Slashdot Mirror
FBI Delays Computer-System Contract
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The FBI postponed until 2006 the awarding of a huge computer-overhaul contract, gun-shy after a $170 million failed first effort, the Wall Street Journal reports: 'Much is riding on the project's success. Congress and other overseers pilloried the FBI for its reliance on paper records, forms and file cabinets. The FBI only last year completed the rollout of the Internet to its agents and analysts. And even though the bureau installed a computerized case-management system in the mid-1990s, it relied largely on aging, less-agile technology to do so. And it did little to eliminate the department's notorious number of paper forms -- currently numbering more than 1,000.'"
Government Pork: not just for defense contractors anymore!
They also largely eliminated kidnapping-for-ransom because they have a 100% rate of catching criminals in those cases.
They are the numero-uno agency in charge kidnapping cases, and are very very good at it.
Besides, without them criminals could play hopscotch and avoid effecting law enforcement by skipping across state lines.
Wait, I thought we WANTED them using yesterday's technology and losing efficiency to it? Remember, these are the folks who spy on our emails, who can perform searches without warrants nowadays... we want them at least two steps behind the citizenry.
Good luck. With some 25,000 federal laws on the books, someone has to enforce them. I'm sure jaywalking will be a federal offense soon, too.
wasn't something put in with the patriot-act that dumped money in the fbi for a huge database overhall. something to enable crosschecks between agencies. if i'm not wrong, what else are they in need of updating?
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
Actually, when the FBI started, they were not a police force. FBI agents were not allowed to carry guns, and the FBI was largely a small agency used to coordinate local police forces investigations for crime that crossed state borders. If the FBI was downsized to it's very limited non-law-enforcement role, it would arguably be constitutional.
We should have a committee directing the FBI, and not just 1 person. Perhaps the president can appoint one member, with the consent of the Senate. Maybe a second member can be appointed by the conference of Governors. That way the states will have some oversight into what Big Brother is doing.
It's good to know those forms will now be scanned in and turned into 1,000 PDFs. That should lead to an enormous increase in efficiency.
there are a number of US agencies that defy all that is constitutional in the US. Why complain only about the FBI? Don't Americans have the CIA, the IRS, the Military, MiB and others to deal with? All of these groups take federal cash dollars and $pend without constraint, all the while never having to face prosecution because they are government agencies.
For a country that preaches Freedom, you guys sure are well controlled.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
When I watched The X-Files 10 years ago I thought: "this is bullshit, the government is way to incompetent for that kind of stuff".
These kind of screwups are very effective conspiracykillers...
I don't know if professional and law enforcement can go hand-in-hand without oversight. Every professional out there has competition, peer review and at the very least a very open disclosure of what they've done. The FBI has none. Not very professional to me.
I don't believe the country will fall into massive crime. People, in general, follow the law (even criminals!). Skipping from town to town committing crimes is a very expensive venture, one that petty thieves generally don't do. Being a full-time criminal is not profitable in the least. If you're talking about other crimes, I'd like to know what crimes the FBI fights that couldn't be covered by local law enforcement, or even a state agency.
It really is amazing that they can spend that kind of money and have nothing to show for it... All the while, they're hunting criminals trying to screw the government - sounds like they should look inside.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
Dada21, meet the necessary and proper clause. When combined with the commerce clause......
Your point of attack should be the commerce clause. Not the necessary and proper clause. However, once the commerce clause grants legitimacy, the NP clause actually *expands* congressional power. (i.e. NP is expansive, not restrictive)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Don't Americans have the CIA, the IRS, the Military, MiB and others to deal with?
Yes, there is a covert agency who get jiggy with it whilst protecting the earth from the scum of the universe.
liqbase
We don't need to have every database cross checked. All we need is one FBI database for the dangerous criminals, the murderers and corporate criminals. Before long, states will check other states databases for minor criminal offenses. I'll give one example- try getting a job as a realtor. Arkansas will check their database to see if anyone is behind on payments for state guarenteed loans (like school loans). If you are, Arkansas will not give you a license. Oklahoma has the same law. What will happen the way the system is now, is the guy from Arkansas will move to Oklahoma and get a job there. By having every state cross check every other state, people will not be allowed to start over. Maybe Joe Sixpack went to State U, ran himself into $40,000 in debt, and feels he can never overcome such a large amount of debt.
