If you can show where that has ever been a chronic problem, please point me there.
I really don't have time right now to run around the internet sending you links that prove something you should already know. I do find it hard to believe you've never balked at a price increase.
Yes, I get that, and my point still stands: They cannot simply raise the prices to make up for the tax because: Supply & Demand. Put simply: Their margins are affected by the tax.
Hey Man, I'm sorry to be slow to respond, work went from slow to really busy. So unfortunately I need to bail on this conversation. Perhaps I'll see you in the next topic?
That was basically my experience between the two. The Galaxy Tab I had got its last update like six months after I got it. The iPad 3 i got at least three years worth from. Actually it might have one or two more, but Apple did teach me to cool it on the late-in-life updates or risk it being irreversibly sluggish.
Just remember, this is the FCC that gives the people exactly 0% of the designated broadcast spectrum. The FCC that is owned, lock stock and barrel by commercial interests.
I get television broadcast, cellular service, AM/FM/HD radio, wifi, bluetooth, and a whole gaggle of other stuff that I can take for granted because it isn't jammed by all the electronics in my house, including the power supplies to all that stuff. If you want to bitch about not being able to hear the term cunt-shit on the local top-40 station, I'm what you would call a gifted-idiot so I understand you there, but I'm not really sure why they're some enemy to hate in this context. If you think the United States would be better off without them then you should get on a dial-up connection going so I can send you a streaming documentary to watch.
Scientists Say The Asteroid That Killed The Dinosaurs Almost Wiped Us Out Too
Heh. I had this picture in my head of a caveman riding on the back of a be-saddled T-Rex looking at a huge flash of light in the distance going: "What the fuck was that?!"
Apple Patents a Way To Keep People From Filming At Concerts and Movie Theaters
I'm not sure but this may be the first time I've ever seen Slashdot properly headline a story about patents. Usually the headline would be something like this:
"Apple Patents Keeping People From Filming At Concerts and Movie Theaters"... which would then result in two hundred comments of people bringing up irrelevant examples of other approaches to dealing with the problem citing 'prior art' along with heaps of moaning about how broadly general the patent they didn't read is.
So was this an accident? I mean, the inflammatory clickbait headline does generate more revenue...
So.. earlier today I wrote a fairly detailed response to you and I got bitten by the lameness filter. I got a little frustrated with that (not your fault, Slashdot likes to bite me on these sometimes and I really don't know why) so I decided to wait until I got home to send you the summary version.
I agree with your assessment that those are difficult problems to overcome, and I'm not exactly blooming with answers. What I can do, instead, is tell you the three different ideas that I had. It does mean drastically shifting the discussion away from your post. That bugs me actually because it makes it sound like I wasn't paying attention to your post. The best I can do is tell you that actually I did go over all of them. I swing around back again because I want to touch on something you mentioned.
First is just a simple "Fast/Slow" button. Give me the metered pipe that's fast, then give me an app that lets me log into my account and flip a switch as to whether I want fast or slow. The reason for this is my phone idles a LOT and doesn't need a lot of speed to do that. I don't know how much data my phone consumes but most of the day it's getting notifcations, background refreshes on things like Dropbox (i.e. auto upload of photos), and sometimes it's eating data because I use the phone as a GPS. I'd leave it on slow-and-cheap and toggle it on 'fast' in those relatively cases where I do need to speed it up.
The second option is that each service has an XML file describing the pertinent details that the ISP would need to know. Now I should warn you I'm still stick in "slow pipe" land. I haven't fully assimilated the 're-encoding of videos' approach that T-Mobile is using so, for the sake of this discussion, am setting that aside. I feel like that alone is a huge violation of Net Neutrality but because I don't know how it actually works I don't feel like inserting my foot again.:D
So basically a site like.. oh.. cinemassacre.com would have a URL like "www.cinemassacre.com/OneMegabitProfile.xml". It contains domains, addresses, and whatever other technical information (Not credentials!) that any ISP (not just T-Mobile) would need to say "Ah, these streams automatically go down the slow pipe. It does require some setup on the service's end, but I figured there'd be a concession for that anyway since the Binge On service requires an application.
