The irony of your comment is that the so-called "Pave the Earthers" who want to sell off Yellowtone Park to create timeshares are no more representative of the right wing than is this disturbed jerk representative of the left. You engage in the same partisan misrepresentation which you ridicule, though with opposing polarity.
'FDA could fix this tubing problem tomorrow, but because the agency is so worried about making industry happy, people continue to die,' says Dr. Robert Smith."
As someone who works in the medical device industry, let me say, that statement is preposterous. The FDA is not worried about "making the industry happy." First, to the extent that FDA has a bias, it is staffed with anti-corporate zealots who believe that making a profit from the sick and dying is unethical and are out to make the industry unhappy. Secondly, there is no reason whatsoever that this initiative has to come from the government. Just like 802.11, firewire, bluetooth and every POSIX did not come from a government agency, neither would a tubing standard. Third, selling specialized tubing products to hospitals would be more, not less profitable than commodity tubing products. Fourth, if the industry did create a standard, the barriers to developing and deploying that would be the FDA. Rule of thumb is that the cost of bringing a product to market is about 10X under FDA regulation than not and delays in FDA approval can be several years.
Dan Maes, a candidate for governor of Colorado...goes on to argue that the bicycle program is only a gateway into bigger policies including, but not limited to, forced abortions and population control.
The news article to which it links to states:
Nate Strauch told The Associated Press that Maes was trying to say that the biking initiative is a "gateway program" being pushed by ICLEI on cities that eventually lead to extreme measures, such as the promotion of abortions and population control.
So the summary misattributes to a Republican candiate statements about a U.N. conspiracy to promote abortions and exercise population control.
... In the ideal dreamworld of the free market fanatics, there's always this "competition" solution that solves every problem and gives the best answer to every question...
Wow, you really beat the crap out that straw man.
How about confronting the actual facts of what advocates for freedom state instead of misrepresenting their views to score some mod points on slashdot? Nobody is making those exaggerated claims about free markets as you claim; that is lie which you made up. Render your expression with the inverted bias:
... In the ideal dreamworld of the big-governement fanatics, there's always this "regulatory" solution that solves every problem and gives the best answer to every question...
That might be about as accurate as your own statement, which is to say, not accurate at all.
As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.
It seems more likely to me that she meant that...
Ok, you have a point there. Let me fix that:
As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." What she knows is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.
Those in disagreement can download that 3.8 MB PDF and read it before commenting.
You ignored the central and indisputable point of my comment, that modern U.S. legislation is incomprehensible. Instead, you focused on the unknowable and irrelevant question of what Nancy Pelosi intended to mean.
That the actual text of the legislation is missing is insignficant because, even if we had that, we could not understand it. Laws enacted by congress are incomprehensible, even to the congressmen who vote from them. As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it. Here, for example, is a randomly selected segment of the over 1000 page long ObamaCare act:
(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—Not later than the date that is 1 year after the date on which the final regulations promulgated under section 1124(c)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), are published in the Federal Register, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make the information reported in accordance with such final regulations avail- able to the public in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.— (A) SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.—Section 1819(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3(d)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B). (B) NURSING FACILITIES.—Section 1919(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(d)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B). (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date on which the Secretary makes the information described in subsection (b)(1) available to the public under such subsection.
“In losing Mark Hurd, the H.P. board failed to act in the best interest of H.P.’s employees, shareholders, customers and partners,” Mr. Ellison wrote.
Even those who side with the HP board in their decision would agree with Mr. Ellison on that point. The issue is not whether the board damaged HP, of course they did, it is whether the greater good of enforcing ethical conduct was served by doing so.
The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion
Apart from telling his daughter – the scientist’s mother – about the incident when she was nine, the bodyguard, who was “greatly affected by his experience”, only disclosed the details to his wife on his deathbed in 1973.
The scientist, also an expert in astronomy who said he developed software for use in "spacecraft thermal engineering", was told years later by his mother.
President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011.
Those 50,000 American servicemen will be sitting ducks; Obama has just promised the terrorists that if they attack our troops in Iraq after 31 August that we will not counterstrike. Peace and democracy in Iraq depends on the definite assurance that we would counterstrike. What happened to all the talk of making decisions based on, "conditions on the ground?"
Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals.
Newsflash - a set is different from a component of a set...
For the sake of argument, specifically a Reductio ad absurdum argument, assume that freedoms of no individuals are denied if we specify which individuals will be denied freedoms by identifying them as members of a set.
Let's start out with blacks and enact a law that the set of all black people will be prohibited from learning to read. The crime of learning to read will be punished by fifty lashes with a whip. Repeat offenders will be put to death. By your logic, because the criminalization of literacy applies to the set of black people, the rights of individual black people have not been violated.
