Mack - Viewing Profile - webdevRefinery Forum

Reputation: 96 Excellent

Group:: Members
Active Posts:: 3315 (2.84 per day)
Most Active In:: General Discussion (1236 posts)
Joined:: 08-March 10
Profile Views:: 8529
Last Active:: Yesterday, 07:17 PM
Currently:: Offline

My Information

Member Title:: http://mackgoodstein.com/
Age:: Age Unknown
Birthday:: Birthday Unknown
Gender:: Male
Expertise:: HTML
CSS
PHP
Javascript

Contact Information

E-mail:: Private
Website URL:: http://mackgoodstein.com/

Latest Visitors

Sole_Wolf
09 May 2013 - 22:57
callumacrae
31 Mar 2013 - 18:01
Ruku
03 Mar 2013 - 17:27

Topics I've Started

Development Apps

12 March 2013 - 10:46 PM
My PhpStorm trial expired, and 6 just came out, so I was thinking about buying it. But before I did, I figured I'd ask what all of you guys use now. I know there have been IDE threads in the past, but new things come out and so I figured it's time for a new discussion.

So, what apps do you guys use for development now?

My current list consists of:
- GitHub for Mac - Only because I'm too lazy to do some of those things manually
- git - For when I actually take the time to do it by hand, or when I'm doing something on my server
- vim - For quick edits or small projects
- Sublime Text - For editing big things, but not actually a full project
- PhpStorm - For full projects that I start
- Eclipse - Unfortunately for a class, otherwise I wouldn't even have Java installed on my computer.
- sed - For when I realize I screwed something up. A lot.
IE Testing VMs

01 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

As of a few days ago, Microsoft started giving out VMs of different IE versions to test your code. That way you don't need to have a working installation of every Windows OS, you just need the minimal version they setup for IE. While it's annoying that this is even necessary, there's nothing that can be done about that now so at least this is a decent solution.

You can get them here.
Chromebook Pixel

21 February 2013 - 11:39 PM

Google just announced a new laptop in the Chromebook line called the Chromebook Pixel.

The design of this computer is excellent. Easily one of the best laptops on the market today, and it's not made by Apple. I've been waiting for another company to create products like this for a while, and it seems like Google has finally started. And it's HiDPI + 3:2, which will make it great for web browsing. The only problem is, well, everything else. It's $1299, and only sports a 1.8GHz dual-i5, 4GB of RAM, a 32GB SSD, and USB 2.0. For $200 more you can get the 13" retina MacBook Pro with a 2.5GHz dual-i5, 8GB of RAM, a 128GB SSD, and USB 3.0. And that's not even getting into the software, which for now is still inferior on the Chromebook to a laptop that can boot either Windows or OS X. While 3:2 is nicer, and you get 100 extra vertical pixels with the same horizontal resolution on the Chromebook, it's just too expensive right now. Google finally nailed laptop design, but unfortunately the Apple pricing came with it.
3D Fractals

21 February 2013 - 12:13 AM

All of the fractals this guy made are really cool, but this one just messes with my brain:
Bitcoins

06 February 2013 - 03:33 PM

History of topic:

callumacrae, on 04 February 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:
Bitcoins are like the cleverest scam ever
TheMaster, on 04 February 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:
This. I can't believe people actually spend thousands of dollars to "min. Wtf are they working out anyway? Random fuckknowswhatfor hashes that some random Asian comes up with. What the hell is with that ?! At LEAST use that processing power for a decent cause. How people fall for this shit is beyond me.
Smarag, on 05 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:
Uhm so let's talk about it... Why exactly would you think it's a scam? Calculating these hashes is neccessary for the network's integrity.
callumacrae, on 05 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:
"Hey, give us some money, and you can have something which isn't really worth anything and we can shut down at any time!"
_Sam, on 05 February 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:
I don't think it's possible for this to be shut down.
ianonavy, on 05 February 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:
Bitcoins rely on open P2P protocols. Anyone can write a Bitcoin wallet if they implement it correctly. They can't really just "shut it down". Bitcoins retain their value as long as people continue to value them for their utility and because they are scarce. Bitcoin mining has to consume some sort of resource (in this case, CPU time and electricity) in the same way that paper and metal money use up paper and metal. If they didn't and money just grew on trees, they would be worthless.

Contrast bitcoins with the gold-backed dollar from a few centuries ago. Back then, there was a promise from the government that you could exchange your paper dollar for actual gold, and that there was a standard conversion rate that everyone agreed on. Today's dollar is backed by the fact that merchants around the world value the dollar and will accept it because they in turn can use it. Such is the same for bitcoins. As more and more merchants begin to accept bitcoins as a currency, its value will continue to stabilize.

