Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Not justified (Score 2) 137

That's not an adequate justification for forcing ISPs to expend substantial resources

Substantial resources? Seriously? That's a basic shell script to run a bunch of DNS resolutions and then add the addresses into an existing Firewall drop policy. That's sys/net management 100 level stuff.

If you are a bad admin you have to run the script on each Firewall. If you are a good one you have a central place to update such policies that can then be pushed out as desired.

If you are expending "significant" resources on such a task, you are doing it wrong. Seriously wrong.

Note: I'm not defending what they want to do, just pointing out that your anti-justification is ludicrous.

Comment Re:National level? (Score 1) 171

A better question is, Who thinks asteroid mining is economically feasible to the extent that they needed a law regarding property rights for it?

Ones that are far thinking enough to realize that they can get such laws passed now while both the law makers and general public A) are ignorant of the impact and B) aren't interested enough to care.

This isn't about anyone doing anything now, it's prospecting for the future.

Comment Re:How can there be? (Score 5, Insightful) 622

I'm not sure why people have been clinging onto these ideals of "unlimited data."

Maybe because the tiered plans they offer as an alternative are ridiculous?

All these plan switches I've looked into offer a couple cheap options with ridiculously low caps then some larger (which still aren't always enough) plans for a non-comparative increased price. Often you find that the plan that would fit your needs is more expensive than what you are already paying for the unlimited plan. Finally if you end up going over the plan cap, the overage charges are obscene.

Then factor in if your usage isn't predictable and can swing by 50% or more each month you then start talking about wasted money (paying for a big enough plan to cover your "bad months") or are getting screwed by the overages on the months you run high.

This push for caps has nothing to do with any small subset of user's usage outside of the PR spin. It is all about getting us to pay them more money either upfront (too big of a plan) or after the fact (picking too small of a plan and then getting hit with overages with no effective warning or way to prevent it). If this was really about resources they would automatically throttle you after a certain point or these would be hard caps that cut you off until you took action (e.g. upped the limit) rather than just start adding dollar signs to your account. I have also yet to see one that offers easy to use/find tools that let you control what happens as you approach and hit the cap (e.g. notifications, throttle the bandwidth, cut it off) and that's the biggest indicator that this stuff is just to line their pockets while emptying yours.

You also have to ask just how many residential users have any idea how much data they are consuming on regularly basis?

Comment Re:These folks know nothing of science. (Score 1) 248

They understand science, they just want to fully monetize it like they want to monetize/privatize everything. Their "ignorance" is willful. People like Ridley know that what they are saying is pure bunk, but as long as enough "journalists" and government officials believe him (or just use his nonsense as cover), the corporations looking to make a buck will lobby the crap out of Congress to defund the NIH and give the money to pharmaceutical companies instead. Industry does not invent things, they monetize the inventions of others.

Phama loves the government funding bio-tech research. Where do you think a good majority of pharmaceutical "innovation" comes from? They let the Government grants fund the research and take the risk. Then they come along, purchase the promising patents at a fraction of what it would have cost them for internal R&D, and then tack on a massive markup when it finally goes to market (you know, to cover their R&D costs...).

What Pharma wants defunded/neutered is the FDA so they can push more stuff through with less oversight.

Comment Re:Not a problem (Score 1) 161

So no, do traffic shaping by all means. It's a reasonable and proportionate approach to assuring quality of service. Just do it for all packets of that type.

Or they could always do something novel like not oversubscribe their service or build out their infrastructure to actually support what they are selling.

Traffic shaping at the local network level where the administrators actually know what type of traffic is important to them is fine. Shaping at the provider level is ridiculous as it will always unfairly hinder someone (why should your gaming/streaming/backups/pr0n/etc... be more important than whatever I am doing? Why should whatever I'm doing be more important than what you are doing?).

Maybe those things that have a low tolerance for latency should finally go back and deal with it like they should have to begin with. Our problems with network traffic are perfectly analogous to memory and storage foot prints of applications. There was a day when resources were finite both in availability and price, but as the resources became more readily available we collectively got lazy and just said "buy more resources". I'm not suggesting that we go back to living in a 300baud world, but there is also no reasons for services to blindly consume as much memory/disk/bandwidth as possible when they rarely actually need to if they put the effort in up front to design their systems better.

Comment Re:rebuild or develop from scratch or... (Score 1) 146

Or, more likely, switch to FreeBSD and forget Linux ever existed.

This was along my line of thinking. Few are going to try to rebuild most of those things if they all of a sudden disappeared. They are simply going to another vendor that already offers a similar product.

There is certainly a cost to all of that and it would be painful, but I somehow suspect that the price of switching would be far less than their estimate. Well, unless you went to Oracle for everything...

Comment Re:Routers with VPN (Score 3, Insightful) 173

Just use a couple of small business routers with built in VPN. They do all of the different subnets and wireless and all of that stuff. They're a few hundred bucks each.

Ubiquiti has a small router with enterprise level features for less than $100. A site to site VPN and VLAN support are just a few of it's features and all you need to solve this problem.

I'm still running a Juniper SRX-210 at home, but I've been happy with the UniFi APs and EdgeSwitches I have from Ubiquiti so this little router is definitely on the short list when the time comes.

Comment Re:Oh Spare Me Please. (Score 2) 151

and I can always travel by other means if I don't want to be tracked (..., uber, ...)

Wait. What?!?

You don't follow the news much do you? Uber is seriously the wrong example to use about not having your movements tracked...

Talking about carrying your cell phone with the auto updating maps also doesn't really forward your desire to not have movement information about you tracked.

I agree with your general sentiment though. The belief companies have that this information that is inherently ours is somehow free for them to take is obscene. That they then believe that they have some right and obligation to profit from it should be criminal.

Comment Re:There I fixed it for you... (Score 4, Insightful) 152

This whole argument is stupid. It's not the hammer, baseball bat, knife, gun, ... manufacturer's responsibility if you use their product to produce inappropriate results. It's their responsibility to make sure that it can be used safely for it's intended purpose, but not guard against every possible misuse the average idiot can come up with. Is it irresponsible of the manufacturer that I can swing my hammer at my toe? Should all hammers be built so that they will only swing when the target is an approved force receptacle?

if there is a pedestrian on the bridge, is he responsible for his own death? after all it is well known that people get hit by cars when they decide to walk near the road

If it was a "simple" accident through no egregious fault of the driver, manufacturer of the car, engineer that designed the bridge, builder of the bridge, or the pedestrian, then yes shit happens and it sucks. Life isn't pretty and bad things happen all the time.

If, however, there is demonstrable fault on any of the related parties (maybe the pedestrian was naked and distracted the driver...) then the offending parties should be held accountable.

What this means in terms of TFA is that if an engineer inputs bad/incomplete data to a CAD system and the result is a bridge that is not suited for the location that it is actually being built for, then the fault is with the person using the program and not that of the developer. If, on the other hand, the user inputs all the data and it is all correct but the program outputs a bad design, then the software maker has some responsibility (though the users have a responsibility to check the output too).

if the car has a speedometer that goes to 140 mph, can the driver assume that the car can be driven at that speed?

When there are contradicting variables (speed limit, driver skill, weather, visibility, etc..), no and it's the driver's responsibility if they do so.

If you want to take it to a safe location (track) to try to do that, then more power to you and it's mostly on your own head.

Porsche isn't responsible for someone taking their 991 GT3 out to the track, misjudging their apex, and running into the wall. They are, however, responsible for a design flaw that caused some engines to catch fire while being appropriately operated in normal driving conditions.

if the owner of a car knows full well that their ignition switch is acting strange and they keep driving the car anyway, are they responsible for the resulting deaths?

