Two senators for 400k people? No thanks. Its bad enough places like Wyoming get two senators. Why should I have two senators split between 12 million people and they get two senators for so few? This leads to an unequal situation in the senate.
Just make it part of Virginia and call it a day, but its so poor and crime ridden, no one wants it.
God bless our insightful forefathers that made sure places like Wyoming would always have as many senators as everybody else.
The passport card is just a stop-gap measure for use until the DHS can bludgeon all the states into implementing the Real ID requirements. Once everyone with a driver's license is Real ID'd, they'll start adding the RFID (they've already specified a lot of information has to be added to the "MRZ" - machine readable zone, they just haven't yet specified that the MRZ has to be implemented with RFID).
Once they get the facial recognition stuff working right, they won't need the reader to track you, they'll have a database of everybody's face, and will know where you are at all times.
Check out Connecting the dots .
Yes, that's true. The gov't has a legitimate interest to maintain communications with the populace. After all, how else will they make sure you are informed about when and where to report for assignment to a FEMA Concentration Camp?
No. The government has to make sure everyone gets a converter box because that's how they keep the circuses going for the sheeple. As long as the Bread and Circuses are in place the shysters running things are fine. Take either one away, and people might wake up and kick the bastards out.
Dual tuner, both ATSC and QAM so you can use it with cable (scans it great for all unencrypted digital content), and OTA antenna.
I second that. I love my HDHomerunner tuner. Started using it with Comcast, then just OTA for about a month and a half, then (when I couldn't take the bellyaching from the rest of the family about not having enough choices), Verizon FIOS.
The ugly thing about FIOS is that Verizon scrambles the signal on absolutely every channel except the ones that FCC regulations forbid them to scramble (local OTA broadcasts).
What you probably mean is "the wrong kinds of regulation helped cause the problem". That is a non ideological, non-loaded, non-partisan statement we can all agree on. If we could all work to stop loading words like "regulation" with emotional connotations, we'd go a long ways to ending this stupid partisan bullshit. Put your anger, concern and outrage into the word "wrong", not "regulation". Say "the wrong kind of regulation" and then offer "the right kinds of regulation". Saying "regulation itself is the problem" is a cop-out used by slick politicians to dodge complex issues:-)
I'm assuming you are talking specifically about financial markets, not regulation in general. Otherwise, there's no way I can possibly agree with you. The idea itself sounds more like a cop-out used by slick bureaucrats to defend their never-ending programs from consideration for the chopping block. "Yes, well, we're just not showing results yet because we were regulating wrong. A few more divisions and more funding and we can regulate the right way, fixing everything!".
Regulation limits Freedom, and is thus, at best, a necessary evil. We should always be asking "Does this limit Freedom?" If so, is it necessary? Regulations should be imposed to solve issues that affect the country as a whole, or to stop groups that are imposing their will on others from doing so.
Look at the result! We let our government slack off on regulation and set us up for this recession thing we are now in.
That's a myth. There was no significant market deregulation in the last 20 years. Rather, regulation was a major cause of the problem. Check out "Community Reinvestment Act".
Obama says "figure out what is wrong, and solve that". If a government program sucks, kill it. If it is a good program but badly managed, fix the management. If it is a good program and well managed, reward it.
I hope he's really going to follow through on that. It would be wonderful to see. I don't think there is a government program that was eliminated any time in at least the last 50 years. The prevailing wisdom is that once a program is created, it's permanent, and impossible to kill. If he could at least reduce the harmful effects of counter-productive policies like marijuana prohibition and ethanol import tariffs I'll be impressed.
Actually it isn't. You don't judge a book by its size, do you? You don't judge how good a computer is based on its size, do you? No.
Are you serious? You're comparing government to a book or a computer? How about when the book is so big and complicated that no one person can read and understand it? Like, for instance, the federal tax code. That's just one small part of all the laws that you are responsible for knowing and obeying.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Goldwater (?)
