OCinBuffalo

Yes, I've looked under the hood of this thing, and found: lots of bad things. One of the other things I know? How to run Firebug.https://getfirebug.com/ Now, the choice is yours: do you want me to show you what I've found under the hood? Warning: it involves IT...which, according to you: doesn't matter, but, we have to look under the hood, but IT doesn't matter, but, .... Nice contradiction there skippy. You are confusing me taking me seriously, with me taking my work seriously. Ask yourself Chef: do you REALLY think I take myself seriously. Really? Is that the persona that's on display here, every single day? :lol: And, what do I, or my take on myself, have to do with 834s not working right? Nothing. No. You require me to be incompetent in my work, so that you can be "right". I refuse to be incompetent for you Chef. Remember who you are talking to: I could still be in the Valley, doing my job, right now. I refuse to associate myself with self-involved, pseudo-Buddhists, who self-congratulate as often and as regularly as Muslims pray. I chose to leave, and I can choose to go back: whatever suits me. This isn't about opinion. This is about my expert experience and knowledge. Sure, it's not absolutes either, there is always the "it depends" factor. However, "it depends" means there are a fixed number of cases, and only one of them can be true. This isn't social science, where we throw out a thoery, never really back it up with anything, and keep applying for grants and getting them, becaue it's all based on opinion and/or weak correlation. No. This is IT, and the fact that they can't get the 834s done IS looking under the hood. That means the design issues that I(because other people did it first) found using Firebug, in the client layer, have now been confirmed in the back end. That is absolute. It's the only case that fits. Your opinion, or that of anyone else in my business, or outside of it, is irrelevant. The code don't lie. The design is what I feared it was: maintaining a synchronous connection to every single server....because they are trying to hide the price until the end. If they stay with that design, programmers don't matter. No matter how much they love him, country and the Democratic party, they will still fail. They have to cast off this silly "hide the price" requirement. As soon as they do, we can get back to proper methods for building e-commerce websites, and then, maybe, the website "works". I give that 2 chances in 10 however, due to the OTHER problems I've already stated. But, the "834 issue" is the killer. You can't call this a "working website" with that issue still unresolved, and it's techincally impossible to get that to work using the current design. A re-design requires are a re-code and a re-test. You cannot do that, PROPERLY, in the time allowed, no matter how many people you add. The only other case: Lying about it. Saying "it works" when it doesn't. So, again, I win.

Chef? Typos now? It's over. You know it. You've been running with Chicago politics and Hollywood $ and Silicon Valley muscle..... none of which have to do with why major IT systems break, and what you do to fix them, which is central to the question we've been asked to answer. Know it all? Nope. Know what I know? Yep. I know how to build big systems, I've been doing this since I was in high school, as a programmer, and most of my career, I've been an architect, the cheif archictect, or the project manager. I know exactly why this is failing. It's a matter of the White House foisting childish, unreasonable requirements on the contractor for political reasons, and the contract exacerbating that by responding with a childish, unreasonable design. Thus, you can't fix this with $, or Silicon Valley resources, or Chicago politics. None of those things know how to define proper requirements, or to create proper design, FOR THIS PROJECT. Those things only speak to execution. IF this was an execution problem, additonal programmers MIGHT help. However, it is a reqs/design problem. Adding more programmers to this problem solves nothing. Not when the captain of the ship, the helmsman, and the navigator keep steering for the shoals. So the question that remains: Who has been fired? No one. If the same people are going to stay in charge of the steerage, the ship still hits the rocks. It can be loaded down with Hollywood money, and Hollywood stars, and Chicago pols, but...it still hits the rocks. But, as I said: this is your argument. It is weak, and hypothetical. My argument is absolute and as empirical as it gets. You can't do no 834 transactions? Do don't get no "working" website.

