1,099 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. Toy Story 3 (2010) be-gins with Andy’s toys playing pretend. The setting is the Old West. Sheriff Woody fights the Potato Heads-cum-bandits to rescue a moving train full of orphan trolls. The Potato Heads escape the train in Barbie’s dream car. But the train is headed toward the precipice at the end of a dynamited trestle. Despite Woody’s efforts, the train plunges off the edge. We hear it thud below and see smoke rise from the chasm. Cow-girl Jessie’s jaw drops in utter disbelief and disappointment. For several long seconds as the energy of the action se-quence diffuses, we believe that Woody has failed. Then Buzz lifts the train out of the hole. But the threat is not, as we had imagined, contained but is instead reanimated and escalated. The toys are assailed by a mushroom cloud of “death by monkeys” and finally an unnamed threat behind a red button in Evil Dr. Porkchop’s dirigible.
    1. scientists were more likely to be male than female and were more likely to be white than of other ethnic groups (761). They also found that scientists were more likely to be “good” (Dudo et al. 762),

      White people and men dominate over women and pOc and they're more likely to be good most likely because being white and being a man is seen as being good

    2. “The point of the hegemonic perspective is not that television never changes—it clearly does—but that it is less progressive than we think. The medium adjusts to social change in a manner that simultaneously contradicts or undercuts a progressive premise”

      The hegemonic aspect shows both sides of male and female dominance but is less progressive than people think

    3. e scientists in a posi-tive light, but these characters still failed to become as popular as other charac-ters on these shows

      There can not be a good representation. If a character is shown in a positive light, they won't be as popular. Does the audience like negative and stereotypical characters?

    4. “femininity and intelligence can both be completely developed. Femininity and success, however, are mutually exclusive”

      You can have qualities of a feminist and be intelligent; but you cant be a feminist and obtain success

      Why is this an either or thing?

      Does having feminist qualities make you a less of a successful person in life?

    5. “an established setting and small group of ongoing char-acters who each week encounter low-stakes comedic mishaps that are happily resolved by the end of the half-hour epi-sode”

      Just shows what kind of settings the characters may encounter and how that can shape their representation of those characters

    6. Talk shows continue this distrust of experts by downplaying intellectuals’ contributions while playing up individ-ual experiences

      They develop distrust by discussing individual's experiences only, as opposed to something that can appeal to the public. I agree. I have seen many talk shows that do this. What's the reason though?

    7. . While we might think that their increased use in news programs would affirm people’s views, instead, as their use in programs increases, the public trust in them de-clines

      This paraphrase is saying that when doctors appear on talk shows, they are trusted less. Do people really not trust people the more they are on news programs? Why is that? Shouldn't the trust increase?

    1. You know, over half the conservation land in America is in Alaska, so we have more set aside in Alaska than the entire rest of the country combined, and we’re trying to make a living here, we’re trying to live here, we’re trying to have an economy here, and we’re doing it environmentally responsibly.

      bill walker

    1. Bills to reinstitute a personal state income tax for the first time since 1980 and proposals from Mr. Walker to raise taxes on motor fuels and on various industries, including oil, fishing and mining.

      what they will have to do

  2. Sep 2016
    1. Data sharing over open-source platforms can create ambiguous rules about data ownership and publication authorship, or raise concerns about data misuse by others, thus discouraging liberal sharing of data.

      Surprising mention of “open-source platforms”, here. Doesn’t sound like these issues are absent from proprietary platforms. Maybe they mean non-institutional platforms (say, social media), where these issues are really pressing. But the wording is quite strange if that is the case.

  3. Jul 2016
  4. Jun 2016
  5. Apr 2016
  6. hoover.snow.grep.ro hoover.snow.grep.ro
    1. However, during the discussion of the amended Directive in the European Parliament, a number of policy experts who had been invited by MEPs explained the potentially criminal use of, for example, alarm guns (or guns designed for firing blanks), when converted into real firearms by delinquents.

      the reference to alarm guns and the conversion into real firearms

  7. Mar 2016
  8. Feb 2016
    1. What makes this more difficult to resolve is that GitHub is — surprise! — not open source. GitHub is closed source, meaning that only GitHub staff is able to make improvements to its platform.The irony of using a proprietary tool to manage open source projects, much like BitKeeper and Linux, has not been lost on everyone. Some developers refuse to put their code on GitHub to retain their independence. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Git himself, refuses to accept pull requests (code changes) from GitHub.

      That's why I have advocated tools like Fossil to other members of our Hackerspace and other communities like Pharo or decentralized options to Mozilla Science (without much acceptation in the communities or even any reaction from Mozilla Science).

      Going with the de facto and popular defaults (without caring about freedom or diversity) seems the position of open source/science communities and even digital activist, which contrast sharply with their discourse for the building of tools/data/politics, but seems invisible in the building of community/metadata/metapolitics.