The larger the government is:
The more it attracts corrupt people
The easier it is to skim and get away with it
The more people will try to "get something", and influence the people in power, expanding the incentives of corruption
The easier it is for small groups to be provided with huge benefits at the expense of everyone else (check out Farm Subsidies and the Sugar Industry)
Etc., etc. You can only reduce corruption by limiting the power. You only limit power by limiting size.
I can, and I do. The processes are in place because they put them there. They don't do anything about it because it serves their personal interest in maintaining power.
If a bill is so large and the schedules so grueling that you can't read and understand what's in them before the vote, then you automatically vote against them. That would have solved one of the problems with the federal (and most state) government which is that there are simply too many laws.
"Pork" is just a euphemism for corruption, and corruption is a huge problem. When you have huge sums of money you can influence, corruption will always be an issue.
You can say that those corrupt politicians are in charge only because they were voted in by an ignorant electorate. There is some truth in that, but the parties have developed a system that ensures that only those on board with the current corrupt system will ever be voted on. The FEC makes sure that anyone with even a modicum of success with a third party will be charged criminally and fined into bankruptcy. And working from within the parties to change things is very time-consuming and it's extremely difficult to make any process at all.
Obama stated in his Inauguration speech that "We need to move beyond the debate about the size of government..." Really? Seriously? I think not. The size, reach, and power of the federal government is the root cause of most of the problems.
So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).
I know this is not true for Dish. I have a Dish DVR, and a DVD recorder. I have often recorded programs to DVD, and I have never seen any "you are not allowed to record this" message. Ever.
I stand corrected, then. I was thinking a friend with satellite TV service who had a similar experience to mine trying out some late model DVD recorders, but it turns out he is on DirectTV, not Dish.
A broadcast flag is a set of status bits (or a "flag") sent in the data stream of a digital television program that indicates whether or not the data stream can be recorded, or if there are any restrictions on recorded content.
There's nothing distinguishing about ATSC that make the broadcast flag only apply to it, or to only OTA broadcasts. The broadcast flag is an explicit part of the ATSC standard, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in QAM and other broadcasts (because it's plainly happening).
Unlike the ATSC standards where the limit of DRM is the broadcast flag (which IS dead and buried),
Is the broadcast flag dead?
Not by a long shot. Although we won a major victory when we had the FCC's order mandating the broadcast flag overturned, similar ideas keep popping up. The content industry has gone to Congress to ask it to implement a broadcast flag. Broadcast flags have also been proposed for terrestrial radio, and content owners have tried to use a the Copyright Office's skewed royalty-setting proceedings to force webcasters to implement other kinds of DRM.
Trying to claim that the "broadcast flag" isn't really a broadcast flag when it's not in an ATSC or OTA stream is disingenuous at best, and probably better called "disinformation". It's the same technology used for the same nefarious purpose by the same people that came up with it.
You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel...
Well maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound right to me. From what I've seen it's the same channel, but the box just downgrades to SD to output the signal. The digital sub-channel is often used for different content around here. A couple of the stations actually use them for some syndicated shows, but most have 24-hour weather on them.
I know that the converter box has the same channels listed that I get on my HD tuner.
Somebody mod parent informative. When the DVD recorder I bought a few years ago died, I decided it would be more cost-effective to replace it with a new one. I made several trips to electronics stores looking for one that would not just display a "You cannot record that" message when I tried to record some shows.
At the time, I was recording from Comcast. They make extensive use of the broadcast flag, and ever DVD player I tried out obediently did exactly what it was told and refused to record when asked not to.
So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).
But for for over-the-air TV, not only is there no broadcast flag, but re-broadcasters of local stations are banned from scrambling them.
What good is CableCARD support in the OS, when Cable Labs won't let me use it for anything unless I buy an overpriced pre-built POS from one of their "certified" OEMs?
I get HD over-the-air from the local stations. Everything else HD is either too expensive or has too many restrictions or both for me to even want to bother with it.
Well, according to this they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.
Which is one of the major reasons I had problems using Chrome as a default browser. Not having something like the "foxyproxy" plugin was bad enough, but dealing with Chrome's hooks into the Windows/IE proxy settings was really annoying.
How has Keynesian economics been proven a failure? Be specific please.
