Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Surprised they called to cancel (Score 1) 460


Fun Comcast story. My next door neighbor decided to plant some trees without knowing where their coax cable was buried.
They found it pretty quickly after they cut through it with their shovel :|

So they call up Comcast who sends a tech out X days later.

The way he " fixed " it was to disconnect my line from the pedestal and connect my neighbors new line instead. Knocking out
my TV, Internet and Alarm System all in one fell swoop.

When I called Comcast to tell them what happened, they informed me it would take two weeks before a technician could be
dispatched out to " fix " my problem. Even after I told them it was their GD technician who caused it not half an hour ago.

I ended up fixing it myself after toning out the lines ( since the pedestal is in my yard ) but the incompetence of the entire support
process is amazing. ( The thought hit me about how much havok you can cause were you to connect a high voltage source to any
cable that feeds the pedestal. :| )

They just don't care because their monopoly status pretty much means they don't have to care.

Comment: Title II Fear (Score 1) 460

This is one of the reasons the big broadband providers fear the Title II regulations so much.

One of the prerequisites under Title II for the POTS systems were you couldn't cherry-pick where you could install them.
You didn't get to choose the high density areas where you could maximize your profits, then ignore everyone else.
Everyone had to have equal access to a telephone.

The broadband providers KNOW if Title II comes to pass for this technology, the same thing will likely happen
and they'll be forced to start providing the service ( with realistic definitions of what constitutes broadband ) to
outlying areas they have been carefully avoiding due to the predicted costs involved.

It will be a serious wrench in the profit engine they currently enjoy.

This is why they will fight it tooth and nail. The only way Broadband Title II regs will survive will be to expose the real motivation
behind their attacking it in the first place. It'$ all about the profit$ folk$.

Comment: Re:Bad track record (Score 1) 299

Historically speaking:

I can't show you where doing things the natural way got it completely right either.

Even letting nature do its thing doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome. We're simply trying to give nature a little bit
of help where we can.

( Personally, I would have loved to see the gene responsible for my need to wear glasses by age 10 removed )

Comment: Re:Reproduction is ethically very tricky (Score 1) 299


A real person created without genetic manipulation still has to LIVE WITH and SUFFER FROM any potential changes you COULD have made, but didn't due to some silliness about what is or is not ethical. I would be even more pissed off knowing I had a disease that could have been eradicated before I was even born but wasn't because of scientific ethical bickering.

Ask anyone who has some sort of hereditary disease or issue and I'm pretty sure I know which side of the argument they will fall into.

Comment: Re:even worse threat: AT&T routers support 802 (Score 2) 96


Unless networking between local systems, 802.11g is more than adequate for the Wan link speed they're likely getting from AT&T DSL.
Since you said you were replacing their router and it's your parents ( if your parents are like mine ), I would wager they're not running
NAS backups locally, or doing much else between local systems requiring lots of bandwidth. So I'm not sure I would see a need for
them to run N or even AC class WI-FI. ( Mine most certainly didn't. )

What's the top speed offerings on Uverse . . . . 45Mb/sec best case ? ( I have cable and not in AT&T territory so I have no idea )

Comment: Re:Run your own equipment (Score 1) 96

This was exactly my thoughts:
( assuming they're not doing exactly the same thing )

What will your connection speeds be on the Xfinity Hotspots ? Are they fixed, or are they faster / slower than what the location hosting it is paying for ?

Eg: If a household is paying for a 60 / 10 connection, does the included Hotspot run at that speed or no ? If it does, it might be worth paying for a low end package just to get the subscription, then connect to your neighbors Hotspot to have access to a faster speed.

Comment: Re:Not credit... so your account stays drained (Score 4, Informative) 95

by nehumanuscrede (#49278775) Attached to: Facebook Introduces Payment System

They won't do so because of the CC fees that are involved on a per transaction basis.

IF you're going to be dumb enough to sign up for such a silly service, at least make sure you're using an alternate account with a minimum amount of funds in it so when it does get compromised, it isn't an epic event. Disable overdraft protection, unlink it from your primary accounts.

Overall, it's a bad idea anyway. It's Facebook lol.

Comment: Revenue Generation + Self Driving Cars (Score 1) 757

I am somewhat curious what the Law Enforcement / municipalities plans are about revenue generation via Moving Violations and Speed Traps if / when the shift to self driving cars becomes a reality.

Granted we're talking decades to even phase it in once we begin to deploy such systems at all, but there are some towns / cities that rely heavily on that income so I'm curious what their plans are to offset the loss.

Comment: Re:Government should be a coordinator, not the ham (Score 1) 67


Look how well the whole DMCA thing works. Pretty much anyone can toss out a bogus claim and have all sorts of things taken offline without a whole lot of investigation done about the legitimacy of said claim.

