>> So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?
> Mostly, that is not true. Most congressional Republicans support trade agreements, and most congressional Democrats oppose them.
"It", the Trans-Pacific Partnership, isn't "them", most trade agreements. TPP is a secret deal written by the RIAA and MPAA (who coincidentally gave tons of money to the politicians proposing the agreement).
Yes, in general Republicans support the idea that if a guy in Canada wants to buy a widget from me, and I want to buy a foo from someone in the UK, that's great unless there's some specific reason to prevent or discourage it. TPP isn't that principle, it's a specific treaty with specific (bad) legal requirements for US citizens.
That would be the one he bought, sold, bought back for $100 million, then sold ten years later for $1.8 billion.
Mr. Trump most certainly has his weaknesses. Unlike most presidential candidates, he has flaunted his arrogance. He also has his strengths.
He's unique amongst all the presidents of our lifetime in that he's not beholden to the people who financed his campaign. Mrs. Clinton, for example, was financed primarily by Wall Street banks. They pay her, she essentially works for them. A Trump presidency will be very interesting. Maybe bad, maybe good, probably some good and some bad - but definitely different.
Trump lacks public policy experience. That's a big problem.
He built a $2 billion dollar business empire, with one of his first projects being razing rail yards and building a whole new neighborhood around his new luxury hotel. He can and does plan a project, quite well.
The researchers said two important things: 40% of the many apps they checked were broken. They contacted the companies, who said they did/would fix it.
> That makes their paper pretty useless.
The paper is useful to app developers by telling them what prpblems to check for and fix in current apps, and avoid in future apps. It points out that framework and standards developers can reduce the risk by providing a known-good process. It's helpful to everyday users in that it points out that 40% (!!!) of apps are broken in this way, so you can assume app X is likely insecure, in this way or another way.
It would be only slightly more helpful to list some examples of specific apps which used to be vulnerable.
> People in the intelligence community might not be big Hillary supporters.
Plenty of people aren't "big Hillary supporters". To be a BIG supporter of hers you pretty much need to either be on her payroll on just not be paying attention. However, if your mission is national security, the completely unpredictable Trump is more worrisome for sure. He's not a politician, not a public policy guy. His public life has been all about being off-the-wall to drum up publicity for his businesses and his brand. Nobody, including Trump, knows what his positions will be on the important issues of the day. We only know that whatever he does, he does it BIG. Not big actually, HUGE! The biggest ever.
The folks at the NSA etc certainly have been allowed to do things they shouldn't, that's beyond question. Also, they are people, not monsters. They are people trying to figure out who is trying to buy nuclear material and what China's next step will be as they threaten our ships with jet fighters. 99% of them are people who try to use the excessive access they've been given to protect their country, which includes their families. Trying to do that, "who knows what President Trump will do, but it'll be HUGE" has to scare the hell out of them.
It looks like you and GP disagree, but you both bring up good points.
> The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state
Indeed. I posted here many times years ago reminding them that allowing President Clinton and then President Obama more amd more power meant that President Palin or President Trump would have more power soon. The nanny state doesn't seem so attractive when the nanny isn't someone you like.
> When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know
Little did any of us know what any president would do. Conservatives and moderates were terribly disappointed in Bush Jr. As governor of Texas, Texas Democrats praised him for being so bipartisan, bringing people together. Informed people were surprised that damn movie actor elected in 1980 ended up being such an effective president. For those too young to remember, Reagan was a bit like electing Robert Pattison or Justin Bieber president, 36 years later every Republican claims to be the next Reagan. The friggin movie star ended up being THE great Republican president of a century.
The point is, trying to predict what a President's term will be like ahead of time is a fool's errand. We're always wrong, frequently very, very wrong. Trump even more so - he's never even thought about, much less articulated, public policy through his life. Just in the last few months he's made some comments, but as explained in his books those comments are calculated to get free press, they don't mean anything. He's been trolling CNN is all. What we've heard from him over the years is him drumming up publicity for his business, while believing that "any publicity is good publicity". What will he do on issue X? He has no idea, so certainly we don't know.
They didn't contradict themselves; they *certainly* did.:)
Seriously though I took it as not contradictory meaning: -- We can only speculate. I'm willing to speculate that she almost certainly would have. --
She's actually been in politics, observable by the public, since 1977. In those 39 years, she has manifested a belief that the elites like her are better than common plebes. No more reason they shouldn't watch us than a parent shouldn't watch a six year old; based on what her view seems to be.
