Amen brother. Most of the world is controlled by tin pot dictators and strong arm thugs, no intervention from the US necessary.
OLPC was always a liberal wet dream; if we all wish real hard, maybe we can stop the rain! Why would anyone think you could create hardware and software better and cheaper than what the rest of the world could do? Sorry, but no matter how noble your intentions you still can't pull a rabbit out of a hat just because you want to.
This is more proof, as if it was needed, that the OLPC project was the quintessence of wishful thinking. Stop wasting money on a failed concept; just buy the little bastards a netbook and call it a day.
Not quite. This was just a scam although it could have been a lot worse. The basic problem is that a lot of people don't really understand technology. If there's going to be any Mccarthy style overreaction it should be to throw this guy in jail for a long, long time.
Wow. For real, bloodthirsty hate it takes a leftist. If someone did that to obama you'd be screaming racism and calling for the perp to be imprisoned for life for hate crimes. Since Berlusconi's on the right, assault is A-OK.
Ever bother to examine the contradictions in your beliefs?
The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny. The problem as I see it is one of oversight. I don't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase. For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game. Why? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.
If a government agency wants to look at what you're doing, they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence.
Mine, too, mainly because it's so *possible*. Worse yet, there's a pretty good chance it WILL be something I need. I really hate personalized results. Amazon continues to recommend music I hate simply because I bought some CD's as gifts. Sure, there's ways around it but it's a pain in the butt, and sometimes you just want to know what everyone else likes.
There really needs to be some simple way to get these recommendation engines to stop showing results for a particular category without having to get into some amazingly complex Boolean search set.
Once thing that's certain: this, like all other climate research relating to AGW, will descend into a hyper-partisan he said-she said type argument. This guarantees it will be impossible for anyone unwilling or unable to validate and analyze the data themselves to come to a rational conclusion.
One thing is crystal clear: these guys are biased in a way that is completely antithetical to true scientific research.
None of this stuff is surprising in any way. You're right that consumers should worry more about monopolies, yet this competition is proof that the monopolies are weaker than ever, which is a win for consumers. Google has been deliberately undermining MS for years for example by supporting firefox in order to wrest the browser market from MS. Once they went public with the Chrome browser, android and the chrome OS it became obvious that Google feels strong enough to go head to head with MS in a far more direct manner. The mere fact that MS felt compelled to create Bing (and IE 8, etc.) illustrates that Google is successfully pressuring MS.
In the end it all comes down to how they get paid. MS wants cash up front, Google gets money from ad revenue. So long as the dichotomy remains healthy and dynamic it will result in more consumer choice. Just don't act surprised down the road if, in the event Google becomes the market dominating monolith MS once was, they begin acting like a monopoly. In the end they're still just a business, predictably out to make a profit.
Comparison to the german pows does not stand scrutiny since they were taken during a declared war between sovereign nations, although I see your point clearly.
The error other people insist on perpetuating is that it's an either/or scenario where these "enemy combatants" (or whatever you want to call them) must be either POW's or common criminals. They weren't uniformed soldiers of taliban controlled afghanistan (which wasn't even an internationally recognized nation), and the taliban wasn't about to prosecute them for weapons violations, so neither of those categories apply.
Short of sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "LA LA LA" and pretending the terrorists (or whatever) don't exist, there has to be another way to deal with them.
People who deliberately go outside the existing system, e.g. terrorists, don't deserve all the rights reserved for people within the system, e.g. uniformed soldiers or common criminals. Certainly basic human rights to food, water, shelter, etc., apply, as well as SOME due process of law; hence the military tribunal system originally devised to deal with them was a dandy idea. Despite all the criticism Gitmo is a far more humane detention facility than exist in most nations.
POW status is only conferred to uniformed soldiers of a recognized nation. Some random nutcase grabs and AK to fight a "war" and suddenly you want to afford him all sorts of legal protections? The turds in Gitmo have been treated far better than are common criminals in many countries. Frankly I'm baffled as to why there doesn't seem to be a clear cut international agreement on how to treat these terrorists. If we didn't WANT to afford them some modicum of humane treatment they would have been summarily executed in the field. Instead they get 3 meals a day, clothing, shelter and legal representation. Are you angry because they don't get cable tv?
Anyway the article is about the fact that power continues to concentrate regardless of political affiliation. This is particularly ironic considering the current administration got to power by promising all sorts of nice things to everyone. The "rights" you are referring to are being eroded daily. How's that whole "hope and change" thing working out for ya?
And exactly what qualifies you to judge my ability to evaluate the data? My point is that there are small spikes and there are larger spikes and everyone keeps extrapolating to support their favorite conclusion. You illustrate the point by claiming that the 2000 - 2008 data is irrelevant which is like saying black is white. The data is the data. The temperature dropped. Want to place bets on where it goes from here?
There have clearly been periods in history where global temperatures were far warmer than they are now without any help whatsoever from humanity. But the subject is so emotionally charged, a situation willingly exacerbated and exploited by those that buy into AGW. It isn't even a remotely rational argument anymore.
Do we believe NASA when they say 2008 was the coolest since 2000? Is that just a tooth in the saw? Which trend to you believe? The one that shows temperatures generally increasing since 1880? Are the relatively flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 an anomaly? Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic? Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?
The gist is that google, ms and yahoo can't do a damn thing about it. Their choice is either to abide chinese law or not operate in the market. Idealism not withstanding, china is the fastest growing market and if the day should come when search is NOT censored by the government, they will need an established presence in the market or they'll merely be also-rans.
In the meantime we all get treated to the spectacle of exactly how newspeak will be implemented. The only question remaining is whether the future worldwide will be dominated by open or censored search results. Frankly, it doesn't look good.
That isn't conspiracy, that's good policy. In the real world, even the most brilliant scientists have to feed their families. If you don't pay them to use their brilliance, it will be wasted mopping floors or whatever. With the private sector shutting down their R&D (goodbye, Bell Labs) if we want to keep these folks in the US we have to find something for them to do. A far better use of tax money than entitlements.
Learned nothing from the recent oil price spike did we? Price goes up, crisis starts, demand drops, price drops, crisis stops. The end of oil's dominance as a fuel source will be slow, not sudden. There are PLENTY of alternatives waiting in the wings for economies of scale to make them as cheap or cheaper than oil.
The people shilling peak oil are just trying to make money off the "crisis" plain and simple - another feature of the market.
The economic reality is that peak oil is all bullshit. The MARKET says what the price will be. When supplies become truly scarce, oil prices will rise. Then all those alt-fuel schemes start to become economically feasible and POOF, peak oil is irrelevant.
Hey, I'm just going by current examples. Medicare is broke, Social security is broke. You can not ignore the fact that in the US the big public welfare programs have all been horribly mismanaged. Yet for some reason people want to do try the same thing again insanely expecting a different result. What can be accomplished with a public option that can't be done through legislation and regulation? At least that way the government won't be stuck with the bill. What's wrong with people paying for their own insurance, making their own choices? The US has a long tradition of letting the private sector lead and I'd say that in general this approach has served us rather well.
The insurance market in the US is very segmented and it's hard for companies to compete nationwide. I would point out that in Schweiz people are forced by law to all pay the same monthly premium for the same coverage. It's a very regressive system that burdens the poor far worse than the wealthy. We need regulation that increases competition, opens markets and allows nonprofits to compete. No public option is necessary. We also need tort reform to rein in malpractice costs. People can choose limited tort auto insurance which reduces their rates if they agree on limits to liability suits. No reason this can't be done for medicine except for political pressure from lawyers.
When I was a kid, we went to the doctor and he charged a minimal fee for the visit. Insurance companies got into the act and fees went through the roof. Then they forced unfavorable contracts on the doctors where we now have to pay a minimal fee directly to the doctor for the visit...AND a huge monthly premium to the insurance company. I would point out however that the insurance companies are by and large solvent - not to say I necessarily agree with their business practices. Open up the markets, increase transparency and let people make their own choices and the private sector takes care of itself.
The US is a FAR larger and more diverse market than these small European countries. The political climate also seems to be less dynamic and less responsive to the public good. Both major political parties are essentially fronts for large special interest groups. There is no rational reason to assume that a negotiation between one party beholden to the insurance industry and the other party beholden to the law lobby will agree on anything that is in the public good or even remotely workable. A public "option" that has it's hand perpetually in the taxpayer's pocket will forever crush consumer choice and control over the quality of their insurance and health care.
Sounds pretty good to me. And on a national level, social security is broke, medicare is broke. Hmmm, I got it! Let's put the government in charge of HEALTH CARE too!
