Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Political robocalls too? (Score 5, Informative) 277

by Evan Charlton (#29226351) Attached to: FTC Rules Outlawing Robocalls Go Into Effect Next Week
No, they left that in. FTFA:

However for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said. Ultimately consumers may get some help from state legislatures as many are regulating or looking to pass laws for more control over automated or robocall computer-generated phone-calling campaigns. One group, the National Political Do Not Contact Registry is campaigning to outlaw political robocalling altogether.

Comment: Re:I'm not even a huge fan of 3G anymore (Score 2, Informative) 111

by Evan Charlton (#28870609) Attached to: Verizon Asks Court To Affirm 'Most Reliable' Claim
One of the huge benefits of 3G is that you can have a data connection while on a voice call. This isn't possible with EDGE. This also means that it's possible for a data connection to prevent a voice call from being received, if it does not yield the radio for an extended period of time.

Comment: Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (Score 3, Interesting) 106

by Evan Charlton (#28705269) Attached to: Google Voice Apps Arrive For Android and Blackberry

Since you mentioned it, I'm not sure what this development means for the future of my GV application. You can read more about my thoughts on the matter in my blog post

For those slashdotters who are GV users--what are your thoughts on the matter? Is the official app sufficiently crippled that I should continue? Should I aim for a peaceful coexistence?

Comment: Re:What now? (Score 2, Interesting) 321

by Evan Charlton (#28692687) Attached to: The Amazing World of Software Version Numbers

I personally use the X.Y.Z and increment each under the following conditions:
X++: New backwards-incompatible feature. For example, a new database schema would increment X.
Y++: New feature or feature set. For example: Adding a new widget.
Z++: Fixing bugs.
It works pretty well for me.

Why not just use a single version number that gets incremented by one every time there is a code change?

That's what your version control revision is for. Some of us would like to be able to tell at a glance whether having 2.3.4 might cause problems when transferring data to a 3.4.5 installation. You try doing that with between version 36978 and 87498.

Comment: Re:I'm waiting.... (Score 5, Informative) 198

by Evan Charlton (#28392313) Attached to: Google Voice Grabs 1 Million Phone Numbers
Disclaimer: I wrote the GV Android app in question.

I didn't find the GV android app to be all that usable. The extra overhead ended up making me miss a lot of calls that I wouldn't otherwise have. Another problem was that dialing out either involved using the GV application which dials your Google Voice number and places the call via their system or making calls from your real number. The former put a 10 - 15 second overhead on making a call and the latter tends to confuse people because they are receiving a call from a different number than the one they (were told to) call.

If you haven't tried the latest version, I recommend you do so; it makes the dialing process much more seamless. If you still have problems with, don't hesitate to shoot me an email: gv {at} evancharlton {dot} com (that goes for anyone else that has questions or suggestions).

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato