This is all very perplexing. I don't understand any of this internal logic. I can't see how you can "treat [sex] exactly like you would any other experience" because we treat all experiences differently. We don't treat riding a bike like eating. We don't treat gardening like watching a movie. So how can we treat sex like gardening, watching a movie, biking, and eating? Likewise, I don't see how making sex "just another experience" makes it "not special." I hope that most of our experiences in life are special. I'm sure I've completely missed the point. Sorry if that's the case.

I think they are just saying that until we can treat sex like the things you mentioned, biking, gardening or watching a movie, then it will be viewed differently.

And we are not going to do that any time soon. You're right any experience can be special. But they are saying special treatment, we handle sex differently as a society. And while I think openness and education about sex is great I don't want my kid to walk down the street and see people having intercourse.

I think it's like how we sexualize breasts. Other cultures do not to the extent we do because they are just treated like another part of the body. They are not covered, they are always there. We hide them and show them off to get a glimpse, but for the most part they are censored in most situations in the U.S. That makes them not "just another experience". It drives curiosity.

It's not about making it 'not special', it's about putting it in the category of the other experiences you mentioned.

I doubt people feel uncomfortable or anxious when talking with their parents about eating -- or at least, if they do something is deeply wrong with the parent/offspring relationship. Nobody should feel embarrassed to talk about the bike trip they went on. People shouldn't hide the secateurs under the bed for fear their parents will find out that they want to start gardening.

Thus it can be seen that we treat sex more differently than we do any of the experiences you listed. That does not mean making it less special, or dulling the experience in any way -- rather removing the taboo aspect of it, and allowing people to talk about it freely.

This allows young people to get a better idea of what 'safe sex' is, and makes them more likely to speak up if they have questions or have been assaulted.

You are right to point out the differences but you are missing an important point. Let me see if I can help you out in the reasoning: when the people say "treat [sex] exactly like you would any other experience" they actually mean to say this "treat [sex] in a more abstract but practical manner exactly like you would any other experience".

So the treatment of sex should be similar to other experiences at a more abstract level than at the experiences level.

To go the other way, we can say that even the different instances of various experiences are not equal. e.g. one eating experience is not exactly equal to other eating experience in one's life.

So what they are trying to say and seems like you might have missed is: the way our society treats other experiences, it must also treat the experience of sex and our society should not treat sex in an extremely special way the way we treat the experiences like murders.

Hope it helps.

I'm with you on this. It shouldn't be hand-waved away. It's serious. I just wish we could find some appropriate action between hand-waving and federal indictment...

The usual action for lawyers, bankers or other professionals who were "careless", is to ban them from performing their jobs for a few years.

So perhaps she should be banned from holding a government job for a few years?

As will you, yes?

Possibly... I actually used to like Hilary until I found out more about her. Make of that what you will.

That has been my experience, as well. I could look past decades of Republican harassment but her own campaign has been a real eye-opener.

Accio Tesla

I agree in principle, but in practice I don't care much if many of my accounts get hacked or subpoenaed. Sure, I'd like to keep my communication and financial information as private as possible. My code, maybe and my personal photos and documents, but if a hacker or government organization gets access to my chess.com account or my GrubHub, I really don't care. They'll find out that I have trouble against the Sicilian Najdorf and that I eat too much cheese cake (which as of this post is open record anyway :)

"I don't need privacy, I've got nothing to hide"

No! That is pointedly not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I don't need every detail of my life to be private. I prefer that nobody go in and start playing games on my chess.com account, but I'm willing to take a higher degree of risk with that specific account than I am with, e.g. my financial accounts.

It is possible to care about privacy and still accept a more convenient (less secure) way to access specific things.

> ... playing host to a herd of feral cats.

A group of cats is called a clowder... or a glaring :)

Or a herd. English is flexible.

Most of the collective nouns were made up in the 15th century anyway, and very few have caught on. (Evidence: the article.)

Friendly advice: you might want to double check your spelling when nitpicking on words...

It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.

That package looks useful. Thanks for sharing!

Just keep in mind that it's not very mature. In particular, expect the TLS settings to change in the future.

Though I agree with others that the price is a bit high, I want to see where this goes. I hope a strong community can grow around it and folks come up with interesting ways to combine previous kits. It would be really fun if some of the monthly projects consisted of compositions of previous projects. That may break with the model of each kit containing everything necessary for each project so maybe it would work better as a monthly challenge on Reddit or something. Anyway, here goes nothing :)

On any given day I use any combination of the following languages: Ruby, Python, JavaScript, CoffeeScript, Haskell, Bash.

If I could remember how each language handled list operations and JSON/Base64 encoding I could probably code much faster, but the real efficiency gain wouldn't come until I stop reading HN :P

How significant is the performance impact on a mid-large Ruby on Rails application?

A bytecode cache is unlikely to affect runtime performance; only load times.

It's mostly annoying in development when your mid-large Rails app takes 30s-2m to start-up and/or reload after an edit.

Most of the time that is likely due to bundler/rubygems stuffing your load path full and causing thousands of unnecessary stat calls.

The actual time spent loading/parsing files is in most cases a tiny fraction of the startup time of any large project using rubygems and bundler.

I counted several hundred thousand unnecessary stat calls on the biggest app I have, and ended up with a ugly hack where we trimmed the load path around each set of require's to only paths needed by that specific gem.

Or, as I've seen a few times, you have circular references in your rails asset includes.