I don't understand the mind of anyone who doesn't instinctively grasp the fact that government is the absolute worst way to accomplish a goal. Anything you do will be late, over budget and operate on the wrong principles due to the simple fact that everything is subject to political pressure. There is nothing government can accomplish that can't be done better by private entities subject to healthy free market pressures.
It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will. The truly frightening thing is the intent behind the initiative. There are people in governments around the world working as hard as they can to bring a computerized "big brother" system to life. Government's power over the individual has increased by orders of magnitude with the advent of things like internet searchable public information. It used to take some leg work to pull paperwork on someone, which acted as a natural brake on the ability of government to investigate people. What used to take weeks as part of a formal investigation can now be accomplished instantly by a government dweeb with the right access. Throw some sophisticated data mining techniques into the mix along with enough cpu horsepower and the result is an unprecedented level of observation and control.
Why do you assume massive government spending is crucial to the success of the state? Newsflash: taking money from people who earned it to waste on politically motivated crap is not good for the economy and no, the government does not know best.
More feel-good lefty lunacy from la-la land. It's politically impossible for lawmakers in CA to do anything even slightly unpopular or politically incorrect. Hence their continuing futile attempts to vote themselves into utopia. Next they'll pass legislation mandating Pi to equal 3 so their stupid kids don't have to think too hard. They're broke and instead of cleaning house they're focusing on this crap. Complete and total disaster of a state.
Go try to start a business, run it for a few years then see how happy you are about paying taxes to a government that wastes at least half of every hard earned dollar you're forced to give. Why is it that the people who are most in favor of spending other people's money are those who don't have any of their own? This is class warfare at it's worst. You can not strengthen the poor by weakening the rich. The beauty of private property is that people value things they have to work hard to obtain. If you want to reduce the value of something to zero, give it to people without cost. This is why there is no such thing as a well kept public housing project.
Capitalism is to economics what "web 2.0" is to the internet. It harnesses the intelligence and ambition of anyone who cares to apply themselves. Why are you so convinced government can do better than a private organization? You drive a capitalist produced car, use a capitalist produced computer over a capitalist produced network, etc.. The problems with capitalism occur when markets aren't free and competitive. Capitalism without sensible regulation gives you 10 year-olds working in coal mines. Capitalism with good regulation gives you safer cars at affordable prices, for example.
You have an unbelievably simplistic world view if you truly believe the bit about our supposedly bi-polar social system. Did you miss that whole failure-of-communism thing that happened pretty much everywhere it was tried? Do you really think the desire to help people is sufficient to create a just society and high standard of living? Do you think money grows on trees? Rushing around throwing money at every social cause has yet to solve any of them, in spite of the strategy being tried for decades.
You may have had this discussion this morning, but that just means you get to be wrong twice today. Not surprising since you obviously have some serious problems in your understanding of basic human nature.
Amen, brother. You touch on a core issue about government that can be extrapolated to government as a whole.
First, the PITA requirements; politically correct, mostly unnecessary and designed to please almost no one. Everything government does is subject to obtuse politics rather than practical considerations.
Second, cost is a core issue for any project yet in government we are often told that cost is irrelevant because the social cost of inaction is unacceptable. Social Security and Medicare are both financial train wrecks and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were at the vanguard of the mortgage crash because all of these programs were designed to serve social rather than budget requirements. Inevitable these programs are destined to go begging back to the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) again and again for additional funding rather than get their financial house in order.
Third, every dollar spent in deficit is stolen from our children. Deficit spending is the most immoral act in which our government indulges. Everyone knows borrowing means paying back, yet congress and the president (regardless of party affiliation) blithely ignore this and collude to avoid dealing with the deficit. Every dollar we are forced to spend on debt service is taken from the very programs that created the debt.
The first thing on everyone's mind should be "What will it cost and where will the money be found to pay for it?" Never in history has an entitlement been discontinued except by complete government collapse or revolution often triggered by financial failure. If we wish to avoid this kind of scenario our first concern must be cost control.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen brother. Most of the world is controlled by tin pot dictators and strong arm thugs, no intervention from the US necessary.
OLPC was always a liberal wet dream; if we all wish real hard, maybe we can stop the rain! Why would anyone think you could create hardware and software better and cheaper than what the rest of the world could do? Sorry, but no matter how noble your intentions you still can't pull a rabbit out of a hat just because you want to.
