Pangloss

That looks pretty good to me. A minor correction: You can't set a variable equal to a label anymore (I think since VB6?), but if you just append the ".text" method to it then it's fine. Like this: lbl1.text = num1 (Assuming that "lbl1" is your label's name.) Also "Randomize" and "RND" get an empty paramterization space "()" after them, but intellisense in VB7+ will append that automatically. (Skipping the .text, however, would generate an error that might be confusing to a newcomer.) I just tested this whole program in VB7.1 and it runs fine. Good call, 5614.

This has been an interesting story to follow here in South Florida. As you all probably know we have a large community of Cubans, known collectively as the "exiles", who are very sensitive to anything along these lines. Recently it was discovered that schools in Miami-Dade County have a book on their shelves called "Vamos a Cuba". No, it's not an instruction manual about how to leave Cuba on a raft! (But that title sure sounds like it, doesn't it?!) It actually translates as "A Visit to Cuba", and it's about life for people (especially children) in Cuba. It's part of a larger series of children's books about social life in various countries of the world. None of the books take any partisan or ideological views whatsoever -- they could not be more innocuous. But they do portray life in Cuba in a positive light, because the purpose of the series is to show cultural differences, and to reflect what people in that culture consider to be good/positive influences on children. In general the books are reportedly well-though-of, and they are carried on the shelves of many school districts around the country, including Los Angeles and New York City, where apparently nobody has even considered a ban. But since they show life in Cuba in a positive light, the exile community is outraged. And I have to admit, I see their point. I don't really agree with it, but I understand it. I tend to take more of a South Park view on this -- let the kids have this info, and then talk to them about the reality when you (as a parent) think it's appropriate. Anyway, the school board responded to pressure a while back and yanked the book. Shortly thereafter, they yanked all 24 books from the series, in some sort of bizarre fit of hypocrisy-realization. (chuckle) But now a judge has restored the book to the shelves, thanks to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. Apparently it's just a temporary order, until a full trial can be held. (sigh) (I hate it when my money gets spent like this.) http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-0724cubabook,0,606337.story?track=rss Your thoughts?

Interesting story today about how the EU is going to fund embryonic stem cell research. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php One of the things that I thought was interesting about this is that they had to work out a compromise to appease a group of Roman Catholic nations that was opposed to this on religious grounds. One of the compromises was a ban on "research that involved destroying human embryos for the procurement of stem cells". How exactly that's different from what Bush has been requiring I'm not exactly clear, but I'm sure there are some differences and I'm encouraged by the EU's decision. But I do think this goes against the popular leftist notion that this is purely an American problem, or that it's just the right wing that is opposed to this research (that wasn't even true in this country). You know me, I just love to point out flaws in partisan arguments.

Mr D, It looks like you tried to paste some text from Notepad into the editor. That can be problematic sometimes due to the nature of line wrapping and carriage returns. It looks like it was also trimmed at the end. I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but I recommend that you preview your posts before submitting them until you figure it out.

Interesting article from the Associated Press about how the US is working with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to try to convince Syria to bring pressure to bear on Hezbollah to stop the fighting. It's a clever approach, because Egypt has strong political influence in the region, and of course Saudi Arabia has a lot of money. The bargaining chips the US brings to the table in this (appropriately) Syriana-like tale are foreign aid, and of course the ever-popular "improved trade relations". While in some ways it may seem contradictory for Islamic states to oppose a nation that's fighting Israel, they do have some motivation here. As I've mentioned before in this thread, the real player here is not Lebanon, but Iran. As this article mentions, Iran is trying to become the predominent "power broker" for the region, and that is very much an effort that Egypt and Saudi Arabia would like to interrupt. So while this is a task these two nations would happily perform anyway (and in fact, as the article states, this is entirely Egypt's idea), as is usually the case in modern world politics, the Elephant in the Room will also likely have to give something to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in exchange for their "largess", and that something will likely be less pressure on those countries to produce internal democratic reforms. Translation: Arab women will have to wait a bit longer for those driver's licenses. Unmentioned in the article, but still clearly apparent, is the long-standing enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which predates even the Islamic revolution and has a lot to do with each country's concept of how best to sell oil. Expect to hear more about this in the coming week. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Mideast_Fighting_Arab_End_Game.html

Thus demonstrating exactly why this is happening. (sigh)

There were two indications outlined in the link above that it's the latter. - He's admitted to talking to students about his views - He's a member of an organization dedicated to spreading what they perceive to be the truth about 9/11

What I want to know is WTF is Lebanon's Foreign Minister doing reporting on the health of Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah.

