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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: obligatory (Score 1) 206

by Charliemopps (#48808261) Attached to: China's Engineering Mega-Projects Dwarf the Great Wall

As is usual, there's always an appropriate metal song warning of the folly of man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Today the warning came in the flood
Architects and fools never cared for poor men's blood
Cursed to repeat the past they are
The river dragon swims upstream
They've built another wall.

Ironically based on Chinese myth to.

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 0) 46

by Charliemopps (#48798509) Attached to: EnOcean Wireless Sensors Don't Need Batteries (Video)

Why was that a scam and this is not?

Because that they have working products and aren't grubbing around for the great unwashed's loose change on Kickstarter, for a start.

That past Slashdot story was about the many questions that were already being floated about iFind. That's why it was a story in the first place.

So, really, your question is a bit like asking why a story about Steve Jobs kicking a puppy results in more negative comments about the subject than one about Bill Gates single handedly saving 20 children from an orphanage fire.

Incidentally I think you credit Slashdot with way too much influence if you think it can bring down a startup in a couple of days. Those guys were already on their way out (this, again, being what the story was more or less about).

But read the thread... no one discussed the dudes fishyness. It was all a lot of bloated "I know about electronics and..." nonsense saying it was physically impossible. It's not. You can buy a dozen sensors just like the ones in this article that are powered by ambient RF or light, or whatever. It's an industry that's existed for years now. Were they a scam? I have no idea, but if it were a scam it had nothing to do with the physical impossibility of the device they designed.

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 0) 46

by Charliemopps (#48798483) Attached to: EnOcean Wireless Sensors Don't Need Batteries (Video)

Violates the laws of physics does it?
http://www.mouser.com/new/powe...

Look at it. Read the damned data sheet: http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/329...

You'd better let the world know one of the largest Electronics parts suppliers in the world is scamming them then. Because that's exactly what that IC does. 50ma output to! I doubt it gets that continuously, but carried around in close proximity to your phone and computer? Over a period of months? You're damned strait that'd charge it.

FYI that RF harvester is specifically designed to power sensors like what's described in this article. You're supposed to hook it up to a battery and a sensor like this and power that sensor to wireless transmit its readings.

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 0) 46

by Charliemopps (#48798337) Attached to: EnOcean Wireless Sensors Don't Need Batteries (Video)

1. They specify low power sensors, not transmitters.

Whoever said iFind was a transmitter? For all we know it "Beeped' when lost. In fact, I assumed that's how it would work. Why the hell would it transmit? Even if it did transmit, the most power it could transmit by law would be 1 watt. Why is that unfeasible?

2. They specify a number of different methods to gain power, not just RF.

And that has what to do with the price of tea in china? So only 1 of there several methods of charging is a scam?

3. Siemans spinoff indicates access to real engineers and technology.

right... because they used to work at Siemans, they are fully backed by that companies brand name? lol

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 0) 46

by Charliemopps (#48798297) Attached to: EnOcean Wireless Sensors Don't Need Batteries (Video)

As usual the devil is in the details. Harvesting enough energy from the environment to run a very low power IC in short bursts to do simple sensor measurements? Completely feasible. Charging your cellphone from ambient radio waves? Complete bullcrap.

As usual, the ability of the Slashdot community to even bother clicking on the god damned link is thwarted by their lazyness. It doesn't charge your cellphone. Where the hell did you get that?

It was a tag that hung on your keys, charged by RF that listened for a specific radio signal (like your garage door opener) When it received said signal it would beep. That's it. There's no physical reason that wasn't possible. The company could have still been a scam, but the device itself was possible.

Comment: Re:Just hire a CPA (Score 4, Insightful) 450

...or if 40$ hurts that bad maybe reconsider your self employment and/or investments.

The point is, they aren't offering anything for that $40. It's the same thing as last year, but twice the price. And there are a dozen other products out there that don't charge that much. In fact, many are free and simply charge for state filing.

Comment: Wait (Score -1) 46

by Charliemopps (#48796973) Attached to: EnOcean Wireless Sensors Don't Need Batteries (Video)

I thought powered by RF was impossible and a scam?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...

Slashdot basically killed that company outright with nothing more than the argument that the technology was impossible. Search the thread for my screen name and watch me get shouted down for suggesting it actually is possible and even provide links to ICs you could use.

And now here we have a story that's touting it as a legitimate device?

I've no idea if iFind was actually a scam or not. They clearly went bust just days after the Slashdot story. But this kind of smacks of hypocrisy. Why was that a scam and this is not?

