I don't know where I stand on this. I work for a mid-size construction contractor and the just yesterday I took out a look out in the yard and there were upwards of 20 trucks just sitting there. Each of those trucks represents a worker not working and property taxes and insurance being paid without a return on investment. We're starving for work and we're not alone. Furthermore, those workers aren't paying income taxes and that's sustaining the cycle of budgetary shorfalls which are making it so hard to find work (because most road construction is publicly funded). Contractors are taking LOSSES to win bids just to keep shovels digging and hammers flying. That means that now is an excellent time to invest in infrastructure as you're going to get a lot of bang for your buck.

At the same time, however, you have to ask yourself if the ends justify the means. Does the federal government even have the money to invest in infrastructure? No. They're printing more money to pay for these projects which could lead to hyperinflation (think Germany at the end of WWII).

They're just as in bed with the lobbyists as the Republicans are. Perhaps even more so in this case because the majority of media corporations are in blue states like California.

At face value it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. But if you think about the long-term costs of running the system (administrators, maintenance, hardware upgrades, software upgrades) it's not a job that the government is going to be able to perform efficiently.

Then you have the privacy concern. As it stands, if somebody wants access to my medical records then I need to explicitly authorize their release. In my opinion, this is the way it should be. I'm against anything that makes it easier for a third party to get my records without consent. There needs to be very strict language protecting the consumer's privacy.

Then you have provisions that have NOTHING to do with streamlining medical record transfer. Quoteth wikipedia:

"The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure the doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective so as to reduce costs and âoeguideâ the doctorâ(TM)s decisions (p.442, 446). Hospitals and doctors that are not âoemeaningful usersâ of the new system will face penalties by the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose âoemore stringent measures of meaningful use over timeâ (p.511, 518, 540-541). The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research ($1.1 billion)[26] (p.190-192) will slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are expensive. Medicare would apply a cost-effective standard set by the Federal Council for the elderly (p.464).[27] Drugs "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." It approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.[28]"

That's right folks! They're using this bill as a means to regulate the treatment your doctor provides. They, in their infinite wisdom, will decided whether the treatment your doctor is giving you is worth it. Got cancer? Oh, but you're 80 years old. Sorry. We've got more important people to take care of.

This is what you should expect because whenever the government gives you something they expect you to bow to their demands to make sure the money isn't "wasted." It's just like how people who have been convicted of drug-related offenses have trouble getting college grants. It's historic really, going back to the big city democrats in the early 1900's. They give you your meal ticket, you give them their power.

A sticky situation indeed...

As far as I know, in the U.S. the police can *ask* for any information they want but the company is under no obligation to provide it. I'm not sure a case would get thrown out in the U.S. because there wasn't a warrant if the company voluntarily provided the information. The company might run afoul of consumer protection laws, but I'm not sure. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

No, it is different because users don't expect their identity to be revealed by their ip address. The whole point of a phone book is to link people with numbers and you can opt out if you don't want to be listed.

Yeah, I highly recommend "Hacking the Xbox" to the aspiring hardware hacker. It's a great book and the guy knows his stuff.

Amen brother!

"hy shouldn't we encourage people to give it a go" By all means, encourage people. Just don't do it on technology related forums where everyone's already heard it a MILLION TIMES and the vast majority of people have experience with it. Go setup your friends and family and non-techies with it. I'm tired of the linux fanboys preaching to the choir on every tech forum whenever there's a question remotely related to software or even computers in general.

"How do I figure out my subnet mask under Network Connections?"

"Windows sucks d00d. Switch to linux! It's freeeeeeee and its waaaaaay better than windows. hrrrrdrrrrrrrrr"

FreeBSD of course.

Maybe they could put two power buttons on it: one to boot to linux and one to boot to Windows. Or they could put a little toggle switch on it and boot according to the user's preference by default.

Ignore me. Missed the sarcasm.... coffee time.

Israel is a tiny state with a generally homogeneous culture. The comparison doesn't fit.

Does anybody else find this hilarious? The Obama as Messiah jokes aren't to be taken literally, ya know.

Yeah, I made a mistake when posted this. I misread the summary.