In recent years though the IAEA's stance if that they've found some evidence that Iran did continue a nuclear weapons programme, and has made it quite clear that Iran is not giving it the access and information it needs to confirm that it is in compliance.
No, the 2011 IAEA report indicated that there was evidence for a program up until 2003, the same data as previously used in, e.g., US intelligence estimates. It then says that some research may have continued at a slower rate since then, but doesn't provide any new evidence.
Basically, the new IAEA director wants to be much more accommodating to Washington than the previous director. So the 2011 report, while not actually saying anything different than previous reports, was written to make it much easier to misread and encourage people to infer that there's evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Also there's been plenty of misreporting on Iran's 'refusal' to allow the IAEA access to facilities: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/29/how-the-media-got-the-iran-iaea-access-story-wrong/
They still have every opportunity to bow out gracefully.
If only that were true. Abject surrender would basically mean they'd have to give up all effective means of defense, and no nation can exist long without those. It's not like we would suddenly leave them alone. Their government has already been overthrown once by hostile foreign powers, and because of that they went from a fairly western style of democracy, (to a brutal, western-controlled dictatorship), to a socialist-Islamic style of democracy. The world would probably be a lot better of if we had never done that. I can only imagine how much worse we can make it.
In fact both US and Israeli intelligence services confirm that Iran does not have a current nuclear weapons program. Politicians are just making things up.
One thing I found interesting about Herb Sutter's talk at the Going Native conference was his slide comparing language complexity. According to the metric he used (page count of the language specification) C++11 is very close to Java 7 and the current version of C#. (IIRC, marginally smaller than Java, marginally larger than C#).
And a great thing about C++11 is that many features exist mainly for backwards compatibility, and a new programmer doesn't need to start out learning them at all; there's a clean, modern path through learning C++, and learning the rest can be left to when you actually have to maintain legacy code. Bjarne Stroustrup's intro to programming book teaches C++ this way and it's quite good.
Well, as I said, he is cutting military spending substantially, and using those savings to avoid having to cut even more severely elsewhere.
Completely eliminating the DoD wouldn't actually give us a budget surplus, I don't think, or at least not a 'hefty' one. And certainly the growth of the rest of the budget would eventually run us into huge deficits again.
You don't have any more "right" to sit on excess than I have a "right" to steal it.
Instead of using an amorphous concept like a right I'll put this in terms of when the use of force is justified. I don't agree that your example is a case where the use of force is justified.
I do agree that it's wrong for the individual with excess not to be charitable or to put that excess to good use, but that's not the same as saying it's okay to use force to take that excess and be 'charitable' or do good with it.
Greatest good for the greatest number, this is why we don't still live in fucking caves
Yes, absolutely. And this is best achieved when people recognize that it's not right for them to just take what they want from other people, even when they think they need it more than the people that have it. This rule of law is indeed an important pillar of civilization.
I've been around a long time, and I've never heard that. It has the kind of plausible ring that usually sends me to Snopes, where two thirds of the time I come away chastised for loaning the idea five seconds of credence.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html
From: Joe Buck To: Emmanuel Fleury Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:41:01 -0800 Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote: > Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.
If proponents can come up with good arguments about how the plugin project can be structured to avoid this risk, that would help.
Yeah, LLVM and Clang are designed as libraries to be used by other client programs. One of the main developers actually worked on similar stuff at Microsoft.
Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.
This is just the direction compilers are going these days. I wonder if older compilers like GCC will be able to adapt or if they'll just continue being monolithic.
It's only this article which is focusing on the small things. The actual budget proposal focuses on cutting big ticket items like DoD and whatnot. The cuts discussed in the article are about $12 billion while that's only a tiny portion of the $1 trillion in cuts in the actual proposal. So yes, let's keep the discussion on the big expenses.
We've had long term plans for decades now. I support them too but so far they've done nothing.
Maybe this won't do anything either, but I think we're at the point where we really can't be picky. I see too much spending as one of the main underlying problems, so even if there are small-scale negative consequences as a result of this being implemented I think overall it will still be a big help.
Closing down the department of energy doesn't mean abandoning nuclear weapons. Although the plan doesn't mention it specifically it does move important functions from the eliminated departments to other departments. I've heard people in the Paul camp say that nuclear weapons should be in the DoD instead of hidden in the DoE. Presumably that's what would be done under this plan.
What do you mean "Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget?" Did you look at the plan? The very first item is cuts in the DoD. In fact the cuts there are well over 100x all the items you listed combined.
Right, these departments are tiny relative to the amount cut ($1 trillion). The proposal does cut the DoD budget as well. And it's still not enough to balance the budget.
This budget proposal cuts more than just a tiny sliver of the DoD. It starts with $200 billion in cuts (off the CBO baseline) in the DoD the first year.
I'm guessing you're talking about the DoD? This budget is cutting $1 trillion, which is more than the DoD misplaces. This year's budget deficit is around $1.6 trillion, so a cut of $1 trillion really is on the order of the cuts needed. Also this budget proposal does cut some of that military spending you reference. So I think calling this "a little trimming" is disingenuous.