If everyone in the world decided one day that they would no longer accept dollars, they would be worthless. Same with euros. Same with bitcoins.
Mack, on 05 February 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
The problem with Bitcoins though is that I don't get paid in them. It's the same reason that when deciding how to pay my server bill, I choose USD instead of Euros. And it's the same problem that every other virtual currency has faced, even those backed by a company. Look at Microsoft Points. Nobody likes those because you have to prebuy them in order to purchase something, and that means you have to do the math to see how much "real" money everything costs. And it's not even as bad with those, because they are tied to the USD. The Bitcoin->USD exchange rate is constantly changing. I can't look at something and know how much it costs relative to how much money I make without looking it up.

So while I like the idea of Bitcoins, I doubt it will ever catch on unless employers switch to it. And that won't happen.
ianonavy, on 06 February 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:
The difference between Microsoft Points and bitcoins is that bitcoins aren't regulated by a specific organization or institution. It was designed to be decentralized. Potentially, anyone could accept bitcoins. Microsoft Points are generally only accepted by Microsoft, and their value is fixed by Microsoft. It's kind of like transferable store credit.

It's paradoxical, but the main reason that employers don't pay in bitcoins is that not a lot of places directly accept payment in bitcoins, and the reason that not a lot of merchants accept bitcoins is that employers don't pay people in bitcoins, so not everyone has them.
TheMaster, on 06 February 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:
And which is why it will stay that way.
ianonavy, on 06 February 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:
Actually, logically that doesn't follow. It only explains why people think employers will never pay people in bitcoins for typical jobs. Some people actually make a living off of selling access to botnets for ~~DDoS attacks~~ network penetration testing in shady IRC channels for bitcoins.

I personally wouldn't mind being paid in bitcoins. However, the main issue for me and the reason that I don't use bitcoins is that the U.S. government doesn't accept bitcoins (or any other non-USD currency for that matter) for taxes, and I wouldn't be able to write my income in terms of bitcoins.
TheMaster, on 06 February 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:
Which is why you would then declare your income as USD$0. Which would be correct.
ianonavy, on 06 February 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:
No, I would have to convert my bitcoin income into the currency rate for dollars at the time of filing, since I'd have to write a check in USD. This would of course require me to convert some of my bitcoins into dollars to pay my taxes. It would be easier if my employer just paid me in dollars (which is bitcoins haven't caught on much in my country).
Mack, on 06 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:
And that's the issue. The only way a new currency can catch on is if a government adopts it as their main currency. Nobody switches on their own because they don't get paid in it, and no employers pay in Bitcoins because you can't buy much with them. But when a government mandates a new currency, both of those issues are solved. But no government would adopt the Bitcoin because it's decentralized. And that would most likely destroy the nation's economy, because there's no way to regulate the amount in circulation.
ianonavy, on 06 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:
But you wouldn't need need to regulate the amount in circulation. That's built into the architecture of bitcoins. It's been designed so that its rate of growth exponentially decreases until there's only a finite number of bitcoins in the world (and a specific number, decided when they were first created to be 21 million). As people lose their wallets, the value of an individual bitcoin would simply increase and people would start to price things using lower denominations of bitcoins such as millibitcoins and microbitcoins. I don't see how a gradual transition would destroy the economy. Then again, I'm not an economist so correct me if I'm wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which brings us to now:

ianonavy, on 06 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:
But you wouldn't need need to regulate the amount in circulation. That's built into the architecture of bitcoins. It's been designed so that its rate of growth exponentially decreases until there's only a finite number of bitcoins in the world (and a specific number, decided when they were first created to be 21 million). As people lose their wallets, the value of an individual bitcoin would simply increase and people would start to price things using lower denominations of bitcoins such as millibitcoins and microbitcoins. I don't see how a gradual transition would destroy the economy. Then again, I'm not an economist so correct me if I'm wrong.

Is that enough though? If the only way for Bitcoins to catch on is for everyone to start using it, that would be hundreds of millions of people. And if the wealth distribution were similar to how it is now my entire worth would be a few millibitcoins. Services would have to be priced in nanobitcoins. Plus, there would be no way for economists to adjust things the way they do today with real currencies. The Federal Reserve has a committee that meets every couple months to discuss changes to make, which would be impossible with Bitcoins not including the fact that there would be no regulating body.

Also, the other problem is that it's strictly digital. The only way to use Bitcoins is to use both USD and Bitcoins. I'm not going to buy a drink in Bitcoins beyond just the fact that it would cost mere millionths of a Bitcoin. And if prices were that low, earlier adopters would be disproportionally rich, and it would be near impossible for anyone else to start using Bitcoins.