willurd

I think you're on to something here. I'm going to ponder this for a while.

I'm right handed and I approve this message.

Yea I'm not saying Breitbart was murdered lol. I'm just saying, if we're going to talk about governments murdering inconvenient people, a case could be made for it and we shouldn't put it past our own government to do so.

In any case this is tertiary to the original point that the situation is a mess, regardless of whether the NDAA has anything to do with it.

  I'm the one bringing up Alex Jones, as a way of being
  derisive about people who equate the US and China on the
  auspices that "the US has made policy mistakes and China
  has made policy mistakes so what's the difference?". I'm
  sorry that I accidentally implied that you, specifically,
  were regurgitating Infowars points.

No problem. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't.

  Yes, this is a clusterfuck.

That's something we definitely agree on ;)

  That's a problem. But it's not a sign that the US is gradually
  turning into a dystopian hellscape.

At the risk of sounding crazy myself, I've seen too many recent videos of "peace officers" dragging peaceful protestors into the streets by their hair and group beating them with batons before handcuffing and arresting them, to believe that myself. But that's my opinion. And I really do wish that was the case.

  I don't care, except for two things. First, when people bring
  up the NDAA, they set off a "someone's wrong on the Internet"
  sensor that, as a nerd, I am unable to suppress. Second, as much
  as Internet psuedo-activists do not want to hear this, the "NDAA"
  issue is in fact a corner case in US policy. Indefinite detention
  of political dissidents in China is not a corner case. It is a daily
  fact of life, as it is elsewhere in the world.

I don't have any examples of the provisions outlined in the NDAA and documents prior being used, so I can't speak to that.

  You can make millions of dollars spinning conspiracy theories
  about the evils of the government and big corporations in America,
  and the reality is, nobody really cares. Try doing that in Russia;
  see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead.

"Try doing that in Russia; see how long it takes for you or your coworkers to end up dead." Let's be fair, you could make that same case for the death of Andrew Breitbart.

Thanks for the info about the AUMF. I'll definitely have to look into that further.

  Notice that the 2001 AUMF, which was written in a panic,
  authorizes arbitrary force with no mitigating effort
  required not only against nations but against
  "organizations" and "persons", and continues to authorize
  those efforts so long as they might prevent future acts of
  terrorism.

  It is hard to get much worse than that. The NDAA doesn't
  make it worse; in fact, by putting pen to paper and
  outlining specific circumstances in which the US can use
  its military to detain people, it ostensibly makes it
  better (it is hard to imagine making the 2001 or 2003
  AUMF better without repealing it and starting over,
  though).

Yea, that's definitely horrendous. That being said, the entire purpose of Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012 is to affirm those governmental powers. There's even a section which I cited which specifically states that the NDAA doesn't limit the President's powers at all: "(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Which basically means "everything we just said about limits and expansions means jack squat when it comes to the president; (s)he can do whatever". So yea, the AUMF started this, and it was broad and allowed everything. The NDAA is still a problem because it continues it and doesn't actually limit anything when it comes to the President.

  The Alex Jones take on the NDAA would be that it's a huge
  executive overreach and a sign that the current
  administration favors an overt authorization of Latin
  American-style "disappearings" of suspected terrorists.
  Apart from the 2001-2003 context those febrile rants
  exclude, there is also the fact that the House and Senate
  GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available
  to the executive to combat terrorism.

I don't think I mentioned Alex Jones. Also "huge executive overreach and a sign that the current administration" and "the House and Senate GOP wanted the 2012 NDAA to expand the powers available to the executive". Both of those are right :) Both parties are responsible for this. This is a bi-partisan effort haha.

  It is also possible to be disquieted by detention and due
  process provisions in a war powers act while
  simultaneously understanding the context in which a
  reasonable person could assert them. For example,
  without some provision for detaining US citizens abroad,
  how would you lawfully handle any armed conflict with
  the Taliban? There are more than 300MM Americans. Some
  of them will win the lottery, and others will in fact
  fly to Pakistan to train with militants, as has already
  happened repeatedly. US military forces will eventually
  encounter them in armed conflict. In every war, there
  is always going to some due process concern regarding
  the handling of possible US citizens taking up arms to
  fight alongside our opponents.

If a US citizen is engaging in a firefight with US armed forces, then yes, there's your proof they are "terrorists". If you can a US citizen in the act of building a bomb, then yes, there's your proof. However, if through the grape vine you gain "intelligence" that a certain US citizen is a "terrorist", by constitutional law you must provide that citizen a fair trial by a jury of their peers (i.e. not a military trial). If overseas, bring them back to the US. The AUMF generally and NDAA more specifically do away with that requirement (which is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental aspects of american freedom).

  The Al Qaeda AUMF is ridiculously overbroad and needs to
  be fixed. But the NDAA, a utility bill that happens every
  year to fund the military, is not a re-ratification of
  that act, nor does it create a civil liberties regime
  in the US comparable to that of China.

