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


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

Comment Re:Bandiwidth is *free* fallacy.. (Score 1) 158

Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing if you're downloading at 1 MB/s or 1 GB/s.

That's not exactly true. The equipment is still using power regardless of whether or not it's transmitting anything. They could charge people flat rates based on rough estimates of how many users it would take sending "normal" (however that gets estimated) data to fill the equipment. If 1,000 users could each transmit at 1mbps through their equipment before it reaches capacity, then they could charge each user 1/500th of the cost of the electricity that equipment uses, for example. They would make a profit when a lot of people are using their network, but would lose a little if it's well below capacity. In reality they want to charge many times that, though. It seems like it's almost to the point where any individual user could pay for all of the power for the equipment they're using.

I remember back when cell phone companies charged a price per text message, the calculations were done to show that it cost more to send 1MB of SMS data than it did to get the same amount of data from the Hubble telescope. ISPs and cell carriers will always want to charge as much as people are willing to pay, I don't think any of them tries to come up with a pricing scheme were people only pay for what they're actually using (as in, what it costs the carrier) plus a little extra for profit.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 262

If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.

If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.

Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.

All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.

Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.

Comment Re:Comment (Score 1) 262

Unless you've got star power behind you, you're pretty much fucked, and might as well get a job being a gaffer or boom operator if you want to stay anywhere in the field, or relegate yourself to TV roles.

So the solution is to force people to hire actors that they don't want? I don't understand what you think the problem is, do people who decide to move to California and become an actor have some sort of inherent right to do the work they want? Maybe California should just pass a law saying that any actor needs to be given any part that they audition for, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Maybe the actors can even dictate their own pay too. If there aren't enough parts, then the California government can just force the movie studios to make more movies that no one wants to see just to give jobs to actors that no one wants to hire, because those people apparently need government protection.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 3, Interesting) 262

Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.

Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 1) 293

Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 293

"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.

Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?