Slashdot Mirror


Administration Admits Obamacare Website Stinks

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The WSJ reports that six days into the launch of insurance marketplaces created by the new health-care law, the federal government finally acknowledged that design and software problems have kept customers from applying online for coverage. The website is troubled by coding problems and flaws in the architecture of the system, according to insurance-industry advisers, technical experts and people close to the development of the marketplace. Information technology experts who examined the healthcare.gov website at the request of The Wall Street Journal say the site appeared to be built on a sloppy software foundation and five outside technology experts interviewed by Reuters say they believe flaws in system architecture, not traffic alone, contribute to the problems. One possible cause of the problems is that hitting 'apply' on HealthCare.gov causes 92 separate files, plug-ins and other mammoth swarms of data to stream between the user's computer and the servers powering the government website, says Matthew Hancock, an independent expert in website design. He was able to track the files being requested through a feature in the Firefox browser. Of the 92 he found, 56 were JavaScript files... 'They set up the website in such a way that too many requests to the server arrived at the same time,' says Hancock adding that because so much traffic was going back and forth between the users' computers and the server hosting the government website, it was as if the system was attacking itself. The delays come three months after the Government Accountability Office said a smooth and timely rollout could not be guaranteed because the online system was not fully completed or tested. 'If there's not a general trend of improvement in the next 72 hours of use in this is system then it would indicate the problems they're dealing with are more deep seated and not an easy fix,' says Jay Dunlap, senior vice president of health care technology company EXL."

46 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. Gov't project by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, you're saying that the web site is a proper government software project? ;-p

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Gov't project by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Funny
      They shoulda used Mongo.

      Mongo is webscale.

    2. Re:Gov't project by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mongo loves candy...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Gov't project by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mongo just pawn in game of life.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Gov't project by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not really.

      They're built by lowest bidders Serco and QSS Inc. Neither an American company.

      If they had decided to hire Americans to do this job, they would have had a very large pool of qualified and skilled workers from which to choose.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    5. Re:Gov't project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's because the developers are idiots that used jQuery in the first place.

      jQuery has a place, and that is in creating things like word processors and painting programs in javascript. It does not belong in a form that I just have to put some data in and hit submit. (The other place jQuery doesn't belong is games, but that's a browser performance issue.)

      Like why in the bloody hell do developers do this?
      example.com/jquery1.8.2.js?v=1.8.2
      This torpedos caching, and when you start throwing plugins onto jquery, they all do the same thing. QUIT DOING THIS. jquery doesn't change every damn minute.

    6. Re:Gov't project by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am certainly NOT a proponent of out-sourcing (I will not debate my reasons here). However, let's put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the accepted process of hiring the lowest bidder with no vested interest in getting it right vs one where getting it right would have great impact on the users.

      If this work was being done by Americans who actually need to rely on the ACA for their health care coverage, you can bet your ass that it would have been done right - the first time. And, those who are involved can say it was an American success story. Instead, we now have another reason for it's opponents to call the whole program a failure.

      Brilliant.

  2. This isn't exactly surprising. by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the story here is that a large team of software developers with no demonstrated experience in developing, testing, performing quality assurance for, and administering large scale enterprise application deployments get a federal contract and botches it horribly. Color me shocked.

    I've been working in development and architecture roles for fifteen years, and have seen exactly the same pattern on a variety of scales over and over again. I've seen a number of rather large infrastructure development projects that worked out very well too, but none of those were public sector projects.

    Just remember that the folks responsible for this mess are certainly still taking paychecks while an enormous number of government workers are suffering due to the inability of our Congress to do its job. Good times, huh?

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  3. Computer ? Website ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Silly question, but... what happens when you want to apply and you don't have a computer ? Surely, by definition, a sizable portion of the population that requires Obamacare doesn't necessarily have the means to have a computer or an internet connection.

    And no, "anybody has a computer these days" is not an answer. I know plenty of people who don't have enough to feed themselves, let alone buy a computer - let alone one that's recent enough to cope with plugins that invariably tell you "your operating system / browser is not supported anymore, please upgrade." every 6 months.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Computer ? Website ? by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Silly question, but... what happens when you want to apply and you don't have a computer ? Surely, by definition, a sizable portion of the population that requires Obamacare doesn't necessarily have the means to have a computer or an internet connection.

