Obama himself WANTED TARP and access to TARP money.
All Bush did was sign it into law, it's the CONGRESS that made the program. In everyone's rush to BushBash they seem to forget how the U.S. Government actually works.
Oh, and that same Congress that passed T.A.R.P. was majority DEMOCRAT!
Isn't political bashing fun? It can go on all day...and not solve one god damned thing.
It's unfortunate that you never met a real ADD/ADHD case. I was one as a child and still am one today as an adult. As a child without the drugs I couldn't possibly have functioned. As an adult I have learned coping mechanisms, but it isn't perfect.
For instance I still have days where I have extreme difficulty concentrating on things even if they interest me. Prolonged concentration can be very difficult for me, making it hard to learn complex things.
On the plus side I can be extremely creative and when having an "energy storm" can outwork any three people you care to name with levels of speed, precision, and forethought that most people have never seen and can't comprehend.
On the bad days I can be distracted while tying my shoes. The worst though, for me, is that I simply cannot always get my brain in gear before my mouth. I have "tennis shoe tongue" from all the sneakers that have been jammed in there.
So mock ADD/ADHD if you want, but you should know that you look like an ignorant asshole to those of us who live with the condition.
A street sign is one thing, a device which hard limits my speed to +10 or so over the posted limit is quite another. Disregarding technical error on the part of such a device it's still a very bad idea.
I probably have one incident a year where exceeding the speed limit by quite a margin is the best option due to road conditions. If you can't imagine this happening then you need to pay more attention. The sign is ignorable and more than once I've convinced "Officer Friendly" roadside that my course of action was the best one and walked away without a ticket. With a hard limiter as low as your talking about my options have been artificially reduced.
I don't need to prove that I'm "Fast and Furious" out on the streets but neither do I wish my vehicle to be artificially regulated to some arbitrarily low overage of the posted limit.
I knew my NASCAR crack would get someone's dander up. I'm an avid MotoGP and WRC fan and in contrast to those events NASCAR drivers ARE pussies. I'm sorry but 2,000 let hand turns is ridiculous. They have one road race event per year and many of the drivers cry like babies over it.
As to my experience, well, I've spent plenty of time on the track with my bikes and it's not only common but expected that you will run at well over 130 on the sweepers and 150+ on the straights. I've gone down the straight SIX wide at 160 with only two wheels under me. So you might want to hold off on the personal jabs. I put myself out there and do it with an inherently more dangerous vehicle than either your or the NASCAR folks.
I never insulted you personally, unless of course you happen to be a NASCAR driver. In that case I still contend that compared to WRC and MOTOGP that your style of racing is far less demanding.
Regardless, you still haven't said when your BMW will be going in to have it's limiter changed to 85MPH. Since you think it's a good idea shouldn't you lead by example?
Aside from ALLLLLL of that nonsense we just went through I'd like to see some hard statistics showing what percentage of car crashes involved unreasonably high speed. I can't say but I'd be surprised if it's anything over 5%. Until Government can prove a substantial positive effect they should leave well enough alone.
P.S. - I don't sit at a desk all day. I'm also married, got plenty of dates before I was married, have procreated in the natural way, own multiple firearms, am not pasty white, play sports, enjoy racing motorcycles, and am an avid outdoorsman. Are there any other geek stereotypes I can shatter for you?
So you're arguing that some Bureaucrat somewhere should be in charge of how fast my car should be able to go?
What if I enjoy taking my Audi to the track on occasion and wish to exceed 135MPH on the back straightaway?
BTW, MOTORCYCLES will and do exceed 190MPH on the track so let's not use NASCAR as the standard for this. Frankly NASCAR is a bunch of redneck pussies making 2,000 left handed turns in a "race".
I also find it amusing that a guy whose car is 'limited' to 80MPH over the fastest speed limit in North America is arguing for limiters. If you think they're such a good idea why don't you have your computer reprogrammed to limit YOUR car to 75MPH? They can change the limiter downward as well as upward!
What's that? You're not interested in doing that? I thought not.
