Why should it pay its own way? It provides a public good. Government should fund it with bonds that can be bought by the Fed, which is required to return the interest to the Treasury; so the borrowing has zero cost. Then govt keeps the loans rolling over forever, much like a bank.
This system typifies a kind of program called an event-driven simulation, in which actions (``events'') trigger further events that happen at a later time, which in turn trigger more events, and so so [sic].
I suppose the modern version uses events more for user interaction, and also gets rid of lots of idiotic, stupid parentheses.
Didn't even notice. I think this "style" rule about not using the passive voice is more about enforcing arbitrary rules than about how to communicate. Why would "People have written many thousands of articles..." be any better? The author chose to focus on the articles instead of the people who wrote them. He's more interested in the words than the authors.
In Coursera's Reactive Programming MOOC, the difference between reactive programming event-handling and traditional event-handling is described in two slides from the introductory lecture:
A traditional Java event-handler is first presented, and the problems enumerated: it relies on a side-effect (the variable "count" in the example), which involves shared mutable state; events and their handlers are not first class. Reactive programming tries to do better so that complex handlers can be composed from primitive ones.
Einstein himself thought they were "too strange to be real."
"When I was a PhD student, people used to giggle when you hear[d] about black holes. They're like unicorns, mythical creatures. We call this the 'giggle factor.' People would say, 'Beam me up, Scotty.' Well, no one is laughing anymore."
~ Dr. Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physicist, on How the Universe Works.
Nixon's Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was a Democrat?
This was Nixon's baby, and authoritatively rejected the Shafer Commisson's recommendations to decriminalize marijuana.
Authoritarianism and promotion of the police state occurs both on the right and on the left. You're the one claiming it's only progressives who are authoritarian. That's the double standard.
Of course it's an ideology. The ideology is: I don't do drugs, therefore I will make laws so that you don't either. It is as authoritarian as anything.
Your inability to recognize the authoritarianism of those you support bespeaks cognitive dissonance.
No, you're wrong. The militia was not the standing army, it was to be the defense against the standing army. And the militia was to be "well-regulated", not a bunch of meth-addled yokels shooting at shadows on their porch. Not that there's anything wrong with meth, you understand! but the Second Amendment doesn't really guarantee your right to bear arms unless you're part of a well-regulated militia.
Reread what you wrote, and what I quoted. You said "the civilian populace must therefore be armed." That is a gross misstatement of the Second Amendment, and undoubtedly reveals your real agenda.
As for being shipped off to Siberia or a gas chamber, consider the spirit of Gandhi: "They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body, not my obedience."
For Hitler, arms production was a way to reduce unemployment and poverty. Everyone saw what was going on, but no steps were taken to change that policy. What if, twenty years earlier than 1948, the US and other countries had delivered a package of economic support similar to the European Recovery Program (named the Marshall Plan after the then US Secretary of State, George Marshall)? What would the impact have been if that scale of economic stimulus and not armaments had been an option?
---
The German army was well prepared to meet armed resistance, but less able to cope with strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts and other forms of nonviolent action. A famous example is when the Norwegian teachers were told to join the Nazi party and teach Nazism in schools or face the consequences. When 12,000 teachers signed a declaration against the new law, 1000 were arrested and sent to prison camps. But the strike continued and after some months the order was cancelled and they were allowed to continue their work. In a speech, Quisling summarised: ”You teachers have destroyed everything for me!” We can just imagine what would have been the consequences if many professions had followed in the footsteps of these teachers. Or if they had prepared such actions well in advance and even had exercises prior to the invasion.
---
Even in Germany itself people opposed the arrests. In one famous example 6000 ”Aryan” German women took part in a nonviolent protest in February and March 1943, outside the prison in Rosenstrasse in Berlin, to get their Jewish husbands and friends released. Thanks to these brave women 1700 prisoners were indeed released. These examples illustrate that some groups have more impact than others. It was difficult for the Nazis to attack German women.
According to wikipedia's article on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, there were many competing interests. The United States was part of the "Manufacturing states group" which favored "retaining as much of their own freedom as possible". The "Strict control group" (France, Sweden, Brazil, and the Republic of China) " were willing to sacrifice a degree of national sovereignty to ensure the effectiveness of supranational control bodies."
Note that the Controlled Substances Act, Section 811 (d), was used to schedule Rohypnol automatically in the US. From wikipedia:
This provision was invoked in 1984 to place Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) in Schedule IV. The drug did not then meet the Controlled Substances Act's criteria for scheduling; however, control was required by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In 1999, an FDA official explained to Congress:
Rohypnol is not approved or available for medical use in the United States, but it is temporarily controlled in Schedule IV pursuant to a treaty obligation under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. At the time flunitrazepam was placed temporarily in Schedule IV (November 5, 1984), there was no evidence of abuse or trafficking of the drug in the United States.
Nixon first used the phrase, "War on Drugs". According to wikipedia, "The CSA did not only combine existing federal drug laws but it also changed the nature of federal drug law policies, expanded the scope of federal drug laws and expanded Federal law enforcement as pertaining to controlled substances."
