Actually, I'm currently going through the system here at ohio state where
they teach the concept of prgramming [sic] by contract. Basically we're told if
the input is not the correct (documented) input then whatever happens is not
your fault (an error is to be expected). Writing bulletproof code is a waste of
time apparently.
Hmm.
As I recall Weide's CIS 680 class, the idea was that routines should
explicitly state (10 years ago, this was done in comments) what they check and
what they don't. If a given routine expects to be passed an integer
between 1 and 10, the contract states whether the routine handles out-of-bounds
conditions or if it's the responsibility of the caller to ensure that the data
is valid before passing it off to the routine.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't validate input, nor that bulletproof
code is a waste of time. My interpretation was more that it was a
duplication of effort to validate data both on the caller and the callee sides
of things -- it doesn't matter on which side of the fence you do things, just
make sure they get done.
Microsoft has set up their business so that their customers have to trust them. There is no way for Microsoft's customers to verify that Microsoft software is safe.
this is one of the main complaints I have about IE, stoping a selection mid-word is almost impossible using it.
I just figured this one out the other day.
To select a portion of the word, drag your cursor so that the next
word is highlighted, then back up. IE extends the selection word by
word, but retracts it character by character.
In fact, this possesive [sic] form was correct
until the 19th century.
Thou art quite Correct; there if No need to change from the Claffic Formf of
our Anceftorf. Efpecially when creating ftorief on the Front Page, any
fort of grammer Shall be Deemed Appropriate and Valid ufage.
Beesidez, d00d, if u cant talk the talk how d0 we know if u can walk the wak?!!!?
And how about spell-checking! And typing that is readable!
Oh, oh, oh! And messages that can be understood by us 'laymen' english
speakers!
This can be translated to:
I haven't followed the lawsuit (even a geek can try to have a life).
No matter who "wins" the suit, the real winners will be the
lawyers. You know Microsoft must be paying millions to their lawyers, and so
is the other side.
The other winners are the media, with their continuous coverage of the
lawsuit. I'm bored with it. Give us a break and talk about things
we care about, like new technologies that work.
"I am not an intellectual, I have no common sense."
And a Tivo is a useless piece of junk compared to a VCR, for archiving.
Yeah, but Tivo has a "save to VCR" function -- it's very easy to archive stuff you've Tivo'ed.
It's hard to explain in just a few words how cool Tivo is. The season pass that catches stuff whenever it's on, aging of old shows, filling up unused space with shows you might like (but always at a lower priority than stuff you've picked) -- Tivo is the best thing to happen to tv since the remote control. Or cable, take your pick.
Tivo is an evolutionary product that has revolutionized the way I watch tv.
Problem with this is, they won't just sue Princeton - they'll sue Felten
personally as well as his grad students who worked on it who I'm SURE wouldn't
have been able to handle the cost, though the ACLU would most likely have picked
them up.
Felten is probably covered personally -- here in Florida, the university will
provide legal aid to any professor who's sued as a result of their professional
efforts. I dunno about grad students, but I'd be suprised if the
university didn't cover 'em, given that they were working on directed research.
>When speech is transcribed to text many more commas than
>would normally be used in a non-verbal context are normal.
Are normal? *Is* normal!
I think the original poster had it right. It's
"more commas [...] *are* normal"
rather than
"more commas is normal".
And please no flames for diagramming instead of munging it all into a
sentence.
--
Re:Backdoor challenge for you hackers...
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 4
lets take a look at how many 1k bytes of code could be inserted throughout
the SE Linux OS to
It seems to me that this would be double-damned hard in an open source
system.
[...]
How would all you clever hackers out there hide a function in an open source
system in a way that it can escape detection even if all the source is read?
Check out the "
back
door" entry of the Jargon File to
learn about one of the IMHO most creative hacks of all time:
[...] Ken Thompson's 1983 Turing Award lecture to the ACM admitted the
existence of a back door in early Unix versions that may have qualified as the
most fiendishly clever security hack of all time. In this scheme, the C
compiler contained code that would recognize when the `login' command was
being recompiled and insert some code recognizing a password chosen by
Thompson, giving him entry to the system whether or not an account had been
created for him.
