Hints for Preparing Documents Most documents go through several versions (always more than you expected) before they are finally finished. Accordingly, you should do whatever possible to make the job of changing them easy. First, when you do the purely mechanical operations of typing, type so subsequent editing will be easy. Start each sentence on a new line. Make lines short, and break lines at natural places, such as after commas and semicolons, rather than randomly. Since most people change documents by rewriting phrases and adding, deleting and rearranging sentences, these precautions simplify any editing you have to do later. — Brian W. Kernighan, 1974

Software should be a malleable medium, where anyone can edit their tools to better fit their personal needs. The laws of physics aren’t relevant here; all we need is to find ways to architect systems in such a way that they can be tweaked at runtime, and give everyone the tools to do so.

it really all does 00:06:53 trace back to the start of our what we call civilization our civilization meaning Agriculture and then settlements and cities so prior to that we lived in approximate equilibrium with ecosystems

DeWine said he has talked directly with the director and several members of the six-member Ohio Casino Control Commission, to which the legislature gave the job of regulating the fledgling industry.

Censorship and Information Control During Information RevolutionsExploring how new information technologies from the printing press to the digital age have stimulated new forms of censorship and information control.

hat we want is to be able to leave Facebook and still talk to our friends, instead of having many Facebooks.

Fifty years ago, coinciding with the centennial of the release of Darwin’s manuscript, author Morse Peckham collected all six editions into a single “variorum” text. Peckham painstakingly created a reference system that denotes the modifications and changes between editions. The text was created by Peckham’s careful enumeration of every sentence from every edition, copied onto index cards; from these cards, he carefully assembled them into a final text.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Reasons for failure 2.1 Overconfidence and complacency 2.1.1 Natural tendency 2.1.2 The illusion of control 2.1.3 Anchoring 2.1.4 Competitor neglect 2.1.5 Organisational pressure 2.1.6 Machiavelli factor 2.2 Dogma, ritual and specialisation 2.2.1 Frames become blinders 2.2.2 Processes become routines 2.2.3 Resources become millstones 2.2.4 Relationships become shackles 2.2.5 Values becomes dogmas 3 The paradox of information systems 3.1 The irrationality of rationality 3.2 How computers can be destructive 3.3 Recommendations for practice 4 Case studies 4.1 Fresh & Easy 4.2 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 4.3 Laura Ashley 4.4 Xerox 5 See also 6 References

v5: added git and github (thanks @ceejbot), and RSS (thanks @zem42). Taking suggestions for hierarchical/distributed and hierarchical/decentralized.

The solution I settled on (which I still use to this day) is quick and elegant; as well as super accurate. All the blogs start out as non-discoverable by search engines, and do not show up on the Bear feed until they have been vetted by yours truly. I then set up a Tinder-esque review screen where I can easily approve or block a new blog (as well as blacklist that email address).

The thing is that people add these   jump boxes - pivots between different networks -  they want to get data out from the control system   to the business network. They want to be able to  monitor things.

Editorial: The real reason I wanted Cmm to succeed: to democratize programming. It wouldn’t belong in any business plan, and I seldom mentioned to anyone, but the real reason I wanted Cmm to succeed was not about making money (although paying the mortgage was always important). The real reason was because of the feeling I had when I programmed a computer to perform work for me

Indeed, judging from the accounts of the many employees who have now gone on record about this issue, the “debates” that have been happening at Basecamp are precisely the kinds of conversations that happen when you have a diverse workforce. Different issues affect different people differently, and being able to speak freely about those differences is the hallmark of a healthy culture. But by framing these discussions as “acrimonious debates” rather than “challenging conversations,” Hansson has positioned himself not as a peacemaker, but as a tyrant hell-bent on taking his toys and going home; shutting down discussions rather than holding space for growth and discovery.

bug bounty program

Roughly stated, my overarching career mission is to design, build, and deploy software platforms that put end users in control of their computing and data, in part by making it easy and natural for programmers to create software that honors user desire.

