I think the article should, in principle, offend any self-respecting individual due to its tone and any rational person due to the "facts" it presents. From this point on, I tacitly assume that people reading this anti-(anti-drug-rant) rant posses both rationality and self-respect to some extent.

One interesting thing about the article is that after replacing "drug use" with "gay marriage" the reasons still remain "valid", and become strikingly similar to what anti-gay lobbyists routinely come up with. The illegality of two men loving each other, the separation from normal society, "underground" gay groups and "the gateway effect". One of the reasons routinely cited in support of anti-gay laws is that if we allow two women to marry, men will start sleeping with dogs and sisters will engage in incest. Needless to say, such fears are as baseless as the gateway drug theory [2] the authors talk about.

Perhaps the most objectionable aspect of this article the way the authors instruct their reader on the "right" way to lead their lives. Whether someone spends their free time reading Shakespeare or worshipping bananas is entirely for themselves to decide. Advice can only be given conditionally, "If you want to be an astronaut eating zombie then do the following ... ", or in this particular case "If you're giving advice to self-respecting people ...". Unconditional advice speaks poorly of how the author view people around them even more poorly of TSA for publishing such an article.

Getting down to the factual aspects:

It is true that most nations ban drugs, but more and more countries are taking steps towards legalization. London [4] is re-thinking their drug laws and Portugal decriminalized drug use [5] over a decade ago. In our own country we have licensed Bhang Shops [3]. Cocaine and heroin were both legal for several decades -- does it mean it was "okay" to use them back then? The issue is, legality isn't always a good indicator of whether a particular activity is harmful or not. Even practically, the only country I have heard of where such drug-laws are strictly enforced is the US of A, and I don't think the reader will need to be told that their notion of what to "fix" and what not to is a bit skewed. Personally, no one in my social circle ever got into any legal trouble for smoking up once in a while.

The authors mention legality again, and their argument is flawed for the reason already mentioned. Going by this logic, DC++, anything but regular sex, homosexuals (in West Bengal) should all be avoided.

Keeping secrets from some people is not the same as getting disowned from society. Moreover, people choose friends and social circles based on their opinions, not the other way around

You can't vote in this country if you mind sponsoring corruption. :) Plus, at least in West Bengal, marijuana is grown locally by extremely poor people. If anything, by buying pot you're ensuring they have enough to eat for a day.

I agree with the authors on one thing and one thing only -- presenting a distorted picture of drug use, mentioning the good while leaving out the bad and risky is never ethical. In fact, I find this article unethical for doing the exact opposite, which is just as bad.

Fact is, however the authors try to pretend to be omniscient beings who transcend time and space, they're are just like the readers they're trying to advise and I don't think they know any better. People have a right to choose what they do with their lives; giving out unsolicited advice is vulgar and revolting.

Does this mean I condone drug usage? Well, it doesn't matter what I think. Drugs can ruin your life, be the most meaningful experience you take out of this phase of your life or just something you do once in a while. Your life is yours to make and destroy, and I don't get a say in it.

PS: This isn't a personal attack against anyone.

PPS: I don't contribute to any multiple-continent-spanning newspaper.

--

[1] http://www.scholarsavenue.org/2012/03/17/an-open-letter/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4581743/Now-Home-Office-drugs-adviser-wants-to-downgrade-LSD-from-A-to-B.html
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/portugal-drug-laws-decriminalization-_n_889531.html

In case you haven't already, you need to first read up (a little bit) on untyped and typed lambda calculus. Try reading to the point where you can comfortably state why $\lambda x \cdot x x$ can not be well-typed. I'll wait right here, I promise. :)

I'll use the symbol $[x \mapsto s] t$ to mean "replace instances of $x$ by $s$ in the term $t$". We'll talk about a typed lambda calculus which has exactly one type $A$ and only one value of that type, $a$. We'll evaluate in normal order.

Firstly, note (informally) that all types will look like $((A \to A) \to (A \to A)) \to (A \to A)$. It is not hard to see (or prove) that the set of types is isomorphic to a set of binary trees with every internal node a $\to$ and every leaf an $A$. This is important since we'll do structural induction on the binary tree corresponding to a type.

