Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Strawman argument, here we come! (Score 3, Informative) 356

ISPs deal with this in some legitimate ways like throttling (deprioritizing bittorrent packets so that they're first to drop when congestion occurs or policing the endpoints to a maximum throughput rate) and some not-so-legitimate ways (injecting connection reset packets to disrupt sessions).

Sounds like a strawman to me. No one (except perhaps the anti-NN folks, like yourself) has proposed that throttling excessive usage goes against the tenets of NN. What NN does argue, however, is that throttling *based on endpoint* is not kosher - mainly because it provides a strong negative incentive to customer quality.

From the FCC Commission Document ( ):

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

Don't confuse last-mile congestion issues (that you raise, and are legitimate) with throttling the interconnects. In your example, the BT excessive user should expect to hit monthly caps (which are not covered by NN) or overall throughput caps, especially during peak times. That's all (again referring to Commission Document) considered:

Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.

Comment: Re:"Conservatives" hating neutrality baffles me (Score 3, Insightful) 356

The conservative bias is "don't regulate what you don't have to,"

s/what you don't have to/at all/

Republicans know that if government doesn't do regulation, the monopoly or cartel that owns the market sure will (and such regulation is optimized to maximize profits, not the health of the market, much less *customer* health).

And thats where the congresscritters get their campaign funding. Sounds pretty clear to me what their goal is - just like their funders, it's to line their pockets.

Comment: Re:Passed Time (Score 2) 135

by rsborg (#49174721) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

Just because the police can do something, doesn't mean they should be legally allowed to do it. Before all the fingerprint comments start, I will remind folks that DNA is categorically different than fingerprints. Yes, both can identify an individual. But that is like saying both a driver's license and a smart phone can be used to identify a person. If you search someone's smart phone, you have boatloads more information. DNA is becomming more useful by leaps and bounds every year. This is too much information for the government to just blythely collect and shove into databases with little safeguard against hacking, misuse, and abuse. There seriously needs to be a national discussion and laws passed. It is sad that this is unlikely to happen.

Some (ie, those part of the security industrial complex) do not want this discussion because they fear a curtailment of police powers. Others do not want it because they don't trust our current government to not bend this discussion into the interests of the wealthy.

Luckily the supreme court is a bastion of ethical behavior and impartiality [1]. I trust this outcome is based on a rational forward-thinking, wise consideration.


Comment: Re:Just Remember (Score 1) 188

by rsborg (#49133045) Attached to: Google Now Automatically Converts Flash Ads To HTML5

I cannot even begin to count the number of commenters here who pushed HTML5 as the best way to end, once and for all, those incredibly invasive and annoying Flash ads.

You got exactly what you were asking for.

So long as business is on the web, there will never, ever, ever be a technological "solution" to online advertising. There's simply too much money at stake for that to happen.

Flashblock does to HTML5 and Silverlight what it does to Flash. It blocks it.

The only difference between today and 2 years ago is that nowadays some browsers (Firefox, Safari for sure) block Flash by default (assuming you're not on the latest version plugin - which resembles 90% of people I know). This must be impacting the bottom line of online advertisers.

We're back to not relying on the browser to auto block ads and to use plugins like block and Flashblock (I go one step further and use facebookblocker but that's just me) to keep ourselves from being spammed.

The only problem is that mobile users are now going to use more bandwidth and get ads in return.

Comment: Re:News (Score 1) 211

by rsborg (#49098335) Attached to: 800,000 Using Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.

..and is something many States already had a law for. It is unbelievable how many people point to the pre-existing conditions rule completely unaware that they were already living under such a law. It just goes to show that uninformed idiots are deciding things, and then defending those things, while commiting logical fallacies all the way through.

[cite needed]

Comment: Re:After reading the article (Score 2) 126

by rsborg (#49082439) Attached to: Patent Troll Wins $15.7M From Samsung By Claiming To Own Bluetooth

Out of 13 jurors, which includes one alternate, I believe that only 2 of us had jobs that might be called "professional". The others were roofers and holders of various jobs that don't require any college education. These are the kinds of people who serve on juries.

This is a result of the adversarial juror selection process where legal teams from both sides, plaintiff and defendant, try very hard to remove any liabilities from the juror pool. Knowledgeable people are liable to be on a "side" and therefore will be removed by one side or another.

That combined with the fact that, as a juror, you are not rewarded or likely to get compensation from your employer, means that people who have valuable knowledge, skills and generally good understanding of lots of stuff, try very hard to not be selected.

I'm not sure there's a better way, other than perhaps to try to increase the overall average knowledge of the entire juror pool (either by free, compulsory 2ndary education) or by restricting the juror pool to prevent the "know nothings" from deciding the law on cases that could have society wide impact (a slippery slope that I probably wouldn't recommend).

How do they do this kind of thing in Europe?

Comment: Who TF buys a "Smart" TV anyway? (Score 3, Insightful) 370

by rsborg (#49028441) Attached to: Samsung Smart TVs Injected Ads Into Streamed Video

I mean, with the plethora of set-top boxes like AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, ChromeCast, why would anyone in their right mind buy an all-in-one, especially from a known UI offender like Samsung (TouchWiz?).

Samsung should focus on making a TV with sound that doesn't suck (i.e., integrated wireless speakers that auto-calibrate) or maybe focus on style and setup for differentiation.

