That could be a nice addition to business cards, format the pattern as a vCard or something and you can quickly add the card as a contact.
These usually ends up in the garbage anyway, so this at least doesn’t add more electronic in the landfill.
There is already a standard, we’ll known method for putting a business card on paper that doesn’t require electronics: QR codes.
Does literally anyone scan an RFID chip from a business card?
I just… don’t believe that is a thing that happens. Seems like a way to look “high-tech” that an actually high-tech person would never bother with.
Business cards are for reading a name, title, business name, phone number, email address, and MAYBE a business URL. What the heck are we even doing here.
Whatever business use is being achieved with these paper RFID tags… if it isn’t for some kind of security gate to prevent shrinkage, a barcode would work just as well and is dead reliable.
QR codes require something electronic to read them.
Business cards with plain text and maybe an image require as much tech to put on them as a QR code, a printing press of some kind. Making a nice looking card or generating a QR code requires more tech however.
Does an RFID tag not require something electronic to read them?
It does and I agree, but maybe its since I just woke up and I’m short on sleep, I read:
well known method for putting a business card on paper that doesn’t require electronics: QR codes.
as:
We don’t need any electronics at all for any of this
RFID is silly to put in a card that 99% will forget about and leave behind. QR codes are better as they are just the same ink that goes on it anyways.
RFID is silly to put in a card that 99% will forget about and leave behind. QR codes are better as they are just the same ink that goes on it anyways.
Yeah I think that was the original point the other person was making but it sounded like you were arguing against that. I think we’re all in agreement, a QR code is a cheaper and quicker method of doing the paper>electronic data connection than whatever the tech in this article is describing, unless they can increase storage a massive amount.
Yeah I probably just had the wrong tone or read it wrong. I am a fucking mess lately so that’s probably why.
Sure, just another option I thought would be cool, but yeah I already have a QR code on the back of mine.
So it’s proposing we burn traces on single-use paper to solve climate change.
RFID tags as a security device are important and they can last as long as keys.
As a business card we can just stop doing it. Solved!
For what it’s worth I don’t think they’re proposing it will “solve” climate change - no single thing can. It’s millions of tiny (alleged) improvements like this which eventually add up to taking pressure off of the environment. I see this kind of attitude a lot with stuff like paper straws or biodegradable packaging, as if the idea of a small but meaningful step in the right direction is laughable. It’s fine to criticize them for the “improvement” actually being no better than the alternative, but I worry sometimes it comes across like any sort of improvement short of “solving” climate change isn’t worthwhile.
My point here is burning paper on a mass scale instead of using wires or an IC is not a solution, not even a little bit like biodegradable food containers.
Its solving a problem that isn’t really a problem!
I’m not sure how much of this is the actual project, or the author of the article, as there are all kinds of odd claims in there.
Paperless RFID Tags Are Carbon-Based
OK, thanks headline. I thought all RFID tags were paperless?
A team of design program graduates from London’s Royal College of Art aim to change that. They’ve devised a mostly-paper RFID tag that’s as safe to recycle as a piece of paper with a pencil doodle on it.
So, not paperless? Mostly made of paper. Paperfull?
What the fuck even is this headline trying to say?
EDIT: Thought about it some more and came back. I think the headline really is referring to all standard RFID tags, and not the new RFID tags referenced in the article. It’s just a confusing ass title to go with because it doesn’t reference the new tech at all. It just makes a factual statement about old RFID tech: that they are paperless and produce carbon pollution. Except isn’t it the production of them that makes the carbon pollution, not the RFIDs themselves? I don’t know, still a confusing headline, even though I’ve sort of sussed out what it was trying to say.
TL;DR: Headlines should probably reference what the article is about, not what it isn’t about. Which this headline did opposite here. It tells us in the headline what the article isn’t about.
Yeah, titlegore material.
I for one find this to be a cool idea. Reducing the environmental impact of RFID tags seems small, but they are ubiquitous with billions of them produced annually. If this ends up being an economically viable and functional replacement I’m all for it. Less plastic waste and less e-waste is a good thing.