Imagine taking a network offline from the ISP level due to some bogus botnet claim. Getting your YouTube video taken down is one thing, knocking your entire business offline is quite another. Some may consider that to be a strawman, but I try to think about what some idiot with nothing else to do with their time would / could do with such a process in place.

Some very well thought out rules need to be in place in addition to requiring more than one entity to make the decision. Otherwise, there isn't anything to stop the government from politicizing said new power to shut down sites they dislike, ( say . . . Wikileaks, or The Pirate Bay, North Korea, whatever ) by simply declaring the network to be a bot-net participant. ( Our government would never lie right ? RIGHT ? :| )

Always, ALWAYS question the motives of any governmental request for additional powers. Like campaign promises, they're only used to get their foot in the door and once given away, they're very difficult to take back.

+ - Obama Administration Wants More Legal Power to Disrupt Botnets

Submitted by Trailrunner7
Trailrunner7 (1100399) writes "The federal government is seeking more legal power to step in and shut down botnets through an amendment to the existing criminal law, which would allow the Department of Justice to obtain injunctions to disrupt these malicious networks.

The Obama administration has proposed an amendment to existing United Stated federal law that would give it a more powerful tool to go after botnets such as GameOver Zeus, Asprox and others. In recent years, Justice, along with private security firms and law enforcement agencies in Europe, have taken down various incarnations of a number of major botnets, including GameOver Zeus and Coreflood. These actions have had varying levels of success, with the GOZ takedown being perhaps the most effective, as it also had the effect of disrupting the infrastructure used by the CryptoLocker ransomware.

In order to obtain an injunction in these cases, the government would need to sue the defendants in civil court and show that its suit is likely to succeed on its merits.

“The Administration’s proposed amendment would add activities like the operation of a botnet to the list of offenses eligible for injunctive relief. Specifically, the amendment would permit the department to seek an injunction to prevent ongoing hacking violations in cases where 100 or more victim computers have been hacked. This numerical threshold focuses the injunctive authority on enjoining the creation, maintenance, operation, or use of a botnet, as well as other widespread attacks on computers using malicious software (such as “ransomware” ),” Caldwell wrote."

Comment: Re:LOL damage broadband investment (Score 2) 347

by nehumanuscrede (#49244525) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order
Not entirely true.

There is quite a bit of new gear rolling out to compete with Google, but infrastructure isn't really a standalone expense. I can drop epic pipe sized Sonet multiplexers all over the place, but you also have to house them, power them, protect them and feed them fiber. Then you get to upgrade the other parts of the network to handle the tidal wave of data that will be flowing across those systems. This all costs equally epic amounts of $$$$ to do so. Nor does it happen overnight on a telco / carrier sized network. ( Trivia: Limiting the query to a single vendor only, the company has over twenty THOUSAND routers / switches in its network. This isn't something you can just upgrade and / or replace overnight. )

AT&T is investing plenty in the markets where most of its profits come from. The business / commercial markets. They know Google poses a serious threat to that revenue stream, so that's where all the investment is going currently. If I told you AT&T is in the process of installing at least ten THOUSAND sites across the country including all the infrastructure required to support it ( this is for Gigabit Ethernet btw ), would you still think the company isn't investing in its infrastructure ?

Granted, their focus probably isn't what it should be for the average consumer, but the data world is in a big transition period and technology is evolving faster than many can keep up. Hell, think about what a fast connection speed was ten - twenty years ago. The technology to even provide today's slower connection speeds didn't even exist. Ripping out and replacing everything every five years or so is pretty much impossible to do financially for a network this size.

The focus going forward is likely to be in wireless and broadband ( which is why the Title II thing scares the hell out of them ). They will, like the other telcos, probably exit the wireline market in the near future. The copper plant is simply no longer profitable and is cost prohibitive to maintain. ( Especially for a service that sees fewer and fewer customers every year. )

Do we need competition? Absolutely. It's what lights the fire under the behemoths to actually get up and do something once in a while. They get used to being the only player on the field and doing what they want. Then someone shows up and threatens the business model and all hell breaks loose. This is pretty much where we are today.

Will see how it plays out.

Comment: Re:...a period of uncertainty.... (Score 1) 347

by nehumanuscrede (#49244293) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order
Don't worry, the CEO and upper echelon of executives at AT&T know exactly what their goals are.

Now, whether those goals align with the public's perception of what those goals SHOULD be are another matter.

AT&T is against the whole Title II thing because it takes away their choice and / or power for the matter at hand. For a long time AT&T has been able to interpret ( and sometimes influence ) the rules and play the game as they wanted. They know that once the regulators start getting involved, those days are over. They also know that playing the game according to the governments rules will cost them dearly in the profits department.

Make no mistake about it, the only reason AT&T would do anything to counter the Title II regulations is based solely on projected profits. Nothing else.

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.