Normally such a back door could be removed by removing it from the source code
for the compiler and recompiling the compiler. But to recompile the compiler,
you have to use the compiler -- so Thompson also arranged that the compiler
would recognize when it was compiling a version of itself, and insert into the
recompiled compiler the code to insert into the recompiled `login' the code to
allow Thompson entry -- and, of course, the code to recognize itself and do
the whole thing again the next time around! And having done this once, he was
then able to recompile the compiler from the original sources; the hack
perpetuated itself invisibly, leaving the back door in place and active but
with no trace in the sources. [...]
A detailed description of the hack by Ken Thompson himself can be found here.
It seems that I may be over generalizing. [...]Like I said, MY experiences.
As my wife often tries to explain to her students: "Your personal
experiences do not indicate the norm."
And, contrary to popular belief - we are not all lazy slack ass punks
who have nothing better to do than drink beer and go to kegger parties. Some
college students somehow try to mix 5 classes with working 40hrs a week at $7 an
hour, somehow (through other jobs) managing to pay for living expenses (i.e.
room, board, insulin). I resent your statement about "beer money" -
besides, I'm 19, and can't legally drink in this country (although that's
kind of a BS excuse, because the drinking age never stopped anyone)
Speaking of over generalizing, eh? Okay, okay -- I worked three jobs at
$5 an hour to get through school.
Seriously though, you may have a problem at your school, but the vast
majority of schools don't. And therefore (back to the original
argument), the idea of Open Textbooks is a good one, and would probably fly,
especially at cash-strapped public (read high) schools.
Horse pucky!
While I believe that you and your wifes intentions maybe honorable, I in no way believe that schools, faculty, and the professor teaching the class do not benifit someway from using a select material.
Don't take my word for it. Go and talk to your professor. Talk to several. Quit treating the institution you're (or your parents, or the government, or whoever) paying the bucks to like the enemy. Really, believe it or not,
they're trying to do you some good.
The sooner you get that chip off your shoulder, and start listening, the sooner you'll start learning. And isn't that why you're there?
I think the open textbook idea is awesome, but it's not going to happen.
[...]
Firstly - 95% Professors either write their textbooks themselves, and change them every quarter, and charge obscene prices for them - OR - are "compensated" for selecting the textbook for the class in some form or another. That is abuse of power - really annoying as well. Also English teachers get a "standard" copy of a historical work; add "edited by..." add a preface, and sell the "work" for $50. Ditto.
Nonsense. 95% of professors do not write their textbooks
themselves. Most professors are too busy writing research articles to find
the time to put together a textbook. Professors are not
"compensated" for selecting a specific textbook (even their own -- find out how much your professor gets in royalties from their book. You might be suprised). Textbook
publishers approach professors at conferences, or actually come to campus to see
professors, and hand out textbooks to them for free. They do this to try
and get the professor to read the book, and hopefully they'll like it enough to
use it in class -- at which point the publisher, not the professor, will make
some money. Sure, the prof doesn't have to go out and buy the thing, but
trust me, my wife (Professor of Sociology) has 20 different Introduction to
Sociology books, and chooses the one to use based on her opinion of the book --
not any kind of "shadow" payment.
I'd also bet you'll find that the work an English professor does is a bit
more than just "adding a preface". Do you think that publishers
can just whip out one title after another (and sell what, 300 copies a year?)
for any schmoe with a Ph.D. after their name with no more impact than the cost
of the paper?
Second - Textbooks are too lucrative for businesses to give up. I paid
close to $100 for a soft cover MATH textbook. I understand computer, history
books, etc... costing money (at least someone did some research in them), but
the math book is useless - all questions (no instructions) - but of course
required (i.e. quizzes given from the book, no book = no pass). Hell I spent
nearly $500 on textbooks
Why is your textbook $100? Two words: used textbooks.
Complain about the cost of books (new and used) all you want, but the publishers
see none of that money -- it all goes to your local bookstore.
That's why prices are so high -- publishers make the books once, but they're
sold to a half-dozen or more students. Sure, you can argue that they
wouldn't get resold so many times if the prices weren't outrageous, but they
are, and it's debatable which came first (the high prices or the extensive
reselling).
I know you think your problems book didn't require any research, but you're
wrong. Someone had to sit down and think of these problems, tie them into
the materials presented in each section and chapter of the accompanying
textbook, and work them out. Then someone else had to check and ensure all
of the answers were correct, and the problems made sense, and there weren't any
typos.
Augh, hell, most people who read/. know this. If anyone can defend the
standard practice, please respond.
Sadly, it sounds as if I'm defending the publishers -- I'm not, really,
although I recognize their need to make a buck to stay in business.
Believe it or not, professors are keenly aware of the cost of textbooks and
their impact on your budget. They don't sit around and conspire to
eliminate your beer money -- but sometimes, it's the only way they can get you
all of the information they feel you need to learn the material for the
class. I know my wife has agonized many times over the cost and number of
books she's required for a class. Sometimes, in fact, she's picked a book
that's not quite as good just because it's cheaper.
If there were good, open textbooks that covered the material that needs to be
taught in a class, professors would go for it in a heartbeat. They're
really not your enemy -- most professors are simply trying to get you think and
learn. Sometimes that costs money.
And one of the new features in Whistler is that multiple instances of the
same application will only show once in the taskbar. Clicking on
the item will display a popup menu that shows the full name of each
instance. So your taskbar would be:
Now, I'm sure at least one of these is *still* going to get cut off (my task
list is 10 characters longer than yours), but you'll still see a lot more than
you do now.
Give me iconization to the desktop anytime.
Me, I like having the task list rather than iconization to the desktop -- it
means I can stick projects and other crap on my desktop and not have to think
about what's a folder and what's an instance of my window manager _open_ to a
folder.
I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in
Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google,
put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking
your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really
happened is you ran out of gas.
Yeah, except with Linux, they don't give you a gas gauge.
The problem here (and don't get me wrong, it's a Windows problem) is that the
error message your friends are getting is practically worthless. Instead
of having to root around the Web to find out what the message really
means, the message should tell you in the first place.
Apparently, in the new beta version of Visual Studio, Microsoft has added a
"Lame!" button to some (all?) of their error notifications.
Press it, and your web browser launches and takes you to a page on the MS site
where you can tell 'em exactly why this message sucks. This isn't perfect,
but at least they're *trying* to make things easier.
Stability is not a good argument? [...] I like knowing that a glitch in
code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and
possibly cause data loss.
Me too -- that's why I run Windows 2000 (aka NT 5). Glitches in my
code, or MSIE, or my dev environment don't bring my system to a
halt. If you're (and not -you- personally, but anyone) doing
development work in Win95/98/SE/ME, you're an idiot.
So every Republican has a religious agenda to impose on you?
It'd probably shock you to know that I'm a registered
Republican. Have been for years.
Every belief that isn't aligned with your own is incorrect?
I've got nothing at all against different beliefs. I do have a problem
when others try to use the law to enforce their own set of beliefs. I've
got a big problem with that. And I'm not convinced that Dubya's got the
moral backbone to stand up to the religious right. Not after watching him
kowtow to them in the primaries.
It's unfortunate that you had to ruin a perfectly competent and valid idea
with such a blatantly ignorant aside.
It must be nice to not know any better.
What is this, personal attack day? Okay then -- you're an ass, and
blind to boot if you don't see what the Religious Right's trying to do to this
country.
You are just shooting from the hip at some minor point that have nothing
to do with the thread, and indicating that your grasp of the issues leaves your
opinion not terribly interesting
Thanks for the personal attack -- always appreciated when discussing issues.
1. "Surplus" refers to the derivative (from calculus) of what
the debt refers to, and we do absolutely have a surplus. The debt is important
as a percentage of GDP, but that has been shrinking. (analogy: owing $100 when
you earn nothing is a big deal, but not if you earn $100,000 with prospects for
growth
You're absolutely correct: we *do* have a surplus. However, just
as I think it's better for me to pay off my credit cards before investing in the
stock market, I also think it's better for the US to pay off its debts before
lowering taxes.
