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

 



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

Comment Re:They do charge for the modem... (Score 2) 65

Yeah, but because they don't tell you (as a separate line item), the cost of renting the cable modem, you're unable to determine whether or not it's a good deal.

I mean, okay, my cable modem is from Time Warner. I honestly couldn't tell you how much the rent on it is, because the internet service is bundled into the rent I pay.

But let's say I did have the bill for that. A mid-range cable modem costs, what, $100? $150? (Newegg lists some going up to $200.) Let's go with $150.

If the bill says my monthly cable modem rental is $5 a month, it would take 30 months before I've saved money by buying my own. If it's $10 a month, it would take 15 months before I've started saving money.

There's other factors, like how often do you need to replace a cable modem because of age or damage, or whatnot. If you're renting the cable modem, the company should replace it if it breaks, right? Maybe there's an extra fee involved in that, maybe there isn't. Maybe it depends on how often you need the cable modem replaced. If it's your modem, and it starts going south on you, you have to pay the replacement cost. So, that has to be taken into consideration.

But if you don't know these things, because the ISP is hiding them from you, you can't make an informed decision.

Comment Re:Because it looks like a cover-up (Score 2) 382

It depends on what they say on the stand, and the level of immunity granted. (Keep in mind, that I am not a lawyer.)

Okay, let's say, and why not, that you're called to testify about something IT related for your company. The prosecutor could choose to grant you immunity to prosecution for anything at all you that say on the stand, OR immunity to prosecution for anything that you say on the stand that is related to the case, OR not grant you immunity to prosecution at all.

So, let's say your company was up to various tax related shenanigans. You work in IT, and you have access to all the email records of the company, or various records, or whatever.

The prosecutor, finding out about this, compels you to testify. Now, if you were complicit in the tax shenanigans, maybe you're reluctant to testify. He could charge you, and make you a co-defendant, but maybe he can't prove you were directly involved, that could make his case weaker, etc.

Or he could make you a deal. "Testify about the shenanigans, and I won't prosecute you for the shenanigans."

Or he could make you a blanket deal "You won't be prosecuted for anything you say on the stand." (Although this would be stupid of the prosecutor if he doesn't know exactly how deeply involved in the shenanigans you are, or what else you might confess to.)

Now, by offering immunity from prosecution, the main goal is to get the testimony that you might be reluctant to give. But, see, you're not going to be charged with anything. That removes a huge roadblock. But it doesn't guarantee that the person offered immunity will still testify.

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 1) 382

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, not the Clinton campaign.

And the right wing took that football and ran with it. For years. Hell, Trump hasn't given up on it. He's basically said he's dropping it to get his campaign to move on. Sheriff Joe Arpaio STILL thinks the birth certificate is a fake.

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 2) 382

Considering how much time the right wing spent on "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" or "Was Obama even born in this country?" or "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that." (Okay, maybe not that last one), they've kind of lost a bit of credibility when it comes to other things.

Comment Re:maaaan (Score 3, Interesting) 382

To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?

I mean, think about it. We all know people who use the same username across a lot of social media platforms, or forums, or whatever. If someone was inclined to impersonate him, the fact that he uses the same handle makes it easier to do so.

Please note, I'm not saying that this is the case. But a handle in an otherwise anonymous setting does not and cannot, in and of itself, identify someone.

Comment Re:Still a thing? (Score 1) 539

Try living in the Bible Belt. Back when I worked a retail job, I was routinely handed religious pamphlets, asked if I'd found Jesus (I was not allowed to tell them I didn't know he was missing... at least while I was at work), and so on.

I also had to routinely field questions about whether products and services we offered would be free because "it was for Jesus". (I was also not allowed to say "Well, look, if Jesus comes in to pick up the order, yes, it's free.")

I live in a state that until 2004, tattoo parlors were illegal, because of some religious dingbattery in the state legislature. We still have blue laws in the state concerning what businesses can operate on a Sunday morning.

Now, maybe I'm more sensitive to noticing these things because I'm an atheist, but yeah, this shit is real and all over the place down here.

Comment Re:Some hacker, he's not found anything real (Score 0) 333

Also, let's face it, voter ID laws only stop one amazingly rare type of voter fraud - in person voter fraud. How rare? Try 31 documented cases out of 1 billion votes cast.

But we _have_ to have those voter ID laws to stop that sort of thing. Because... you know, fraud. Evil, evil fraud. Evil, so damned rare as to be non-existant fraud.

Comment Re:Another way to look at this is.. (Score 3, Interesting) 400

28 is too old to start over? Shit, I wish I'd known that when I changed careers at 40. Okay, sure, I already had the Comp. Sci. degree, but still...

And yes, I know there is a difference between switching jobs when you only have a certain level of training for a specific job vs. having the degree and knowledge, and just finally being able to use a college degree because the job market improved enough.

Comment Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score 3, Informative) 579

At least in the case in Ireland, the EU is saying that Ireland could not have legally slashed Apple's tax bill to the extant that it did.

Now, whether Apple knew that this was illegal is the matter.

If they did, then, yes, they are complicit in tax evasion, and the penalties should apply. If they didn't know, i.e., they were acting in good faith, then no, Apple should not be on the hook retroactively.

Now... going forward, it will be hard for Apple to claim that they shouldn't pay the "proper" amount of taxes in Ireland. I'm sure they'll try anyway, mind you.

Comment Re:Get out of here Trumpies (Score 1) 409

Part of it depends on the poll methodology. I mean, if it's a "national poll", but it's around a thousand people polled, that's what, 25 people per state? (Of the last 10 polls listed on realclearpolitics.com, all but 1 of them polled 1500 people or less. Although, it should be noted that the poll from NBC that polled over 24,000 people had Clinton up by 4 points.)

It's easy to get results that are a little off. Hence the margin of error on polls.

The more important polls, at least from a certain standpoint, are the polls from the battleground states.

For Trump to win the Presidency, he not only has to carry every state that Romney won in 2012, he would have to flip Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

The polls from those states... aren't looking good for him. (Hell, Trump barely has any campaign presence in Florida, which is arguably the first or second most important battleground state.)

And hell, Trump is in danger of not even carrying some of the states that went for Romney.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...