Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics Technology

Examining Presidential Candidates' Tech Agendas 274

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the searching-for-a-better-president-to-noise-ratio dept.
Aaron Ricadela writes to mention that BusinessWeek is taking a look at the tech agendas for several presidential candidates. The amount of attention being paid to Silicon Valley especially is unprecedented with the computer industry citing contributions of $2.2 million up from just $1.2 million in the first six months of the 2004 and 2000 primary campaigns. "So even while the general election is likely to be dominated by the war in Iraq, the continued threat of terrorism, and economic issues, candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Examining Presidential Candidates' Tech Agendas

Comments Filter:
  • I hope (Score:5, Funny)

    by Etrias (1121031) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:19PM (#20672163)
    I hope one of their goals is to get bigger tubes for this new "inter-web" thing.

    I hear it could be big.
  • priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)

    I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?
    • Re:priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JesseL (107722) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:33PM (#20672343) Homepage Journal
      Go ahead and give up your internet connection and donate the money to whatever cause you like. That's an admirable notion and I don't think there's any candidate that would try to stop you.

      It's a completely different story if you want to force someone else (via the government) to make sacrifices to fund the cause of your choice.
    • by Tsiangkun (746511)
      If the candidates response to the Jena 6 is any indication,
      no, there are no candidates stepping up to address human needs
      in America, let alone globally.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vertinox (846076)
      I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?

      There is nothing stopping you from canceling your ISP service right now and sending all that money to the Red Cross or Unicef.

      I'll be frank with you... I don't give a damn about most of the human race and would rather not see our nation's over burdened budget used to feed other people who may or may not deserve it. Hell...
  • Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otter (3800) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:23PM (#20672195) Journal
    She also plans to provide incentives for women and minorities to enter math-, science-, and engineering-related fields by making diversity a requirement for federal education and research grants.

    Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 3p1ph4ny (835701)
      My thoughts exactly. I want the smartest man for the job doing research, not someone who was selected because of their race or sex.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bhmit1 (2270)

        My thoughts exactly. I want the smartest man for the job doing research, not someone who was selected because of their race or sex.
        Not to go overly PC, but considering the context of the comment, you should want the smartest person for the job.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway

      The worst part is, even if there's no meaningful implementation of their plan, there exists the very real possibility that whatever they do will be implemented poorly. And I cringe whenever I hear about creating diversity just for diversity's sake.

      Some of you may have caught this Wall Street Journal article [opinionjournal.com] talking about a study (PDF) [usccr.gov] which looked at the drop out rates of minority law school students. Long story short, affirmative action didn't do those students any favors, it actually hurt them by putting

      • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Intron (870560) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @05:25PM (#20672997)
        Instead of affirmative action, I think we can all agree that the present system is much superior, where the non-merit seats go to the children of the richest alumni.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Otter (3800)
          The scientific, math and engineering research Clinton is proposing to restrict is not currently done by "the children of the richest alumni".
    • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by siwelwerd (869956) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @05:07PM (#20672757)

      Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.

      It's not supposed to help research. It's supposed to help women and minorities.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kmac06 (608921)
      The second half is already causing problems. When I applied for an REU (research experience for undergraduates) in physics a couple years ago, I noticed that all of the applications specifically said something like "women and minorities encouraged to apply". One of the programs I didn't get in to sent me a little card and asked me to fill out my sex and ethnicity, along with something like "please fill this out so we can make sure we're not making a mistake." They didn't say it quite like that, but did open
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      In the short term, that's absolutely true.

      In the long term, it's probably beneficial to encourage groups that typically don't go into high tech to do so, just for the purpose of changing the culture around it. Probably, there are women (for example) alive today who, based on their intelligence/aptitudes would've made great engineers, but who became housewives or chose other fields because they didn't grow up around women engineers and weren't exposed to that kind of culture. Most people make most of their
  • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:23PM (#20672203) Homepage Journal
    Gets twisted to mean "Corporate Tech Industry" instead of mere "Tech Industry" when money is involved. More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance. And of course, they look towards more closed source options as well- you don't see any of this money trying to provide policy for alternative energy or open source projects.
    • More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance.
       
      This is what I thought too. I did some digging but come up with a single study that supports this assertion. Are you aware of any?
      • Only Norm Matloff's work and the Programmer's Guild's own internal surveys, which I assume you've already found since those are the two most popular sources, and only one of them is a formal study.

        The second, if you're not familiar with it, was a secret on-site survey done at several workplaces by techies who are working with H-1b visa holders, and it showed a $12,000/year salary difference ($6000/year if you discount by the fact that the business has to spend a lot of money to get an H-1b to begin with, b
        • I haven't really seen all the stuff from Matloff. So thanks for that, I'll read through it.
           
          I've read arguments both ways on the issue and I would just love to see some solid work that might give some objective proof one way or the other.
          • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:59PM (#20672665) Homepage Journal
            Objective proof is something that is rather elusive in economics- since economics is usually based on some implicit axioms that may or may not be true, it's hard to be objective about such things.

            In fact, I think the cheap labor movement comes down to a single pair of completely irreconcilable beliefs about labor. The first is the supply/demand theory of wages, in which whenever you raise the supply of something the price MUST go down, thus increasing the amount of labor available will depress wages. The second belief is the skills/efficiency belief, in which cheap labor merely frees up money for more expensive labor to go elsewhere, and skills are always in demand regardless of supply. These two axioms are diametrically opposed- those who believe one are implicitly denying the other.

            I'm not sure which is true myself, but for any given skill that has become a commodity, as technical engineering and computer programming has, I tend towards the supply/demand theory- that a skill can only demand a wage that fits the supply of that skill in the marketplace, thus increasing the size of the marketplace will increase the supply of that skill and drive real wages down. Skills this doesn't apply to are rare enough skills not to be commodities YET- but given 6.5 billion human beings and limitations on human ability, I personally think we could commoditize just about any skill you can name- including C-level executives.
            • Objective proof is something that is rather elusive in economics- since economics is usually based on some implicit axioms that may or may not be true, it's hard to be objective about such things.

              That's not the reason. The axioms in economics are few, and widely agreed to. The reason that objective proof is elusive is that human beings are not at all objective. Trying to predict the exact number of jobs created/lost due to a specific tax change is as futile as trying to predict the exact population of carib
        • by Bobzibub (20561)
          Not to doubt double secret salary studies...... but.....

          Phone: Ring Ring.....
          Abdul: Hello? Abdul Speaking.
          Billy Bob: Hey Abdul, Billy Bob here... Which way to Mecca? HA HA HA HA!!!! Bye the way, how much are you making?
          Abdul: Seventy-fi..---uhh, fifty five K. Why do you ask?
          Billy Bob: Thanks a million swarthy bastard!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billly Gates (198444)
        The law of supply and demand.

        If supply increases then so does demand as the buyers have more bargaining power to select those with the lowest price. In other words if the quantity is more limited then techs can demand more in salary as they have the bargaining power. But artificially changing the supply has the same adverse effect with the wages as if you dont do x for y wage then this Indian will. Take it or leave it?

        I wonder if we had h1b1 employers to help us bring some more foreign firms to hire to arti
    • by siwelwerd (869956)

      More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance.

      Hiring someone who does as good or a better job than you for cheaper instead of you means your company can save money; hence, your company's customers can save money. The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.

      • Hiring someone who does as good or a better job than you for cheaper instead of you means your company can save money; hence, your company's customers can save money.

        Ah, yes, the skills/efficiency argument. See the other post on why this is a denial of classical microeconomics.

        The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.

        Which is just about every American, since our standard of living has pretty much priced u
  • And yet again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JesseL (107722) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:25PM (#20672225) Homepage Journal
    ...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.
    • what is this, digg? :)
    • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:31PM (#20672321) Journal

      ...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.
      Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in.
      • ...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.

        Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in.

        Ron Paul on Technology [ontheissues.org]

        Because it's ever so on-topic : )

        Oh, and there's this thing about him on Wired: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/09/ronpaul_supporters [wired.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689)

        Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market,

        I'm sorry, despite all the wonderful positions Ron Paul has... his foreign policy is a mess.
        Withdraw from NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, NATO, and to top it off, stop foreign aid.
        There's no doubt doing those things will affect his free market policies.

        It's really not a credible position to take, unless you want to disrupt foreign economies, which will in turn disrupt the U.S. economy.

        What do you think will happen to the "free market" when Russia & China move into the power vaccuum left by a U.S. retreat? Mark

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by rolfwind (528248)
          He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism [wikipedia.org]

          "Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."

          As for the rest of your fear mongering prattle, he is for free trade - just not the corporate welfare protectionist trade like NAFTA represents.

          And no, when your country is $9 trillion in the hole and $50 trillion
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Khomar (529552)
            Not to mention the fact that since most Americans will end up with more money in their pockets (no IRS), charitable giving is likely to rise. It is the vast outpouring of charitable gifts from individual Americans that often do the best to actually help the citizens of other countries as opposed to their governments. With this money, wells are dug, farms are planted, and children receive education and proper nutrition. This results in a much better long term picture for third world countries.
        • Ron Paul is all in favor of free trade, he's just against the bureaucratic "managed" trade of NAFTA and the WTO.

