Slashdot Mirror


New Virginia IT Systems Lack Network Backup

1sockchuck writes "Virginia's new state IT system is experiencing downtime in key services because of a mind-boggling oversight: the state apparently neglected to require network backup in a 10-year, $2.3 billion outsourcing deal with Northrop Grumman. The issue is causing serious downtime for state services. This fall the Virginia DMV has suffered 12 system outages spanning a total of more than 100 hours, and downtime hampered the state transportation department when a state of emergency was declared during the Nov. 11 Northeaster."

211 comments

  1. Blame Northrop? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology. Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Blame Northrop? by eht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Likely they were told they should have a backup, quoted a price, and said nah, we will be fine.

    2. Re:Blame Northrop? by skgrey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all. This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one. I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.

      The companies where I've seen this basically do a risk assessment and say "well, we are willing to accept the risk of downtime because BCP is too costly". Unfortunately they don't weigh the chance of an outage or disaster appropriately, and then find themselves severely screwed when a tornado, storm system, or fire occurs, and then they are either out of business (in a small company) or take enough of a hit to make a headline on Slashdot and cripple the business.

      Seriously, when are companies going to realize that this is a critical component of IT? I've felt like I've talked till I was blue in the face about this over the years.

    3. Re:Blame Northrop? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?

      Because they didn't have to. It wasn't in the contract, so they're not going to spend the money doing it. They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.

      If you don't properly specify your needs, that's your fault. Don't rely on corporate good will, because there is no such thing.

    4. Re:Blame Northrop? by Publikwerks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the state's fault for not putting that in the contract. I have worked for state contractors who handle IT services, and the state always had a downtime penalty written in to the contract, so it was too expensive to be down not to have a redundant system. This is probably a case of penny pushers not doing their homework, seeing that one system is cheaper than two.

    5. Re:Blame Northrop? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Northrup didn't suggest them? Or that Northrop wasn't the lowest qualified bidder by being the only one not to include backups in their bid? When you buy a computer do you expect the vendor to throw in a free backup system even though you didn't ask for it "because you should have it"?

      Sounds to me like the state got what it ordered.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct. There should be SLAs, as well. The problem that most people don’t seem to comprehend. NG’s contract is NOT with the Stateits with VITA (yea a state agency..). NG does have SLA’s with VITA however most state agencies didn’t even SEE those SLA’s until oh I don’t know the last 3 months? VITA on the other hand, whom state agencies are REQUIRED to use by state law, has NO SLA’s..no MOU (memorandum of Understanding) nothing with the other state agencies. We are FORCED to use VITAand they have no staff, and they know that if and when it fails, NG will be blamed.

      NG has failed and will continue to fail not because “agencies want us to fail” but because they came in with no clear understanding and NO desire to understand state governments business or needs. We are NOT a private company, we are NOT driven by profit. We are stymied by laws and procedures to protect the tax payer that in the end cost more money.

      State workers just want to get this thing working. WE KNOW how its suppose to workwe’ve done it. We’ve done it many years without budget money, without staff, without support.

      This VITA/NG “parnership” is a complete fiasco for those of us that live it every day. This is just the tip of the iceburg.

    7. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I work, we have a BCP... but it's a total fiasco. The county has spent nearly a million dollars, and for that we have a site hosted by another county a fraction of our size. We have a single DS3 running up there over which backup and test traffic runs. The network was designed to be a mirror of our current network, down to the IP addresses, while still accessible mid-day to the agencies down here. It's a NAT nightmare.

      Oh, and the inbound link from the Internet to be used in case of disaster in the actual County is a DS3, and plans call for up to 4000 users to be able to access e-mail, remote desktop, and on occasion thick client via SSL VPN over that. In recent weeks, they've decided that they also need to run VoIP for several hundred users over it, too.

      I'd rather have no BCP than this embarrassment.

    8. Re:Blame Northrop? by skgrey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I absolutely love the fact that my post got moderated "overrated". Apparently we have some management types on Slashdot these day that got some mod points. It's a perfect example of how some people feel about BCP.

      And uh, aren't "overrated" mod points for things that have been modded up a whole bunch that you don't agree with?

    9. Re:Blame Northrop? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That'd be my guess. Second guess would be that they agreed to having a backup - as soon as some politician determined where the backup site would be. (Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    10. Re:Blame Northrop? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      In my experience, it is rare for a customer, even with professional IT staff, to properly specify their needs when it comes to technology. Why did Northrop, which presumably has experience in government systems, not design backups?

      Consultants never seem to get it right. Granted, the situations I'm familiar with are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of this contract but at that scale the issue is that the contractors and consultants are juggling multiple clients so the needs of any one must be balanced against the needs of all of them. But what really burns me is when they can't even provide decent advice on what should be bread and butter. "We need a backup solution." See, there you go. Many solutions on the market but they should be able to settle on a package they can confidently advise clients will work. But they don't. This astounds me. The consultants are just shooting in the dark, no better informed than the rest of us. You can't blame them for good advice ignored by the customer but for bad advice or no advice at all? Absolutely!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

      Odds are that Northrop engineers brought this up on multiple occasions, but if the site was designed as an HA environment and utilizes one or more SANs, there's a reasonable chance that management believed that a backup system would be unnecessary, especially given the cost of a proper implementation. I've seen similar things happen where I work as management pays more attention to the budget than to reality.

    12. Re:Blame Northrop? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to the world of government low-bid contracts. The specification didn't call for backups, so you don't get backups, because that would've made the bid higher.

    13. Re:Blame Northrop? by angus_rg · · Score: 1

      Ask and it shall be given, for an extra 10 mil.

    14. Re:Blame Northrop? by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True enough. But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:

      * Deliver a offer for the system requested.
      * Get the deal signed
      * Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?

      Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.

    15. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the only benefit to designing a truly appropriate system is that you get to snicker derisively when the system installed by the guys that underbid you goes belly up. Alas, that doesn't pay the bills.

    16. Re:Blame Northrop? by DRBivens · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... as soon as some politician determined where the backup site would be. (Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.)

      Actually, it has happened. The CoVA backup site is located in Lebanon, VA (SW part of the state).

      What THIS article is discussing is the lack of network backup, not data backup.

      This is an important distinction, to say the least.

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
    17. Re:Blame Northrop? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It's a tight budget year. Perhaps VA said no, when the additional work was suggested.

    18. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're not in business to keep the state government afloat"

      So much for corporate social responsibility, which corporations do claim to have.

    19. Re:Blame Northrop? by eth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't buy that it's necessarily the government's fault for not specifying backups.

      The customer should only have to say "we need a system that does X, it needs to be up Y% of the time, with an MTTR of no more than Z." They don't know, and shouldn't have to specify technical details. It's up to the provider to design a system that does that.

      As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.

    20. Re:Blame Northrop? by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Agreed - I've worked a number of places where a system is flagged as "Mission Critical!!!omgzwtfbbq" and they have no trouble waking you up to make you fix it, but if you suggest an HA/failover?

      Sorry, too expensive. We have weighed the risk, and decided it's an acceptable risk.

      Queue the freak-outs when something actually *does* break :)

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    21. Re:Blame Northrop? by WinterSolstice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must not deal with the government much :)

      If you are bidding for a government contract, it's a public bid. They state their requirements very precisely, and every single dollar you spend over is counted against you.

      Basically to do network backup, you'd have to eat it out of the goodness of your heart. There is a potential to upsell later, of course, but it has to go back through the public approvals process.

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    22. Re:Blame Northrop? by dissy · · Score: 1

      so it would've made sense for them to do the following:

      * Deliver a offer for the system requested.
      * Get the deal signed
      * Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?

      Who's to say they didn't? ;)

      My guess is the disconnect happened in between steps 1 and 2, more precisely when the bean counter saw the price in the offer and mentally could not attach that to any value.

    23. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're not in business to keep the state government afloat"

      So much for corporate social responsibility, which corporations do claim to have.

      Ah. But if the Govt. does not wish to have a service or pay for a service. It is NOT the corporations' responsibility to provide the said service for free. Customer (Govt) refused and customer pays consequences.

    24. Re:Blame Northrop? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > they have no trouble waking you up to make you fix it, but if you suggest an HA/failover?
      > Sorry, too expensive. We have weighed the risk, and decided it's an acceptable risk.

      Yes because they can count on waking you up to fix it.

      So seems perhaps the bosses are doing the right thing for the organization. They hired you, you will wake up to fix it, and they don't need to spend on HA/failover.

      Now if they hired someone who can't fix it fast, or sleeps really soundly, then they should spend on HA/failover, or hire you instead ;).

      --
    25. Re:Blame Northrop? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not in business to keep the state government afloat, their only purpose is to make money.

      I hate when this is offered as an excuse for shoddy work. "It's not their job to do good work. It's their job to make money." Yeah? So what. It strikes me a little like saying, "Hey, can't blame a con man for stealing your money. That's what con men do!"

      I don't know this particular situation well enough to say who is at fault and to what degree, but it's part of their business to service their customers well. It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner.

    26. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh... Management not long ago was demanding five nines uptime for all critical systems, including external-facing websites (government agency communicating with the public). We asked them if they meant in terms of planned or unplanned outages. They said unplanned. We told them it would be expensive. They said to prove it. We gave them a number. They all but told us we were lying. We showed them a case study. They said we were cherry-picking data and hired a consultant, who came back with a bigger number than we did. It's never been mentioned since, and suddenly, three nines is considered nice-to-have.

    27. Re:Blame Northrop? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      "Thank you for your suggestion that we spend more money. We'll certainly take it under consideration."

      --Later:

      "File this somewhere where I'll be sure to never see it again, won't you, Miss Haversham?"

    28. Re:Blame Northrop? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So they're lacking a *backup network*, not a network backup ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    29. Re:Blame Northrop? by magarity · · Score: 1

      From the article is seems that NG installed and ran the system for a while but only after the state people took over did it experience a lot of problems. I'm curious what is causing these outages before I'll blame either NG for not installing backups or the state for not budgeting them.

    30. Re:Blame Northrop? by LoSt180 · · Score: 1

      You're correct, this article is referring to network REDUNDANCY for connections to offices. The word "backup" in the title is a bit misleading as most will immediately think of data backups. My guess is the T1's into an office are from the same provider instead of two as a fall-back.

    31. Re:Blame Northrop? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the problem might be overblown (and the reason why it is overblown could be politics or part of "haggling").

      100 hours in five weeks might be not much depending on how many branches there are. Same goes for the 4,677 hours in 6 months figure.

      The branches may just have ADSL links to the HQ.

