Added some content.

site/projects/mege/tests/basics.org

@@ -65,17 +65,17 @@ Another list:
   * 3u :: o (correct behaviour)
 
 ** Images
-#&img;url=test0.png, alt='This is a test picture', width=270, float=right, \
+#&img;url=test0.png, width=270, float=right, \
 #&caption='A test picture'
 
 #+caption: A test picture \
 #+with a caption on two lines
-#&img;url=test0.png, alt='This is a test picture', width=240, float=right
+#&img;url=test0.png, width=240, float=right
 
 #&caption
 A test picture
 #&
-#&img;url=test0.png, alt='This is a test picture', width=210, float=right
+#&img;url=test0.png, width=210, float=right
 
 ** Links
 

site/writings/atem.org

@@ -1,3 +1,35 @@
 #+title: Atem: a new word
+#&summary
+A presentation of the new word 'atem' and why it's so desperately needed
+#&
+#+license: bysa
 
-wiktionary meta
+* Atem: a new word
+
+Have you ever checked the Wiktionary entry for 'meta'? I have. It's right
+[[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meta#English][here]]. When I looked at it, I noticed that there were no antonyms. *None!*
+
+But why?
+
+#+caption: This alien agrees.
+#&img;url=/img/aliens/lulala.png,float=right,width=200
+I often find it useful to be able to un-metaize complex thoughts: instead of
+thinking about thinking (meta-thinking), I think. Nothing else. However, when I
+mention that "I think", it may not be obvious that before I was thinking, I was
+thinking about thinking, which is why I have chosen to create *atem*, a new
+word whose only function is to act as meta's antonym. With this word, I can now
+say that "I atem-think", meaning "I think because I thought of thinking", or I
+can say that "I think", meaning "I think". 'atem' removes a lot of ambiguity
+from the English language.
+
+Ok, maybe not that often, but sometimes it's useful.
+
+Also, *atem* could be quite useful in abstract definitions, as a way to focus
+on making something abstract concrete instead of making something concrete
+abstract. For example, this page is probably an atem-page, because somewhere
+out there there's a page about this page.
+
+Perhaps every object in existence could be considered an atem object. It's not
+impossible, it just doesn't make much sense.
+
+Still, this word could be useful. I hope it gets into a dictionary.

site/writings/freeculture.org

@@ -1,10 +1,20 @@
 #+title: Free culture
+#+summary: A short summary of free software with good external links
+#+license: bysa
 
-* Free software
+* Free culture
 
-** My definition
+Free culture is about sharing and mixing creative works, often under
+[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft][copyleft]]. It encompasses pictures, video, audio, text and similar types of
+works.
+
+It is good.
 
 
-** Other definitions
-
+** External links
 
++ [[http://freedomdefined.org/Definition][Definition of Free Cultural Works]]
++ [[http://freeculture.org/][freeculture.org]]
++ The [[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/][Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license]] --- a widely used
+  copyleft license approved for free cultural works. Wikipedia uses this
+  license. This website uses it as well.

site/writings/freesoftware.org

@@ -1,12 +1,134 @@
 #+title: Free software
+#+summary: An explanation of the necessity of free software
+#+license: bysa
 