      And no, "anybody has a computer these days" is not an answer. I know plenty of people who don't have enough to feed themselves, let alone buy a computer - let alone one that's recent enough to cope with plugins that invariably tell you "your operating system / browser is not supported anymore, please upgrade." every 6 months.

      Do you have libraries in america?

    2. Re:Computer ? Website ? by linuxguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Silly question, but... what happens when you want to apply and you don't have a computer ?

      Obamacare by phone: 800-318-2596

  4. I'm confused by isorox · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm confused, I thought that nobody wanted obamacare?

    1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The law makes it illegal to sell certain types of insurance, and they're forced to sell you prepackaged insurance similar to the way cable companies package channels.

      Yes, the law forbids selling insurance plans with fixed "lifetime caps." Especially those where the payout cap is less than the cost of many major treatments. Now, some people may argue that people who signed up for those very low cost programs did so with full knowledge that their "coverage" wouldn't actually pay their bills, and I'm sure the commissioned sales agents went out of their way to explain this risk, but it sure does seem like a short road to fraud.

      ACA also bans policies with "preexisting condition" clauses. Those policies allowed insurance companies to offer substantial discounts to customers who could prove they were healthy and unlikely to actually need anything but trauma care. Unfortunately, they did so by punishing people with genetic predispositions or family history of certain diseases with extremely high premiums. Insurance is about spreading the cost of unusual but expensive events across a large pool of people - essentially averaging the cost and risk - and biasing the cost towards those with the most risk is certainly a legitimate strategy. On the other hand, it seems "unfair" to subject certain people to 3x or 4x insurance premiums just because of who their parents are.

      So, yeah, people who were paying for "scam" health insurance are going to have to get "real" health insurance, and real coverage costs more. Likewise, the hordes of healthy, unemployed young people are going to have to pay a little more (or stay on their parents' plan) to reduce the costs to the few really sick people. But that's the whole idea behind insurance.

    2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obamacare was THE major issue of the 2012 election and he won. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. If the situation were reversed and democrats were demanding the abolishion of the second amendment, threatening a government shutdown if it wasn't done, would you be insisting that republicans "compromise"?

    3. Re:I'm confused by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So you're saying that other countries have better outcomes at lower costs because those governments decide to not cover expensive treatments, which is functionally no different than having lifetime caps? How does this account for the better outcomes? Are you suggesting that treatments that are ruled out by lifetime caps don't significantly impact outcomes? Or are you saying that the profit generated by "health insurance" as compared against "health care" sufficiently explains this discrepancy?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  5. Re:What does IT run on .. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The WSJ reports that six days into the launch of insurance marketplaces created by the new health-care law, the federal government finally acknowledged that design and software problems have kept customers from applying online for coverage."

    What software platform does the software run on ?

    I think this problem has less to do with the platform and more to do with the fact that this is what you get when you take the lowest bid without doing some basic research on the competence of the bidder. I mean 92 files per 'Apply'? Seriously? And they rolled it out after the Government Accountability Office warned that insufficient testing had been done? This mess says something about the people running the project. It seems to me that those three months could have been well spent hiring software testing contractors to do some load testing although one gets the feeling from the descriptions that team working on this system were scrambling so madly to get it working by their deadline that there would probably not have been any time to fix any except the very worst the bugs the contractors would have found.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  6. Re:What does IT run on .. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't matter. It's a government job, and everyone involved makes more money if it's a ten-year debacle than if it actually works.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. Healthcare.gov problems are real by linuxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Healthcare.gov problems are real. But asking for opinions from people who have a dog in the fight is probably less than ideal. When you ask the likes of Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's conservative rag) or healthcare technology company EXL (sour that they did not get the contract), you'll get answers that are entirely predictable.

    Why is the website a clusterF? Several reasons come to mind.

    1. It is a 1.0 product.
    2. It is a government project, what do you expect?
    3. The states who setup smaller (in comparison) exchanges had similar problems. My state of OR paid Oracle about $50,000,000 for a much simpler setup where you cannot buy anything, but can only view plans on offer. And even that did not work for first few days.
    4. The developers were stupid and did not anticipate the traffic they got. Even engineering oriented companies like Google often make that mistake. If you have ever tried registering for Google I/O you would know what I am talking about.
    5. Obama's coding skills are simply not up to snuff.

    Team Red would like you to think that the govt. has all of a sudden become very inefficient under Obama's presidency. And under their guy Bush, it was a model of transparency and efficiency.

    1. Re:Healthcare.gov problems are real by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Sacred duty to disobey the law and trash the government"? On what planet? Here on Earth, anyone who criticized george w. bush and his harebrained Iraqi adventure was an America-hating terrorist-sympathizing commie Dhimmicrat socialist traitor.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    2. Re:Healthcare.gov problems are real by organgtool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What country did you live in before 2009? As one of the people who opposed the Bush administration, we were told by that administration that if we did not agree with them, we were no better than the terrorists ("If you're not with us, you're against us!"). This scared all of the reporters who had tough questions about the Iraq War to keep their mouths shut or only ask softball questions. I was told by supporters of the administration that "This is America! If you don't like it, then leave!". And your 1984 reference about changing stories in mid-stream could best be applied to the number of rationales for going to Iraq - by the end of the war, I had lost count. Look, I'm not going to defend Obama because I have not been impressed with him by any means, but don't act like being against the government is suddenly unfashionable. It is always going to be fashionable to be against the government among your peers when your party is not in power and it is always going to be unfashionable to be against the government among your peers when your party is not in power.

  8. Join the crowd by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vermont's site is a disaster. Based on Oracle you'll encounter pages that were set up using what looks like boilerplate language then never corrected. For example, I was prompted to create this one time password – poorly explained – and presented with this screen that tells the user to enter a mobile phone number then shows a field for an email address – there is no field for a phone number. Then, there is a line of text - "I agree to [ENTER COMPANY OR SERVICE NAME HERE] – that is obviously boilerplate that was never replaced or corrected." The pols and the press keep announcing it is a "processing bottleneck" - now blamed on "old computers"... Can you say "we're gonna waste even more money on this thing?"

  9. Re:Alternatives?? by linuxguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oregon did just that. About $50mil later they had a website that did not work for the first few days. And it is a view-only site to begin with.

    Giving lots of money to a large company is no guarantee of success.

  10. Re:What does IT run on .. by CadentOrange · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It doesn't matter if you're behind Akamai if your website is that inefficiently designed. 56 JS files that are downloaded on hitting apply. WTF?

  11. Re:Alternatives?? by CadentOrange · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oracle?

    Well played sir. I can't tell if you're trolling or being serious.

  12. Re:incompetance out of leftists is SOP by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, the communist (not Marxist socialist, but actually "to each according to his need") English NHS is awful.

    Oh wait, no, it's the best healthcare system I've ever experienced.

    Also the problem here is contracting out to the lowest bidder. The problem was introduction of the private sector into government work - the same problem there always is.

    Ofc you're a troll, but a nice launchpad.

  13. Re:Client-side Caching by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's examine an HTTP request for a rather beefy portion of the JavaScript in question from healthcare.gov:

    pparadis::palegray-mobile { ~ }-> curl --head https://assets.healthcare.gov/global/js/lib/jquery-1.8.2.js
    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Server: Apache
    ETag: "cfa9051cc0b05eb519f1e16b2a6645d7:1370524513"
    Last-Modified: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:59:12 GMT
    Accept-Ranges: bytes
    Content-Length: 93436
    Content-Type: application/x-javascript
    Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:44:20 GMT
    Connection: keep-alive

    They're not even bothering to set the HTTP Cache-Control, Proxy-*, or Expires headers on this content, which will most assuredly limit intermediary proxy and client caching. To say this is amateur hour would be a gross exaggeration of the skills being fielded by these developers.

    Much larger issues undoubtedly exist in their backend infrastructure. Given the shit I've seen in this area, I could probably spend the next hour making educated guesses about how badly they've fucked up in various regards, spend another hour partially validating those guesses, and wind up just saying "yup, they're idiots." Instead, I think I'll go to bed now. I have work in the morning.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  14. Re:incompetance out of leftists is SOP by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

    The waiting time can be a bit of an issue, and a lot of the hospitals are overloaded due to meddling by government officials who have no notion of what it's actually like at ground level, but even through that it still manages to do a very good job of keeping the population alive and healthy. We're beating the US on every health metric worth considering (Except, oddly, cancer survival rate), and at a substantially lower per-capita spending.

  15. Re:incompetance out of leftists is SOP by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aye, we're not the best on waiting times, and the "internal market" tempered centrally is a lot less efficient than pre-Thatcher, but - like Bevan said - there will be an NHS as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.

