Bill Joy For New National CTO Post?

jddeluxe writes "In an article in today's NY Times, John Doerr of Kleiner-Perkins proffered up Bill Joy's name when queried by Barack Obama for a recommendation for the position of Chief Technology Officer of the Unites States which Obama has promised to create and that the country is overdue to have. I think that's a brilliant idea, and while you're at it, have the FCC report to him as well, why don't you?" If Bill is unavailable, I'll throw my hat in the ring, although I'm holding out for Secretary of Tubes.

Comments

vi

[Maximum Prophet]

Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!

Re:vi

[deniable]

Now, that's bringing religion into politics. Holy war anyone?

Re:vi

[paulthomas]

Last I heard, Bill prefers ed to his own vi.

REVIEW: You don't even try to use vi?
JOY: I'm used to having a 24-line terminal with no ability to scroll back. The reason I use ed is that I don't want to lose what's on the screen.

Of course, that was a long time ago, when vi was only 10 years old. Here's the interview from Unix Review. In the interview, he likens vi to a piñata.

On a more serious note, he does — gasp — criticize vi and say that it needs features and is a little complicated. It's an interesting historical read.

Re:vi

[xhanjian]

Cheers

Re:vi

[just_another_sean]

Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!

If you ask me Bram Moolenaar would be an IMprovement over Bill.

Re:vi

[Lobster Quadrille]

Link

Re:vi

[pottymouth]

Yes it's funny but it's funny because of the hint of truth. Which is exactly why you do not want a CTO at a government level. How easy is it to corrupt government officials? How many of them are idiots (ever heard Nancy Pelosi speak, wow... just, wow...)? Sure Bill Joy would be great but what if next election you get Bill Gates? Or Steve F'in Balmer? How about MS Windows being mandated for all government work because of ? How about letting the free market (no, not an MS monopoly that is, despite stories to the contrary, slowly slipping away...) decide what works best rather than some government appointee with an agenda (or a greedy streak).

At worst deal with it at the state level so you can at least move if you don't like the way things are going.

Don't laugh. Be afraid. Be very afraid...

"Just clinging to my guns and religion..."

Re:vi

[JWW]

You dolt. He's not saying that Bill Joy would be a bad choice, hes saying that having a CTO at the top level of government might be a bad precedent to set. What if the next President were to choose Bill Gates? That would be horrendously bad in my opinion (and the opinion of the original poster).

So the logic is not about who is being selected it is about having this post at all because it could lead to dangerous precedents in the future.

And I completely agree with that sentiment.

Re:vi

[Nefarious Wheel]

Which is exactly why you do not want a CTO at a government level

Disagree.

The national CTO will need to be a leader, not a manager. This is all technology not just IT. And it's not too far a stretch to presume this administration will demand a certain amount of transparency in the role, including an insistence on divestiture of share holdings in case of conflict of interest, but that's no matter -- what matters is not whether there's another Halliburton effect (there won't be) but whether or not the USA invests in technology at the appropriate scale.

There's a huge amount of infrastructure rebuild required, and far better than the three-man-and-a-shovel New Deal jobs are going to be out there to do. It's not going to be enough to repair or replace civil engineered structures such as bridges with old technology, ways will need to be found to do the job better, cheaper, more reliably, and smarter. You won't get that without leadership at the national level.

Think of the highway infrastructure projects of the Eisenhower era and what it did to help growth -- yes, it caused it's own set of problems but it also relieved communications choke-points that would have put a major dampener on the economic health of the nation. You can't see a national CTO as a limited position, at all -- that would be too small a picture. This is of Cabinet level importance.

Re:vi

[Tubal-Cain]

I think we all recognize XKCD references now. Those that don't understand and aren't embarrassed to acknowledge their ignorance can ask and be enlightened.

Re:vi

[pottymouth]

Yeah, he's a moron. Not like you..... And kittens give Morbo gas...

Re:vi

[pottymouth]

"And it's not too far a stretch to presume this administration will demand a certain amount of transparency in the role , including an insistence on divestiture of share holdings in case of conflict of interest, but that's no matter -- what matters is not whether there's another Halliburton effect (there won't be) but whether or not the USA invests in technology at the appropriate scale."

Oh please... My word. Are you, like, 10 years old or have you just never had ANY experience in politics AT ALL. Despite what the media would have you believe, Saint Obama is a politician like any other (just slightly more melanin) and equally open to corruption. I won't even begin with what's already known about him. It doesn't matter. At the level the behavior is amazingly consistent. If you don't know what I mean you're not informed enough for your opinion to matter anyway.

"This is of Cabinet level importance."

No doubt. Exactly why you DO NOT WANT POLITICIANS HANDLING IT!! That's the difference between Socialists and normal working people. The government is just another weight on my back and the bigger it is the bigger the weight. I can take care of me just fine, thank you very much. The market can take care of itself as well. Technology, if you leave the government the HELL out of it, will take the direction the majority want it to take which is exactly what you should want. I don't care if one brilliant individual might be able to set things going in a good direction in one administration because one moron in the next administration will screw it all up. Better to not have the government in it at all! EVER!

Re:vi

[Atzanteol]

I wonder if he, at least, understand sarcasm...

I'd rather see someone involved in Free Software

[CRCulver]

While Sun has made efforts towards open source, Bill Joy still belongs to a community of developers who believe in hoarding. Would that Stallman would get a role in this administration.

Or...

[Stile 65]

Secretary of the Internet.

Re:Or...

[zobier]

Oh lordy.

Finally its over

[suso]

vi wins! Fatality!

In other news, what happened to Slashdot's RSS feed? I used to be able to get the feed based on my subscription, but that stopped worning yesterday.

Re:Finally its over

[xaositects]

it was over-worned

Re:Finally its over

[VJ42]

vi wins! Fatality!

In other news, what happened to Slashdot's RSS feed? I used to be able to get the feed based on my subscription, but that stopped worning yesterday.

It stopped working for me the other day as well; my feed reader started claiming that it was invalid. I fixed it by removing it from my reader, then adding it again (make sure you're logged in or you'll get the default /. feed; not the subscription based one).

Isn't this like having...

[shoppa]

Isn't having a Chief Technology Officer like having a Chief Refrigeration Officer or a Chief Vending Machine Officer?

Re:Isn't this like having...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It is silly and irrelevant, and possibly dangerous. Look what happens when cabinet members are in charge of organizations that they don't know about? The FCC is about technology, but it's about so much more. Technology is a component of the agency's mission, not the other way around.

One thing that would be helpful is something (the only thing, really) that the governor of Illinois has done- information technology used to be handled agency by agency. A hodgepodge of duplication and incompetance. He changed the mission of a department, and is in the process of making that department the sole "provider" of technology to the state's agencies. The directors of the various agencies shouldn't have to deal with managing the technology. Technology is a tool, not a end onto itself. So, this agency provides what the individual agencies need, leaving them to focus on their mission.

The US gov't needs more of that. I know a guy who worked in a small office of a large Fed agency for a few years. An agency that had nothing to do with technology, and his job had nothing to do with technology. And two of the projects he had to work on were- picking out a new copier and picking out a new phone system. Why in the world should that happen? The office should have had a 20 minute meeting deciding what their needs were, and pass that onto the technology department, who would simply deliver those needs.

It's silly.

Maybe the Dept. of Commerce needs a "Technology advocacy" department to help technology companies succeed. But not any kind of quasi-cabinet CTO guy.

Re:Isn't this like having...

[visualight]

"The office should have had a 20 minute meeting deciding what their needs were, and pass that onto the technology department, who would simply deliver those needs."

Knock Knock,
Hey, guess who's in charge of that dept? When you want to create such a department guess who you appoint first?

Re:Isn't this like having...

[moosesocks]

Except that this doesn't necessarily just cover IT. I'd consider it as being more of a "science advisory" position.

Also consider that the development of technology has an incredibly profound effect on healthcare, education, the military, and the economy.

So, yeah. It's important. Whomever gets chosen should be talking with the President on a daily basis.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Maximum Prophet]

While Stallman would make an excellent adviser to the National CTO, he's too much of a "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. While I agree with RMS most of the time, that kind of personality doesn't last long in US politics.

Thirteen Stripes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not eleven, not twelve, but thirteen. If you guys keep putting only 12 stripes on our flag, then the terrorists have won.

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ok, we're just disowning Georgia.

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? 'Cause I'm finding it mighty hard to get thirteen colonies without Georgia, care to enlighten me?

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[Rob Riggs]

Georgia was never represented by any of the stripes.

Back to middle school for you.

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[aardwolf64]

He must be campaign advisor to Cmdr Taco...

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[WK2]

Thanks. I thought Georgia was more to the west.

Re:Thirteen Stripes

[mrdarreng]

I so very wish I had mod points. Good catch, I feel less the patriot for not having noticed myself.

Isn't he the pessimist?

[A nonymous Coward]

I seem to recall Bill Joy having some decidedly pessimistic and even luddite attitudes towards future tech, but it's been so long since he's been in the news that I don't remember now what. Paranoid about nanotech, I think, for starters.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[oneiros27]

You're probably thinking about the 2000 article in Wired, 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', which he said in a 2003 interview was Wired's title, not his.. It was criticized in quite a few places, but there were plenty of people who gave merit to what he was saying.

I think it's wise to understand that there are risks inherent to almost any solution, and no just adopt technology for technology's sake -- look at what happened with the election machines, and those damned flash splash pages in the late 90s. I probably need to re-read his article, as I can't remember most of it, but I don't remember it being as pessimistic as people made it out to be.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[gumpish]

Yep, I fear that he would try to impede the coming singularity.

Not that he can stop it, but it surely would be annoying if it were postponed beyond my lifetime...

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[A nonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a "forward slash".
There is only "slash" and "backslash".

No, there is only rightsideup slash and upsidedown slash.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[Dripdry]

Yes! That's exactly what I thought when I first read that Bill joy might be chosen.

http://seclists.org/politech/2000/Oct/0064.html
I thought of that article from 2000. I remember taping it on my door in college and having some dipshit frat boy eventually rip it off.

Anyway, from what I've seen of Mr. Joy, I would count him as one of the LAST people I'd consider for a National CTO. Who I would choose? I don't know, but not him.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah he wrote that article called Why the future doesn't need us. which basically says we're all doomed to be exterminated by nanotech machines if the singularity happens.

Not really someone I'd refer to as 'hopeful'.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's paranoid about all technology, really: nanotech, pharmacology, biotech, computer/network security (read: pro DRM), etc.

In general, he wants the rate of almost all technological advancement slowed down and controlled due solely his fear that technology allows lone individuals to cause exponentially larger problems.

You know the old chestnut: one crazy isn't as big a problem as one with a gun, with a bomb, a plane, a hook into infrastucture systems, a plague, a grey goo nanoswarm, a fleet of von Neumann Berserker probes ...

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[nelsonal]

You would think that visionary folks who comment on lax risk management might be given a little more credibility these days.

Re:Isn't he the pessimist?

[ppanon]

Hey, I'm all for risk management. In fact I'm glad that we're seeing more people becoming more concerned about the possible biological toxicity of what we can already make in terms of "nanomaterials". The smart people don't recommend completely suppressing those products, just adequate testing for their health and environmental impact. It's common sense to do so to prevent a nasty accident triggering an inevitable mindless backlash against all such products. For past examples, see asbestos and nuclear fission.

Bill's article seemed to argue that whole, potentially dangerous avenues of research should be closed or at least so tightly controlled that it would effectively smother progress in that research. A bit like a fear-driven version of the stem cell research funding ban (which was religiously driven instead). I don't know about you but the man who believes that is not a man I would want to see as CTO of my country.

It's been a few years since that article was published though, and maybe the initial steps in risk management that's been taken in some of those fields have mollified his view on the subject. People change. But the person who wrote that article is a completely inappropriate choice for a national CTO.

While we're at it

[Jedi Alec]

How about Bruce Perens running the good ol' NSA? :-)

Re:While we're at it

[argent]

I'd rather see Marcus Ranum there.

Re:While we're at it

[deniable]

Bruce Schneier perhaps?

Re:While we're at it

[orclevegam]

Bruce Schneier perhaps?

Nah, put him in charge of Homeland Security... then in 6 months when he dissolves it as "redundant and ineffectual" transfer him to the NSA working on crypto and shoring up our technology infrastructure. Could also put him in charge of the TSA for a bit to help streamline that down to something sane like it used to be and eliminate all the security theater.

Re:While we're at it

[Rob Riggs]

My president (and Fox News) has taught me that it's more important that Americans "feel" secure than actually be secure. He just doesn't get that. You gotta listen to your gut on these things. He's too much of a thinker. Probably socialist, too.

Re:While we're at it

[dexomn]

He talks too much. =)

Re:While we're at it

[my_left_nut]

What do you think all of the top secret briefings are about today? Underwear?

Re:While we're at it

[Alsee]

You're absolutely right.
Appoint Steven Colbert.

-

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[TheRaven64]

Believe in hoarding? You realise he made massive contributions to BSD, including the TCP/IP stack, which were released under a permissive license allowing anyone to use it?

Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[pHatidic]

If the Republicans went crazy over Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers, just wait until they find out what Bill Joy said about Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) in Wired.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[chrb]

You mean this?

"I am no apologist for Kaczynski. His bombs killed three people during a 17-year terror campaign and wounded many others. One of his bombs gravely injured my friend David Gelernter, one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Like many of my colleagues, I felt that I could easily have been the Unabomber's next target. Kaczynski's actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it."

Bill Joy doesn't sound that out of line. If you're going to confront terrorists, you need to understand their doctrine and motivation so that you can discredit the entire philosophy, rather than just turn them into martyrs.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[Reality Master 201]

You're assuming that the context will be presented, or matter. Clearly, you've not paid attention the last few years.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[Alkivar]

in case anyone cares the article in question: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[jaraxle]

Serj Tankian (System of a Down) did something similar when he wrote an essay regarding the 9/11 attacks. While his essay in no way condoned or praised the attacks, it was forcibly removed from the website by the record company (and then put back up elsewhere, sorry I don't have a link). All it did was show an understanding of why outside nations, particularly fundamentalist Islam nations, would hate the U.S. so much as to resort to these attacks.

It's unfortunate that "terrorism" has whipped people up in such a frenzy that the simple act of trying to understand so-called terrorists is seen as sympathizing.

~jaraxle

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[pHatidic]

Well it's not like Obama said, "I enjoy palling around with Bill Ayers because I like the fact that he bombed white people." And yet just the fact that they worked together forty years after the fact was enough to get people riled up.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[maxume]

I don't think it has much to do with any particular frenzy, I think it has a lot more to do with a lack of interest in nuance, and the us-vs-them mentality that flows so easily from our genes.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[Artifakt]

As I understand it, the Ayers quote was "I didn't do enough", not 'plant' enough. He claims (at least since a few weeks before 9/11) that it's not specifically about bombs or even other violence. Maybe he's spinning it, maybe if anyone had asked him the same questions in the late 70's or 80's it would have been different, but yes, the context there probably matters. Deciding whether Ayers really counted as a terrorist or not means first reading up on COINTELPRO, considering all that the plethora of double agents, false flag operations, and such may imply about what he could be and how reliable the evidence is, and then you would probably have to read a few interviews or whole letters. Some reasonable people might still decide Ayers was a terrorist, but there's definitely arguments both ways, more than there are for Kaczynski.
      A context where his remarks are not incendiary? No way. Even without knowing anything about Ayer's history, without the press identifying where the quotes come from, Ayers has said plenty that would still be devisive. If he was posting here, -1 Flamebait mods would swiftly follow.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[mounthood]

You're assuming that the context will be presented, or matter. Clearly, you've not paid attention the last few years.

Didn't you get the message of change?

</sarcasm>

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[greg_barton]

Clearly, you've not paid attention the last few years.

Clearly you have no hope for the next few.

Re:Bill Joy's terrorist connection

[Lost Race]

Bill Joy doesn't sound that out of line. If you're going to confront terrorists, you need to understand their doctrine and motivation so that you can discredit the entire philosophy, rather than just turn them into martyrs.

I disagree. I think we need to throw out Kaczynski's message unread, otherwise we reward anybody who is willing to kill and die to get attention. We're effectively saying, "We won't listen to your message unless you kill a few people first." We should instead be listening to people who seek to get their message out without killing anybody.

About time

[Drakkenmensch]

Isn't it time we had someone in charge of evaluating new technologies who actually KNOWS how computers work, rather than having to refer to the opinions of out of touch people who still struggle with their VCR flashing 12:00 over and over since 1986?

Re:About time

[Bearhouse]

Actually, a lot of the younger politicos would probably struggle with VCRs, since all they ever knew was iPod or TIVO. Makes them smart rather than dumb, in my opinion, (VCRs used to be a bitch to program).

Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions? Or do we need smart people with vision, who then consult with or employ the right people? Not sure that Kennedy knew how the rockets worked, but he got people to the moon just the same.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:About time

[jDeepbeep]

Isn't it time we had someone in charge of evaluating new technologies who actually KNOWS how computers work, rather than having to refer to the opinions of out of touch people who still struggle with their VCR flashing 12:00 over and over since 1986?

People still have VCRs?

Re:About time

[poetmatt]

Actually, the people who know things under the hood are the best ones to make good decisions. It's just that sometimes people in those positions are prone to being headcases, Bill Joy no exception.

I'd rather see someone who is open to new viewpoints/researches the topics they are assigned to with minimal prior knowledge, than someone that could possibly be closed to new viewpoints even if they very proficient in a specific field that is related to whatever the issue is.

In both situations, it's a complete gamble as to whether the person ends up actually good for the position or not anyway.

Re:About time

[Xtravar]

Anyone who can't program a VCR probably can't program much else, nor follows instructions very well. I agree with the OP.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer is BOTH. We've got 300 million people, surely we can find a few who have a reasonable amount of both technical competency and vision. One without the other to balance it is worse than useless.

Re:About time

[E 99]

Isn't it time we had someone in charge of evaluating new technologies who actually KNOWS how computers work, rather than having to refer to the opinions of out of touch people who still struggle with their VCR flashing 12:00 over and over since 1986?

Why should there be someone in government in charge of evaluating new technologies???

Re:About time

[ftobin]

Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?

As always, this is a balance to be struck. There has to be some knowledge of how things work technically, otherwise ill-informed decisions will be made. Think about investing in a company: smart, successful investors do research and investigate how a company works in order to determine the true value of a company. Buffet only invests in companies he understands. True, he does not know every detail of the companies, but he does have to understand in how companies work and operate in order to make his own informed decisions. This is a special expertise about business that is required. The same applies to technical knowledge; there is a certain level of depth that is required to make good decisions. Someone has to be able to bring the data together and see what will work and what won't. Delegation can take place, but that is merely abstracting the problem; at some level, a technically informed decision must be made.

Re:About time

[orclevegam]

Not sure that Kennedy knew how the rockets worked, but he got people to the moon just the same.

No, he asked the people that knew how the rockets worked to try and get people to the moon. He didn't have anything to do with making the decisions on how it was done, just on whether it should be done or not. He told NASA "Do it", then NASA (the guys who know how the rockets work), went about making the decisions on exactly how and when it would be done. If you are "in charge" of something, you damn well better have at least a minimal understanding of how it works under the hood (this by the way is the mistake that Ted "series of tubes" Stevens made).

Re:About time

[stubob]

At least Joy's law would be appropriate for government: "No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else.â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy's_Law

Re:About time

[mysticgoat]

This is a CTO, not a CIO.

The scope of the position needs to go well beyond information technology; it needs to span all the technology that NASA is developing, all the spyware and remote killing machines the NSA is constructing, the research and findings of the NIH, etc. A strong technology background is not particularly necessary. Skills in matrix management, in extracting comprehensible models of complex technologies from experts, and in providing leadership in situations where goals and visions are clouded by the very nature of the work are what is going to be important.

Colin Powell would be good at it.

Re:About time

[Drakkenmensch]

Skills in matrix management, in extracting comprehensible models of complex technologies from experts, and in providing leadership in situations where goals and visions are clouded by the very nature of the work are what is going to be important.

I know I would trust Colin Powell to be leading me the right way when he offers me a choice between the blue pill and the red pill. *gulps down the red one*

Re:About time

[DrgnDancer]

Figures that this is the first time in weeks that I don't have mod points. I hate to mindlessly post "I agree", but in this case I'm hoping to draw attention to the AC above. Someone like (and no I'm not recommending him, nor do I think he'd take the job) Steve Jobs, who has a fair understanding of the technology and the vision to see how and where it should be used is exactly what would be be needed. Jobs himself is almost certainly to controversial, and probably would rather run Apple anyway, but surely he's not the only guy with a reasonable understanding of technology and the vision to use it?

Re:About time

[Austerity Empowers]

Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?

No, but they can't be afraid of the details either. In any technical job, any of us get out of our depth. But it's our job to dig in and figure it out. We may not understand the physics, but we need to understand the problem.

It's not enough to understand that the internet is a series of tubes that get clogged. If you are not technical enough to understand the internet, then you at least need to understand the metaphors you are provided, and feed it into the bullshit detector. "Did my email get delayed 4 days due to a clogged tube?" Probably not.

A lot of politicians and leaders are not good detail oriented people. They're really good at critical thinking, but they're not good with details. You need geeks in there somewhere, most of us as we get more senior, learn to focus on the correct details, using our experience in a field to weed things out. So yeah, we probably want someone who has been there, who also has vision.

I'm not sure Bill Joy is he, fearing the future is probably not going to win the day.

Re:About time

[atamido]

Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?

No, but someone with basic problem solving skills would be a good start. If you can't do something as basic as programming the clock on your VCR, how can I trust you to identify obvious BS while making federal decisions? And how could I trust you to identify the people you should surround yourself with to keep yourself informed?

Re:About time

[starfishsystems]

Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?

Yes, I think we absolutely do. I've seen the pattern again and again where people who are not technologically informed do not approach technology issues with respect for its hard constraints. Instead they try to apply their negotiating skills to the challenges of technology, as if physical properties could be persuaded to operate differently.

For the same reason, such people end up mistrusting their technically knowledgeable counterparts because these individuals in turn are not in a position to accommodate requests to change physical reality. It's not enough to be advised by others if you can't judge the difference between opinion and reality.

Re:About time

[kocsonya]

"...nor follows instructions very well."

You have obviously never tried to read a VCR instruction manual that was translated to English in China...

Re:About time

[jellomizer]

You probably never seen the OLD VCR before they just automatically adjust to the time. Some of the really old ones had a horrendous interface. Date Time may have been nested within 2 or 3 menu option deep. Even entering the number was kinda cookie like press 2 for up and 8 for down except for just entering the time. Then you may need to enter it in military time 24 hour time. Then it may ask odd questions left and right... If you make a bad interface any simple task can be hard.

Re:About time

[tumbaumba]

Skills in matrix management

Is that something related to linear algebra? No seriously, WTF is that. New buzzwords every other month!

Re:About time

[mysticgoat]

Skills in matrix management

Is that something related to linear algebra? No seriously, WTF is that.

I thought it was a widely used term any more, but maybe not.

Matrix management is a way of handling situations where distinct groups with different agendas need to work together on some common cause. A hospital may have Surgery, Neurology, Pulmonology, and Nursing Departments, with each one fighting for its own budget and being autonomous in hiring, firing, promotions, and so forth: each one a separate silo. But no one of these Departments can manage an Intensive Care Unit: that requires representatives of the various Departments to form a separate management structure that is autonomous in developing policies and practices, manages its own budget, does its own hiring and firing, and so on. ICU clinicians are responsible to the ICU Management for some things, like developing effective procedures in emergent situations, and to their representative Departments for others, such as demonstrating that they are keeping current with new developments in their field of expertise. Each clinician is a participant in two distinctly separate hierarchies, which is usually illustrated in a set of two dimensional matrices. Hence the name "matrix management".

These things always end up being an ugly mess, but most of that I think is because they expose underlying political ugliness that a traditional pyramid hierarchy simply glosses over. That is, I don't think matrix management is worse than the traditional pyramid, but it often looks that way because more of the crap associated with personal agendas, sycophantism, etc, is forced into the light. They can get the work done, despite the messiness.

I think the country has needed a cabinet level CTO position for several years, to coordinate the activities of different agencies where purposes span several agencies. Managing the anthrax threat requires a hierarchy of CIA, NIH, and NSA professionals that is independent of any of those agencies, even though each of those agencies should be managing their representatives. I think the CTO position should be involved in deciding how to put together effective matrix management teams, and how to do quality assurance on their processes.

I don't think we need another hierarchal pyramid. Nor do we need to merge existing pyramids to make one that is simply "Piled Higher and Deeper". Those are easy solutions that make good theater, but are not going to get the work done.

No need

[Kohath]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

Re:No need

[Deton8]

Amen, brother. How about a national "Chief Keep the Fucking Government the Hell Out of our Way Officer"?

Re:No need

[CRCulver]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

I think such things as the prevalence of spyware on PCs and the reluctance of many people to offer music or movie shares stands as proof that most people actually can't make their own technology decisions.

Re:No need

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you just come across as an idiot. It's not like the government is essentially a very large organization that would benefit from someone overseeing how technology is implemented and deployed within it.

Re:No need

[fishdan]

I hear you brother in small government, but to have someone with that much common sense and technology experience in cabinet meetings makes every decision that much better. I guarantee you there are plenty of areas of government that can be optimized with better tech. I go to 10 meetings a week (because my life sucks) where I don't think I need to be there, but I end up making suggestions about ways to use technology that make this project or that project MUCH better. Bill Joy will do the same. He won't make technology decisions, he'll be advising others how they can use technology they may not be aware of.

Re:No need

[Maximum Prophet]

But the government itself uses a lot of technology. A technical seeing-eye dog is useful for any politician to have.

Re:No need

[Kohath]

It's not like the government is essentially a very large organization that would benefit from someone overseeing how technology is implemented and deployed within it.

Shrink it then.

Re:No need

[Sponge Bath]

Yes, because that approach has worked so well with the financial industry.

Re:No need

[the_skywise]

Okay fine, but FIRST we start with a Chief Financial Officer of the US...

Because, really, the last thing you want is everybody in the government using the SAME architecture on the SAME networks. Oh yeah, that'll be secure...

Re:No need

[MobyDisk]

Please tell that to all the Comcast users.

Re:No need

[visualight]

Insightful? Think about it, the comment isn't even on topic. Why would anyone think that the government having a CTO (even companies with less than 100 employees have one) translates into "government telling us what to do"?

I think having some standardization and efficiency across agencies would save some money, and, the parent poster probably agrees with that. Maybe he's still on that first cup of coffee.

Re:No need

[Haig]

Yes, imagine what a paradise we would live in if we had only been exposed to forced migration to the latest Microsoft products at three month intervals. We could even rent time on Microsoft's much cooler version of the Internet.

Re:No need

[PotatoFarmer]

Because, really, the last thing you want is everybody in the government using the SAME architecture on the SAME networks. Oh yeah, that'll be secure...

It'll probably be better than what's there now. I've worked with a lot of different government systems, and in my experience the really nasty security holes aren't due to obscure platform bugs, they're due to the really stupid shit that people do to get these different systems to talk to each other. A common architecture would get rid of a lot of that crap.

Of course, the point here is moot. Even if we had a national technology CTO, getting government agencies to move from old systems to new systems is like pulling hens teeth. They love picking up additional funding for these things, but hate making the actual conversion.

Re:No need

[gregoryb]

If you think the government has been staying out of the financial industry for the past 70+ years, you haven't been paying attention.

Re:No need

[Lord Bitman]

Security through shit just plain not working in the first place? That's innovative, I like it.

Re:No need

[JBMcB]

You're right. We need the Secretary of Internet Safety and Niceness to make Norton 360 required software on everybody's computer, so the internet will be safer for all.

Re:No need

[postbigbang]

You dolt.

The government has millions of computers, and you don't want someone to set policy? Look at what the mindless, out of control, dead in a ditch projects have cost us.

They're not setting policy FOR YOU, nitwit-- for the government. DO what you want. Let someone put reason into executive branch decision making in government IT!!

Re:No need

[FatherOfONe]

First Bill would make an excellent CTO for the country, but I agree with other posters that this position isn't needed. However, I would agree that RMS would fit more closely with Obamas political views. Bill is definitely smart and considers ethics with technology, although he is about as dry as you can get.

Now you point about the government staying out of business causing the financial mess we are in now. You do realize that this all started because the government wanted to secure loans for low (no) income people? You do know what a GSE is? Specifically lower income minorities that would otherwise never be able to afford a home, but because they couldn't specifically target minorities they also gave ridiculous loans to the middle and upper class people. This is EXACTLY the fault of the government and it was the President and the majority of Democrats who voted for the bailout. Don't try and twist history and blame this on "lack of government control" or the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the core issue is that the government went to secure loans and thus mucked around in the corporate world and then when those businesses started to fail they made a socialist decision to get more involved. Again a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.

Go to youtube and search for Fanny and Freddy. I believe the top search will show you a brief history of some brave people trying to put some "control" on this madness.

Re:No need

[bendodge]

Exactly. Please mod parent up.

Re:No need

[visualight]

Paying attention? The unregulated market brought us the Great Depression 70 years ago and until Bush the markets stayed regulated. The _recent_ deregulation is why we're in the mess we're in now.

There's no way you don't already realize this, I'm not sure why you posted what you did.

Re:No need

[E 99]

You double-dolt.

You think a single person can decide the technological needs of every federal agency? You think they're just not centralized enough? The NSA builds their own supercomputers for pete's sake. The agencies of the federal government have ZERO need for a new agency to come along and tell them what technologies to use.

Re:No need

[4D6963]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

We don't need a Secretary of the Treasury. We can make our own monetary decisions without the government telling us what to do.

Imbecile.

Re:No need

[visualight]

That's a flat out lie, mod parent down.

The community reinvestment act was passed during the Carter Administration, and has nothing to with the FACT that lenders made unqualified loans KNOWING IN ADVANCE that those loans would be bundled and sold so that the originator was no longer directly on the hook for the potential (probable) loss.

Deregulation allowed these criminals to get away with this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/conservatives-seek-to-shi_n_131020.html

Re:No need

[visualight]

Bullshit. The people making these qualified loans knew full well that they were likely to default, they didn't care because they also knew the loans would be bundled and sold.

NO ONE and NO LAW forced these people to make those loans.

Re:No need

[jcnnghm]

Huffington Post drivel isn't going to cut it. This would have never happened if the government didn't show up and start encouraging lenders to make bad loans, by buying the bad loans with Fannie and Freddy. Market manipulation will bite you.

Re:No need

[noidentity]

Amen, brother. How about a national "Chief Keep the Fucking Government the Hell Out of our Way Officer"?

That's our job. Ballot box, soapbox, ammo box.

Re:No need

[Lobster Quadrille]

The NSA is probably the one organization that actually can handle the computers on their own (consequently, they are the only one that I'm really scared of).

From what I understand, the FBI still stores most of its files in hard-copy form. Accessing data can take weeks for a low-priority case. The white house, the CIA, and other agencies have all had high-profile data breaches in the past few years.

More importantly, there are a lot of non-military departments where the infrastructure and management of computer systems is extremely lacking. Setting up some catchall policies for these departments can only help.

Re:No need

[Abreu]

False

http://www.stablecommunities.org/node/472

Re:No need

[Hubbell]

I keep hearing 'ZOMG THE DEREGULATION DID IT FUCK BUSH!!!!!'
but...
Not one person who says these things has been able to point to any deregulation that could have caused this mess, which was in fact created by the democrats pushing in the 90s for this silly notion that it's every persons RIGHT to own a house and if the banks don't make it happen they would facerape the banks to oblivion.

Re:No need

[nuttycom]

I'd personally prefer there be someone in charge of pushing open standards and technological efficiency in government.

Remember, the U.S. government uses a hell of a lot of technology. The CTO is not about mandating what private citizens or corporations use; it's a position that helps guide *government* use of technology. Having worked as a programmer for NOAA, I can say that having someone competent in this post is BADLY needed. Right now government computer systems are a horrendously disorganized mishmash patchwork of proprietary and open-source software using antique data formats. There are MASSIVE inefficiencies and redundant work being done by separate agencies. Take geospatial data systems, for example - NOAA alone uses every system you've ever heard of plus eight or ten different homegrown monstrosities, all to serve essentially the same functions. Every group gets funding for their tech independently, and so there's no coordination. Interoperability is essentially nonexistent.

Re:No need

[gtall]

The division between commercial and investment banking broke down under Clinton, with bi-partisan support. And Congress-critters, democrat and republican, both made certain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained unregulated or loosely regulated.

That said, Bush did push deregulation or simply lack of it via the SEC.

Gerry

Re:No need

[gtall]

It didn't start with securing loans to low (no) income people. That was a contributing factor but probably not the major one. There were a lot of factors including good ol middle class Americans flipping houses, buying second houses, refinancing their mortgages to take equity out of their properties.

Greenspan turning on the flood gates and deregulation had a much bigger impact.

Gerry

Re:No need

[Artifakt]

No, it didn't. Just look at who is holding subprime paper. Take out all the loans to white borrowers who specifically don't live in opportunity zones, and you are already down to less than 30% of subprime loans. Apply any other standards that seem reasonable, such as loans on homes valued at over $ 500,000, loans on houses priced over the median for their neighborhood, city, or entire state, or just about any other criterion a professional would use to select the loans actually driven by the 'fair housing opportunity' law, and you will end up with less than a quarter of the subprime loans being created, in even the tiniest part, by equal opportunity demands. Depending on just what criteria different experts use, the most accurate number might be as low as 12%. I'm not saying that absolutely nothing the government did made this even the tiniest bit worse, but the problem originated with the lenders.
      Then there are lots of other derivitives, not based on subprimes, that are in the process of going belly up just as these did. They were oversold in just the same ways, they got AAA ratings misapplied to them in the same ways, and you will be hearing about the new crisis they generate within a few months at most. None of them have anything in particular to do with government social engineering. Watch what BS explanations you hear as these chickens come home to roost, from the same people who are blaming this one on the government.

Re:No need

[visualight]

It wasn't Bush, but it was deregulation and it was Championed by conservatives. The reason why you don't see it mentioned specifically might due to some embarrassment over the bill being signed by Bill Clinton in 1999.

----from wikipedia---
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in one form on a party-line vote of 54 (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat) to 44 (all Democrats) and on a 343-86 vote in a different form in the House of Representatives, before being resolved by a joint conference committee; the conference report was approved by both houses of Congress (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15) and signed by President Bill Clinton.[2][3]
--------------------

And here is a thoughtful perspective on re-regulation from people you probably hate:
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/ecouncil/ec03052008a.cfm

Re:No need

[viridari]

This is a common misconception.

Bush did nothing to deregulate the financial industry.

He is a flaming chowderhead and guilty of high crimes against the people of the United States and the Constitution. But to be fair, this particular accusation doesn't stick.

Re:No need

[AshtangiMan]

No one in the government encouraged mortgage lenders to make the "liars loans" (loans with no effort to verify employment and income status), package them and re-market them as AAA securities on the international market. Listen to this (45 min or so).

Re:No need

[AshtangiMan]

I thought there were 4 boxes?

Re:No need

[visualight]

"This would have never happened if the government didn't show up and start encouraging lenders to make bad loans,..."

WTH? The Government encouraged lenders to make bad loans? And _you_ call 'Drivel'? Even if you discount my citation based on 'i hate liberal blogs' idealism, at least my assertion can pass a basic human nature/common sense test (Profit Motive anyone?). In what reality is someone motivated to force banks to make these bad loans? No one has anything to gain by that, there's NO motivation, it did not happen.

Got a citation? Any proof at all? No you don't.

Re:No need

[Anonymous Coward]

That's our job. Ballot box, soapbox, ammo box.

You missed one and got 'em in the wrong order, though.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
- Ed Howdershelt.

The quote is a shortcut for what how a healthy representative government works.

1) Soap box. Don't like a law? Whine and bitch about it enough, and maybe your elected representative will change it. (The Do-Not-Call list was a good example.)

2) Ballot box. He didn't listen? Vote his ass out and vote in someone who will. (I'm told that something like this happened earlier this week :)

3) Jury box. None of your legislators will change the law? Civil disobedience and jury nullification are two sides of the same coin. If you don't like a law, and your legislators won't change the law to your liking, you test it in court. With civil disobedience, you break the law, fully aware that you're going to end up in court as a test case, hope that the jury will say "not guilty" anyways - and with jury nullification, you serve on a jury and are prepared to render a "not guilty" verdict based, essentially, on the grounds that the law in question isn't worth enforcing. (Observe RIAA's declining success rate in RIAA-vs-everyone P2P lawsuits.)

4) Ammo box. Open this one last. The point of representative government is that as long as it exists (even if it's not terribly healthy), you'll never have to open this one at all.

The order in which you open the boxes is as important as the number of the boxes.

Re:No need

[jcnnghm]

BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the cleanup of an enterprise failure. The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met.

WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.

MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.

ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.

CLAY (D-MO): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

FALCON (OFHEO Regulator to MEEKS (D-NY)): Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac.

SHAYS (R-CT): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years -- and for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum, not the maximum.

FRANK (D-MA): ...etcetera. Uh, I -- This -- You -- you -- you seem to me saying, "Well, these are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems." I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.

WATERS (D-CA): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.

MANZULLO (R-IL): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is -- what you state on page 11 is nothing less than -- than staggering. The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9.mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them. If Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year.

RAINES: Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.

CLINTON: The responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Re:No need

[DECS]

GW Bush probably didn't personally torture anyone either. The problem is that his administration's policies allowed torture camps and supported torture as an ineffectual "intelligence gathering" method, just as Bush's administration promoted the idea that the markets would do better without the rule of law.

Bush furthered the deregulation policies of Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan, particularly in the area of derivatives, first with Enron and then in the housing market.

While banks were giving suspect loans, they were driven to do so by the insatiable, unregulated derivatives market, which expected that layers of wealth could be extracted from a bubble that would never burst, because it involved real estate. That was disastrously wrong, and has now pulled the pin on the entire credit market.

Don't revise history to blame the poor trying to get a house; it was deregulation: an attempt to have markets without the rule of law.

What Prop 8 Means to America

Re:No need

[viridari]

It's all a continuation of Clinton's policies, in truth.

But since he's a member of the Democratic party, he's beyond reproach here.

Re:No need

[roccomaglio]

The Community reinvestment act was modified many times, since its inception. It was passed under Carter, but changed extensively under Clinton. There was pressure on lenders to make loans without taking into account salary, down payments, or assets, because these criteria disproportionally disqualify minorities. This was one of a number of things that led to the housing bubble.

Re:No need

[Shadowlore]

It (c|w)ould have worked, if allowed to. But unfortunately, some people are under the delusion that the government creating an insanely large financial company, giving it all sorts of money and preferential treatment, then moving it into a decision that it would not make on the free market (giving loans to people who can't pay them) is staying out of the free market's way.

That's pretty delusional. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government powered organizations. It was ill-advised (at the time even, not just in hindsight) to provide for a company backed by billions of federal government dollars to wade into a market and create a new market in "bad loans". This notion that the lack of regulation caused this problem is absurd: the financial industry is among the most heavily regulated ones in the US. In particular Freddie and Fannie were overseen by http://www.ofheo.gov/ .

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were started as government entities (New Deal), and after the insane amounts of taxpayer money continually granted to the pair after "privatization" was pushed into holding or guaranteeing fully half of the consumer real estate loans. That is 6 trillion dollars of liability in two government sponsored entities. As GSEs they carried the perception that they were guaranteed by the Federal government, when in fact they were "merely" the beneficiary of billions of government aid. How were they pushed into it? Government regulations requiring the two to have a certain minimum percentage of their purchased mortgages support financing for those at greater credit risk. When that happens it creates and artifical demand for loans that companies woudl not normally make.

So the mortgage companies are willing to make the high-risk loans knowing they won't take the risk because they will sell them to Freddie and Fannie.

The US government has a specific office of oversight just for the financial viability of Freddie and Fannie:

The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 created a regulatory oversight structure for the housing government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The regulatory oversight was divided to address two functions - their financial safety and soundness and their affordable housing mission. The financial safety and soundness regulation is vested in the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO implements, monitors and enforces capital standards for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Between this office and the HUD, we had the government trying to control the demand side of the market by setting what was "affordable" and by creating an artificial floor and demand for loans the market would not make on it's own. This was fuel to the fire of rising prices for housing. As more credit is made available to people that would not ordinarily (in the free market) have it, the amount of money available for housing and the demand for home ownership rises. In fact, even during the vaunted 90's, the price of homes was rising faster than inflation. Combined with this was the fact that people were on average putting a lot less "down" on the home thus making a higher loan to value (LTV) position. This is additional increased risk in a mortgage.

The fact of the matter is that Freddie and Fannie were/are both heavily regulated by the federal government, with quarterly reports and analysis on their financial viability and capital rates required by law. If you were the type of person that likes to make informed decisions and statements then the above link will take you to said reports as they are publicly available.

Ultimately the problem again lies in excessive centralization, and the government provided the means to do so in ways that it would not allow truly private entities to do so, nor should they have. Yet it was government regulation that drove this, not the lack of it.

Re:No need

[bledri]

I am paraphrasing from memory 'cause I'm at work, have a non-perfect memory, and am lazy.

I believe you are referring to the CRA. The CRA was created in the 1970s (Carter, so it must be bad, right?). In the 90's Clinton pushed for allowing for what we would call sub-prime loans. What no one (who likes to blame Democrats/Government/the poor) mentions is that loans given as part of the CRA are not a major problem. Partly because there is at least some oversight of CRA loans and a program requiring some sort of debt counseling for recipients of said loans. Clinton did allow a republican congress (complete with a veto proof majority) to pass bills deregulating the financial markets. Bush has continued the deregulation in fact and furthermore has appointed people who choose not to enforce many regulations - which is essentially defacto deregulation.

Clinton is not innocent, nor are the democrats. The CRA did not cause this mess though. The banking industry campaigned for the ability to make sub-prime loans (the CEO of Countrywide was advising Clinton). The industry willingly made high risk loans using predatory practices because the mortgage brokers got higher commissions for those loans. Then the loans were packaged as low risk investments and sold to the highest bidder. It was unregulated greed gaming the system for everything it was worth. The appointees of Bush (IIRC) changed the acceptable debt ratio for certain financial institutions to 30 - 1. All sorts of crazy financial devices were created that were not regulated (like credit default swaps which were treated like insurance, but completely, and intentionally, unregulated.)

I'm writing this because I personally believe in the CRA, and believe it has done good for the intended communities. I am not a fan of total deregulation and the belief that the "invisible hand" will magically protect us. Democrats are culpable and should be held accountable for their part. But deregulation seems to be a religion among many republican politicians and I think it's reasonable to point out that a central belief and platform of theirs is flawed. Just ask Alan Greenspan.

We don't need "less regulation" or "more regulation", we do need smart regulation.

Re:No need

[atxchris]

No, bad monetary policy by the Fed brought us the Great Depression. Many famous econmists agree with this assertion. If Greenspan and Bernanke had not kept interest rates artificially low, we would not be in this mess. A central planning committee determining the price of money is hardly free market. Of course the real culprit in these boom/bust cycles, the Fed, is never blamed.

Re:No need

[FatherOfONe]

Actually not. The reason people flipped houses was because they were getting loans for 100% of a house with no money down. In some cases more than 100%, and they were backed by the government. If Fanny and Freddy were not government sponsored entities and just normal businesses then they would have NEVER have done what they did, and if by some idiotic measure they would then they would be out of business. That is capitalism, having them in the first place is a giant step toward socialism.

Again go to youtube and search for fanny and freddie. I believe it will be the first video.

Re:No need

[FatherOfONe]

Go to youtube and search on freddy and fanny to see who resisted regulation.

Then feel free to show me a video where Republicans resisted regulation.

 

Re:No need

[bill_mcgonigle]

Paying attention? The unregulated market brought us the Great Depression 70 years ago and until Bush the markets stayed regulated. The _recent_ deregulation is why we're in the mess we're in now.

Are you referring to the Smoot-Holly Act or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

Re:No need

[bill_mcgonigle]

NO ONE and NO LAW forced these people to make those loans.

It's not a matter of force, it's moral hazard. The government said, "go make your $15K commission on the no-money-down, interest-only, no-income-verification, three-quarter-million-dollar JUMBO loan and we'll cover it if it defaults." Oh, and loan out at a fractional reserve level over 90%, we'll cover that with fiat money.

What did you think the banks would do, play pure and innocent? That's not human nature, hence 'moral hazard'. If the banks were responsible for their own losses you can be darn sure they'd have made good loans.

Re:No need

[bill_mcgonigle]

Bush did nothing to deregulate the financial industry.

Um, he signed into law the most grandiose microregulation act of the financial industry in history (Sarbox) which has exiled "our" IPO market to London. What upside-down world are people living in?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[zappepcs]

This thread points out the problem of anointing one person as CTO. Hate to say it but this is one of those things that might do better with a board, not a leader. That is to say that while there may be a judge, it's the jury that counts. Using one man is not enough, even the SCOTUS has nine. When it's important enough to do something, it's important enough to do it right. RMS should probably be on the jury, along with other notable technology evangelists.

BusinessWeek article

[dnwq]

Apparently, Ed Felten is interested, while Lessig isn't.

I FOR ONE,

[Philip K Dickhead]

Welcome our new, robot overlords!

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[squiggleslash]

I don't think RMS would even take it. Being in government requires adherence to a set of principles that many people end up finding reduces their ability to be principled. As an example, RMS would be required to back, in public, copyright law policies that he in private would vehemently disagree with. I just don't see RMS doing that, he's too much of a man of principle.

We will fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!

There will be a revolt! We, the Emacs revolutionary council, will take up arms and fight to the death!

Re:We will fight!

[JustOK]

isn't there a key board shortcut for that?

Re:We will fight!

[rootofevil]

i think its:

ctrl-meta-shift-r alt-ctrl-p ctrl-' alt-meta-1 shift-2

then recomplie without perl extensions.

Re:We will fight!

[rthille]

You GNU emacs losers have to type that, but us xemacs users have it bound by default to the letter 'a'.

Re:We will fight!

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure but I heard there was a training simulator built within the emacs operating system specifically to aid in the revolution.

Re:We will fight!

[rootofevil]

xemacs? heathen!

Re:We will fight!

[CodeBuster]

yes, but surely you can see how that is SO much better than actually having to type the whole phrase out in vi multiple times when we are going to use it at least five times in this document and many times again in future documents.

Re:We will fight!

[AmberBlackCat]

I refuse to take part in any deadly revolt that doesn't have mouse support.

Re:We will fight!

[Austerity Empowers]

and to type 'a', he has to hit:

ctrl-meta-shift-pedal-cymbal {thump thump clap} we-will-we-will-rock-you

Re:We will fight!

[JSC]

Under Bill, vi will be the national standard. Yeah!!!

There will be a revolt! We, the Emacs revolutionary council, will take up arms and fight to the death!

You should revolt. Emacs is revolting.

Re:We will fight!

[Darinbob]

XEmacs are merely the reform branch of the Emacs religion. You can put those thumbscrews down.

Re:We will fight!

[jellomizer]

I don't know I am not normally into the VI vs Emacs Flame war as I tend to use them for different task. But I would think the vi camp may have the advantage as their guidance systems will have more resources available for targeting.

Re:We will fight!

[rthille]

Did you mean? "heretic"

Re:We will fight!

[recharged95]

It about freakin time we had the civil editor war.

.

I figured vi would be the North and emacs the South, since vi needs to free the textedit folks.

.

And we know who won the US civil war...

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Lumpy]

Hear Hear...

A board of 7. must have a mix of OSS and Closed source experts, as well as hardware experts.

Experts... not some guy that was CTO for some corperation, I want people that are either leaders in IT technology, or people that made a difference.. Being able to Code or design is a requirement for the position. too many time I have seen CTO's that were promoted from the Sales department.

Oh wait ,that will never happen... because it would be fair and balanced.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Alomex]

I just don't see RMS doing that, he's too much of a man of principle.

It goes beyond that. Certain people define themselves as opposition, as being not-the-man, and as such are uncomfortable in any position of authority, even if their principles were in no way being challenged.

These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.

This is a huge opportunity

[Haig]

The Obama administration may be the place where the driving of the golden spike uniting open source development with open source government takes place. Using Federal IT standards to drive proprietary formats out of the government departments will create a cascade of rationalization and standardization throughout the US economy. Our creaky and costly medical care system desperately needs this kind of rationalization.

Accordingly, a prominent and effective member of the Open Source community should occupy this position, not a big-time software corporatist.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[jcnnghm]

Open source software didn't drive the economy of the 90's, or the economy of the last few years. Forcing your ideological views on others through government is both stupid, and dangerous.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[Haig]

One man's "ideology" (e.g., fluoridation of drinking water) is another man's public health. The US economy is crippled by gratuitously differentiated "standards" in almost every sector. A Federal CTO could begin to change that.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[isaac]

Open source software didn't drive the economy of the 90's, or the economy of the last few years.

Says you. In my professional experience over the last 10 years, Linux and Apache on commodity hardware have been integral in lowering barriers to entry for small companies and the cost of scaling for large ones.

-Isaac

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[AigariusDebian]

IT industry is a tiny industry compared to all the others. While free software might be slightly worse for the IT industry (which is quite debatable), it is unquestionably for the better for all the other industries.

If your company is selling cars and one of your IT guys writes a patch that improves the power efficiency of your servers by 1% it is good for you. However, it will not pay for you to banch out into a software business to try to sell that patch to others. It is cheaper to give it away for free, thus your contribution creates value for others as well. The funny thing is that when other companies do the same, your company benefits as well. This creates a natural positive feedback of innovation that does not need money to increase exponentially. It does require that your company makes money at your primary business so you can pay your employees, however.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[TheLink]

I bet it's harder to scale to 100k dual core servers when you have to account for software licensing, where some of the licenses are per core, some are per core+MHz, some need a hardware dongle, some are per user, some are per concurrent user, some are per employee, some per server and so on.

And many of these are per year or some other time duration, so you need to renew them accordingly.

Oracle used to have pretty "interesting" licenses in the 1990s. I wonder how the licenses are now.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[jcnnghm]

Let's compare the Market Caps of open source companies with closed source companies:

Red Hat: $2.57B P/E: 35.05
Sun: $3.25B P/E: -
Novell: $1.55B P/E: -

Microsoft: $191.7B P/E: 11.37
Apple: $88.23B P/E: 18.53
Oracle: $88.71B P/E: 15.7
Symantec: $10.93B P/E: 17.35
SAP: $41.47B P/E: 17.64
Adobe: $13.53B P/E: 16.88

There is a lot more money in closed source software, than there ever has been in open source. Programmers have to be paid somehow, it's short sighted to think otherwise.

If your company is selling cars and one of your IT guys writes a patch that improves the power efficiency of your servers by 1% it is good for you. However, it will not pay for you to banch out into a software business to try to sell that patch to others. It is cheaper to give it away for free, thus your contribution creates value for others as well. The funny thing is that when other companies do the same, your company benefits as well. This creates a natural positive feedback of innovation that does not need money to increase exponentially. It does require that your company makes money at your primary business so you can pay your employees, however.

Except there is zero incentive for the company to give the patch away. They'd be better off retaining the patch to give themselves a competitive advantage. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for software development costs to be shared by many companies, by paying another for software development and support.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[Trojan35]

Let's be real, OS projects do not face the same level of pressures and problems of a corporation. Someone for this position must have had a strong background as a public-company CTO at some point in his/her career.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[Haig]

There is nothing magical about facing the "pressures and problems of a corporation," twitchy, 90-day profit horizon thinking is what has brought us to a low-reliability, Balkanized, incompatible commercial software environment, where each MS Windows upgrade is dreaded rather than welcomed.

Re:This is a huge opportunity

[steelfood]

This is not forcing any ideological views on any person. This is about government being open through open source and open formats. And a transparent, open government is necessary for a democracy that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

You can use Microsoft Office all you want. The government shouldn't be using Microsoft Office if the documents it saves to cannot be read properly by other software.

vi will become the national text editor too

[warfi380]

300iVote for vi

Re:vi will become the national text editor too

[Sponge Bath]

I wager 400 quatloos on the new comer emacs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How about Bill Jolitz? :)

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Now HE'S the man.

IMHO

[multimediavt]

I'd feel more comfortable with someone from the research or academic circles than I would with someone from industry for a position like that. Might just be my bias, but I feel that someone from industry might be a little more biased toward a particular set of interests. Although marginalized to some degree, I think someone like current science advisor John Marburger would be a much better choice. Just my $0.02.

Re:IMHO

[Shotgun]

I would nominate The Woz!

Re:IMHO

[Princeofcups]

I'd feel more comfortable with someone from the research or academic circles than I would with someone from industry for a position like that. Might just be my bias, but I feel that someone from industry might be a little more biased toward a particular set of interests. Although marginalized to some degree, I think someone like current science advisor John Marburger would be a much better choice. Just my $0.02.

You do know that SUN originally stood for Stanford University Networks? Bill Joy IS from academia initially.

Re:IMHO

[multimediavt]

"You do know that SUN originally stood for Stanford University Networks? Bill Joy IS from academia initially."

Yeah, that is true. May be a good choice, but don't know enough about Mr. Joy to say for sure. I'll do some more research and get back to ya. ;-)

Re:IMHO

[multimediavt]

Pressure from whom?!?! Big business? Yeah, that's a good reason to pick that type of person ... NOT! I would rather they had a broader focus and much less of a direct connection to the business of computing. Again, it's my opinion. This is an advisory position that will assist in making policy and I feel there would be a conflict of interest if this person came from a Fortune 500/1000 technology company. For the same reason we should not have oil barons in advisory positions with regard to national energy policy. *cough* *cough* Entrepreneurial in nature may be ok, but I don't think they should be from a publicly traded company for sure. Again, IMHO.

But, be careful about putting Sun, the company that barely survived the dot-com collapse too high on your list. Some bad technology decisions with regard to business were made there and they are still struggling to recover their once prominent position in the industry.

What the CTO needs...

[MikeRT]

Is some authority to set the standards as a mandate for **all** federal agencies. All of them, no exceptions. One of the first things that should be done is to mandate equal consideration for .NET and LAMP because Java has way too much of a fanboi following in the federal government.

In reality, though, the position of CTO is likely to be more of a figurehead than a useful position. Obama is not likely to hand down an executive order authorizing the CTO to impose open standards and a "use the best tool for the job" method of selecting the tools that will be used for building new federal web sites and web applications.

Re:What the CTO needs...

[MosesJones]

One of the first things that should be done is to mandate equal consideration for .NET and LAMP because Java has way too much of a fanboi following in the federal government.

Of course the fact that the federal government has done research that finds that reducing the number of languages reduces costs has nothing to do with them preferring to pick a single standards based, multi-vendor approach. Nope its because they are "Fanboys" and that stuff in the military drones would be better done in LAMP than in Java...

Federal Government uses LOADS of different technologies most of them are in the heavy lifting space rather than being about LAMP type areas (LAMP for Air Traffic Control?).

Ah but you are just talking about websites, which is a single part of the estate and are of course not thinking at all about support and maintenance across thousands of sites and the advantage of having a limited set of technologies would bring in enabling more cross government sharing.

Nope you just want to see your favourite technology being used.

Personally I'd like to see the CTO take a machete to the costs of IT in federal government, OSS would be part of that but consistency would be the major element.

Pay Cut?

[jDeepbeep]

Does anyone honestly think Bill would take a pay cut to be the CTO? What I'm saying is.. would he have that much free time to take up a role like this and not disrupt other projects/duties/professional responsibilities he's currently doing, whatever those might be?

Re:Pay Cut?

[Lobster Quadrille]

You mean like workinng on his self-contained sailboat, because he has nothing better to do?

I think he can put that on the back-burner for now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[rs79]

A board? Oh, dear. No. It'd be a quagmire, a committee designed by a committee. icann did that, whciuh is why it takes $62M to replace what used to be literally a $15K/yr part time contract.

Brian K. Reid. Everybody else is either too corrupt or too bizarre to actually do the job. Brian understands people, unlike most geek geniuses.

Nobody else can do as good a job in that role. Plus, never forget Sun was founded by the commission of a federal crime.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[deniable]

So you're proposing we form a committee? :) I know where you're coming from, but remember this is a government implementation.

Obama is not

[stbill79]

going to be the savior some would have you believe; however, from what it looks like, he will actually assign competent people to positions in his cabinet. This, btw, is the complete opposite to that which George heck of a job, Brownie has done, and probably what McCain would have done.

The president can obviously not be 100% knowledgeable on each and every issue that is to be dealt with. Choosing the right people for the jobs, instead of a crony you owe favors to, is what makes or breaks a good administration. This is one of the reasons I'm so hopeful after 8 years of morons heading up our highest offices...

So..

[scubamage]

Does this mean that anyone who uses EMACS will be considered a terrorist and threat to national security?

Re:So..

[jDeepbeep]

Does this mean that anyone who uses EMACS will be considered a terrorist and threat to national security?

Absolutely not. Please continue to enjoy use of emacs.

alias emacs='vi'

Re:So..

[Lobster Quadrille]

I already do consider them a threat to national security.

It's a sacrifice...

[dat cwazy wabbit]

to insert an ally into a high ranking government position. "No higher cause." You gotta love it.

CTO or Science Advisor

[Goldsmith]

Would this be the same position as National Science Adviser? If it's a different position, who would be under whom? AAAS is pushing for a cabinet level scientist position. Bill Joy would be an insulting pick for that office. His fundamental misunderstanding of basic things like chemistry and physics (evident in his fear of grey goo) would be crippling. We already have enough charlatans in nanotechnology getting loads of money off of scaring the crap out of an uneducated public. Putting a guy like him in charge of the NSF funding would be disastrous to serious science.

Re:CTO or Science Advisor

[Randle_Revar]

Why on earth would CTO and National Science Adviser be the same position? Is a system administrator the same as a physicist?

Re:CTO or Science Advisor

[cashman73]

I would nominate Sid Meier for Science Advisor. Heck, it works in Civ IV,... ;-)

Re:CTO or Science Advisor

[Goldsmith]

System administrators and physicists know the answer to that question. Do politicians? Anyone not knowing what a CTO is may find that it's "an executive position whose holder is focused on scientific and technical issues within an organization." Wikipedia also calls "Chief Science Officer" a synonym for CTO. So business people obviously don't know the difference.

The CTO has replaced the "Chief Scientist" in the boardroom. It could replace the National Science Adviser in the White House.

Bruce Perens

[loftwyr]

Bruce is my vote for CTO. I'd rather have someone outspoken in the role that's only partially crazy.

Re:Bruce Perens

[bendodge]

Bruce is my vote for CTO. I'd rather have someone outspoken in the role that's only partially crazy.

The Slashdot server must be psychic. Quote on the bottom of the page:

NEVER RESPOND TO CRITICAL PRESS. IT IS A GAME YOU CAN ONLY LOSE, AND IT MAKES US LOOK BAD. -- Bruce Perens

Re:Bruce Perens

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce Perens? Bruce PERENS? What good, exactly, can be said about Bruce Perens? He's started a couple of projects - important ones - and then left them again within short amounts of time; other than that, the only thing he's been doing is writing on everything left and right in an attempt to make a name for himself.

This puts him squarely at odds with people like RMS (who actually coded a lot and has a ton of technical competence), Linus (who's even more competent than RMS, and also less political), Theo deRaadt (an asshole, but a competent asshole) and so on.

If anything, Bruce Perens fits in with ESR, although he admittedly does operate on a somewhat higher level - whereas ESR is the laughing stock of geeks left and right, Bruce Perens is just... unimportant.

If you want a Bruce, go for Bruce Schneier.

Re:Bruce Perens

[loftwyr]

I don't want a coder in charge. I want someone who understands the issues and speaks well and often.

Someone who is very technical gets bogged down in details.

What on God's Grey Earth would a CTO do?

[gelfling]

Chief of what, precisely?

Re:What on God's Grey Earth would a CTO do?

[Haig]

He would set standards for the digital commerce and government of the United States. Have you visited a doctor's office lately and admired the paper files? How many times a month do you have to write down your SSN?

Re:What on God's Grey Earth would a CTO do?

[gelfling]

Standards are set by industry. All a CTO can accomplish is more silly compliance and audit standards that no one can follow.

Re:What on God's Grey Earth would a CTO do?

[Haig]

Standards are not just set by industry. Government and non-profit players have an enormous role. That is where the Internet standards came from.

The beginning of US national manufacturing standards was the US Navy's standardization of screw threads around the turn of the century. Until then, there were many physically incompatible standards for threaded fasteners.

There is no good reason whatsoever why the USA does not have a universal standard electronic format for the data in a patient's medical history. This one step would open the way for billions of dollars in savings. There are many other areas where Federal IT standards could save huge amounts while improving product and service quality.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Joy is also the guy who keeps warning of the end of the world if we don't stop developing various technologies. He wrote a number of articles and did a bunch of interviews about the world turning to gray goo if we don't kill nanotech research, how computers and weapons will kill us all, etc.

He started work on a self-sufficient, solar powered sailboat, presumably his form of a bomb shelter for the coming techpocolypse.

Basically, he has turned in to a crazy old coot.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[zappepcs]

Yes, I know what you're saying also, but let me quote rs79, a /. oldtimer:

Brian K. Reid. Everybody else is either too corrupt or too bizarre to actually do the job. Brian understands people, unlike most geek geniuses.

Now, limiting the controlling input to such a function for the ENTIRE COUNTRY to one person is fraught with problems as illustrated by the quote above. Even one President is backed up by House, Senate, and SCOTUS. See, if it's important, there should be some checks and balances. Just the mere mention of M$ on this site is cause for a flamewar. How would a single CTO personage be able to deal with all the crap/politics/bribery/governmental interference and all that will come their way? Even the DoJ was not free from corruption. One person, without a jury behind them, will fall prey to special interests. It seems inevitable. The idea is right, perhaps even the execution of that idea will be, but I have doubts about a single person as head of that implementation.

"I'm holding out for Secretary of Tubes"

[DontBlameCanada]

Watch out, the next budget cut will result in Tubal Ligation, followed closely by Tubal Litigation.

I'm surprised

[gyrogeerloose]

That no one has recommended Ted Stevens for the post. I think he'll be looking for work soon.

Re:I'm surprised

[otis wildflower]

Oh, he'll have plenty of time to stamp out license plates and toss salad...

Re:I'm surprised

[josath]

I wouldn't be so sure. As of now, CNN reports he's ahead by 3353 votes, or roughly 1.5%. They say it's still too close to call.

Re:I'm surprised

[steelfood]

Unfortunately, his tubes may soon be too clogged for him to manage the internets.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[NiceGeek]

He has something against hotel rooms?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[cthulu_mt]

We need someone with real vision.

I nominate Ray Kurzweil.

Energy investment

[Shotgun]

There's all this talk about investing in research of alternative forms of energy. Outside of funding universities, the Feds should stay out of research.

What the Feds SHOULD do is invest in building a national energy infrastructure. We need a stable national power grid, just like our national highway system. Then they should get the hell outta the way.

There are more than enough technologies out there. What doesn't exist is a way to get the goods to market. You will see solar energy skyrocket in Arizona, if they can sell their energy to Vermont. Every Montana rancher will have a solar wind farm, if she can sell what she generates to Chicago.

Taxes on what you put in and what you pull out to fund the system, just like the highways are financed through fuel taxes. Then stand back and watch private investment in research and investment shoot through the roof.

Re:Energy investment

[cdrguru]

Any major revision to the electrical grid is going to require reworking existing transmission lines. And there is the problem. Unless we can run transmission lines through areas that are unpopulated and not environmentally sensitive, the project is doomed if the leaders are paying any attention at all to environmentalists. And we need to ignore the hypocondriacs as well.

You see, today we have the forces of technology and growth confounded by ill-informed environmentalism and hypocondria. You can't build a power line anywhere near people because "everyone knows" these things cause cancer, mental retardation, impotence and a variety of other maladies. It might disturb the habitat of some lizard if we build it.

Obama has sent out messages during the campaign that he is going to respect these groups far more than any previous administration. There will be no growth, progress or anything else if he does this. He wants to turn off the coal-fired power plants, possibly without an alternative in place. Sure, it might make the environment better. But it will certainly transform the face of America overnight.

Bill Gates?

[greenlead]

I hear old Bill is available, and he certainly has plenty of experience. We wouldn't even have to pay him!

(Kidding)

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Lobster Quadrille]

He prefers to commune with the wild beastes. I'm pretty sure RMS is sasquatch.

CTO?

[bendodge]

Could someone please tell me what a CTO would do besides interfere with Our Rights Online? Would he push IPv6? Would he muck around with DCMA notices? Would he ensure IP law compliance? Would he ensure telecos are operating within common carrier restrictions? Would he find reasons to take down websites critical of his O-Master? Would he control funding for government IT depts.? Positions of power must have clear separations of powers, and I see nothing of the sort here.

This smells like another government-as-daddy scheme. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Re:CTO?

[BitHive]

I refuse to believe you are actually this unimaginative. "What would a large organization like a government need IT management for? Sounds like despotism to me!" Puh-leeze.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here... At slashdot - we just spout off random "Pro GPL/Free software" crap ad hominem and expect all the suckers to bite.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Jeff Hornby]

I don't know how to break this to you but the position of National CTO isn't quite as important as the role of SCOTUS. Upholding the laws and constitutional freedoms of the citizenry is much more important than what IM client government employees wil be allowed to use.

Re:No need / 10th Amendment

[Androclese]

Yes, because the Government *never* *ever* takes power when it can.

My question through, has anybody looked at the 10th Amendment? Isn't this appointment a violation of that Amendment, or as we just ignored it today?

Re:I think the national CTO is a terrible idea...

[gyrogeerloose]

The CTO wouldn't set policy for all software development in the U.S. It would simply be an advisory position to aid the President and federal agencies in the making of techology decisions. Think of all the millions of our tax dollars that have been wasted by various agencies in ill-considered system "upgrades" that never worked and you'll understand why a CTO might be a good idea.

Can he please take over the PTO?

[jdmumper]

I would love to see the Patent & Trademark Office moved out of the Department of Commerce into a technology-oriented department like a CTO office. Then maybe someone in authority and who understands technology would finally take a stand to recognize that business processes are not patentable...

I know, dream on...

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Sebilrazen]

He'd likely have a staff... and robes... and commandments.... wait, got derailed there.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Sebilrazen]

I agree, I want to download my intelligence into a machine, and he'd help promote the technology that will let me do that.

Am I the only one that read it as

[pierced2x]

Billy Joel? I was pretty confused for a minute there. This is what happens to my brain when I am in electoral statistics withdrawal.

Re:No need / 10th Amendment

[postbigbang]

Not at all. a US CTO isn't disciplining the states. It's disciplining the US government's current LONG list of madness in IT and perhaps communications. Infrastructure that doesn't work, contract awards that are clearly insane (but a congressman's bribery result), and so on.

The 10th isn't being ignored. It's a CTO for federal pursuits, not state. And states need systems that talk to federal ones that can't be done today, and intrastate information infrastructure is a mindlessly duplicate set of overpriced assets. The whole way we compute in government needs a fresh eye towards its citizenry.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[srussia]

We need someone with real vision. I nominate Ray Kurzweil.

I think Stevie Wonder played one of those at some point.

Digg should be CTO

[lushmore]

Bill Joy's a smart guy, but not much of a diplomat. Speaking of Kleiner-Perkins, maybe Tom Perkins is interested in coming out of retirement. Other good choices: Vint Cerf, Vinod Khosla.

Better yet, just use Digg. Whatever tech is getting the most diggs gets federal funding. The site was one of his best supporters anyway.

Re:yes

[jedidiah]

You cannot "rip" a VHS tape, you can only digitize it.

Since VHS is an inherently inferior format even when
compared to the NTSC broadcast standard, this is a bit
of a problem.

Nevermind the whole convenience aspect where there is
no means for you to "rip" your VHS recordings at a speed
far greater than playback speed.

"Rip" the complete Star Trek: TOS off of VHS. ...a prospect that sounds worse than being forced to Watch Star Trek V repeatedly.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Abreu]

http://www.stallman.org/saint.html

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

... Plus, never forget Sun was founded by the commission of a federal crime.

Do you have a link for that? I'm curious and wasn't able to find anything about it (Sun is just too common of a name).

There's only one choice

[Sandman1971]

There's only one clear choice for such a post: Leo Laporte!

No, not Bill Joy

[Animats]

I'm moderately impressed with Bill Joy, having met him several times over the years, all the way back to his grad student days. But he's not right for this job. He gets more credit for the Internet than he should, though. He didn't invent TCP/IP. His was about the fourth or fifth implementation, and it wasn't one of the better ones. He had the huge advantage of government funding and permission to give the code away, though, so his was the one that was widely used. Then, at Sun, he had the advantage of being able to reuse code developed with Government money at a privately funded startup.

In his post-Sun years, he went off on a weird anti-AI kick, as if we were actually close to making strong AI work. Which we're not. That seemed to be mostly a ploy to get attention. Since there's no real problem to work on, one can pontificate in that area. If, say, he'd picked security as an issue, he would have had to propose workable solutions.

So, no, this is not the person we want.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[aproposofwhat]

Kurzweil?

You gotta be kidding.

OK, so the man's got vision, but so has any brain-addled acid-crazed schizo hippy you care to mention.

You need someone with real vision and practical common-sense, like Joy, or maybe Jobs (yes, I know I'll get flamed for that) or even Wozniak.

You might as well suggest Eric Drexler - another self-publicist with no notable contribution to make.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[0xdeadbeef]

Excuse me, did you just say hoarding?

Idea Triage

[jra]

This brings up an issue that I asked a friend of mine, a correspondent blogger for Pajamas Media who was credentialled for the DNC in Colorado, to ask if he ever got with anyone influential in the Obama campaign. I don't think he got the chance to ask.

It's the logical outgrowth of "all the smart people don't work for you" and it is, roughly: "What plans does the Obama administration have for Idea Triage from the general public?".

I fully believe the "it's who you know" depiction from fiction of the way that good ideas percolate up to someone who can do something about them in the Federal government, and I don't think it's good enough.

Surely you'll wade through a lot of crap, but just as surely, there has to be a serviceable way to build an organization to which people can submit ideas and people who are sufficiently educated and street smart to spot the good ones can.

Our current community moderation systems are a start, as long as they don't turn into the Tyranny of the Majority; not all good ideas are popular.

Like, oh, I dunno, the US Constitution.

Perhaps I should make this point to Bill Joy today, before he takes the job. Any slashdotters have him on a DSS key on their desk phone? :-)

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[idiotnot]

Basically, he has turned in to a crazy old coot.

Luddites rock!

But, anyway, he'd be a perfect fit for the Obama administration. Technology loses to concerns, many of which are unfounded, about environmental issues. Much like Greenpeace's position on nuclear fusion.

Need is not the point

[TheLink]

By your reasoning why should you have a Secretary of Treasury? Or heads for any of these departments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Executive_Departments

The US govt does not appear to have a "Secretary of Science and Tech" sort of position.

Obama's bunch appears to think there's a gap somewhere.

They should hopefully already have advisors for tech stuff. So I'm thinking that it would be more of a symbolic role that shows that they are saying "Tech is important enough for that".

If you think a National CTO is going to be personally deciding the technological needs of every federal agency, either you're the dolt or the dolts are the National CTO and the people who appointed him.

Which brings us back to the topic - is Bill Joy suitable?

Re:Need is not the point

[E 99]

There's a Secretary of Treasury because there's a Treasury Department. There's a Treasury Department because it is a necessary role for the Federal Government to establish, print, and maintain a legal tender for use within the United States and for exports of our products, as per the United States Constitution. There is no even remotely equivalent use or need for the federal government's role in evaluating technology. As for spending my tax dollars to pay someone's salary year after year, just to say "tech is important enough for that"... that's the kind of thinking that leads to violent overthrow of governments.

Nicholas Negroponte?

[JakartaDean]

I'm surprised there's been no mention (at browsing +3) of Nicholas Negroponte. Isn't he a viable candidate, say what you will?

Re:Nicholas Negroponte?

[Randle_Revar]

He lost his way

How to get a job in the CTO's office...

[Kerosene]

Anyone got an inside line on how one "washington outsider" could end up finding a job in the new CTO's office?

Re:How to get a job in the CTO's office...

[FooGoo]

You need to be recommended by a "washington insider"

Re:How to get a job in the CTO's office...

[Kerosene]

don't know any :( just think it would be great to get in on this - an unprecedented opportunity to shape the nation, technology-wise.

Re:How to get a job in the CTO's office...

[FooGoo]

You could always find work with a lobbying firm or see if NIST has any openings in your field.

the taco

[sgt scrub]

I vote for COMMANDER taco AND CHIEF technology officer!

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Hurricane78]

What? They are against fusion??

Ok, I'm now officially not shining for them anymore!

Against fusion... pah...

Yours,

Sol the Sun
(Friend of Joe the Plumber)

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, Barack Obama seems to be opposed to the Greenpeace position:

Obama: Nuclear power worth considering, not panacea

Could it be that Obama is actually a center-Right presidential candidate, and not the radical left wing terrorist sympathizing deep green wacko he was portrayed as in the campaign? Say it ain't so, Joe (the Plumber).

CT0 - Chief Technical Originator

[ClosedSource]

Don't worry. Bill Joy won't actually create any new technology laws or policies, he'll just write white papers and leave the implementation to others.

No, thank you

[wcrowe]

From TFA:

"What we do is bring foreign nationals to the world's greatest universities. We train them, invest in them and make them go home," he said. "What kind of national strategy is that? So I would staple a green card to the diploma."

No, thank you. I'd rather keep my job, than have it given to some Sri Lankan who's willing to work for minimum wage.

Re:No, thank you

[BitHive]

Damn straight! It is an American privilege to compete with other workers for the lowest wage. Borders should be open to capital only, labor should be chained to its country of origin!

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[torstenvl]

Under Federal law, you have to be a licensed theoretical physicist if you want to begin a multi-billion-year chain fusion reaction.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[lysergic.acid]

i don't think a "group" of 7 people would be that susceptible to groupthink. generally, when it comes to group behaviors, the larger the group, the more pronounced the effects of group psychology are.

groupthink/group mentality isn't a blanket argument against synergetic bodies or group collaboration, nor is it a very good argument for autocratic decision-making. deliberative assemblies, or committees, are so popular because when you invite more than one perspective on a particular issue you encourage discussion and debate, which facilitates better decision-making. you're more likely to make the wrong decision when you don't have to argue your position to opposing committee members. discussion forces people to give more careful thought to their actions/choices.

the issue of accountability also isn't much of a problem with a committee of this size. it's not like the military chain of command where the ones giving the orders are distanced from the resultant consequences, and "following orders" introduces ambiguity of responsibility.

as long as records are kept of each committee member's votes & statements, they can be held directly accountable for their actions. that is, assuming there's some sort of government or public oversight. but the same problem would arise with an autocratic system.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Not seven, but nine, and we shall call them the fellowship of the token ring.

This is a solution to ?

[meburke]

This is a solution to an un-defined problem. We should only implement solutions AFTER we have defined a problem. "Jumping to Solutions" is why so many decision-making processes go wrong.

Expanding the Presidential Empire is not necessarily the answer to our current problems. Government interference in the distribution of goods and services normally reduces the effectiveness and efficient workings of the marketplace, thus depriving the potential customers.

Re:This is a solution to ?

[Haig]

Problem defined:

No Federal Government leadership in setting national technology policy in:

- Broadband rollout
- Medical care automation
- Distance learning
- Electronic voting
- Consumer protection
- Energy efficiency

Re:This is a solution to ?

[geoffrobinson]

No where in the Constitution does it give the President the responsibility for any of that.

Yikes

[Anonymous Cowpat]

If Bill is unavailable, I'll throw my hat in the ring, although I'm holding out for Secretary of Tubes.

It's coming true! Black-hat really does want to be Secretary of the Internet!

