> This is a fundamental design flaw of Python, and it's just a Bad Idea.
That sounds like a gut reaction and not a reasoned argument. I was skeptical of it at first, but after coding some Python I decided all my reasons for hating it weren't valid. Turns out it's very practical and makes the code prettier. I don't like the language for other reasons, but the significant whitespace never gave me any problems, headaches, or weird spurious bugs.
The only negative thing about it for me was that hitting TAB in Emacs doesn't indent to the "proper" place (since it's impossible to actually determine the proper place). Instead, it would alternate amongst the valid tab points from most likely to least, which felt like a reasonable compromise to me.
Interestingly, I never hear anyone whine about Haskell's use of significant whitespace…
I was bit by haskell's whitespace - but I think that was connected to a bug with the do-notation or some such syntactic sugar. In general I think significant whitespace is a great way to deliniate blocks
I've seen this argument before, and, while it's true to some extent, it seems like FUD to me. The same exact argument could be used for every single server you host yourself. But how many people here have an AWS machine running HTTP and SSH?
How many of them have been compromised by the Russian mafia?
People are so scared of email, and I just don't understand it.
As someone who's been distantly following Perl6 from its inception, the new RE grammars are the most exciting thing to me. It's the one time I've seen a YACC type thing and thought, "ah, this is how it should be."
I predict that if Perl6 ever becomes somewhat released/stable/fast we'll start seeing a bunch of compilers/transpilers written in it.
> but why would you want to help people circumvent one of the (to me) reasonable ways of enjoying and paying for music?
Because DRM sucks. Why can I only listen to Spotify through their player? Why am I restricted to using it only on computers/devices that they've ported their player to?
It's not exactly the same, but back when iTunes sold DRM encrusted music files, I used to strip all the DRM from the files I legally purchased, so that I could play them on my Linux system, stream them to my Philips wifi speaker system, etc.
Being locked in to a single vendor's ecosystem sucks. This is part of the reason why I currently refuse to purchase video from iTunes or Amazon. When the industry wises up and drops DRM from video, I will happily start patronizing them.
Spotify is a bit different—it's more like Netflix than iTunes or Amazon. Still, if I'm paying for it, it's still frustrating to only being able to use their players .
 My TiVo has a built-in Netflix player, but it really sucks. Much of the newer content doesn't actually decode properly. Being locked into their system means I'm at their mercy. If I could get at the stream I could use a computer somewhere to transcode it into something the TiVo could reliably play... But the DRM prohibits me from doing that, and that's frustrating.
> Due to the technical challenges involved, specialist equipment required and general perception that it would be the hardest, we decided to begin our search for vulnerabilities in the intra-bulb 802.15.4 6LoWPAN wireless mesh network.
Sentences like that make me happy. I love the hacker spirit.
A good example of the kind of demand I'm talking about is New Year's Eve.
Every NYE people scramble for reservations. Many people will book at 2-3 restaurants to have options. As a result, everyone who is going on that night has a reservation, and everyone who doesn't have a reservation goes to a house party or stays home. You never get walk-ins on NYE (or Valentine's day for that matter).
Sure, maybe trendy restaurants on a busy strip can make up the difference. And maybe this is most restaurants in SF, I don't know, I'm not from there.
But if it's a destination restaurant, it often can't make up lost reservations on such short notice because no one will plan their evening around a chance at possibly walking in to a restaurant known to only take reservations.
Either way, any success he gets will be short lived, as SF restaurants will soon start taking CC numbers en-masse, or selling tickets like Alinea. They'll cut him out of their business, and if he tries dealing with them face-to-face, he'll be blacklisted. The fact that he's already created such outrage on Twitter may seem encouraging to him, but he's basically already killed any chance he has of creating goodwill.
Recently someone in our city tried scamming restaurants for free stuff by claiming to be a member of the press, was outed on Twitter and swiftly blacklisted by every restaurant in the community. When you run a business that has capital costs potentially in the millions for 5-20% margins if you're lucky, you don't react well to people scamming you.
What? As someone who frequently puts in random names for reservations, I fail to see what is unethical about this
Well, it's not unethical like you're injecting babies with a controversial drug. It's quite mildly unethical - a reservation is a promise. Promising something with a fake name is a little unethical - you're asking someone to do something for you, but offering no avenue of recourse if you don't hold up your end of the bargain. I think in this case that it's unethical to the same degree that taking some ballpoints home from work is stealing.
If I gave someone my real name for a reservation and then flaked, there's nothing they could (practically) do about it anyway. The name is just the key you use to associate yourself with an otherwise secret list of reservations.
> Time Warner Cable has started charging $5 for anybody who wants to talk to a human being regarding billing.
Having just done this a couple weeks ago, the message was more like "$5 for talking to a human for anything that can be done with the automated system". For my case it was paying the bill with a credit card. You can type it into the automated system, but if you insist on tying up a human just to dictate your card number to them, then they charge you the $5.
When I talked to the human to explain something on the bill that I wasn't understanding, they were helpful and didn't charge me the $5, even when we discovered I needed to pay a little more and I paid it through him.
This is similar to banks who charge people for doing ATM class transactions with a human teller. Personally, those types of things don't bother me at all, since I'm the type of personality that pretty much always chooses the automated way over talking to humans.