This gestalt flipping is due to the associative networks in the speech recognition section of your temporal cerebral cortex settling into two different low-energy states created by your fluency in English, one a word, and the other a word-like name.
And the adaptation to each word is probably due to the short-tern strengthening of synapses between active neurons, widening and deepening the energy well for the recently-heard word.
By moving the slider slowly enough, I can move the switch-over from close to one end to close to the other.
A bezel isn't the end of the world. In fact, it's preferable since it gives a bit of protection to the edges of the (fragile) screen/digitizer glass.
Yes, I prefer a bezel, because it makes it easier to hold and move around without accidentally triggering a touch. If there's any use for sophisticated touch sensors and AI, it's to distinguish deliberate touches from accidental ones.
Encouragement is not the same as discrimination, even if your encouragement is targeted.
Encouragement is certainly much better than quotas, including the dedicated scholarships (a 100% quota) that was one of the factors that drove this guy's decision to leave.
Better would be to encourage all who under-sell themselves. I see how targeting hotspots of groups with a legacy of discrimination can be efficient, but correcting discrimination with discrimination risks fueling resentment at the unfairness.
It's amazing the thought and effort that goes into criminal schemes. If there's plenty of legitimate work, the effective hourly rate can't be the only driver. It must also be because finding loopholes is more exciting. A honeypot for the hacker mentality, particularly those who are financially-challenged, aren't troubled by empathy for victims, and actually get off on the danger.
Infection from ads is a lot rarer than you imagine. It makes headlines when it happens. Almost all infections are the result of phishing and hacking.
Contrast this with the susceptibility of all but the most ethical and wealthy publishers to being in the pocket of advertisers with which they deal directly. And even the best will pump out corrupting information to all if they employ "native advertising" (ads masquerading as articles).
First party ads (and advertorial) are even worse: They force these sites to compromise their independence by doing deals with product makers and sellers, rather than let a third-party handle this. And you still have all this independent material surrounded by spin.
So what's the best way to fund professional independent media if not through ads?
Without ads, most of these either wouldn't exist or would be a lot smaller. Will it still be easy to find most suitable product if most people block or ignore ads, and don't contribute to independent media that runs on ads and affiliate sales?
Does the UI part of full-stack include graphic design (images, layout decoration, and colours)? Many programmers don't have good skills in these areas, even though they are often good at designing UI layouts and flows.
I'm the opposite. I hate how timelines are always moving on and scrolling off, despite some older interesting content still attracting comments. In this way timelines suck compared to forum threads, which are bumped to the top with each new reply.
The increasing ephemeral nature of content and attention is killing our culture and intellectual lives.
If I had my way, sites like Slashdot would have some LTS (long-term support) stories, which stay on the home page for an extended period while still popular. Comments on these stories would not start being published until a day after publication, and then in random order, so that fast, often poorly-considered responses don't get the first-mover advantage from which almost all online forums suffer. Comments on these stories would also stay open longer than the usual ten days.
This comment will probably be seen by few, because it's on a second-page story from a whole twenty hours ago.
What disturbs me about such deletion is the casual destruction of all the information and entertainment in the posts and comments. I know Facebook is renowned for the ephemeral and lightweight nature of its content, and almost all wouldn't have been worth preserving. But worthwhile stuff and history has also been lost.
That video claims that the root cause was that a truss beam cracked because the construction firm did not support the ends of the bridge during the move as required by the plans, because there were unexpected obstacles under the end that ultimately triggered the collapse.
I'm getting concerned that browser-makers, in the interests of privacy and security, are clamping down so much on what websites can do with cookies, local data, and iframes, that they're weakening the power of the open Web relative to mobile apps that ask, and almost always get, permission to do all sorts of powerful things. Perhaps it's time for cookie and iframe permission requests to pop-up when a website is first used, so that trusted sites can still do powerful things.
We agree that the use of the term "Open Source" for libre licences is misleading. But it's now impossible to reclaim its original source-available definition.
I really do think that "open software" is good term for libre software licenses that allow anyone to view the source, build the software, modify it, and release modified versions — but not necessarily not having to pay to run either the original or a modified/expanded version (gratis software).
Even in science and technology, to maximize funding, sales, and valuation, you have to be shameless promoters. With the car-in-space, cheering crowds, and super-enthusiastic hosts, SpaceX's video stream of this launch had more than a touch of P. T. Barnum. I felt for the older engineering director, behind whose smiling "total success" pronouncement was probably a guy thinking "what the hell happened to my core?"
Absent explanation, the term "open" in computing means interoperable. Since the eighties, Unix systems have been described as "open" due to their conformance to published standards.
Few think that "open" means "open standard". Proprietary software that's interoperable because one can interface with a published API certainly isn't called "open".
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available".
Yep. And that's all it means.
Uncapitalized and on face value yes. But the OSI definition includes the full libre criteria, and most developers now associate the uncapitalized term with this definition (even in this article).
But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions.
Nope. All it means is source code access. It doesn't imply the freedom to redistribute changed binaries, only patches.
