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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"net neutrality" is control play (Score 2, Insightful) 402

Quality of Service is not what "Net Neutrality" is about. You've described a QoS system, which, while some people may not like, is not the fundamental threat of a non-neutral net. In the world of the non-neutral net, AT&T wants Google to pay them money for the right to be viewed by their customers. In a non-neutral net, Yahoo could partner with AT&T and together say that AT&T customers cannot access Google search, but rather only Yahoo search. Or if they're not so evil as to block Google search, they will just purposefully send Google queries over a slower pipe than Yahoo queries, making people think that Google is slow, when in reality it's an artificial speed degradation meant to line AT&T's pockets by blackmailing content providers to pay them more.

Throttling on the application layer (BitTorrent packets can arrive out of order, or arrive later, than Skype packets since P2P doesn't need real-time access) is one thing. But the big ISPs want to throttle on the end-point, in order to extract money from Google, Hulu, Netflix or any random new web service that provides cool new content.

Comment Re:Very stupid question, but... (Score 5, Insightful) 398

The students did detect this. They saw the light blinking on and off, and reported it. These claims were dismissed as something wrong with the light. Of course, the fact that the claims were dismissed by the very group of people who could be taking the pictures should have made it seem a bit suspicious...

Submission + - RIAA Accounting: How Labels Avoid Paying Musicians ( 1

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Slashdot posted Techdirt's story about "Hollywood Accounting" which showed how movies like Harry Potter still officially "lose" money with some simple accounting tricks. This week, Techdirt is taking on RIAA accounting, and showing why most musicians (even multi-platinum recording stars) may never see a dime from their album sales. The major labels basically give you a loan, but then demand the first 63% of any dollar you make, get to automatically increase the size of the "loan" by simply adding in all sorts of crazy expenses (did the exec bring in pizza at the recording session? that gets added on), and then tries to get the loan repaid out of what meager pittance they've left for you. Oh, and after all of that, the record label still owns the copyrights. The average musician on a major record deal "gets" about $23 per $1,000 made... and that $23 still never gets paid because it has to go to "recouping" the loan... even though the label is taking $630 out of that $1,000, and not counting it towards the advance. Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue.

Submission + - RIAA paid $16M + legal fees to collect $391k ( 1

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In a rare outburst of subjectivity, I commenced my blog post 'Ha ha ha ha ha' when reporting that, based upon the RIAA's disclosure form for 2008, it had paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 to recover $391,000. If they were doing it to 'send a message', the messages have been received loud & clear: (1) the big 4 record labels are managed by idiots, (2) the RIAA's law firms have as much compassion for their client as they do for the lawsuit victims, (3) suing endusers, or alleged endusers, is a losing game. I don't know why begrudges the RIAA's boss his big compensation; he did a good job.... for the lawyers.

Comment Re:AirPort Extreme? (Score 1) 33

Actually, thanks to some clever reverse engineering, it is up to Yellow Dog now. The folks at have released an open source driver for Airport Extreme. In fact, I'm using it now to submit this post on Gentoo running on a 12" Powerbook. Instructions can be found here:

Slashdot Top Deals

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.