I'm pretty sure most copyright regimes have similar treatment of recipes - they're not covered by copyright.
There are some exceptions, eg the layout & presentation of the recipe will fall under copyright, as would (I imagine) descriptive text as part of the method. A list of ingredients should be freely reproducible though.
I would expect a sudden reduction in pressure to put you in danger of an arterial gas embolism, ie bubbles in your blood causing a heart attack or stroke.
Depending on the gas mix and pressure in your craft/suit, you might also get the bends, which I imagine will be difficult to recover from in space.
In a brewing context, the chaff, or husks, are actually a very important component of the grist. While they don't contribute fermentable sugars, they act as a filter bed for the sweet wort at the end of the mash.
A little bit OT, but that analogy isn't as clear-cut as people tend to think it is.
You mean wreaking a path of destruction and havoc?:)
I meant 'holding back' as in 'preventing consistent application of solid usability principles geared towards novice users'. It wasn't a comment on the rate of desktop linux adoption or even the rate of UI improvement.
I should also add that I don't lurk on the gnome or KDE dev lists so this was just an informed guess on my part.
Hmm. Following that logic, would you suggest that if all record companies ceased spending money on marketing, people would stop buying music because they didn't know it existed?
I suspect that one day there will be viable alternate channels for musicians to get their music to consumers; be it through automated peer-to-peer referrals, targeted music review subscription sevices, or mechanisms that no-one's thought of yet. It won't replace record companies paying radio stations for rotation, it won't equalise artist remuneration so that no-one earns millions and everyone makes a living, but I think it will make an impact.
That's like saying a Porsche should have the same dashboard and driving controls as a 4x4 pickup truck, because both can drive on the same roads and both have 4 wheels.
I hate car analogies. But okay, if someone who normally drives a 4x4 hops into a Porsche, he/she will have no problems because the interface is consistent. It's got a speedo, tacho, steering wheel, gearstick, accelerator pedal etc that are all in the same location and perform exactly the same function.
I like being able to decide which UI fits my working style the best.
That's great - you're a power user with a power OS. But what about a basic user learning how to use linux? How do they make this choice that you make so easily; which of these possible directions do they invest their time & effort in learning when they know that the next linux system they use may well be completely different?
The OS X specific stuff will almost certainly check to see whether it's running on Apple hardware and fail otherwise. I've got no doubt that talented hackers will be able to make it run, but it will not install out of the box.
Apple will probably use Open Firmware (as used in current Macs), or the Intel-backed EFI. EFI's probably more likely, as I imagine it has excellent (Intel) chipset support, it's more extensible, and has better DRM support.
I suspect that Apple hasn't actually decided one way or the other yet.
after fifteen years Apple (who pride themselves on their interfaces) still don't be able get the interface for EO to a point where it's acceptable.
EOModeler, while it's still part of the dev tools distribution, appears to be deprecated in favour of moving the EOModel editing into Xcode 2.1 - I wouldn't think there'll be too many improvements made on the old application. In principle though, I agree that the tools don't have the best interfaces - I think part of the problem has been the need to support Windows as a dev platform.
I assumed the fact that the deployment license is now platform-independent means that you can just buy a copy of OS X Server to deploy on 'unsupported' platforms - this is effectively a price cut.
How do you use NSTimestamps with PostgreSQL? Optimistic locking on those fields has been annoying the hell out of me.
Two years since my move from windows confinement to linux and I am still discovering new stuff I cna do with an OOTB linux that I used to have to spend HOURS looking for documentation on from Microsoft - or even making my own tools or searching for tools already made by others.
There's a big difference between bundled functionality and usability. This is exactly the mindset that I feel has been holding back linux usability work to date.
But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was around since NEXT, and I do believe that predates both Gnome and KDE
The Aqua UI and HIG, what people think of when they think of OS X, was built in probably three or four years following the NeXT purchase and the Rhapsody releases.
