Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Conflating with Network Neutrality (Score 0) 94

Seriously read up on your history.

The term arose when ISP's were throttling P2P traffic and is about treating all DATA equally similar to how telephone network "common carrier" laws made them treat all calls (data) equally. Networks slowing competitors is just an example of the degenerate behavior that could happen without neutrality to all data.

Comment Re:VPN? (Score 1) 94

T-Mobile gives you the option to turn off the throttling but while it is throttled some popular video services are 0-rated (doesn't eat your data limit) but all other video gets slowed even though it's not 0-rated and while the throttle option is off then everything counts towards your cap. Going through a VPN on T-Mobile should avoid the throttling but also count towards your cap just as turning off the option would, but may be useful for temporarily avoiding throttling when you want.

For these Sprint unlimited plans it says "Customers who use more than 23GB of data during a billing cycle will be de-prioritized during times and places where the Sprint network is constrained." so using a VPN should get you unthrottled video but after 23GB it will be "de-prioritized" w/e that actually means (other networks reduce speeds drastically after using your LTE cap).

Comment Re:Conflating with Network Neutrality (Score 0) 94

Why don't you take 2 seconds to learn what net neutrality is before talking about it. Slowing one type of content/protocol is one of the oldest and most definitive examples of what it is.

If they slowed ALL traffic to a certain rate then it would be neutral but slowing specific things is not. There are other issues like 0-rating that are more questionable/arguable but slowing a specific type of content down is not neutral.

Comment Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score 2) 621

Both are at fault. The laws are there for the federal government to be able to seize assets from major criminal organizations without needing to prove a real crime but they've been extended too far. The main problem is equitable sharing which means that the federal government shares a % of the seized assets with the local/state police that seized the assets. In 2015 some equitable sharing was suspended after John Oliver shined a light on it but there are still loopholes that allow it to be done. Equitable sharing incentivizes local cops to rob people blind and they are fully aware that they are stealing $10, $20, $100 from totally innocent people in order to fund their department.

"We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said.

Comment upgrade and rollback now, upgrade again later (Score 1) 982

I may be mistaken but as I understand it you can upgrade now for free which then associates your hardware with a Win10 license, do the rollback to whatever OS you had (though anything uninstalled for compatibility may be gone?), and then later if you ever want to install Win10 again then you will still be able to for free because it already has the license associated with your hardware.

Comment Re: Mobile chips are the future of VR.. (Score 1) 38

Exactly. VR is full of flaws but some people are blinded by flavor of the month syndrome and can't see that it sucks. The idea of it is cool but the reality of it is not. You're not going to see people spend all day playing VR games but you will see people bust it out at a nerd party to show off how much money they have available to waste on stupid shit that is fun for 15 mins.

Comment Re:Mobile chips are the future of VR.. (Score 1) 38

VR will never not suck. Even if the technology allowed photo-realistic experiences and was accessible to all, you still have the problem of cutting some of your senses off from your surroundings. It is a totally niche technology that is only viable in very controlled environments like at an amusement park. VR at home will result in lots of broken things, injuries, and friends/family pranking you. VR in public will be a lot worse with all sorts of stupid deaths and a huge increase in muggings.

Comment Re:If not now... (Score 1) 1023

Robotic prep doesn't threaten their business and it could actually raise their quality. If you live in metropolitan areas then fast food franchises have some of the worst food you can find but they have one enormous strength - consistency. If you ever go on a long road trip and find yourself hungry in some population 5k town in the middle of nowhere with nothing for hundreds of miles then you can be fairly confident going into a McD's that it's going to taste how you expect and not give you food poisoning, but the same can not be said about the local restaurants. The reason it's consistent is because they dumb down the cooking so that it's nearly impossible to fuck up even by 16 yr olds. Robots would allow them to use more cooking techniques without some human burning it, undercooking it, putting too much of something, etc.

Comment Re:"moving back"? (Score 4, Interesting) 392

Even if it is manufactured and sold outside the country, lots of work inside the US helped to produce it (designing it, programing it, testing it) so shouldn't some portion of the profits still come back?

The bigger issue is that their offshore money is not only from offshore business but it does get "exported" as well. They set up a bunch of shell corporations and then one of their shell companies pays another for whatever reason they make up in order to move money from one country to another. For instance, Google US could take all their profits and pay it to Google Ireland for [insert any reason] and then Google US's taxable income would be $0 so they'd pay no taxes in the US. This is how literally every multinational corporation avoids paying taxes or at least significantly reducing them.

Comment Women is tech is actually more like 10% (Score 1) 222

Just because someone works at a tech company doesn't mean they are doing tech related work. It's very contradictory that the media keeps pointing out how few women there are and making a fuss about it but then applauding the companies for trying to be more inclusive but ignoring the fact that the EEOC reports show that all the "women in tech" are actually "women in HR, middle management, and labor." The reports show that only 10-15% women are actually in any sort of tech related role at these companies.

I don't care if a gender likes a job or not but I'm sick of all the news that pretends to care just to get reactions.

Slashdot Top Deals

The "cutting edge" is getting rather dull. -- Andy Purshottam