US Government Sets Up Online "App Store"

How small is it?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 16:59 · Score: -1, Troll

Rob Malda's penis is so tiny that it's eclipsed by the length and girth of a toothpick.

Re:How small is it?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:09 · Score: -1, Offtopic

How can his penis be eclipsed by something up his ass?
Re:How small is it?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 01:57 · Score: -1, Troll

His penis is also up his ass.
Re:How small is it?!? by Hognoxious · 2009-09-17 02:13 · Score: 1

This site sure is.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

It's amazing how far Linux has come! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:07 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Now even Obama knows about Linux! I guess they had to finally admit that Windows would not be secure nor stable enough for a project of this size. By using Gmail and YouTube it is a clear admission that open source just does it better in so many instances that even the hardest lobbying can't hide.

Cloud services by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:08 · Score: 5, Funny

federal employees will begin using services like YouTube, Gmail and WordPress

Maybe this means Joe Wilson can troll 4chan instead.

Re:Cloud services by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 19:40 · Score: -1, Flamebait

you ACs are onto him like flies on shit. or like a nigger buck on a fat disgusting white woman.
Re:Cloud services by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 01:17 · Score: 0

How do we know he doesn't already?
Re:Cloud services by rohan972 · 2009-09-17 02:53 · Score: 1

Maybe this means Joe Wilson can troll 4chan instead.
Welcome to slashdot, Mr President!

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Re:Cloud services by cayenne8 · 2009-09-17 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, my first thought on reading this article was..GREAT!! You can now just buy your congressional representative online, and not have to go through a lobbying firm.
Go to the .gov app store, click on your fav. representative, and send them your issue and PayPal contribution.
Sounds much easier to me!!

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Cloud services by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 09:20 · Score: 0, Troll

Is it considered a troll if it's true? Obama IS a liar, and fascist.
fasâ...cism â" noun
1. A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Exactly how is America NOT either currently or on its way to currently fitting all of the aspects of the definition of fascism? Obama's entire platform is based on racial revenge, controlling EVERYTHING, and suppressing dissent. He's got to be shitting himself now that people are finally starting to wake up to who and what ACORN is and how deeply in bed with them he is...
Re:Cloud services by JackieBrown · 2009-09-17 10:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

He's got to be shitting himself now that people are finally starting to wake up to who and what ACORN is and how deeply in bed with them he is..
No. We'll just keep calling all opposition racists.
It doesn't matter what is said, if it is not pro-Obama it must be deeply rooted in racism.
To link this to the +4 grandparent post and make it on-topic: that is why they had to admonish (misspelled on purpose) Joe Wilson. I don't remember anyone being admonished last year for booing Bush while he was speaking in front of congress during the state of the union.
Re:Cloud services by rohan972 · 2009-09-17 12:26 · Score: 1

You can now just buy your congressional representative online, and not have to go through a lobbying firm.
The market for congressional representatives needs to be opened up more. If power is decentralised more to the states and local levels, the price of nationwide legislation would go up as it would require bribing a lot more politicians. However the price of an individual legislator would come down due to increased competition and lower effectiveness (in terms of national policy), making corruption more accessible to the average citizen.

Not that I'm seriously in favor of more corruption but that is part of why I'm strongly in favor of states rights. Power centralized at the federal level makes it that much easier for the billionaires to subvert the system. We need to pit the millionaires and the billionaires against each other by having a more competitive corruption market.

--
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Re:Cloud services by cayenne8 · 2009-09-17 14:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

One thing we should do, is repeal the amendment that allowed senators to be elected rather than appointed by the states' congress'....that used to keep at least the senate answerable to the states rather than lobbyists.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Cloud services by Uberbah · 2009-09-22 06:34 · Score: 1

No. We'll just keep calling all opposition racists.
You go girl - unleash those straw men.

And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by KNicolson · 2009-09-16 17:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder how this is related to a recent announcement of Wave System, OpenID, Google, PayPal, etc into an initiative to have a single sign-on for e-government?

Re:And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not sure how a TPM can establish identity. Fundamentally, a TPM is a cryptographic token that can accept a key or a passphrase, and has the option to seal it and keep it sealed until the right boot code is passed through it. Other than that, it is fundamentally just a smart card fixed onto a computer's motherboard.
A TPM wouldn't be good for validating a user, who can be using that machine, a phone, a jaw harp, or a beer mug with an IP stack for access. A TPM can validate that the first part of an OS boot was not tampered with on a machine, as well as store some private keys that are usable only on that box. The advantage of this would be for this is ensuring that an attacker can't just replace the MBR with a keylogger, then later on, steal the laptop in a two phase black bag attack.
For a single sign on for users, the US government already has a large and well established system, the DoD's Common Access Card.
Fears of a national ID card aside, using a smart card for access can be a very good thing. No passwords can be sniffed, it is quite easy to use client certificates (the server doesn't have to care one whit if a client's key is on a card, in Firefox's key storage, or in a TPM), and allows shorter passwords to be used, because all it would take is 3-15 (usual default settings on smart cards) bad attempts, and the smart card will either block further attempts until reset, or permanently brick itself needing replacement. Phishing would be useless because all a phisher would get is "yay, this user has connected to your web server with a valid certificate". The main way a smart card can be compromised would be malware that would grab the user's PIN via a keylogger, then use the smart card (if inserted) to sign/decrypt stuff in the background.
Finally, a large number of security programs like TrueCrypt can use smart cards. I have on a laptop TC protected volumes for a VM that runs my Quicken. If someone steals the laptop and manages to get past BitLocker (RAM dump while the box is on), they would need to have the passphrase, the PIN from the eToken, and the eToken itself, to be able to mount that volume. A couple wrong guesses, the eToken zaps itself, so that gets rid of the brute forcing route in. (Of course, rubber hose crypto does work, but my biggest security scenario is silent theft of the laptop, not seizure and interrogation of the owner.)
Disclaimer: TPMs are double edged swords, and they can be used to enforce DRM stacks, but I consider them a good thing in general. Especially because by the TCG spec, they are to be shipped disabled and unowned, so software companies cannot assume every computer user has one and can use it for copy protection.
Re:And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:52 · Score: -1, Redundant

I am not sure how a TPM can establish identity. Fundamentally, a TPM is a cryptographic token that can accept a key or a passphrase, and has the option to seal it and keep it sealed until the right boot code is passed through it. Other than that, it is fundamentally just a smart card fixed onto a computer's motherboard.
A TPM wouldn't be good for validating a user, who can be using that machine, a phone, a jaw harp, or a beer mug with an IP stack for access. A TPM can validate that the first part of an OS boot was not tampered with on a machine, as well as store some private keys that are usable only on that box. The advantage of this would be for this is ensuring that an attacker can't just replace the MBR with a keylogger, then later on, steal the laptop in a two phase black bag attack.
For a single sign on for users, the US government already has a large and well established system, the DoD's Common Access Card.
Fears of a national ID card aside, using a smart card for access can be a very good thing. No passwords can be sniffed, it is quite easy to use client certificates (the server doesn't have to care one whit if a client's key is on a card, in Firefox's key storage, or in a TPM), and allows shorter passwords to be used, because all it would take is 3-15 (usual default settings on smart cards) bad attempts, and the smart card will either block further attempts until reset, or permanently brick itself needing replacement. Phishing would be useless because all a phisher would get is "yay, this user has connected to your web server with a valid certificate". The main way a smart card can be compromised would be malware that would grab the user's PIN via a keylogger, then use the smart card (if inserted) to sign/decrypt stuff in the background.
Finally, a large number of security programs like TrueCrypt can use smart cards. I have on a laptop TC protected volumes for a VM that runs my Quicken. If someone steals the laptop and manages to get past BitLocker (RAM dump while the box is on), they would need to have the passphrase, the PIN from the eToken, and the eToken itself, to be able to mount that volume. A couple wrong guesses, the eToken zaps itself, so that gets rid of the brute forcing route in. (Of course, rubber hose crypto does work, but my biggest security scenario is silent theft of the laptop, not seizure and interrogation of the owner.)
Disclaimer: TPMs are double edged swords, and they can be used to enforce DRM stacks, but I consider them a good thing in general. Especially because by the TCG spec, they are to be shipped disabled and unowned, so software companies cannot assume every computer user has one and can use it for copy protection.
Re:And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by cayenne8 · 2009-09-17 05:08 · Score: 2, Informative

