Slashdot Mirror


Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts

An anonymous reader writes "Almost ten years after the an internal report, and a year after a Baltimore sun story warned that the electrical system at the fort Meade NSA HQ couldn't keep up with the growing electricity demand ... the problem has got worse. The 'NSA has had to resort to partial, rolling brownouts at its computer farms and scheduled power outages and some offices are experiencing significant power disruptions'. NSA director Alexander testified to congress about this problem. It is suggested he wanted to add more than $800 million to the 07 budget. A recent public powerpoint presentation suggested 70% of of all intelligence spending goes to contractors. It also included a graph, without numbers, of this spending. It suggests that US intelligence spending is around $60 billion. An internal survey that showed NSA employees have problems trusting each other."

198 comments

  1. Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by suv4x4 · · Score: 0

    Br...

    Brownouts? What the hell..

    1. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      brownout=undervoltage

      Not that problematic for computers anymore, because modern switching power supplies will simply draw more current to compensate (but if overload is the cause of the brownout, that only makes things worse). Brownouts used to kill harddisks when the spindle-motor didn't get enough juice and slowed down, causing the air cushion under the read-write-head to collapse: headcrash.

    2. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by palewook · · Score: 1

      poor NSA. perhaps if they focused on covering their jobs, rather than attempting to data mine all of the domestic usa data, they would have more then enough available power and certainly more free machines. truly a case of the chimp being too stupid or too greedy to let go of the fruit in his fist, while his hand is stuck in the tree trunk.

    3. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why would a bunch of Firefly fans attack the NSA? They can't all have sisters being shaped into psychic assassins.

      Oh, brown-OUTs. Lack of electricity.

      Were there code monkeys? Some terrifying code monkeys got loose perhaps?

    4. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by bbagnall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't that it's underfunded. The problem is that it is a government agency. All government agencies grow all out of proportion to their usefulness and they are incredibly inefficient. Solution: Get rid of it or drastically downsize like 80%.

    5. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Get rid of it. Any spy agency that has Y2K problems has poor management.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just that there's not enough power in available in Maryland. See this article from the local newspaper: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007 /06_24-56/GOV

    7. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by SnapShot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the editorial in today's NYT. They've already downsized. Most of the people working there aren't government employees anymore. A majority are government contractors. This, my friend, is the triumph of Republican-lead privatization.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    8. Re: Underfunded NSA Suffers Brownouts... by Wookietim · · Score: 1

      awwwww....poor little thought police don't have electric? Poor guys! What will I do if my every action online is not constantly being monitored?

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
  2. No shit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If paranoia is part of the job description, not trusting the coworkers is kinda expected, isn't it?

    1. Re:No shit.... by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      It's a bureaucracy. Any large bureaucracy, where one cannot make direct causal relationships between events and is subject to faceless administrators, breeds paranoia and mistrust.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    2. Re:No shit.... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't think it's quite paranoia, more of a problem of dividing evryone into "goodguys" and "badguys". Once you start treating the very citizen you are suppoed to protect like "badguys" you stop trusting anyone.

      ."What we need is fundamental change in the way we manage NSA and what we expect of management and ourselves," concluded the study, which was led by George "Dennis" Bartko, the NSA's deputy chief of cryptanalysis.


      Yeah we need a serious change, like admitting that all this cloak and dagger, sorry that is classified, need to know, bullshit is the cause of most of the terrorist problems we have today. Drop the secrecy, and disassemble these above-the-law organizations. Dealing with policy in the open is the only way to keep it honest. When the government is dishonest with the nation about policy you do not have democracy, you have "democracy theater"
      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:No shit.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Let's start with keys for military frequencies. Publish them on the internet. Then we'll move on to nuclear launch codes. Everyone should have a set of those. Alternately, they could get rid of the codes entirely and just hook all the nukes up to a big red button.

    4. Re:No shit.... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      No, the cause of global terrorism (as we call it) is way more complex than the US Gub fucking with its citizens. We've been sticking our dick into the mideast for a century now - you suppose that might cause some problems? The people that live there can't mount an offensive, so they do what they can, which is blow up shopping malls and airplanes. It's really hard to blame them for attacking us once you get the historical context (although we still have to defend ourselves and, perhaps, GTFO of their business).

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:No shit.... by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure we could publish the launch codes, because we don't really need more than about 10 nukes anyway. Get rid of all the rest. Nukes are zero deterrent in modern urban warfare. The sole continued purpose is to prevent the use of nukes against us by another nation. What nation in the world would not be decimated by losing their 10 most populous cities? Every nuke beyond that is just a terrorist target or accident waiting to happen. It's easier to keep 10 locations physically secure than 50 or 100 locations, if anyone ever actually gets to the button, why would a fucking code stop them?

      As for the military frequencies, why would the military need to be conducting secret operation on it own citizens? Sure you don't want kids with walkie-talkies being able to talk to fighter pilots while thay are training, but there should be not a single classified military action taking place outside of a declared warzone. Our US Special Forces have no business going to influence a internal conflict in another country. Ever. If it's that fucking important who wins the foriegn internal conflict, then it is worth declaring publicly. Honesty really is the best policy.

      --
      We are all just people.
    6. Re:No shit.... by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, did you just seriously suggest that the military shouldn't have secure comms?

      Your level of ignorance is astounding.

    7. Re:No shit.... by Urusai · · Score: 1

      The police shouldn't. But increasingly they do.

    8. Re:No shit.... by 49152 · · Score: 1

      You need to train those reading skills better. He did not say any such thing.

      Your level of brainwashing is astounding ;-)

    9. Re:No shit.... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Intriguing thoughts on the nukes, much akin to "Why should I carry all these baskets? My eggs will all fit in this one." Suppose China would like to nuke us, but we've got these 10 nukes pointed at their vitals. Is anything so secure that you'd bet against saboteurs or terrorists being able to infiltrate 10 known locations? And suppose that they were only able to knock out 5. Think the most populous country in the world couldn't bounce back from five nukes? Hey, what about an alliance? Something like Germany, Italy, and Japan. Now we're down to three nukes each, and if they can kill 5 of them, we're down to less than 2 each. By your idea, modern Hitler wins big.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    10. Re:No shit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, the only Hitler-esque leader in a country that can deliver these days is Bush. China and Russia have the potential, but that's about it.

    11. Re:No shit.... by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No. I said the Military has no need of secret operations outside of a declared warzone.

      But why shouldn't I have the military equivilent of a police radio monitor? I grew up in Virginia Beach next to the largest Navy base on the East Coast, why shouldn't I know when flight manuvers will be practiced over my neighborhood? or that will an amphibious assault training exercise at 4am on the beach at the base? or that there was and accident on one of the ships? or anything else going on in a peacetime military? If they are the might behind the Democratic will of the people, why can't the people know what they are doing? Unless of course they are doing something that the average citizen would find to be abhorrent, like:

      "Sophisticated military technology was illegally transferred from a major U.S. company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to South Africa and Chile and, from there, on to Iraq. The Iraqi-born designer of a chemical weapons plant in Libya set up shop in Florida, producing and then shipping to Iraq chemical weapon components. The CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies were made aware of the operation and did nothing to prevent it. "During the 1980s and into the '90s, senior officials of both the Reagan and Bush administrations encouraged the privatization of foreign policy, certainly towards Iran and Iraq. http://www.jonathanpollard.org/iraq.htm
      --
      We are all just people.
    12. Re:No shit.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Oh man, Original Replica, you're not one of those conspiracy theorists that believe just because the Busheviks are funding and supporting that terrorist group in Iran, the MEK, on their bloody rampage, and that other terrorist bunch in Pakinstan in their bloody strikes into Iran, and that smaller terrorist Sunni Muslim group in Lebanon to foment problems and kill Palestinians, and that other group in Afghanistan, and that guerrilla army in Columbia to try to overthrow the democratically-elected Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, and those thirty-some other terrorist operations around the planet, that the USA has any culpability whatsoever in the world's troubles???

      [END OF SARCASM....END OF SARCASM....END OF SARCASM]

    13. Re:No shit.... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      That's right, I forgot, Putin is made of cotton candy and rainbows, while Bush is made of barbed wire and goatse pictures. I'm no fan of Bush, but if we state that he's capable of that, we've got to put Putin on the same list.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    14. Re:No shit.... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Informative

      To illustrate, let me describe something about military secrecy. (I read it years ago, so I paraphrase, but it'll give you a rough idea.) If you have one "level 1" document, the classification of your collection is merely "level 1". If you have one hundred "level 1" documents, your collection is actually "level 2".

      Why? Because inferences can be made from collections of documents. With enough data, one can read between the lines.

      So it's in the military's best interest to keep as much "innocuous" information as concealed as possible. You may only know when a SEAL training operation is happening on your beach, but with knowledge of enough occurrences of such operations, analysts in Russia, North Korea or Iran can realize when they need to be more watchful of their coasts. You may only overhear mention of different lot numbers of 20mm cannon rounds, but analysts could use that knowledge to know if the US is ramping up production of aircraft ammunition.

      That's why.

    15. Re:No shit.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Because we don't trust you not to sell it, that's why. People like you would gladly have given the D-Day plans to the Nazis for free, just for the sake of getting rid of some of those nasty government secrets.

    16. Re:No shit.... by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      "while Bush is made of barbed wire and goatse pictures" Whoa- Bush is made of goatse pictures?
      THOSE MENTAL IMAGES- DO NOT WANT! DO NOT WANT DAMMIT!

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    17. Re:No shit.... by mrjohnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lol. Leave the defending the country stuff to the people who know how to do it right.

      Because you don't need to know. You don't need to know callsigns or military strategy. You don't need to know a unit is out there practicing with blanks and might be vulnerable to attack. You don't need to know how to call for air support, which is a skill that could be used against us if an enemy got one of our secure radios. *We* don't need to think about civilians listening in when we're trying to train. And a thousand other things.

      Oh sure, it might be *way cool dude* for you to know about ops, but it's our fucking lives. If you haven't noticed, we have enough to worry about.

    18. Re:No shit.... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Good job on freaking out and throwing out a huge red herring to derail a pretty valid point.

    19. Re:No shit.... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Yes they should. The people they are going after certainly do.

    20. Re:No shit.... by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      You don't need to know a unit is out there practicing with blanks and might be vulnerable to attack.


      Attacks from whom? The local gun club? Some psychopath who's too goddamn dumb to just go attack a shopping center next to a military base if he wants to kill soldiers?

      Fuck, at least those practicing soldiers would have guns, even if they're only loaded with blanks! We mere civilians often organize group activities very publicly, and have NO firearms on hand! I guess we should start being more careful, right? We're leaving ourselves vulnerable to attack!
    21. Re:No shit.... by darkonc · · Score: 1
      The problem is that if I can figure out what your brother's platoon is doing during peacetime maneuvers, I can figure out what they're doing when they're doing wartime maneuvers against my country's platoon.

      But don't worry. They won't be doing those maneuvers for long.

      /insert evil_laugh.ogg;

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    22. Re:No shit.... by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      I mentioned that because it's happened. To people I know personally. Several Marines died that day.

    23. Re:No shit.... by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      When did THAT happen?

      It surely would have been on the news as much or more than that recent university shooting.

      I mean, someone here in America getting wind of a training exercise and using that information to go shoot Marines? Wow.

    24. Re:No shit.... by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      First you say..Leave the defending the country stuff to the people who know how to do it right

      Then you say... If you haven't noticed, we have enough to worry about.

      Maybe you haven't read up on the history of all of our current conflicts, but two things from it are fairly obvious: 1. The people setting policy of defending our country are more concerned about "nation building" than the security of USA or the lives of our troops, beyond the bad PR when American soldiers are killed.

      I understand why you don't want mass civilian oversight looking over you shoulder while you are training. Nobody wants to be constantly monitored or critiqued while they go about their work. But what are we as the "civilians" supposed to do to to assure the proper use of OUR military when so much of the most important work is secret? When I think about the US military I think about my cousins and highschool buddies and the military families I grew up with. I have the highest respect for the commitment and lives of our troops. I do not have the same respect for motivations or intentions of the people who deploy our troops overseas at the drop of a hat. How would you balance the secrecy neccesary to keep troops safe vs. keeping the actions of our government out in the open where the American citizen can know what their elected government is doing?

      --
      We are all just people.
    25. Re:No shit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry point 2. got chopped. I should have previewed.

      2. The people doing the long term guiding of "defending the country" are only suceeding in making us more globally hated. America Should be the most beloved country on earth if you were to look at our humanitarian history, but whenever some decades old "secret operation" is declassified the disgust some countries have for us makes alot more sense. I don't those currently calling the shots do know how to do it right.

    26. Re:No shit.... by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      1) "The people setting policy of defending our country are more concerned about "nation building" than the security of USA or the lives of our troops, beyond the bad PR when American soldiers are killed."

      I can't talk about policy or nation building. It's above my pay grade so to speak. We were talking about training and you conceded that we don't need or want close civilian oversight. I was talking about security of our people -- that was my only point. Hey, there's a reason we have a warrior culture. Heck, there's a reason civilized cultures have always set their warriors apart from the rest. They have their job, the rest of society should go about survival and building new malls or something.

      What you seem to be talking about is oversight of politicians and civilians in charge of the military. Again, above my pay grade.

      2) "The people doing the long term guiding of "defending the country" are only suceeding in making us more globally hated."

      What's this got to do with training or comm frequencies? We're the military, the warrior culture. We operate only on orders. You learn that real quick in boot camp when you can't even piss without permission. But when that day comes that we are given a mission, we execute it the best we can. Yes, sometimes bad things happen. There are no pollsters in Iraq. There aren't any politicians on the battlefield. There aren't any Phds out there warning us about the long term effects will be. Well, maybe there are but we're just too low level to talk to. Hell, it's at best bunch of damn 20-somethings, half of whom aren't even trusted to drink yet, out there making split second decisions whether to risk their life or endure CNN's months long investigation and a courts martial. I wonder how many of those 3,000 plus dead decided they'd be better off than to endure that torture.

      You civilians are the ones who elect representatives to choose those missions. But then, most people can't be bothered to vote, anyhow. And yet everywhere I go people feel the need to tell *me* how they feel about Iraq. How funny. They've just got to get it off their chest. I don't care because I don't make, influence or have permission to question policy. Hell, I'm usually only half listening anyhow. You have these rights but you're talking to the wrong people.

      You want to know all I care about? Coming home alive with all of my buddies in whole pieces so we can go out drinking and complain about everybody else.

    27. Re:No shit.... by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      Damn it, every response I make here has to be limited. I'll just say, no I don't think it was in the states but it could still happen easily. Hell, they got friggen airplanes after all. That's why there have to be secrets.

  3. Tag plz by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

    can we get a 'haha' tag added?

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  4. They spent it already? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah well, better get the printing presses running again.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:They spent it already? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like the problem is a misallocation of funding, not underfunding.

      If you can power X equipment, then why bother to purchase X+Y equipment before you purchase more power capacity first?

      Having more equipment than you can power is a symptom of spending too much on equipment and not enough on power capacity. It says nothing about whether your total budget is too low or too high.

      Wait, I forgot, we're talking about a government agency. They just assume that any money they mismanage can just be used as justification for an additional funding demand the following year.

      Must be nice to be able to get more money because you totally screwed up spending the last round of funding. Too bad it's us giving them the money.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:They spent it already? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their planning begins years ahead of time, often working on systems three generations beyond the ones that they're currently installing. Problems with designs can push power usage for a given system much higher than planned, and it can take time to get the power systems in place. NSA is a naturally paranoid agency; they take all of their information sources and know that someone else is looking at exactly those to analyze them, so they don't want anyone to know exactly how much power they're using because that may provide a clue as to the computing capacity that they have. A sudden increase in power draw from local utilities may be seen and passed on to potential enemies, as might the construction of a new, on-site plant, whose capacity may be figured out by an experienced engineer.

      While the NSA certainly has undertaken problematic programs here and there, they still do a lot of SIGINT against other nations, keeping tabs on what's happening. Russia, China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, and even Israel, as well as groups like Hezbollah, are certainly constant targets of intercepts because of past or current untrustworthiness. Knowing what's happening around the world is still their primary goal, and where the majority of their efforts are located.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:They spent it already? by zonker · · Score: 0

      You know I'd probably care more about them being underfunded if I actually believed they were using their computer farms for finding terrorists rather than spying on American citizens.

    4. Re:They spent it already? by diGitalRchitect · · Score: 1

      I've only recently started working for a contractor that does government work, although not for the NSA. In the few months that I've been working with the government, I get the strong feeling that the problem is not as much the governments inability to to manage money, but there inability to structure decent contracts.

      From my perspective, most government work involves contracts for limited term projects. Assuming that this project may outlive the life of the contract, the government stipulates that the project will own outright the equipment for the project. They simply don't ever use a utility model, even when its is clear that a project will have a limited life (I.E. process this bulk some of data). This inevitably leads to a ton of outdated equipment at the end of contracts, that no other project wants to reuse. Nearly all means of consolidating equipment (I.E. virtualization, utility computing) is out of the question, because it is all built one-off. Most of the work I support is public domain, so some of it is farmed out to outside suppliers with limited risk of exposure. Assuming none of the NSA work is done outside, you might think that they would have more control over the systems that re bought, but somehow I expect that they don't exercise THAT kind of control.

    5. Re:They spent it already? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the problem is a misallocation of funding, not underfunding.

      If you can power X equipment, then why bother to purchase X+Y equipment before you purchase more power capacity first?

      TFA says they haven't just exceeded the power capacity of their data center: They're exceeding the power capacity of the grid. The NSA needs to upgrade three entire substations to stay afloat through 2012, and they're considering moving major portions of their center to Tennessee, where, I suspect, they intend to use redundant pairs of entire TVA lakes and their power supply -- and maybe even as their cooling system.

      The problem biting the NSA is one that's bit countless companies, mine included: You can pack far more computing power into the same floor space than was ever thought possible.

      And they ain't running itty bitty machines, either. One of the NSA's major computational platform is the DEC Alpha. They have thousands of them -- quite a few are probably big-dog GS1280 AlphaServers, stunningly potent number-crunchers that presently max out at 128 processors and 512GB memory. They're quite demanding in terms of power and cooling: My company's five modestly configured AlphaServers consume twenty thousand dollars in power per month and can dump up to 250,000 BTU/hour in heat. We've seriously considered moving to Opteron-based servers, mostly for what we'd save on electricity. We could pull it off because we're just running databases. The NSA, though, has untold petabytes of existing data to migrate, and incredible sums invested in signal processing and cataloging software. They may not have the luxury of a more power-efficient platform.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    6. Re:They spent it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the AC Reply Pledge
      theonetruekeebler == Carleton Vaughn.
    7. Re:They spent it already? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      Well done, and I commend your ability to Google, as well as your willingness to do this not once, but twice. Outing people in a forum where pseudonyms are the norm is particularly ironic when done from the bunker of an anonymous account. Whether it's funny, threatening or merely puerile should remain an exercise for the reader.

      The best part, the very best part, is where you quote a piece in my journal called "The Anonymous Coward Reply Pledge," which is about not engaging you in a conversation. A rather cleverly crafted troll, perhaps? Hoping to gloat over my lack of integrity in case I replied? I've replied to ACs before, you know. Usually it's out of forgetfulness, but right now I'm doing because I know the difference between an immutable law of nature and a guideline for distinguishing between someone being anonymous for a legitimate reason, and the run-of-the-mill pigfucker.

      Since you see fit to out people, might I inquire as to who you actually are? Assuming of course you're okay with which end of the legitimate vs. pigfucker continuum you'll come out on.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    8. Re:They spent it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outing people in a forum where pseudonyms are the norm is particularly ironic when done from the bunker of an anonymous account.
      What I find ironic, Carleton Vaughn, is the air of moral superiority you project toward Anonymous Cowards, while you are posting under a pseudonym and hence anonymous also.
    9. Re:They spent it already? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      Pseudonymity does not guarantee anonymity, as you have so clevery demonstrated. I have taken no special measures to disguise my identity beyond basing my username on a nickname I acquired almost twenty years ago. Using a nickname here, rather than my real name, puts me in the same boat as over a million Slashdot users.

      "theonetruekeebler" can always be traced back to the same person, at least in principle. "Anonymous Coward", on the other hand, has no such nonrepudiation associated with it.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
  5. Toilet seats by gravos · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they may have bought one too many $40,000 toilet seats. But this is a serious issue: These brownouts are affecting their ability to spy on us! Something must be done immediately or innocent men may go free.

    1. Re:Toilet seats by sgt_doom · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Regarding NSA and "underfunding" - a really crucial point us conspiracy nuts (i.e., informed and educated Americans who've taken - and passed - probability math) like to bring up:

      Immediately after the 9/11/01 attacks, the then-NSA directer, General Hayden (now CIA director), went before the US Congress requesting emergency funds. What were the top two expenditures of said funds? (This is public domain information and easily verifiable.)

      (1) More security guards, and

      (2) Hiring more polygraph examiners (that's lie detector experts, folks).

      Does that really sound like they were involved in some sort of "war on terror" or that political house-cleaning was the order of the day.....

    2. Re:Toilet seats by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they may have bought one too many $40,000 toilet seats.

      Regarding government overspending:

      1. If it was a zero G toilet seen and the production run was for a handful of space shuttles and a space station then $40,000 is probably a pretty good price. I suspect this is the source of the $40,000 urban legend.

      2. For "commodity" items you can not compare necessarily a military part with a commercial part even when they come off of the same production line, ie. we are not comparing a mil spec part, a radiation hardened CPU for example. Military parts often go through additional testing and this can greatly increase the costs due to a loss of economies of scale. In the field, when a military part is pulled from the box there is an expectation that it will work. In the consumer world it is often cheaper for a manufacture to replace defective parts than to test them. Expecting the customer to return to the store for an exchange is considered acceptable. Alternatively the acceptance standards may be higher. For example no dead pixels being allowed on a flat panel. This requires additional costs with respecting to screening a large batch and cherry picking individual items.

      3. I guess there is also the ever popular urban myth that they pad the price of some items in the public budget to hide spending on secret projects. ;-)

    3. Re:Toilet seats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. I guess there is also the ever popular urban myth that they pad the price of some items in the public budget to hide spending on secret projects. ;-)
      That's actually not a myth as such. All of the money spent in a fiscal year has to be accounted for in the public budget somehow, otherwise the descrepancy between money actually spent and money publicly accounted for kinda gives away your secret budget.
    4. Re:Toilet seats by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      Polygraph Examiners spend the great majority of their time giving polygraphs to people applying for security clearances. Since 9/11 the backlog on security clearances has skyrocketed as people got paranoid and started slapping "SECRET" and "TOP SECRET" labels on previously unclass projects. Also, many contractors saw the writing on the wall and pushed harder for all of their employees to get cleared so they wouldn't be out of the loop on new project opportunities.

      The security guards should have been obvious since all federal buildings stepped up their security after 9/11. There were tons of entrances that suddenly got a real live guard 24/7 where they used to have just a apeaker you would buzz in with after hours. There were also lots of parking lot entrances that got new guard shacks. The "cleaning house" theory doesn't seem the most likely explanation to me.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Toilet seats by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. Second, it was not a seat but a shroud for the toilet assembly, made corrosion-resistant because it was designed for Navy airplanes that are used near salt water -- in other words, it was a complete airplane bathroom enclosure. Not a bad price.

      Oh, and the actual seat was included.

      rj

    6. Re:Toilet seats by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Funny

      First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. And of course, $640 ought to be enough for any toilet seat!
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Toilet seats by arodland · · Score: 1

      You're grossly ignorant when it comes to the state of zero-G potty activities. There is no "seat" :)

    8. Re:Toilet seats by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The $40k toilet was possibly a NASA thing, but they also use that to hide black budgets. You don't want to publish how much you're spending on espionage or give any sort of detailed breakdown.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Toilet seats by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Of coooourse, why would they possibly have a need for linguists in Pashto, Dari, Farsi (also spoken in Afghanistan), Urdu and Arabic????

      Or analysts of any kind??? Thanks for correcting me, dood, you should have been DOI.....

    10. Re:Toilet seats by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. Second, it was not a seat but a shroud for the toilet assembly, made corrosion-resistant because it was designed for Navy airplanes that are used near salt water -- in other words, it was a complete airplane bathroom enclosure. Not a bad price.
      Not just any Navy airplane, it was for a P-3 Orion. A submarine warfare aircraft. The reason for the high price was due to inflation courtesy of good old President Carter who thought he could inflate his way out of his troubles. Lockheed raised the price of the aircraft by percentage (i.e. raise everything by X%) not realizing some things like a toilet seat didn't inflate that much. Other things like the highly specialized aircraft parts did. Amazing how the inflated $640 price is sometimes wildly misquoted as $40,000 or even more. By the way, it was just the seat. It showed up in the illustrated parts catalog for 1980 which is next to impossible to find now.

      A side note - it is the toilet seat that nobody used. The reason being if you did use it, you owed the rest of the crew a case of beer.

    11. Re:Toilet seats by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I am not a government contractor, but I have worked on projects for which there was a "field returns program." When part(s) came back, we figured out what happened, why they failed in field, and how to make it never-happen-again.

      Which led me to think about weapons systems. Imagine a part which only needs to work for a few minutes, or maybe only a few seconds. Plus at the end of that short service life it destroys itself. No such thing as field returns.

      Which then let me to think about our "precision missiles and bombs," and how often it seems that they go awry. Since at the end of a "mission" they're destroyed, how is one to know how well the electronics functioned? How is one to know if that stuff is really mil-spec hardened, or just re-badged commercial? Seems like it might be an opportunity for "Chinese quality control." (Reference to recent pet food, toothpaste, kids' toys, etc.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    12. Re:Toilet seats by dave562 · · Score: 1
      A lot of $xx,xxx for a X myth comes from past, outdated accounting practices that aren't used anymore. Back in the day before there was so much oversight, projects were often sold as a lot. So if you have a million dollar aircraft with 20,000 parts, the cost of the aircraft would get divided equally across the number of parts and each part would end up costing $50. That way you end up with a single screw that costs $50 and an entire radar assembly that costs $50.

      Because of all the whining and sensationalizing, contractors aren't allowed to bill the government like that anymore. Now they have to break out the cost of every part on the invoice. It makes for a lot more bookkeeping, but in these days of computers, supply chain automation, etc. ... the bookkeeping is a lot easier to do.

  6. I'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nowhere do I like the idea of ineffective government more than when it comes to the NSA.

    1. Re:I'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, so you like the idea that the Columbian drug organizations or mafia (is there any left?) has the upper hand listening your snitch calls and poisoning your children? What about the case of not being able to communicate effectively at the field or detect the intention of a missile lauch before execution? The last one could actually prevent another war. The NSA surely exists long after the current administration. Then again, I consider maximum effectivity as a moral obligation of any organization (not that of an individual).

    2. Re:I'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Poisoning your children?" LOL

      The programming is complete with this one.

  7. if only.. by jimbug · · Score: 1

    If only they used energy efficient lightbulbs from walmart...

    --
    Bite my shiny metal ass.
    1. Re:if only.. by plover · · Score: 1

      They're just tapping the wrong wires. They should be tapping their surveillance target's power lines, too. Save them the problem of coming up with the extra power, and keeps the budget low, too.

      --
      John
  8. Priorities by ktappe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But don't forget, the current administration really does want to stop terrorism. Yes indeedy. They make sure that all agencies, such as the NSA, that represent our front line on terrorism information gathering, are fully funded and have plenty of Arabic translators. Not.

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  9. I wonder by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington. After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    1. Re:I wonder by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington.
      The problem isn't so much a current lack of funding as it was a lack of planning.

      If you RTFA, you'd know that these energy infrastructure problems are due to a complete lack of planning by the various Directors of the NSA over the last 9 years.

      Now of course, they're going to need a lot more money to resolve the situation than if they had planned for it 10 years ago.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:I wonder by Threni · · Score: 1

      "Body of Secrets", by James Bamford, is a great book about the NSA.

      http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/home.h tml

      Well worth reading by anyone interested in knowing about the origins, goals, methods and funding of the NSA.

    3. Re:I wonder by fm6 · · Score: 1

      After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.
      Or if they were guilty of poor planning. It's not as if the Federal bureaucracy has a stellar record in these things.
    4. Re:I wonder by mpe · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington. After all, the problems that they describe should only exist if the person in charge purposedly screwed up the budget.

      Of course if the budget is that messed up how can you tell if any extra money actually goes where it is neeed. It's quite possible that adding extra money means more "pork" with continuing underfunding...

    5. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bureaucracy 101 teaches us that when faced with a budget shortfall an organization should make the most visible and painful reductions possible. For example in the instant case reducing "critical" intelligence gathering rather than laying off the 14th assistant secretary for office supplies procurement.

  10. All I can say is this.. by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good.

    I hope they have more of these problems. They've proven themselves to be a complete waste of money, remember that whole terrorist thing on September 11th? $50 billion/year wasted on these bloated government agencies, abolish them now. And despite having all the resources in the world at their disposal they still managed to screw up the intelligence on Iraq. I am not impressed.

    I'm sure the CIA/NSA/DIA/DOA/etc all have very clever tic-tac-toe competitions against supercomputers and think up very some very ingenious brain busting puzzles that make people go, "ooooooh!" But they can and should do that on their own time.

    1. Re:All I can say is this.. by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

      While I don't necessarily think they have the greatest track record, I must point out that they had more responsibilities than just 3 buildings and a few planes on one day. Also because of their secretive nature, it makes it somewhat harder to determine when they successfully stopped attacks. There is certainly room for improvement, but they still serve a purpose.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    2. Re:All I can say is this.. by rm999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The opposing argument is that September 11th happened because agencies like the NSA were underfunded at the time.

  11. Almost forgot to add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with the exception of the DEA.

  12. Oh yeah, I forgot to say. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is why "the singularity" ain't going to happen.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Oh yeah, I forgot to say. by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 1

      I suggest you do some reading on this "singularity" -- it doesn't depend on government efficiency, or even one country for that matter. It's inevitable, sir; no superpower is going to evit it with a few wasted billions.

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    2. Re:Oh yeah, I forgot to say. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      I did and you're wrong. It depends on electricity, and on air conditioning, the ability to move heat. On power stations and natural resources.

      In the real world, nothing increases exponentially forever. While there are potentially huge gains to be made from computing in the future, it isn't going to continue exponentially indefinitely. It will hit a limit and slow down, then eventually level off in a plateau.

      No singularity. It isn't going to happen.

      --
      Deleted
  13. Way to edit, guys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Has got worse" plus ending with a sentence fragment (An internal survey that showed NSA employees have problems trusting each other.). Excellent job, boys, excellent job.

    1. Re:Way to edit, guys! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did anyone else notice that the summary consists of several only slightly-related facts about the NSA, and only the first one really matches the headline?

    2. Re:Way to edit, guys! by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. I suppose the last few sentences are more supportive and illustrative in how NSA mismanages their funds, which ties back into the brownouts and the NSA telling Washington Electric that "the check is in the mail".

      By the way, Wonko, are you Willy Wonka's half brother?

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    3. Re:Way to edit, guys! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      By the way, Wonko, are you Willy Wonka's half brother?
      Assuming that's a serious question, Wikipedia has a pretty good explaination,
  14. project Turbulence by wizardforce · · Score: 1

    New equipment for data processing, as well as some purchased for one of the agency's signature initiatives, the mammoth modernization effort dubbed Turbulence , are among those that have been held up, the senior official said. The lengths of the delays are classified.
    They may have a lot of power problems but at least they have good sense naming their projects.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  15. A new kind of DoS attack by TodMinuit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, everyone around the NSA, turn on all your lights, computers, TVs, air conditioners, and appliances. Operation Dark Storm is a go.

    --
    I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    1. Re:A new kind of DoS attack by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer operation 'Dinner Out' then ;)

      (for those who miss the clue: see a movie called 'Spy Game')

    2. Re:A new kind of DoS attack by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not mentioning any names here, but if a certain someone would stop leaving the refrigerator door open in the break room, maybe we wouldn't be having these problems.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  16. How to meet the budget/electicity supply by J.R.+Random · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually obey the Constitution. If the NSA wasn't doing illegal warrantless searches of every American using the telephone or internet it would need about half as many computers and half as much money.

    1. Re:How to meet the budget/electicity supply by Joebert · · Score: 1

      You know, you really do have a good point there.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:How to meet the budget/electicity supply by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Now there's an idea.

      Every government agency that is caught violating the rights of citizens should have the people in charge jailed without the option for presidential pardon and the agency's funding should be cut.

      I like it.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    3. Re:How to meet the budget/electicity supply by beyondkaoru · · Score: 1

      true.

      i'd also like to see the mathier side of the nsa open up. they probably have a lot of really advanced crypto (considering rijndael is only approved for i think secret level, i think). from DES, there's the hint that they already knew about differential cryptanalysis way before the academic community did. they recruit a lot of smart folks, so there could be a lot of interesting research going on.

      and yeah, i wish they didn't waste so much time spying on the easy-to-spy-on stuff, like telephone conversations. how boring.

      --
      the privacy of one's mind is important.
      you do have something to hide.
    4. Re:How to meet the budget/electicity supply by Kozz · · Score: 1

      If the NSA wasn't doing illegal warrantless searches...

      Hey. If you're not hiding anything, you've nothing to fear. Why do you hate America so much?

      [tongue firmly in cheek]

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  17. Doesn't sound like underfunding... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't sound like underfunding at all. It sounds like highly misappropriated funds going to prioritized sub-groups with an inherent motivation to see the other subgroups suffering and failing for the sake of their own relative gain. This is completely in keeping with the current administration's modus operandi of finding subgroups in organizations (lobbyists, regulators, etc.), that will play ball, and finding a way to eliminate or functionally undercut everyone else, then blame those who were undercut for the resulting general failure.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Doesn't sound like underfunding... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      This doesn't sound like underfunding at all. It sounds like highly misappropriated funds going to prioritized sub-groups with an inherent motivation to see the other subgroups suffering and failing for the sake of their own relative gain.
      Uhh... WTF?
      Did you RTFA?

      The NSA has known for at least a decade that they were going to have power problems in the future and the various Directors never bothered to set aside money in order to do something about it.

      In other words, this is a failure of leadership spanning ~10 years.
      FTFA:

      However, lawmakers also reprimanded the NSA, intelligence officials said, for using money for spy operations to pay for electrical expenses without congressional approval.
      So again, I have to ask: WTF?
      Please support your post with some facts.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Doesn't sound like underfunding... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Informative

      When an organization doesn't have enough money to do something, that is known as underfunding. When an organization _does_ have the money, but spends it inappropriately so they can't deal with the issues they are responsible for (including their own internal upkeep), then that is known as misappropriation.

      The NSA had the money they needed to deal with their infrastructure problems, but did not. Wasn't this the kind of cooperation and organizational problems the whole "post 9-11" reorganization efforts were intended to fix? I will not argue that it is a failure of previous administrations that this did not get fixed earlier - just that these exact kinds of deep organizational failures coming to a dramatic conclusion are exactly in keeping with this administration's practices so far.

      For a small sample of supporting evidence for my arguments, assertions and conclusions, see:

      The Republican War on Science (Book)
      Most of the recent works by John W. Dean (Several books)
      One of many powerfully incisive books by George Lackoff
      Countless other books, including these ...and most political news appearing outside FOX news for the past 4 years.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:Doesn't sound like underfunding... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This may be "a failure of leadership spanning ~10 years" because the problems were predicted nine years ago, but they didn't fly out of hand until after 2001; probably after Cheney ordered the NSA to start brute forcing its way through more keyspace than the rainfall in the Tennessee Valley can handle.

    4. Re:Doesn't sound like underfunding... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There's the third option - corruption where the money goes out to an unaccountable third party chosen due to their political motivations, personal connections or kickbacks. How do you think Wonder Woman's Golden Lariat (yes the lie detector was invented by that cartoonist) got to be used in US law enforcement at the time of Hoover? It's things like this that have made intelligence reports from the USA not paticularly credible for decades - private sector secret police are in my opinion a bad idea.

  18. Starve the Beast by vprasad · · Score: 1

    What's that bit from Grover Norquist... "Starve the Beast"? So... they underfund agencies and/or staff them with incompetents so the agency can be dismantled and replaced with free-market private sector whores. Freepers must be creaming themselves.

  19. Scary! by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the number one way you know you're being watched is...

    When the NSA can't even find enough electricity to power their surveillance and data processing equipment.

    Scary stuff.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    1. Re:Scary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They need more electricity to compute a cracking of highly top-secret message equivalent to 97,543,423,123 years-GHz. It's highly top-secret message became from White House's George Bush room.


      They had miscalculated the many billions of oil that they need to crack this only message.

    2. Re:Scary! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think they have way more power than they need.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  20. Oh boo-hoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the NSA doesn't have enough electricity to illegally spy on my phone conversations and e-mail correspondence?

    Cry me a fucking river.

    1. Re:Oh boo-hoo... by Simon80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My thoughts exactly, from the moment I saw the headline.

    2. Re:Oh boo-hoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
      > So the NSA doesn't have enough electricity to illegally spy on my phone conversations and e-mail correspondence?
      >
      > Cry me a fucking river.

      The depressing part is that when I was a larval-stage nerd, working for NSA was the coolest job imaginable. H4x04 teh Russkies' b0x3n, and defend our citizens' b0x3n against the l33t3st h4x0rz and m4th3m4t1c1unz of teh KGB. All the while trying not to spy on Americans more than absolutely necessary.

      Today, not so much. If all you wanna do is spy on Americans, you might as well work for fuckin' Google.

    3. Re:Oh boo-hoo... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      So the NSA doesn't have enough electricity to illegally spy on my phone conversations and e-mail correspondence?

      They've been using AT&T's electricity for that. http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_06.php

      I'm guessing it's analysis and decryption they'd be doing on their own dime.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:Oh boo-hoo... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly, from the moment I saw the headline. My thought was "did we just have an article about how their budget doubled after 2001?"
      They're underfunded like Christians are oppressed ;-|
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Oh boo-hoo... by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

      Oh, they have plenty of funds. They just happen to be incompetent.

      Lots of that going around in the Federal Government lately. I surmise that this is the consequence of assignments based on fundraising, rather than talent or, better yet, interest in the subject at hand.

      We get what we tolerate.

      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
  21. politics and budgets by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of these problems are really due to lack of funding and how much are just tactics to yank an even bigger chunk of money from the guys in Washington.

    Yep. This is a problem that Congress could never verify, and it's a great way for the NSA to get a cool billion dollars when (at the moment) the NSA is extremely unpopular in front of a Democrat-kind-of-controlled Congress.

    I also *really* fail to see how a project like this could cost a billion dollars. Copper may be very expensive, and they may have to get electricians with clearances, but...yeesh, a billion dollars? Gimme a break.

    1. Re:politics and budgets by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume this is for a total Datacenter upgrade. You rarely just upgrade the electric, you usually upgrade all the facility elements together since all the systems are usually designed with some kind of balance, eg you don't put in 200tons of AC for a 100ton electric load. Since commercial datacenter projects are running into the hundreds of millions I have no doubt that with typical government inefficiency a large datacenter project could run to a billion.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  22. Maybe move fort meade to green zone by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 1

    It seems it would fit in, nobody would know it was there. Both the money and the power consumption would be hidden.
    And it could count toward the US build up without putting any extra service personal at risk.

    Sent to you from the UK, so the bright boys and girls at Fort Meade can take it as a suggestion.

  23. It Doesnt Matter - they're moving anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a lot of construction going on out in Denver.

    Go Google NSA Colorado and Buckley AFB. And look at Buckley AFB on Google Earth.

    Those big antennas under the domes are pretty interesting, hmm?

  24. A better solution by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Just outsource it to Google!

  25. NSA (and GCHQ) are shame to mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a graduate mathematician, I feel ashamed to see so many of my fellow students either going off to the City or to GCHQ (the UK's NSA); while it's true that the cryptanalysis work done by the latter is one of the few non-academic jobs requiring considerable "pure" mathematical skill, that's really not what the huge amount of money spent on infrastructure is for.

    Because the War on Terror/Evil Of The Day really isn't about challenging mathematical genius terrorists to ever more complicated ciphers - yes, GCHQ created RSA a few years before R, S and A, but occasionally beating open academia and having a lot more horsepower isn't ever going to put you beyond the mathematical principles you're faced with (*). Massive horsepower is for statistical analysis of insanely large quantities of data. This might occasionally find you something saucy, but it's mostly going to allow you to profile, and profiling reduces risk - past trends are a useful indicator of future performance, whether you're analysing a financial market or the behaviour of groups of humans.

    None of this will help if some random guy decides, tomorrow, to commit some nefarious deed involving an IED - something I'd say 90% of graduate scientists either have the knowledge to do, or could read up on overnight. Which goes to show that the reason everyone's not blowing everyone else up is not because there are any technological measures in place to stop them, but because by and large, for whatever reason, people don't want to.

    (Oh, and the NSA/GCHQ do have some obvious legitimate uses - such as decrypting messages between known ne'er-do-wells. If that's all they did, I might even like them.)

    Oh, and before people forget, the problem of whether the NSA is allowed to spy on Americans is easily solved in principle by GCHQ and NSA doing the dirty work for their friends across the pond; in practice, an extra-judicial agency couldn't care less anyway: he who is not accused (for there is no-one allowed to witness the crime), is not judged.

    (*) This is why I love my discipline. Men can only discover mathematics, never beat it!

    1. Re:NSA (and GCHQ) are shame to mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reason everyone's not blowing everyone else up is not because there are any technological measures in place to stop them, but because by and large, for whatever reason, people don't want to.

      A point rarely dwelt upon by the power hungry fear-mongers pushing for a totalitarian surveillance society (the German government for example).


    2. Re:NSA (and GCHQ) are shame to mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Few academic jobs require pure math these days. Stats, computation, and application comprise most of the job postings. Ballooning NIH funding versus dwindling NSF money is partly responsible, so thank Congress.

    3. Re:NSA (and GCHQ) are shame to mathematics by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      (Oh, and the NSA/GCHQ do have some obvious legitimate uses - such as decrypting messages between known ne'er-do-wells. If that's all they did, I might even like them.)

      Well, you just lost all credibility with the Slashdot crowd with that statement.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  26. Bake Sales! by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To paraphrase an old favorite,wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where daycares and hospitals had all the money they needed and the NSA had to hold a bake sale to buy servers?

    1. Re:Bake Sales! by bmajik · · Score: 1

      No.

      Becase Daycares are aggregately worse for children than staying at home with Mom, Dad, etc.

      Over 40% of the total household income of 2 earner families goes towards taxes. Let's shrink government taxation and waste, and then put mom or dad back at home where they can raise a happy child that isn't perpetually sick. It would cut way down on the number of kids being sexually abused, neglected, or whatever the problem of the day with disinterested-party childcare is.

      It'd also be nice if hospitals didn't equal healthcare in the public mindset. What about taking a walk once in a while?

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    2. Re:Bake Sales! by grumling · · Score: 1

      "Over 40% of the total household income of 2 earner families goes towards taxes. "

      Boo Hoo. Until they file their return. Deductions for children, mortgage interest, health savings accounts, etc. can really add up. Why do you think people refinance every few years?

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:Bake Sales! by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we didn't have to spend money on defense? We could use the money for other things, like gumdrops, and lollipops, and rainbows, and magical unicorns.

    4. Re:Bake Sales! by puck13 · · Score: 1

      Given that the US is responsible for a full 48% of military spending worldwide, I suspect that some of that money could be spend on other things (education to keep good jobs in the US, rebuilding the gulf coast, etc.) and we'd still be plenty safe.

      Currently, we're spending ~$100,000 per minute in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, it's not making me feel safer.

    5. Re:Bake Sales! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase an old favorite,wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where daycares and hospitals had all the money they needed and the NSA had to hold a bake sale to buy servers? Yeah, and what if they gave an orgy and nobody came?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  27. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death." -
        -- Patrick Henry

    If we fear death so much that we are willing to tolerate such "security" then Liberty dies. Our personal deaths are inevitable, let's keep Liberty alive for our progeny.

  28. Obvious solution here by cheros · · Score: 2, Funny

    Install a generator that can use contractors as fuel. Solves two problems at once :-)

    It has as beneficial side effect that it also reduces the amount of people leaning on healthcare, so everyone wins.

    The only challenge I can see is that you have to take into account the amount of alcohol these people consume. Any oven should be able to use the spontanous combustions that may occur. Maybe turning them into biofuel may be better.

    Sorry, heavy lunch :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  29. NSA still using 12AX7 valves? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thermionic valves used for digital processing are run at low power. It makes them last longer and they don't need a winde analogue power range with digital data. That is essential otherwise the big digital thermionic valve computers would never have worked.

    Maybe the NSA should try upgrading to transistorized computers now. A BC107 uses much less power than a 12AX7...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  30. Rolling brownouts? Uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no such thing as an intentional rolling brownout.

    A brownout is usually caused by a short or a transformer melting down which results in an under-voltage leading to a blackout. A brownout is when you still have electricity but it's not at the required voltage or power level.

    I think they mean rolling blackouts.

  31. It is NSA organization policy to lie. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    MOD PARENT UP!!

    "Yeah we need a serious change, like admitting that all this cloak and dagger, sorry that is classified, need to know, bullshit is the cause of most of the terrorist problems we have today. Drop the secrecy, and disassemble these above-the-law organizations. Dealing with policy in the open is the only way to keep it honest. When the government is dishonest with the nation about policy you do not have democracy, you have 'democracy theater' "

    Few people have as good an understanding of U.S. government corruption as you. The violence of the U.S. government is dictated by people like Bush using the government to make money. That can only happen if there is secrecy.

    NOTHING the NSA says can be trusted. It is NSA organization policy to lie to get what they want.

    Also, no one should think they know the names of all the secret, but taxpayer-funded, organizations. "NSA" is just a public relations term, to try to get you to think you know what is happening.

    If you are a U.S. citizen, you are paying to be mistreated.

  32. Doesn't matter. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Their planning begins years ahead of time, often working on systems three generations beyond the ones that they're currently installing. Problems with designs can push power usage for a given system much higher than planned, and it can take time to get the power systems in place.

    That doesn't matter. They're supposed to have some VERY smart people on staff there. For some reason they cannot plan for possible errors?

    NSA is a naturally paranoid agency; they take all of their information sources and know that someone else is looking at exactly those to analyze them, so they don't want anyone to know exactly how much power they're using because that may provide a clue as to the computing capacity that they have.

    A better approach would be to use TOO MUCH power so that the "enemy" thinks that you're doing more work than you are.

    I have to fight to get the power requirements and AC over engineered where I work. And that's at a company that has to show a profit.

    Why have they failed to do so?
    1. Re:Doesn't matter. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're supposed to have some VERY smart people on staff there.

      Except they're working for Google now. It's a big problem that a lot of IT outfits are running into. ;)

  33. It is an axiom... by vorlich · · Score: 3, Informative

    that the purpose of a bureaucracy is to provide employment for the bureaucrats.
    Arthur C. Clarke has suggested that the greatest threat to civilisation is bureacracy.
    The 19th century French writer Balzac once said that 'bureaucracy is a giant machine operated by pygmies'.
    Sadly bureaucracy is often reminiscent of Homer's Duff Beer - the answer to and the cause of all our problems.
    I guess I didn't have to think too much for this post, just pasted in a lot of fondly remembered homily!
    Outstanding!
    Hmm, forget to mention girls or drugs - they are always popular. Did manage to get beer in though.
    Fourth wall? What fourth wall? People read this? No, honestly...

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  34. Duh! by thewiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An internal survey that showed NSA employees have problems trusting each other.

    They're spies! They're trained not to trust anyone!

    Captain Obvious strikes again!

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right - but it may suprise some of you to know there are entire deptartments at the NSA whose sole job it is to spy on the Navy. And there is at least one department in the Navy whose sole purpose if to find ways to hide things from the NSA. I know of these first hand. I am sure it extends to NSA v CIA v FBI v Army etc etc. Now that seems like a waist of money to me. But I guess its all part of that checks and balances thing I've heard about.

  35. Brownouts almost as bad as typos by thejakeyboy · · Score: 1

    Does anybody actually edit these posts? Today's Time-Waster: Find four grammatical and punctuation mistakes in the above article. (Am I the only one bothered by this?!?)

    1. Re:Brownouts almost as bad as typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. The grammarians love to come read our posts.

    2. Re:Brownouts almost as bad as typos by normuser · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one bothered by this?!?

      Yes. I cant speak for everyone, but I have to purposefully analyze text character by charecter to even notice any spelling or grammer errors.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      XXX#######
  36. Efficiency drive... by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

    A recent public powerpoint presentation

    See, there's your problem, right there. Get rid of all the management types, and you not only have more money to buy stuff, but also don't have them consuming gigawatts pratting about with PowerPoint!

  37. Bull by k1e0x · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm calling BS on that one. If the government needs money it just prints it (actually they get a loan from the FED), there is no national tresuary or anything like that.

    "Oh look at us we are SOOO broke protecting freedom that we need 800 million dollars so we can have power."{

    Sorry guys.. you have far more of my money that I would ever willfully give you. Deal with it.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  38. Ha! Really. by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    There domestic spy program is so large now they cant even power it.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  39. So What You Are *Really* Saying Is..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Take them out back, line 'em up against the wall, and shoot them. Then throw them and their fat-laden contracts into a giant boiler as fuel, and use the steam to turn turbine generators.", right?

    (raises fist clutching an 1886 Winchester)

    I'll be happy to donate my time and ammo to the cause, free of charge to the taxpayer.

    Let's see how the math works out:

    Either we can spend &.30 per bullet to put into bloated, shady, criminal contractors, or we can let the contractors spend $2500 for a hammer.

    DISCLAIMER: If you are one of those wacko idiot nutjobs who actually thinks I'm serious, you should spend the bullet on yourself instead.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  40. I stopped reading after... by QCompson · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... underfunded NSA. What a joke. The true budget for the NSA is classified, correct? Forgive me if I have no sympathy for an agency shrouded in secrecy in a supposed "transparent" democracy.

  41. Current budget $198/year per American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current budget is enough to spend $198/year on surveillance of every man, woman, and child in America. When you think about it, that kind of money makes no sense at all unless we are all considered potential terrorists, with a dossier compiled and permanently archived on each of us.

    Is there any other use for that besides allowing anyone to be labeled un-American anytime those running the government ask for it?

    1. Re:Current budget $198/year per American by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Well obviously they don't need to watch Granny Goodness bake pies and muffins all day, so that gives them more than 198$ to spend on watching people that "May possibly some day pose a potential threat of some kind."

      The point I'm trying to make is, they aren't watching EVERYONE, so your 198$ per person isn't all that relevant. I would imagine they have more than enough to watch whoever they want.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:Current budget $198/year per American by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well obviously they don't need to watch Granny Goodness bake pies and muffins all day, so that gives them more than 198$ to spend on watching people that "May possibly some day pose a potential threat of some kind."

      Are mirrors really that expensive in the US?

  42. Re:Toilet seats + overhead by circusboy · · Score: 1

    usually in a government contract there is the cost price of an individual object in a project, and the cost of the fully completed project with overhead. government rules require a certain amount of itemization, and there are 2 ways to spread the overhead costs around. proportionally; so that each piece of the final product gets a percentage of the overhead cost, and flat rate; where a single percentage is applied to overhead costs, and spread equally across all pieces. the latter process is usually cheaper, but results in line items that at first glance look completely absurd.

