I'm sorry, but the Affordable Care Act was no compromise. A "compromise" is a meeting of the minds based on negotiation. The Affordable Care Act was forced down the GOP's and the American people's throats. Polls showed that the American people didn't want Obamacare at the time, and that we don't want it today. I predict that tomorrow, we still won't want it.

For what it's worth, I didn't intend that as a slight. MassHealth is just not as commonly called "Romneycare", so I don't refer to it as such. Indeed, when I google for "MassHealth", I get 456,000 results, but when I google for Romneycare, I get only 298,000 results. On the other hand, when I google "affordable care act" I get 23,400,000 results, but I get 38,000,000 results for "obamacare".

So, based on my super serious and rigorous scientific research, "Obamacare" is more familiar than "Affordable Care Act" and "MassHealth" is more familiar than "Romneycare". That's why I used those. If it makes you feel any better, I'll just come right out and say that MassHealth was then-Governor Mitt Romney's policy.

This is not a reasonable argument. There are many places in the world where the government runs healthcare and central to both Clinton's and Obama's presidential campaigns were a promise that the federal government would take over healthcare. Socialized medicine was coming irrespective of the Massachusetts experiment.

This is ridiculous. Why could President Obama not have learned from the mistakes of MassHealth?

All of the Republicans' warnings about what would happen under Obamacare, which all came true of course, where do you think we came up with those objections? Off the top of my head: We warned that employers would drop coverage for their employees because it happened in MA. We warned that doctors would stop accepting Obamacare plans because that's what happened in MA. We warned that it would be expensive for both the taxpayer and the policyholder because that's what happened in MA. We said that it still wouldn't cover everyone because that's what happened in MA.

For this we were labeled obstructionist. But when the president is in the process of fucking up by not learning from the mistakes made in MA, obstructing was the proper course of action! Now we have to live with the consequences. My insurance costs tripled because of Obamacare and the coverage is worse and my taxes are higher. This is the exact opposite of what President Obama promised me would happen, and I am not happy.

Uhhh... Why are you giving credit to Mitt Romney for President Obama's signature legislative achievement? Romney has never held office in the Federal Government and anyway hasn't held any office since 2007.

If you don't like Obamacare, that's fine. But realize that the reason that you have Obamacare is because President Obama wants you to. He burned every last iota of his political capital to get it passed. Obamacare is 100% Obama.

What you have just described isn't madness at all. I would argue that it makes perfect sense for law enforcement to treat child pornography as evidence of serious criminal activity (child rape) and to pursue aggressively the perpetrators of such a crime.

Unfortunately, there is madness in Western countries surrounding the issue of child pornography and pedophelia. Here are some examples:

1. In the US, any image of an unclothed child is considered to be a serious crime. There have been many documented cases of photo labs reporting photos of unclothed babies in the bathtub (in no sexual context) to the police, and then the babies were taken from their parents and the parents were charged with manufacturing child pornography, a sex crime.
2. In the US, while it is perfectly legal for 17-year-olds to have consensual sex with each other, if they happen to take a photo of this lawful sexual activity, they could be charged with manufacturing child pornography. Several teenagers have been charged with the sex crime of manufacturing and distributing child pornography for simply texting their boyfriend or girlfriend photos of their unclothed selves.
3. In Australia, adult women with small breasts are considered to be children for the purposes of child pornography laws, so they may not appear in any adult entertainment without it being considered to be child pornography.
4. In the US, all doctors and mental health professionals must report to the police anyone who comes to them seeking help with sexual attraction to minors. This discourages pedophiles from seeking the help that they need to avoid committing actual offenses against children. In our lust to burn the witches at the stake, we put real children at risk because pedophiles aren't getting the treatment that they need.

So, yes, our hysteria surrounding child pornography does rise to the level of madness. I'm not sure how we fix it, because it is political suicide to appear to be soft on pedophilia, but in the meantime, the madness is definitely doing more harm than good.

