Disqus - Latest Comments for tommorris

Re: A plea to #smwldn live-tweeters

Tom Morris — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:38:40 -0000

They could do something radical like write something longer than 140 characters and publish it on a blog. :)

Re: Writers, Coders and the Markdown landgrab

Tom Morris — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 04:13:09 -0000

I find this attitude a bit odd. As someone who works on code that implements a parser (for microformats in HTML, not for Markdown), having a clean, sane parsing spec makes the lives of users easier in the long run precisely because it means that you can know Markdown and not be plagued by incompatibilities between implementations (remember how that worked out with HTML+CSS?).

We currently have Markdown and MultiMarkdown and things like footnotes that some parsers implement and others don't. Can I take the Markdown I use on my blog and use it in Wordpress? Well, maybe. Or maybe not. There's no spec, so I need to know the implementation details of the version of Markdown that Wordpress use. What about the Markdown implementation that the craptastic CMS that some media outlet ends up using? Even in a language like Ruby, there's a whole lot of different markdown parsers because at some point everyone thinks "I can do a better job!" (and they usually don't). Standardising this stuff makes a lot of sense. I haven't read the details of Standard/Common Markdown, but having read a lot of specs, it looks pretty sane.

Either the spec is explicit—and preferably produced by a sane group of people who ensure that copyrights and patents aren't a problem—or it's implicit and agreed on privately by the implementers, and through a whole lot of reverse engineering. I don't see how having a spec that handles edge cases is anti-author. I don't see how the two things are opposed. I don't understand how it is better for authors to have a less well-defined, harder-to-implement spec that doesn't handle edge cases so well.

Like HTML, the Standard/Common Markdown stuff looks like it is defining error behaviour. A lot of specs get written with "this is how you ought to do it" but they never account for what the right behaviour should be when you don't follow the rules. Making it so parsers handles errors in consistent ways is useful too.

Re: Reinventing The Hyperlink

Tom Morris — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 06:43:48 -0000

The problem with "copy link location" is that word "copy". There is a group of people who we shall call The Rightsholders who don't want you to copy anything. Copying is wrong and it makes you a criminal.

This proposal is very good, and the DRM working group will no doubt approve as it'll reduce the widespread unauthorized copying of links.

Re: Wikidata: Why it matters, how to get started

Tom Morris — Mon, 26 May 2014 06:20:40 -0000

It was an example of how Wikidata can solve a long-standing and fairly dull problem that English Wikipedia has had, namely the constant identity politics bickering that accompanies the category system. Systemic bias and representation of women are issues that plenty of people in the Wikipedia community care about: having a new tool that might help improve on that front can only be a good thing.

There's plenty more that Wikidata will make possible, and most of those things aren't things we'll probably be able to predict until the project becomes mature and the tooling gets better and so on.

Re: Is "New Atheism" dead? | Rationalist Association

Tom Morris — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:53:30 -0000

I looked for the words "census", "statistics", "survey" or the "%" symbol in the Catholic Herald column. None. Oh well. Why would you want to attempt to back up one's claims with facts?

Re: Why should Anita Sarkeesian have to work for free in return for misogynistic abuse?

Tom Morris — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:12:20 -0000

She hasn't yet produced the videos she's been funded for. How can you therefore say that the project is subpar when it hasn't actually been produced yet?

And I can't remember when Sarkeesian held a gun to anybody's head and forced them to donate to the Kickstarter campaign.

Re: Why should Anita Sarkeesian have to work for free in return for misogynistic abuse?

Tom Morris — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:32:54 -0000

Blaming "Free Culture" activists for this kind of thing is ridiculous. Most of us are a bit busy writing Wikipedia or whatever to harass Anita Sarkeesian.

And given Anita is going to release the work she's doing for free on YouTube (and lots of her previous work is released under a Creative Commons license), to suggest that it's down to "Free Culture" is ridiculous.

Here's a far simpler explanation: misogynist assholes are being misogynist assholes.

Re: Bad Faith Award 2012: place your vote now

Tom Morris — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:00:49 -0000

So many to choose from. But I plumped for O'Brien as the representative of that paedophile-protecting, gay-hating bunch of nutters, the Catholic Church.

Re: Oh look, NOM's Ruth Institute is suggesting gays should come with surgeon general's warning - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

Tom Morris — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:21:32 -0000

A few years ago, we had a delightful man of the cloth here in Britain who took this bigotry to its logical extreme and suggested that the government ought to tattoo public health warnings on to gay people.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2...

Re: 31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)

Tom Morris — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:00:20 -0000

It should be up to the individual denomination whether to marry people. (As it has been, incidentally, for quite some time: my grandmother couldn't marry her husband in the Church of England because he was a divorcee; they got marred in the Church of Scotland instead.)

