5) An unproven design that may not work. They didn't design Hubble to be crippled intentially. And if this one doesn't work, it can't be fixed.
6) A nice new satellite that might not make it to orbit or the wrong orbit or be damaged, etc. Putting payloads into orbit is a risk.
7) The cost estimates might be very wrong. Or maybe it gets dropped on the ground (happened before). Oops.
I think it would be a good backup plan. As in, repair the Hubble and build a new telescope. In the grand scheme of things, the money isn't much.
But don't assume it will be cheaper and provide better science. It might be, but the future is hard to predict.
Re:hondas, ferraris and ebay
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I would rather fly into space on a rocket designed for the task.
Cars don't seem ideal for achieving orbit or surviving reentry.
Of course, if I am going to die in a massive explosion, I would choose the Ferrari.
Re:um, car's aren't rockets...
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 1
"What evidence do you have that NASA is better at this than anybody else?"
Well, your first example was a known (potential) failure mode (so don't launch in cold weather). In your second example, a rocket didn't blow up, now did it?
To answer your question, when was the last time a manned NASA rocket blew up when it was launched during the proper weather conditions? Never. Of course, past events may not have a bearing on future reliability...
"That is called a "Union". Popular for that very reason..."
Oh, let me assure you that having a union is not necessary. My current employer (not software related) seems to operate? that way and there is definitely no union....
"Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. We have 20 years to go of zero terrorist activity before terrorism and lightning become equal hazards on average."
Well, from 1959 to 2003, 3696 people were killed by lightning in the US. Exactly how many were killed by terrorism in that time? Oh, and we didn't have 20 years of zero terrorist activity.
Of course, while we can estimate risk of death from lightning strikes, the risk from terrorism is rather harder to determine. I would say you are overestimating the risk, which is common with things you appear to have no control over. But there are things you could do to reduce the risk-if you want to waste your time. Lightning strikes, like terrorism, are pretty much noise in the grand scheme of things (ways to die).
And just because we had a lot of deaths in one year attributed to terrorism does not necessarily change the risk. I would say a lot of things aren't taught in school...
"Were something to go wrong with the shuttle during launch and not discovered until the checkout at the ISS, the shuttle could dock and the crew use the shuttle systems to augment the ISS life-support capacity."
Far safer? On what grounds? Of the two lost shuttles, only one could have made it to the station. If the second could have made it to the station, there is no guarantee that it could have been repaired to withstand reentry. So, we would have lost the same two shuttles.
We may have saved one crew but frankly, the crew is easier to replace than the shuttle. Plenty of people want to be astronauts. Rather difficult to build another shuttle. If we tried to return a damaged shuttle to Earth we could lose part of a crew.
At best it would save a few lives (depends upon how many accidents are survivable-and that's a SWAG). Wouldn't be a PR disaster. But if the only thing we are going to do is send stuff to the ISS, do we REALLY need a shuttle long term? The answer is no.
"If you rationally look for the best way to spend a billion dollars to aid astronomical research, HOP is a much better bet - you get a slighly newer and more capable satellite made mostly with proven techology and which has a longer expected life-span than the aging Hubble."
Do you? In theory you get all that. But the Hubble works. We know how to fix it. What happens if the replacement doesn't work, it blows up on the pad, malfunctions, doesn't reach the correct orbit, etc. The replacement IS UNPROVEN and undeployed. Even if it was to be built with "proven" technology.
"And you don't risk human lives by launching a space shuttle to an orbit from which "abort to ISS" is an impossibility."
So what? The astronauts don't mind the risk. If they thought there was a high risk of dying I doubt they would support the mission. Every shuttle launch is a risk-of the two shuttles that we have lost, one MIGHT have been saved with one crew saved. "Abort to ISS" doesn't sound too useful to me....
If the problem is that we can't afford to lose another shuttle and/or that it would be a PR disister, say it. Perhaps because that would be a PR disaster...
"But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show. The problem is the Superbowl was rated for all ages."
Well then, the show was rated incorrectly. That would be a good reason to impose a fine.
But no one expected it? Yes and no. I mean, come on, what is the point of cheerleaders in skimpy outfits if not for T and A. I wouldn't say the halftime show was G rated anyway (without the "malfunction").
"The liberal wing, as well, supports the "war on drugs". Bill Clinton, a major liberal leader,..."
One little problem. The Democratic Party is not on the liberal spectrum (aka the left). They are moderates at best. Bill Clintin was not a liberal. The only LOOK liberal compared to the Republican Party.
I doubt many true liberals support the war on drugs. For that matter, neither do true conservatives. That's the problem with labels-they tend to be used to confuse rather than illuminate. Actions are a better benchmark.
"Whether one uses a heavy hand in regulating, or a light hand, says nothing regarding the stiffness of fines you impose."
Not explicitly. But implicitly imposing large arbitrary and capricious fines implies "don't do it" VERY loudly. I would define that as a "heavy hand". Or if you prefer, an iron fist in a velvet glove....
"Remember that airlines are responsible these days for returning people who are denied entry, so they have some incentive to make sure that people won't be barred at the entry to the US."
You'd think that would extend to getting the most up to date no fly lists. I guess there is not that much incentive and/or safety risk...:)
"Being able to pay for something does not obligate someone else to sell it to you."
Huh? The airline sold him the ticket. No one forced them to.
"...the airline can question you and refuse to carry you."
Only for valid reasons. Which may vary from country to country. And they had better refund your money on the spot. A regulation that mysteriously disappears when questioned by a frequent flyer does not seem to be one of them....
"The biggest reason they would care is the return expense."
Assuming you bought a round trip ticket, I doubt it. Sure, they would like to avoid the inconvenience.
"It's probably cost-effective for them to ask customers the security questions pre-flight."
Maybe. I say this because they seem to allow no-fly passengers on flights when they shouldn't.... I imagine it is much more cost effective to allow so-called security risks on planes than to exclude them. Which makes you wonder how useful those lists really are. After all, if security was REALLY that important...
"So it's very simple: they want to pass off any disadvantages of the exchange rate to us customers, while pocketing the advantages."
Well, DUH! The obvious reason is for increased profit (or to prevent a reduction in profit)-but HP claims otherwise. The GP didn't ask for specifics about how HP would make money off of region coding but why they would do it for reasons OTHER THAN MONEY.
"All I'm saying is that it is not fair to deny people the choice of participating social security. I'm sure that I can do a better job with my money than the government can, and I think I should be allowed that choice."
Well, you are allowed that choice. Work for a state government with a pension plan that exempts you from social security. They exist in a number of states. And many will allow you to direct your investments like a private companies 401k plan.
Or do you just like to whine about it?
Some other points.
"The wealthy people in this country are taxed at a higher rate than the non-wealthy, first of all."
True. Of course they do benefit the most from the system...
"Secondly, almost every tax cut I've seen cuts more of the tax burden from people making less than average income than from people making more than average income."
Really? That's funny. None of the recent tax cuts has reduced my "burden" significantly-heck I'm not even sure my burden has been reduced (outside of indexing tax tables for inflation). And my income certainly isn't above average.
"It's only through obscure statistical voodoo that people can claim that the Bush tax cut only saves money for wealthy."
By only, well, yes. But mostly beneficial for the "wealthy", well, yes.
Look, you really want to cut taxes, well then, why don't you exempt more money from taxation? That WILL help EVERYONE. And it will get money into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend it. And people who spend money, not investors, drive most of the economy.
"The borrowing for the social security fix is a one-time amount. Therefore, if the interest is paid each year, the amount borrowed will decrease each year, after figuring in inflation.
The taxpayers never have to pay it back."
Granted, we may NOT WANT to pay back the debt (in the case of the US deficit, probably not feasible).
"If the amount borrowed keeps going up, then that could be a problem."
That's an understatement. And what is the chance of that not happening?
"But if it goes up slower than inflation, then it's actually going down in real dollar terms. Eventually, it can be paid-off in petty cash."
So, care to figure out when we will be able to pay off our deficit out of petty cash? In other words, nice in theory. Doesn't work well in practice.
The problem is this-sure your idea might work for the SS debt. But that will increase our OVERALL debt (we will likely borrow more overall-it is unlikely we will decrease spending or raise taxes).
And what happens if we suddenly become a credit risk (we have to give a lot more interest on our T-bills)?
"The stock market is the obvious place to look, but you can't invest the SS Trust Fiund; it would totally skew the markets to have a single investor make those decisions."
Sure you can. And no it wouldn't. State investment boards do it all the time. And if you don't trust a board of experts, use index funds (aka, a high tide lifts all boats....).
"So, the Bush administration wants to let individuals make those decisions."
And this won't skew anything?!? But the government will?!?
"Because the government can't "put money aside" in that kind of quantity."
Why not? Sure a few trillion dollars at once is a LOT of money (even for the government). But we are not talking about that. We are talking billions. At most a couple hundred billion. Every year over decades. The government spends over a TRILLION a year. The market can handle this. Hell, it would probably help our economy (or maybe impose some fiscal restraint on government).
"The other option that people talk about is putting the money into stocks--but nobody talks about what happens to the economy when the government tries to cash out trillions of dollars from market."
HUH? And how is this different than privatizing social security? The same amount of money is still going to flow in and out. Instead of one person moving the money you will have millions.... Just use index funds and the problem goes away (in theory).
"Because the government can't "put money aside" in that kind of quantity."
Well, you got one thing correct. Congress: OOOH, LOOK! SHINY! FREE MONEY! MUST SPEND! Voters: MORE! MORE! MORE!
"Oh, and also as my (male) supervisor once warned me, some of the older guys are just biased against women. They won't say it outright but it affects how they select people for jobs."
Well, it's a good thing that women are never biased against men...
"Also then you want to have a baby and you have to take at least a year off, sometimes even more, and well you can see how things go."
Yeah, well, I imagine that would go over as well as a man saying the same thing.... Look, don't blame other people for losing time in your career because you wanted a child. Time away from a career will often hinder it. Don't expect to be rewarded or be treated the same as those who didn't-it's not the same a Sabbatical.
Look, in my opinion, being a women in academia can be beneficial. Women seem to be heavily recruited. In some fields, it appears to me that one does not have to meet the same standards as a male to be hired or gain tenure. Of course, I don't know if that is really a "good" thing or if the tenure process is riduculous to begin with at some places (probably).
"Being efficient means that you get more work done more quickly with fewer resources. Fewer resources means less unneeded funding. Less funding means a smaller head count. Smaller head count means you're going to be stuck with hundreds of people who aren't doing anything (probably not doing much anyway) that you are stuck with, and can't fire... unless they're merit based, but let's not get into that."
Strike 1: Oh, need less money, fine, we will cut your budget. Oh, but you might need some more money next year for something important? Too bad. (I have seen this played out in the military-a rush to spend extra money at the end of the year, even though they don't need to because if they don't, their budget will be cut and they won't be able to make important purchases that they need in a year or two....)
Strike 2: Smaller organization=less clout. Manager wise, that is.
Strike 3: Changing the organization creates new power centers and destroys old ones. Doesn't happen without a fight or a clear goal. Expecially when many people in the org. have seen these attempts fail over and over.
Strike 4: We know best. We are the experts. How dare you tell us how to do our job. If we didn't think of it or can't take credit for it, it sucks.
Which is why being efficient can be a bad thing (for any organization).
"Now, I wouldn't blame the FBI for the problem completely - after all, they are not software developers. A portion of blame should go toward the contractor for failing to realize the issues surrounding development of such a complex system and taking appropriate actions to determine and meet the needs of their clients."
On one hand I understand your point. But on the other, I say bullshit!
The FBI put out the specs and approved the contract. They probably took the contract that cost the least that stated it met the specs. A clear recipe for failure.
I guess they should both be blamed. But they won't. Nobody will be punished. Frankly, the people in charge of the project should be fired and the company sued for the costs of the project. Then, maybe, the people in charge and the companies that bid will think about their actions a little before committing to a project that they probably realize will fail....
