rsanders

What was the harm, exactly? She overheard a stupid joke far less crude than one might hear on any television show during prime time. It was no worse than the one she posted on her own Twitter.

Right click on a folder in the Finder. There should be a couple of options for mirroring (ongoing) or copying the folder (one time) to Bitcasa.

http://cl.ly/image/2T1n1R0X0B0Y

This would be a pretty easy thing to polyfill, I think.

So which True Lisp do you prefer that lacks analogues to the types used above (String, Keyword, List, Map, Vector) in which such a function wouldn't be applicable?

I know it's not a Common Lisp implementation. Most modern Schemes have equivalents. The only difference between Clojure and most Lisps in this case is that its collections are immutable. So how has Clojure sinned in this regard?

Not to bog down in meaningless pedantry, but the original meaning of the word "multitask" was in its technical sense as applied to computing.

While that's all obviously true, I don't think getting his problem fixed was the intent of his comment. You're attacking the messenger of what appears to be a very common message.

I would be interested to know why that is a blocker for you. For media consumption, at least as I normally practice it, that sounds like a detail I'd only notice by reading the code rather than perceiving it in the audio.

Can you efficiently select and sort on the date part of the _id?

Even MRI 1.9 does not support parallel execution of Ruby code. JRuby and MacRuby do, however.

I wanted ZFS as much as anybody, but NetApp did push the state of the art in some areas of filesystem design and the first thing everybody who used NetApp said when they heard about ZFS was "cool, it's like a NetApp". Sometimes it's not trolling; it's just enforcing your rightful patents.

It doesn't sound like a cache at all. Think of it like their old "hotfiles" relocation to the faster part of the disk, only now they're relocating the blocks from entire files to the faster volume in the corestorage group.

That's incorrect. You can embed an interpreter and interpreted code in an iOS app and many do. You just can't download new interpreted code after the application has been installed. You can't download new binary code, either.

See http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/app_store_guidelines.

What's a better one, and how is it better? Mobile Safari's pretty widely acknowledged to implement a much better HTML5 experience, for example, and clearly it can be made to make good use of hardware acceleration for modern non-document-ish uses of CSS.

In which modern MVCC databases can you ask the results of a query if it had been made 1000 transactions before I started this transaction? MVCC is great for dealing with the problems caused by mutability with Concurrency. Datomic takes versioning and immutability a good bit farther than that.

Goldbugs and Ron Paul.

Why don't we have vehicles with the speed of airplanes, the low capital and operational cost of motorcycles, the cargo capacity of trains, the cabin space of luxury yachts?

NoSQL is just a brand name for a loosely defined set of engineering trade-offs. It's easier to achieve the scalability and fault tolerance needed for a lot of modern Internet systems if you don't also require ACID and the huge weight of features and old usage patterns that the market expects of a relational (which they read as "SQL") database. If somebody wants to pour $10-50 million into making an open source NoSQL-scale RDBMS, great, but some projects are too complex for any but the most robust open source communities to maintain, never mind create.

In recent versions of Clojure, vars are not by default dynamically bound.

If you think what a PhD gets you is "training", you've tragically misunderstood the point.

I trust Path with some of my data -- most of it generally created for the specific use within Path.

I opted-in to Safari's default policies when I chose to use Safari. I have also toggled that setting back and forth and now am quite satisfied with the default. Unless Google has information to the contrary, it should not circumvent the setting.

Should it start ignoring robots.txt files because some people may have inadvertently cut&pasted stricter ones than they might really want?

OS X and Linux never shared a common parent or converged. The BSD heritage is what makes it Unixy. BSD has been oil to Linux's water for a long time.

You can post whatever you like on your own blog, but I think what these women want is the ability to have their posts seen by their friends and family. For a huge majority of the people I know, Facebook is the only way to do that.

I don't think either side is idiotic. I believe Facebook has a real need to improve its system so that it doesn't have to hold the entire world to a single parochial standard of propriety. And these women are encouraging it to do so. The only measure of their approach that matters to them is whether it is effective. Time will tell.

What would be interesting to me is your proposal for a better way to achieve their goals, and why you believe it would be more effective.

I prefer to interpret the opposing party in such discussions as serving a vital function in a Socratic dialogue. Whether or not IHBT, it's useful to argue the issue with an opposing viewpoint.