      As for redundant network links. In many cases it's worthless paying the extra. It costs a lot to do it right.

      1) The branch may only have one telco/carrier choice for connectivity (at a reasonable price)
      2) Even if they have two choices, both could go through the same line/chunk of ground that the backhoe digs up. Nowadays with all the outsourcing and inter company deals, you might buy redundant links from two different companies, and later find out the hard way that they are all in the same cable!

      Many years ago my ISP had two redundant international links (they were small then). But they lost connectivity even, so people asked "what happened". And they said - a trawler broke one line, and apparently not long later, another trawler (or the same trawler :) ) broke the second line[1]... Doh.

      And I wonder how many paid for redundant transpacific fibre optic links that all went over the Taiwan earthquake zone ;).

      [1] That's what they said anyway... For all we know, maybe it was the NSA doing a bad job of tapping the lines with their subs :).

      --
    32. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to go through the same bidding as the original contract. The experts and Northrup should have realized that redundant carrier circuits were not in place and gotten a mod to their contract to put them in place. If the Commonwealth decided not to do so then shame on them.

    33. Re:Blame Northrop? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of government low-bid contracts. The specification didn't call for backups, so you don't get backups, because that would've made the bid higher.

      It would be interesting to know who developed the specification - an intern in State IT or a professional software 'architect'.

      This is a particularly vexing problem for local government, without the resources to properly specify, but I'd hope that the Commonwealth of Virginia could do better.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    34. Re:Blame Northrop? by atamido · · Score: 1

      2) Even if they have two choices, both could go through the same line/chunk of ground that the backhoe digs up. Nowadays with all the outsourcing and inter company deals, you might buy redundant links from two different companies, and later find out the hard way that they are all in the same cable!

      For the small city that I work for, we could get AT&T ADSL, Time Warner Cable, or Time Warner Fiber. They all terminate into the same decades old AT&T building. It is certainly possible that Time Warner has their own fiber running between that AT&T building and the rest of the world, but I'd bet money that they just lease space on whatever data trunk AT&T pulled out there.

      One misplaced backhoe is going to take out data and phone for the entire city, no matter who their provider is.

    35. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you this is how it goes. Customer (in this case, VITA) realizes that there is absolutely no governance in place and the IT program is bleeding money at the state level, while at the same time things are failing, systems are outdated, processes are broken and even basic inter-agency communication isn't possible, let alone financial management. So, in order to bring governance to the situation, they simply don't buy such and such service from their outsourcer at the time of contract. This would be things like DR for systems that truly are not as critical as VIP's would make them out to be, for space to send 10 gig email attachments, for 14 engineers to be sitting around such and such VIP's Blackberry server in case it hiccups.

      But then, such and such VIP's Blackberry server hiccups and the 14 engineers are gone. Outsourcer responds in exactly the agreed upon time frame, provides a perfect service level, and very professional service to boot. And it doesn't matter one bit. Outsourcer is vilified, users go ballistic and all of the sudden outsourcer is not doing their job.

      This is exactly what has happened at VITA, and all one has to do is read the reports. The latest non-partisan report even pointed out that email attachment size are a huge problem and then goes on to blame NORTHROP! It is such a joke.

      I can tell you one thing, if this wasn't Northrop Grumman as the outsourcer, but rather someone lesser like IBM, the state would truly be screwed. Especially since the state can't afford to let Northrop go under any circumstances. Northrop is a good company and sticks to their word, bending over backwards to make things right, even in the face of a tough transition like VITA's. (Lets keep in mind that Virginia's systems were absolutely in shambles at the start, by ANYONE's assessment. Since then Virginia has enjoyed massive improvements to practically everything). IBM on the other hand would have cut bait and there would have been both a financial and political bloodbath, just like in Indiana, just like in Texas.

    36. Re:Blame Northrop? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Living in the area, I can tell you VA has definitely been having budget issues. It's also an election year, and the only thing voters wanted their money spent on is roads (one NPR call-in show took about 10 calls for an official, all about the road budget). Put 2 and 2 together, and there's no room in the budget for 'fluff' like a redundant network.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    37. Re:Blame Northrop? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I don't know this particular situation well enough to say who is at fault and to what degree, but it's part of their business to service their customers well. It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner.

      It's also a part of every publicly-traded company's business to provide maximum value to shareholders in an ethical manner. And that is also a legal requirement. Failure to do so will get your board or your executives in front of a judge so fast they'll leave desirable body parts behind.

      Hmmm... do I take money out of the profit for this program to save these customers from themselves.... no. If they didn't specify and we didn't bid the backup capability they'll probably want for non-nominal situations, they won't get it out of our hide. If nothing else, it's the opportunity for follow-on business.

      C'mon, do you actually expect a for-profit to do something for nothing? If you go into the doctor's office for your flu, do you expect him to just give you the medicine? He'll write the scrip, but you'll have to procure it yourself. Or he'll sell it to you, if he has in-house pharmacy services. (Like some hospitals do). But not for free. Ethically, he has to give you the opportunity to get better with the best treatment he can give you... that you can afford.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    38. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And not just backups, it sounds like they had no BCP plan at all. This is a massive oversight, but a fairly common one. I've consulted for a number of years, and it's amazing at how many companies don't have a BCP plan at all, and sometimes it includes simple backups of data.

      And by the way, in case some Slashdot readers don't know... "BCP" means "Business Continuity Plan"

    39. Re:Blame Northrop? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I didn't go into the details in my original post but here's some evidence to back up what I said about network redundancy:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23689-2003Jul7?language=printer

      http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70040?currentPage=all

      If they run a cable to cross a river/chasm via a bridge, it's going to cost a bit to build another bridge just for your cable. They could take the "down" route, but that's not cheap either...

      Satellite = high latency. Wireless could be an option (but usually still involves cables at some point).

      Even the spooks have troubles with diggers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002114_pf.html

      But they sure have a bunch of alert people monitoring their lines (which are probably used to monitor your lines ;) ).

      --
    40. Re:Blame Northrop? by NukeDoggie · · Score: 1

      Really blame doesn't fix anything. THere was a move to consolidate IT back in the 80's called DIT, and it also failed. Consolidation of IT doesn't work. The initial savings of consolidating software licenses from all Agencies worked. Having VA negotiate with Microsoft etc once for all seats and getting them at a good rate saves money. Trying to consolidate Helpdesk as a commodity fails. The current Helpdesk merely takes a message (garbled of course) and sends it to Tier 3 workers to fix. THey used to be able to fix things directly with their own knowledgebase. Also, CESC and SWESC are 2 consolidated Datacenters does work. Instant on backup etc. They did do some stuff correctly. But mandating that all Agencies be on the same Microsoft DOMAIN, with the same Security Policy and the same everything else opens HUGE security Holes really. Also, not having sufficient Networks and Network backups have caused major outages like it says. Then they tell you that there was "no loss in service" when you've been down for 32 hours because someone unknown removed your DNS entries for your webapp. The Iceburg is HUGE!!!

    41. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break this to you, but in the eyes of most slashdotters, BCP is for management types.

      That's right, Mr Consultant, YOU are the management type here.

    42. Re:Blame Northrop? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.

      That sounds about right, expecially after reading this quote:

      George F. Coulter took over as the state's chief information officer in August.
      "The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.
      "Why that wasn't put into the network, I don't know," Coulter said. "This is a service we have to have."

      My guess is that the VA employees overseeing the bidding and proposal writeup did not understand the importance. They probably wanted somewhere to cut costs, saw the word 'redundant', and thought that would be a good place to save money. Without someone technical with enough weight to tell the higher-ups that this is a necessity, some manager will decide to kill that part of the proposal, thinking they saved the state millions. Presuming the last CIO and his team didn't know what they were doing (likely because the person who appointed them didn't know how to tell), this seems believeable to me.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    43. Re:Blame Northrop? by Fallon · · Score: 1

      Probably because the contract that the state gave NG didn't specify any kind of redundant networks. If a contract specifies XYZ, you have to provide XYZ, not XYZ + a redundant network. And before you start screaming about why NG should provide redundant networks anyway, contracts like that specify to some degree what money should be spent on, and you can't steal money from other parts of the contract to provide something that isn't contractually obligated.

      Oh, and the guy that was the CIO overseeing this project for 4 years is now Obama's technology guy...

      Disclaimer: I'm currently a Northrop Grumman employee for about another month, until they finish selling off my division (TASC).

    44. Re:Blame Northrop? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Depends on what it is... if the DMV website is down for a day a year, that's probably acceptable to them. If the in-house DMV services are down for a day, that's a different story. When systems that real people, that you are paying salary to use, are down it costs a *LOT* of money on lost productivity. There are different risk/rewards for this scenario.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    45. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you outsource, you shouldn't specify how it is done (redudancy etc.), but what you expect.

      The problem is that most people don't understand what 99% availibility implies (that you won't have your IT for 3.5 days each year !) and how these numbers accumulate, if multiple points of failure exist.

      And of course the compensation for not meeting the target numbers should equal the actual damage (paid overtime, etc.).

      There are places where it is cheaper to risk a crash and there are parts of your network where redudancy is cheaper. But if you did your job on the outsourcing contract, this wouldn't bother you anymore.

    46. Re:Blame Northrop? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

      Odds are that Northrop engineers brought this up on multiple occasions, but if the site was designed as an HA environment and utilizes one or more SANs, there's a reasonable chance that management believed that a backup system would be unnecessary, especially given the cost of a proper implementation. I've seen similar things happen where I work as management pays more attention to the budget than to reality.

      NG agreement - Schedule 3.3, Appendix 8, Addendum 7, Page 4:

      “At selected sites, high availability options including diverse access paths, multiple independent routers, uninterrupted power supply (UPS), Hot Standby Routing Protocol (HSRP), and other techniques that have proved to increase uptime will be incorporated in the technical approach.“

      There’s even a diagram showing an example of multiple paths from the MAN/WAN.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    47. Re:Blame Northrop? by careysub · · Score: 1

      True enough. But as you say, Northrop is in the business of making money, so it would've made sense for them to do the following:

      * Deliver a offer for the system requested. * Get the deal signed * Say: We notice you've not specified any backup, do you want that additionally ?

      Gives them a chance to upsell, AND potentially makes the customer happier -- a win-win.

      According to article:

      In a unique public-private venture, Virginia agreed in 2005 to let the giant defense and information contractor Northrop Grumman run nearly all the state's IT systems.
      The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs. The deal also provides IT services to about 1,000 local government customers.