Consider the set of all slashdot users with the handle "NeutronCowboy". That set will be immediately castrated. Now, according to your own logic, you can not object that your rights have been violated, because the law does not apply to you. It applies to the set which includes you. Your panicked protestations as the surgeon begins the surgical removal of your testicles are grounded only in your personal failure to understand the distinction between a set and the members of that set.
If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Nice sentiment, but completely, utterly wrong...
More evidence of your bizarre conviction that it is possible to deny rights to a group of people without denying rights to the members of that group. You do not have a point, you have a psychological problem known as cognitive dissonance; Your impulse to shut up people who work for corporations combined with your own belief in yourself as a just person causes you to produce faulty arguments in support of that impulse.
The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers.
The FCC is trying to protect consumers, you fuck....
If your argument is short of facts then substitute profanity. And hey, look what the wikipedia article on regulatory capturesays:
Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a federal regulatory body in the United States, had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale University School of Law has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries’ leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of “‘corporate socialism’” that serves to “regressively tax consumers,” impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, “stifle innovation, and “diminish consumer choice". [3]. The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public. [4].
Why should any of us give a damn about freedoms for corporations? Take a look at the constitution of the United States of America some time, and you might notice that the document does not make many guarantees about freedoms for enterprises or corporations of any sort...
A: Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals. I you deny a freedom to a group then you necessarily deny freedoms to the indviduals which comprise that group. You can not simultaneously advocate for individual freedoms and against corporate freedoms. If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Voltaire*:" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not Votaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, unless you are speaking on behalf of corporate interests, in which case I advocate that you be fined or imprisoned."
A single flaw in a common security architecture is a pervasive vulnerability whereas a heterogenous system is robust to targeted attacks.
They would do better to solicit bids for multiple systems from private contractors and place the NSA as well as the public security community in the roles of auditors. That would also allay concerns about covert monitoring by the NSA.
Open-sourceing the product and allowing public audits is advantageous because what is sometimes obscured by "Security through obscurity" is that foreign operatives have covertly horked your source code and analyzed if for vulnerabilities.
What FEMA did for Katrina and the EPA did for the golf oil spill this program will do for online security: create an ineffective program which creates a false sense of protection, displacing genuinely effective protective measures. I am not saying that there is no roll for government here, but rather than the rolls played by government are typically either useless or harmful and it would be nice if it took a different approach; Give the Harvard MBAs and MIT and Caltech Ph.D engineeers working at Cisco and IBM opportunities to innovate and place the government and public in the role of customers holding contractors accountable for supplying quality products.
There are a few distinct concepts which have been conflated: - The size of the Open Source software market as measure in dollar revenues. - The total number of Open Source software deployments. - The value of Open Source software to its users, as measure in revenues of its users (e.g. Google) - The size of the largest corporation operating in the Open Source software market.
The assumption that with Open Source software those measures would be in the same relation as with closed-source software markets is probably incorrect. In particular, using the sizes of the largest corporations as a proxy for the "success" of Open Source software is bogus. The Open Source Software business might tend to fragment into multiple vendors because the license permits that, whereas in the closed source market services cohere around large corporations, the software copyright holders.
The failure of predication here was not to overestimate the success of Open Source software. It has been a wild success. Rather, the failure was to to predict the specific forms which that success would take, which Open Source business models would succeed and particularly which corporations would be winners and which losers. Some predicted that companies which rigidly devoted themselves to vending purely Open Source solutions would prosper the most. That prediction has proven incorrect. The actual outcome seems to be the Open Source adoption is broad but the biggest winners are not strict adherents to the ideology. Significantly, Google, current market cap. 154.65B, runs on Linux. Apple is thriving and its machines run the Open Source Darwin in combination with proprietary layers on top. IBM provides Linux on its servers.
Conclusion: Open Source software is a muti-billion dollar business but the winners in that market were not the Open Source purists.
"Google says they've offered to just destroy the data, in cooperation with national regulators, but the German government wants to know what they've collected."
Ya, that's what the German government says. But more probably:
"Google says they've offered to just destroy the data, in cooperation with national regulators, but the German government wants what they've collected."
The government already funds software development and the past results of that funding predict the would-be future success of a government coding office; It would be a massive, expensive failure. The Census Bureau IRS, FBI and FAA have records of incredible, mind-boggling, massive failure in producing software. Not to mention state funded universities, the University of Wisconsin being the most recent travesty.
The unstated assumption that government involvement in software production would improve, and not degrade, the quality of software is ludicrous in light of evidence from past results.
But it would not only fail. As with other government agencies, it would be subverted by special interests for nefarious causes. Patents and Trademarks, established to promote creative works, are abused by patent trolls to threaten innovation and by politicians who extort campaign donations in return for incremental, perpetual copyright extension. The Department of Agricultural, now a wholly owned subsidiary of ADM, runs welfare-for-millionairs programs. Oh, and have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Government coding office? What could possibly go wrong with that?
So this seems like a good thing to me. There is now something which, if you have a particular kind of cancer, you can take it and there is a good chance that it will stop you from dying. So in the near future people who otherwise would have died will buy this stuff and live instead. As a result, medical spending will bump up because there is now one more thing people can spend money to live longer. This component of medical spending increase seems like a good one. And that is why the often repeated, primary goal of Obamacare, to reduce medical spending, seems 100% ass-backwards to me. Medical spending increases are good. Decreases are bad. Most people want to spend more money so that they can live longer. The President wants them to spend less money and the consequence is that they will die sooner.
Obama was right; Medical spending in the U.S. is increasing. But so is iPod spending. Apple introduced the first iPod on 23 October 2001 and since has sold 220 million iPods. Between October 22 and today, there has been a massive increase in iPod spending. Yet there is no federal campaign to cap iPod sales, to urgent necessity to relieve Americans of the growing iPod spending burden. Apple is happy to sell them and for the most part the owners enjoy having them. The increasing sales represent a component of national economic growth. A national campaign to cap iPod spending makes exactly as much sense as a national campaign to cap medical spending.
In 1969 there were no microprocessors. Then intel introduced the 4004 in 1970 and today they are everywhere. It has been a revolution and most people believe a good one. But note that spending on commercial CPUs in 1969 was $0.00 and today it is umpteen bazillion gazillon dollars. But what if Reagan had declared a "CPU crisis" in the 80's when spending was heating up and enacted price controls and national spending limits on silicon? Then then in 2010 I would be posting this message to a BBS on my 80286 running MS-DOS.
Spending increases on silicon paid for the silicon revolution. The medical revolution which would have hit will be long delayed or never arrive because Obamacare limits the increases in spending which would have paid for those. Cures for spinal cord damage which leave patients paralyzed, curse for diabetes which kills, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Lupus.
What George Bush did to limit stem cell research was a disgrace. What Obama and congressional Democrats has done is horrific. Millions of Americans will die of what would have been curable diseases.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony of your comment is that the so-called "Pave the Earthers" who want to sell off Yellowtone Park to create timeshares are no more representative of the right wing than is this disturbed jerk representative of the left. You engage in the same partisan misrepresentation which you ridicule, though with opposing polarity.
'FDA could fix this tubing problem tomorrow, but because the agency is so worried about making industry happy, people continue to die,' says Dr. Robert Smith."
As someone who works in the medical device industry, let me say, that statement is preposterous. The FDA is not worried about "making the industry happy." First, to the extent that FDA has a bias, it is staffed with anti-corporate zealots who believe that making a profit from the sick and dying is unethical and are out to make the industry unhappy. Secondly, there is no reason whatsoever that this initiative has to come from the government. Just like 802.11, firewire, bluetooth and every POSIX did not come from a government agency, neither would a tubing standard. Third, selling specialized tubing products to hospitals would be more, not less profitable than commodity tubing products. Fourth, if the industry did create a standard, the barriers to developing and deploying that would be the FDA. Rule of thumb is that the cost of bringing a product to market is about 10X under FDA regulation than not and delays in FDA approval can be several years.
The slashdot summary incorrectly states:
The news article to which it links to states:
So the summary misattributes to a Republican candiate statements about a U.N. conspiracy to promote abortions and exercise population control.
There is a similar case of a pine tree in a lung.
... In the ideal dreamworld of the free market fanatics, there's always this "competition" solution that solves every problem and gives the best answer to every question...
Wow, you really beat the crap out that straw man .
How about confronting the actual facts of what advocates for freedom state instead of misrepresenting their views to score some mod points on slashdot? Nobody is making those exaggerated claims about free markets as you claim; that is lie which you made up. Render your expression with the inverted bias:
... In the ideal dreamworld of the big-governement fanatics, there's always this "regulatory" solution that solves every problem and gives the best answer to every question...
That might be about as accurate as your own statement, which is to say, not accurate at all.
If you don't like the FCC regulations, write your congressperson, get them changed.
And remember to enclose your non-refundable cash or check payment.
I live in Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City and have the option of at least 3 ISPs:
-- AT&T U-verse fiber or DSL.
-- Time-Warner RoadRunner cable
-- Clear
When I called Time-Warner to cancel my service after my AT&T fiber hookup their price suddenly became negotiable.
was there a second crash?
No, actually all the same crash, but the tail sections broke off in flight and landed separately on the other side of the island.
As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.
It seems more likely to me that she meant that ...
Ok, you have a point there. Let me fix that:
Those in disagreement can download that 3.8 MB PDF and read it before commenting.
You ignored the central and indisputable point of my comment, that modern U.S. legislation is incomprehensible. Instead, you focused on the unknowable and irrelevant question of what Nancy Pelosi intended to mean.
That the actual text of the legislation is missing is insignficant because, even if we had that, we could not understand it. Laws enacted by congress are incomprehensible, even to the congressmen who vote from them. As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it. Here, for example, is a randomly selected segment of the over 1000 page long ObamaCare act:
from the linked NY Times article:
Even those who side with the HP board in their decision would agree with Mr. Ellison on that point. The issue is not whether the board damaged HP, of course they did, it is whether the greater good of enforcing ethical conduct was served by doing so.
Nope, no room for doubt here. From the article:
Those 50,000 American servicemen will be sitting ducks; Obama has just promised the terrorists that if they attack our troops in Iraq after 31 August that we will not counterstrike. Peace and democracy in Iraq depends on the definite assurance that we would counterstrike. What happened to all the talk of making decisions based on, "conditions on the ground?"
..read that as "DefCon Ninja Badgers Let Hackers Do Battle"
Actually, that would be much cooler. They should replace the badges with ninja badgers.
Slashdot previously interviewed Rob Pike.
Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals.
Newsflash - a set is different from a component of a set...
For the sake of argument, specifically a Reductio ad absurdum argument, assume that freedoms of no individuals are denied if we specify which individuals will be denied freedoms by identifying them as members of a set.
Let's start out with blacks and enact a law that the set of all black people will be prohibited from learning to read. The crime of learning to read will be punished by fifty lashes with a whip. Repeat offenders will be put to death. By your logic, because the criminalization of literacy applies to the set of black people, the rights of individual black people have not been violated.
Consider the set of all slashdot users with the handle "NeutronCowboy". That set will be immediately castrated. Now, according to your own logic, you can not object that your rights have been violated, because the law does not apply to you. It applies to the set which includes you. Your panicked protestations as the surgeon begins the surgical removal of your testicles are grounded only in your personal failure to understand the distinction between a set and the members of that set.
If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Nice sentiment, but completely, utterly wrong...
More evidence of your bizarre conviction that it is possible to deny rights to a group of people without denying rights to the members of that group. You do not have a point, you have a psychological problem known as cognitive dissonance; Your impulse to shut up people who work for corporations combined with your own belief in yourself as a just person causes you to produce faulty arguments in support of that impulse.
The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers.
The FCC is trying to protect consumers, you fuck. ...
If your argument is short of facts then substitute profanity. And hey, look what the wikipedia article on regulatory capturesays:
Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a federal regulatory body in the United States, had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale University School of Law has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries’ leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of “‘corporate socialism’” that serves to “regressively tax consumers,” impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, “stifle innovation, and “diminish consumer choice". [3]. The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public. [4].
Q:
Why should any of us give a damn about freedoms for corporations? Take a look at the constitution of the United States of America some time, and you might notice that the document does not make many guarantees about freedoms for enterprises or corporations of any sort...
A: Because it is logically inconsistent to grant freedom to indivivduals while simultaneously denying freedom to groups of individuals. I you deny a freedom to a group then you necessarily deny freedoms to the indviduals which comprise that group. You can not simultaneously advocate for individual freedoms and against corporate freedoms. If you oppose corporate freedoms then, logically, you oppose individual freedom.
Voltaire* :" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not Votaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, unless you are speaking on behalf of corporate interests, in which case I advocate that you be fined or imprisoned."
*Actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall
A single flaw in a common security architecture is a pervasive vulnerability whereas a heterogenous system is robust to targeted attacks.
They would do better to solicit bids for multiple systems from private contractors and place the NSA as well as the public security community in the roles of auditors. That would also allay concerns about covert monitoring by the NSA.
Open-sourceing the product and allowing public audits is advantageous because what is sometimes obscured by "Security through obscurity" is that foreign operatives have covertly horked your source code and analyzed if for vulnerabilities.
