This budget has been agreed to by Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress, including Paul Ryan, and Congressional Democrats have expressed approval and talked about their "wins".
Obama likes it because they put off paying for Obamacare another couple of years. The taxes on health insurance and medical equipment will be delayed until after the election and 2020, respectively.
Not only is this absurd on civil liberties grounds, it would be stupid even if you didn't care about civil liberties.
Suppose for a moment that you are a famous U of Chicago law professor who doesn't care about the Constitution, and you want to stop terrorists. You could send a letter to a potential future terrorist saying "hey we noticed you visited this web site once, and we'll notice if you return to that site", or you could very discreetly log who visits suspicious sites and query for patterns, perhaps cross-referencing their Facebook posts or other public information, so you know who is likely to actually be a threat. Then when these queries identify the few people most likely to actually be a threat, you investigate those people further. That would be the smart thing to do, if you believed, as the U of Chicago law department seems to, that the Constitution is "an old piece of paper".
This is what I do, run IMAP locally (Dovecot). Every year or so, I create a folder callled sentbox_2013/ and move all the sent emails from 2013 there. My regular sentbox contains the last 14-20 months or so.
I also have a folder called archive/ which holds the few messages I think I'll actually need again.
Regarding whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep them in terms of legal disputes and such: Having the documents will allow someone to prove what was actually said. If you're the a shady character, managing your business like it was Enron, you probably do not want to keep the evidence around. On the other hand, if you're working for the Software Freedom Law Center communicating with people who appear to be violating the GPL you probably want to save your communications- if the truth is clearly on your side, you may want to be able to prove what's true.
If you're naturally very upfront and ethical in what you do and say, emails may be more likely to help you than hurt you.
Every other web site in the world, besides Netflix, pays for their bandwidth, but shouldn't Netflix get theirs "free" (paid for by the rest of us) since they talk shit about the cable companies? I thought that was the general consensus among Slashdot readers, that Netflix is special and shouldn't have to pay for their own bandwidth costs like every other site in the world does.
Leasing is -simpler- on taxes than figuring depreciation, but it normally costs slightly more taxes to lease (and the actual lease cost is normally higher) . For small businesses, section 179 allows purchase expenses to be deducted rather than depreciated. The section 179 limit was reduced from $500,000 to $25,000, though.
Bottom line,leasing is simpler but more expensive.
I see you managed to post a message. Where exactly do you see a "quantity" field on the posting form? Did I put some character other than digits in that quantity field? Do you see any numeric fields? Hint - there are some. If the numeric fields on this form accept free-form text and put it in the database, the programmers fucked up. Give that a try. See if you can put words in the numeric fields on this form.
I used to sell some specialized professional software for $150, flat fee it yours forever. The competition charged $35 per month. A LOT of customers preferred the $35/month option, even after I pointed out that's $420/year. They all use the software for several years, not for a month or two.
After a couple of years of customer requests , I added a $25/month option to our order form, and pointed out that $150 flat was a better value - buy 6 months, get forever free. A lot of people still chose $25/month.
The current version is now $269 flat or $59/month. Just the other day I spoke to a customer who has had two installations and wants another. I pointed out so far he's paid for 36 months x $59. = $2,124 each, when he could have paid $269; for the next one he should just pay $269 and save $2,000. He didn't want to! He wants to pay $59 every month for the new installation as well. Wtf?
Often in this situation, when I notice it, I just tell the customer to stop paying. It's silly as heck to keep paying every month, but that's what many customers want.
Parameterized queries can certainly help reduce injections, and they should be used.
Also, if the quantity field is supposed to be in the range 1-50, don't accept quantity = "1;`exec rm -rf/`" That's obviously an attack and nothing good is going to come from that transaction, so terminally cleanly but quickly. You don't need to store an order for that number of tickets.
A couple of significant security issues have been related to later statistical analysis of the data. The real-time application handled it fine by parameterizing it or escaping it properly, but later summary statistics were generated by a tool that was exploited by specially-crafted strings. Why allow that? You know the input is crap, so why knowingly send crap to other libraries or systems? There's no need to "correctly" send hack attempts down the line. If it's supposed to be a hostname, but it contains backticks and semicolons, stop it right there. No need to pass that to getbyhostbyname() or anywhere else, other than your security monitoring systems.
Re mass vs weight. I was curious about that a few weeks ago, so I looked it up. It turns out weight is defined in the relevant standard as being exclusive of buoyancy. So at MSL on earth, the weight and the mass are the same. On the moon, they're different because weight is determined by the local gravity and the mass. Which means a submarine on the surface weighs a lot, which makes sense.
ALSO, FAA weight is "empty weight", without any fluids.
Parameterized queries are certainly a good thing. They help prevent a class of attacks that are common today. You may recall not long ago buffer overflows were the most common vulnerability. The strncpy set of functions were introduced to eliminate that, and newer languages like PHP and Perl have strings that know their own length, so the common types of overflows aren't possible in PHP. Since PHP isn't vulnerable to the issues which were common in C programs, it's a safe, idiot-proof language and you can't create security problems in PHP, right?
Of course actual experience is that PHP scripters create a lot MORE security problems. The easier the tools get, the less knowledge required to use them, the easier is it to do dumb things. That's what has actually happened as we've progressed from assembly to FrontPage extensions and.Net.
You want people to point-and-click publish the company's database to the web, but apparently haven't thought about which data can safely be published to the web. Confidentiality breaches (data dumps) have been a major class of security breaches recently. A lot of data shouldn't be published on the web, and/or should have careful security controls on it. Do YOU really want someone at your phone carrier to point-and-click an API for retrieving your text messages via web browser without thinking about, and being well trained in, how to do that safely and securely? Not only are there confidentiality issues, but what if a text message contains JavaScript and you load it into a web browser from a local source (app)? I don't mind if publishing my information requires careful thought, if it's not easy to dump my stuff on the web, and if only trained people are able to do that.
It'd be lovely to have magical tools that guess what the clueless user wants to do, guess what's safe to do with that data, and guess how to do it safely (instead of trained people who know which data is safe to publish, and how).
It would also be lovely to have robot doctors and nurses which cost nothing and can therefore provide medical care for free.
It would be lovely to have a kumbaya song that magically makes everyone in the world love each other and get along splendidly.
However, Mr. Obama, none of those things exist, and none of them are likely to exist this century or the next. I'm sure there is a fantasy novel forum somewhere that would enjoy discussing your ideas, Mr. President.
I've been doing security on Linux servers since Linux came on floppies. I wrote a mandatory access control framework similar to SELinux (but simpler) before SELinux was usable. Using a network OS such as BSD or Linux -is- a really good idea. Unfortunately, the bad guys only need to find one hole in your security ; a single oversight by the good guys is all it takes. (But see also layered security.)
Also unfortunately, many web servers run Plesk, which installs PHP SuExec by default, nullifying basic protections provided by the OS. CPanel is also popular and makes it easy to run SuExec without understanding the implications of doing so.
A proper operating system allows developers to create secure systems, which knowledge sysadmins can deploy. It does not and can not prevent developers and sysadmins from doing stupid things. I have thousands of samples of webshells and other hack scripts I've pulled off Linux servers which prove that. (Over 90% came from servers using SuExec.)
The government has two major initiatives in computer science:
A) They've finally realized we're WAY behind in "cybersecurity" and it's costing us billions every year. The percentage of code written by people who don't actually know what they're doing isn't just an economic problem; it's turning into a national security issue.
B) They've decided to teach EVERYONE how to write a bit of code, without really understanding what they're doing.
If this were the 1980s and we were still primarily using Disk Operating System to run software on our Personal computers, (B) might be okay. People would be learning just enough to screw up their files on their floppy. We're not using DOS anymore. It's now web apps used over the internet. The "coders" who don't understand are writing web services in.Net and PHP scripts which they put on the internet, where they are attacked constantly.
The consequences of improperly designed software systems have increased 10,000 fold. A little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing when writing software for the internet. We don't need every worker publishing their own little poorly-designed web api to their part of the company database that they wrote in Excel and published from via Access. We need to recognize this is dangerous to other people, including customers, so we need it done better, by people who choose to specialize in the field. Designing software systems (for the internet) isn't so much like reading and writing English, it's more like designing buildings. You want it done right much more than you want it done by everyone.
A few months ago, 30% of Republicans without a degree backed Trump, while 8% with a degree did. Now his support among non-graduates is at 40% or more.
Other poll questions suggest that less-educated people are more concerned about illegal immigration (competition for jobs, wages?). It also appears that people concerned about illegal immigration like Trump. So that's probably one major tie-in; if you're concerned about illegal immigrants affecting your employment opportunities and wages, it would be reasonable to like Trump's tough talk on immigration. So a lesson for other candidates would be to clearly convey that they intend to enforce immigration law.
I actually feel better understanding that. Previously I wondered why people like him. Now I understand, he's taking the strongest position on something that directly affects their ability to support their family.
Trump's misstatements of facts and reluctance to explain -how- he intends to accomplish things are probably less of a negative among people who are themselves not as well educated in the facts. Someone who does not personally understand much about how the federal government works is unlikely to appreciate that fact that someone like Ted Cruz does understand how to get things done and what the logistical challenges are.
I basically called Trump a clueless jerk, so I should mention two of his strengths : He's a very effective negotiator who gets deals done. That could be helpful if Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress, and in foreign relations. He'd need a lot of expert advice on what the deal SHOULD be, but he hires experts and then negotiates good deals.
He's a LEADER. Kennedy was a leader, think of his speeches that challenged the country to accomplish great things. Reagan led the country and got things done while Democrats controlled Congress. Obama got nothing done while his own party controlled Congress for two years. Instead, he waited around for Nancy Pelosi to make decisions and lead. That is possibly Obama's biggest shortcoming- he does not lead. Trump is very much accustomed to personally leading companies and major projects. He'll not sit on his hands and fret over the polls.
Again, I do think he's ignorant on the issues, but to be fair I wanted to also acknowledge his strengths. If he does win, hopefully he'll hire knowledgeable advisors and listen to them. He has done so in business, hiring Steve Wynn and other very bright people.
Did you intend to reply to my post, or a different one? I'm not sure how your point relates to my post. I did mention that one area in which Obama is currently taking unilateral action, essentially making law in contravention of the Constitution , happens to be in regard to guns, but my point is that under the Constitution, the president wouldn't be making law at all. I suppose that fact that he does this in areas where the Congress most certainly would not make such a law, and such a law is repugnant to the second amendment, is somewhat relevant.
To respond directly to your point, the founders were -abundantly- clear that the purpose of the second amendment was to defend freedom against tyranny; "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" may not be infringed because that is the ultimate check against the domestic government becoming tyrannical.
The examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc demonstrate , however, that the local populace does NOT have to have tanks and missiles in order to resist military aggression. A million citizens with rifles and training as a very effective check against military rule.
> perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course. Carson is intelligent, though not well versed in foreign relations and some other political issues. Cruz DOES understand the issues, more so than either of the last two presidents. Certainly there is room to disagree with him, but he knows what he's talking about as far as the federal budget, etc. I'll be keeping an eye on those two.
It is a fact that Trump does poll very low among Republicans with college degrees, somwhat better with Republicans who have a high school diploma, and very well among those who do not have a diploma. This is not an opinion. His supporters are in fact the uneducated, by and large.
Damning documents that do what? Make him look like a moron? A jackass? He already appears to be clueless; that doesn't matter to his supporters, who are mostly uneducated themselves. (His support among Republican voters with college degrees is pretty small, among those without a diploma or degree it's very high.)
I'm disappointed that the party I tend to support also has so many uninformed people who support Trump. If he ends up being the nominee that'll be sad.
It seems each president sets a new precedent for how much they ignore the Constitution, so it keeps getting worse. As you said, when "your team" does it it's okay, because people forget that in a few years the other party will have that office. Whatever new power you allow Obama to take, Donald Trump may soon wield.
I sure -hope- Trump doesn't get elected - Rubio, Cruz and even Carson would all be better choices. Regardless, guaranteed someone I don't like will be elected to the Senate and/or presidency next November - and they'll start with all of the power that we let Obama and friends take.
dunkel>Actually, the first actual nuclear power plant was built in the USSR
ray> 1951
dunkel> that (USA) went online in 1951 hasn't powered a city, just the facility [meaning it powered the entire campus]. So yes, that one was the first for the Soviets.[?!?!?]
It seems to me that a nuclear reactor which provides electricity for the the buildings around it would be called... a nuclear power plant.
Tax rates are a major reason companies are moving to Nevada and Texas from California and elsewhere.
The corporate income tax rate is 0%. Payroll taxes are 1.45% of the amount over $50,000, so lower-paid positions cost nothing in state payroll taxes.
Compare California, with a 8.85% corporate tax rate vs 0% in AZ. California payroll tax is something like 7.5% of the -first- $7000, plus 1.5% of everything else.
When you talk about the president needing Congress to pass laws, you're thinking of the old system, the Constitutional process. The Constitution is now just "an old piece of paper".
This president has already unilaterally changed immigration law after Congress denied his request and the news today is that he plans to issue new gun laws within the next few days.
Even before he was elected president, he pointed out that a law was unconstitutional- just before he voted to pass it. Meaning he knowingly, intentionally voted to pass a law that he knew to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is meaningless under this administration.
That's actually why I put the date (1951) in parentheses, to hopefully give a hint to the person who would make that mistake. The US powered a city from a nuclear power plant in 1951. The ussr did so in 1954, making the US first by three years.
> A completely new class of nuclear energy is not a project that a single nation, or a handful thereof, could hope to accomplish.
It's interesting you would say that. One country developed the first class of nuclear energy (kaboom), then developed "a completely new class of nuclear energy" again when they built the first nuclear power plants (1951), then miniaturized them to fit in submarines (1958), then created a whole new class again for space probes, etc. What makes it impossible for the country that has achieved most of the nuclear breakthroughs to achieve the next one?
Sure, the US has declined vis-a-vis other nations in the last few years, but I don't see any reason that must be either permanent or mean that they can no longer lead in -any- area. One strong leader like Kennedy or Reagan could make a huge difference, you know, someone who would actually LEAD.
Slashdot Mirror
This budget has been agreed to by Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress, including Paul Ryan, and Congressional Democrats have expressed approval and talked about their "wins".
Obama likes it because they put off paying for Obamacare another couple of years. The taxes on health insurance and medical equipment will be delayed until after the election and 2020, respectively.
Not only is this absurd on civil liberties grounds, it would be stupid even if you didn't care about civil liberties. Suppose for a moment that you are a famous U of Chicago law professor who doesn't care about the Constitution, and you want to stop terrorists. You could send a letter to a potential future terrorist saying "hey we noticed you visited this web site once, and we'll notice if you return to that site", or you could very discreetly log who visits suspicious sites and query for patterns, perhaps cross-referencing their Facebook posts or other public information, so you know who is likely to actually be a threat. Then when these queries identify the few people most likely to actually be a threat, you investigate those people further. That would be the smart thing to do, if you believed, as the U of Chicago law department seems to, that the Constitution is "an old piece of paper".
This is what I do, run IMAP locally (Dovecot). Every year or so, I create a folder callled sentbox_2013/ and move all the sent emails from 2013 there. My regular sentbox contains the last 14-20 months or so.
I also have a folder called archive/ which holds the few messages I think I'll actually need again.
Regarding whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep them in terms of legal disputes and such:
Having the documents will allow someone to prove what was actually said. If you're the a shady character, managing your business like it was Enron, you probably do not want to keep the evidence around. On the other hand, if you're working for the Software Freedom Law Center communicating with people who appear to be violating the GPL you probably want to save your communications- if the truth is clearly on your side, you may want to be able to prove what's true.
If you're naturally very upfront and ethical in what you do and say, emails may be more likely to help you than hurt you.
Every other web site in the world, besides Netflix, pays for their bandwidth, but shouldn't Netflix get theirs "free" (paid for by the rest of us) since they talk shit about the cable companies? I thought that was the general consensus among Slashdot readers, that Netflix is special and shouldn't have to pay for their own bandwidth costs like every other site in the world does.
Leasing is -simpler- on taxes than figuring depreciation, but it normally costs slightly more taxes to lease (and the actual lease cost is normally higher) . For small businesses, section 179 allows purchase expenses to be deducted rather than depreciated. The section 179 limit was reduced from $500,000 to $25,000, though.
Bottom line ,leasing is simpler but more expensive.
I see you managed to post a message. Where exactly do you see a "quantity" field on the posting form? Did I put some character other than digits in that quantity field? Do you see any numeric fields? Hint - there are some. If the numeric fields on this form accept free-form text and put it in the database, the programmers fucked up. Give that a try. See if you can put words in the numeric fields on this form.
I used to sell some specialized professional software for $150, flat fee it yours forever. The competition charged $35 per month. A LOT of customers preferred the $35/month option, even after I pointed out that's $420/year. They all use the software for several years, not for a month or two.
After a couple of years of customer requests , I added a $25/month option to our order form, and pointed out that $150 flat was a better value - buy 6 months, get forever free. A lot of people still chose $25/month.
The current version is now $269 flat or $59/month. Just the other day I spoke to a customer who has had two installations and wants another. I pointed out so far he's paid for 36 months x $59. = $2,124 each, when he could have paid $269; for the next one he should just pay $269 and save $2,000. He didn't want to! He wants to pay $59 every month for the new installation as well. Wtf?
Often in this situation, when I notice it, I just tell the customer to stop paying. It's silly as heck to keep paying every month, but that's what many customers want.
Parameterized queries can certainly help reduce injections, and they should be used.
Also, if the quantity field is supposed to be in the range 1-50, don't accept quantity = "1 ;`exec rm -rf /`"
That's obviously an attack and nothing good is going to come from that transaction, so terminally cleanly but quickly. You don't need to store an order for that number of tickets.
A couple of significant security issues have been related to later statistical analysis of the data. The real-time application handled it fine by parameterizing it or escaping it properly, but later summary statistics were generated by a tool that was exploited by specially-crafted strings. Why allow that? You know the input is crap, so why knowingly send crap to other libraries or systems? There's no need to "correctly" send hack attempts down the line. If it's supposed to be a hostname, but it contains backticks and semicolons, stop it right there. No need to pass that to getbyhostbyname() or anywhere else, other than your security monitoring systems.
Re mass vs weight. I was curious about that a few weeks ago, so I looked it up. It turns out weight is defined in the relevant standard as being exclusive of buoyancy. So at MSL on earth, the weight and the mass are the same. On the moon, they're different because weight is determined by the local gravity and the mass. Which means a submarine on the surface weighs a lot, which makes sense.
ALSO, FAA weight is "empty weight", without any fluids.
Parameterized queries are certainly a good thing. They help prevent a class of attacks that are common today. You may recall not long ago buffer overflows were the most common vulnerability. The strncpy set of functions were introduced to eliminate that, and newer languages like PHP and Perl have strings that know their own length, so the common types of overflows aren't possible in PHP. Since PHP isn't vulnerable to the issues which were common in C programs, it's a safe, idiot-proof language and you can't create security problems in PHP, right?
Of course actual experience is that PHP scripters create a lot MORE security problems. The easier the tools get, the less knowledge required to use them, the easier is it to do dumb things. That's what has actually happened as we've progressed from assembly to FrontPage extensions and .Net.
You want people to point-and-click publish the company's database to the web, but apparently haven't thought about which data can safely be published to the web. Confidentiality breaches (data dumps) have been a major class of security breaches recently. A lot of data shouldn't be published on the web, and/or should have careful security controls on it. Do YOU really want someone at your phone carrier to point-and-click an API for retrieving your text messages via web browser without thinking about, and being well trained in, how to do that safely and securely? Not only are there confidentiality issues, but what if a text message contains JavaScript and you load it into a web browser from a local source (app)? I don't mind if publishing my information requires careful thought, if it's not easy to dump my stuff on the web, and if only trained people are able to do that.
It'd be lovely to have magical tools that guess what the clueless user wants to do, guess what's safe to do with that data, and guess how to do it safely (instead of trained people who know which data is safe to publish, and how).
It would also be lovely to have robot doctors and nurses which cost nothing and can therefore provide medical care for free.
It would be lovely to have a kumbaya song that magically makes everyone in the world love each other and get along splendidly.