Or what about minor crimes? What if someone at the age of 20 decided to join the Alabama KKK? That person never broke a crime, just went to protests and meetings. At age 24 the person quits, and two years later moves to New York. Should New York know about his prior membership because of some anti-terrorism database? I know what everyone is thinking, the KKK is bad, so screw that person. I'll give a counter example, same facts as above, but instead of KKK the person is a member of PETA where his cohorts raid a university research center and free test animals.
Are we still a free nation, or a nation where everyone has a history stored in a database?
What is going to happen is some start-up in Cali will offer a service, checking a person through every state and FBI database. Once that becomes profitable, forget about ever trying to get a job for more than minimum wage if you have a blemish on your record. It will be the same thing employers are doing with checking credit reports before hiring workers.
We need less databases, and more privacy laws.
Seriously. It looks like they are stonewalling for MSFT.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland: ''Let the end be legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''
He foreshadowed this in United States v Fischer: ''The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittance, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe.''
Even Scalia thinks you're wrong....
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
While you are at it, why don't you Americans just give up on being a country? Be sure to let the rest of us know, so we can send out extra ambassadors, etc.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Well it all goes back to the civil war, which we lost. I don't mean southern slave-owning segregationists, though they lost too. The price of their loss though was the death of Federalism in the US.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This was on a sign outside a town in a game I played once and I really liked it:
"Stranger, obey our laws. We have both swords and shovels and doubt anyone would miss you."
Frankly, I think that's how we ought to handle crimnals that move about. I do see a need for Federal agents for things like Immigration. Instead of disbanding the FBI completely, let's just transfer the funding and field agents to "La Migra" & the Customs Service. That ought to give us a nice handle in controlling illegal immigration, looking for terrorists trying to sneak into the country, people trying to smuggle goods, etc. which is basically what the FBI was supposed to be doing in the first place.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
The U.S. Constitution has no provision for a federal police force, in fact, it is very against a federal military to be used against the state's citizens
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
The FBI is an extenstion (specifically the enforcement arm) of the Department of Justice. It is needed for interstate legal issues, that are unable to be covered by individual states (eg wire fraud).
What is the solution for "policing" interstate offense? Primarily it should be left to the individual cities. Offer private security companies to create a secondary network to allow police stations to communicate. The systems are there.
The Constitution specifically addresses interstate issues by placing them under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. You can't just assign them to individual states or municipalities
The great thing about dumping the FBI's powers into the local level is that every citizen can monitor what their government is spending and doing. The FBI hides behind official securities regulations, and the FOIA doesn't help
Because trying to coordinate things would be a disaster. Try running a kidnapping or mail fraud investigation across several states, where each state has to provide resources for the investigation pertaining to their particular state. So instead of one group freely travelling across state lines investigating the issue, you're trying to coordinate multiple groups all with limited knowledge of the evidence.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Years ago I arrived on Frankfurt airport on a flight from Bangkok. On arrival, it turned out that the local computer systems responsible for running all the gate assignments and platform traffic were down, and were not going to be up in the comming hours. As it turns out, the local airport staff had a complete paper based system in place still and managed to keep the place running with relatively little delay, thanks to tons of paper forms, and an obviously well thought out system that worked regardless of those computers (tho it is probably a lot cheaper and more efficient to run it with computers of course)
In other words, if your system is simply too complex to manage then you may have a problem right there. Throwing computer power at it to better keep track is no alternative to thinking up a better system, it is just a good tool for making it more efficient.
Of course using a more efficient system opens up new possibilities, thats not the point, but no number of computers is going to reduce 1000 forms to a more managable number by itself.
Please don't take what follows as a flame. It's what I saw and experienced.