We now define a set of what are usually called reducibility candidates. They are a predicate on terms of the lambda calculus with the following conditions

• $R_{A}(t)$ if $t$ halts.
• $R_{T_{1} \to T_{2}}(t)$ $\iff$ $t$ halts and $R_{T_{1}}(s) \Rightarrow R_{T_{2}}(t s)$

Since $R_T$ is a predicate, we can safely say things like $x$ is in $R_A$ etc.

We aim to prove the following

1. Every term in a set $R_{T}$ (for any type $T$) is normalizable. Note that this follows from the definition of the reducibility candidates
2. Every term of type $T$ is in $R_{T}$.

These two, combined, will allow us to draw the conclusion that every well-typed term in our simply typed lambda calculus halts.

Lemma 0: Every term in a reducibility candidate halts

This follows directly from the definition of a reducibility candidate.

Lemma 1: Reduction does not change the reducibility status of a term

Formally, we try to prove $R_T(t) \wedge (t \to t') \iff R_T(t')$. For this, we use the structural induction on binary trees isomorphic to each type we talked about above. There are two cases.

T is the atom type

This is the base case for our induction and also pretty obvious. From $t \to t'$ we conclude $t$ halts iff $t'$ halts. Since the only condition to be in $R_A$ is halting, $R_A(t) \iff R_A(t')$.

T is a function type

Let $T \equiv T_1 \to T_2$. In this case, each $t'$ has to satisfy the additional condition $\forall s \in R_{T_1} \cdot R_{T_2}(t'\;s)$. We begin by taking an arbitrary $s$ in $R_{T_1}$.

Notice how $t \; s \to t' \; s$ [1]? Also notice how $T_2$ is a substructure of $T \equiv (T_1 \to T_2)$? We can invoke structural induction here and say we already know $R_{T_2}(t \; s) \Rightarrow R_{T_2}(t' \; s)$ (statement 0). Also, since we're given $R_T(t)$, we know for all $s$ in $R_{T_1}$, $t \; s$ is in $R_{T_2}$ (property of $R_T$) (statement 1). We can conclude from statement 0 and statement 1 that for any arbitrary $s$ in $R_{T_1}$, we have $R_{T_2} (t' \; s)$. This is the extra condition we needed to show $t'$ is in $R_T$.

Lemma 2: Every well typed term of type T is in $R_T$

This is proved by proving a stronger assertion: if $x_1:T_1, ..., x_n:T_n \vdash t \; : \; T$ and $\emptyset \vdash v_i : T_i$ for all $i$ then $R_T([x_1 \mapsto v_1] ... [x_n \mapsto v_n]t)$. This is a stronger assertion because this also applies to terms with free variables while, at the top level, we'll need to consider only closed terms. The assertion will be invoked on open terms only via induction.

To prove this assertion, we'll invoke induction on the size of a term. So, informally, $t_1 \; t_2$ is greater than either $t_1$ or $t_2$ and $\lambda a \cdot x$ is greater than $x$. We make a case by case analysis on the various forms $t$ can be in

A variable

This is obvious, since $t = x_i$ for some $i$.

An application

This too is easy. Since $t \equiv t_1 \; t_2$, we invoke induction on $t_1$ and $t_2$ separately and then use $([a \mapsto b]c) ([a \mapsto b]d) \equiv ([a \mapsto b] (c \; d))$ to get our result.

An abstraction

We know, from its form that $t$ is a value. The other thing left to prove is that, keeping types compatible, $\forall s \in R_S \cdot R_M(t \; s)$. $t$ is of the form $\lambda x : S \cdot b$. Let $s \in R_S$. We know, from lemma 0 that $s$ will reduce to a value $v$. From lemma 1, we get $R_S(v)$. The condition we're trying to prove is $([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n]t)s \in R_P$. But this beta-reduces to $([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n](t \; s))$ $\to$ $([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n](t \; v))$ $\to$ $([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n]([x \mapsto v]b)$. $b$ is a smaller term satisfying the requirements for this proposition, and we can say, via induction, $R_P([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n]([x \mapsto v]b)$. From lemma 1 we get $R_P(([x_1 \mapsto v_1]...[x_n \mapsto v_n]t)s)$, which is what we wanted to prove.