"We have these things called "engineers" who can anticipate *most* problems. Of course these same "engineers" also report to M.B.A. "Manangers" who can't understand anything but a P&L statement."
The original poster that I replied to said that there were more quality (a filter) applications for the Iphone than existed (totality) for all other platforms COMBINED.
You've still not disproven me, despite my admittedly bad numbers and sources. In fact it's quite the opposite. If WinMo is at 20K I'm sure that Symbian and Palm added to it easily surpass 15K.
Now add the "quality" filter to the IPhone application total and you've been handily defeated.
You're arguing an unwinnable position that is demonstrably false. There are NOT more quality applications for the Iphone than total applications in existence for all other mobile platforms combined.
It matters in the context of the A.C's assertion that there were more quality applications for the IPhone than existed for all other platforms combined.
That statement was demonstrably false.
WinMo has many negatives, but it also has some positives. For instance it is a totally free development platform and applications can be purchased from anywhere. This is a far cry from Apple's closed door policy and censorship of their app store and the hardware itself.
Additionally my post didn't ONLY address WinMo. It also addressed Symbian and Palm.
"The iphone has more quality apps than all other platforms have total apps combined."
No. Not even close. In your utterance of that hyperbole you've given away your fanboi status.
The numbers on this are a bit difficult to track down but it's very clear that the IPhone is nowhere near WinMo and you can absolutely forget about it if you combine Palm and Symbian application numbers.
Here's a quick rundown.
In late July of LAST year WinMo _alone_ had 18K applications.
Those are just the tip of the iceberg. France started doing this back in 2000. Germany fired it up in 2008 with state created "for teh childrenz!!!11!!!" anti-porn / anti-torrent laws. The U.K. is increasingly surveillance happy and began banning "sex offenders" from social networking sites.
Now the U.S. may or may not have free-er speech than those three countries but if it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that they DO then what rationale is there for making the change? You'll also note that those are generally considered first world countries with good to excellent free speech track records. When you start examining other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuala, etc you can see how censorship would QUICKLY become the order of the day.
You'll note that all of my examples show censorship being applied using the foundation of FEDERAL (National) law. It's not some hurk hurk jerk judge in a single state or municipality (like Kentucky) showing stupidity about how the Internet works.
Long post short: Without any sense of national patriotism, I am American, I am VERY happy that ICANN has remained here. We may not be the best at free speech but we are a *very* long way from the worst.
We're not talking about malware on a PC. We're discussing the impending release of personal details of 8+ million citizens. That is 8 million citizens who will suddenly be at extreme risk of identity theft. Identity theft that will require hundreds of hours of their time to undo.
You're attempting to diminish the parallel by selecting the mildest case outcome. You're failing at that too though because that malware riddled PC is botnet member, being used to degrade and destruct things father down the chain.
Also, your dad was not opening the phone company's curbside and connecting to it. Nor was he doing that for cable television. He's also not connecting to the transformer for electricity, the water stub, the sewer stub, nor the NG stub. Those boxes are locked and restricted to employees. Contractors are sometimes allowed to work with them but only when the work is inspected and certified by either a code enforcement officer or a representative of the company.
The rest of your comment is analagous to building your own internal network (lan). Yes, that can and should be allowed. It's where your edge meets the rest of the utility grid that the regulations kick in.
Maybe developing software should require a license, or at least an independent review before it is released.
Maybe connecting a computer to the internet should require a license, or at least an independent review of the users skill level.
I promise I'm going to defend those two statements in just a bit.
Here on/., and other tech oriented websites, I often see Internet access put into the same category as traditional utilities. People want it reliable, ubiqutious, interoperable, and as low cost as possible.
Like a traditional utility it should be brought to as many people as possible because it can demonstrably increase people's quality of life.
I also see a lot of people calling for Internet access to be regulated like a utility. As in "just sell the damn pipe and let companies provide service over it". Much like electrical, water, gas, cable, and telephone service.
Here's the thing, all of those traditional utilities have interoperablity and safety standards. For instance you cannot connect your own natural gas service, electrical service, telephone service, or cable service to your home. Nor can you make your parts and have the relevant agencies use those when your home is connected to those utilities.