PasswordAuthentication no

If SSH connections are coming in from the public Internet, you shouldn't be allowing password-based authentication. Let the bad guys have fun trying to brute force your RSA key for the next 14 million years.

The way that I handle this is to say to myself, "Self, realize that under the old regulated airfare structure, adjusted for inflation, this ticket would have cost $3000. So just pay for what you need to be comfortable and be happy that you're paying 1/5 of what it otherwise would have cost!"

I dunno. I just flew roundtrip between PHX and LGA and brought a bunch of food from home (sandwiches, veggies, fruit rolls, almonds, and anything else I'm forgetting about). TSA never said anything to me about it.

Well, this must not be enforced, because my sandwiches were peanut butter sandwiches. My flights were last week, so this is fairly current information.

Any solution that contains the word "channel" is the wrong solution for 2015. People don't watch channels. They watch shows.

Let me pay to watch shows, not channels. I'm throwing my money at the monitor trying to pay. Who will take my money?

I'm pretty sure that general aviation is just a wee bit more expensive than flying commercial!

Why? Is there even such a thing as an "S3 key"? I've been using AWS for a long time, and I've never seen one of these (unless you count the goofball time-limited key pre-signing thing, and those keys can't be used for any purpose outside of S3).

There are, of course, AWS keys, and those keys can be granted privileges. If you grant an AWS key full access, then yes, it can be used for any API call. But really that's bad practice. If your application needs only access to a specific S3 bucket, you'd create an AWS key for your app and grant it access only to that bucket.

Since I haven't done it in a while, I tested this out. I just created an AWS key and here's what I found: it has no access at all. I can click "attach user policy" and it gives me a ton of choices for what type of access I can give the key, including "Amazon S3 Full Access" and "Amazon S3 Read Only Access", or I can use a custom policy generator.

So I think AWS is doing a halfway decent job here, giving people simple options for simple situations and complex options for complex situations. If a user is going to create an admin-level AWS key and post it to github, what is AWS supposed to do about that?

Actually, S3 keys either can or can't be used to launch EC2 instances, depending on user configuration. Using IAM, you can grant AWS keys only as many rights as are necessary, so if your program only needs to write to a certain S3 bucket, you should grant access to the key only to write to that bucket. Then, that key couldn't be used for any other purpose (like launching EC2 instances).

Also, IAM roles can be used to avoid using AWS keys in your code/config files at all if your code will be running within EC2. Just give your instance an IAM role with permissions to make only the necessary calls, and let AWS handle your key acquisition and rotation for you.

That's small potatoes compared with the real problem with doxxing. The real problem is that once the doxxed person's info is public, any asshole on the Internet can and does start harassing the victim both online and offline. Threats of violence, harassing the victim's employer, trying to get him/her fired, swatting, etc., are all common consequences of doxxing.

It's a really shitty thing to do. I don't really give one tenth of one flying fuck if someone finds out that I smoked weed in high school or banged my girlfriend in high school. Hell, if you asked me those, I'd just tell you the truth. But if I'm getting death threats left and right and people are calling my clients and saying that I am a terrible person or whatever, that's when shit starts to get real.

Somehow I knew that you were going to say this because many large tech employers, often to a fault, insist that all applicants have a CS degree. I bet a lot of these teams wanted to hire you but couldn't get you through HR because of this stupid, inflexible requirement.

Why in the actual fuck would you want to do that? For the love of all things holy, pick one of those (or one commercial + one free, if that is more appropriate to your company) and standardize. Do you support half a dozen office suites as well?

Lack of familiarity. MS was extremely opaque about what the hell .NET even was when it first came out until they finally admitted that it was their version of Java. And since there was no reasonable free way to get started with it (and I don't think it's cross platform, right?), most devs and universities standardized on Java.

At this point, from my point of view, there is little point in ever learning .NET since it offers nothing over the Java ecosystem. My next language will probably be either Python or Scala.

I wish you would have read the next sentence:

They managed to get an anti-science dig in with their prone-to-violence dig. This is the typical crap that you read in The Atlantic.