I'm not talking about terms and definitions here, but calling out what I see as the most important aspect of Free Software.
"Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
OSI did invent the term "open source" as a more descriptive term than "free software" for MIT- and GPL-type licences. The article to which you linked found an earlier use of "open source" that only meant "source available". As I said above, "open source" now means more than this in most people's minds.
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment,
That's only if you hear "free" and automatically think "I don't have to pay". Some people hear "free" and think "not in bondage". In some countries, Free Software is called Software Libre, which suggests freedom. But "Open Source" is, frankly, an even worse term. You can construe that to mean basically anything — and the OSI is trying.
The ambiguity of "free" in English was a major reason for the introduction of the "Open Source" term by the OSI.
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available". But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions. "Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment, which it does under its Freedom 0. This freedom is I believe is less important than the freedom to re-distribute.
There are ways to licence software that, while its source can be viewed, modified, and re-published, requires payment for production use. I'd still call such packages "open software", even though they're commercial in the sense that all developers up the fork tree can get paid directly (rather than through any side-scheme like donations, maintenance, closed components, or via a job selling an associated proprietary item).
Right, advertising has the same freeloader problem as donations. And I don't blame these freeloaders for getting rid of the toxic interlopers on the content for which they've come. Currently, only direct payment by subscription or one-off charge prevents freeloading, but, unless there is some thumb-down discount, still lets creators overcharge for poor content.
So it looks like, at the moment, YouTube creators who want only subscription revenue have to recommend that viewers install an ad-blocker to remove the ads that are bundled with Red revenue.
The donor-perks model does have some merit, but the perks are usually just minor sidelines from the main content stream, which remains free for maximum exposure. (Unless it's a Kickstarter-type arrangement where donations are mostly pre-orders.)
Both alternatives to subscriptions have their problems: The non-donating majority exploit the generosity of donors, and ads placed by creators themselves can be just as annoying, and actually compromise creators' independence more than programmatic ads because they mean that creators sometimes have direct contact with companies about whom their material deals.
Slashdot Mirror
This gestalt flipping is due to the associative networks in the speech recognition section of your temporal cerebral cortex settling into two different low-energy states created by your fluency in English, one a word, and the other a word-like name.
And the adaptation to each word is probably due to the short-tern strengthening of synapses between active neurons, widening and deepening the energy well for the recently-heard word.
By moving the slider slowly enough, I can move the switch-over from close to one end to close to the other.
A bezel isn't the end of the world. In fact, it's preferable since it gives a bit of protection to the edges of the (fragile) screen/digitizer glass.
Yes, I prefer a bezel, because it makes it easier to hold and move around without accidentally triggering a touch. If there's any use for sophisticated touch sensors and AI, it's to distinguish deliberate touches from accidental ones.
Encouragement is not the same as discrimination, even if your encouragement is targeted.
Encouragement is certainly much better than quotas, including the dedicated scholarships (a 100% quota) that was one of the factors that drove this guy's decision to leave.
Better would be to encourage all who under-sell themselves. I see how targeting hotspots of groups with a legacy of discrimination can be efficient, but correcting discrimination with discrimination risks fueling resentment at the unfairness.
It's amazing the thought and effort that goes into criminal schemes. If there's plenty of legitimate work, the effective hourly rate can't be the only driver. It must also be because finding loopholes is more exciting. A honeypot for the hacker mentality, particularly those who are financially-challenged, aren't troubled by empathy for victims, and actually get off on the danger.
I often say "I'll keep that between me and G".
Google, not God.
Infection from ads is a lot rarer than you imagine. It makes headlines when it happens. Almost all infections are the result of phishing and hacking.
Contrast this with the susceptibility of all but the most ethical and wealthy publishers to being in the pocket of advertisers with which they deal directly. And even the best will pump out corrupting information to all if they employ "native advertising" (ads masquerading as articles).
No, first-party ads are no solution.
You've convinced me.
First party ads (and advertorial) are even worse: They force these sites to compromise their independence by doing deals with product makers and sellers, rather than let a third-party handle this. And you still have all this independent material surrounded by spin.
So what's the best way to fund professional independent media if not through ads?
Without ads, most of these either wouldn't exist or would be a lot smaller. Will it still be easy to find most suitable product if most people block or ignore ads, and don't contribute to independent media that runs on ads and affiliate sales?
Could you please explain how.
Compilation of Gem native extensions can fail on systems with restricted memory, such as VPSs for which swap space hasn't been configured.
Thanks for the reply.
Does the UI part of full-stack include graphic design (images, layout decoration, and colours)? Many programmers don't have good skills in these areas, even though they are often good at designing UI layouts and flows.
I'm the opposite. I hate how timelines are always moving on and scrolling off, despite some older interesting content still attracting comments. In this way timelines suck compared to forum threads, which are bumped to the top with each new reply.
The increasing ephemeral nature of content and attention is killing our culture and intellectual lives.
