Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

No, this is not about charging "anything they want". This is about charging the market equilibrium price to eliminate traffic congestion. Please try to stay on topic.

Of course it is. And it was a comparison, sorry if you can't see that. It is rather obvious that charging more than most people can/will pay will encompass people who are cheap/ don't care/ or would like to, but they cannot afford it. First two are fine - the third, not as much.

How about another idea? How about charging per lane. Right lane nothing. Passing lane a charge that will keep most people out of the passing lane. The same for each other lane of traffic until the inner lane uses a bidding process that goes to the highest bidder. If someone wants to pay a million bucks a day then they are the only one who can use that lane.

Ridiculous? Hell yeah. But in principle, you need to like it. Market price and all. And it will be exceptionally popular with everyone else.

Comment Re: One more reason to never own a smartphone (Score 1) 84

Why did what he said make you so angry?

Huh? I was in full tease mode. Kinda like when your crazy uncle Louie shows up at family gatherings and brags about not having an email address, and I tease him about all the women he must get by being such an independent stud. In this case, I just gave AC a little telling. Maybe he takes telling, maybe not. If I had to assign an emotion to it, it might be to feel badly because I ridiculed the guy who thinks that he is somehow more "secure" because of having a feature phone, or whatever it is he has. Then again, nahhh. Peace out, Bing.

Comment Re:One more reason to never own a smartphone (Score 2) 84

Such a brave stance that--- Well, although many of us are indeed too dependent on our smartphones, they offer real utility beyond taking pictures of our food.

There is nothing about the cellular system that is secure. So use what you use as long as you are comfortable with it. AC has some weird ideas that he is somehow immune to the tracking and other possibilities that are just inherent in the system. If LE is interested, any time his phone connects to a couple towers, he's nailed. I'm not inclined to do anything illegal, but if I was, none of it would be on my cell or computer. I use the hell out of my smartphone for trip mapping and location services. The occasional tethering, and most of that is data lookup. I have no plans to get rid of mine, no matter what some AC thinks.

Comment Re:One more reason to never own a smartphone (Score 1) 84

I'll keep my secrets in my head and stick to a $50 dumbphone with nothing in it and not even turned on for more than 1 hour a day. Seriously you people so attached to your goddamned smartphones are pathetic and I pity you.

Grandpa Gribble? they let you out of the home again?

If you are that shit shakingly paranoid about security, why on earth are you even using a device whose main feature is to track you? Without that tracking, the cellular system doesn't function. And they even keep logs.

That one hour you have it turned on, your phone is alerting your presence to teh authorities, and they be a comin ta get ya!

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

[ Paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways is] actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane...

If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.

Correct, if the fee isn't set high enough to eliminate congestion, there will be congestion. So what's the issue?

How much you can afford is the issue. That's the point. This is alawys the problem with privately built roads. Let's take a utopian scene. Your local government has the shitz of maintaining the road past your house. So in the libertarian and Republican blessed universe, they sell it to the highest bidder. Your road now belongs to them, in no way do you have any say. So they decide to charge you anything they want to get to your house. You have no choice. So what's the issue?

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

Of course we want a "public Internet" but we also will raise holy hell if Company X gets to use the public facility for free and uses more than anyone else to the point where service degrades.

The rational solution to this mess is to require companies to provide X% of public service alongside their buildouts for private endeavors, thus creating a safe harbor which avoids an accounting nightmare, while allowing businesses to do business, and to have a publicly funded watchdog surveil that that bandwidth is publicly available from the outside.

But who pays who what? If the internet goes out to whoever pays the most baksheesh, and therefore gets the most bandwidth, what if the rest of us are left with precious little? I have a pretty good suspicion that the end game of this whole net neutrality fight will be that the big boys will win, and suddenly it becomes the digital equivalent of what cable TV is today. We already hear some people arguing that DSL speeds are adequate for people.

We aren't likely to get any public watchdog, and let's not forget that most people believe that bandwidth is infinite.

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways.

That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?

I don't think this is how that would work. If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

isn't the toll on the internet (or paid prioritization) what net neutrality is supposed to prevent?

That's right. You think that Republicans support Net neutrality? Certainly as late as 2015 they were calling it "Obamacare for the internet" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 472

Bad form to reply to my own reply - but I made a mistake in attribution. I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison to toilet fixtures was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 472

I understand what your point was, but it was refuting a strawman argument no one made. The article does not state the world is better off because wars reduced income inequality. It merely states the wars reduced income inequality.

A better question rather than bringung up the exhausted "strawman" pejorative, is do you concur with him? I personally have an argument to make that he has a worldview, and conveniently forgotten or amplified his references in order to support that worldview.

As in I find that it streche scredulity to a breaking point when he asserts how the Communist revolutions in Russia created equality for it's citizens. Could you make a good argument for the income leveling of the Great leap forward in China, which directly caused between 18 million and 55 million deaths by starvation? The dead were equal in a morbid manner, but I don't think Mao missed too many meals.

And I made a mistake - I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 472

Please read the article before your next post. The very first sentence makes it clear it is referring to income inequality, not equality in general.

If you read a little further, He notes that voting rights and government intervention in the private sector also were a result of this. Unles she was intentionally spouting a non sequitur that you happen to know about.

I read the story, and I call Bullshit as well.

He writes how "By contrast, Latin America, which sat out the 20th century’s largest conflicts in relative isolation, duly did not see inequality drop until the early 2000s". Perhaps this source might differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If misery created income and voter equality, well South America should be leading the way and passed us a long time ago.

Apparently the bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the communists taking over in China was the best thing that ever happened to the world, culminating in equal prosperity for all of their citizens. DO I really need to debunk that, Is Old Joe Stalin the key to equality? The solution to the middle class's resurgence? There is more to debunk, but I find his prose annoying and in the end boring.

No,old Walt Scheidel cherry picks data with a skill a AGW denier would be proud of, and arranges his fruited narrative to fit his world view. And his world view is a combination of highly left wing idealism, and a get of my damn lawn mentality that leaves him yearning for old fashioned toilets. Speaking of, it might be a good idea to read his next story in line "Why nothing works any more" https://www.theatlantic.com/te... Oddly enough, the two stories are quite related in a scatological sort of way. 8^)

Comment Re:Lack of understanding rather than nefarious (Score 1) 96

As a Republican I 100% agree that this is bull. I think it likely the issue though is that republicans instinctively lean toward less regulation and if you are not technically literate, then these requirements could be phrased by someone in such a way as to seem burdensome.

While on a long drive today, I realized two things. The first is that this is an attempt to open up a new market. The second is maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways. No more of this equal access to all lanes. Seems like just an logical corollary of the war on net neutrality.

Comment Re:Kids these days... (Score 1) 404

The local paper's only response to our pointing this out was to try and sell us even more expensive advertising campaigns than the ones which hadn't worked.

Crikey's, I could have written that! My local paper kept trying to get me to take out daily's that were going to cost a couple grand a month. And every so often a half page. At one point I asked if the purpose for my being in business was to give them all my money. The lady just grinned. Today they are about 25 percent of the size they used to be. Good.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...