Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Not actually reduced to math (Score 1) 323

by Directrix1 (#35994446) Attached to: Patent 5,893,120 Reduced To Pure Math

I could literally write out a list of formulas that implement any algorithm and directly run them. Are you saying that these mathematical formulas do not infringe patents? Are you saying that patent law requires a selling a physical machine with this on them to fall under the definition? Either way, this is fucking bullshit. To allow the patenting of mathematics (or the set of all system that happens to utilize specific mathematics) is idiotic and counterproductive. All it does is take time and money away from the people that do and gives it to the people that sue. It disregards all the freely available prerequisite knowledge (the giants whose shoulders we all stand on), and packages up these incremental steps for pure, exclusive greed.

Implementation issues in the written world are more than sufficiently covered by copyright law. I have yet to see a single example of patents being a positive force in this industry.

Comment: Re:FOSS (Score 1) 169

by Directrix1 (#29255117) Attached to: Making an Open Source Project Press-Friendly

Most open source projects are just components of a whole system. If we are generalizing here, the distros and other dependent software makers package everything up, and make it accessible if it is not already targeted at end users. I honestly don't think there is a problem with not marketing to end users, but a problem with end users wanting it to be marketed to them to begin with. Anybody wanting to find these projects can, if they look for it.

Comment: Re:FOSS (Score 1) 169

by Directrix1 (#29251317) Attached to: Making an Open Source Project Press-Friendly

Nobody said they had to answer anything. And you assuming the knowledge that "most open source developers do not want arbitrary people to use their software." is absolutely ludicrous. Open source developers are just developers who are wanting to share their project and its source. Just normal human developers with completely distinct normal human intentions.


Encryption? What Encryption? 500

Posted by Soulskill
from the these-are-not-the-files-you're-looking-for dept.
Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton writes with his take on the news we discussed early this morning about the UK government's prosecution of two people who refused to disclose their encryption keys: "Is it possible to write a program that enables you to encrypt files without drawing suspicion upon yourself if anyone ever seizes your computer? No; a program by itself, no matter how perfectly written, couldn't do this because you'd still attract suspicion just for possessing the software. You'd need a social element driving the program's popularity until it gets to the point where people no longer look suspicious just for having the program installed. Here are some theories on how that could happen — but it would be a high bar to clear." Hit the link below for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.

Comment: Re:Fork it! (Score 3, Informative) 162

by Directrix1 (#28996099) Attached to: Contributing To a Project With a Reclusive Maintainer?

Or you can upload it to a website, or the wiki if the project has one. Just make sure people understand what project it is useful with. I wouldn't fork immediately. Forking should be something you do as a last result because you feel you definitely need to take the project in a different direction (or a direction at all). BTW, why don't you mention what the actual project is?


Typography On the Web Gets Different 378

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-i-miss-comic-sans dept.
bstender writes "Most major browsers — including the latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera — recognize a CSS rule known as @font-face. What that means, in brief, is that Web developers can now easily embed downloadable fonts in their pages. To see an example, load up Firefox 3.5 or Safari 4 and learn more. You'll see three new typefaces — Liza, Auto, and Dolly — used in the body text and headlines." No doubt the licensing issues are just as complex as the font nerd potential.

Comment: Re:No Really Definite Confirmation of This Yet (Score 1) 465

by Directrix1 (#28613077) Attached to: Microsoft Puts C# and the CLI Under "Community Promise"

Maybe generic chunks of code that deal with simple OO patterns that recognized across languages (like Vectors, Stacks, etc.). But even those you will have to tweek them all over the place. I'm not pro-.net, I just don't think its really that easily translatable.

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"