What FEMA did for Katrina and the EPA did for the golf oil spill this program will do for online security: create an ineffective program which creates a false sense of protection, displacing genuinely effective protective measures. I am not saying that there is no roll for government here, but rather than the rolls played by government are typically either useless or harmful and it would be nice if it took a different approach; Give the Harvard MBAs and MIT and Caltech Ph.D engineeers working at Cisco and IBM opportunities to innovate and place the government and public in the role of customers holding contractors accountable for supplying quality products.
All those people saw slashdot yesterday and want to not read Ulysses.
There are a few distinct concepts which have been conflated:
- The size of the Open Source software market as measure in dollar revenues.
- The total number of Open Source software deployments.
- The value of Open Source software to its users, as measure in revenues of its users (e.g. Google)
- The size of the largest corporation operating in the Open Source software market.
The assumption that with Open Source software those measures would be in the same relation as with closed-source software markets is probably incorrect. In particular, using the sizes of the largest corporations as a proxy for the "success" of Open Source software is bogus. The Open Source Software business might tend to fragment into multiple vendors because the license permits that, whereas in the closed source market services cohere around large corporations, the software copyright holders.
The failure of predication here was not to overestimate the success of Open Source software. It has been a wild success. Rather, the failure was to to predict the specific forms which that success would take, which Open Source business models would succeed and particularly which corporations would be winners and which losers. Some predicted that companies which rigidly devoted themselves to vending purely Open Source solutions would prosper the most. That prediction has proven incorrect. The actual outcome seems to be the Open Source adoption is broad but the biggest winners are not strict adherents to the ideology. Significantly, Google, current market cap. 154.65B, runs on Linux. Apple is thriving and its machines run the Open Source Darwin in combination with proprietary layers on top. IBM provides Linux on its servers.
Conclusion: Open Source software is a muti-billion dollar business but the winners in that market were not the Open Source purists.
summary says:
Ya, that's what the German government says. But more probably:
The government already funds software development and the past results of that funding predict the would-be future success of a government coding office; It would be a massive, expensive failure. The Census Bureau IRS, FBI and FAA have records of incredible, mind-boggling, massive failure in producing software. Not to mention state funded universities, the University of Wisconsin being the most recent travesty.
The unstated assumption that government involvement in software production would improve, and not degrade, the quality of software is ludicrous in light of evidence from past results.
But it would not only fail. As with other government agencies, it would be subverted by special interests for nefarious causes. Patents and Trademarks, established to promote creative works, are abused by patent trolls to threaten innovation and by politicians who extort campaign donations in return for incremental, perpetual copyright extension. The Department of Agricultural, now a wholly owned subsidiary of ADM, runs welfare-for-millionairs programs. Oh, and have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Government coding office? What could possibly go wrong with that?
So this seems like a good thing to me. There is now something which, if you have a particular kind of cancer, you can take it and there is a good chance that it will stop you from dying. So in the near future people who otherwise would have died will buy this stuff and live instead. As a result, medical spending will bump up because there is now one more thing people can spend money to live longer. This component of medical spending increase seems like a good one. And that is why the often repeated, primary goal of Obamacare, to reduce medical spending, seems 100% ass-backwards to me. Medical spending increases are good. Decreases are bad. Most people want to spend more money so that they can live longer. The President wants them to spend less money and the consequence is that they will die sooner.
Obama was right; Medical spending in the U.S. is increasing. But so is iPod spending. Apple introduced the first iPod on 23 October 2001 and since has sold 220 million iPods. Between October 22 and today, there has been a massive increase in iPod spending. Yet there is no federal campaign to cap iPod sales, to urgent necessity to relieve Americans of the growing iPod spending burden. Apple is happy to sell them and for the most part the owners enjoy having them. The increasing sales represent a component of national economic growth. A national campaign to cap iPod spending makes exactly as much sense as a national campaign to cap medical spending.
In 1969 there were no microprocessors. Then intel introduced the 4004 in 1970 and today they are everywhere. It has been a revolution and most people believe a good one. But note that spending on commercial CPUs in 1969 was $0.00 and today it is umpteen bazillion gazillon dollars. But what if Reagan had declared a "CPU crisis" in the 80's when spending was heating up and enacted price controls and national spending limits on silicon? Then then in 2010 I would be posting this message to a BBS on my 80286 running MS-DOS.
Spending increases on silicon paid for the silicon revolution. The medical revolution which would have hit will be long delayed or never arrive because Obamacare limits the increases in spending which would have paid for those. Cures for spinal cord damage which leave patients paralyzed, curse for diabetes which kills, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Lupus.
What George Bush did to limit stem cell research was a disgrace. What Obama and congressional Democrats has done is horrific. Millions of Americans will die of what would have been curable diseases.
Wow!