September 27, 2011
Look folks, if you're going to make an assertion about something, make sure you're working on current information. For example, Ryan Paul, who has a really good article on automating Mac OS X with MacRuby. I think it's awesome that he wrote this, and it's a great service to people who are wanting to automate the Mac and like, or are interested in Ruby. But he starts a really good article with an assertion about AppleScript that is, well, I'll be nice and say it's outdated:
Mac OS X provides rich scripting and automation tools that can simplify everyday tasks—if you know how to use them. The roster includes the venerable command line, the graphical Automator utility, and the traditional AppleScript natural-language scripting environment. Although these tools all have value in certain situations, they each have some real limitations.
For instance, AppleScript benefits from extremely tight platform integration and powerful support for manipulating user interface elements, but its eccentric syntax and limited functionality constrain the scope of its applicability. AppleScript simply isn't designed to serve as a general-purpose scripting language.
Paul, I really, really wish you would have done a bit more poking around and read up on AppleScriptObjC. Introduced in 10.6, and with notable improvements in 10.7, it really kind of isn't as limited as AppleScript used to be. (Yes, AppleScript Studio was a mess, limited, and just weird. AppleScriptObjC is not ASS. On every level.) I get not liking the syntax, I'm not a fan of C-style or dot-language syntax. That's a personal decision that everyone makes, it's a preference. I also agree that AppleScript is not nearly as mainstream as Ruby, which is why I'm glad you wrote this article. Anything that encourages people to improve the automation capability of their applications benefits everyone. The MacRuby community, the AppleScript community. It's all good.
But seriously, Ryan, or anyone looking to compare language to <AppleScript>...make sure your assumptions are up to date.
For those looking for more info on ASOC, (warning, contains a rant or two about Apple DTS. Naughty language therein.):
Some of my articles on it from 2009, 2010, 2011.
Shane Stanley's ASOC book: http://www.macosxautomation.com/applescript/apps/
MacScripter.net's ASOC forums: http://macscripter.net/viewforum.php?id=63
Mac OS X Automation's AppleScript section: http://www.macosxautomation.com/applescript/develop/index.html
What's new in Lion for AppleScript: http://www.macosxautomation.com/lion/applescript.html
Apple's ASOC mailing list: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo2/applescriptobjc-dev
So yeah, the info is out there.| Comments ()
September 26, 2011
Dear, Dear Rebecca Watson
While I appreciate your new-found love for not executing people, and LARPing, one minor point:
The Catholic Church did not in fact, execute Galileo.
I know, I know, you're all against execution, and you get rolling and bang, Galileo!
But please, if you're going to call yourslef a "skeptic" and be all into "proof" and the like, then every so often, every one in a fucking while, before, before you make yet another twee youtube video, at least go spend a few minutes on wikipedia.
A little actual work, you don't look stupid. Pretty cool, huh.
On the subject of looking stupid...well, we'll leave off the hair dye thing for another time.| Comments ()
September 25, 2011
Here's a special breed of tool. The ones who say "oh, BEING gay is okay. You just can't ever love anyone who's of the same sex. Or touch them. Or live a life that is anything but lonely outside of a monastary"
It's even better when you piss them off, so that they go off message, and come up with the inevitable comparison of homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia as 'sinful impulses we all have to resist".
If those precious idiots would just spine up and admit they hate teh gai, they'd still be homophobes, but they'd be honest about it.| Comments ()
September 23, 2011
Rick Santorum is right!
No, really. From the Republican Debates last night, look at this quote:
The question went to Rick Santorum, who made things worse by not offering any words of appreciation for Hill's service, which he didn't even acknowledge. Instead, he declared that "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," that gays and lesbians have been given "a special privilege" by the repeal of DADT, and that the basic function of the military has been undermined because of it. Unlike Hill's question, Santorum's response produced loud applause and cheers that almost drowned him out as he finished speaking.
"We have to move forward with conforming with what was happening in the past, which is that sex is not an issue," he said. "It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual."
I think Rick is right. We need to confirm that any type of sexual activity has no place in the military, and so I therefore support Santorum's effort to not only re-introduce DADT, but have it apply to all members of the military, regardless of sexual orientation. Any admission of any form of sexual activity whatsoever is grounds for immediate dismissal. Get laid during tech school? Out. Get busted spanking it? Out.
It's about time that we finally admitted the heinous problems our military has faced by allowing its members to have any kind of sexual activity or outlet. I mean, the drop in readiness alone is massive. Face it, if you haven't been allowed to even masturbate for a couple years, you will have no compunction killing people. Shit, we wouldn't need guns. Drop a bunch of Rangers who've not been allowed to even touch themselves for a year in a trouble spot and tell them that their discharge depends on them killing every living thing for ten square miles?
You'd be able to use a milk bottle for what was left of the inhabitants.
And that's just for the single members. Can you imagine the rage that a married military member would feel at seeing their spouse naked or in scanty clothing for years and not being able to do more than hold their hand? They'd have to keep those folks in a damned cage, they'd be foaming at the mouth. The only problem would be getting them to stop killing, but I imagine some good holograms of naked people would be a good diversion. Well maybe. Might just piss them off more.
And imagine the parties when people were discharged. Well, you might want to not be within a few miles of them at first. I imagine they'd be none too particular about who or how they ended that dry spell. But damn, what a night or twelve that would be. Woo. Fucking Who. (We might need to create a few targeted exceptions to rape laws, but such is the price we pay to be free.)
