Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:You know I could get in to something like this (Score 1) 82

Well personally I've been quite happy with a number of the new features. Also security isn't irrelevant to me, given that I do work to keep my device secure by updating it, by running security software, and be screening what I install and only installing things I need.

I am talking about MY interest in something and ya, having new versions of software is something that I consider. If I'm getting a new device that is something I want.

Comment You know I could get in to something like this (Score 3, Interesting) 82

But only if they'd start releasing OS updates for their older hardware. Given that Samsung drops support after just 18 months, I don't think I'd want to buy a refurb since it is going to get updates for, at most 6 more months. If I am going to get something with no updates, I'd want it for actual used market prices, which is to say really cheap.

Comment Re:What the fuck are you whining about? (Score 1) 148

No, that's not the approach you take. If you think it is, well you need to grow up. You don't cause massive compatibility problems and huge disruptions just for the fun of it. Instead, you do things as smoothly as possible. There is no need to rush out IPv6, it isn't like the world will blow up. IPv4 works, and will continue to work.

You thinking that implementing something like this on a worldwide scale being cheap, easy or quick just shows a massive lack of experience and perspective.

Comment Re:Which US ISPs? (Score 1) 148

I can't speak authoritatively to Comcast, not having it, but everything I see says they have dual-stack on their entire residential network. Have you tried it? You have to set up DHCP-PD on your router (that is how most ISPs are doing it) and they should give you a prefix that your devices can use.

Comment What the fuck are you whining about? (Score 1) 148

What do you mean we've done nothing to move people to IPv6? Do you think it is magic? Do you think we just wave a wand and people are on v6? No, what it takes is rolling out support on the OS, router, ISP, and so on. That has been happening, lots. Have a look at Google's IPv6 chart: what you see is exponential growth happening. This is actual IPv6 connections as well, Google is counting the percentage of people hitting their site with v6, which means an end-to-end connection.

Oh and ISPs have indeed been making IPv6 available to home users, wouldn't see that graph otherwise. For US cable providers Comcast is dual stack on their whole network, Time Warner is on about 90% of it, and Cox is on all of it. That's a whole lot of the US population. This isn't theoretical support either or "Oh call us and maybe we'll turn it on," it is live, on the network, and working now. On my Cox connection all I had to do was tell my router to get itself a prefix and go. My connections to Google, Netflix, and anyone else who supports v6 go out over it.

You don't "move" people to v6 as in force them on to it and turn off v4. Rather you make it available, and chosen by default, which is precisely is what is going on. When the device supports it (Linux including Android and Windows are both dual stack and prefer v6, not sure about OS-X), the router supports it, and the network supports it you are good to go.

Comment Which US ISPs? (Score 1) 148

Cox is dual-stack on their entire network. Comcast is likewise. Time Warner is about 90% done with IPv6 on their network. That most of the US's cable providers right there, with Charter being the only major that doesn't have IPv6 yet and they are working on it actively.

Not every ISP has it, of course, when you count DSL CLECs, dial up, and so on there are literally thousands of ISPs in the US. However it seems that most of the major cable providers do, and combined those guys serve a massive part of the US population.

In fact, have a look at Google's IPv6 adoption map: Looks like the US is doing pretty good. Not only is adoption high compared to most countries, but it works well.

Also remember that IPv6 adoption is more than just ISPs getting it. It needs end-to-end support in that users have to get IPv6 capable routers and devices, and have it enabled.

Comment Re:Depends on carrier but yes (Score 1) 198

Used to be that way in the US for all carriers. If they'd even let you BYOD, which was only sometimes, you still paid the full amount on your monthly bill so you were just getting screwed. Only ones that didn't were prepaid carriers, which tend to be niche (usually regional and targeting lower income customers).

However T-Mobile changed that, their big, and highly successful, marketing push was to do away with contracts which also meant doing away with subsidies. To respond to people complaining about upfront price they then did the 24 month financing.

Some of the others have followed suit now, since it was a successful campaign, but not all.

Comment There was that, but they did well before (Score 1) 188

The Athlon was very competitive with the P3, which was an exceedingly solid processor. So it wasn't just that Intel screwed up, but AMD had a well performing product to start with.

But then ya, they really slowed down and stopped improving. They kept rehashing the same architecture over and over. They introduced new features, like 64-bit, but the computational architecture was fundamentally the same. Meanwhile Intel was hard at work making the Core series and just continually improving.

Also AMD had a real problem in that while the Athlon was a good performer, the motherboard chipsets for it were fucking garbage. So the experience of owning an Athlon was a real mixed one and turned some people off. I got burned really badly by the original Athlon and compatibility issues with their motherboards and was turned off to AMD for some time because of it.

Comment Depends on carrier but yes (Score 1) 198

T-Mobile doesn't subsidize phones. You pay the full price. You can pay it up front or over 24 months (interest free) but it is full retail. So it makes no difference if you get it from them or someone else.

Also means their plans tend to be cheaper than competing plans, since there's no subsidy rolled in to the monthly charge.