    Something created out of compassion and solidarity is very hard (and I mean this sincerely) for a more capitalistic society to contemplate, let alone implement.

  16. Re:Compromise Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA is frighteningly-close to tumbling into full totalitarianism.

    You were doing so well - and then you threw in this bit of unsupported insanity.

  17. Re:incompetance out of leftists is SOP by njrabit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. Remember that Bush/Cheney failed experiment of outsourcing the Iraq War to private companies - companies that brought in untrained "experts" to interrogate prisoners, private security companies to police the streets like the Blackwater employees who killed 17 civilians in Nissor Square, Bahgdad thinking they were being fired upon, or the Halliburton contractor who improperly installed water pumps that killed over a dozen American soldiers while they were showering. Libertarians and anti-government conservatives that complain that government never works while living in a country in which quality of life is almost purely dependent on government programs - like freeways, municipal transportation, clean air, water systems, waste disposal, the internet, police departments, etc, etc, etc - should really just move to Afghanistan.

  18. Obamacare Versus The Affordable Care Act by mynamestolen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    --
    work in progress
  19. Re:Client-side Caching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's exactly the quality you get when you outsource to Indian programmers. We've had a decade to evaluate the outsourcing debacle...haven't we learned any lessons from it?

  20. Re:Compromise Opportunity by sociocapitalist · · Score: 5, Informative

    So now Obama can agree to a later start of Obamacare without losing his face: He'll not give in to the Republicans, but just react to deficiencies in the technology.

    To add insult to injury, the administration decided to take down the Amber Alerts website, blaming the shutdown, but Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website is still up. They shut down the PX at Andrews AFB and the WW2 Memorial on the National Mall to WW2 vets, but the golf course at Andrews AFB, which Obama likes, is still open, as is the one at Camp David. Funny what this administration considers "essential".

    For this administration it's about not compromising and punishing the American people for supporting their opposition. The pain they intentionally inflict they hope will convince most people to force the opposition to give in. A Park Services Ranger was quoted as saying they were told to make life as painful as possible for people.

    "Tell your Senator/Representatives to cave or this kitten (or abducted child that won't show up on the shut-down Amber Alert website) gets it."

    1. Nudge

    2. Shove

    3. Shoot

    They are past "Nudge" and are now well into "Shove"...with scattered, mostly kept low-key (for now), but increasingly-numerous incidents where "Shoot" is starting to be employed.

    The USA is frighteningly-close to tumbling into full totalitarianism.

    Strat

    Seriously? You're going to reference The Examiner for the park ranger quote? Come on.

    For the rest Reuters has a good explanation of why parts of the government are hit by the shutdown and other parts continue unaffected, the explanation being that the parts that get funding from Congress stop and those and which are funded otherwise continue to function. In the case of the Andrews AFB golf course, for example, it's funded by user fees and is not reliant upon Congress for budget.

    Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/troops-forage-for-food-while-golfers-play-on-in-shutdown.html

    But hell...don't let details get in the way of your rant...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  21. Re:What does IT run on .. by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if you're behind Akamai if your website is that inefficiently designed. 56 JS files that are downloaded on hitting apply. WTF?

    When I was young we used a thing called HTML forms.

    I guess they don't have enough 'zing' for Obamacare in the 21st century, that's why they weren't considered.

    --
    No sig today...
  22. No, I'm one who has studied it fairly well... by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And I'll point out that while WWII started in 1939, but the precepts behind the rise of the Nazis started much earlier.

    Totalitarianism does not require mass murder. Especially if the populace is obedient to the authority.

  23. Re:What does IT run on .. by bsane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Often times the killer is something stupid like incorrect http headers that prevent caching, which means every request to akamai hits the origin.

  24. Someone forgot a LOT of things. by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider Healthcare.gov as an Engineering project. Under .gov procurement rules. . .

    The law: an ~1800-page CONOPS document.

    The 10K+ pages of accompanying regulations ? User requirements.

    So. . .CONOPS passes approval, User reqs start getting gathered. Someone writes an RFP and puts it out for bid. Given typical Fed procurement requirements, that's 9 months to a year before contract award. PPACA passed in March 2010, so we're probably at March 2011 now.

    Winner ramps up, develops a Performance Spec and Initial Design, and starts procurement of infrastructure required. Another 6 months. Sept, 2011 now.

