Even in the most "liberal" cities Khameini won 2/3rds of the seats.
That's because none of the liberal candidates were standing in the elections - there was a straight choice between Khameni's ultra-conservatives, and Ahmedinejad's slightly less nutty brand of conservatism.
It's analogous to having the choice between David Duke or Rick Santorum in the US, or Kach vs Likud in Israel.
Anyway - it's Purim in a couple of days, so I'd expect some sort of evil to flourish once more.
Besides, some African societies did have things like bronze casting, gold mining, the building of large and complicated structures - they just didn't survive long after Whitey came along looking for slaves / land / gold / whatever.
I may be biased here - I first came across operator overloading a good decade and a half ago, when C++ was used in the first iterations of object-oriented databases.
It was a proper mess back then, and I fear it still is - if I want the sort of behaviour you wish to enforce, then Scala would be my language of choice - I still view C++ as C with object wrappings, templates and lots of stuff that gets in the way of efficient code.
I'm one of those who detests operator overloading, for the simple reason that if you want a new operator behaviour, then you should define a new operator - it makes code easier to read and maintain, and avoids confusion.
Good laws aren't based on beliefs - or more to the point they have a justification that lies outside any belief system.
Murder is against the law because if it was not, it would be an acceptable solution to lots of life's problems, and would leave a lot of people significantly worse off either materially or emotionally.
If the only justification for a law is a belief system, then that law is automatically bad for those who do not subscribe to that belief system.
I dunno - a box with a couple of Tileras in it and a good Btree implementation ought to be able to handle it - chuck a couple of hundred cores at what is after all a layer 7 routing problem, with 8 x 40 GB interfaces, and plenty of RAM, and 1ms should be achievable.
Well, with the Baltic Dry Index (which is a measure of shipping costs) being at a 10 year low because there are more ships touting for business than goods to be shipped, you're not going to see bunker oil replaced as a fuel any time soon.
Much like jet fuel, this source of pollution is inviolable in the eyes of the political class, because it is too important to the way the economy works. They'll push gasoline to $10 / gallon (diesel is already almost there in the UK) before they even consider making it more expensive to move goods or fat, well paid arses around the world.
Hell, I'm nearly 50 and still can't quit cigarettes, but quit a smack habit 30 years ago with only a couple of weeks of sweating, random limb movements and generally feeling like death warmed up.
Now if we could find a vaccine against stupidity, maybe we would be able to kick the "war on drugs" habit.
It's not as though "chemical castration" was used as a "cure" for homosexuality only a few decades ago, and contributed to the suicide of Alan Turing, is it?
A far better solution to heroin addiction is providing clean, known strength heroin by prescription to those who choose to indulge, while giving them help coming off the stuff.
This vaccine is a pretty neat trick, but until it's been studied and tested then prescription heroin is the best solution, followed a long way behind by methadone, and with the "war on drugs" being the absolute worst.
I'm pretty sure that the Labour placemen still infesting the police and the security services would love you to believe that this is all the idea of those nasty Tories.
After 13 years of statist poison, our institutions need a good purge, but that hasn't happened. If the buggers thought they could get ID cards back on the agenda, they'd try.
Brecht had it about right - it's a pity we still aren't listening.
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
OK - I'll take a stab at answering your non-hypothetical question. Bear in mind that my grandfather was a coal miner, so I'm well aware that coal dust is pretty nasty stuff, but there really wasn't much of an alternative back in the 1920s when he started.
Put very simply, if people are exposed to toxic pollution from a coal-fired power station, they should be allowed to sue for the damage caused by that pollution, and make it obvious to others wishing to operate such plants that not cleaning up their output will incur costs when they in turn are sued. Not as instant a solution as regulating the hell out of them, but since it hasn't been tried, there's no evidence that it's a less useful solution.
The reason this has not happened is (in my neck of the woods) that the power producers were at one stage nationalised and immune from legal sanction, and are now heavy donors to both main parties so are still immune to legal sanction for all practical purposes.
