Indeed. But a real UNIX hacker can unplug the monitor, cat the source files to/dev/dsp and listen for bugs in the system. And he knows from the tune whether its compiler errors or silly warnings designed for people who think lint-clean does not imply a wool suit.
If a domain registered at GoDaddy is sending you spam, tell GoDaddy about it. Sending spam from a domain registered at GoDaddy is in violation of their terms of service, and can get the domain shut down.
GoDaddy is not sending you spam. They are simply following the rules for domain name transfers. See http://www.icann.org/transfers/ for details.
The word you tried to spell is "fraudulent", meaning deceitful. The email did not deceive you; someone really was trying to take your domain name.
Go now and tell your registrar to lock your domain names to prevent transfers. If your registrar makes that difficult, maybe you should switch to GoDaddy.
"What allowances are you thinking of? I can't think of any. All variables are really pointers inside at the system level as it is (except ones with a very local context which can be optimized into registers), so it wouldn't seem to make much sense that support for pointers would be a slowdown. Besides, most modern compilers have flags that give you a great deal of control over how to use pointers (if you're going to use them)."
Google around for pointer aliasing for an idea of some of the fun optimizations that C compilers cannot do on legal C code. Granted if you are willing to limit your coding idioms AND do some indepth auditing of your pointer usage, some C compilers will let you say, in effect "I know what I'm doing, do these normally unsafe optimizations anyway."
Given that the author of that comment is a story editor, he probably has spent his entire day web surfing with that browser, reading countless sites loaded with HTML craziness, trying to research the facts of hundreds, nay thousands, of story submissions. So give him a break.
They left out a couple of useful structured primitives: labeled break, labeled continue, switch.
The labeled break and continue are very handy for getting out of multiply-nested loops. A goto is useful to simulate those constructs on languages that don't have them (like C).
Switch (can be implemented with if-else-if-else...) can make things a lot more readable. Oh well, maybe someone could write a preprocessor to add the things the language designers left out.
> Security should fall under some form of "trades description act" - eg: what you're offered is what you get. A firewall that isn't, secure transactions that aren't, or privacy that's sold, should be actionable. That isn't about the limits of technical skill, it's about fraud that merely happens to involve computer technology. Who is to blame for a {firewall|secure transaction} that isn't? Of course the provider is. But before you jump on this bandwagon, consider that the provider includes the software developer, the consultant that installed it, the manager that approved it, the slashdot article that recommended it, the nerd-in-a-laboratory that invented the technology, etc. In today's suit-happy legal environment, everyone you can imagine will be liable. Let's hope you don't work in a technical field, or this list includes you. I will very happily agree that those who sell information they promised to keep private should be [insert cruel and unusual punishment here]. But companies are allowed to share information with their marketing partners -- your insurance provider, your bank, their banks, anyone their banks own, etc. Maybe that portion of the law should be reviewed by someone other than a pathological marketroid.
> It should be illegal for an ISP to prohibit customers from implementing security on their machines (except where that security is, itself, a hazard to other machines)
I agree, but... it is a small step to allowing (or forcing) ISPs to require some specific security software on customers' machines. And simpleminded shortsided uncaring micro$oftie ISP's (and I have dealt with enough, thank you) will require their customers to use WinWhatever (or a Windows-based product) to implement that security.
> Where the technology exists to prevent criminal abuse, and an ISP neglects to use it for reasons OTHER than financial or technical, then that ISP is an accessory to the crime, and should be held accountable as such.
Does the government really care whether [small ISP owner] have the technical expertise or the financial resources to carry out your business in a lawful fashion? No, they will make the laws and let the little guys figure out how to deal with them. Additionally, the big boys (AOL anyone?) already have enough lobbyists to make sure that the laws favor them and hurt the smaller ISPs.
> Insurance companies should have the right to carry out periodic audits of computers belonging to customers they insure, and modify premiums according to the flaws encountered.
Back to my Windows-only argument. If you are not using [some expensive closed-source security package], you must not be secure. Let's not observe that your insurance company just happens to own significant equity in the developer of [that expensive closed-source security package].
> Customers of companies should have a similar right to scan the companies they deal with (and vice versa), so that neither side can claim ignorance of the status of the other, prior to transactions taking place.
I would suggest a third-party audit. What if I (your customer) am also your competitor? What useful things might I uncover as part of my innocent audit?
> As things stand, "important" web transactions are secure, and all others aren't. This is the same as placing a large, neon sign over the hidden wall-safe. It is no longer hidden, or safe. I would like to propose that unsecure, or only partially-secure websites be subject to penalties, where such a policy results in a breach of security.
I think the government will like this one, but modify it to say "everything must be securely transmitted" and "oh, by the way, we need all the encryption keys." For security purposes. To protect the children. Do they really need an excuse, when half the population doesn't even vote?
> Finally, where concious and deliberate inaction results in an expense to any emergency service, security agencies, etc, the organization responsible should be expected to reimburse those costs, in full. (Note that this is for inaction alone. You can't sensibly penalize those who make a genuine effort, even when that effort fails.)
Yes.
Basically I like your ideas. But I fear the ability of big corporations / big government to limit our use of free & open software & protocols, and to destroy small businesses in the name of the public interest.
1) logging to paper; so the cracker can't totally erase his trail
2) backup to paper; so you have some recourse if your system config is massively hosed AND your magnetic media is toast
and, wait for it...
3) SWAPPING to paper; because you can! (just point your swapfile at/dev/ocr ) and more importantly, to score extra points on the C purity test.
Requiem sez:
>Just for the record, I know and like C, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to encounter it in grade nine.
Did. Loved it.
Well, actually neither me nor my school could afford a computer to run the C compiler. But I learned from a book, waited 2 years and got the tools. Then I wrote some games, and wasted the rest of my high school experience playing games. But it was fun...
You are right, though. Don't teach kids C. Teach them Scheme. http://www.schemers.org
And don't wait till grade 9. Teach them basic math and programming in grade 1! Then by the time they hit grade 9 they will do programming for fun and they can concentrate on important things, like blowing up the science lab. (just kidding)
No, this is great. If Micro$loth wanted to play fair or nice with the school system (open up the licensing, drastically cut prices, etc.) , we might need a decree from the government to get some open source technology in there. But since Microsoft wants to deal harshly, they will help to push the schools towards open source. My only wish is that Microsoft products were really expensive (say $4k or more a seat) and licenses were harsh (reregister your product every 10 minutes or you're going to *jail* buddy). Then nobody except those with money to burn would buy that stuff. Corporations that need to do some belt-tightening would look at open source. Same for schools, universities, families.
In short, I think they (Microsoft) have tied a nice noose around their necks. Lets help pull it tight!
C!=lingua franca. Almost, but I think ALGOL is better deserving of the title, as the grandfather of C and friends. I would wax eloquent on the topic, but hopefully those with more knowledge & experience & years-of-programming (YOP? is that a new TLA?) will do the job as I am already late for dinner...
Two weird notes. Doesn't lingua franca mean french language, or something like that? And C and ALGOL are both older than me, spring chicken that I am.
Linux is a kernel, so its interface is neither command-line or graphical. The interface to Linux is syscall(2); or glibc if you are lazy or interested in nice friendly posix- or bsd- or sysv-ness. You know that; I know you know that. The point is that all the existing interfaces came into existence because someone didn't want to do his daily chores with a debugger session and system calls, or whatever interface he had at the time. So if you don't like the notion of running the existing interfaces on a handheld device, invent something better; or persuade someone else to. That is how free / open source software works. You have the power, exercise it!
Chapters 4 and 5 are aimed mainly for pattern developers, though this is not clear when one begins to read them.
And who should not be developing patterns? (or who might read the book, but not those chapters?)