"the US government already has a large and well established system, the DoD's Common Access Card."
Yes, but, from what I've seen...pretty much ONLY the DoD uses that system. And knowing how turf wars go with gov. agencies..I doubt they want to share that system.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by Thng · 2009-09-17 13:29 · Score: 1

quick googling indicates the CAC grew out of HSPD-12 (homeland security presidential directive 12). All federal agencies were supposed to have issued these cards over the last year. Agencies such as USDA already use these for computer access. Everyone else, it's a fancy (and expensive) ID card.
Re:And Gov2.0 considers Trusted Computing a key by cayenne8 · 2009-09-17 14:37 · Score: 1

"quick googling indicates the CAC grew out of HSPD-12 (homeland security presidential directive 12). All federal agencies were supposed to have issued these cards over the last year. Agencies such as USDA already use these for computer access. Everyone else, it's a fancy (and expensive) ID card."
VA doesn't.
They're trying a homebrew card.....but....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Great! by jonpublic · 2009-09-16 17:16 · Score: 1, Informative

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.marketwatch.com/m/story/25fdbe85-c490-42a4-9fea-50984f155661/0

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10474750/1/obamas-it-guru-returns-to-work.html

Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:29 · Score: 0

haha.. can you say - security breach?
Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

haha.. can you say - security breach?
i trust google more than i trust the lowest bidder for a government contract.
Re:Great! by mlts · 2009-09-16 18:13 · Score: 1

Google, OpenID, and Wave Systems have very good names to protect. Any type of civilian PKI that mirrors the CAC-based one on the DoD side (assuming it is implemented securely using HSMs to protect root and subroot keys), will bring a lot of security, and lower the attack surface in general.
This doesn't mean things will be completely secure, but it means that the ante will be upped to either compromising endpoints smart cards are used (to get the PIN and silently log on with the card), compromising the PKI, compromising the smart card itself (side channel attacks on the chip), factoring the critical RSA keys (and I REALLY hope they are bigger than the usual 2048 bit max size than most smart cards offer), or compromising the keys in the HSMs (either by buying off someone so they allow a bogus signing, or physically seize and find access for one of the hardware key storages.) This is a lot more secure than just usernames/passwords which can be compromised almost anywhere in the chain.
Re:Great! by timeOday · 2009-09-16 18:49 · Score: 1

Yes, the government must keep doing everything the same way it is now forever, otherwise something could possibly go wrong.
You can't weigh the risks of the new way without considering the problems with how things are done now. Having thousands of independently run servers doing more or less the same thing throughout a big enterprise has lots of problems. Hopefully this will centralize widely-useful services, thus saving money on servers and administration. More importantly, it will give smaller departments access to more IT services, make it easier for people in different departments to communicate, and reduce the time wasted re-learning the quirks of each department when collaborating with another group or moving between orgs. The federal government is too byzantine and parochial. Maybe standardizing business practices through common software services will help.
Re:Great! by Joakal · 2009-09-16 19:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

How about completely opening the entire authentication systems up? All the methods being proposed are closed systems. There are systematic refusal to accept new corporation/sites/etc as a form of authentication without being celebrity, monopolist or payment for certificates, etc. Recently, I created a browser-based trust initiative here: JRep project Although I initially came up by means of browser-based trust transfer but I believe this can be tweaked for authentication transfer. Bonus: It's completely open and free because I want it that way.
Re:Great! by dkf · 2009-09-16 21:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

How about completely opening the entire authentication systems up?
It's exceptionally difficult to build an entire end-to-end authentication system, and it's massively more complex if you have more than one vendor. This is stupid - there are plenty of open specifications in this area - but nonetheless true. Part of the problem is that there's so many different ways to put the bits together in a manner that will work, and there's no easy way to either bridge between them or understand which is best for a particular situation. Add in the fact that irritatingly much of the security parts of a system tend to end up in the other layers of applications (it seems to be nearly impossible to stop that) and you get horrendous levels of lock-in to particular solutions.
It's a crappy situation, and I don't blame anyone for going with a single vendor. At least then they get their security exposure down (which is definitely the most important part).

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Great! by mh1997 · 2009-09-16 23:09 · Score: 1

i trust google more than i trust the lowest bidder for a government contract.

I used to work for a defense contractor and the problem wasn't that we were the lowest bidder, it was the technically illiterate contracts officer that cut something irrelevant from a previous contract and added it to our contract.
Then when we delivered the CDRLs, the customer would get mad because what we delivered wasn't what he wanted. We'd point out that we delivered what was asked for (and what we were legally bound to deliver) and we would usually get a response like "I may have asked for this, but you should have known I wanted that."
Re:Great! by SenFo · 2009-09-17 00:37 · Score: 1

Kind of a sidetrack, but I've worked for a government consulting firm for the past five years and I've actually been surprised with the proposal process, at times. I'm not sure if things are different now than they were years ago, but during the proposal process, the government was actually undermining the abilities of contractors with bids they thought were "too low", fearing that they would overwork their staff and/or hit the government for more money, later on. I also worked for an extremely low bidding contractor and it wasn't uncommon for us to go back to the client, midway through the project to double our original estimate. Needless to say, we didn't have a large number of return clients.

--
My lame blog.
Re:Great! by AndrewNeo · 2009-09-17 01:12 · Score: 1

PKI ... CAC ... DoD ... HSM ... PIN ... RSA
You use a lot of TLAs, you know that?
Re:Great! by andy1307 · 2009-09-17 01:55 · Score: 1

Former Washington, D.C., CTO Vivek Kundra, who was recently appointed Federal CIO, has not been implicated in the FBI's corruption investigation, which centers on a city employee and a technology consultant.
This is an outrage. We can't have people who've not been implicated serving in government.
Re:Great! by cayenne8 · 2009-09-17 05:16 · Score: 1

The thing that worries me a little...what if the Feds start putting lots of stuff out on YouTube, etc...
They put so much there, etc...that eventually, YouTube and other formerly private company services become "too large/important to fail"? So, then, the govt. takes them over and starts regulating and running the shows?
I mean...with what has happened to private entities so far (banks, auto manufacturers), I think it is a legitimate worry.
I think before they can use such resources, they need to pass some laws saying no matter what..the US Govt will stay out of the running of such services 100%.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 10:39 · Score: 0

interesting. In the late 90s, a company tried to pull that shit on us. My manager paid them a visit, along with a couple of our security staff. Big black dudes, ex military.
They refunded our money and gave us a termination fee.

i always found it weird by markringen · 2009-09-16 17:16 · Score: 0, Troll

i always found it weird from a European perspective, that the American government were so behind when it comes to transparency. we are also more trusting towards government, compared to what i know of America.

Re:i always found it weird by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:44 · Score: 0

we are also more trusting towards government,
Ahhhh, so that's why the Brits don't mind having their bowel movements videophoned back to the Queen.
Re:i always found it weird by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 20:13 · Score: 0

Exactly, but she doesn't know about the Queen Peeing cam website that's doing very well in the niche porn market thank you very much.
Re:i always found it weird by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 01:57 · Score: 0

i always found it weird from a European perspective, that the American government were so behind when it comes to transparency.
That applies from an American perspective too, except that instead of saying "behind" we just say "shitty and corrupt."
Re:i always found it weird by markringen · 2009-09-17 04:46 · Score: 1

i forgot behind is a curse word :D no child left behind, and where were they left? a yes to be shitty and corrupt :D
Re:i always found it weird by anegg · 2009-09-17 05:09 · Score: 1

Since the US government was founded on a principle (among others) that all government was or would become corrupt, its no wonder that the American attitute is different than the European attitude. So far I haven't seen anything to suggest that the principle is wrong.
Re:i always found it weird by Abcd1234 · 2009-09-17 05:26 · Score: 1

So far I haven't seen anything to suggest that the principle is wrong.
Only because your system is designed to fail. Money as speech, resulting in legalized bribary (aka, lobbying)? Yeah, big surprise that that's lead to corporate ownership of the system.
If people in the US *actually* cared about running a system resistant to corruption, they'd a) demand the creation of an independent body to run and monitor elections (see Elections Canada for an example), b) make said body responsible for auditing the finances of campaigns, and c) limit campaign donations to some small, fixed amount, and disallow *any* donations from anyone but individuals (ie, corporations, PACs, churches, etc).
But, of course, that'll never happen. Americans would jump on any of these suggestions as limiting their right to free "speech" (ie, the right to bribe politicians as they see fit), despite the fact that their bought-and-paid-for government is already doing just that, and far *far* worse.
In short, the US system was founded on the idea that government will become corrupt, but it was *also* designed such that corruption is made essentially inevitable. It's the sociopolitical equivalent of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So once the gov't depends on these companies... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

...they'll be too important to fail?