Not really. Of course, if by "fat" you mean not supported by me, well then, fair enough.
Reminds me of the quote, paraphrased, "One persons pork project is another persons vital project".
"Spineless Yes-Man Politicians More Interested in Keeping Their Jobs than in Serving the People who Bloody Voted for them."
But if people keep re-electing them, maybe they are serving their public. Of course the problem is, people get the representation they deserve, and so do we:)
The ultimate problem with the checklists is how they would be worded. And of course, no costs would be included....
Would you like (yes/no):
"A missile defense system that works and makes the world safe for democracy."
"Vital infrastructure contracts for companies to provide much needed employment."
"Education system that keeps your kids occupied for eight hours a day (and out of your house)."
"Legal system that delivers quick, accurate, and deserved punishment to criminals."
Now if you voted against some of them, people would think you torture animals in your spare time:)
Not surprising. There is probable a rule somewhere stating that developing software for a State Department of Human Services will fail miserably and cost a lot of money. Texas is not unique.
"Any township is going to incur significant costs collecting, sorting, organizing, formating, and duplicating this data. Giving all of that data away free means other services will suffer, or taxes will have to be raised."
Excuse me?!?! If they already have this data in a GIS then the cost will be near $0. Maybe a few dollars for the time it takes to query the information and burn the data to a CD or upload it. If it is a non-standard query, then it may take more time-I can see doing this when it is convenient vs right now (this doesn't mean they HAVE to convert data formats). Aside from stripping private data out or restricting certain licensed data, there is NO reason not to release it to the public. Hell, they could even license it for non-commercial use.
But people who work for the government are PUBLIC servants. They are already being paid. The data has already been acquired-it was obviously required for the job at hand.
Nope, this is just another way to grab money or keep control.
Luckily, not all agencies or states are idiots or assholes. Even ones that are short on money. It's called professionalism.
Slashdot Mirror
But don't forget, you also get:
5) An unproven design that may not work. They didn't design Hubble to be crippled intentially. And if this one doesn't work, it can't be fixed.
6) A nice new satellite that might not make it to orbit or the wrong orbit or be damaged, etc. Putting payloads into orbit is a risk.
7) The cost estimates might be very wrong. Or maybe it gets dropped on the ground (happened before). Oops.
I think it would be a good backup plan. As in, repair the Hubble and build a new telescope. In the grand scheme of things, the money isn't much.
But don't assume it will be cheaper and provide better science. It might be, but the future is hard to predict.
Personally, I would rather fly into space on a rocket designed for the task.
Cars don't seem ideal for achieving orbit or surviving reentry.
Of course, if I am going to die in a massive explosion, I would choose the Ferrari.
"What evidence do you have that NASA is better at this than anybody else?"
Well, your first example was a known (potential) failure mode (so don't launch in cold weather). In your second example, a rocket didn't blow up, now did it?
To answer your question, when was the last time a manned NASA rocket blew up when it was launched during the proper weather conditions? Never. Of course, past events may not have a bearing on future reliability...
"That is called a "Union". Popular for that very reason..."
Oh, let me assure you that having a union is not necessary. My current employer (not software related) seems to operate? that way and there is definitely no union....
"Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. We have 20 years to go of zero terrorist activity before terrorism and lightning become equal hazards on average."
Well, from 1959 to 2003, 3696 people were killed by lightning in the US. Exactly how many were killed by terrorism in that time? Oh, and we didn't have 20 years of zero terrorist activity.
Of course, while we can estimate risk of death from lightning strikes, the risk from terrorism is rather harder to determine. I would say you are overestimating the risk, which is common with things you appear to have no control over. But there are things you could do to reduce the risk-if you want to waste your time. Lightning strikes, like terrorism, are pretty much noise in the grand scheme of things (ways to die).
And just because we had a lot of deaths in one year attributed to terrorism does not necessarily change the risk. I would say a lot of things aren't taught in school...
"Were something to go wrong with the shuttle during launch and not discovered until the checkout at the ISS, the shuttle could dock and the crew use the shuttle systems to augment the ISS life-support capacity."
Far safer? On what grounds? Of the two lost shuttles, only one could have made it to the station. If the second could have made it to the station, there is no guarantee that it could have been repaired to withstand reentry. So, we would have lost the same two shuttles.
We may have saved one crew but frankly, the crew is easier to replace than the shuttle. Plenty of people want to be astronauts. Rather difficult to build another shuttle. If we tried to return a damaged shuttle to Earth we could lose part of a crew.
At best it would save a few lives (depends upon how many accidents are survivable-and that's a SWAG). Wouldn't be a PR disaster. But if the only thing we are going to do is send stuff to the ISS, do we REALLY need a shuttle long term? The answer is no.
"If you rationally look for the best way to spend a billion dollars to aid astronomical research, HOP is a much better bet - you get a slighly newer and more capable satellite made mostly with proven techology and which has a longer expected life-span than the aging Hubble."
Do you? In theory you get all that. But the Hubble works. We know how to fix it. What happens if the replacement doesn't work, it blows up on the pad, malfunctions, doesn't reach the correct orbit, etc. The replacement IS UNPROVEN and undeployed. Even if it was to be built with "proven" technology.
"And you don't risk human lives by launching a space shuttle to an orbit from which "abort to ISS" is an impossibility."
So what? The astronauts don't mind the risk. If they thought there was a high risk of dying I doubt they would support the mission. Every shuttle launch is a risk-of the two shuttles that we have lost, one MIGHT have been saved with one crew saved. "Abort to ISS" doesn't sound too useful to me....
If the problem is that we can't afford to lose another shuttle and/or that it would be a PR disister, say it. Perhaps because that would be a PR disaster...
"But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show. The problem is the Superbowl was rated for all ages."
Well then, the show was rated incorrectly. That would be a good reason to impose a fine.
But no one expected it? Yes and no. I mean, come on, what is the point of cheerleaders in skimpy outfits if not for T and A. I wouldn't say the halftime show was G rated anyway (without the "malfunction").
"The liberal wing, as well, supports the "war on drugs". Bill Clinton, a major liberal leader,..."
One little problem. The Democratic Party is not on the liberal spectrum (aka the left). They are moderates at best. Bill Clintin was not a liberal. The only LOOK liberal compared to the Republican Party.
I doubt many true liberals support the war on drugs. For that matter, neither do true conservatives. That's the problem with labels-they tend to be used to confuse rather than illuminate. Actions are a better benchmark.
"Whether one uses a heavy hand in regulating, or a light hand, says nothing regarding the stiffness of fines you impose."
Not explicitly. But implicitly imposing large arbitrary and capricious fines implies "don't do it" VERY loudly. I would define that as a "heavy hand". Or if you prefer, an iron fist in a velvet glove....
The only difference is in perception.
"It's a free market."
Is it? Technically yes. In reality, no.
"Remember that airlines are responsible
:)
these days for returning people who are denied
entry, so they have some incentive to make sure
that people won't be barred at the entry to the
US."
You'd think that would extend to getting the most up to date no fly lists. I guess there is not that much incentive and/or safety risk...
"Being able to pay for something does not obligate someone else to sell it to you."
Huh? The airline sold him the ticket. No one forced them to.
"...the airline can question you and refuse to carry you."
Only for valid reasons. Which may vary from country to country. And they had better refund your money on the spot. A regulation that mysteriously disappears when questioned by a frequent flyer does not seem to be one of them....
"The biggest reason they would care is the return expense."
Assuming you bought a round trip ticket, I doubt it. Sure, they would like to avoid the inconvenience.
"It's probably cost-effective for them to ask customers the security questions pre-flight."
Maybe. I say this because they seem to allow no-fly passengers on flights when they shouldn't.... I imagine it is much more cost effective to allow so-called security risks on planes than to exclude them. Which makes you wonder how useful those lists really are. After all, if security was REALLY that important...
"So it's very simple: they want to pass off any disadvantages of the exchange rate to us customers, while pocketing the advantages."
Well, DUH! The obvious reason is for increased profit (or to prevent a reduction in profit)-but HP claims otherwise. The GP didn't ask for specifics about how HP would make money off of region coding but why they would do it for reasons OTHER THAN MONEY.
"All I'm saying is that it is not fair to deny people the choice of participating social security. I'm sure that I can do a better job with my money than the government can, and I think I should be allowed that choice."
Well, you are allowed that choice. Work for a state government with a pension plan that exempts you from social security. They exist in a number of states. And many will allow you to direct your investments like a private companies 401k plan.
Or do you just like to whine about it?
Some other points.
"The wealthy people in this country are taxed at a higher rate than the non-wealthy, first of all."
True. Of course they do benefit the most from the system...
"Secondly, almost every tax cut I've seen cuts more of the tax burden from people making less than average income than from people making more than average income."
Really? That's funny. None of the recent tax cuts has reduced my "burden" significantly-heck I'm not even sure my burden has been reduced (outside of indexing tax tables for inflation). And my income certainly isn't above average.
"It's only through obscure statistical voodoo that people can claim that the Bush tax cut only saves money for wealthy."
By only, well, yes. But mostly beneficial for the "wealthy", well, yes.
Look, you really want to cut taxes, well then, why don't you exempt more money from taxation? That WILL help EVERYONE. And it will get money into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend it. And people who spend money, not investors, drive most of the economy.
"The borrowing for the social security fix is a one-time amount. Therefore, if the interest is paid each year, the amount borrowed will decrease each year, after figuring in inflation.
The taxpayers never have to pay it back."
Granted, we may NOT WANT to pay back the debt (in the case of the US deficit, probably not feasible).
"If the amount borrowed keeps going up, then that could be a problem."
That's an understatement. And what is the chance of that not happening?
"But if it goes up slower than inflation, then it's actually going down in real dollar terms. Eventually, it can be paid-off in petty cash."
So, care to figure out when we will be able to pay off our deficit out of petty cash? In other words, nice in theory. Doesn't work well in practice.
The problem is this-sure your idea might work for the SS debt. But that will increase our OVERALL debt (we will likely borrow more overall-it is unlikely we will decrease spending or raise taxes).
And what happens if we suddenly become a credit risk (we have to give a lot more interest on our T-bills)?
"The stock market is the obvious place to look, but you can't invest the SS Trust Fiund; it would totally skew the markets to have a single investor make those decisions."
Sure you can. And no it wouldn't. State investment boards do it all the time. And if you don't trust a board of experts, use index funds (aka, a high tide lifts all boats....).
"So, the Bush administration wants to let individuals make those decisions."
And this won't skew anything?!? But the government will?!?
"Because the government can't "put money aside" in that kind of quantity."
Why not? Sure a few trillion dollars at once is a LOT of money (even for the government). But we are not talking about that. We are talking billions. At most a couple hundred billion. Every year over decades. The government spends over a TRILLION a year. The market can handle this. Hell, it would probably help our economy (or maybe impose some fiscal restraint on government).
"The other option that people talk about is putting the money into stocks--but nobody talks about what happens to the economy when the government tries to cash out trillions of dollars from market."
HUH? And how is this different than privatizing social security? The same amount of money is still going to flow in and out. Instead of one person moving the money you will have millions.... Just use index funds and the problem goes away (in theory).
"Because the government can't "put money aside" in that kind of quantity."
Well, you got one thing correct.
Congress: OOOH, LOOK! SHINY! FREE MONEY! MUST SPEND!
Voters: MORE! MORE! MORE!
"Oh, and also as my (male) supervisor once warned me, some of the older guys are just biased against women. They won't say it outright but it affects how they select people for jobs."
Well, it's a good thing that women are never biased against men...
"Also then you want to have a baby and you have to take at least a year off, sometimes even more, and well you can see how things go."
Yeah, well, I imagine that would go over as well as a man saying the same thing.... Look, don't blame other people for losing time in your career because you wanted a child. Time away from a career will often hinder it. Don't expect to be rewarded or be treated the same as those who didn't-it's not the same a Sabbatical.
Look, in my opinion, being a women in academia can be beneficial. Women seem to be heavily recruited. In some fields, it appears to me that one does not have to meet the same standards as a male to be hired or gain tenure. Of course, I don't know if that is really a "good" thing or if the tenure process is riduculous to begin with at some places (probably).
"Being efficient means that you get more work done more quickly with fewer resources. Fewer resources means less unneeded funding. Less funding means a smaller head count. Smaller head count means you're going to be stuck with hundreds of people who aren't doing anything (probably not doing much anyway) that you are stuck with, and can't fire... unless they're merit based, but let's not get into that."
Strike 1: Oh, need less money, fine, we will cut your budget. Oh, but you might need some more money next year for something important? Too bad. (I have seen this played out in the military-a rush to spend extra money at the end of the year, even though they don't need to because if they don't, their budget will be cut and they won't be able to make important purchases that they need in a year or two....)
Strike 2: Smaller organization=less clout. Manager wise, that is.
Strike 3: Changing the organization creates new power centers and destroys old ones. Doesn't happen without a fight or a clear goal. Expecially when many people in the org. have seen these attempts fail over and over.
Strike 4: We know best. We are the experts. How dare you tell us how to do our job. If we didn't think of it or can't take credit for it, it sucks.
Which is why being efficient can be a bad thing (for any organization).
"Now, I wouldn't blame the FBI for the problem completely - after all, they are not software developers. A portion of blame should go toward the contractor for failing to realize the issues surrounding development of such a complex system and taking appropriate actions to determine and meet the needs of their clients."
On one hand I understand your point. But on the other, I say bullshit!
The FBI put out the specs and approved the contract. They probably took the contract that cost the least that stated it met the specs. A clear recipe for failure.
I guess they should both be blamed. But they won't. Nobody will be punished. Frankly, the people in charge of the project should be fired and the company sued for the costs of the project. Then, maybe, the people in charge and the companies that bid will think about their actions a little before committing to a project that they probably realize will fail....
Ahh, yes, wouldn't we all....
:)
:)
"80% of government is fat."
Not really. Of course, if by "fat" you mean not supported by me, well then, fair enough.
Reminds me of the quote, paraphrased, "One persons pork project is another persons vital project".
"Spineless Yes-Man Politicians More Interested in Keeping Their Jobs than in Serving the People who Bloody Voted for them."
But if people keep re-electing them, maybe they are serving their public. Of course the problem is, people get the representation they deserve, and so do we
The ultimate problem with the checklists is how they would be worded. And of course, no costs would be included....
Would you like (yes/no):
"A missile defense system that works and makes the world safe for democracy."
"Vital infrastructure contracts for companies to provide much needed employment."
"Education system that keeps your kids occupied for eight hours a day (and out of your house)."
"Legal system that delivers quick, accurate, and deserved punishment to criminals."
Now if you voted against some of them, people would think you torture animals in your spare time
Not surprising. There is probable a rule somewhere stating that developing software for a State Department of Human Services will fail miserably and cost a lot of money. Texas is not unique.
"Any township is going to incur significant costs collecting, sorting, organizing, formating, and duplicating this data. Giving all of that data away free means other services will suffer, or taxes will have to be raised."
Excuse me?!?! If they already have this data in a GIS then the cost will be near $0. Maybe a few dollars for the time it takes to query the information and burn the data to a CD or upload it. If it is a non-standard query, then it may take more time-I can see doing this when it is convenient vs right now (this doesn't mean they HAVE to convert data formats). Aside from stripping private data out or restricting certain licensed data, there is NO reason not to release it to the public. Hell, they could even license it for non-commercial use.
But people who work for the government are PUBLIC servants. They are already being paid. The data has already been acquired-it was obviously required for the job at hand.
Nope, this is just another way to grab money or keep control.
Luckily, not all agencies or states are idiots or assholes. Even ones that are short on money. It's called professionalism.