Anyone who designs or codes programs finds himself continually seeking solutions to different problems. Each solution represents a pattern of solutions to similar problems, so either the designer/coder is using existing patterns or he is inventing new (or at least undocumented) ones. So I think every designer/coder is using and/or creating patterns. Consequently every designer/coder who wants to improve his work should seek to improve his use/creation of patterns, and could benefit from all of the book.
Not to mention the suggested use of "delete this" (p. 41). The author is "not sure why, but [...] people wince at delete this". Hint, John: objects sometimes reside on the stack. In which case delete this can have very... interesting consequences. (True, in the context of a Singleton, where allocation is controlled and cannot occur on stack, this specific problem is not present, and yet "delete this" is such an evil construct, with such horrible possible results, that I'd rather avoid it even in such controlled cases.)
Seems that much the same things were said about "goto", quite a few years ago: It's bad, many times you should not use it, definitely not without understanding the consequences, use only in certain controlled situations...
Well, okay, but personally I think that applies to just about any programming construct. Use it where it belongs, don't use it if it doesn't belong.
The review appears to fall into the trap of He wrote a book, but it wasn't what I would have written, so lots of it must be wrong. No, I don't think so.
In the USA, most such source code is written in the English language, not the C language. Would the judge say that English text is not free speech either? Because someone might invent a tool that translates C source code to English text...
In fact, such tools already exist. They could stand some improvement (if you're a programmer, consider this an invitation!).
One tool that converts C code to English text (and back) is described here. And this is an example text document corresponding to source code for a real program.
P.S. Some people have posted things like "stupid judge". I don't think that he is particularly stupid; he wrote lots of nice long words into his opinion. I think he was merely reading verbatim the script the plaintiffs gave him.
Just to keep things on topic, let me reply first to the article. I could care less if my congressperson can read email or not. I would actually rather that he did not. I pay him (taxes) to handle congressperson-type issues, not read tons of spam. Let him hire a staff to read the email, and the faxes, and the snail-mail, and the phone calls, etc. Why don't some of us incredibly intelligent citizens of the bazaar (a.k.a. open-source programmers) write a piece of software for Linux to read the email, convert it to message-digests on all relevant topics, and produce a knowledge-base of what the senders think. While we're at it, do the same for all pending legislation, cross-reference the databases, and tell him what to vote. One step away from virtual politicians. (Could we call it LIN-gress? of the LIN-usa?) (Actually it wouldn't have to be only for Linux, but this *is* slashdot, so...)
Caution. The remainder of this post is a response to the previous post. You should have read that post before continuing.
Using slash tools or something similar for polls is a good way to see what the people want (although I'm surprised someone hasn't patented that yet). Really (IMHO) a congressperson should be elected based on what he believes about political and/or legal issues and his track record of actions related to those beliefs and issues. Then if he were an honest person, constant polling would be unnecessary. If his viewpoint became unpopular, he would lose the next election. But at least his constituents would know before electing him, what they would get (WYSIWYG for politics!). Oh, I guess I'm really out of touch with real politics here, huh?
Apathy? Resist the urge, strongly. The ratio of citizens-affected-by-politics to voters-and-votes is turning the republic/democracy of the USA into an oligarchy. Those who have the money have the influence? Yes, because those who should not be reelected, are.
As for the backward, unenforceable, and unconstitutional laws... 1. Filtering software is yet another way for the government to ensure that a small segment of private industry (the filtering-software-vendors) get a healthy chunk of public funds. As discussed previously on this site, none of the proposed filter programs are open source, none are free software, not even the filtering lists are visible. How un-democratic. Ought to be un-legal as well. To say nothing of the fact that for N filtering programs there are N+1 ways to get around them. Duh.
2. Abortion is premeditated murder. No two ways about it. Ask any fetus. If we must save the baby seals and baby whales, and we should not experiment on baby monkeys, then why can we destroy the baby humans? The answer is clear: a baby is a huge responsibility, and most people don't want *any* responsibility. An unborn baby can be removed to the trash-can, and then no one will know, and the potential responsibility is gone.
SPCSP - Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Small People. Stamp out discrimination against the birth-impaired. Enfranchise the fetuses. Oh, I forgot -- I'm way out of touch with modern reality.
3. There are no scientific facts supporting or refuting evolution. A scientific fact requires an observer. No observer, no science. Find someone who is x-billion years old, and he can support or refute evolution. Until then it is a theory. Most well-regarded scientists believe this theory, but it is still a theory. Don't forget that many of the well-regarded ancients believed that the world was flat, with dragons and other assorted terrors at the edges. Who knows what well-regarded scientists will think several centuries from now.
As to what should be taught, teach everything. Or teach nothing. Don't forget to teach that the world is flat, we don't want to disturb the dimensionally-challenged.
IMHO, government-funded schools are a bad idea. Yes, that's what I said, a bad idea. Government-funded education is a great idea. Give parents a tax credit, and let private corporations run schools and compete to teach the children. Let the free market economy improve the product and lower the costs. And require them to run Linux. (just teasing!) Yes, I am way out of touch with reality. It doesn't affect you, why do you care?
The Middle Ages were great for a few (very few) people. Just most people hated it. (Actually, they didn't know it could be better, and they really didn't care.) Just like using Microsoftware. So what has changed?
Disclaimer(s): * The above might be an expression of my feelings on this matter, or it might be the random typings of an million monkeys trying to reproduce all the literary works in the British Museum. You decide. * If you like female pronouns better than male, use " sed 's/ he/ she/g' " on this comment. I use the shorter ones to conserve bandwith on my already egregiously huge comment.
Some of this is constructive criticism. Some of it is destructive. All of it is ideas. If you don't like it, change all the 1 bits to 0 bits, and remove duplicates from the result.
I like responses. I even like flames. (remember the "if you don't like it" algorithm above?) So fire away.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. But a real UNIX hacker can unplug the monitor, cat the source files to /dev/dsp and listen for bugs in the system. And he knows from the tune whether its compiler errors or silly warnings designed for people who think lint-clean does not imply a wool suit.
Funny about that. The outfit and the moves made me uncomfortable... but I thought her voice was very nice.
If a domain registered at GoDaddy is sending you spam, tell GoDaddy about it. Sending spam from a domain registered at GoDaddy is in violation of their terms of service, and can get the domain shut down.
GoDaddy is not sending you spam. They are simply following the rules for domain name transfers. See http://www.icann.org/transfers/ for details.
The word you tried to spell is "fraudulent", meaning deceitful. The email did not deceive you; someone really was trying to take your domain name.
Go now and tell your registrar to lock your domain names to prevent transfers. If your registrar makes that difficult, maybe you should switch to GoDaddy.
"What allowances are you thinking of? I can't think of any. All variables are really pointers inside at the system level as it is (except ones with a very local context which can be optimized into registers), so it wouldn't seem to make much sense that support for pointers would be a slowdown. Besides, most modern compilers have flags that give you a great deal of control over how to use pointers (if you're going to use them)."
Google around for pointer aliasing for an idea of some of the fun optimizations that C compilers cannot do on legal C code. Granted if you are willing to limit your coding idioms AND do some indepth auditing of your pointer usage, some C compilers will let you say, in effect "I know what I'm doing, do these normally unsafe optimizations anyway."
Given that the author of that comment is a story editor, he probably has spent his entire day web surfing with that browser, reading countless sites loaded with HTML craziness, trying to research the facts of hundreds, nay thousands, of story submissions. So give him a break.
Oh wait, this is slashdot. Never mind.
Bu+RIA
...to which the true techie responds, "Which computer?"
They left out a couple of useful structured primitives: labeled break, labeled continue, switch.
The labeled break and continue are very handy for getting out of multiply-nested loops. A goto is useful to simulate those constructs on languages that don't have them (like C).
Switch (can be implemented with if-else-if-else...) can make things a lot more readable. Oh well, maybe someone could write a preprocessor to add the things the language designers left out.
>> Also, for the record, C doesn't have strings, either. The only string support is in libraries; not natively.
m p(my_str, my_chars) ? "strings supported" : "whats a string anyway");
.
