Incorrect. Gatekeeper has 3 security settings. Most secure is "App Store Only" requiring Apple vetting the app. Default is "App Store and Mac Developer Certificate" which allows App Store apps, as well as 3rd party apps like Photoshop and Microsoft Office. The last setting is basically allow all apps.
Technically yes, but the second one has been announced to be the default, and you can be pretty sure that 99% of all users won't change any default.
Even if Apple revokes Microsoft's certificate, the app can always be run in that mode.
I'm not sure about that. The system might refuse to run an app whose certificate has been revoked even in that mode, since it can differentiate between binaries without a signature and binaries with a revoked signature.
The new "gatekeeper" feature would be able to lock down MS Word and the worst that could happen is your documents folder is wiped. But since MS Word would never appear on the Mac App Store users would have installed it with unsigned access. Which would only affect their home directory unless they run as Admin.
Uh, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Gatekeeper is a new thing in 10.8, which only allows stuff that's signed either with an App Store certificate or a Mac developer certificate. It doesn't handle file access at all.
Sandboxing (new in 10.7) limits file (and other device) access to only certain areas, but the documents folder is usually off limits.
If Word would use a Mac developer certificate, starting in 10.8 Apple could pull the kill switch and the application would not launch on any Mac any more. However, that's quite a drastic step and would probably not be done in this case for such a widely-deployed piece of software.
In the UK, we have perfect freedom to discuss politics. We do not have perfect freedom to threaten people.
Politics is about threatening people all of the time. The new data retention laws that are implemented all over the EU right now are a threat to every citizen, for example. New employment laws in my country are threatening low-wage employees.
What I can't do is publish a (serious) incitement to murder the Prime Minister, or plot to buy weapons and make an assassination attempt on him, and expect no consequences.
Buying weapons is not freedom of speech, same as bringing them onboard a plane! The problem is that just making a joke on Twitter can get you arrested nowadays. The law enforcement agents take statements out of context, or simply don't understand them and take action (we recently had a case here where somebody was arrested at 6am by a SWAT-like team in masks because he tweeted two "overheard"s that supposedly demonstrated his technical abilities). The result is that everyone has to be afraid saying anything that somebody might interpret incorrectly, even when they don't have done anything wrong and don't plan to. This is to be expected from a police state, not a democracy.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision?
So it's perfectly fine that every adult has to know the law, including case law, perfectly (otherwise facing heavy fines and/or imprisonment when doing something wrong), except for police officers? Remember, not knowing the law does not make you innocent.
(Maybe, just maybe, the law is far too complicated nowadays?)
If your argument is that not being able to talk about commiting racist genocide during your campaign makes it difficult to implement, then surely that is a good thing?
Well, you can also turn the whole thing around. I'm living in Austria (Central Europe), and we have a strict law forbidding talking anything positive about Nazi Germany or displaying its symbols, etc. We also have a far right party that pushes exactly into this direction (and its upper members have been photographed at private events involving said symbols and acting appropriate gestures). However, due to this law, they're not allowed to talk about it, and so they get far too many votes from politically not that educated people, even when those don't share this extreme view. If they'd be allowed to officially state their thoughts on the matter of Nazi Germany and the reimplementation of its ideologies --- and they would if they'd be allowed --- only nutjobs would vote for them (or that's my hope at least). As it is right now, they regularly sue other parties' members, because a party member is being accused of sharing said ideology.
Thus, this limitation on the freedom of speech means that the voters cannot be informed correctly about the parties that they are voting for.
There is a huge difference between discussing a political point of view and inciting others to commit violent crimes.
Agreed, but in this case apparently all the guy did was a lot of swearing and being happy that somebody else was dead. He did not incite anybody to anything other than disgust in him.
We are a democracy in the UK. If the people don't like the law banning "incitement to racial hatred", we get rid of it.
There is no real democracy without freedom of speech. When you aren't allowed to discuss your point of view, how are you going to discuss politics? How are you going to get your standpoint implemented when you aren't allowed to talk about them in a campaign?
a lot of people have recently taken to using Facebook's built-in XMPP-based chat
Facebook is no more XMPP-based than the iPod is dock connector-based. The XMPP interface is just for external access, they don't even route stanzas (the XMPP packets) properly between two users using this interface (all the parts the internal chat system doesn't support are stripped out).
MSN also has an XMPP-interface now, btw. It's pretty similar in functionality to Facebook's.
In politics, you usually want neither faction to win, since they're all rich, lying weasels. As long as they're fighting each other, nobody else gets hurt.
Who the hell is moderating today? None of the comments I've seen so far except the first one have anything whatever to do with the Raspberry Pi, yet these offtopic comments are being modded up!
Well, I guess that's part of the complaint of the thread starter: There have been so many Raspberry Pi articles recently that there's not much on topic to talk about.
I personally plan to use my Raspberry Pi for XBMC (esp. for AirPlay) as a cheap replacement for an Apple TV.
I change my views based on outside feedback. Not directly because I want to change my view to please people, but because feedback lets me see the subject from a different perspective which allows me to realise when my view doesn't mesh well with reality.
If you're the sort of person who never changes their view based on new information, I guess you're some kind of religious nut?
Maybe I'm just bitter. Everybody has certain principles, based probably on upbringing. Those only change very very slowly (over decades).
Changing the perspective is something else, since you're only providing new information to enhance someone's world model, not trying to change what someone believes. For example, you'll never get modern conservatives to not feed as much money as possible into the military, no matter what you tell them.
I like to use the backside of business cards for writing notes about that person (for example, why I should contact them at all). Don't take that valuable space from me!
There are good reasons to tell them that you're not voting for them (and explain why): If they are able to understand the reasons why people aren't voting for them, they can change their policies to reflect what the public want.
If you still think that people change their views based on outside feedback, you probably aren't old enough to be allowed to vote yet.
Why not? [Trademarks] make as much sense as copyright.
No. The idea behind trademarks is to avoid mixing up different author's creations. That's in no way connected to copyright issues.
So say you got crowdfunding of a thousand quid for your novel that took two years to write,
If you agreed to that, you need a new accountant.
that's all you should ever be able to make off it, even if it goes on to sell millions,
It wouldn't sell millions, just a million people would be able to consume it.
be adapted as a movie and so on?
That depends. I'd be free to make a movie based on an 8 year-old boy who discovers that he is a wizard, but I wouldn't be allowed to call him "Harry Potter", because that's a trademark. Just like Avatar was a straight copy of Pocahontas, for example.
Calling this movie "Harry Potter" would mean that JK Rowlings had a say in it, so she can make sure that it is in accordance to her vision (just like it really happened).
Doesn't seem fair to me.
The current system (where the content distributor gets 90% of the income) isn't fair to me either. Your definition of "fair" is based on the current content distributor's definition, which isn't the only one.
At least with copyright, if your book goes on selling steadily you get some income from it.
Imagine JK Rowlings publishing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone via Kickstarter. The first book might receive something like $3000 funding. She writes the book, publishes it for free in epub format and $5 for a physical book copy. Now imagine Rowlings putting up Harry Potter 2 as another project there afterwards. Everyone who bought the old one and wanted the story to continue pledges $10, and she'd receive maybe $10000. The list goes on until the last book, where she'd get millions of $.
Even if the book wouldn't be a continuation, everybody who likes her writing style and/or imagination would immediately jump on board.
That's exactly what happened with Tim Schaefer here. Many people (including myself) who played one of his previous games just pledged based on this experience and wanting to have an experience like that again. There was no copyright involved in any way.
The additional bonus here would be that very good authors would be motivated to produce more work, which isn't the case right now. Rowlings is now motivated to sit on her growing piles of money and never write a full sentence again in her life.
Right, so by that argument your car uses technology and concepts based on other people's work (going back to the inventor of the wheel), so I should just be able to borrow it whenever I feel like it?
Yes, I should be allowed to construct my own car based on the idea your car was built upon (while still respecting trademarks, as already mentioned).
I don't think it is so much about the concepts, so much as the characters and world that's been created. The Harry Potter franchise itself is worth a lot of money and any additional works produced in that universe are going to sell loads of copies solely based on the branding.