The third... well this was kinda half-baked and dumb, but couldn't some ports be reserved for the video streaming and have just those throttled?
I do have an issue with Binge-On but it's really just about the application process. I'm not angry at T-Mobile. In fact they're probably who I'm going to go to next once my contract is up with AT&T. (Let's see if they hang on to my unlimited plan...)
I haveta wrap this up, hope this message finds you well.
I think I found the link you requested here. Well I feel a little less like a Dingus. I think I failed to read the article in its entirety. Here are some sound bites:
Our last finding is that T-Mobileâ(TM)s video âoeoptimizationâ doesnâ(TM)t actually alter or enhance the video stream for delivery to a mobile device over a mobile network in any way. 2 This means T-Mobileâ(TM)s âoeoptimizationâ consists entirely of throttling the video streamâ(TM)s throughput down to 1.5Mbps. If the video is more than 480p and the server sending the video doesnâ(TM)t have a way to reduce or adapt the bitrate of the video as itâ(TM)s being streamed, the result is stuttering and uneven streamingâ"exactly the opposite of the experience T-Mobile claims their âoeoptimizationâ will have.
And the '2' footnote:
We determined this by comparing the hash of a downloaded video file to the hash of the same file on the server; in all of our tests, the hash was identical.
Admittedly I cannot find the time right now to read the article in its entirety but I cannot find any reference to the video re-encoding. The first time I saw anything about that was yesterday when I wandered through the Slashdot thread. I probably saw that it came from the EFF so I put it down after that. The idea of T-Mobile actually re-encoding the video streams is very counter-intuitive to me so I hadn't even really considered it as a possibility. Why recompress a compressed video when on the service side they can recompress the full quality video?
I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request.
By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?
Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality. I am a little confused by your statement so I'll say this much at least: If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that, but I say that assuming it doesn't mean T-Mobile has to enter into a contract with another entity to accomplish that.
In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions.
I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection. Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.
To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.
Actually, I can do you one better. I can apologize to you because I finally ran across the video re-compression detail you were talking about and...oopsie... I jammed my foot in my mouth.
You see, I recently ran across an article that basically describes Binge On as a throttled pipe. While describing that, they left out the part that the video streams pass through T-Mobile's servers to recompress the stream. Either I read a bad article or only read half of that. I clearly need to to go research this some more. This is news to me as of ten minutes ago.
So I have two things for you: First is that I'm sorry for using my ignorance to frustrate you. Second is I think I see what you might say about the human interaction, and you may have a point, but I do say that with hesitation.
I really thought this was just a slow pipe that uses a whitelist, my whole discussion with you was based on that error.
I still feel this violates Net Neutrality. Even if I concede that the human intervention is a necessary evil, I say 'nope! find another approach!'. As I said before, the very nature of these companies compels them to under-deliver.
Now is my turn to leave you with the last word. There'll be no lost honor in using words like dipshit or moron. I only have me to blame.
"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.
Okay. The word 'molest' works that way, too. I could use it to describe something very mundane, but my choice to use that word paints a picture in a rather ugly light. So are we talking about "Google choosing what their services are used for" or are we talking about the stopping of... please pardon the metaphor... book burning? I mean we did collectively choose to use private entities for our free speech platform. Another commenter suggested the idea of a public search engine, if that happened would it mean Google would be off the hook?
Slashdot Mirror
Throughout the course of this conversation you suggested several ways in which it does.
I don't know why you would feel this is not the case.
Because in their quest for greater profit they do all that anyway.
If you can show where that has ever been a chronic problem, please point me there.
I really don't have time right now to run around the internet sending you links that prove something you should already know. I do find it hard to believe you've never balked at a price increase.
Nothing is coming out of the company's hide.
Lower demand for their product.
Also, supply and demand hardly play a part.
Sigh.
Yes, I get that, and my point still stands: They cannot simply raise the prices to make up for the tax because: Supply & Demand. Put simply: Their margins are affected by the tax.
Cheers, and thank you for both putting up with my silliness and for helping me understand this topic better. I've got a lot more to think about.
It's called "what the market will bear", and they do that anyway because the hunger for profit is never satisfied.
