Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Really, this happens in America? How?? (Score 1) 180

IF you are pissed at your options, make this proposal to your City council next time the Franchise Agreements come up for renewal. MAKE them work for you, they are your Public Servants (or should be)

I think the broader point here is that it surprises us in most of the rest of the world that competition is a rare phenomenon that you would have to campaign for through your city council.

America is seen as the land of the free market and competitive industry, so it surprises us to see a default of frequently-abusive local monopolies.

I only really know the setup in the UK, but here there is just no option for a city council to say 'we're not going to have competition in this area'.

Competition isn't perfect by any means. The universal service obligation of BT (in phone lines) leads to something of a natural monopoly. Our regulator ensures that their infrastructure can be shared by competitors at defined rates. The infrastructure part of BT is currently managed as a separate company (OpenReach) and there is serious talk about forcing them to split from BT if they don't invest more.

The end result isn't perfect - but it certainly seems to be much better than the frequently-abusive local monopolies in the USA.

Comment Re:Really, this happens in America? How?? (Score 1) 180

dear ac;
you don't have to turn every issue into a pissing match.

yes - ISPs are required to offer porn filtering here. Some implement that as opt-in, some as opt-out.
This is probably not a good thing.

We also had a lying prime minister who led us to war on false information.

So, while the UK certainly isn't perfect - I'm not sure how either of these are relevant to a discussion on how ISPs get to price-gouge their customers.

Comment Re:Worse than the earnings decline in my eyes ... (Score 1) 284

I don't know where this idea of unlimited investment opportunities comes from.

Apple is fundamentally limited by the number of good people they can hire, manage and put on good business ideas.
You seem to be suggesting that if they accept there is a limit to this - then they are failing.

I'd interpret it as them managing sensibly. They have a ridiculous amount of cash. They can do everything they want to, and much more.
Rather than sitting on the excess cash - they're giving some of it back to the people who own the company.

This seems much smarter than sitting hoarding cash in a corner muttering about unlimited future opportunities.

Comment Re:GoPro are a victim of their own success (Score 2) 15

It looks like the developer program is aiming to help deprecate the Hero 3.
The one app currently listed has support for the Hero4 only (it doesn't even support the session). I'm guessing this means the sdk only supports the Hero4. Without applying and paying $99, I can't be sure...

Comment $99 for an SDK? (Score 2) 15

It seems odd for GoPro to expect to charge for access to their SDK.

I have an app which could certainly benefit from GoPro integration, I imagine I'd be making a positive contribution to their ecosystem as well.
I'm not going to pay $99 for the privilege though - particularly when there is an unofficial SDK already available on Github.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 3, Interesting) 130

Unlike the USA, I don't think there would be any legal problem with that.
In UK law, the GCHQ data is legal (or at least - you'd have a hard time proving otherwise)
If GCHQ provided data to the police, then that's just a source giving a tip-off to the police.

We don't have any equivalent of the fourth amendment, and the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is not nearly so strong here if it applies at all.

Having said that - it seems perfectly plausible that they police got a tip-off from someone other than GCHQ. Perhaps somebody who wanted the £20k reward - and who quite properly is not being named.


Comment Re:My view of this (Score 1) 662

the public response isn't because he is some amazing boy genius.

the public response is a big FU to the authorities who try to criminalise someone for tinkering.

they are _not_ saying

"we think this kid is the best tinkerer"
If they wanted to invite the best tinkerer to the white house / nasa / etc, then they'd hold a competition to find her.

they _are_ saying

"FU for being asshats to this kid. We want to make the point that his _kind_ of behaviour should be encouraged. We are inviting him to our place of work because we think the kid has had a crappy time and could use some good news - but more importantly to show publicly that we stand behind the principle of freedom to tinker/invent/repackage/etc"

This is not an over-reaction by MIT, NASA, Obama. It _is_ important that people stand up for the right of kids to tinker whether they are geniuses or not.

Comment Re:My view of this (Score 5, Insightful) 662

Clearly he didn't 'invent' the clock - but I don't think anyone really thought he did.

After all - we already have clocks.

He likes to tinker, and he calls the result his 'inventions'. Not the most nuanced use of language - but he is 13.

Whether he just took apart and repackaged an existing clock, or did something more technically challenging, your implied charge of misleading us over his 'invention' seems rather ungenerous in spirit.

Comment Re:They still have a 90 day gag (Score 1) 81

the justification is along the lines of:

If it becomes public knowledge that we can collect XXX from an ISP, then terrorists will know that XXX is unsafe and start to use alternate means to do YYY.
As a result, we'll be less likely to catch them.

It's not an illogical argument. The question is whether it is constitutional and/or proportional.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.