Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Take USAjobs.gov Back From Monster, Performance Tanks

Posted by timothy on from the regression-testing dept.

dcblogs writes "Complaints about the performance of USAjobs.gov, the government's central website for job applicants, are piling up after the U.S. took control this month of the site from Monster.com. The government's official Facebook page has seen nothing but negative comments from users about lag time, search engine failures, and other problems since the U.S. Office of Personnel Management built a new site. The government employs more than 2.6 million people. Linda Rix, the co-CEO of Avue Technologies Corp., a federal contractor who has tested the site, said this about the federal effort: 'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.'" They're working on it, though — one of their recent Facebook updates says, "Quick update: The three new blade servers have increased our capacity and the system is running smoothly."

110 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Government takes control of something by Oriumpor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it becomes slow, unresponsive, and costly. ...
    Nope. No Surprises here.

    1. Re:Government takes control of something by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just so we're clear:

      1) If Government 'outsources' its IT costs to a cloud service they're idiots wasting money who got conned into an unreliable and insecure buzzword.

      2) If the Government brings tech back in house and doesn't use a cloud service they're slow, unresponsive and stupid.

      I'm sorry, is there a third option that we're thinking they should adopt?

    2. Re:Government takes control of something by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Oursourcing is not the same as cloud. It can be, but not always.

      Cloud is not the same as insecure, or unreliable. It can be, but not always.

      In house is not the same as cheap and responsive. It can be, but not always.

      Hope that clarifies things.

    3. Re:Government takes control of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And things were more fucked up then than they are now.

      What was the literacy rate in 1780?

      What percentage of people had clean water and indoor plumbing?

      Lets talk about the rights of those slaves.

      Then there were all those women voters weighing in on the situation.

      Lets not forget all those I quality medicines that were available, I'll tell you Snake Oil will cure just about anything. And what it doesn't cure, the tonic will take care of.

      Yep those good ol' days were peachy.

    4. Re:Government takes control of something by squidfood · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let me fucking ask you something. What's more slow, unresponsive, and costly for any large company:

      1. A single, unified intranet with various services and uniform oversight.

      2. A patchwork of outsourced-to-the-lowest-bidder Daily-WTF worthy enterprisy "commerical" websites for every separate service (HR, Payroll, Benefits, travel, documents, petty cash etc. etc.). Because that's my reality in the system. Uniform interface? Uniform security policy? Uniform uptime? Try three-times daily outage notices from one-system-or-other, weekly password resets (every one with different rules), piss-poor interface design, etc.

      It's not about size-of-government or any other libertarian bullshit fantasy; even a government shrunk by 90% would still need these services. It's the constant drive to privatize these functions driven by the "ooh, the private market is magic and never does anything wrong" mantra that leads to this ugly, wasteful, and inefficient patchwork. Inefficient government? No, it's a government that only gets exactly what this idiot-driven free-market religion allows it to pay for.

    5. Re:Government takes control of something by perlchild · · Score: 2

      It's simple... the biggest difference between a cushy consulting gig and a government job is the job security and the money. The combination of job security and lower money for government jobs means it's where skilled people go to die...

      They need to do two things:
      1) remove the job security
      2) pay market wages for the same work

      But it'll only work if they do both at once...

    6. Re:Government takes control of something by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      1. A single, unified intranet with various services and uniform oversight.
      You mean a big one size fits all ram a square peg through a round hole, b/c no one can change anything. Lot's of companies have stuff like that it's called SAP and it is why shit always takes twice as long as it should.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    7. Re:Government takes control of something by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      It's the constant drive to privatize these functions driven by the "ooh, the private market is magic and never does anything wrong" mantra that leads to this ugly, wasteful, and inefficient patchwork. Inefficient government? No, it's a government that only gets exactly what this idiot-driven free-market religion allows it to pay for.

      When you look at the cluster-f**k of contractors in just Iraq...just goes to show if anything businesses will bend you over every time they get the chance. For instance...the Pentagon has no idea where billions disappeared to in these war zones...except knowing it was paid out to government contractors. When you have Halliburton built buildings electrocuting soldiers while taking showers and professional/over-priced thugs killing civilians this nation "claims" to be helping in the name of who can steal more faster...something is wrong.

      What's coming up next...government paid for/private run mandated proctorial chambers on every street corner? It's worked in these "war" zones...so why not do it worse to our own citizens? I'm sure we have plenty of white collar "warlords" in this country who would do everything they can do to sell/implement the idea. The only option then will be how many fingers or forcing you to take the whole fist? From what we've seen from the whole privatization crowd...it will be both fists and feet along with the rest of the staff. Instead of a "gang-bang"...they will call it "gang-encouragement".

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
  2. Re:meaning of three new blades... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

  3. Can't wait.. by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    until these clowns are in charge of my health care. There's nothing bureaucracy can't screw up!

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    1. Re:Can't wait.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because Cigna, Kaiser and Blue Cross are all known for their tip top efficiency.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Can't wait.. by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is why their competition does well. Who competes with the government?

      You are aware that the "competition" just resells packages through those companies, right?

    3. Re:Can't wait.. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      So you prefer no-medicare to the two year delayed treatment?

    4. Re:Can't wait.. by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because you were in a system that was built by committee and driven by the motive to not compete with private insurance companies. What you experienced is not the experience of the first world countries where all health care is simply paid for by the government.