      This suggests that this was not just a typical IT project on public bid -- Northrop Grumman took on the responsibility of being the manager and provider of IT services, including appropriately balancing costs and risks. It does not sound like "you didn't put it in the contract" is a valid defense in this case

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    48. Re:Blame Northrop? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

      Don't attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by greedy self-interest.

    49. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At least with the Census Bureau, a contractor doesn't even need to deliver a product to be paid. They will be paid overtime to finish a product that was supposed to be delivered a week ago. In my experience, incompetence pays if you're a contractor. Bid low, get contract, take longer, get paid more. Eventually, the company gets blacklisted so they won't be able to bid in the future, but they can always just form a new company name and start over.

    50. Re:Blame Northrop? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with your sentiment about businesses wanting to do the most for their customers, but it's a little different in government. The government needs to solicit bids every time it asks for something and as mountains of red tape. This tends to prevent a business from generating a good relationship with government agencies based on providing things that go above and beyond what is requested. The government can never just sort of call up the sales rep of a company that they have a good relationship with and order something new or extra that is not previously been part of some agreement or process.

      While it is a little over the top to say that businesses are "just in it to make money", the fact is that the good business practice of going the extra mile for the customer is to create a relationship which will encourage both quality work and more business for the vendor. The government cannot go straight to a vendor for extra add-ons nor can they have any sort of loyalty to a company that has done it's best to treat them well in the past.

      Since the ability to have a direct sort of relationship with the public sector is severely hampered by the red-tape and bidding process, the corps tend to find it easier to create their relationships with the politicians who can either control the process or go around it by creating new laws or budget proposals. This is an unintentional side effect of the lowest bid process, but a completely predictable result of the amount of over-regulation that goes on in the government.

    51. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northrop Grumman is in the integration business, with lots and lots of really good System Engineers. Those system engineers are good at making charts and writing requirements.

      Those System Engineers are not good at implementing systems (writing code, laying wire, configuring hardware, etc.). They usually farm out small IT companies or individuals to do those things.

      So, you're right that NG had detailed the system out correctly... and failed at delivering what they drew up. /posting anon

    52. Re:Blame Northrop? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Happens with government contracts all the time.

      McDonnell Douglas vs. Locheed Martin. Often times McDonnell Douglas would create a design that went beyond the spec, including many of those "Well it should have this, or that". Locheed bided the contract spec, nothing more, and in the last few rounds of fighter programs won because they bid the spec. Then when the AF or Navy would come back and say, "Gee it should do XYZ" Locheed would say "Sure, it will be another $XX Million".

      McDonnell Douglas did a review of why it lost the ATF, JSF, and a couple other projects and the conclusion was "Technical Arrogance". They were telling the DoD what they needed instead of trying to delivery a proposal for what the DoD specified in their request. And nothing pisses off the bureaucrats than to be told they were wrong on their specs.

      Sadly I see this a lot. I do consulting on some joint projects with the University here in town and when we go to apply for grants, 95% of the battle of is making sure we write the proposal to exactly what is in the spec with all the i's and t's dotted/crossed.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    53. Re:Blame Northrop? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      As opposed to "Altruistic self-interest?" ;)

    54. Re:Blame Northrop? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of uninformed slashdotters. This contract was likely best value, not low-bid. Low-bid procurements are pretty rare, especially for something like this. It's not the contractors job to overbid the contract to provide services the government decided it didn't need.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    55. Re:Blame Northrop? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Incompetent government employees? Impossible.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    56. Re:Blame Northrop? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      C'mon, do you actually expect a for-profit to do something for nothing?

      Not for nothing. They're getting paid. The fact that you're calling it "something for nothing" is in my mind a further indication of the attitude I'm objecting to. There's an expectation that businesses are entitled to screw everyone over while not really providing good service, as though customers' payments are something that they have a right to, not something contingent on them providing satisfactory service.

      Like, "Oh, you actually expected them to provide the service we're selling? And you expected us to do a good job?! Ha ha, that's naive." Well, no, I've grown accustomed to the idea of you selling me a service and then not really providing it. My being accustomed to it doesn't make it right.

    57. Re:Blame Northrop? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, if you donate to a food bank that actually would be altruistic self-interest. If I give you food you might not breal into my house and steal money to buy food, and there may be a time that I'm hungry and need YOUR help! Also, giving food to a food bank will make you feel good. I'd say that actually would be altruistic self-interest.

    58. Re:Blame Northrop? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like I said, I don't know about this situation. Like if the bidding process is explicitly set up to request bids for documented requirements and doesn't allow for businesses to provide their own proposal, then I'd say it's VA's fault for providing crappy requirements and using a process without enough flexibility.

      I'm not faulting Northrop's business, but just the sentiment expressed in the previous post that we shouldn't have a problem with a company who acts to the detriment to their own customers, simply because, "hey, businesses are supposed to hurt their customers if it's profitable in the short term."

      I just think that stuff is part of a whole perverse world view that leads to (among other nasty things) economic ruin.

    59. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that was my experience too. Must be pandemic.

    60. Re:Blame Northrop? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Except that down in the comments one noted that some of the sites without redundancy now used to have redundancy before the upgrade.

    61. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's part of every company's business to provide service to the customers in an ethical manner? What planet do you live in?

      Cellphone price gouging, internet throttling / internet termination without warning and withholding limits so people can't even try to stay under, a large number of every software-development contract negotiation (according to some articles here)?

    62. Re:Blame Northrop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the part where the next contract covers what wasn't in the first one. And usually at double the price.

    63. Re:Blame Northrop? by dekemoose · · Score: 1

      Recently I've had the opportunity to do some work with a local government as part of some coursework I'm taking, specifically their procurement group. These are all civil servants and union rules regarding seniority seem to account for more than any sort of job competence as to who gets what job. Another department is being downsized and they are purposefully not filling a couple open job slots they have because they know that people from that department will be moved into the procurement department. If they filled those job slots it's possible that they'd be filled by someone with more seniority than some of the current buyers and when the folks from the other department get downsized they could then bump the less senior buyers from their jobs. So, in the interest of protecting the jobs of the current folks in that department they are remaining understaffed until these cuts come down. Some sort of bureaucratic chess match going on there.

      Moral of the story is that competence has no place in government, that includes the civil service folks as well as the political types. The people responsible for purchasing this likely had no clue and were bent over as a result of it. It's somewhat unethical for Northrop-Grumman to take advantage of this scenario, but as others have pointed out if they don't do it they'll lively lose the bid to someone who will.

    64. Re:Blame Northrop? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I thought those sort of examples fell under "enlightened" self-interest. If you're doing them for yourself, like the reasons you mention, it wouldn't actually be altruistic, despite having positive ends. :)

      Bah... engaging in such pedantry while I have an AVL implementation that's not working. Where has my discipline gone?

    65. Re:Blame Northrop? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It's part of every company's business to provide service to their customers in an ethical manner."

      What's unethical about depolying to specs? The most you can do is rise concern and offer a remedy but then, if the customer doesn't buy in, what else do you expect to be done?

    66. Re:Blame Northrop? by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      Ya this is a poorly written article and a poorly written summation. To cut through it all it appears that the state had redundant lines before the switch to NG and somehow those lines were not maintained or NG let the contracts lapse. What I want to know is why they can't renew the contracts temporarily while a more robust solution is put in place.

      On another subject, having worked for state IT in the past I can say that never in my life have I seen more incompetence than in state IT. Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic IT people in Gov't work. However, the state tends to float people to the top based on tenure, so you have people who are skilled leaving for good private jobs, and the unskilled stay in the state floating to the top and in to positions they shouldn't be in. So you get a lot of people making decisions that shouldnt be and the only real workers you have are your lower level analysts and techs. Kinda hoping NG cleans things up a bit and this starts a trend of state IT being outsourced. We should see a massive cost savings in most states.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    67. Re:Blame Northrop? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You're arguing a strawman. No one is claiming that NG won't live up to every term of the contract. But for any given value of "it", if the contract doesn't explicitly call for it (or implicitly, by incorporating external terms such as an agreed standard or quality attribute), it won't be delivered.

      You seem to be arguing "No one, in good conscience, should deliver a distributed wide-area architecture without some degree of resilient connectivity." In principle, I agree. But if the statement of work didn't specify it, and the basic explicit terms of the contract can be fulfilled without it, it would be financially reckless to give it away gratis. Furthermore, it might complicate the ability to deliver on the actual terms of the contract. If I overrun the schedule and deliver late because I spent too long polishing the brass, do you really think the customer would chuckle understandingly and wink?

      I could expect the pizza guy to give me beer along with my pizza order, because pizza's no good without beer, but that isn't gonna happen unless I'm paying for the beer. And if I didn't ask for beer, I'd be rightly annoyed if pizza delivery guy gave me a late, stale, cold pizza because there was a long line at the liquor store.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    68. Re:Blame Northrop? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      You seem to be arguing "No one, in good conscience, should deliver a distributed wide-area architecture without some degree of resilient connectivity."

      No, that's not really what I'm arguing.

      Either what they did was ethical because they were living up to their agreement and had warned VA about the problems as much as they were ethically bound to, or it wasn't ethical and they didn't do a good job as a technical vendor. I'm arguing that, if the latter, then "what they did is technically legal and they're only ethically bound to do whatever is profitable for their own company," isn't a good excuse.

      Now if you want to talk about whether it's ethical to deliver an underperforming solution, then I'm inclined to say that it depends on the exact context. Generally, if a vendor knows pretty well that the service they're selling will not perform the way their client/customer is expecting, then I do believe they have some responsibility for warning their customer. The bidding process in this case may essentially absolve Northrop of the responsibility, but in that case the excuse is in the bidding process, not in "hey, businesses are only bound by profit, and not ethics."

    69. Re:Blame Northrop? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Northrop: Well everyone always does. Server 'em up, boys!
      [Ronald's lackeys outfit the state.]
      Virginia: Hey, what the hell's going on!
      Northrop: Oh, we didn't get rich by wiring a lot of servers! [ laughter]

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    70. Re:Blame Northrop? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      It is unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system, especially when they clearly do not understand what makes the system poorly designed. Engineers should be meeting with their clients, reviewing the specs, questioning things that do not make sense, for weeks or months before actually building or deploying a system. If the customer knew every detail of what they need, they would not be spending so much money hiring an engineering firm, and yes, an engineering firm that takes advantage of customers who lack an in-depth technical understanding are behaving unethically.

