Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Well... (Score -1) 404

by AdrianKemp (#41037999) Attached to: Google Seeks US Ban On iPhones, iPads, Macs

And when you try to break the FRAND rules by overcharging your competitor, you get legally ass-fucked.

That's what's happening to Motorola, samsung, et al.

If you actually took a few minutes to read the lawsuits you'd see that Apple is the good guy here, and Motorola/Samsung/Google and the patent office (for giving Apple the handful of silly patents in the first place) are the bad guys.

Comment: *Could* be insurance (Score 1) 331

I'll preface this with: I have little doubt that they're charging $5 because they can, and it goes no further than that.

However! They might be using this as an insurance policy of sorts, follow with me:

- Your number is no different than a celebrities to look at/in their database/etc.
- You pay the same for non-listing as does said celebrity
- Unlike you, the celebrity could possibly win a lawsuit for a decent chunk of money if the company (through negligence) publishes their number.

So given that accidents happen, humans are prone to error, etc. etc. It is just possible that you're paying $0.50 a month for the actual service, and $4.50 a month for their eventual legal costs due to a fuckup.

As I said above though, when phone companies charge thousands of times reasonable rates for SMS and such I hardly expect that it goes any further than "because they can".

Comment: Re:dd (Score 1) 452

by AdrianKemp (#40990785) Attached to: Could You Hack Into Mars Curiosity Rover?

Yeah, you're of course right. Line of sight is a big problem (though not a problem you entirely avoid with their current method either).

There really isn't any shortage of reasons that lasers aren't a good choice (yet). If we can someday get perfect columnization of the light and have no dispersion at all then lasers will be entirely ideal even with the LOS problem, the throughput could be insane and the power requirements very low.

Comment: Re: limitations and inconvenience of QR codes? (Score 2) 164

by AdrianKemp (#40986163) Attached to: Alternative To QR Code Uses NFC and Cheap Rectennas

You're using a poor scanner then, or a crap phone (that wouldn't have NFC anyways).

My phone takes maybe half a second to scan a QR code, to the point that I don't even have to actually hold it still... I can *nearly* just wave it in front of the code and have it work, I do have to pause for the half second. By far the limiting time factor is finding the icon and launching the scanner, which would not change with NFC.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990