Re:So once the gov't depends on these companies... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 23:15 · Score: 0

just what we need more private(government owned because too important to fail) companies
Re:So once the gov't depends on these companies... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 00:52 · Score: 0

Bah, pipe down and accept your fate like a man. I for one, welcome our new fascist overlords.

The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by CodeBuster · 2009-09-16 17:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since when did the term 'App Store' come to describe any server offering applications for download? I swear, once the marketers get their hands on a new tech term, what comes out the other end is pure and unadulterated bullshit. Soon the term 'App Store' will have about as much meaning as 'The Cloud' and the marketers will have moved on to their next buzzword kill.

Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by bertoelcon · 2009-09-16 17:33 · Score: 1

If it was used as 'Application Storage' I could see that being a viable shortened term actually.

--
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by mlts · 2009-09-16 17:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Agreed. This seems to be more of an official non-classified download repository than anything else. If I were in a small business and called their samba share that had the install images of Office, Acrobat, and other licensed packages for internal use an "app store", I'd be looked at by their IT people like I was some troll or pirate.
To me, a true "app store" is something like Apple's offering, Handango, Digital River, or a place where one looks through a catalog and either downloads a demo, or pays a license fee, then gets an executable to download.
There are some things I'd like to see the USG do though, if they are offering a large repository like this for internal use. The first thing is to PGP or gpg sign everything on the store so if it gets tampered with, one can find the app that has no or an invalid signature. (I'd also like to see Authenticode signing on Windows installs, and gpg package signing on BSD/RedHat/debian as another method that is transparent to the user, but will alert them if something is not right.)
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by EspressoFreak · 2009-09-16 18:47 · Score: 1

By their definition I am also running an "App Store" that's on my D: drive, even if it's just for me and my family.
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by syousef · 2009-09-16 19:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Agreed. This seems to be more of an official non-classified download repository than anything else. If I were in a small business and called their samba share that had the install images of Office, Acrobat, and other licensed packages for internal use an "app store", I'd be looked at by their IT people like I was some troll or pirate.
A+++++++++++++++ commenter. Would read again!

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by CAIMLAS · 2009-09-16 19:36 · Score: 0, Troll

If I were in a small business and called their samba share that had the install images of Office, Acrobat, and other licensed packages for internal use an "app store", I'd be looked at by their IT people like I was some troll or pirate.
You would? I'm pretty sure they'd look at you like you were some kind of mac user. I mean, it's the apps share, not a store. Though technically, it is a store, but not in the fiscal-exchange-for-goods sense - but that's beside the point.
Anyway, an "app store" is just that: a place where apps are stored. You sometimes exchange money for them. Usually, money is exchanged. Somehow, I suspect money will be exchanged here. There always is when government is involved.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by M-RES · 2009-09-16 20:20 · Score: 1

I think I'm going to complain to my ISP when I get threatening letters about file-sharing. I'll simply explain to them that I'm NOT sharing files, I'm running an 'App Store'.
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by dkf · 2009-09-16 21:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agreed. This seems to be more of an official non-classified download repository than anything else. If I were in a small business and called their samba share that had the install images of Office, Acrobat, and other licensed packages for internal use an "app store", I'd be looked at by their IT people like I was some troll or pirate.
But the government isn't like a small business. It's like a very large business, and that sort of concept has been around for a while; we do the same thing for applications here with a secure webserver that employees (and students since we're a university) can download install images from, with appropriate invoices being generated internally if necessary afterwards (depends on what sort of license was negotiated with the vendor).

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by double_ooh · 2009-09-17 01:16 · Score: 1

I would agree, until I went to the page (www.apps.gov). They are actually selling applications (for example, a text editor for $75.19). Most of what they have now seem to be salesforce apps, but the best that I saw (in limited shopping) was the 500 MB of storage for $1,436.37 (judging by other items on the list, I am assuming that they actually meant 500GB, but, hey, you never know).

I work for the FAA. We can't even (officially) get a browser more modern than IE6 unless you are a web developer. How about we update to only a couple of years behind, or even to modern times, before we try for the "future" crap?
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by mcgrew · 2009-09-17 01:17 · Score: 3, Funny

They need lots of bullshit to fertilize their money trees.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by YourExperiment · 2009-09-17 02:09 · Score: 1

If I were in a small business and called their samba share that had the install images of Office, Acrobat, and other licensed packages for internal use an "app store", I'd be looked at by their IT people like I was some troll or pirate.
Yes, but you'd be looked at by their management as though you were some kind of genius or saviour.
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by sorak · 2009-09-17 03:23 · Score: 1

hmmm...that gives me some ideas...
"The Pirate Bay" is now an "App Store" running a Buy One, Get it Free sale. See, it's in business speak. That make it legal...
"Linux, Now with the YUM App Store!"
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 04:19 · Score: 0

Please don't say "synergies." It makes me cry a little.
Don't worry, we just need to synchronise your linguistic paradigms with the globalized world to leverage the cost-benefit ratio of using industry standard terminology.
Great! Now you just have to "monetize" it...
Fuck, I understood that! On the first read. Gaaaah, they've taken over my brain!
First thing tomorrow at work, I'm gonna find one of the marketing weasels and punch him in the nuts for making me listen to crap like that.
Re:The Term 'App Store' is Becoming Over Used by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 13:30 · Score: 0

(I'd also like to see Authenticode signing on Windows installs, and gpg package signing on BSD/RedHat/debian as another method that is transparent to the user, but will alert them if something is not right.)
Debian already does this.
I copy-pasted my output from "apt-key list" but the filter said "too many junk characters" and I accidentally opened wikipedia in THIS tab instead of a new one when I went looking for something to fill it.
The junk filter is SO annoying.

How is this going to help.. by introspekt.i · 2009-09-16 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

..With transparency? Hell the federal government can't account for the money it's spending (by knowing where it's being spent), much less keep track of many of its records. I'm curious to see how spewing them all over the Internet is going to help us track on everything.

Re:How is this going to help.. by bertoelcon · 2009-09-16 17:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually the federal government probably could account for the money its spending, but they like staying in power and nobody really calls them out on it in a way they would be forced to respond.
But it really is transparent as in you can't see it (mostly because its not there).

--
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Re:How is this going to help.. by moosesocks · 2009-09-16 18:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Simple. Joe Biden signed up for an account at Mint.Com. Our financial problems are over!
(Serious aside: The Fed could/should employ a team of designers and information experts (a la Edward Tufte or this guy) to help improve the transparency and operational efficiency of the government. Mint.com has some great examples of boring/old data presented in a fresh, informative, and visually-attractive manner. There's plenty of scientific evidence showing that aesthetics can improve cognition. The Obama administration have done an admirable job on this front compared to their predecessors, but there's still more to be done, particularly at the congressional level)
(Second aside: Mint.com were purchased by Intuit yesterday. Ew.)

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:How is this going to help.. by DrEldarion · 2009-09-16 18:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Hell the federal government can't account for the money it's spending
Really? They seem to have a handle on it to me.
Re:How is this going to help.. by B1oodAnge1 · 2009-09-16 18:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are you certain?

--
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Re:How is this going to help.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 21:41 · Score: 0

1/ This is about apps.gov, not data.gov, though it's similar in purpose and scope in that,
2/ these apps are already vetted, approved, and in service somewhere in the .gov space. This is meant to streamline broader adoption, as appropriate. The primary change is that they (and we) can go to one place to find out what's what.
3/ Unless you're working in .gov already you are probably not aware of just how f'd .gov IT management is.
Re:How is this going to help.. by divisionbyzero · 2009-09-16 23:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm more worried about accountability. Any information posted or otherwise maintained on a private server is not subject to FOIA. It's protected by the 4th Amendment which is a much higher bar. This is the same as when Cheney used a private mail address for government business.
Re:How is this going to help.. by mikael · 2009-09-17 02:29 · Score: 1

There was a story (maybe in The Register) about how the Federation against Software Theft was going after large companies who weren't purchasing site licences. One large national company came after investigation. After months of paperwork auditing and tracking purchase receipts for individual licensed software distributions, FAST came to the conclusion that there was no piracy and that in fact there were more licenses than were actually used by the company.
The CIO and CFO than realized that there was a need for a purchase management system. After this was implemented, the company found that they had reduced their software license budget by half simply by reusing existing licenses than constantly buying new licenses.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:How is this going to help.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-19 15:20 · Score: 0

It's got nothing to do with "spewing [either apps or records] on the internet". The presentation pointed out that the app store is designed to solve two kinds of problems:
1. The procurement cycle for even simple applications in the Federal government is very cumbersome and costly. The store makes it somewhat less cumbersome and costly. The cumbersomeness and cost is partly built into federal procurement to keep things fair and competitive, so they are being careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. Building low security high elasticity apps on hard iron ... even leased hard iron ... is far less cost effective than leasing cloud space as needed.
That's all ... easier procurement for low ticket items and a way to provision low security apps the way you and I do on AWS.

Acai Force Max by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 17:57 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I put email as the best way to contact me (Since I check it frequently and if I'm not available at the moment, it's less of a "Tag, you're it," issue than missing me on the phone.) Should I expect an email/call? If I don't get one soon (How long is "soon?") should I call the store and ask about it? I really do want this job.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai-Force-Max-Review---Does-Acai-Force-Max-Really-Work?&id=2926642

Need to audit an American? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2009-09-16 18:21 · Score: 3, Funny

There's an app for that.

--
#DeleteChrome

Oh come on, you are being rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:22 · Score: 5, Informative

The first link is about Obama staffer's former colleague being investigated for crime. I don't even know what or whose fault are you trying to imply with that.

The second link is about the said staffer having committed a crime before. He shoplifted as a lot younger man, over a decade (13 years, to be exact) ago. He pleaded guilty and paid the fine... The "once a thief, always a thief" doesn't really apply to stuff like that. I myself shoplifted a few times when I was a teenager. I can understand a young man getting the small rush of doing something wrong there, with immediate risk of getting caught... It doesn't even imply that 13 years later one would have tendency to become corrupted or something.

So, what could possibly go wrong?

I think this is a great idea, as long as the programs the government will use will encrypt the data properly before storing it outside their servers. (though even that won't be necessary. I'm sure they won't use gmail for "top secret documents ;) )

Re:Oh come on, you are being rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 20:48 · Score: 0

I agree with your points.
A government by the people, of the people, and for the people should allow regular people who don't show any tendency that would suggest being corrupt in the future to hold office if they have the necessary abilities.
People make mistakes, especially when they're young. That doesn't make them bad people.
Re:Oh come on, you are being rediculous by Hognoxious · 2009-09-17 02:10 · Score: 1

Unless they take pictures of their own swimsuit parts. That makes them evil!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Oh come on, you are being rediculous by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-17 02:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Unless they take pictures of their own swimsuit parts. That makes them evil!
Swimsuit parts? Like straps and that mesh lining stuff?
Re:Oh come on, you are being rediculous by hot+soldering+iron · 2009-09-17 05:20 · Score: 1

I'm sure the military won't use outside servers for top secret stuff (too paranoid, thank god), but Josephine Yutz, who got appointed for the great work she did during Rep. Bullwinkles campaign, just might. We've seen a lot of dumb shites do stuff like that in the past when they should have known better.
And "Cloud Computing", (god, I hate buzzwords) is okay for short-term projects that aren't critical, but all it would take is a couple of DDOS attacks on an external (commercial) server, or even just a service outage, and you've shut out governmental entities from their computing resources. The feds would have no warning, counter-measures(?), or backups. They would be totally useless. *I know, I know*

--
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Re:Oh come on, you are being rediculous by Uberbah · 2009-09-22 06:41 · Score: 1

I'm sure the military won't use outside servers for top secret stuff
You would hope so, but that's probably not the case.

Giovernment App Store? Cool! by ahodgkinson · 2009-09-16 18:22 · Score: 3, Funny

Fantastic. An App Store puts democracy back into the hands of the ordinary citizen.

In fact, I think open an account right now, and buy myself a congressman.

--
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.

private server and its called cloud computing? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 18:25 · Score: 0

private servers but this is cloud computing rolf. I dont know which term is worse. Cloud computing or web 2.0.

So if I run my own private server and I access the app over the internet I guess this is cloud computing? A personal web page is called a blog and a glorified comments blog is called a tweet. old is new all over again.

Re:private server and its called cloud computing? by M-RES · 2009-09-16 20:24 · Score: 1

Twatter is for apathetic bloggers who don't actually have anything to say. Perfect for the shortening attention spans of modern consumerist society...

'Nebula' cloud computing platform at NASA Ames by FleaPlus · 2009-09-16 18:29 · Score: 1

According to a comment over at NASA Watch, this is going to be at least conceptually based on the NEBULA cloud computing platform developed by NASA Ames. It seems pretty cool and potentially quite useful. Calling it an "app store" is a really dumb analogy though, and gives absolutely no idea of what it actually entails:

http://nebula.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/09/ames_will_help.html

I am the Project Coordinator for Nebula, the cloud computing pilot at NASA Ames. Nebula has been in R&D and under development for well over a year. There are many reasons that a large organization, such as NASA, would explore cloud. The Nebula team did an extensive trade study to see what public clouds out there could meet NASA's needs. None did. Either they were not fast and powerful enough to handle NASA's massive data sets or they did not comply with security requirements. NASA needed its own cloud. I won't go into technical specifics (you can read about them at http://nebula.nasa.gov/ but the Nebula team ended up creating something that is smart, powerful, and incredibly energy-efficient to boot.

NASA was approached by the Feds because Nebula solves some cloud problems that are common among other Government Agencies. It is wicked fast, complies with FISMA and can scale to Government-sized demands. It is also rather forward-thinking in that it is built using open-source components and is incredibly energy efficient. Again, Nebula was created with NASA - not the Feds - in mind, but when they caught wind, they were interested too.

I suggest that people spend some time reading about what is actually going on before they jump to conclusions. To my knowledge there have been no announcements that Ames will orchestrate the Fed's move to cloud computing or develop any new systems or technologies that were not already under development. NASA has been responsible for a number of innovative new technologies over the years. Memory foam, for example. NASA invented it, but are they out there selling mattresses? :) Some people seem so caught up in the politics that they have completely missed the point.

Posted by: Gretchen at September 16, 2009 8:42 PM

The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-16 18:43 · Score: -1, Troll

When are U.S. citizens going to realize they voted in an administration bent on destroying the U.S. through greenwashing, corruption, and fascism?

1938 Time Magazine "Man of the Year": Adolf Hitler, who nationalized trade, healthcare, and promoted economical transportation (VolksWagon).
2008 Time Magazine "Man of the Year": Barack Obama, trying to nationalize trade, healthcare, and is promoting economical transportation.

Hmmm...... Now they want to store government data along side millions of videos of kids lighting their farts on fire. When is Chuck Norris going to go to D.C. and just kick everyone's asses?

Re:The bigger question is... by MrMista_B · 2009-09-16 18:55 · Score: 1

*blinks*
You're... comparing Barrak Obama to... Hitler?
Wow.
Why?
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-16 19:31 · Score: -1, Troll

Because their political ideals are closer than one would expect. Go read up on nazism, and fascism. You'll see the similarities these ways of thinking have with Obama's "progressive" initiatives. There is a form of governing called the "Third way" that Bill Clinton made famous, but is actually a well-known facet of fascism and Obama is practicing it everyday. Americans are too high, stupid, and brainwashed through academia, to realize that their nation is falling into really dark territory. I don't think Obama is a evil person like Hitler obviously was, but they share startling political traits. Look it up. I really noticed the similarities after I saw an video Obama ran in classrooms asking children to pledge themselves to Obama. Not to the President, or to the U.S., but to Obama. The video has his logo in it but no presidential seal. It reminded me of Nazi Germany when Hitler ran the exact same campaign to indoctrinate Nazi youth - except the symbol was a swastika.
Re:The bigger question is... by MrMista_B · 2009-09-16 20:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Huh.
So - do you think Canada, Switzerland, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, and Britian, to name a few, are the equivalent to or worse than Hitler's Nazi Germany?
Personally, I think you're just ignorant of both recent and long-term history. Fortunatly, that can be cured by education, if you're willing to make the effort. You seem ignorant of both Nazi history, as well as the histories of nations in general, especially those called 'socialist' by those who don't know what the word means.
I understand that you believe the ideals you hold, but I don't think you've ever examined them. I hope you're willing to educate yourself, someday - you seem like an intelligent person, but you're missing quite a few (objective, verifiable) facts as to the reality of the world you life in.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 20:44 · Score: 0

Well done, you've woken up at last. Unfortunately, you're about 50 years too late. This has been going on for a very long time with each of your dictatorial leaders chipping away more than the last.
It's not JUST Obama. Look at Bush's reign - there were many similarities to Nazi German politics too. From invading foreign nations on false pretexts through to implementing stricter and stricter laws governing the people at home. Don't forget it was the Nazi German's who created a 'Department of Fatherland Security' which went further than your DHS does of course, but those TSA agents are particularly brown-shirted in their attitude.
People around the world think Bush's legacy of mass murder by the US war machine is bad, but they really should look at Clinton before him and what he unleashed in the former Yugoslavia (and you can go back further through each successive dictator/president to find their illegal invassions and bombings - South America, South East Asia. But I digress). The biggest difference in humanitarian terms between Clinton and Bush was the PR skill. Clinton gave good 'face', Bush came across as an idiot. But it's Clinton's ability to look good to the world that allowed him to get away with so much and hence be so dangerous. And now Obama is getting the same treatment. Worrying times and most people are sleep-walking their way into oblivion.
None of these people work for you. They RULE you. Welcome to Corporatism, the ultimate destination for Captialism. Like Communism the ideology is corrupted by the greedy and they have remodeled it into a form of fascism.
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-16 21:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

1. Assuming I'm uneducated is, well, uneducated.
2. I never mentioned socialism or socialist nations.
3. I've been to almost all the nations you cite, none are like Nazi Germany and I have no problem with modern socialism.
4. The comments I made ARE verifiable and objective. Hitler and Obama were both "Men of the Year", they both support leftist, progressive, and fringe-science ideas and their fundamentals were/are rooted in fascism. Look it up.

The fact that you call me "ignorant" for typing a post containing facts that any undergrad could cite leads me to believe that you are offended by my statements in some way. That wasn't my objective. I was simply pointing out parallels in two world leader's political profiles.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 21:41 · Score: 4, Informative

My economics textbook reads: "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a societyâ(TM)s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the âoenational interestââ"that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace."

This actually does sound a lot like what the Obama administration is doing with healthcare reform, the economy, and the auto industry to a limited extent.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 22:24 · Score: 0

4. The comments I made ARE verifiable and objective. Hitler and Obama were both "Men of the Year", they both support leftist, progressive, and fringe-science ideas and their fundamentals were/are rooted in fascism. Look it up.
Also, they both eat bread and breath air!!! oO OBAMA MUST BE HITLERS REINCARNATION!!!!!
captcha is "imature" gnihihihi
Re:The bigger question is... by thasmudyan · 2009-09-16 23:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because their political ideals are closer than one would expect. Go read up on nazism, and fascism. You'll see the similarities these ways of thinking have with Obama's "progressive" initiatives.

1. Assuming I'm uneducated is, well, uneducated.
2. I never mentioned socialism or socialist nations.
3. I've been to almost all the nations you cite, none are like Nazi Germany and I have no problem with modern socialism.
4. The comments I made ARE verifiable and objective. Hitler and Obama were both "Men of the Year", they both support leftist, progressive, and fringe-science ideas and their fundamentals were/are rooted in fascism. Look it up.
I think the assumption that you're uneducated is a fair charge. I don't even know where to begin, except maybe to suggest you should read an actual history book, probably starting with the definition of important terms. Hitler's idea of a state was a genocidal, deeply racist, right-wing extremist, fascist junta presiding over a society run purely on hierarchical peer pressure, a state further corrupted and held in power by an overreaching military-industrial complex. It was the poster child of a surveilance state that really deserved the label "totalitarian".
If you absolutely must compare today's political ideologies with that you'd find that our contemporary right-wing parties are actually much closer to this than the left - but even Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson are not quite in the same leage as Hitler, and that's saying something. By the way, the actual socialists came in the time after Nazi Germany - so comparing Obama to Honnecker would probably make more sense for the charges you are making, which are incidentally also complete bullshit.
I'm sorry, I don't normally go for ad hominem attacks like this, but I'm a German (so please excuse my English) and I feel very strongly about people getting their facts right as opposed to the mindless parroting of hopelessly corrupt historical fiction.
I can't help but wonder: why didn't you people cry out when our civil liberties were taken away progressively in the time after 9/11? Now that was a lost opportunity, that was the last time when freedom was actually at stake. Not only did we lose that fight so thoroughly during the Bush administration, Obama is now actually legitimizing those changes. That would have been a fight worth our time. That would have been the moment to stand up for liberty. What did you do to prevent that? I sincerely hope you didn't just sit on your ass like I did.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 23:25 · Score: 0

Volkswagen.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 00:09 · Score: 0

*blinks*
You're... comparing Barrak Obama to... Hitler?
Wow.
Why?
It's obviously because they're both black.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 02:04 · Score: 0

But why single out Obama? All voting Americans share those traits. We've been voting for fascism in every single election, arguably starting even before the Germans did.
If you're going to call out Obama instead of republicrat voters (where the responsibility really lies) then tell me what trait he has that say, the last 4 or 5 president's didn't.
Re:The bigger question is... by mcgrew · 2009-09-17 02:41 · Score: 1

When are U.S. citizens going to realize they voted in an administration bent on destroying the U.S.
Your post (Troll, -1) is well modded, and I shouldn't feed you but what the hell. I'm sure some neocon with mod points will mod me down, but I can take a downmod once in a while.
It was the previous administration hell bent on destroying the US, and they did a pretty damned good job of it, too. Under the previous administration we were attacked, despite the fact that there were dire warnings of Al Quaida from the administration before, which were completely ignored. FBI agents warned about the terrorists taking commercial pilot courses and they, too, were ignored. 9-11 would not have happened had we a competent President.
We went to war against our attackers (IMO a good thing), then went to war because of bad intelligence (the intelligence agencies are part of the executive branch) with a country who had threatened the President's dad.
Gasoling was $1.05 per gallon here when he took office, before he left office it was over $4.50. No wonder people couldn't make their mortgage payments, and no wonder the economy collapsed. We had a recession in the '70s because of the Vietnam war in the '60s and the Arab oil embargo in 1974, but either the Bush administration didn't learn from history or care about it. Considering that both Bush and Cheney are oil men, they made millions on the high price of gasoline that ruined the economy.
Before he left office he rewarded the very banks that helped cause the economic meltdown with tax funds and no accountability.
When he came into office there was a budget surplus. He left the biggest defecit in US history.
During natural disasters (earthquakes and hurricanes) FEMA, with the incompenent crony he hired to head it, dropped the ball every time. It was worst with Katrina, because the state and local governments weren't any more competent than the feds. We were lucky here in Springfield when the tornados hit in 2006, as the city government WAS competent, unlike the state and federals (Blago was exectly like Bush, except he was a Democrat).
Obama would have a damned hard time doing any worse than his predecessor. I do worry, however. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but Bush proved me wrong.
When will you people realize that when you put people in charge of government who think government is always the problem you're going to get bad government? Have you no power of reason or logic?

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:The bigger question is... by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-09-17 03:45 · Score: 1

I am sorry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. The main difference between the Nazis and the Communists in pre-World War II Germany was that the Nazis were nationalists and the Communists were internationalists.
While comparing Obama to Hitler is inappropriate (Hitler openly called for genocide even before he was elected), Obama is closer on the political spectrum to Hitler than Bush or Cheney were/are. You seem to think that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, they weren't, they were right next to each other. Both of them were totalitarian and supported government dominance of all economic activity. A true political spectrum runs from libertarian-anarchy on the far right to absolute totalitarian on the far left.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The bigger question is... by FiloEleven · 2009-09-17 03:58 · Score: 1

Hitler's idea of a state was a genocidal, deeply racist, right-wing extremist, fascist junta presiding over a society run purely on hierarchical peer pressure, a state further corrupted and held in power by an overreaching military-industrial complex. It was the poster child of a surveilance state that really deserved the label "totalitarian".
Did you read the whole thread? Sitarlo is not saying that Obama is the second coming of Hitler, he's pointing out political similarities. See "I don't think Obama is a evil person like Hitler obviously was, but they share startling political traits." Now, it's hard to reconcile that with his opening post declaring that Obama's administration is "bent on destroying the U.S." but the inflammatory statement doesn't nullify the valid comparison, which was further illuminated by this AC.

If you absolutely must compare today's political ideologies with that you'd find that our contemporary right-wing parties are actually much closer to this than the left -
Oh, I don't know about that. Obama is still fighting Bush's wars, still keeping Bush's secrets, still using secret prisons, still doling out money to businesses with strings attached, and also trying to push a socialist health care agenda. If anything, he takes Bush's fascist policies and mixes in some socialism.