--

1. In normal order. I haven't tried proving this in other evaluation strategies but I think I can go around by proving that the evaluation strategy does not matter in deciding the behaviour of a program in this lambda calculus.

Contrast a book with a movie, for instance. The information a book contains is certainly more abstract than the information a movie rams into my head. I don't know how Naoko in Norwegian Wood looked like but Martha always conjures up the image of Helena Bontham Carter in a hat, smoking a freshly lit cigarette. Naoko's image is malleable and ethereal but Martha will always be a dark girl with curly hair (this is not to criticize Fight Club, I loved the movie).

I think this makes books more relatable, and a well written text hits me at a very base level. Since the written word is so flexible and abstract, my mind can lift it up to a concrete representation that is very close to my sense of self. A book can drive me to insanity, a movie cannot.

I think the same applies to music too -- I've always found solos by Pink Floyd their most interesting work. When a rapper talks about how he scored last night, there is only so much information my mind can add, there is only so much I can misinterpret. When I hear the crazy slide-guitar in Shine on you crazy diamond, VI-IX, my mind is forced to conjure up something using the only tools it has at its disposal, my imagination and my experience. And it always comes up with something sinister.

For instance, I could argue about how we all are automatons driven solely by the desire to increase the entropy of the universe. Not a very useful way to discuss why A's marriage did not work out, is it? I find it more useful to look at human beings as a reflection of their line of existence through time and place. This way, I treat a person not as someone (or something) contained in the physical realms of his or her body; but as a context that spreads out in time and space. The coffee he's drinking is changing his mood, why should it not be as much "him" as his tonsils? How about the kindergarten school she went too? Is that not as much "her" as her retina? How about the book she's reading? This way of thinking about people is very rewarding (I personally think so) -- it allows me to be more compassionate, understanding and patient. Once the object of your frustration is no longer a sharply defined physical entity, things start to diffuse and you begin thinking more clearly.

As a result of this context (spatial and temporal) which everyone carries around, we have certain goals, aspirations and biases. That is, what I think, makes us human.

I have had arguments with my peers on things like whether it is better to live comfortably without free speech and liberty or to live without material comfort surrounded by intellectual freedom. But such arguments are probably too restrictive -- maybe the North Koreans are actually happy! Perhaps they [2] really do think that their dear leader is divine. Maybe is isn't some mass cognitive dissonance after all? I find their condition desolate and pitiful because I am carrying around this huge bag full of my own context, which I shamelessly dump on them. What is it really, to think in someone else's shoes? Can I possibly think like a unwanted child born to a prostitute in a Bombay slum? My personal rationality is biased, more so when applied to analyzing others.

It seems to me that everyone, on account of the biases in their rationality and the inherent context they carry, tend to distort their world in their own unique way, by reflecting themselves off a mirror that isn't really perfect and by looking at others through tainted glass. But then how do you reason about the flaws in your rationality using your flawed rationality? Maybe this, the dents in our looking glasses, is the human experience. Perhaps without it the world would be a very boring place.

I still maintain that our existence, at the very base level, is purposeless and incidental. But I now have something shiny to look forward to -- the human experience; something that can not be dissected, explained and thrown away.

Thanks to all those who disagreed, those who still do, chai and Albert Hofmann.

[1] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/eagleman09/eagleman09_index.html
[2] I'm talking about the majority here -- some people do try to escape.

I think, it is connected to a previous track titled Mother. The movie (album) is about the construction and (later) deconstruction of a metaphorical wall. The wall exists at many different levels (for instance, as the divide between the elite and the starving masses, apparent in What shall we do now); the most basic being the protective wall built around Pink by his mother.

Mother has a line on how Pink's mother would check all of his girlfriends for him and won't let anyone dirty get in. Here, Pink wanting a dirty girl signals the beginning of the wall's destruction.

