Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:pretty much the opposite here (Score 1) 17

by Qzukk (#49601035) Attached to: When did Net Neutrality change?

Good question. The main problem with all of these is proof. How do you determine intent of a dropped packet? Was it congestion, a hardware failure, or did the ISP have it in for that packet specifically? The guy screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" is the top suspect when someone turns up dead, but the cops still have to prove he did it.

When Comcast was using Sandvine Comcast denied, denied, denied that they were doing anything to degrade their users' internet experience. It took the EFF and a massive coordinated traffic logging effort to prove that Comcast was lying about intentionally disabling Lotus Notes (and BitTorrent) connections.

a costlier service

There is very little technical reason for a byte of amazon to cost more than a byte of wikipedia. Once those packets reach the backbone networks (a process that Amazon and Wikipedia both pay for through their ISPs) they're essentially identical, except in the fact that Amazon has more money and they have more to lose if something were to happen to that packet, and that would be a real shame.

The original plan was simply "neutrality". All bytes are equal. More bytes can cost more money, but those additional bytes are equal too.

And that's where it started falling apart. Bytes delivered by copper all cost the same, bytes delivered by fiber all cost the same, bytes delivered by avian carrier all cost the same. Bytes delivered wirelessly... well, they cost the same too but some major neutrality players were doing deals with telcos to provide some services free on phones. Which was more important to them, neutrality? Or getting wikipedia to the mobile masses with no data charges? Well, as long as the net was mostly neutral (except when it suited them) it's a good thing, right? But hypocrisy is the moral rot, and rot spreads quickly.

Personally, I have two horses in this race: in my personal life I'm an internet user, at work I develop web applications. I had my experience with value-subtracted ISPs years ago. Before Time Warner traded an agreement not to compete here with Comcast for an agreement from Comcast not to compete elsewhere, one of our customers had Time Warner Cable at their office. One day I get an angry call from them that we're down. I check the status of our servers and say "no, we're up" and they insist we're down and I ask them if we're down why are they the only customer calling me. They insist. I do a traceroute from the development server and everything looks fine to me. They continue to insist. I remote into their computer and sure enough, the application isn't loading. I open a ticket with our colocation facility to let them know that some routing is fucked up specifically between IPs A and B. It's closed: nothing wrong. I tell them to call their ISP. TWC insists its on our end. I roll my eyes and mirror their database on the development server and call it a day. Day 2: we're "down" again. Neither the main server nor the development server are reachable from that customer now. TWC insists its on our end. I set up a mirror on our mail server. Day 3: we're down again. We have a three-way call with TWC. TWC insists it's on our end. I tell them that every single one of our customers using DSL are having no problems at all and offer to pay the cancellation fee so our customer has internet that works. (By this time I had reviewed all of our server logs and discovered that they were literally our only user in the city coming from TWC, everyone else had DSL). Tier 2 support is on the phone in 15 seconds. Now, this is probably about a decade or so ago, so these are not the exact words used but I won't forget the general gist of it any time soon:

Tier2: We changed a setting in their router to allow them to access their "business application". Everything should be fine now
Qz: Thank you. For future reference if we have other customers on TWC what setting is this so we can make sure it's configured correctly and avoid this problem in the future?
Tier2: Oh, it's not a setting that the customer can change.

So, what is the intent of a setting that blocks access to an ISP user's commonly used websites?

Comment: Re:pretty much the opposite here (Score 1) 17

by Qzukk (#49597995) Attached to: When did Net Neutrality change?

by telling carriers that they can't charge more for premium levels of service

Close.

The original plan was to tell carriers that they can't make Vonage and Skype a premium level service (add the voip package for only $15/mo!) to prevent them from competing with their phone service (only $9.99!). Or make Netflix an unusable service to stop customers from cutting cable. Or make browsing Amazon difficult because Barnes & Noble paid them to. Or sell 90% of the bandwidth they sold to me to their "fast lane" partners, while the sites I actually want to see get the last 10% of the bandwidth I paid for.