Hey Man, I'm sorry to be slow to respond, work went from slow to really busy. So unfortunately I need to bail on this conversation. Perhaps I'll see you in the next topic?
I don't believe companies really pay taxes anyway. They just raise the price to compensate.
Raising the price means fewer sales.
That was basically my experience between the two. The Galaxy Tab I had got its last update like six months after I got it. The iPad 3 i got at least three years worth from. Actually it might have one or two more, but Apple did teach me to cool it on the late-in-life updates or risk it being irreversibly sluggish.
Around here Apple is a monopoly with a miniscule market-share. Must be Time Lord technology.
The butt-licking signature is comedy gold. Don't fix what ain't broken!
I'm pretty sure most of us post on Slashdot at work. There's a reason we choose jobs that have internets.
ATTENTION EVERYONE: Let it be known that I do not watch TV. This is so important that I must go into every TV-related thread to announce it.
Yeah cos their customers are world renowned penny-pinchers.
Just remember, this is the FCC that gives the people exactly 0% of the designated broadcast spectrum. The FCC that is owned, lock stock and barrel by commercial interests.
I get television broadcast, cellular service, AM/FM/HD radio, wifi, bluetooth, and a whole gaggle of other stuff that I can take for granted because it isn't jammed by all the electronics in my house, including the power supplies to all that stuff. If you want to bitch about not being able to hear the term cunt-shit on the local top-40 station, I'm what you would call a gifted-idiot so I understand you there, but I'm not really sure why they're some enemy to hate in this context. If you think the United States would be better off without them then you should get on a dial-up connection going so I can send you a streaming documentary to watch.
Scientists Say The Asteroid That Killed The Dinosaurs Almost Wiped Us Out Too
Heh. I had this picture in my head of a caveman riding on the back of a be-saddled T-Rex looking at a huge flash of light in the distance going: "What the fuck was that?!"
Good luck there buddy. I'm sure you'll do awesome against the Apple lawyers.
Heh, yeah, I'm sure Apple's legal department ordered dozens of new coffee machines to power the all-nighters this air-tight case is going to bring.
Apple Patents a Way To Keep People From Filming At Concerts and Movie Theaters
I'm not sure but this may be the first time I've ever seen Slashdot properly headline a story about patents. Usually the headline would be something like this:
"Apple Patents Keeping People From Filming At Concerts and Movie Theaters" ... which would then result in two hundred comments of people bringing up irrelevant examples of other approaches to dealing with the problem citing 'prior art' along with heaps of moaning about how broadly general the patent they didn't read is.
So was this an accident? I mean, the inflammatory clickbait headline does generate more revenue...
So.. earlier today I wrote a fairly detailed response to you and I got bitten by the lameness filter. I got a little frustrated with that (not your fault, Slashdot likes to bite me on these sometimes and I really don't know why) so I decided to wait until I got home to send you the summary version.
I agree with your assessment that those are difficult problems to overcome, and I'm not exactly blooming with answers. What I can do, instead, is tell you the three different ideas that I had. It does mean drastically shifting the discussion away from your post. That bugs me actually because it makes it sound like I wasn't paying attention to your post. The best I can do is tell you that actually I did go over all of them. I swing around back again because I want to touch on something you mentioned.
First is just a simple "Fast/Slow" button. Give me the metered pipe that's fast, then give me an app that lets me log into my account and flip a switch as to whether I want fast or slow. The reason for this is my phone idles a LOT and doesn't need a lot of speed to do that. I don't know how much data my phone consumes but most of the day it's getting notifcations, background refreshes on things like Dropbox (i.e. auto upload of photos), and sometimes it's eating data because I use the phone as a GPS. I'd leave it on slow-and-cheap and toggle it on 'fast' in those relatively cases where I do need to speed it up.