Trump's public life has been all about drumming up publicity for his buildings and his brand, not about policy. I doubt he's thought much about public policy at all. He DOES have a huge ego. Such a big ego that he thinks a) he should be president and b) most of America will agree he should be president. Unfortunately all presidents have that megalomania.
That's how it commonly works for web sites - the third-party site uses the auth token to retrieve the user profile.
With mobile apps, the system is commonly made faster by returning the user profile along with the signed token. That works fine IF the app checks two things a) the signed token matches the profile and b) the signed token is in fact verifiably signed by the correct identity provider. Forgetting either check then leaves the third-party app vulnerable.
The attacker doesn't need to man-in-the-middle the VICTIM'S device, they would MITM their OWN device. That is, I can pretend to be you by manipulating the traffic on my phone.
The TLS MITM stuff is really a distraction from the actual vulnerability, though. The real vulnerability is a couple flavors of the following:
I send a request to Facebook for an authentication token for my account, raymorris@slashdot.org. I get a valid authentication token, by which Facebook vouches that I really am who I say I am. I send that token to a third-party app, like this:
I am taco@slashdot.org and here's my Facebook authentication token affirming that I really am who I say I am. The app checks that the token is valid, but doesn't check WHICH user it's valid FOR, and accepts it.
Other apps fail to check the validity of the token at all.
Because I've changed the token from "Affirmed, he is raymorris@slashdot.org" to "Affirmed, he is taco@slashdot.org", if the token is sent via TLS I have to MITM the TLS on my device, but that's a bit of a minor implementation detail.
UDP provides neither fixed bandwidth nor low latency. UDP, as opposed to TCP, simply says that a packet is processed whether or not some previous packet went missing, and no mechanism is provided for recovering lost packets. It's useful when you don't want to resend lost packets because they'll be outdated anyway, such as VoIP.
Referring to TFS: -- Standards-based precise time, guaranteed bandwidth, and guaranteed worst-case latency --
Some people, and programming languages, force OOP where it doesn't fit or isn't needed. One example being langauges in which ints are objects. That's silly.
On the other hand, for GUI design, the idea of a GUI widget as class, with each form field having field.value makes perfect sense. Radio_button and check_box being subclasses of widget is a great idea.
There are many systems for which object-oriented programming does not make sense, and many for which it does. Much like a screwdriver is very much the wrong tool for nailing shingles. Throwing out the tool entirely costs you significantly. If you never use OOP because you're really missing out, and working too hard. Much like a handyman who threw the screwdriver in the trash when he found out it wasn't good for installing nails.
> Writing performant code without obscuring the algorithm or introducing CPU / OS dependencies that will break when you port it
That can sure be annoying. I hate writing stuff that's much slower than need be, and I like it to be clear.
Fortunately, 90% of the time is spent in 4% of the code. For the other 96% of the code, performance really doesn't friggin matter. I like performant code because it's beautiful. And it doesn't matter. Unless it's the roughly 4% of the application where it does matter, performance (1ms reponse rather than 2ms) is purely for my own enjoyment. Therefore I must be willing to let go of that when it conflicts with other priorities.
Uranium emits alpha particles. A few things that stop alpha radiation include:
Tissue paper Rubber gloves Water Air (centimeters)
They could detect the radiation from the uranium IF the measuring instrument were touching the uranium directly.
On the other hand, you emit some BETA radiation, which isn't stopped by air. Mostly it's the potassium in your body which makes you far more radioactive than uranium is, at any distance greater than 4 centimeters.
> There's also a religious ideology. This one opposes abortion, but it also opposes contraception - something seen as an enabler of sinful fornication. From the religious perspective
Specifically, that's the old-school CATHOLIC view. Most religious people don't hold that view, and the Pope himself is moving toward a more moderate position.
> "If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women?"
We do, and we get even more "bang for the buck" helping women who are already pregnant not just with traditional "pre-natal care" (aka doctors), but a whole range of services helpful to someone who is worried about their ability to have and raise a child. The center my wife and I volunteer at provides classes covering everything from pre-natal nutrition and exercise through what to do when your baby won't stop crying, and where to go next to get support in raising a school-age child. We provide diapers, toys, and a "mom's night" when we have childcare and the new moms can get a break. Almost everyone who volunteers there would be considered "religious", though that term isn't my favorite.