      Imagine if the courts ordered Microsoft to take over development of Open Office, with the contractual promise of keeping it open and free. Now imagine exactly what "features and fixes" Ballmer would add. You'd have to use the mouse to click the arrow buttons to move the cursor. Every third time you type the letter W, it would spit out a pair of Vs. He would have the number 1 removed from the character set. And it would install a dancing chair-throwing monkey screen saver that you couldn't disable. He'd do everything in his power to make sure that it was as awful as possible while still meeting the court-ordered requirements.

      Replace Ballmer with Congress, and Open Office with Medicaid, and that's exactly what you got.

      Now, take the private insurance companies away completely, and have all health care directly paid by the government. You get adequate care and treatment. You won't get the three-CAT-scan overkill that your current doctors love to bill to your insurers, but adequate and appropriate care. The only drawback is the hit to the economy when you stop shoveling truckloads of money into the insurance company vaults, and they have to fire their soon-to-be-outsourced-anyway data entry people. And the country clubs will have fewer paying members.

      So stop bitching about the Republican scare-ware version of government run health care. Real government run health care is a hell of a lot better than the current insurance scams, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Can't wait.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Informative

      my dad was in the Airforce, we had TriCare, and I got medical coverage on base.

      Government healthcare also can kick ass sometimes when they're tasked to do it right.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Can't wait.. by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      excellent post

      "The key thing to remember, always, is what the federal government does: it is basically an insurance company for old people that also has an army." - Krugman

    7. Re:Can't wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So when I was a kid with medicaid, I could not go see a specialist unless I had a referral from a GP. The GP followed medicaid procedures, and had to get their own xrays (attempt diagnoses, treatment, etc) before he could make a referral (since specialist are expensive).

      Now that you're grown up, you do realize that half the insurance companies out there work exactly the same way, don't you? The government doesn't have a monopoly on corner-cutters.

    8. Re:Can't wait.. by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      Generally speaking, private health insurance companies also require referrals to see a specialist.

      It sucks that you went through this, especially as a child with no control over the situation, but would you have preferred no care at all, which is what you would have gotten if medicaid didn't exist?

    9. Re:Can't wait.. by jittles · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well consider yourself lucky. I have a nephew on Kaiser. He was apparently born with a heart defect that manifested itself around his 1st birthday. Kaiser does not have a specialist who is licensed and board certified to perform heart surgery on a child under 2 years old. So, rather than pay the cost to have him get the surgery the acknowledge he will definitely need, they make him stay in the hospital for 5 weeks while they try various medicines that are somewhat dangerous to take, until they found a medicine that would keep the problem under control until he is old enough for a Kaiser doctor to perform the surgery. I'm glad I don't have Kaiser..

    10. Re:Can't wait.. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      You get adequate care and treatment.

      One can hope so.

      Of course, some agency like NICE will decide for you what is cost effective. They decided that a "quality adjusted life year" was worth something like $45,500 in 2008 (the quality adjustment is to place less value on a year of life which is diminished by pain or the like). Attempts to do this in the US are met with screams of protest. Although, government agencies in the US, such as the EPA and state highway agencies, do regularly put a financial value on a year of life when making decisions and oddly this doesn't invoke much outrage (perhaps because in the case of the EPA it's generally impossible to prove that the lack of a regulation caused a particular disease or death and in the case of the highway agencies, one assumes they won't be the one to run off the cliff because there's no guardrail). However, Medicare is currently not allowed to consider price in determining what treatments will be covered.

      Some of the "overkill" resulting in higher costs in the US system is the result of the lack of rationing.

      Similarly, some of the "poorer outcomes" are the result of lack of such rationing - for example because sicker people in the US patients sometimes get treatment which would be denied in some single payer systems (this is true, for example, in end stage renal disease and may be true in the case of extremely premature babies).

      The differences in attitudes between the general populace in the US with regards to medical care and some other "first world" countries is quite surprising. For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months. Some years ago I was in the UK talking to a vendor rep over dinner and she mentioned that she would be unavailable for a couple weeks due to upcoming surgery (I gathered it was some sort of abdominal surgery and was elective in its timing -- I can only guess what it might have been but I suspect 1/2 the population couldn't even have had this surgery because they lack the necessary parts) and I commented something like "Well, at least you don't have to pay for it due to your government healthcare system" and she gave me a look of shock and said something like "Oh, no - no one who can avoid it has this done in the government system -- I carry private insurance for things like this". She was a very "middle class" person who was on the marketing/sales side and the company she represented was obviously not a "big bucks" vendor. I don't know if this was common or still is, but it surprised me quite a bit.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    11. Re:Can't wait.. by stephathome · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My son needed a surgery for craniosynostosis, that would be best performed at age 3 months. My husband was just in the process of changing insurance due to a new job, and we had chosen Kaiser until the pediatrician warned us that Kaiser didn't have a surgeon qualified to do that surgery, that we'd have to wait until he was 6 months and have a much riskier surgery. Fortunately, the paperwork hadn't gone through, so we made some urgent changes and got Blue Shield. The surgeon covered by them happened to be the one who pioneered the endoscopic version of the surgery my son needed.

      This surgery meant a significantly shorter recovery time, and no blood transfusion. One night in the hospital was required, a second allowed at my request. The version for six months olds would have required a blood transfusion, much more time in the hospital and a more difficult recovery. I'm ecstatic we didn't go Kaiser.

    12. Re:Can't wait.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a foreigner now living in U.S., I have to admit that you guys really got some pretty crappy government services - they're almost as bureaucratized and inefficient as my home country (Russia) in many respects, and it's definitely not what I expected from a first world country. I really thought most of American rants about government inefficiency is just that, rants, but now I see that there is a grain of truth to it. I'm not just talking about medicare here (no personal experience with that, in any case) but pretty much anything that involves seeing a government official.