      The kind of disempowerment these communities are trying to fight, is the one they're suffering with GitHub, like showed here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjLddpvTW_3w8LyrU-

      So there is a tension between the convenience and wider awareness/participation of centralized privative platforms that is wanted by these open/activist communities and a growth in the (over)use of the commons that is bigger that the growth of its sustainability/ethos, as shown here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjfsTRvTW_3w8LyrqI . Sacrificing growth/convenience by choosing simpler and more coherent infrastructures aligned with the commons and its ethos seems a sensible approach then.

    2. Technically, if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them. And then that person’s code would potentially have a different license from the rest of your code.Your average hobbyist developer might not care about the rules, but many companies forbid employees from using Stack Overflow, partly for this reason.As we enter a post open source world, Stack Overflow has explored transitioning to a more permissive MIT license, but the conversation hasn’t been easy. Questions like what happens to legacy code, and dual licensing for code and non-code contributions, have generated confusion and strong reactions.
    3. The free software generation had to think about licenses because they were taking a stance on what they were not (that is, proprietary software). The GitHub generation takes this right for granted. They don’t care about permissions. They default to open.Open source is so popular today that we don’t think of it as exceptional anymore. We’re so open source, that maybe we’re post open source:But not is all groovy in the land of post open source.
  9. Jan 2016
    1. One thing that irritates me more than anything is the expectation people have to other people’s time, specifically open source project maintainers. They are not your tech support. They built a product you are using for free. You’re welcome.

      I think the vast majority of open source users don't need to be told this. But it only takes a few jerks to regularly annoy someone.

      Chris Patti added a good point. Even if you can't donate, you can send short thank-you emails. That should include anyone who makes something you find helpful or entertaining, whether it's software, open access books, MOOCs, tutorials, a blog, webcomics, videos, etc.

    1. So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.  To vote.  To speak out.

      Absolutely, but it's government's job at all levels--from our hometowns to Washington, DC--to make it easier for citizens to do that. Far too many Americans simply can't fulfill many of these "obligations as a citizen," due to work, or kids or fear or lack of information, or school, basically, life. Government has to lower those barriers, make it way more possible for citizens to do their civic duties. There's a tremendous opportunity to deploy free, open source tools--heck, even proprietary ones--here.

    2. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.  Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. 

      C'mon, civic technologists, government innovators, open data advocates: this can be a call to arms. Isn't the point of "open government" to bring people together to engage with their leaders, provide the facts, and allow more informed, engaged debate?

    3. how do we make technology work for us, and not against us

      This is a critical question for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and for every presidential candidate. But at least the President and Congressional leaders are talking about it--we've heard next to nothing from all the candidates for the White House, and next to nothing at all the debates.

      I wonder: what happens to 18F, USDS, each agency's online engagement staff, etc. the day after a GOP candidate wins? What happens if the White House stays with Democrats? Beats me, and that's incredibly problematic.

      Either way, Congress can and should also play a role in supporting--at least maintaining--the progress made on open source, adopting/creating better tech, outfits like 18F/USDS. Building out a Congressional-and-civil-society "tech transition survival" plan would be a great, bipartisan, bicameral project. I think it's also fully within the realm of possibility.

    1. Kent C. Dodds shares some ideas about making open source projects friendly to new contributors. He starts with the obvious things: provide guides and good documentation. He suggests adding labels that make beginner-friendly issues easy to find. One idea that was new to me: Write the specification and tests for a new feature, then let someone else implement it.

      How getting into open source has been awesome for me<br> What open source project should I contribute to?

  10. Dec 2015
    1. In addition to the improved performance, Big Sur is far more versatile and efficient than the off-the-shelf solutions in our previous generation. While many high-performance computing systems require special cooling and other unique infrastructure to operate, we have optimized these new servers for thermal and power efficiency, allowing us to operate them even in our own free-air cooled, Open Compute standard data centers.

      Facebook's Open Compute Project releases open-source hardware designs created with energy efficiency and ease of maintenance as priorities.

  11. Nov 2015
    1. The four freedoms don’t limit us as creators — they open possibilities for us as creators and consumers. When you apply them to software, you get Linux, Webkit/Chrome, and WordPress. When you apply them to medicine, you get the Open Genomics Engine, which is accelerating cancer research and bringing us closer to personalized treatment. When you apply them to companies, you get radically geographically distributed, results-based organizations like Automattic. When you apply them to events you get TEDx, Barcamp, and WordCamp. When you apply them to knowledge, you get Wikipedia.
    2. B2 was ultimately abandoned by its creator. If I’d been using it under a proprietary license, that would have been the end — for me, and all its other users. But because we had freedoms 2 and 3, Mike Little and I were able to use the software as a foundation
    3. I’ve spent a third of my life building software based on Stallman’s four freedoms, and I’ve been astonished by the results. WordPress wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for those freedoms, and it couldn’t have evolved the way it has. WordPress was based on a program called B2/cafelog that predated it by two years. I was using B2 because it had freedoms 0 and 1
    1. The Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, originally expressed by Richard Stallman. It is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Software offered for a fee can still be free. A program is free software if the users have four essential freedoms:

      0. Run the program as you wish, for any purpose.<br> 1. Study the source code, and change it as you please.<br> 2. Copy and distribute the original program.<br> 3. Copy and distribute modified versions.

