Is the 'native' cli free?

Well it's 400 dollars,* I figure "the suite of pre-configured Bitcoin-dependent software" is what hikes up the price.

1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014RD021C?camp=1789&creati...

The low expected production run for a custom handware development kit would be what drives the price up.

this is amazing! light of my day!

I think the name, anoncat, is very clever. Maybe I'm predisposed for cat-like-things. But anyway the application is very clever too.

How come you store the chat messages?

Then you'll love https://crypto.cat/

Would this also work for a GNU Social or pump.io service? Or diaspora?

One of the Sandstorm devs is already working on porting Diaspora. pump.io has been mentioned as a possible thing to port.

Zotero is an excellent EndNote alternative

OpenShot is an imovie like video editor, I like it because it's easy to use

Rhythmbox is a featureful itunes-like music player.

Audacity isn't protools, but it's great for mixing audio

One of the problems searching in these books is that there is no standardized spelling in early modern literature.

There is a project called DREaM, at McGill to standardize for "distance reading" (macro analysis).[1] It uses a program called VARD (a text preprocessor trained to correct spelling).[2]

Strangely, this application is licensed with the creative commons. I think this means that it is closed source. Does anyone know of any open source alternatives?

It cannot handle such an immense amount of data,[3]

[1] http://earlymodernconversions.com/introducing-dream/

[2] http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/vard/about/

[3] http://www.matthewmilner.name/2014/11/18/VARD-and-EEBO-TCP/

There are lots of different CC licenses. None of them are closed-source, although there are some which don't allow modification (No-Derivs / ND). Others disallow copying for commercial use (NonCommercial / NC), and a couple allow almost anything (Attribution / BY, No Rights Reserved / CC0). https://creativecommons.org/choose/

> There are lots of different CC licenses. None of them are closed-source, although there are a few which don't allow modification.

Licenses that don't allow modifications are closed-source. At least, they are inconsistent with the Open Source Definition (specifically, with criteria #3: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.")

http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Oh right, I was just thinking of open publication.

I think that the distribution of VARD is allowed (if non-commerical), but editing the source code isn't. I think this because I cannot find the source for VARD.

That's why I think it's strange it is licensed CC.

They're using BY-NC-SA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ so it is strange that they limit access. I wonder if there are two competing groups, or if the legal department got paranoid.

I get the feeling its being let by the way side. It's harder and harder to switch back to HTML, after using features like calling.

It's much faster, no?

I use it for the speed, despite its lack of features & ugliness. A lot of my devices are getting old chug when loading up new Gmail. Speed is why I use the HTML version.

It's much faster and takes less memory, which is especially improtant for slow laptops. Calling using proprietary online services is no good...

Thank you for this brief and calm comment on the delicacy of politesse.

Glad you enjoyed it. It's really difficult for me to share writing about this stuff publicly.

The message is that our personalities are encapsulated by objects and media. These items of evident importance are of course legitimated by the benevolence of facebook's curation. Facebook is not a social experiment, it's a marketing tool.

Anyway, the accuracy of the study depends on a self-report.

Right, the goal is to convince marketers that the digital shadow and the meat casting that shadow are one and the same.

>So we've been developing English for a very long time. If "little used verbs become regularized over time, but new verbs formed [are] never formed as irregular verbs", then why do we have still have irregular verbs at all? Why wouldn't they have been wiped out thousands of years ago?

we haven't been developing English for thousands of years. Who knows what will happen then! We'll be speaking in python no doubt.

> We'll be speaking in python no doubt.

(Or this (Lisp (to (indicate identation-level) (using (pitch voice)))))