Okay, you are right. I had forgotten about the loan that Bush made from the bailout funds to keep them from going through a disorderly bankruptcy in December 2008.

And you will change your view if you have a drugged out guy pounding on your door threatening to kill you after he assaulted your neighbor and was vandalizing your apartment building. Luckily the door held and he eventually gave up. And frankly I am glad I didn't have a gun because I don't really want to shoot anyone even in self defense. But as it was my roommates and I were prepared to defend ourselves as best we could with blunt objects... speaking of "caveman thinking". It wasn't even a high crime area.

Then the police show up 45 minutes later after you call 911 and don't bother getting out of their patrol car to take a statement or even verify that you are the person that had called, then perhaps you might feel differently about the need for armed self defense. Guns are rarely a good means of self defense and they are a last resort. Most gun owners I know understand that. But there are unfortunate times when they might be necessary.

When those around you act like cavemen and threaten or use force against you or your family, then "caveman thinking" is all we have left to survive with. Most people can't hire private security or have a protection detail like many politicians and notable proponents of ever greater gun control. For many a gun is what would allow them to defend themselves in a terrible situation.

People in high crime areas get guns to protect themselves because the police can't or simply don't protect them. Moving forward in a logical way to me would be to make sure that our laws protect the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and that includes the universal and basic right to the same kinds of guns that every traffic cop might have. While focusing on making sure those whose crimes or mental conditions make them ineligible don't actually get guns. When we reduce crime, violence and social injustice then fewer people will want or need guns and that would be a good thing. Until then asking law abiding people to disarm themselves before the criminals is a non-starter and we have already gone too far in that direction in some states and localities.

I think this is entirely misleading. June 1, 2009 was when GM filed for Bankruptcy protection. The terms of their bankruptcy and government bailout investments were largely negotiated in the months immediately before that during the Obama administration.

The Wall Street Bailouts happened under the Bush administration (just with the support of Senator/Candidate/President-Elect Obama).

By comparison, the bankruptcy restructuring and government investments in GM and Chrysler were relatively smooth because they essentially used well established bankruptcy law to perform the restructuring. But I recall the debate at the time, it took a big political fight to prevent just another Wall Street style bailout.

Right now you can be a law abiding gun owner in one town, but drive over the city or state line and you are a criminal.We need better and fewer gun control regulations that make it easier for law abiding people to own guns for self defense and comply with the law and yet keeps guns out of the hands of felons and the dangerously insane.

The fundamental, if not always stated, purpose of most of these gun laws is to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns. With the goal of reducing the number of guns in circulation. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, about compliance with gun laws, gun control advocates are trying to isolate gun owners politically through attrition in their numbers over time.

I do agree that a society with fewer guns will in fact reduce the overall number of gun deaths. My concern is that the trade off between the short term goal of safety which would trade away an enduring Liberty just isn't worth it. And will ultimately lead to a less safe and secure society as the people that control the guns both legally through the government or illegally through criminal gangs will feel more emboldened to oppress and threaten those without effective means of self defense.

My ideal is a society where people don't threaten to take away people's second amendment rights and fewer and fewer people feel the need to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The only thing that the recent push to further regulate guns (on top of layer upon layer of current gun control laws) has done is increase the number of guns in society. Not only is gun control a failure, it is counter-productive to its own express goals.

People that are willing and able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership should do so and our government should support them with reasonable regulations and laws and not burden them with unnecessary, redundant and conflicting laws as is the case now.

Just sell, transfer or exchange the immediate plot of land that the ten commandments monument is on to a private non-profit with appropriate deeded restrictions and then don't allow religious monuments on the public land that remains.

This is essentially what was done to settle the White Cross Monument dispute at the Mojave National Preserve.

I agree that religious and other forms of speech should not be biased or endorsed by government on public land. Doesn't mean there can't be a tasteful compromise to still allow religious monuments that are visible from public land.

The NSA is likely doing the best job it can with the resources at its disposal. Intelligence gathering aimed at our adversaries, competitors, allies and terrorists likely makes the world safer by allowing the president and key decision makers to make more informed decisions.

That said, the NSA has been used to cross too many constitutional lines. You can't have such massive unbridled spying on our own citizens without undermining a democratic form of government and a free society. We are losing our Freedom under these policies.

It just needs to stop, so the NSA and all of our government can again focus on protecting our rights, freedoms and lives instead of undermining them. Then we can all be proud of the work we do as a nation and as a free people.

I'm sure Bin Laden liked ice water on a hot day too, and I still like ice water on a hot day.