You can certainly argue that sending as much money back to the people (and
corporations) as you can, as soon as possible, will help generate more wealth
(and taxes) than using the money to pay off the debt. Some folks call that
"Reganomics", others, including Gee-Dubya's daddy, called it
"voodoo economics".
Even if you're a fan of Reganomics, I'd urge you to wait until the debt is paid
off -- imagine the tax cut we'll see when we don't have to sink billions into
covering our bills.
both the Democrats and the Republicans meddle with the tax code to
encourage social behaviors.
simply, not true. Your example, government drug policy appears nowhere in
the tax code
I disagree. I'd say that the increased levels of spending on jails,
border patrols, "military advisors", and support for foreign governments
to control their drug supplies has a direct impact on the budget and the tax
code. We could see a helluva nice tax cut if we'd legalize drugs.
Tax 'em to cover the increased social cost (treatment programs, etc), and you'd
probably still have money left over.
is exactly your confusion of social policy legislation and the tax code
Tax cuts == changes in the tax code. If we saved a few hundred billion
by legalizing drugs, we could (would?) change the tax code. It certainly
seems to me that keeping the prohibition on drugs alive is rather tightly tied
to the tax code. How else can we afford to enforce all of these social
policies unless we collect taxes to pay for it?
Therefore, surplus tax receipts indicate a tax cut is in order.
We have something called the NationalDebt, which, as far as
I'm concerned, means we don't have a surplus. I'd much rather hear a
candidate talk about sinking every penny of the so-called
"surplus" into paying off the national debt. I don't think we
should lower taxes until we pay off the debt.
folks who meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors they
prefer, more typically a Democratic position
Uhh, yeah. Like the War On Drugs TM. Face it, both the
Democrats and the Republicans meddle with the tax code to encourage
social behaviors. I am so sick of hearing the hypocritical Republican talk
about "Getting Big GovernmentTM Off Our Backs".
Republicans want just as much Big Government as the Democrats do, they just want
to use it to enforce their religious beliefs.
Developed from work by the MIT AI Lab, the programmable brick is the ultimate synthesis of two great techie toys: LEGO, and computers. The Mindstorms RIS appeals to the hacker mindset, too. By exposing the internals, LEGO makes it easy to ignore the included software and program the brick using a wide range of tools and environments, including Linux.
Definitely gets my vote for the "cheaper than a Playstation" entry.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'm currently going through the system here at ohio state where they teach the concept of prgramming [sic] by contract. Basically we're told if the input is not the correct (documented) input then whatever happens is not your fault (an error is to be expected). Writing bulletproof code is a waste of time apparently.
Hmm.
As I recall Weide's CIS 680 class, the idea was that routines should explicitly state (10 years ago, this was done in comments) what they check and what they don't. If a given routine expects to be passed an integer between 1 and 10, the contract states whether the routine handles out-of-bounds conditions or if it's the responsibility of the caller to ensure that the data is valid before passing it off to the routine.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't validate input, nor that bulletproof code is a waste of time. My interpretation was more that it was a duplication of effort to validate data both on the caller and the callee sides of things -- it doesn't matter on which side of the fence you do things, just make sure they get done.
Microsoft has set up their business so that their customers have to trust them. There is no way for Microsoft's customers to verify that Microsoft software is safe.
Umm, how about running a virus scanner?
I just figured this one out the other day.
To select a portion of the word, drag your cursor so that the next word is highlighted, then back up. IE extends the selection word by word, but retracts it character by character.
Thou art quite Correct; there if No need to change from the Claffic Formf of our Anceftorf. Efpecially when creating ftorief on the Front Page, any fort of grammer Shall be Deemed Appropriate and Valid ufage.
Beesidez, d00d, if u cant talk the talk how d0 we know if u can walk the wak?!!!?