      If the customers refuse to listen to the engineers, then yes, it is their fault. As someone else pointed out, we should not comment on the situation unless we have details about how this happened -- did Northrop tell VA that redundant links were a necessity? Did VA ignore the advice? Or, on the flip side, did VA give a partial specification, and Northrop failed to adequately address issues that were overlooked by VA officials?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    71. Re:Blame Northrop? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but atleast then they KNEW about it, as in, it was no longer a oversight, but a conscious choice: "Do you want backup with that ? No, thank you."

    72. Re:Blame Northrop? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed.

      And that is precisely what I suggested in these cases you make a bid -- for the minimum functionality specified in the request.

      Then *AFTER* you get the deal, you try to get even more business by pointing out additional functionality the buyer may want. That's just common sense.

      I'm renovating my bathroom now, and the company I'm dealing with did -precisely- this; and it makes perfect sense. They delivered a offer including only those things I spesifically requested, which was competitive. Then they told me: What you requested will cost $X, but if you like, you can get extra spots for $y/piece, a fancier door for $z, or maybe you want a energy-saving glass in the windows ? If so, that's an additional $w"

      Pretty basic. Shocking if major government-contractors haven't understood what my local handimen -have-.

    73. Re:Blame Northrop? by cgaylord · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. In Virginia, the distinction between "Invitation for Bid" and "Request for Proposal" is important. For IFB, you the spec is hard and fast, and the contract is strictly awarded to the lowest bid. For RFP, this is not the case: you can make multiple awards, there is a negotiation phase, you do not have to award to the lowest bid, etc. It is actually rather intelligent, as far as public purchasing vehicles go. The issue is usually that people still tend to become overly bureaucratic even with RFPs, and, well, public employment does not necessarily select for the brightest sparks. Still, in general, if the RFP doesn't spec it, you tend to not offer it.

      The usual Big Government Contract gig (actually any "Big Contract gig" -- government is hardly monopolistic of Big Business) is to offer a service that you know is less than the customer needs but satisfies the stated spec, with the full knowledge that it will be easier to increase the contract than rebid it down the road. You might make some hand-wave of "we can do these things too if you want" just to make the potential customer feel good, but that's how it works. Make just enough money on the stated contract to cover the costs, but expect to *really* make the money on the overruns, add-ons, etc, that come later. Standard practice, and NG is one of the best at the game.

      To a great degree, the public sector folks are either ignorant or complicitous. After all, the primary reason government entities outsource is to give business to (taxpaying) companies. It's strictly political. Competence of service and value are very much secondary (in fact, seldom is it cheaper). The larger agencies (and higher ed, for example) usually can have at least as much competence as the Big Contractor. However, in many cases the smaller agencies really are better served by Big Contractor, because they can seldom attract enough really good people.

      Sorry, that's just the reality. It is both better and worse than most people realize.

    74. Re:Blame Northrop? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It is unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system"

      It isn't. It's unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system hiding that fact.

      It is not unethical to explain the alternatives, the costs and the trade-offs and then deploy for your customer whatever it wants, even if that means a poorly designed system.

  2. That's the way of the future... by master_p · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.

    1. Re:That's the way of the future... by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, there are plenty of backup systems in Star Trek. Of course, a few of them fail in every episode to avoid having every episode end with a "Yay for Starfleet engineers!" after five minutes.

      In fact, for some systems they apparently have up to four backups which all manage to fail magically at the same time *cough*transporters*cough*.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:That's the way of the future... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. In one episode of NG they had to purge the system of malware and indeed used their backup. The only time I ever saw a backup where I work was when it was part of my job to change the tapes.

    3. Re:That's the way of the future... by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      Talking about that, is there a single instance in Star Trek where the "Manual Override" actually worked?

      And then, how is it a manual override if you just flip some other switches. The way they use "manual overrides" in Star Trek the bridge should be similar to that of the Tardis.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:That's the way of the future... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The ideal backup system is invisible. You don't even know when you're using it because it took over seamlessly. An alert comes up in the noc and the primary is repaired behind the scenes.

      That doesn't work in the world we live in. Such systems cost a good bit more money and even if funded initially, will go away soon enough due to budget cuts because management says "we don't need backups because we've never had an outage" while the techs know the backups seamlessly took over 3 times in the last year.

    5. Re:That's the way of the future... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > The ideal backup system is invisible.

      That already exists according to the Many-Worlds-Interpretation Quantum Physicists.

      > That doesn't work in the world we live in.

      That's the big problem though - when "stuff happens" the backup is in other worlds.

      --
    6. Re:That's the way of the future... by rwv · · Score: 1

      when it was part of my job to change the tapes.

      I had that job once. I hated that part of my job because it was repetitive and boring and the backups failed more than they should have.

    7. Re:That's the way of the future... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. What the heck is all the talk about auxiliary and emergency power?

      Of course, the real limitation is that any redundant control systems make the operator's console twice as likely to explode.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:That's the way of the future... by czmax · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode.

    9. Re:That's the way of the future... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I spent some time doing that job as well as some time doing tech support for a major backup drive mfg... that was a horrifying experience.. I generally keep my most important files in no less than 3 locations. Not too paranoid about multiple versions. I just started using dropbox to sync my thunderbird and firefox profiles, in addition to a nas backup from my main desktop, so generally covered. Thinking about adding an additional NAS for backing up my NAS, not to mention that I have a spare drive sitting next to my nas box, and purchased the nas' drives from different distributors at different times to reduce the risk of a bad batch taking out two drives at once. (Yeah, I'm a little paranoid about backups.)

      I know it's weird, but I find it strange how many times people will create RAID arrays with drives that were purchased from the same distributor at the same time, which means that they likely came from the same production run. As someone who's seen multiple drives go out at nearly the same time, that's pretty insane for high-uptime deployments. Also the fact that RAID is not a backup.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    10. Re:That's the way of the future... by Knara · · Score: 1

      There was one time when Picard had to manually control thrusters to get out of an asteroid belt that had a trap in it, IIRC.

      Let us not speak of the "manual control" in "Insurrection"

    11. Re:That's the way of the future... by sorak · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.

      Have you ever seen a holodeck episode? The future has crappy IT. The Vulcans must have stolen their ships from go'uld*, since nobody knows how to do anything nerdier than paint or play jazz music.

      (And yes, I am cross-referencing different series.)

    12. Re:That's the way of the future... by tibman · · Score: 1

      hahah, that was a good one

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    13. Re:That's the way of the future... by Ster · · Score: 1
    14. Re:That's the way of the future... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You forgot my favorite Star Trek social-defective tech geek, Reg Barclay. He'd fit right in here. He'd probably have an actual holo program of Natalie Portman, petrified and covered in hot grits.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:That's the way of the future... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Why do you need backups, when you have a Time Machine?

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  3. Easy by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix.

    That's 27 weeks of downtime in the space of 26 weeks, which raises a much more important question than why there's no network redundancy and that question is: What kind of fucking morons have they got running their systems?

    1. Re:Easy by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      What kind of downtime are we talking? There's a big difference between a 5 hour total outage or 5 hour loss of connectivity to a small town DMV office.

    2. Re:Easy by kiehlster · · Score: 1

      'Running' is not the optimal term here. I'd say they have monkeys defecating on their systems.

    3. Re:Easy by breagerey · · Score: 1

      Spot on

      Backups don't prevent outages - they help minimize the downtime caused by them. In this case, with 12 outages in such a short time, the lack of backup is just an indicator of base incompetence.

    4. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the contract specified using the "latest technology" so they spec'ed Windows Vista. Need I say more?

    5. Re:Easy by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      managers.

    6. Re:Easy by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      The next time slashdot tells me to "slow down cowboy", will be the last time I ever post on this site. Go on, punks, make my day. Ok that's was it. Bye cunts.

  4. outsourcing by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I thought the magic pixie dust of free enterprise would make outsourcing something to the private sector cheaper, more efficient, and better in every possible way?

    1. Re:outsourcing by Bourdain · · Score: 1

      that "magic pixie dust" of free enterprise is only as effective as the competency of said free enterprise and we all know that well-run companies are the exception and not the rule

    2. Re:outsourcing by nanospook · · Score: 1

      You mean the people of Virgina had a slew of technology companies competing for this business slot and had a choice? No, it came down to the state govt, a budget, polititians, and one or two "allowed" choices. If Northrop could make money by providing a backup, I think they would have done it. I think the state agency dropped the ball and said no backup needed. Free competition comes down to a number of candidates, all competing to outdo the other so they can make money. The best way to do that is to do the best job for the best price. That's why something "smells" here..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    3. Re:outsourcing by idiotnot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey, it worked. Mark Warner won two-thirds of the vote in his senate run last year based on his stellar performance as governor. This was one of his big initiatives.

      (He also *fixed* the revenue sources, so that there'd never be a problem like happened with Jim Gilmore. Yet, now, Virginia is in worse shape than when he got there.)

    4. Re:outsourcing by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The best way to do that is to do the best job for the best price. That's why something "smells" here..

      If you'll excuse my saying so, that's an incredibly naive way of seeing things.

      IME there are lots of business plans which history has shown can all work very well indeed.

      Off the top of my head, there's:

      • Provide a good product at a reasonable price, and try your damndest to have just one slight edge over the competition - maybe cheaper by a very narrow margin, maybe a slightly better product. (This is basically the one you describe, and is the most obvious).
      • Order 1,000 leaflets announcing you are "specialists in Education" and send them to every school you can think of. Don't worry too much about the quality of your product/service or its price.
      • As above, but the leaflets announce that you are "specialists in supplying the public sector" and send them to every government body you can think of.
    5. Re:outsourcing by darjen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government is clearly involved here. So it's got nothing to do with free enterprise.

    6. Re:outsourcing by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's what the free market is all about: The government paying someone to do something.

    7. Re:outsourcing by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Government can't properly spec a problem causing outages, and it's the fault of "free enterprise". You people sure have a vivid imagination. From the article:

      "The problem of no-redundancy . . . accounts for 90 percent of our outages," said David W. Burhop, the DMV's chief information officer.

      "The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.

      Smells like government incompetence.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:outsourcing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.

      But redundancy isn't required. Have an SLA. They meet it or they don't. I couldn't care less whether they need 10 redundant circuits to meet my SLA. I decide how much downtime I can live with, and they tell me how much it costs. Either they didn't specify penalties for outages, or they are getting their services for free because of the outages. Redundancy is irrelevant to reliability. If I have 3 old Yugos in my garage in a horrible state of repair, or one new [insert make you like and think is reliable, because I'm not going to], the new car will be more reliable and less redundant than even three Yugos would be. If I buy a service, I want the service provided and (aside from external considerations, like killing unicorns for better reliablity or something), I couldn't care less how it's provided as long as it works. 10 Mbps over copper is just as good as 10 Mbps over fiber and is the same as 10 Mbps over licensed wireless.

      So, what's in the contract? What is the SLA? If they aren't meeting the SLA, then it's the contractor's fault, regardless of who said what about redundancy. If they are meeting the SLA and the government is still whining, it's the government's fault for sending in a bureaucrat to do a techie's job and not specifying a reliable network.

    9. Re:outsourcing by nanospook · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying, but I think we are talking about the same thing. I'm saying that the government and its rules and regulations are resulting in option #2 (as you listed it). Instead of real competition, it becomes who can do the job for less (not better), only allowing a few bidders, maybe having the process fixed because you are drinking buddies with the owner of a company, or get perks. My point is that the government is in control of the process and as a result true competition fails to materialize..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    10. Re:outsourcing by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I've seen exactly what I described before - now while that was at a private school so I can't speak for government, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's typical and IMO it was more through ignorance than corruption.

      Certainly in that case, the senior staff had got it into their heads that their needs were unusual and required a specialist in education - probably because (in the UK at least) most of the big vendors that chase after schools make a big deal of being "specialists in education".

  5. They have bigger problems than just this one... by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240

    Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!

    1. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by east+coast · · Score: 3, Funny

      That wasn't a compromise of health records. That was transparency!

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Government involvement doesn't mean ineptitude, and the free market doesn't gurantee competence. Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.

    3. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      That's often true. But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem. Businesses that are consistently unresponsive to the market and that do really stupid things will fail. And they should fail. Better businesses spend a great deal of effort to identify their mistakes so that they won't repeat them.

      Public bureaucracies, OTOH, are essentially pure monopolies. They entrench themselves and always outlive whatever original purpose they had, they're given the power of law to enforce their decisions, and they have no reason to improve (or even care) because they have no competition. The aggregate incentives are all wrong.

      And government owned corporations (like GM is turning into) and government granted monopolies (like cable companies) combine the worst of both worlds. Their real customer is not us, it's the government. We're just an expense. And better business have a much harder time competing against the advantages the favored companies are given.

    4. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      Remember how Virginia's health records were compromised earlier this year?

      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1232240

      Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!

      Yeah, right. Because the private sector has done such a good job of protecting our privacy, banking info, etc.
      Please..., go troll somewhere else.

    5. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem.

      And this helps me after my health records (or credit card numbers or whatever) have been leaked... how?

      One inept company goes bankrupt, another takes its place, and the damage is already done irregardless.

    6. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we should outsource our healthcare and our IT to the private sector!

    7. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to having health care!

      FTFY

    8. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm looking forward to paying the insurance premiums of grossly obese programmers who sit at the keyboard all day eating twinkies.

    9. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by rwv · · Score: 1

      Whether private or public, ineptitude as well as competence abounds.

      It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.

      I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here. Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website. :)

    10. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem.

      Yes, as evidenced by the fact that all the bankers and investors that drove our economy into the ground are now delivering pizza and mopping floors. Oh wait, they're getting bigger bonuses than ever.

      What you describe works nice in theory, but in practice executives will take enormous risks at the chance of enormous short term profit. Why make a million dollars a year through responsible investment if you can make 30 million dollars in two years? So what if the business goes belly up because of it - you made 30 million dollars!

    11. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!

      And how is your Enron stock doing these days? Managed to avoid electrocution in your bathroom from shitty contractor wiring?

    12. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think anything in the health care industry is party of a legitimate free market you really need to go back and study the concept of a free market again. Aside from that, at least with a private vendor they can be sued and fired. When a government entity falls into such problems they always claim reform and it only happens about 5% of the time. There really is no way for anyone to weed out government foolery no matter how inept they are.

      Think about it. When is the last time we've really had a governmental department scraped and rebuilt without the same people who fouled it up at the helm?

    13. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Actually, that breach happened after NG took over the systems. The contract has been in place for 4 years.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      It seems like in Virginia... ineptitude abounds.

      I live in Massachusetts... competence is fairly prevalent here. Going to the RMV (our version of the DMV) still sucks, but unless you're getting your license for the first time you can circumvent that hellish trip and process your registration forms through a website. :)

      You are comparing apples to oranges by attempting to compare statistical evidence to anecdotal evidence.

      Where I live, I renew both my driver's license and car registration online. I have done this many times and never had an issue. The same goes with trips to the DMV; when rarely necessary, they have been much less than 'hellish'. Sure, there is a wait, but it really isn't so bad. The processing of persons was fast and efficient.

      Would it surprise you to learn that I live in Virginia?

    15. Re:They have bigger problems than just this one... by rwv · · Score: 1

      comparing apples to oranges

      You have my sincerest apologizes, as I'm apparently uninformed. I guess my point was that the sheer number of technology stories that have been based on offices in Virginia is above average... but that's not really a good measure of anything significant (except maybe isolated instances where funding has been distributed by people who don't understand the systems that they need built).

  6. NG, I call you out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most forget that the network provided by the NG crooks is NOT part of the Comprehensive Infrastructure Agreement (CIA). It is a seperate agreement that is a fixed cost agreement under which NG was supposed to replace “like for like”. They were supposed to install an MPLS network. MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) allows for the prioritization of traffic to allow Voice traffic to travel over the same circuit as the data. It also supposed to be intelligent enough to encrypt data to essentially allow a VPN to be created from point-to-point.

    None of the VPN has been done as promised, very few sites have used the VOIP option unless dictated to by VITA as part of new construction and most sites complain about network performance. Some agencies had totally redundant networks but were forced to pay more for less. 65% of VITA staff make over 90,000 a year. Again we pay more for less.

    While I am not a NG fan, interestingly enough, most state managers at Agencies will tell you that working directly with NG allows things to get done, VITA just gets in the way. VITA wants to always be the interface, Waste Fraud and Abuse to pay high salaries for mostly unqualified folks. Throw out VITA and let the agencies be treated like customers by NG.

    The IT Community Frowns Upon Your Shenanigans...

    1. Re:NG, I call you out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be a little biased, because I do work for a contractor to a government agency.

      I agree with your point. When people come directly to us, we can usually provide them a pretty straightforward answer, and within a couple of days things are usually done. However, our policies dictate that we are not supposed to respond to such things, instead sending them to either management or to a project manager. The head of project management has (I am told) said that her staff does not need any technical knowledge -- that is why we have engineers. Either one will provide an answer that, while correct at some level, actually says nothing, but is interpreted by those who go to them as something useful. Anything that requires a certain number of hours is then deemed to be a formal project, requiring assignment of a project manager and customer liaison (which is factored into the initial time, thereby frequently bumping up the hours to the magic number). This is the simplest part of the revenue policies running around here and put in place by management, all of which are government employees.

      When government is able to come up with mechanisms designed to increase billing hours that make consultants and contractors shy away from the evil, that says something.

  7. Northrop Grumman outsources part of it's own IT as by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Northrop Grumman outsources part of it's own IT as well and it does not own some of it's systems they rent them or at least they did 1-2 years ago.

  8. PHB who say it's cheaper to let some out side peop by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    PHB's who say it's cheaper to let some out side people run there IT and likely say no to the higher cost plan that has backup with it.

  9. Is that meant to be irony? by realxmp · · Score: 1

    Have you ever seen backup systems in Star Trek, for example? you haven't. The future requires no backups.

    Either that was a terrible attempt at irony or you really really weren't watching closely enough. The Galaxy class had at least two redundant paths for every key primary system.

    1. Re:Is that meant to be irony? by slaad · · Score: 1

      They had to install double backups for systems in DS9 after the Federation took over as well.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    2. Re:Is that meant to be irony? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      This is true of virtually all U.S. Naval systems - redundancy. Unfortunately a lot of the primary/secondary wiring runs in parallel, so all it takes is a single bomb to knockout both at the same time. Rather dumb really, but even the U.S. government likes to skimp on costs.

      I wonder if the UFP government also made similar stupid cost-cutting measures in the Enterprise and other ships of the line? That would explain why both systems seem to suffer failure at least once a year.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Is that meant to be irony? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Little known factoid: Every starship dedication plaque has, on the back, an engraved legend: "Never forget that this vessel was made by the lowest bidder."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  10. Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i thought government programs never fail. /s

  11. Va/VITA/NG == Navy/NMCI/EDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same fiasco that the Navy went through with EDS and NMCI. Does no one at the state IT level read trade mags? This crap was all over the IT news magazines when the EDS contract was blowing up.

  12. sorry, dont mean to troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how stupid can these people be to not include backups? i dont see this as a matter of improperly specifying their needs. I see this as a matter of stupidity. thats all.

    again, sorry for the troll post, but this is ridiculous.

  13. Network connections, not system backups... by tomhath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is seems nobody RTFA (no surprise). The problem they're having is network outages at branch offices. I assume they're using DSL or such, with no way to connect if/when it goes down. Any one office probably has >99% up time, but when you have hundreds of offices and the remnants of a hurricane come through you can expect several of them to go offline, which is what's happening.

    1. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound nearly as bad as TFS. Thanks for RTFA for us!

    2. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      s/Backup/Redundancy/ and half the comments go away - vague headlines must be Slashdot's new evil plan to get page views.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by varmittang · · Score: 1

      If you finished RTFA, they didn't have these problems until it was outsourced.

      "But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event."

      So during the planning stage, someone in the gov't and NG f'ed up in not seeing that backup lines were in place, and they should stay in place. But that aside, why are the lines going out is the question? Was NG contracting to a poor provider that could barely keep their DNS systems up or were they working with AT&T/Verizon, or was it actual lines outside that would be cut that would cause the outages?

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    4. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      >> with no way to connect if/when it goes down.

      Ironically the Internet was supposed to solve that problem. Maybe they simply need multiple Internet connections from different providers and across different mediums: microwave, satellite, dial-up (yuck), pigeon. Expensive.

    5. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      And if you ask me? As much as anything, this illustrates why the nation's broadband infrastructure is sadly inadequate....

      What are you supposed to do in many of these locations as an alternate to a DSL circuit? Dial backup with 56K modem, I suppose? Oh yeah, THAT will run great with today's bandwidth-saturating apps.

      Oh, perhaps they should spend the money for satellite Internet at each location then? Big up-front equipment and setup expense for something with high latency and relatively high monthly costs that has plenty of service interruption issues of its own (bad weather, etc.).

