Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:You can buy it that way (T3), makes you unhappy (Score 1) 226

Sharing a fast connection is awesome, you save tons of money, but one problem arises. One of your neighbors sets up a server and hosts web sites for three or four of his friends, then another neighbor leaves Netflix streaming 24/7 in two different rooms, when he's not even home. That's quite wasteful, but what does he care, he's only paying a tiny fraction of the cost. You get less of the shared bandwidth because dumbass is streaming HD video to an empty living room.

If only there was some solution which involved, oh, I don't know, shaping the traffic to each subscriber based on a refilling bucket of tokens or something. Maybe they could pay for it by not having to pay for extra complexity in the billing and customer complaint system.

There is no perfect solution to that, but about the best solution we have are caps. Unfortunately ISPs haven't been clear about what the caps are for different pricing tiers. Most consumers probably don't know how many GBs they want, so that's part of the problem.

What is good for ISPs in an environment which lacks competition has nothing to do with what is good for the customers.

The ISP's solution is *designed* to increase revenue with fines created because the ISP does not provide real time usage information to the customer and the customer is subject to unsolicited traffic (incoming UDP among others) anyway. You know how telephone companies charge customers for unsolicited calls and text messages? It is the same thing.

Comment Yes, and ... (Score 1) 226

Yes, using the internet is like eating Oreos except for that part about paying ahead of time for a specific number of Oreos, eating one more so I now have negative Oreos, and getting fined for it. At least with Oreos, I can unambiguously count the number of Oreos I have left.

Tell me again why pay as you go internet does not end when I run out of bytes that I paid for?

Comment Re:IoA (Score 1) 125

NAT is still possible with IPv6. It would really just force people to "break" the internet if they tried something like that.

Sure NAT is still possible although I would not put it beyond them to eventually try getting people charged with violations of the CFAA or some other law for using it without permission.

And why wouldn't they want to break the internet? We are after all talking about companies like AT&T who once told me that they were blocking IPv6 tunneling because otherwise customers could get free static IPv6 IPs without paying for them.

Comment Re:Crypto? They *removed* that from IPv6... (Score 1) 125

It is not like the usual suspects had to kill AH to protect their need for mass-spying, making ESP optional would be enough (and outlaw it where required). But no, they need to actually be able to inject false traffic (which *is* against the !@#$!@#$ law everywhere, even for governments)...

Better to kill AH now to prevent people from thinking they have a right to any unapproved and secure cryptography. Plus there is the whole wanting to inject false traffic issue.

Comment Re:IoA (Score 1) 125

When people talk about an IPv6 address being 128 bits they're technically true but they miss the bigger picture. In practice you can't assign anything smaller than a /64 so really there are only 64 bits of address space as we think of it today. 1 IPv4 address hosting a subnet with NAT vs. an IPv6 /64 prefix are roughly equivalent. It's still way more address space than we'll ever reasonably need, but not quite as ridiculous as it looks at first glance.

No worries, ISPs will soon figure out how to issue single IPv6 addresses or at least block all but one unless you pay for the feature of having a complete allocation.

Comment Re:Well, that's a start. (Score 1) 115

In 99% of police interactions if you comply with their instructions, you will not be injured or worse.

Oh good. So only 1% of the time will I be injured or worse. And only in 1% of of the time when people are detained or arrested will they be injured or worse. That percentage is completely unacceptable.

Are there overjealous, brutish police officers? Yes, undoubtedly. Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.

The guards in the Standford Prison Experiment were reasonable human beings. This problem has nothing to do with the character of the officers. They are *trained* to act like thugs, to steal property, to evade the law, and extenuate circumstances to justify their own actions. The difference between law enforcement and common criminals is law enforcement expects your sanction of their actions. Common criminals are more honest.

The only recourse is to *always* exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights during *every* interaction with law enforcement with absolutely no exceptions. Of course doing this will get you injured or worse as well.

Comment Re:Well, that's a start. (Score 1) 115

"As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.

Obey the instructions of the police officer and let your lawyer / attorney / barrister handle any disputes. The solution does not even require technology. Priceless.

So you mean let your lawyer handle burying you in your grave?

Comment Re: Adding Capcom to tech boycott (Score 1) 120

What we need to be doing is getting executives arrested for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That awful law has been used to prosecute hackers and hobbyists for much more minor things than this, and has been twisted enough to fit various cases that there's more than enough precedent now.

Ya, I can see the CFAA being used against a user who bypassing the company's root kit.

Comment Re:Not bloody likely (Score 1) 144

Interesting. Do you know how long ago that study was done? I"m curious if smaller manufacturing geometries have made newer processors more vulnerable.

The sensitivity of DRAM actually leveled off a few generations ago. I think what happened is that there is a minimum capacitance needed per DRAM cell so as the cells became smaller and the dielectric constant was increased to make up for it, the charge stored in a given volume became *greater* so an ionizing radiation impact spreading charge over a greater number of DRAM capacitors without enough charge to affect them individually.

High performance SRAM used for integrated caches became more vulnerable and has been protected by parity and ECC for a long time now.

I am not sure about high performance logic.

Comment Re:Uh huh... (Score 1) 144

The SRAM structures used for integrated high performance processor cache are orders of magnitude more sensitive than discrete DRAM to radiation induced soft errors. Some of this is simply because the bandwidth is so high which exposes a greater capture area of logic. And so high performance processor cache has included parity and ECC protection for a long time.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!