Fine, fine, fine. Apparently I just need to kill Chef once and for all. The whole point of the rhymes was: if all I had to do is what I am about to? Chef is auto-crushed. I was trying to make it fair by ryhming. But, if we don't want it to be fair? Then fine. In my link above(where it says "right here") then entire answer lies in the number 834. Want to know what that is? Here: http://www.dhcs.ca.g...Enrollment.aspx Now, what is all this? Well, if you care about the exact definition: then it's the interface transport that has been standardized via HIPAA. Having a standardized transport is supposed to help, because then every system can comply...and should be: "compatible". If you don't care, and want an analogy instead: Your checks, if you still write them, have a standard format. And, practically every check in America follows the same format. If you look at somebody's else's checkbook, you know where everything is, and you could probably fill it out. This means that the transaction, you giving money to someone else, has a format that is absolutely standardized. The same is true for all. We all use the same transaction format. Right now, 1(one) problem(of many) that absolutely means Healthcare.gove WILL NOT BE "up" or "working" in terms of the REAL definitions of those words? The handshake between the Healthcare.gov, and the various insurance company servers in 39 states, CAN NOT support the standard transaction process, as designed, and will NOT be able to do this by Dec 1. So, I win, Chef loses. This is ALL I need to win. Need more? The reason I bolded 39 states and as designed? As the article(the "right here" line) says: they can do a few transactions, but, and here is where the "as designed" comes into play: they cannot manage these transactions in terms of the volume and within the scope(context) of so many companies all over the country. This is due to DESIGN, and won't be fixed by coding. The DESIGN is flawed. Throwing hardware/Silicon Valley at the problem doesn't solve it either. What SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE? These transactions should be done using a workflow engine, in a system that is completely separated from the website, and only has 3 simple messages moving between the 2 systems = "Transaction requested" and then "Transaction repsonse = Good" and "Transaction Response = FAIL + Reason why". Instead, they are keeping a session on the browser that is iniating and managing the entire transaction. (EDIT: And, a butload of other transactions as well, because? They want to hide the price until the END!) Hence, slow/crash. Especially when you are creating a geometric load on each browser and the server, by having each visitor to the website trying to establish a connection to every single server that has the data they need. That means: throwing out the entire set of existing code, and starting all over with a new one, is the ONLY correct approach. That was never, ever going to be done by Nov. 30th or Dec. 1st or whenever, and it sure as hell wasn't going to be tested. Never mind the load balancing and figuring out the hardware that matches.... I could go on and on. I don't have to because, I win.

Yeah, you keep digging schitheel. By all means, don't let me stop you. By all rights, given the nonsense you've spewed here about this issue, and your propensity to claim moral superiority over us all, you should be flat out embarrassed and silent, because REAL people are going to be really hurt by this fiasco you and the clowns like you put upon the rest of us. Are your unintended consequences, and the absolute certainty with which you inflict them on people, moral, in any way? No. If you've given Ds any $, or your vote, you are now directly responsible for harming people, doctor. Enjoy owning that. By all rights, I should tell you the STFU. But, I won't . Instead, you want me to help dig? Want some water? IF you and Dean and the rest of the absolutely despicable people in that article want to dig a bigger whole, one that you will never climb out of again? Where do I sign up?

Putting up a website that does some things right, does not equal "working", it's not "doing it right". What "I will see" is what I've seen before in this situation, panic always leads to wild desperation. Get 9 women pregnant, and say it's sublime, but can they give you a baby in 1 month's time? The answer is no, you silly little twit. You would've seen that, had you thought a bit. This is the part that few seem to get, "a brute force of resources" is always a bad bet. The trouble has been exactly as I've stated, bad design, incompetence and White House-children related. No huge dollar amount of programming muscle, can fix something based on a socialist hustle. They should make it work like it was an Ebay, where you see what you're paying, see it right away. But that means many people won't enroll, cause it involves bending over and very thick pole. So once again "requirements shall rule the day", funny, that makes 4 times I've said that today. Unless the reqs change, and I mean lickety split, this site stays deranged, a real piece of sh_it. The point you should have made, but I will instead, is maybe a re-design can aid, you chucklehead. If they cut the 50+ sessions in browser cache, perhaps they get it done: maybe it saves their ass. But, I would have countered, as I've already stated, the sessions they have are political requirement-related. So we can talk about programmers but the root cause? Ideology. Does that give anyone pause? Unless they start over using standard e-commerce design, they'll never get this done, it'll neve be "fine". It's been said more times than there is clover, there's "meeting the spec", then there's "trying to get over". A huge unfixed problem lies in the integration code, the insurance companies can't produce what the website is owed. So even if they had every ace developer in Cali, they are still going to take it up the old Hershey alley. The insurance company data is an absolute must, otherwise your whole argument goes bust. The insurance company insider, right here, says no chance. It's the Backend, as I said... ...now Chef puppet? Dance!

