Obamacare site. Shut it down.....say experts

[JustRalph]

http://reut.rs/17K7sGp

This is downright scary. It's going to result in terrible terrible things happening to people.

[johnhannibalsmith]

People seem really amazed that I haven't gone ahead to get me some "free" health insurance. This is just one (very big) reason why. Been saying it from the outset. Then again, I don't buy anything online or do any sort of commerce or exchange of "sensitive" information.

[mostpost]

The story said several experts. Turns out there were four, and only three of those said it should be shut down. That is not several, it's a few. It also said it was a Republican sponsored hearing, which means they picked the experts. It's just like witnesses in a trial. They say what the guy who hired them want them to say.

[PaceAdvantage]

Mostpost, you need a good, solid week off from this site. It's not doing pretty things to your mind.

[newtothegame]

The story said several experts. Turns out there were four, and only three of those said it should be shut down. That is not several, it's a few. It also said it was a Republican sponsored hearing, which means they picked the experts. It's just like witnesses in a trial. They say what the guy who hired them want them to say.

sev·er·al
ˈsev(ə)rəl/
determiner & pronoun
determiner: several; pronoun: several

1.
more than two but not many.
few
fyo͞o/
adjective & pronoun
determiner: few; pronoun: few

1.
a small number of.

[Clocker]

The story said several experts. Turns out there were four, and only three of those said it should be shut down.

It was a Congressional hearing, and both sides can call witnesses. There were four security witnesses. From my previous link:

All four cyber security experts unanimously concurred that, given the security issues, Americans should not use the site at present.

[mostpost]

sev·er·al
ˈsev(ə)rəl/
determiner & pronoun
determiner: several; pronoun: several

1.
more than two but not many.
few
fyo͞o/
adjective & pronoun
determiner: few; pronoun: few

1.
a small number of.


I looked up the definition in several online dictionaries. Several of them define it as "more than two or three" One defines it as more than two.

[Clocker]

I looked up the definition in several online dictionaries. Several of them define it as "more than two or three" One defines it as more than two.

How does your dictionary define four out of four?

[tucker6]

How does your dictionary define four out of four?
His dictionary is the condensed version, so ...

[tucker6]

The story said several experts. Turns out there were four, and only three of those said it should be shut down. That is not several, it's a few. It also said it was a Republican sponsored hearing, which means they picked the experts. It's just like witnesses in a trial. They say what the guy who hired them want them to say.
I sorta feel bad for you Mostie. Carrying Obama's water like this is starting to wear on you. It is much easier to live on the side of light and goodness where we reside. :D

[Tom]

mostie, I am holding my hand up to you.
Please ignore several fingers.




:rolleyes:

[davew]

What is disturbing is they mentioned the other websites they connect with, also become NOT secure and hackers could have access to more info than they should in them, because someone left the backdoor wide open. (IRS, credit agencies,...)

I wonder if they asked more internet security people, if the number could become hundreds, thousands, millions .... until 'only a few' becomes a significant number.

[badcompany]

From what I've read, Healthcare.gov has 500 million lines of code, more than twice as many as Facebook.

Considering Facebook has a billion users, does this ratio seem right?

[Saratoga_Mike]

The story said several experts. Turns out there were four, and only three of those said it should be shut down. That is not several, it's a few. It also said it was a Republican sponsored hearing, which means they picked the experts. It's just like witnesses in a trial. They say what the guy who hired them want them to say.

So they perjured themselves to further the Republican agenda?

I actually thought PA and some others were being a bit alarmist a few weeks ago when they warned about the potential for identity theft on healthcare.gov. It turns out they were right.

[JustRalph]

From what I've read, Healthcare.gov has 500 million lines of code, more than twice as many as Facebook.

Considering Facebook has a billion users, does this ratio seem right?

Utter bullshit. That 500 million lines of code has been debunked multiple times

[Robert Goren]

I am not expert on code writing, but I have had fair amount of experience dealing with code writers. First and foremost everyone of them thinks that almost everybody else writing code is an idiot. Second, everyone of them thinks they can fix their own code if you give them a little more time even if no one else shares that opinion. Third, a guy who can't write code on their level has no chance of figuring out what to do.
At this point, they probably should take a two pronged attack. Let the same bunch try to fix their mess and get new bunch(or bunches) to start from scratch.

[Clocker]

I actually thought PA and some others were being a bit alarmist a few weeks ago when they warned about the potential for identity theft on healthcare.gov. It turns out they were right.

