Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:It's a step in the right direciton but... (Score 1) 631

by grimmjeeper (#49142693) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

That's why you set it up as a utility, complete with utility regulations. There's no profit running telephone and electricity out to far flung areas. But the utilities manage to do it without having to charge everyone thousands of dollars a month each. The model does work. Everyone gets access to the grid at a reasonable and consistent rate. The benefit the utility company receives is that everyone wanting the pays them. They don't have to provide universal access AND compete for customers among multiple providers so all that financial pressure is non existent.

You can also regulate that they have to reinvest in capital improvements so the technology keeps up. Realistically though, the only thing they have to spend money on is maintenance and upgrades so it's not hard to force a utility to keep up with technology. The utility's business model is geared towards and perfectly suited to providing a commodity service like internet access, despite the hyperbole and propaganda that's flowing non stop from the right wing talking heads.

Comment: It's a step in the right direciton but... (Score 4, Insightful) 631

by grimmjeeper (#49139901) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

It doesn't go far enough. What we really need is to separate content creators from the network providers. Have a separate utility company that only provides your internet connection and nothing else. That way, every company that wants to sell you product is on 100% equal footing. Make the market truly free for everyone to participate on a level playing field. After all, isn't that what's most fair to everyone? Distributing your cable TV service over your now independent internet link will open it up so you can get your TV service from anyone you want. Think of what the competition will do to the industry and how much better it will be for the consumer.

Oh wait. I forgot that the cable companies will bribe everyone in congress they can in order to keep their municipal monopolies firmly entrenched. So much for real free markets and competition. Rats.

Comment: This is good. (Score 1) 387

by grimmjeeper (#49137747) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics
We should uncover funding sources of people and organizations that are using that money to lie to us. It is a good thing to uncover the fact that big oil is funding the climate change deniers. But why stop there? Let's start calling upon our representatives to disclose who is funding their campaigns when they draft and vote for legislation that's only in a corporation's benefit. Since they seem interested in uncovering the money trail that leads to lies, perhaps Grijalva, Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse can lead by example and disclose who funded their campaigns.

Comment: Re:Intel is killing AMD - 28 NM Process?????? (Score 3, Insightful) 114

by grimmjeeper (#49127867) Attached to: AMD Unveils Carrizo APU With Excavator Core Architecture

And Intel would still be forcing the Itanium on us had AMD not come out with the Athlon and the x86_64 instruction set, stealing Inel's lunch for a few years until they caught up.

Sure, AMD dropped the ball and Intel stole the lead back from them years ago. But without the competition, Intel wouldn't have any incentive to have processors as good as they do now. The market needs companies like AMD to keep companies like Intel competitive.

Comment: Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score 1) 406

by grimmjeeper (#49123345) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data
Read the whole sentence in context. I mean, you quoted it so it's right there in front of you. I didn't say "the Bush administration started all of the domestic spying" and then stop. I qualified that by continuing with "that the Obama administration decided to continue". Sure, I should have worded it differently and said "domestic surveillance" instead of "domestic spying". That's my fault. But taking half of my sentence out of context and completely disregarding the important half is a poor way to make an argument.

Comment: Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score 1) 406

by grimmjeeper (#49122137) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

Actually, with partisan politics these days, the fact that the other party is no longer in the White House means that legions of their followers give them a pass. And if you attack their "side", they assume that you are defending the other "side". And then they throw up the "oh, stop blaming our guy" bullshit.

The fact that Bush is no longer in office has no relevance at all. He still shares blame for his part of this mess. Yes, Obama shares blame because he did nothing to stop it. But no candidate from either party will in the future. They aren't going to lose votes because of it (at least, not enough to matter) so there is no incentive for either party to change the status quo. Blaming only Obama simply because he's the one in the office right now is dishonest. Blame needs to be assigned to those responsible whether they're currently in office or not.

Comment: Re:Dear Michael Rogers, (Score 3, Interesting) 406

by grimmjeeper (#49122067) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

Talk about a strawman. I never said domestic spying in general. I'm talking about the NSA surveillance program that was started under Bush that the Obama administration chose to continue. GP threw in the non sequitur about all kinds of things that happened long before Congress passed the Patriot Act (which overrode Reagan's EO BTW) that Bush used to start the whole domestic surveillance program.

I also find it interesting that you take his quote out of context and completely ignore the fact that he said "The issues you bring up did not first appear under Bush". In fact, the Patriot Act was pushed through by Bush. It opened the floodgates for domestic spying and was the justification for the NSA's surveillance program. So the issues I brought up were initiated under specific direction by Bush. Not just under his watch. By his direct order. It's pretty obvious that GP is entirely wrong in his defense of Bush.

I'm taking both parties to task. Why are people trying to defend one or the other? I guess people are hung up on the "if you're attacking the side I like you must be defending the side I don't like" strawman. When in reality, I'm attacking BOTH sides for being equally complicit.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.