- but even Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson are not quite in the same leage as Hitler, and that's saying something.
And this is the root of the problem. There's an automatic connection between "fascism" and "Nazis" and all the baggage they bring. It's nearly impossible to talk about policies without getting tangled up in connotations. This is due both to Republicans using the word for scare tactics rather than honest discussion and to constant conditioning in all of us to equate the two--I think this is unintentional, but those inclined towards tinfoil-hattery may claim otherwise. Whatever the cause, without stepping back and looking at exactly what "fascism" and "socialism" mean, as done by the AC above, the issues cannot be discussed. Whether or not Obama's policies fall under either category is certainly open to debate, but talk of genocide only clouds the issue. It's like saying that the US is a democracy and had slavery and a civil war, so discussing whether or not a nation has democratic aspects must always mean talk of slavery and civil war.

I can't help but wonder: why didn't you people cry out when our civil liberties were taken away progressively in the time after 9/11? Now that was a lost opportunity, that was the last time when freedom was actually at stake. Not only did we lose that fight so thoroughly during the Bush administration, Obama is now actually legitimizing those changes. That would have been a fight worth our time. That would have been the moment to stand up for liberty. What did you do to prevent that? I sincerely hope you didn't just sit on your ass like I did.
I protested. I called my congressmen. I ranted to family and friends, and even had some success convincing former True Believers that the PATRIOT act was bad for us. I didn't vote at all in 2000 because at the time I didn't think politics mattered. 9/11, or rather the reaction to it, was my wake-up call that my desire to simply be allowed to live my life how I wish is not a concern to those in power. I voted 3rd party in '04 and Ron Paul in '08 because I reject both faces of the two-party system. The opportunity to keep some of our waning civil liberties may have been missed, but I did my damnedest and will continue to fight for (re)gaining freedom until it's no longer necessary.

--
Your brain is not a computer.
Re:The bigger question is... by thasmudyan · 2009-09-17 04:43 · Score: 1

A true political spectrum runs from libertarian-anarchy on the far right to absolute totalitarian on the far left.
Ah, I see what the misunderstanding is, you got left and right confused. Anarchy is usually considered extreme left and absolute totalitarian regimes can be both, but are right if they are fascist and/or nationalistic. Since you won't believe me, allow me to cite Wikipedia (I know, not an official source but it'll have to do for now):

Traditionally, the Left includes: social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists while the Right includes: conservatives, libertarians, fascists, reactionaries, monarchists and nationalists. The classification of capitalism as right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.

While I agree with you there is not much difference between dictators who consider themselves right as opposed to regimes who are supposedly on the left, in this case you can hopefully see why your reasoning is problematic because you turned the definitions of "left" and "right" on their heads. The right-left categorization as a concept is certainly severely flawed, but there can be no doubt that the Nazis were decidedly on the Right! Drawing parallels to Obama's borderline leftish politics doesn't make sense whichever way you turn it.
A finer point of debate could be whether absolutist regimes can even be correctly categorized as "left", because the whole idea of an oppressor state is a "right" concept to begin with. Of course, every implementation of Communism (and even Socialism) can only end up becoming a totalitarian state, but the ideology itself is tragically incompatible with the inevitable political outcome. I'm not trying to be polemic towards right-wingers here, I'm just talking about the original definition and meaning of the words we're using. It is a tragedy that certain influential elements in the US have succeeded in redefining huge parts of the political and social vocabulary, thereby making it virtually impossible for people to have a meaningful conversation without getting mired in intentionally corrupted semantics. (Compare Orwell's 1984 for more info on how exactly that works)

I am sorry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party.
In the context of what I explained above, it becomes clear that the Nazis were not in fact real socialists but first and foremost fascists and, consequently, were to the far right and not the left.

The main difference between the Nazis and the Communists in pre-World War II Germany was that the Nazis were nationalists and the Communists were internationalists.
Oh, it went a lot deeper than that. But at the end of the day, both Stalin and Hitler were monstrous dictators responsible for atrocities beyond description. However, one could argue that Hitler's ideology lines up very well with what he was actually doing, whereas Stalin was preaching one thing while doing something completely different.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 04:50 · Score: 0

Did you read the whole thread? Sitarlo is not saying that Obama is the second coming of Hitler, he's pointing out political similarities.
Dude, Sitarlo said things like:

4. The comments I made ARE verifiable and objective. Hitler and Obama were both "Men of the Year", they both support leftist, progressive, and fringe-science ideas and their fundamentals were/are rooted in fascism. Look it up.
I don't know much but even I know that ain't right. Just take a moment and _read_ that. How can anyone just let that hang there?
Re:The bigger question is... by Idiomatick · 2009-09-17 05:08 · Score: 1

Uneducated.... You did talk about socialism. Nazi stands for 'National Sozialismus'.
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-17 05:40 · Score: 1

It's not about right or left. It is about the Third Way. If you knew anything about economic policy, you'd understand my posts. Fascism does not, by default, equal nazism.

I find it interesting that I'm presenting a very simple and clear idea without attacking anyone, but I'm being attacked and called ignorant or uneducated. To me, that kind of communication is both ignorant and uneducated. I went to college, I got good grades, I also knew better than to believe everything my stoned, pseudo-liberal professors told me.
Re:The bigger question is... by smitty97 · 2009-09-17 05:43 · Score: 1

no, the bigger question is:
Where are all the fart apps?

--
mod me funny
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-17 06:12 · Score: 1

Yes, but I didn't equate Nazism with current socialist movements. And, thank you for pointing out that Nazism indeed involves leftist thinking.
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-17 06:14 · Score: 1

I never said Bush was a Saint or even a good leader. My post isn't well modded either. I was making a joke and pointing out easily verifiable similarities between two world leaders. I honestly didn't expect anyone to respond to the original post.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 06:16 · Score: 0

Fuck you. I'm no Obama fan, and you've got some good points, but your overall comparison is bunk without qualification.
Nazi = Nationalsozialismus = Nationalist Socialism. While this etymology naturally does not encapsulate the entire Nazi platform, it is largely accurate as far as it extends. (The "socialism" bit was taken rather more weakly than in some competing socialism-based ideologies, and must be taken in context, of course.)
By mentioning Germany under the Nazist regime, you are implicitly mentioning "socialism or socialist nations", of some sort.
Now the points where Obama and Hitler would agree (and there are quite a few) run to the fascist/socialist side of increased state control over resources (although, unlike e.g. communism, upholding the institution of private property), which speaks almost exclusively to domestic policy. But Obama is completely lacking on the nationalist/imperialist side, which is what most people today generally think of as Nazism. (Likely this shifted focus is because we fought a war, which is a fundamental matter of foreign policy, but aside from racial atrocities, couldn't care less about Hitler's domestic policy...)
And, of course, the correlation of race with nationality, and therefore the conflation of racism and nationalism, is substantially less evident in the US than in 1930s Germany, so any genuine mainstream Nazi-like party in the US would be lacking the genocidal edge; it would be marked by the republicans' enthusiasm for strong borders and foreign wars, and the democrats' regulation-of-business domestic policies. And although unpatriotism would be a hanging offense, American citizens would see no substantial persecution on a racial basis.
Yeah, I get just as pissed off when people compare Bush (a bit of a nationalist, although with a bizarre fetish for nation-building over genuine imperialism, but pro-big-business and anti-socialist) with Hitler as when they compare Obama (a private-property socialist, but never a nationalist) with him. While the aggregate influence of both parties, alternating control as they do, is arguable an overall nazist slant, both parties (and all leaders they've produced recently) are sufficiently far off in one direction or another as to make the comparisons meaningless at best, and dishonest at worst.
Re:The bigger question is... by FiloEleven · 2009-09-17 07:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, I read that, but not very carefully. I'm more focused on the policies at hand, and I wasn't responding to defend the guy. My entry point into the thread was reading the highly-rated AC comment I linked which actually did a good job of rationally outlining the issue of fascist and socialist policy. My reading of the rest of the thread was colored by that initial post, so I missed the import of that last statement.
And yet, everything else in my post--which in my mind is far more important--goes unacknowledged, all because I failed to properly chastise some random Internet person for calling Obama Hitler.

--
Your brain is not a computer.
Re:The bigger question is... by bar-agent · 2009-09-17 08:14 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that I'm presenting a very simple and clear idea without attacking anyone, but I'm being attacked and called ignorant or uneducated.

You are calling thasmudyen's post an attack? Seriously? That post was civil and informative. Actually, let me correct myself. It would be civil and informative for the Real World; it was amazingly civil and informative for the Internet. And he didn't call you uneducated or ignorant. You were using the terms incorrectly, and he gave you the correct meanings, but he did not insult you in doing so.
You've got some kind of persecution complex going on. Quit it.