If it's not a re-ratification, then why mention it? If the government doesn't need it, why put the language in there? I think it's important to keep in mind that few things are put into legal documentation without express purpose, especially at the level of government.

I have read it, and I submit the relevant text from section 1021 below.

Namely, the NDAA affirms the "authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force". A "covered person" is someone who has "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" or who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." But no trial needs to be held in order to make the aforementioned conclusions: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

So, our government can detain anybody it (who's that exactly?) deems is a "terrorist", without trial, until the end of "hostilities" (let me make a prediction: the "war on terror" isn't ending any time soon, hence "indefinite").

So, no, I am not making and will not make any comparisons between the United States and China. I am, however, backing up guelo's point that the US can legally "detain people without charges for years at a time", and very few people seem to care.

SECTION 1021

  Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the
  United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization
  for Use of Military Force. 

  (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the 
    President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to 
    the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 
    50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces 
    of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
  (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

  (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section 
  is any person as follows: 
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided 
      the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, 
      or harbored those responsible for those attacks. 
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported 
      al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged 
      in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, 
      including any person who has committed a belligerent act or 
      has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy 
      forces.

  (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a 
    person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may 
    include the following: 
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until 
      the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for 
      Use of Military Force. 
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States 
      Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 
      (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). 
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent 
      tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. 
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country 
      of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. 
  (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit 
    or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the 
    Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Please reread the NDAA 2012 (keyword: indefinite detention) and dispense with the ad hominem attacks. If you can't make your point without calling someone a nutjob, maybe you don't have a point to be made...

I don't understand the negativity being shown towards TextMate in this thread. This thread is about an extremely popular editor going open source, something people have been asking for for a long time and something we should all be THRILLED about, regardless of whether we use it.

Can we save the editor wars for another thread and maybe, just maybe, actually talk about the code?

I don't have a blog. Thanks for the support though. Anyone and everyone who does have a blog is more than welcome to take my idea and run with it. The post in question (http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4318034) is now licensed with the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).

Maybe not me, but there is strength in numbers. I think the most important thing is making it, at the very least, an uncomfortable situation for Twitter. These 'untouchable' entities need to know they can't continue to get away with stuff without a fight.

Don't worry everyone, I have just filed a complaint (above). I'm sure Twitter will suspend Spike Lee's account as soon as they receive it.

/s

In all seriousness, you all might want to fill their inboxes with similar complaints.

I've contacted Twitter via their "Suspended account" form: https://support.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=suspended

  Hi Twitter. I agree with you that tweeting another person's
  private, confidential > information warrants some sort of
  action on your part (not the least of which would be
  removing said tweet). You have chosen to suspend accounts
  for this. That's fine too.
  
  However, I believe your policy should apply to everyone
  equally. Most notably, Spike Lee's twitter account is still
  active. If you recall: he retweeted a tweet that he believed
  contained George Zimmerman's address: 
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/spike-lee-apologizes-george-zimmerman-address-tweet-015514123.html .
  Regardless of one's opinions on the Zimmerman/Martin case,
  this is in direct violation of Twitter's ToS and warrants
  immediate account suspension for the original tweeter and
  Spike Lee (and anyone else who touched that tweet).
  
  I know you will do the right thing.

EDIT: I received this automated message from Twitter:

  Hello, 

  If you're writing in about <me> being suspended, this
  account is not currently suspended; please review any
  previous communications from Twitter for clarification
  about what the reason for the suspension may have been.
  
  If you are writing in about an account other than <me>
  being suspended, please refile the ticket from the
  suspended account. 
  
  If you are writing in about an issue other than your
  account being suspended -- including if you believe your
  account to have been deactivated or compromised -- please
  refile a ticket via the appropriate form; you'll find the
  forms at https://support.twitter.com/forms. 
  
  Thanks, 
  Twitter Trust & Safety

I have refiled using the "Tweets/messages" form: https://support.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=web_tweet...

EDIT 2: I received another automated message, this time with a bunch of ideas on how I can troubleshoot my problem, heh. This message, however, included reference to a support ticket number and this:

  If the above links help resolve your issue, no need to
  reply. Otherwise, let us know where you are still stuck.

Well, it didn't resolve my issue. So I responded:

  Hi, I believe this automated response does not address my
  concern. My concern is about an inconsistent application
  of penalties for violating the Twitter ToS. It would be
  great if I could get a real person to look at this. My
  original message is as follows:

(With my original message included)

Very cool! I wrote some quick and dirty code that adds some functionality to the page: http://pastebin.com/FZGwjJvv . It should work if you have a javascript console or greasemonkey or something like that.

h - Toggle visibility of the HUD (minimap and information)

space - Toggle the rotation on/off

- (numpad) - Slow down the rotation (slowing below 0 reverses rotation)

+ (numpad) - Speed up the rotation

- (main keyboard) - Lower the delta by which the rotation speed is increased/decreased (default delta is 0.005, lowers by 0.0001)

= (main keyboard) - Raise the delta by which the rotation speed is increased/decreased (default delta is 0.005, raises by 0.0001)

Might I suggest warp speed? ;)

Very interesting, thanks for the feedback/corrections. I find it especially interesting that gender reassignment surgery isn't always considered elective, but having your wisdom teeth removed is. Any links to information on how the decision, of whether it is considered elective or not for any given situation, is made?