Uh, you're thinking about trademarks, not copyright. I haven't seen anyone arguing about abandoning trademarks (yet).
Also, without copyright, anyone can make their own copies of your work as soon as you release it.
Yes, but at that point you already got paid in full for your work.
I think it's pretty clear from interviews and statements by Jobs both before he returned to Apple and immediately after he returned, that he was focused on the post-PC world right from the start. He recognized that he could never break the market power of the Windows PC, but he saw that improvements in technology would ultimately obsolete the PC as a central, all-encompassing computing platform for most people, and so when he returned, he spent a few years getting the Mac in shape so the company didn't die, and then moved on to the post-PC strategy.
Jobs never saw Apple as a computer company, but as an experience company. This means that the computer is only the means to an end, which is getting specific things done. So it's only natural that when there's another way to get the stuff done people want to do (like surfing the web, checking emails, listening to music, writing, composing, painting, etc), he'd be the first to jump ship. Many other technology companies (like Microsoft) ask themselves "how can this issue be solved on a computer?", when the real question should only be "how can this issue be solved?".
Apple market share for computers is about 14% right now. If 14% of your users are complaining that they want to use a Mac at work just like they do at home, they will pretty much be ignored and considered quite annoying by IT departments.
Wow, I didn't even realize there are people who hate people with red/orange hair. To the socially naive, ginger sounds kinda cute actually...
I also only realized that when there was a Southpark episode about this... In my country, we don't even have a name for gingers, because it's just nothing noteworthy.
Windows release was in late 2002. You can see here that iPod didn't really start to take off until 2004.
Well, it's relative. Of course you can't see it in this chart, because the later numbers are overwhelming. The Windows release was the point when the device was well-known in non-geek circles. You can't measure that in sales numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, back when the Harry Potter series started, ebooks weren't on anyone's mind at all. There was simply no market for that.
Incorrect. Gatekeeper has 3 security settings. Most secure is "App Store Only" requiring Apple vetting the app. Default is "App Store and Mac Developer Certificate" which allows App Store apps, as well as 3rd party apps like Photoshop and Microsoft Office. The last setting is basically allow all apps.
Technically yes, but the second one has been announced to be the default, and you can be pretty sure that 99% of all users won't change any default.
Even if Apple revokes Microsoft's certificate, the app can always be run in that mode.
I'm not sure about that. The system might refuse to run an app whose certificate has been revoked even in that mode, since it can differentiate between binaries without a signature and binaries with a revoked signature.
The new "gatekeeper" feature would be able to lock down MS Word and the worst that could happen is your documents folder is wiped. But since MS Word would never appear on the Mac App Store users would have installed it with unsigned access. Which would only affect their home directory unless they run as Admin.
Uh, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Gatekeeper is a new thing in 10.8, which only allows stuff that's signed either with an App Store certificate or a Mac developer certificate. It doesn't handle file access at all.
Sandboxing (new in 10.7) limits file (and other device) access to only certain areas, but the documents folder is usually off limits.
If Word would use a Mac developer certificate, starting in 10.8 Apple could pull the kill switch and the application would not launch on any Mac any more. However, that's quite a drastic step and would probably not be done in this case for such a widely-deployed piece of software.
In the UK, we have perfect freedom to discuss politics. We do not have perfect freedom to threaten people.
Politics is about threatening people all of the time. The new data retention laws that are implemented all over the EU right now are a threat to every citizen, for example. New employment laws in my country are threatening low-wage employees.
What I can't do is publish a (serious) incitement to murder the Prime Minister, or plot to buy weapons and make an assassination attempt on him, and expect no consequences.
Buying weapons is not freedom of speech, same as bringing them onboard a plane! The problem is that just making a joke on Twitter can get you arrested nowadays. The law enforcement agents take statements out of context, or simply don't understand them and take action (we recently had a case here where somebody was arrested at 6am by a SWAT-like team in masks because he tweeted two "overheard"s that supposedly demonstrated his technical abilities). The result is that everyone has to be afraid saying anything that somebody might interpret incorrectly, even when they don't have done anything wrong and don't plan to. This is to be expected from a police state, not a democracy.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision?