However, Mr. Obama, none of those things exist, and none of them are likely to exist this century or the next. I'm sure there is a fantasy novel forum somewhere that would enjoy discussing your ideas, Mr. President.
I've been doing security on Linux servers since Linux came on floppies. I wrote a mandatory access control framework similar to SELinux (but simpler) before SELinux was usable. Using a network OS such as BSD or Linux -is- a really good idea. Unfortunately, the bad guys only need to find one hole in your security ; a single oversight by the good guys is all it takes. (But see also layered security.)
Also unfortunately, many web servers run Plesk, which installs PHP SuExec by default, nullifying basic protections provided by the OS. CPanel is also popular and makes it easy to run SuExec without understanding the implications of doing so.
A proper operating system allows developers to create secure systems, which knowledge sysadmins can deploy. It does not and can not prevent developers and sysadmins from doing stupid things. I have thousands of samples of webshells and other hack scripts I've pulled off Linux servers which prove that. (Over 90% came from servers using SuExec.)
The government has two major initiatives in computer science:
A) They've finally realized we're WAY behind in "cybersecurity" and it's costing us billions every year. The percentage of code written by people who don't actually know what they're doing isn't just an economic problem; it's turning into a national security issue.
B) They've decided to teach EVERYONE how to write a bit of code, without really understanding what they're doing.
If this were the 1980s and we were still primarily using Disk Operating System to run software on our Personal computers, (B) might be okay. People would be learning just enough to screw up their files on their floppy. We're not using DOS anymore. It's now web apps used over the internet. The "coders" who don't understand are writing web services in .Net and PHP scripts which they put on the internet, where they are attacked constantly.
The consequences of improperly designed software systems have increased 10,000 fold. A little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing when writing software for the internet. We don't need every worker publishing their own little poorly-designed web api to their part of the company database that they wrote in Excel and published from via Access. We need to recognize this is dangerous to other people, including customers, so we need it done better, by people who choose to specialize in the field. Designing software systems (for the internet) isn't so much like reading and writing English, it's more like designing buildings. You want it done right much more than you want it done by everyone.
Since you seem to have an interest in the numbers, here are some graphs with December numbers that may interest you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
A few months ago, 30% of Republicans without a degree backed Trump, while 8% with a degree did. Now his support among non-graduates is at 40% or more.
Other poll questions suggest that less-educated people are more concerned about illegal immigration (competition for jobs, wages?). It also appears that people concerned about illegal immigration like Trump. So that's probably one major tie-in; if you're concerned about illegal immigrants affecting your employment opportunities and wages, it would be reasonable to like Trump's tough talk on immigration. So a lesson for other candidates would be to clearly convey that they intend to enforce immigration law.
I actually feel better understanding that. Previously I wondered why people like him. Now I understand, he's taking the strongest position on something that directly affects their ability to support their family.
Trump's misstatements of facts and reluctance to explain -how- he intends to accomplish things are probably less of a negative among people who are themselves not as well educated in the facts. Someone who does not personally understand much about how the federal government works is unlikely to appreciate that fact that someone like Ted Cruz does understand how to get things done and what the logistical challenges are.
I basically called Trump a clueless jerk, so I should mention two of his strengths :
He's a very effective negotiator who gets deals done. That could be helpful if Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress, and in foreign relations. He'd need a lot of expert advice on what the deal SHOULD be, but he hires experts and then negotiates good deals.
He's a LEADER. Kennedy was a leader, think of his speeches that challenged the country to accomplish great things. Reagan led the country and got things done while Democrats controlled Congress. Obama got nothing done while his own party controlled Congress for two years. Instead, he waited around for Nancy Pelosi to make decisions and lead. That is possibly Obama's biggest shortcoming- he does not lead. Trump is very much accustomed to personally leading companies and major projects. He'll not sit on his hands and fret over the polls.
Again, I do think he's ignorant on the issues, but to be fair I wanted to also acknowledge his strengths. If he does win, hopefully he'll hire knowledgeable advisors and listen to them. He has done so in business, hiring Steve Wynn and other very bright people.
