Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:What? (Score 1) 344

Do you actually work for a living? $100,000 a year doesn't equate to $8,333 a month in take-home pay. Try deducting FICA, Social Security, Medicare, and local taxes. That gives you about $4,600 take-home per month. Oh, don't forget insurance premiums and 401(k)/IRA contributions so you can one day afford one day in the far future to retire, so say $4,000 / month take-home.

Rent is more like $3,000 / month, then add electricity, water, trash, insurance, telephone, and Internet.

The rest, if you can find it, can be used to eat. God help you if you need to buy clothes, get anything dry cleaned, buy furniture, pay medical deductibles, etc.

https://medium.com/@andrwyng/making-100k-per-year-congratulations-you-will-barely-make-enough-to-cover-your-retirement-funds-74eaaf76fd3b

Comment Smoke and Mirrors (Score 4, Insightful) 98

Open source textbooks, reference material, and study guides are plentiful. Used textbooks are cheap. Amazon has a great service providing them.

Colleges and Universities frequently require the use of online, "digital learning systems", like Cengage. Access to that site, where the homework is, requires a subscription code that can be hundreds of dollars. A textbook without the "online access code" is a doorstop.

If schools are serious about this, they need to start pushing the use of Moodle instead of Blackboard, and providing high quality open source content including lesson plans, homework, and textbooks.

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately contrarian or if you're legitimately dense.

Saying they "paid for lower QOS for Google" is misleading; they would actually have paid for higher QOS for themselves, which is perfectly reasonable.

It wouldn't have been of any benefit to Yahoo to increase their QOS with Google's remaining unchanged. I'm saying that they could have partnered with companies that owned large portions of the network to slow down Google's access. If Google couldn't crawl it, it couldn't index it. If they couldn't index it, their search results wouldn't have been as good.

Google won because they were better, and they were better because they won?

Pretty much, yeah.

That's rather circular reasoning.

Perhaps but it's not wrong.

In actual fact, Google's search engine business would never have been a viable business on its own; it simply didn't make enough revenue. Google's search engine only survived because it was cross-subsidized by Google's advertising revenue.

It's extraordinarily difficult to make a profit on a "Free" service without advertising.

Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't support the argument that it was "better".

No, more people choosing Google over Yahoo, Bing and AOL means that it is/was better.

Net neutrality, in the end, is an arrangement where companies like Google can push ads on you and monetize free content and have you pay for the privilege through your ISP fees.

Except that with Net Neutrality in place, you are free to choose one of their competitors without the network penalizing you.

A few big companies have come to completely dominate the market because of that particular arrangement.

In a market where all are given the same access, a few companies dominating it are just proof that the market chose them.

Even if the completely unrealistic worst-case scenario of ISPs all replacing Google and Facebook with their own private offerings

That's a strawman. I never argues that.

They wouldn't be able to directly replace them, they would be able to give preferential treatment to the traffic of their own competitor. They can't replace them but they can make them near unusable to their customers.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

Companies like Verizon and Comcast would take over those markets. Why would that be a bad thing?

Less choice is in any of itself a bad thing. It just so happens to be a bad thing that leads to worse things.

How could Yahoo have "slowed down Google's traffic"? They were both just search engines.

By partnering with (paying) MCI, UUNET and others to shape the traffic and provide lower QOS to Google.

Hence my use of the phrase "make deals" to do it.

And based on what criteria was Google "better"?

That varied from user to user but for me, it was more relevant search results and a cleaner interface.

You're basically saying that you think Google is great and that hence the government should interfere in order to structure the market to make it advantageous for companies like Google.

No. I'm saying that Google was better than Yahoo. Because Google was better than Yahoo, they toppled them from their position as the go-to search engine and the government should interfere to keep the marketplace available for the next upstart to come along and topple Google, if they can.

LK

Comment Re: oh no (Score 1) 423

If you're lucky, you'll get here one day.

You'll be just as perplexed when someone takes offense at your use of the word "Uncle" because it's not only patriarchal but assumes the gender of the sibling of one of your equal co-parents.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 2) 423

These companies know that "net neutrality" is in their financial advantage and makes it harder for small companies to compete.

More than that, it makes it harder for access providers to leverage their position as access providers to make inroads as content providers.

If Net Neutrality truly dies, Verizon and Comcast will be able to prioritize the traffic from their own competing services to harm Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and Google.

Without using traffic shaping, QOS or similar means to disadvantage the competition, any new upstart has to actually be better than an existing service.

Google beat Yahoo because Google was better at doing something. That wouldn't have happened if Yahoo had been able to make deals to slow Google's traffic to dial-up speeds.

LK

Comment Re: Not a dumb terminal - Linux with locked down U (Score 1) 131

ChromeBooks support many offline apps. The app just has to rely on the Chrome browser for the interface. Considering that includes JavaScript and Flash, not to mention full HTML 5, that isn't much of a limitation at all. Caret is one of my favorites.

Anyone who claims they are the computing equivalent to a games console has not seriously looked at what they can do.

I love them, and am chomping at the bit for Samsung to release the Chromebook Pro.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...