Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Ping pongged (Score 1) 16

This is the conclusion from a snopes article on the subject:

Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

I haven't seen the video yet, but I will when I go home. But if it is anything like what the snopes article describes, I don't think I will view it positively.

Comment Re:Lol no (Score 1) 158

yet people still want it, why? Because they choose to smoke weed and get pregnant instead of paying attention in high school chemistry class, and grow up to be fucking idiots.

So people shouldn't even want batteries that charge faster? Isn't that what drives science and technology?

Comment Re:Ping pongged (Score 1) 16

I'm not giving Google the benefit of the doubt. I just haven't (yet) seen a plethora of evidence to the contrary like I have with cable news networks. I think you make a good point about cable news networks not being deterred by damage to their reputation due to bias. And I think maybe there was a time when people might have been shocked by what we are seeing now. Now it just seems normal for the cable news channels to be biased. I don't have a great explanation for how we got here, but now that we are, I think maybe there is not a great incentive for news channels to be unbiased if they will be perceived as biased regardless.

I think Google still has reputation points to lose.

I can't actually go to your wikileaks link while I am at work, but I will try to remember to check it out later.

Comment Re: AT&T (Score 1) 151

As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.

It is not triggered by congestion, but the purpose of it is congestion mitigation. Throttling people to 3G speeds when the network is not congested is dumb. But this practice is pretty much standard for all ISPs. If you have a 5 Mbps cable internet plan, it's not like they let you go at 100Mbps when there is no congestion.

Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.

I agree. But I think the term "unlimited" is misleading, because all plans from every ISP are limited in some way. So seeing "unlimited data" in an advertisement, doesn't tell you anything. You have to look at what that means specifically.

Still, it would be really nice to see "unlimited" plans disappear completely. With the exception of the not-artificially-limited plans customers actually expect: No matter how much you download, you'll always be treated just like every other customer. Yeah, there's still technical limitations, but if you object to technical limitations, "unlimited" becomes a completely useless word in almost every context, not just phone plans.

I would love to see "unlimited" advertisements be replaced by a clear specification of what the limits are by all ISPs.

Comment Re: AT&T (Score 1) 151

Yes words mean things. Unlimited means something. It means something that no ISP ever could possibly deliver.

Every ISP is going to reach network capacity at certain times and be required to make a decision about who gets throttled. T-Mobile decides to give a priority to people who have not already transmitted a lot of data. Another ISP may decide to throttle everyone on the network at any given time equally. Or maybe they will just always pre-throttle everyone to the point where they can basically guarantee that everyone can access their data without further throttling

Let's say you have capacity to transmit 6 packets a second. We have 2 customers A, and B that can transfer data at 4 packets a second (pps). If they never try to transfer at the same time, then they can always go at full speed. But what do you do when they want to transfer at the same time?

Scenario 1:
Fair throttling base don instantaneous rate
Both A and B are throttled to 3 pps whenever they are both transferring.

Scenario 2:
Fair throttling based on total data sent over time.
Throttle the person who has sent the most data to 2 pps
Let the other person go at 4 pps until they become the heavier user

Scenario 3:
Throttling based on ensuring consistent quality of service:
Throttle both A and B to 3pps at ALL times, even if they are the only one using the network.

Which one is more fair? It is subjective, but the point is that there is not way to deal with the demand on a network exceeding supply other than limiting the amount of data that some people can get.

None of them are "unlimited". They all employ some type of "throttling" strategy when at network capacity (although Scenario 2 is what is most associated with ISP throttling).

My point is not that T-Mobile is right in advertising "unlimited" data, but that a savvy customer should be skeptical of the term "unlimited data" and find out specifically what this means, because it certainly can't mean getting data any time you want at unlimited speed.

In the case of T-Mobile, I don't even think they ever specify data rates at all other than vague terms like 4G and 3G, which refer vaguely to the generation of network rather than the actual rates. You can have a really slow 4G connection.

You can have a throttled connection on a fast network that's faster than an unthrottled connection on a slower network.

It's not that T-Mobile advertised something and didn't deliver it. It's that they advertised something vague and/or impossible.

People are mad because they have an expectation of how fast/consistent their connection would be and their experience didn't match their expectation. I'm saying that terms like "unlimited" don't do anything to help clarify expectations in any scenario, with or without throttling.

Maybe ISPs could present a standard set of statistics like:
minimum rate, maximum rate, data cap

Gold Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = none
Silver Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = 2 GB then throttled to min: 0.5 Mbps, max: 1 Mbps, cap: none
Economy Plan: min: 0. 5 Mbps, max 0.5 Mbps, cap = none

Comment Re:Ping pongged (Score 1) 16

I don't know about conspiracy, but would a massive international corporation that acts as a gateway to the internet for hundreds of millions of people, use that awe-inspiring position of influence and never-before-seen wealth of personal data to further its own collective interests? What do you think?

Maybe. But if they did, I would call that being in on a conspiracy.

I don't have an expectation that the executives of a corporation or the corporation itself (i.e. shareholders and board members collectively) remain politically neutral. But there is a difference between coming out openly in support of a candidate or political position, and covertly trying to influence the minds of voters, in terms of trying to trying to affect the election.

I am skeptical that the covert/immoral way is even more effective than just being open about your position and explaining it to people. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but regardless there is already apparently this narrative that Google is conspiring to fix the election. Surely that narrative is harmful to their goals, and it doesn't serve their interests to feed into that.

Comment Re: AT&T (Score 1) 151

Any technically-competent person would realize that there are always limits. There is a limit to how much data you can download in a pay period regardless of whether you are being throttled. "No-Throttling" and "unlimited" don't mean the same thing, because "unlimited" is either impossible or incoherent, and "no-throttling" is something that is realistic.

Comment Re:Maintain your standard! (Score 1) 475

Then you have to remove FOX from your list and that gives the Republicans zero channels. Good lord you are really too stupid to see how your own argument fails that easily?

First of all, that wasn't my argument (as I have said 3 times at this point). It was my refutation of your argument. My argument is not even predicated on the facts of your argument being false (which they are anyway). My refutation of the facts of your argument is a bonus beyond my main argument which was disproving the logic of your argument.

Fox *NEWS* *IS* a cable news channel, like how ms*NBC* is a cable news station

Fox, and NBC are *NOT* cable news news stations, they are broadcast networks.

No wonder you are a leftist, you are stupid!

I'm actually a libertarian, though I am not surprised you would just assume you know something that you actually don't

And I hope to God I never have to use any software written by such a dumb and illogical person.

Slashdot Top Deals

Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham