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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. (Score 1) 167

You won't hear any disagreement from me. I already pointed out that cable's numbers were less favorable than the summary suggests, and I definitely agree that the usage numbers seem high. That said, good luck finding numbers on how often people leave their TVs on while doing other activities around the house.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 589

Do members of a golf club have the right know all the emails and conversations within the club's administration?

That may depend on the club's bylaws. We do not know, what they are.

But we do know the laws of the US, which NY Times broke when they published classified information, which was illegally obtained. So, whatever excuses were found for NY Times back then and the reasons to reward them, would certainly apply for the publishers of DNC-leaks today.

There is a difference between "members" & their "club" and "citizens" & their "government".

Nope, your anonymous sock-puppet is wrong. There is a distinction, but it is without difference to the matter at hand.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 589

a government that is accountable to the public and a private organization that is not

Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...

Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?

Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.

When it comes to private organizations, members can accept the rules or vote with their feet.

The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 589

The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate.

Ah, so if it turns out, a Russian newspaper is behind it, you'll have no problem?

Those are held to different standards than the media

Wow, a Clinton-supporter justifying a double standard... Do go on...

And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers

Trump didn't call on anybody to do it either — he just said, he "hopes" they'll do. But you missed the analogy by comparing NYTimes to Trump (even if incorrectly)

NY Times were the ones ordering the leaks back then. Putin — or whoever ordered it this time — will be in their position.

Comment Re:I say (Score 3, Interesting) 186

Indeed. Last I checked, facts aren't copyrightable, trademarked, or otherwise protected by intellectual property rights (with the possible absurd exception of patented prime numbers), so if someone wants to report on the facts of the Olympics, such as the results or highlights, in their own words, they're entitled to do so. You can bluster and threaten as much as you want, but reporting on the facts is perfectly legal.

Comment Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 1) 589

You[r] reference to the NYT's pulitzer is too vague

The link included in my post provides all the details.

The Democratic National Committee is not a government body. As such, I am not sure that "the people deserve to know" anything about its internal machinations.

Ok, substitute "the people" for "the Democrats" — I too have always suspected, there is a difference, but considered it impolite to mention it.

Certainly the Democrats have no less right to know all about the functioning of the Democratic Party's national body, than the citizens of the US — about the Federal Government.

Comment And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score 4, Interesting) 589

When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.

Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?

Comment Re:Easy target for enemies... (Score 1) 76

One you blow up a support pillar of a regular bridge, the whole bridge will collapse

That is, actually, very hard to achieve. Possible, but very hard — ask any demolition/explosives expert.

And a single pillar is unlikely to do it — you will make the bridge unusable, yes, but there will not be massive amount of deaths — most of the people on the affected section it will survive either on their own or thanks to rescuers. Whereas everyone in the entire flooded tunnel (except those right by the exits) will drown even if they are expert swimmers.

Comment Re:I call BFD here (Score 1) 549

I disagree that those speeds are too excessive for allowing cross traffic. I'm located in a rural-ish area kinda in the middle between Houston, Austin, and Dallas. We have plenty of state highways around here that are marked as 75 mph (and which are frequently driven at closer to 85 mph) with lightly-used county roads crossing them every mile or two. I've never seen or heard of a problem with the ones around here. The key factors, however, is that there are long lines of sight, wide lanes, no curves in the road at the places where those crossings are, and shoulders on the sides of the road in case you need to maneuver quickly out of your lane. Plus, these are divided highways, so the cars can stop in the median, making it much simpler for them to cross safely.

Comment Re:Easy target for enemies... (Score 1) 76

Why is this any more risk-prone than immersed tube tunnels

If they are to be suspended, they must be flexible. If they have to be flexible, the walls will inevitably be softer than what we've had 'till now...

Unless, of course, some wonderful (and expensive) new material comes along... Like those nanotubes we keep thinking about for our space elevator.

Comment Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. (Score 3, Insightful) 167

Indeed. Once you adjust for the amount of content per hour of TV time (see math below), the cost for cable content is actually closer to $0.88/hr, rather than the $0.61/hr stated in the summary.

For the sake of fairness, if we take into account the average price Americans pay for an Internet connection, the cost for Netflix content ends up being about $1.22/hr. (math below). Of course, that number is kinda useless, since it fails to take into account the fact that most people in the developed world will be purchasing an Internet connection regardless of their interest in Netflix, as well as the fact that their Internet connection provides them with an essentially infinite stream of content from free sources other than Netflix (e.g. YouTube, Hulu, etc.) at no additional cost. But for a hypothetical person who has an Internet connection for the sole purpose of watching Netflix and uses that connection for no other use, I suppose that the number above would indeed be what they pay per hour of content (assuming their viewing habits matched the average American's).

If anyone has more up-to-date numbers, corrections for my math, or ideas for how to improve on these calculations, I'd love to see them, since I'm actually really curious about this stuff.

Math for cable's cost per hour of content:
A typical hour-long American show has 42 minutes of actual content and 18 minutes of ads. As such, while the average American may have the TV tuned to a cable channel for 5.38 hours each day, they're only receiving about 3.766 hours of actual content each day, or 112.98 hours per 30-day month. When the average cable cost of $99.10/mo. is taken into account, that yields about $0.88/hr for cable content.

Math for Netflix's cost per hour of content with Internet connection included:
The most recent numbers I could find for the average price of Internet connectivity in America are from 2014, and that survey pegged the number at $51/mo. (which, I'll point out, would provide far more bandwidth than would be strictly necessary to get Netflix, but it's the average price, so I'm going with it). With the $9.99/mo. cost of Netflix factored in, that comes out to a total of $60.99/mo.. Factoring in the 100 min/day of viewing that the summary mentions (i.e. 50 hr/mo.), Netflix ends up costing $1.22/hr of content.

Slashdot Top Deals

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.