You're right, it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think it's new. For better or worse, Facebook has become the primary (and often only) way I communicate with the majority of my friends and family. While there is certainly an important legal distinction between government censorship and private censorship, the effect here is indistinguishable.

And it's not the first time. The USA used to have rules governing how much of an area's media channels could be owned by a single corporation (and thus warped to serve a single set of interests.) There are strong parallels to this situation.

One of the effects of these Too Big/Entrenched To Replace corporations. It is often easier and more effective to change the corporations than to use alternatives, and in many cases, there simply are no viable alternatives.

The people on HN probably care more about having an open web that enables free-as-in-breastfeeding-pictures communication than it does about breastfeeding. One can choose to view this controversy in either context; I care about both, somewhat to my surprise.

(Actually, much of HN appears to care more about "you know what's cool? a hundred billion dollars" than open communication, but that's a different story.)

You don't; millions of Facebook users exercise the right to do so without having their photos removed. Look at the photos you do post of you doing whatever activity you consider central to your life and how your friends and family perceive you. Now imagine that Facebook prevented such photos. Wouldn't you find it annoying enough to raise a public outcry?

Now imagine that what Facebook has decided to censor is not just some hobby of interest mainly to you, but a cause about which you care passionately and which profoundly affects every single member of every generation. It's a legitimate "think of the children!" situation.

I don't mind Bill Gates working to eradicate malaria, just don't let him post pictures of filthy people in attire Westerners would consider improper. Ewww.

Breastfeeding is coming back, and children are reaping the health benefits, precisely because concerned women have been dragging our culture back from its neurotic denial of it for over half a century now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Leche_League.

Why don't you build your own news aggregator site if you need to say ridiculous things so hardly (sic)?

edit: I didn't mean this to be just snippy. My point is that the discussion is here, not on his own blog, and he wants to have his opinion heard, so he posts here, not on thingsithinkaboutbreastfeedingpicsonfacebook.com.

Even a single, childless male can think through the differences between conceiving a child and supplying that child's frequent, urgent nutritive needs. If you miss a meal, you may feel a little hungry or tired or cranky. As best I can represent it, a baby not being fed on his schedule is much like an adult not being supplied with oxygen. It's far worse than feeling a hunger pang. And women are equipped with a constantly available, sustainable, low cost, environmentally friendly, and energy efficient answer to this problem. So wtf is the problem?

There is a public interest at work here. Breastfed babies are said to have fewer short and long term medical issues. Breastfeeding might be as important to our health (and crippling healthcare costs) as a people as bike paths, sidewalks, healthy foods, preventative medical visits, and any of the other many small lifestyle improvements which we are willing to spend many millions of dollars creating and promoting. And it costs us...a worldview adjusted ever-so-slightly back to what has been for most of our species' history perfect normalcy.

This is an important issue. Encouraging breastfeeding, which does appear to be the superior form of infant nutrition, requires that we normalize it. If we're all too delicate to see tiny thumbnails of women breastfeeding floating by in our newsfeeds, how will anybody ever survive the rather more "graphic" occurrence of it happening next to them on the bus?

I'm willing to accept bikers in far-too-revealing spandex. I have similarly learned to accept women breastfeeding. it's really not so bad once you actually encounter it...which is not something you'll ever know if you're being shielded from it by "decency" filters like Facebook's, or hearing the implied judgment that it's indecent.

Or over changing the formula of Coca-Cola. When you feel that the free market does not provide you with an acceptable substitute, it's in your interest to make your problem known. With any luck, you thereby make it in the corporation's interest to change. If not, perhaps you encourage the market to provide an alternative.

If they had just silently stopped using Facebook, there's no chance that any change they wanted would occur. That would be idiotic.

Bikini pictures are way, way more nude (and prurient) than any breastfeeding picture I've seen, yet that's okay. As long as the subject is attractive, apparently.

Sometimes it really does seem like the alleged cabal of male chauvinists presumed in feminist literature is setting the unconscious standards for our culture. "I can't fap to this - there's a baby on it! That's obscene!"

Exactly! Like so many other things that shouldn't be considered wrong, so many people will say that it's okay if you do it "in the privacy of your own home". And like so many of those other cases, it's a natural reaction to attempt to truly legitimize it if you're one of the people being exiled to the privacy of your own home.

What's also missing from the discussion is what people expect mothers to do in these situations when they're far from home. The alternative might be just a public restroom or a cleaning supplies closet. That's both disgusting and unsafe.