I had a similar idea and ended up with this setup:
- A Rooms to Go leather power recliner
- A $50 adjustable medical stand from amazon
- A 27 inch monitor that is placed on the medical stand. I optionally mounted a second monitor by attaching a monitor arm to the medical stand.
- A 10ft HDMI cable
- A wireless keyboard and mouse
The recliner has a little space between the bottom of it and the floor so I can move the medical stand with the monitor on it in front of me at a fairly close distance. I can also recline the chair with the monitor in front of me and easily swing the stand out of the way with minimal effort. I place the wireless keyboard on my lap and use the mouse on the medical stand. I am a tall person with a long reach so this may not work for others. After almost two years of use I have had no ergonomic issues. I can move the monitor slightly off center so that I can double task and code while casually observing a tv show or movie with my wife. It has worked out very well for me and the complaints from my wife about me working too much have diminished significantly.
I would presume perfect information means complete information. If that is the case then why would any business be compelled to release information that could be perceived as critical to their operations without regulation or the threat of regulation? As we have seen with the GM case keeping consumers in the dark about safety issues pads the bottom line and they would have gotten away with if it weren't for those pesky NHTSA regulators. I always find it amusing when the captains of industry get on television and berate government regulation and accountability their first line of defense for impropriety is always the mantra "it may be unethical but it is not illegal".
I do think that the goals regulation should be to enforce transparency, clarity, and legal accountability more than just simply restricting certain types of activities.
Homeland Security is an institution based in FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The more they panic the populace the more Congress will capitulate and grant them ever increasing power and funding. Secrecy grants them a shield to deflect all criticism: in the event of an attack they can simply state they were underfunded or were not granted the powers they needed to protect the people regardless of whatever the truth may be and no one except initiated would be the wiser. Instead of confronting terrorism using our well accepted and established system of Justice we all get thrown into a state of complete panic when someone attacks us for political motivations. Last year 1.6 million American's died of cancer. Why don't we spend trillions of dollars combating a real threat instead of something that may kill 1 in 20 million Americans?
Ironically the point of terrorism is to effect political change based on the psychological impact of an attack. Congress seems to pay no heed to this as they accelerate the decline of America into a police state, perhaps to the desire of the terrorist boogieman. Certainly anyone who has read a history book knows what happens when a people grant their government extraordinary powers to combat a perceived threat: a dictator arises and they lose all their liberties. I speak for no one besides myself but I would rather take my chances with being killed by a malcontent than risk losing everything precious in my life to totalitarian government.
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Well said. Cui bono - who benefits? Government officials like Michael Hayden keep conjuring up the terrorist boogieman to rationalize totalitarian surveillance but in the end "Knowledge is Power" and that is the ultimate objective. Access to all information - virtual omniscience - can cement any party's rule and wealth and some would do anything to obtain that power. I recommend watching PBS's recent Frontline documentary for an in depth look at the surveillance state. Our government is heavily influenced by corporate interests and it stands to reason mass surveillance is more about power with access to all information than it is about the safety of ordinary citizens. Terrorism is just a psychological ruse to distract from the real prize.
A point of interest - A key criteria in the FBI's definition of terrorism is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" With that said when the revolving door government officials fear monger and institute policies contrary to Constitutional principles are they facilitating terrorism?