I think the point is that the term "spin" is not, at the quantum level, what we think of when we say a top spins, for example.
If an electron spins like the earth spins, it's revolving at 100 times the speed of light (see http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html).
Why can't we bail out Detroit, like we did for car companies and banks? Why doesn't the government help the people of Detroit by backstopping the promises made to their pensioners, with money from the Fed, as the Fed backstopped private corporate losses, and the government helped out the car companies?
I think balancing budgets becomes a fussy compulsion, almost a fetish: you want things to look neat. You want the figures to come out even, regardless of the consequences for individuals you don't know, far off at a distance somewhere. When the people who experience the repurcussions of your budget-balancing have no communication with you, and you only hear about their plight mediated through many third parties, it becomes easy to tell yourself a story about why they are suffering, and ignore
Right. I don't understand pedantic, arbitrary rules. I suspect the motivation for them is purely control, and/or inflexibility.
Right. There was no grammatical error, as was claimed. (Note the passive voice in "was claimed", because I didn't feel like explicitly referring to the claimant(s).) The sentence was as clear or clearer than anything so far proposed. Claiming otherwise is just pedantry.
This is a matter of taste, not grammar. "People have written..." and "There are..." are both active voice. One uses an explicit subject, one uses the dummy subject "there". So, first of all, you were wrong that my example was passive.
Second, I don't see how "There are..." is any better than the passive voice. Unless you're a pedant, which it's strange that you accuse me of being, when I was objecting to the pedantry of the post complaining about the use of passive voice.
Why should it pay its own way? It provides a public good. Government should fund it with bonds that can be bought by the Fed, which is required to return the interest to the Treasury; so the borrowing has zero cost. Then govt keeps the loans rolling over forever, much like a bank.
I guess you're talking about http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-22.html#%25_sec_3.3.4 "A Simulator for Digital Circuits":
This system typifies a kind of program called an event-driven simulation, in which actions (``events'') trigger further events that happen at a later time, which in turn trigger more events, and so so [sic].
I suppose the modern version uses events more for user interaction, and also gets rid of lots of idiotic, stupid parentheses.
That's probably why he used the passive voice. He didn't want to focus on the authors, but the articles.
The point: the sentence I proposed wasn't passive, as you stated.
I think you're confusing the present perfect active with passive? See http://english-zone.com/members/teach/pssvchrt.html.
I thought we were talking about subspace, the subject of the article?
Didn't even notice. I think this "style" rule about not using the passive voice is more about enforcing arbitrary rules than about how to communicate. Why would "People have written many thousands of articles..." be any better? The author chose to focus on the articles instead of the people who wrote them. He's more interested in the words than the authors.
In Coursera's Reactive Programming MOOC, the difference between reactive programming event-handling and traditional event-handling is described in two slides from the introductory lecture:
A traditional Java event-handler is first presented, and the problems enumerated: it relies on a side-effect (the variable "count" in the example), which involves shared mutable state; events and their handlers are not first class. Reactive programming tries to do better so that complex handlers can be composed from primitive ones.