Before this is over, they are going to have to haul a few Democrats away to the looney bin. They'll be muttering: "Cheney" "Bush" "Tea Bagger" "Palin" "WMD" as they get hauled away. However, the paramedic is a wiseass libertarian, so, ever mile or so, he look back and yell "OBAMACARE!", and touch off another outburst of crazy.

Do you realize that you just defined the problem, and how the subsidy solution fixes it, all in your first sentence? And I'm retarded? Dude, subsidies essentially tighten the swings that an unsubsized COMMODITY market goes through, and therefore prevents exactly the problem you've defined.. (Notice I said COMMODITY. Notice I'm saying now: health insurance is NOT A COMMODITY. Moron.) So, when the production is up, the government buys the excess and keeps prices stable, when it's down, government sells it's surplus, and keeps prices stable. This can be done with a COMMODITY, because one kernel of corn is no different than another. One gallon of milk, slice of chees, etc. Homogenous product, in any graduation = COMMODITY. The second sentence is what I've been saying: food subsidies are smart, as long as the companies don't collude to fix prices higher than they should be, because they provide enormous stability to every other market there is. Nope, you haven't thought it through. Economies exist without subsidy. However, subsidy works as a force multiplier for economies. IF I know there's minimal risk for me to buy 1000 more acres and all the farm equipment i want, thanks to subsidy, I do it. That makes it possible for me to create economies/mutliplies the economy of scale I create, and I do either, faster. Years of subsidy has led to years of buying up resources, building economies, and driving down price. This risk is as I've already stated, but, also as I've stated, where is ADM supposed to hide at this point? They are too big to hide anything. And they have people like you watching their every move. So, it's as I said: you haven't thought it through. But, when you see everything in life as zero sum, as leftists like yourself do, then it's very difficult to think things through properly, isn't it?

You're such an unimitigated moron. What about that post says victim to you? Or, is poor comprehension a symptom of your "condition" as well? Yeah, I'm the one claiming "victim" status here...

Who still thinks Ted Cruz didn't set his whole thing up, precisely because he had the inside track on what was going to happen? He is definitely that smart. All he required is one manager to tell him 6 months ago it was going to fail, why, when and how. That's likely, never mind common, especially on a 3 year project that isn't ready, and heading for a deadline. You easily know 6 months before that you are in trouble. Now Cruz is in position to demand a pound of flesh from every member of the media. Now he's in position to go on every single one of their shows, and lay into them and Obama as much as he wants. If they want to retain their credibility, they have to put him on. And, as soon as he goes on one show, everbody else has to follow suit. I saw he was on FOX already tonight. Sunday morining? Going to be a bloodbath. If I was him, and I wanted to be President, with Chris Christie and Rand Paul doing as well as they had before the shutdown? You're damn right I'd take that risk. I'd have to take it. How else was he going to get his name as nationally recognized as theirs? It's all speculation, but, it walks like a duck, don't it?