      Seriously, *many* businesses today (like the one I work for now) are getting royally screwed, paying upwards of $700 a month for a lousy 1.5 to 3mbit T1 circuit, simply because no other options really exist. By comparison, if we only happened to be located a few miles closer to an existing cable installation, we could get Charter cable's broadband in here with download speeds of up to 100mbit (and far better upload speeds than our T1 gives us!) for about $150 per month.

    6. Re:Network connections, not system backups... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Big up-front equipment and setup expense for something with high latency and relatively high monthly costs that has plenty of service interruption issues of its own (bad weather, etc.).

      Satellite has "plenty of service interruption issues" only if you want it to. Satellite is simple physics. You give me the parameters, and I'll tell you how long it will be out for "weather, etc." in an average year. You want that number so small you'll not be able to dial the helpdesk in the time it takes for the circuit to recover? That's easy (note, easy != cheap). In fact, because of the crappy monopoly in ISPs in many locations and the headaches in many separate contracts, a large number of retail locations have satellite as their primary circuits, and even more as backup circuits.

      Seriously, *many* businesses today (like the one I work for now) are getting royally screwed, paying upwards of $700 a month for a lousy 1.5 to 3mbit T1 circuit, simply because no other options really exist. By comparison, if we only happened to be located a few miles closer to an existing cable installation, we could get Charter cable's broadband in here with download speeds of up to 100mbit (and far better upload speeds than our T1 gives us!) for about $150 per month.

      You'd be the bureaucrats getting railed here. You'd pick the low cost option because they "should be the same" and when the cable is out 10% of the time and the T1 was never out, you'll blame Charter, and not your inability to assess risk.

  14. Network redundancy not backups by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article does not mention "backups" as in tape drives and off-site storage.

    The article does mention lack of redundancy at the network carrier level.

    My guess is that Northrop Grumman designed a network around single circuits connecting offices to data centers, and did not design the network to tolerate WAN link failures.

    A stupid oversight for sure, but nothing that can't be easily remedied by ordering redundant WAN circuits from your telco of choice. Redundant routing gear would also be smart.

    For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company. That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation. Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.

    -ted

    1. Re:Network redundancy not backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1:1 redundancy requires 1:1 expenditures on fiber, equipment, labor, etc.
      I've worked on quite a few projects similar to this and redundancy for ethernet services is the exception rather than the rule.
      Very often government grants will specifically mention that they will not pay extra costs associated with redundancy.

    2. Re:Network redundancy not backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Redundant WAN links may help, but most likely you will have 2 downed circuits coming into the building when the local pedestal fills up with water. If you don't want to spend the money to bring in disparate carriers from disparate PoPs through different cable paths, then you should look at a non-terrestrial option like satellite or 3g. Both are inexpensive and provide adequate bandwidth to survive a circuit failure, assuming of course that you're not trying to back up a ds3.

    3. Re:Network redundancy not backups by raddan · · Score: 1

      This is also something that can be addressed in the design of the software at the site. As someone who runs a site with redundant links, I can say-- it's not for everyone. It is very expensive, and running requires a high level of competence, which also means $$$.

      OTOH, if you design your software so that your software can tolerate periodic downtime, this kind of problem can be mitigated. Instead of the knee-jerk reaction, "install redundant links!", VA should probably analyze the data on failures and see which solution or combination of solutions would be the most cost-effective.

      In the past, I too, have been involved in the bidding process. One of my first jobs out of college was to help write them at a University, so I understand the perils of only getting what you pay for. But I also know that the process is not so rigid that a vendor can't say, "Hey! You're missing an important piece here!" at which point the original process is recalled, and a new one starts. So I fault Northrup here-- the perils of distributed systems have been well-known for at least 40 years, with Northrup being in a position of great experience. They could have easily made the case that the specifications were incomplete.

    4. Re:Network redundancy not backups by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      that is assuming that you can order diverse routing that is cuircuits laid in diferent conduits and idealy from another exchange.

    5. Re:Network redundancy not backups by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "The first thing I noticed was that the network that Northrop Grumman rolled out didn't have redundancy, backup," Coulter said yesterday. "The contract does not call for redundancy in carriers . . . in the network.

      The government didn't include network redundancy in the RFP. Poor planning on the part of the government.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Network redundancy not backups by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      For all that are blaming government for this - they outsourced the design and implementation to a private company. That company screwed the pooch in design and implementation. Shame on both parties for not recognizing the risk of WAN failure.

      If they don't meet the SLAs, then they should be paying big bucks back. If they are meeting the SLAs (or there aren't any) then the government seriously screwed up. I don't care if there is redundancy in my network. I care if it works. If the provider is so crappy that I need 2 circuits or such, then they should be there. If the circuits are more reliable, then I don't need the redundancy. But if you don't tell your contractor what's important and how important it is (usually via SLAs), then you screwed up, not the contractor. And if they say something like "I expected 100%" then they are too stupid to work in IT.

    7. Re:Network redundancy not backups by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The government didn't include network redundancy in the RFP. Poor planning on the part of the government.

      No no no. I see these RFPs all the time. When you state random technical requirements, you will get a solution that's constrained. If I'm the designer, I couldn't care less whether you'd do it with redundant links. You tell me what you want non-technically. You want it to be reliable? Great, I can do that. You want it low cost? I can do that too. You want to request low cost and hope it's reliable without setting an SLA or otherwise communicating the reliability you expect? You'll get a low cost network. A low cost network with crapy redundancy is more expensive but not necessarily more reliable than other network options.

  15. Backups are worthless, restores are priceless... by adamsteinhoff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've been in the business of running networks for many years. I generally find that, as the company gets smaller, the amount of redundancy and unknown problems goes up. I expect every small business that I walk into to have no redundancy and backup systems that work 10% of the time. However, the fact that someone as large as NG and the government overlooked this critical part of system design is amazing to me.

    I always explain to my small business clients that 'backups are worthless, restores are priceless.' It generally takes a few seconds to set in before the questions or statements start coming. "But, I have a backup scheduled every night. I take the tapes offsite every Friday."

    It's always an eye-opener when I show them the console on their server with lots of red errors indicating that the data on the tapes are incomplete at best. Then, I start talking about the fact that if their server were to die, not only would it take a day or so to get parts for that old thing, but that the likelihood of being able to get it running at 100% again is slim or very costly at best.

    Even small businesses will invest in a backup/business continuity device after hearing that and reading our blog that contains 'my company saved the day for a client yesterday'.

    Shameless plug: Backups are worthless, restores are priceless blog.

  16. Epic Fail by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If any story deserves this tag it is this. from the article:

    "Virginia declared a state of emergency Nov. 11 in the face of record nor'easter rains and winds.

    But without backup circuits -- which VDOT had before the Northrop Grumman outsourcing -- to take up the load, the transportation agency's Hampton Roads' IT network went out of service 23 times during the event.

    "We called at 5:35 in the morning," said Gary Allen, VDOT's chief of technology, research and innovation.

    "It took VITA four hours to open the help ticket" and begin to solve the problem."

    4 hrs on a critical system seriously just to get started solving it?

    1. Re:Epic Fail by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? There was a storm man... It was cold, windy and raining oceans of water. We were told to stay home. The tech was probably in his bed in the dark (no electricity) trying to ignore the ringing cell phone.

  17. Funny math or multiple systems? by Cprossu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix."

    wait, 4,677 hours? how could that be? There were 181 days in the first 6 months of this year, that's only 4,344 hours.. there was more downtime on the system than days in it's operational life! (did someone /0 here?)

    Outsourced, no thanks... I think I'd rather dig up a Univac I to do work on, at least it would be more reliable

    1. Re:Funny math or multiple systems? by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2, Informative

      My guess is that would be multiple systems. They noted in TFA that they provided IT services to 1000 local governments and 85 state agencies in VA.

    2. Re:Funny math or multiple systems? by Tino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      4,677 hours of failure in 4,344 hours of time means that at any given time, an average of 1.07 locations were offline.

      There are 131 DMV offices in Virignia; I don't know how many other Department of Transportation locations are included in the same bucket. If we assume that it's *only* the 131 DMV offices, 1.07 failures at any given time means that the system means that 130.3 locations are working, meaning that this statewide patchwork of network connections is 99.45% reliable.

      If your 'redundant' connections cut the failures in half (which they wouldn't), you'd have 99.59% reliability at more than twice the cost for the network.

      Adding 'redundancy' would more than double the network cost (since presumably currently they're using the lowest bidder), and in most places it wouldn't add any real redundancy anyway. Getting actual network redundancy is *fiendishly* difficult, even when you're spending a lot of money and siting a facility in a place that's well-served for networking. In small-town Virginia, you're almost certainly going to wind up paying for having redundant wires hanging on the same poles.

    3. Re:Funny math or multiple systems? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      "1.07 failures at any given time"

      Which could very well indicate that one location received no service at all, while some other locations received spotty coverage. That could be really bad; the average reliability of this system really tells you very little about how well it is working.

      "Adding 'redundancy' would more than double the network cost"

      That is completely dependent on the topology of the network, which I am guessing you do not have access to. Case in point: if the network is a star (likely, since a single link failure takes an office offline), simply adding an extra link between every other node (thus pairs of leaf nodes are connected) and allowing the nodes to route traffic between each other is not going to double the cost of the network. This is still not ideal (since neighboring nodes will have their "spoke" links combined somewhere in all likelihood), but it is just an example to illustrate that the topology of the network matters a lot in determining redundancy costs.

      "In small-town Virginia, you're almost certainly going to wind up paying for having redundant wires hanging on the same poles."

      That depends on where the redundant links go. If you have one link going north from a town, and another link going east, they are not going to be on the same pole.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  18. THIS explains all the closed rest stops in VA... by volxdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I *knew* there had to be some other reason why they closed half the interstate rest stops in VA, this is obviously where the money was (mis)spent...

  19. 15 day outage??? by tinkertim · · Score: 3, Funny

    From TFA:

    During the first six months of the year, state Department of Transportation workers faced 101 significant IT outages totaling 4,677 hours: an average of more than 46 hours per outage. One took 360 hours to fix.

    Suddenly, I don't feel so bad for that 2 1/2 hour glitch last week :)

  20. Re:THIS explains all the closed rest stops in VA.. by halfEvilTech · · Score: 1

    naw the system was down which told the rest stops to lock their doors. The should be open again now, assuming it hasn't crashed again... well fudge

  21. Sue Northrop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for every loss in productivity they are responsible for. This "mistake" is sheer incompetence.

  22. Shocker! Gov't contractor lied! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA "The 10-year, $2.3 billion project aims to modernize 85 state government agencies' computer networks, PCs, phones, servers and e-mail systems, while holding down costs."

