by using modern nuclear power? Today. Let me guess, gotta "save the planet;" let's stifle that debate point with a little Armageddon.

This is why some folks think "climate change" isn't real. Because there's no reality in the discussion of policy solutions, only a long series of variations on a machine gun volley to the foot, to loosen a noose of our own making.

This just seems myopic to me. This would just prolong carbon emissions, which just add up. We need to get off of carbon emitting technologies, not make them transmit more efficiently. That should be the priority, if only because we're going to run out of fossils.

Comment Re:Another liberal hit piece from sladot (Score 1) 521

I think most Slashdotters have a parochial view of what "broadband" should entail, compared to far denser, far smaller, industrialized nations. We definitely pay too much in America, which makes the idea of "subsidizing" ISPs feel a little cynical to many people here.

But I agree in essence. This is a "checks and balances" situation, executive vs legislative, not a Luddite pull on the hand brake as it is characterized. I think the FCC was too aggressive for rural considerations.

Comment Differing strategies for differing regions (Score 1) 521

What this country needs to do is split "minimum internet access speed" (I won't misuse "broadband") into regional strategies. Like a minimum guaranteed rate on a frame relay. (Do those still exist?) I'd say 4 regions as a starter.

Class 1 - urban region, easy to wire up; Class 2 - rural dense (vs rural sparse) more difficult, different challenges; Class 3 - rural sparse, probably yet different challenges; Class 4 - screw you, get a satellite dish, you "exceedingly long peninsula."

Then we need different build-out strategies for each region. Get that? Not one strategy for the entire country like apples are oranges, and monkeys are orangutans. A little common sense regarding the different needs of the different regions, instead of this (R) rural, (D) urban, schizophrenic policy. I think 4Mbps/2Mbps up would be "adequate" for a Class 3 infrastructure region. More minimum speed for the higher classes. This is what would be fair, and I think the senators are trying to roll out subsidies to rural areas in particular, so that's why they want to check the higher standard of the FCC policy.

(PS: I say 4Mbps/2Mbps, because I think up should, for the sake of these minimums, be pegged at half of down. If I have 25 down, I should have 12-13 up, not 3, which ludicrously assumes no one in the country is a content creator.)

Comment Re:Think? (Score 1) 521

Broadband means "using a wide band of frequencies" for communication. In practice, no one gives a shit about frequencies used in the raw physical layer, net IP data bandwidth is all that matters. And even if people did care, most of the advances in data bandwidth are not actually just using "larger bands", they are using the existing bands more efficiently. DWDM, 256-QAM, VDSL, etc. As the technology gets better, OBVIOUSLY the standards for average bandwidth to the home will change...

Yeah, and "hacker" means "likes to play innovatively with hardware and software, generally without manuals," but in reality "broadband" is misused all the time to mean "fast," and that's what it means here, I think. Thanks for the pedagogy, though. You are at least accurate. You sure you're not new here? ;)

Comment Are you sure there would be no buildout for 4Mbps? (Score 1) 521

I don't think most people are close enough to the CO to get 4Mbps in a lot of rural areas. More like you could expect 768Kbps down/768Kbps up SDSL.

25Mbps seems a distinctly "urban" standard, and absolutely pie-in-the-sky for a rural standard. To me, at least.

You're dealing with building off the rail line and pipeline fiber for rural areas, currently, if I'm not mistaken. Honestly, IMHO, the federal government should be doing a massive public infrastructure project running limited fiber trunk lines across rural America, and leaving the "last mile" (which can be more like 20 miles in rural) to the ISPs. Either that or subsidize satellite. We need a real infrastructure plan to solve that problem (good luck getting that from Congress! We can't even maintain our bridges and highways.)

Comment Separating urban vs rural internet (Score 1) 521

All systems can be gamed. That's why you need to reform them frequently. By that I mean, change the rules as a matter of course every 20 years or so.

Urban vs rural policy is something this country should definitely look into. Something along the lines of "infrastructure districts," slicing up cities into large megalopolis districts, because it's easier to wire a city, and rural into smaller district regions, because it costs more, and giving each appropriate amounts of money for infrastructure. The difference in size of districts might mean that you can give the *same* amount of money to each district. But honestly we should think outside the box and allocate *different* funds by different standards of say, "Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 districts." Class 1 would be urban. Class 2 would be (comparative to sparse rural) dense rural. Class 3 could be sparse rural. (Additionally, Class 4 could be "pay for a satellite dish," AKA the "fuck it" districts. We could even give satellite service buyers a tax break on it to incentivize).

Differing fund allocation policy would allow for sensibly fewer districts, too, making it easier to administrate.

Frankly, it's high time the Republicans started having to cater to the cities, and vice-versa for the Democrats and rural constituencies. I'm getting sick and tired of half the country getting screwed on the federal level with each shift in power.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.