    Infrastructure stand-up and development begins. Likely another 3 months. It's 2012 now. Standard development and monitoring/audits. Pilot of basic site for Insurance Exchange, though reviews and changes. 6 months min, 9 months likely, Sept 2012.

    In the next year, you need to finalize, get the integration between multiple .gov sites and agencies hashed out and tuned, and THEN go to useability, security, and scaling tests. In ANY .gov program, that's 2 years, minimum.

    Which means, the first REALISTIC date for Exchange eligibility would have been October 2014. But the lawyers and politicians didn't bother asking the ENGINEERS how long it would take, they never do.

    And **THAT**, is my best estimate of what went on and what is going wrong. . .

  25. Re:Compromise Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You, are a fucking moron.

    He didn't shut down the ocean.

    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/did-obama-shut-down-ocean-part-shutdown/

    And he didn't shut down the Amber Alert system. The Amber Alert system is a private non-profit entity at the federal level so he couldn't shut it down even if he wanted to.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/tweets-and-bloggers-say-obama-used-shutdown-close-/

    I don't know how you could ever post something from Breitbart with a straight face.

  26. Re:Client-side Caching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It has the last-modified header and an Etag. Expires and cache-control are unnecessary. Contrary to popular web developer belief.

    http://redbot.org/?descend=True&uri=https://www.healthcare.gov/&req_hdr=Referer%3Ahttps://healthcare.gov/

    http://redbot.org/?uri=https://assets.healthcare.gov/global/js/lib/jquery-1.8.2.js&req_hdr=Referer%3Ahttps://healthcare.gov/

        HTTP/1.1 200 OK
            Server: Apache
            ETag: "cfa9051cc0b05eb519f1e16b2a6645d7:1370524513"
            Last-Modified: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:59:12 GMT
            Accept-Ranges: bytes
            Content-Type: application/x-javascript
            Vary: Accept-Encoding
            Content-Encoding: gzip
            Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:37 GMT
            Transfer-Encoding: chunked
            Connection: keep-alive
            Connection: Transfer-Encoding

    General
    The server's clock is correct.
    Content Negotiation
    The resource doesn't send Vary consistently.
    The ETag doesn't change between negotiated representations.
    Content negotiation for gzip compression is supported, saving 64%.
    Caching
    The resource last changed 137 days 19 hr ago.
    This response allows all caches to store it.
    This response allows a cache to assign its own freshness lifetime.
    Validation
    If-Modified-Since conditional requests are supported.
    An If-None-Match conditional request returned the full content unchanged.
    Partial Content
    A ranged request returned partial content, but it was incorrect.

  27. Simplicity by gpmanrpi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Back when I was still helping with designing and deploying websites, I would always tell clients that they should have a "Simple" backup version of the site. If the problem is load based, there is nothing wrong with having a simple HTML backup system, that generates a way for processing after the transaction is complete. While this might harken back to some of the websites of the late 90s early 2000s, when the CC processor was down, UPS/FedEx/DHL/USPS Shipping Calculation Web Service API or the fulfillment companies XML Order API, it allowed the client to have a sale in hand. It is easier to apologize later and beg forgiveness than to never have the sale. Customer's are amazingly forgiving when you tell them, "We were using our backup system so you weren't inconvenienced, and we have to verify your address, verify your CC info, or the product you ordered is out of stock for several weeks here is an alternative plus something for inconvenience." If they really are pulling from several sources, you trust the user, and when the system returns you run the transactions to verify during normally scheduled low volume times. Also, this is an insurance marketplace, wouldn't your real clients be the insurance companie? Did they not have some say in the testing of the system, or maybe some experience with online ordering systems? Since this is the government, why didn't they do IRS style forms with instruction booklet as a backup. Paper and Pencil backup availability allows them to treat orders like a catalogue order form. I realize all of these backup methods require manpower, but you only have one chance to gain a customer's trust.

  28. REDMAP by tepples · · Score: 3

    Did a nationwide majority vote for a Republican representative, or is the Republican majority in the House purely the result of gerrymandered single-member districts? When you get a chance, search for Redistricting Majority Project, a publicized instance of recent GOP gerrymandering.