Anyway, a lot of us take Matthew 25:40 (and Matthew 25:35-40) seriously, and a there are many ways to "love your neighbor" when your neighbor is a pregnant teenager who is scared and broke.
Over 60% of Android-based devices use Google's version of Android. 25% use Samsung's, then there's FireOs, etc.
I'm not sure Google has a monopoly even on ANDROID, never mind the non-Android based competitors like Apple's iOS.
Of the top three phone makers, how many use Google's Android, rather than a completely different OS entirely or their own very different version of Android?
> Class and dignity? Coming from a Trump supporter that's rich.
Oh grow up. You're really stuck in that raging fanboism where you think anybody who doesn't throw a tantrum because Hillary lost must be a Trump drone? No, I didn't vote for the reality TV star. When you grow up you'll realize she's just as full of shit as he is. She's been lying as a full-time job since 1977.
Republican party leader says Republican victory means people want Republican policies. News at 11
When you grow up, you may find that "your team", the Democrats, is just as full of shit as the Republicans, if not more so. Then you can start to look at how politics actually works in America.
> Just so you know, GM is moving it's plants from Lansing, Michigan
Thanks for the info.
Would that would be the same Lansing, Michigan where there hasn't even been a Republican CANDIDATE for mayor for the last twenty years or so, because only Democrats have any chance of getting elected? Yet another example of the great success that is Democrat rule?
> the lost jobs in the first place this process has been going on since the 70's.
Since right about the time Democrats seized total control of Detroit. When you're arguing that Democrat policies work, the normal strategy is to pretend Detroit doesn't exist. Detroit is NOT an example you want anyone looking at if you're going to blindly support whatever foolishness the Democrats come up with.
Maybe, maybe not. 5 million voted haven't been counted yet. Right now, she's up by about 100k. Which means nothing other than that she messed up strategically - she should have devoted more resources to states she barely lost and less to states she won decisively.
Anyway, what we can say is that about half the country preferred Trump, about half preferred Clinton (other than the 4% who couldn't stomach voting for either).
We can't even say that the popular vote represents the actual percentage preference - many more people in Texas would have come out to vote for Trump if it were a popular vote election, but they knew voting was pointless because Trump was already guaranteed to win Texas. Similarly the other way in California - Clinton would have received more votes from Californians if this election was about the popular vote. So the results don't tell us who has more supporters, not at all. The election tells us only which candidate had the supporters proportioned well amongst the swing states. That was Trump.
That was my thought as well. Maybe if a lot of people are doing Google searches to learn about impeachment, rather than just saying stupid things on Facebook on Slashdot, they'll learn that impeachment is how you handle serous crimes committed by a President; that I don't like his campaign style" isn't grounds for impeachment.
Impeachment is appropriate when a President or certain other high officials commit crimes in office which other people would go to prison for. For example, Navy machinist Kristian Saucier is currently in prison for taking a selfie aboard ship. The interior of the ship is classified information, so Saucier is in prison for putting classified information on a non- secured computing device, which is a crime. If a President did the same, they could be impeached.
He may indeed let the Congress set most of the agenda. I suspect *maybe* he'll lead much more than Bush, though - he's led a large organization his whole career, always setting the vision. I think Bush Jr was much more playing a role according to cues from those around him, almost as if Bush Jr was pretending to be president until his dad, the real president, came back.
Where I definitely think he'll have influence is that Trump is very much "go big or go home". He does everything "HUGE!" He's a skilled negotiator, so he can meet in the middle, but whatever the final deal is, he wants it to be big, he doesn't want to waste time dealing in the small. He'll encourage Congress to go for it, whatever it is. (For example, he'd be all about a manned mission to Mars, he wouldn't care about yet another space telescope.)
Slashdot Mirror
>> So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?
> Mostly, that is not true. Most congressional Republicans support trade agreements, and most congressional Democrats oppose them.
"It", the Trans-Pacific Partnership, isn't "them", most trade agreements. TPP is a secret deal written by the RIAA and MPAA (who coincidentally gave tons of money to the politicians proposing the agreement).
Yes, in general Republicans support the idea that if a guy in Canada wants to buy a widget from me, and I want to buy a foo from someone in the UK, that's great unless there's some specific reason to prevent or discourage it. TPP isn't that principle, it's a specific treaty with specific (bad) legal requirements for US citizens.
That would be the one he bought, sold, bought back for $100 million, then sold ten years later for $1.8 billion.
Mr. Trump most certainly has his weaknesses. Unlike most presidential candidates, he has flaunted his arrogance. He also has his strengths.
He's unique amongst all the presidents of our lifetime in that he's not beholden to the people who financed his campaign. Mrs. Clinton, for example, was financed primarily by Wall Street banks. They pay her, she essentially works for them. A Trump presidency will be very interesting. Maybe bad, maybe good, probably some good and some bad - but definitely different.
Trump lacks public policy experience. That's a big problem.
He built a $2 billion dollar business empire, with one of his first projects being razing rail yards and building a whole new neighborhood around his new luxury hotel. He can and does plan a project, quite well.
The researchers said two important things:
40% of the many apps they checked were broken.
They contacted the companies, who said they did/would fix it.
> That makes their paper pretty useless.
The paper is useful to app developers by telling them what prpblems to check for and fix in current apps, and avoid in future apps. It points out that framework and standards developers can reduce the risk by providing a known-good process. It's helpful to everyday users in that it points out that 40% (!!!) of apps are broken in this way, so you can assume app X is likely insecure, in this way or another way.
It would be only slightly more helpful to list some examples of specific apps which used to be vulnerable.
> People in the intelligence community might not be big Hillary supporters.
Plenty of people aren't "big Hillary supporters". To be a BIG supporter of hers you pretty much need to either be on her payroll on just not be paying attention. However, if your mission is national security, the completely unpredictable Trump is more worrisome for sure. He's not a politician, not a public policy guy. His public life has been all about being off-the-wall to drum up publicity for his businesses and his brand. Nobody, including Trump, knows what his positions will be on the important issues of the day. We only know that whatever he does, he does it BIG. Not big actually, HUGE! The biggest ever.
The folks at the NSA etc certainly have been allowed to do things they shouldn't, that's beyond question. Also, they are people, not monsters. They are people trying to figure out who is trying to buy nuclear material and what China's next step will be as they threaten our ships with jet fighters. 99% of them are people who try to use the excessive access they've been given to protect their country, which includes their families. Trying to do that, "who knows what President Trump will do, but it'll be HUGE" has to scare the hell out of them.
It looks like you and GP disagree, but you both bring up good points.
> The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state
Indeed. I posted here many times years ago reminding them that allowing President Clinton and then President Obama more amd more power meant that President Palin or President Trump would have more power soon. The nanny state doesn't seem so attractive when the nanny isn't someone you like.
> When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know
Little did any of us know what any president would do. Conservatives and moderates were terribly disappointed in Bush Jr. As governor of Texas, Texas Democrats praised him for being so bipartisan, bringing people together. Informed people were surprised that damn movie actor elected in 1980 ended up being such an effective president. For those too young to remember, Reagan was a bit like electing Robert Pattison or Justin Bieber president, 36 years later every Republican claims to be the next Reagan. The friggin movie star ended up being THE great Republican president of a century.
The point is, trying to predict what a President's term will be like ahead of time is a fool's errand. We're always wrong, frequently very, very wrong. Trump even more so - he's never even thought about, much less articulated, public policy through his life. Just in the last few months he's made some comments, but as explained in his books those comments are calculated to get free press, they don't mean anything. He's been trolling CNN is all. What we've heard from him over the years is him drumming up publicity for his business, while believing that "any publicity is good publicity". What will he do on issue X? He has no idea, so certainly we don't know.
They didn't contradict themselves; they *certainly* did. :)
Seriously though I took it as not contradictory meaning:
--
We can only speculate.
I'm willing to speculate that she almost certainly would have.
--
She's actually been in politics, observable by the public, since 1977. In those 39 years, she has manifested a belief that the elites like her are better than common plebes. No more reason they shouldn't watch us than a parent shouldn't watch a six year old; based on what her view seems to be.