The second option is that each service has an XML file describing the pertinent details that the ISP would need to know. Now I should warn you I'm still stick in "slow pipe" land. I haven't fully assimilated the 're-encoding of videos' approach that T-Mobile is using so, for the sake of this discussion, am setting that aside. I feel like that alone is a huge violation of Net Neutrality but because I don't know how it actually works I don't feel like inserting my foot again. :D
So basically a site like.. oh.. cinemassacre.com would have a URL like "www.cinemassacre.com/OneMegabitProfile.xml". It contains domains, addresses, and whatever other technical information (Not credentials!) that any ISP (not just T-Mobile) would need to say "Ah, these streams automatically go down the slow pipe. It does require some setup on the service's end, but I figured there'd be a concession for that anyway since the Binge On service requires an application.
The third... well this was kinda half-baked and dumb, but couldn't some ports be reserved for the video streaming and have just those throttled?
I do have an issue with Binge-On but it's really just about the application process. I'm not angry at T-Mobile. In fact they're probably who I'm going to go to next once my contract is up with AT&T. (Let's see if they hang on to my unlimited plan...)
I haveta wrap this up, hope this message finds you well.
I like how being less of a nerd is somehow a status symbol.
And yet, T-Mobile has a way for the "masses" to tell them who should be added.
Are you saying I can go sign up... say.. cinemassacre.com for them? Just curious, all I saw was a way to tweet out your interest.
And you've been told repeatedly why that is not a valid option.
Heh. Whatever you say, man.
T-Mobile already provides an innovative service without violating net neutrality.
Neither are true.
Thank you.
I think I found the link you requested here. Well I feel a little less like a Dingus. I think I failed to read the article in its entirety. Here are some sound bites:
Our last finding is that T-Mobileâ(TM)s video âoeoptimizationâ doesnâ(TM)t actually alter or enhance the video stream for delivery to a mobile device over a mobile network in any way. 2 This means T-Mobileâ(TM)s âoeoptimizationâ consists entirely of throttling the video streamâ(TM)s throughput down to 1.5Mbps. If the video is more than 480p and the server sending the video doesnâ(TM)t have a way to reduce or adapt the bitrate of the video as itâ(TM)s being streamed, the result is stuttering and uneven streamingâ"exactly the opposite of the experience T-Mobile claims their âoeoptimizationâ will have.
And the '2' footnote:
We determined this by comparing the hash of a downloaded video file to the hash of the same file on the server; in all of our tests, the hash was identical.
Admittedly I cannot find the time right now to read the article in its entirety but I cannot find any reference to the video re-encoding. The first time I saw anything about that was yesterday when I wandered through the Slashdot thread. I probably saw that it came from the EFF so I put it down after that. The idea of T-Mobile actually re-encoding the video streams is very counter-intuitive to me so I hadn't even really considered it as a possibility. Why recompress a compressed video when on the service side they can recompress the full quality video?
I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request.
By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?
Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality. I am a little confused by your statement so I'll say this much at least: If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that, but I say that assuming it doesn't mean T-Mobile has to enter into a contract with another entity to accomplish that.
In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions.
I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection. Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.
To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.
Actually, I can do you one better. I can apologize to you because I finally ran across the video re-compression detail you were talking about and...oopsie... I jammed my foot in my mouth.
You see, I recently ran across an article that basically describes Binge On as a throttled pipe. While describing that, they left out the part that the video streams pass through T-Mobile's servers to recompress the stream. Either I read a bad article or only read half of that. I clearly need to to go research this some more. This is news to me as of ten minutes ago.
So I have two things for you: First is that I'm sorry for using my ignorance to frustrate you. Second is I think I see what you might say about the human interaction, and you may have a point, but I do say that with hesitation.
I really thought this was just a slow pipe that uses a whitelist, my whole discussion with you was based on that error.
I still feel this violates Net Neutrality. Even if I concede that the human intervention is a necessary evil, I say 'nope! find another approach!'. As I said before, the very nature of these companies compels them to under-deliver.
Now is my turn to leave you with the last word. There'll be no lost honor in using words like dipshit or moron. I only have me to blame.
"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.
Okay. The word 'molest' works that way, too. I could use it to describe something very mundane, but my choice to use that word paints a picture in a rather ugly light. So are we talking about "Google choosing what their services are used for" or are we talking about the stopping of... please pardon the metaphor... book burning? I mean we did collectively choose to use private entities for our free speech platform. Another commenter suggested the idea of a public search engine, if that happened would it mean Google would be off the hook?