So it's perfectly fine that every adult has to know the law, including case law, perfectly (otherwise facing heavy fines and/or imprisonment when doing something wrong), except for police officers? Remember, not knowing the law does not make you innocent.
(Maybe, just maybe, the law is far too complicated nowadays?)
If your argument is that not being able to talk about commiting racist genocide during your campaign makes it difficult to implement, then surely that is a good thing?
Well, you can also turn the whole thing around. I'm living in Austria (Central Europe), and we have a strict law forbidding talking anything positive about Nazi Germany or displaying its symbols, etc. We also have a far right party that pushes exactly into this direction (and its upper members have been photographed at private events involving said symbols and acting appropriate gestures). However, due to this law, they're not allowed to talk about it, and so they get far too many votes from politically not that educated people, even when those don't share this extreme view. If they'd be allowed to officially state their thoughts on the matter of Nazi Germany and the reimplementation of its ideologies --- and they would if they'd be allowed --- only nutjobs would vote for them (or that's my hope at least). As it is right now, they regularly sue other parties' members, because a party member is being accused of sharing said ideology.
Thus, this limitation on the freedom of speech means that the voters cannot be informed correctly about the parties that they are voting for.
There is a huge difference between discussing a political point of view and inciting others to commit violent crimes.
Agreed, but in this case apparently all the guy did was a lot of swearing and being happy that somebody else was dead. He did not incite anybody to anything other than disgust in him.
We are a democracy in the UK. If the people don't like the law banning "incitement to racial hatred", we get rid of it.
There is no real democracy without freedom of speech. When you aren't allowed to discuss your point of view, how are you going to discuss politics? How are you going to get your standpoint implemented when you aren't allowed to talk about them in a campaign?
a lot of people have recently taken to using Facebook's built-in XMPP-based chat
Facebook is no more XMPP-based than the iPod is dock connector-based. The XMPP interface is just for external access, they don't even route stanzas (the XMPP packets) properly between two users using this interface (all the parts the internal chat system doesn't support are stripped out).
MSN also has an XMPP-interface now, btw. It's pretty similar in functionality to Facebook's.
In politics, you usually want neither faction to win, since they're all rich, lying weasels. As long as they're fighting each other, nobody else gets hurt.
Who the hell is moderating today? None of the comments I've seen so far except the first one have anything whatever to do with the Raspberry Pi, yet these offtopic comments are being modded up!
Well, I guess that's part of the complaint of the thread starter: There have been so many Raspberry Pi articles recently that there's not much on topic to talk about.
I personally plan to use my Raspberry Pi for XBMC (esp. for AirPlay) as a cheap replacement for an Apple TV.
Or you're dating only insecure women, because you're insecure yourself?
I wonder how they're planning to get him back next time. Investment into the Umbrella Corporation?
I change my views based on outside feedback. Not directly because I want to change my view to please people, but because feedback lets me see the subject from a different perspective which allows me to realise when my view doesn't mesh well with reality.
If you're the sort of person who never changes their view based on new information, I guess you're some kind of religious nut?
Maybe I'm just bitter. Everybody has certain principles, based probably on upbringing. Those only change very very slowly (over decades).
Changing the perspective is something else, since you're only providing new information to enhance someone's world model, not trying to change what someone believes. For example, you'll never get modern conservatives to not feed as much money as possible into the military, no matter what you tell them.
I like to use the backside of business cards for writing notes about that person (for example, why I should contact them at all). Don't take that valuable space from me!
There are good reasons to tell them that you're not voting for them (and explain why): If they are able to understand the reasons why people aren't voting for them, they can change their policies to reflect what the public want.
If you still think that people change their views based on outside feedback, you probably aren't old enough to be allowed to vote yet.
Why not? [Trademarks] make as much sense as copyright.
No. The idea behind trademarks is to avoid mixing up different author's creations. That's in no way connected to copyright issues.
So say you got crowdfunding of a thousand quid for your novel that took two years to write,
If you agreed to that, you need a new accountant.
that's all you should ever be able to make off it, even if it goes on to sell millions,
It wouldn't sell millions, just a million people would be able to consume it.
be adapted as a movie and so on?
