Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Your car is not your car (Score 1) 196

You can have a country that the boat is registered to... that doesn't mean you are paying property taxes. For boats that you live on, the closest thing to property taxes is mooring fees, (the marina pays property tax though), and if you not not keep your boat docked most of the time, then you only pay mooring fees for the times that you are docked, and not when you are using your boat on open water.

Comment Re:Your car is not your car (Score 1) 196

Insurance, registration, and maintenance fees are not property taxes, which was the issue I was addressing Property taxes are paid to the municipality for permission simply to use the land for the housing that you *do* own. If you do not live on the land, then you do not pay property taxes, period. You may pay mooring fees, but if you should keep your boat undocked most of the time, and far enough away from the coast, then you only pay such fees when you are docked, and not for all of the time that you are using the boat on the open water.

But waxing a bit scifi here... what if you built a structure at the bottom of the sea, and lived there? I seem to recall there was a James Bond movie where the villain had some sort of set-up like that, actually.

Comment Re:This wil not work anyway (Score 1) 196

Using self-driving taxis will be much cheaper than owning a car.

Just how cheap are you thinking it will get? Right now, when I take a cab to the airport from my place, I'm looking at it being about $50, while my car, which is not even particularly fuel economical by the way, uses about $3 for the same trip. Uber is cheaper than cabs, but not anywhere close that much.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

If that contention control is implemented after your usage exceeds some threshold, then they are limiting the amount of your usage without any contention control. They should be allowed to do this, but they shouldn't say that it is unlimited, when they are, in fact, putting a limit on how much you can transfer without contention control, which is a different level of service than what another subscriber would have received at the exact same time on the exact same plan as you if they had simply not previously downloaded as much data as you had.

Comment Re:Loophole in GINA? (Score 1) 224

No company is allowed to use genetic information in their hiring practices

While I agree that is almost certainly the intent... I actually looked at the exact wording of the act before I posted above, and it does not actually say that. All that it says is that the employer must not refuse to hire, promote, or determine job placement for someone based on their genetic information. If you, as an employer, already have a specific job available before you start collecting resumes for it, and you are looking for someone with particular genetic criteria to fill it, then the hiree's genetic information is not determining their job placement because the specific job was decided upon even before you saw their genetic information, and they are not being *refused* hiring or promotion, so the prohibitions in GINA would appear to not be applicable. The only people that are being refused are not being turned away because you found anything undesirable about *THEIR* genetic information, but because you found something more desireable in the HIREE's genetic information. While this would almost certainly create the initial appearance of being illegally discriminatory, by a certain highly literal interpretation of how the act is worded, it does not actually seem to be.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

When that network management is being used only for subscribers that have exceeded certain thresholds, then those thresholds are, in fact, limits on the levels of service offered by the plan that they paid for, and the subscribers whose packets have been deprioritized have been relegated to an alternate plan while others are unaffected. I have no problem with companies that want to do this, what I take exception to, however, is when the companies call them "unlimited" when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize such a plan before they relegate that subscriber to a a different level of service than what others who might be paying the exact same amount for the same service might enjoy at the exact same time.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

If two people are paying a particular rate for a particular service, as long as they are operate within the parameters that the service allows, they should always be receiving identical (or nearly identical) levels of service at any given time. If there are parameters that can be exceeded by a given userr such that the level of service is altered for that user only, then those parameters are limits on that service, and the service cannot reasonably be called unlimited.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

I have no issue with companies that impose limitations on usage of their services on anyone for any reason they see fit to impose them on. I have an issue with companies that call services "unlimited", when they *do* impose limitations on the usage of their services over and above whatever limits may have physically existed in the first place to support the infrastructure. Those limits are nothing but a policy decision, and I again have no dispute with companies that wish to implement such policies, but by the exact same reasoning that any so-called "limited" plan has limits imposed on it by virtue of policies decided by the company, any plan that they can fairly call "unlimited" should be entirely unencumbered by *any* such policies. If it has policies that create limits (even if they are only speed limits and not time or usage limits) on what they would otherwise call a limited plan, how can they continue to call that plan unlimited in the first place?

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

I'm not suggesting that it's not necessarily an essential thing for the ISP to do for the good of the largest number of people, but the choice to throttle high capacity users beyond what their network could have otherwise handled at the time based only on the amount of prior usage by those subscribers is still a choice of the provider to *limit* the activity for those people to certain levels. In that sense, throttling cannot be considered unlimited because the provider is actively choosing to limit its usage, even if they are only doing so by imposing speed limits on it, those limits are an artifact of a *policy* that the company chooses that is outside of the parameters of the service that it offers, in the same sense that any limit that the ISP would have on an expressly limited plan is likewise only an implementation of a similar policy.

It is absolutely no different than an electric company raising rates at certain times of day to discourage people from using too much electricity.

Companies are perfectly entitled to do this, of course...and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be calling something "unlimited" when they are actively choosing to limit it, even if what they are limiting is not affecting when they could use the service or how often... it is affecting how much they will be able to utilize out of the service that would not have otherwise applied to anyone else, and so in that sense, it is most definitely a limit.

Comment I thought my IP address.... (Score 0) 35

... was the property of my ISP.

Sort of like how my physical street address is property of the municipality, my phone number is property of the phone company... etc.

I do not own any of the information that could potentially be used to track me down unless I can live entirely independently of using property that belongs to other people.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 142

It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.

The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.

Comment Loophole in GINA? (Score 2) 224

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits employers from refusing to hire someone because of their genetics... but what if the reason to refusing to hire someone in particular is because they didn't submit their genetic information at all? How can they be said to refuse to hire someone based on their genetics if they don't have the genetic information in the first place?

Further, it seems that the refusal to hire someone who did submit such information would not necessarily be because of *their* genetics but because the employer has since filled the position they were seeking with someone else who *did* have the genetic qualifications they were seeking. In this case, the employer may be choosing to *hire*, not refusing to hire, somebody based on their genetics, but this does not appear to be prohibited by GINA.

I don't know if this has already been tried and shot down in court, or if this kind of reasoning would actually work. While it's entirely unethical in terms of the spirit of the law, it seems like it still ought to be technically legal.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI