So the theory is that making systems harder to hack will dissuade hackers, thus making all computers secure forever. It's too bad this is such a novel theory and no one's ever tried to harden existing systems against hacking otherwise we might have some empirical evidence to support his plan.

Oh what's that? The entire history of hacking is one of ever more elaborate and clever security precautions being overcome by ever more elaborate and clever hackers? One side cannot ever declare victory and rest on its laurels? It's an arms race, you say?

How very exciting!

you realize that you're proving geekoid's point (and refuting your own) right?

obviously the invisible hand of the free market will sort it all out. that or the zombies. as long as I get a pony, I don't care.

did you punch the monkey? I think you need to punch the monkey to see the specs.

I am sure that cutting the limousine fleet will save several trillion dollars over the next 10 years. problem solved! you are a genius!

Senator Obama's speech was given during the buildup of the housing bubble. It was a period where the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They used this power to start two never-ending land wars in asia (off the books no less), create an unfunded Medicare program, and cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals.

The economic situation in 2006 was significantly different than it is now. The demands on the government to assist the unemployed are far greater and the tax revenue generated is far smaller.

Further, President Obama is not demanding to be allowed to spend more money willy-nilly. He's asking to be allowed to borrow enough to spend the money Congress already authorized him to spend.

How about: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned"

I guess that's kinda long for a sign.

I haven't noticed Slashdot becoming more liberal, unless by "ever more liberal" you mean "there are still some liberals". It seems about the same mix as it did ten years ago.

my question to you is: by what constitutional authority does the treasury department have the right to pay for certain things authorized by Congress and not others?

seriously, light beer commercials are the most brain-dead things I have ever seen. How else are you going to sell that crap?

Every post here says some variation of "Quit whining. This is your fault for trusting Apple not to change the rules."

Which is not the point (or rather you are making the author's point for him). Apple's business practices are (and always have been) aggressively biased against third-parties. It's remarkably consistent and it's their Achilles heel.

The stark lesson is: do not develop for Apple platforms. No matter how shiny or revolutionary the hardware, and no matter how brilliant your idea, Apple will rip you off.

IQ is a measurement.

Problem #1. the appearance of being successful is highly correlated with success. That is, if people around you think you are or are going to be successful, you probably will be successful. If the people around you don't think you'll be successful, you probably wont be successful. (As with all axioms having to do with humans, there are obviously many exceptions)

The IQ test itself may be influencing the outcomes of the people taking the test.

Problem #2. People take the test to confirm what they already know. That is the IQ test may be self-selecting. People who are already on the path to success take the test to confirm that they are geniuses. And other people, who are not doing so well (or have obvious mental deficiencies) take the test to confirm that they have a reason for struggling.

The IQ test may only test for whether you (or your parents) are full of yourself.

I find in most games, learning the mechanics of the game adds to the enjoyment of the game. It's like reading a good novel.

Which is why I shy away from "sport" games. Once you get past the thin gloss of the production values of a game like Starcraft 2, you're left with a mechanical Quest for Mastery. Instead of a novel, you're reading a technical manual.

"Cheating" is a concept that only makes sense in the context of "testing". In the real world, cheating would be called "collaboration".

We have a system of education designed around preparing people for solitary, boring, mindless work.

If you're good at working by yourself on predictable problems you will do really good at high school (and pretty well at college) in the US. If you thrive when interacting with other people and coordinating amongst a variety of skills to solve difficult problems, that ability will rarely be academically useful until you get out of the education system and into the real world.

Hopefully by that point you haven't allowed the deficiencies of public education to undermine your confidence and convince you that there's something wrong with you.