After reading that, I think structured proofs should be written with an outliner [0] interface, where you can actually expand and collapse the hierarchy. Lamport also knows this. He repeatedly mentions it as "hypertext". However, he seems to be locked into LaTeX [1] and pdf generation.
Tried this with both "immediately" and 15 min on iPad Mini. Reproduced it every time.
As a side note, one can use this bug to access contacts list and send email on behalf of the owner (via share menu in photo stream).
Edit:
Just found out that I can tweet, post to facebook and send email just by using Siri (if that setting is enabled). Although, this might be the correct behavior.
> Idealism? Surely. But many anarchists would tell you that anarchism is an ideal, a goal, more than it is a destination to be arrived at in short order.
It always struck me, that so many people discard the idea of anarchism either as "a teenage rebel idealism", terrorism, or simply "not going to work". Hence they go back to capitalism or however things work today.
But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production), let people have control over their own lives, direct democracy and self-organization. And when people say it's not going to work, it saddens me that we are not even trying to move in that direction. Of course, it may not ever happen, but innovating in this direction surely could lead us to a better world.
Of course, don't take my word for it, as I'm obviously biased. Instead research the topic if you're interested.
But in the end, what anarcho-communism is trying to achieve is what most of us would agree with: eliminate poverty and exploitation (via equal rights to access means of production)
You can replace the words 'anarcho-capitalism' with every single other political system, and you'd reach the same ideal endpoint. Everything promises fairness. People don't simply dismiss anarchism as 'teenage rebel idealism' because they're unaware of your notions of endpoint, they disagree with it because of inherent flaws (namely that money tends to lead to more money, and any system devoid of oversight or regulation will inevitably lead to a power structure built around those already with power).
There is no panaceatic system -- only the continual tamping of natural power leavening. To claim that your system, above others, will achieve a system that brings about permanent fairness is to belie a shallow consideration for how power accumulates.
Note 'anarcho-communism', not -capitalism. In fairness, I am opposed to anarcho-capitalism for the reason you outlined above:
> namely that money tends to lead to more money
In general, yes - there is no such thing as "panaceatic system", instead I was suggesting to trying to find different methods, organization structures to lower the possibility of (or in ideal world eliminating) power accumulation.
Actually, plenty of anarcho-capitalists basically do disagree on the nature of fairness, and therefore on the very metric on which we want the economy run.
The problem I have with anarcho-communism is that it is identical to the tribalism and village/clan based ways of organizing society that we have progressed out of.
The basic enforcement mechanism under every a-c system I have ever read is to "drive them out of town." Thieves, rapists, ect will be banished from group. We have only to look to the past to see just horrible of a system that can be for people who have a different skin color, sexual orientation, ect from the dominant group.
Anarchism without pacifism is a contradiction, and pure anarchism can only succeed as far as can pure pacifism. Neither are likely to happen, so again, they are more ideals that should influence a more virtuous way of living, and perhaps governing, than near goals to be achieved by force or distance. As such, it's pretty obvious that "driving them out" is as far from virtue or pacifism as you can get, and is totally counter to the spirit of volunteerism. Neither imprisonment nor exile are tolerable solutions for the pacifist.
Anarchism rejects coercion. Pacifism rejects violence, including coercion. They go hand-in-hand. Why would you expect anarchism to be the opposite of pacifism?
Probably because its easy to conflate Anarchism, a clear ideology, with anarchy, a state of social/political/governmental organization that may coincide with Anarchist ideology, but may also more closely resemble Hobbes' state of nature: "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
From what you say, you obviously have no idea what communism is. Not USSR, nor Northern Korea, nor China, etc.. they were never communist countries, not even a "form" of communism. Communism, in its origin form, means no government, gift-economy, direct democracy(as opposed to representative) and workers controlling the means of production.
"A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions." [1]
Excuse me for a one-off useless comment, but a Communist country never existed. USSR was not communist.
Communism is being described as "A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."[1]
Hence, no rulers. Communism in its essence is a form of Anarchist society.
For most idealistic -isms, I doubt any implementation could exist that would satisfy the -ism's true believers (particularly since those implementations would have flaws that would need to be disclaimed).
I, for once, don't see a problem with getting paid doing open-source software.
With kickstarter I get an assumption that if for some reason he won't raise enough money - he won't work on the project. That, in my opinion, is wrong. It shouldn't matter if one raises money or not, as long as you like what you're doing. Otherwise why bother in the first place?
Opportunity cost. If the world can't come up with $25k to fund this project, then it must not actually have enough of a market to be worth Yehuda's time. He can go find something else to do for $25k worth of his time that will likely benefit someone more than this would have.
It's not like we're investing $25k of angel funds to have him build something that he is then going to sell for $500k without sharing the profits. We're simply paying the living expenses of someone who wants to solve a perceived need for the development community.
This might just be me, but here's my point of view: I like writing software. It's pretty enjoyable. But you know what's more enjoyable? Eating. Having a roof over my head. Being able to pay for my wedding without selling any major organs. If the time I spend writing software detracts from those other things, I'm sorry, but the software either has to go or has to pay for itself. If you want to be absurdly altruistic, you are free to do as you will, but I don't think it's reasonable to demand it from Yehuda, especially as he's already given so much.
Per object overhead in functional languages is usually lower since polymorphism is handled at the function level rather than the data level. You don't have to store class pointers etc, just the raw data and probably a type tag.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/p...