      That said, I also had a chance to compare it with some other first world countries, notably Canada and New Zealand - and, yes, it's possible to do this kind of thing right, or at least much better. Case in point: in Canada, it took me exactly one day - or, to be more specific, about 2 hours in the queue and then about 15 minutes of filling in the forms - to get SIN, the local SSN equivalent. That was, IIRC, on my third day there. In U.S., it took them almost a month to give me SSN, and I only found out after waiting in a line for quite a while that they "don't have the immigration data from CBP in our database yet - you should try again in two or three weeks" (and second time I tried, they still didn't have it). Two government services have distinct databases that only sync monthly - WTF? And why do I have to regularly come see them in person to hear that, no, they still can't help me?

      It seems to me that the situation in U.S. resembles vicious circle quite a lot - people pretty much expect government to suck at everything (other than possibly defense) by default, and that mentality is so pervasive that it effectively sets the standard under which government services operate. Furthermore, a lot of people use it as an excuse to further cut funding to existing programs, or even scrap them altogether, since "private is better" - which further lowers the standards.

      Ultimately, you get what you 1) ask for, and 2) pay for. With respect to your government, #1 means that you have to stop assuming that it always sucks at whatever it does, and treat every case of government inefficiency as a bug in the system that needs a specific fix - not a reason to abandon that system altogether. #2 means that you have to give it decent funding, proportionate to expected (per #1, rather than the current state of affairs) efficiency and usefulness.

    13. Re:Can't wait.. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months.

      We're not really "fine with it" and we've been trying to improve the wait times situation for awhile now. It's just that any correction to the main problem (a shortage of the appropriate doctors and surgeons) takes a long damn time to have any effect.

      We are making progress here in Saskatchewan (Previously, we were the 2nd worst province for surgical wait times). The plan is to get joint replacement wait times down to 3 months maximum by 2014.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Can't wait.. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You don't understand.

      "Government is bad, businesses are good" is one of the fundamental tenets of American ideology. People who wholeheartedly believe in it, run the government.

      The closest Russian equivalent was Yeltsin and "economists" in his administration.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    15. Re:Can't wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you prefer no-medicare to the two year delayed treatment?

      Treatment delayed is treatment denied.

    16. Re:Can't wait.. by Shark · · Score: 1

      In Canadian healthcare:
      Monopoly -> Prince Increase
      Price Increase -> Rationing
      Rationing -> Shortages
      Shortage -> Price increase

      In short, all profits go to private producers sucking out as much money out of the government system as they can. Drug companies, medical equipment companies, etc. For a little while, doctors too, but since government cares about their corporate buddies first, they're getting rationed as well (in quantity, not salary which I'm sure is not a situation they entirely mind if even aware of it).

      Insurance is such an enormous business that they don't bother to check claims under $50k. You needed a toothbrush? Let's charge 300$ to your insurance for it. 50$ rubber gloves, etc. There's a similar situation in the US, which is part of what makes health insurance so expensive. More importantly, it makes costs too high to avoid having one. Incidentally (and this could be a coincidence), care that is not covered goes down significantly in costs and seems to improve in quality (at least as far as elective eye surgery is concerned). But I'm guessing that it's a healthy market since you don't die if you don't take it, and there are cheaper alternatives (glasses, contacts).

      Having the government pay for care all will only work on the short to mid term because even it goes broke after a while. In Quebec, it's around 50% of the budget already and like any bureaucratic monster, a significant portion of that is soaked up by an impressive bureaucracy instead of actual care.

      It's a bit of a death trap: the only people who would really need to say "too expensive" simply can't because it's not in their best interest. Manufacturers are not going to lower prices, too few of them and regulation makes sure it's too expensive to compete with existing players. It's cheaper for insurance to charge more than to lower costs since it's services are mandatory (through regulation or merely because of the fact that it's more expensive to go without insurance), and the people who need care... Well they *need* the care, they'll pay. Pay or suffer/die.

      I don't think the problem is so much a matter of private/public health care. It's merely the fact that lack of competition makes it grossly inefficient. I'd love a situation where states compete for the best run system. It's just the enforcement of a one-size-fits-all monster that I think is killing us.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    17. Re:Can't wait.. by Shark · · Score: 2

      Though if you don't like McDonalds... You still have a choice of eating at a good burger restaurant. McDonalds isn't yet pushing for regulations that force patties to be exactly 1/4" thick, etc. That's what you get in the insurance business.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    18. Re:Can't wait.. by canadian_right · · Score: 2

      Are the majority of government supplied services in the USA really so bad that it is a common opinion among non-radical anti-government people that the government can do nothing right?

      I live in BC, Canada, and most government services are supplied very effectively, and generally without much waste. There are issues with bonuses that are not deserved (a whole large service related to group homes for disabled people just had all their bonuses removed due to perceived abuse), cushy pensions, the occasional corruption, but by and large government services here work.

      Is that not the case in the USA, or is there just a small vocal minority that would claim the government was doing a bad job even if they were doing a great job?

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    19. Re:Can't wait.. by plover · · Score: 1

      Excuse me while I call bullshit on you. Here's a recent example of an event that is very similar to what is happening now:

      Look at the push a few years ago to stop NOAA from publishing weather forecasts or providing a live weather forecasting web service for free. They wanted to shut down weather.gov. The honest, publicly stated reason that someone was trying to shut them down was that they weren't supposed to compete with the private sector. Totally coincidentally, Rick Santorum, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, also the home state of Accuweather Inc., was the leading public employee pushing to end NOAA providing free and useful services to those of us who were paying for it.