This can be translated to:
Hope this helps.
movies that are commercially successful even though the critics hate them, like Tomb Raider
What do you mean, critics hate them? All the ads *I* saw for Tomb Raider said things like:
Oh, sure, the critic in the paper hated it, but who reads those guys, buried in back of the weekly calendar section? I mean, really, man.
like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge did when the equal frequencies of the wind and the structure of the bridge matched
Just to do a little karma whoring...
Google has some nice links to video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge moving. This one from the Smithsonian is pretty good.
--
And a Tivo is a useless piece of junk compared to a VCR, for archiving.
Yeah, but Tivo has a "save to VCR" function -- it's very easy to archive stuff you've Tivo'ed.
It's hard to explain in just a few words how cool Tivo is. The season pass that catches stuff whenever it's on, aging of old shows, filling up unused space with shows you might like (but always at a lower priority than stuff you've picked) -- Tivo is the best thing to happen to tv since the remote control. Or cable, take your pick.
Tivo is an evolutionary product that has revolutionized the way I watch tv.
--
Problem with this is, they won't just sue Princeton - they'll sue Felten personally as well as his grad students who worked on it who I'm SURE wouldn't have been able to handle the cost, though the ACLU would most likely have picked them up.
Felten is probably covered personally -- here in Florida, the university will provide legal aid to any professor who's sued as a result of their professional efforts. I dunno about grad students, but I'd be suprised if the university didn't cover 'em, given that they were working on directed research.
--
This has been moderated "Offtopic"? Am I the only one who read the linked material from the article? Hello?
Perhaps a review of the moderation guidelines is in order.
--
...and not a single comment about the screen name "Paula Jones' Twat"?
C'mon, that was funny.
--
Are normal? *Is* normal!
I think the original poster had it right. It's
rather than
And please no flames for diagramming instead of munging it all into a sentence.
--
It seems to me that this would be double-damned hard in an open source system.
[...]
How would all you clever hackers out there hide a function in an open source system in a way that it can escape detection even if all the source is read?
Ken Thompson's discussion of how he did this is available at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/. To summarize, I've blindly copied from Ignatius' post in an earlier Slashdot discussion below:
--
I don't have an internet connection.
What do I do?
Call Micro$oft's 800 number, and they'll give you a code over the phone.
--
It seems that I may be over generalizing. [...]Like I said, MY experiences.
As my wife often tries to explain to her students: "Your personal experiences do not indicate the norm."
And, contrary to popular belief - we are not all lazy slack ass punks who have nothing better to do than drink beer and go to kegger parties. Some college students somehow try to mix 5 classes with working 40hrs a week at $7 an hour, somehow (through other jobs) managing to pay for living expenses (i.e. room, board, insulin). I resent your statement about "beer money" - besides, I'm 19, and can't legally drink in this country (although that's kind of a BS excuse, because the drinking age never stopped anyone)
Speaking of over generalizing, eh? Okay, okay -- I worked three jobs at $5 an hour to get through school.
Seriously though, you may have a problem at your school, but the vast majority of schools don't. And therefore (back to the original argument), the idea of Open Textbooks is a good one, and would probably fly, especially at cash-strapped public (read high) schools.
--
Horse pucky!
While I believe that you and your wifes intentions maybe honorable, I in no way believe that schools, faculty, and the professor teaching the class do not benifit someway from using a select material.
Don't take my word for it. Go and talk to your professor. Talk to several. Quit treating the institution you're (or your parents, or the government, or whoever) paying the bucks to like the enemy. Really, believe it or not, they're trying to do you some good.
The sooner you get that chip off your shoulder, and start listening, the sooner you'll start learning. And isn't that why you're there?
--
I think the open textbook idea is awesome, but it's not going to happen.
[...]
Firstly - 95% Professors either write their textbooks themselves, and change them every quarter, and charge obscene prices for them - OR - are "compensated" for selecting the textbook for the class in some form or another. That is abuse of power - really annoying as well. Also English teachers get a "standard" copy of a historical work; add "edited by..." add a preface, and sell the "work" for $50. Ditto.