Pink Floyd amazes me every single time.

I think it is important to have an axiomatic view of life - even though it is probably impossible to justify our actions purely on logic, we should be able to do so by calling on some fundamental assumptions we make about our existence. For instance, one rather ubiquitous axiom goes "Realize God". I don't find that cogent, but you're free to disagree.

Weirdly, (and sadly), for most people, the existence axiom says "Look around, and do what everyone else is doing. Be a potty trained cow.". The less (or more, depending on how you look at it) sad part is that they are not aware of its existence.

I am more comfortable having an axiom that borders on being a tautology, since, in my opinion, that is as good as we can get. Specifically, I think "Do whatever that is required to increase the chances of us surviving as a species." both succinct and meaningful (well, at least as meaningful these kind of things can be anyways). Since whatever you do loses all meaning with the extinction of our race, we might as well make the converse our aim.

The first corollary of the fundamental axiom implies disregard for all but those personal pleasures required to keep one's productivity up. The second (also largely obvious) corollary involves polishing our art to the point where we can meaningfully contribute to the advancement of our species.

One can either choose to be the first monkey shot into space or a potty trained cow. There really is a choice.

• Don't kill your daughter right after she is born.
• After successful completion of the previous step, instead of buying her a barbie, buy her a lego kit.

The last step is figurative, of course. What I really mean is that the only effective way to inculcate a technical mindset is attempting to do that early on. Giving out easy scholarships to twenty year olds because of their gender just produces more bad engineers, and that is the last thing we need.

The average Joe crowd-sources his opinions to MTV anchors and resolves his personal issues by methods not very far from a public ballot. His personal life is a democracy and his individualism is castrated.

I force myself into anti-escapism. I force myself to exist in the present, in the current moment; since one can never be sure that the past really existed and that the future would really exist. I realize that my life will not start five years from now, and that this is *it*, as good as it gets.

The average Janet is dating the average Joe. Love, institutionalized, requires them to follow a strict protocol, laid down by everybody. Does Janet love Joe or the protocol? Does Joe really not like to listen?

Our lives have no inherent meaning. Social valuations are arbitrary -- attaching meaning to our existence requires some justification. We are not yet mature enough to realize that we need to survive as a species (and how difficult that is in the long term); we still have absurd concepts like nations and religion. While I find it hard to justify my ultimate objective as increasing the survival chances of our species, I'm happy to accept it as the transcendental truth.

The average Joe is content existing. He does not have an art. He does not perfect himself. Outcomes of football matches make or break his day. He believes the color of his tie is of fundamental importance to the functioning of the universe.

The average Janet won a purse in today's raffle. She is ecstatic.

The two extreme cases are using morning-after pills (the iPill in India, for instance) which is clearly ethical, and infanticide, which is clearly wrong (ethically). In between these two extremes must lie the point where an abortion transforms from a medical operation to a homicide. How that point is to be determined is the question: When does a foetus stop being an organic growth? When does it begin counting as a person?

I've read about legalizing abortions reducing crime-rates as a far-reaching non-obvious consequence (Freakonomics); but letting the argument go in that direction will require proving that abortions lie outside the purview of ethics in the first place.

The argument about how it is a woman's duty to carry her baby etc. is obviously rubbish. But trashing the whole concept of a baby being a different person because it is demeaning to women does not make a whole lot of sense to me - I don't understand either of the clauses: why it is demeaning in the first place, and why does that invariably lead to the invalidation of the concept itself?

Even if you take Amartya Sen's idea of justice (quite literally :) ), and discard the notion of a transcendental justice, the question still remains: till what point does abortion stay "more right" than infanticide?

What do you think?

The README file with the (rather non-rigorous) test code should be enough to get you started. This is not a typical library (since it uses the pre-processor so heavily) - you cannot compile it to, say, libcmdrargs.so and dynamically link to it. You will always need to include the source in your project.

I have not focused much on code-efficiency; granted that you parse the command line arguments only once, this should not be much of a problem. Bugs, suggestions and flames welcome.