Apparently no one is RTFA before criticizing the summary. The summary isn't the problem. FTA: "Microsoft is reportedly in talks with major TV networks about having its Xbox Live service stream TV channels in the United States. This would be an interesting move on the company's part as it would allow an Xbox 360 user to not only play games on their console but also stream TV channels though their Xbox."
It's bad enough to have this kind of garbage in Slashdot summaries, but when it's coming from the actual articles...we're doomed.
The "good" old fashioned liberals are today's economic conservatives. No thanks, they've done enough damage to the world. Social democrats are the good liberals these days. Libertarians are just scary in their slavish devotion to market solutions as the be all end all tool for every problem.
Social liberals are far more frightening in their slavish devotion to government as the be all end all tool for every problem.
How is it spending to not take in revenue? This is such dumb rhetoric. If I have a part time job and give it up because I want to spend more time at home, did I spend more money? No, I just gave up some revenue. It may mean that I have to do without some things, but I most certainly did not spend money by giving up revenue.
I really wish that people would actually think about the talking points that they're parroting before they regurgitate them...
Ugh...and to think that I just used my last mod points. I wish that more people understood this. Advocating higher taxes at this point is just pure political posturing being done by politicians without the willpower to cut entitlements. We do not have a "revenue problem," we have a spending problem.
Score one for the good guys. This is just further proof that security through obscurity is a myth. You cannot expect that keeping everything locked inside your proprietary case is going to keep it secure. The best security is sunlight. Let the community poke and prod at your software and/or hardware and it will only improve your offering.
Congress has to continue being paid according to the 27th Amendment, which prevents any law that varies the pay of members from taking effect until an election takes place. This is to keep them from engaging in any shenanigans with their own pay. If you allow them to suspend their pay between elections, you can bet that they're going to use that logic to increase their pay at some point in the future.
The real solution is to let the user have their dumb password that is easy to remember, but require them to also scan some biometric like their fingerprint or iris. This way, the only way that they can be compromised is by an attacker having access to both some physical characteristic in combination with their easy-to-guess password.
Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.
How are they using the Internet as a scapegoat? A scapegoat for what?
The knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment on Slashdot is always amusing. The same people ridiculing religious people for being "ignorant" fail to either a) rtfa that they're commenting on or b) understand basic English.
Why is it that the when the Vatican says "The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism," they are using the Internet as a scapegoat, yet when you state almost the same thing verbatim, "now they can find it (information about Satanism, we presume, given the context) easier on the Internet," you are somehow a beacon of enlightenment?
The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone. Just like you have more people growing their own marijuana or diagnosing their own medical problems. The Telegraph and Slashdot both hate religion so they've decided to twist and distort in order to ridicule religion.
Meet the new boogeyman, same as the old boogeyman, as you would say.
Android is an operating system available on devices from numerous manufacturers. It was only a matter of time, given the level of control that both RIM and Apple maintain over the hardware that their operating system is available on.
I'm a Droid user and a huge fan, but it is almost an unfair comparison. You're comparing an (relatively) open operating system with proprietary devices running proprietary software.
The only reason to use them is for gas points or other such rewards. I occasionally forget my discount card and use the store card, but at any major grocery store that gives gas points, I've found it worth it to have a card.
Actually, I would contact their corporate offices and asked to be removed from their database entirely and to have my account with them deleted completely. I didn't mean that I would be seeking retribution, only to make sure that my information isn't further compromised in the future.
I read this the same way that you did, and I think that Boston College is being very responsible. Downstream liability is something that far too few people are familiar and, particularly on a college campus, many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense.
I find it laudable that the college is trying to draw attention to the fact that this could lead to potential legal trouble for the individual sharing wireless access, should other users engage in copyright infringement using it.
Journalism? I heard that died years ago...
It's not about whether or not an OS CAN be rooted. Rather, it is about the degree of difficulty, particularly using a default installation.
In that regard, Linux > Windows.
Same here. I try KDE every so often because there are things about it that I really like, but I always come back to Gnome because it works. The last few times I tried KDE, it was just too damn slow. Although I really like Kmail and the other native apps, for whatever reason they run like dog crap.
So all plans are unlimited - some just drop the speed to 0bps. If they are limiting you in any way depending on how much data you use, I'm sorry but it's not unlimited. Which is fine, as long as it's not called that.
That's like saying that an "all you can eat" buffet really isn't all you can eat because they won't let you spend a month at the restaurant eating. Unlimited, in the case of an unlimited data plan, is a reference to the amount of data that can be consumed, not the speed of consumption.
We had a Republican administration form 2000-2008 and they did not want it.
Before then Net Neutrality was not really even an issue here on slashdot much less in Washington.
As for government intervention, I agree with you about it to an extent. The problem is that we already regulate utilities (and I believe ISP's are quickly becoming a utility) because it is unreasonable to expect the market to be able to handle multiple competitors with the huge infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry.
Making it a utility is an entirely separate argument, though. We're saying it's not a utility, but government needs to intervene and regulate it. Frankly, I think that the Internet is critical enough as infrastructure that it's worth a conversation about whether or not it is a utility or should be treated as such. This back door method of handing the FCC authority that it's never had previously by scaring people into thinking that the big bad ISPs are going to control their access to content is just wrong.
The only thing this does is tell ISPs that they cannot discriminate traffic based on the end points. Meaning they have to give the exact same QoS to Netflix Traffic as they do their own VOD service. They have to give the exact same QoS to Vonage that they do to their own VoIP product. STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT FEAR MONGERING.
And please explain to me how the FCC does this if it doesn't have the authority to do it? Net neutrality is the FCC assuming authority over ISPs. You can type in caps until your 12 year old head explodes. That doesn't change the fact that net neutrality is the FCC saying that they have the authority to tell ISPs how they have to treat content.
and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.
Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.
The problem is that it is not the role of elected officials to do what is in the best interest of Big Business OR The People. Elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. You're right that far too often Republicans are willing to decimate the Constitution if it lines the pockets of their corporate donors. The inverse of that are Democrats, who shred the Constitution to line the wallets of the people that receive entitlements and make up their voter base.
I'm very skeptical about net neutrality because I don't like giving the federal government more power, and this inarguably does that. Once the FCC tells ISPs what they can and cannot do with traffic on the lines, they have that power forever. That means that, like another commenter pointed out, the government now has the right to filter and censor content. I also think that this is an abuse of the oft-abused commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not under the purview of the federal government.
Finally, I don't like the way that this is being done. If the FCC has always had the authority to do this, why didn't they do it before? They waited until they knew that net neutrality would never make it through Congress and then "discovered" the authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently no one is RTFA before criticizing the summary. The summary isn't the problem. FTA: "Microsoft is reportedly in talks with major TV networks about having its Xbox Live service stream TV channels in the United States. This would be an interesting move on the company's part as it would allow an Xbox 360 user to not only play games on their console but also stream TV channels though their Xbox."
It's bad enough to have this kind of garbage in Slashdot summaries, but when it's coming from the actual articles...we're doomed.
The "good" old fashioned liberals are today's economic conservatives. No thanks, they've done enough damage to the world. Social democrats are the good liberals these days. Libertarians are just scary in their slavish devotion to market solutions as the be all end all tool for every problem.
Social liberals are far more frightening in their slavish devotion to government as the be all end all tool for every problem.
How is it spending to not take in revenue? This is such dumb rhetoric. If I have a part time job and give it up because I want to spend more time at home, did I spend more money? No, I just gave up some revenue. It may mean that I have to do without some things, but I most certainly did not spend money by giving up revenue.
I really wish that people would actually think about the talking points that they're parroting before they regurgitate them...
Ugh...and to think that I just used my last mod points. I wish that more people understood this. Advocating higher taxes at this point is just pure political posturing being done by politicians without the willpower to cut entitlements. We do not have a "revenue problem," we have a spending problem.
Score one for the good guys. This is just further proof that security through obscurity is a myth. You cannot expect that keeping everything locked inside your proprietary case is going to keep it secure. The best security is sunlight. Let the community poke and prod at your software and/or hardware and it will only improve your offering.
Congress has to continue being paid according to the 27th Amendment, which prevents any law that varies the pay of members from taking effect until an election takes place. This is to keep them from engaging in any shenanigans with their own pay. If you allow them to suspend their pay between elections, you can bet that they're going to use that logic to increase their pay at some point in the future.
If I only had mod points... Well played, sir.
The real solution is to let the user have their dumb password that is easy to remember, but require them to also scan some biometric like their fingerprint or iris. This way, the only way that they can be compromised is by an attacker having access to both some physical characteristic in combination with their easy-to-guess password.
Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.
How are they using the Internet as a scapegoat? A scapegoat for what?
The knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment on Slashdot is always amusing. The same people ridiculing religious people for being "ignorant" fail to either a) rtfa that they're commenting on or b) understand basic English.
Why is it that the when the Vatican says "The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism," they are using the Internet as a scapegoat, yet when you state almost the same thing verbatim, "now they can find it (information about Satanism, we presume, given the context) easier on the Internet," you are somehow a beacon of enlightenment?
The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone. Just like you have more people growing their own marijuana or diagnosing their own medical problems. The Telegraph and Slashdot both hate religion so they've decided to twist and distort in order to ridicule religion.