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[DrgnDancer]

But think about it, a really representative panel of that sort would really need someone representing, say, Microsoft, maybe Apple, maybe HP and/or Dell, and then a couple of FOSS guys. Imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, RMS, and ESR on such a committee. Easily imagined. Now imagine anything getting done by this committee, ever... Not so easily imagined. When the closed source guys were not fighting over which of their personal pet technologies was best for a given purpose, they'd be in grid-lock as RMS and the FOSS guys try to block all proprietary anything. I'd be inclined to say that the closed source people should get 4 seats and the FOSS 3 seats: on the theory that it's more likely that at least on closed source advocate would side with FOSS on a given specific question than that the the FOSS guys will ever side with the closed source guys, and if all 4 cosed source guys agree with something it's likely to be a least a slightly open system.

Still I think one guy, preferably fairly neutral and willing to work with all parties and being advised by a committee like you recommend, would be better. He might not always do what any one of us might want or hope he'd do, but a least something will get done.
 

tag this 'bsd'

[toby]

You ignorant clods!

Commander Taco in the Federal government

[UnixUnix]

I can see it now...

Department of Justice: From-the-Eeny-meeny-meeny-moe-Dpt

Department of Defense: From-the-Fire-up-the-Ornithopter-Dpt

Re:Commander Taco in the Federal government

[cashman73]

No. CowboyNeal FTW!!!!

Re:Commander Taco in the Federal government

[UnixUnix]

WTF, why not!

David Farber?

[plcurechax]

I don't know enough about Bill Joy's personality (versus his software contributions which I think many here are familiar with) to have an opinion either way.

I do think David Farber is politically astute and familiar with dealing with government enough that he could make a productive contribution to USA as a solid adviser on technology, based on his track record of "getting it" with historic technologies like that Internet thing, Plus he is a EFF trustee, Fellow of the ACM and IEEE, Oh, and he is a interesting people.

A holistic technocracy

[An dochasac]

It's amazing how narrowly focused even the "community" of slashdotters are. Open/Closed source software, indeed software or even computer technology is just a tiny fragment of the areas of science where, as a nation, we've lost the plot. Bill Joy is a computer visionary, but he also sees outside of the box. See some of his insights here In my opinion, the individual or committee needs to be broadminded enough to see the interrelationships of technologies and education. Here is my wish list:

• Restore the technical advisory counsel that Reagan sacked in favor of lobbyists.
• Balance the Reaganomic "fiscal" value of education with the real societal value of education so basic research on energy, health, economics... and other areas of science unlikely to help G.E.s stock price in the next 91 days, don't forever sit on the back burner while Europe, India, China and Japan leave us in the technological dark ages.
• Fix the SEC rules so they don't punish companies which throw money into research where they payoff is more than 91 days in the future. It's telling that the current market cap value of the R&D heavy company that Bill Joy cofounded (Sun) is far less than the global value of the technology contributed by that company.
• Treat universities as a long term societal investment, not a short term fiscal investments. Our great universities are decaying into trade-schools or country clubs... whilst falling behind our foreign counterparts.
• Use a six-sigma approach to all aspects of government (including voting). If the quality level of our hospitals was as low as that of our election counting, 800 babies would go home to the wrong parents every day.
• Tag all funded research with the funding organization so we can vet the tobacco, coal and other industry studies telling us that toxic waste is good for us.
• Focus government funding on areas of science with a longer term societal and fiscal payoff. We shouldn't be spending $1 of our tax money funding something that is only going to make Pfizer stockholders happy next year. Pfizer should be funding that!
• We have several equivalents to sputnik right now, global climate change, high oil prices,
• Create a technological WPA/CCC to rebuild our infrastructures in a green, sustainable, efficient and cost effective way. The 800 billion going to banks would be much better used to rebuild our infrastructure.
• Create an office of public science which explains scientific research and decisions to the public so we can all make more informed decisions about science.

Re:A holistic technocracy

[CodeBuster]

indeed software or even computer technology is just a tiny fragment of the areas of science.

Yes, but the president already has official science advisers and entire government departments devoted to research, scientific development, and other problems and questions of a general scientific nature (i.e. biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc). What we are talking about here is a more practical position to be filled by someone (or a group of someones) who can advise the President regarding practical matters in engineering, technology, and other issues of more immediate importance so that he can better understand and make decisions on legislation which concerns technological issues in the near term (the type that will definitely come up in the Obama administration as we look to secure our independence from foreign sources of energy, for example).

Re:A holistic technocracy

[An dochasac]

I agree completely except that changing SEC rules to focus on a longer timescale could certainly help companies focus on longer timescales. The reason the SEC requires quarterly profit reports is to prevent fraud. What have we just had a decade of from Enron to Fannie Mae? Fraud. It doesn't work.
As much as I like Bill Joy and your suggestion of Adam C Powell, my top pick would be William McDonough. He is an optimistic far thinking designer whose engineering is as ahead of his time as Thomas Jefferson was ahead of his. McDonough's "Cradle to Cradle" approach would not have allowed sponsorship of oil and food burning ethanol policies. He might use the Chinese milk additive scandal to draw attention to our own failings in addressing the known health effects of lead, mercury, asbestos, tobacco and coal tar as well as reminding us that we continue down this path with our blinders on with respect to BPA, NOx, particulates and CO2.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[raddan]

These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.

I was thinking about this exact subject this morning with regard to Ralph Nader. Smart guy, definitely has the interests of the people at heart, and he's worked in previous administrations under the Secretary of Labor. Unfortunately, he is literally his own undoing. His mere presence would polarize people to the point where nothing could get done, despite the fact that he'd probably have some pretty good ideas.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[raddan]

A board? Unless your goal is for nothing to actually happen, then a board is a terrible idea, let alone a board with seven people. In my experience 3 is the maximum number of people you can have before returns start diminishing sharply.

Bill Joy is scared of emerging technology

[jsimon12]

I think Bill is a smart guy and did great things at Sun. But I don't think he is a good choice for National CTO because in a lot of respects he is a technophobe when it comes to emerging technology. He believes genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics are inherently dangerous. If you don't believe me just check Google

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Lumpy]

And that is the point.

If the process is slow, then the decisions will be correct.

when you have a bunch of reactionary sheep that go "OMG OMG! we need to attack IRAQ!" is when you run into trouble.

Want proof? Patriot act.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Excellent Point

[DesScorp]

Isn't having a Chief Technology Officer like having a Chief Refrigeration Officer or a Chief Vending Machine Officer?

Yes, by all means, lets create yet another cabinet level position for something that should be, at best, an Undersecretary job. To be fair, all Presidents these days try to make a splash with a constituency by creating a cabinet level post for their interests (Reagan made the head of Veterans Affairs a cabinet level post; it could be handled by an assistant secretary in the DOD). We already have an advisor post for science and technology. IT in particular is no longer anything special... its common and widespread and simply a utility service now, like getting water, power, and telephones. And since any government CTO will almost certainly mainly be a CIO job, it'll be like creating a cabinet position for a utility service.... Secretary of janitorial services... secretary of motor vehicles, etc.

Have you ever seen a modern Presidential staff meeting with all cabinet secretaries present? I'd say we need less top cabinet posts, not more, and we need to make some of the current posts sub-cabinet positions. Fold some of these agencies into larger ones.

Secretary of steroids

[heroine]

Obi also said he'd make Michael Phelps secretary of steroids!

Deregulation?

[DesScorp]

Paying attention? The unregulated market brought us the Great Depression 70 years ago and until Bush the markets stayed regulated. The _recent_ deregulation is why we're in the mess we're in now.

There's no way you don't already realize this, I'm not sure why you posted what you did.

The mess we're in now is because of one thing and one thing only... subprime mortgages. Those mortgages were the result of political legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the root cause of everything else that's going on. The paper on these mortgages, despite being bad, was still rated AAA because of political pressure. The rating agencies failed in their job, but they did so because they were told not to stop the carnival by politicians that wanted to keep the subprime gravy train going. George Bush didn't create these things, and in fact, tried to actually enact new regulations on them. Guess who blocked that? And guess why they blocked it.

The repeal of Glass Steagall simply allowed financial companies to enter new markets... it allowed bank holding companies to be stockbrokers to their customers, for instance. Even Bill Clinton still doesn't think the repeal was wrong, because it didn't have a stinkin' thing to do with the subprime mess.

Regulation wasn't the problem. Politics was the problem.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe being uncomfortable in a position of authority isn't such a bad thing.

Free market

[SmallFurryCreature]

Free market. Right, you mean like the financial industry used? Thank you for playing. NEXT!

You would think free market advocates would know better then to spout their crap when the world is facing the biggest economic crisis in decades because of their antics.

Re:Free market

[pottymouth]

"Free market. Right, you mean like the financial industry used? Thank you for playing. NEXT! "

The free market is the "next" you moron! Ever heard of France, Germany, Great Britain? And those are only somewhat Socialist. Of course China and Russia are doing fabulously!! What planet are you from? What would you prefer? Your Congress creature telling what to buy? Free markets are natural selection for business. Only the strong survive. Just as it should be.

Seriously, you really need to read a little more history and look into how economics work. Governments DO NOT make for good business, jobs or prosperity. History makes that crystal clear.

liars loans

[DesScorp]

No one in the government encouraged mortgage lenders to make the "liars loans" (loans with no effort to verify employment and income status), package them and re-market them as AAA securities on the international market.

Bullshit. Oh yes they did. Banks were pressured to make these loans and rating agencies were pressured to ignore the toxic status of those mortgages, because it suited the political aims of some powerful people. If you don't think political pressure to keep getting the poor into houses with these loans wasn't real, then you're either blind, stupid, or both.

While I'll be the first to tell you that Republicans needed to pay politically for their political mistakes this election, it's a crying fucking shame that guys like Barney Frank, who was neck deep in this problem, has gotten re-elected while telling people he tried to stop the subprime mess, when the son of a bitch is actually complicit in it. He and a bunch of other powerful congressmen stopped reforms and new regulations on Fannie and Freddie everytime it came up in Congress. He's been caught on camera repeatedly saying "I don't see what the problem is here". You want someone to blame for this shit? Start with Frank, and work your way down his list of cronies that wanted to keep the subprime system rolling along because it benefitted them politically.

Re:liars loans

[visualight]

got a link? not being sarcastic, genuinely curious as it seems you have some details I don't.

Re:liars loans

[DesScorp]

got a link? not being sarcastic, genuinely curious as it seems you have some details I don't.

Sure. There's a lot out there, so just Google for it. "Barney Frank + Subprime" is a good place to start.

Here's a few links to get you started. The first is a transcript from Fannie and Freddie hearings in 2003 where he says flat out that he didn't see a problem with subprime loans:

Link One

The next is actual video of Congressional hearings in 2004 on Fannie and Freddie. Republicans called for much tighter regulations on both, while Frank, and various Congressmen not only flatly state that there was no crisis coming, but that the Republicans just wanted to keep poor people from owning their own homes. In particular, Maxine Watts repeatedly kissed the ass of Franklin Raines, the man who drove Fannie into the ground with subprimes.

Link 2

Lastly, here's a YouTube composite video called "Burning Down The House". It was made specifically to help Republicans in the elections, but the first half gives a brief but informed history of the subprime crisis, with screen shots of stories covering the history from name newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as graphs from major papers. Watch at least the first half of it. It's a really good jumping off point for further reading.

Link 3

There's plenty out there to read. One last thing... Frank was not only personally culpable in this crisis, he's a lying, two-faced bastard about it too. For years he repeatedly said "there is no problem", and yet two months ago he gave an interview to Money Magazine, stating that basically he'd seen this coming for years, and it was.... wait for it... all Alan Greenspan's fault. He takes absolutely no responsibility for this mess whatsoever. In fact, he basically adopted 90 percent of the very criticisms the GOP was making about Fannie and Freddie. He basically pretends he never ever denied there was a problem. Read this interview, and then go back to the video of his testimony before Congress. You'll never see a more two-faced man on Capitol Hill.

Money interview

Here US News and World Reports displays more of Frank's bald-faced lying: US&WR Article

Lastly, even honest liberals see his hypocrisy. Alec Baldwin calls Frank out over subprimes on Bill Maher's program. I'd link it, but it was pulled from YouTube on a DMCA complain from HBO... but here's the transcript:

Baldwin - "The, the thing we have to remember, a friend of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican. "

Vint Cerf

[Danathar]

Then IPv6 would be the law of the land :)

with regrets

[guyrish]

While everyone in the computer industry, and I would even go so far as to say, as a result - everyone in the world - owes Bill Joy a huge debt for his contributions to the world, I think it would be unfortunate if he were appointed to such an office.
And I find myself sad to say that.

But...
Most people will remember that he has demonstrated a serious degree of pessimism prior in his Wired OpEd, "Why the future doesn't need us".

The debate this sparked result in Joy being quoted and interviewed many times. His decidedly dim view of unchecked technological advancement became quite clear.
He has openly endorsed the idea of an international body that would have oversight and could control scientific research and experimentation everywhere.