    So basically they gave 2.3 billion to a giant gov't contractor because they said they could do it better and cheaper. News flash ... they lied. The cheaper comes from eliminating anything you didn't specify as absolutely essential, like network backups. So far it looks like the only thing they do better is cash your checks. The state will now scramble around trying to add in some redundant network connections, starting with their high priority targets. Anyone want to bet that when they finally get everything stabilized the new outsourced system that was supposed to be "holding down costs" will end up costing significantly more than anyone imagined. That is how gov't contractors work. They put in a low ball bid, and make sure that anything that is not explicitly defined in the contract is billed at rates that make up the difference. Your fault VA.

  23. What makes you think there are any people? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    You think you get actual people when you outsource? People cost money, which reduces profitability.

    As long as the systems are inside SLA, what's the problem?

     

    --
    Deleted
  24. More bias from the Richmond Time Dispatch by Casharelle · · Score: 1
    The Richmond Times Dispatch really seems to hate the Northrop Grumman / VITA project. Actually, from my experience a lot of folks down in Richmond hate it and tend to bad mouth it endlessly.

    There is a lot of bad sentiment here in VA as this consolidation/outsourcing of IT cost quite a few State jobs which obviously upset a lot of people. Of course, they forget the fact that Northrop Grumman is one of the State's biggest employers and that they were hiring people to work at the new location. I still hear of lot of anger on radio stations and in the news when I'm in that region.

  25. Re:PHB who say it's cheaper to let some out side p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean outside people as in low-cost Indians on H1-B visa status? Yep, thought so.

  26. Better Terminology by Atomm · · Score: 1

    The OP would make a heck of a lot more sense if they used better terminology. Rather than Network Backup, call it Network Redundancy or High Availability. When people hear backup, they think storing data to tape.

  27. Sounds like you're a VA state IT employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope you used an anonymizing proxy to post that. Nobody dares announce that the Emperor is indeed stark raving naked, lest the proclaimer get his head chopped off.

  28. Staffed by 2nd rate people? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

    Northrop Grumman's core business is making airplanes (at least it was). So what we have here is a non-core business effort on behalf of a state government contract. I'll bet it was staffed by the B team at Northrup Grumman because real IT hot shots just are not motivated to get out of bed in the morning to chase state government contracts. On top of this staffing issues, I'm sure the government had lots of non-standard 'requirements' from insecure bureaucrats that need to justify their jobs. This is a lethal combination of doom for this project. The solution is standard requirements shared by lots of similar customers that is chased after by multiple competing vendors but I suspect the politics of patronage in Virginia would never let that happen.

    1. Re:Staffed by 2nd rate people? by Casharelle · · Score: 1

      Northrop Grumman's core business is making airplanes (at least it was). So what we have here is a non-core business effort on behalf of a state government contract. I'll bet it was staffed by the B team at Northrup Grumman because real IT hot shots just are not motivated to get out of bed in the morning to chase state government contracts. On top of this staffing issues, I'm sure the government had lots of non-standard 'requirements' from insecure bureaucrats that need to justify their jobs. This is a lethal combination of doom for this project. The solution is standard requirements shared by lots of similar customers that is chased after by multiple competing vendors but I suspect the politics of patronage in Virginia would never let that happen.

      Northrop Grumman has an entire arm of its business devoted to Information Systems that makes about $10 billion in revenue a year. They aren't exactly a small time operation when it comes to IT.

    2. Re:Staffed by 2nd rate people? by decsnake · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but today IT is one of NG "core businesses", along with aircraft, missiles and space, land vehicles and ships. NG is currently the 3rd largest defense contractor, after Lock-mart and Boeing. Sometimes when big defense contractors implement civilian systems they really do put the 2nd team on it, because they know where their real bread and butter comes from (hint: 5 sided polygon). Another common tactic is bait and switch: put the A team on the proposal and the B team on the implementation.

  29. And I thought.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... getting a drivers license in Texas was bad!

  30. "the government exists by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    and has involved itself in the market in some way in the past

    therefore, any prudent rational criticism of the free market and how it obviously fails can be explained away with creative rationalization that its the government's fault, somehow"

    my favorite is how free market fundamentalists wish to blame the market crash of 2008 on government policies. rather than gee, i dunno, the clinton and bush administration deregulation policies? you know, deregulation: having the government less invovled int he market?

    "what? my free market bubble and pop? nah, impossible! government's fault! pffft"

    please study your banking panics of the 1800s: without regulation, free markets have innate imperfections which always result in catalcysmic failures. all you need is simple human psychology, no government need apply, to cause a market to crash. you either regulate it, leveling the playing field artificially, and therefore making it truly "free", or you leave it alone, letting it bubble and pop like mad, and allow monopolists to take advantage of natural imperfections in the market to leverage unfair behavior

    free market fundamentalism is dead. your ideology is dead. fact: you need government involvement in the market for the market to run efficiently. fact: you need government policing and regulation of the marketplace to keep it "free" and egalitarian and equal for all players

    if you don't understand these simple truths by now, or refuse to believe that despite the obvious proof, you're an idiot

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:"the government exists by darjen · · Score: 1

      the government exists and has involved itself in the market in some way in the past

      therefore, any prudent rational criticism of the free market and how it obviously fails can be explained away with creative rationalization that its the government's fault, somehow

      so the Virginia state government is not actually in charge of their own damn IT system? they were only involved in their own IT system in some way in the past? interesting theory. please tell me more.

      my favorite is how free market fundamentalists wish to blame the market crash of 2008 on government policies. rather than gee, i dunno, the clinton and bush administration deregulation policies? you know, deregulation: having the government less invovled int he market?

      yeah, it's almost as if the federal reserve system and the treasury department DOESN'T FUCKIN EXIST.

      please study your banking panics of the 1800s

      right, and there was never any fractional reserve banking or government wars involved there. who am I kidding? it's all the free market's fault!

      fact: government regulation can't repeal basic economics, and anyone who thinks it can is an idiot.

    2. Re:"the government exists by frankxcid · · Score: 1

      The premise of your argument is completely incorrect. There is no rationalization, fact: government was involved; the customer has to do due diligence on any contract. As for your other points, they are false also, deregulation did take place but then the administrations you mentioned did increased regulation by forcing banking institutions to make bad loans (this is additional regulations) and force banks to take government loan (more regulation) so yes, regulation is bad. Adding the banking panics of 1800 to prove free markets are bad actually disprove your points, those failures were brought about by the increase regulation of trade and isolationist ideals (more regulation). In fact the regulations that came later made things worse. Bottom line is, what is the alternative to free markets? Is it Central Planning? Study your history and tell me where central planning has succeeded!

    3. Re:"the government exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's almost as if the federal reserve system "was a government agency"? Was that what you were thinking when you wrote that sentence? The government may have "created" it in the same way it "created" the process of incorporation or "created" the concept of a family economic unit, that is to say it could have existed without the government's interference had the banks chosen to work together. The Fed is an independent entity, "neither the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks are owned by the US Federal Government."

      there was never any fractional reserve banking

      Of course there was, there always has been. No bank can profit from stuffing your cash in a vault in the back, any that tried would have to charge fees that would almost certainly convince people that they can stuff their cash in their own vault for free. You get your interest from the interest the bank charges people to borrow your money. The government again "created" something that already existed.

      If you wish to denounce these as government interference, you must also denounce "communal property" and "incorporation", all of which existed prior to the government giving them permission to.

    4. Re:"the government exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circle needs to go back to school.

      Jamie Gorelick, in Clinton's administration, essentially ordered Fannie Mae to loosen their lending standards so that Clinton's legacy could be the largest percentage of homes being owned by minorities in history. Barney Frank and Chris Cox played their part, as well as Alan Greenspan: it was their job to apply the brakes.

      Government "involvement" in any market = coercion, since the government can always print money it doesn't have and jail those it doesn't like.

  31. Job opening in Virginia by iamhigh · · Score: 0

    But the site is down, so you can't apply.

    (I'm trying to start a new meme, here)

    --
    No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
  32. End the Outsourcing by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Living in the DC area i see all sorts of crap going on with contractors. The amount of money the fed wastes on contractors should cause us to rise up and slay them. But so many profit (my GF and i included) that it seems unlikely that it will change soon. The CIA for instance has crippled itself by using so many contractors, people who SHOULD be on the payroll. Instead they line the pockets of executives and share holders, shitting away millions upon millions in overhead costs. This means much of the talent and experience belongs to companies like NG and not to the country. They can jack up their rates all they want and the gov't will have to pay. If they don't hire the contractor it doesn't get done. It's wasteful and potentially dangerous.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:End the Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has worked as a contractor, the CIA run by lawyers and professors now. They are extremely good at the classic diplomatic intelligence and analysts games, but when it comes to "wet work", the agency's been neutered. Due to political reasons, it's much better to higher the contractors. It gives the agency plausible deniability. "Hey it's not our fault, it was the contractor." It also allows the agency to hang the contractors out to dry if things go really badly and wash their hands of the situation.

      In the end, though, it's all CYA politics.

  33. Re:Blame Northrop?Christmas gifts,shoes,handbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.coolforsale.com/ spam troll low quality badly designed broke late delivery failed to deliver cheap material shoddy workmanship shady business dissatisfied customer unfriendly support poor service

    Leave, or you'll continue to get negative search association here, spammer.

    --
    Help me out by posting this anonymously in response to all this spammer's posts. Maybe he'll give up.

  34. there's a lot of obstinance in your comment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    would you like actually come out and refute my statement that you need government regulations to keep markets fair?

    or are you just raging against a truth that hurts, but that your mind accepts?

    thought so

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there's a lot of obstinance in your comment by darjen · · Score: 0, Troll

      sure. "government regulations make markets worse, not fair".

      there you go.

    2. Re:there's a lot of obstinance in your comment by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. people will take advantage of others, take advantage of natural imperfections in the market, and establish domination and exploitation of later arrivals to the marketplace

      2. people will react in panic and fear at rumors, and destroy the market on nothing but emotion: calm rational decisions does not dominate the market

      do you deny either simple obvious truth?

      how do you fight #1, and #2 then?

      answer: you need the government to regulate it. duh

      an unregulated marketplace bubbles and pops due to nothing but simple human psychology, and naturally degenerates into a few powerful players dominating everyone else. without regulation, there is no such thing as a "free" market. a stable free market of equals, without regulation by some entity, is something that has never existed in the history of humanity. its a myth cooked up by libertarian fundamentalists, their garden of eden. its a fantasy of blindness in direct contradiction to obvious well-established human behavior

      this has been today's intellectual charity offering for you. do try to take advantage of the offering, and accept the fucking obvious for once in your life about this subject matter

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:there's a lot of obstinance in your comment by darjen · · Score: 1

      1. yes people take advantage of others. do you expect me to believe that this somehow stops when people get into government? and they don't use government's control over the financial system to make laws to benefit them their buddies back in the private sector? for example, fractional reserve banking, laws over the creation of money, and inflation, all of which cause the system to be inherently unstable?

