Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Tech is not a good fit for unions imo (Score 1) 715

Unions are not there to protect the best performing employees--they couldn't care less about those people. The cream of the crop can always negotiate good terms for employment that are better than could be negotiated for the whole crew. Unions are precisely for the 3/4 of the people you mention who do not carry their weight. Now if unions bought into the idea of actually rewarding excellence rather than coddling mediocrity, then maybe my opinion of them would improve. Some employees simply contribute more to the company than others and should be rewarded/paid higher for that. Employees are not fungible. It is somewhat ironic that unions treat them as such. Unions would destroy the tech industry. Top level techs these days can make beaucoup bucks. Unionize the shop and that pay arrangement goes away.

Comment Re:Cogent Disregards Agreement with Sprint (Score 1) 413

That sounds like the most likely explanation for what happened--and Cogent just got ahead of the PR by doing their press release. I never really did understand though why tier 1 carriers insist on the traffic being approximately equal in each direction between themselves. A residential user downloads more than than business customers upload on average. So what? By that I mean, both sending and receiving ends on an internet connection are paying for the service so why does it matter which direction the traffic is flowing?

Feed Can We Please Have Politicians Understand The Internet Before They Regulate It? (techdirt.com)

Lots of folks have been submitting the story that a Canadian MP has introduced "The Clean Internet Act" which is a bizarre bit of proposed legislation that is typical of other "protect the children!" laws that politicians love to propose without actually understanding what they're talking about. This one is pretty ridiculous, basically requiring anyone who provides internet service (including if you have a WiFi connection) to register with the government (hello, bureaucracy). Then it includes all sorts of impossible to obey rules about censoring and blocking users and content. ISPs won't be allowed to allow "past offenders" to access the internet. They have to block all sites "that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography." Failure to do so can result in jail time. Also, they have to (of course!) allow easy access for the government to search records of what users are doing. We're almost surprised he also didn't include in the bill demands that the earth stop spinning and the tides stop rising and falling. The MP in question probably would have found it more effective to have written a bill that just said "I demand all bad stuff on the internet go away." With that in mind, is it really that much to ask that those who are regulating the internet actually have some clue about the thing that they're trying to regulate?
Censorship

Submission + - SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks

cachedout writes: "SCO's Ralph Yarro had the floor yesterday at the Utah Technology Commission meeting in front of Utah lawmakers. Yarro proposed that free wireless sites and subscribers should be held responsible should any porn be delivered to minors because hotspots are apparently where kids go to watch porn all day long. Yarro told lawmakers that open wireless access points should be made a crime because we have an Internet out of control."
Censorship

Submission + - Canadian MP Calls For ISP Licenses, Content Blocks

An anonymous reader writes: A member of Canada's ruling Conservative party has pledged to "clean up" the Internet with new bill that would mandate ISP licensing, know-your-subscriber rules, and allow the government to order ISPs to block content. ISPs that fail to block would faces possible jail time for the company's directors and officers.

Feed FCC Admits It Sucks At Measuring Broadband Competition (techdirt.com)

For years, plenty of folks (including the Government Accountability Office) have been pointing out that the way the FCC measures broadband competition is very flawed. It simply assumes that if a single household in a zip code is offered broadband by provider A, then every household in that zip code can get broadband from provider A. In an extreme version of this, say provider A offers broadband to a single household, and provider B offers broadband to a different household and everyone else has no broadband at all. Under the current FCC measurements, that's an area that has full broadband competition. See the problem? For some reason, the FCC hasn't done much about this measuring problem, but it appears that the Commission is finally recognizing it has a problem and saying it needs to change the way it measures things. Commissioner Michael Copps points out: "Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price." Of course, who knows if what comes next will be any better, but at least admitting you have a problem is the first step...
Patents

Submission + - New Legislation Would Overhaul U.S. Patent System

FutureDomain writes: With the US patent system in a mess, PC World writes about senators who have introduced a bill to reform the patent system.
The provisions of the Patent Reform Act would change the patent process from the current "first to invent" system to a "first to file" system like the rest of the world, restrict damages that patent holders can receive for infringement lawsuits, create a new procedure to challenge the validity of a patent after it has been granted, and boost resources for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Working...