Kind of a big topic. If you're not convinced by the current state of our economy and the machinations of the Fed and behavior of the banks, you may be as blind to evidence against the theory as Krugman is.
So if government is so good, what happened in the U.S.S.R and North Korea? Guess what the most efficient method of allocating scarce resources is? Go ahead, guess. You're wrong, because you think some corrupt bureaucrat in Washington can do it.
I hear this all the time. "The government built the highway system, and it works great!" That's the bullshit meme that needs to die. The feds took boom-time taxes and allocated it through a federalized system of road planning. Most of the actual work was done by private contractors organized by state engineers.
What other great, efficient, wonderful things have the government given us with their confiscated money?
Farms? Nope, they've just made a bunch of fat-cat farming conglomerates (that know how to work the loopholes) even richer while shutting our poor foreign competition.
Trips to the moon? Okay, that worked. What did we get out of that again? Tang?
Military? Well, yea, that's the one thing they really should be support - national defense and all. Of course I wouldn't call that "efficient", and it's been misused by building a global empire that makes other countries dependent and resentful.
The Internet? Yea, government funded. Of course, it was a really small research sharing tool until the CIX enabled a lot of private investment. But at least it got a start as a government project.
Health care? Well, they do provide some to some people, although "efficient" is the wrong word to describe a system that wastes almost 40% of its funding on fraud.
Emergency management? Been to New Orleans lately?
Drug prohibition? $140 billion a year does what?
This is getting kind of tiresome. Been to the grocery store lately? All that stuff, priced within reach, and millions of them close to pretty much everywhere anybody lives. Pretty impressive. The only thing government does there is increase prices and reduce choices through taxation and regulation.
Krugman? Seriously? That guy is still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the failure of the philosophy that he has been espousing for years. You know, the one that created the economic mess we're in right now.
Why even when Keynesian economics has been proven a failure do people keep trying to claim it works?
... Just because the Constitution does not require the government to permit something does not mean that the government is restricted from permitting it. The Constitution is, rather, a check on democracy itself, and for many things it sets no rules and leaves democracy to its own devices, which is probably the right thing to do in these cases.
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer.
Why do people keep getting this all backwards. Under the Constitution, the people have all the rights, not the government. The government doesn't "permit" anything - it is restricted (by the Constitution) in what it is allowed to do.
The Bill of Rights should not have been necessary, but some states wanted certain important rights spelled out, just in case somebody got too ambitious with federal powers (it hasn't really helped, the US government does a *lot* of unconstitutional things). The 10th amendment spells it out pretty clearly:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If 50% of a Senator's constituency wrote to him and said "We don't want ID cards", he wouldn't push ID cards anymore....
Contrary to popular belief, Senators will, in fact, do what their constituency wants,...
You're kidding, right?
I don't know how it works in Australia, but here in the US they totally ignore their constituents' wishes. The bank bailout passed even though they were inundated with calls and letters opposing it. This was even reported in the mainstream media, with opinion running something like 80% opposed. It passed anyway.
Similar story with the automaker bailout (which failed to pass the senate - passed the House, though, but the president is going to make happen anyway), same thing with lots of things.
They don't listen to "constituents" - they'll make up any excuse to do whatever they want.
1) Most politicians are lawyers, philosphers, judges, etc. Thus they will see these sorts of things from their perspective.
I think what you mean is:
Most politicians are lawyers, lawyers that took philosophy as an undergrad, lawyers that are judges, etc.
Here in the US, it also means that they have probably accepted the title of "Esquire", which is a title of nobility, expressly forbidden in the US Constitution, and they are therefore traitors.
These guys are so far removed from dealing with people (chattel) like you and me that they have moved beyond being the "elite" and are now busy building dynasties. They do not care about us, they are not concerned about your opinion of their laws (which really only apply to you, not them), and they won't listen to us unless they are forced to do so.
I'm afraid that the time when it was possible to negotiate has come to an end.
The Internet was first developed by DARPA with the eventual aim to assist the military with command and control of their forces.
The Internet was created for the purposes of killing.
