Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score 1) 258

by jmauro (#48394449) Attached to: Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality

If that was the case, why did Comcast and Verizon fight putting the OpenConnect Netflix system directly on their network avoiding the peering entirely?

It would of gotten rid of any of the peering issues and allowed faster service for everyone. Netflix offered to pay for the entire install and support as well so it would of cost Comcast and Verizon nothing, other than the right to shake down Netflix and the other peering services.

Also L3 offered to pay for the peering upgrades as needed, but both of them would rather try to shake down Netflix then you know actually solve the problem.

 

Comment: Re:Time for Solidarity? (Score 1) 284

by jmauro (#48262285) Attached to: Skilled Foreign Workers Treated as Indentured Servants

They kind of function like unions anyway. The ABA decides who will be a lawyer and on what terms in order to join the bar of your local state. Same with the doctor licensing boards and the CPA boards for accountants.

Unlike industrial unions though they've codified their positions in to the laws and as such can be "voluntary association" instead of a mandatory union shop, even though they function just the same.

+ - The Guardian reveals that Whisper app tracks 'anonymous' users->

Submitted by qqod
qqod (799432) writes "After visiting the offices of Whisper to discuss future journalistic collaborations, from the article:

"The practice of monitoring the whereabouts of Whisper users â" including those who have expressly opted out of geolocation services â" will alarm users, who are encouraged to disclose intimate details about their private and professional lives.

Whisper is also sharing information with the US Department of Defense gleaned from smartphones it knows are used from military bases, and developing a version of its app to conform with Chinese censorship laws.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Uhh... (Score 2) 203

by jmauro (#47965145) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

But then in the next paragraph, they say "here are the terms of the contract between the creator and the backer". I suspect this would be very problematic to enforce. You can't be both arms length, and dictating terms to two parties of a contract without also being a party. It is a logical contradiction.

Every lawyer does this every day when he or she is writing up a contract signed by other parties. The lawyer isn't involved unless one of the parties can prove that the lawyer performed malpractice in writing the contract.

All Kickstarter is offering is a standard contract and terms that both parties can agree to or not agree to. The standardize nature of the contract mean's it's easier to raise money and see who's raising money, so it's more likely everyone uses the standard contract. It's the parties involved choice on whether or not they sign sign the terms.

Comment: Re:Refunding my investment (Score 1) 203

by jmauro (#47965095) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

If your investments results in you having a claim on the assets of the company that failed and based on the seniority of your claim on the assets (i.e. some creditors will be paid in full before other creditors see a dime).

Kickstarter isn't an investment vehicle. They're up front that you have no claim on the assets of a failed company\project and as such if it fails you won't get anything (and conversely if they sell for a couple of billion dollars you will get nothing as well).

Comment: You're likely not going to convince them (Score 3, Informative) 182

by jmauro (#47964895) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

Since it is a public entity you'll likely run into a roadblock of what the law lets them pay for. Honestly it isn't much and the rules are rather inflexible due to some abuses that regularly come up (a conference in Vegas is likely to be huge red flag after this).

It sucks, but it's one of the trade offs for working for a public entity.

Comment: Re:hahaha (Score 1) 155

by jmauro (#47917869) Attached to: Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts

On RoadRunner I think you're confused, this was always a marketing brand name of Time Warner Cable Internet. At some point they stopped using the brand name, but the same people\ownership are still in place, even if it uses a different brand name now.

@Home was also different, in that Comcast and others paid them to build out their network and once it because big enough they just took the network back that they already paid for. This was in the original agreement with @Home and @Home still runs Internet services for other smaller ISPs (though it's now part of the Excite family).

There was no cancellation of franchise rights in either case.

Comment: Re:Its the margins they are scared of losing. (Score 1) 455

by jmauro (#47269599) Attached to: NADA Is Terrified of Tesla

No, the dealer margins on new cars is actually very small. Used cars are higher, but not that much. Most of the margin is actually taken by the manufacturer. It's the reason they are so slimy when selling them, they make next to nothing on them.

Most of a dealer's profit is on servicing and on any kickbacks from financing. The car its self, not so much.

Comment: Re:They are predominantly "at will" employees. (Score 1) 148

by jmauro (#46615011) Attached to: Apple, Google Go On Trial For Wage Fixing On May 27

In case you are wondering, non-competes are also not legal in California, unless the competition occurs as side work during your employment at the company, and generally are not considered legally enforceable in the U.S., unless they continue to pay your salary (plus scaled increases based on past increases, if any were performance related) during the lockout period. You can thank my cousin for this, as he took his non-compete to the supreme court (and yes, they payed him to take the year off at his regular salary to prevent him from going to a competitor).

This isn't true. Since they're based in state law they're actually enforceable in a lot of places (like Massachusetts and Maryland.) In fact, Massachusetts keeps doing studies on how Boston can be the next Tech center like Silicon Valley, and that's the number one thing they need to do is change their non-compete laws to match California's. Somehow they try some marketing plan instead of doing the change in the law. My guess there is some industry benefiting from the non-compete enforcement (like finance or something) which is why it never happens.

Hold on to the root.

Working...