For a country that preaches Freedom, you guys sure are well controlled.
I have to agree. As a citizen of ROTW (Rest Of The World), the 8 months I lived in the USA was an amazing experience.
I had people tell me that you have the Right to Bear Arms so you can rise up and shoot your politicians, which I applaud, yet everyone who's tried gets arrested or assassinated.
Just after the walls stopped shaking from a flight of F14s passing very low overhead I had someone tell me how lucky we were to be near them - "It makes you feel safe".
I saw neighbours presenting a petition of complaint to their neighbour because his door was a different colour! This was in Rancho Penasquitos, where there are rows of houses that all look nearly identical. And this is a Wealthy suburb!
My six year old son had to sign a contract that he wouldn't bring guns or drugs to school!
Disneyland was of course the epitome of control. I was astonished by the Stormtroopers in their uniforms enforcing the rules - lines had to be straight, no standing on the grass, or leaning against a fence. I was admonished for having my 3yo son sit on my shoulders to watch the parade, even though we were at the BACK of the crowd!
Nowhere in the world (apart from Japan) where I've been have I seen people who spend so much time standing in lines.
And it's not just the Men in Gray Suits who enforce these rules - as a society I saw many times where the people would castigate someone who broke one of these rules - particularly rules about standing in lines and related crimes.
We went camping at a lake somewhere in California with some friends. We had other campers complain to me that my tent wasn't lined up properly! We had people complain that our kids were too noisy at mealtime - this is at 5pm, and we're talking about a 3yo and 6yo here!
My wife, who was 8 months pregnant at the time, got kicked out of a swimming pool for going down the ramp instead of the stairs!
From what we saw, almost any white American seemed to be infected with this extreme legalism. It seemed that amongst the people of colour, only the poorest people seemed to actually have any freedom in any sense, although they were struggling with poverty that I frankly didnt expect in a country like the USA.
I also noticed that all the teenagers I saw looked stressed or stoned. I think it was something to do with all the rules.
I've also noticed a lot of Americans who come to my country claim that they love the fact that everyone is so relaxed. I think it's because we have a lot more practical freedom, even without legal Rights such as we keep hearing about from you poor Americans.
I found the USA quite Orwellian. It's as if you've all been told so many times "You are Free! You are the Most Free!" that you believe it. This is possibly not so surprising, since for most of you it's all you've ever known.
I met a whole group of people in La Jolla that were living in their cars - a family to each car. They told me that they were living like this because they got in trouble due to their credit cards, and they spend the nights around La Jolla because it's a really safe area. I still remember the confusion on their faces when I pointed out that in Cuba they'd be provided with housing (not nice housing by any means, but walls and a roof at least!) in their situation (I am not a citizen of Cuba btw.). They said to me "But at least we're free here!", as they tucked blankets around their kids stacked in the back seat of their Mercedes. Is that freedom? Slavery to a finacial and economic machine such that middle class family people live in cars parked on the side of the road because there's no effective Social Security system to protect them?
At risk of being very trollish, I'd also like to point out that the above are all reasons why the Rest Of The World don't want American culture to invade their countries. Most of us simply don't want your brand of Freedom, as we're quite happy with our own.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
Do you even know what McCullock v. Maryland was about? It was about a State attempting to tax a Federal institution. Marshall was greatly concerned that if a State might trump the Feds, the Supremacy Clause could be in danger. Of COURSE a Federal judge would worry about that. Also, in MvM the Federal institution at hand was the Central Bank -- the worse institution ever created. It is, at heart, one of the primary causes of the stock market bubble, the housing bubble, and the tax-bracket fraud that the feds cause on the unknowing citizens.
U.S. v. Fisher is a case where Marshall may have partially upheld his Constitutional oath. I believe (from memory) that this case was regarding bankruptcy and debt and forcing the U.S. to the top of the chain in who collects debts from the bankrupt.
You can blame the Supreme Court in the past 100 years for much of the damage done to the Constitution. I really don't understand, if treason is punishable by death, and violating the oath to uphold the Constitution is treason, why haven't we had more hangings in Washington these past 100 years?
