Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - California Won't Force ISPs To Offer $15 Broadband (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A California lawmaker halted an effort to pass a law that would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner proposed the state law a few months ago, modeling the bill on a law enforced by New York. It seemed that other states were free to impose cheap-broadband mandates because the Supreme Court rejected broadband industry challenges to the New York law twice.

Boerner, a Democrat who is chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, faced pressure from Internet service providers to change or drop the bill. She made some changes, for example lowering the $15 plan's required download speeds from 100Mbps to 50Mbps and the required upload speeds from 20Mbps to 10Mbps. But the bill was still working its way through the legislature when, according to Boerner, Trump administration officials told her office that California could lose access to $1.86 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if it forces ISPs to offer low-cost service to people with low incomes.

That amount is California's share of a $42.45 billion fund created by Congress to expand access to broadband service. The Trump administration has overhauled program rules, delaying the grants. One change is that states can't tell ISPs what to charge for a low-cost plan. The US law that created BEAD requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one "low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers." But in new guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the agency said it prohibits states "from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO [low-cost service option] rate a subgrantee must offer."

Submission + - So... New New Coke? Now with sugar! (npr.org) 1

fahrbot-bot writes: NPR, and others, are reporting that Coca-Cola says it will use U.S. cane sugar in a new Coke, a plan pushed by Trump.

"We're going to be bringing a Coke sweetened with U.S. cane sugar into the market this fall," Coca-Cola Chairman and CEO James Quincey said on a conference call with analysts Tuesday.

Quincey said the new offering would "complement" Coca-Cola's core portfolio of drinks, suggesting it could arrive as an alternative, rather than a replacement, for its flagship Coke product.

CNN notes that, "sugar is more expensive in the US than in many parts of the world..." — there are also quotas and tariffs on cane sugar imported into the U.S.

The Sweeteners Users Association notes that cane sugar in the U.S. is grown mainly in Florida, Louisiana and Texas — so this will be a boon to some. Sugar beets are more widely grown in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.

Submission + - Managers say supervising Gen Z feels like babysitting according to new survey (nerds.xyz)

BrianFagioli writes: This might not come as surprise if you are currently in the workforce, but supervising Gen Z workers often feels more like babysitting than managing. Thatâ(TM)s according to a new report from ResumeTemplates.com. Based on survey responses from 1,000 U.S. managers, it paints a scary picture of frustration, hand-holding, and mismatched expectations in todayâ(TM)s multigenerational workplace.

The numbers are hard to ignore. Sixty-eight percent of surveyed managers said overseeing Gen Z employees feels more like parenting than actual leadership. More than half, 54 percent, went further and likened it to babysitting. Many managers say they spend their time walking younger workers through basic tasks, checking in multiple times a day, and explaining what older employees would already know how to do.

A full 61 percent of managers reported that their Gen Z staff require frequent guidance to complete their work. Over half say these workers often struggle with following simple instructions. One out of every three managers said they find themselves checking in four or more times a day with their youngest employees.

Comment Re:Thank goodness (Score 1) 25

I mean, I think what it comes down to is two things: 1) They weren't first 2) They aren't best So, they needed a niche that they can stake a claim to that will drive people to choose their product specifically. Being the definitive cornerstone of the "open" landscape of a groundbreaking piece of tech is a pretty damn good choice. The analogy is probably outdated, but they couldn't be McDonalds, so they chose to be Burger King.

Comment Corporate Death Penalty (Score 4, Insightful) 25

The penalty for these kinds of egregious violations of their legal responsibilities should be nothing less than complete liquidation of the company with all proceeds going to those affected by their negligence, and a permanent ban from holding executive positions for all C-suite level execs and members of the board. Without those kinds of harsh penalties, this kind of crap will just keep happening.

Comment Evolutionary Tradeoffs (Score 5, Insightful) 30

Packing the microchromosomes into larger chromosomes could have an advantage in that it's less "work" to coordinate chromosomal replication and segregation into the daughter cells with a smaller number of larger chromosomes. Less energy spent on the microtubule assembly to "run" mitosis. Fewer chances that a chromosome that didn't attach to the assembly properly stalls the process, etc. There are lots of areas where the larger assemblages could present an advantage that evolution could work on.
On the other hand, having smaller chromosomes means that if something does go wrong, there are potentially fewer genes affected by it so assuming the affected genes aren't super dosage sensitive, the resulting cells are more likely to be viable overall.
Evolutionary biology is always fascinating!

Comment Re:Simple solution (Score 1) 135

I don't give a shit about cryptocurrency, but mysidia is abolutely right about the demand for GPUs for research, deep-learning, and scientific applications. Crypto could completely die out (I don't think it will, but also, don't care either way) and the scientific applications will still be growing to make their investments in production capacity worthwhile. Nvidia is *definitely* being short-sighted by not dramatically scaling their manufacturing capacity.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Working...