The reason for this is that because it would be dangerous to do so and most people don't have a good idea of what it would take to engineer a solid gas expansion chamber, electric pole insulator, or the myriad of other gear it takes.
The gear that is used must be designed by a PE (Professional Engineer) and submitted to an independent testing agency, frequently U.L., before it can be sold for those purposed.
Why all of this designing and testing? Because it's DANGEROUS if you let the common man engineer his own stuff. It could, and would, negatively impact the reliability of the service for all users.
So here we are. There are increasing numbers of voices asking for Internet access to be considered a traditional utility. Utility services can, and are, damaged, destroyed, and degraded when people who are ignorant or wilfully negligent attach and use unregistered, unlicensed, and untested gear on those utilities.
Why should Internet access be any different? Why should software company XYZ be given a free pass when their $h1t software is attached to the Internet and allows the comprise of 8 million peoples prescription history?
I don't like the idea of software developers requiring a license or independent testing of software. I don't like the idea on the hardware side either. It will lead to ridiculous restrictions and increased costs.
However, if we agree that Internet access is an essential utility then we simply cannot allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to use whatever crap software they want. We cannot allow these same people to hookup whatever hardware they want. We cannot allow a business to expose its records and data however it wants.
There is too much at risk and the consequences of poor decisions are too often born by people who cannot control those decisions.
I am now donning my asbestos suit. I know this idea is unpopular, but hopefully the parallel between the Internet as a utility and a traditional utility is strong enough to make some of you think. Even if you don't agree with me, and many of you won't, you have to agree that we have to do something.
I had a breathalyzer administered roadside by an officer show me as legally intoxicated, which I found very odd since I hadn't consumed ANY alcohol in at least three days.
I absolutely insisted on being taken to the hospital for a proper blood test. The staff there were very much not amused with the officer when my ACTUAL B.A.C. was at.001!
Breathalyzers are great in theory, out in the real world they can AND DO fail.
I don't understand your argument. What does "crap'd" mean?
If you're arguing that somehow users are being CAPPED "to a level below what they paid for" then I'd have to disagree.
It's very uncommon anymore for anyone to have been promised any kind of total data transfer in a billing cycle.
What they have been promised is bandwidth up to a certain amount, but there's *no* guarantee that bandwidth is available 24 x 7 x 365.
With this in mind your argument makes no sense at all. How can a user be capped at less than what they paid for if they were never promised anything to being with?
I'm not arguing FOR usuage caps, but I am pointing out that the 95% number and the "drop like a rock" statement have no basis in fact.
Common sense would indicate that SOME number of Internet users is paying significantly more for bit delivery than others due to their lower use. However it doesn't say what their value proposition is relative to another user.
Further, common sense doesn't indicate that anything would "drop like a rock" and it also doesn't substantiate the remarkably high percentage of users that it is claimed would be affected.
Slashdot Mirror
HOLD IT.
Unless my memory is faulty our CURRENT PRESIDENT voted for it himself...in his capacity as a United States Senator.
Right there is how it's Obama's fault. He didn't try and stop it and actually voted FOR it.
Also, please read the first paragraph of this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=6654133&page=1
Obama himself WANTED TARP and access to TARP money.
All Bush did was sign it into law, it's the CONGRESS that made the program. In everyone's rush to BushBash they seem to forget how the U.S. Government actually works.
Oh, and that same Congress that passed T.A.R.P. was majority DEMOCRAT!
Isn't political bashing fun? It can go on all day...and not solve one god damned thing.
It's unfortunate that you never met a real ADD/ADHD case. I was one as a child and still am one today as an adult. As a child without the drugs I couldn't possibly have functioned. As an adult I have learned coping mechanisms, but it isn't perfect.
For instance I still have days where I have extreme difficulty concentrating on things even if they interest me. Prolonged concentration can be very difficult for me, making it hard to learn complex things.
On the plus side I can be extremely creative and when having an "energy storm" can outwork any three people you care to name with levels of speed, precision, and forethought that most people have never seen and can't comprehend.