    1. I want you to consider that in everything we are doing, we are harmonizing and flowing with the divine energies—with the outpouring of the river of Life, right at Its source. This river of Life flows freely and totally through and as your conscious experience of Being. It is always doing this, whether or not you have placed yourself properly in that Place. This is important to understand, since it makes clear that the only thing we need to do in order to find the resolution to whatever situation we are faced with, is simply go to the Source as the Door.

      Again, it's all happening at once....... the simply choice to become conscious, to be a Conscious Being

    1. As you can see, this is not self-hypnosis, nor is it an attempt to influence the three-dimensional conscious frame of reference. It does not involve manipulation of things “out there,” or ideas within your head. You simply go to the Source, bringing to it the perfect desire. The Law, then, together with the Nature of Substance Itself, takes care of the objects “out there” and the beliefs “in here”—in three-dimensional awareness.

      Simply go to the Source, true Beingness, bringing what is desired into perfect desire...... then through universal laws............ it comes into manifestation

    1. Cars are not inventions of man, but rather they are that which identifies the Omnipresence of Being to some extent. They illustrate the everpresent availability of your Being as conscious experience. Recording devices, likewise, illustrate or demonstrate the omnipresent availability of some part of your “past”—information which is of value to you to have in your present experience. Do not separate them from their Source, conceptually speaking, and they will continually identify the fulfillment of Purpose. You are beginning to lose sight of the fact that all of You is always present—and that means right now! You are letting some things depend on other things (objectively speaking), and this is fouling up your perceptions of these things by seeing them as having independent existence and purpos

      Do not separate them from their Source, conceptually speaking, and they will continually identify the fulfillment of Purpose.

    1. Companies need to have realistic expectations of the work-life balance of open source maintainers.

      When you hire an open source developer, you hire someone who works all the time--not just 8-5, not just at a desk, not just on that one pet project that management's currently excited about. They work on that, they work on the related libraries, they work on projects that use those libraries, they work on the next great version of the libraries the company will need in two more years.

      Plan for your own future by letting your developers explore it for you. They already are...even before you've hired them.

    2. effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects

      If anything is missing with regards to open source within companies (of all sizes), it's this situation.

      Teaching "companies" (or rather the entire management stack/chain) how to "effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects" could change the game for those companies, the projects they interface with, and certainly for the developers (inside and outside of the companies).

    3. They should be treated like adults though and allowed to spend what they see as an appropriate amount of time working on the project versus other projects for the company. Trying to quanitfy/limit the amount of time leads to conflict and strife and unhappy management and employees. It doesn't work and it's not a long term, maintainable solution.

      In the end, it's a quest of trust. Hire people who work on the open source projects your company depends on. Then, let them keep doing it--for pay...at last!--and expect them to continue to balance the worlds of open source and business...as they likely already were, but now with the needle tilted slightly (or more, one would hope) in favor of working on open source code.

      It's like picking flowers. If you pick them and bring them inside, they die. Plant them in some fertile ground, however, and let them keep doing their thing. (OK, that was a bit strained...but hopefully you see my point ^_^).

    4. Some projects work to actively alienate corporations trying to contribute because of ideology. This is not the path that will lead us to sustainable open source software development and companies that can contribute responsibly.

      :+1:

      /me pats IBM on the back one more time. :)

      There are (a very few) companies that balance these worlds of community and commerce well.

      If you know of another, please reply!

    5. The company refuses to expand the core development team with non-employees

      From what I've seen these projects are often licensed under the AGPL and essentially amount to "loss leader source." Community === "add on builders" and "consumers" in the minds of the product team not future "land owners."

      Be sure the project is community lead (or in transition that way at least!) before you sign that CLA...or even bother with that patch.

  12. Oct 2015
  13. Aug 2015
  14. Jul 2015
  15. May 2015
  16. Mar 2015
  17. Feb 2015
  18. Jan 2015
  19. Nov 2014
    1. If we believe in equality, if we believe in participatory democracy and participatory culture, if we believe in people and progressive social change, if we believe in sustainability in all its environmental and economic and psychological manifestations, then we need to do better than slap that adjective “open” onto our projects and act as though that’s sufficient or — and this is hard, I know — even sound.
  20. Oct 2014
  21. Jun 2014
    1. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

      "Technology leadership is....defined by...the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers."

      The key components of this applied "open source philosophy" seem to be about increasing input, visibility, and collective motivation by taking fear out of the interaction equation.

  22. Feb 2014
    1. For example, imagine you are annotating the second page of a New York Times article. You probably want to see your annotation when you are looking at the article later as a single page, right? Or perhaps you've annotated the HTML for a PLOS ONE article. Wouldn't you like to see those annotations when you are looking at the PDF version of the same article? If annotations were only associated with the URL you happened to be looking at in your browser then the scenarios above would not work, because the documents being annotated all have different URLs.

      Publisher Best Practices is a great idea that I would like to see codified in the authoring and publishing tools to make the practices commonplace by default.

      I would like to mix PBP with other techniques, though, for richer connection between source and rendering-- I have some source mapping ideas that make it possible to keep annotations linked even as the original source is edited over time.