Spend more money on regulating Comcast
Don't assume regulation involves a loss. Some regulations exist solely to make a profit. (speed traps, war on some drugs, probably others). Golly Gee comcast, that'll be $1M for blocking voicepulse.com's VOIP service, head on down to city hall and get in line with the property tax payers at the cashiers office...
The big problem with getting the locals to do the net neutrality thing, is in the USA, corporations and govt have merged at all levels. At the local level, why would some dumpy local bookstore want people to be able to access amazon.com? Why would any of the dumpy local antique shops want people to be able to access ebay.com? Why would the local fishwrap (newspaper) want people to be able to access news.google.com? I'm struggling to think of a local business that would benefit from allowing the unwashed masses to access their competitors over the internet...
You're correct in that too many people on the left seem to think the purpose of stimulus is just to "save/create jobs." But too many people on the right use that to blind themselves and sit comfortable in the idea that the invisible hand will magically solve everything without that pesky gubmint stealin' their tax monies.
The primary benefit of stimulus should be infrastructure. Putting people to work and keynsian multipliers are all just gravy. Unfortunately infrastructure has become is all the more important in the modern era where fear of dinging a companies quarterly earnings report has choked of most private investment in the future. Keynes didn't get that either. You don't build something just to build it, you need to have an eye toward future value.
The railroads, telegraph, telephone, interstate, and internet were all funded, at least in part, with public money and those investments have paid for themselves many times over. As per your example, the Panama Canal was a publicly funded project that probably paid for itself (hard to quantify the cost of all those malaria deaths). Similar investments in domestic energy, and wireless communications should have started 20 years ago. There's nothing wrong, and a lot right, about the government building something and then selling or leasing it to private companies with an agreement to serve the public good.
Stimulus certainly can be a good idea. Now as for the way the current administration has been spending that money... Umm... Not so good.
I noticed the same on my mac. With a set of eight CPU graph meters in the menu bar, they're almost always evenly pitched anywhere from idle to 100%, with a few notable exceptions like second life, some photoshop filters, and firefox of all things.
When booted into Win, more often than not I have two cores pegged high, and the others idle. Getting even use out of all cores is the exception, not the rule.
Have you perhaps encountered a Windows license limit? Most Windows licenses have a two cpu limit.
Welcome to the world of "computer says no".
Personal electronics ban is trying to regulate stupidity. Won't help, it will only hurt those of us who don't fly large aircraft which have working toys. I think Congress needs to do a bit of flying during the summer in singles or light twins while dodging thunderstorms with no onboard wx RADAR and see if that smartphone (or netbook) is worth it's weight in gold for near live RADAR updates.
Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost
I just hope they keep practicing their regular navigation/IFR from time to time, or they might get completely lost or at least partially blind.
I only hope that you are correct. I don't trust anything in this bill, and my fear is that it will simply add an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already onerous level of red tape and management of the whole system.
The problem with insurance companies is that the patients aren't the customers, they are merely the product. In order to clean up the insurance companies, it is the patients that need to become customers again. This bill did nothing to solve that problem at all.
Great! So all someone needs to do to get his boss fired is to get his machine infected? What about the CFO? CEO? How long would that policy be in place with a little targeted mischief?
What about the case of the user that gets infected because he visited a legitimate website that was serving up malware because they got hacked by a SQL injection attack last night? What if visiting the (now malicious) website was part of her job (reviewing press releases, whatever).
Not sure if your "Just set the AUP right in the first place" suggestion was a joke or a legitimate suggestion.
Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.