Unless OS X can run on commodity PC hardware it is no more a "threat to linux" than it ever was.
No arguments there. The only implications of the Intel move will likely be comparable performance.
Quickly, and in a hundred directions. Choice is good.
If any of those directions result in inconsistent user interfaces, it's not good for usability.
Roughly (and correct me if I'm wrong), a rule-based application is one that stores formulae, business/validation rules, process orchestration steps etc as dynamic data, usually in a database. The application will load and interpret the rules in order to perform processing functions; and the rules can be modified at runtime, typically by expert users or adminsitrators.
No, unneeded pedantry would be pointing out that the earth's velocity wrt the sun is roughly constant, therefore it's accelerating at 0 km/second/second. Not hard to 'accelerate' something faster than that.
Comparatively, nitrogen has very low solubility (which is why Guinness use to put a head on their beer). The centrifuge won't be producing anything like an air mix.
It's not particularly clear from TFA, but it's supplying oxygen to a rebreather system (which will subsequently handle gas mixing); the diver isn't breathing the output directly like an open-circuit (scuba) system. I imagine the system would still need a diluent (air/trimix) cylinder depending on what else can be produced from the seawater.
"The simple solution is to require any sales that are subject to GST to have a note alongside the price sayng "plus 10% GST to Australian shipping addresses" or something. Easy."
That's exactly what eBay Australia have been told they can't do. Advertised or auction prices must be GST inclusive.
I think alot of the bickering about IP rights comes from industries using money to skew the issues and interpret the law in their favor, and no strong voice stating what the law actually is or moving that it should be enforced fairly.
The US fair use provions are interpreted by the courts. There's no guarantee that similar open-ended provisions implemented in Australia would result in the courts interpreting format- or time-shifting to be 'fair use'.
It's largely irrelevant because the AUSFTA required us to change our copyright term to match that of the US. This came into effect 1st Jan, and copyright term is not on the reform agenda.
Public input is being requested specifically in regard to fair use exceptions, which Australia generally does not have.
"I'm pretty sure there are [government IT policy-makers on Slashdot]."
There might be. I just didn't want to suggest it. Everybody here knows, without the encumbrance of actual hard data, the exact and invariant narrow-band demographic of Slashdot readers.
U.S. agencies use FOSS as much as any large corporate entity.
I've dealt with some public sector (AU) IT decision-makers, and in my opinion there are differences between their decision making processes and those of their corporate counterparts.
I still think the question is valid, albeit pointless. I'm not going to opine on whether it should be a front page story.
This isn't a legal question, it's a government IT policy question. I'm not suggesting there are government IT policy-makers on Slashdot, but there are undoubtably public sector IT employees here who are constantly exposed to and affected by (and possibly influence at some level) IT policy.
Regardless of how useless any possible answer to this question is, I'd say Slashdot is a valid audience.
I've read (though I can't personally confirm) that the objective-c message dispatching caches the function address after the first lookup anyway, so the optimisation won't end up saving you as many cycles as you'd expect.
Any admin user can, for example, copy anything into/Applications without having to authenticate. Or "silently install", as you might say. Anything running as a user could also, obviously, install things into that user's Startup Items (which for most machines - being single user - is all it really needs to do).
/Applications is not a particularly sensitive directory - I was talking more about writing files in places where they could be used to gain root access (like/System/Library/StartupItems).
If a piece of malware installs itself as a user startup item, then yes, it will run automatically - but not with root privileges.
Except it's not, because if you run as a regular user in Windows you can't write to sensitive parts of the system anymore than you can in OS X. "Admin" in OS X != "Admin" in Windows. The closest analogue to an OS X "Admin" in Windows is a "Power User"
Point taken. It's probably more correct to say Windows "Admin" == OS X "root" (which is not required to run any user applications and is complicated to enable). I tend to think of Windows accounts as being either "Admin" or "User", because that's all I've ever seen people use. I certainly find it painful to not have an admin account.
So let's say the Windows security model is sound in theory, but poorly executed and universally misused?