The FBI serves a number of important functions other than those duties that people tend to find "unconstitutional". The fact is it is crucial that the Federal Government has an investigative branch to investigate such issues as counter-intelligence, cybercrime prevention, enforcing interstate corporate law and preventing white collar crime, preventing terrorist activities and handling a number of other situations which local and state law enforcement simply does not have the jurisdiction to handle.
There is no way anything other than a federal agency can work on counter-intelligence and the CIA and military both are only used outside the country because of their heavy handed methods which shouldn't be used against the citizenry.
Cybercrime crosses all state and even country boundaries making it extremely difficult for a state agency to pusue criminals in another state. Also, the average state or local agency doesn't have the resources neccessary to carry out effective cybercrime investigations on the scale that are needed. In fact, even the FBI has inadequate resources to police anything but the tip of the cybercrime iceberg.
Corporations can easily hide illegal activity by spreading out the information neccessary to discover the crimes across several states so that no single state would have the authority to gather all the information needed to prosecute the company. The same applies to white collar crime commited by those who work in corporations.
Local and state governments also don't have access to the neccessary information to effectivly track down potential terrorists and prevent their activities. They don't have access to other state's information and they don't have access to a number of federally regulated, top secret technologies and information which is only disclosed to state and local agencies when it is known to be neccessary.
Overall, the problem is not the FBI as much as it is legislation that people have a problem with. People do not like the way the FBI uses the rights granted to it, or more specifically they don't like the idea of how the FBI could use those rights. The obvious solution is to fight the laws, not the FBI.
It is true the FBI has abused its power or gone beyond its power in the past, however that is true of any law enforcement agency. A degree of corruption is inevitable in any group of people with power. The key to minimize it is supervision. This is another reason that the removal of the FBI is a horrible idea. As I have previously explained, state and local government don't have the sufficient resources or information to handle the role currently held by the FBI. If you were to give those agencies the neccessary power, information and resources to do this job, they would all be equally open to corruption and abuse of the new power they would be granted. At that point you now have 50 different agencies (assuming only state agencies get the FBI's current authority) which would all require more oversite rather than only one. Also you would have 50 different agencies which would have to try to coordinate information to get anything done rather than only having to move information within one organization.
Great post. When the lady and I are out "doing the town" (we travel a LOT), it seems we're the only two smiling. I smile ALL THE TIME because I'm happy. I look around and all I see are unhappy people. At the airport a few weeks back (O'hare International Terminal) I was smiling and looked at one of the security guards and he aked me why I was smiling.
For the past 10 years I've fought to keep my freedom, but as things get worse (and they are) we've been traveling more looking for more freedom. I found it in Dubai (one of the freest cities in the world and most prosperous for all) which is smack dab in the Middle East. I found more freedom in Asia, in Australia, even in socialist countries in Europe.
What I saw, even more importantly, were people smiling. I once went an entire warm afternoon in downtown San Diego without seeing ONE person crack a smile. Orwellian indeed.
Good comment.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Congress sets treaties here, not laws to be enforced by the military.
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
The militia run by each independent state. The laws of the union: counterfeit, treason, and piracy. Also for defending against offense ON OUR SOIL. This clause reminds me how unconstitutional our military is, on top of the FBI.
Department of Justice
The DoJ isn't constitutional! The founding of the DoJ (1870ish) happened in order to create a more powerful central authority. It was created after Lincoln won his illegal War between States in order to create a strong federal government. Lincoln campaigned for a stronger central government and the South threatened to secede if he won (they knew he would tax them in order to build his empire). Lincoln hated blacks and had no opinion on slavery.
The Constitution specifically addresses interstate issues by placing them under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. You can't just assign them to individual states or municipalities
Regulating the states means making sure no state attempts to prevent trade between themselves and another. It doesn't mean taking over what two states could normally accomplish together (and often do).
Try running a kidnapping or mail fraud investigation across several states, where each state has to provide resources for the investigation pertaining to their particular state. So instead of one group freely travelling across state lines investigating the issue, you're trying to coordinate multiple groups all with limited knowledge of the evidence
One unconstitutional group freely travels to handle kidnapping, all the while creating havoc and performing oppresive actions against its citizens.
Kidnapping should be handled by private investigators paid for by insurance companies, not federal thug who rarely solve the crimes anyway. I'm shocked that citizens today really feel safer with the FBI breathing down our necks.
and that the constitution was amended to include such rights.
No, it wasn't. The rights that the Amendments cover are protected by the Amendments, but they've always been there. They added the Bill of Rights in fear that down the road the central government would trample them. Guess what? Every right protected in the Bill of Rights has been destroyed already. They are basic human rights that no government can take away.
In 200 years, not ONE new technology or idealogy has surfaced that the Constitution does not completely cover. Name one. You can't.
Well the constitution doesn't really allow for a standing army.
Section. 8
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Section. 10
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Reading closely, the Army (milltia) belongs to the states, but congress can call them as needed. Congress can also allocate supplies. An army may be funded, but only for 2 years at a time. When compared with the language used for the Navy, it is clear that a standing army is not what is intended. Though it is also clear the the milltia is not state troops, but the common people which the state trains.
The IRS is legal - congress can collect taxes, and the IRS is the agency that is allowed to collect taxes. I don't think we should have an IRS, but it is legal - my argument is against the taxes they collect.
The CIA can (with the concent of congress) fit into all other officers who shall be established as law. While you can argue that the US shouldn't have spies, it is clear from the rest of the constitution that if the US has them, they belong on the federal level. I think your argument that the CIA is illegal is wrong, but it is clearly the case where your argument is strongest.
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to MiB, so I won't comment.
The US constitution is a very readable document. If you are a citizen of the US you should read it from time to time to remind yourself what it says. Obviously slashdot has an international audience, so I can't blame the parent for not knowing it (I don't know foreign governments well either).
The price of their loss though was the death of Federalism in the US.
Dude, Federalism WON over state's rights in the civil war. A single overriding authority can supercede that of a sovereign sub authority.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
You can blame the Supreme Court in the past 100 years for much of the damage done to the Constitution. I really don't understand, if treason is punishable by death, and violating the oath to uphold the Constitution is treason, why haven't we had more hangings in Washington these past 100 years?
All three branches of the US government have done many things that are unconstitutional. However little of it qualifies as treason, which is strictly defined for good reason - treason was abused when the constitution was written.
Note that I said all three branches are guilty? The supream court is least guilty of it. They still rule many things that are against the constitution.
Recent work had me creating a program that processes data coming from NCIC. It's unbelievable how primitive it is. They can't even supply it in machine-readable form yet, I have to use screen-scraping techniques. I have this mental picture of the main server room populated with vacuum-tube Univac equipment maintained by Grace Hopper.
Wow! I live in the US, and I have never see it that bad. I know the neighborhoods you speak of though. In several cases they are telling you something that just isn't true. (sadly not all, some places do have rules about what color you paint your door - I refuse to live in them, as does most of the US. Most people who live in such areas don't care, but there is always one, and the rest are just guilty of ignoring them)
The US is a large country. California is not representative of the rest of the country. Think of each state as a different county. You wouldn't make broad statements about Spain based on a trip to Finland, likewise don't make broad statements about the US, or even any one state based on a visit to California.
Though I would note that there are unwritten rules that make society function better. Standing in lines is not enjoyable, but if everyone waits their turn nicely the experience of everyone is equally bad, while if you don't form nice lines some people get it worse. If you head to areas where there are less people you will find that it is universal that people will let you go in front of them in line when you have much less than they do.
Of course if you were in California to go to Disneyland, you should be aware that standing in lines is part of their scam - a lot of people can be held in a line, you have paid your admission, then want you to be in lines nearly all the time where you don't cost much.
