I automatically get an email after a visit asking me to review the experience, publicly and anonymously after ever visit. It's a great policy because it encourages regular or occasional feedback that would balance out any one time negative.
Besides, he's awesome and the highest rated in the city as a result of being good and being smart about encouraging people to comment on services.
Someone will address it if it gets in the media; you don't need to attach some poor schmuck's name unless it's already been escalated and the escalation has proven ineffective.
Anyone halfway competent with more than a year of actual management exposure in gov't will work to address the issue before it gets to the media. Despite the bureaucracy and politics they have to deal with, you can be certain they don't want to be on or contribute to the "zomg gov't is incompetent" news feed if given a clear option.
At least for some agencies, for those that deal day-to-day with judging/ranking/prioritizing people and services, they probably won't bat an eye to brush you off because they know the press ignores equity/effectiveness issues every day when it comes to certain programs. But I believe the FCC is surprised when people submit complaints to them at all, so the might actually be responsive if a little disorganized.
this is just armchair quarterbacking; i dont work for the feds.
All modern campaigns have coordinated astro-turfing. Some done directly via mailers and some by supporters "spontaneously" mailing/posting to go skew a online poll.
It was rather amusing seeing Obamatons trying to skew the AOL rolling poll of Obama vs Hillary. The demographics just didn't work out.
i don't consider background analysis to be a science. and no, i'm not stuck in the 1950s, the gov't is stuck in the 1950s. Or at least the 80s.
Closed process gov't. Closed loop government. Slow reforming gov't. Anti-risk gov't. There are no feedback loops for them to improve their processes.
The private sector's hiring and backgrounds are different because they are regulated and they can get the shit sued out of them under the civil rights act for any processes that _tends_ to discriminate in hiring/promotion. I.E. Unneeded credit check, a requirement to disclose medical history, etc etc. However, the Executive is basically exempt, exempt, exempt from that section of the CRA (other than some handwaving/gesticulating) so they can do whatever they want.
Anyway, where there is no pressure for equity, efficiency, and effectiveness...you can bet there isn't going to be much of any of them.
Because anything and everything my doctor writes down is reviewable by some nitwit risk analysis agent who's performing an analysis of my background and medical history that was originally written to standards associated with middle class, heterosexual, white christian males.
not poor minorities from the ghetto. and certainly not poor fags.
it's no wonder gov't has no respect for private citizens when the folks that are hired have to open up their life history and medical record and thus _must_ have nothing to hide or be very good at hiding it.
Business and Gov't partner or play chicken all the time (depending on your perspective) and often to the benefit of business (though it's sometimes debatable in research areas). Whether it's research funding or development subsidies, if business can get away with it, they'll push costs (especially long-term costs) to gov't whenever they can. However, in cases of gov't budget crunch, a smart gov't manager will have an incentive to push back and defund items that _are most likely to get private funding/donations/grants_.
I don't know if that's the case here, but in general that's the game (actually it's not intentional, it's more about pressure). This sort of thing is most clear in places like california where voters have to approve just about everything, so issues that voters care about (schools, libraries, potholes) perpetually appear on the ballot for funding. Sucks for reform though, cause there's less pressure for mgmt improvement.
Not in the 80s they didn't. Hell, I didn't really understand the meaning of f(x) until I took CS classes--my math instruction was that craptacular.
Not to mention that I went to a country high school where rednecks in trucks drove past with confederate flags flying and there were 10 black folks (and no latino, jews, asians, etc). My senior year, someone asked me if I was albino...now, I'm a white guy with curly brown hair so I just assumed he didn't know what it meant. At least not until 10 years later when I was hanging out with some friends in a hiphop bar in San Fran and related the story to my friend Freddie Mac. Freddie laughed pretty damn hard and said, "He thought you was a black man."
I suppose it's funny that the KKK crowd in NC was so clueless that instead of thinking i was a curly haired jewish boy they assumed I was a black man with hair dye and contact lenses.
!!Are we sure Garth Brooks isn't a lethal weapon or in violation of the geneva conventions? I mean I heard about them playing Eminem loud at guantanamo to increase stress levels, but Garth Brooks...that would obscene. And from a strategic perspective, should we really give away our best interrogation techniques to the chinese?
Water boarding with achey breaky heart in the background? The horror.
Define "the president alone" -- I'm the president and I approve of all of those appointments. Or I'm the president and I approved of those appointments by virtue of the power of the executive, which runs said dept.
Or, define "head of department" -- Within the organizational structure, Director so-and-so is the de facto dept head because he has responsibilities for the office that are commensurable with the meaning of the term department.
IANAL, but seriously slashdot there are sooo many ways this would get tossed out or even if validated could be fixed by executive or legislative action. After all, last I checked, that dept _is_ part of the executive branch.
name recognition, name recognition, rolodex, rolodex,
blah. why are there even MORE stories about this on slashdot. it was obviously hype to benefit nick, benefit his new employer, and then play down the MS leaving angle to make somewhat/all nice with his old employer. everybody wins. even slashdot. go go gadget newscycle.
everybody except me, im the idiot taking the time to click the link and write this little rant. and you're the idiots taking the time to mod me -1 troll and +5 underrated.
It's cheaper and has a better outcome for a powerless administrator that's being harassed over funding to implement the change and then either wait for someone to notice OR leak it to the press. Risk taking in cushy positions isn't encouraged and lawsuits about federal requirements tend to fail, but it DOES happen that public administrators will go along with something and then let the press act as an external pressure to get what they want. An angry public can be far more effective than a lawsuit or resigning from your position over a change.
I don't know if Johns Hopkins blindly went along with this, but I'd bet a shitload of money that a senior manager thought about the options and determined this was best in the short-term. If people are outraged enough, they'll get multiple press releases out of it which could impact the _overall_ program (and cause the most good). Alternatively, they could be left alone (waiver/whatever) and retain funding. Or they could end up with enough outraged folks that top tier school administration decides to apply pressure on their behalf and try a suit. Lastly, they could end up with some non-federal funding (this may not be realistic...I don't know their budget on the issue and it may be tied to the entire university and not just the project). In addition, the press on this is great for continued awareness of USAID policies.
I mean how many slashdot users remember our USAID policies or read ramblings by folks with an MPA?
/rambleon it's public employees that have the least privacy and thus the least respect for continued protection of privacy laws. Even non-sensitive, non-financial positions frequently have full credit report disclosure (nevermind that this is basically the gov't using private sector financial systems geared toward business and the middle-class and that have a record of discrimination against minorities). I've also seen full mental health record disclosure and monitoring and polygraph for sensitive positions without any explanation of _what_ was being evaluated in a risk analysis sense (no oversight).
As a result, the people I know in police and psych and general gov't don't even bat a fucking eye about invasive information gathering and unexplained (mis)usage of information. It's all for security and risk protections--and exceptions are given under the table, on an as needed basis, etc. Again, no oversight...all good old boy. And for the record, the government is exempted from the section of the civil rights act that prohibits hiring systems that create a pattern of discrimination.
In other words, the article is dead on...though a little too nice since there is almost no quality control with the private credit agencies and still a bit hidden because it's generally only abused in govt hiring. That will probably change as agencies become better integrated and the cost of going full background checks goes down./rambleoff
People seem to forget that Windows is the basis for a suite of applications--including office. The OS is much much much more important than its cost or even to ensure brand/market control on laptops--windows has massive upsell. The OS is essential for Office productivity domination (including MS office, outlook, etc)as well (and there's a lot of $$ to be made or lost there). Hell, if MS really wanted to, they could _pay_ for their OS to be on laptops and still make up the loss on average sales of other products (not that they need to or that it makes good business sense).
I live in SF, liberal land, and don't know what i'll do if obama wins the nomination. I'm actually _opposed_ to him at the gut level because of the issue you raise--his most vocal campaign/followers are fundamentally anti-democratic and I want to see us get away from that. And clinton's negatives are a strong reminder of just how far hate speech can change debates--most of the grating voice/fat ankles stuff has seeped into the national consciousness--some of it misogyny some of it just consistent trashing over the years by media hacks.
But there are also other issues at play--the blogosphere is a new system having a profound effect on the election process and rumor mills (sadly, mostly for the negative side since the blogs are spouting rumors/bs and then the 24 hr news cycle reports them as well and the corrections rarely get play in the blogs or news).