The problem is that the Christian opponents of gay marriage don't want it to be legal for any church to be able to marry gay and lesbian couples. This is in spite of the fact that some denominations do want to marry same-sex couples: Quakers, Unitarians, liberal Jews and so on. The "but no marrying in church!" argument always seems to want to dictate that no church should be able to perform same-sex marriages. What the situation should actually be is that marriage law in Britain should cover both opposite and same-sex marriages, and religious groups can marry any people they like on whatever doctrinal grounds they like. They may still oppose divorcees marrying, or gay couples marrying. Whatever. That's up to them. But not allowing any religious groups to marry gay couples is to inflict one particular religious viewpoint dogmatically on religious groups that disagree.

Re: 31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)

Tom Morris — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:00:40 -0000

"Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church."

So, you are saying that not only would I get equal rights to marry my (sadly, hypothetical at the moment) boyfriend but I'd also be able to destroy the church in the process... as two-for-the-price-of-one deals go, that's pretty compelling.

Re: The new archbishop - a random vicar's view

Tom Morris — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:57:55 -0000

"Scientists are increasingly questioning the strength of macro evolution as a theory."

Re: On Stanislaw Burzynski, "antineoplastons," and cancer cure scams

Tom Morris — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:09:33 -0000

Dr. Oz has supported lots and lots of cranks and quacks over the years.

Re: Audio: MD Marriage Alliance head equates legal limits on same-family unions with bars on same-gender unions - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

Tom Morris — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:30:03 -0000

Here in Britain, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Schedule 1 defines a list of prohibited degrees of relationship that prevent someone from getting a civil partnership. Funnily enough, they are the gender-appropriate equivalent as what is banned in heterosexual marriages. Somehow it was within the wit of the British legislature to include the same rules for civil partnerships as for marriages. And I'm pretty sure when the government upgrades the legislation to full marriage equality, similar restrictions will apply...

Re: A Halloween Gender Binary

Tom Morris — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:52:40 -0000

The gay take on Halloween costumes. http://hommemaker.com/2012/... ;-)

Re: Ohio voting machines – brought to you by the Romneys

Tom Morris — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:14:14 -0000

Could just use a paper and pencil. It works quite well.

Re: http://yieldthought.com/post/31857050698

Tom Morris — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:38:58 -0000

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's impossible. It's just quite useful to have the compiler or interpreter on your own machine as well as the server. I know the iPad and keyboard thing is doable, but I find the MacBook Air thing pretty doable too. (I just wish the power brick was a bit smaller.)

Re: Internet Brands to Wikitravel admins: go to hell!

Tom Morris — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 09:13:17 -0000

Thanks for the comment. You are definitely right about StackExchange. They have worked out how to combine commercial demands with an active community: might have something to do with eating their own dogfood at StackOverflow.

Re: Albert Mohler Lashes Out Against the Clergy Project

Tom Morris — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 06:53:03 -0000

Mohler is right in the sense that he says the Clergy Project is "a magnet for charlatans and cowards". The problem is that the default state is that they will continue to be charlatans and cowards; the Clergy Project is seeking to help them stop being charlatans and cowards. Condemning the Clergy Project for a "magnet for charlatans and cowards" is a bit like condemning Alcoholics Anonymous for being a magnet for alcoholics. You'd think Christians like Mohler would be all in favour of a supportive environment for people who no longer believe to make their way out of the clergy.

The Clergy Project actually reminds me of a group called the Straight Spouses Network, a support forum for people who have found out their husbands or wives are gay/lesbian. In a situation where someone enters a relationship or a career/vocation and then finds that they are unable to continue because they've discovered something fundamental that gets in the way of doing so, the kind and compassionate thing for everyone involved is to try and find ways for them to exit in the most dignified and harm-reducing way they possibly can.

Mohler condemns these people for their lack of intellectual honesty in wanting to continue drawing a salary. Well, duh, honesty is important but must be backed by practicality. To continue the gay analogy, I am compelled by my honesty (and solidarity etc.) to live life as openly about my sexuality as I can, but that doesn't mean that if there were a rampaging, murderous mob of homophobes charging through the streets I wouldn't be justified in a little white lie to save my skin. (Christians may believe in the moral value of martyrdom; personally, I quite like not being dead.) I do think members of the clergy who continue to preach even though they don't believe are being dishonest and should seek to live an honest life, but if the process of having a more honest life means preaching a few half-hearted sermons while in the process of finding a new career, that's no big deal.

Re: Oppression, identity and sexuality

Tom Morris — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:49:40 -0000

Just a note for the record: I have rephrased a paragraph which took issue with Britney Spears' annulled wedding. It wasn't my intention to "slut-shame" Britney Spears. The point I was attempting to make was simply that the same people who seem to think gay people would destroy marriage also tend to ignore examples of what they ought to consider immoral or marriage-destroying behaviour by their own views. I don't share their views. I don't think that the value of marriage is destroyed by Britney Spears but I do think that opponents of marriage equality are massively inconsistent in condemning gay partnerships that they don't like but not heterosexual couples that engage in the same behaviour.

I was slightly reluctant to change the post given that it's a fairly important personal record for me, but after seeing that the repetition of that particular trope causes harm in the way it does, I've changed it and apologise for the original phrasing.

