yea, I noticed that too.
Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
Seems like they went off the deep end.
Not a great design.
I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
(which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
program, retailer, forum, etc.
The difference between a business financial report and a government
financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
Notice I said a financial report vs. P&L statement.
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.
A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
benefits provided, our debt could go higher.
e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.
The problem of not operating with in a budget is that eventually the money
that the government spends either dries up because its credit rating
continues to drop or it continues to water down the buying power by adding
more currency to the world. Neither scenario is on I want to see happen.
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:03:28 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
I have argument with that at all.
My only point was that cost benefit analysis doesn't neccesarily save money. In fact, one could argue that it can actually waste money by justifying more expenditures.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.