I'm really surprised that no one has thought about this before, it's really brilliant.
Good on you Rick Santorum, for loving your country more than anything. Good on you.| Comments ()
September 20, 2011
Why I like discs in the mail over downloads
I'm surprised people are surprised I like this, but it's not because of some luddite leaning. It's because I don't like dicking around. Seriously, let's compare this.
Once I've registered for discs in the mail, here's what I need:
- A device to play DVDs
- Something to display the movie the DVD is playing, possibly in the same unit as the DVD player
- Power for items 1 and 2
- A postal address at a place I can easily access
Seriously. That's it. I make a list of movies. One comes in the mail. I enjoy it for as long as I like. Every bit of content. When I'm done, I put the disc in an envelope and send it back. I don't even have to go to the post office, I use that little flag thing on my mail box, (or outgoing mail if in an apartment/office building.) At some point in the near future, a new disc shows up. Yay.
What I don't have to care about:
- the quality of my internet connection
- Some router in east bumfuck screwing up my program
- Some other program that isn't flash that can still fuck things up
- Will the place I want to watch the movie have a decent internt connection that won't kick me off for streaming video. (Every laptop I've used since 2001 has a DVD player.
- Any other computer related bullshit. Face it, optical disc playback is pretty fucking tight other than physical damage to the disc. I can tell you betwen netflix streaming and the disc in the envelope, which one is gobs more reliable and consistent.
Does this mean streaming sucks? Not at all. but spare me the meme the streaming kicks the shit out of discs, because it doesn't. I haven't even touched on the amount of content I get on physical media vs. streaming, and if we're talking about discs I own, I ONLY PAY ONCE. So they're ultimately cheaper.
Both have a place, both work well, but I can tell you which one is simpler.| Comments ()
September 16, 2011
A woman couldn't what???
An extension of what Diane was saying with this:
She goes into rather a lot of detail, complete with scale weights of a broadsword and a bastard sword to show they were not that heavy, and yes, even a wee woman could swing one more than once or twice.
But just in case you think she's wrong...world, meet Master Chook Ok Harmon. (Yes, I know the web site's a bit primitive. Let it go. Trust me.)
She's a 9th-degree black belt, (specific title: Su Suhk Kwahn Jahng Nim) in a system I've studied now for many years, (her school's site) and having seen her doing things with double...well, the closest western approximation would be bastard swords, (No, I don't mean bloody katanas either. Shocker, but all of Asia did not use one damned sword. Better information here) I can tell you that if one trains at it, one can swing rather large swords about in a coordinated fashion even if one is rather petite. Master Harmon is fairly petite. She'll also rip your liver out of your abdomen without trying terribly hard.
If I had to guess, the author that Diane was responding to had either never spent any time swinging a sword, and so after trying it once, decided that it was too hard for a woman, or, had never done anything other than maybe pick one up and decide it was too hard. (I will say that if you don't practice this sort of thing regularly, it's harder than it looks. If you practice, not so hard.)
Neither's going to be right, (also, spare me the mystical bullshit about Asian swords and how they weighed like .1mg, and cut through steel like it was buttah. No, and no.) For those who still think that Asian swords are THAT different, find a decent Ren group who does living chess matches where the women wield long/bastard swords. They'll set you right. Really folks, you can train at this stuff, and get good at it, and you can be rather small while doing so.| Comments ()
September 8, 2011
Y'all stop that, you'll hurt yourself
Just had someone from Adobe, (I'll not name the team to save them some embarassment), try to bullshit me about creating emails with attachments in Entourage v. Outlook.
Guys, DO keep in mind that I've done things with Entourage and Outlook that you've said can't be done. Maybe you should assume people aren't stupid before you reply.| Comments ()
September 6, 2011
Why cross-platform dev tools suck for your customers
For anyone out there considering cross-platform tools like Flash for building iOS/Android/Etc. applications, from the release notes for the not-yet-released AIR 3 and Flash 11:
Front-facing Camera Support (new for AIR Android) — The front-facing camera support available with AIR for iOS and BlackBerry Tablet OS is now available on Android devices. Take advantage of the front-facing camera to help users connect with rich video conferencing and chat experiences on smartphones and tablets.
Note you still can't do that with the release. But real soon now, Flash devs targeting Android will have this support.
Background Audio Playback Support on iOS — Developers can now write multitasking iOS applications that can play audio while in the background, such as music applications or reliable voice conferencing apps with multitasking support.
On the eve of the iOS 5 release, you'll soon be able to use a feature of iOS 4. AWESOME!
Encrypted Local Storage for Mobile — Extends encrypted local storage support to mobile devices. Allows applications to more securely store sensitive data on a user's device, enabling support for storage of sensitive data such as passwords, certificates, and auditing information.
You didn't need this, right?
Yes, I know, you think you save so much time and money with cross-platform frameworks. Until you want to support a feature that isn't that important to Adobe or whomever. Then you're really screwed. Because the only way out? Is to do a lot of rewriting that you never planned on having to do.
Rewriting adds not a single new feature, nor a single new customer. It is something that should be avoided at all costs, because now, the customer, even the free ones, have to wait n weeks/months/whatever for you to get back to where you should have been already.| Comments ()