I think Oregon tried to be much more ambitious than other state exchanges, which is what brought its complexity level more in-line with what HealthCare.gov. Oregon saw its portal as being a one-stop shop for anyone in any aspect of health insurance, meaning individuals, businesses both large and small, providers, insurers, anyone. Other states presumably had a much more narrowly defined approach to their state-run exchanges, so while they may not be comparable to HealthCare.gov (and working better in most cases), CoverOregon.com really is.

However, even if Oregon delivered a crap spec that was way too ambitious, if Oracle wasn't raising red flags earlier or, even worse, was still saying they could deliver when they had an incomplete or poorly-characterized spec of what to deliver, then wouldn't that clearly be on Oracle. It sounds like there was just a major communications breakdown between the state of Oregon and Oracle and Oracle didn't do its due diligence to reestablish communication in a timely manner.

So what? A budget resolution isn't an appropriations bill. If it fails to pass, the government doesn't go dark or stop working. Plenty of examples since 1974's Congressional Budget Act of joint budgets not being reconciled. Sometimes it's the Dems, sometimes it's the Republicans. In 1999, 2005 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in both chambers of Congress, they still couldn't pass a joint budget resolution.

Wow. If the Huffington Post is a "better link" then...well, that's just a pretty low initial bar.

Technically true, but it's a incomplete argument being used to prop up an incorrect implication as it doesn't take into account one of the largest consumers of healthcare: Dependents. While an older worker, meaning any worker over 50, may begin to use more healthcare themselves, they have far fewer dependents using that healthcare actively, specifically pregnancies, infants and young children. A worker who has their last child at 35 may begin using more health care at 50, but their 15 year old child would begin using far less. According to Peter Capelli of the Wharton Center for Human Resources, this shift in who is actually using the healthcare balances out any increased usage by older workers and, in fact, may sometimes actually save the company money. Couple this wash of healthcare cost usage with the fact that older workers generally outperform younger workers and any company using this incorrect notion to trim their books of older worker salaries for younger worker/H-1Bs short term profit games is setting themselves up for IP failure in a few short years.

Technically true, but it's a incomplete argument being used to prop up an incorrect implication as it doesn't take into account one of the largest consumers of healthcare: Dependents.

While an older worker, meaning any worker over 50, may begin to use more healthcare themselves, they have far fewer dependents using that healthcare actively, specifically pregnancies, infants and young children. A worker who has their last child at 35 may begin using more health care at 50, but their 15 year old child would begin using far less. According to Peter Capelli of the Wharton Center for Human Resources, this shift in who is actually using the healthcare balances out any increased usage by older workers and, in fact, may sometimes actually save the company money.

Couple this wash of healthcare cost usage with the fact that older workers generally outperform younger workers and any company using this incorrect notion to trim their books of older worker salaries for younger worker/H-1Bs short term profit games is setting themselves up for IP failure in a few short years.

Being able to fight a "tyrannical government" != everyone being able to print a gun on demand. Given your argument that there must be parity of weapon scale, do you support everyone being able to have a dirty bomb in their backyard as well? By your logic, to successfully mount a defense of the free state, we all must have the right to own everything from hand guns to tanks to jet fighters to nukes.

This is a pretty dangerous stance. If I have all these implements of destruction at my hand and feel that a "tyrannical" government is persecuting me, and there's no explicit litmus test other than I "feel threatened", should I not use them to strike at that government? How is this, then, any different from an act of domestic terrorism?

As interesting as this rabbit hole is, it is hardly the issue at hand. The issue is if I, in a capitalist society, have a right to determine the usage limitations of my own rental property pursuant with any legally recognized contract or lease agreement. Even if it was enshrined in the Second Amendment that people have the right to print guns or whatever, in a free society I have a right to say, "Not on my machinery, you don't," just as you, in a free society, have a right to say, "Fine, then, I'll find someone who will let me," and take your trade elsewhere. So to frame this as some sort of Second Amendment case is a stretch at best and, at worse, a direct attack on the freedoms the Second Amendment is supposed to help guard, namely a government run amok with regulation.

You're reading a lot into that interpretation of the Second Amendment. It is questionable that the framers of the Bill of Rights had any notion of 3D-printing or the potential ability of any citizen at any time to be able to rent time on a 3D printer and create any type of firearm with relative ease (not yet, of course, but give it time)1. Thus it is a pretty big stretch to say that this is clearly infringement on a Federal level, where the primary concern is banning of militias.

Ideally, as it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution one way or the other, the power to regulate this probably should fall to the States.

Actually, that's not strictly true. Depending upon the lease agreement you signed and whatever clauses the rental agency or owner put in there, you could potentially be kicked out for being gay or having gay sex and only a handful of states include sexual orientation in their fair housing statutes.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/fair-housing-laws-renters-protection-from-sexual-orientation.html

The point is, though, just like in your comparison, a lot of how legal this is depends on what was originally signed. Without having access to that signed agreement, everything else is speculation at best.

Recognized by who, though? While the lawsuit claims that this is a series, as many have pointed out it is not being labeled as such by Marr, Harper Collins or really anywhere else. Even if it is the first book in a series, it is individually named "Carnival of Souls" and there is now real evidence to be found that the series itself is being branded with that name. Regardless, his beef is with Harper Collins, not the various book blogs that reviewed the book.

A wiser approach would have been to go after HC first, get a judgment in his favor and then contact the book blogs and inform them of the judicial decision, asking them to either change or remove their reviews to be in compliance. Then, if they refused, send out the official C&Ds in preparation for legal action against those specific blogs that refused. Going the route he did, shotgunning out C&Ds, makes him look like he's just trolling for attention for his series (even if he's really not), rather than appropriately defending his trademark.

The school checked, found the claims to be baseless and simply a fit of pique by the children in question. Did the school have the right to force the children to log into their Facebook accounts on school property to see the messages? Debatable, but again, the teacher in this case has done nothing wrong. So saying that "everyone failed" and lumping the teacher in is wrong-headed ridiculousness.

Wait, how did the teacher fail in this case? The students clearly failed because at age 12 and 13 you should know enough to not tell lies about people just because you're angry.

School district may have failed by actioning on a Facebook post not made on their computers. That's up for debate, but it is perhaps understandable that they acted to both protect the teacher and their reputations and send a message to other students that this level of name calling is not acceptable.

Parents definitely failed in not monitoring their children or teaching them appropriate impulse control. If you're going to turn control over your children to a school, then you can't act shocked when the school disciplines your child. It's great that some of the parents are considering getting lawyers and giving their children a chance to experience how the legal system works, but perhaps had the parents shown this level of interest in their children to begin with, it wouldn't have happened.

But the teacher here was just doing his job teaching students. Call a teacher stupid? Well, I suppose, although even that shows a distressing lack of respect for an authority figure who, by all accounts, hasn't done anything to warrant it. Call them a rapist, a pedophile and accuse them of mental illness? All of those are career enders for teachers (again, generally because of parents who are only involved in their children's lives when they smell a payday with a lawsuit) and, unless the student has a legitimate accusation, should require consequence.

So I see student fail, school fail and parent fail, but how the hell did the teacher fail? The teacher was maliciously and slanderously attacked for doing his job. Seriously, we've gotta stop treating teachers as second class citizens. Just lumping everyone into the blame game to seem fair or even handed is bad critical thinking and neither fair nor even handed.