That depends. I'd be free to make a movie based on an 8 year-old boy who discovers that he is a wizard, but I wouldn't be allowed to call him "Harry Potter", because that's a trademark. Just like Avatar was a straight copy of Pocahontas, for example.
Calling this movie "Harry Potter" would mean that JK Rowlings had a say in it, so she can make sure that it is in accordance to her vision (just like it really happened).
Doesn't seem fair to me.
The current system (where the content distributor gets 90% of the income) isn't fair to me either. Your definition of "fair" is based on the current content distributor's definition, which isn't the only one.
At least with copyright, if your book goes on selling steadily you get some income from it.
Imagine JK Rowlings publishing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone via Kickstarter. The first book might receive something like $3000 funding. She writes the book, publishes it for free in epub format and $5 for a physical book copy. Now imagine Rowlings putting up Harry Potter 2 as another project there afterwards. Everyone who bought the old one and wanted the story to continue pledges $10, and she'd receive maybe $10000. The list goes on until the last book, where she'd get millions of $.
Even if the book wouldn't be a continuation, everybody who likes her writing style and/or imagination would immediately jump on board.
That's exactly what happened with Tim Schaefer here. Many people (including myself) who played one of his previous games just pledged based on this experience and wanting to have an experience like that again. There was no copyright involved in any way.
The additional bonus here would be that very good authors would be motivated to produce more work, which isn't the case right now. Rowlings is now motivated to sit on her growing piles of money and never write a full sentence again in her life.
Right, so by that argument your car uses technology and concepts based on other people's work (going back to the inventor of the wheel), so I should just be able to borrow it whenever I feel like it?
Yes, I should be allowed to construct my own car based on the idea your car was built upon (while still respecting trademarks, as already mentioned).
I don't think it is so much about the concepts, so much as the characters and world that's been created. The Harry Potter franchise itself is worth a lot of money and any additional works produced in that universe are going to sell loads of copies solely based on the branding.
Uh, you're thinking about trademarks, not copyright. I haven't seen anyone arguing about abandoning trademarks (yet).
Also, without copyright, anyone can make their own copies of your work as soon as you release it.
Yes, but at that point you already got paid in full for your work.
To keep other people from making something better using your building blocks and leaving you out of it.
Unlike yourself, who hasn't used a single concept (like the idea of an adventure game or using a mouse as an input device) from somebody else at all.
I think it's pretty clear from interviews and statements by Jobs both before he returned to Apple and immediately after he returned, that he was focused on the post-PC world right from the start. He recognized that he could never break the market power of the Windows PC, but he saw that improvements in technology would ultimately obsolete the PC as a central, all-encompassing computing platform for most people, and so when he returned, he spent a few years getting the Mac in shape so the company didn't die, and then moved on to the post-PC strategy.
Jobs never saw Apple as a computer company, but as an experience company. This means that the computer is only the means to an end, which is getting specific things done. So it's only natural that when there's another way to get the stuff done people want to do (like surfing the web, checking emails, listening to music, writing, composing, painting, etc), he'd be the first to jump ship. Many other technology companies (like Microsoft) ask themselves "how can this issue be solved on a computer?", when the real question should only be "how can this issue be solved?".
Apple market share for computers is about 14% right now. If 14% of your users are complaining that they want to use a Mac at work just like they do at home, they will pretty much be ignored and considered quite annoying by IT departments.
But they're a very vocal minority :)
Wow, I didn't even realize there are people who hate people with red/orange hair. To the socially naive, ginger sounds kinda cute actually ...
I also only realized that when there was a Southpark episode about this... In my country, we don't even have a name for gingers, because it's just nothing noteworthy.
I don't want "more IOs to drive steppers". I would settle for ANY.
What about the Gertboard?
Wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg
Windows release was in late 2002. You can see here that iPod didn't really start to take off until 2004.
Well, it's relative. Of course you can't see it in this chart, because the later numbers are overwhelming. The Windows release was the point when the device was well-known in non-geek circles. You can't measure that in sales numbers.