VERSE: It's easy to see Chef Jims's reading comprehension, is just as pathetic as his "IT has nothing to do with it" conception. When something stays broken, how can we call that a fix? Since "Barry has spoken"? Wait, you believe in his tricks? For any problem we need definition. Without it we head straight to perdition. Since the problem is the website being up by the 1st, what about it's design says it's no longer the worst? I spoke speficially and in detail to this issue, The Valley Kids can't fix this with a "feminine tissue". You can clean it up here, shave a bit there, and wipe it down nicely, but the infection of bad webservices is the problem precisely. The issues I'm raising you soon will see, aren't fixable in 20 weeks, never mind 3. CHORUS: Chef Jim is a tool, a tiny little tool, cause aruging with me about this is the province of the fool. Chef Jim is a tool, a tiny little tool, cause aruging with me about this is the province of the fool. Chef Jim has no chance, to win this silly game. But he's trying his best and defending his screen name. VERSE: When one wants a system that's brimming with utility, one does not load it down with improbability. Far too many web services firing just right, is the ONLY way it works, if its 3am, tonight. Otherwise it hangs and users say: "Goddammit!". "What the F is this? Were they born on this planet?" Upon 50+ external servers this system has dependency, while a real desinger knows this as an idiot's tendency. Only dumb Chefs thinks these problems are solved, by pretty pictures and the existing people involved. Again I demand we review the words "it works", as that could mean anything to these incompetent jerks. Show me a button and I will click it, then show me a passing test case, not another help-desk ticket. CHORUS And the problem most nefarious? Chef has no clue about it, and that's hilarious! They say "it works", and Dolt Chef says "OK"! Meanwhile the hacker takes his info away. This is going to happen will shocking regularity, the risk to the data is of major severity. Even with a bunch of Silicon Valley infusion, no way they keep the system from black hat intrusion. Not when the schedule is in such a short frame, this Turkey Day brings liberals nothing but pain. A big system like this requires at least 3 months to be tested. Changing code during that time, should get you arrested. But that is the plan as we are told. This gives the term "hotfix" new meaning, beyond bold. CHORUS And given all this there sits Chef with his link. Kinda pathetic, don't you think? :lol: :lol: , :lol:

I wear my banning as a badge of honor. We all know who did it and why. I got 4 points before I even knew they existed. That's because none of them came with any message, and to this day, still do not have any explanation as to how they appeared. Now, tell me, objectively.... (I got one from Beerball, and he was right(imagine that), and at he explained himself.) Look: this ALL comes down to the fact that the little pissant who does it knows he can't last 10 mins on PPP without being literally laughed at. Instead? He writes twee little messages that he knows I won't share with the group, because I don't post PMs. It's pathetic, and hilarious, for me. So, I'm winning this by a mile from where I'm sitting. In fact I've already won. I win every day that mincy little girl refuses to come here and do what the rest of us do: post, and then back it up. Instead: he hides, and plays with his little....modicum of authority.

Your point is valid but, retarded. Yes, a large % of subsidies are payoffs to corporate agribusiness. So what? If the economies they produce keep prices low and production constant/stable? Where is the downside, for anybody, in that? If some economies produce some good results, more of it produces better: that is math. However, the danger, as you say is if they get cocky, and start screwing up the good thing they have, by raising prices/lowering quality/production, or any other trust-like douchebaggery. One thing I know? You'll be there yelling if they do, and I'll be right there next to you. So....what else is there for today? This is one thing that the government has shown it can do well: ensure stability and availability of quality food. You should learn to accept when you win. I don't think the uber-libertarians who want all government spending abolished, or communists who want to collectivist farms, are going to get much traction on messing with our current food situation with anyone.

This is like being astonished that highway funds support highway department unions. You're a business guy, right? Finance guy? Imagine you are evaluating ADM for investment, and you see that the CEO, brand new guy, as his first act, avoided taking full advantage of what the govenment has set up, and lost earnings his first Qtr as a result. Are you going to say "yeah let's move our money in there"? Of course not. Now, is it the brand-new CEO's fault that these things arleady exist? What's he supposed to do? How about the guy that's been there for 30 years, is he supposed to take this year off? How exactly do you do your evaluations? Do you base them on how the world is, or how the world "should" be? The reality is: ADM IS economies of scale. It defines it. So does Wal Mart. You want to talk about ADM, and not talk about economies of scale? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You can't talk one without the other. They are inexorably linked. How? IF we took away every single farm subsidy tomorrow, would we still be talking about ADM in terms of economies of scale? Yep. EDIT: Also, subsidies is about "over time, not point in time" in terms of market stabilization. The confidence we have comes largely from the notion that food is going to be around, quite literally forever. Every single business plan in America is based on that. Subsidies add stability to that basic requirement. This isn't about throwing money at Solyndra. This is about making sure you have the luxury to make such stupid mistakes.

1. Where do the global comodities end up? Answer: in everybody's cereal bowl. If they get there for a cheaper price, then how is that a bad thing for the poor/lower middle class? I don't understand how one says they are for the poor, yet attacks the very people who sell them food cheaply, by attacking the people who produce the ingredients cheaply. Oh yeah, I'm sure a collectivist farm system would produce more for less. (Cue the pics of empty shelves in Russia) It staggeres the imagination how this simple concept eludes so many on the left. Historically: cheap food produced on a massive scale, is Reason #1 how this country became great. Cheap, widely available food is the single best ward against tryanny, from either side. But, lets attack it! 2. IF we accept what you say, then, the "general problem" with regulation is inherent to regulation. In our system, the biggest will ALWAYS have more resources than the smallest. But, that is not "privilege" that is "years of intentional effort". Do you think I don't want my company to be bigger? Do you think I don't see the advantages in that? So, if I do the right things right, and it gets bigger, and I have a reason(not likely) to bend the ear of a elected clown, will my company then be "priveleged", or the result of "years of intentional effort"? Hint: It's the latter. Growth is goal, because the advantages of it are known. When we add regulation to this mix, your "general problem" becomes obviously: inherent. Therefore, perhaps before we start trying to run the country on platitudes, which produce legislation like Dodd Frank(which isn't even working as intended, and is in fact benefitting the big guys, and hurting the small)....as liberals have been demanding since before Clinton took office.... ...we should pause, and consider the fact that the college professors behind most of those platitudes, don't in fact know WTF they are talking about, when it comes to regulations. Should Paul Krugman be put in charge of regulating...anything? Perhaps it's time to accept your limitations? Perhaps it's time to approach change, as anybody who actually does it for a living knows it works best: incrementally, and only after we've tested it. But, what expectation of that can we possibly set, when it comes to the left in general, and the far left specifically? No. It will be more platitudes, and bumper stickers, and then: it's Obamacare. Nice work, dipshits.

The fact that he's asking that question, the way he is literally asking it? That tells you all you need to know about why Ds shouldn't be in charge of something like this. This isn't about resource management. You can't tell me that every single programmer at CGI is a dunce. Adding more programmers, or better ones, may do some things, but it won't solve the whole problem. Throwing the programmers under the bus may feel good, but it solves nothing. This is about "I don't know how to manage consultants". It's also about "I don't know the role of the executive sponsor of a major IT project". But most importantly, this is about: "I don't know how to develop requirements properly, or create sound designs based on those requirements, and, if even if I did, the White House will meddle with both, such that it will make any construction(programming) effort untenable". That part of the effort is 100% about the team of client side people working with the consultants. If you don't get that right, Bill Gates, Yahoo, my guys...none of us matter, because none of us will be able to construct what you've designed. Or, we will, but it will work: exactly how healthcare.gov has worked thus far.

