Health Exchange Sites Crushed By Demand; Shutdown Blanks Other Gov't Sites 565
An anonymous reader writes "The launch of a national health exchange site was marred by overloaded servers in several states around the country. In a White House press conference, President Obama said that by 7 a.m., there were over a million users, and he likened the capacity problems to the glitches that Apple experienced after discovering bugs in their rlease of iOS 7. 'I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads, or threatening to shut down company if they didn't,' the president argued."
Meanwhile, a number government websites went blank as a result of the shutdown, instead of simply lying dormant until personnel could return. The National Science Foundation, NASA, the FCC, and the Library of Congress are a few examples.
ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh, funny that, the IRS seems fully up and running their site during the 'shutdown'.
Maybe they should help Nasa out with theirs
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Informative)
The IRS is still collecting taxes, but has suspended audits and answering questions, among other things. They might consider the website essential to the tax collection thing.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, our representation is still getting paid too, alas.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats nothing new. Where was the representation before? There are 300 million people represented by about 600. Representation is a joke and has been for a long time. You don't institute a single non-transferable vote system because you want to represent people, you do it to manufacture consent for what you were going to do either way.
Re: (Score:3)
You do it because the election system was developed very very very early in the modern democratic era, and there hadn't been any "play-testing" of democracy, and then you include those imperfect rules into a constitution that is very hard to amend. It certainly results in the situation you describe, but ignorance is the cause, not malice.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Interesting)
... and there hadn't been any "play-testing" of democracy, and then you include those imperfect rules into a constitution that is very hard to amend.
Actually the US Constitution is Democracy 2.0, or 3.0, depending on your point of view. The Colonies were originally governed by Great Briton, which is governed by Parliament. After the Revolution, the US was governed under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were found to be unworkable so they were replaced by the present Constitution. The Constitution has been amended quite a few times on important matters. The system has its oddities, but it has worked reasonably well for more than 200 years.
Re: ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:3)
Each time, I walk into the election booth and decide whether I want to vote For or Against the candidate pre-ordained to win. Thanks gerrymandering!
Re: (Score:3)
Blaming voters is taking the easy way out. Gerrymandering, restrictive voter laws, voter intimidation. All things that have happened and/or are continuing to happen that reduce the ability of the voters to implement change.
Re: (Score:3)
Or an Actor,
And how does one get legislative experience as President? I thought the President was the Executive Office and Obama got his Legislative experience in the Senate. Funny how you say that when the opposing party decided to try and put a failed Governor in the VP spot.
Re: (Score:3)
You can always push for Article the First to be ratified and finish ratifying the original 12 amendments. You'd have a representative for every 50,000 people so about 6000 representatives. Harder to bribe them all and more responsive to those who they represent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_first [wikipedia.org]
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Interesting)
The NSA, CIA, and the .mil adresses are all up.
I actually find it pretty educational to see what our government conciders "essential" and what is not.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Interesting)
They also passed an emergency funding bill yesterday to keep garbage collection in DC operating.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Funny)
Excellet news! Maybe they'll finally take out all the trash inside Capitol Hill.
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Insightful)
Shutting down websites is mostly political grandstanding. What does it cost to leave a website up, let it run on autopilot for a while, and not update any content? Just bandwidth and electricity. The new healthcare sites got over 1 million hits, but most of the time, most sites are nowhere near that busy. Probably cost more to have their website administrators change the sites to throw up a "sorry, we're closed" page. Saves a little on bandwidth. Doesn't save much on electricity.
When Wikipedia and other majors sites went dark for 1 day, they didn't give us any bull about why. They said it was all about SOPA and PIPA, and they meant exactly what they said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It might help if you understood how the government works before throwing stones at it. It is written into law which parts of government stay open and which close. Claiming some arbitrary website staying open won't cost the government much is entirely beside the point. Yes, you say, but then the law are not very good. Yes, I say, but no matter how you sliced it, some things you think are inessential are considered essential to others and vice versa. Hence we have legislators write them for us because having
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Informative)
It is written into law which parts of government stay open and which close.