Much like the Occupy Movement, nobody took control to keep the message on point and eventually the whole thing devolved into a flaming mess, helped along by the telcos themselves spouting bullshit about how network neutrality meant you couldn't pay more for faster internet.

Comment: Re:I'm having a hard time seeing the problem (Score 1) 81

by Qzukk (#49596477) Attached to: American Psychological Association Hit With New Torture Allegations

is your definition of that due to your political positions or is it a moral absolute?

Actually, it's pretty easy to decide if something is a moral absolute or not: If it's OK for everyone to do it then you can, if it's not OK for everyone to do it, then you Kant.

+ - U.S. Senate targets patent trolls 1

Submitted by jeffkoch
jeffkoch writes: Last year, the United States Senate failed to pass bipartisan legislation to combat patent trolls when it was killed by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Congressional-insider newspaper Roll Call reports today that, “Knowing Reid would no longer control the Senate's legislative schedule in 2015, staff for John Cornyn, (a Republican from Texas), and Charles E. Schumer, (a Democrat from New York)”, began work in February to assemble a new bill and to build support among fellow members of the Senate. Patent law is usually not a partisan issue, and President Barack Obama has called for getting an overhaul to his desk on several occasions including in his 2014 State of the Union speech.
The last overhaul of United States patent law, the America Invents Act, took several years to be developed. The U.S. Congress is likely to act on the proposed legislation before they recess in August.
“Patent trolls are taking a system meant to drive innovation and instead using it to stifle job-creating businesses around the country. Main Street stores, tech startups and more are being smothered by the abuse that is all too common in our patent system, and it’s time for that to end,” Schumer said in a statement. “This bipartisan bill shifts the legal burden back onto those who would abuse the patent system in order to make a quick buck at the expense of businesses that are playing by the rules.”

Comment: Re:With REALLY Huge Fans... (Score 4, Funny) 279

by Qzukk (#49587025) Attached to: New Study Suggests Flying Is Greener Than Driving

Please direct your attention towards the front of the cabin as our flight attendants demonstrate the safety features of this craft.

In the event of pressure loss, an oxygen mask will drop from the overhead compartment. Please pull the mask to extend it completely and start the flow of oxygen, then place the mask over your nose and mouth and place the strap around your head to hold it in place. Put on your mask before helping children or others in need of assistance.

In the event of power loss, bicycle pedals will extend from the floor of the cabin. Please pedal as if our lives depended on it

Comment: Re:P.S. (Score 1) 353

by Qzukk (#49571597) Attached to: University Overrules Professor Who Failed Entire Management Class

The comments on that article are pretty interesting, most of them supporting the professor are along the lines of "These students absolutely are unprofessional! Who expects to keep their job after calling their boss a fucking moron?!"

They seem to miss the point that as a management class, these students expect to BE the boss, and they expect that there will be no repercussions when they tell their employee that they're a fucking moron.

Furthermore, now that these people will pass and become managers, I wouldn't be surprised if one of these people texts an employee telling them he is firing her because she wouldn't sleep with him, then when he loses his lawsuit and his money he'll go around telling everyone how an ugly bitch ruined his life.

+ - Has the Native vs. HTML5 Mobile Debate Changed?->

Submitted by itwbennett
itwbennett writes: The tools available to developers who need to build an application once and deploy everywhere have exploded. Frameworks like famo.us, Ionic, PhoneGap, Sencha Touch, Appcelerator, Xamarin, and others are reducing the grunt work and improving the overall quality of web based mobile applications dramatically. The benefits of a build once, deploy everywhere platform are pretty obvious, but are they enough to make up for the hits to user experience?
Link to Original Source
User Journal

Journal: Operation Pacman

Journal by karniv0re

It's been a while since I spawned an Operation. As I'll remind my audience of approximately zero, I determine operations based on the need for a long term focus on a particular goal. This particular goal is eradicating debt. And since I can't do it all at once, I'm doing it a little bit at a time. Like Pacman eating the little dots (monthly payments) and trying not to get caught by the ghosts (surprise expenses).

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning

Working...