Another, massive reason why nothing has been done about coal here in the UK is that energy production has moved away from coal, in a short sighted rush to burn all our natural gas, while our nuclear industry has been neglected and allowed to wither away because of the noisy greens who fail to see that the alternatives are unsuitable (coal because it pollutes, natural gas because it will soon run out, wind because it is useless as a base load supply, tidal because some sea birds might move a few miles, and so on).
Oh, and a proper libertarian is only willing to accept artificial scarcity in the form of "intellectual property" if that is strictly limited both in scope and time - I think you'll find that most libertarians tend to agree with Stallman rather than the RIAA or the patent trolls on this matter.
We can start with tax breaks for clean energy research, mini-hydro, solar and the like (not the ridiculous subsidy schemes we have now, which are great creators of bureacracy and merely shift the cost to consumers).
We can make it clear that *if* sea levels are rising and flood plains are likely to be less safe places to live, no subsidies for building on low lying land prone to flooding can be expected, and recommend that those likely to be affected either move or make their own provisions for dealing with effects that are at least partly within their own control.
We can offer incentives for people to study science and engineering rather than the liberal arts or other non-productive subjects at university, so that we have more trained minds ready to build the solutions that we would need. It's pointless spending money educating PPE graduates and lawyers (let alone English / History / Media Studies) when what is needed is a technical and not a legislative solution.
It's not that far away from the current approach - it's just based on incentive rather than taxation, on building solutions rather than imposing preconceived (and ill conceived) dogma which serves only to strengthen bureaucracy at the expense of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Even in the most "liberal" cities Khameini won 2/3rds of the seats.
That's because none of the liberal candidates were standing in the elections - there was a straight choice between Khameni's ultra-conservatives, and Ahmedinejad's slightly less nutty brand of conservatism.
It's analogous to having the choice between David Duke or Rick Santorum in the US, or Kach vs Likud in Israel.
Anyway - it's Purim in a couple of days, so I'd expect some sort of evil to flourish once more.
Shhh!
Quoting Thoreau marks you out as a dangerous libertarian type, and will result in you being flagged as an extremist by those who should know better!
Er - because they had no need or desire for it?
Besides, some African societies did have things like bronze casting, gold mining, the building of large and complicated structures - they just didn't survive long after Whitey came along looking for slaves / land / gold / whatever.
All knowledge that is actually achievable begins with "How", not "Why".
Once "Why" enters the question, the existence of a sentient entity is presupposed in the answer.
That's why "why" questions tend to lead to deities or other nonsense.
Try &
Coming from a Lisp background, I, for one, find cplx_add(cplx_mul(z,z),c) deficient in parentheses and overburdened with commas ;-)
I may be biased here - I first came across operator overloading a good decade and a half ago, when C++ was used in the first iterations of object-oriented databases.
It was a proper mess back then, and I fear it still is - if I want the sort of behaviour you wish to enforce, then Scala would be my language of choice - I still view C++ as C with object wrappings, templates and lots of stuff that gets in the way of efficient code.
So you only have to use auto for Schrodinger's kittens?
I'm one of those who detests operator overloading, for the simple reason that if you want a new operator behaviour, then you should define a new operator - it makes code easier to read and maintain, and avoids confusion.
But that's just my experience - you may differ.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your BJP newsletter.
Good laws aren't based on beliefs - or more to the point they have a justification that lies outside any belief system.
Murder is against the law because if it was not, it would be an acceptable solution to lots of life's problems, and would leave a lot of people significantly worse off either materially or emotionally.
If the only justification for a law is a belief system, then that law is automatically bad for those who do not subscribe to that belief system.
I dunno - a box with a couple of Tileras in it and a good Btree implementation ought to be able to handle it - chuck a couple of hundred cores at what is after all a layer 7 routing problem, with 8 x 40 GB interfaces, and plenty of RAM, and 1ms should be achievable.
Well, with the Baltic Dry Index (which is a measure of shipping costs) being at a 10 year low because there are more ships touting for business than goods to be shipped, you're not going to see bunker oil replaced as a fuel any time soon.
Much like jet fuel, this source of pollution is inviolable in the eyes of the political class, because it is too important to the way the economy works. They'll push gasoline to $10 / gallon (diesel is already almost there in the UK) before they even consider making it more expensive to move goods or fat, well paid arses around the world.
