Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Maybe a good thing (Score 5, Insightful) 409

I did some reading, and it appears to be the fingerprint sensor. The sensor itself has an encrypted channel to the mainboard. If the cable is damaged or the sensor is replaced/not working, it doesn't sync up properly.

So it makes sense to refuse to work with a different sensor. Else, someone could unlock your phone by simply bypassing the sensor.

No. Refusing all access to your device because one small component is damaged does not make sense. Not using that component to do the unlock - and making you use the non-fingerprint method - is what would make sense.

Comment Re:Business (Score 1) 212

if you know the law then you should also know that if a company doesn't proactively protect its copyrights, they risk it being classified as abandoned and losing it to the public domain.

Incorrect. First off, you cannot lose copyright for not defending it - that's trademarks. Secondly, you are not required to "proactively protect" your trademark against all infringement in order to risk losing it; only against major infringements. In most cases, major infringements are meant to mean something that would cause confusion as to which company actually owns the trademarks. Unless you're arguing that people would have thought Ramar Larkin Jones was the actual owner of Pokemon because he was throwing a party, then the mark would never be in jeopardy from this use.

Comment Re:If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans... (Score 5, Insightful) 212

"Defending your trademark" does not mean "suing anyone who doesn't pay you to use it". As long as there's no brand confusion being caused it doesn't need to be defended. As per the Wikipedia article: "It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential."

Arguably, you can even let infringement go in many larger instances as long as they're not believed to cause brand confusion. Look at Star Wars - George Lucas has allowed fan-made works to do a helluvalot that would get them sued by just about any other IP-based company out there. He's even commented on fan works, showing that he is quite aware of them. None of this permissiveness with his trademarks has ever led to him coming even close to losing the brand.

Comment Re:Why are Bidets not as popular in America? (Score 2) 269

Well, let's see - right from the article you linked:

They are not necessarily meant to replace the use of toilet paper. Often they are used after some paper to achieve full cleanliness without immediately having to take a shower.


The expense of remodeling a typical North American bathroom to accommodate a traditional bidet fixture is large, in the thousands of dollars

However, it does go on to say that recent advances in combination toilet/bidets are causing more widespread adoption in North America.

Comment Re:For starters... (Score 1) 842

I mean, hell...the ONLY reason I work, is to earn enough $$$$ to support my lifestyle. If I didn't have to earn the money, I'd certainly not be working...and I"d have a blast till I died.

Generally speaking, once you have enough money so you don't have to work, many of the pressures of work go away (you're not worried about getting fired, etc.). If you're actually independently wealthy, you typically start your own business doing some type of work that you really find fulfilling. You generally won't work for someone else unless you really want to work for them (i.e. getting your "dream job", or working with someone you idolize).

The reason you will still work with ridiculously wealthy is because if you don't work you'll soon get bored, or start to feel like a worthless leech only taking from society, but not giving anything back. It's the same reason why so many retirees go out and get jobs they don't really need.

Comment Re:Basic Income (Score 1) 61

There's a problem here. The most likely first response is the cost of a place to live going up over $250/month. Those who have the power to set prices are likely to see that as just an opportunity to increase prices.

The problem with this logic is twofold.

First, you can't simply increase rent because people are making more money; people remember for years what they think the cost of things should be, and are reluctant to pay more than that, and will shop around for a better deal. So, while company A decides to raise prices, Company B decides not to do so, and gets more business because of this and still results in an increase in profits (due to a sale rate closer to capacity).

Secondly, an increase in price in one area of an industry, especially the budget options, causes a ripple effect increasing the prices of everything in an industry. While this may cause a short-term price increase, factors will return it to a lower equilibrium. If you do a 20-50% increase in rent for budget apartments (which could only happen with a cartel controlling almost all apartments in a city), it will start to increase everything else in the housing market. If budget apartments suddenly cost as much as midrange, then why would you rent budget? This leads to an increase in midrange rental, increasing prices there, so more people go expensive or buy a house/condo. This causes people to leave the rental market, so suddenly you have empty budget apartments all over the place. To rent those out again, the prices will have to start to come down.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"