So is this a party problem or a technology problem? Or both? Will it work itself out over time? Does the party need a correction (i wonder if that's way fewer clinton voters say they'll vote for the other candidate vs previous election polls)? Or is this yet another education issue since few people understand politcs/rhetoric/media cycles.
Either way, I would hesitate to vote for someone campaigning on unity/moral superiority who had a lawyer challenge ballot signatures of all his opponents in illinois, took the low road on MI/FL (very bad for the general election), and stayed in a controversial church that was politically useful. I'm the queer son of a UCC minister, so that last issue has been pretty damn personal, because I know exactly what I would do if a family member said things i disagreed with...and just how far i would bend ethics for political gain.
blah. enough rambles. this election is so frelled. thanks for the post.
There's nothing new about his ideas, the problem is implementing them with a remote respect for privacy.
You can either a) make public every email/meeting ever (see what people clamor for with clinton/bush), or b) provide a clear process with checkpoints in the process that provide feedback.
The clear process version has been around for a very long time and appears highly effective in some cases (see NEPA/EPA), it's just that standardization has been limited even at the federal level and technology adoption lags the private sector by far. Public comment and involvement has been around since the 1930s at the federal level, and the barriers to getting involved are gradually coming down.
Anyway, regardless of Obama/McCain/Clinton at the federal level, you will see more transparent policy making and data at the local level over the next 10-15 years. We already have a decent amount of administrative openness and data at the federal level, it's just not been brought online (except for some statistics/data). However at the local level it's a matter of slow adoption and infrastructure building--right now SF is just getting its 311 system off the ground (hello, we cant even handle centralized calls and don't even have a governmental wiki/knowledgebase of services). NYC did it a few years ago, but probably still has a lot of work...
Once basic information about policy and procedures and departments are more thoroughly integrated, digestible, and brought online THEN you'll see local gov't agencies comfortable with eDemocracy technologies on regular administrative actions (some involvement usually reduces administrative and political risk, too much involvement increases risk). As it is now, you might see participation technologies for local politicians (feeds and discussion of district issues or permits), but it's going to take time for anything more to develop.
oops. i rambled. anyway, point is that most of obama's points are already implemented in basic form(except for the live feed, which is a disaster and the signing delay). And the signing delay is not appropriate, he should be advocating a delay on voting in the house senate when the damn bill hasn't even been read. The president waiting to sign a bill is far too late in the process.
And in case you don't know, there are two issues at stake: administrative and political openness. There are already comment and review and appeals processes at the federal, state, and local levels that slow down changes and give people time to comment--those simply need to be brought online and tweaked. Legislatures are the ones that need a LOT of work, the 600+ page bills released to the public after they're passed by a supermajority are unacceptable.
Several 501c organizations develop software for other 501c organizations simply to reduce the cost of administrative overhead...i can't name names, but I ran across a few when hunting for a job with my MPA. Since any decent charity is judged by its works _and_ its administrative overhead, it made sense to folks working with multiple non-profits to spin-off administrative systems and software. I will say that such processes are usually extremely rare, especially when involving gov't organizations or funds due to regulatory/control reasons--I was very surprised to see them.
Is it charity to develop software for free (or in this case, not for profit) to lower mgmt costs? I would say yes, because the goal of the technology is to lower the costs of work and thereby get more support to those who need it--this is back office charity. And those non-profit employees that still get paid...well they're donating their own work at less than market value (no stock/upside) with a greatly increased risk (very unstable funding).
Slashdot Mirror
I automatically get an email after a visit asking me to review the experience, publicly and anonymously after ever visit. It's a great policy because it encourages regular or occasional feedback that would balance out any one time negative. Besides, he's awesome and the highest rated in the city as a result of being good and being smart about encouraging people to comment on services.
Someone will address it if it gets in the media; you don't need to attach some poor schmuck's name unless it's already been escalated and the escalation has proven ineffective.
Anyone halfway competent with more than a year of actual management exposure in gov't will work to address the issue before it gets to the media. Despite the bureaucracy and politics they have to deal with, you can be certain they don't want to be on or contribute to the "zomg gov't is incompetent" news feed if given a clear option.
At least for some agencies, for those that deal day-to-day with judging/ranking/prioritizing people and services, they probably won't bat an eye to brush you off because they know the press ignores equity/effectiveness issues every day when it comes to certain programs. But I believe the FCC is surprised when people submit complaints to them at all, so the might actually be responsive if a little disorganized.
this is just armchair quarterbacking; i dont work for the feds.
nt
Perhaps I should turn on audio, or they should have a less friggin confusing UI.
I clicked the site and was redirected to Alexa and some other site after 10-15 seconds. Wtf ftw!?
All modern campaigns have coordinated astro-turfing. Some done directly via mailers and some by supporters "spontaneously" mailing/posting to go skew a online poll.
It was rather amusing seeing Obamatons trying to skew the AOL rolling poll of Obama vs Hillary. The demographics just didn't work out.
i don't consider background analysis to be a science. and no, i'm not stuck in the 1950s, the gov't is stuck in the 1950s. Or at least the 80s.
Closed process gov't. Closed loop government. Slow reforming gov't. Anti-risk gov't. There are no feedback loops for them to improve their processes.
The private sector's hiring and backgrounds are different because they are regulated and they can get the shit sued out of them under the civil rights act for any processes that _tends_ to discriminate in hiring/promotion. I.E. Unneeded credit check, a requirement to disclose medical history, etc etc. However, the Executive is basically exempt, exempt, exempt from that section of the CRA (other than some handwaving/gesticulating) so they can do whatever they want.
Anyway, where there is no pressure for equity, efficiency, and effectiveness...you can bet there isn't going to be much of any of them.
Because anything and everything my doctor writes down is reviewable by some nitwit risk analysis agent who's performing an analysis of my background and medical history that was originally written to standards associated with middle class, heterosexual, white christian males.
not poor minorities from the ghetto. and certainly not poor fags.
it's no wonder gov't has no respect for private citizens when the folks that are hired have to open up their life history and medical record and thus _must_ have nothing to hide or be very good at hiding it.
Business and Gov't partner or play chicken all the time (depending on your perspective) and often to the benefit of business (though it's sometimes debatable in research areas). Whether it's research funding or development subsidies, if business can get away with it, they'll push costs (especially long-term costs) to gov't whenever they can. However, in cases of gov't budget crunch, a smart gov't manager will have an incentive to push back and defund items that _are most likely to get private funding/donations/grants_.
I don't know if that's the case here, but in general that's the game (actually it's not intentional, it's more about pressure). This sort of thing is most clear in places like california where voters have to approve just about everything, so issues that voters care about (schools, libraries, potholes) perpetually appear on the ballot for funding. Sucks for reform though, cause there's less pressure for mgmt improvement.
Not in the 80s they didn't. Hell, I didn't really understand the meaning of f(x) until I took CS classes--my math instruction was that craptacular.
Not to mention that I went to a country high school where rednecks in trucks drove past with confederate flags flying and there were 10 black folks (and no latino, jews, asians, etc). My senior year, someone asked me if I was albino...now, I'm a white guy with curly brown hair so I just assumed he didn't know what it meant. At least not until 10 years later when I was hanging out with some friends in a hiphop bar in San Fran and related the story to my friend Freddie Mac. Freddie laughed pretty damn hard and said, "He thought you was a black man."
I suppose it's funny that the KKK crowd in NC was so clueless that instead of thinking i was a curly haired jewish boy they assumed I was a black man with hair dye and contact lenses.
LOL, +5 culturally insightful
funny, i always thought it was garth brooks...apparently i REALLY didnt learn anything growing up in North Carolina
Might blow up and kill this man...woooooooo
!!Are we sure Garth Brooks isn't a lethal weapon or in violation of the geneva conventions? I mean I heard about them playing Eminem loud at guantanamo to increase stress levels, but Garth Brooks...that would obscene. And from a strategic perspective, should we really give away our best interrogation techniques to the chinese?
Water boarding with achey breaky heart in the background? The horror.
Otherwise you'll flip the bit and end up having to pay a shit-ton.
I once new a kid that had a char on a MUD with a +255 chr. He'd had a natural 8 chr, but had some high level -chr items. Flipped it right over.
Unfortunately, he bought over 99 flares (which crashed the server) and shortly thereafter someone fixed the bug.
Define "the president alone" -- I'm the president and I approve of all of those appointments. Or I'm the president and I approved of those appointments by virtue of the power of the executive, which runs said dept.
Or, define "head of department" -- Within the organizational structure, Director so-and-so is the de facto dept head because he has responsibilities for the office that are commensurable with the meaning of the term department.
IANAL, but seriously slashdot there are sooo many ways this would get tossed out or even if validated could be fixed by executive or legislative action. After all, last I checked, that dept _is_ part of the executive branch.
A blender show is about the only one of these I'd watch. And only if it lasted under three minutes: Two minutes of "wow this product is awesome!"
followed by frappe.
Duke Nukem: Atomic Particle Edition!
*bows*
I almost typed Addition. Ah wordplay.
name recognition, name recognition,
rolodex, rolodex,
blah. why are there even MORE stories about this on slashdot. it was obviously hype to benefit nick, benefit his new employer, and then play down the MS leaving angle to make somewhat/all nice with his old employer. everybody wins. even slashdot. go go gadget newscycle.
everybody except me, im the idiot taking the time to click the link and write this little rant. and you're the idiots taking the time to mod me -1 troll and +5 underrated.
*headdesk*
It's cheaper and has a better outcome for a powerless administrator that's being harassed over funding to implement the change and then either wait for someone to notice OR leak it to the press. Risk taking in cushy positions isn't encouraged and lawsuits about federal requirements tend to fail, but it DOES happen that public administrators will go along with something and then let the press act as an external pressure to get what they want. An angry public can be far more effective than a lawsuit or resigning from your position over a change.
I don't know if Johns Hopkins blindly went along with this, but I'd bet a shitload of money that a senior manager thought about the options and determined this was best in the short-term. If people are outraged enough, they'll get multiple press releases out of it which could impact the _overall_ program (and cause the most good). Alternatively, they could be left alone (waiver/whatever) and retain funding. Or they could end up with enough outraged folks that top tier school administration decides to apply pressure on their behalf and try a suit. Lastly, they could end up with some non-federal funding (this may not be realistic...I don't know their budget on the issue and it may be tied to the entire university and not just the project). In addition, the press on this is great for continued awareness of USAID policies.
I mean how many slashdot users remember our USAID policies or read ramblings by folks with an MPA?
/rambleon
/rambleoff
it's public employees that have the least privacy and thus the least respect for continued protection of privacy laws. Even non-sensitive, non-financial positions frequently have full credit report disclosure (nevermind that this is basically the gov't using private sector financial systems geared toward business and the middle-class and that have a record of discrimination against minorities). I've also seen full mental health record disclosure and monitoring and polygraph for sensitive positions without any explanation of _what_ was being evaluated in a risk analysis sense (no oversight).
As a result, the people I know in police and psych and general gov't don't even bat a fucking eye about invasive information gathering and unexplained (mis)usage of information. It's all for security and risk protections--and exceptions are given under the table, on an as needed basis, etc. Again, no oversight...all good old boy. And for the record, the government is exempted from the section of the civil rights act that prohibits hiring systems that create a pattern of discrimination.
In other words, the article is dead on...though a little too nice since there is almost no quality control with the private credit agencies and still a bit hidden because it's generally only abused in govt hiring. That will probably change as agencies become better integrated and the cost of going full background checks goes down.
People seem to forget that Windows is the basis for a suite of applications--including office. The OS is much much much more important than its cost or even to ensure brand/market control on laptops--windows has massive upsell. The OS is essential for Office productivity domination (including MS office, outlook, etc)as well (and there's a lot of $$ to be made or lost there). Hell, if MS really wanted to, they could _pay_ for their OS to be on laptops and still make up the loss on average sales of other products (not that they need to or that it makes good business sense).
I live in SF, liberal land, and don't know what i'll do if obama wins the nomination. I'm actually _opposed_ to him at the gut level because of the issue you raise--his most vocal campaign/followers are fundamentally anti-democratic and I want to see us get away from that. And clinton's negatives are a strong reminder of just how far hate speech can change debates--most of the grating voice/fat ankles stuff has seeped into the national consciousness--some of it misogyny some of it just consistent trashing over the years by media hacks.
But there are also other issues at play--the blogosphere is a new system having a profound effect on the election process and rumor mills (sadly, mostly for the negative side since the blogs are spouting rumors/bs and then the 24 hr news cycle reports them as well and the corrections rarely get play in the blogs or news).
So is this a party problem or a technology problem? Or both? Will it work itself out over time? Does the party need a correction (i wonder if that's way fewer clinton voters say they'll vote for the other candidate vs previous election polls)? Or is this yet another education issue since few people understand politcs/rhetoric/media cycles.
Either way, I would hesitate to vote for someone campaigning on unity/moral superiority who had a lawyer challenge ballot signatures of all his opponents in illinois, took the low road on MI/FL (very bad for the general election), and stayed in a controversial church that was politically useful. I'm the queer son of a UCC minister, so that last issue has been pretty damn personal, because I know exactly what I would do if a family member said things i disagreed with...and just how far i would bend ethics for political gain.
blah. enough rambles. this election is so frelled. thanks for the post.
There's nothing new about his ideas, the problem is implementing them with a remote respect for privacy.
You can either a) make public every email/meeting ever (see what people clamor for with clinton/bush), or b) provide a clear process with checkpoints in the process that provide feedback.
The clear process version has been around for a very long time and appears highly effective in some cases (see NEPA/EPA), it's just that standardization has been limited even at the federal level and technology adoption lags the private sector by far. Public comment and involvement has been around since the 1930s at the federal level, and the barriers to getting involved are gradually coming down.
Anyway, regardless of Obama/McCain/Clinton at the federal level, you will see more transparent policy making and data at the local level over the next 10-15 years. We already have a decent amount of administrative openness and data at the federal level, it's just not been brought online (except for some statistics/data). However at the local level it's a matter of slow adoption and infrastructure building--right now SF is just getting its 311 system off the ground (hello, we cant even handle centralized calls and don't even have a governmental wiki/knowledgebase of services). NYC did it a few years ago, but probably still has a lot of work...
Once basic information about policy and procedures and departments are more thoroughly integrated, digestible, and brought online THEN you'll see local gov't agencies comfortable with eDemocracy technologies on regular administrative actions (some involvement usually reduces administrative and political risk, too much involvement increases risk). As it is now, you might see participation technologies for local politicians (feeds and discussion of district issues or permits), but it's going to take time for anything more to develop.
oops. i rambled. anyway, point is that most of obama's points are already implemented in basic form(except for the live feed, which is a disaster and the signing delay). And the signing delay is not appropriate, he should be advocating a delay on voting in the house senate when the damn bill hasn't even been read. The president waiting to sign a bill is far too late in the process.
And in case you don't know, there are two issues at stake: administrative and political openness. There are already comment and review and appeals processes at the federal, state, and local levels that slow down changes and give people time to comment--those simply need to be brought online and tweaked. Legislatures are the ones that need a LOT of work, the 600+ page bills released to the public after they're passed by a supermajority are unacceptable.
Several 501c organizations develop software for other 501c organizations simply to reduce the cost of administrative overhead...i can't name names, but I ran across a few when hunting for a job with my MPA. Since any decent charity is judged by its works _and_ its administrative overhead, it made sense to folks working with multiple non-profits to spin-off administrative systems and software. I will say that such processes are usually extremely rare, especially when involving gov't organizations or funds due to regulatory/control reasons--I was very surprised to see them.
Is it charity to develop software for free (or in this case, not for profit) to lower mgmt costs? I would say yes, because the goal of the technology is to lower the costs of work and thereby get more support to those who need it--this is back office charity. And those non-profit employees that still get paid...well they're donating their own work at less than market value (no stock/upside) with a greatly increased risk (very unstable funding).
wait, you just said you're 18 and your dad reads slashdot.
ahahaha
limited allocation of resources == debate about proper usage.
geez the mods are insane lately...god i hate our new election cycle.