You can't pay to be inside the LAN. Customer's computers don't have direct access to the LAN, being there would be pointless. The only way a service could be in the LAN would be if it were built into the modem or the cable boxes.
I think a good test for that is that co-location adds to the service that uses it. Customers can only benefit from that. Penalizing the competition by slowing down their packets is different because It hurts the consumer. If we were talking about tangible objects, not digital things it would be like the difference between competing by building more/better factories vs sabotaging the factories of your competitors.
Maybe I didn't describe what I was proposing well enough. When you have cable you have one wire (or with the latest version of Docsis there may be a bundle of wires). Internally, your cable modem connects to a LAN through this wire. Usually it is something in the 10.x.x.x ip range. Telephone (VoIP) and Internet are streamed over this LAN. I'm not sure how digital TV and Video on Demand come through. I don't think regular digital cable TV uses IP although I am not sure. Maybe VOD does? If so then I'm sure it's on that same 10.x.x.x LAN.
Your internet connection arrives through a tunnel on that 10.x.x.x LAN. The modem separates this out before it gets to your computer. Your computer sees a public IP address (assuming you aren't using a router). Your computer is 'unaware' that what is doing comes over a 10.x.x.x LAN. My proposal is that the cable company gets to chose how it balances the different services on that LAN. They would not get to interfere with the balance of connections within the internet tunnel. So... Google, Bing, Netflix, Amazon, Joe little guy, etc... they all get the same equal access to your internet tunnel.
"they could give their own service priority treatment "
Only if it isn't coming through the internet tunnel. That would mean their service isn't available at your computer. It is only available at some sort of proprietary device you get from the cable company, most likely your cable box. We have that already today, it's called Video On Demand.
Also, they wouldn't be able to specifically slow down Netflix or any other internet site. If the services coming through the cable box start noticeably slowing down your internet connection on a regular basis then switch providers (if you can). Otherwise.. turn off your cable box while you use the internet. This is something that the public would notice and vote with their money if the cable company abuses it as doing so would slow down the user's entire internet connection. It is not like say.. favoring content on their own website over that of Netflix where most ignorant users would just assume Netflix's servers suck and stop using Netflix.
No. If 'Bing' is coming through my web browser on my computer then it is coming through the internet tunnel. By my proposal the ISP still couldn't give it an advantage over Google.
However... telephone service (if I chose to purchase it) or Video on Demand come through the same physical pipe (the cable line) but not through the internet tunnel. If the cable provider is 'innocently' protecting their premium services then I would expect there to be something in place that would protect my phone conversation or my Video on Demand from becoming choppy just because someone is downloading something large over the internet.
Now, if my cable provider, and the cablebox manufacturer cut a deal with Microsoft that brought Bing to my cablebox AND they implemented it such that the traffic came in through the main 10.x.x.x connection rather than the internet tunnel then Bing could get an advantage over Google. I'm not too worried about that though because every attempt to bring the internet to TV has flopped. Searching Bing on a cable box would likely do the same.
If you broadcast something over any radio service (part 15 wifi included) and you think it is or should be private...
YOU ARE A MORON
MORON MORON GO AWAY, RETURN TO THE NETS ANOTHER DAY (or don't).
I care so much because I don't want to see any new laws restricting the use of receivers. I don't want to see somebody's imagined (and in this case it really is imaginary) privacy rights to result in new restrictions on something that might actually have been useful.
There's an easy solution. Those who opt in automatically get put higher on the list in the case of needing an organ themselves. Not to be entirely callous, Opt-outers can have any leftovers. IF there even are any. It sounds pretty fair to me!
It is, you opt in when you broadcast. It's really no different than standing in your front yard and shouting. You don't have a right to be upset when somebody driving by records and shares what you say.
You couldn't have wifi without broadcasting some form of ID. When machines communicate they have to be able to identify what machine the message is intended for. I guess there could be a protocol that encrypts the ID. But then every device has to try to decrypt every message that goes past in order to check the ID to see if it's it's own. That would kill batter life and waste processor speed.
So.. every device gets a long meaningless list of seemingly random letters and numbers. (not quite random, different manufacturers do use different ranges to avoid conflicts). That's your MAC address and that's the one part you can't help but broadcast. Whoopdie Freakin Do.