More likely the report just lumps in some chrome and firefox browsers running on android with the desktop versions. I'd gather that a fairly large number of people are using chrome or firefox browsers under android now.

Sounds like there might be some benefit to cooperation. How about they pay US companies to run the ground stations for them? If all they need is basically a fixed point on the ground to get some ground truth/calibrating type signals, then a US company could run the ground stations subject to US government oversight, regulations and control. US government could simply take them offline, disrupt or take them over in the event of war, basically the only issue would be a surprise attack/first strike. But in this case the benefits of the technology, having a redundant GPS system with accurate US coverage, might outweigh very remote risks the system could be used against US interests.

That would be a horrendous design. Another good reason to verify income later on rather than make it a one shot deal. So, what if your income changes in a couple weeks?? What then? If it is a one shot application and you can't revise your inputs then that means you might get a better paying job and suddenly be unable to sign up online for a plan without an appeal even though you might be subject to fines starting January 1st if you are not covered. Actually I really hope you are incorrect and this is just some bad documentation telling you incorrect information.

According to every news report I have read the healthcare.org system is basically unusable for signing up for health insurance right now. Having a system that sends an email after the fact if post processing determines more information is needed or something couldn't be verified is better than having people walk away without completing the transaction because your processing is taking too damn long.

That's why when presenting the Forbes article I said "On the one hand it makes sense that you don't want to scare people off with high healthcare insurance prices until you know if they are eligible for subsidies" I think Forbes is spinning the requirement a bit. Because it actually does make sense from a policy and usability standpoint to not scare off people that have low incomes by presenting them with the full unsubsidized prices. For instance if you lived in Ilinois and wanted a "Catastrophic" only plan which has high deductibles and very little regular health coverage and you were presented with the lowest cost family plan which is $556.30 per month. Then it really is better financially to just pay the fine and pocket save the money you otherwise would have spent on minimal health insurance. But if you do qualify for subsidies then at some price point it becomes a no-brainer to sign up for subsidized coverage rather than pay a monthly fine that would be equivalent to a good portion of a premium cost.

ACA is full of bad requirements... That said. If a large employer doesn't offer health insurance, which is essentially what the law is saying about Congress and the White House since they would not be offered insurance, then they would go into the individual market and then based on income would either qualify or not qualify for subsidies. Seems pretty simple to me.

Usually a large employer would be required to offer plans or pay a penalty, so really the only difference here between how this would work with Congress versus another large employer is that it would be redundant and wouldn't make sense for the government to pay itself the penalty for not offering a health insurance plan.

Sure, Congress and the White House would have to pay higher salaries to their employees to retain people, but it seems like the benefit of transparency outweighs what would likely just be an offsetting cost of providing money for people to buy their own insurance. Really, this does have the effect of making Congress and the White House live with the worst case of Obamacare... as an individual having to see the full cost of insurance premiums when your employer opts out of providing subsidies or provides the bare minimum of subsidies.

People's experience with Obamacare is going to differ greatly based on circumstances, having the people that make and administer the law experience the worst case of a non-compliant employer putting their people on the individual market seems to me only fair.

Interesting Forbes article on how healthcare.gov is designed to prevent people to see the full prices of the healthcare plans which is what is causing the upfront bottleneck. On the one hand it makes sense that you don't want to scare people off with high healthcare insurance prices until you know if they are eligible for subsidies, but on the other hand it means you probably have to verify the data entered against what are potentially hundreds of millions of records just to display a screen with prices for the plans.

Seems a better option would simply to take the persons word for it up front, let them see the prices displayed depending on the personal and family information they entered and then only do the background verification after they "checkout" and actually purchase a plan. That way they just get an email later on if there is a problem with anything they entered or if the prices change based on something determined based on the background check and credit check. Or if as news reports suggest they are going to have to go through an income verification process as part of the Senate compromise, then doing the credit check up front in "real time" is an extra step anyway. Could even make the insurance companies do the final eligibility check as part of their 15% commission.

Trying to process through hundreds of millions of records in less than tens of seconds is a stupid thing to try to do just to keep people from finding out what your prices really are even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to blow through. They could have fully insured 100,000 more people for the money that has been wasted just on healthcare.gov.

Also of note that it appears that the applet will accept any certificate that the browser recognizes from any trusted authority. So there are a variety of SSL certificate options at various yearly prices. Right now I see one offering certificates for $60 per year.

So, yes it will increase the cost of publishing a java applet on a website, but no this doesn't create a central authority out of Oracle for revoking certificates like the OP says. It just ensures that people can verify the identity of web sites publishing the applets.

Not sure I think it is a good change. Especially, once they block unsigned browser based applets altogether. That could be a bit too far.