4.3 Understand the great brain battles and how to control them to get what “you” want.

Free as in ...? Points out that freedoms afforded by foss software to the average computer user are effectively the same as proprietary software, because it's too difficult to even find the source and build it, let alone make any changes. Advocates the foss developers should not think only about the things that users are not legally prevented from doing, but about what things they are realistically empowered and supported in doing.

surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control.

gun rights advocates often push to arm more people, citing prominent examples where a “good guy with a gun” stopped a “bad guy.”

“It’s direct, indisputable, empirical evidence that this kind of common claim that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun’ is wrong,” said Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, who has studied mass shootings for more than a decade. “It’s demonstrably false, because often they are stopping themselves.”

But systems of schooling and educational institutions–and much of online learning– are organized in ways that deny their voices matter. My role is to resist those systems and structures to reclaim the spaces of teaching and learning as voice affirming. Voice amplifying.

First, the majority population in eastern Virginia were enslaved blacks. Whites lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. Everyone knew about the 1739 slave rebellion in Stono, S.C., when blacks broke into a store, decapitated the shopkeepers, seized guns and powder, and marched with flying banners, beating drums and cries of “Liberty!” Up to 100 joined the rebellion before being engaged by a contingent of armed, mounted militiamen. Scores died in the ensuing battle.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by none other than George Mason in 1776 when states controlled the militias, did not have one.

Only four of the 13 state Constitutions had such a provision.

Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe; that country is engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them.

“If they neglect or refuse”: “Document: Patrick Henry Speech BeforeVirginia Ratifying Convention (June 5, 1788),” Teaching American History.

Professor Carl Bogus: Carl T. Bogus, “Was Slavery a Factor in the SecondAmendment?” e New York Times, May 24, 2018.

Patrick Henry and George Mason: Dave Davies, “Historian Uncovers eRacist Roots of the 2nd Amendment,” NPR, June 2, 2021.

The lower courts consistently point to one paragraph in particular from the Heller decision. Nothing in the opinion, Scalia wrote, shouldbe taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.This paragraph from the pen of Justice Scalia, the foremost proponent of constitutional originalism, was astounding. True, the Founders imposed gun control, but they had no laws resembling Scalia’s list of Second Amendment exceptions. They had no laws banning guns in sensitive places, or laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns, or laws requiring commercial gun dealers to be licensed. Such restrictions are products of the 20th century. Justice Scalia, in other words, embraced a living Constitution.

A sign of the NRA’s new determination to influence electoral politics was the 1980 decision to endorse, for the first time in the organization’s 100 years, a presidential candidate. Their chosen candidate was none other than Ronald Reagan,

In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”

When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”

In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation.

General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

More controversially, the laws restricted importation of “Saturday Night Specials”—the small, cheap, poor-quality handguns so named by Detroit police for their association with urban crime, which spiked on weekends. Because these inexpensive pistols were popular in minority communities, one critic said the new federal gun legislation “was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”

The very next day, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal gun-control law in 30 years. Months later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended and enlarged it.

Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[3][4] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.

