Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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 Locks are for honest people :) (Score 2, Interesting) 87

I go by the notion that locks are for honest people and things like smartlocks and connected locks are primarily for the convenience of the owner. Realistically, for most consumer applications of locks, if someone wanted to get in, the lock isn't keeping them out. So while I'm disappointed at the overall non-concern for real security by the manufacturers, I'm not incredibly surprised and I'd be really surprised, outside of a handful of specific targetted cases, that any real thief would even bother with hacking a lock.

Comment Long term updates aren't even the problem! (Score 5, Insightful) 257

"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"

The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.

Comment Re:Get a business plan (Score 1) 229

I have comcast business, and I see no where on my terms of service, or anywhere on comcast businesses site that claims "a dedicated chnanel on teh coax without sharing it with my neighbors".

As far as I'm aware, comcast business cable (not business ethernet) simply uses the same residential network to deliver services.

Comment Re:beta blockers? what have they smoked? (Score 2) 56

You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate.
Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.

I know Fedora isn't as popular a distro as some others but it still seems amusing to me.

Comment Re:Who's not paying enough? (Score 1) 466

AT&Ts issue is that the ratio of inbound to outbound traffic between them and Netflix's ISP is significantly out of balance for AT&T to justify the costs of upgrading their network purely to accommodate Netflix (yes to be perfectly clear, it's to accommodate their own users' demand for netflix bandwidth) but once again, AT&T has not built out and priced their network to allow large unfettered access to a specific pipe all simultaneously and nor should a consumer ISP be required to do so. If you really wanted "dedicated" bandwidth, then consumers will need to be prepared to pay out their ass for it. So the question here is
a) is AT&T/[insert your ISP] doing enough to evenly distribute their bandwidth use across their peers.
b) if they are, who's responsibility it is to "pay" to fix the problem?

If AT&T is not doing their part to make sure their peering is properly balanced across all their points of peering and purposefully say starving Level 3 because of netflix, well yeah, that's a problem.

Peering agreements don't really handle this type of issue as they were traditionally built on cases where the ratio was much much closer to even. With large swaths of consumer ISPs that don't also host content, things have changed considerably.

Comment Who's not paying enough? (Score 4, Insightful) 466

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues.
1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold. AT&T (comcast, timewarner, google fiber, [insert your ISP here]) does not charge in such a way that every single user can have 100% unfettered access to your bandwidth all simultaneously. It's just the way it works
2) Netflix may pay their ISP for their bandwidth usage.

Here's the disconnect. Netflix's ISP and [insert your consumer ISP here] do not share the same network. Thus at some point, the two ISPs have to cross some barrier. Now if all of [insert your consumer ISP here]'s customers are simultaneously connecting to Netflix at the exact same time for primetime hours, who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair? Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered? Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP? They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?

The simple answer is, if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites, it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs. We know eat the costs is never an option in the US market system :). So where's the money coming from? If the consumer ISP started charging people more for this, people bitch about being charged more rather than bitch about crappy Netflix.

Perhaps Netflix's tier 1 should pay for a larger peering pipe to the consumer ISP. But where's that money coming from? They're going to increase Netflix's rates, but even then, the consumer ISP would have to have the proper equipment to handle the larger peering pipe.

I don't really agree with the entirety of either Netflix or the consumer ISP (AT&Ts) arguments, but peering bandwidth has always been a balancing act, especially with multiple networks you have to peer with. This is why we have CDNs to begin with, and CDNs are paid for by the content producer, and they in turn either pay the consumer ISP to host their gear, or work with the consumer ISP to come up with a mutually beneficial decision. In some cases, the reduced bandwidth flowing through the peering reduces the ISPs costs that they can justify hosting the CDN equipment without asking for any money.

I do agree that it's wrong for a consumer ISP to purposefully lopside their peering arrangements to hurt a competitor, just like I agree that there's nothing wrong with the notion of paying an ISP to host a CDN appliance. Given our lobbying system, do you really think that net neutrality legislation will even begin to address the many nuanced aspects of this issue?

Comment Re:My password is printed on the side of my router (Score 2) 341

Dunno what the original poster has but I have a 1600 sq foot house. basement first floor and second floor. 795 sqft rectangular foot print. My wifi access point on the first floor gets a horrid signal in the basement (especially near the corners). My wifi router in the basement doesn't reach the top floor corners.

This is specific to the 5ghz bandwidth which I use exclusively.

Yes, custom antennas might help, but wifi routers are cheap (just for reference I have an Asus rt-n56u and a buffalo wzr-hp-ag300h).

House is built in 1946. There are many situations where a single wifi access point doesn't work, even when you'd think it might.

Comment Re:Making an underage sex bot (Score 1) 545

The article wasn't clear on how people "found" sweetie. But I have to say that without further info, the "possibly believing" part is stretching it.

This is the internet. That girl is very obviously CG. How many people have randomly had fun with computer AIs?
I recall the old MUD'ing days and Zork games asking to do stupid sexual things just to get a laugh out of you and your friends sometimes.

Modern day version = Siri. How many silly youtube videos have you seen of people asking Siri to do stupid sexual things.

Just because the CG is of what appears to be a 10 year old girl doesn't mean people aren't going to revert to the same silly behavior just to see what happens, especially if they KNOW it's CG and figure hey, it can't hurt.

Comment Re:No (Score 3, Insightful) 414

The average smartphone has a 720p screen with a pixel density well above 200 now. In the context of this discussion, why can't an average panel that is generally within 12-24"s of your face (desktop or laptop) not have the same requirements?

Sure, there exists laptops today that do. But those laptops don't provide you with alot of choice (both are walled gardens, yeah yeah yeah, I know you can install other things on them etc etc etc, but that's not the point here).

That said, I know this is coming. We're seeing more and more high resolution ultrabooks/laptops. So when I say come back and talk to me again, it's very likely by the end of the year :).

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)