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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:HUH? (Score 0) 150

you suggest that the banks are scheming to make a profit on theft?!?!? sorry, but Occam's Razor shreds your argument to bits my friend the banks don't want nefarious individuals stealing our money any more than we do. It's very, very bad for business

Comment Re:What's next? (Score 4, Interesting) 338

Do you really want your phone company deciding who can and cannot call you?

While I generally loath spammers, I think this is the point that makes the net neutrality argument valid I am continually frustrated by my ISPs spam blocking. There is no opt out, I can't white list senders, and they won't disclose fully how they identify what is and is not spam.

There have been several instances where senders emails to me simply disappeared with no indication to me or the sender that the message was discarded. I feel that my email is often too important to have my ISP arbitrarily discarding it in this manner.

While I appreciate that my ISP is marketing this to me as a "feature" and they are somehow doing me a favor, the reality is they are just trying to lower their costs by mitigating spam and the burden it places on their servers and network.

My preference would be for them to not block my spam for me, or at least give me a way to opt out of their blocking and let me manage it myself so I can have a stronger sense of confidence that messages sent to me are arriving as intended.

Thus, while I don't agree that SPAM should be allowed, I do agree that allowing ISPs to block it should be disallowed.

Comment It's not cheap to build (Score 5, Interesting) 351

There was an interesting NY Times article on the cost per customer for Verizon to deploy their FiOS product. Essentially it was $4k per subscriber. That's an awfully long payback when you are only getting less than a few hundred bucks a month and you also need to have money to operate the network, provide sales and technical support, etc http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/technology/19fios.html Perhaps continued development in technologies like LTE will provide less expensive methods to get customers in the future

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.