And these days, it isn't so necessary with the various bridges that exist between good scripting languages (Python and Ruby) and both Cocoa and OSA - namely, PyObjC, MacRuby, RubyOSA etc. - and plenty of command-line interfaces to various bits of the OS. Indeed, if you use an OSA bridge in Ruby, you have a much more powerful way AppleScript because you can combine code from the Ruby stdlib, Unix command line tools, abstracted C libraries (and inlined C) and the AppleScript interfaces. If you want to use a Java library, you wrap the OSA bridge stuff in a class and FFI out to it from JRuby. You get so much more, and you get to write it in a syntax that doesn't drive you completely batshit insane.

You also get a much better development experience: irb or ipython plus your favourite editor (vim, emacs, textmate etc.) beats the pants off the damn AppleScript script editor. Who in their right mind thought that not being able to save a file unless it compiled was a sensible idea? With irb, you can interactively examine your objects. Bash lines into the shell and see what happens. Much more useful than Script Editor which basically gives you an edit-compile-run cycle.

AppleScript is one of those things I wish Apple would replace. Now they are pursuing App Stores and iOS though, I don't hold out much hope that they'll deprecate AppleScript and encourage people to use Ruby instead. The idea that normal people are going to suddenly learn AppleScript because it has a "friendly" syntax is laughable.

You forgot filter. That's also important.

Map -> filter -> fold is a pretty natural progression, and I've wasted countless hours (nay, weeks) of my life writing map/filter/fold code in dysfunctional langauges before discovering how much less I have to write in functional languages.

Once you start using higher-order functions, you reach the point where you can't tolerate them not being there.

+1 on GNU Smalltalk. I like the idea of Smalltalk, but the whole "visual VM" thing is such bullshit and is a case of the Smalltalk guys buying into their own hype too much. It may have been cool many years ago, but these days it just feels like this weird anachronism when you load it up, and it just sits there completely different from the rest of the OS...

GNU Smalltalk, on the other hand, is billed as "Smalltalk for those who can type". And it is really very nice.

(Alternatively, try Ruby. It's like Smalltalk + Perl + Lisp + lots of libraries.)

Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.

The details are: under the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, we will be able to vote on whether we want to move to 'Alternative Vote' (aka Instant Runoff Voting) - details are here http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

Politically, the Liberal Democrats and Labour are planning to campaign for it while the Conservatives are going to allow for the referendum vote but campaign against it.

There's huge political interests at stake: for the Liberal Democrats (as our traditional third party) and other third parties, they'll benefit from not being passed over in a tactical vote situation where people who would rather have the Liberals but vote Labour to keep the Conservatives (or BNP and other far-right parties) out. For Labour, electoral reform will probably come with boundary changes that will benefit them by creating more urban constituencies likely to vote for Labour. Under most AV predictions, the Conservatives will lose seats under AV, so naturally they oppose it.

It'll certainly be interesting to see whether the political parties manage to keep up the pretense that their stances aren't self-serving...

If you really need a joke (indeed, an old throwaway joke I set as my sig years ago) explained, here it is: it is a joke at the expense of pompous douchebags who think that they get moral brownie points by piously pointing out that they slow down in populated areas and around schools, as if obeying the Highway Code and common fucking sense makes them better people.

Driving at an appropriate speed so as to not hit children who might unexpectedly jump out in the road isn't some great act of virtue, it is a basic requirement of both the law and common sense. Pointing out that you are doing as some great and worthy deed ("I slow down around children!") what is required by law is worthy of contempt and ridicule. One good way of doing this is by reversing their sentiment so as to show the essential pointlessness of expressing it (just as one might respond to someone proclaiming that grass is green with the sarcastic remark "ah, for all this time, I thought it was red. Thanks for telling me."). The riposte then casts doubt on their motives for saying it.

As you seem to believe - on the basis of a .sig file on a Slashdot comment - that I actually go around driving recklessly in the presence of children (I don't even have a car, I commute by train), would you be interested in purchasing a time-share in my flat in downtown Atlantis?

Yeah, well, in as much as no other paper really has that status, it is the closest to it.

Surely, the FT over the Times for financial news and info?

Oh, okay, that is a problem. Part of what makes a newspaper successful is being influential and widely-discussed. It certainly may stop being that by being behind a paywall. And if bloggers and social media users can't link to it, getting younger readers is going to be harder.

I have a funny feeling that the Times will not stop being influential offline though. It still has the status of being the 'paper of record' in Britain. It may actually end up being profitable, influential and read by almost no one. Which would be very strange indeed.