How is recording your SSID and the location it was found at tracking you? If you set it to your name, or to some personal information then that's your fault for broadcasting your name or whatever personal information. Radio is a common resource. If you are broadcasting your info out into the public domain then it's nobody's fault but your own if someone records and shares it. Fortunately.. if you have encryption turned on that's pretty much all they get. Your SSID. If you don't have encryption turned on then it is YOUR FAULT. Whatever you are broadcasting IS public.
"You can't be mad at"
Yes, you CAN. As many seem to be proving. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be an unreasonable @$$ for doing so.. as many seem to be proving.
It's about protecting the driver? Then why require a minimum period for saving the recording? Surely if something happened to the driver they wouldn't just assign a new driver, waiting some number of days while the camera keeps recording and recycling it's storage before they finally begin to investigate.
I don't know about the UK but in the US when there are laws like this it is more about busting pot smokers than anything else.
"commonly agreed rules of the road"
What is your basis for this assumption? I don't remember ever seeing a vote, a poll or anything asking the common people if they agreed with the current speed limits. I for one would vote for changing a great number of them on the roads I drive.
Most of us agree there should be a speed limit. We do not agree on what it should be. Limits are set to keep people safe but that means they need to be set to keep the lowest ability drivers from crashing into the better ones in the worst conditions. Most of us do not think we are the worst drivers whether we are or not. Therefore we believe that our own speeding is a victimless crime, because we aren't going to hit anybody anyway. Therefore without a set punishment most of us will speed.
"the laws have been bastardised for revenue generation - you get to break them infrequently in return for a modest payment"
Yes, but they have been bastardised on both ends. On many roads they are much stricter than they should be in order to get more of those payments.
"fail to move somewhere without the protection of government"
The last I heard Sealand burnt down. Antarctica maybe? The truth is the majority whom do want to live under a government have been pretty greedy. If somebody really would chose to just go it alone they would have to chose the worst possible places to do it. Most likely they would chose somewhere that is within a national territory but remote enough that nobody is around to enforce the law. That probably either means a desert or a very cold, nearly tundra forest. To escape political borders altogether would really put one on the edge of habitability. Probably Antarctica. There just is no 'wild-people' reserve on Earth.
"the local people expect some hours of peace"
Why? Do they own the site of the bar? Do they have a right to determine what happens there? If the busybodys get to make bar rules then why don't late night drinkers get to make rules about what happens in the busybody's homes? If the local people own everything than why does the bar owner pay rent or a mortgage? What have these local people provided that they should in turn be entitled the right to say what other local people get to do?
Besides, how often do you see a bar in a residential area? The local people shouldn't be affected at all by a bar being open past a certain hour. Not unless they decide to go there themselves anyway. I fully support laws that punish someone for what they do when they leave the bar... for example drunk driving or if they walk to the residential area and start waking people up. Make the punishment hurt enough that they don't do that. But if a person wants to go, have their drink on their hours and takes a cab, walks home (quietly) or drives home under the legal limit then it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. Remember, many people don't work/live on the 9 to 5 schedule. We have these things called electric lights now...
The GP stated that with no laws he would speed but not rape or murder. He/She was explaining the difference that some things most of us would be against under any circumstances, others not so much.
The 'driving is a privilege' argument is lame. Yes, most adults would agree with it because it is pounded into our brains as much as it is repeated. People believe all sorts of unreasonable things because their parents passed it down. I understand the purpose of that statement but I still think it is wrong. The fact is, unless you are not paying taxes (criminal) or don't owe any (how do you afford to drive?) then you are owed a road system. The payment for roads is taxes. However, the payment for safe roads is rules. And unfortunately we can't afford to let people opt out on either. Letting people chose not to buy into the road system would probably underfund it. Not to mention, it would be so hard to live without.. many would opt out then sneak on anyway. Letting people chose a chaotic road system over the rule based one would require a s
When firearm use goes right no shots are fired and nobody is in trouble! There were a couple of instances when I was a teenager where my father and I were approached by people we were pretty sure were there to rob us. He simply got it out, sat it on his lap and they left. We are pretty sure of what was going on due to location and time of night. They had no other business being there. We also heard of similar events where the intended victims were not armed and they didn't leave in the area later.