So only the rich with insurance would be able get their loved ones back? Like it or not the military, FBI, DOJ all exist because they are necessary. This country would fall apart without a central authority. I think the civil war proved that.
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has had to make dozens if not hundreds of decisions regarding such things as video, internet communications and the like were covered under the first amendment so I'd say that the Constitution never really covered them until the Supreme Court felt it should (and rightfully so). I doubt the framers ever intended for DVDs of hardcore pornography to be protected...and would probably be the ones making the laws againsts them today if they were alive.
From the article: With a wide variety of investigations, the FBI must be able to collect and store information in several different systems -- top secret, secret, classified, and sensitive but unclassified -- and any given document might contain information that falls into all four categories. Thus, the new system needs strict security controls to prevent information from falling into the wrong hands...
This is a big complicated system" because of the variety of issues the FBI investigates...
High complexity and the need for utmost security is the ideal combination for monumental failure, IMO. The problem with security is not the lack of adequate secure technology. Current techniques do work, otherwise our electronic commerce would have collapsed already. The problem is that hackers and ennemy spies will try to find ways of getting around the security barriers by exploiting defects in the underlying software. Since the number of defects in a software system is proportional to its complexity, there is no doubt that the system's security will be compromised at one time or another. It makes no difference who develops it.
A network's security is thus intimately tied to the reliability and robustness of the network's software. Security companies have no way of guaranteeing that the various software modules used in their systems are defect-free. This uncertainty is the Achilles' heel of the security industry. The solution is to move away from algorithmic software and adopt a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model.
You can't possibly claim that the constitution clearly covered all eventualities without being subject to some debate over its intent or explicit prohibitions. The framers didn't think so-- that's why there's a Supreme Court.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
Maybe they should contract 4-5 firms to do a rapid development prototype. Than award the contract to the team that makes the best progress.
Geez, isn't that how the military does things??? Except they typically pay $50-$1000 million for each prototype.
Rather than waste
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Federalism: A form of political organization in which governmental power is divided between a central government and territorial subdivisions--in the United States, among the national, state, and local governments.
People who say Federalism lost in the civil war claim that the state and local governments now have no power; that the Federal government controls all. This is, of course false, but Federalism == State's Rights.
"When I watched the Lone Gunman Pilot I thought
- Condaleeza Rice
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Even better, it was supposed to cost 2 million C$ (with an m) when it first started. It sort of got a bit over budget.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I too smile all the time, and indeed, my friend in San Diego does the same, yep, she smiles all the time too. She moved to San Diego cause most of the people there smile all the time. Its quite a lot like Tempe, AZ as well. We're a happy bunch in the southwest.
Might add I'm from VT where they are also a happy bunch. I guess you make your environment what you want it to be.I don't know about no power, but we are evolving in that direction. What I meant was that the idea of federalism has passed. The new paradigm is somewhat nationalistic, with ever more problems being addressed at the federal level, appropriately or not.
The recent battles over the supreme court are a symptom of this: It wouldn't matter who sat on the court if they weren't a place to establish national policy.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
How, exactly would that have helped?
"FBI switchboard operator."
"Yes, hello, I need to talk to someone in counterterrorism...?"
"One moment, I'll connect you." *BEEP BOOP BOOP*
"Counterterrorism task force, this is agent Smith, how may I help you?"
"Yeah, this is Mark Chambers with the INS. I'm calling about this guy, Mohammed Atta. He's applied for a visa for flight school, but he keeps raving about jihad and the Great Satan. You know anything about this guy?"
"Maybe. I'll have to look through some files. If you leave your address, I can put together a packet and FedEx it to you. Shouldn't take more than a week."
"A week!"