To be devil's advocate (and when you are arguing Rupert Murdoch's case, you really are being devil's advocate): might not the defender of the paywall say "yes, it has no value because people aren't paying for it". Paying for a newspaper means that they can put in actually important content because they can cover sending correspondents out to warzones and to spend the time doing in-depth investigative journalism, ploughing through government documents and archives and so on. And, you know, without that funding they will simply resort to doing cheap and crappy pseudo-journalism like pulling down easy entertainment stories and posting them online and waiting for the comment threads to push up their page view counts. Basically, that without direct funding from readers, you end up with Gawker rather than The Times.

You know, the same argument that the BBC make - that commercial advertising means you end up with lots more crappy game shows and and far fewer symphony orchestras and obscure John Peel sessions and 'Life on Earth' and so on.

The point that vlm was making was that since such a small proportion of the Internet is subscribed to The Times, it must be a failure.

Getting 100,000 subscribers online is - if true - no bad thing. The top-selling broadsheet (Daily Telegraph) in Britain has a daily circulation of 691k. The Times itself has a 508k circulation. vlm is wrong to compare the subscriber numbers to the Internet as a whole: instead, you need to compare it with the UK broadsheet market. Because, really, all they need to do is cover their costs online. Anything else is profit, since they already have an existing offline newspaper business.

The problem is that it is doubtful whether they have got 100,000 subscribers: someone spending £1 trying out the paywall for a day is not necessarily someone who will then continue paying.

To see whether or not it has turned out to be a success, we need to wait until there are figures counting the subscribers once things have settled down and compare them with their own business objectives. It's a business: subscriber numbers don't matter, profit matters.

Is that the right analogy though? Sure, if a advertising-funded (or, in Britain, a license-fee-payer-funded) show gets a small audience share, then it may get taken off air.

But I imagine that some of the porno channels that you have to pay a subscription for don't get many viewers. But so long as the viewers they have are paying enough to fund their whole operation, they don't really give a shit that they aren't getting the same number of viewers as Prison Break or whatever. (Same for premium non-porno channels.)

I haven't had any reason to read the Times since nobody links to their articles any more. And since I have no reason to read the Times, I haven't had any reason to pay for it.

Because of the very negative political effects that Murdoch's money and influence is having both here (where The Sun newspaper has become a kingmaker in British politics and in the US and other countries), I rather object to giving money to Murdoch's companies. I'm very glad we have stopped paying for Sky, for instance - there's enough crap to watch on Freeview/Freesat without paying £40 a Murdoch to watch repeats littered with adverts.

Save democracy: starve the Murdoch beast!

Ah, iTunes for Windows. That wasn't specified in the parent post, and we are talking Flash on OS X in this thread...

The voodoo about syncing? I don't notice any voodoo at all. Plug in device. It puts songs, podcasts et al. on. Unplug.

Here's why you have to suffer iTunes though: the other MP3 device manufacturers were completely shortsighted and thought that "drag files around in your filesystem" was a suitable user experience. It isn't.

If the thing is 64Mb in size, filling that up by hand is easy. If it is 64Gb like the top-end iPads, that's not so easy. Geeks can write rsync/unison scripts (I have for my ebook reader) but normal people just want a music playing app that syncs up with their MP3 player/phone/etc.

If Microsoft, SanDisk, Creative and Archos etc. had an ounce of intelligence between them, they would have built a decent iTunes alternative that syncs up with any of their players as easily as iTunes does. (Or better yet, come up with a simple, easy-to-implement sync protocol and released open source plugins for Winamp, fb2k, Amarok, Rhythmbox etc.)

Instead, SanDisk put out stupid adverts about "iPod sheep" instead of actually producing a compelling user experience. The whole sync process is the main reason I've bought iPods: I listen to lots of audiobooks and podcasts, and I don't want to have to carry around a piece of paper where I write down which ones I've listened to and where I am in the often multi-hour files.

Apple has an excuse: it doesn't want to include broken shit by a bunch of lazy fuckwits who couldn't build a working toaster let alone maintain a Mac port of a popular web browser plugin. They don't want to include something that causes a ton of crashes, instability, memory leaks and security holes. And so it is not including Flash.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Apple. The App Store sounds like a pretty Orwellian idea. Not including a bug-ridden pile of shit in their operating system by default is one of the better things Apple have done. If it leads to the demise of Flash quicker, I'll be very happy.

rm -rf /Applications/iTunes.app/

There. Fixed that for you. Enjoy your Zune.

Personally, I don't get all the iTunes hate. There's a lot I don't like about Apple, but iTunes is one of the few not-completely-shite MP3 players out there because it can do handy little things like remember where you are in audiobooks, something the open source players have yet to catch onto despite almost a decade of iTunes/iPod dominance...