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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Just a Few Thoughts (Score 1) 100

No question. The issue is that - under the current Verizon scheme at issue - only Verizon can pursue this business model. Anti-net-neutrality proponents would argue that Netflix should be able to pay Verizon more money for access, and Verizon could then use that money to upgrade. Net neutrality proponents would argue that Verizon should just directly charge their customers to use more bandwidth, and then use that money to upgrade.

Verizon wants a little of both to give themselves something of a monopoly (1). That doesn't benefit anyone except Verizon.

(1) Not really a monopoly, as cell phone service is fairly competitive. Verizon does have the best rural network, though, and they have something of a monopoly outside of metro areas.

Comment Re:Fusion energy is impractical (Score 1) 97

You can't control where the neutrons go since they aren't contained by the magnetic fields the way the plasma is. Some of the neutrons will stay within the reactor and propagate the reaction and others will exit the containment vessel. And my understanding is that the neutrons leaving containment are necessary too, since they contain energy which can be collected and turned into electricity.

Comment Re:Open Source (Score 5, Informative) 163

This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is.

Hardly. Even on a non-rooted device all you have to do is tick "Allow untrusted sources" in the settings and then you can install stuff outside of Play Market as much as you like. Play Market is closed, yes, but it's also a separate thing and not required for using an Android-device. iPhones and iPads and the likes, as far as I know, require doing a lot more than just ticking a single box to allow installation of things from outside of Apple's AppStore.

Submission + - GOP loses privacy and tech credentials with departure of Rand Paul (

SonicSpike writes: The Republican presidential campaign lost its biggest privacy advocate on Wednesday when Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky dropped out of the race, leaving doubt about whether the remaining candidates can resonate with the tech community or voters concerned about government surveillance.

Taking a libertarian stance on Internet issues including encryption and the National Security Agency's snooping has been a key part of Paul’s campaign effort to attract tech savvy younger voters, while other Republican candidates make hawkish statements in favor of mass surveillance. Tech policy generates less excitement from voters in presidential elections than issues like national security or the economy, however, which in part explains how Paul struggled below 10 percent in most election polls this past year.

Paul began his outreach to the tech industry even before launching his campaign with appearances including visiting the South by Southwest Interactive Conference. During an exclusive interview with U.S. News at the conference he became the first potential candidate to support the right for Google and Apple to sell encrypted smartphones, countering criticism from the FBI that the privacy software would damage law enforcement investigations.

“There is a right to privacy and the government needs to stay out,” Paul told U.S. News, expressing a stance that became a hallmark of his campaign. “If they want to look at your information, if they want to collect any of your data, they should do it with a judge’s warrant with probable cause if they think you have committed a crime.”

Silicon Valley donors cast a wide net supporting both parties during presidential elections, but Paul’s stance in favor of encryption and limits on government surveillance reflected the positions of numerous companies like Facebook, Apple and Google, and promised to attract funding if his campaign gained traction.

Comment Re:Lightning Strikes Twice with Entitled Customer (Score 4, Insightful) 337

You've probably seen signs in stores that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to any one". Guys like Alsop are why those signs exist. Companies can choose not to do business with you every bit as much as you can choose not to do business with them.

Comment Re:The 0.01% (Score 3, Insightful) 216

Doesn't it burn your ass to know that if she were to get fired, she'd walk away with tens of millions of dollars?

Why would it? To the class of workers Marissa Mayer belongs to, tens of millions of dollars is not a huge sum. Her net worth was about $300 million in 2012 when she took the the Yahoo job. Tens of millions of dollars to her is more like a tens of thousands of dollars to me, which would be a very reasonable severance package to someone in my position.

Just like you probably make far more money than people working in third world slums, Marissa Mayers makes far more money than you. Comparing the salaries of people in completely different classes of society is not very useful.

I totally agree with what you're saying. Here's where it breaks down. Mayer has a bunch of money due solely to incredibly good luck and timing. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with her abilities (obviously), education, or any of that. She was in the right place at the right time.

So she's in a "class" that's occupied by people who made a bunch of money at business, and powerball winners. Although she made her money in business technically the reality is that she's on the "powerball winner" side of the aisle, if you catch my drift. So it's not terribly surprising that when you put her into a position like this she falters.

Of course, she is in an impossible position, anyway, but the company should have pulled a real entrepreneur in if they wanted to have a radical turnaround.

Slashdot Top Deals

New systems generate new problems.