Whatever... they are a low-price disruptor and they essentially kicked Panasonic and Pioneer out of the market so they could foist this "app crap" on us. Whoever buys a Samsung "smart" TV deserves one I guess.

Comment: The only difference with Apple (Score 1) 82

by rsborg (#48974913) Attached to: Samsung Set To Launch Mobile Payment System With Galaxy S6 At MWC

Apple Pay is a fancy term for the EMV payment standard - there's no magic in it, and it's just implementing what the payment industry says is how they want to do it. It's why it "just works" in a lot of stores because the standard was done a while ago and implemented.

The only difference is that with Apple, it is simple and it works. If you doubt that, then look at how long a lead Google had with Wallet and how as soon as Apple Pay appeared, it's dominated the usage of contactless terminals.

Sure, Apple pushed it - but if it was a total pain, people wouldn't do it. There's always the fallback of actually using your card.

Comment: Your rant is 30 years late (Score 3, Informative) 82

by rsborg (#48974867) Attached to: Samsung Set To Launch Mobile Payment System With Galaxy S6 At MWC

The biggest problem with these contactless payments, bigger even than trust, is that it separates you mentally from your money. It makes it easy for people to fail to develop and maintain responsible financial habits. It softens the blow of spending money. If that blow doesn't hurt, then you can imagine what happens to the thought of security. The closer you are to the cash, the more you pay attention to its security! Someone takes $20 out of your wallet, you get upset. Someone skims your card, you don't even notice, and if you ever find out, you hope the card company will just reverse the charge. What incentive do you have to care anymore?

You don't think the same issues happen with cards vs. cash? Yeah, I go through stores already today just putting stuff in the cart, swiping at the checkout, collecting the receipt and never even looking at the bill until well after the fact (and sometimes never even then).

I manage my budget after the fact - hey that spongecake we bought was completely uneaten - never buy again. That TJs cold-brewed coffee habit is expensive but more cost-effective than buying beans and cleaning out the coffee machine... etc, etc.

Fact is, cards have already altered our spending habits and contactless does very little to modify that - it's just a nice shinier petina over the same rubric.

Comment: Re:Not need, but useful (Score 1) 307

by rsborg (#48925651) Attached to: The iPad Is 5 Years Old This Week, But You Still Don't Need One

So now you know why they don't put telephony capability into tablets - people won't buy both a smartphone and a tablet, but opt for just one of the two.

Amusingly the original Samsung Galaxy 7 released in 2011 (?) did require a phone subscription for their european offering. I kept thinking to myself, now that's a big phone!

Though manufacturers figured out the above - tablets will consistently be data-only devices, so they can sell you another unit just for voice.

Comment: Microsoft has never been unprofitable recently (Score 1) 378

by rsborg (#48908641) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

the start menu still contains a mini start screen. George Lucas pulled this shit in the prequels by wedging jar jar binks into the last one, and you know what it has in common? Lucas and Microsoft are doing it as a big "Fuck You" to their respective audiences for refusing to accept what everyone but the author knew sucked. Saying "continuum is the future" is a strange way of saying, "Listening to your fucking customers is a novel approach microsoft is begrudgingly accepting piecemeal after a blinding 2 years of profit loss"

Huh - 2 years of profit loss eh?

I'm no friend of MS, but you really need to work on your facts. The rest of your comment I can agree with.

Comment: Real Reason: Industry's fear of hybrid and electri (Score 1) 823

by rsborg (#48879339) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

Electrics and hybrids simply require less service. They die less often, they require less parts and can last longer between servicing. All this means the supply and service chain for automotive industry will take a big hit, and the non-replacement problem will impact the auto manufacturers to lose sales as well.

Solution (from their point of view): Remove one of the biggest selling points of electric motors: zero noise. Force the limitations (i.e., noisy) of gas-only cars onto the nascent electric industry. Create a hubbub about it and make it an issue even if the opposite may be true (people generally like quieter cars).

The Auto industry isn't going to go quietly like the HDD industry did when SSDs appeared (like SSDs, electric-motor vehicles are quieter, faster and have lower failure rates) - they plan on fighting tooth and nail to keep their profits up even if it takes buying legislation.

Comment: Re:The Dangers of the World (Score 1) 784

by rsborg (#48832189) Attached to: Parents Investigated For Neglect For Letting Kids Walk Home Alone

I have had the equivalent agency in my state threaten to take my children. They have never been abused, neglected, or mistreated in any fashion. However, in my state, it is illegal for you to have more than one child. Well, effectively anyway. It is illegal for you to be on a different level of your house than your child, and we had twins and another girl a year older. In order to obey the law, you would have to carry all three of them with you when you put one of them to bed.

Sorry for your experience.. could you share your jurisdiction so I can avoid living there?...

Comment: Is Uber a big government straw man? (Score 2, Insightful) 299

by rsborg (#48817373) Attached to: Uber Suspends Australian Transport Inspector Accounts To Block Stings

Because that's how you get legislation.

I have no idea why Uber would be so blatant/stupid - any legal advice or even common sense would have told them that this kind of behavior gets a lot of attention very fast - and not the good, loving kind of attention either.

Unless they are really trying to get governments to make it hard for smaller "ridesharing" companies to compete. Burning the bridge after you cross? Does that make any sense?

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?