minimum_chrome_version": "

Cen-sorship became a productive force, re-channeling the censored material symp-tomatically across the text in a nascent, uncrystalized form (Foucault 4–11).

This paper explores how Pixar films (Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy [1995, 1999, 2010]) expand the limitations that have traditionally bound “family enter-tainment” under the G-rating by em-ploying a postmodern adaptation of the “principle of deniability,” a producer-designed multivalence that flourished in Hollywood from 1930–1968 under the Production Code (Vasey 104–13).

In Wall-E and the Toy Storytrilogy, the pleasure is of the suspen-sion of knowledge—the pleasure of notknowing.

One of the distinct pleasures in Pixar’s films is the pleasure of seeing the deepest of human struggles, timeless philosophical questions projected in and through remote forms of representation.

n Toy Story, Buzz hits his low point with an ominous limpness (and even more conspicuously having lost his arm), when he is forced to wear a ladies hat and become “Ms. Nesbit,” a participant in Sid’s sister’s tea-party. And in Toy Story 2, Stinky Pete, the evil prospector doll who has tried to force Woody to join him in completing the set of collectible Woody’s Roundup toys to be sent to the Konishi Toy Museum in Japan, meets his deservedly terrible fate when Andy’s toys shove him into a pink bag on an airport conveyor belt bearing the “Barbie” logo.

in an effort to engineer Buzz “getting lost” behind the desk so that Andy will take Woody on his expedition to Pizza Planet, Woody ends up accidentally pushing Buzz out the window

Stanley Cavell, in dis-cussing Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night (1934), hints at how internaliza-tion of censorship can lead to a flouting of censorship’s very purposes through parody

WALL-E not only anthropomorphizes but Westernizes our robot hero and the loving sequences between WALL-E and the two loves of his life, EVE and his pet cockroach, are loaded with Disney’s signal sentimen-tality.

(Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy [1995, 1999, 2010]) expand the limitations that have traditionally bound “family enter-tainment” under the G-rating by em-ploying a postmodern adaptation of the “principle of deniability,” a producer-designed multivalence that flourished in Hollywood from 1930–1968 under the Production Code (Vasey 104–13).

Although on the surface Pixar’s Toy Story (Dir. John Lasseter, 1995) and WALL-E (Dir. Andrew Stanton, 2008) are “innocent” animated film about ob-jects, their value as cinema lies in their ability to complexly address human—and sometimes wholly adult—fears about meaninglessness, apocalypse, and oblivion.

Pixar’s Toy Story (Dir. John Lasseter, 1995) and WALL-E (Dir. Andrew Stanton, 2008) are “innocent” animated film about ob-jects, their value as cinema lies in their ability to complexly address human—and sometimes wholly adult—fears about meaninglessness, apocalypse, and oblivion.

riveting mounds of metal dramatically revealed through the birds-eye shots that rival the buildings in height—are actually mile-high piles of trash.

As Ju-dith Halberstam has noted, Pixar films are also doing curious cultural work, in their “preoccupation with revolt, change, cooperation, and transforma-tion” (Halberstam 79)

In WALL-E, the humans have converted themselves into floating objects—mounds of flesh laden with too many conveniences to move for them-selves.

This spec-tatorial distance, “making strange,” as Brecht would have it, allows the paren-tal viewer to process these narratives as an “other,” “unintended” audience and thus relieves them of the burden of full-frontal spectatorship (Brecht 93).

Giving the audience a taste of the film’s “navigable space,” this shot evinces the phenomenological power of the digital to depict scale of a breathtaking breadth (Manovich 248; Whissel, 91).8

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.

“The visual and nar-rative incoherence that often arose from the effacement and displacement of sen-sitive subjects encouraged audiences to become active interpreters, obliging them to make their own sense of contra-dictory evidence” (Vasey 127–28).

Stinky Pete even asks Buzz if Andy “broke” him,

If “veiling something from sight turns out [as it did] to inspire as signifi-cant an erotic reaction as the unveiled event would have done...If the film screen works like a kind of censoring, elaborating the effect of what it covers, how will you censor that?” (Cavell 83)

making strange,” as Brecht would have it, allows the paren-tal viewer to process these narratives as an “other,” “unintended” audience and thus relieves them of the burden of full-frontal spectatorship (Brecht 93).