Blog Tucker Carlson: Biden Giving WHO Power to 'Deploy Proactive Countermeasures Against Misinformation and Social Media Attacks' By Craig Bannister | May 20, 2022 | 10:39am EDT Tucker Carlson (Screenshot) Pres. Biden has found a new way to censor free speech – by giving the World Health Organization (WHO) control of Americans’ speech – Fox News Host Tucker Carlson warned on Thursday. After dissolving his “Disinformation Governance Board, due to public outcry, Biden is preparing to sign WHO’s new World Pandemic Treaty, giving a global operational control and power – through ‘proactive countermeasures’ - to combat what it deems “disinformation,“ Carlson explained, citing a WHO working group's draft text:#stickypbModal625{ position : relative; z-index : 30; margin:0px px; padding: 9px; background: rgba(0,0,0,0.0);} @media only screen and (max-width: 1024px) {#stickypbModal625 { flex-wrap: wrap;}} googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display("div-hre-CNS-News-625"); }); “So, what would this ‘operational control’ mean? “Let’s be specific. Right off the bat, the treaty demands ‘National and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization that undermines public health.’ “Oh! Here we go! Right to censorship: ‘People are criticizing us, and for public health reasons, that can't be allowed. If you criticize us, people will die.’  “So, you saw yesterday that the Biden administration, in the face of universal laughter and derision, had to fire the head of its new Ministry of Truth - but they found another way to do it: ‘W.H.O. Secretariat to build capacity to deploy proactive countermeasures against misinformation and social media attacks.’” “So, they are going to get to censor anybody who doesn't agree with what they do, as they control the intimate details of your life,” Carlson explained: “And they will control those details. Under this treaty, the World Health Organization will get to establish vaccine passports and regulate travel. World Health organization will ‘Develop standards for producing a digital version of the international certificate of vaccination and prophylactics.’  “Okay.  “So you may think, ‘Well, it is just about COVID and I went along with mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports at the time, how bad could it be?’ [Laughs] First of all, if you went along with that, you should be repenting right about now. But, it is not just about COVID because the W.H.O. Will be in charge of ‘The digitalization of all health forms.’ The World Health Organization will also ‘Share real-time information about travel measures.’  “So you are going to find out exactly when you are allowed to get on a bus or train or airplane, or how about your bicycle, will they regulate that too? Maybe. Now the World Health Organization has sought this authority for years. Of course. Who doesn't want more power?” Carlson then played a foreboding comment by W.H.O. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu. “Here’s Tedros back in April of 2020: “People in countries with stay-at-home orders are understandably frustrated with being confined to their homes for weeks on end. But the world will not and cannot go back to the way things were. There must be a new normal. A world that is healthier, safer, and better prepared.” Americans should question relinquishing control over their lives to an unelected person and global authority they had no say in choosing, Carlson said:#stickypbModal711{ position : relative; z-index : 30; margin:0px px; padding: 9px; background: rgba(0,0,0,0.0);} @media only screen and (max-width: 1024px) {#stickypbModal711 { flex-wrap: wrap;}} googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display("div-hre-CNS-News-711"); }); “Okay, so there’s a guy with a long and documented history of subverting public health, who is clearly a liar, who is acting as an agent for the Chinese government, and you have to ask yourself, ‘Did I vote for that guy? Is he one of my elected representatives in this democracy? How did he get power over where I can travel and when?’ “Good question.”

as if the only option we had to eat was factory-farmed fast food, and we didn’t have any way to make home-cooked meals

Show me a switch statement as if it had been handled with a set of subclasses. There is underlying deep structure here. I should be able to view the code as if it had been done with switch or as if it had been done with polymorphism. Sometimes you are interested in all the facts about Dalmatians. Sometimes you are interested in comparing all the different ways different breeds of dogs bury their bones. Why should you have to pre-decide on a representation that lets you see only one point of view?

the very existence of a master plan means, by definition, that the members of the community can have little impact on the future shape of their community,

Since most of our feeds rely on either machine algorithms or human curation, there is very little control over what we actually want to see.

ROI in the left hemisphere. Handedness was measured

ROI around the S1/M1

ROI in the visual cortex.

hemispheric specialization and creative thinking, thePCC/preCUN coordinates were located in both hemispheres

keep their eyes closed during the scan

Excluded from participation were professional visualartists and art historians, as well as people suffering from seriousphysical or mental disorders or taking psychotropic drugs

except its codebase is completely incomprehensible to anyone except the original maintainer. Or maybe no one can seem to get it to build, not for lack of trying but just due to sheer esotericism. It meets the definition of free software, but how useful is it to the user if it doesn't already do what they want it to, and they have no way to make it do so?

work-around

CSP is taking away too much of the user's power and control over their browser use

I end up with responsibility (friends complaining to me about this, that, and the other) without control (I can't affect any of those things)

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past," as Rage Against the Machine sang in their 1999 song "Testify." OK, actually it's a quote from George Orwell's 1984, but hey.