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).


+ - App gives you free ebooks of your paperbacks when you take a "shelfie" -> 1

Submitted by Peter Hudson
Peter Hudson (3717535) writes "Alan Henry writes on LifeHacker: Paper books are awesome, but sometimes there's no beating the portability of an ebook on your phone or tablet. If you have a physical book you'd love to read on the go, BitLit may be able to get you an ebook version for free—all you need to do is take a photo of your book case: a 'shelfie'..."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score 4, Interesting) 436

by sanchom (#48491569) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute.

That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence. There are limitations on many rights listed in the Constitution. For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)

So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not

The answer is that it is not. Interpretation of the constitution comes down to a balancing act between competing rights.

It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.

True. That's why this is about the *government's* prosecution of one individual and whether the elements of the crime were actually established.

+ - Elsevier to offer DRM-free ebook bundling through BitLit->

Submitted by peterhudson
peterhudson (2843243) writes "Elsevier has partnered with BitLit to offer readers highly discounted DRM-free "bundled" eBook editions on for 5000 of their titles. Elsevier which has courted controversy over the years in its journal business, may be adopting a more progressive stance on both DRM and consumer demand for format shifting physical media to digital.

Unlike the Kindle Matchbook bundling program which relies on amazon.com billing records (and doesn't have any large scientific or technical publishers participating), the Elsevier-BitLit bundling program doesn't require receipts or point-of-sale records to prove ownership of the print copy. To claim the bundled eBook, a reader writes her name in ink on the copyright page and snaps a photo using the BitLit app. BitLit is free for iOS and Android and offers free or highly discounted bundled eBooks form over 200 publishers including other tech publishers: Packt and O'Reilly."

Link to Original Source

+ - Harpercollins will offer discounted ebooks to print book owners through BitLit->

Submitted by Peter Hudson
Peter Hudson (3717535) writes "Cory Doctorow writes on BoingBoing that HarperCollins is the first major publisher to sign with BitLit, a free app for iOS and Android that lets you send a photo of your book's copyright page with your name inked on it in exchange for a deal on the ebook. The HarperCollins bundling pilot includes Neal Stephenson's classic Cryptonomicon, and will offer ebooks to print owners at $2-3."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Science-based medicine, brain-machine interfaces (Score 1) 552

by sanchom (#47075669) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Communication With Locked-in Syndrome Patient?

"Communicating with the Locked-In" by Yale Neuroscientist and scientific skeptic, Steven Novella: http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...

It discusses the science (imaging, brain-machine interfaces) vs pseudoscience (facilitated communication) relating to communicating with the locked in.

Comment: Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score 3, Interesting) 188

by sanchom (#45423229) Attached to: Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?
Trademark infringment is not a subset of fraud. Trademark law came out of the tort of passing off, which originally was a descendant of fraud/deceit, but they're now different in that fraud happens between the lier and the listener; trademark infringement happens between the lier and the owner of the mark that they co-opt. It isn't a subset-superset relationship anymore.

Comment: Re:A trademark claim might not be the best (Score 1) 188

by sanchom (#45423117) Attached to: Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?
Trademark law originated as the common law tort of passing off. Passing off is *like* fraud, but differs in that fraud requires proof of damages, while passing off/trademark infringement does not require proof of damages. Passing off/trademark infringement is what the intellectual property owners could sue for. Fraud is what the end-users could sue for.

Comment: Re:Just a thought (Score 1) 107

by sanchom (#44732751) Attached to: Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

If you didn't implement it, you didn't invent it.

I meant implement for mass market production. I may have the resources to build a working model, or a proof-of-concept, but not the resources to bring the invention to market.

If you didn't implement it, you didn't invent it.

That is not consistent with patent law.

Comment: Re:Just a thought (Score 1) 107

by sanchom (#44732573) Attached to: Taking the Battle Against Patent Trolls To the Public

IMHO, you do not deserve compensation for coming up with an idea unless you also spend years building a worthwhile implementation.

Patents don't reward the coming-up-with of an idea. They reward the disclosure of that idea.

and patents should only last 3-5 years (about twice as long as it takes to develop a competing implementation).

This is not universally true. It might take 10-12 years to clear the regulatory hurdles in the pharmaceutical industry.

No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.