Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Communication as a form of intelligence (Score 1) 93

It didn't look like there was anything new in his paper to me. When he wrote it, the theory of cryptography would have been much further advanced than that, the idea that cryptographic strength can at its best go up exponentially with key length is pretty obvious.

It didn't look like he'd come up with a strong crypto system either; I suspect that the only reason anyone even looked at it was because he was a professor of mathematics and so they would have given him the benefit of the doubt, but the contents were very amateurish, and I doubt Campaigne would have had trouble cracking it.

If I've understood it correctly, it's an embarrassingly weak LINEAR encryption system, which is trivially crackable with matrix operations in N bits of known plaintext and encyphered text where N is the key length.

Comment Re:Greenhouse gas emissions (Score 1) 146

Almost all of the people that have looked at the evidence for AGW carefully enough with any kind of open mind (including some skeptics) have come to the conclusion that it's almost certainly happening. There's virtually no scientific controversy, but that doesn't stop people trying to give the impression (often very successfully) that there's a lot of controversy.

But there isn't.

This fact, that there's little controversy over the basic facts, is not well known in America in particular, and that's really pretty sad.

Comment Re:Greenhouse gas emissions (Score 1) 146

Its a false idea that in absolute terms space tourism releases a lot of CO2.

That's a bit like saying that Concorde was a massive creator of carbon dioxide. While it produced a few times that of a 700 series flying London/NY, in global terms it was utterly insignificant. And that would have been true even if the aircraft had sold in quantity, there just weren't going to be enough aircraft.

And space tourism is the same, nobody is going to be building the hulls in sufficient quantity for them to EVER use a globally significant amount of CO2.

The real battle for CO2 isn't in these exceptional activities it's in the everyday. Driving, heating your houses, the energy embodied in food. These are massively bigger because you do them everyday, for your entire life, as opposed to for a few hours, on very, very rare occasions.

Comment Re:There are no vague threats (Score 2) 249

>ALL software that is written was intentionally made possible by the hardware manufacturer.

That's like saying that all books are made possible by the people that sold you the paper and pen; it's a false argument.

> Add to this that all software is reducable to math, and there is no valid arguement left to patent software.

Actually, in most cases it is possible to patent maths, provided it's a *part* of a design, not the whole thing. The whole point of patents is to commercially exploit an idea for money, and pure maths isn't exploitable, you have to build it into a system of some kind that has an interaction with the real world to do that.

The real argument against patenting software is to do with its effects on society when you do that kind of thing, and the general impossibility of people working out whether software does or does not violate any software patents or not.

Comment Re:Hey DCTech (Score 1) 249

The problem is that you have to patent ideas, because if you patent a particular thing, that's the same as copyright, and modifying it in relatively trivial ways that work exactly the same, but look exactly different means that it's not infringing copyright.

So you end up having to protect the idea behind something, not the thing itself.

I agree with 3. There should be some kind of way to work out what compensation the patent deserves rather than just rely on the patentee saying no.

Comment Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing (Score 1) 328

They're a piece of shit, the fuel is MUCH more expensive than gasoline or electric and the energy density is horrible, and the fuel cells don't last, and there's no distribution network either.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for about 50 years, and they're still not in any major way practical. Sure it demoes well as a technology, but it's impractical in the real world.

Electric cars are actually practical, they're real world tech, you can buy them, and get in and routinely drive them.

Don't forget, electric vehicles are used routinely in industry.

Hydrogen vehicles... no. (except for space rockets).

Slashdot Top Deals