The side of your case that has the motherboard's backplate (where you plug everything in) is the bottom. On the vast majority of towers, the plate is on the right side, meaning left is up.
EDIT: right/left when looking at the front of the case.
Both BBCode and Markdown are markup languages. ("Markdown" is a play on "markup language".)
BBCode was used on old internet message boards. You'd write something like [b]text[/b] to get bolded text, [i]text[/i] for italics, [img] to embed images, etc. BBCode tags (like [b]) mirrored simple HTML tags usually: since message board posters weren't really trusted, allowing regular HTML was out of the question.
Markdown is a newer markup language that was intended to be easier to read and write. Instead of [i]text[/i], you write
*text*
which is actually one of the few formatting options HN recognizes [0]: text. Bold is double stars, links are this [link text](url) format, images are , etc.
Cheers for this. I'm old and that's why I thought it was BBCode. Markup is such a loose term that I couldn't figure out what the problem was. You've put it to rest now though, I get it, whew.
I think it would be neat if HN were updated to support Markdown formatting, except that links could be auto-converted to a footnote-link as is the convention on this board.
I have to disagree. Many people are trying to suppress pseudoscience; not because we fear it is true, but because disinformation is harmful to society as a whole. For example, anti-vaxers degrading herd immunity, or astrologists conning vulnerable people out of their savings, or a climate change denier dismantling the EPA... there are far too many examples to list!
Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs.
If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.
Nobody is attempting to forcibly suppress pseudoscience. Speaking out against it is not "battling" it. I've read Randi's book, he's not trying to suppress misplaced beliefs. He's ridiculing them.
Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it.
Huge difference.
Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas.
Speaking out against something is battling it, battle is a verb in this context. Both Oxford and Webster agree [0,1].
Forceful suppression of pseudoscience can be achieved through law and education, see the Scopes Trial [2]. This is another with thousands of examples, from women's right to vote, to smoking cigarettes.
You didn't say anything about force in your initial statement. Maybe you forgot to mention enough context? (And no, forcefully does not mean using force.)
Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal?
Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.
I am a medical doctor. I feel comfortable with the current state of research on the safety of vaccines for endemic diseases of childhood, annual influenza, and pneumococcus.
I don’t really care whether they feel legitimized; I see the actual physical harm their fear-mongering (and often outright fraud) causes.
There comes a point where the weight of data is such that people are not questioning unsettled science, they are merely lying. You’re welcome to paint a slippery slope if you like, but this is a difference in degree that is a difference in kind. Is there a line drawing fallacy at play? Yes, which is why my original post was specifically worded “the more extreme types.”
To your original point, which I think you have spent a lot of time shifting goal posts on: I would wholeheartedly censor these people, and not because I fear there is any germ of truth in what they are saying.
> I feel comfortable with the current state of research
I'm sure you do. I was also comfortable with doctors confidently recommending I eat margarine instead of butter for decades. What shit advice that turned out to be. Who knows how many years off my life from heart disease that has gotten me.
I like that people constantly question the things you are "comfortable" with. It keeps science honest. In fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is what science is all about.
You say you're an educated man. Do you know what they did to Galileo when he suggested the current state of research on the planets was wrong?
And I am sad that you would dispense with free speech rights so cheaply. I have family members who fought in terrible bloody battles to ensure we have these rights.
Just a guess, but it's probably because PS and GIMP are huge projects with years of work put into them -by teams of people. This is one guy. Not saying I don't welcome some competition in this area, but there are already tons of PS clones, all with their own niche.
Put it in the context of operating systems, and the guy was saying "This is the next Windows." That would be laughable.
Again though, good for him, fight the giants. But, he's got to expect some eye-rolls and giggles when making such lofty claims.
It’s reasonable to think a hobby project won’t get big, and saying it will certainly is talking a big game before it’s actually happened, but even in the OS counterexample you provided, strange things can happen.
Some side projects die, and some side project ends up taking over the majority of the server and all of the supercomputer OS market.
Linux is not the next Windows, and will never be the next Windows. It's been the year of the Linux desktop for twenty years, and it's not been achieved yet. It's very good for the server environment, but it was the next Unix, not the next Windows.
The concept of a desktop operating system is dying.
Different distros of Linux are very capable desktop operating systems, they are fully featured and competitive with Windows in pretty much every facet. They may not be the next Windows but that doesn't matter. 95% of the use case for an OS now days is the ability to run a modern web browser.
Regardless, you shouldn't dismiss something just because it doesn't have mass adoption. Mass adoption doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of engineering and quality of the platform.
The whole Windows vs Linux debate is pretty much obsolete and becoming less relevant every day.
Linux is already running on more personal computers than Windows. We call them tablets, phones, and think of Android as it's own OS but the reality is it all came from just one guy at the beginning.
If you define "the next Windows" as the operating system that supersedes Windows, then Android (based on the Linux kernel) arguably fits the bill.
But Linux being the next windows or not, the point here is that one guy's hobby project can change the world, so dismissing something because it's just one guy is dangerous. I have seen many cases where one passionate developer has produced something a large corporate team would be proud of.
> probably because PS and GIMP are huge projects with years of work put into them -by teams of people
Just because someone spent millions on a software doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do the same for multiple orders of magnitude less. An extreme example, AT&T spent millions on their Unix, but nowadays many CS university students recreate an OS in the corresponding OS design class.
Going back to Photoshop, PS is written in C++, it contains decades of legacy code, its first version was designed to run on 7MHz CPU with 128 KB RAM. Another things is, it contains rarely used stuff (e.g. legacy formats support) and also stuff irrelevant for web (such as COM automation interface).
It's not a straight face, it's a smirk, and they'll keep saying it so long as it bothers you. They'll happily eat dog shit if the opposition has to smell their breath.
This is how populism works, and it's only going to get worse.
Arriving on the page, I'm prompted to run 11, no... 13 scripts. After allowing everything from BBC and reloading, the page is still borked and I'm prompted to run 34 scripts.
All of these third-parties surely have nothing but the best of intentions when executing code in my browser, but I'd still appreciate a simplified alternative for viewing the content.
>video viewing isn't supported directly in the browser
Reading your comment caused me to log in to my security server and make sure I'm not nuts about the ease of viewing Motion feeds. Viewing its feeds in a browser is simple, from anywhere on the network. I'm curious what problems you had.
On a similar note, I stuck with plain-old Motion because of its super-low overhead. GUI aside, is Motioneye much of an upgrade? How does its resource footprint compare to Motion's?
motion create lots of files in a highly structured folder system, which is tip-top.
Where it falls down is remote viewing history on unprivileged machines. The nice thing about motioneye is that it creates a nice GUI for remote config and viewing.
However if I had a working motion config thats properly tuned, with all the simple auth setup for remote viewing, would I replace it with motion eye? no.
Google wasn't always there, and even after it became popular, some time passed before the name was used as a verb.
Personally, I Ask Jeeves to Lycos it.