"Yeah, well, I've got to file the pink half of an A-21 form with the Records office to get access to his file. Then Cheryl will have to check if we've got a file on this guy, plus cross-check any aliases he might have, but Cheryl's out sick today. She should be back Tuesday. Anyway, once Cheryl finds his file, I've got to review it for anything important. Sometimes the guys get sloppy and they leave classified stuff in these files, and I can't very well ship that to some INS guy I don't even know, can I?" *chuckles* "But that's just his main file; those aren't updated with the recent stuff. So after that I have to go to Intelligence Gathering and give them the canary copy of the A-21 with them, and they'll look for anything recent we've picked up about your guy on the wires. And then, I have to Xerox his file, right, and then I send the copy to you. Sorry I can't FAX it; machine's broke. Anyway, I get like fifteen of these a day, and I've got a backlog right now. Cheryl's been sick since last Thursday, see. So give me a good week."
"...okay...um, nevermind...look, I'm sure this Atta guy's okay, just fooling around. Don't bother."
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Thank you! That just became my current favorite quote on Slashdot!
I guess it will have to go back to the "Unexplained" category because there will be no use for filing cabnets.
The U-Files just isn't as catchy.
I'm already on a contract (I'm a subcontractor) under Lockheed Martin for the FBI and recently Northrop won a contract and had employees working in the same building I was working in. The project Northrop was working on ended up being behind schedule with Northrop behind on documentation and other things. Given, they were new to the environment and LM has been around for over 4 years now in the same environment but if that is any indication of future performance then Northrop won't win the bid for this new Sentinel contract. LM did win a re-bid for the existing contract that I'm on so they must be doing something that the FBI likes. Also, the fact that the VCF failed was not entirely the fault of SAIC since the FBI couldn't agree on requirements and their management for the project was always changing. Anyone would fail to meet requirements if the requirements never stabilize.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Spain and Finland are completely different countries with different languages and cultures. The United States is one country with one language and culture and to an extent it's not surprising that you would be judged in that way. I'm used to foreigners thinking that London is the whole British experience when in fact it's an overcrowded shit hole full of rude people and the rest of the country is a lot nicer.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Reads like a classic project failure, with the classic failed project start: It was managed by someone who created "their own" database. i.e. A manager who thinks he knows better than the experts being hired, who overrides their estimates and recommendations, and who blows off any technical issues they raise because he "did it himself" in less time with an underpowered single-user tool.
I've worked on three similar projects -- only one succeeded. The one success was because the manager in question got yanked half way through and there was still enough time for a competent manager to be hired who'd let the team do their job properly.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
What is going to happen is some start-up in Cali will offer a service, checking a person through every state and FBI database. Once that becomes profitable, forget about ever trying to get a job for more than minimum wage if you have a blemish on your record.
Dude, you're describing the situation as it existed circa 1990, or even 1980. But it's 2005 now [almost 2006 - yikes!], and everything you've foreseen has come to pass.
Compare the story of Mr. Charles "Roscoe" Heaton:
To his credit, Neal Boortz has been all over this story [see also here].All the Civil War proved is that the central authority is willing to destroy the country in order to perpetuate itself and expand its power.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Congress sets treaties here, not laws to be enforced by the military.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"
Also for defending against offense ON OUR SOIL. This clause reminds me how unconstitutional our military is, on top of the FBI.
It does not specify "on our soil", it gives authority to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," without instructions on how it should be done. Further the Constitution specifies:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"
Late 20th century, US foreign policy is based on the premise that instability in other parts of the world can eventually impact the US homeland. You can disagree with it (especially Bush's interpretation), but it is Constitutional.
Lincoln campaigned for a stronger central government and the South threatened to secede if he won (they knew he would tax them in order to build his empire).
As was demonstrated by the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the US Civil war, without strong central government the US would fall apart.
Lincoln hated blacks and had no opinion on slavery.
I agree, slavery served as a pawn in his plan to strengthen the federal goverment.
Regulating the states means making sure no state attempts to prevent trade between themselves and another. It doesn't mean taking over what two states could normally accomplish together (and often do).
No, regulation means regulation. The ability to establish uniform codes, create a common currency, control how states trade with each other, establish laws governing trade which no state individually can address.
Kidnapping should be handled by private investigators paid for by insurance companies, not federal thug who rarely solve the crimes anyway. I'm shocked that citizens today really feel safer with the FBI breathing down our necks.