Did you mean that applications in Windows, when the user is an admin, can just silently copy stuff into various bit of the filesystem ? This isn't a design flaw, it's just a side effect of running in a certain user context - the same thing could happen if some process on OS X is running as root and, at this point in time, can also happen by any application started by an "admin" user (the file permissions for most of the system directories are group-writable and ownership of root:admin).
No, they're owned by root:wheel. For an admin user process to write to them, the user has to sudo and enter a password - this is handled through the GUI using the authorisation framework, which will pop up a standard dialog. Social engineering and/or stupid users can break this model, but admin-launched applications can't silently write files in sensitive places like/usr/sbin and/System/Library/StartupItems. In my opinion, this IS a Windows security model design flaw.
Configure it as LocalService or NetworkService rather than LocalSystem in the installer?
I still think it's a flaw in Windows that most (administrator) user processes can install services and run other root-level tasks without authenticating though. OS X will require you to enter an administrator password, and tell you why.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure most copyright regimes have similar treatment of recipes - they're not covered by copyright.
There are some exceptions, eg the layout & presentation of the recipe will fall under copyright, as would (I imagine) descriptive text as part of the method. A list of ingredients should be freely reproducible though.
I would expect a sudden reduction in pressure to put you in danger of an arterial gas embolism, ie bubbles in your blood causing a heart attack or stroke.
Depending on the gas mix and pressure in your craft/suit, you might also get the bends, which I imagine will be difficult to recover from in space.
A little bit OT, but that analogy isn't as clear-cut as people tend to think it is.
I meant 'holding back' as in 'preventing consistent application of solid usability principles geared towards novice users'. It wasn't a comment on the rate of desktop linux adoption or even the rate of UI improvement.
I should also add that I don't lurk on the gnome or KDE dev lists so this was just an informed guess on my part.
I suspect that one day there will be viable alternate channels for musicians to get their music to consumers; be it through automated peer-to-peer referrals, targeted music review subscription sevices, or mechanisms that no-one's thought of yet. It won't replace record companies paying radio stations for rotation, it won't equalise artist remuneration so that no-one earns millions and everyone makes a living, but I think it will make an impact.
I hate car analogies. But okay, if someone who normally drives a 4x4 hops into a Porsche, he/she will have no problems because the interface is consistent. It's got a speedo, tacho, steering wheel, gearstick, accelerator pedal etc that are all in the same location and perform exactly the same function.
I like being able to decide which UI fits my working style the best.
That's great - you're a power user with a power OS. But what about a basic user learning how to use linux? How do they make this choice that you make so easily; which of these possible directions do they invest their time & effort in learning when they know that the next linux system they use may well be completely different?
Apple will probably use Open Firmware (as used in current Macs), or the Intel-backed EFI. EFI's probably more likely, as I imagine it has excellent (Intel) chipset support, it's more extensible, and has better DRM support.
I suspect that Apple hasn't actually decided one way or the other yet.
You mean like the Hutt River Province?
EOModeler, while it's still part of the dev tools distribution, appears to be deprecated in favour of moving the EOModel editing into Xcode 2.1 - I wouldn't think there'll be too many improvements made on the old application. In principle though, I agree that the tools don't have the best interfaces - I think part of the problem has been the need to support Windows as a dev platform.
I assumed the fact that the deployment license is now platform-independent means that you can just buy a copy of OS X Server to deploy on 'unsupported' platforms - this is effectively a price cut.
How do you use NSTimestamps with PostgreSQL? Optimistic locking on those fields has been annoying the hell out of me.
There's a big difference between bundled functionality and usability. This is exactly the mindset that I feel has been holding back linux usability work to date.
But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was around since NEXT, and I do believe that predates both Gnome and KDE
The Aqua UI and HIG, what people think of when they think of OS X, was built in probably three or four years following the NeXT purchase and the Rhapsody releases.
