Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Sue - Sue - Sue! (Score 2) 187

Read the Michael Crichton novel "Next". It tells a (fictional) story about bad actors "owning" the DNA of someone. I believe it is rooted in truth (most of Crichton's novels are moralistic and focused on some social or technical issue), and the gist is that a company "owned" a person's DNA because tissue removed from his body became the legal property of the hospital where it was removed (in the papers he signed prior to surgery). I may have not gotten this exactly correct (been a while since I read it), but that was my takeaway.

Good novel, too.

Comment Re:If Apple owns the patent (Score 1) 133

That's a fair point. It very much feels like patent abuse to obtain if the sole purpose is to deny the technique to competitors ...

Pardon me for being Captain Obvious here, but that is exactly what patents are intended to do! Patent confers intellectual property rights to the patent holder. What that patent holder chooses to (legally) do with those rights is completely up to the holder.

Haven't you ever heard the conspiracy theories about stuff like Goodyear buying the patent for a 100,000 mile tire? Or GM buying the patent for a 100 mpg car? Or the best yet, the Gubment buying patents to keep technologies out of the private sector?

Remember, before you say "pshaw!", I did qualify all of these as "conspiracy theories." The best conspiracy theory is one that is unprovable, yaknow.

Oh, and I do agree with your conclusion. Apple could be trying to keep this out of the hands of other "less ethical" companies (you know, ones that do no evil...)

Comment Yes PLEASE! (Score 1) 110

Lately I have become so frustrated with my Nexus 7 updating (and becoming essentially useless until update completes) that I am seriously contemplating getting an iPad mini just to escape Android! The only things I do with it are read Kindle books and play mahjongg. I do NOT need Google apps updated on a daily basis. Most of them I don't even know what they do!

Comment Re: Running kismet on a laptop (Score 5, Informative) 152

One of the Part 15 rules is about not interfering, and clearly that's not working out so well.

I don't believe the FCC cares about Part 15 devices interfering with other Part 15 devices. From the rules:

CFR 47 Part 15.5

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(boldface is added for emphasis)

In other words, a Part 15 device that interferes with another Part 15 device is cool, since Part 15 devices are offered no protection from interference, intentional or unintentional.

The law is written so that Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with licensed devices.

Comment Re:Good news (Score 1) 391

"Melinda Herman shot the intruder five times, hitting him in the face and neck. Chapman said she told the man if he moved she would shoot him again, although she had run out of bullets."

(To be technical here, she was a "good girl". But I think you'll accept that gender isn't a factor here.)

"Mark Vaughan, the company’s founder, chief operating officer and a reserve sheriff’s deputy, was on site at the time and shot Nolen, stopping the attack before police arrived, Lewis said."

(Mark Vaughan may have been a reserve sheriff's deputy, but he was off duty, which meant he was a regular citizen "good guy"

Oh heck, I'll let the NRA show you. Note: There are 660 pages of these in their files.

Comment Re:Clarifications - MOD UP (Score 1) 47

On the basis of trusting that the AC truly is one of the authors (of the scholarly paper), I want to thank you for these clarifications and suggest to all to mod that post up. It definitely is better than score: 1, which is its current value at the time of my writing.

110 dB of SI cancellation is beyond impressive - it is approaching magical!

On the face of it, this capability will double capacity of any RF channel for which it will work. AC claims this can be made to work on channel bandwidths exceeding 20 MHz, therefore making it useful for WiFi.

But I think there are other advantages. If a traditional system uses FDD (frequency division duplex) to achieve duplex (simultaneous transmit and receive) operation, then this new technology reduces by half any discrete RF/IF filter hardware needed to reject out-of-channel energy. That will help make the electronics simpler and less expensive. For FDD, the cost of the filters goes up as the two channels (transmit and receive) get closer together (the closer TX is to RX, the steeper the filters have to be to achieve adequate rejection). With this all-silicon approach, the most you need is bandpass filtering for the ONE channel you are using. Big win!

But then maybe I am exposing my dinosaur-like thinking in even bringing up discrete RF filter components. A recent announcement at Mobile World Congress touted a silicon-only radio technology that didn't appear to need any discrete filtering at all.

Also my (dinosaur-vintage) thinking about cellular base stations is that they generally operate in the +40 to +50 dBm range (out of the PA, prior to duplexers, etc. and not considering antenna gain), which implies another 20-30 dB isolation is required (vis-a-vis the AC's claim of 110 dB) to achieve the same isolation one would need in a cellular system. But then I'm not considering antenna gain which seems (without thinking about it too hard) to potentially improve the isolation if separate TX and RX antennae are used at the base station. Then again, I'm thinking macrocells here. But for a single channel duplex RF technology to be deployable in cellular, I think one would need to cover the macrocell case - in any case.

Comment Re:They are going big into alternative energy (Score 1) 163

Next to that, we need a system of converting CO2 from the air into a usable fuel, ideally propane, because propane is not a greenhouse gas and inert.

Really? My reading is that the equation for propane combustion is: C3H8 + 5O2 = 3CO2 + 4H20

Maybe propane produces less CO2, pound for pound, than say, coal. (I don't actually know, and don't care to look it up.) But it certainly produces CO2 when burned.

Oh, and anyone who's ever cooked on a propane grill, or used a propane torch, will attest to its distinct non-inertness...

Comment Re:Flamefest (Score 1) 401

Fire Ants FTW!

That is one of my favorite analogies, and I've never before heard anyone use it besides myself. I grew up in Florida, where I used to kick the tops off of ant hills all summer long. Free entertainment for out-of-school kiddies.

Just be sure to take a few steps back after kicking...

Every cloud has a silver lining; you should have sold it, and bought titanium.