Nonsense. 95% of professors do not write their textbooks themselves. Most professors are too busy writing research articles to find the time to put together a textbook. Professors are not "compensated" for selecting a specific textbook (even their own -- find out how much your professor gets in royalties from their book. You might be suprised). Textbook publishers approach professors at conferences, or actually come to campus to see professors, and hand out textbooks to them for free. They do this to try and get the professor to read the book, and hopefully they'll like it enough to use it in class -- at which point the publisher, not the professor, will make some money. Sure, the prof doesn't have to go out and buy the thing, but trust me, my wife (Professor of Sociology) has 20 different Introduction to Sociology books, and chooses the one to use based on her opinion of the book -- not any kind of "shadow" payment.
I'd also bet you'll find that the work an English professor does is a bit more than just "adding a preface". Do you think that publishers can just whip out one title after another (and sell what, 300 copies a year?) for any schmoe with a Ph.D. after their name with no more impact than the cost of the paper?
Second - Textbooks are too lucrative for businesses to give up. I paid close to $100 for a soft cover MATH textbook. I understand computer, history books, etc... costing money (at least someone did some research in them), but the math book is useless - all questions (no instructions) - but of course required (i.e. quizzes given from the book, no book = no pass). Hell I spent nearly $500 on textbooks
Why is your textbook $100? Two words: used textbooks. Complain about the cost of books (new and used) all you want, but the publishers see none of that money -- it all goes to your local bookstore. That's why prices are so high -- publishers make the books once, but they're sold to a half-dozen or more students. Sure, you can argue that they wouldn't get resold so many times if the prices weren't outrageous, but they are, and it's debatable which came first (the high prices or the extensive reselling).
I know you think your problems book didn't require any research, but you're wrong. Someone had to sit down and think of these problems, tie them into the materials presented in each section and chapter of the accompanying textbook, and work them out. Then someone else had to check and ensure all of the answers were correct, and the problems made sense, and there weren't any typos.
Augh, hell, most people who read /. know this. If anyone can defend the
standard practice, please respond.
Sadly, it sounds as if I'm defending the publishers -- I'm not, really, although I recognize their need to make a buck to stay in business.
Believe it or not, professors are keenly aware of the cost of textbooks and their impact on your budget. They don't sit around and conspire to eliminate your beer money -- but sometimes, it's the only way they can get you all of the information they feel you need to learn the material for the class. I know my wife has agonized many times over the cost and number of books she's required for a class. Sometimes, in fact, she's picked a book that's not quite as good just because it's cheaper.
If there were good, open textbooks that covered the material that needs to be taught in a class, professors would go for it in a heartbeat. They're really not your enemy -- most professors are simply trying to get you think and learn. Sometimes that costs money.
--
click on the K or Foot menus and they are right there under games. Much eaiser to find than by going to Start-Programs-Accessories-Games
It's easier to click on the K or Foot rather than Start? And /.ers
wonder why they say Linux isn't ready for the desktop...
--
sorry for the bad formatting -- stupid /. editor
--
And one of the new features in Whistler is that multiple instances of the same application will only show once in the taskbar. Clicking on the item will display a popup menu that shows the full name of each instance. So your taskbar would be:
|ppfooapp|Netscape|GKbarapp|Wibazapp|gnbatapp|Tefr edapp|TCbiffapp|emacs |
Now, I'm sure at least one of these is *still* going to get cut off (my task list is 10 characters longer than yours), but you'll still see a lot more than you do now.
Me, I like having the task list rather than iconization to the desktop -- it means I can stick projects and other crap on my desktop and not have to think about what's a folder and what's an instance of my window manager _open_ to a folder.
--
I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google, put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really happened is you ran out of gas.
Yeah, except with Linux, they don't give you a gas gauge.
The problem here (and don't get me wrong, it's a Windows problem) is that the error message your friends are getting is practically worthless. Instead of having to root around the Web to find out what the message really means, the message should tell you in the first place.
Apparently, in the new beta version of Visual Studio, Microsoft has added a "Lame!" button to some (all?) of their error notifications. Press it, and your web browser launches and takes you to a page on the MS site where you can tell 'em exactly why this message sucks. This isn't perfect, but at least they're *trying* to make things easier.