Besides, your callous attitude would seem to lead to something like this: "Why should I have to do anything to help anyone? Screw 'em." (later) "Eeek, I'm in trouble, why won't someone help me?!"
That's a common misconception of libertarian philosophy.
It's not an issue of not caring if bad things happen. It's an issue of the morality of using violence to take away someone's ability to voluntarily choose whether or not to do something. When you refuse to use violence, force, and threats to take that choice away from an individual it's not the same thing as saying any choice they make is equally good.
There's another breed of libertarian that focuses on utilitarian arguments, such as moral hazard and unintended consequences. For example one might oppose government flood insurance on the basis that forcing people not subject to the risk of flooding to take on some costs of those that choose to take that risk will cause more people to build and live in high risk areas. In essence the involuntary nature of the insurance causes more destruction and suffering in the event of a flood, than would have otherwise occurred.
Except that if RAII frees the memory the pointer points at, and something else is using that memory, you've just broken your program.
If so then you're not really using RAII.
A) Yes, you can avoid sharing references, and that might use more memory than is necessary, but then again, for a specific problem you may not need copies and so it could be efficient.
B) Nice absolute there. Reference counting is a fine solution in many situations.
There are other solutions as well:
C) Use a non-reference counting smart pointer that allows resources to be passed around safely with no copying and no other overhead. See std::unique_ptr.
D) Share references in a well defined way such that they're never passed outside the scope where the object is accessible.
What happens is that the resource is freed as required because you're using RAII.
Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
They were a long way from worrying about whether we would have enough revenue to pay interest, even with the great recession.
As a matter of fact revenue is unquestionably greater than the interest payments. So I assume they're still a long way from worrying if there's enough revenue to cover interest.
and starting to tell your bank you won't be making your next credit card payment not because you don't have the lower interest credit line (HELOC) to offload the debt to, but because you simply refuse to.
Why are you suggesting that the only two choices are to borrow money or to not pay anything back? Are you sure there's no other choice?
The people talking about default are using it as a scare tactic, and it would be their choice to default or not, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.
Slashdot Mirror
In recent years though the IAEA's stance if that they've found some evidence that Iran did continue a nuclear weapons programme, and has made it quite clear that Iran is not giving it the access and information it needs to confirm that it is in compliance.
No, the 2011 IAEA report indicated that there was evidence for a program up until 2003, the same data as previously used in, e.g., US intelligence estimates. It then says that some research may have continued at a slower rate since then, but doesn't provide any new evidence.
Basically, the new IAEA director wants to be much more accommodating to Washington than the previous director. So the 2011 report, while not actually saying anything different than previous reports, was written to make it much easier to misread and encourage people to infer that there's evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Also there's been plenty of misreporting on Iran's 'refusal' to allow the IAEA access to facilities: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/29/how-the-media-got-the-iran-iaea-access-story-wrong/
They still have every opportunity to bow out gracefully.
If only that were true. Abject surrender would basically mean they'd have to give up all effective means of defense, and no nation can exist long without those. It's not like we would suddenly leave them alone. Their government has already been overthrown once by hostile foreign powers, and because of that they went from a fairly western style of democracy, (to a brutal, western-controlled dictatorship), to a socialist-Islamic style of democracy. The world would probably be a lot better of if we had never done that. I can only imagine how much worse we can make it.
In fact both US and Israeli intelligence services confirm that Iran does not have a current nuclear weapons program. Politicians are just making things up.
One thing I found interesting about Herb Sutter's talk at the Going Native conference was his slide comparing language complexity. According to the metric he used (page count of the language specification) C++11 is very close to Java 7 and the current version of C#. (IIRC, marginally smaller than Java, marginally larger than C#).
And a great thing about C++11 is that many features exist mainly for backwards compatibility, and a new programmer doesn't need to start out learning them at all; there's a clean, modern path through learning C++, and learning the rest can be left to when you actually have to maintain legacy code. Bjarne Stroustrup's intro to programming book teaches C++ this way and it's quite good.
Well, as I said, he is cutting military spending substantially, and using those savings to avoid having to cut even more severely elsewhere.
Completely eliminating the DoD wouldn't actually give us a budget surplus, I don't think, or at least not a 'hefty' one. And certainly the growth of the rest of the budget would eventually run us into huge deficits again.
You don't have any more "right" to sit on excess than I have a "right" to steal it.
Instead of using an amorphous concept like a right I'll put this in terms of when the use of force is justified. I don't agree that your example is a case where the use of force is justified.
I do agree that it's wrong for the individual with excess not to be charitable or to put that excess to good use, but that's not the same as saying it's okay to use force to take that excess and be 'charitable' or do good with it.
Greatest good for the greatest number, this is why we don't still live in fucking caves
Yes, absolutely. And this is best achieved when people recognize that it's not right for them to just take what they want from other people, even when they think they need it more than the people that have it. This rule of law is indeed an important pillar of civilization.