What a terrible distortion of the project goals. It was actually intended to keep communications open in case of an attack (specifically a nuclear attack that would destroy a lot of infrastructure. So the goal was defensive.
The Internet was created for the purposes of surviving.
Uhm. Maybe they're knock-off PSUs just labelled Antec. Seriously, I've never had an issue with antec supplies. I get nesteq or zalman ones now because of quiet-pc-addiction, but never had an issue with antec.
Nope, GP is correct. Antec puts out a lot of crap power supplies. I've had similar experiences with them myself, and will never buy another PSU from them.
Slashdot Mirror
>or making DC a state
Two senators for 400k people? No thanks. Its bad enough places like Wyoming get two senators. Why should I have two senators split between 12 million people and they get two senators for so few? This leads to an unequal situation in the senate.
Just make it part of Virginia and call it a day, but its so poor and crime ridden, no one wants it.
God bless our insightful forefathers that made sure places like Wyoming would always have as many senators as everybody else.
The final date will be December 21, 2012.
The passport card is just a stop-gap measure for use until the DHS can bludgeon all the states into implementing the Real ID requirements. Once everyone with a driver's license is Real ID'd, they'll start adding the RFID (they've already specified a lot of information has to be added to the "MRZ" - machine readable zone, they just haven't yet specified that the MRZ has to be implemented with RFID). Once they get the facial recognition stuff working right, they won't need the reader to track you, they'll have a database of everybody's face, and will know where you are at all times. Check out Connecting the dots .
Yes, that's true. The gov't has a legitimate interest to maintain communications with the populace. After all, how else will they make sure you are informed about when and where to report for assignment to a FEMA Concentration Camp?
No. The government has to make sure everyone gets a converter box because that's how they keep the circuses going for the sheeple. As long as the Bread and Circuses are in place the shysters running things are fine. Take either one away, and people might wake up and kick the bastards out.
Get yourself a HDHomerun by Silicon dust.
Dual tuner, both ATSC and QAM so you can use it with cable (scans it great for all unencrypted digital content), and OTA antenna.
I second that. I love my HDHomerunner tuner. Started using it with Comcast, then just OTA for about a month and a half, then (when I couldn't take the bellyaching from the rest of the family about not having enough choices), Verizon FIOS.
The ugly thing about FIOS is that Verizon scrambles the signal on absolutely every channel except the ones that FCC regulations forbid them to scramble (local OTA broadcasts).
What you probably mean is "the wrong kinds of regulation helped cause the problem". That is a non ideological, non-loaded, non-partisan statement we can all agree on. If we could all work to stop loading words like "regulation" with emotional connotations, we'd go a long ways to ending this stupid partisan bullshit. Put your anger, concern and outrage into the word "wrong", not "regulation". Say "the wrong kind of regulation" and then offer "the right kinds of regulation". Saying "regulation itself is the problem" is a cop-out used by slick politicians to dodge complex issues :-)
I'm assuming you are talking specifically about financial markets, not regulation in general. Otherwise, there's no way I can possibly agree with you. The idea itself sounds more like a cop-out used by slick bureaucrats to defend their never-ending programs from consideration for the chopping block. "Yes, well, we're just not showing results yet because we were regulating wrong. A few more divisions and more funding and we can regulate the right way, fixing everything!".
Regulation limits Freedom, and is thus, at best, a necessary evil. We should always be asking "Does this limit Freedom?" If so, is it necessary? Regulations should be imposed to solve issues that affect the country as a whole, or to stop groups that are imposing their will on others from doing so.
Look at the result! We let our government slack off on regulation and set us up for this recession thing we are now in.
That's a myth. There was no significant market deregulation in the last 20 years. Rather, regulation was a major cause of the problem. Check out "Community Reinvestment Act".
Obama says "figure out what is wrong, and solve that". If a government program sucks, kill it. If it is a good program but badly managed, fix the management. If it is a good program and well managed, reward it.