It also turns out to be a Federal crime to undertake unfunded actions during the shutdown. These would put the employee in violation of the Antidefiniency Act of 1870:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101078243?__source=xfinity [cnbc.com]|mod&par=xfinity
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:4, Insightful)
It might help if you understood how the government works before throwing stones at it. It is written into law which parts of government stay open and which close. Claiming some arbitrary website staying open won't cost the government much is entirely beside the point. Yes, you say, but then the law are not very good. Yes, I say, but no matter how you sliced it, some things you think are inessential are considered essential to others and vice versa. Hence we have legislators write them for us because having 300 million people *helping* to write laws is silly.
Ah. So it's political grandstanding written into law.
Amazingly large difference there. {rolls eyes}
Re:ya, the IRS site is up and running (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What does it cost to leave a website up, let it run on autopilot for a while, and not update any content? Just bandwidth and electricity.
I don't know where you live, but where I sit both bandwidth and electricity cost money.
Everything that is "non-essential" has zero money to spend, for an indefinite time. Not "very little," not "not much," but jack and shit, and Jack just got furloughed.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone would claim that collecting taxes isn't an indispensible function of government.
I would probably say that is about the only thing I would trust them with. And now I am thinking that trust is the wrong word to use.
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't think anyone would claim that collecting taxes isn't an indispensible function of government."
'I would probably say that is about the only thing I would trust them with. And now I am thinking that trust is the wrong word to use."
Exactly. They have guns and want your money. Trust is definitely not the word.
finally! the internet can be used as intended (Score:2, Funny)
Fewer government mandated healthcare sites means more porn sites for natural sexual healing!
It was a glitch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It was a glitch because it affects the peons. Besides if Apple had all the problems this system did they would of been crucified in the newspapers and everywhere else.
Agreed. Remember the Apple maps problems.
Also, I don't get why they just didn't phase this in slowly. Why not just have everyone with a name that begins with 'A' get on today, 'B' tomorrow, etc. Or use the last 2 digits of your SSN for it. I bet even if it wasn't strictly enforced and they just asked nicely it probably would have worked out better than it did.
Compulsory Shutdown (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
yours is worse Re:Bad Analogy (Score:3)
And Apple can't put us in jail
You don't go to jail, you are levied a fine.
for not buying their product.
The product doesn't come from the government, it comes from a health insurance company. It isn't the government's product.
Although I'm sure they'd like to.
The jailed environment of iOS isn't sufficient?
Re:Bad Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually only 33% of americans oppose Romneycare.
About another third like it and the rest wanted more. Forbes had a nice article about it.
Re:Bad Analogy (Score:5, Informative)
I assume the GP was referring to the fact that the ACA is based very closely on the Massachusetts healthcare plan signed into law by Gov. Romney in 2006. And he/she is correct in noting that a sizable chunk of people who "do not approve" of the ACA are actually disappointed because it didn't go far enough. Remember, nationwide, there was well over 70% support for the so-called "public option", but that got tossed out before the "discussion" even began.
Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:3, Insightful)
If I don't like Apple's bugs or capacity problems, I have the option to never pay for another Apple product. I don't have the option to opt out of ObamaCare.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Informative)
If I don't like Apple's bugs or capacity problems, I have the option to never pay for another Apple product. I don't have the option to opt out of ObamaCare.
Just opt out of getting sick or injured, I hear your fucked if you do in your country. When I get sick or injured i just go to the doctor or hospital and then go home until I'm better. Healthcare in the USA is something I hear everyone say "I hope our country is never that screwed". I can't opt out of my healthcare but I don't see my investments as so fragile that they need the extra $7.50 per month that it costs me to make sure I can go to hospital if I need to.
I simply don't understand why it's such a big deal for America to fix something that is so obviously broken, your a superpower and your people are sneaking into Canada. It's really a sign that the US political system is so incapable of dealing with important infrastructure issues and the next stop is despotism. Seriously, someone should tell your far right republicans to pull their heads in and stop acting like spoilt brats because they can't get their way.
I like you guys better than China, so I really hope that you can sort it out and get back to being the America that we used to look up to. I like (most) American people I've met, I think you deserve better than being discarded because of some misfortune and no decent heathcare.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Informative)
p> I simply don't understand why it's such a big deal for America to fix something that is so obviously broken, your a superpower and your people are sneaking into Canada.