Trump's public life has been all about drumming up publicity for his buildings and his brand, not about policy. I doubt he's thought much about public policy at all. He DOES have a huge ego. Such a big ego that he thinks a) he should be president and b) most of America will agree he should be president. Unfortunately all presidents have that megalomania.
They're talking about OpenId Connect and similar extensions.
That's how it commonly works for web sites - the third-party site uses the auth token to retrieve the user profile.
With mobile apps, the system is commonly made faster by returning the user profile along with the signed token. That works fine IF the app checks two things a) the signed token matches the profile and b) the signed token is in fact verifiably signed by the correct identity provider. Forgetting either check then leaves the third-party app vulnerable.
The attacker doesn't need to man-in-the-middle the VICTIM'S device, they would MITM their OWN device. That is, I can pretend to be you by manipulating the traffic on my phone.
The TLS MITM stuff is really a distraction from the actual vulnerability, though. The real vulnerability is a couple flavors of the following:
I send a request to Facebook for an authentication token for my account, raymorris@slashdot.org. I get a valid authentication token, by which Facebook vouches that I really am who I say I am. I send that token to a third-party app, like this:
I am taco@slashdot.org and here's my Facebook authentication token affirming that I really am who I say I am.
The app checks that the token is valid, but doesn't check WHICH user it's valid FOR, and accepts it.
Other apps fail to check the validity of the token at all.
Because I've changed the token from "Affirmed, he is raymorris@slashdot.org" to "Affirmed, he is taco@slashdot.org", if the token is sent via TLS I have to MITM the TLS on my device, but that's a bit of a minor implementation detail.
> > We need fixed-bandwidth, low-latency
> so ... UDP
UDP provides neither fixed bandwidth nor low latency.
UDP, as opposed to TCP, simply says that a packet is processed whether or not some previous packet went missing, and no mechanism is provided for recovering lost packets. It's useful when you don't want to resend lost packets because they'll be outdated anyway, such as VoIP.
Referring to TFS:
--
Standards-based precise time, guaranteed bandwidth, and guaranteed worst-case latency
--
UDP doesn't do any of that either.
Some people, and programming languages, force OOP where it doesn't fit or isn't needed. One example being langauges in which ints are objects. That's silly.
On the other hand, for GUI design, the idea of a GUI widget as class, with each form field having field.value makes perfect sense. Radio_button and check_box being subclasses of widget is a great idea.
There are many systems for which object-oriented programming does not make sense, and many for which it does. Much like a screwdriver is very much the wrong tool for nailing shingles. Throwing out the tool entirely costs you significantly. If you never use OOP because you're really missing out, and working too hard. Much like a handyman who threw the screwdriver in the trash when he found out it wasn't good for installing nails.
> Writing performant code without obscuring the algorithm or introducing CPU / OS dependencies that will break when you port it
That can sure be annoying. I hate writing stuff that's much slower than need be, and I like it to be clear.
Fortunately, 90% of the time is spent in 4% of the code. For the other 96% of the code, performance really doesn't friggin matter. I like performant code because it's beautiful. And it doesn't matter. Unless it's the roughly 4% of the application where it does matter, performance (1ms reponse rather than 2ms) is purely for my own enjoyment. Therefore I must be willing to let go of that when it conflicts with other priorities.
Uranium emits alpha particles. A few things that stop alpha radiation include:
Tissue paper
Rubber gloves
Water
Air (centimeters)
They could detect the radiation from the uranium IF the measuring instrument were touching the uranium directly.
On the other hand, you emit some BETA radiation, which isn't stopped by air. Mostly it's the potassium in your body which makes you far more radioactive than uranium is, at any distance greater than 4 centimeters.
> There's also a religious ideology. This one opposes abortion, but it also opposes contraception - something seen as an enabler of sinful fornication. From the religious perspective
Specifically, that's the old-school CATHOLIC view. Most religious people don't hold that view, and the Pope himself is moving toward a more moderate position.
> "If they're so anti-abortion, why not work on ways to make it much less needed by offering more birth control and pre-natal healthcare to women?"
We do, and we get even more "bang for the buck" helping women who are already pregnant not just with traditional "pre-natal care" (aka doctors), but a whole range of services helpful to someone who is worried about their ability to have and raise a child. The center my wife and I volunteer at provides classes covering everything from pre-natal nutrition and exercise through what to do when your baby won't stop crying, and where to go next to get support in raising a school-age child. We provide diapers, toys, and a "mom's night" when we have childcare and the new moms can get a break. Almost everyone who volunteers there would be considered "religious", though that term isn't my favorite.