On the bad days I can be distracted while tying my shoes. The worst though, for me, is that I simply cannot always get my brain in gear before my mouth. I have "tennis shoe tongue" from all the sneakers that have been jammed in there.
So mock ADD/ADHD if you want, but you should know that you look like an ignorant asshole to those of us who live with the condition.
A street sign is one thing, a device which hard limits my speed to +10 or so over the posted limit is quite another. Disregarding technical error on the part of such a device it's still a very bad idea.
I probably have one incident a year where exceeding the speed limit by quite a margin is the best option due to road conditions. If you can't imagine this happening then you need to pay more attention. The sign is ignorable and more than once I've convinced "Officer Friendly" roadside that my course of action was the best one and walked away without a ticket. With a hard limiter as low as your talking about my options have been artificially reduced.
I don't need to prove that I'm "Fast and Furious" out on the streets but neither do I wish my vehicle to be artificially regulated to some arbitrarily low overage of the posted limit.
I knew my NASCAR crack would get someone's dander up. I'm an avid MotoGP and WRC fan and in contrast to those events NASCAR drivers ARE pussies. I'm sorry but 2,000 let hand turns is ridiculous. They have one road race event per year and many of the drivers cry like babies over it.
As to my experience, well, I've spent plenty of time on the track with my bikes and it's not only common but expected that you will run at well over 130 on the sweepers and 150+ on the straights. I've gone down the straight SIX wide at 160 with only two wheels under me. So you might want to hold off on the personal jabs. I put myself out there and do it with an inherently more dangerous vehicle than either your or the NASCAR folks.
I never insulted you personally, unless of course you happen to be a NASCAR driver. In that case I still contend that compared to WRC and MOTOGP that your style of racing is far less demanding.
Regardless, you still haven't said when your BMW will be going in to have it's limiter changed to 85MPH. Since you think it's a good idea shouldn't you lead by example?
Aside from ALLLLLL of that nonsense we just went through I'd like to see some hard statistics showing what percentage of car crashes involved unreasonably high speed. I can't say but I'd be surprised if it's anything over 5%. Until Government can prove a substantial positive effect they should leave well enough alone.
P.S. - I don't sit at a desk all day. I'm also married, got plenty of dates before I was married, have procreated in the natural way, own multiple firearms, am not pasty white, play sports, enjoy racing motorcycles, and am an avid outdoorsman. Are there any other geek stereotypes I can shatter for you?
So you're arguing that some Bureaucrat somewhere should be in charge of how fast my car should be able to go?
What if I enjoy taking my Audi to the track on occasion and wish to exceed 135MPH on the back straightaway?
BTW, MOTORCYCLES will and do exceed 190MPH on the track so let's not use NASCAR as the standard for this. Frankly NASCAR is a bunch of redneck pussies making 2,000 left handed turns in a "race".
I also find it amusing that a guy whose car is 'limited' to 80MPH over the fastest speed limit in North America is arguing for limiters. If you think they're such a good idea why don't you have your computer reprogrammed to limit YOUR car to 75MPH? They can change the limiter downward as well as upward!
What's that? You're not interested in doing that? I thought not.
"We have these things called "engineers" who can anticipate *most* problems. Of course these same "engineers" also report to M.B.A. "Manangers" who can't understand anything but a P&L statement."
There, fixed that for ya'.
You may be right but trusty ol' Commodore 128 seems to be immune to every web browser attack out there!
You're also forgetting Admiral Lord Nelson, Captain in the Royal Navy at age 20.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Lord_Nelson
Yes, and when did this become SOLELY about WinMo?
The original poster that I replied to said that there were more quality (a filter) applications for the Iphone than existed (totality) for all other platforms COMBINED.
You've still not disproven me, despite my admittedly bad numbers and sources. In fact it's quite the opposite. If WinMo is at 20K I'm sure that Symbian and Palm added to it easily surpass 15K.
Now add the "quality" filter to the IPhone application total and you've been handily defeated.
You're arguing an unwinnable position that is demonstrably false. There are NOT more quality applications for the Iphone than total applications in existence for all other mobile platforms combined.
End of discussion.