Not sure I follow. You have a set of data that may include the number zero, but you want to exclude that from the label if it happens to come up in distribution, is that it? In that case just use something like "if > 0" in your program logic. So it would look something like this: dim myVariable as integer if myVariable > 0 then lblMyLabel.text = myVariable else lblMyLabel.text = "Error: The integer was a zero" end if Make sense?

Interesting guest editorial in the Sunday NY Times about this, written by a law professor at Florida International University: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/23fish.html?ex=1311307200&en=e967d7be6648ae71&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The main point he makes can be seen in this interesting quote: I agree with this position, and I think he makes the point very well.

I think you may have missed my point, because you seem to agree with me rather than them: In point of fact you're identifying more with me than with the people I was talking about. You and I agree that it's a mess, and that it may or may not work out. The group that I was talking about refuses to consider even the possibility that it might work out. It's an undeniable mess. That's a mantra, a rallying cry, a FAITH-based conclusion. Not a truth. Those are clearly not people whom you agree with at all. That's what I'm objecting to, not the notion that it may not work out. The objection I have is to ideological denial of reality, not a mere difference of opinion. YOUR opinion I respect, because it's logical, it's reasoned, it's objective and it's thoughtful. With you it's not about Making Georgie Wrong, it's about what's best for the country in your opinion. That's exactly how political opinions should be formed.

The Senate of the ancient Roman republic were also drafted, based on the productivity of the land they owned. By the time of Caesar, of course, it had become little more than a useful fiction.

"It does kinda look like OJ...."

It's amazing to me the way the far left is running around screaming about how Iraq is completely unsalvagable. It's certainly an ugly mess, but there's no logical reason at this point to think it can't work out. The only motivation for drawing that conclusion at this stage is ideological. It is what it is. We may succeed, we may fail. There's only one way to find out, and their way (immediate withdrawl) ain't it. It's wrong, they know it's wrong, and they can't sell it to anybody, so they're left with nothing but an inconvenient, inapplicable, intractable lie.

Cool. These are the meat and bones of American politics, and I'd love to hear more of these. Also keep an eye on YouTube, sometimes the spots get posted there.

I didn't say it was incorrect, I merely counter-pointed it. What I would like, however, is to know where you got this information. You also haven't addressed my counter-point. Are you unable to do so?

It's not a free speech issue. If it were, you might as well move the creationists right into the biology department. The focus should be on efficient and useful education, not equal treatment of every crackpot theory known to man.

I thought about commenting on that, but I dimly recall the stories floating around a few months ago. What I remember is that they were about back-shelf contingency planning more than anything else. Yawn. I totally understand people being concerned about warfare and nuclear weapons, but this just reeks of scare mongering. Walrusman has it right.

Ok, perhaps not exactly politics, but I couldn't help make note of this. Apparently we've had our first "same-sex divorce", following the recent spate of controversial same-sex marriages. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_separation I got a sad little chuckle out of this contradiction: Um, yeah, okay....

Interesting article in today's Forbes about how research "abounds" in spite of the lack of federal funding. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/07/21/stem-cell-research-cz_kd_0721stemcell.html Although it does suggest that many representatives still fail to understand the scientific issues in play here:

I don't know what people are freaking out about. This is a story about a bunch of isolated, politically ignorant technogeeks with delusions of grandeur and partisan ideology setting their understanding of science aside to make a political statement in the midst of a vacuum of dreamy miscomprehension. This nonsense occupies the same mental territory as Al Gore's "A Convenient Exaggeration".

The only thing I find more unsettling than the prospect of nuclear war is the prospect of a bunch of ideologues dictating what's best for society.

I kinda mentioned this on page one, but just to expand on my thoughts a bit, I think we (those of us in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research) can be philosophical and optimistic about this defeat. - Public opinion is clearly moving in the right direction - It's pretty obvious that the next president will approve a similar bill, whether Democrat or Republican (every major presidential candidate is in favor) - Other nations, and individual American states, as well as corporations, are taking up some of the slack in the meantime, maintaining research momentum and focus It's important to bear in mind that this is how democracy works. A sizable portion of American citizens are opposed to this issue. It's not our way to bludgeon them into cooperation, with unpopular laws or controversial court decisions. Our way, our preferred way, is to win over hearts and minds through public discourse, education and debate. Simply put, we're on the right path, and it's working. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's better this way, but I have no trouble believing that this is going to happen, and in the big picture, I'm not sure that it matters so much when this happens; what matters more is how it happens. Put another way, I'd rather have this pass WITH the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans, than to have to pass against popular opinion and end up with controversy and division hovering over the whole issue in perpetuity. I don't want it to pass tomorrow, I want it to pass with everyone behind it. That's democracy.

Ah, now the 25,000 number makes sense....