      The reason this all came down was a bit of public comment kerfluffle, driven by the fact that weather forecasting is a tiny ignorable blip on anyone's radar, that the companies involved didn't have the kind of money to pump out a large anti-public-weather-forecasting campaign, and a few activist people were able to organize enough scientists and weather geeks to make a difference in the routine public commenting. It was painfully obvious that Rick Santorum clearly did not represent anyone's interests but Accuweather. "Here's a free national service that you shouldn't have access to because my corporate overlords will lose money." Yet he tried to make it sound like a logical argument, and that anyone who opposed him was a Liberal, or a socialist. Had this been a bigger issue, we probably would have heard a word like "obamaweather."

      Insurance companies, health insurance, and public health care are much bigger items and are directly in focus in the public's eye these days. There are so many cooks stirring the pot, so many companies involved, and so many liars sponsored by Fox News and the Republicans telling us that public health care means "death panels" and "obamacare" and "socialized medicine means communism and terrorists" that it's hard to keep straight who's saying what. And that's by design. Even the good ideas are damaged by being modified to opposite ends. Look at how stupid the medicare discount card system came out. Another example of making a public system as screwed up and painful as possible, due to the meddling of big corporate interests. Instead of cheaper medicine, seniors get to play "discount card roulette" by being asked to gamble on what their future health care issues will be. Oh, you got cancer? Sorry, but you bet on the diabetes card, so pay up, loser.

      So don't tell me that this exact same scenario isn't being played out right now. There's way too much money at stake for the extremely wealthy insurance companies to not be pumping millions of dollars into every lobbyist, PR flack, television advertising spot, and so-called news organizations. Keep in mind that the loudest and most biased news organizations are wholly controlled and operated exclusively for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch and a small clique of the richest, greediest pigs on earth. You have to understand that these people do not give a shit about you. They want you to chant "obamacare" every time Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Grace says it. They don't want you to think about it. They just want you to hate it. Why? Because your ignorance will keep them rich.

      Money is everything to these people. You are nothing to them but just another fool to be fleeced. Pay them, vote for them, fine, but do not lie to me and tell me that the people supporting this system are anything but lying pigs.

      --
      John
    20. Re:Can't wait.. by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Son of a friend was in the same position except at 6 weeks old. They tried medicine first as well but it didn't work (problems were too big). So he had surgery. This is the Netherlands btw so you get surgery when you need it (but mandatory insurance here). Anyway they had licensed surgeons (academic hospital) and still they tried medication first, because that was what would be the best for the child.

      Heart surgery for kids under 2 years of ages is a high-risk game. We were told the kid had an 80% survival chance *this year* because 10 years earlier it was just 25%. They are making VERY fast progress and every year you don't have to have surgery, survival chances increase. The kid is older, the heart bigger, the condition (hopefully) better, etc. So Kaiser may actually be doing the best thing possible: he *will* need surgery, but if he doesn't need it *now* chances are that the delay increases his odds of survival. And without details it will be hard to tell, especially for non-heart surgeons.

      I'm not factoring in the damage he will suffer from his condition, though: you will need a second opinion for that.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  4. personnel management agency = HR by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    personnel management agency = HR

    And HR does not get IT that much and hiring based on key words does not help.

    1. Re:personnel management agency = HR by bryan1945 · · Score: 3

      Don't forget the requirement to have 20+ years of Java experience (or whatever that number was back when they were just pulling numbers out of their asses.).

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    2. Re:personnel management agency = HR by todrules · · Score: 1

      'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.'

      From the quote above, it sounds like they actually had the HR people building the website.

      It really doesn't matter what kind of company it is. It could be a furniture, clothing, or car company. They can all have good websites. You hire the people to do the job for you.

    3. Re:personnel management agency = HR by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      This is purely anecdotal, but most of the feds I work with are Republican or independant and right leaning. Kinda seems strange voting against your own financial interests, but whatever.

    4. Re:personnel management agency = HR by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      Depends entirely on which department they're in. DHHS people will be bluer than 15 year-old teenager's balls on homecoming, DOD and DOE people will frequently be bible thumping fundamentalists (based on my personal experiences at LANL anyway).

    5. Re:personnel management agency = HR by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Care to provide some citations? I remember the DoJ under W having something of a scandal when some of the people doing the hiring were caught using political litmus tests.

    6. Re:personnel management agency = HR by CadentOrange · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing ads for jobs where 5+ years of C# experience was essential. This was back in 2003, and I don't think that even Anders Helsberg the creator of C# would have qualified.

    7. Re:personnel management agency = HR by GPSguy · · Score: 1

      Boy, ain't that the truth. Ad, having a GS-5 doing the keyword reviews doesn't work well either.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
  5. Queue the negative comments by ExtremeSupreme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh look at those idiots in govt.... with their job security, and their benefits, and their pension... clearly only the stupid people are the ones that apply to govt jobs! there's no way it's the most clever of us who work in govt...

    1. Re:Queue the negative comments by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Grammer Natzi sez: It's Cue, not Queue.

    2. Re:Queue the negative comments by ExtremeSupreme · · Score: 1

      Huh. How about that. Thanks!

    3. Re:Queue the negative comments by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And you would be wrong. Queue is a perfectly acceptable English word, derived from the French word for "tail".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Queue the negative comments by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless he is rather cleverly suggesting that he expects a great many negative comments and would like the process to be orderly.

    5. Re:Queue the negative comments by afabbro · · Score: 2, Informative

      And you would be wrong. Queue is a perfectly acceptable English word, derived from the French word for "tail".