      2. it's this inherent instability of the financial system which causes rolling bubbles and severe crashes through different sectors. yeah, people's fear and panic play a role, but it is not central. panics just don't happen for no reason. that is absurd.

      the few powerful players that I see in our markets today were created by various subsidies and protection from competition granted by the government. for example, microsoft's gigantic monopoly is protected by the government's patent and copyright laws, giving them control over imaginary property. it has absolutely nothing to do with "an unregulated marketplace bubbles and pops due to nothing but simple human psychology, and naturally degenerates into a few powerful players dominating everyone else" as you claim.

      the energy and telecommunications industries are also prime examples of how government consolidated many different market players, granted exclusive contracts, and tried to regulate them. we can all see how that turned out. there are countless other examples which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

  35. central planning is equally idiotic by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    as free market fundamentalists

    it is a hallmark of the triumph of your fear over your intellect that you think that's what i am advocating for

    examples of fear triumphing over intellect:

    "gay marriage should be legal"

    reaction:

    "why do you think pedophiles should be allowed to marry boys and bestiality practioners to marry animals?"

    #2:

    "marijuana should be legal"

    reaction:

    "why do you want to legalize methamphetamine and heroin?"

    #3:

    "the government needs to regulate the market in order for it to be stable"

    reaction:

    "why do you want communist central planning"

    do you see the hysteria at work in these examples?

    in the future, i suggest you react to what i am actually saying, rather than projecting your irrational fears onto what i am saying, and reacting to that in hysteria

    fact: an unregulated marketplace bubbles and pops due to nothing but simple human psychology, and naturally degenerates into a few powerful players dominating everyone else. without regulation, there is no such thing as a "free" market. a stable free market of equals, without regulation by some entity, is something that has never existed in the history of humanity. its a myth cooked up by libertarian fundamentalists, their garden of eden. its a fantasy of blindness in direct contradiction to obvious well-established human behavior:

    1. people will take advantage of others, take advantage of natural imperfections in the market, and establish domination and exploitation of later arrivals to the marketplace

    2. people will react in panic and fear at rumors, and destroy the market on nothing but emotion: calm rational decisions does not dominate the market

    do you care to defy these simple obvious truths?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:central planning is equally idiotic by frankxcid · · Score: 1

      Your post shows your fear and bigotry. None of those example have to do with anything you discussed. The opposite of free market is central planning. Regulations of any kind are planned by a group of people outside of the market being regulated, e.g. a central planning bureaucracy. Communism is the extreme case of central planning but there are many instances of "run-of-the-mill" socialist governments that have a this kind of bureaucracy. Be that as it may, this case in Virginia is not an excuse to eliminate all third party solutions and replace them with even more rules that are designed to prevent stupidity. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY. You go ahead and keep trying and see if your movie will be legislated out of existence.

  36. That's what the "auxiliary X" is by phorm · · Score: 1

    When they talk about auxiliary power/thrusters/life-support whatever, that's the secondary/backup system. Except it's generally not a full-scale-system, but more of a scaled-down system meant to get by until the main system is repaired/replaced.

    I'm more concerned about the lack of bathrooms though. I'm not sure I'd want to be on a Starship if the crew are all wearing some futuristic version of Depends...

    1. Re:That's what the "auxiliary X" is by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Maybe they've perfected a very precise use of the transporter.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  37. Businesses and backups... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I arrived at a private sector job where they thought they had backups for the past four years. They were just switching an 80 GB tapes every day on the Windows 2k3 servers without running a backup program, had 'floppy-punched' tapes into being accepted as DDS-4 tapes, and had tar backups conking out at 2 GBs because of filesystem limitations of SCO OpenServer which didn't sync properly with the pirate backup server anyway as it had run out of space eons ago and there was no cleanup schedule. Also the RAID card's battery to hold config data was toast (one power loss away from losing everything) and a disk had failed in the array anyway.

    As for security, there was a dial up line to the system. No password required to get in and full-access to the system was nothing but a Ctrl-C away. Locally, there was also unprotected wi-fi to the network.

    The system held lots of private, government and research data. If it was publicly compromised the business would have lost out on many a contract in the future. Did they care about any of this? Not really. Bottom line was all that mattered. So the story isn't too surprising. Businesses don't care about their own systems, let alone the systems of others.

  38. Ron Paul by BitHive · · Score: 1

    Looks like Big Government screwed up again, should have gone with the private sector!

  39. The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management by sysadmintech · · Score: 1

    The 1st job of IT/IS is lobbying management. How many times was the project reviewed by State IT/IS professionals? How professional can they be if they can't even review a project for the most basic needs? How professional can Northrop Grumman be if they don't even notice a missing basic need in there analysis? This is just another example of the expense of outsourcing and no one being responsible for any IT/IS function. With the unemployment rate and 500,000 IT/IS professionals out of work, the US needs to start hiring in IT/IS to save money to offset their losses from outsourcing. I taught a lot of IT/IS security and none have info security jobs. With all the data stolen in the US, no one hires security.

  40. its like talking to a fucking creationist by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    its just not a rational thing for you. its this bizarre fundamentalist religion for you, the magical mythical "free market". how dare i question its dominion!

    if i draw a picture of the free market with a bomb in its turban, will you riot?

    fucking fundamentalists of this world, beyond reason, blind as fuck

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:its like talking to a fucking creationist by darjen · · Score: 1

      you're right. if only the government would regulate everyone, what a marvelous egalitarian wonderland it would be! la la la la la

  41. typical by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i say we need a vibrant market, but it should be regulated. wow, how radical

    in response you regurgitate the usual moronic, hysterical reaction: "why do you want communist central planning!"

    what?!

    here's an amazing new concept for you: how about you react to what someone actually says, rather than projecting your panty twisted fears on to what they are saying... and then reacting to that stupid insanity as if that is what i am actually representing to you

    in your head, fear triumphs over reason

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:typical by darjen · · Score: 1

      what the fuck are you talking about? I explained to you how the federal reserve, fractional reserve banking, and the treasury department's shenanigans have created an inherently unstable financial system. your response:

      "you are a fundamentalist!"

      not exactly intelligent if you ask me. go read a fucking book man. I would recommend What Has Government Done to Our Money? Then .

  42. Contract and big checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Response is simple. Companies get a big check from government to design/install something then another to fix it.

  43. you're a free market fundamentalist by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Informative

    you believe the market left alone takes care of itself, and the government makes it unstable

    this is the opposite of reality: a free market is inherently unstable. government involvement stabilizes it

    i'm sorry i don't have any books by crackpots to cite to prop up the fucking obvious truth for you

    not like you would accept it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're a free market fundamentalist by darjen · · Score: 1

      government involvement stabilizes it

      because that worked SO well in the past. riiiiight.

      the only obvious truth here is that you are unwilling (or unable) to educate yourself. the material is there, and it's free. read it. you won't regret it.

  44. Over how many individual systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If every city in a the state has their own DMV office there would be about 30 offices with 100 outages over 6 months.
    That means every office was out 3.3 times in six months.
    Didn't they get a massive flood?
    Doesn't sound bad to me my office would go offline if it was flooded with 5ft of water.

    The system is not that critical. Still though for 2.3B they should have had business continuity built in.

  45. Surprising... by CharlesJS · · Score: 1

    shoulda woulda coulda....how is this surprising to anyone? I wonder if the GSA will get an overhaul under the new administration to potentially help nick these kinds of things in the butt. More importantly, where was ioSafe when they needed them?

  46. yes, the jehovah's witnesses said the same thing by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    to me about their literature after knocking on my door

    i choose not to join your ridiculous religion

    a market without regulation bubbles and pops, and is dominated and manipulated by insiders

    and you are apparently their willing fool

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  47. Re:yes, the jehovah's witnesses said the same thin by darjen · · Score: 1

    Are you fucking kidding me? Unlike religion, one can actually analyze cause and affect in the economy. You know, with numbers and stuff.

    Or we could have the equivalent of virginia's it dept running our financial sector. 25/26 days down time... yeah baby!

  48. you cannot have a rational discussion by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    with someone who has seriously embraces an absurd premise: that markets left to their own devices are stable and egalitarian

    markets left to their own devices bubble and pop, and are manipulated and dominated by entrenched insiders

    to not understand this is equivalent to someone refusing to accept that that the sun rises and sets or that the tides go up and down. how can you have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to see and accept obvious factual aspects of the reality they live in?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you cannot have a rational discussion by darjen · · Score: 1

      you obviously don't have a firm grasp on reality.

  49. thanks for illustrating my point for me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "the government is involved in a modern economy... therefore if anything goes wrong with a market, we can creatively invent convoluted lines of cause and effect back to the government being the source of the problem somehow"

    all we have to is completely remove the government from the marketplace and everything will be roses and wine, right? but of course, even THEN, if something DOES go wrong (and it will), people like you will still say its the government's fault... because the government touched the market at some point in the past, and you see, that magical taint has ruined the magical invulnerability of the self-correcting natively egalitarian always rational marketplace

    fucking bullshit ...or, alternatively, maybe an unregulated marketplace naturally bubbles and pops out of nothing more than simple human psychology, and entrenched interests take advantage of natual imperfections in the market to dominate and manipulate smaller players and latecomers

    NAAAAAAAAAAAH. that's impossible!

    pfffffffft

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  50. what? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    no supplemental reading material from libertarian crackpots about the virginal holiness of the unregulated market?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  51. possible culprits by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Having worked in several VA state agencies, all of which have to deal with the state IT agency, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state. I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency, but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence. That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs, but for most agencies it hinders. If you want your project to fail, become mired, or be cancelled, just get the Department of Information Technology (or whatever it's called today) involved. I'm surprised when there's a success in which they're involved, so it's no biggie when such an "oversight" occurs. Why is it this way? Partly because political hacks in the Gov's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT.

  52. Notes From Project Scope Meeting by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    Northrop Grumman PM: "So, let's talk about backup requirements"

    Virginia State Pointy Haired Boss: "But the SAN's RAID, isn't it? We'll be fine"

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.