Explain this systemd for me please. I'm still pissing around with distros from 2008 until a recemt netrunner install specifically for the ease of use (its bulletproof stable on my hardware).

Can you reallly not just compile the init crap back in?

Didn't you know, there was a mistake and they kept it running as an inside joke.

It is not the justice system, it is the "just us" system.

Nah, it doesn't circumvent the need for a warrant, it circumvents the need for a third party who would/might ask for a warrant before processing and handing the information over.

A huge difference if you ask me.

I have yet to find any creditable explanation to why all the sudden the oceans are a sink and not before. I mean seriously, if something didn't all the sudden cause it to soak up heat, then all previous temp records would have been impacted by it too making the suggestion of the oceans being a sink for the current warming (or lack thereof) somewhat moot.

But say that out loud and you will ..lol. As if it really matters any more. This isn't about science or the environment any more. It was politicized from near the beginning and now they are much more brazen about it. Anyone can look around and see the real situation- it was proudly on display at this rally.

hmm.. I'm convinced more than ever now.

I'm willing to guess that this type of situation is a lot of the science that went into the discovery the article is bragging about.

Oh BTW, been there too. Except for some reason, someone always has some fireworks and throws them in the fire because they got damp or something and we usually ended up losing at least one tent. It was safer to sleep half naked with the ticks than bundled up in a tent with shit that would keep burning- it would appear.

What exactly is it you want from big business? I find it odd that a protest over the enviroment is focused on big business as if it was the evil being protested. Have we been mislead or is there some inside baseball the rest of us should know about?

Well, despite all that, I'm curious why they cannot simply open a satellite office in virtual space and employ their foreign workers remotely. What exactly is so unique about working for an internet site that you have to ignore the entire premise of the internet and be somewhere in person?

I think you need to put the bong down and stay away from it for a while. It is rotting your mind to the point you might actually believe these delusions.

first off it means buisnesses can't 'manipulate' cash strapped people to make artificial job growth or contraction simply by hiring more or less people for the same total work hours.

despite clear evidence that Obamacare has actually caused full time people to become part time and most of the hiring for unskilled labor (the working poor) has been part time, what exactly benefits companies doing this as you think they are?

this no longer works when you are required to provide heathcare then they have no choice but to give people the hours wages needed to live a good life, instead of making them work to boost or contract the economy.

You see, reality doesn't seem to match your misconceptions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The only reason companies hire part time instead of full time is to control costs. They have no direct impact on the economy or for the most part intent to manipulate it outside of being able to sell their goods and services for a profit.

prior to obama care the working poor had only quacks peddling fake insurance houses constantly shifting locations and doing many unscrupulus methods to keep the poor from being able to pay for care via insurance.

Bullshit. Insurance is one of the heaviest regulated industries in the country before and after Obamacare. If these fly by night operations actually existed, the states would have arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned the scam artists behind it. And yes, it's pretty easy to track them down because there always has to be a place to send the payments and then collect them else they don't benefit from the scam.

Thanks for the correction. I worded it badlybut didn't realize just how bad until i read your reply.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

In my home town, the one hospital demanded that another not be opened up in the townships surrounding it citing they would be unable to maintain a profit and have to close down. The second hospital was to be placed near a busy highway about 25 minutes from the original hospital and the through was that it could shave 20 minutes off the transport time and save lives.

Anyways, the other hospital was defeated and the zoning board wouldn't let them build. So the local hospital decided it needed to expand and promptly purchased all the property on the block and started building on to the hospital. The issue about the travel time came up again and another hospital from out of town wanted to open one. Well, the main hospital kicked up a storm again until the outside hospital agreed to only be an emergency room and outpatient surgery hospital and somehow, the two ended up going in as partners. But they located it a little further out but still near the busy highway so transport is still quicker from the highway but you are basically looking at another 30 minutes or so if you drive by the old hospital in order to go to the new one.

This was about 15 years ago. People in government has changed since then but I think this type of protectionism will still happen today if someone wanted to open another hospital. The new one had been expanded as part of the old one since it's inception.

lol.. Are you but hurt or something? Where in there have I criticized the ACA? It's the administration and their handling/management styles that is being discussed. The ACA could be 100 times better had any other administration been in office.

I just want to point out that all of your citations are from before the enrollment deadline. I think your latest post was from April.

They are all from april 3 or later. The only deadline they were before is the unofficial expansion Obama gave to april 15 because of the failures in the rollout.

How about something a little more recent?

Here is something a little more recent but the open enrollment window is lapsed so your emphasis of more recent is a but misleading.

In fact, if you follow the website attacks on Obamacare based on the number of people enrolled, you will find a deluge of articles leading up to April of 2014 and then...silence. You'll still find other attacks, but none based on the number of newly enrolled.

That is likely because the open enrollment window closed officially march 31 but was extended to april 15 or something like that for people who started to enroll but didn't finish on time because of the roll-out problems. I would assume the reason for a rash of articles discussing the coverage numbers would be relevant more around the time the enrollment window ended and not 5 months later when you have to either lose coverage otherwise obtained or turn a certain age requiring coverage.

Then, in May, you see a lot of articles saying, "Well, OK, a lot of people enrolled, but how many actually paid?". And then, based on insurance company data, it turned out that the people signing up for exchanges actually paid at a higher rate than the general population signing up for health insurance.

Yes, it is funny how people progress their questioning along the time lines of something in order to reflect the current timeline and complaints get brought up as they appear in the time lines. Go figure.

There are good reasons to criticize the ACA, but the number of people who have gotten coverage for the first time because of the law is not one of them.

Umm.. I never criticized the PPACA in these posts. I corrected a deluded person who didn't buy into reality. The numbers themselves seems to be what you think is criticism. I seriously think that any other president than Obama, and this entire situation would have had 10 times better of an outcome.

Do you really not understand what "project" and "estimate" means?

Really, and you are complaining about Forbes as a link? Well, Forbes was not the only link I provides and the Forbes link was more kind in regards to what was said. I shouldn't even have to post a link because an internet search is just as easy to find the same numbers. Also, if you look on the Forbes link, you will see updates and foot notes where the author actually takes in criticism and corrects himself and the article- and then notes it.

But please, by all means, tell us where the Forbes article is incorrect, misleading, or somehow worthy of your dismissal other than your political bias which obviously is filling your head with misinformation and making it necessary for you to forget well defined words like project and estimate.

It's news only because die hard liberals or should I say Obama supporters refuse to accept he or his team is anything less than stellar. It's all Bush's fault or those damn republicans keep blocking or someone other than himself. And when Obama and his supporters started blaming everyone else and anything else as the problems happened, it was blamed on someone else again.

but more importantly, it appears this broken management and failed project is still being run with broken management but it's being hidden from public view.