Meet the new boogeyman, same as the old boogeyman, as you would say.
Android is an operating system available on devices from numerous manufacturers. It was only a matter of time, given the level of control that both RIM and Apple maintain over the hardware that their operating system is available on.
I'm a Droid user and a huge fan, but it is almost an unfair comparison. You're comparing an (relatively) open operating system with proprietary devices running proprietary software.
The only reason to use them is for gas points or other such rewards. I occasionally forget my discount card and use the store card, but at any major grocery store that gives gas points, I've found it worth it to have a card.
Actually, I would contact their corporate offices and asked to be removed from their database entirely and to have my account with them deleted completely. I didn't mean that I would be seeking retribution, only to make sure that my information isn't further compromised in the future.
These days, email addresses are about as valuable as anything. Spam, phishing scams, etc. are all capable of causing infinite problems for people.
I don't show up at Kroger (there aren't any close to where I live), but if I did, they would be hearing from me.
I have to be honest, this is the only April Fool's joke that I've seen today that did make me crack a smile.
I read this the same way that you did, and I think that Boston College is being very responsible. Downstream liability is something that far too few people are familiar and, particularly on a college campus, many times the desire to help out your friends by leaving your wireless wide open trumps common sense. I find it laudable that the college is trying to draw attention to the fact that this could lead to potential legal trouble for the individual sharing wireless access, should other users engage in copyright infringement using it. Journalism? I heard that died years ago...
Tell that to the Iranians...
It's not about whether or not an OS CAN be rooted. Rather, it is about the degree of difficulty, particularly using a default installation. In that regard, Linux > Windows.
Same here. I try KDE every so often because there are things about it that I really like, but I always come back to Gnome because it works. The last few times I tried KDE, it was just too damn slow. Although I really like Kmail and the other native apps, for whatever reason they run like dog crap.
So all plans are unlimited - some just drop the speed to 0bps. If they are limiting you in any way depending on how much data you use, I'm sorry but it's not unlimited. Which is fine, as long as it's not called that.
That's like saying that an "all you can eat" buffet really isn't all you can eat because they won't let you spend a month at the restaurant eating. Unlimited, in the case of an unlimited data plan, is a reference to the amount of data that can be consumed, not the speed of consumption.
As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?
Don't you see the danger of the GOVERNMENT controlling content?
Exactly. What are all of these people that are pushing net neutrality going to do when they wake up one day and can't access their favorite pr0n site?
why didnt they do this before? Simple.
We had a Republican administration form 2000-2008 and they did not want it.
Before then Net Neutrality was not really even an issue here on slashdot much less in Washington.
As for government intervention, I agree with you about it to an extent. The problem is that we already regulate utilities (and I believe ISP's are quickly becoming a utility) because it is unreasonable to expect the market to be able to handle multiple competitors with the huge infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry.
Making it a utility is an entirely separate argument, though. We're saying it's not a utility, but government needs to intervene and regulate it. Frankly, I think that the Internet is critical enough as infrastructure that it's worth a conversation about whether or not it is a utility or should be treated as such. This back door method of handing the FCC authority that it's never had previously by scaring people into thinking that the big bad ISPs are going to control their access to content is just wrong.
The only thing this does is tell ISPs that they cannot discriminate traffic based on the end points. Meaning they have to give the exact same QoS to Netflix Traffic as they do their own VOD service. They have to give the exact same QoS to Vonage that they do to their own VoIP product. STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT FEAR MONGERING.
And please explain to me how the FCC does this if it doesn't have the authority to do it? Net neutrality is the FCC assuming authority over ISPs. You can type in caps until your 12 year old head explodes. That doesn't change the fact that net neutrality is the FCC saying that they have the authority to tell ISPs how they have to treat content.
and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.
Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.
The problem is that it is not the role of elected officials to do what is in the best interest of Big Business OR The People. Elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. You're right that far too often Republicans are willing to decimate the Constitution if it lines the pockets of their corporate donors. The inverse of that are Democrats, who shred the Constitution to line the wallets of the people that receive entitlements and make up their voter base.
I'm very skeptical about net neutrality because I don't like giving the federal government more power, and this inarguably does that. Once the FCC tells ISPs what they can and cannot do with traffic on the lines, they have that power forever. That means that, like another commenter pointed out, the government now has the right to filter and censor content. I also think that this is an abuse of the oft-abused commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not under the purview of the federal government.
Finally, I don't like the way that this is being done. If the FCC has always had the authority to do this, why didn't they do it before? They waited until they knew that net neutrality would never make it through Congress and then "discovered" the authority.