I think most of us have already demonstrated the ability to understand a nuanced market, so you have little to fear in terms of serious criticism. However, this is PPP, so you should know by now that the unserious and wiseass will see this as an invitation. Not me though. I've said what I had to say about farm subsidies years ago. There is a case for it, the trouble is, that case has been bastardized into FUBAR. Like I said, most of us. It's amazing how the left wants to talk about their support the poor, yet at the same time doesn't seem to understand economies of scale, and how that DIRECTLY benefits the poor. When the price of super market brand corn flakes goes down, the poor benefit. When it stays that way, the poor get to keep more of their money consistently, and that it supposed to help them start becoming less poor. The same is true with Wal Mart and clothing. On one side, we have tons of empirical evidence that shows: this is BS. The poor are poor for 1 and/or 2 reasons: lack of discipline, and/or lack of ability. No amount of government aid is gonna get fat, lazy single mother off the couch, or, partying constantly, crack whore mother off the pipe. And, Tom Dumb is Tom Dumb, and the only job he can hold in our society is the one he's barely clinging to now. On the other side, we must consider the kids of the poor: and that is not BS. If we are about equal opportunity, then we can't call a kid purposely doing bad in school, so that he is assigned to summer school, so as to avoid starving all summer due to bad parenting: an equal opportunity. (Yeah, tell me that doesn't happen, and I will curse you by introducing you to my mother, the city teacher. The rest of your life will be hell) I've said it numerous times: we need a parent's "penalty box". If you can't control yourself, and provide for your child properly, using or not using state funds properly, then you need to see some punishment. This box should be without class restriction. The parents who leave their kid alone all weekend to go to Vegas need to see the inside of that box as well. We have plenty of carrot. We need some stick.

Silly Chef Jim does not see, how relative the word "up" can be. I can put lettuce upon a plate, then say "your dinner is up" without debate. Is it what you asked for, no, but I can call it "up", and go. Any child can put up a front end, that's no trouble, the troubles lie in the back end, they pop your idiot bubble. If you define "site" as merely HTML, then of course anyone can make that run well. Chef sees the whole system as though it's some small site, and makes us pros say: "you're not doing it right". To sum it up as plain as this stuff is able, the middle tier architecture must be put on the table. What does the user interface matter, if the app layer logic is nothing but chatter? "Fixing a website is a job for a kid", if that's all there is, why'd this die like it did? Half the answer depends on proper methodology, the other half might as well lie in child psychology. The trouble that can't be fixed by Sebelius retirement? The White House plays games with the the system's requirements. Above all nonsense we build for the user, anything else is the work of a loser. But the White House demanded they hide price away. Idiocy like this won't change..... not between Nov. 30th... ...and today.

Dude, these are the same people, or if not, the same sort of people who oversaw heatlhcare.gov. If it is this CO organization, and frankly, I have been getting lots of fakes of these adds in my fun email = troll alert. It's anybody's guess which are fake and real a this point, because they ALL look hilariously stupid to me. Anyway, if it it genuine, what's so shocking about you being able to penetrate their "super secret hiding the source of these ads" plan? The scariest part: I am pretty sure we are going to find that the security model in Obamacare follows this same "they'll never find it" dingbat approach. I would attack all of these sites using the laundry list of standard hacks, merely to prove the point that they haven't done the job. But, they would lock me up and throw away the key. Look at what they did to the Benghazi video guy. The only way I know of to do it, and not get easily caught, requires resources and time I don't have.

This match is unfair as soon you will see, because little Chef Jim knows nothing of IT. Chef's had 3 chances to change his mind, he'll regret that, he soon will find. I've made it harder by speaking in verse, doing it in prose makes the challenge...perverse. How would Chef know if the deadline can be met? Reminds me of Fight Club, Chef picking the color set. "Corn Flower Blue" Chef says in the meeting, completely unaware of his impending beating. So he links to his link all satisfied and gay, not realizing the error he has made on this day. Already the first punch has been landed by me, and after his next post, I should land another 3. We'll see.

Dudes, I haven't had time, but my ad goes something like this(imagine some used-up road whore in the picture): "Suzy's been a stripper for 15 years, doing coke, partying hard and smoking...everything. Man what a fun time it's been. She's lived her life wild and free, and damn it was right for her. Now she's got diabetes, hepatitus C, no useful life or job skills whatsoever, and dude, she really needs health care! When she gets off work it's straight to the meth pipe, so she'll probably have even more health problems soon! Hey the party never ends, for the free! That's right, man, you're a partying kind of guy, right? Well, here's your chance to party hard and rock some Obamacare. Hey, don't be sad, keep the party going, sign up Healthcare.gov, and when you do, think of the good feeling you'll have. You'll know that if Suzy here gets knocked up for the 3rd time by a different guy, because she can't afford the rock, and has to pay the hard way, her new problems, AIDS, and kid with AIDS, will be covered, and it's all thanks to you! And that's cool, right? Thanks Obamacare!"

