Well, "ex-Chief Talent Officer Patty McCord"...

Well, the OSI's Open Source Definition was actually based off the DFSG, just with the Debian-specific references removed.

I stand corrected. You're right - I haven't been following this story, and most of what I've heard about Guantanamo defence lawyers comes from when Michael Mori (who was military) defended David Hicks. That was a while ago though.

Because they're military defence lawyers, and thus serving members of the military?

As is Australia.

As much as this may be beneficial to scientists, I feel that in the case of publicly-funded institutions, it would set a bad precedent for the overall cause of public sector transparency. It has been a long, hard fight for increased transparency in government (FOI laws and such) and I think creating an exception for scientific agencies doesn't send the right message.

This story displays an incredibly low understanding about what a QR code even is, let alone how you would write a QR code reader for a secure environment. I'm surprised this even got accepted.

In Australia, for most purposes we still use paper ballots. (There are a few exceptions - ACT territory elections have *optional* computer-based voting, and NSW state elections have an *optional* online voting system for some absentee or disabled voters.)

On election night, officials at every polling place - who are required to sign a declaration, under penalty, that they are not politically active - do an initial hand count of first-preference votes (yes, we have IRV and STV ballots here) and the votes for the top two front runners. These are the numbers that make their way to the internet in a matter of minutes and are used for the election night media coverage - but they actually have no legal significance at all, they're basically purely for the media coverage.

The real counting happens the week after election day, when all ballots are transported to the local electoral office for counting. For elections that use IRV ballots (e.g. the federal House of Representatives), the ballots are all hand counted. For STV ballots (e.g. the federal Senate), they do use computer based counting, however the paper ballots are retained and a hand count can be done if necessary. If there are any issues that arise, the Returning Officer has the discretion to order a recount as necessary, without necessarily needing court orders or anything like that.

The *entire process* - opening the polls, conducting the polling, closing the polls, the first count, the second count, and any recounts - takes place in front of candidate-appointed scrutineers (not quite as good as being public, but it's close enough). Every candidate can appoint scrutineers to witness the whole process and make objections.

And this is how Australia has elections that are virtually unchallengeable - for a typical federal election, there will usually be at most one serious dispute, and only in districts with the tiniest of margins where they need a judge to make the final decision. Heck, we're experimenting with computer-based and internet-based voting systems, and no-one's raising concerns because the Electoral Commission has such a high reputation for integrity and accuracy.

In the US, sure. Outside of the US, US government works may very well be covered by local copyright laws. In many countries, government works are protected by copyright, and it may very well be the case that the same provisions apply to US government works within their jurisdiction.

If you look at the court records, it wasn't actually AFACT that sued - it was its member companies (Roadshow, Universal, Paramount etc). AFACT wasn't actually party to the case.

Pfff.

There is no appreciable atmospheric effect from co2 created by human activity. there is no appreciable heat effect from human co2 production. you are coupling where there is no such statement. human bodies handle excessive heat better than excessive cold. cold is more deadly than heat. there will be no 100ft sea rise. co2 levels rise and fall over time.The earth is far more resilient and self-correcting a system than you assume. People are nowhere near capable of destroying it.

CO2 is used by plants the way you use oxygen. First, the complaint was the predicted "population bomb" where there would be too many people for the Earth's resources. Then came "global warming" where human life overheats the planet. The solution? Lower CO2 so life dies. Brilliant. Here's another idea: More CO2 means more plants means more food means warmer earth means fewer human deaths from weather with less ability for a few people to control the food supply. So...more CO2 means more freedom for everyone on earth. The earth is a self-regulating enivronment. Outlawing food is a death cult.

Agreed. I'm Australian, and I'm enrolled in a CS major - but I do my classes along side IT and SE students... as far as I'm concerned, all three terms are fairly close, just with some subtle differences. The umbrella term for everything, whether it's programming, consulting, sysadmin, etc. is 'IT'. This American differentiation between IT and CS just confuses me...

It's amazing how many prophets we have here on Slashdot! However, I don't think they are any better at prophesying than Harold Camping was in foretelling the end of the world. Of course Apple will greatly encourage the use of their App Store because they make money from it. That does not mean however they will prohibit Slashdot nerds from installing whatever software they wish. They will just make it harder, but not impossible for the ordinary user to do that.

The end of the world happens for you when you draw your last breath and your body releases your soul. For a lot of people on this earth the world ended on this day, May 21. So for these people the prophecy did come true, but for the rest of us this prophecy will also come true in due time. Harold Camping correctly prophesied to the fate of every human being, but he got the timing wrong for those of us who are still here breathing.