Americans aren't really sneaking into Canada, but as a born and bred American, I have in the past year or two completely given up hope of any major problems ever getting fixed here. I have to explain to one of my foreign friends that everything in America is political. Basically the country is split down the middle between the two major parties and neither side will listen to the others, although to be fair, as a former Republican I have to say that Republicans are much worse. The Republican Party itself has about 1/4 of its members as Tea Party fanatics and they are holding their own party hostage. The problem is that nobody in Congress wants to lose their job and the House of Representatives members have to please their constituents to stay in power, and many of the House members are in highly partisan districts. I've got a co-worker who is a paranoid right win nut job who apparently believes that everything that he doesn't like is either done deliberately by Obama or "the government" to deliberately mess with him. Maybe 20% of Americans right now are like him. So without any clear majorities and a public that actually chose to elect a split government (Senate and President to the Democrats, House to the Republicans) nothing will ever get done.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, how about your neighbor to the north, Canada? We're even larger geographically and are so ethnically diverse that our second largest province has a completely different official language than the rest of the country. And yeah, there's some friction but we make it all work pretty good.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Civilized people are fine with Conservatives being able to benefit from our society, but the Conservatives want it all for themselves. They go crazy at the thought of a poor person getting healthcare. They whine that it's so unfair that a jobless person doesn't starve in the streets, when they have to work so hard, and embrace a mirror-mirror version of Christianity based on persecution complex and hatred of anyone smarter than they are.
That this completely fucked up subculture took control of the Republican party is a tragedy. Thanks Nixon and Reagan!
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Informative)
You say do the research? I have.
Your daily caller article is pure BS.
It's a myth, frequently and easily debunked.
No one sneaks into the US from canada to get treatment.
Very few come to the US for treatment.
And no one is dying for lack of treatment in Canada. Its very improtant to note just what elective treatment is, and what treatments we're talkijng about specifically.
the procedures your article is lying about arent lifesaving, arent emergency. that's what "elective" means! the statistics they always use are for treatmetns for senios citizens like hip replacements, being a popular statistic.
thing is....who pays for old people in this country? Medicaire.
And what is Medicaire? A centralized single payer system....just like Canada's... that also happens to be the most efficient and cost effective sector of our health care system.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/ [theinciden...nomist.com]
They pay similar taxes.
They earn similar pay.
Their healthcare is more effective, more widely available, and cheaper too.
Oh, and they have a fairly balanced budget.
In short: Hey thanks for the story from your biased and full of crap article that was spoon fed you and you bought hook line and sinker without having to do all that crazy research stuff. So ya, it is all BS, Canada is a nice country, they aren't trained sheep, and their healthcare IS tons better than ours.
Re: (Score:3)
I simply don't understand why it's such a big deal for America to fix something that is so obviously broken, your a superpower and your people are sneaking into Canada. It's really a sign that the US political system is so incapable of dealing with important infrastructure issues and the next stop is despotism.
It's the fundamental challenge of governing in the US: how to run an effective government when half the population is stupid. Really stupid, as in anti-science (no evolution, no global warming) gun-loving retards that listen to conservative talk radio and believe every bullshit conspiracy theory they hear. Those same people vote the Plutocracy Party and willingly support any sort a give away to the wealthy or corporations after being distracted by simple slogans.
I don't know why you've been modded down as it seems to be a straightforward pragmatic answer. We have the same problem in Australia, just less people (probably the same ratio of stupid though). Voting is mandatory and I think it's a citizens duty to participate in democracy otherwise they don't belong. We have the same problem though with our 2 party system and it's frustrating just how many people don't give a shit. Occasionally though the electorate doesn't give the politicians what they want and the min
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I don't like Apple's bugs or capacity problems, I have the option to never pay for another Apple product. I don't have the option to opt out of ObamaCare.
Are you also able to opt out of emergency medical care? Because you should be required to do so if you choose not to get health insurance. Otherwise you're shifting the costs to others.
Re: (Score:3)
No. the mandate effects young, healthy people who are convinced the country owes them health care should crisis suddenly arise for them. This lot also believes it shouldn't fund sick people. A country is a large insurance policy. Most Western countries have included health care in that policy. The U.S. stands out as one that believes it is okay for people to have a medical problem and shortly thereafter a financial problem because of the bill...presuming they survive.
