Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: nice, now for the real fight (Score 2) 617

by pspahn (#49141375) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Unfortunately, regulating greed doesn't work. You have to fix the problem. You have to have a society of people that aren't greedy. Good luck with that!

"We're greedy! Let us run the show! We know what's best!"

"No, you are providing a valuable service and doing a shitty job of it. We're here to make you do a better job."

"Oh, ok! That's fine, we want to do a better job. Just know that it will make our service more expensive."

"We will be back later with more regulations ... "

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 617

by pspahn (#49141279) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Well, it's technical based on what the medium is.

Running the last mile, you're going to need to ask some people for permission to plug your things into their things. For some mediums, there might be a bunch of people you need to ask permission of. For other mediums, there might be fewer (or possibly zero) other people you need to ask permission of.

As long as someone else is allowed to permit or deny anyone who wants to plug their things into something, there *may* be a monopoly. Is it technically possible that a monopolistic organization can act upon the utmost ideal of "good-faith"? Of course. Likely? It's tough to prove otherwise.

I think there *are* some solutions out there that involve running the last mile without having to ask all sorts of people of they'll let you use their plugs. I agree with you. I just don't see it on the horizon.

Comment: Re:How does this compare to radio? (Score 1) 303

by pspahn (#49111985) Attached to: Pandora Pays Artists $0.001 Per Stream, Thinks This Is "Very Fair"

... of course there's just so many minutes in a day ...

Also, you have to consider that a large chunk of those minutes on Pandora are used for advertising. I saw something somewhere that said it is supposed to be like 5 minutes per hour, but in fact it is a bit more than that. I gave up on Pandora because of this. Listen to one song, hear an ad. Listen to another song, hear an ad.

Grooveshark is going to eat your cake.

Comment: Re:List of folks with permanent rights of way (Score 3, Insightful) 290

by pspahn (#49106555) Attached to: How Walking With Smartphones May Have Changed Pedestrian Etiquette

3. Bicyclists

You haven't ridden a bike since you were 16, have you?

Do you think cyclists feel entitled to their right of way to the point where they are oblivious to oncoming collisions? If that were true, don't you think after, say, six months, there wouldn't be any cyclists left because they had all been run over?

Walking down the street with a screen attached to your face and being oblivious to the world around you is a lot different than riding a bike through a busy intersection and dodging every third car driven by someone with a screen attached to their face.

Comment: Re:Is javascript dangerous? (Score 0) 125

by pspahn (#49085195) Attached to: Jamie Oliver's Website Serving Malware

But, the real difficulty for the attacker is to inject some JS into a page in the first place. This is (usually) not easy!

Why are we not able to lock down our javascript files before they get sent to the browser? Sure, inline scripts could be exposed, but anything served as .js should have a header that tells the browser whether to give me all the juicy bits of the javascript running on the page ... or not.

Really, why should someone be able to see all the javascript on your site just by hitting F12? Shouldn't we be able to turn this off, ala a header in .js files, so that we can use it for debuggings/development, but disable it in production?

More importantly, why should this content be exposed to various nefarious "plugins" when an infected user visits your site?

Comment: Re:web designers (Score 4, Insightful) 353

by pspahn (#49080515) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Most Useful Browser Extensions?

Yes, that's exactly what they're saying. Was there something you weren't clear about?

Do you think developers just sit around all day looking for tracking scripts to start installing on client's sites?

Since the advent of saving markup in the DB, clients have become empowered on what code runs on their site. They google something, find a script snippet that they don't understand, copy and paste it into their CMS' "additional header scripts" field and save. They don't understand the concept of optimizing image files, let alone be concerned with the number HTTP requests on each load.

Comment: Re:Both left and right in denial about vaccines (Score 1) 580

by pspahn (#49043883) Attached to: Low Vaccination Rates At Silicon Valley Daycare Facilities

Lets be clear that as in so many aspects of life, misunderstanding science of a matter is not the province of just the left or right.

So basically, this article is attempting to prove your statement, and that's all.

Why did they pick Silicon Valley? Because they already know where Marin County stands, and they're simply working their way south? Bullshit. Marin County is giving the left a bad name. This is simply an attempt to balance perception.

Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...