The main mistake in this article is the assumption that b := a makes 'b' an "alias" of 'a'. It doesn't. It creates a new slice that starts off pointing to the same array as 'a'. Also slices are immutable so you can't change 'a'. If you create a new slice by manipulating 'a' then the copy 'b' won't see anything outside of its bounds.
This exaggerates the problem. There is more preserved data about people than ever before, just like there was more preserved data last century than there was the previous century. There is simply vastly more data collected. I speculate that deleting 20% of this century's data would still leave an order of magnitude more data about people than was recorded last century.
I think future historians will look back in the same way we do now. We're horrified that people discarded, burned or reused records from every century in history, but technology allows us to record and preserve more every year.
I think the problem is in assuming only 20% will be deleted. When you consider companies going out of business, technical obsolescence, etc. the figure will be closer to 99% after 50 years, that's my prediction.
I think the phrasing "in full" is important here. It implies that a debt was "called in" and thus something more political is at play. I don't think this means they couldn't pay their bills. I wonder if venture debt is involved.
On that occasion the Appointments Committee put forward the names of the
Archbishop of York, the favorite of the church leaders but one who had
ruffled Mrs. Thatcher's feathers on other issues.
To try to encourage his selection, the second candidate was generally
regarded as unqualified. An old line evangelical, who thought the
Bible contained the answer to every question and who was known to speak
The Church leaders thought this candidate, George Carey, was too
bizarre a choice even for Margaret Thatcher. However, the Prime Minister's
anger was such that she decided to teach the Church of England a lesson.
George Carey became the designated Archbishop of Canterbury.
That's usually a slightly risky move, but it upgrades to very risky indeed when the choices are presented to an antagonist who may well decide to be wilfully malicious and call you on your bluff.
If you click through to the original source, the Church had deeply angered Thatcher by criticising her policies extensively and finally praying for the argentinian dead during the ceremony celebrating the end of the Falklands war. After the ceremony,
> Prime Minister Thatcher was livid and quite vocal at the door of the Cathedral that day and vowed that she would never let a representative of the church embarrass her again.
I'm not surprised she decided to fuck with them and pick the crazy guy, she wasn't call the Iron Lady because she liked building steel plants (quite the opposite really).
I was a long-time Thunderbird user, but the mail application I really loved was Opera's M2. It had an awesome auto-folder system that would create virtual folders for mailing lists, people you regularly corresponded with and date ranges. It's only downside was that it was tied into Opera and there was no way to tell it to open links in another browser.
>This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work."
You say that like it's a bad thing. Anarchism historically has always been libertarian communism. It was Marx who paired authoritarianism and communism into the ideology that drove almost all the worst despots of the 20th century.
It appears you are either a big fan of Bakunin, have a poor understanding of Marx in history, or simply suffer a grossly inaccurate understanding of Marx's political theory.
Marx most certainly did not pair authoritarianism and communism. Ever. You speak of a mythical version of Marx's conception of the state in particular, and Marxist theory in general. This mythical yarn was spun by Soviets--and other despots and their followers--who were desperate to dress themselves in Marxist garb, as well as Western powers desperate to discredit Marxist theory and drum up national opposition in response to feeling threatened by it.
Marx advocated the use of a state to transition society to a stateless condition. This period of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the authoritarian streak that led to the Marx/Bakunin break.
Lenin, and probably others, advocated for the use of a state to transition, not Marx. The dictatorship of the proletariate is a transitional period when the proletariates take over the means of production through revolution. There are still classes at this point, hence transition, but the ruling class is the working class. In other words, a "dictatorship" of the many and not the few.
As far as the split goes, it was a lot more involved than just one issue. The problem you are referring to, however, had more to do with using politics of the time in order to motivate workers which they both understood in many parts of Europe were not ready for what they wanted. Marxist were ok with participating in politics, Bakunin was not. They both agreed though that real change would come from an uprising of people and not through political action.
Again, your understanding of Marxist political theory is grossly inaccurate. This is [still] the mythical version of Marxism that was parroted by Soviets, [at least some] Chinese, and Western powers for their own ends--be it masquerading as "true" Marxists, or scaring the shit out of people into seeing Marxism/socialism/communism, instead of its authoritarian practitioners, as "evil". You also appear to misunderstand entirely Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was in no way authoritarian in any of Marx's explications of the idea.
Marx was--in his political theory, as well as his political activity--focused on defending and advancing the idea of democratic authority of the general interests of the masses. He did not, unlike Bakunin and others, view the masses as mere cannon fodder--Bakunin actually called them this--to throw at standing power to succeed in revolutionary overthrow. Moreover, Marx ardently and unfailingly argued and advocated that the ultimate end, with regard to the masses, was to teach them to walk by themselves, eschewing the bureaucratic regulation through which they are taught from childhood onward to believe in and acquiesce to the authority of those set over them. Workers are to engage the process of self-emancipation through taking charge of and reorganizing society--through bottom-up democratic means. Bakunin and others, on the other hand, argued that teaching the people anything was stupid, and they should merely be convinced to revolt. To this, Marx once wrote that inciting workers without offering them any guiding ideas or constructive self-emancipatory doctrine was "equivalent to vain dishonest play at preaching which assumes an inspired prophet on the one side and on the other only the gaping asses."
Writing during his time of participating in the International, Marx believed it “the business of the International Working Men’s Association to combine and generalize the spontaneous movements of the working classes, but not to dictate or impose any doctrinary system whatever.” He vehemently opposed the moves by Bakunin and others to create secretive, autonomous groups within the International, because such a group “is opposed to the development of the proletarian movement because, instead of instructing the workers, these societies subject them to authoritarian, mystical laws which cramp their independence and distort their powers of reason.” Marx explained to Wilhelm Blos that when he and Engels joined the Communist League, they “did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.”
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a bottom-up democratic seizure of power. Marx did not have any problem playing politics. He just wanted to see the workers in control of politics, instead of it residing in the hands of capitalists and their elitist servants who would use political power to perpetuate the alienation and division of workers, thus preserving the privileged status of those with capital within the social and political system. Of course, this is also heavily integrated with taking control of the means of production and placing it into the hands of the working masses, as tarentel mentions in a sibling comment. Nevertheless, you are imbuing Marx's notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat" with post-Marx, 20th-century infused notions of dictatorship--that is, authoritarian rule of one (or few) over all.
Feel free to say if you are still convinced of the rightness of your inaccurate understanding and I will offer more explanation.
[EDIT]: For full disclosure, the particular arc and inclusion of quoted items 2-4 is borrowed from David Adam's "Marx, Bakunin, and the question of authoritarianism". It got directly to the bits I wanted to cover, and saved me the time of having to comb back through my own library to find the relevant quotes I was looking for.
: Francis Wheen's Karl Marx: A Life, 104.
: Marx's "Instructions for Delegates to the Geneva Congress" in Political Writings Vol 3, 90.
: Marx's "Speech on Secret Societies" from Collected Works Vol 22, 621.