Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:It's optional (Score 1) 57

I have no idea why T-Mobile has so many fanboys hearing only what they want to hear, but their press release isn't exactly ambiguous:

With T-Mobile ONE, even video is unlimited at standard definition [...] For customers who want higher definition video, T-Mobile ONE has you covered too with an HD add-on for $25 a month per line.

Ars has the same take on T-Mobile charging $25 extra for "HD."

Comment Re:How are they doing this? (Score 2) 57

According to this anon, they do string matching on host, content-type, and SNI fields, which is how they throttled HTTPS YouTube. If you wrote a proxy that rewrote those fields, you could escape Binge-On. Or apparently make Binge-On detect random shit as an approved streaming partner and zero-rate it for you.

Comment Re:how many people (Score 1) 57

I want 1080p YouTube videos on my phone. My phone has a 1080p screen, and even at native resolution it's already a pain in the ass to make out any text, captions, or fine details (mouse cursors, HP bars, wires and gauges, whathaveyou). Downscaling the video to <1.5Mbps 480p and blowing it back up again doesn't help legibility any.

If you nerds want to relive the 90s, nothing's stopping you from transcoding everything you watch to 64Kbps RealMedia(tm) first. I certainly wouldn't pay anyone to run a Minecraft filter on all my video, though, and I doubly wouldn't pay them again to unfuck it.

Comment Re:How are they doing this? (Score 1) 57

how can T-Mobile stop people from getting full HD streams from that provider without paying the extra $25 charge

They use some form of DPI to detect video content, and throttle everything that matches--even non-streaming downloads of video files--to 1.5 Mbps. If your video provider of choice feels like sucking T-Mobile's cock, there's an API approved providers can implement to serve <1.5Mbps streams to the "Binge-On" customer instead.

If your video provider of choice has not written any T-Mobile-specific code, they better be able to dynamically degrade to a <1.5Mbps stream, or the video will buffer or not load at all. A VPN might be able to evade that, except a VPN would probably be detected as "hotspot" or "tethering" usage, which is throttled to 128Kbps on the new "unlimited" plans.

Anyone claiming the video throttling ("Binge-On") is optional or can be turned off hasn't read TFA or TFS. That used to be the case, and still is on the old plans, but it's mandatory on the new "unlimited" plans in order to prevent you from actually using any data.

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....

I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement

You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.

Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.

Here's another video that's telling.

H-U-B-R-I-S

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

but I actually count her gender in her favor

Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.

Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.

Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.

We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

War is messy. Unlike our enemies, we don't deliberately target civilians. We fight with one hand tied behind our back, obeying the rules of civilized warfare despite the fact that our enemies do not do so. If we chose to play without rules, as they do, we could wipe them out tomorrow.

How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.

Comment Re: Earned reputation versus propaganda? (Score 1) 801

You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.

Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.

China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.

(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)

Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.

Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion. :)

Comment Re: A simple exercise (Score 1) 166

If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.

I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...