Forgot your password?

Comment: Performance Art (Score 1) 99

by Chelloveck (#47495677) Attached to: New Digital Currency Bases Value On Reputation

Anderson isn't aiming to supplant Bitcoin, or even challenge the money-exchange model that drives society. But he's hoping it will change the way people think about currency

Ah, so the whole thing's just a performance art piece, not a serious proposal. Good to know. Now we can just ignore him until he goes away.

Comment: Re:So this means... (Score 1) 214

by Chelloveck (#47449605) Attached to: Economist: File Sharing's Impact On Movies Is Modest At Most

For me, price is also a factor. Watching it just while cooking alone or something, I don't want to pay $5 for something that is just not that good. Crappy stream quality also doesn't matter in that case.

There seems to be a trend of the studios to allow digital "purchase" of movies but disallow rental, even for older releases. I'm only going to watch most movies once. $5 is my sweet spot for watching a movie. I'll gladly pay $5 for the ability to stream it for 24 hours, on the same model as the video rental store. I won't pay $15 to "own" it, especially when "ownership" is simply an indefinite-term rental until such time as the streaming service goes out of business. I'd rather just go without than play that asinine game.

Comment: A virtuous Perl programmer (Score 5, Insightful) 192

by Chelloveck (#47333533) Attached to: An Army Medal For Coding In Perl

Sounds like someone who embodies the Three Virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. Well done!

I'm always amazed at what non-programmers are impressed by. Code up some major application, and... Why doesn't it have this feature? Why does it have that workflow? What kind of colorblind dyslexic idiot designed this UI? But whip up a simple script to automate some repetitive, routine task and you're a genius!

Comment: Re:Evolution isn't science (Score 1) 649

by Chelloveck (#47273359) Attached to: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools
You asked for citations, he produced some. If you want an intellectually honest debate the burden is now on you to show why those citations are inaccurate. You're not allowed to simply assert "lies and more lies!" unless you want to grant him the same tactic to dismiss your arguments. Point to the creationist.

Comment: Re:What about flat cards? (Score 1) 142

A lot of {regional} food isn't real {regional} food. It's {localized} {regional} food.

You can fill in {regional} with any non-local region. In the US you can say it for Mexican, Thai, Italian, German, Polish... In the northern US you can say it for Southern food, and so on. It's kind of a variant of the "no true Scotsman" argument. No true Chinese person would cook like they do at PF Changs, therefore PF Changs is not true Chinese.

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 372

Because free speech. Which is just a convenient flag-waving way to say that the definition benefits the people who write the laws defining such matters. Politicians benefit from political think tanks being classified as charities, so... Free speech! It's the same reason that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other income. Oh, sure, on the surface of it there's some ideological veneer of doing it to promote market liquidity, job creation, and so forth, but in reality it's because the people writing the tax laws tend to be wealthy and directly benefit from the law being that way.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 2) 309

by Chelloveck (#47222029) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages

Genuine question, here, since I've never done any web dev. Why not write libraries in an existing language that spit out HTML/Javascript/PHP/whatever? Why do we need a new language to do this?

On the server side it's already pretty easy to use whatever language you want. There's the CGI protocol that gives a well defined interface between the server and any arbitrary program running as its own process. Most servers also have a way to run code in written various languages directly without the overhead of spawning a new process to do it.

On the browser side you have Javascript and... Well, that's about it really, unless you want to rely on browser plugins. Some browsers on some platforms can handle other scripting languages, but they tend to be vendor-specific like VBScript. If you load a browser plugin you can do anything you want, but it's not going to be all that portable. And, as we've seen with Flash and Java, they can open up new and interesting security holes.

Javascript itself is kind of a mess. It's inconsistent and has a lot of pitfalls that can trip up the unwary. I don't think we need more languages necessarily, but we could certainly use one good language. Of course, you'll never get developers to agree on what that good language is, and by the time it makes its way through the standards committee it's going to look an awful lot like Javascript. The big problem with defining a new language is that it needs to be in all the browsers before it's useful to developers. Developers won't adopt a language that's not widely deployed in browsers, and browser vendors won't bother to implement a language unless there is a critical mass of developers for it. So at this point we're pretty much stuck with Javascript.

Microsoft actually had a good idea at one time, which was to define an interface between the browser and an arbitrary external scripting language. You could (and probably still can) write Perl or Python code and execute it within Internet Explorer just like Javascript or VBScript. Of course that required the user to install the particular language you wanted, and calling out to an arbitrary external language opened up a ton of security holes. It wasn't very useful for web-based scripting. It was pretty good if you wanted an easy way to add a GUI to a local script, though. I used it to write a few quick-and-dirty prototype apps in Perl with an HTML GUI about 10 years ago. In fact it was good enough that I had a hell of a time convincing our sales guys that it was not a finished product they could sell.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.