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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: What a load of BS (Score 1) 571

so far nothing you have said on this topic is true.
you've said nothing but hearsay and "well I say it's so, so its so".
nothing you have said has been confirmed by the FBI.

No, there was no humint (and using the acronym doesn't make you look smart).
No, no one has likely been likely been killed, no the FBI did not confirm that.

and in fact the CIA has even publicly rebuked Gowdy for implying there was by redacting documents himself even after he was told they weren't sensitive.

(you also seem to continually confuse the FBI with the CIA)

in short: you are completely talking out of your ass making up BS as you go

Comment Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score 1) 156

To elaborate:

Media Shouldn't Be Fooled By Fake Neutrality Bill Backed By Broadband Industry

IBT: GOP Legislation Would Undermine FCC's Ability To Enact Net Neutrality Regulations. As the International Business Times reported, the legislation proposed by congressional Republicans purports to ban broadband providers from blocking or speeding up certain content, or from charging content providers for faster access -- but in reality, undermines the FCC's ability "to impose stricter regulations on broadband companies" by establishing open-Internet rules. [International Business Times, 1/21/15]

Free Press: GOP Legislation "Undermines The Open Internet It Claims To Protect." In a January 21 statement, Free Press Action Fund noted that the GOP legislation would "declaw the one agency responsible for protecting the public interest in communications," rather than "safeguard Net Neutrality," as it claims to do:

Despite what they claim, this legislation won't safeguard Net Neutrality. The bills instead would undermine the FCC's ability to protect Internet users by removing broadband and wireless companies from nearly all agency oversight.

"The legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open Internet violations but opens the door to new industry abuses. It claims to give the FCC limited adjudication powers but removes the agency's ability to adopt and adapt rules to fit the changing landscape for high-speed Internet access. [Free Press, 1/22/15]

The Hill: GOP Bill Will Undermine Future Consumer Protection Efforts And Prevent Broadband Development. In a January 21 op-ed, experts at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation explained that the GOP legislation would "strip the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of crucial legal authority that protects consumers and small businesses on the internet," by limiting the FCC's ability to "adapt to evolving consumer harms." They also explained that the narrowly-written legislation would "eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband":

Making matters worse, the legislation would leave the FCC powerless to protect consumers from other broadband harms not specified in the bill text, such as those that are already occurring in the interconnection context. When the FCC enacted net neutrality rules four years ago, few anticipated that ISPs would congest their own networks as a strategy to extract fees from edge services like Netflix. But that's precisely what happened throughout 2013 and 2014, according to data collected by the Measurement Lab (a research consortium that includes the Open Technology Institute). The congestion harmed millions of Internet users whose connection speeds slowed to the point of unusability -- but the FCC had no mechanism in place to help these consumers. This prolonged, damaging behavior by multiple ISPs demonstrates why the FCC needs the flexibility to respond to problems as they evolve.

The bill would also eliminate the FCC's ability to help cities build broadband. This is a blow to municipalities that want to offer broadband service to their residents, particularly those currently restricted by state barriers to municipal broadband projects. The Open Technology Institute has consistently found that some of the fastest and most affordable broadband service in America comes from cities that have invested in their own infrastructure. Congress should be figuring out ways to support local government. Instead, the Thune-Upton bill prohibits the FCC from responding to communities that have asked for help. [The Hill, 1/21/15]

New Republican Bill Is Network Neutrality in Name Only

But, as written, the Republican bill provides network neutrality in name only. At first glance, the bill purports to ban paid prioritization, throttling, and blocking and applies the same rules to fixed and mobile networks, echoing language used by President Obama[4] and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler[5] to describe their network neutrality proposals. But on closer examination, the bill is so narrowly written that it fails to adequately protect users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, discrimination, and access fees.

A meaningful network neutrality regime requires bright-line rules prohibiting all forms of access fees, application-specific discrimination, and blocking. Unfortunately, the Republican bill is insufficient along each key dimension required to achieve real network neutrality, thereby dramatically departing from the network neutrality consensus that emerged over the past year. Thus, as currently written, the bill does not constitute an alternative to the adoption of meaningful network neutrality rules by the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act, coupled with appropriate forbearance.

Here are some of the problems with the bill.
[note: article goes into a lot of detail, these are just the headings. this is the most thourough of the articles]

1. The bill doesn’t actually ban “paid prioritization” (aka access fees).
2. The “no throttling” rule prohibits only a subset of ISPs’ harmful discriminatory practices.
3. The bill’s exception for reasonable network management does not require application-agnosticism, opening the door to discriminatory network management practices.
4. The bill leaves “user choice” undefined, and this vacuum could be filled by ISPs’ problematic definition of the term.
5. Interconnection is left out of the bill—and can never be addressed.
6. “Specialized services” are vague and largely unregulated, potentially creating a loophole in the network neutrality rules.
7. The bill ties the FCC’s hands—in network neutrality and other emerging broadband telecommunications policies.

As this piece illustrates, the bill would require a significant overhaul to ensure that it adequately protects users, innovators, and speakers against blocking, harmful discrimination, and access fees.