Stability is not a good argument? [...] I like knowing that a glitch in code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and possibly cause data loss.
Me too -- that's why I run Windows 2000 (aka NT 5). Glitches in my code, or MSIE, or my dev environment don't bring my system to a halt. If you're (and not -you- personally, but anyone) doing development work in Win95/98/SE/ME, you're an idiot.
--
So every Republican has a religious agenda to impose on you?
It'd probably shock you to know that I'm a registered Republican. Have been for years.
Every belief that isn't aligned with your own is incorrect?
I've got nothing at all against different beliefs. I do have a problem when others try to use the law to enforce their own set of beliefs. I've got a big problem with that. And I'm not convinced that Dubya's got the moral backbone to stand up to the religious right. Not after watching him kowtow to them in the primaries.
It's unfortunate that you had to ruin a perfectly competent and valid idea with such a blatantly ignorant aside.
It must be nice to not know any better.
What is this, personal attack day? Okay then -- you're an ass, and blind to boot if you don't see what the Religious Right's trying to do to this country.
--
You are just shooting from the hip at some minor point that have nothing to do with the thread, and indicating that your grasp of the issues leaves your opinion not terribly interesting
Thanks for the personal attack -- always appreciated when discussing issues.
1. "Surplus" refers to the derivative (from calculus) of what the debt refers to, and we do absolutely have a surplus. The debt is important as a percentage of GDP, but that has been shrinking. (analogy: owing $100 when you earn nothing is a big deal, but not if you earn $100,000 with prospects for growth
You're absolutely correct: we *do* have a surplus. However, just as I think it's better for me to pay off my credit cards before investing in the stock market, I also think it's better for the US to pay off its debts before lowering taxes.
You can certainly argue that sending as much money back to the people (and corporations) as you can, as soon as possible, will help generate more wealth (and taxes) than using the money to pay off the debt. Some folks call that "Reganomics", others, including Gee-Dubya's daddy, called it "voodoo economics".
Even if you're a fan of Reganomics, I'd urge you to wait until the debt is paid off -- imagine the tax cut we'll see when we don't have to sink billions into covering our bills.
simply, not true. Your example, government drug policy appears nowhere in the tax code
I disagree. I'd say that the increased levels of spending on jails, border patrols, "military advisors", and support for foreign governments to control their drug supplies has a direct impact on the budget and the tax code. We could see a helluva nice tax cut if we'd legalize drugs. Tax 'em to cover the increased social cost (treatment programs, etc), and you'd probably still have money left over.
is exactly your confusion of social policy legislation and the tax code
Tax cuts == changes in the tax code. If we saved a few hundred billion by legalizing drugs, we could (would?) change the tax code. It certainly seems to me that keeping the prohibition on drugs alive is rather tightly tied to the tax code. How else can we afford to enforce all of these social policies unless we collect taxes to pay for it?
--
Therefore, surplus tax receipts indicate a tax cut is in order.
We have something called the National Debt, which, as far as I'm concerned, means we don't have a surplus. I'd much rather hear a candidate talk about sinking every penny of the so-called "surplus" into paying off the national debt. I don't think we should lower taxes until we pay off the debt.
folks who meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors they prefer, more typically a Democratic position
Uhh, yeah. Like the War On Drugs TM. Face it, both the Democrats and the Republicans meddle with the tax code to encourage social behaviors. I am so sick of hearing the hypocritical Republican talk about "Getting Big GovernmentTM Off Our Backs". Republicans want just as much Big Government as the Democrats do, they just want to use it to enforce their religious beliefs.
--
Lego Mindstorms Robotics Invention System 1.5
about $200 -- info @ http://mindstorms.lego.com
Developed from work by the MIT AI Lab, the programmable brick is the ultimate synthesis of two great techie toys: LEGO, and computers. The Mindstorms RIS appeals to the hacker mindset, too. By exposing the internals, LEGO makes it easy to ignore the included software and program the brick using a wide range of tools and environments, including Linux.
Definitely gets my vote for the "cheaper than a Playstation" entry.
--