Unless OS X can run on commodity PC hardware it is no more a "threat to linux" than it ever was.
No arguments there. The only implications of the Intel move will likely be comparable performance.
Quickly, and in a hundred directions. Choice is good.
If any of those directions result in inconsistent user interfaces, it's not good for usability.
Roughly (and correct me if I'm wrong), a rule-based application is one that stores formulae, business/validation rules, process orchestration steps etc as dynamic data, usually in a database.
The application will load and interpret the rules in order to perform processing functions; and the rules can be modified at runtime, typically by expert users or adminsitrators.
No, unneeded pedantry would be pointing out that the earth's velocity wrt the sun is roughly constant, therefore it's accelerating at 0 km/second/second. Not hard to 'accelerate' something faster than that.
I miss the polystyrene monsters, myself.
Comparatively, nitrogen has very low solubility (which is why Guinness use to put a head on their beer). The centrifuge won't be producing anything like an air mix.
It's not particularly clear from TFA, but it's supplying oxygen to a rebreather system (which will subsequently handle gas mixing); the diver isn't breathing the output directly like an open-circuit (scuba) system. I imagine the system would still need a diluent (air/trimix) cylinder depending on what else can be produced from the seawater.
That's exactly what eBay Australia have been told they can't do. Advertised or auction prices must be GST inclusive.
The US fair use provions are interpreted by the courts. There's no guarantee that similar open-ended provisions implemented in Australia would result in the courts interpreting format- or time-shifting to be 'fair use'.
Unfortunately the Berne convention, to which Australia is a signatory, does not allow us to apply such conditions.
It's largely irrelevant because the AUSFTA required us to change our copyright term to match that of the US. This came into effect 1st Jan, and copyright term is not on the reform agenda.
Public input is being requested specifically in regard to fair use exceptions, which Australia generally does not have.
Someone's already done this.
There might be. I just didn't want to suggest it. Everybody here knows, without the encumbrance of actual hard data, the exact and invariant narrow-band demographic of Slashdot readers.
U.S. agencies use FOSS as much as any large corporate entity.
I've dealt with some public sector (AU) IT decision-makers, and in my opinion there are differences between their decision making processes and those of their corporate counterparts.
I still think the question is valid, albeit pointless. I'm not going to opine on whether it should be a front page story.
This isn't a legal question, it's a government IT policy question. I'm not suggesting there are government IT policy-makers on Slashdot, but there are undoubtably public sector IT employees here who are constantly exposed to and affected by (and possibly influence at some level) IT policy.
Regardless of how useless any possible answer to this question is, I'd say Slashdot is a valid audience.
I've read (though I can't personally confirm) that the objective-c message dispatching caches the function address after the first lookup anyway, so the optimisation won't end up saving you as many cycles as you'd expect.
If a piece of malware installs itself as a user startup item, then yes, it will run automatically - but not with root privileges.
Except it's not, because if you run as a regular user in Windows you can't write to sensitive parts of the system anymore than you can in OS X. "Admin" in OS X != "Admin" in Windows. The closest analogue to an OS X "Admin" in Windows is a "Power User"
Point taken. It's probably more correct to say Windows "Admin" == OS X "root" (which is not required to run any user applications and is complicated to enable). I tend to think of Windows accounts as being either "Admin" or "User", because that's all I've ever seen people use. I certainly find it painful to not have an admin account.
So let's say the Windows security model is sound in theory, but poorly executed and universally misused?
No, they're owned by root:wheel. For an admin user process to write to them, the user has to sudo and enter a password - this is handled through the GUI using the authorisation framework, which will pop up a standard dialog. Social engineering and/or stupid users can break this model, but admin-launched applications can't silently write files in sensitive places like /usr/sbin and /System/Library/StartupItems. In my opinion, this IS a Windows security model design flaw.
I still think it's a flaw in Windows that most (administrator) user processes can install services and run other root-level tasks without authenticating though. OS X will require you to enter an administrator password, and tell you why.