Anyway, a lot of us take Matthew 25:40 (and Matthew 25:35-40) seriously, and a there are many ways to "love your neighbor" when your neighbor is a pregnant teenager who is scared and broke.
> "I was for this candidate until I heard he say this......" then sent you to a random page for Viagra
How exactly does Viagra spam effect the outcome of the election?
I know many people say they voted for Hillary based on her genitalia, is it related to that?
Over 60% of Android-based devices use Google's version of Android. 25% use Samsung's, then there's FireOs, etc.
I'm not sure Google has a monopoly even on ANDROID, never mind the non-Android based competitors like Apple's iOS.
Of the top three phone makers, how many use Google's Android, rather than a completely different OS entirely or their own very different version of Android?
> Class and dignity? Coming from a Trump supporter that's rich.
Oh grow up. You're really stuck in that raging fanboism where you think anybody who doesn't throw a tantrum because Hillary lost must be a Trump drone? No, I didn't vote for the reality TV star. When you grow up you'll realize she's just as full of shit as he is. She's been lying as a full-time job since 1977.
This secession talk is a wee bit childish. Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say this morning about a Trump presidency:
"Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead."
I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.
Republican party leader says Republican victory means people want Republican policies.
News at 11
When you grow up, you may find that "your team", the Democrats, is just as full of shit as the Republicans, if not more so. Then you can start to look at how politics actually works in America.
> Just so you know, GM is moving it's plants from Lansing, Michigan
Thanks for the info.
Would that would be the same Lansing, Michigan where there hasn't even been a Republican CANDIDATE for mayor for the last twenty years or so, because only Democrats have any chance of getting elected? Yet another example of the great success that is Democrat rule?
> the lost jobs in the first place this process has been going on since the 70's.
Since right about the time Democrats seized total control of Detroit. When you're arguing that Democrat policies work, the normal strategy is to pretend Detroit doesn't exist. Detroit is NOT an example you want anyone looking at if you're going to blindly support whatever foolishness the Democrats come up with.
> I would add, Clinton won the popular vote
Maybe, maybe not. 5 million voted haven't been counted yet. Right now, she's up by about 100k. Which means nothing other than that she messed up strategically - she should have devoted more resources to states she barely lost and less to states she won decisively.
Anyway, what we can say is that about half the country preferred Trump, about half preferred Clinton (other than the 4% who couldn't stomach voting for either).
We can't even say that the popular vote represents the actual percentage preference - many more people in Texas would have come out to vote for Trump if it were a popular vote election, but they knew voting was pointless because Trump was already guaranteed to win Texas. Similarly the other way in California - Clinton would have received more votes from Californians if this election was about the popular vote. So the results don't tell us who has more supporters, not at all. The election tells us only which candidate had the supporters proportioned well amongst the swing states. That was Trump.
That was my thought as well. Maybe if a lot of people are doing Google searches to learn about impeachment, rather than just saying stupid things on Facebook on Slashdot, they'll learn that impeachment is how you handle serous crimes committed by a President; that I don't like his campaign style" isn't grounds for impeachment.
Impeachment is appropriate when a President or certain other high officials commit crimes in office which other people would go to prison for. For example, Navy machinist Kristian Saucier is currently in prison for taking a selfie aboard ship. The interior of the ship is classified information, so Saucier is in prison for putting classified information on a non- secured computing device, which is a crime. If a President did the same, they could be impeached.
He may indeed let the Congress set most of the agenda. I suspect *maybe* he'll lead much more than Bush, though - he's led a large organization his whole career, always setting the vision. I think Bush Jr was much more playing a role according to cues from those around him, almost as if Bush Jr was pretending to be president until his dad, the real president, came back.
Where I definitely think he'll have influence is that Trump is very much "go big or go home". He does everything "HUGE!" He's a skilled negotiator, so he can meet in the middle, but whatever the final deal is, he wants it to be big, he doesn't want to waste time dealing in the small. He'll encourage Congress to go for it, whatever it is. (For example, he'd be all about a manned mission to Mars, he wouldn't care about yet another space telescope.)