It matters in the context of the A.C's assertion that there were more quality applications for the IPhone than existed for all other platforms combined.
That statement was demonstrably false.
WinMo has many negatives, but it also has some positives. For instance it is a totally free development platform and applications can be purchased from anywhere. This is a far cry from Apple's closed door policy and censorship of their app store and the hardware itself.
Additionally my post didn't ONLY address WinMo. It also addressed Symbian and Palm.
"The iphone has more quality apps than all other platforms have total apps combined."
No. Not even close. In your utterance of that hyperbole you've given away your fanboi status.
The numbers on this are a bit difficult to track down but it's very clear that the IPhone is nowhere near WinMo and you can absolutely forget about it if you combine Palm and Symbian application numbers.
Here's a quick rundown.
In late July of LAST year WinMo _alone_ had 18K applications.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/07/windows_mobile_7.html
Some estimates put Palm at 80,000 back in ***2005***.
http://www.pocketprof.org/running_palm_os_software.htm
Symbian numbers are very difficult to come up with but a low ballpark would be 10,000 of them.
The IPhone currently has about 15,000 applications listed in the app store ( http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/so-many-iphone-apps-so-little-time/ ).
It's clear that your statement isn't anywhere near true.
Please leave some of Mr. Jobs AHEM for his wife, sir.
Would you care to guess how many people actually died in the Japanese version versus how many died in the CIA version?
Maybe educate yourself?
The Japanese version of waterboarding and the CIA version of waterboarding are significantly different.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/04/27/regarding-those-claims-about-wwii-waterboarding.php
I am clear on your objective, I am unclear on the benefit.
That's the difference. There are real penalties, both civil and criminal, if you degrade or destruct the service / utility for other uses.
Those penalties are what we are missing for the Internet utility.
What is the benefit of your proposed action?
We should do this WHY precisely?
To give the PRC, Saudia Arabia, and every other two bit tin horn dictator a shot at democratically censoring the web?
So that Germany, France, the U.S., and others can censor the web to remove torrents over Intellectual Property concerns?
I'm REALLY failing to see an upside to any action at all!
"You can imagine European bureaucrats coming up with a handbook of acceptable thought and using that as a guide for website banning."
I don't have to IMAGINE that as they are already DOING it!
Germany: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22feb22,0,2752813.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
U.K.: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127
France: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/20/202040.shtml
Those are just the tip of the iceberg. France started doing this back in 2000. Germany fired it up in 2008 with state created "for teh childrenz!!!11!!!" anti-porn / anti-torrent laws. The U.K. is increasingly surveillance happy and began banning "sex offenders" from social networking sites.
Now the U.S. may or may not have free-er speech than those three countries but if it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that they DO then what rationale is there for making the change? You'll also note that those are generally considered first world countries with good to excellent free speech track records. When you start examining other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuala, etc you can see how censorship would QUICKLY become the order of the day.
You'll note that all of my examples show censorship being applied using the foundation of FEDERAL (National) law. It's not some hurk hurk jerk judge in a single state or municipality (like Kentucky) showing stupidity about how the Internet works.
Long post short: Without any sense of national patriotism, I am American, I am VERY happy that ICANN has remained here. We may not be the best at free speech but we are a *very* long way from the worst.
:::snort:::
We're not talking about malware on a PC. We're discussing the impending release of personal details of 8+ million citizens. That is 8 million citizens who will suddenly be at extreme risk of identity theft. Identity theft that will require hundreds of hours of their time to undo.
You're attempting to diminish the parallel by selecting the mildest case outcome. You're failing at that too though because that malware riddled PC is botnet member, being used to degrade and destruct things father down the chain.
Also, your dad was not opening the phone company's curbside and connecting to it. Nor was he doing that for cable television. He's also not connecting to the transformer for electricity, the water stub, the sewer stub, nor the NG stub. Those boxes are locked and restricted to employees. Contractors are sometimes allowed to work with them but only when the work is inspected and certified by either a code enforcement officer or a representative of the company.
The rest of your comment is analagous to building your own internal network (lan). Yes, that can and should be allowed. It's where your edge meets the rest of the utility grid that the regulations kick in.