    (overhead generally means things like labor and assembly costs. so for a bomber, there are only so many separable components, like toilet seats, and a phenomenal amount of overhead. $40k overhead for a fuselage, not a big deal... $40k for a toilet seat and 'wtf?')

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  43. 10 baskets by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

    Yeah what about an alliance? Of the five Nuke armed countries, I think the UK and France would likely side with us, but the arguement is moot. If we launched 5 nukes and they launched 5 nukes, no one would "bounce back". That's why it's call "mutually assured distruction". Germany,Italy and Japan don't have any nukes. Except of course the ones we put there on our military bases. As for saboteurs or terrorists infiltrating a known location: they would not disable them, they would detonate them. Suddenly having fewer vulnerable points becomes a good thing. And if we can't keep 10 nukes in our own country secure, we probably shouldn't have any. Armed incompetence is fatal.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:10 baskets by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      I chose Germany, Italy, and Japan because they were the most recent big evil alliance, not for any actual Nuke abilities.

      Also, disabling a nuke can be done by tossing a grenade in next to the missile. Detonating one in place is a much bigger deal, and includes the use of launch codes. Nuclear weapons are actually fairly delicate, due to the necessary time precision more than anything else. Disabling could even be done without getting someone into the silo, it just takes a suicide bomber with a cement truck full of RDX.

      Mutually assured destruction only worked when destruction was mutually assured. If you bring things down to very few nukes, it no longer is, and a more heavily armed country could decide that it's worth the sacrifice to destroy us, if they're not going to be wiped out by our retaliation. How many Chinese people would survive 10 nukes? How many Americans would survive all of theirs? The plague did more damage to Europe than five nukes would do, and they did indeed bounce back.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    2. Re:10 baskets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK let's say that a evil alliance is formed between China, India, and Pakistan. Let's say they all have nukes as the latter two are fairly close or are secretly nuke capable. If we blew up their 5 most populous cities, we would kill around 40 million people and due massive,but not insurmountable,damage to to their industrial infrastructure. Let's just say they turn to both coasts of the US into giant sheets of glass. Did they win? Well kinda, except for what happens to the global economy and environment. I don't know what that much mushroom cloud and radiation in a day would do to the environment, but it wouldn't be good and might well be global crop failure kind of bad. I'm thinking along the lines of the eruption of Mount Tambora. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
      I don't know if the EU would be horrified into submission or war, but if they let their 20 nukes fly (10 France, 10 UK) The overwhelming bulk of global wealth and technology would be gone in a near permenent way. And then what? The evil nations glass over Europe. What's left to "win"?

      I think India and China stand to be much more powerful and influential if they continue grow industrially and have wealthier, better educated populous. More over I think they know it. Iran and North Korea are the only nations that I could see as possibly being foolish enough to launch. And our response to either of those attacks would probably not be nuclear, beyond one or two key cities. Their neighboring countries would be our allies in retaliation and it would be a conventional war.

    3. Re:10 baskets by esrobinson · · Score: 0

      In a nuclear conflict, I don't think the concern would be about saboteurs as much as it would be about your enemy's First Strike capability. I'd imagine that it is signficantly easier to destroy 5 nuke silos than 500.

  44. NSA is not the problem by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the real problem:

    A recent public powerpoint presentation suggested 70% of of all intelligence spending goes to contractors.

    The NSA is subject to Congressional oversight, contractors are not. 70% of our intelligence spending is unaccounted and unregulated. It's not the NSA you need to worry about spying on you, it's AT&T. When questions started surfacing about their role in spying on Americans, they responded by asking Congress for a liability shield. AT&T doesn't depend on Congress for their budget, the NSA does.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:NSA is not the problem by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's TIA, which accounts for a considerable portion of that 70%. When you have everything from OnStar, Pay-Per-View companies and LexisNexis to First Data giving up all the data to the federal government entites ---- you really do possess Total Information.....so much for that Freedom of Information Act.....

  45. Re:September 11th happened because US is in bed wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, damn jews, always fucking shit up...

  46. Re:September 11th happened because US is in bed wi by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it's because Clinton had the intel, but never acted on it? Oh noes! Slick Willy must not engage the enemy for it would screw up his legacy.

    But it's much easier to blame the Jews huh?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  47. to be expected... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    knowledge begets knowledge and as such specific knowledge begets its own.

    Its no suprise that a spy agency has trouble trusting itself.

    At some point in mans advancement towards a peaceful world he has to realize that the resources he spends on untrusting is simply not affordable any more. That such resources can be better spent on improving the environment all of man lives in and as such remove reason to terrorise or warmonger.

    It really is a fraction of a percent of the 6 billion plus human population that promotes deceptions supporting war and terrorism. And there are those who follow, but wouldn't if such promoters didn't.

    http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/ mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml

    Free Open Source Software has the spirit or what is to come in human advancement.

  48. Tie an atomic sub up at the nearest port by gelfling · · Score: 1

    and run power lines to Ft. Meade. The government actually has plans to use nuclear warcraft to deliver municipal electricity in disaster scenarios.

    1. Re:Tie an atomic sub up at the nearest port by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The government actually has plans to use nuclear warcraft to deliver municipal electricity in disaster scenarios.

      And if thats not enough and all you need is some light to work under just send up a nuke like a great big flare.

      And if people complain that the flash doesn't last very long, send up another one.

      With the amount of nukes the USA has this should provide a viable light source for its citizens lasting for several months.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Tie an atomic sub up at the nearest port by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gold plated solutions are OK in the short term or in small numbers, but if you have time shipping in some diesel genators the size of shipping containers makes more sense and is actually on site. The expense of running those subs is worth it for range but using them as generators when other options are available makes little sense. A disaster is a different story when you can get it onto the spot.

  49. Re:September 11th happened because US is in bed wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not that I have any opinion on whether GP is right or not, but...

    Israel != Jews

    When people refer negatively about Israel, they are generally referring to Israel's government and/or intelligence agencies. Their foreign policies, specifically.

    As an aside, there are more Jews in the US than in Israel. But we don't say people are "blaming the Jews" when they take issue with American foreign policy.

    We need a new Godwin's law related to "blame the Jews." It can stop meaningful discussion even faster than comparing someone to Hitler.

  50. Re:Rolling brownouts? Uh, no. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, a brownout is generally a loss of frequency due to system overloading. In the good old days of resistive loads, letting the voltage sag 10% would drop the power consumption by 20%

    With inverse-impedance equipment being the norm today (switch mode power supplies, electronic ballasts, and VFDs), a brown-out is much more likely to create localized outages as individual feeders become overloaded.

    But, what they are most likely really referring to is aggressively scheduled maintenance to allow for upgrades. "Non-critical" power is shut down to allow for upgrades to normal sources, and less critical loads are shed to assist in upgrading backup supplies.

    Brownout just sounds better when they haven't lost all power...

  51. NSA needs to use dpms screensavers by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

    Where I work we have thousands of PCs and so many times when I walk past an office I see a OpenGL or some other pretty screen saver running. This wastes a lot of power especially if the display is a CRT. If they just made sure to go to full suspend/power off dpms on their displays and setup the PCs for standby/suspend they could save a lot of power.

    1. Re:NSA needs to use dpms screensavers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, you think they have monitors on these machines? wake up pal, its going to be almost all rackmount headless setups...

      pull your head out of your fucking ass

    2. Re:NSA needs to use dpms screensavers by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

      Ah no I don't, I didn't that I did. NSA does have lots of normal offices and power saved there by using dpms and other power reduction tactics can lower demand so power can be allocated to the headless mainframes... DUUH. Pull your own head out.

  52. Reducing power demand is easy by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reducing power demand is easy. I've already done this in one server facility. Just change the voltage being fed to the computers with dual voltage or wide voltage range switching power supplies from 120 volts to 208 or 240 volts. The power supplies will on average use about 3% less power. Additionally, because the total current being used is less, the heating losses in the wiring leading to the computers will be significantly reduced (although it is usually only 1% to 2% of the total power demand). In the case of 3 phase power systems, a substantial current will be present on neutrals, causing a lot more loss (and in some cases a potential fire hazard). By connecting computers between phases in 208Y/120 volt power systems (line to line instead of line to neutral), the accumulation of currents on the neutrals will be eliminated. The currents on the phase conductors will be greater, but not by as much. The power lost heating up the conduits will be less. Alternatively, they could switch certain power systems to 416Y/240 volts and reduce the current even more (although this would require going back to line to neutral connections).