If I had my way, sites like Slashdot would have some LTS (long-term support) stories, which stay on the home page for an extended period while still popular. Comments on these stories would not start being published until a day after publication, and then in random order, so that fast, often poorly-considered responses don't get the first-mover advantage from which almost all online forums suffer. Comments on these stories would also stay open longer than the usual ten days.
This comment will probably be seen by few, because it's on a second-page story from a whole twenty hours ago.
What disturbs me about such deletion is the casual destruction of all the information and entertainment in the posts and comments. I know Facebook is renowned for the ephemeral and lightweight nature of its content, and almost all wouldn't have been worth preserving. But worthwhile stuff and history has also been lost.
I felt the same way when IMDB deleted its fora.
Also, this was just East of the Phoenix International Airport. Perhaps a plane masked the car noise.
It wouldn't have helped the pedestrian see the car coming given that it was painted in a dark colour (grey), and was coming out from under a bridge.
I think all self-driving cars under test should be white or brightly-coloured. In fact I'd like to see accident statistics for black vs. white cars.
That video claims that the root cause was that a truss beam cracked because the construction firm did not support the ends of the bridge during the move as required by the plans, because there were unexpected obstacles under the end that ultimately triggered the collapse.
I'm getting concerned that browser-makers, in the interests of privacy and security, are clamping down so much on what websites can do with cookies, local data, and iframes, that they're weakening the power of the open Web relative to mobile apps that ask, and almost always get, permission to do all sorts of powerful things. Perhaps it's time for cookie and iframe permission requests to pop-up when a website is first used, so that trusted sites can still do powerful things.
We agree that the use of the term "Open Source" for libre licences is misleading. But it's now impossible to reclaim its original source-available definition.
I really do think that "open software" is good term for libre software licenses that allow anyone to view the source, build the software, modify it, and release modified versions — but not necessarily not having to pay to run either the original or a modified/expanded version (gratis software).
Even in science and technology, to maximize funding, sales, and valuation, you have to be shameless promoters. With the car-in-space, cheering crowds, and super-enthusiastic hosts, SpaceX's video stream of this launch had more than a touch of P. T. Barnum. I felt for the older engineering director, behind whose smiling "total success" pronouncement was probably a guy thinking "what the hell happened to my core?"
Absent explanation, the term "open" in computing means interoperable. Since the eighties, Unix systems have been described as "open" due to their conformance to published standards.
Few think that "open" means "open standard". Proprietary software that's interoperable because one can interface with a published API certainly isn't called "open".
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available".
Yep. And that's all it means.
Uncapitalized and on face value yes. But the OSI definition includes the full libre criteria, and most developers now associate the uncapitalized term with this definition (even in this article).
But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions.
Nope. All it means is source code access. It doesn't imply the freedom to redistribute changed binaries, only patches.
I'm not talking about terms and definitions here, but calling out what I see as the most important aspect of Free Software.
"Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
The OSI does not get to define the phrase Open Source, because they did not invent it (not even, as they claim, pertaining solely to software!)
OSI did invent the term "open source" as a more descriptive term than "free software" for MIT- and GPL-type licences. The article to which you linked found an earlier use of "open source" that only meant "source available". As I said above, "open source" now means more than this in most people's minds.
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment,
That's only if you hear "free" and automatically think "I don't have to pay". Some people hear "free" and think "not in bondage". In some countries, Free Software is called Software Libre, which suggests freedom. But "Open Source" is, frankly, an even worse term. You can construe that to mean basically anything — and the OSI is trying.
The ambiguity of "free" in English was a major reason for the introduction of the "Open Source" term by the OSI.
I prefer the term "open software".
The term "open source" on face value only implies "source available". But I believe the most important feature of open software is that it allows people to create and distribute modified versions. "Open Source", as defined by OSI, should be capitalized, which it isn't in this summary.
Yes, the term "Free Software" on face value only implies that one can use it without payment, which it does under its Freedom 0. This freedom is I believe is less important than the freedom to re-distribute.
There are ways to licence software that, while its source can be viewed, modified, and re-published, requires payment for production use. I'd still call such packages "open software", even though they're commercial in the sense that all developers up the fork tree can get paid directly (rather than through any side-scheme like donations, maintenance, closed components, or via a job selling an associated proprietary item).
Right, advertising has the same freeloader problem as donations. And I don't blame these freeloaders for getting rid of the toxic interlopers on the content for which they've come. Currently, only direct payment by subscription or one-off charge prevents freeloading, but, unless there is some thumb-down discount, still lets creators overcharge for poor content.
So it looks like, at the moment, YouTube creators who want only subscription revenue have to recommend that viewers install an ad-blocker to remove the ads that are bundled with Red revenue.
The donor-perks model does have some merit, but the perks are usually just minor sidelines from the main content stream, which remains free for maximum exposure. (Unless it's a Kickstarter-type arrangement where donations are mostly pre-orders.)
Both alternatives to subscriptions have their problems: The non-donating majority exploit the generosity of donors, and ads placed by creators themselves can be just as annoying, and actually compromise creators' independence more than programmatic ads because they mean that creators sometimes have direct contact with companies about whom their material deals.