Did you intend to reply to my post, or a different one? I'm not sure how your point relates to my post. I did mention that one area in which Obama is currently taking unilateral action, essentially making law in contravention of the Constitution , happens to be in regard to guns, but my point is that under the Constitution, the president wouldn't be making law at all. I suppose that fact that he does this in areas where the Congress most certainly would not make such a law, and such a law is repugnant to the second amendment, is somewhat relevant.
To respond directly to your point, the founders were -abundantly- clear that the purpose of the second amendment was to defend freedom against tyranny; "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" may not be infringed because that is the ultimate check against the domestic government becoming tyrannical.
The examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc demonstrate , however, that the local populace does NOT have to have tanks and missiles in order to resist military aggression. A million citizens with rifles and training as a very effective check against military rule.
> perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course. Carson is intelligent, though not well versed in foreign relations and some other political issues. Cruz DOES understand the issues, more so than either of the last two presidents. Certainly there is room to disagree with him, but he knows what he's talking about as far as the federal budget, etc. I'll be keeping an eye on those two.
It is a fact that Trump does poll very low among Republicans with college degrees, somwhat better with Republicans who have a high school diploma, and very well among those who do not have a diploma. This is not an opinion. His supporters are in fact the uneducated, by and large.
Damning documents that do what? Make him look like a moron? A jackass? He already appears to be clueless; that doesn't matter to his supporters, who are mostly uneducated themselves. (His support among Republican voters with college degrees is pretty small, among those without a diploma or degree it's very high.)
I'm disappointed that the party I tend to support also has so many uninformed people who support Trump. If he ends up being the nominee that'll be sad.
It seems each president sets a new precedent for how much they ignore the Constitution, so it keeps getting worse. As you said, when "your team" does it it's okay, because people forget that in a few years the other party will have that office. Whatever new power you allow Obama to take, Donald Trump may soon wield.
I sure -hope- Trump doesn't get elected - Rubio, Cruz and even Carson would all be better choices. Regardless, guaranteed someone I don't like will be elected to the Senate and/or presidency next November - and they'll start with all of the power that we let Obama and friends take.
The answers to your two questions are:
Liberalism
Politician
See also "broken window fallacy ", on which most liberal economic thinking is based.
So let's review:
ray> the first nuclear power plants (1951)
dunkel>Actually, the first actual nuclear power plant was built in the USSR
ray> 1951
dunkel> that (USA) went online in 1951 hasn't powered a city, just the facility [meaning it powered the entire campus]. So yes, that one was the first for the Soviets.[?!?!?]
It seems to me that a nuclear reactor which provides electricity for the the buildings around it would be called ... a nuclear power plant.
Tax rates are a major reason companies are moving to Nevada and Texas from California and elsewhere.
The corporate income tax rate is 0%. Payroll taxes are 1.45% of the amount over $50,000, so lower-paid positions cost nothing in state payroll taxes.
Compare California, with a 8.85% corporate tax rate vs 0% in AZ. California payroll tax is something like 7.5% of the -first- $7000, plus 1.5% of everything else.
When you talk about the president needing Congress to pass laws, you're thinking of the old system, the Constitutional process. The Constitution is now just "an old piece of paper".
This president has already unilaterally changed immigration law after Congress denied his request and the news today is that he plans to issue new gun laws within the next few days.
Even before he was elected president, he pointed out that a law was unconstitutional- just before he voted to pass it. Meaning he knowingly, intentionally voted to pass a law that he knew to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is meaningless under this administration.
That's actually why I put the date (1951) in parentheses, to hopefully give a hint to the person who would make that mistake. The US powered a city from a nuclear power plant in 1951. The ussr did so in 1954, making the US first by three years.
> A completely new class of nuclear energy is not a project that a single nation, or a handful thereof, could hope to accomplish.
It's interesting you would say that. One country developed the first class of nuclear energy (kaboom), then developed "a completely new class of nuclear energy" again when they built the first nuclear power plants (1951), then miniaturized them to fit in submarines (1958), then created a whole new class again for space probes, etc. What makes it impossible for the country that has achieved most of the nuclear breakthroughs to achieve the next one?
Sure, the US has declined vis-a-vis other nations in the last few years, but I don't see any reason that must be either permanent or mean that they can no longer lead in -any- area. One strong leader like Kennedy or Reagan could make a huge difference, you know, someone who would actually LEAD.