          As for the UN, I'm indifferent as to whether we stay in or get out. I'm not sure what we get out of it other than foreigners using their diplomatic immunity to park illegally in Manhattan.

          I think we should have gotten out of NATO long ago. American leadership of NATO made some sense when Europe was shattered by WW II and there were serious concerns that Stalin would extend his empire further

        • by enjerth (892959)
          And he wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and a whole bunch of other departments.

          But if you stop your knee-jerk reaction for a moment and look through the haze, you'll see that he's not against national security, intelligence gathering, federal law enforcement, education or energy. He's against the BUREAUCRACY of these departments that have made them wasteful, inefficient and sometimes just plain unconstitutional.
    • Part of the reason my be that Ron Paul has not made any bold dramatic "plans" for the intertubes. He's not going to regulate them, not going to subsidize them, doesn't promise a taxpayer funded last mile, isn't going to pave a superhighway into every living room, isn't going to excoriate Bill gates, etc.

      His philosophy is too simple for the modern media: leave the internet alone.

      Here's his talk at Google. He does talk a bit about some tech issues.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg&mode=related [youtube.com]
  • Conspicuously absent (Score:4, Informative)

    by allthefish (1158249) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:27PM (#20672243)
    i find it interesting that Former Senator Mike Gravel was not mentioned in TFA. Although he's far from a mainstream candidate (much to my chagrin), he's been the oevrall biggest supporter of net neutrality among the candidates. From his official platform [gravel2008.us]:


    Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies who are using their networks to limit the amount of websites their customers can view, and the speed at which they can view them. Examples range from, being forced to use the search engines your Internet Service Providers (ISP), only being able to view streaming videos that your ISP deems acceptable, and charging a website an extra fee to maintain the usual connection speed. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with no restricted access to any site, for any reason. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage. Intelligent replies welcome, redirect flames to /dev/null
  • by Petskull (650178) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:33PM (#20672339)
    Why should political aspirants have prejudicial tech inclinations? I look forward to a future of impartial leaders that give unfamiliar issues equal weight relying on subject matter experts from all sides. Sound, informed decisions without prejudice.

    Unless they want to replace all government machines with Ubuntu- then they already got my vote.
  • by scoser (780371) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:33PM (#20672345) Journal
    1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
    2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
    3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
    4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
    3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.
    • sad, but true.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache (459504)

      1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
      2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
      3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
      4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
      3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.

      Maybe it would be a good idea to join grassroots effort to support a minor candidate, then.
      Then you can get two people to join you, and they can get two people each, and so on, and get candidates that appeal to the people, rather than to the oligopolies that own the media.

      No... not maybe. Definitely! Find a candidate that makes sense to you, and do something to spread the word, vote, get others to vote!

      Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!

    • by gerf (532474)

      Why do you think so many people who've heard his views are pro Ron Paul?

      Speaking of which, why are you even on slashdot if you hadn't even heard of him? Something's not quite right..

      Hey ya'll, I think we gots an imposter here. Git 'em!

    • Kinda makes you wonder why we can't have a candidate who _doesn't_ want to screw America.  You'd think one of them would want to not do that.
  • DUH (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the Democrats win, we'll be living like Star Trek on January 21, 2009. If the Republicans win, we'll all instantly forget that fire and the wheel ever existed on that date.
  • by Mononoke (88668) on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:39PM (#20672423) Homepage Journal
    The only technological topic addressed by Mitt Romney on his recent trip to my part of Texas was this: "We've got to get pornography off the internet!"

    So basically, just more "think of the children" pandering.

    • Well, his campaign team did briefly have an ad up about the importance of importing Mormon brides from Indonesia and Kurdistan, but the focus groups decided that wouldn't play well with a lot of voters.

      (Ah, but I do miss Hunter S. Thompson)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HungWeiLo (250320)
      Well, with his 5 healthy sons in their primes and their idle hands [cbsnews.com] from the fact that none of them serve in the war that their father supports, he certainly needs to devote a lot of effort to ensure that none of them engage in anything tomfoolery with their idle hands.
  • Watch out for Romney (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GrEp (89884) <crb002&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @04:51PM (#20672547) Homepage Journal
    Romney gave me the willies when listening to his Iowa Straw Poll speech. He advocated that every computer sold in the US be installed with government spyware to protect the children.

    As usual Ron Paul isn't mentioned. IMHO he is right on that as long as the justice department does it's job in enforcing RICO statues and other laws barring ISP's from coercing their customers we should be fine. The reason our telecom system is a mess is the monopoly deals the congress entered into in the 1990s. Stop all federal funding of telecom projects and true competition should normalize the market. States are more than capable of funding basic telecom to rural areas.
  • Clinton has said she'll triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by a third. She also plans to provide incentives for women and minorities to enter math-, science-, and engineering-related fields by making diversity a requirement for federal education and research grants.