What about wire fraud, identity theft, tax evation, Enron, bribery. There are alot of crimes across state lines that cannot be addressed by individual state laws. And for the most part citzens get into problems with local and state authorities, rather than the FBI, so I would hardly describe them as "breathing down our necks".
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Reading closely, the Army (milltia) belongs to the states, but congress can call them as needed
Looking at clause 12 and 15 there is a distinction made between the Army and militia. I think this is where the National Guard (state militias) fall in.
An army may be funded, but only for 2 years at a time.
Funded does not mean maintained. Essentially what is called upon is for Congress to review the need for an army every two years. The appropriations for supporting the military must be renewed every 2 years, that doesn't mean the Army can only be maintained for 2 years then stand down.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
One of the issues prior to the 2001 incident was reported to be that the FBI, CIA, etc, were more worried about turf-protection than criminal interdiction. If you actually called someone, you'd have to share the credit, possibly help his budget get increased, and therefore lose face within your own organization. So, while modernizing the FBI computer system (and while they're at it the great gantlet of forms that will be digitized) is a great idea, someone has to do something about the FBI culture as well. More easily searched forms that nobody but the FBI can access, on the FBI's schedule, aren't really going to help much.
Translation: we're spending money on a technical solution to a sociological problem.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
Please tell me that you were joking. I have never met an American who is as ignorant about foreign cultures as you are about the American culture. And that includes the women who yelled in a Foreign restaurant "I'm stick of this country with all the black people who don't speak English." (Not exactly those words, but that was the tone - English was not the native language of that island)
London is a part of the UK. Either you recognize that there are different cultures in the US just like there are in the UK, or you don't recognize any difference in culture between London and the rest of Briton.
There is a large difference between California and Mississippi. In theory the language is the same, but anyone who has tried to speak with people from both areas will tell you they are not close. The culture is also very different.
Course you probably traveled to America to go to McDonald's. You could have stayed home, as there is a McDonald's in your city which will give you the exact same experience. There is plenty of culture in the US, but as is typical you are too blind to find it.
People from different parts of the UK have different attitudes it's true but someone from London and someone from Manchester would have a great deal more in common than someone from Finland and someone from Spain. I presume the same applies to the United States.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
At risk of being very trollish, I'd also like to point out that the above are all reasons why the Rest Of The World don't want American culture to invade their countries. Most of us simply don't want your brand of Freedom, as we're quite happy with our own.
Americans in general are happy with their own version. What you describe are cultural in nature not politcal. It isn't our brand of freedom from a government structure, it is who we are as a society. I wouldn't expect other countries to be the same, since the people are different.
The people you describe in La Jolla, probably could have a better life elsewhere in the country, but chose to live in a popular beach area where the cost of living is high. These are people living out of the back seat of a Mercedes. There are professionals who do the same in the San Francisco bay area, who have good paying jobs, but can't afford to purchase a home. They don't need a social system to protect them, they are making a choice, and are free to trade the comforts of a home for the enjoyment of living in an area they prefer.
As for Americans travelling to other places and seeing people more relaxed, it's true. Again this is a reflection of the culture. The US culture is one of hard work and consumerism. Most other cultures of the world are more relaxed, enjoying alot more time to hike, go on vacation, enjoy life. While in the US, it's a "Work hard, play hard" approach. You work 60-80 hours a week, drive home in your SUV and watch your new plasma TV.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
interesting stuff. -- and no, I'm not an American, just a northern neighbour.
MiB was a crack at Men in Black, another Acronym to go with the others (this one isn't apparently real)...
the IRS was mentioned because it all seems so closed doors. Yes, they take your taxes, which seems fair as a citizen of said country. But, what is really happening there? why are they making decision that may affect you? who makes these decisions? etc. from my perspective, this is the appearance. As an American, you may have much better insight than what I've read in the newspapers/seen on the boob/movies, etc. (i'm sure all depictions of IRS are sour)
it is cool that you know your constitution. I'm sure most aren't really sure what it is...
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
sweet!!
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza