Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:...in USA (Score 2, Insightful) 296

This is actually far more scary than the title would lead you to believe.

Scaring online poker players and internet gambling aficionados in Massachusetts is text found on page 123 of the 172-page bill. It reads, “Any person who knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, internet, [or] local area network or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information shall be punished.” The penalty is a hefty one, up to two years behind bars and a fine of up to $25,000.

Translation: if you are in Mass, and you send an email to a buddy along the lines of "Five bucks says Lumburgh is gonna make me come in on Saturday" can get you put in jail and fined.

Comment Re:It's the freeloaders time (Score 1) 1051

When I am reading the paper, with relaxing music in the background, the newspaper does not start talking to me.

Websites, however, do. If I am reading slashdot articles in google reader, the last thing I want is to have a bunch of articles pre-load and start talking, desynched just enough to be very loud cacophony.

This happened looking at _this_ article, causing me to find and install an ad-blocker in chrome. If its an ad in a video, feel free to talk to me, or play music. But, if I am reading, STFU!

Comment Thought-provoking line from the article (Score 2, Insightful) 329

However, there was a more fundamental problem, in the minds of some internet service providers and powerful telecommunications companies. YouTube pays for the transmission of half that awesome amount of data it serves (in theory only, in practice it's less). The other half is paid by those who receive it, by way of the telephone company used to get internet access. The users may consider that fair, but the telephone companies saw the equivalent of newspapers being delivered using their vans while they see none of the advertising revenue. YouTube, and Google and Facebook and other big traffic destinations, they argued, should pay to reach those customers.

Now, think about this for a moment. If I am renting a van from you, paying what you asked for mileage, filling up the tank when I brought it back, etc... why should I give you more money for using it to deliver newspapers, than if I used it to pick up a couch and bring it back to my place?

Seriously, where the hell did they think up this analogy?

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...