  29. Re:Client-side Caching by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Several people noted that it is validly cached with the Etag and Last modified headers, so a better question might be why aren't they serving jquery-1.8.2.min.js? From the jQuery blog:

    http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.8.2.min.js (compressed, for production)
    http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.8.2.js (uncompressed, for debugging)

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  30. Re:What does IT run on .. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a thing called HTTP 1.0, and in it there's a feature called Connection: Keep-Alive. It doesn't spawn a new TCP connection for each of those 56 javascript files. Only one TCP connection per (sub)domain is made when Keep-Alive is in use. This was such a nice feature that in HTTP 1.1, all connections are considered persistent "keep-alive" unless you write Connection: Close. From a network standpoint a few extra lines of HTTP headers between each script isn't going to matter, and if it's cached and/or co-located properly (eg: via Akamai), it actually does matter, since those requests are going to be served from the caches efficiently.

    However, the biggest problem is that HTTP is fucking dumb. No, really, it's dumb. Not that it's designers were dumb, just that it's evolved over the years and security was never part of the design. For one, there is no such thing as a "Session". In this day and Age of Information that's ludicrous! Say you use a session cookie to validate every single request for every single resource is valid... because that's what you have to do, then EVERY COOKIE gets sent to the server EVERY TIME you make a request. It's so much face palm, I can feel the back of my skull.

    On the security standpoint, neither HTTP or HTML really knows how to actually work with encryption. That happens in TLS. What a fucking crock of shit. HTTPS means you can't cache anything. Most of the files being served are NOT dynamic, but STATIC files. However, since HTTP/HTML are so fucking dumb they can't even provide a simple hash, then you can't trust mixed content. If in addition to the URL of a static resource, you could also include a known hash:
    <img src="..." digest="d8b09c45b522e34d81ac9eed95f922c7028e7fb2; type=hex/SHA-1">
    Then the browser could hash the unsecured (cache-able) resource as it's pulling it in at the behest of the secured dynamic (uncatchable) page, and verify that the requested unsecured content wasn't tampered with in transit so it wouldn't be a security issue and we could actually FUCKING USE SECURITY EFFICIENTLY, grrr. Especially if you could specify a few bits of salt with the hashes...
    <img src="..." hmac="WkRoaU1EbGpORFZpTlRJeVpUTQo=, TlRJeVpUTTBaRGd4WVdNNVpRbwo=; type=base64/SHA-1">
    But, no, that doesn't exist. No HTTPS content is cached. Apparently I'm the only one on the planet not drinking the damn cool-aide. The web is bloated and retarded, it needs to die. Long live the Internet, but fuck the web. It took HALF the age of the Internet just to get from HTTP 4.01 to HTML 5... Over a Decade, and this shit still isn't in the spec. Don't hold your damn breath for next version, or for anyone with a fucking clue how things should work to propose sane changes. Even Google with SPDY is just exacerbating the issue with bandaids over the inefficiencies of HTTP.

    TL;DR: Yeah, it's a shitty website / backend design, but primarily it's because HTTP/HTML is just fucking retarded.

  31. Re:Compromise Opportunity by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ACA is the compromise. The Democrat idea was single payer Medicare for all. We compromised and used the Republican model proposed in the 90s, and implemented a decade later by Republican Governor Romney in Massachusetts. The ACA passed both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Republicans in the house tried over 40 times to repeal it and failed. They are now throwing a temper tantrum because they can't get their way through the established, official, channels. They're not willing to accept that they lost this fight. They'd rather burn everything down than see the other side score a legitimate victory. It's scorched Earth. Spite.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  32. Re:What does IT run on .. by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just one of those things that the government really doesn't do all that well. Private organizations live and die by their profit margin, so they make damn sure shit works and it works affordably.

    I cannot let this comment pass. Sorry, but anyone who's worked for a large corporate beauracracy knows this is nonsense. They are just as large, Byzantine, and wasteful. That's simply how large human organizations function.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  33. Re:Compromise Opportunity by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you don't use the word "Obamacare" and you go through the ACA provision by provision, it's overwhelmingly supported. You have to use scaremongering and knee-jerk words, to get people to say they are against it. Ask people, do they think insurance providers should be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Overwhelming answer is no. ACA does this. Children stay on until 26? They answer yes. ACA does this. And on and on.

    And why do you think the Democrats controlled all three branches? How did that happen? They were voted in.

    The Republicans biggest fear right now is that they won't be able to stop the ACA in time before people start seeing the benefits, and then they'll never be able to get rid of it just like Social Security and Medicare. Once people see first hand that social programs can actually work, and work well, it becomes a lot harder to sell their private market, anti-government, rhetoric. The ACA is a threat to their brand.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org