      And you would be wrong. The idiom is "cue", not "queue", though both happen to work depending on how flexible one is on the meaning.

      Given this is supposedly (though rarely actually) a technology discussion site, I think "queue" in this context could be clever. I doubt it was meant as such, however.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    6. Re:Queue the negative comments by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I considered that, but there was nothing in the post to suggest anything other than a simple phonetic transposition of the word "Cue" which he likely learned verbally in context, with the word Queue which he likely learned written on a programming exam.

    7. Re:Queue the negative comments by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      shampoo owns your post!
      and this one too!

      Cheers!

    8. Re:Queue the negative comments by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Im not going to deny that there are some clever people in the government-- the NSA, for example-- but large swaths of government are NOT those people, and it doesnt tend to encourage efficiency. My experience-- even at a local level-- has been that the tendency is far more to throw money at a problem than to actually try to do things properly.

    9. Re:Queue the negative comments by GPSguy · · Score: 1

      When I read the title, I assumed immediately that the intent was to use the word, 'queue' in appropriate context: Line'em up. Sorry, you blew it.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by tenure.
    10. Re:Queue the negative comments by radish · · Score: 1

      Sure it's an acceptable English word. It's just the wrong one.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    11. Re:Queue the negative comments by ExtremeSupreme · · Score: 1

      You're bitching that their jobs aren't hard? Thanks for making my point for me! It's like I said, the smartest people work in the government. What kind of idiot wants to be worked to the bone and then tossed aside like week old meat?

  6. being sad about health care is a pre existing at l by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    being sad about health care is a pre existing at lest there plan does not have any of that BS and give you choice or you want the McDonalds mini med that costs like $1000 year for a max pay out of $2000.

    One of the problem with health care in this country is the lack of availability of insurance plans except by what the employers offers.

  7. Re:meaning of three new blades... by TWX · · Score: 1

    Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

    Then it's safe to say that Slashdot is very efficient...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  8. Scaling is hard by kqs · · Score: 2

    No surprise. Everyone always thinks that scaling is easy, and then spends months dealing with a long series of choke points and cache overflows. This is bearable if you can scale slowly, but not if all the traffic Is dumped on you from day one.

    The question is, will it still suck in three months? Will their IT folks learn?

    1. Re:Scaling is hard by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      No surprise. Everyone always thinks that scaling is easy, and then spends months dealing with a long series of choke points and cache overflows. This is bearable if you can scale slowly, but not if all the traffic Is dumped on you from day one.

      The question is, will it still suck in three months? Will their IT folks learn?

      The scaling part was easy. They slapped in some blades and expanded the cluster.

      What they goofed on was capacity planning. The Navy stopped using their CHART system and shifted over to using USAJobs. I think some other agencies standardized on using USAJobs at the same time as well. So the shear number of job listing went way up. Double the listing translates into much more than double the site visits.

  9. Three? by atari2600a · · Score: 1

    THREE!?

    1. Re:Three? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Hey, it's better than the one blade server they were using. I bet they were creating VMs on it to act as redundant nodes.

    2. Re:Three? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      They should skip the VMs and just paint racing stripes on their server racks... I hear that will increase clock speeds by up to 10MHz!

    3. Re:Three? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Funny

      Skip the racing stripes, speed holes are where it's at.

    4. Re:Three? by atari2600a · · Score: 1

      The same Homer Simpson that crashed his car through our hang-out!?

  10. Does anyone else not care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.

    What I read: Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.

    Wake me when /. has some real news.

    1. Re:Does anyone else not care? by auLucifer · · Score: 2

      When will /. have a like/+1 button on posts. Don't adjust moderation on it but it'll at least let people 'agree' if not just mark something they like. This being one I'd like...

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    2. Re:Does anyone else not care? by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

      reddit / hacker news exist.

      --
      For context, click Parent.
    3. Re:Does anyone else not care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree.
      I typically browse usajobs.gov and the site was terrible before. You couldn't press your back button, it would nag you to use IE6, the search sucked, selecting options was futile and the performance was terrible.

      The new site is ten times better. Anyone that thinks the old site was better is delusional or being paid by Monster.

    4. Re:Does anyone else not care? by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When will /. have a like/+1 button on posts.

      Hopefully never. One of the best things about /. is its willingness to abstain from such silly trends.

      There is no God. . . 153,678 people liked this post.

      Microsoft is cool. . . 0 people liked this post.

      We don't need those buttons, popular opinions on /. are well known to anyone who has visited here more than a couple times.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  11. Re:meaning of three new blades... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    It read pretty clearly to me, 3 blades - 3 blades should serve quite a few job seekers.

  12. Re:meaning of three new blades... by PerlJedi · · Score: 2

    Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

    Maybe but we are squeezing every last drop of compute power out of that commodore 64. :-)

  13. Re:meaning of three new blades... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In this day and age, you need at least 5 blades to get close....

  14. Re:meaning of three new blades... by A+Big+Gnu+Thrush · · Score: 1

    But they're really nice C64 blades.

  15. Incomplete Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    To be fair, USAJobs.gov's performance also sucked when monster ran it.

  16. Re:meaning of three new blades... by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

    3 blades would be plenty. This aint Justin Biebers website were talking about.

    --
    #include bier;
  17. Why is this flamebait? by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The poster has a valid point. In America, health care is a consumer service. For all of our complaints, were health care to be turned over to a federal bureaucracy, it would almost certainly get worse.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Why is this flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's flamebait because there isn't an "I disagree" option. I accepted the karma burn when I posted it. Sometimes the truth hurts. In this case it's gonna hurt a lot when people find out just how screwed we are when the realities of rationed health care hit home.

    2. Re:Why is this flamebait? by radish · · Score: 2

      It's ALREADY rationed, there are plenty of people out there who can't get the care they need. Making the provision of healthcare dependent on need rather than how much you can afford is such an incredibly obvious thing to do that I simply can't understand those who are against it. I've lived under both systems and it's no contest which is better.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Why is this flamebait? by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's ALREADY rationed, there are plenty of people out there who can't get the care they need.

      By that definition, everything from food to housing to cars are"rationed".

      Which is to say, it's not. Your definition is false. Rationing occurs by a central government authority who decides to distribute a good or service based on a criteria. Medical care... like food, housing, and cars... is a combination of goods and services in a market. It's not rationing when someone can't afford something.

      You would have been accurate had you said "plenty of people can't afford to pay for medical care" (just as many people can't afford houses, cars, etc). You're misleading when you say "rationing", however.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    4. Re:Why is this flamebait? by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      And yet instead it spawned a pretty reasonable conversation. I don't see any name calling or other ad hominem in the ensuing thread (with the exception of my "clowns" comment). I see people on both sides making their points in a civil discourse of reasoning and anecdotes.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  18. Fuck Everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're Doing Five Blades

  19. Re:meaning of three new blades... by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

    He doesnt shave. ;) W00SH !

    --
    #include bier;
  20. Re:meaning of three new blades... by KingMotley · · Score: 2

    That explains the lack of an edit button!

  21. USAJobs filter by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their job filter sucks. I know someone that was a government contractor and the people he worked for wanted to hire him as a federal employee. So they set up a listing that was well defined to fit his skills. He submitted his application but couldn't make it through the filter so he couldn't be hired.

    I saw an opening for a job and I knew the people that put the request in. I just copied and pasted the entire job requirement and description under other information and I sailed past the filter. When I was interviewed they thought it was a computer errror that caused the ad to print at the end of my application. I told them the truth and they laughed and I got the job.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  22. Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate you? by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    The GOP's stated policy is that anyone working for the federal government is shit and deserves pay cuts.
    The GOP thinks that federal government employee salaries are not based on competitive pay. I mean, normally if a job pays a certain amount you will get applicants who would be willing to work for that pay .. and therefore you'd get competitive applicants who are worth that much. If I offered a job that pays 1 million, presumably I'd get applicants who are worth around that .. yes sure along with people worth $10K .. but the point is the fed gov salaries are advertised and people who are working in only slightly less paying jobs looking for an upgrade will switch to it .. meaning if they paid less .. they'll get less qualified/competent applicants.

  23. Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a by zugmeister · · Score: 2

    There was once a show called "Benson" where the governor's teleprompter died just before the cameras went live, so he sat there for a long time just staring at the camera. One of the characters expressed concern that the sound was broken to which Benson replied that the sound was secondary, he was worried about the picture because the gov's lips were not moving. In this case, all the words in the post are spelled correctly but they are organized in such a manner that there does not appear to be a cogent argument. This is an excellent example of how proper use of spellcheck does not let you communicate clearly.

  24. There is no one else on this planet by zephvark · · Score: 2

    'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.' Pure FUD. If the problem was that all the toilets were always blocked up, you wouldn't accept an excuse that the company is clearly not a plumbing company, and doesn't have the skills to manage basic plumbing. That could be resolved with a simple phone call to folks that do actually have some experience with that field. Now, if you want to say that the management is too drooling stupid to figure that out... well, it's the Government, so that's not entirely implausible, but that's an entirely different statement than what has been made.

  25. Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conservatives run on a platform of government failure, then once elected, set about proving it to be true.

  26. Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the problem with health care in this country is the lack of availability of insurance plans except by what the employers offers.

    You're partially right.

    The problem with health care in this country definitely involves insurance.

    Why do we still use "insurance" for health care, anyway? Does any other developed country base distribution of health care on "insurance"?

    Nobody in the US goes through life without using health care at some point. It's silly to have a system where every single dollar spent on health care has 20% taken off the top for "insurance".

    And I certainly agree that getting health care should not have anything to do with your job, because when employers are involved with health care, because your employer really doesn't give a fuck about you, unless you work for your father. They wouldn't hesitate to watch you suffer in excruciating pain or die of mesothelioma at age 66 if it meant an additional .004% in profits. It's just not the way they're made.

    Our health care system was a lot better when all hospitals were non-profit and doctors were part of the middle class. That's not to say that there have not been technological advances. But the system itself will only get worse to the extent that profit becomes the primary driving force behind supply.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Monster isn't doing it anymore! Yay! by gQuigs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The old site was one of the worst job sites on the internet. I'm not sure if it's any better, but I don't think it could have gotten worse.

  28. Re:Hmm? TSA or Obamacare? by monoqlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government will never be put in charge of the US health care system. That was the whole take-away from the debate over health care law, remember? The bill that actually passed sets up a MARKETPLACE for PRIVATE INSURERS to SELL INSURANCE PRIVATELY to PEOPLE . That sounds like a conservative, market-based approach to me. That's probably because, oh wait, it is one - it's nearly identical to the system that Mitt Romney, a conservative Republican, put in place in Massachusetts, which, being identical, was also a conservative, market-based approach to universal health care. Mittens is now running away from his own law because 1) Obama passed a similar law 2) the crazy people who have taken over the Republican party can't even understand that, if they actually knew what their own principles were, THEY WOULD AGREE WITH IT. But for now their overriding, unthinking principle seems to be: We hate Obama, and if Obama did something, we hate that too.