Oh boy, this is going to make me unpopular.
Maybe developing software should require a license, or at least an independent review before it is released.
Maybe connecting a computer to the internet should require a license, or at least an independent review of the users skill level.
I promise I'm going to defend those two statements in just a bit.
Here on /., and other tech oriented websites, I often see Internet access put into the same category as traditional utilities. People want it reliable, ubiqutious, interoperable, and as low cost as possible.
Like a traditional utility it should be brought to as many people as possible because it can demonstrably increase people's quality of life.
I also see a lot of people calling for Internet access to be regulated like a utility. As in "just sell the damn pipe and let companies provide service over it". Much like electrical, water, gas, cable, and telephone service.
Here's the thing, all of those traditional utilities have interoperablity and safety standards. For instance you cannot connect your own natural gas service, electrical service, telephone service, or cable service to your home. Nor can you make your parts and have the relevant agencies use those when your home is connected to those utilities.
The reason for this is that because it would be dangerous to do so and most people don't have a good idea of what it would take to engineer a solid gas expansion chamber, electric pole insulator, or the myriad of other gear it takes.
The gear that is used must be designed by a PE (Professional Engineer) and submitted to an independent testing agency, frequently U.L., before it can be sold for those purposed.
Why all of this designing and testing? Because it's DANGEROUS if you let the common man engineer his own stuff. It could, and would, negatively impact the reliability of the service for all users.
So here we are. There are increasing numbers of voices asking for Internet access to be considered a traditional utility. Utility services can, and are, damaged, destroyed, and degraded when people who are ignorant or wilfully negligent attach and use unregistered, unlicensed, and untested gear on those utilities.
Why should Internet access be any different? Why should software company XYZ be given a free pass when their $h1t software is attached to the Internet and allows the comprise of 8 million peoples prescription history?
I don't like the idea of software developers requiring a license or independent testing of software. I don't like the idea on the hardware side either. It will lead to ridiculous restrictions and increased costs.
However, if we agree that Internet access is an essential utility then we simply cannot allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to use whatever crap software they want. We cannot allow these same people to hookup whatever hardware they want. We cannot allow a business to expose its records and data however it wants.
There is too much at risk and the consequences of poor decisions are too often born by people who cannot control those decisions.
I am now donning my asbestos suit. I know this idea is unpopular, but hopefully the parallel between the Internet as a utility and a traditional utility is strong enough to make some of you think. Even if you don't agree with me, and many of you won't, you have to agree that we have to do something.
Pigs in Space?
Bork bork bork
I had a breathalyzer administered roadside by an officer show me as legally intoxicated, which I found very odd since I hadn't consumed ANY alcohol in at least three days.
I absolutely insisted on being taken to the hospital for a proper blood test. The staff there were very much not amused with the officer when my ACTUAL B.A.C. was at .001!
Breathalyzers are great in theory, out in the real world they can AND DO fail.
Expand to the stars, problem solved.
I don't understand your argument. What does "crap'd" mean?
If you're arguing that somehow users are being CAPPED "to a level below what they paid for" then I'd have to disagree.
It's very uncommon anymore for anyone to have been promised any kind of total data transfer in a billing cycle.
What they have been promised is bandwidth up to a certain amount, but there's *no* guarantee that bandwidth is available 24 x 7 x 365.
With this in mind your argument makes no sense at all. How can a user be capped at less than what they paid for if they were never promised anything to being with?
I'm not arguing FOR usuage caps, but I am pointing out that the 95% number and the "drop like a rock" statement have no basis in fact.
So you contend there's no competent people in Wyoming or the Dakotas?
A funny comment to be sure but if you've bought into the "cloud" model, such as S3 or Google Apps, then what you've described is literally TRUE.
Common sense would indicate that SOME number of Internet users is paying significantly more for bit delivery than others due to their lower use. However it doesn't say what their value proposition is relative to another user.
Further, common sense doesn't indicate that anything would "drop like a rock" and it also doesn't substantiate the remarkably high percentage of users that it is claimed would be affected.
So, Citation Please.