Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:74 at time of crash (Score 1) 318

I love this topic because I always get to mention the Autobahn. No speed limit and half the traffic fatalities per mile as US interstates, all because the slower people keep right, and allow the faster people to just pass.

I freely admit I generally exceed the speed limit (although usually by more like 5MPH), and I get annoyed when we have five or more lanes through our city and people are driving below the limit in the center and left of center lanes. Someone is in the "proper" lane if they are generally passing people to their right and being passed on the left. At the same time, I don't feel like I should have to get over and go slower so that the person behind me can exceed the limit even more than I am. If it's not going to slow me down, I have no issue moving over to allow a faster driver to pass. I promise you - if you want to go faster than I'm going, I really don't want to be in your way, but you have to give me reasonable time to pass the people I'm passing.

The problem is most people hate being passed, and think the people passing are jerks (instead of simply not caring, which we should all do more of - worry about yourself). I think it has to do with transactional analysis. I often drive in off-peak hours, and use cruise control (not autopilot!) because it actually helps me pay more attention to the road without worrying about driving a consistent speed.

It's true that it seems like people will speed up when passing.... and often slow down after they pass you. What I've observed is that it's almost always the person being passed speeding up. They may not even realize they're doing it - it's probably only millimeters of difference on the accelerator, and then they complain the person passing them slowed down. The vast majority of the time I'm passing people - using cruise control - they speed up to match. Maybe they feel like if they are being passed then they are going too slow. I think more often people just don't like "losing" the social interaction with others on the roadway. All I know is that it ends up causing a lot more traffic problems because you then create rolling roadblocks, causing people to have to change more lanes to go around. For me, I'll often speed up some more - and if they speed up to match, I'll drop back to my original speed and get behind them... at which point they generally slow down. Quite frustrating, but I don't want to be the person blocking traffic.

Comment Re:You made the bed. Now sleep in it. (Score 0) 306

The problem is that areas had record cold this past winter, and "deniers" get slammed for correlating a weather event to global climate change - but when "alarmists" do the same thing, most people just nod. It is a double standard. For the record, again, before anyone gets all irate about it, I do not deny global climate change - I'm just not biased enough to be blind to the double standard.

Comment Re: net neutrality (Score 1) 59

That's how it should work - and that's why I don't think they are violating NN with either this or binge-on, but I also think the law goes to far - otherwise this wouldn't even be a question. I support the intent of NN, which, to me, means service providers can't charge content providers for use of their networks (because the customers of the service providers are already paying for the bandwidth), and they can't throttle bandwidth or extort money from content providers to use that bandwidth. But a company offering a freebie to it's actual customers doesn't violate the ideal of NN. If Nintendo is paying for it, then maybe - but otherwise there is nothing wrong here.

Comment Re:net neutrality (Score 1) 59

No. Well, yes and no. If you look at it from the point of view of competitors, then yes, but if you look at it from the point of view of customers, then no - even if my favorite game doesn't get free bandwidth, because all that means is nothing has changed for me.

The problem with the net neutrality rules is they go too far. I agree with the concept in so far as service providers need to recognize who their customers are and not extort content providers - who are NOT the service provider's customers. The problem with the poster child (Comcast/Netflix) is that Netflix was never pushing content onto Comcast's networks - Comcast's customers, who were already paying for the bandwidth, were pulling it - that's how Comcast's customers were deciding to use the bandwidth they paid for. In addition, it was anti-competitive because Comcast offers it's own content streaming service.

What you've got here is a nice freebie T-Mobile throws in for it's customers, and it can't even do that without people complaining it violates net neutrality. Unless Nintendo is paying T-Mobile, I see no violation of the "ideal" of net neutrality, I see potential violation of the law because the law goes too far. Like the streaming services T-Mobile gives customers "for free" (it's not really, because they potentially suffer from reduced bandwidth for that content, but it's the customers choice - so be it), T-Mobile is NOT getting paid by the content providers for giving them necessary bandwidth - it is as it should be, the customers are using the bandwidth how they see fit - nobody is losing or missing out on anything.

Comment Re:Safety third! (Score 1) 330

CS has always been activists, but over the past couple of years they've changed their magazine to a much less useful format, added bigger pictures and "web like" graphics and word clouds... much less content, much more flash, and much more emphasis on being activists instead of product reviews. Not saying it's not still useful, but they've annoyed me more than once with their activism.... one of the reasons I like their ratings is so that I don't need the government to intervene, it helps me make intelligent decisions.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.