Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: how many small businesses has Obama killed? (Score 1) 610

by ScentCone (#48284851) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare
My wife and I, who are in our fifties, had a plan that cost us about $250/month, and which had a $2,500 annual deductible. Then came the affordable care plan. Now we have to buy insurance that covers babies we'll never be having, treatment for drug addictions and mental problems we don't have, and our monthly rates that have jumped to over $800, with a $12,000 deductible. We're also no longer able to use our familiar doctor unless we pay cash that doesn't count against that deductible. That is the least expensive plan available in our state's Obamacate-compliant regulated market. Yay!

Comment: Re:Out-of-the-box babysitting of processes (Score 1) 683

by Deagol (#48278397) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can You Say Something Nice About Systemd?

Quickly respawning processes that die is not HA. Clustering and fail-over at the application and hardware layers is HA.

A flapping service can cause more customer-facing downtime or irritation than a permanently-down service that's failed over gracefully at the appropriate layer.

Comment: Re:From Today's New York Times (Score 1) 610

by ScentCone (#48277903) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

Don't blame the President for laws written by and enacted by Congress. President Obama is the chief executive, not a legislator.

The law was passed by not-veto-proof 100% partisan vote.If he wasn't in support of it, he could have stopped it cold or used his ability to kill it (by not signing it) to insist that changes were made. He did absolutely nothing along those lines. He is equally responsible, and don't kid yourself about the administration's direct involvement in the writing of the bill.

Comment: Re: how many small businesses has Obama killed? (Score 3, Insightful) 610

by ScentCone (#48277861) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

Yeah, cause emergency rooms are turning away people in droves.... try again...

No, they're not, of course. But people with modest income are no more "insured" than they were before. That's the whole point. What is a family who makes $45,000 a year (gross) supposed to do with a $12,000 deductible? Well, at least they're insured now, right? Right. Thanks, Pelosi, Reid, and a Obama! Oh, and of course millions of other people who DID have insurance they wanted and could use, no longer do, and that's about to happen to millions more when the illegally-delayed changes hit the employer-provided plans. After the election, of course.

Comment: Re:how many small businesses has Obama killed? (Score 2, Insightful) 610

by ScentCone (#48277821) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

I see, so instead of constructively engaging to modify a plan built on a Republican plan, they decided to take their ball and go home. That's so mature of Republicans

The legislative agenda surrounding the 100% partisan ramming-through of the ACA precluded any Republican involvement. The Republicans put forth a constant barrage of their own ideas and (looking back on them) very accurate predictions about all of the wreckage that the ACA is now causing. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ran the entire show, and shut down any involvement by Republicans. Those two leaders of the Democrat party, and the chief executive, actively and deliberately lied - over an over again - about the nature of the law and the fallout that would come from it. That's why more people opposed than supported it as it was being rammed through, and why even more people are opposed to it now. The way in which the Dems carried on at the time is about to cost them a lot of legislative seats, and the president who championed this new tax/entitlement redistribution plan is spiraling downward in terms of any public support for his priorities.

The Republicans had no ability to "constructively engage" in the creation and underhanded passage of the ACA. They could only shout out loud about how outrageous so much of it is, since their votes - in committee and generally in the house and senate - were incapable of impacting the law.

Comment: Re:Redistribution (Score 0) 610

by ScentCone (#48277675) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

Income redistribution my hairy ass.

So how else would you describe it. One year, our health plan costs about $250/month and has a $2,500 deductible. The next year, as new entitlements and subsidies are being dished out under a brand new law that was passed in 100% partisan fashion in the middle of spectacular lies about its actual costs and requirements, our monthly costs have gone up to over $800, and our deductible is now $12,000. We no longer have access to our family doctor unless we want to pay cash, and we can no longer use two of the best local hospitals. So, we get less service, and thousands of dollars more each year are taken from our family budget and given to another family's budget. That is redistribution of income, by definition. Huge new government-enforced costs placed on one person, and bloated-with-overhead bureaucracy hands some part of it over to another person under a law written and put into place entirely by one political party that lied about it from beginning to end.

Comment: Re:Redistribution (Score 0) 610

by ScentCone (#48277611) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

It's a fucking health insurance plan

No, it's not. It's an income re-distribution plan. It takes people (like me) who already had insurance at a good rate, and takes it away in order to give it to somebody else. The "affordable" care act has tripled my monthly costs, and quadrupled my deductible, while forcing us to give up on the family doctor and rule out the use of good local hospitals. This, so that the much higher new health tax that we now pay (which is what it is, a new tax) can be handed over to someone else. That's NOT a health insurance plan. It's taking more money, by force, from one person, and giving it to another person.

Comment: Re:Redistribution (Score 0) 610

by ScentCone (#48277583) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

Ever heard of the Works Progress Administration? You know, that government program way back in the 1930s that actually gave useful productive jobs to the jobless?

That didn't boost prosperity, it just prolonged the depression and set the stage for decades for more endlessly growing expensive government bureaucracy and entanglement in every last aspect of your life. It used force to make one person work part of their day in order to support another person who was assigned make-work that had nothing whatsoever to do with growing the economy. Real prosperity comes from actual economic growth, not a fake economy powered by the threat of jail time that uses confiscatory entitlement programs to whistle past the economic graveyard.

I'm guessing you're a big fan of Hillary Clinton, who just asserted that it's not businesses/employers who provide new jobs. There are plenty of places on the planet where you can see the fantastic prosperity that comes with the government deciding which jobs should exist, and which launders all economic activity through corrupt labyrinth of smarter-than-you bureaucrats. Pure paradises, every one of them, right? Maybe instead of lecturing the GP about reading some history, you should do so yourself, and take on board some actual facts about what happens when you rely on central government command and control over jobs and wages. That's been tried over and over, and results in exactly the opposite of real prosperity.

Comment: Re:Out-of-the-box babysitting of processes (Score 5, Insightful) 683

by Deagol (#48277371) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can You Say Something Nice About Systemd?

Maybe I'm unique in this regard, but as an admin, if something goes down on one of my servers, I want it to stay down until I intervene.

Firstly, if I'm properly monitoring the process, then I'll be alerted and can investigate.

Secondly, there may a *reason* the process goes down, and having it down may be a good thing. If someone's trying to fuzz our httpd process for exploitation, then it happily restarting will open up a wider attack window.

Autopilots on production servers seem like a bad idea to me.

Comment: Re:Dear Canada.... (Score 1) 526

by ScentCone (#48218081) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

Actually, we are sending several fighter jets to bomb ISIS, right now. Odds are that's what is precipitating these attacks.

No, nutballs who decide to kill soldiers on the street because they are part of an organization that is taking some modest steps to help stop other nutballs from killing more innocents as those nutballs attempt to institute a medieval Islamic thugocracy in as many places as possible ... that's what precipitated these attacks.

If the crazies weren't mad at the concept of having their Islamist wet dream torn down, then their followers in places like Canada wouldn't be getting the message to go out and kill soldiers in the street. None of that would happen without theocratic wackadoos deciding to kill those who are trying to stop their tactics. The attacks in Canada were precipitated by religion, not by Canada's involvement in trying to stop any army of tens of thousands of religious murders.

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Working...