This is just one expert out of several:

On Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” on Wednesday, computer programmer and founder of McAfee, Inc. John McAfee said the online component of Obamacare “is a hacker’s wet dream” that will cause “the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/john-mcafee-on-obamacare-this-is-a-hackers-wet-dream-video/#ixzz2lCZqt6es

[fast4522]

Eight weeks till Dems might repeal Obamacare, Marco Rubio says

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eight-weeks-till-dems-might-repeal-obamacare-rubio-says/article/2539452

[Clocker]

I looked up the definition in several online dictionaries.

How many dictionaries would that be?

[woodtoo]

How many dictionaries would that be?

A few.:lol:

[FantasticDan]

Utter bullshit. That 500 million lines of code has been debunked multiple timesCan you provide a couple of debunk links? I'm not finding any.

[fast4522]

I am not expert on code writing, but I have had fair amount of experience dealing with code writers. First and foremost everyone of them thinks that almost everybody else writing code is an idiot. Second, everyone of them thinks they can fix their own code if you give them a little more time even if no one else shares that opinion. Third, a guy who can't write code on their level has no chance of figuring out what to do.
At this point, they probably should take a two pronged attack. Let the same bunch try to fix their mess and get new bunch(or bunches) to start from scratch.

I have been around many high level programmers and from your comments I feel you Nebraskans are a whole different lot when it comes down to depictions. I have often talked with programmers and some have admitted or made comments like "it works, but it is sloppy and not the best code that I have done" or at other times heard "this code is tight", "few could get it better than this at this point". Now skipping on how they think out in Nebraska, here in the northeast with MIT and other top notch schools in our backyard I can tell you that even the high powered programmer is game in learning something new and is willing to help those who are stuck in their learning curve in programming.

Some say this and some say that, its not the code stupid because the problem is the law. There was such a rush to pass something, even if it was broken there was no thought that bipartisan support would be needed to fix it. As the law is in its current form it is much like the website, the will of the people are not for it (the majority) I can not expect any result other than catastrophic failure.

[elysiantraveller]

This whole thread is pretty funny.

[ArlJim78]

it's not all about writing code, much depends on how clearly and completely the scope of work is defined from the top, that parties are working as a team, and that decisions are being made in a rational way.

Being that this is driven from a bureaucracy like the DHS, I'll bet none of that has happened, and that much of what has been done will have to be redone.
Of course a more likely outcome is that all of this will have to be scrapped, the whole bill repealed and replaced with something rational.

[RaceBookJoe]

healthcare.gov crashes during sebelius tour in Miami hahahaha

[GaryG]

Of course a more likely outcome is that all of this will have to be scrapped, the whole bill repealed and replaced with something rational.There will no longer be the democratic majority that rushed passage of a bill that no one had read.

[Robert Goren]

I have been around many high level programmers and from your comments I feel you Nebraskans are a whole different lot when it comes down to depictions. I have often talked with programmers and some have admitted or made comments like "it works, but it is sloppy and not the best code that I have done" or at other times heard "this code is tight", "few could get it better than this at this point". Now skipping on how they think out in Nebraska, here in the northeast with MIT and other top notch schools in our backyard I can tell you that even the high powered programmer is game in learning something new and is willing to help those who are stuck in their learning curve in programming.

Some say this and some say that, its not the code stupid because the problem is the law. There was such a rush to pass something, even if it was broken there was no thought that bipartisan support would be needed to fix it. As the law is in its current form it is much like the website, the will of the people are not for it (the majority) I can not expect any result other than catastrophic failure.The law is not perfect but is a hell of lot better than what we had before or purposed by the GOP. The web site failed, not the law. When they come up with a better idea, I will listen. Just don't try to tell me how wonderful it was before because I know better. I learned the hard way.

[Robert Goren]

There will no longer be the democratic majority that rushed passage of a bill that no one had read.But they have enough votes to up hold a veto.

[fast4522]

Nothing any of us has to say here will have any meaning when ugly comes to town, and it will Robert. I just do not see a bipartisan fix for the law in the Congress.

[JustRalph]

Can you provide a couple of debunk links? I'm not finding any.

Just doing a google, it's questioned in tech forums and more. It's been discussed on podcasts too. Some seem to think the NY times is the source of the 500m lines of code, but it's a typo or it should have read "5 million lines of code"

Here's a link questioning it versus other stuff

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/

Another forum where programmers are apparently questioning it.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18364/does-healthcare-gov-contain-500-million-lines-of-code

Here's a crazy wing nut populated website with some discussion of same. Many think the only way to get to 500m is to count the projected size of the database after it is populated by users over time. Even so, that's not "lines of code"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249580/-Healthcare-gov-500-Million-Lines-of-Code-That-s-Insane

The healthcare Sherpa site those Silicon Valley guys constructed over the weekend, you think the four of them wrote a couple million lines of code over the weekend? It would take a monumental effort to write 500m lines of code