If you know something is dangerous and do not take measures to address it (fixing it yourself, not driving it, etc..), then yes you are 100% responsible for your actions and the results. I know the engine in one of my cars has a couple of design flaws that can lead to a catastrophic engine failure in a measurable percentage of cars. I also know that the manufacturer failed to acknowledge the issue and address it. I am also aware that there are now after market solutions that address most of these problems. Finally I am also aware that it is fully on my head that I continue to drive the car with the risk of losing my engine because I currently opt not to proactively address the items at this time.

The problem with this particular argument which you fail to grasp is that while GM knew of the problem for a long time, they made light of it at best (telling people not to use a keychain) and actively hid it at worst (never issuing a recall or warning to owners, you only got the keychain response IF it had failed and you complained). I also believe that even in those cases where people experienced the failure and got the keychain BS, they weren't informed that their airbag was being disabled at the same time. If that is indeed the case, then GM is doubly responsible as it not only told them not using a keychain solved the problem, but it also implied that the vehicle was otherwise safe and operating as expected (the average person does not understand that the airbag is tied to the ignition).

Comment Re:Ah ... AOL .. so overrated ... (Score 1) 153

It was too early in that traditional media didn't start dying until long after Case left. Once traditional media began its slow but inevitable decline, Case could've finally taken the reins over and mandated the switch to internet-based media distribution.

I don't think so, just look at how they are still fighting it while the rest of the world now knows that the "war" is over and digital media won. Rather than embrace it and figure out how to improve their customer's lives with a quality product, they instead continue to invest in DRM schemes that are broken almost as fast as they are released and try to demand that people pay to use content that they have already paid for in another format.

You are right about allowing them too much control though. Up until then all of AOL's acquisitions went smoothly and were done more like friends shaking hands than a typical corporate buyout (hostile or not). All the earlier pick ups were other small agile companies similar (in personality) to AOL itself though. AOL tried to treat TW the same way which was a big mistake. I suspect TW knew how naive AOL was and took advantage of that from the beginning.

Comment Re:Ah ... AOL .. so overrated ... (Score 3, Insightful) 153

At the time that was happening everybody was like "wait, Time Warner has publishing, TV, print media, movies, and AOL has ... email?".

At the time, I was thinking AOL only thinks of the Internet as "content" rather than a global interconnected network. And it's become even more true today to the average consumer. Buying a content company is a lot more logical than you would think - but they were a bit early, considering they had dial-up to work with.

I was an employee at the time and you partially hit the nail on the head there.

Steve Case was by far the best CEO I've ever worked under. Both naturally charismatic and a strong long term vision. As far back as the Q-Link days he never wanted to be a service provider or a technology company. He wanted to create a new medium for people to get their content and us buying TW was supposed to be the realization of that idea.

Unfortunately Steve had no idea what he was getting into going up against the entrenched old media execs and his allowing them to retain some control was AOL's undoing.

At the time of the purchase teams at AOL had developed working POCs for streaming music and video delivery that worked with minimal buffering at 19.2k while retaining good quality (of course that was before HD took off). What Apple did with the iTunes store we had done long before. All we needed was the keys to the TW media kingdom and the digital media landscape would have looked a lot different. We all know what old-media thinks about digital content though...

Steve's last misguided act in the saga was to sacrifice himself to get Ted Turner out, but there was no one that ever replaced Steve's drive and passion and TW took more and more control.

Contrary to gstoddart's uneducated understanding of things, AOL was the only profitable (mostly due to the dialup income) portion of TW after history had been re-written. TW bled the money out and into other money pits until there was nothing left and they finally let AOL go.

AOL always got a bad rap and many of my co-workers were afraid to admit they worked there. It was a good company that filled it's role very well. It was never a service meant for those with technical ability. It was meant for those that barely wanted to know what a computer was and it served them very well. It saddens me still how things turned out and that they've fallen into typical flailing around that many companies seem to do these days when trying to chase short term profits.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.