    So basically, being racist and sexist is the way to move our technology forward? Extra money and grants only awarded to people of certain races and sexes by the goverment is nothing more than blatant racism and sexism. How can anybody support this? The money should go to those that need it or deserve it the most, not the person who happened to be born a certain race/sex. This is ludicrous.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by moogle001 (563970)

      Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.

      To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me

      • by phantomlord (38815) <slashdot@krwtec h . c om> on Wednesday September 19, 2007 @07:19PM (#20674537) Journal

        To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.

        One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
        So, a white male born to a single welfare mother in the ghetto of a dying city has a more advantageous position than, say, Oprah Winfrey's children (if she were to have some)? If you want to truly promote equal opportunity, neither race nor sex is are primary factors. Parent's education level and economic background, the quality of public schools in the area, undue family hardships (father died from an injury at work or maybe mom died from cancer while the child was young), the person's intellect, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, etc are all what you should look at.

        When you say "This grant is only for people who were born without a penis (or perhaps people who chopped theirs off) or are not from a pure Caucasian descent," you are saying that those people are inherently inferior to all white males and they cannot make it on their own regardless of their personal circumstances. I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies. Hillary might as well hang a sign outside her restaurant that says "No White Males" and we can go back to the days of segregation. Two wrongs don't make a right.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AeroIllini (726211)
        I, for one, welcome more women in scientific and engineering disciplines.

        Bring on the ladies!
      • by pokerdad (1124121)

        We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.

        If this were true, as much effort and money would go into getting more men into nursing and child care as goes into getting more women into computers and engineering.

      • by izomiac (815208)
        Assuming that affirmative action does indeed make things fairer, what keeps the effects from accumulating? All levels of education that I've encountered use some form of affirmative action. So, for a researcher, a typical route might be: private high school, college, graduate/professional school, research grant. If you give caucasian males a 10% affirmative action disadvantage at every step, the final disadvantage would be 35%, which makes things unfair again. Even with just college and graduate/profess
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mspangler (770054)
        "white males are born into an advantageous position"

        That must explain why I had to join the Navy for 8 years to get the money for college.

        That must also explain why my father did not graduate from high school.

        And why his father died at 50, forcing Dad to take over the farm at 16, which is why he had to drop out of high school.

        You are a dolt, or have a huge silver spoon in your mouth with attendant guilt, or are a blatant racist. I'm not sure which, and I'm not really interested in picking a category for yo
  • by thesolo (131008) *

    Candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education.

    Does this translate into any of these candidates supporting the finalisation of the US going metric?

    (Before this question s

    • That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Barely anything metric is used in common use, are you going to make people run out and buy new sets of wrenches or something? Just because metric is used a lot in science doesn't mean the common man uses it.

      Besides, I'm lazy. Leave me alone, the imperial system works for me!!

      • by thesolo (131008) *
        Why would anyone have to buy new wrenches? Cars have been metric for decades, even domestic makers use the metric system for their cars. Your fuel tanks are sized in litres, even if your owners manuals have the size in gallons.

        Products in the US often suffer from 'hidden metrication'. Altoids are sold in 50 gram tins, but then they are labelled as "1.76 ounces". Body wash is often in 700 or 900 mL sizes, but labelled as 23.7 or 30 ounces.

        Buy Listerine lately? It's only available in 250 mL, 500 mL
      • by 2short (466733)
        Who would buy new wrenches? We'd just get rid of half of them and have less confusion and more space in our toolboxes. You can't have a decently competent shop without metric tools now anyway.
      • by compro01 (777531)
        are you going to make people run out and buy new sets of wrenches or something?

        i haven't yet found a single non-metric bolt on my American-made '93 Plymouth, which has a 2.5Litre inline-4.

        you're going metric. just gradually so people don't notice and cause an unnecessary fuss.
        • And in contrast, almost every bolt on my '97 Dodge Intrepid is not metric. There are a few metric bolts, but the vast majority aren't.
  • by Applekid (993327)
    And not one is going to promise not to enforce the DMCA, put people on the bench to rule against it, or back congressional candidates that will have it removed from law.

    If none of the candidates can see the error of the many provisions of the DMCA that are detrimental to the citizenry, I can then easily assume they're just spouting whatever gibberish their political handlers taught them to pronounce correctly.
  • Is anyone else frightened that the government should have a "tech agenda," meaning further control and regulation of the tech industry, in the first place? Should be really be applauding political robber barons for stealing our tax dollars and enriching themselves from various government schemes? Getting in bed with the government is like getting into bed with a pitcher plant.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...