Comment Re:A very "someone" (Score 2) 618

Ya this very much seems to be a case of providing a safety net for someone who doesn't have one or who has run through theirs. I can see why that would help. Unless you are super rich, you can get hit with expenses just beyond your ability to deal with. Even if you have a few million, there are still edge cases that can happen that can deplete your resources. Of course the less you have, the easier it is to get them depleted.

Well when that happens, it can snowball real bad and you lose everything, it gets in a positive feedback loop. So some financial assistance can stop that, it can break the feedback loop. You pay off the debt, which prevents interest from accumulating, which would necessitate more debt, which leads to a unsustainable level and so on.

Makes a lot of sense to me that this would have a positive effect and be a good idea, but within the listed constraints. Just giving people money rarely helps.

I've seen both in my family. I've seen a couple family members bailed out by others when they had a crisis, and they are doing well today. I also have a family member who is ALWAYS broke ALWAYS having money problems and no amount of money will help her because she causes her own problems.

Comment Not necessiarly (Score 1) 90

A lot of Americans live in urban areas, but often very much urban sprawl. Particularly the residential areas are often composed of single family homes, with yards and so spread out, not large apartment buildings. Look at Phoenix, or LA, or the like. The Phoenix metro area has like 4.5 million people in it, but that is spread out over 23,500 square km. Ya it isn't rural, but there's a LOT of land area to over if you want to blanket it with wireless of some kind, and it gets really problematic if said wireless is short range.

Now that is not to discount cities like New York (though a lot of people there also live in suburban sprawl) just noting that many of the big urban centers in the US are also big land-area wise. Those are more difficult and costly to cover.

The issue then is one of percentage of the population you can cover vs cost and if it is worth it. So suppose you determine you can cover a place like New York, or the downtown commercial districts of some other large cities, economically but not the residential areas of many places like Phoenix. Is it worth it? Is it worth getting new towers just for those places, and new phone technology that most of the nation has no use for?

Cost vs benefit always has to be considered.

Comment It's also a complete BS statement (Score 1) 706

Either claim the guy or don't, but don't imply. It is the kind of statement someone would make who was trying to get people to think he has more power/influence would make. I mean if the guy really is your source you do one of two things:

1) Keep shut up about it. You decide that you want to protect his family, friends, information, whatever. So you say nothing and deny everything. You try to convince your adversaries that this guy was just another guy, someone you had no involvement with.

2) Publicly and unequivocally state the guy was your source. You decide it is more important that it now be known. Maybe you feel there is no threat to anyone else, maybe you want to honor his work, maybe you feel it will help bring the people who killed him to justice. Whatever the case you make it very clear that yes, this person was your source and probably even identify some of the information that was theirs.

There is just no way that some kind of half-assed insinuation helps you if he really was a source. It doesn't do any good in terms of verification, but still could be used by an adversary as enough of a conformation to then go after others.

However it makes a lot of sense if he wasn't a source and you are a full of shit attention whore. You get to make news, get people thinking "well it could have been his guy!" but then if it comes out he wasn't, you can deny everything saying "Well I never claimed he was a source, just that his murder was for unknown reasons!"

To me, it seems that Assanage will say pretty much anything these days to get himself in the spotlight and hence this wishywashy crap. He needs to knock it off. If the guy was a source, come out and claim it in unequivocal terms, or just say nothing. Don't insinuate.

Comment None of the tests are hugely useful (Score 1) 101

Netflix isn't useful because it is so low bandwidth. Sure if you are using ADSL maybe it is relevant but for most fast connections even if the connection is working for shit Netflix will still be fine. A Netflix stream is literally about 2% of my Internet speed for an HD stream.

Ookla can be useful but requires some work on the part of the end user. As you say, you need to test off your ISP. Mine does by default (my ISP, Cox, has a Speedtest server but for internal use only). Realistically, you should test to a neighboring state to get a good idea of how your connection does if it goes through a number of hops. HOWEVER you have to be careful because a lot of Speedtest servers are garbage. They don't have much bandwidth, or apply limits to each connection so you can test your connection on a server and get a shit result, only to choose another one in the same city and get full bandwidth. DSLReports seems to have a much better speedtest program overall, less reliant on users making good choices.

However all that aside, it only tells part of the story as it tells what a particular user has right then, not what they could. That someone only chooses to buy slow Internet doesn't mean that only slow Internet is available. Like here Cox will sell you a plan as slow as 5 Mbps or as fast as 300 Mbps. So should they really get shit for slow internet if someone chooses their slow plan, when the fast one is available? Also people are sometimes their own enemies in slow speed tests. I've known a couple of people that actually had faster Internet service than they were getting because of their equipment. Guy I know was paying for Cox's standard package, which is 50 Mbps, but he had an old DOCSIS 2 modem and a Linksys WRTG54 router. Net effect he got 20ish Mbps because of slow modem, slow router, and G wireless. He got a new DOCSIS 3 modem, new AC router, and now everything is operating at full speed.

I really don't know of a good way to get a single metric for Internet speed. You need to consider what speed(s) are available, how much it costs, how fast it is to various places on the 'net, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals