"The sole substitute for an experience which we have not ourselves lived through is art and literature."

“But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.”

We have so hopelessly ceded our humanity that for the modest handouts of today we are ready to surrender up all principles, our soul, all the labors of our ancestors, all the prospects of our descendants—anything to avoid disrupting our meager existence. We have lost our strength, our pride, our passion. We do not even fear a common nuclear death, do not fear a third world war (perhaps we’ll hide away in some crevice), but fear only to take a civic stance! We hope only not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit. //

But we can do—everything!—even if we comfort and lie to ourselves that this is not so. It is not “they” who are guilty of everything, but we ourselves, only we! //

But it will never come unstuck by itself, if we all, every day, continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen it, if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point.

From lies. //

And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!

And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.

We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!

This is the way, then, the easiest and most accessible for us given our deep-seated organic cowardice, much easier than (it’s scary even to utter the words) civil disobedience à la Gandhi.

Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.

Australia’s plan to build the submarines with U.S. and British help faces big hurdles. Supporters say they can be overcome. Critics say they may be too much.

Obsidian is a powerful knowledge base on top of
a local folder of plain text Markdown files.

Time tracking for
better work,
not overwork
Reliable time tracking software loved by 5M+ users

Truckers in Southern California are struggling to move containers from port terminals and rail yards because of a shortage of the chassis that carry the boxes

I wrote a work around for TV Shows in October, I am going to try and write it clearer here. It is like two extra steps but we watch alot of TV Shows and it's worth it to my family!

XBMC add-on used to mute profanity

Localy stored movies played via kodi (available on most platforms except ios) or MrMc (available on ios) have the ability to mute audio (profanity) or skip designated scenes. This is controlled via an .edl file.
Filterflix will read an uploaded subtitle file and create an .edl file to mute profanities. (Any desired skip scenes would need to be added manually later as these obviously can not be determined from a subtitle file.) The created .edl file (named exactly the same as the movie file other than the extension .edl) needs to be placed in the same folder as the movie.

The big difference for the user between folder type custom nodes and rule type custom nodes is the drill down behaviour when you select an item. There are internal implementation differences too, the database queries are more efficient on folder type, but what can be achived is more limited than the flexible rules that can be created with the rule type.

in order to use the App Store, you have to agree to the iTunes Store Terms of Service and/or the App Store Terms of Service. You can confirm this yourself just by reading the documents: they say as much in their all-caps preambles. The two documents are pretty similar; this post will give section numbers from the App Store Terms of Service, but the same language appears in the iTunes Store Terms of Service and so our analysis applies identically to it. You can read both those documents on Apple's site, and we have a copy of that page as it exists today to provide this commentary.

Along the same lines, we'll be talking about GPLv2 specifically in this blog post, since that's the license at issue, but this analysis would apply to all versions of the GNU GPL and AGPL. Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

(Emphasis added.) This last sentence is a crucial part of the strong copyleft in the GPL and AGPL: it prevents distributors from using separate legal agreements, like Terms of Service or NDAs, to take away the freedoms that the license is supposed to grant. This is the license condition that Apple is violating when it distributes GPL-covered software through the App Store. //

That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and deserves explanation.

We would've liked to see Apple do the right thing and remove these limits, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Apple has removed GNU Go from the App Store, continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do. As we said in our initial announcement, this is disappointing but unsurprising; Apple made this choice a long time ago. We just need to make sure everybody else gets the message: if you value your independence and creativity, you should be aware that Apple doesn't. Take your computing elsewhere.

Nonfree (proprietary) software is very often malware (designed to mistreat the user). Nonfree software is controlled by its developers, which puts them in a position of power over the users; that is the basic injustice. The developers and manufacturers often exercise that power to the detriment of the users they ought to serve.

This typically takes the form of malicious functionalities.

The “jails” are malicious operating systems that are designed to impose censorship of which applications the user can install. The image of the iPrison illustrates this issue.

These systems are platforms for censorship imposed by the company that owns the system. Selling products designed as platforms for a company to impose censorship ought to be forbidden by law, but it isn't.

This page lists a few jails, along with some of the methods they use to censor apps, and includes specific examples of apps that were blocked using this censorship power.

Guiding Principles in Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement

• Our primary goal in GPL enforcement is to bring about GPL compliance.
• Legal action is a last resort. Compliance actions are primarily education and assistance processes to aid those who are not following the license.
• Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and responsiveness.
• Community-oriented enforcement must never prioritize financial gain.
• Community-oriented compliance work does not request nor accept payment to overlook problems.
• Community-oriented compliance work starts with carefully verifying violations and finishes only after a comprehensive analysis.
• Community-oriented compliance processes should extend the benefit of GPLv3-like termination, even for GPLv2-only works.

Copyleft itself is not a moral philosophy; rather, copyleft is a strategy that software freedom activists constructed to advance a particular set of policy goals. Specifically, software copyleft was designed to ensure that all users received complete, corresponding source for all binaries, and that any modifications or improvements made anywhere in the chain of custody of the software were available in source form to downstream users. As orginially postulated, copyleft was a simple strategy to disarm proprietarization as an anti-software-freedom tactic.
The Corruption of Copyleft

Copyleft is a tool to achieve software freedom. Any tool can be fashioned into a weapon when wielded the wrong way. That's precisely what occurred with copyleft — and it happened early in copyleft's history, too. Before even the release of GPLv2, Aladdin Ghostscript used a copyleft via a proprietary relicensing model (which is sometimes confusingly called the “dual licensing” model). This business model initially presented as benign to software freedom activists; leaders declared the business model “barely legitimate”, when it rose to popularity through MySQL AB (later Sun, and later Oracle)'s proprietary relicensing of the MySQL codebase.