Now, the actual law if shots are fired is a bit off. It is legal to kill if you have good reason to believe your own life is in danger. However, the test for that is the other person has to have a gun AND be less than a certain distance from you. I forget what the distance is but it is quite close. A criminal could easily kill you from a greater distance and you could not legally prevent it.
Also... you pretty much have to shoot to kill. Not because the law specifically states that but because if you wound an attacker they are likely to sue. How sick is that? You can either let yourself be robbed and possibly killed (often done so you don't talk), or you can wound the attacker exposing yourself to being sued. Or you kill the attacker and are stuck with that moment in your memory, on your conscious for life. That's bureaucratic justice for ya...
Fortunately, most of the time no shots need be fired. Those events however are much less likely to be reported or heard about. It's really a lot easier not to call the police and discuss what you did with your gun, even if it was totally legal. They don't always respect the law and your rights. When the would be attacker has left and all is over it just gets left that way.
Woops, replied in the wrong place. Here is where I meant to.
If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.
If 'saying it's ok' amounts to a verbal license then there really isn't any GPL issue here at all. They just aren't using the GPL.
If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.
If 'saying it's ok' amounts to a verbal license then there really isn't any GPL issue here at all. They just aren't using the GPL.
I'll take net neutrality laws as they have been written any day over letting the ISPs just do as they please. After all, the broadband ones are all old entrenched telecom and media companies that already do discriminate between content. At the very least they pretty much all throttle P2P which contrary to some people's opinions can and is used for plenty of good, non-pirate things.
On the other hand... why can't we have laws which distinguish between a provider's LAN services and the internet? When TV service comes through the modem on what is essentially a big LAN, usually a 10.x.x.x network and the internet comes through as a tunnel on that LAN then I think net neutrality laws should be applied to what comes through the tunnel, not the whole LAN connection. The LAN belongs to the ISP, the Internet does not.
In other words, when I connect to the internet I expect to be able to reach Google, Bing or some other competitior, NetFlix, some big corporate website or somebody's personal page all equally (as far as my ISPs connection is concerned, obviously they will each have different providers and capacity). If however the ISP has some kind of assurance in place that the other services on their LAN aren't being 'squeezed out' by the Internet tunnel that is fine with me.
Then again, with an ever faster Internet traditional TV and phone services become pretty obsolete. Using that whole LAN for Internet access and plugging my computer into my TV sounds just fine to me and I haven't had use for a landline in years.
For people allergic to bees one sting can kill. And someone is advocating putting them into an urban apartment setting with all those people around? Somebody's bound to be allergic!
No, in many parts of the US there is only one ISP to choose from, at least if you want better than dialup anyway. Also, even where there is more than one broadband provider, they are mostly pulling the same kinds of tricks. When it comes to big media and telecom competition has failed to keep them in check a long time ago.
Also, if you are paying $7 for that CFL that's your fault. They haven't been that expensive in years! You are shopping at the wrong place.
There is plenty of reason to fear the government trying to regulate the internet... ACTA, SOPA, etc.. I don't think net neutrality legislation is it. For all the conservatives crying regulation at net neutrality I have yet to see one example of how any net neutrality regulation actually takes a choice away from an individual.
Finally, whoever modded the parent down... shame on you! A/C was just speaking A/C's mind. It doesn't matter that A/C is right/wrong let A/C share A/C's viewpoint! That's called free speech. If you disagree then comment back! 'Enlighten'us with your version of the world.
Election time is coming. He has to pretend to be the president we elected for a little while. Now is a good time to do that, if he keeps it up voters short memories will ensure that his first few years in office don't harm him. Then he can go back to being Bush++ when he is re-elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people believe you do have that right.
True. There are already lot's of people working on that though!
You can't pay to be inside the LAN. Customer's computers don't have direct access to the LAN, being there would be pointless. The only way a service could be in the LAN would be if it were built into the modem or the cable boxes.
I think a good test for that is that co-location adds to the service that uses it. Customers can only benefit from that. Penalizing the competition by slowing down their packets is different because It hurts the consumer. If we were talking about tangible objects, not digital things it would be like the difference between competing by building more/better factories vs sabotaging the factories of your competitors.
Maybe I didn't describe what I was proposing well enough. When you have cable you have one wire (or with the latest version of Docsis there may be a bundle of wires). Internally, your cable modem connects to a LAN through this wire. Usually it is something in the 10.x.x.x ip range. Telephone (VoIP) and Internet are streamed over this LAN. I'm not sure how digital TV and Video on Demand come through. I don't think regular digital cable TV uses IP although I am not sure. Maybe VOD does? If so then I'm sure it's on that same 10.x.x.x LAN.
Your internet connection arrives through a tunnel on that 10.x.x.x LAN. The modem separates this out before it gets to your computer. Your computer sees a public IP address (assuming you aren't using a router). Your computer is 'unaware' that what is doing comes over a 10.x.x.x LAN. My proposal is that the cable company gets to chose how it balances the different services on that LAN. They would not get to interfere with the balance of connections within the internet tunnel. So... Google, Bing, Netflix, Amazon, Joe little guy, etc... they all get the same equal access to your internet tunnel.
"they could give their own service priority treatment "
Only if it isn't coming through the internet tunnel. That would mean their service isn't available at your computer. It is only available at some sort of proprietary device you get from the cable company, most likely your cable box. We have that already today, it's called Video On Demand.
Also, they wouldn't be able to specifically slow down Netflix or any other internet site. If the services coming through the cable box start noticeably slowing down your internet connection on a regular basis then switch providers (if you can). Otherwise.. turn off your cable box while you use the internet. This is something that the public would notice and vote with their money if the cable company abuses it as doing so would slow down the user's entire internet connection. It is not like say.. favoring content on their own website over that of Netflix where most ignorant users would just assume Netflix's servers suck and stop using Netflix.
No. If 'Bing' is coming through my web browser on my computer then it is coming through the internet tunnel. By my proposal the ISP still couldn't give it an advantage over Google.
However... telephone service (if I chose to purchase it) or Video on Demand come through the same physical pipe (the cable line) but not through the internet tunnel. If the cable provider is 'innocently' protecting their premium services then I would expect there to be something in place that would protect my phone conversation or my Video on Demand from becoming choppy just because someone is downloading something large over the internet.
Now, if my cable provider, and the cablebox manufacturer cut a deal with Microsoft that brought Bing to my cablebox AND they implemented it such that the traffic came in through the main 10.x.x.x connection rather than the internet tunnel then Bing could get an advantage over Google. I'm not too worried about that though because every attempt to bring the internet to TV has flopped. Searching Bing on a cable box would likely do the same.
If it's your house then your name and location are out there in plenty of public databases anyway. Get over it.
Ok, I've said it before, I'll say it again.
If you broadcast something over any radio service (part 15 wifi included) and you think it is or should be private...
YOU ARE A MORON
MORON MORON GO AWAY, RETURN TO THE NETS ANOTHER DAY (or don't).
I care so much because I don't want to see any new laws restricting the use of receivers. I don't want to see somebody's imagined (and in this case it really is imaginary) privacy rights to result in new restrictions on something that might actually have been useful.
There's an easy solution. Those who opt in automatically get put higher on the list in the case of needing an organ themselves. Not to be entirely callous, Opt-outers can have any leftovers. IF there even are any. It sounds pretty fair to me!
It is, you opt in when you broadcast. It's really no different than standing in your front yard and shouting. You don't have a right to be upset when somebody driving by records and shares what you say.
You couldn't have wifi without broadcasting some form of ID. When machines communicate they have to be able to identify what machine the message is intended for. I guess there could be a protocol that encrypts the ID. But then every device has to try to decrypt every message that goes past in order to check the ID to see if it's it's own. That would kill batter life and waste processor speed.
So.. every device gets a long meaningless list of seemingly random letters and numbers. (not quite random, different manufacturers do use different ranges to avoid conflicts). That's your MAC address and that's the one part you can't help but broadcast. Whoopdie Freakin Do.
How is recording your SSID and the location it was found at tracking you? If you set it to your name, or to some personal information then that's your fault for broadcasting your name or whatever personal information. Radio is a common resource. If you are broadcasting your info out into the public domain then it's nobody's fault but your own if someone records and shares it. Fortunately.. if you have encryption turned on that's pretty much all they get. Your SSID. If you don't have encryption turned on then it is YOUR FAULT. Whatever you are broadcasting IS public.
"You can't be mad at"
Yes, you CAN. As many seem to be proving. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be an unreasonable @$$ for doing so.. as many seem to be proving.
It's about protecting the driver? Then why require a minimum period for saving the recording? Surely if something happened to the driver they wouldn't just assign a new driver, waiting some number of days while the camera keeps recording and recycling it's storage before they finally begin to investigate.
I don't know about the UK but in the US when there are laws like this it is more about busting pot smokers than anything else.
the US is leaning, these days, more towards security THEATRE than freedom
TFTFY
"commonly agreed rules of the road"
What is your basis for this assumption? I don't remember ever seeing a vote, a poll or anything asking the common people if they agreed with the current speed limits. I for one would vote for changing a great number of them on the roads I drive.
Most of us agree there should be a speed limit. We do not agree on what it should be. Limits are set to keep people safe but that means they need to be set to keep the lowest ability drivers from crashing into the better ones in the worst conditions. Most of us do not think we are the worst drivers whether we are or not. Therefore we believe that our own speeding is a victimless crime, because we aren't going to hit anybody anyway. Therefore without a set punishment most of us will speed.
"the laws have been bastardised for revenue generation - you get to break them infrequently in return for a modest payment"
Yes, but they have been bastardised on both ends. On many roads they are much stricter than they should be in order to get more of those payments.
"fail to move somewhere without the protection of government"
The last I heard Sealand burnt down. Antarctica maybe? The truth is the majority whom do want to live under a government have been pretty greedy. If somebody really would chose to just go it alone they would have to chose the worst possible places to do it. Most likely they would chose somewhere that is within a national territory but remote enough that nobody is around to enforce the law. That probably either means a desert or a very cold, nearly tundra forest. To escape political borders altogether would really put one on the edge of habitability. Probably Antarctica. There just is no 'wild-people' reserve on Earth.
"the local people expect some hours of peace"
Why? Do they own the site of the bar? Do they have a right to determine what happens there? If the busybodys get to make bar rules then why don't late night drinkers get to make rules about what happens in the busybody's homes? If the local people own everything than why does the bar owner pay rent or a mortgage? What have these local people provided that they should in turn be entitled the right to say what other local people get to do?
Besides, how often do you see a bar in a residential area? The local people shouldn't be affected at all by a bar being open past a certain hour. Not unless they decide to go there themselves anyway. I fully support laws that punish someone for what they do when they leave the bar... for example drunk driving or if they walk to the residential area and start waking people up. Make the punishment hurt enough that they don't do that. But if a person wants to go, have their drink on their hours and takes a cab, walks home (quietly) or drives home under the legal limit then it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. Remember, many people don't work/live on the 9 to 5 schedule. We have these things called electric lights now...
The GP stated that with no laws he would speed but not rape or murder. He/She was explaining the difference that some things most of us would be against under any circumstances, others not so much.
The 'driving is a privilege' argument is lame. Yes, most adults would agree with it because it is pounded into our brains as much as it is repeated. People believe all sorts of unreasonable things because their parents passed it down. I understand the purpose of that statement but I still think it is wrong. The fact is, unless you are not paying taxes (criminal) or don't owe any (how do you afford to drive?) then you are owed a road system. The payment for roads is taxes. However, the payment for safe roads is rules. And unfortunately we can't afford to let people opt out on either. Letting people chose not to buy into the road system would probably underfund it. Not to mention, it would be so hard to live without.. many would opt out then sneak on anyway. Letting people chose a chaotic road system over the rule based one would require a s
Not so.
When firearm use goes right no shots are fired and nobody is in trouble! There were a couple of instances when I was a teenager where my father and I were approached by people we were pretty sure were there to rob us. He simply got it out, sat it on his lap and they left. We are pretty sure of what was going on due to location and time of night. They had no other business being there. We also heard of similar events where the intended victims were not armed and they didn't leave in the area later.
Now, the actual law if shots are fired is a bit off. It is legal to kill if you have good reason to believe your own life is in danger. However, the test for that is the other person has to have a gun AND be less than a certain distance from you. I forget what the distance is but it is quite close. A criminal could easily kill you from a greater distance and you could not legally prevent it.
Also... you pretty much have to shoot to kill. Not because the law specifically states that but because if you wound an attacker they are likely to sue. How sick is that? You can either let yourself be robbed and possibly killed (often done so you don't talk), or you can wound the attacker exposing yourself to being sued. Or you kill the attacker and are stuck with that moment in your memory, on your conscious for life. That's bureaucratic justice for ya...
Fortunately, most of the time no shots need be fired. Those events however are much less likely to be reported or heard about. It's really a lot easier not to call the police and discuss what you did with your gun, even if it was totally legal. They don't always respect the law and your rights. When the would be attacker has left and all is over it just gets left that way.
No, they are elected by the people. That the people are bought by the corporate money is beside the point.
Woops, replied in the wrong place. Here is where I meant to.
If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.
If 'saying it's ok' amounts to a verbal license then there really isn't any GPL issue here at all. They just aren't using the GPL.
Of course, IANAL, I haven't even played one on TV
If the copyright owners have said it's ok then does that constitute a verbal license agreement between the copyright holders and Google? Plenty of things get released under multiple licenses. A more common example would be allowing a company to pay to use code which is otherwise available under the GPL in their closed source product. It isn't a GPL violation because they aren't using it under the GPL. The GPL is not involved.
If 'saying it's ok' amounts to a verbal license then there really isn't any GPL issue here at all. They just aren't using the GPL.
Of course, IANAL, I haven't even played one on TV
I'll take net neutrality laws as they have been written any day over letting the ISPs just do as they please. After all, the broadband ones are all old entrenched telecom and media companies that already do discriminate between content. At the very least they pretty much all throttle P2P which contrary to some people's opinions can and is used for plenty of good, non-pirate things.
On the other hand... why can't we have laws which distinguish between a provider's LAN services and the internet? When TV service comes through the modem on what is essentially a big LAN, usually a 10.x.x.x network and the internet comes through as a tunnel on that LAN then I think net neutrality laws should be applied to what comes through the tunnel, not the whole LAN connection. The LAN belongs to the ISP, the Internet does not.
In other words, when I connect to the internet I expect to be able to reach Google, Bing or some other competitior, NetFlix, some big corporate website or somebody's personal page all equally (as far as my ISPs connection is concerned, obviously they will each have different providers and capacity). If however the ISP has some kind of assurance in place that the other services on their LAN aren't being 'squeezed out' by the Internet tunnel that is fine with me.
Then again, with an ever faster Internet traditional TV and phone services become pretty obsolete. Using that whole LAN for Internet access and plugging my computer into my TV sounds just fine to me and I haven't had use for a landline in years.
For people allergic to bees one sting can kill. And someone is advocating putting them into an urban apartment setting with all those people around? Somebody's bound to be allergic!
No, in many parts of the US there is only one ISP to choose from, at least if you want better than dialup anyway. Also, even where there is more than one broadband provider, they are mostly pulling the same kinds of tricks. When it comes to big media and telecom competition has failed to keep them in check a long time ago.
Also, if you are paying $7 for that CFL that's your fault. They haven't been that expensive in years! You are shopping at the wrong place.
There is plenty of reason to fear the government trying to regulate the internet... ACTA, SOPA, etc.. I don't think net neutrality legislation is it. For all the conservatives crying regulation at net neutrality I have yet to see one example of how any net neutrality regulation actually takes a choice away from an individual.
Finally, whoever modded the parent down... shame on you! A/C was just speaking A/C's mind. It doesn't matter that A/C is right/wrong let A/C share A/C's viewpoint! That's called free speech. If you disagree then comment back! 'Enlighten'us with your version of the world.
Election time is coming. He has to pretend to be the president we elected for a little while. Now is a good time to do that, if he keeps it up voters short memories will ensure that his first few years in office don't harm him. Then he can go back to being Bush++ when he is re-elected.