Comment: Re:Hacked? Uh huh, sure... (Score 1) 128

The PFC appointed as Social Media Officer probably chose a weak password. Seriously, whenever I see a news article about a social media account being "hacked," I really wish journalists would understand these are just password-protected web services!

Celebrities' naked pictures and Twitter feeds get hacked because they have simple passwords, not because some genius hacker spends months looking for an exploit on their personal phone and the opportunity to introduce it. And even "security question" based password resets don't work when a celebrity will choose answers that anyone can find in 100 gossip rags.

And cockroaches scuttling across a restaurant floor don't mean the place is dirty either. But I get up and leave either way.

Comment: Re:Before this gets even more overblown... (Score 2) 128

...just remember this XKCD: http://xkcd.com/932/

You're assuming they aren't using the same password for their Twitter account that they're using for the Nukes launch codes.

Oh... you think I'm kidding?
Seriously... it's a real concern:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Comment: Re:WTF (Score 1) 319

1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)

FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The "falsely" is important.

No it's not. "Falsely" is often a subjective determination. What if you smelled smoke and it was just a cigarette?
Ambiguity and law are a bad mix.

Comment: Re:hmmm (Score 4, Insightful) 52

by Charliemopps (#48796515) Attached to: FBI Access To NSA Surveillance Data Expands In Recent Years

If I remember, didn't Obama run on a platform that included implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? The same 9/11 Commission that concluded the attacks happened because the FBI and the various intelligence agencies weren't talking to each other and sharing information?

Watch and learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And there's nothing inherently bad about that.

Yes there is. Go read the constitution. It's spelled out very plainly there. There is no ambiguity.

The problem isn't that the agencies are sharing information, it's that they're sharing information that's outside their lane. And that occurs not because they're sharing information, but because they're outside their lanes to begin with. I'd much rather have agencies that are focused on not sifting through every American's data, than ones that do that but don't share it with each other.

You've no idea how this works do you? They are collecting everything so that should a crime happen, they can retroactively comb though everything you've ever done to find evidence against you. It's like the local police placed cameras in your home and then said it wasn't a search because they wont look at the tapes unless there's a crime. But in reality, they really are looking at the tapes, but that's beyond the scope of this conversation.

But know this: This really is the nightmare scenario of 1984. There is direct and solid documented proof that they are doing exactly what all the conspiracy nuts were terrified of. It's not myth, its real. The only difference is, our government has not yet used this insane power to subvert the publics interest that we know of. But remember, at no time in human history has a government ever refused to exercise dictitorial power. It's only a matter of time until we elect the next Nixon or Stalin... and that person will use the NSA powers to make you wish this was just some sort of joke. But it's not. You should be horrified that your government feels it's Legal to do this.

Comment: Re:WTF (Score 4, Insightful) 319

Free speech hasn't been taken away. There already are limitations on what constitutes free speech in the UK (and the US, and other countries, for that matter). Speech that is abusive or incites hatred is one of the things things that is limited. Political protest isn't limited. The press is free to insult the government. Go look up what constitutes "freedom of speech". It doesn't mean "I say whatever I like [without consequence]"

In the US? The only legal limits we have on free speech here are:
1. Speech that directly and immediately puts human lives in danger (The old, yelling fire in a crowded theater, thing.)
2. Slander... and this isn't unprotected, it's just that you can be sued for liable for making things up. And slander in the US has a much different definition here than it does in the UK.
3. Those limits imposed by society. i.e. I'm not allowed to make wiener jokes around my wife's friends. But this isn't a legal limitation, it's a "I don't want to get hit with pots and pans" limitation.

I see a lot of nonsense and talking heads on TV that talk about how the US is different and we just don't understand that the rest of the world has a different view on free speech. We do know that, we've fought wars over it. We know exactly what Europe's limits on free speech lead to, and it appears to be happening again! Seriously, pull your heads out of your asses. You've got a few douche-bags running around blowing people up. That sucks, but really the number of people getting killed is very very low. Remember WW2? Because that was a real war, and that's what restrictions on speech and the press lead to.

Man alive I'm glad that I'm too old to get drafted.

+ - Study: Men that post "Selfies" show traits of psychopathy->

Submitted by Charliemopps
Charliemopps (1157495) writes "A new study conducted by Jesse Fox, assistant professor of Communication at The Ohio State University, with Margaret Rooney a graduate student at Ohio State, shows that men in the study who posted more photos of themselves online than the rest of the group, scored higher on measures of narcissism and psychopathy."
Link to Original Source

You might have mail.

Working...