This was rebutted by Freeman Dyson shortly afterward, "The Future Needs Us!".

In Dyson's rebuttal he mentions Milton's speech, Areopagitica, which while an argument for free speech, has strong parallels with regards to scientific inquiry.

While it is frightening the long list of dangerous things that we can do to ourselves and the world, it is also _equally_ exciting and encouraging when these things are applied in a beneficial manner.
We have already experienced, for hundreds of years, a world where scientific inquiry was stifled by various organizations. And in fact, similar organizations today continue to threaten and have even succeed in pushing back research (ex. stem cell research).

It is difficult to see how Bill Joy, given his stated views, would help to bolster us forward both in terms of simple advancement and also with regards to our international competitiveness.

People making their own tech decisions

[DesScorp]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

I think such things as the prevalence of spyware on PCs and the reluctance of many people to offer music or movie shares stands as proof that most people actually can't make their own technology decisions.

You could say the same thing about automobile ownership. There are a lot of wrecks. I guess people just can't be trusted to own a car.

It's pretty rare to actually see cheerleaders for a nanny state on Slashdot. Congrats, you can start your own club now.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[CodeBuster]

I don't think RMS would even take it.

He would also have to cut his hair, trim his beard, start wearing ties, and taking showers on a regular basis. Can you imagine RMS in a suit and tie? I just cannot picture that.

Government Computers

[DesScorp]

"The government has millions of computers, and you don't want someone to set policy? Look at what the mindless, out of control, dead in a ditch projects have cost us.

The government has lots of cars too. Lots of law enforcement officers. Lots of guns.

I know! Lets put them all under one secretary! When the Army needs to change specs on their M-16's, then they'll have to get permission from the secretary of guns. And when the FBI wants to change their sidearms, they'll need to get permission from him too! It'll be sooooo much more orderly and efficient!

What a great comparison

[DesScorp]

We don't need a national CTO. We can make our own technology decisions without the government telling us what to do.

We don't need a Secretary of the Treasury. We can make our own monetary decisions without the government telling us what to do.

Imbecile.

The Government has a monopoly on the printing of money. Last time I checked, government bought most of its technology from privately developed sources. Fucktard.

Re:What a great comparison

[4D6963]

My comparison was about decision making, not monopoly or whatever, i.e. you need someone to make decisions, it has nothing to do with telling you what to do.

Triple cretin with an extra slice of blithering twit.

Big difference

[DesScorp]

Open source software didn't drive the economy of the 90's, or the economy of the last few years.

Says you. In my professional experience over the last 10 years, Linux and Apache on commodity hardware have been integral in lowering barriers to entry for small companies and the cost of scaling for large ones.

-Isaac

The big difference being that those private companies had the choice of what to use, and used rational self interest as a basis for using Linux and Apache. Their reasoning was financial, not ideological. And they couldn't force it on everyone else via government policy. There's a huge honkin' difference here.

Given his attitude on future tech

[Master of Transhuman]

as represented in his well-known article on same, this is the last person who should be a CTO of the US.

Plenty of people around with less hide-bound attitudes.

growing like cancer

[juan2074]

It looks like the next administration will be even bigger than the current one.

How can we stop the rampant growth of government?

We don't need to keep adding new secretaries and departments, czars, special offices, and other positions all the time.

I trust the people, businesses, schools, state and local governments, etc. can use technology just fine without a national CTO.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Randle_Revar]

tolkien ring?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[SombreReptile]

I think a board is the right move. And Ballmer should hold the chair.

I'll throw my hat in the ring?

[Tired and Emotional]

Does this mean you would finish the supercollider?

I'd prefer Kurzweil to Joy also.

[sdnick]

I'd rather see a visionary like Kurzweil than a pessimist like Joy in that position. Not that I'm any expert on Joy's positions, but I seem to remember he'd taken a decidedly negative view on possible technological breakthroughs of late, with an emphasis on curbing research into "dangerous" areas.

Re:I'd prefer Kurzweil to Joy also.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Joy didn't seem like such a pessimist when I met him earlier this year. He spoke in terms of 'some people see a future like Blade Runner, but I'd rather see one that looks more like Star Trek', IIRC.

Re:I think the national CTO is a terrible idea...

[Randle_Revar]

>guide the development of all software in the United States.

no one suggested anything like that

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[cashman73]

Nah! We need John C. Dvorak, instead! LOL!

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[pease1]

I nominate seven random slashdotters. Rotate them every 12 months. But what level of Karma?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[grahamd0]

I like the idea of 1 person better. With that, it's very clear where the accountability lies and you don't get the groupthink that plagues many councils and meetings. Perhaps there should be a board that supports him with recommendations though.

What's the practical difference between a committee suffering from groupthink and one person whose opinion is the only one that matters?

I think you've got that totally backwards. The problem with committees that's solved by appointing a single decision maker isn't groupthink, it's gridlock.

In theory all things work better, theoretically

[gelfling]

Of course once they get going it becomes a self perpetuating mess. For instance the EU has an 80 page specification for the design and construction of a steering wheel. I have personally sat in on ISO meetings that corralled 60 people for them to argue for days on end to no useful conclusion about anything. Standards, per se are wonderful. That's why we have so many of them 8>0

Re:In theory all things work better, theoretically

[Haig]

Are you against standards, committees, or just progress? The inefficiency of US digital infrastructure is ludicrous, and as the threat of energy depletion nears, many groups will put squabbling aside and adopt useful conventions.

I worked on the committee that adopted the standard bar code for the book publishing industry. It took a lot of meetings, but it happened. The American economy is hobbled by grossly inadequate efficiency of information transfer across systems and organizations. The remedy is obvious: Federal leadership in digital information interchange standardization.

Re:In theory all things work better, theoretically

[gelfling]

I'm against doing what does not work over and over and hoping that magically it will the next time. I work with SOX compliance, for example all the time and while we spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually and while the goals of SOX are sound and noble, no one has ever been able to demonstrate that they make any difference in the least.

The luddites as CTO?

[bradbury]

It would be useful for people to remember that Joy was the author of "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." which was an interesting examination of why some technologies might be best left untouched.

Now, you want to appoint a luddite as the CTO of the United States? Please explain the rationale behind this.

Experience matters

[iliketrash]

Why not get someone with experience, such as Al Gore?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Arancaytar]

You're just saying that because you prefer emacs to vi, admit it. :P

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[BitterOak]

True, and he's also come out in favor of censorship of science. He has stated, for instance, that the human genome should not be made publicly available as it may be used by terrorists, etc., to manufacture biological weapons. I think he even suggested that perhaps laws be passed to enforce such a doctrine. Do we really want such a person to be in a position of power?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[steelfood]

Greed - Gates
Gluttony - Ballmer
Pride - Jobs
Wrath - RMS

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[ignavus]

These people serve a valuable role in society, but it is not within the corridors of power.

They are called "prophets".

They preach absolute righteousness and call for repentance (i.e. changing your ways).

They also wear odd clothing and have long beards, but that is a secondary qualification.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Krishnoid]

Why limit it to 7?

Ask Slashdot: Technology Policy for America

I'm the new president-elect and am trying to come up with a technology policy for the USA. Does anyone have experience with this who can provide some good suggestions?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Abreu]

[OnlyHalfKidding]

Someone who would be described as a "Center-left politician, with some liberal tendencies" in Europe or Latin America would be immediately branded an "Extremist, Dangerous Left-Wing Wacko" in the US.

That's because the US only has a Conservative Party and an Even-More-Conservative Party.

[/OnlyHalfKidding]

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Xtifr]

"I put on my robe and wizard hat"...actually, that's not something I think I want to see in my government. :)

"You still there, baby? I think it's getting hard now."

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[dhudson0001]

I believe that was Bill's initial reaction to nanotechnology...what was yours? Perhaps he has settled down now that he has had a decade or so to think it over?

Oh no, Taco

[mgbastard]

If Bill is unavailable, I'll throw my hat in the ring, although I'm holding out for Secretary of Tubes.

Oh no, Taco! I've actually \written\ serious creepware. And deployed for Fortune 50's. I'm way more qualified than j00.

slashcode? that old steaming pile? pffbbt. I'll stick with FirstClass. You know what I mean. ;-)

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Tubal-Cain]

Since when was that part of the job description?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Tubal-Cain]

True, but getting such people to take the position is like giving a cat a bath.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Tubal-Cain]

What about a pointed hat and a 20-sided die?

No way

[samantha]

Bill "We should relinquish several types of technology" Joy for national technological czar? No freaking way. This is not stepping up to the future. Don't get me wrong. I have tons of respect and admiration for Bill Joy. But the man has some opinions that I believe utterly disqualify him for such a role.

Secondly, I don't believe there should be any such role. The government, let us not forget, managed to get us into this current mess. Despite nearly unlimited power including the power to take roughly 50$ (counting everything) of all our life productivity that pays, the government has managed to put us $10 trillion to $50 trillion (depending on the accounting method) in the hole, embroil us in a war even more senseless than Vietnam (never ending war with no possible victory), removed sensible laws against dangerous financial practices, ignored the evil of new more dangerous practices, and created the housing bubble blowing up in the world's face. This same government acts as if it owns all of our lives and livelihood and can dictate how much we retain and what we may or may not do in more areas of "our" lives every day. So sorry if I am not too excited by a "national CTO". It is time to give these power-lusting yahoos a huge and very deserved vote of NO CONFIDENCE!

Mitch Kapor

[LakeSolon]

It surprises me no one has suggested him in this discussion, and perhaps there's a reason I'm unaware of that he wouldn't fit the position, and who know's if he'd take the job, but I can't think of anyone more suited than EFF Co-Founder Mitch Kapor.

Mitchell David Kapor (born November 1, 1950) is the founder of Lotus Development Corporation and the designer of Lotus 1-2-3, the "killer application" often credited with making the personal computer ubiquitous in the business world in the 1980s. He is known as an entrepreneur, investor, social activist, and philanthropist.

Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community

[MadMidnightBomber]

95% of African-Americans voted for Obama.

The alternative hypothesis is that they're just smarter than you.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[turing_m]

Basically, he has turned in to a crazy old coot.

That doesn't mean he's wrong.

I read the article in Wired someone linked to. It's good and worth reading. Not unlike the article by Martin Hellman on the Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence featured here a week ago or so. I used to enjoy ragging on the wet blanket Jeff Goldblum types. As I get older, I realize that optimism is no substitute for a good hard look at reality. If there is one thing in life you can count on, it's Murphy's Law. Actions have consequences, often unintended.

As to what to do about it... I'm not sure. Which is why I have the same sense of melancholy as Bill Joy. There are so many genies out of the bottle or about to be unleashed it's hard to count them these days. Just because the world seemingly works fine now and has for the last few decades doesn't mean that it is robust in the long term, nor does it mean someone is crazy for pointing out ways in which the system may not be robust.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Genda]

Speaking as both an environmentalist and ecologist as well as a technophile, I request that you not generalize. Yes, there are a lot of warm and fuzzy ex-hipy types out there who think that humanity should just go away to make the world wild and unspoiled again. In my opinion, this would be a terrible waste of evolutionary processes leading to a viable sentience. Managing a clean and healthy environment is essential for maintaining a world that is workable, for both human and non-human enterprises.

Anyone who makes an uninformed snap judgement about either developing technology or necessary ecological consideration for emotional reasons is acting irrationally and irresponsibly.

A *real* bitch

[jonaskoelker]

VCRs used to be a bitch to program

Yeah, the manual expected you to, like, read an' shit...

The Game Theory?

[jonaskoelker]

I don't know much about loaning money, except a fiver off my friends when I'm short on cash.

Is this a Cost of Anarchy thing? That is, if everybody takes care of their own self-interest by doing bad loans, does it become the good payers' self interest to do bad loans as well?

God damn, now I have to do a BSc in economics as well... :D

Sasquatch?

[jonaskoelker]

I'm pretty sure RMS is sasquatch.

With all the fur he's having, and his larger-than-life body, I always thought he was King Kong.

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[jonaskoelker]

Imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, RMS, and ESR on such a committee.

You need Mark Shuttleworth.

No committee ever gets anything done if its hand can't be forced by a guy with glowing red eyes.

Wait, no other props?

[jonaskoelker]

and robes...

No wizard hat?

Re:I'd rather see someone involved in Free Softwar

[Alsee]

wearing ties, and taking showers on a regular basis.
Can you imagine RMS in a suit and tie? I just cannot picture that.

What, and you can picture him taking showers?

-

Re:Last few years? How about this campaign?

[Reality Master 201]

Man, you're taking the results of the election pretty hard, aren't you?

Re:I think the national CTO is a terrible idea...

[mgbastard]

The CTO title implies that the position comes with delegated authority from the president and is in charge of a federal information technology agency. Yes on advisory role. Maybe the point is that the federal agency appointees aren't equipped to make their own technology decisions. Not that they would be made without consultation.