This is more proof, as if it was needed, that the OLPC project was the quintessence of wishful thinking. Stop wasting money on a failed concept; just buy the little bastards a netbook and call it a day.
Not quite. This was just a scam although it could have been a lot worse. The basic problem is that a lot of people don't really understand technology. If there's going to be any Mccarthy style overreaction it should be to throw this guy in jail for a long, long time.
Wow. For real, bloodthirsty hate it takes a leftist. If someone did that to obama you'd be screaming racism and calling for the perp to be imprisoned for life for hate crimes. Since Berlusconi's on the right, assault is A-OK.
Ever bother to examine the contradictions in your beliefs?
The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny. The problem as I see it is one of oversight. I don't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase. For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game. Why? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.
If a government agency wants to look at what you're doing, they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence.
For all 479 recommended products...so simple, aye?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're supposed to argue your slant in published papers, not behind the scenes. Anything else is rank manipulation.
You greenies are so in love with AGW you've blinded yourselves to the truths you're trampling in order to support your agenda.
Mine, too, mainly because it's so *possible*. Worse yet, there's a pretty good chance it WILL be something I need. I really hate personalized results. Amazon continues to recommend music I hate simply because I bought some CD's as gifts. Sure, there's ways around it but it's a pain in the butt, and sometimes you just want to know what everyone else likes.
There really needs to be some simple way to get these recommendation engines to stop showing results for a particular category without having to get into some amazingly complex Boolean search set.
Once thing that's certain: this, like all other climate research relating to AGW, will descend into a hyper-partisan he said-she said type argument. This guarantees it will be impossible for anyone unwilling or unable to validate and analyze the data themselves to come to a rational conclusion.
One thing is crystal clear: these guys are biased in a way that is completely antithetical to true scientific research.
None of this stuff is surprising in any way. You're right that consumers should worry more about monopolies, yet this competition is proof that the monopolies are weaker than ever, which is a win for consumers. Google has been deliberately undermining MS for years for example by supporting firefox in order to wrest the browser market from MS. Once they went public with the Chrome browser, android and the chrome OS it became obvious that Google feels strong enough to go head to head with MS in a far more direct manner. The mere fact that MS felt compelled to create Bing (and IE 8, etc.) illustrates that Google is successfully pressuring MS.
In the end it all comes down to how they get paid. MS wants cash up front, Google gets money from ad revenue. So long as the dichotomy remains healthy and dynamic it will result in more consumer choice. Just don't act surprised down the road if, in the event Google becomes the market dominating monolith MS once was, they begin acting like a monopoly. In the end they're still just a business, predictably out to make a profit.
Comparison to the german pows does not stand scrutiny since they were taken during a declared war between sovereign nations, although I see your point clearly.
The error other people insist on perpetuating is that it's an either/or scenario where these "enemy combatants" (or whatever you want to call them) must be either POW's or common criminals. They weren't uniformed soldiers of taliban controlled afghanistan (which wasn't even an internationally recognized nation), and the taliban wasn't about to prosecute them for weapons violations, so neither of those categories apply.
Short of sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "LA LA LA" and pretending the terrorists (or whatever) don't exist, there has to be another way to deal with them.
People who deliberately go outside the existing system, e.g. terrorists, don't deserve all the rights reserved for people within the system, e.g. uniformed soldiers or common criminals. Certainly basic human rights to food, water, shelter, etc., apply, as well as SOME due process of law; hence the military tribunal system originally devised to deal with them was a dandy idea. Despite all the criticism Gitmo is a far more humane detention facility than exist in most nations.
POW status is only conferred to uniformed soldiers of a recognized nation. Some random nutcase grabs and AK to fight a "war" and suddenly you want to afford him all sorts of legal protections? The turds in Gitmo have been treated far better than are common criminals in many countries. Frankly I'm baffled as to why there doesn't seem to be a clear cut international agreement on how to treat these terrorists. If we didn't WANT to afford them some modicum of humane treatment they would have been summarily executed in the field. Instead they get 3 meals a day, clothing, shelter and legal representation. Are you angry because they don't get cable tv?
Anyway the article is about the fact that power continues to concentrate regardless of political affiliation. This is particularly ironic considering the current administration got to power by promising all sorts of nice things to everyone. The "rights" you are referring to are being eroded daily. How's that whole "hope and change" thing working out for ya?
And exactly what qualifies you to judge my ability to evaluate the data? My point is that there are small spikes and there are larger spikes and everyone keeps extrapolating to support their favorite conclusion. You illustrate the point by claiming that the 2000 - 2008 data is irrelevant which is like saying black is white. The data is the data. The temperature dropped. Want to place bets on where it goes from here?
There have clearly been periods in history where global temperatures were far warmer than they are now without any help whatsoever from humanity. But the subject is so emotionally charged, a situation willingly exacerbated and exploited by those that buy into AGW. It isn't even a remotely rational argument anymore.
The politicization of climate data will prove to be a disaster in the long run. Everyone has an axe to grind.
Here's a link to some NASA data about temperature:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Do we believe NASA when they say 2008 was the coolest since 2000? Is that just a tooth in the saw? Which trend to you believe? The one that shows temperatures generally increasing since 1880? Are the relatively flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 an anomaly? Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic? Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?
What we don't have is good, healthy debate.
The gist is that google, ms and yahoo can't do a damn thing about it. Their choice is either to abide chinese law or not operate in the market. Idealism not withstanding, china is the fastest growing market and if the day should come when search is NOT censored by the government, they will need an established presence in the market or they'll merely be also-rans.
In the meantime we all get treated to the spectacle of exactly how newspeak will be implemented. The only question remaining is whether the future worldwide will be dominated by open or censored search results. Frankly, it doesn't look good.
That isn't conspiracy, that's good policy. In the real world, even the most brilliant scientists have to feed their families. If you don't pay them to use their brilliance, it will be wasted mopping floors or whatever. With the private sector shutting down their R&D (goodbye, Bell Labs) if we want to keep these folks in the US we have to find something for them to do. A far better use of tax money than entitlements.
Learned nothing from the recent oil price spike did we? Price goes up, crisis starts, demand drops, price drops, crisis stops. The end of oil's dominance as a fuel source will be slow, not sudden. There are PLENTY of alternatives waiting in the wings for economies of scale to make them as cheap or cheaper than oil.
The people shilling peak oil are just trying to make money off the "crisis" plain and simple - another feature of the market.
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have our winner!!!
The economic reality is that peak oil is all bullshit. The MARKET says what the price will be. When supplies become truly scarce, oil prices will rise. Then all those alt-fuel schemes start to become economically feasible and POOF, peak oil is irrelevant.
Hey, I'm just going by current examples. Medicare is broke, Social security is broke. You can not ignore the fact that in the US the big public welfare programs have all been horribly mismanaged. Yet for some reason people want to do try the same thing again insanely expecting a different result. What can be accomplished with a public option that can't be done through legislation and regulation? At least that way the government won't be stuck with the bill. What's wrong with people paying for their own insurance, making their own choices? The US has a long tradition of letting the private sector lead and I'd say that in general this approach has served us rather well.
The insurance market in the US is very segmented and it's hard for companies to compete nationwide. I would point out that in Schweiz people are forced by law to all pay the same monthly premium for the same coverage. It's a very regressive system that burdens the poor far worse than the wealthy. We need regulation that increases competition, opens markets and allows nonprofits to compete. No public option is necessary. We also need tort reform to rein in malpractice costs. People can choose limited tort auto insurance which reduces their rates if they agree on limits to liability suits. No reason this can't be done for medicine except for political pressure from lawyers.
When I was a kid, we went to the doctor and he charged a minimal fee for the visit. Insurance companies got into the act and fees went through the roof. Then they forced unfavorable contracts on the doctors where we now have to pay a minimal fee directly to the doctor for the visit...AND a huge monthly premium to the insurance company. I would point out however that the insurance companies are by and large solvent - not to say I necessarily agree with their business practices. Open up the markets, increase transparency and let people make their own choices and the private sector takes care of itself.
The US is a FAR larger and more diverse market than these small European countries. The political climate also seems to be less dynamic and less responsive to the public good. Both major political parties are essentially fronts for large special interest groups. There is no rational reason to assume that a negotiation between one party beholden to the insurance industry and the other party beholden to the law lobby will agree on anything that is in the public good or even remotely workable. A public "option" that has it's hand perpetually in the taxpayer's pocket will forever crush consumer choice and control over the quality of their insurance and health care.