--
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-17 08:30 · Score: 1

I was not using terms incorrectly at all. To say that I was, is in fact, incorrect. Just because an untruth is popular doesn't make it true. Obama is closer to fascism than he is to conservatism- a plain, simple truth that the indoctrinated simply can't accept because of the social-political ramifications of fascism being related to Nazism. I thought slashdot peeps were supposed to be smart. All I'm seeing here is a regurgitation of wikipedia text and very weak arguments based on liberal rhetoric.
Re:The bigger question is... by sitarlo · 2009-09-17 08:48 · Score: 1

Um, you just validated my entire argument in your fourth paragraph. So why the "Fuck You"?

Look, I wasn't calling Obama a Nazi. That would be ridiculous. I was simply pointing out the possibility of fascist tendencies in current U.S. politics. That is all.
Re:The bigger question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-18 08:09 · Score: 0

Because their political ideals are closer than one would expect. Go read up on nazism, and fascism. You'll see the similarities these ways of thinking have with Obama's "progressive" initiatives.

1. Assuming I'm uneducated is, well, uneducated.
2. I never mentioned socialism or socialist nations.
3. I've been to almost all the nations you cite, none are like Nazi Germany and I have no problem with modern socialism.
4. The comments I made ARE verifiable and objective. Hitler and Obama were both "Men of the Year", they both support leftist, progressive, and fringe-science ideas and their fundamentals were/are rooted in fascism. Look it up.
I think the assumption that you're uneducated is a fair charge. I don't even know where to begin, except maybe to suggest you should read an actual history book, probably starting with the definition of important terms. Hitler's idea of a state was a genocidal, deeply racist, right-wing extremist, fascist junta presiding over a society run purely on hierarchical peer pressure, a state further corrupted and held in power by an overreaching military-industrial complex. It was the poster child of a surveilance state that really deserved the label "totalitarian".
If you absolutely must compare today's political ideologies with that you'd find that our contemporary right-wing parties are actually much closer to this than the left - but even Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson are not quite in the same leage as Hitler, and that's saying something. By the way, the actual socialists came in the time after Nazi Germany - so comparing Obama to Honnecker would probably make more sense for the charges you are making, which are incidentally also complete bullshit.
I'm sorry, I don't normally go for ad hominem attacks like this, but I'm a German (so please excuse my English) and I feel very strongly about people getting their facts right as opposed to the mindless parroting of hopelessly corrupt historical fiction.
I can't help but wonder: why didn't you people cry out when our civil liberties were taken away progressively in the time after 9/11? Now that was a lost opportunity, that was the last time when freedom was actually at stake. Not only did we lose that fight so thoroughly during the Bush administration, Obama is now actually legitimizing those changes. That would have been a fight worth our time. That would have been the moment to stand up for liberty. What did you do to prevent that? I sincerely hope you didn't just sit on your ass like I did.
The fact that you are German does not grant you some special authority with respect to the history of Germany. Funny how your disclaimer of one rhetorical fallacy is followed immediately by the commission of another one.
Your characterization of Hitler, and by extension Fascism and the Nazi movement, as something inherently right-wing is substantively absurd. Now, as is the custom of leftists, you engage in historical revisionism. Hitler was a socialist, and promoted national socialism in his era in both theory and practice. News flash: conservatives (classical liberals) AKA the right-wing are capitalist free-marketers.
Your strong implication that the political right is necessarily "deeply racist", "genocidal", and "totalitarian" is historically unsupported. Unsurprisingly, the history of left-wing politics is littered with subtle and prominent examples of all of the above.
I see that you worship the "progressive" idol, Obama. I also see that you castigate, severely, Dick Cheney. I suppose you don't appreciate the irony. Obama has continued many of the programs and policies of the previous administration, which you seem to believe, rather naively, represent some kind of erosion of our civil liberties.
Now, if you are really interested in education and factual correctness, as opposed to "mindless parroting of hopelessly corrupt historical fiction", than pick up a copy of "Liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg. Read it. You should feel quite stupid afterwards, and rightly so.

FOIA and "Transparency"? by The+Wooden+Badger · 2009-09-16 18:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't know. I thought keeping data on old clunky servers is kind of necessary for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and this whole "transparency" idea. They are going to start storing data in gmail and youtube accounts? Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't feel right.

--
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.

FOIA - for the hosting companies! by ufoolme · 2009-09-16 19:04 · Score: 1

Its one thing for FOIA, but companies hosting this data must be doing some kinda mining on it. Else whats in it for them? Bait and switch a free model, for a pay model later on. Why don't they just start up a wiki and let the people run the country, or wait is that too much like socialism?

Re:FOIA - for the hosting companies! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 19:21 · Score: 0

Why don't they just start up a wiki and let the people run the country, or wait is that too much like socialism?
Why don't you force a bill on congress and the people that half or more don't want, or wait is that too much like democracy?
Re:FOIA - for the hosting companies! by betterunixthanunix · 2009-09-17 00:25 · Score: 1

Let the people run the country? Which country were you thinking of? It could not be the USA...

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:FOIA - for the hosting companies! by rachelprogress · 2009-09-17 01:53 · Score: 1

I can tell you one thing for certain as a cloud computing solutions engineer working in the federal sector, these companies aren't offering this to the government as a free model. There's a hefty price tag.

--
_miss rp

Apple's attorneys are going to be all over them by MichaelCrawford · 2009-09-16 19:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm pretty sure "App Store" must be some kind of Apple trademark.

However, it is possible to lose the rights to your trademark if it falls into common use. That's why so many companies defend their marks so vigorously.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

new != good by Hognoxious · 2009-09-16 19:42 · Score: 1

'Our policies lag behind new trends, causing unnecessary restrictions on the use of new technology,'

And that's a bad thing?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

presenttips by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 20:24 · Score: -1

Hi.

I am working in a office all day long but as time goes bye I try to use it to develop my skills as a designer.

I love to redecorate and furnish me and my husbands house and help friends with new ideas of how to make there home look better using modern design

furniture.

I find great inspiration in presenttips

It's not a government Internet. by SeaFox · 2009-09-16 20:31 · Score: 1

The app store is designed for federal employees doing official government business and is not intended for use by the public.

YouTube, GMail, and Wordpress are not designed for official government business. What's more the technology of today is not made to facilitate people interacting with their government. Being created by commercial interests It's made to do two things:

Separate people from their money.
Find out information about people and the types of companies and people they interact with, to increase the efficiency of separating them from their money, and to create a product of itself (information) that can also be sold, earning money for the company indirectly from these people.

Stefan by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 23:49 · Score: 0

I'm intrested in how they will stay section 508 compliant using youtube.

Vivek Kundra is a fraud by Coolhand2120 · 2009-09-17 00:00 · Score: 1

Please, Vivek, explain away:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/

Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-17 01:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Please, Vivek, explain away:

Okay, that took 30 seconds with Google. Om Malik (a respected journalist not a notorious and admitted troll like Dvorak) looked into Dvorak's claims:
http://www.examiner.com/x-10080-DC-Technology-Examiner~y2009m8d12-Dvorak-alleges-US-CIO-and-exDC-chief-is-a-fake
In short, for all the points he had an opportunity to verify it turned out Dvorak was wrong and it was clear Dvorak had not tried very hard to look into the matter since random bloggers were able to quickly find proof using public internet resources for several items Dvorak claimed Kundra was lying about.
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by Coolhand2120 · 2009-09-17 02:26 · Score: 1

Who's the troll? There are legitimate questions about the man, you have put to rest one of the many problems with his past, already pointed out by Dvorak in the article I linked to, and somehow the rest of the problems are supposed to just vanish now? Sorry, Vivek will have to answer for each of the accusations put forth, not just one of the many and the rest go away.
Here's the stuff that Vivek has yet to resolve, from Dvorak's article. And I think they are major issues. Hell, any honest person thinks that falsifying credentials is a major issue.

But his degree in biology has yet to appear as his record shows a degree from College Park Campus for Psychology and nothing more.

The most ridiculous is his assertion that he was formerly a CEO of Creostar. While records for this company are hard to come by a small Dun & Bradstreet service did turn up the following information: there was indeed a Creostar in Arlington, VA. It was founded in 2004 with the contact being Vivek Kundra. The last record for the company (online) showed sales of $67,000 with one employee - apparently Kundra, the CEO.

Most revealing is a bio of Kundra that was redacted from the Washington, DC municipal site....
...He finishes with "He received his master's in information technology and his bachelor's in psychology and biology from the University of Maryland." The biology bachelor's comes and goes from his bio, but the University has no record of his biology degree either.

