Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Blatant Violation of Net Neutrality (Score 1) 227

Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile, allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.

Comment Blatant Violation of Net Neutrality (Score 1) 119

Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.

Comment drugs (Score 1) 122

A "fiat" currency depends on someone that can be trusted, who has a lot of assets AND a major income stream giving a promise.

Well, it was my understanding that anyone could have used bitcoin to buy drugs on Silk Road, and supposedly you still can still do so on various successor sites. It seems to me a big reliable drug dealing organization meets all your qualifications.

OK, granted, this only works for certain values of "trust," but still... You'd essentially have a currency pegged to a known commodity, one with as much if not more intrinsic value than any precious metal.

Comment What if he's in the picture too? (Score 1) 263

So, if I read all this correctly, this would apply even if the photo was of the (then) happy couple, taken remotely. But why should HER right to privacy automatically trump HIS right to own a memento of the relationship? In the absence of any actual attempt by a guy to use a twosome pic in an underhanded way, it doesn't quite seem fair to force him to destroy such a photograph (or whatever).

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 167

But in the studies done, they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won.

Casinos know all this and they definitely use it. I used to go to the casino with a friend of mine who really liked playing the video slots. Some of these machines were billed as quarter slots, but certain combinations would only pay out if the player has put 2 or even 3 quarters into the machine for that play. I could never get my friend to understand that when those special multi-coin only combinations came up, invariably when my friend had only put in a single quarter, it did not necessarily mean that he would have won big if only, oh if only, he had played the full 75 cents. The machine knows exactly how many coins you put in it, and if you play a single quarter it will frequently pump out those multi-coin-only winning combinations precisely to get you to think that you would have won big if you had played for more. The casinos know a million tricks like this to help part the innumerate from their money. These places know all about the psychology and neurophysiology of gambling, they never miss a trick.

Comment Re:What is truly "troubling" (Score 1) 93

You didn't "fix" anything. It doesn't require a SCOTUS ruling. All it requires is a ruling that is not appealed (or the higher courts refuse to hear an appeal).

The US government has continued to do many things that various lesser judges have ruled unconstitutional at one point or other, but a Supreme Court ruling puts the matter to rest for good (barring a constitutional amendment). And if SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, well, that's a ruling of a sort, too. You need SCOTUS to settle the matter, either way.

Comment I'd assume all of them (Score 1) 76

The article in the summary doesnt list which modems are affected as i have an Arris Modem myself, but looks to be the TG862A, TG862G, and DG860A.

Well actually what they say is "affecting many of their devices including TG862A, TG862G, DG860A" so technically all one can say is that those models are definitely affected, but my reading is that others may be affected as well. Does anyone know of a comprehensive list of every known backdoored Arris model? And yeah, I know, the safe and likely correct answer is "probably all of them."

Comment no way to know (Score 2) 169

These numbers are meaningless without knowing the full statistics.

Read the article. You have NO way of knowing the full statistics, because anyone not targeted who happens to be killed in a drone strike is automatically identified as an enemy, by default. As the article notes, this is insane. Everyone's an enemy by default if they get killed, and statistics are released on this basis. The logic is basically: if we kill them, they're bad guys. So unless somebody miraculously proves otherwise, how would one know?

Comment Re:Not idiots (Score 2, Funny) 131

If they didn't, they'd be complete idiots.

Or, more likely, just very well paid. The entire field of environmental studies is sadly rife with rigged studies, often because the researchers or the people funding the research "know" ahead of time what the result SHOULD be, and the results will match that pre-ordained "understanding".

Citation needed.

oh fuck it, why do I bother... The entire field of right wing anti-environmentalism is rife with "pre-ordained understanding". (sigh)

Comment Re:Wrong industry? (not a copyright issue) (Score 4, Insightful) 117

Essentially this guy is going to jail based on a secret algorithm that can't be verified. I can't imagine how this could be legal.

Actually, it's worse than that, he's facing a death sentence. It's inconceivable to me - but, sadly, unsurprising in this day and age - that someone might be legally executed based in part on the results of a proprietary algorithm that the defense is not allowed to examine. I can only hope the judge recognizes the seriousness of the situation. This case definitely bears watching

Comment Re:Why would anyone be shocked? (Score 1) 213

Economics has always been one of the least predictive of "sciences". Economists with an ideological bent make things up with no relationship to the real world and people believe them.

To be specific, politicians and pundits with a similar ideological bent believe them, and regular people just go along with whatever their favorite politicians and pundits tell them. Dismal indeed.

How hard could it be to design real-world economic experiments that actually yield useful and reproducible results? But it seems like everyone in the field already has an agenda, and the tendency is to only submit papers that seem to back up their own personal pet theories. This can be a problem in any discipline, but economics seems to be more riddled with inherent biases than most.

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"

Working...