In theory, proprietary relicensors would only offer the proprietary license by popular demand to those who had some specific reason for wanting to proprietarize the codebase — a process that has been called “selling exceptions”. In practice, however, every company I'm aware of that sought to engage in “selling exceptions” eventually found a more aggressive and lucrative tack. //

Most proprietary relicensing businesses work as follows: a single codebase is produced by a for-profit company, which retains 100% control over all copyright in the software (either via an ©AA or a CLA). That codebase is offered as a gratis product to the marketplace, and the company invests substantial resources in marketing the software to users looking for FOSS solutions. The marketing department then engages in captious and unprincipled copyleft enforcement actions in an effort to “convert” those FOSS users into paying customers for proprietary licensing for the same codebase. (Occasionally, the company also offers additional proprietary add-ons, improvements, or security updates that are not available under the FOSS license — when used this way, the model is often specifically called “Open Core”.)

Why We Must End The Proprietary Relicensing Exploitation of Copyleft

This business model has a toxic effect on copyleft at every level. Users don't enjoy their software freedom under an assurance that a large community of contributors and users have all been bound to each other under the same, strong, and freedom-ensuring license. Instead, they dread the vendor finding a minor copyleft violation and blowing it out of proportion. The vendor offers no remedy (such as repairing the violation and promise of ongoing compliance) other than purchase of a proprietary license. Industry-wide. I have observed to my chagrin that the copyleft license that I helped create and once loved, the Affero GPL, was seen for a decade as inherently toxic because its most common use was by companies who engaged in these seedy practices. You've probably seen me and other software freedom activists speak out on this issue, in our ongoing efforts to clarify that the intent of the Affero GPL was not to create these sorts of corporate code silos that vendors constructed as copyleft-fueled traps for the unwary. Meanwhile, proprietary relicensing discourages contributions from a broad community, since any contributor must sign a CLA giving special powers to the vendor to continue the business model. Neither users nor co-developers benefit from copyleft protection. //

Given the near ubiquity of proprietary relicensing and the promulgation of stricter copylefts by companies who seek to engage (or help their clients engage) in such business models, I've come to a stark policy conclusion: the community should reject any new copyleft license without a clause that deflates the power of proprietary relicensing. Not only can we incorporate such a clause into new licenses (such as copyleft-next), but Conservancy's Executive Director, Karen Sandler, came up with a basic approach to incorporating similar copyleft equality clauses into written exceptions for existing copyleft licenses, such as the Affero GPL. I have received authorization to spend some of my Conservancy time and the time of our lawyers on this endeavor, and we hope to publish more about it in the coming months.

We've finished the experiment. After thirty years of proprietary relicensing, beginning with Aladdin and culminating with MongoDB and their SS Public License, we now know that proprietary relicensing does not serve or extend software freedom, and in most cases has the opposite effect. We must now categorically reject it, and outright reject any new licenses that can be used for it.

BASIC:
Transfer unlimited number of songs and playlists and albums
All platforms (Desktop & Mobile)
Lifetime updates
$15 one time

PREMIUM:
Transfer unlimited number of songs and playlists and albums
All platforms (Desktop & Mobile)
Lifetime updates
Email support
Share playlists across streaming services
$20/quarter

Transfer your music library from any music service to any other you want! Supports Spotify, TIDAL, Apple Music, YouTube, Amazon Music and many more

FREE PLAN SUMMARY
Convert up to 1000 tracks
No automatic syncs
Export to FILE (TXT, CSV)

PREMIUM PLAN SUMMARY $4.50/mo
Unlimited Conversions
Up to 20 Automatic Syncs (?)
Export to FILE (TXT, CSV)

1. Select source music service

2. Select playlists/ albums/ followed artists/ liked tracks

3. Select destination music service

4. Start transfer

$6.99/mo basic

Sync/transfer music, playlists between services -- YouTube Music, Apple Music, iTunes, Spotify, etc.

One of the nation’s largest symbols of carbon capture technology — the Kemper project — has collapsed into a pile of debris, highlighting the strategy of one of the nation’s largest utilities as it aims to decarbonize its fleet.

The project, which was half of a multimillion-dollar power plant in Mississippi intended to gasify lignite coal and store its captured carbon emissions, was imploded by Southern Co.’s Mississippi Power unit earlier this month because the equipment was no longer needed. The facility, Plant Ratcliffe, captured worldwide attention and was supposed to host the first commercial-scale carbon capture project on a large coal plant in the United States.

Latest Downloads

• 32bit - rachel-pi_09_06_2021 20
• https://ftp.worldpossible.org/rachel-pi/beta/rachel-pi_09_06_2021.zip
• 32bit Raspberry Pi 3B+ image - rachel-pi_10_18_2021-3B.zip
• https://ftp.worldpossible.org/rachel-pi/beta/rachel-pi_10_18_2021-3B.zip

Please use the 3B+ image for 3B devices.

This image includes support for Kiwix 3.1.2 modules. These modules are named with “_2021”. Older Wikipedia modules are not compatible with this image. Please make sure to download and install the latest Kiwix modules that include “_2021” in their name.

en-moodle, en-file_share, en-kolibri-index, en-ka-lite, and older Kiwix modules ( Wikipedia ) are not supported with this image when downloaded. en-file_share and en-kolibri-index are included with the images.

You can expect to get roughly 8 users connected by default without a separate wifi router or USB wifi interface.

https://ftp.worldpossible.org/rachel-pi/tutorials/01_installing_rachel_pi.pdf

https://ftp.worldpossible.org/rachel-pi/tutorials/02_Installing_Modules.pdf