 * Free software
 
-** My definition
+This is a [[http://python.org/][Python 3]] computer program --- a piece of software:
+#+BEGIN_SRC python
+inp = input()
+print(inp.lower())
+#+END_SRC
+Or at least it's a very small part of one. It reads text input from a user,
+transforms the text to lowercase, and prints the transformed text. It is very
+simple. Larger programs are often far less simple, as they may contain
+implementations of complex algorithms or involve human interaction. 
+
+[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA][RSA]] and [[http://www.openssl.org/][OpenSSL]] are examples of this, RSA being an algorithm which requires
+several subalgorithms to work, and OpenSSL being the large implementation of
+RSA (among other things, but let's keep it simple) which contains way over
+100,000 lines of code. For such a computer program to be run, it will most
+often have to be compiled.
+
+/Compilation/ is a process which translates human-readable source code --- like
+the two Python lines earlier --- into a computer-readable format. When a
+program has been compiled, computers can understand it, and it can be run and
+used by users. The reason why programmers do not program in the
+computer-readable format from the beginning is that it is almost impossible and
+very impractical; humans need one or more levels of abstraction to be able to
+transform ideas into runnable, useful software --- humans need programming
+languages.
+
+There are two things that make a lot of sense when talking about computer
+programs: 1) if a program is installed on your computer, you should be able to
+run it (why else have it?), and 2) if a friend (or someone else) would like to
+use a program that you have, you should be able to share it to your friend,
+i.e. copy it and give the friend the copy.
+
+People who are unfamiliar with computers in general, and digital data in
+particular, might have trouble understanding that any data you see on a
+computer monitor or on an optical disc or on something else is nothing but
+bytes, be it images, videos, websites, text, programs, e-mails, anything. A
+byte x&var with a value n&var is no different than a byte y&var with the same
+value n&var, even if it is stored in a different location. Any byte can be
+cloned, copied, and only the amount of storage space available limits how many
+times this copying can occur.
+
+One must also be able to study a program, modify it to fit one's needs, and
+redistribute copies of one's changes. There are several reasons for this; first
+of all, a program must not be able to hide from you how it works and what it
+does. You --- or a hired programmer --- must be able to look through the source
+code and learn from it, so that knowledge about implementations of algorithms
+and structuring of code segments can be spread. Computers have become
+incredibly important on Earth, and it's just not good enough if a computer user
+who wishes to learn more about software and how it works cannot study
+the programs on their computer and in that way improve their computer
+literacy. 
+
+Since machine code does not contain the original code and comments, source code
+availability is a precondition for the studying and modification of a program.
+
+Second, if a program does not work properly, you can only fix it if you're
+allowed to do so and have the source code.
+
+Third, it is impractical to constantly reinvent the wheel, which is what
+programmers who do not use software that allows sharing and modification tend
+to do.
+
+Fourth, if a program cannot be studied, and if that program contains code for
+reading from and writing to files in special formats --- e.g. the Microsoft
+Word format --- people are forced to use that program if they have a file in
+such a format (yes, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice have good support for such
+non-free formats, but not full support).
+
+Fifth, if a program cannot be studied, you cannot be certain of its
+intentions. Since you do not know what the program does (in details), you do
+not know if it does anything harmful --- if it tracks you, or if it reads your
+documents without your permission.
+
+Sixth, if a non-free program is abandoned by its developers, it will never
+become better, and users of it might not be able to keep running it, because no
+one can fix or improve it.
+
+And so on.
+
+*Free software* is the type of software that encompasses these freedoms; it
+allows you to be in control of your computing, instead of others taking control
+of it. Proprietary software, or non-free software, is the opposite of free
+software. Many programs and systems are proprietary, including (but not at all
+limited to) Microsoft Windows, Apple iPhone, Amazon Kindle, etc. Well-known
+/free/ software includes Firefox, Inkscape, GIMP, and many others.
+
+Today it often seems commonly accepted that software development and usage
+follows a model like this:
+#&block
+Someone (a corporation, an individual, an organization, could be anyone)
+develops a program --> the creator allows people to use the program
+--> a user wants to share the program with a friend, but the user knows that it
+is wrong, because that's what the creator said --> the user does nothing, and:
+
+The user needs a new feature added to the program --> the user asks the creator
+to add the feature, because the user knows that only the creator may modify the
+program, even if it runs on the user's computer and not the creator's --> the
+creator answers --> nothing happens
+#&
+It makes sense that you should be allowed to modify a program that runs on your
+computer, or get someone to do it for you. It makes no sense that an entity
+x&var should have the power to control a user just because that user runs a
+program created by x&var. Programs should /not/ have owners, even if that's
+what some have been mislead to believe.
 
 
+All of this leaves us with these four condensed freedoms:[fn:freeswdef]
+
+#&block
+/The freedom to/
++ run the program
++ study and modify the program
++ share the program (redistribute copies)
++ share your modified program
+#&
+
+** External links
+
+Continue your reading here:
+
++ [[http://gnu.org/][GNU's Not Unix]]
++ The [[http://fsf.org/][Free Software Foundation]]
++ [[http://trisquel.info][Trisquel, a free operating system]]
++ [[http://debian.org/][Debian]]
++ [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft][Copyleft]] on Wikipedia
 
 
-** Other definitions
-
-
+[fn:freeswdef] GNU.org. /The Free Software Definition/,
+[[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]]

site/writings/hacking.org

@@ -1,12 +1,49 @@
 #+title: Hacking
+#+summary: A simple description of what hacking is really about
+#+license: bysa
 
 * Hacking
 
-** My definition
+He's a *hacker*! Oh no, the pirate's going to *hack* our computer! And our mobile
+phones! And our TV! Run for your lives! He'll use our credit cards to *hack*
+even more! He might even *hack* our fridge!
 
+That's not a hacker. That's an evil person. Hackers are not evil. Hackers are
+curious people. The evil person described above can be called a /cracker/
+instead. Such a person can be said to /crack/ computers and mobile phones, not
+hack them. Hacking is very different.
 
+*Hacking* is the act of creating new ways to use objects with well-defined
+uses. It's about experimenting, being clever, and playing. Hacking does not
+have to result in something useful, though it sometimes does in the long
+run. It's about the present.
 
+When you've hacked something, you've created a *hack*. It can happen
+spontaneously, or it can happen because you want it to happen.
 
-** Other definitions
+Once, I was eating a pizza in a restaurant with a group of friends when one of
+my friends couldn't eat anymore of his hummus. I had one slice of pizza back,
+and he had a little hummus back. I realized then that I could /combine/ the
+pizza and the hummus, and tada: I ate a hummus pizza slice (which was good, by
+the way); i created a hack.
 
+Much more clever hacks have been created, but the hummus pizza example should
+serve as a simple example of what a real-life hack /could/ be --- a hack can be
+so many things.
+
+Hacking is often associated with software development, because that's often
+about finding clever solutions and being open for new ways to do things.
+
+** "Just stop it already. You've lost."
+
+One could argue that the hacking community should just accept that the media
+and the non-hacker part of the public have long ago changed the meaning of
+hacker to "person who breaks digital security", and that hackers should just
+find another word to describe themselves. But if we did that, all the history
+associated with hacking would fade as new generations came along.
+
+** External links
+
++ [[http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html][The Jargon File: hacker]]
++ [[http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html][stallman.org: On Hacking]]