    I'm tired of know-nothing tea partiers trolling on this site. If you know nothing about something, try not to comment on it.

  29. Facebook page? by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

    Aside from my bafflement that the government leased one of its domains out to monster.com, the thing that stuck me as most odd about this is that the government has a Facebook page. Why?

    It's getting to the point where abstaining from Facebook ostracizes one from society. It's like the internet's turning into AOL all over again, but worse.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    1. Re:Facebook page? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Aside from my bafflement that the government leased one of its domains out to monster.com,

      Outsourcing a hiring website to the largest, most popular, most experienced job-finding website to run it? Yeah, I'm amazed the government would do something that smart. Usually, on a project like that, they spend millions on reinventing the wheel (poorly.)

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  30. Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    I don't think the GOP is really against government, they're just against functional government. If someone brought a bill to congress that proposed slashing all those pointless "Homeland Security" positions that were created post-9/11 the GOP would be quick to oppose (and unfortunately so would most Dems).

    Regarding the less pay part: there are perks that government employees get that can make it worth it. Vacation, pension, holidays, job security. Would you rather a high salary job with some tech startup that's the pet project of a couple VCs (and will require many hours) or a government job that pays half as much? I would guess that an unrooted bachelor would be inclined to go with the startup whereas a family man would lean towards the government job. A lot of times if you break it down to dollars per hour the government job will pay as much or more.

    I do agree that the GOP's agenda of slashing government pay/benefits can only be detrimental, but I do think the government can get away with paying less provided the benefits balance it out.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  31. Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/gop_wins_could_mean_cuts_in_pa.html

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  32. Sour Grapes - The GRAVY TRAIN IS OVER for Monster. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.

    Yes indeed. And, the Monster site was a serious piece of shit itself.

    Here's the thing: Uncle Sam *just recently* took it back, we should EXPECT some bumps in the process. This is to be expected.

    Most people here, not being gov employees probably haven't experienced what USA Jobs replaced. Essentially, each arm of the government had their own site for job seekers.

    I can only tell you about about the Air Force site that Monster's USA Jobs replaced... The Air Force site was easy to navigate and easy to apply for jobs. Tracking your progress in the process was very straight forward.

    Before I accepted my current Air Force position, I applied for perhaps a dozen different jobs, was called back for telephone interviews on perhaps half, and was able to track my progress with all - such as the reason for being passed over (important information for a job seeker).

    The Monster experience was beyond convoluted to the point that I simply gave up trying to find and apply for jobs. Out of the 30 or 40 I applied for, I never got any call-backs, and it was impossible to track progress or determine reasons for for being passed over. It was just a huge waste of time.

    Seriously folks, we all KNOW how Monster works. This "story" is just sour grapes from Monster for losing a fucking GRAVY TRAIN of a contract.

    DISCLAIMER: I am a career Civil Servant with the Department of Defense.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  33. on the other hand, outsorcing didn't work well by postmortem · · Score: 1

    Gov't outsourced federal student loan processing to private company, and that didn't work well either. Auto-pay didn't work for days, so many had "payment late" notices. site was unusable for a week.
    http://consumerist.com/2011/10/dept-of-educations-new-site-giving-headaches-to-folks-with-student-loans.html

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. New and Improved by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    The Department of Labor has turned this over to Facebook - http://www.myskillsmyfuture.org/
    See http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/facebook-labor-department-job-seekers.html for the details.
    I think this site has no future.

  36. Runs on Window by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2

    Figures.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  37. Re:meaning of three new blades... by nabsltd · · Score: 2

    It read pretty clearly to me, 3 blades - 3 blades should serve quite a few job seekers.

    Maybe, maybe not.

    If the system had 30 blades running it with the crappy performance, then 3 more won't do much. If it had 3 blades before, then maybe 3 more will help, unless, of course, the poor performance is not caused by lack of CPU resources. If it's because of disk or network issues, throwing more CPUs at it will probably make it worse. Or, perhaps the individual blades are underpowered.

  38. How to suggest a pun was intended by tepples · · Score: 1

    So what should one write in order to invoke this pun in a way that even grammar national socialists will recognize? Would this work: "Cue the negative comments. In fact, queue them because there'll be so many."

    1. Re:How to suggest a pun was intended by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So what should one write in order to invoke this pun in a way that even grammar national socialists will recognize? Would this work: "Cue the negative comments. In fact, queue them because there'll be so many."

      If that was the desired pun, then, yes, that would work... except that /. stores comments in a tree instead of a queue...

  39. Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo by jfengel · · Score: 1

    Everybody in DC does breathe a guilty sigh of relief when Republicans win. Not because they'll do a better job (from the point of view of the GS-10s, it's all kind of the same), but because the level of whiny wailing drops somewhat.

    The ringing in your ears usually begins to decrease by midterms, just in time for the GOVERNMENT BAD! screeching to start up again.

  40. Karma by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    It's karma - anyone who WANTS to work for the government should be forced to endure such a crappy experience.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  41. Avoiding discrimination lawsuits by tepples · · Score: 1

    it was impossible to track progress or determine reasons for for being passed over.

    Maybe that's on purpose. Some human resource departments have been burned by discrimination lawsuits in the past. So I guess some companies' legal counsel have advised HR to say nothing more detailed to candidates than "you were not qualified" or "you were qualified but we chose a different candidate".

    1. Re:Avoiding discrimination lawsuits by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      That's not how civil service job hunting works. By various regulations based on law, you have exactly a right to know why they passed you over. Most of the process is automated right up to the point where the "hiring official" gets a list of candidates and decides how to proceed.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  42. Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our health care system was a lot better when all hospitals were non-profit and doctors were part of the middle class.

