nfnaaron

And the wikipedia page about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_in_Mathmagic_Land

"but we also believe in fast loading pages"

Is that for your benefit, or your users? Either way is a good answer, I just think you should know the answer. The word "believe" prompted this comment.

If you have icons 1-10 on tab A, and icons 11-20 on tab B, then tab B loads really, really slow, i.e. never until you click it. So you have fast access to icons 1-10 and really slow access to icons 11-20.

An option in the Settings would (eventually) be good.

pair.com has worked very well for me, for ten years or so. It's freebsd shared hosting, but if you're willing to consider gapps this is reasonable too. Includes two or three web interfaces, as well as imap.

"The existence of a God is fact, or not fact. It's either true for everyone, or false for everyone."

The existence of God is both fact and not fact, until you look in the box.

"We will spend months stressing about a job or a start-up, which might affect our lives for the subsequent year or two or three, and no more than a few hours here and there really digging into what evidence exists to support an atheist or religious perspective."

If the religious perspective if based on faith, how or why would one dig for evidence?

That's a great problem to have.

Getting locked up is often part of civil disobedience. :)

Is there a respected tradition of civil disobedience where you are?

Bit over/underflow?

Or Sotheby's was expected to reap a huge windfall due to all the traders and shareholders losing their shirts on $0/share stocks and having to auction off their estates?

- "girls" == "quines" ...

Are they self-reproducing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_%28computing%29

"the fact that the settings are confusing enough that people are exposing information that they want to keep private is pretty damnable."

The information is being exposed, not because of confusion, but because Facebook wants the information exposed (to business partners and affiliates). The confusion leads to surprise, not exposure.

"making the privacy settings more intuitive would be more productive than worrying about needing to "educate" users."

This was exactly my thought earlier in the thread. If it's this hard to understand and explain, there's some simplification yet to be done.

I appreciate his, and other FB employees, attempt and presence. It has to be a huge challenge to explain how this works and why.

"You can still control the visibility of these links on your profile."

Is the following definition of "visibility" accurate in your context?

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/handy-facebook-english-...

"As Facebook explains, "Keep in mind that Facebook Pages you connect to are public. You can control which friends are able to see connections listed on your profile, but you may still show up on Pages you're connected to." Likewise, "While you do have the option to hide your Friend List from being visible on your profile, it will be available to applications you use and websites you connect with using Facebook." Because Facebook deems this information "public," it reserves the right to share that information with its business partners and third party websites, regardless of your visibility settings. "

  "regardless of your visibility settings."

So, we can "hides these links on your profile" from our friends, but we can't hide them from Facebook's "business partners and third party websites, regardless of your visibility settings?"

Isn't that completely backwards from what people would want from a social site? If my understanding of this issue is correct (and I confess, I haven't been able to hold FB's privacy policy and settings regime in my head for some time), then this would be like hiding my street address from my friends but broadcasting my address to junk mail companies with a hearty "Catalogs? Send 'em here!"

"By the way, religious and political views do not only express themselves in the fields you mention. What disrespectful soul there decided to take my "Favorite Quotes", with access previously restricted to "Only Friends", and plaster them -- without so much as a warning -- all over my public profile?"

This.

Coders are the new printers of the publishing industry.

rent for the summer

Was I just tricked into watching a commercial?

Yeah, the audio was kinda poor.

I hope they get far enough for people to use it. My objection to twitter the instant I saw it was that it required a single host/company, unlike email that can be hosted by individuals or companies and offered on any terms imaginable.

Yeah, Halliburton is going to save us.

More likely they'd want to license their "technology" to other patent trolls.

Yeah, you spend a million trading two pieces of paper, and you have two pieces of paper.

You spend five bucks making a hat, sell it for ten, and someone has a hat to shade their head. Or a hammer. Or a car. Or a pencil. Or a computer. Or a defibrillator. Or a softball. Or a picture frame.

Roy Buchanan - You're Not Alone

Benny Goodman - Sing, Sing, Sing (the Live at Carnegie Hall version)

The Beatles - The End

gmail TOS:

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en

6. Your passwords and account security

    6.1 You agree and understand that you are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of passwords associated with any account you use to access the Services.

    6.2 Accordingly, you agree that you will be solely responsible to Google for all activities that occur under your account.

    6.3 If you become aware of any unauthorized use of your password or of your account, you agree to notify Google immediately at http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=58585.

It's not absolutely clear, but 6.1 says to me "don't give your password to anyone." Whether it's for auto-scraping or not. If I give my password to FB to scrape my contacts, I (but not necessarily FB) have violated 6.1 because my password is no longer confidential.

So FB is at least relying on someone (me) violating TOS.

I don't care if they change or not. Get rich, I'm happy for them. Mean time I've deleted all my data (except that part of my data that they don't allow me to delete). I'm slowly deciding whether I'm going to (attempt to) delete my account. Not because I want them to change, but because I'm really irritated at having to review my privacy settings multiple times a year. At some point they're going to make a change that I'll miss.

As people (and I) have said over and over, don't put anything on the net that you don't want to be public.

Well, I haven't put my mother's maiden name up. But the more information about me that's up, the more connections are possible, until someone derives my mother's maiden name (or some other security question). Remember, we don't always get to choose a security question, that's relatively new. Banks, credit agencies, phone company, someone has something about you that's derivable.

Like I said, I don't care if FB changes or not, that's not necessary for me to want to leave, or at least diminish my presence.

That assumes that facebook really destroys your account and reduces their member count by one. If google said they do that, I'd believe them. I wouldn't believe FB on that point at this point in time.

I'd go farther and guess (guess) that major investors have said something like "well, we invested all this money, now we want major returns." What we've seen would then be reaction to that.

And if you're a FB employee, no disrespect to you. If nothing in these posts are true, consider then what FB might be doing wrong so that these kinds of reactions can fester.

"bigger text"

And, see the display of this article's headline on the aggregation page (front page or wherever it drops to)

http://www.livly.org/ Silicon Valley nonprofit startup: "Certain humans appear to possess natural cancer immunity. We attempt to harness this imm

The headline wraps, and the wrapped text is smashed up into the text above it.

So, size and spacing needs some work.

Much better. I might make the text a bit larger. My eyes are probably older than yours. Flipping back and forth between HN and HM it feels like less work to scan HN.

I wonder if you can predict the age of a site's creator based on text size? :)

I just looked this morning. It looks much better, "easy on the eyes" as they say.

"The universe is clearly using us to understand itself."

We are [part of] the universe. The universe is trying to understand itself.

"Well now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are. ... We aren't dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply…will he? and will they?"

I'm a little confused here. Is he saying they're blameless, but they're going to fuck us anyway? Or is he saying they're not blameless and the fucking will continue uninterrupted?