Backdoor Scheme Against Net Neutrality

But all of this apparently sent chills though the new Republican Congress and key segments of a communications industry that as a whole pumps an average $350 million-plus into lobbying every year and spent almost $100 million on the midterm elections. (Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are three of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics’ top 10 corporate lobbyists).

Together, the ISP companies and Congress have come up with a plan to legislatively derail Net neutrality that would bring a smile to the lips of Machiavelli.

As Hamza Shaban wrote recently at The Verge: “Simply put, the popularity of net neutrality poses a problem for Republicans. While the GOP maintains a general opposition to government rules in economic life, the principle of treating all web traffic equally enjoys wide, cross-partisan support. As it has become clearer that only new regulation can ensure net neutrality, Republicans risk not only appearing as obstructionists, but worse, obstructionists that side with the likes of Comcast.”

So Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce – the two main committees charged with Internet oversight — have introduced legislation that on the surface seems to wholeheartedly embrace Net neutrality. But at the same time, it gives a big thumb’s down to using Title II to reclassify ISPs and effectively neutralizes the ability of the FCC to regulate.

Shaban notes, “By avoiding a reclassification of broadband and working to render the FCC impotent, the new Republican Congress suggests it doesn’t really want net neutrality. It just wants to look like it does.”

Comment Re:Very naught, naught boy (Score 1) 156

Just cause they wrapped a turd with a pretty pink bow that said "Net "Neutrality" on it doesn't mean it was actually Net Neutrality.

Let's be clear: the GOP bill was NOT net neutrality.
It WAS a turd.

It was one of the most blatant examples of BS legislation naming ever proposed, only surpassed by the Patriot Act.

Comment Re:MS Wants to Own Your Machine for Good (Score 1) 573

I've never understood who actually leaves automatic updates enabled anyway, for any software, let alone the OS itself.
i'll do it manually thank you very much, when I'm good and ready.

especially since if left to its own devices it always seems to want attention when im busy and cant afford a reboot or download or whatever.
stuff that.

Comment Re:Trump just says stuff (Score 1) 875

1a: What do actual structural engineers have to say about his wall?

Twelve million, six hundred thousand cubic yards. In other words, this wall would contain over three times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam — a project that, unlike Trump’s wall, has qualitative, verifiable economic benefits.

Such a wall would be greater in volume than all six pyramids of the Giza Necropolis — and it is unlikely that a concrete slab in the town of Dead Dog Valley, Texas would inspire the same timeless sense of wonder.

That quantity of concrete could pave a one-lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the Earth, which would probably be just as useful.

Concrete, of course, requires reinforcing steel (or rebar). A reasonable estimate for the amount of rebar would be about 3 percent of the total wall size, resulting in a steel volume of 10,190,000 cubic feet, or about 5 billion pounds. We could melt down 4 of our Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and would probably be a few cruisers short of having enough steel.

But the challenge is far greater than simply collecting the necessary raw materials. All of these hundreds of miles of wall would need to be cast in concrete facilities, probably project-specific ones that have been custom built near the border. Then, the pre-cast wall pieces would need to be shipped by truck through the inhospitable, often roadless desert.

The men and women doing the work of actually installing the wall would have to be provided with food, water, shelter, lavatory facilities, safety equipment, transportation, and medical care, and would sometimes be miles away from a population center of any size. Sure, some people would be willing to to do the work, but at what price? Would Trump hire Mexicans?

This analysis also ignores the less sexy aspects of large-scale engineering projects: surveying, land acquisition, environmental review, geological studies, maintenance, excavating for foundations, and so on. Theoretical President Trump may be able to executive-order his way through the laser grid of lawsuits that normally impede this kind of work, but he can’t ignore the physical realities of construction.

1b: 3 billion dollars? Sorry jack, not even close. constructing a new relatively simple interstate interchange can run between 200mil and 1bil depending on how much land you need to buy for right of way, how many bridges, etc. the cost of trumps wall would be quite a bit higher.

2: No, we don't send Mexico 1bil a year. Not even close.
Total aid given to Mexico for the last several years:
2014: 218
2013: 272
2012: 282
2011: 477
2010: 310
2009: 166
2008: 104
2007: 109
2006: 96
2005: 68
2004: 45
2003: 58
2002: 83
2001: 44
TOTAL: 2.3 billion over 14 years.

ever get tired of being ignorant?

Comment Re:He's been trying for months now (Score 1) 828

I do single out Islam as uniquely bad.

And that's why you're a bigot.

No, you can't just replace "Muslims" with "Catholics".

Sure you can. Or any other group.

Catholics have a core text that can at least be invoked to "love your fellow man", "turn the other cheek", and "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's".

So do Muslims.

Nor is it meant to be the perfect word of God

You haven't talked to very many Catholics or Christians have you?

so it can be heavily cherrypicked.

Which is precisely what happens, and is precisely what you're doing when you say:

That doesn't apply to Islam.

Yes it does.
the Koran is extremely similar to the Bible, having many verses of violence and oppression, and many extoling the virtues of mercy and love.
Like any religious text you can mine it for any quote or lesson you want.

You've simply let your ignorance and bigotry have get in the way of your ability to see that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?