I hope he's really going to follow through on that. It would be wonderful to see. I don't think there is a government program that was eliminated any time in at least the last 50 years. The prevailing wisdom is that once a program is created, it's permanent, and impossible to kill. If he could at least reduce the harmful effects of counter-productive policies like marijuana prohibition and ethanol import tariffs I'll be impressed.
Actually it isn't. You don't judge a book by its size, do you? You don't judge how good a computer is based on its size, do you? No.
Are you serious? You're comparing government to a book or a computer? How about when the book is so big and complicated that no one person can read and understand it? Like, for instance, the federal tax code. That's just one small part of all the laws that you are responsible for knowing and obeying.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." - Goldwater (?)
The larger the government is:
Etc., etc. You can only reduce corruption by limiting the power. You only limit power by limiting size.
You can't really blame them directly.
I can, and I do. The processes are in place because they put them there. They don't do anything about it because it serves their personal interest in maintaining power.
If a bill is so large and the schedules so grueling that you can't read and understand what's in them before the vote, then you automatically vote against them. That would have solved one of the problems with the federal (and most state) government which is that there are simply too many laws.
"Pork" is just a euphemism for corruption, and corruption is a huge problem. When you have huge sums of money you can influence, corruption will always be an issue.
You can say that those corrupt politicians are in charge only because they were voted in by an ignorant electorate. There is some truth in that, but the parties have developed a system that ensures that only those on board with the current corrupt system will ever be voted on. The FEC makes sure that anyone with even a modicum of success with a third party will be charged criminally and fined into bankruptcy. And working from within the parties to change things is very time-consuming and it's extremely difficult to make any process at all.
Obama stated in his Inauguration speech that "We need to move beyond the debate about the size of government..." Really? Seriously? I think not. The size, reach, and power of the federal government is the root cause of most of the problems.
So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).
I know this is not true for Dish. I have a Dish DVR, and a DVD recorder. I have often recorded programs to DVD, and I have never seen any "you are not allowed to record this" message. Ever.
I stand corrected, then. I was thinking a friend with satellite TV service who had a similar experience to mine trying out some late model DVD recorders, but it turns out he is on DirectTV, not Dish.
The broadcast flag only applies to OVER-THE-AIR ATSC broadcasts.
Says who?
According to Wikipedia:
There's nothing distinguishing about ATSC that make the broadcast flag only apply to it, or to only OTA broadcasts. The broadcast flag is an explicit part of the ATSC standard, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in QAM and other broadcasts (because it's plainly happening).
Unlike the ATSC standards where the limit of DRM is the broadcast flag (which IS dead and buried),
According to Public Knowledge:
Trying to claim that the "broadcast flag" isn't really a broadcast flag when it's not in an ATSC or OTA stream is disingenuous at best, and probably better called "disinformation". It's the same technology used for the same nefarious purpose by the same people that came up with it.
Wait... what?
You won't be getting HDTV with one of these converter boxes, but you'll be getting the SD sub-channel...
Well maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound right to me. From what I've seen it's the same channel, but the box just downgrades to SD to output the signal. The digital sub-channel is often used for different content around here. A couple of the stations actually use them for some syndicated shows, but most have 24-hour weather on them.
I know that the converter box has the same channels listed that I get on my HD tuner.
At the time, I was recording from Comcast. They make extensive use of the broadcast flag, and ever DVD player I tried out obediently did exactly what it was told and refused to record when asked not to.
So, yea, the broadcast flag is alive and well, and used pretty much by all the service broadcasters (Comcast, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner, Dish, etc.).
But for for over-the-air TV, not only is there no broadcast flag, but re-broadcasters of local stations are banned from scrambling them.
CableCARD and H.264 support built-in
What good is CableCARD support in the OS, when Cable Labs won't let me use it for anything unless I buy an overpriced pre-built POS from one of their "certified" OEMs?
I get HD over-the-air from the local stations. Everything else HD is either too expensive or has too many restrictions or both for me to even want to bother with it.
No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.
How about Schumer and Pelosi? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2000. Oh, then there's this article quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin has also advocated its reinstatement.
Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.
Well, according to this they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.