So what have we got so far from this person? Well, for starters we are looking at the Recovery.gov website that will cost the taxpayers around $18 million. This news was released recently. What websites costs $18 million? And that's with no warrantee.

There is more of course, but you can read the damn article yourself! If there was nothing to hide why have your bio redacted? Why not just show all these degrees that you claim to have? Why not just explain yourself to your growing number of critics?
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-17 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Who's the troll?
Dvorak.

There are legitimate questions about the man...
Yup, questions and not answers. Questions like are you, Coolhand2120, a murderer. Asking that question without actually doing any research, when you're already a notorious troll, that's called trolling.
Legitimate journalists looked, and so far have decided there is no story. Maybe at some point in the future someone will decide Kundra's background actually is suspicious, but not finding info with a quick Google search is not evidence that he's lying. Just as quickly googling "Coolhand2020 innocent of murder" is not in any way evidence you are a murderer or sufficient for me to start making Web posts for any reason other than trolling.
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-09-17 04:00 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but the link you posted does not answer the primary questions posed by Dvorak in the previous poster's link. Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-17 04:44 · Score: 1

Dvorak is basically saying, what has Vivek ever done that makes you think he has the stones to be the CTO for a Fortune 1000 company let alone the Federal Government?
No, he's not. He's saying he looked into Dvorak's bio and could not confirm from internet searches that all of it was true, then he implies we should assume it isn't. He does this to generate traffic to his blog as people debate it because that's how he makes money. He's stated more than once he intentionally tries to drive traffic to his sight by putting inflammatory opinions and opinions he knows are unsupportable because that draws in people to comment about how wrong he is.
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by Coolhand2120 · 2009-09-17 06:39 · Score: 1

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass. I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished. And that's why Vivek can never sue for the question being raised.

Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case. When someone makes a claim, in this case Vivek claimed he has a bio degree, it is up to Vivek not the person saying "Ok, show us the degree." to produce evidence of the degree. It is not enough that Vivek has redacted the information in previous resumes! If this guy is a liar, and he got caught lying, he should be fired on those grounds alone. Vivek will continue to ignore many of the other serious claims laid against him, which will only make the people questioning him grow louder.
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-18 01:49 · Score: 1

Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass.
I never claimed you were a murder. Can a person be a murder? I made reference to asking the question of if you're a murderer. I welcome your lawsuit. Good luck getting a lawyer. It's called an example, by the way, which demonstrates why the principal you propose is wrong.

I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished.
Seems to have vanished? Or is Dvorak simply asking the question of if it vanished because he doesn't see it in any online resources?

Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case.
No, I believe when you've cried wolf many times and told people you cry wolf to drive advertising to your location as a business and are unapologetic about that, then you actually have to provide real evidence of something before I'm going to take your speculation seriously. I don't know if Vivek has a bio degree. I don't know if he ever claimed to have a bio degree. Either way, unless Dvorak can document that Vivek did make such a claim, and then someone credible actually asks Vivek for details and then Vivek fails to provide them... I'm not going to pay attention to more of Dvorak's nonsense.
Re:Vivek Kundra is a fraud by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-22 07:47 · Score: 0

Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass.
----> The point
----> Your head
----> 'bottles balls that you can suck on

"Visitor" to Apps.gov by ifeyeonlyhadabrain · 2009-09-17 00:12 · Score: 1

So, I was in DC last week at an event where all of the administration poobahs spoke and the big topics were data.gov and cloud services. When Apps.gov was announced, I assumed like other sites that it would have a citizen component to it. So, I wandered over and registered as a "visitor" (should have read the fine print on the page footer about only for federal employees / agencies part). Anyhow, I put a "free" social media app or two in my cart, just to see how the gub'ment would handle check-out (would I get a coupon to visit my Congressman? maybe an invitation to donate $3 to next federal election? etc.). Instead, I got a much more noticeable "reminder" message that Apps.gov is for federales, but that if I had any questions as a "visitor", they had assigned me a specific person in the bureaucracy with whom to follow-up. Pretty interesting. If you spend any time on the site (unregistered or otherwise), it is also interesting to see what social apps they chose or didn't (facebook yes, twitter no?). And you can definitely get a sense of their vendor bias: salesforce.com and google dominate.

Welfare for tech cronies by tjstork · 2009-09-17 00:17 · Score: 1

All this really is is welfare for all the tech cronies that supported the Obama campaign. Yahoo, Google, all were big Obama supporters, so much that even some righties wonder if right wing content is page ranked lower on Google. Now they get their share of the taxpayer trough.

--
This is my sig.

Actual presentation at Youtube by Ilgaz · 2009-09-17 00:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I watched the presentation at NASA TV, it was given at NASA Ames Research Center.

They have archive of it at Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?v=eND7hT8JdwA&user=NASAtelevision

That is the guy presenting the idea himself. It was interesting enough to watch it at 4 AM my local time. The numbers guy gives, like the 20% of capacity used, everyone having their own data center, it may take $600.000 (yes, 600K) to setup a weblog in certain circumstances while it is free on blogger.com like services are amazing.

As listeners are full of govt. guys, guy repeated 4-5 times that secret/critical things won't be on cloud, outside USA etc. What matters is, they will be forcing very strict privacy and security rules to vendors.

The Fed CIO is a crook... by jimmyfrank · 2009-09-17 00:47 · Score: 1

he should fit in with the rest of them I guess.

This has been done for DECADES by Danathar · 2009-09-17 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

People who are shaking at the knees about google and the federal government obviously are not aware that the government has been outsourcing data processing to offsite contractors for decades.

Sheesh. Google is no different than ANY other contractor when it comes to the Federal government and has to abide by the same contracting rules as everybody else.

Does this mean that it's any SAFER than at EDS, Booze Allen, Perot Systems, HP, IBM, etc? No. But it's not any less either.

Public-Private Partnerships vs. Corruption? by mantis2009 · 2009-09-17 01:09 · Score: 1

Would someone please explain the difference between good old-fashioned corruption and "public-private partnerships" (of the sort that excites Bill Clinton and, apparently, the Obama administration)?

AEM Signed Into Law by WED+Fan · 2009-09-17 02:10 · Score: 2, Funny

The Aconynm Elimination Mandate (AEM) was signed by the President's APP, and will be over seen by the OMB. The PTG is the TLA category to be followed by the FLA groups. The GOP oppoosition to the AEM headed by the OMB states that if the AEM is successful, millions of OGD (Official Government Documents) will be rendered unreadable.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.

White House looking to hire a web archivist by mantis2009 · 2009-09-17 02:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

They want someone to ensure that the WH's use of Youtube and Facebook complies with the Presidential Records act.
Good luck with all of that.

Kundra video: Cloud=Good, Datacenters=Bad! by miller60 · 2009-09-17 04:36 · Score: 1

It's interesting how the government is portraying data centers as the problem. The video Kundra showed is like a bad political ad: when the data centers appear, the music turns ominous and the background grows dark. But when cloud computing is mentioned, the music turns happy and the landscape becomes green. I'm all for eliminating redundant technology spending, but where does Kundra believe these "clouds" actually live?

--
RichM
Data Center Knowledge

Where's the ACORN whore-finder app? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-17 09:34 · Score: 0

I need to find a good underage immigrant whore in my neighborhood. I hear Obama's community organizer pals at ACORN can help me with this...

Where did all those laws go??? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-18 02:08 · Score: 0

Let's see. With the speed at which government moves, when one of the ISPs shuts down and gives a 1 day notice to download your files before they're deleted (if they give a notice), nobody will know what to do or who is supposed to do it and everything in that cloud will be gone forever.

Government is like academics. It experiments in everything new, but unlike academics, government doesn't understand some things are just experiments and doesn't understand the risks or have the where-with-all to deal with them.

The Daily Reviewer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-22 14:38 · Score: 0

Hi!

Congratulations! Your readers have submitted and voted for your blog at The Daily Reviewer. We compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 Politics Blogs, and we are glad to let you know that your blog was included! You can see it at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/politics/11

You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award here : http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges/politics

P.S. This is a one-time notice to let you know your blog was included in one of our Top 100 Blog categories. You might get notices if you are listed in two or more categories.

P.P.S. If for some reason you want your blog removed from our list, just send an email to angelina@thedailyreviewer.com with the subject line "REMOVE" and the link to your blog in the body of the message.

Cheers!

Angelina Mizaki
Selection Committee President
The Daily Reviewer
http://thedailyreviewer.com

Slashdot Mirror

US Government Sets Up Online "App Store"

138 comments