A pansy is a flower, among other things, You choose to say this can be solved in an hour, and the hell that brings?

It is a reasonable question given the circumstance. It suits me to act with honor, before I wedgify your underpants. I must whip you clean and briskly, before I wash down your wounds with 2nd-rate whisky. Since we aren't normally in contention, it seems a quick kill is the necessary invention. You calling "unfair" in the middle won't do, You must be fully aware when I curbstomp you. So we await 4merp4mer's decision, but only you must contemplate your coming derision.

Simon is to blame for messing up your game. He says his job is to keep me tame, but we all know his reasons are political, thus lame. Chef Jim as an opponent? How absurd. Whatever made you think I wouldn't destroy this turd? Either side of this argument I can win with ease. Kicking financial planner ass? Please. A breeze. So let's get down down the Ps and Qs Chef is the target I will easily abuse. EDIT: Oh, and , and, does Chef, or as I like to call him: one of the underpeople, still have the side that says it will all be fixed...soon?

Ok, I can't deny that at all. The very worst thing you can do is prove a woman wrong in public, especially at work. Which...is why, if you are Republican, best leave well enough alone, and don't be the guy who calls them out for being wrong. Tiptoes. Instead, let them do what I said above, which is never forget who did what to whom, and for how much $, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now. Let them direct their anger at the Ds all by themselves. I would suggest the the Rs act as women's gay friend, and just sit there and listen, and drink wine with them all night, but, we are talking Rs here, so I don't know if they could pull that off. What about the money in their wallets, or lack thereof? Can they relate to that? I get your point, and that's why I think the IRS/Lybia stuff is one thing, but Obamacare is quite another. All I'm saying is they have to think rationally for 5 minutes: the time it takes to realize they are paying more to be insured for stuff they don't need. Then after that 5 minutes, it's back to The Voice, or Family Feud or whatever. I am a Bills fan out of spite more than anything nowadays. It used to be about simple enjoyment of the game. Now? ESPN et al/the failing "culture of centralization" has made it a personal thing with me. One of the best ways to decentralize? Be a Bills fan, and not a "name we can't say" fan. I'm from the Progressive truth squad: Your stroy is anecdotal, and therefore, I have now debunked it. Yes, it isn't true. What you saw/heard didn't happen. You might as well forget the whole thing, because it's not reality.

Dude let's clarify: 1. I have no question. 2. The carbon both causing and mitigating warming at the same time is speculation offered, not by me, for why the models don't work. 3. There are many places, besides this article, where this speculation is offered as a way to save the AGP theory's ass. 4. Going forward, #2 and the bottom of the ocean thing are the only thing standing between IPCC, climate scientists in general(they will all get the beating = unfair), and leftists en masse, from a political whipping that is worse than the one they will get for Obamacare, if you can even imagine that. 5. These speculations are being offered as a holding action: they are hoping they can scare up some research in the time it takes to prove that both speculations are retarded, and before the ass falls out of this entire thing. Ask them this: what should be done with the climate scientists who have seen fit to cause the EU, Germany especially, to waste a trillion dollars destroying their power grid, such that many Germans face the very real possibility of not being able to heat their homes this winter? Ask them if their buddies in climate science's political ideology is worth sending us backwards, ask them if science in general is about sending us backwards. Ask them if they support Excuse #1, the bottom of the ocean, or Excuse #2 Carbon particulate as having amazing properties such that it creates and destroys Global Warming at the same time. Ask them why a computer scientist seems to be more capable at providing reasonable skepticism about the theories and now, speculations in their field, than they are.