Which is one of the major reasons I had problems using Chrome as a default browser. Not having something like the "foxyproxy" plugin was bad enough, but dealing with Chrome's hooks into the Windows/IE proxy settings was really annoying.
How has Keynesian economics been proven a failure? Be specific please.
Kind of a big topic. If you're not convinced by the current state of our economy and the machinations of the Fed and behavior of the banks, you may be as blind to evidence against the theory as Krugman is.
Why not do your own research?
So if government is so good, what happened in the U.S.S.R and North Korea? Guess what the most efficient method of allocating scarce resources is? Go ahead, guess. You're wrong, because you think some corrupt bureaucrat in Washington can do it.
I hear this all the time. "The government built the highway system, and it works great!" That's the bullshit meme that needs to die. The feds took boom-time taxes and allocated it through a federalized system of road planning. Most of the actual work was done by private contractors organized by state engineers.
What other great, efficient, wonderful things have the government given us with their confiscated money?
This is getting kind of tiresome. Been to the grocery store lately? All that stuff, priced within reach, and millions of them close to pretty much everywhere anybody lives. Pretty impressive. The only thing government does there is increase prices and reduce choices through taxation and regulation.
Paul Krugman wrote on this topic a bit ago:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/bad-anti-stimulus-arguments/
Krugman? Seriously? That guy is still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the failure of the philosophy that he has been espousing for years. You know, the one that created the economic mess we're in right now.
Why even when Keynesian economics has been proven a failure do people keep trying to claim it works?
... Just because the Constitution does not require the government to permit something does not mean that the government is restricted from permitting it. The Constitution is, rather, a check on democracy itself, and for many things it sets no rules and leaves democracy to its own devices, which is probably the right thing to do in these cases.
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer.
Why do people keep getting this all backwards. Under the Constitution, the people have all the rights, not the government. The government doesn't "permit" anything - it is restricted (by the Constitution) in what it is allowed to do.
The Bill of Rights should not have been necessary, but some states wanted certain important rights spelled out, just in case somebody got too ambitious with federal powers (it hasn't really helped, the US government does a *lot* of unconstitutional things). The 10th amendment spells it out pretty clearly:
If 50% of a Senator's constituency wrote to him and said "We don't want ID cards", he wouldn't push ID cards anymore. ...
Contrary to popular belief, Senators will, in fact, do what their constituency wants, ...
You're kidding, right?
I don't know how it works in Australia, but here in the US they totally ignore their constituents' wishes. The bank bailout passed even though they were inundated with calls and letters opposing it. This was even reported in the mainstream media, with opinion running something like 80% opposed. It passed anyway.
Similar story with the automaker bailout (which failed to pass the senate - passed the House, though, but the president is going to make happen anyway), same thing with lots of things.
They don't listen to "constituents" - they'll make up any excuse to do whatever they want.
1) Most politicians are lawyers, philosphers, judges, etc. Thus they will see these sorts of things from their perspective.
I think what you mean is:
Here in the US, it also means that they have probably accepted the title of "Esquire", which is a title of nobility, expressly forbidden in the US Constitution, and they are therefore traitors.
These guys are so far removed from dealing with people (chattel) like you and me that they have moved beyond being the "elite" and are now busy building dynasties. They do not care about us, they are not concerned about your opinion of their laws (which really only apply to you, not them), and they won't listen to us unless they are forced to do so.
I'm afraid that the time when it was possible to negotiate has come to an end.
The Internet was first developed by DARPA with the eventual aim to assist the military with command and control of their forces.
The Internet was created for the purposes of killing.
What a terrible distortion of the project goals. It was actually intended to keep communications open in case of an attack (specifically a nuclear attack that would destroy a lot of infrastructure. So the goal was defensive.
The Internet was created for the purposes of surviving.
Uhm. Maybe they're knock-off PSUs just labelled Antec. Seriously, I've never had an issue with antec supplies. I get nesteq or zalman ones now because of quiet-pc-addiction, but never had an issue with antec.
Nope, GP is correct. Antec puts out a lot of crap power supplies. I've had similar experiences with them myself, and will never buy another PSU from them.