Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:How hard is it...? (Score 2) 190

by crabbz (#48657785) Attached to: An Automated Cat Litter Box With DRM

The problem is that the rules of English are backwards here.

John's = it belongs to John. it's != it belongs to "it".

Why that is, I don't know, but it's true. I assume it's to distinguish from "it is" and "belongs to it" because you don't have the same problem with "John is" being "John's".

An easy way to remember is that "his" and "her" don't have apostrophes either, just like "its".

Comment: Re:Play store not the only source (Score 1) 337

by crabbz (#43169719) Attached to: Google Removing Ad-Blockers From Play
Some apps from the play store require you to be signed into your google account to check their license. If you remove your google account from the device then after a few days the app will complain that it can't verify the license. I've had it happen a few times. Logging back into the play store, which adds the google account back, generally fixes it. I don't think it is true for all apps, looks like it is up to the developer if they want to check the license through google play or not. I don't know if removing the play store app itself has the same affect. I suspect things will work as long as you're logged into your google account.

Senators To Examine Exclusive Handset Deals 234

Posted by kdawson
from the baby-steps-toward-openness dept.
narramissic writes "Based on a request that a group of rural operators sent asking the FCC to examine the practice of handset exclusivity, four members of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet sent a letter to the FCC expressing their concern. Small operators, like U.S. Cellular argue (PDF) that 'exclusive handset contracts divide wireless customers into haves and have nots.' But nationwide operators, including Verizon, maintain (PDF) that 'in the absence of exclusivity agreements, wireless carriers would have less incentive to develop and promote innovative handsets.' The Commerce Committee expects to hold a hearing on the issue tomorrow."

The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.