I've been around a long time, and I've never heard that. It has the kind of plausible ring that usually sends me to Snopes, where two thirds of the time I come away chastised for loaning the idea five seconds of credence.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html
From: Joe Buck
To: Emmanuel Fleury
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:41:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
> Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.
If proponents can come up with good arguments about how the plugin
project can be structured to avoid this risk, that would help.
Yeah, LLVM and Clang are designed as libraries to be used by other client programs. One of the main developers actually worked on similar stuff at Microsoft.
Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.
This is just the direction compilers are going these days. I wonder if older compilers like GCC will be able to adapt or if they'll just continue being monolithic.
It's only this article which is focusing on the small things. The actual budget proposal focuses on cutting big ticket items like DoD and whatnot. The cuts discussed in the article are about $12 billion while that's only a tiny portion of the $1 trillion in cuts in the actual proposal. So yes, let's keep the discussion on the big expenses.
That should read '10x' not '100x'
We've had long term plans for decades now. I support them too but so far they've done nothing.
Maybe this won't do anything either, but I think we're at the point where we really can't be picky. I see too much spending as one of the main underlying problems, so even if there are small-scale negative consequences as a result of this being implemented I think overall it will still be a big help.
The plan does include substantial cuts to the DoD and many of the other areas outside the DoD which are still military spending.
Current US budget deficit is about $1,500 billion
Total cuts proposed: 11.4 billion
The plan cuts $1 trillion, not just the $11.4 billion pointed out in this article. Did you actually take a look at the plan?
All of those are eliminated or substantially cut. Did you actually look at the plan?
The plan actually cuts $1 trillion. The article is only focusing at some of the tiniest cuts for some reason.
Closing down the department of energy doesn't mean abandoning nuclear weapons. Although the plan doesn't mention it specifically it does move important functions from the eliminated departments to other departments. I've heard people in the Paul camp say that nuclear weapons should be in the DoD instead of hidden in the DoE. Presumably that's what would be done under this plan.
What do you mean "Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget?" Did you look at the plan? The very first item is cuts in the DoD. In fact the cuts there are well over 100x all the items you listed combined.
Right, these departments are tiny relative to the amount cut ($1 trillion). The proposal does cut the DoD budget as well. And it's still not enough to balance the budget.
This budget proposal cuts more than just a tiny sliver of the DoD. It starts with $200 billion in cuts (off the CBO baseline) in the DoD the first year.
I'm guessing you're talking about the DoD? This budget is cutting $1 trillion, which is more than the DoD misplaces. This year's budget deficit is around $1.6 trillion, so a cut of $1 trillion really is on the order of the cuts needed. Also this budget proposal does cut some of that military spending you reference. So I think calling this "a little trimming" is disingenuous.
Besides, your callous attitude would seem to lead to something like this:
"Why should I have to do anything to help anyone? Screw 'em." (later) "Eeek, I'm in trouble, why won't someone help me?!"
That's a common misconception of libertarian philosophy.
It's not an issue of not caring if bad things happen. It's an issue of the morality of using violence to take away someone's ability to voluntarily choose whether or not to do something. When you refuse to use violence, force, and threats to take that choice away from an individual it's not the same thing as saying any choice they make is equally good.
There's another breed of libertarian that focuses on utilitarian arguments, such as moral hazard and unintended consequences. For example one might oppose government flood insurance on the basis that forcing people not subject to the risk of flooding to take on some costs of those that choose to take that risk will cause more people to build and live in high risk areas. In essence the involuntary nature of the insurance causes more destruction and suffering in the event of a flood, than would have otherwise occurred.
++
This is an excellent answer.
Here's a free marketer's take on Umair Haque's article:
Harvard Business Review Goes Gaga over Karl Marx
Except that if RAII frees the memory the pointer points at, and something else is using that memory, you've just broken your program.
If so then you're not really using RAII.
A) Yes, you can avoid sharing references, and that might use more memory than is necessary, but then again, for a specific problem you may not need copies and so it could be efficient.
B) Nice absolute there. Reference counting is a fine solution in many situations.
There are other solutions as well:
C) Use a non-reference counting smart pointer that allows resources to be passed around safely with no copying and no other overhead. See std::unique_ptr.
D) Share references in a well defined way such that they're never passed outside the scope where the object is accessible.
What happens is that the resource is freed as required because you're using RAII.
They were a long way from worrying about whether we would have enough revenue to pay interest, even with the great recession.
As a matter of fact revenue is unquestionably greater than the interest payments. So I assume they're still a long way from worrying if there's enough revenue to cover interest.
and starting to tell your bank you won't be making your next credit card payment not because you don't have the lower interest credit line (HELOC) to offload the debt to, but because you simply refuse to.
Why are you suggesting that the only two choices are to borrow money or to not pay anything back? Are you sure there's no other choice?
The people talking about default are using it as a scare tactic, and it would be their choice to default or not, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.