Re: Oppression, identity and sexuality

Tom Morris — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 08:42:56 -0000

Good point. Fixed.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the post.

Re: Explaining philosophy for social justice warriors and/or trolls

Tom Morris — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:58:11 -0000

True. If that kind of subjective/objective distinction is the point they are making (or pretending to make, if they are a troll), then, yes, the criticism is definitely weakened.

The argument I guess I believe is implicit is that there really is no rational basis to justify criticism against someone holding the view that they are transracial because of the fact there are no facts about race because, say, race is a subjective concept because there are no physical properties involved. The simple fact is that when we say someone is black, having black skin has at least something to do with it. Yes, what the experience of being in a minority group changes, and there's social reasons that play into that.

Well, even if the concepts are pretty subjective, that doesn't mean it's not possible to scientifically verify those subjective concepts. What counts as a £20 note is subjective in one sense, but I can still build a machine that verifies that a £20 note is a £20 note with a certain degree of reliability (plenty of pubs, restaurants and shops have scanning machines). What counts as being black may be subjective, but those subjective criteria still do the work in the sense that they can sort me into the non-white category and, say, Jesse Jackson into the black category.

Okay, I guess this has prompted me to see it a bit clearer. And I'll use a different example. Human sexuality is not bifurcated into straights and gays (and a few bisexuals and asexuals and so on to throw a spanner in the works), there's a scale. So someone comes along and sees this, and trots out a spectrum fallacy. Given there's no clear dividing line between people who are 100% heterosexual and 95% heterosexual, there's no real, meaningful difference between Hugh Hefner and Boy George. And therefore it's okay to take on the identity trappings of a gay person. Throw in a bit about subjectivity, some guff about how different cultures experience their sexual and gender categories in different ways, and how we have yet to find a meaningful scientific distinction between people of different sexual orientations and, shazam, the same argument runs in much the same way the race example. Except it doesn't, for reasons I can't quite explicate.

The analogy isn't exact, obviously. As it rapidly approaches 2am, I shall sleep on it. Thanks for the comment.

Re: Tech journalists: take my tech test

Tom Morris — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:40:17 -0000

Oh sure, I think you may have your realistic cynicism mixed in with my advocacy of high ideals.

Re: Brogrammers, diversity and defensiveness

Tom Morris — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:19:49 -0000

The term "homophobic" isn't loaded. The fact that you think it is shows how disconnected from reality this whole argument is. It seems basic and clear as day to me that if you donate to a political campaign to deny gay people equal rights, you have engaged in a homophobic act in exactly the same way that if you donated to a political campaign to deny a racial minority equal rights, you have engaged in a racist act. I don't actually give a fuck about a person's mental state on these things.

If you can't see the basic and fundamental injustice in donating to a political campaign that denies people equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation, no amount of applying the principle of charity will help you.

The principle of charity is about arguments. It simply says that if you present an argument that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, you should interpret it in the most positive and productive way possible. I'm committed to the principle of charity, but the point here is that Ryan Funduk, whose post this post is in response to, was making an argument about technology events, and his respondents weren't adhering to the principle of charity by misrepresenting that as an argument for banning alcohol completely at tech events. In the case of Brendan Eich, there isn't an argument. There's pretty much silence from Eich.

All this stuff about context? Sorry, bullshit. If you engage in a publicly-reported political act, you have to face the consequences. If you can't face what happens if someone finds out you've donated money to a hateful, mean and vicious campaign, perhaps the answer is to not donate to such a campaign. If you can't stand up in front of your community (in Eich's case, other programmers, Mozilla users and free software people) and defend what you did, how is that a "rational and moral choice"? If you are a public leader in a community, you have to take responsibility for your actions both public, private and in this case semi-public.

As for the suggestion that Eich has been the victim of libel or defamation because of people calling his actions homophobic or bigoted? In Britain, my own country, the comments made against Eich are a clear example of "fair comment" which is a defence against libel.

Re: Tech journalists: take my tech test

Tom Morris — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:25:17 -0000

Okay, yes, you can quibble about whether Clojure is a programming language in its own right or a Lisp dialect. The Clojure website calls Clojure a programming language, while Wikipedia prefers a "recent dialect of Lisp". The dialect thing is a bit of a dodge really as Clojure introduces some new syntax and constructs that don't exist in other Lisps. The fact remains that whether it's a programming language or a dialect of Lisp, it was introduced in the last decade.

The distinction is just semantics. If you know the answer to the question, the semantics won't be a problem, and if you don't know the answer to the question, the semantics won't distract you in the slightest. When writing questions, you have to sometimes be vague otherwise you give the answer away in the question.

As for whether startup founders know about technology, that's a separate question. Your statement rather presumes a hierarchy where the startup founders are super-duper smart and the journalists are quite naturally lesser beings than the super smart founders. I simply assert the simple principle that if you are writing about technology—and, again, technology news sites do write about technology including programming and programming languages—it's pretty important you actually have some understanding of technology. I know very little about art history. That is a very good reason I avoid writing about it.