Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (3684)

• Methods For Retaining State

  26 décembre 2011, par Multimedia Mike — General, evernote, organization

  I jump around between projects. A lot. Over the years, I have employed various methods for retaining state or context as I switch to a different project. Here’s a quick survey and a general classification of their effectiveness.

  Good

  • Evernote : This is a cloud-based note-taking service that has a web client, Mac and Windows clients, and clients for just about ever mobile platform out there. I have an account and access it via the web interface as as the Windows, iOS, and Android clients. I really like it.

  
  
  

  Okay

  • Series of text files : I have been doing this for a very long time. I have many little note-filled directories here and there that are consistently migrated to new machines but generally forgotten about. This isn’t a terrible method but can be unwieldy when you work on lots of different machines. I’m still tracking down all these directories and importing them into Evernote.

  Bad

  • Layout of desktop windows : I have a habit of working on one project in a set of windows on one desktop space and another project in a second set of windows in another space, etc. Oh, this makes me shudder just thinking about it, mostly because of living in constant fear of a power failure or some other inadvertent reset (darn you, default config’d Windows Update) that wipes the state clean (sure, all of the work might have been saved, but I was relying on those windows to be set up in just the right manner to remind me of all the things I was working on). These days, I force myself to reboot at least once a week so I can’t get too deep into this habit. When it’s time to change projects, I write up exactly what I was doing and where I left off and stick it in Evernote.
  • Open browser windows : I guess it’s common to have many, many tabs open in one’s web browser in this day and age. Like many, I use open tabs as a stack of items to read. The state problem comes when a few of the open tabs represent TODO items. Then I start living in fear that the browser might crash or be restarted in an unexpected way and I struggle to recall what 3-5 important TODO items were that I had opened in separate tabs (on top of a stack of less important items). Again, I try to shut down the browser frequently in order to break this tendency. TODO items are better filed in Evernote.
  • Unsaved data in a text editor : Okay, this is just sloppy on my part, shoving temporary data into a text editor window thinking it’s supremely ephemeral. The problem comes when it’s linked to one of the many tasks on my desktop that might be bumped down a few priority levels ; when finally returning to the context-free data, I’m at a loss to explain what it’s for. Evernote gets it, once more, with a more thorough description of what was going on.
  • Email inbox : I make an effort to ensure that my email inbox has the fewest number of messages possible. Once things are dealt with, they get filed away elsewhere. This implies that things in my inbox require action. Some things have a habit of hanging around, though. Longer items now get described in better detail and filed away in Evernote.
  • Classic paper : Thanks to Derek in the comments for reminding me of this one. Paper is a reliable standby but it can get unwieldy when Post-It Notes litter your work area. Further, it can be problematic when you have multiple physical work areas.
  • Shell history : Another method I rely on entirely too often. This is when I count on a recipe of command line incantations living on in the history buffer of my Unix shell (generally Bash). What sequence of git commands allowed me to do XYZ ? Let’s check the shell history– I sure hope it’s still in there.

  Conclusion
  I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I really like Evernote. If you have similar troubles with retaining state, try it out. I hear there are many other services similar to it with slightly varying feature sets (people rave about Microsoft OneNote). So there are plenty of options and something out there is surely a fit.

  Evernote has a free tier and a premium tier. For my meager note-taking needs, I don’t come anywhere close to the free tier’s limit but I decided to pay for a premium subscription simply because I feel like I derive so much value from the service.

  One downside, however, is that I seem to be doing a lot less blogging since I got on Evernote earlier this year (though it is where I author most of these posts nowadays ; I especially like that I have a notebook labeled “Posted” whose incrementing count reminds me that I am getting some stuff out there). I originally started this blog as a sort of technical journal in order to organize notes and projects in a central location. It’s strange to think that if Evernote existed in 2005, I might never have had a reason to start this blog.

• What color model do video containers use ? [closed]

  26 mai 2013, par Little Child

  I would like to ask what color models are used in different video containers like flv, mpg, avi, 3gp etc. So far, wikipedia was of little help

• Neutral net or neutered

  4 juin 2013, par Mans — Law and liberty

  In recent weeks, a number of high-profile events, in the UK and elsewhere, have been quickly seized upon to promote a variety of schemes for monitoring or filtering Internet access. These proposals, despite their good intentions of protecting children or fighting terrorism, pose a serious threat to fundamental liberties. Although at a glance the ideas may seem like a reasonable price to pay for the prevention of some truly hideous crimes, there is more than first meets the eye. Internet regulation in any form whatsoever is the thin end of a wedge at whose other end we find severely restricted freedom of expression of the kind usually associated with oppressive dictatorships. Where the Internet was once a novelty, it now forms an integrated part of modern society ; regulating the Internet means regulating our lives.

  Terrorism

  Following the brutal murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, attempts were made in the UK to revive the controversial Communications Data Bill, also dubbed the snooper’s charter. The bill would give police and security services unfettered access to details (excluding content) of all digital communication in the UK without needing so much as a warrant.

  The powers afforded by the snooper’s charter would, the argument goes, enable police to prevent crimes such as the one witnessed in Woolwich. True or not, the proposal would, if implemented, also bring about infrastructure for snooping on anyone at any time for any purpose. Once available, the temptation may become strong to extend, little by little, the legal use of these abilities to cover ever more everyday activities, all in the name of crime prevention, of course.

  In the emotional aftermath of a gruesome act, anything with the promise of preventing it happening again may seem like a good idea. At times like these it is important, more than ever, to remain rational and carefully consider all the potential consequences of legislation, not only the intended ones.

  Hate speech

  Hand in hand with terrorism goes hate speech, preachings designed to inspire violence against people of some singled-out nation, race, or other group. Naturally, hate speech is often to be found on the Internet, where it can reach large audiences while the author remains relatively protected. Naturally, we would prefer for it not to exist.

  To fulfil the utopian desire of a clean Internet, some advocate mandatory filtering by Internet service providers and search engines to remove this unwanted content. Exactly how such censoring might be implemented is however rarely dwelt upon, much less the consequences inadvertent blocking of innocent material might have.

  Pornography

  Another common target of calls for filtering is pornography. While few object to the blocking of child pornography, at least in principle, the debate runs hotter when it comes to the legal variety. Pornography, it is claimed, promotes violence towards women and is immoral or generally offensive. As such it ought to be blocked in the name of the greater good.

  The conviction last week of paedophile Mark Bridger for the abduction and murder of five-year-old April Jones renewed the debate about filtering of pornography in the UK ; his laptop was found to contain child pornography. John Carr of the UK government’s Council on Child Internet Safety went so far as suggesting a default blocking of all pornography, access being granted to an Internet user only once he or she had registered with some unspecified entity. Registering people wishing only to access perfectly legal material is not something we do in a democracy.

  The reality is that Google and other major search engines already remove illegal images from search results and report them to the appropriate authorities. In the UK, the Internet Watch Foundation, a non-government organisation, maintains a blacklist of what it deems ‘potentially criminal’ content, and many Internet service providers block access based on this list.

  While well-intentioned, the IWF and its blacklist should raise some concerns. Firstly, a vigilante organisation operating in secret and with no government oversight acting as the nation’s morality police has serious implications for freedom of speech. Secondly, the blocks imposed are sometimes more far-reaching than intended. In one incident, an attempt to block the cover image of the Scorpions album Virgin Killer hosted by Wikipedia (in itself a dubious decision) rendered the entire related article inaccessible as well as interfered with editing.

  Net neutrality

  Content filtering, or more precisely the lack thereof, is central to the concept of net neutrality. Usually discussed in the context of Internet service providers, this is the principle that the user should have equal, unfiltered access to all content. As a consequence, ISPs should not be held responsible for the content they deliver. Compare this to how the postal system works.

  The current debate shows that the principle of net neutrality is important not only at the ISP level, but should also include providers of essential services on the Internet. This means search engines should not be responsible for or be required to filter results, email hosts should not be required to scan users’ messages, and so on. No mandatory censoring can be effective without infringing the essential liberties of freedom of speech and press.

  Social networks operate in a less well-defined space. They are clearly not part of the essential Internet infrastructure, and they require that users sign up and agree to their terms and conditions. Because of this, they can include restrictions that would be unacceptable for the Internet as a whole. At the same time, social networks are growing in importance as means of communication between people, and as such they have a moral obligation to act fairly and apply their rules in a transparent manner.

  Facebook was recently under fire, accused of not taking sufficient measures to curb ‘hate speech,’ particularly against women. Eventually they pledged to review their policies and methods, and reducing the proliferation of such content will surely make the web a better place. Nevertheless, one must ask how Facebook (or another social network) might react to similar pressure from, say, a religious group demanding removal of ‘blasphemous’ content. What about demands from a foreign government ? Only yesterday, the Turkish prime minister Erdogan branded Twitter ‘a plague’ in a TV interview.

  Rather than impose upon Internet companies the burden of law enforcement, we should provide them the latitude to set their own policies as well as the legal confidence to stand firm in the face of unreasonable demands. The usual market forces will promote those acting responsibly.

  Further reading

  • Tory-Labour pact could save data bill, says Lord Howard
  • Internet companies warn May over ‘snooper’s charter’
  • Snooper’s charter ‘should be replaced by strengthening of existing powers’
  • Exclusive : ‘Snooper’s charter’ would not have prevented Woolwich attack, says MI5
  • Search engines urged to block more online porn sites
  • Why technology must be the solution to child abuse material online
  • Google must take more action to police explicit content, says Vince Cable
  • Facebook bows to campaign groups over ‘hate speech’
  • Facebook sexism campaign attracts thousands online
  • Türkischer Ministerpräsident : Twitter ist eine Plage
  • Valls : « La traque sur Internet doit être une priorité pour nous »
  • La Cnil, futur juge d’Internet
  • “National security matter” : Third agency caught unilaterally blocking web sites