I guess we know how Mircosoft feel about the 2nd and 5th amendments. I'm glad I haven't used SkyDrive yet, and now I never will.

EDIT: That being said:

  promotes or otherwise facilitates the purchase and sale of ammunition or firearms.

Maybe everybody should upload content that facilitates the TRADE of ammunition and firearms. That's not against the ToS.

"Gender reassignment" is an elective surgery. For a physician who performs such a surgery, how does she choose whether it's a good idea or a bad idea for a certain patient? And keep in mind this particular patient had no negative physical side effects. She only regretted it. This leads me to believe that a physician who performs such a surgery will unquestioningly perform it for all who ask, unless there are serious medical concerns, which there were not in this case.

Also, the Hippocratic Oath says nothing of elective surgery. For a normal surgery, sure, the onus is on the physician to decide whether it's best. For elective surgery, the physician's duty is to decide whether it's medically OK. Otherwise, we'd have physicians picking and choosing who gets what elective surgery for reasons unknown.

And note, I'm personally against elective surgery, but it exists and it's legal. Someone who wants it should be able to get it without being told NO by a physician who performs such surgeries because they don't think it's a good idea for that particular patient (unless, as I said, it's a medical concern). Leave the psychology to the psychologists.

While I agree in principal that people should have questioned Dani about his/her decision, it is hardly their responsibility to do so in this situation, and least of all the responsibility of the "medical folks" at any stage. The only exception would be a doctor you've asked for a consultation on whether it's a good idea medically, or a psychologist on whether it's a good idea psychologically (more relevant here).

I think one can assume that at the level of this type of irreversible decision, said decision maker has thought long and hard about whether to "reassign their gender" and come to the conclusion most suitable for their own lives. At this point, it's only appropriate for close friends and family to perform a last questioning of sorts before the decision is sought through. I mean, there is a point at which you must make the switch from being skeptical of a situation to being accepting of the situation, or you must exit the situation (burn the bridge, etc). The point of acceptance after healthy skepticism is due to the fact that everyone's life is different, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any problem. The real trick is figuring out when and how to make that switch.

"(Interestingly, the subsequent blog post contains a screenshot of a statement by FunnyJunk that, under FunnyJunk’s own logic, would constitute defamation: "[t]he Oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk andshut it down!" The Oatmeal never threatened to sue FunnyJunk, nor did he ever indicate thathe wanted to shut down FunnyJunk’s website.)"

Damn. You need some ice for that burn?!

I was giving up before it was cool.

No, I mean that he cares about giving his clients a great product. He's not just in it to soak money out of people; he actually cares about the outcome, much like an artist cares about their paintings.

And look, I'm not Clark. I don't speak for Clark. This is just the experience I had working with him and getting to know him for a year and a half.

I actually know Clark Valberg, the founder of Epicenter Consulting, and did some work with him a few years back; he's a great guy. You guys can criticize him all you want, but he actually cares.

We should direct our efforts towards the bloodsuckers, not the people giving blood.

Another typo on the homepage ("today" should be "today's"):

"Weekend Hacker is an excellent tool for bridging the gap between two of the most useful professions in today economy, developers and designers."

You left a type in there!

    greetABunchOfPeople people
        people do
            _ sayHello println

js-lisp: https://github.com/willurd/js-lisp

unit tests: http://williambowers.net/projects/js-lisp/tests/

and for some face time with the repl: http://williambowers.net/projects/js-lisp/examples/repl/

R.I.P John McCarthy

Yea but if you buy it from nostarch.com you get it 1% cheaper and you get an ebook version to boot! Awesome deal.

Why is this ridiculous, sophomoric article on the front page of HN?

Ugh, I had the same reaction when I got to this point in the article. I couldn't continue reading.

The author lost me at "I haven't coded in Scala".

I was thinking the same thing myself. I'm unsure why a person who considers having arguments a vital part of his life and is "very, very careful" with his time would spend a month writing an article nobody can comment on. He's surely not coming back the HN to read the comments.

Tell me again why I should care about this article?

EDIT: FWIW I did enjoy reading parts of the article. I thought the writer has some thought-provoking things to say. I like his ideas about what make a bad argument, and I like his ideas about the importance of interacting with people who don't think like you. I just have a problem taking people who say one thing and do another seriously.