Because it was available and was one hell of a good high. Silly, I know, but that's what life's like as a teenager.
+1 - and I'm speaking from experience.
Hell, I'm nearly 50 and still can't quit cigarettes, but quit a smack habit 30 years ago with only a couple of weeks of sweating, random limb movements and generally feeling like death warmed up.
Now if we could find a vaccine against stupidity, maybe we would be able to kick the "war on drugs" habit.
Hell, why not?
It's not as though "chemical castration" was used as a "cure" for homosexuality only a few decades ago, and contributed to the suicide of Alan Turing, is it?
A far better solution to heroin addiction is providing clean, known strength heroin by prescription to those who choose to indulge, while giving them help coming off the stuff.
This vaccine is a pretty neat trick, but until it's been studied and tested then prescription heroin is the best solution, followed a long way behind by methadone, and with the "war on drugs" being the absolute worst.
I think we'd benefit more from a 2nd Amendment ;-)
Someone tried to take Labour to court over manifesto pledges.
The response: "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Read out by Gordon Brown's lawyer in Brighton Crown Court, 7th Feb 2008, in answer to a case brought over a referendum on the European Constitution.
I'm pretty sure that the Labour placemen still infesting the police and the security services would love you to believe that this is all the idea of those nasty Tories.
After 13 years of statist poison, our institutions need a good purge, but that hasn't happened. If the buggers thought they could get ID cards back on the agenda, they'd try.
Brecht had it about right - it's a pity we still aren't listening.
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
If it were only £200 million, that might be an acceptable price for keeping our freedoms.
But given the history of UK government IT procurement, a few billion is more likely.
Not if you're using a Commodore Pet....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KERNAL
OK - I'll take a stab at answering your non-hypothetical question. Bear in mind that my grandfather was a coal miner, so I'm well aware that coal dust is pretty nasty stuff, but there really wasn't much of an alternative back in the 1920s when he started.
Put very simply, if people are exposed to toxic pollution from a coal-fired power station, they should be allowed to sue for the damage caused by that pollution, and make it obvious to others wishing to operate such plants that not cleaning up their output will incur costs when they in turn are sued. Not as instant a solution as regulating the hell out of them, but since it hasn't been tried, there's no evidence that it's a less useful solution.
The reason this has not happened is (in my neck of the woods) that the power producers were at one stage nationalised and immune from legal sanction, and are now heavy donors to both main parties so are still immune to legal sanction for all practical purposes.
Another, massive reason why nothing has been done about coal here in the UK is that energy production has moved away from coal, in a short sighted rush to burn all our natural gas, while our nuclear industry has been neglected and allowed to wither away because of the noisy greens who fail to see that the alternatives are unsuitable (coal because it pollutes, natural gas because it will soon run out, wind because it is useless as a base load supply, tidal because some sea birds might move a few miles, and so on).
Oh, and a proper libertarian is only willing to accept artificial scarcity in the form of "intellectual property" if that is strictly limited both in scope and time - I think you'll find that most libertarians tend to agree with Stallman rather than the RIAA or the patent trolls on this matter.
Not in any quantity, and certainly not any quality.
We can start with tax breaks for clean energy research, mini-hydro, solar and the like (not the ridiculous subsidy schemes we have now, which are great creators of bureacracy and merely shift the cost to consumers).
We can make it clear that *if* sea levels are rising and flood plains are likely to be less safe places to live, no subsidies for building on low lying land prone to flooding can be expected, and recommend that those likely to be affected either move or make their own provisions for dealing with effects that are at least partly within their own control.
We can offer incentives for people to study science and engineering rather than the liberal arts or other non-productive subjects at university, so that we have more trained minds ready to build the solutions that we would need. It's pointless spending money educating PPE graduates and lawyers (let alone English / History / Media Studies) when what is needed is a technical and not a legislative solution.
It's not that far away from the current approach - it's just based on incentive rather than taxation, on building solutions rather than imposing preconceived (and ill conceived) dogma which serves only to strengthen bureaucracy at the expense of freedom.
Oh, and sack the IPCC, especially Chaudri.