This cuts to the core difference between
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Informative)
The latest House bill, which the chamber backed on a 228-201 vote, would have delayed the law's individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
so thats what, attempt number 512094 by the republicans to refight the same fight they've already lost?
at what point do the republicans admit that in a democracy you sometimes have to accept defeat, accept that the opposition has won, and move on?
what hte republicans are doing is NOT democracy, it is extortion.
they have co-opted the democratic process, using the Hastert Rule to prevent the true majority in the house from having any say, so that a minority of the ruling party can dictate the agenda, creating a flase middle ground, in order to hold the country, its economy, indead hte worlds economy, hostage over a ideological battle that they cannot win and have already lost 50 seperate times.
they have put the gun to all our heads, and are threatening to pull the trigger and blow us all to hell unless they get what they want.
they are acting like spoiled children who have no inlking of what living in a democracy entails, who refuse to accept that they can be on the losing side.
they have created their red line, and unlike the other recent one, they refuse to back down even though they will not only destroy themselves, but take everyone else down with them. and if they do this, it is the end of the republican party for the next 50 years or more; no one will touch them with a 10ft, indeed, 1000km pole.
Re: (Score:3)
the phrase someone else said was "they've taken us hostage, and to prove theyre serious, they've just killed the first hostage. and now theyre threatening to kill the rest of them".
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
Like I said in another thread: When a guy with Middle Eastern ancestry takes hostages and threatens people unless his demands are met, it's called terrorism. When a group of politicians in suits takes the government hostage and threatens people's livelihoods unless their demands are met, it's called politics.
What's sadder isn't the 80 or so Republicans that are "representing" their districts (which actually do consist of people opposed to Obamacare), but Boehner who can't see that this is a minority of Republicans and is bending the entire party to their will. He could easily ignore them (let them rant and rave all they want) and work to pass a bill. He can even say "We don't like Obamacare but sadly we don't have the votes right now to repeal/delay it" to somewhat appease the more radical factions. John McCain said this and much as I have problems with the man, he's right there. You want to oppose the law? That's fine. That's your prerogative. But at some point you need to accept that you can't take action against it right now and move on. You can keep working to drum up more support for your side and launch another attack on the bill later, but shutting down the entire government because you don't like something but don't have the support to repeal it is going too far.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that the Republicans have gerrymandered districts to create wingnut majority districts to keep toxic politicians in office. If too many rational people are able to vote in a congressional district, the extremists Republicans get replaced with Democrats or moderate Republicans. As it is with these crazy districts, reasonable Republicans get voted out in primaries by the extremist base that's made the Republican party the trainwreck it is today. If the Republicans were still Eisenhower's party, they would have taken the presidency, the senate, and gained a lot of seats in the house. No one who isn't drinking the kool-aid wants to be part of the extremism the Republicans have devolved into.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, except gerrymandering is the real reason why the GOP held the house. Dems actually got more votes nationwide for Congress in 2012. [washingtonpost.com] Even so, the Dems still held the Senate, and gained eight seats in the House... hardly a "resounding mandate" for the GOP's crusade against Obamacare.
Re: (Score:3)
none of what you say is true.
there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE to abolish obamacare.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html [bloomberg.com]
http://editors.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/republicans-foil-what-most-u-s-wants-with-gerrymandering.html [bloomberg.com]
In the last election 33 Democraticic seats were up for grabs, far more than the Republicans.
The Democrats not only retained their seats, but won a couple extra.
the republicans only barely retained control of the house, and they
Re: (Score:3)
I find your selective outrage amusing. Where was your high minded defense of democratic first principles when this train wreck was forced through Congress? The simple fact is the Democrats didn't have enough votes to cleanly pass the bill they wanted and so through a lot of undemocratic shenanigans they managed to cram an unpopular bill through Congress with no opposition party support.
Now you'd like to be all outraged that the opposition didn't just pack up and go home and, worse, they're playing the sam
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the GOP alternative is "The free market solution which we have and which has no problems whatsoever." When you point out the problems, they ignore you and assume that since THEY have enough money to afford health insurance or get government health care by virtue of being a member of Congress, nobody else has problems ever.
Now that I mention it, all of those Congress folks who say how government run health care is evil and we should go free market... Are any of them waiving their Congressional health
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the GOP alternative is "The free market solution which we have and which has no problems whatsoever." When you point out the problems, they ignore you and assume that since THEY have enough money to afford health insurance or get government health care by virtue of being a member of Congress, nobody else has problems ever.
Now that I mention it, all of those Congress folks who say how government run health care is evil and we should go free market... Are any of them waiving their Congressional health care in favor of purchasing their own health care plans? I'd think they were being hypocritical if they didn't.
Well, yes and no. Ted Cruz has made a big deal about waiving his benefits. Of course, he's been quieter about the fact that he also gets premium coverage from Goldman Sachs [huffingtonpost.com] to the tune of ~$40k/yr, or approximately one median household's income, purely because he's married to a successful woman.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the current proposal from the GOP. The Senate and president are REFUSING to even talk to them about it.
THE DISCUSSION IS OVER. The senate and president don't *need* to talk to the crazies because IT IS ALREADY A LAW. You've already had this debate.
Or is this up for debate every year? Every time an already existing and passed law needs funding, but some disagree with it, the whole country can be held to ransom by those who disagree?
You people make me sick. You ignore your own system, you are destroying your own government for fringe interests.
Re: (Score:3)
You had the debate, and you can have ones again, but using the financial standing of the country is a dickish and unprecedented way to do it. If this is so normal then why has it only happened once before? By this measure, any law will can be completely repealed bit-by-bit by Congress because they get to make these 'compromise' demands once per year.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
The premise here is a false premise. Congress changes laws all the time. The Office of the President proposes changing laws all the time.
Yes, and they vote.
and then they abide by the votes.
however they dont dont keep revoting 50 times trying to get the result they want.
When the Executive branch stops refusing to enforce laws they don't agree with: Immigration laws, Marriage law, even this law itself, which the Executive branch has either delayed or ignored when politically convenient for them, then you can advance this argument.
if a law's validity is in question it is completely within the enforcer's power to withhold enforcement in the face of an impending reversal, as happened with DOMA. besides which, there was nothing to stop enforcing there.
and also, he never stopped enforcing immigration, in fact, more people were deported under obama's first 4 years than in the previous 12.
As for funding. Constitutionally it is the job of Congress, specifically the House, to hold the purse strings. It is their job to refuse to fund endeavors which in their opinion the U.S. government should not be paying for. It has been used in the past to refuse to fund wars, programs and ill considered legislation passed by previous Congresses. It is the reason that many of these House members were elected.
Again: they've tried to repeal it 50 times already
They've lost each time.
And now in denial of their losing side status, they've shutdown the government in a temper tantrum demanding to be given their way.
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
It is over. Voting once or twice to try and change minds is one thing.
Voting FIFTS TIMES AND LOSING EACH TIME is something else.
The discussion is over. They lost. Obamacare is here to stay. Get over it.
We did not have this debate. When we tried members of Congress, specifically democrats, stopped talking to people, because they were being told in no uncertain terms this was unwanted. We did not have this debate because the law that was passed was not argued in detail in either house of Congress prior to it being voted on.
We did have this debate.
We had it for over a year before Obamacare was passed.
We've had it each and every time they've tried to repeal it.
We've gone over the bill in detail. Word by word, clause by clause.
For some reason Republicans havent stopped having this debate, even though they have lost the debate each and every time, FIFTY TIMES SO FAR . The debate is over.
Only republicans live in a fantasy world where there was "no debate" and the bill is this "giant mystery that no one understands". Those are lies, repeated by republicans over and over. But they are lies.
We HAVE had this debate, and Republicans KEEP LOSING IT.
We HAVE discussed the bill, in detail. But apparently Republicans keep forgetting whats those details are.
Republicans are living in denial of reality.
You dont have a clue what you're talking about.
You're full of crap.
Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score:4, Insightful)
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
So, what you are saying is the Republican-controlled House is essentially holding hostage the government and the financial stability of the country because they don't like a law that they already got watered down and still voted in? The Republican party has resorted to extortion? It is shit like this that has driven me away from the Republican party. If the Democrats had done this on, say, the gun control push at the beginning of the year, you can bet your ass the Republicans would have literally been up in arms, demanding marches on Washington and screaming bloody murder. This is ridiculous. The job of legislators is to negotiate, to get what is needed done for the good of the people of this country. And right now, what we need most, is to get the government funded (we really don't need to get the debt ceiling raised, what we really need is a balanced budget and reduced spending). You know how in Colorado a few weeks ago 2 state representatives were recalled after the state passed gun control because it was against their constituents wishes? Well, the Republicans in the House are making a strong case for their own recall votes. Stop arguing, strap on your big boy pants, get the government funded, and then spend the next 2 years if you want trying to undercut the ACA. But now is not the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform e
Where's the priority (Score:5, Insightful)
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that there are smart people who set this up and even they could not anticipate the initial load factor. So the republicans tried everything in their power to make people afraid of the ACA and the result was overloaded systems. Perhaps that says something about the population as a whole. IT is easy to pull something down when you think you're not effected, but when you need it,real bad, then it becomes the most important thing to have.
Anyway, the DBAs and Admins will figure this all out, the process will continue and within a week this will fade as the debt limit looms next.
Re:Where's the priority (Score:5, Insightful)
"So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once."
Apples vs. Oranges. That's like saying the Government put a man on the moon, how come they cannot cure cancer. NSA didn't build their system overnight, it took years and they had to learn a lot in order to pull it off. Very few large IT projects ever come in on time and under budget. Not only that, most aren't directly facing your basic American. If you want to see how embarrassing your systems can be, open them up to the general public. They will do things of which you never thought. And each person has their notion of what they want out of that system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thought that didn't cross your mind...it did come to someone's mind, which is why the whole program has a several month lead-time rather than an immediate do or die scenario.
You can't log in today? Or yesterday? So fucking what, your coverage under the exchange doesn't start till the new year anyway. They knew the first days would have a pointless crush, that things would go wrong even with the best of intentions, and they knew some people would have bad intentions just to be spiteful, so what
Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is actually spending MORE money to close these resources than it is keeping them open.
An example is the closure of the memorials in DC. Normally there might be one parks officer roaming around them, but under the closure, there are dozens of park police manning the barricades to ensure nobody can go see them.
It's all political theater. The Administration (and don't get me wrong, I don't give a shit of an R or D is in the white house - they both would do the same thing) is doing today exactly what it did with the sequester - it's punishing the American people as much as it can.
Most of the sequester cuts were planned in a way to have the greatest negative effect on people, and these closures are being executed in the same way. Government is not happy that it has lost it's money source, and it figures the only way to get it back is to go around kicking people in the face to get them to scream at the people who control the purse strings.
It's despicable. Instead of doing their jobs and negotiating the best possible compromise between all interested parties, they've become a bunch of extremists (on both sides) who refuse to negotiate. It's "my way or the highway."
Obama in particular ought to be ashamed of himself. He campaigned on a platform of unity and leadership, and he has exemplified NONE of it. In fact he's the biggest one going on national TV proclaiming with pride that he refuses to negotiate.
Fire them all. Seriously. Every last despicable goddamn one of them.
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Informative)
> Most of the sequester cuts were planned ... to have a negative impact.
My wife works for the federal government, so I think I know a bit about what's going on. :)
You are absolutely right. The fact is, during a "shutdown," the government can decide which employees are "essential" and which can be furloughed. My wife is considered "essential," so she WILL go to work. She just may not get paid on time if this thing drags on.
Both parties are guilty of this: when there's a shutdown, they decide whom to send home, and they will inevitably play to their base(s) and try to get the public angry at the other party. It's all political theater. They ought to wear makeup and costumes. And really: is there any geek here who doesn't know how to leave a Web server running overnight or on weekends? :)
Hey, it's not like they didn't know this has been coming MONTHS in advance, is it? And to REALLY cheer you up, remember that we have a debt ceiling debate coming up in a couple of weeks. How much you wanna bet this wink, wink "shutdown" will continue past THAT debate? :)
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
How can Obama possibly negotiate? Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate. Sorry. Obama is the not the villain here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Republicans.
They're holding up routine business in order to exert leverage over a completely unrelated and already passed piece of legislation that they don't like.
It's childish 'taking my toys home' nonsense, nothing more. The Republican Party needs to grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3)
When did Obama become part of the legislature? I thought he was part of the executive branch.
The republicans refuse to allow normal proceedings to go ahead so they can make a big stink about one unrelated issue. That is simply childish.
Re: (Score:3)
Repubs are demanding he kick his grandest achievement to the curb or they won't negotiate.
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities. Republicans grant Obama his wish, now Obama wants to play hardball on a system that the very people who passed it into law are admitting isn't ready for prime time.
You know very well that that's not the real reason this delay is being proposed, it's a tactic to get it delayed closed enough into the next election and then repealed.
Re:Most "shutdowns" are completely unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are asking for a one year delay for the individual just as Obama himself asked for a one year delay for corporate entities.
Okay, let's say Obama took them up on that and game out what would happen. The individual mandate is delayed for a year, which removes much of the incentive for people without immediate health problems to sign up for health insurance (because why bother when you could save money by just waiting until you're sick?). The people who are sick (or likely to become sick), on the other hand, still have a big incentive to sign up for insurance, and the insurance companies are obligated to sell it to them. So with only expensive customers in their risk pool, the insurance companies are forced to greatly raise their premiums, which means that healthy people become even less willing to sign up, because now the premiums are too expensive. The ACA enters a death spiral, at the end of which it ends up as a system that offers only unaffordable insurance that nobody can buy. Everyone loses, except for the Republicans, who can now gloat about the "inevitable failure" of the ACA.
No, I can't see Obama going for that, unless he's an idiot.
Who's the villain here?
I'm pretty sure it's the 30 or so Republicans who are holding the rest of the nation hostage, against the wishes of 80% of the American public.
Re: (Score:3)
So in the USA if the government cannot agree a budget they just stop ...?
In the UK the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) automatically requires the resignation of the government or dissolution of Parliament, much like a non-confidence vote, since a government that cannot spend money is hamstrung. i.e Since the Government cannot agree on what to spend money they leave it to the will of the people ....
Re: (Score:3)
One thing you should know is that this has NOTHING at all to do with money. NPR ran a great article on the history of government shutdowns. Basically in the past it was never really an issue and while the government was defunded it was generally business as usual. It wasn't until some helpful lawyer pointed out that the moment people came to work in the defunded state they were working illegally.
The government is forced by the letter of the law to furlough it's workforce. There is no money savings here, and
Re: (Score:3)
I read a good analogy yesterday: you can't have a hostage situation unless you have a hostage and a hostage taker. You can't put all the blame on the hostage taker.
The DEA is up! (Score:5, Interesting)
At least the DEA website is up, letting us know they are still operating. Gotta get those pot smokers.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml [justice.gov]
Meanwhile the USDA is down, but don't worry, there's no problem with our food supply.
http://www.usda.gov/ [usda.gov]
Makes sense to me. Going after the druggies is far more essential than the food we eat.
Incomprehensible.
slashdotted (Score:3)
DDOS and Bogusity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DDOS and Bogusity (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to wonder how much of the crush was due to the Randians, the Baggers, and Koch Whores trying to overwhelm the site
As of two days ago, about a third of the USA (population: 300 million people) had no healthcare. When the whistle blows and they are all at once allowed to get coverage, only a moron wouldn't expect the largest server slashdotting in history. Even if they wanted to, malicous parties would have trouble generating a DDOS that would be more than noise compared to that.
a million (Score:4, Informative)
Well over a million users and their site couldn't handle it? Mr President, call up Yahoo or Go-daddy... they could have your site up and running in a few minutes.
Ahh Government IT projects.... (Score:3)
Always done half assed by a contractor that barely has the skills to do the job. Honestly, who was the consultant because they were no talent n00bs in gauging the amount of traffic these sites would expect. Even if it is only an initial spike in traffic they could have EASILY paid for temporary increased infrastructure from places like rackspace to handle the first 3 months easily.
Plus the number of outright failures and nasty bugs being reported makes me even wonder if they tested the sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:worst case of slashdot editing in a while? (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton Deploys Vowels to Bosnia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, simple typos and grammar mistakes get through now?
Obviously, Slashdot is also affected by the US government shutdown . . . I didn't know the government runs it . . .
Re:The sites weren't supposed to work today (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Federal Government shouldn't RUN anything! They couldn't even make money selling whores and alcohol when they took over the Mustang Ranch, so, naturally they will fuck this up too.
Maybe they should hire Rockstar. Once they get the GTA V rollout under control they will be experts at running a large popular site that gets swamped beyond their designs. Just as AOL, Blizzard, etc ha
Re:The sites weren't supposed to work today (Score:5, Interesting)
They shouldn't run anything.
I get your point here - "anything" is a bit extreme, but...
Like the highway sysetm
You mean the one that each state runs, for which they may receive funding from the feds?
the military
"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia..."
But this is too big a can of worms to get into with many legitimate views on the cost, scale, organization, etc.
and the police force?
When did this become a federal organization?
Or the super efficient health systems in every other developed country?
Like which ones? Canada maybe, with their entire population being only ~34.8 million, compared to 38 million in California alone, or 313.9 million in the US?
My vote is state run, with some federal laws to back it up, and that correlates well to your example, AFAICT.
What was your point again?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I have a simple litmus test for a person's belief system. I ask the following question:
"Does your system require that people suffer, not because they would have anyway, but because of the rules of the system?"
It obviously immediately eliminates American Capitalism and Soviet Communism as thoroughly immoral - though I can hear the ideologues right now prepare themselves to explain why some suffering MUST happen (although conveniently it won't much suffering for them, only for someone else in the system) - bu
Damn straight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Things Americans do care about: sucking the entitlement teat.
And they won't stop until they get their hands on our Social Security and Medicare. Communists every last one of them,
Re: (Score:3)
I'm personally surprised, living in a country which does have relatively high taxes and an extensive social welfare and universal healthcare system, that you people are so gullible as to somehow believe that welfare systems are inherently not in your best interests and a violation of your rights and somehow designed to make it so unemployed "bludgers" can get shinier things than you.
Honestly, how do you people believe that crap?
Actually, they may have (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Inaccurate propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate propaganda (Score:4, Informative)
Which is more likely, your unsubstantiated shit or the website / IT system not able to create like a quarter million user accounts in one hour? I assume there's that kind of burst load or even worse - what do the worst 10 minutes look like?
It's obviously hard to bring up a completely new service which experiences that kind of load on day 1 hour 1, just give them time to tune their system, add more servers, tune or upgrade their mainframes if they're using that. People are sweaty busy scrambling to fix the situation.
What's funny is the american sense of entitlement to have some web or gizmo shit work instantly no matter what, whether they pay for it or not, and then they'll all butthurt because of very meeble welfare (food stamps are very low) or because of a new system that helps the working class buy overpriced and weak healthcare.
And it's pretty stupid to disable all these websites. They only would have saved money if they had actually powered down the machines, which they obviously didn't do. So, it was just pointless politicking.
Showing a static html "This site is closed blah blah blah" is congruent with powering down the machines, a PC in a basement can serve that. Importantly the IT staff isn't paid and is out of work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
So you stole cable TV all your life but the people working for the government are the parasites? Interesting interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the fact that I was never paid for the pole in my front yard or their adding of wires to it. I tend to see it in a rather bleak light. They have too many rights already. I do not subscribe, nor do I steal it, but I can see where the poster is coming from. They did reduce transmitter power to let cable work better, they do have rights of way they should not, and they both charge for the service and show commercials.
They might have a right to protect their assets, but those assets are ill gotten gains.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Market" doesn't react to anything these days unless Federal Reserve and the big banks want it to react. It is all a HFT playground where bots controlled by big banks and the Fed run the market. Any actual "normal" investor cannot actually use it for investing - it is a glorified rigged casino. If you know how it works, it is possible to still extract money out of it but you have to understand the rules (one of them being that it is no longer in any way rational, or reacting to real world things)
Re:Merica! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the greedy rich assholes make it impossible for an honest normal person to even run for office.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats love it even more. They have a complicit media pointing all the fingers at Republicans, and every liberal and democrat cranking out bulletin board posts using the R word with no mention of the D word to be found. If an alien were to visit from outer space, they would be led to think that there are only Republicans in government.
But yeah, those crazy tea party 'muricans wanting to run their own lives with only essential gubment involvement...bunch of extremists and anarchists they are.
But is *IS* the Tea Party's fault! The bill has been passed, it is now *law*. The Republicans *lost* the debate, the correct procedures were followed and the bill has become law. And *now* they're still trying to fight it using blackmail tactics over funding.