> 2) Of quality at least as good as cable feeds

I do not subscribe to cable, but wouldn't that be based on where you subscribe and your provider? Going with cable provider terms, one might offer the show in high-def while another may not.

> 3) In a usable non-DRM container which doesn't require a web browser

At this point, who gives a shit if it's DRM if it's easily playable via whatever mechanism you use. Currently, I use LocalCast app on android to play content via DLNA to my TV, or I use the built in chrome-cast functionality of apps (such as netflix) to play to my tv, but I honestly don't give a shit about content as long as it can get to my tv without too much fuss. If I can launch an HBO Go app on a device and have it play on my device, I'm fucking happy. End-of-story. If I can login to a website and play an episode, even if I'm in linux, I'm fucking happy, End-of-story. Ideological shit aside, I want to see the content however I'm wanting to see it, and if it's possible, I'm fucking happy.

DRM has in the past been an issue, but it doesn't have to be.

> 4) Charge no more than $5 per episode (even that is steep).

who the fuck would pay that much per episode? If the audience were 5000 people, then ok, but looking at the most pirated show ever (game of thrones), that's not the case.

obligatory theoatmeal, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/g...

A large portion of what I watch actually happens to come from HBO, but regardless I end up downloading the content like anything else. Classic example, I purchase a season of the Vikings from google play store in advance b/c I do not own cable but would like to watch the show legally (even a day late from when it aired). I get a notification that a new episode is available. I click play "Last week on Vik...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last wee...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last week on ..."stream breaks. Download episode via bittorrent in 3 1/2 minutes and enjoy.

I'm happy to pay for content, but make that shit work.

look fucktard, I said you could download the source and compile the source. I said nothing more. Just because you caught on to the context of the OP I replied to doesn't mean I did as well. Jump out of your imagination and actually read what was written. I have, and have corrected myself.

You want to rail me for something, it'd be missing the context switch as I was considering the OP that started this thread causing a misreading of the OP in question. You'd actually have a valid point.

Unlike you I'm sure, I was actually looking at the source at the time and noted there were a number of extra testing dependencies that required a bit more leg work to install for development purposes and brashly thought the OP in question mistook this as necessary to produce a binary.

Instead of seeing what I wrote and how I've clarified what I meant and intended, you continue propping me up as some evangelist that's proclaiming something I never said, but you only inferred due to a context I responded to incorrectly. Take your inferences and fuck off.

The OP of the OP in question said you could download the source, who da thunk it? I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would infer that means you can verify the binary. It means you can download the source, review it, compile it, run it, and not a damn thing more.

And a project that provides prebuilt binaries? who do thunk it?

But please, do cherry pick my words and continue your bullshit and sick fantasy so you can declare yourself a winner today of the internetz of things.

I hadn't noticed you weren't the OP I responded to. Nothing I said suggested downloading and compiling source would produce truly identical binaries. At best, what I wrote could be interpreted as a big *whoosh* at not realizing the OP I responded to devolved the conversation to such a generic issue in computing that it felt out-of-context to the OP that started this entire thread.

There's nothing "insightful" about raising this issue anymore than if I pointed out the fallacy in trusting verified sources.

Ok, great, you're talking about ALL binary distributed software. You're original comment was ambiguous enough to imply the source for the CLI was somehow overly complicated to access and compile. Instead, you could just go around copying and pasting your comment anytime anyone releases a native executable making your point rather ... what's the word? ... bleh

Notoriously difficult? Hardly. If you have a Go environment setup for development, you can simply `go get github.com/exercism/cli` and you have the source and a compiled binary in `$GOPATH/bin` named `cli`. Rename `cli` to `exercism`. Review the code.

I agree, it's a big WTF compared to just walking through something like project euler, but reviewing the source and compiling yourself is not difficult.

With so many new languages writing a spec and then a standard compiler to conform to the spec, I'm curious how you feel about writing a spec and not a compiler.

How do you think this compares to other efforts? Do you enjoy this aspect or do you occasionally get your hands dirty with a particular compiler source? etc.

Good fucking god, who gives a shit where he works. How fucking long are you going to make an ass of yourself under this ray's posts. Guess what?! I don't use a hosts file! But why you ask?! Its fast! Its secure! Its reliable! Because I use my hosts file for other things unrelated to advertisement and don't need it littered with a bunch of bullshit. Some people do things different, now move along.

meh, fudge all that,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1+gallon+...

or for the brits

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1+gallon+...

This is bullshit but I can't help but think "bug bounties" aren't proper capitalism since there's little competition. What if zero day exploits were part of an actual legit market? Google or Mozilla or Microsoft could go there and haggle and possibly drive initially high prices down, etc. Disclosure is considered a responsibility, and I'm all for that, but if there's going to be an underground market for it, then why not just legitimize and potentially mitigate risks instead of these pat-on-the-head-and-here-is-a-quarter bug bounties? Given a generation of this type of market, people with these kinds of interests could likely find better work and such a market could be a stepping stone for people interested in these types of things instead of being demonized and sucked down into the underground.

Well it may be fairer to say Twitter moved to Scala limiting the point to the JVM. Also programming on Android is best limited to Java6 to avoid potential issues with transpiling to dalvik and again limiting the point to older versions of Java and only making initial use of the compiler, not the runtime. Pure speculation but a dalvik compiler would make the point solely for the semantics of the language.

Personally, I hate java, but I'm well versed in it and make a living off of it, and my points above aren't meant to counter and say java IS dying. In fact, I think clarification of those points brings out a renaissance of sorts taking place for what I overall consider a shit language, funnily enough meaning my opinion also means shit.

Java isn't going anywhere. A simple example of this is how the latest version of Scala is beginning to target features on new versions of the JVM. Java is going to be called home for a long while by its derivatives.

Uh huh, and what if I want to get a referral for a neurospecialist and not drive all the way there to have some doc up-sell me on the latest drugs he's pushing for a kick back? Not everything is about broken limbs or missing kidneys.

jesus was in the list, isn't that enough? </sarcasm>

subjectively titled ...

Swift looks capable of replacing Objective C so that's all that matters. If Apple announced all developers need to learn Swift, everyone would be up in arms. A slow roll out that let's teams slowly try out swift is much more likely to catch on.