Sounds pretty good to me. And on a national level, social security is broke, medicare is broke. Hmmm, I got it! Let's put the government in charge of HEALTH CARE too!
I don't understand the mind of anyone who doesn't instinctively grasp the fact that government is the absolute worst way to accomplish a goal. Anything you do will be late, over budget and operate on the wrong principles due to the simple fact that everything is subject to political pressure. There is nothing government can accomplish that can't be done better by private entities subject to healthy free market pressures.
It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will. The truly frightening thing is the intent behind the initiative. There are people in governments around the world working as hard as they can to bring a computerized "big brother" system to life. Government's power over the individual has increased by orders of magnitude with the advent of things like internet searchable public information. It used to take some leg work to pull paperwork on someone, which acted as a natural brake on the ability of government to investigate people. What used to take weeks as part of a formal investigation can now be accomplished instantly by a government dweeb with the right access. Throw some sophisticated data mining techniques into the mix along with enough cpu horsepower and the result is an unprecedented level of observation and control.
Frankly, this stuff scares the crap out of me.
Why do you assume massive government spending is crucial to the success of the state? Newsflash: taking money from people who earned it to waste on politically motivated crap is not good for the economy and no, the government does not know best.
More feel-good lefty lunacy from la-la land. It's politically impossible for lawmakers in CA to do anything even slightly unpopular or politically incorrect. Hence their continuing futile attempts to vote themselves into utopia. Next they'll pass legislation mandating Pi to equal 3 so their stupid kids don't have to think too hard. They're broke and instead of cleaning house they're focusing on this crap. Complete and total disaster of a state.
Seriously! If you do this, the internet just becomes one huge "big brother" machine.
Go try to start a business, run it for a few years then see how happy you are about paying taxes to a government that wastes at least half of every hard earned dollar you're forced to give. Why is it that the people who are most in favor of spending other people's money are those who don't have any of their own? This is class warfare at it's worst. You can not strengthen the poor by weakening the rich. The beauty of private property is that people value things they have to work hard to obtain. If you want to reduce the value of something to zero, give it to people without cost. This is why there is no such thing as a well kept public housing project.
Capitalism is to economics what "web 2.0" is to the internet. It harnesses the intelligence and ambition of anyone who cares to apply themselves. Why are you so convinced government can do better than a private organization? You drive a capitalist produced car, use a capitalist produced computer over a capitalist produced network, etc.. The problems with capitalism occur when markets aren't free and competitive. Capitalism without sensible regulation gives you 10 year-olds working in coal mines. Capitalism with good regulation gives you safer cars at affordable prices, for example.
You have an unbelievably simplistic world view if you truly believe the bit about our supposedly bi-polar social system. Did you miss that whole failure-of-communism thing that happened pretty much everywhere it was tried? Do you really think the desire to help people is sufficient to create a just society and high standard of living? Do you think money grows on trees? Rushing around throwing money at every social cause has yet to solve any of them, in spite of the strategy being tried for decades.
You may have had this discussion this morning, but that just means you get to be wrong twice today. Not surprising since you obviously have some serious problems in your understanding of basic human nature.
Amen, brother. You touch on a core issue about government that can be extrapolated to government as a whole.
First, the PITA requirements; politically correct, mostly unnecessary and designed to please almost no one. Everything government does is subject to obtuse politics rather than practical considerations.
Second, cost is a core issue for any project yet in government we are often told that cost is irrelevant because the social cost of inaction is unacceptable. Social Security and Medicare are both financial train wrecks and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were at the vanguard of the mortgage crash because all of these programs were designed to serve social rather than budget requirements. Inevitable these programs are destined to go begging back to the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) again and again for additional funding rather than get their financial house in order.
Third, every dollar spent in deficit is stolen from our children. Deficit spending is the most immoral act in which our government indulges. Everyone knows borrowing means paying back, yet congress and the president (regardless of party affiliation) blithely ignore this and collude to avoid dealing with the deficit. Every dollar we are forced to spend on debt service is taken from the very programs that created the debt.
The first thing on everyone's mind should be "What will it cost and where will the money be found to pay for it?" Never in history has an entitlement been discontinued except by complete government collapse or revolution often triggered by financial failure. If we wish to avoid this kind of scenario our first concern must be cost control.