“Why prolong the inevi-table? We are all one stitch from here [the shelf] to there [the yard sale].”

:

“buttload” of money.

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),

“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”

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

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

“the naïve expert;”

hows using traits such as “intelligence, domi-nance, alone, and respected”

“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”

these characters exhibited features of intelligence but overall re-mained less attractive, sociable, or warm when compared to other television char-acters

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

. 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

President Obama's plan to restrict drilling in the Arctic has hit a nerve in Alaska.

"Our fiscal situation is that we’re in a $3.5 billion deficit this year.

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.

"I’m not going to allow geopolitics to be resolved on the backs of Alaskans.

It’s an area that we certainly want to protect, we will protect, but my goodness, you know, the area we want to explore is equivalent to a quarter, a 25 cent piece, on a football field.

All the arguments that I’m hearing now are identical to arguments I heard then, it just hasn't proved out to be the case.

For lower-income Alaskans and those living in high-cost rural areas, the dividend can be an important source of income.

“that we need to do something and we need to do something major.” What that ends up being remains unclear.

The major debate at this point appears to be around using earnings from the Alaska Permanent Fund, what tax bills to pass, if any, and how far to push changes to oil taxes and credits.

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.

The governor has warned that legislators could face a special session if they do not come up with a fiscal plan before the regular session ends on April 17.

Gunnar Knapp, an economics professor, has told lawmakers that Alaska is probably facing a recession and that the economy will take a hit no matter what they do.

state political leaders are struggling to get on the same page, with legislators split on options like taxes, the depth of budget cuts and tinkering with the annual dividend most Alaskans receive for living here.

The collapse in oil prices has left oil-reliant Alaska with a multibillion-dollar budget deficit and few palatable options for digging its way out.

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.

2006-739 du 28 juin 2006

542-10-1

n° 2006-739 du 28 juin 2006

galement du débat public organisé en 2013

que fût décidée

Il aura fallu attendre la loi « Bataille » du 30 décembre 1991

Sakai development is actually accelerating.

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 second largest source of gold, at approximately 1000 tonnes, came from central bank sales and other disposals.

The largest source of gold supply, at approximately 2500 tonnes, came from mine production.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

if the group should decide to fork Moodle together

alliance of Moodle service providers that currently collaborate on Moodle-related projects of mutual interest

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.

as of December 2013, 21% of websites are powered by WordPress. One-fifth of the web is built with a tool that anyone can use, change, or improve, whenever and however they want (even more when you count other open source projects

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

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

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.

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.

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

Companies that open source a project and then abandon it need to publicly acclaim the people taking over the project and make a clear change in ownership.

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

effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects

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.

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.

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

TwitterOSS team (hint: their funding as a department was cut)

sometimes you find a bounty like this one where a company has added a significant amount to a bug

The Training and Learning Architecture (TLA) encompasses a set of standardized Web service specifications and Open Source Software (OSS) designed to create a rich environment for connected training and learning.

a chaotic way of managing a project as that project gets big

the nature of low-bandwidth communication on the internet probably just exposes you to misunderstandings and you end up stressing out over things vs being the friends you normally would.

Engineers who worked on a lot of open source projects had high levels of creativity

Developers felt more ownership over their work, and pride in it

Open source developers work well together because of their similar ways of thinking

Peer pressure from GitHub—having their name on a project—was a big motivator for engineers to work harder and not let the community of users down.

If they leave, they're likely to keep working on the project, so you're still getting value for free!

Any contributor to our open source projects is already familiar with a bit of software that we use internally and would require less training if they joined the company.

At Twitter, our open source program has a team of developer advocates focused on growing open source ecosystems which are important for us to ensure they thrive and evolve to our benefit.

hosting events, speaking at conferences, reaching out to contributors, writing documentation to lower the barrier of entry to new contributors

suffers from an over protective legal organization

respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on

the critical role that big data open source projects play in the Internet of Things (IoT).

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.

WordPress, Drupal and many other complete web applications come ready made for deployment.

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.

THE ART OF

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.

Open Source[edit] LightSide[43] EASE[44] - Published by EdX.