Consider Paragraph 811 "Authority and criteria for classification of substances" of the Controlled Substances Act, written by Nixon's Attorney General, which says, in part:
(d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
The one in Alaska, arresting someone for using a library's wifi after hours, is particularly ridiculous. I've done that many times, librarians have even mentioned people doing it with no hint that it is any kind of problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should it pay its own way? It provides a public good. Government should fund it with bonds that can be bought by the Fed, which is required to return the interest to the Treasury; so the borrowing has zero cost. Then govt keeps the loans rolling over forever, much like a bank.
I guess you're talking about http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-22.html#%25_sec_3.3.4 "A Simulator for Digital Circuits":
I suppose the modern version uses events more for user interaction, and also gets rid of lots of idiotic, stupid parentheses.
That's probably why he used the passive voice. He didn't want to focus on the authors, but the articles.
The point: the sentence I proposed wasn't passive, as you stated.
I think you're confusing the present perfect active with passive? See http://english-zone.com/members/teach/pssvchrt.html.
I thought we were talking about subspace, the subject of the article?
Didn't even notice. I think this "style" rule about not using the passive voice is more about enforcing arbitrary rules than about how to communicate. Why would "People have written many thousands of articles..." be any better? The author chose to focus on the articles instead of the people who wrote them. He's more interested in the words than the authors.
In Coursera's Reactive Programming MOOC, the difference between reactive programming event-handling and traditional event-handling is described in two slides from the introductory lecture:
http://subbot.org/coursera/reactive/callbacks.png
http://subbot.org/coursera/reactive/howtodobetter.png
A traditional Java event-handler is first presented, and the problems enumerated: it relies on a side-effect (the variable "count" in the example), which involves shared mutable state; events and their handlers are not first class. Reactive programming tries to do better so that complex handlers can be composed from primitive ones.
Well there is entanglement.
Regarding point 3 "we have no reason to believe...", that same argument was used against black holes once. From http://greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Real-Photos-of-Black-Holes:
Nixon's Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was a Democrat?
This was Nixon's baby, and authoritatively rejected the Shafer Commisson's recommendations to decriminalize marijuana.
Authoritarianism and promotion of the police state occurs both on the right and on the left. You're the one claiming it's only progressives who are authoritarian. That's the double standard.
Of course it's an ideology. The ideology is: I don't do drugs, therefore I will make laws so that you don't either. It is as authoritarian as anything.
Your inability to recognize the authoritarianism of those you support bespeaks cognitive dissonance.
If the bearing arms results in an unregulated militia, it's not a constitutional right.
In Paris, I used to get searched everyday by the police before going to the library at the Centre Georges Pompidou.
The cops and politicians are leaching off drugs, drumming up false fears and propaganda about them to generate funding to keep them in power.
What about the Controlled Substances Act, created by non-progressivist Nixon, is not inherently authoritarian?
It seems you have a double standard.
No, you're wrong. The militia was not the standing army, it was to be the defense against the standing army. And the militia was to be "well-regulated", not a bunch of meth-addled yokels shooting at shadows on their porch. Not that there's anything wrong with meth, you understand! but the Second Amendment doesn't really guarantee your right to bear arms unless you're part of a well-regulated militia.
Reread what you wrote, and what I quoted. You said "the civilian populace must therefore be armed." That is a gross misstatement of the Second Amendment, and undoubtedly reveals your real agenda.
As for being shipped off to Siberia or a gas chamber, consider the spirit of Gandhi: "They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body, not my obedience."
Consider Hitler and the challenge of non-violence, by Jorgen Johansen:
---
---
According to wikipedia's article on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, there were many competing interests. The United States was part of the "Manufacturing states group" which favored "retaining as much of their own freedom as possible". The "Strict control group" (France, Sweden, Brazil, and the Republic of China) " were willing to sacrifice a degree of national sovereignty to ensure the effectiveness of supranational control bodies."
Note that the Controlled Substances Act, Section 811 (d), was used to schedule Rohypnol automatically in the US. From wikipedia:
Nixon first used the phrase, "War on Drugs". According to wikipedia, "The CSA did not only combine existing federal drug laws but it also changed the nature of federal drug law policies, expanded the scope of federal drug laws and expanded Federal law enforcement as pertaining to controlled substances."
Consider Paragraph 811 "Authority and criteria for classification of substances" of the Controlled Substances Act, written by Nixon's Attorney General, which says, in part:
Thus, US law is subservient to UN drug policies.
Why not address the same criticism to the post I was responding to, which blamed progressives for the police state?
The "militia" is also explicitly meant to be "well-regulated".
"the civilian populace must therefore be armed"? I choose non-violent non-cooperation, thanks. You can't force me to own a gun.
It reminds me of the arrests for using open wifi networks. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car/
The one in Alaska, arresting someone for using a library's wifi after hours, is particularly ridiculous. I've done that many times, librarians have even mentioned people doing it with no hint that it is any kind of problem.
Why is it theft, in the first place? And, even if it was, why can't you issue a warning?
If the bus had a gas pump on its side, yes. It's a public resource. Outlets in schools should be free for all to use.