    Doctors are not part of the middle class?

    My wife started college at 16, didn't fool around, and managed to graduate from medical school at 24 with around $130K in student loan debt. She then worked 80+ hours per week in an internal medicine residency for 3 years earning 45-50K/yr. She then took a fellowship for 2 years working 70+ hours per week earning $50K/yr. At age 29, she began a split fellowship/academic instructor position that finally began to pay a salary approaching reality for the level of training involved - $100K. Student loan debt is still around $120K due to deferments.

    If you ignore all the investment to get there, she's "rich" in the eyes of left wing extremists like yourself. However, considering that she's had to accumulate more debt, dive into a hardcore and extensive higher education, work far longer hours for a merely median wage, and do that for 9 years longer than the typical BA, you're not going to get any sympathy from me.

    Doctor's income is not wealth until sometime in their mid 40s. Doctor's income is DEBT SERVICE in their 30s, starting a family in their late 30s or early 40s, and only then becomes something that puts them above middle class.

    It's also stupid to argue that some of the most highly trained people in our society (0.3%) ought to be compensated as "the middle class." If you want more family practitioners, pay them for God's sake. Otherwise, there's simply not enough altruists to go around, and you cannot command for there to be more...

  43. This is what budget cuts buy you... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Just about any end-user service currently under contract is likely to be pulled back to see if the agency can do it cheaper. So then you get management, unsure what hardware and personnel are required, but with a strong motivation to under budget.

    --
    Support SETI@home
  44. Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a by radish · · Score: 1

    I agree with the grandparent that healthcare shouldn't be (exclusively) private, so I'm probably a "left wing extremist" in your eyes (which would be a hysterical description to anyone who knew me). But $100k is not "rich" (depending largely on where you live, it certainly isn't around here) and your wife should be both applauded and compensated for her dedication (as should teachers, like my wife). She also shouldn't have to share the money spent on healthcare with the insurance companies. They're nothing more than middlemen and they don't provide any value whatsoever - take them out of the loop.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  45. Re:"Some organization" by yoshi_mon · · Score: 2

    The only butt-hurt here seems to be your anger at people pointing out the obvious and saying "after the government took it over, it sucked".

    The problem comes in when, and you have not said but you very likely are, people who hate the idea that the gov can do anything right would just gloss over when...

    X company is doing something for the gov and then loses the contract for lets say cost issues and it goes over to company Y. Company Y has some issues getting everything back to the level of functionality that was provided by a company that had been doing the job for a while. And for less money! But company Y eventually gets everything all set and then you praise the 'free market' for how great company Y is.

    Meanwhile anything the gov does must always be awful...save for the actual military. They are great...except when they come home and maybe want some health care...screw em then right?

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  46. Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    My wife started college at 16, didn't fool around, and managed to graduate from medical school at 24 with around $130K in student loan debt. She then worked 80+ hours per week in an internal medicine residency for 3 years earning 45-50K/yr. She then took a fellowship for 2 years working 70+ hours per week earning $50K/yr. At age 29, she began a split fellowship/academic instructor position that finally began to pay a salary approaching reality for the level of training involved - $100K. Student loan debt is still around $120K due to deferments.

    As a "left wing extremist" I would say your wife is part of the working poor, not middle class at all.

    .It's also stupid to argue that some of the most highly trained people in our society (0.3%) ought to be compensated as "the middle class."

    You mean teachers? Firefighters? Tool and die makers?

    And length of training has never been a measure of expected income. I've got a PhD in Literary Theory and taught for about 20 years. Should I be paid more than a physician? And how would you explain a CEO, who maybe was part of a 2-year MBA program, expecting to be paid $20 million dollars after 11 months, regardless of performance plus $6million for "relocation costs" and an instantly vested stock option program? And that's if he sucks at his job. If he actually does reasonably well, he'll expect a $5million bonus and a $15million golden parachute when he's fired for bringing the company to ruin. (yes, that's a real example).

    Yes, I believe doctors should be part of the middle class, and they should live in the communities they serve. That was the model for most of U.S. history. See, there was a time when the middle class was actually pretty prosperous. A doctor might have owned the nicest house in town, but he still lived in the town that he served. He was still part of the middle class. Then "supply-side" economics hit and that went all to hell.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  47. Re:meaning of three new blades... by Geotopia · · Score: 1

    Does that mean three racks of blade servers, or three blade units into a single enclosure?

    Neither, it was a typo. Should have said "Glade Servers", referring to the little room deodorizers you can plug into wall outlets. The BOFH at usajobs.gov rarely bothers to shower and combined with the heat generated from their 2 UNIVACS (on loan from the Census Bureau that no longer computes, just estimates populations) the odor makes almost the entire floor of DOL Computing Services unbearable. I would expect that with the biohazard semi-contained, some other programmers might be able to get on the VT-100s across the hall and fix some bugs. Ain't Gov-ment great!

  48. Re:meaning of three new blades... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    For the last 3 years I've been working in environments where 3 blades would fall under "rounding error" so when they say +3, I go... WHA?
    On the other hand..

    This is a government job search site we're talking about, not something popular like LOLCATS.

  49. Defensive paperwork by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    I'm a programmer for the Federal government. I suspect one major snafu is all the regulations the system has surrounding extreme security and which sorts of hardware and software you have to buy. Once some group of knowitalls stick their nose into the architectural decisions, nothing good will happen. This is true whether you are in private industry or in government. The systems I do work because we ignore all that stuff (by using all the various memos to build us a defensive paperwork moat around the system).