    I just wonder if the NSA already knows this. Maybe the analysts do, but what about the facility managers?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Reducing power demand is easy by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better yet go with DC power supplies. If you design a datacenter from the getgo to be DC you can save a significant fraction of total power usage. You save on the DC->AC inverter in your UPS and on the AC->DC step in the power supply in the servers. Add to that the lower AC demands from the more efficient power usage and your total savings are around 20% of total power budget, which is significant.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  53. Underfunded? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I'd say that they aren't so much underfunded as they are badly managed. The problem is that it can be very difficult to distinguish between the two, since both cases result in serious functional issues.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  54. Bush is Qaeda by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Funny how the NSA that is tapping every phonecall and filtering every email and blog post (including this one you're reading right now) seems to have as much money as it can spend.

    But the one defending the country from actual foreign enemies can't pay the light bill.

    While Halliburton throws around $8 BILLION in untracked "footballs", atop their other mountains of Bush/Cheney cash.

    Er, actually, that's not funny at all.

    If Osama were in the White House, what would he have done differently from Bush/Cheney the past 6.5 years?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Bush is Qaeda by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      So are they claiming osama slipped by while they were paying 70% of their money to contractors supplying pens and PCs?
      It is high time we cut back the payments to KBR, Halliburton, and start taxing Exxon, oil cos and pay the NSA to keep us safe.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Bush is Qaeda by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          100% Flamebait

      Hey TrollMod, where's Osama?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  55. Re:Rolling brownouts? Uh, no. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as an intentional rolling brownout.

    A brownout is usually caused by a short or a transformer melting down which results in an under-voltage leading to a blackout. A brownout is when you still have electricity but it's not at the required voltage or power level.

    I think they mean rolling blackouts. Can you really rule out government incompetence as a cause for rolling brownouts?

    "Boss, we can't just drop the voltages on the computer equipment. We should have scheduled power-outs so everyone knows when the system will be down. We can say it's for maintenance."

    "No, I don't want the system to be down. Just drop the power a little."
    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  56. Pretty off-topic, but... by teh+peng · · Score: 1

    they probably have a lot of really advanced crypto (considering rijndael is only approved for i think secret level, i think).

    AES with 128, 192 or 256-bit keys is approved for 'secret' stuff, but only 192 and 256-bit keys are approved for 'top secret'. As Wikipedia says, maybe the NSA thinks there's something wrong with AES with 128-bit keys, or maybe they're just being careful.

    (Unnecessary reference: CNSSP-15: National Policy on the Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) to Protect National Security Systems and National Security Information, http://www.cnss.gov/Assets/pdf/cnssp_15_fs.pdf [PDF])

    --
    Man, my username sucks.
  57. SimCity? by ADRenalyn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did anyone else read this headline as a warning in the SimCity message window?

    1. Re:SimCity? by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1

      The NSA just has to build more power plants, that's the answer!

  58. Re:September 11th happened because US is in bed wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hear this argument all the time, usually from people who have no apparent reason to like Jews.

    As an aside, there are more Jews in the US than in Israel. But we don't say people are "blaming the Jews" when they take issue with American foreign policy. Jews are primarily responsible for Israel's foreign policy, whereas they are not the determining factor in America's foreign policy. This is because they comprise a greater percentage of Israel's population. Interestingly, there are still people who claim that this 2% of America's population is responsible for its foreign policy (so they are blaming the Jews).
  59. TFS FTWTF! by 4D6963 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "after the an internal report"
    "a Baltimore sun story"
    "fort Meade"

    Not to mention grammatical mistakes and some awkward turns of phrases. It all makes me wonder, since when have Slashdot editors stopped editing summaries?

    Oh wait..

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  60. Re:Rolling brownouts? Uh, no. by khallow · · Score: 1

    I don't know why the parent got modded as informative. A brownout is low voltage. It can have many causes including deliberately lowering the voltage by supplying insufficient power. That case would be an "intentional brownout". If the grid admins then cycle through a bunch of customers so that no customer experiences permanent brownout, then you have "intentional rolling brownouts".

  61. I agree but... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Military purchasing is a nightmare. I work for a software company and one of the services wanted to buy our software. Okay fine how many do you you want. $200 copies fine we will even give you a discount on them...
    Yea right.
    First they spent a year testing it. This was none mission critical admin type stuff not a flight control system or anything. After the test they decided they like our software the best and wanted it but they had to put it out to bid. Well they tried to make it a single supplier for this bid but a senator from California made a call and put a stop to that. So here comes the bid the paper work arrives in a box and weighs no less then 50 lbs...
    We fill out all that paperwork and place our bid. Our software was the only one that could meet the specs but we still gave a good price per unit. We lost the bid. a company in California lied about the meeting the specs and under cut our bid by $2 a unit. Oh but their annual updates and support contract was $100 per unit more than ours. Four years later we get call from the DOD. It seems that the company in California went out of business and on top of that they software didn't do what they claimed. So it started all over again. We won the bid but it took a total of six years and thousands of dollars to do it. I hear that now the DOD has better systems for buying COTS systems but I can honestly say that I too would charge $500 for a hammer if I knew how the system worked.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  62. Check this out!! by Vr6dub · · Score: 1
    Read this article...mainly the one pertaining to NSA contracts and you'll see part of the reason why the NSA is having "money issues". The contracters and current NSA administration are deep in each others pockets. They skirt on the edge of legality but they ride so close to the line it almost makes you sick.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/0 3/spyagency200703

  63. This is the Solution to the NSA's power problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. underfunded? by lutz7755 · · Score: 1

    The idea that any government agency is underfunded is laughable. How about labeling the NSA "mis-managed" instead of lacking funds?

    I think the $60 billion spent on intelligence is enough. If you really need more money, find something else to cut.

  65. Hi Freq switchers pull amps to make up for volts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience, if you lower the voltage, a computer's power supply will pull more amps to compensate, which is pretty hard on your wiring infrastructure. Has something changed since the last time I had to deal with an overloaded building transformer? "Intentional rolling brownouts" shouldn't be happening in a computerized workplace, you wouldn't gain anything by it (except maybe a few wiring fires).

  66. Re:Hi Freq switchers pull amps to make up for volt by Darlantan · · Score: 1

    And that's where you're wrong!

    If you look at the NSA's budget for the last fisical year, they obviously spent too much on amps. Word on the street is that they've got a whole warehouse full of them, and they just can't get rid of them fast enough. Due to internal powerplays by certain top men, though, they're running low on volts. My source says that they've only got about 2 tons left. This is just a clever way to use up that amp surplus to make up for the volt shortage!

    --
    Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
  67. They Don't Need It by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    On June 21 they canceled the Misty spysat program. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/ 06/21/national/w132025D93.DTL
    They've now got several billion in funding left over with which to pay the light bills.
    My guy feeling is they don't want people to think about their sudden funding surplus, a target for GAO surplus budget retrieval, hence their story about being short on their operating budget.

    (For non-US folks, GAO = General Accounting Office, chief bean counters and appointed budgetary watchdogs for the US government.)

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  68. solar power by mrflash818 · · Score: 0

    If they have such big power problems, and big(er?) places like google can use solar power, why can't the NSA simply start to install solar at all their facilities?

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  69. Re:Hi Freq switchers pull amps to make up for volt by khallow · · Score: 1

    Good point. Still some computers can drop into a lower power mode and with giant UPS's you can do brownouts for a little while (maybe to charge up during off-peak (for the area not for the NSA) times). They might have some system like this. But it sounds like a reporter goof to me now too.

  70. Yes, actually. The cat does "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Brownouts? What do they do, generate their own electricity?

    Reminds me of Michigan State. They generate their own electricity.

    And what's the easiest way to generate the steam to drive the turbines? Coal? Oil? Nope.

    They heat the water using electricity from the commercial utility.

    They've done nothing other than waste energy and provide a doubly complex system that can have a major failure at two points, not just one. And one which does so 2-3 times a year on average.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  71. Umm, no. by cheros · · Score: 1

    I know you're not serious, but my view is mildly biased by that fact that (a) I just happen to know a few that are actually worth the money (the 0.01% of the total volume) and (b) I occasionally consult as well 8-).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Umm, no. by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      True true... The are exceptions to every rule. However, it's when companies become large firms that they start to highball and inflate bids, most likely because they need the money that they can skim off of the contracts as a means of compensating the company for monies lost due to poor management.

      Since you are a consultant as well, I would say it is safe to assume that you have seen more than your fair share of "Consultant Horror Stories.", but also have greater inside knowledge of contractors who play by the rules and contractors who are crooked.

      As far as you being a consultant, stay true and don't get bitten by the Money Bug!

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  72. Ah - irony :-) by cheros · · Score: 1
    As far as you being a consultant, stay true and don't get bitten by the Money Bug!

    The irony is that I catually make more by being honest, Clients are happy to pay a premium for people they can trust!

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.