Almost correct.
The C compiler knows about literal strings, that is why this:
-- code --
const char my_str[] = "something";
const char my_chars[] = {'s','o','m','e','t','h','i','n','g'};
puts(strc
-- code --
should print "strings supported", because my_str does not equal my_chars
For fun try this:
-- code --
printf("length of char array: %d", strlen(my_chars));
-- code --
with the above. It might not crash.
By the way, sometimes goto can be very handy. Unless the language supports labeled break and continue statements?
volunteers? what kind of person volunteers for this?
Isn't that sort of like volunteering to test the shark-bite suit? (here's your sign).
Be careful what you ask for...
quoting jd:
> Security should fall under some form of "trades description act" - eg: what you're offered is what you get. A firewall that isn't, secure transactions that aren't, or privacy that's sold, should be actionable. That isn't about the limits of technical skill, it's about fraud that merely happens to involve computer technology.
Who is to blame for a {firewall|secure transaction} that isn't? Of course the provider is. But before you jump on this bandwagon, consider that the provider includes the software developer, the consultant that installed it, the manager that approved it, the slashdot article that recommended it, the nerd-in-a-laboratory that invented the technology, etc. In today's suit-happy legal environment, everyone you can imagine will be liable. Let's hope you don't work in a technical field, or this list includes you.
I will very happily agree that those who sell information they promised to keep private should be [insert cruel and unusual punishment here]. But companies are allowed to share information with their marketing partners -- your insurance provider, your bank, their banks, anyone their banks own, etc. Maybe that portion of the law should be reviewed by someone other than a pathological marketroid.
> It should be illegal for an ISP to prohibit customers from implementing security on their machines (except where that security is, itself, a hazard to other machines)
I agree, but... it is a small step to allowing (or forcing) ISPs to require some specific security software on customers' machines. And simpleminded shortsided uncaring micro$oftie ISP's (and I have dealt with enough, thank you) will require their customers to use WinWhatever (or a Windows-based product) to implement that security.
> Where the technology exists to prevent criminal abuse, and an ISP neglects to use it for reasons OTHER than financial or technical, then that ISP is an accessory to the crime, and should be held accountable as such.
Does the government really care whether [small ISP owner] have the technical expertise or the financial resources to carry out your business in a lawful fashion? No, they will make the laws and let the little guys figure out how to deal with them. Additionally, the big boys (AOL anyone?) already have enough lobbyists to make sure that the laws favor them and hurt the smaller ISPs.
> Insurance companies should have the right to carry out periodic audits of computers belonging to customers they insure, and modify premiums according to the flaws encountered.
Back to my Windows-only argument. If you are not using [some expensive closed-source security package], you must not be secure. Let's not observe that your insurance company just happens to own significant equity in the developer of [that expensive closed-source security package].
> Customers of companies should have a similar right to scan the companies they deal with (and vice versa), so that neither side can claim ignorance of the status of the other, prior to transactions taking place.
I would suggest a third-party audit. What if I (your customer) am also your competitor? What useful things might I uncover as part of my innocent audit?
> As things stand, "important" web transactions are secure, and all others aren't. This is the same as placing a large, neon sign over the hidden wall-safe. It is no longer hidden, or safe. I would like to propose that unsecure, or only partially-secure websites be subject to penalties, where such a policy results in a breach of security.
I think the government will like this one, but modify it to say "everything must be securely transmitted" and "oh, by the way, we need all the encryption keys." For security purposes. To protect the children. Do they really need an excuse, when half the population doesn't even vote?
> Finally, where concious and deliberate inaction results in an expense to any emergency service, security agencies, etc, the organization responsible should be expected to reimburse those costs, in full. (Note that this is for inaction alone. You can't sensibly penalize those who make a genuine effort, even when that effort fails.)
Yes.
Basically I like your ideas. But I fear the ability of big corporations / big government to limit our use of free & open software & protocols, and to destroy small businesses in the name of the public interest.
yum. sorry, I can't resist.
1) logging to paper; so the cracker can't totally erase his trail
2) backup to paper; so you have some recourse if your system config is massively hosed AND your magnetic media is toast
and, wait for it...
3) SWAPPING to paper; because you can! (just point your swapfile at
Requiem sez:
>Just for the record, I know and like C, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to encounter it in grade nine.
Did. Loved it.
Well, actually neither me nor my school could afford a computer to run the C compiler. But I learned from a book, waited 2 years and got the tools. Then I wrote some games, and wasted the rest of my high school experience playing games. But it was fun...
You are right, though. Don't teach kids C. Teach them Scheme. http://www.schemers.org
And don't wait till grade 9. Teach them basic math and programming in grade 1! Then by the time they hit grade 9 they will do programming for fun and they can concentrate on important things, like blowing up the science lab. (just kidding)
No, this is great. If Micro$loth wanted to play fair or nice with the school system (open up the licensing, drastically cut prices, etc.) , we might need a decree from the government to get some open source technology in there. But since Microsoft wants to deal harshly, they will help to push the schools towards open source. My only wish is that Microsoft products were really expensive (say $4k or more a seat) and licenses were harsh (reregister your product every 10 minutes or you're going to *jail* buddy). Then nobody except those with money to burn would buy that stuff. Corporations that need to do some belt-tightening would look at open source. Same for schools, universities, families. In short, I think they (Microsoft) have tied a nice noose around their necks. Lets help pull it tight!
you think that stuff's bad -- check out sulfate of thanatol.
Two weird notes. Doesn't lingua franca mean french language, or something like that? And C and ALGOL are both older than me, spring chicken that I am.
hey - cool! so do I!
and in java and shell-script >')
Linux is a kernel, so its interface is neither command-line or graphical. The interface to Linux is syscall(2); or glibc if you are lazy or interested in nice friendly posix- or bsd- or sysv-ness. You know that; I know you know that. The point is that all the existing interfaces came into existence because someone didn't want to do his daily chores with a debugger session and system calls, or whatever interface he had at the time. So if you don't like the notion of running the existing interfaces on a handheld device, invent something better; or persuade someone else to. That is how free / open source software works. You have the power, exercise it!
Oh, and coolness is always good.
better than skipping and twirling in purple bunny suits on national television, hmmm?
Let's get a few mirrors up, just in case it mysteriously disappears,
And who should not be developing patterns? (or who might read the book, but not those chapters?)
Anyone who designs or codes programs finds himself continually seeking solutions to different problems. Each solution represents a pattern of solutions to similar problems, so either the designer/coder is using existing patterns or he is inventing new (or at least undocumented) ones. So I think every designer/coder is using and/or creating patterns. Consequently every designer/coder who wants to improve his work should seek to improve his use/creation of patterns, and could benefit from all of the book.
Just my $2e-2.
Seems that much the same things were said about "goto", quite a few years ago: It's bad, many times you should not use it, definitely not without understanding the consequences, use only in certain controlled situations...
Well, okay, but personally I think that applies to just about any programming construct. Use it where it belongs, don't use it if it doesn't belong.
The review appears to fall into the trap of He wrote a book, but it wasn't what I would have written, so lots of it must be wrong. No, I don't think so.
In the USA, most such source code is written in the English language, not the C language. Would the judge say that English text is not free speech either? Because someone might invent a tool that translates C source code to English text...
In fact, such tools already exist. They could stand some improvement (if you're a programmer, consider this an invitation!).
One tool that converts C code to English text (and back) is described here. And this is an example text document corresponding to source code for a real program.
P.S. Some people have posted things like "stupid judge". I don't think that he is particularly stupid; he wrote lots of nice long words into his opinion. I think he was merely reading verbatim the script the plaintiffs gave him.
Just to keep things on topic, let me reply first to the article. I could care less if my congressperson can read email or not. I would actually rather that he did not. I pay him (taxes) to handle congressperson-type issues, not read tons of spam. Let him hire a staff to read the email, and the faxes, and the snail-mail, and the phone calls, etc. Why don't some of us incredibly intelligent citizens of the bazaar (a.k.a. open-source programmers) write a piece of software for Linux to read the email, convert it to message-digests on all relevant topics, and produce a knowledge-base of what the senders think. While we're at it, do the same for all pending legislation, cross-reference the databases, and tell him what to vote. One step away from virtual politicians. (Could we call it LIN-gress? of the LIN-usa?) (Actually it wouldn't have to be only for Linux, but this *is* slashdot, so...)
Caution. The remainder of this post is a response to the previous post. You should have read that post before continuing.
Using slash tools or something similar for polls is a good way to see what the people want (although I'm surprised someone hasn't patented that yet). Really (IMHO) a congressperson should be elected based on what he believes about political and/or legal issues and his track record of actions related to those beliefs and issues. Then if he were an honest person, constant polling would be unnecessary. If his viewpoint became unpopular, he would lose the next election. But at least his constituents would know before electing him, what they would get (WYSIWYG for politics!). Oh, I guess I'm really out of touch with real politics here, huh?
Apathy? Resist the urge, strongly. The ratio of citizens-affected-by-politics to voters-and-votes is turning the republic/democracy of the USA into an oligarchy. Those who have the money have the influence? Yes, because those who should not be reelected, are.
As for the backward, unenforceable, and unconstitutional laws...
1. Filtering software is yet another way for the government to ensure that a small segment of private industry (the filtering-software-vendors) get a healthy chunk of public funds. As discussed previously on this site, none of the proposed filter programs are open source, none are free software, not even the filtering lists are visible. How un-democratic. Ought to be un-legal as well. To say nothing of the fact that for N filtering programs there are N+1 ways to get around them. Duh.
2. Abortion is premeditated murder. No two ways about it. Ask any fetus. If we must save the baby seals and baby whales, and we should not experiment on baby monkeys, then why can we destroy the baby humans? The answer is clear: a baby is a huge responsibility, and most people don't want *any* responsibility. An unborn baby can be removed to the trash-can, and then no one will know, and the potential responsibility is gone.
SPCSP - Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Small People. Stamp out discrimination against the birth-impaired. Enfranchise the fetuses. Oh, I forgot -- I'm way out of touch with modern reality.
3. There are no scientific facts supporting or refuting evolution. A scientific fact requires an observer. No observer, no science. Find someone who is x-billion years old, and he can support or refute evolution. Until then it is a theory. Most well-regarded scientists believe this theory, but it is still a theory. Don't forget that many of the well-regarded ancients believed that the world was flat, with dragons and other assorted terrors at the edges. Who knows what well-regarded scientists will think several centuries from now.
As to what should be taught, teach everything. Or teach nothing. Don't forget to teach that the world is flat, we don't want to disturb the dimensionally-challenged.
IMHO, government-funded schools are a bad idea. Yes, that's what I said, a bad idea. Government-funded education is a great idea. Give parents a tax credit, and let private corporations run schools and compete to teach the children. Let the free market economy improve the product and lower the costs. And require them to run Linux. (just teasing!) Yes, I am way out of touch with reality. It doesn't affect you, why do you care?
The Middle Ages were great for a few (very few) people. Just most people hated it. (Actually, they didn't know it could be better, and they really didn't care.) Just like using Microsoftware. So what has changed?
Disclaimer(s):
* The above might be an expression of my feelings on this matter, or it might be the random typings of an million monkeys trying to reproduce all the literary works in the British Museum. You decide.
* If you like female pronouns better than male, use " sed 's/ he/ she/g' " on this comment. I use the shorter ones to conserve bandwith on my already egregiously huge comment.
Some of this is constructive criticism. Some of it is destructive. All of it is ideas. If you don't like it, change all the 1 bits to 0 bits, and remove duplicates from the result.
I like responses. I even like flames. (remember the "if you don't like it" algorithm above?) So fire away.