Some more information about our company. We are a company that has gone from 3 employees to 500 total in about 30 years. The current president founded the company, does not understand technology, same with most vice-presidents around him. The divisions in the company are run pretty much like separate companies, but IT comes out of every budget.
The CIO attempts to fix by bringing current problems by e.g. we're running at 95% of network storage, and we don't have backup email server if the power goes out (twice last month) to the board meeting. The vice-presidents who don't understand the technology or the implications say no to the cost without understanding the impact.
Me and other users would like to coordinate with IT so that before they go to the president and ask for money that they come through us so they can get the support from the us as well. But the other issue that we have is that they will roll out "upgrades" without coordinating first.
CIO - We're going to Office 2003, here is the upgrade schedule, it's been blessed by the President
US - We have customers that require Access 2000, and converting them back and forth is a good way to crash them
CIO - We're locking down the computers effective today so you can't install anything.
US - We create executables for distribution, we can't test on our machines.
Granted these problems can be worked out, but its better to do it in advance. How would you create the hooks so the IT staff is responsible to user requests, but still remains the clearinghouse for technology?
BTW - None of yagu's potential problems are here, no layoffs, bene's are great, and most people are generally happy. Senior IT management isn't that technical, but that's for another day.
Thanks for the intellectual debate and your reponse to all the other comments that came up. Although we disagree it is nice to see that we can do it civily.
Yes, the US gives training and military support to dubious regiemes. But, we do it with just about every country, the only exceptions are probably Lybia, North Korea and Iran. Military interaction is about one step above diplomatic interaction on the relationship scale between war and trusted ally. It doesn't cost either country much, both can learn and the military will most likely get along. At my officer training course - we had 6 international students (IIRC - Saudia Arabia, Thailand, Nigeria, Poland, a South American country, and a former Soviet block country), and EVERY class had international students.
I'm not happy with Saudi Arabia's closed society, or their relative blind eye to terrorism, but the bombing that hit them recently is starting to open their eyes. It's not perfect, but calling Saudi Arabia a terrorist shelter is to similar to calling the UK a terrorist shelter, not just because of the 7/7 bombings, but because the IRA history.
Overall, I think that the majority of the international community would like the US to have the same foreign policy that we had during the Cold War. The US was very generous to our allies, and those on the fence. The Soviets was very generous to their allies, and those on the fence. Now that there isn't another superpower out there (yet!) everyone is out there with their hand out and with an opinion about how we should run our country. When we don't give what they expect or what we used to, they feel like we not sharing. I'm sorry to say, but just like we shouldn't be the world's policeman, we shouldn't be the world's social security system either.
Moreover, the US itself has engaged in direct military action and invading foreign countries in a manner I'm sure many of their citizens would describe as terroris
Here is an abridged version of the wars that the US has been in last century.
World War I (1917-1918) - UK invited
World War II (1941-1945) - We were attacked
Korean War (1950-1953)- UN sponsored
Vietnam War (1964-1973) - South Vietnam invited
Grenada Invasion (1983) - Skirmish in the Cold War
Panama Invasion (1989) - Panama declared war
Second Persian Gulf War (1991) - UN Sponsored
Somalia Intervention (1992-1993) - UN sponsored humanitarian mission that was caused by warlords who wanted to continue to fight
Bosnian/Kosovo War (1995-1999) NATO sponsored humanitarian mission that was caused by warlords who wanted to continue to fight, this time we stayed
The War in Afghanistan (2001-Present) If the Taliban weren't terrorists I don't know what was. Definite implicit UN support, hell when I was there, even the French had troops there.
I've RTFA on Amnesty International, not much there initially, but I did read around. The legal loophole isn't in the US legal system, but in international precedent. This is standard procedure between those at war. You hold my prisoners until it's done, I hold yours, we relase when done. These people were engaged in armed conflict against the US. They were captured as prisoners of war. The war isn't over, we don't have to release them. This is the legal precedent, but if you read anywhere, it's not about the legal recourse, but about rights. The US has not agreed to these rights. Just like if you commit a crime in a foreign country you are subject to the rights that the foreign country decides you have regardless of what right you have at home. There is a strong argument from both sides that we were the government in Afghanistan. Despite this argument, the "right" and correct thing to do is give these people a REAL trial
Two pet peeves when arguing this - The Geneva convention is BETWEEN COUNTRIES, not BETWEEN PEOPLE. Al Queida hasn't signed the Geneva convention, we don't have to treat their prisoners according to it. (We would be stupid not to, but we are not bound by law to do it). Second, these people aren't citizens - they don't get citizen rights. What is the incentive to become a citizen if all non-citizens get the same rights.
I'm far from an apologist for the US government - and I am especially not an apologist for what other people say on the internet, because the first set of statements are either false (production of everyday consumables), trumped up (world center for arts), or follow bad logic (big military = policeman)
But I have problems with your devil's advocate positions
Biggest liability economy - MANY countries are like this, including Europe and the developed East Asian countries, mostly because of growing aging population, and declining birthrates. The ironic part about this is that America shutting down its greatest resource, other countries people - immigrants, because of overzealous security.
Lawsuits - Agree, kill the lawyers
Environment - Touchy subject, but I think the global environment damage issue is overblown.
Military - Complaining?? WTF?? Who are we complaining to? Who could right the wrong that we are feeling?? The UN??? This is absurd.
Presidential elections - Yes, the presidential election system is based on 1787 ideas for government. But you're attacking a two party system that is present in many countries, not just America.
State sponsor of Terror - My favorite line from Anti-Americans. What airplanes have we blown up or rammed into buildings, what Walmart sells bomb jackets, and what car bombs do we drive down the street?
WMD - not to belabor the Hiroshima debate again, but deaths were in the thousands, not millions, and during WWII cities (and innocent civilians) were considered appropriate targets. (They weren't)
Constitution for big business - If you're talking the Kelo decision, yes, but Merck is paying a 1/4 of a BILLION for one death. Big tobacco is still paying for anti-smoking ads 7 years after the decision.
Gitmo - I'd love to talk in detail about this, but the short of it is - the legal arguments don't exist, the moral arguments do. IF the foreign government wants them back, we should; speedy trials instead of years. But, I remember reading a story about how a terrorist in the UK when apprehended in his house immediately cried out "I have rights!!!"
Average US citizen - most citizens don't know anything about the government, this is horrible. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I appreciate an intelligent debate and constructive criticism.
Back to the original debate - I still think that we're doing okay. Religion is taking pot shots at the outside edges, but this won't last. I think that we still have an edge in Silicon Valley and most of the medical research. These areas are the key areas of growth for the future.
Discover magazine had a much longer article on this a couple months ago, but I can't find it on the web. Here are a few good points that I can remember.
Space has been militarized, but not weaponized, that is to say the military is using space, but there are no weapons in space. This is somewhat analogous to the internet - in that the military uses the internet, but there are no known military weapons for use on the internet that aren't available to the public. To respond to a previous poster's comment on spy satelites as weapons, I've used google maps, and I wasn't able to blow anything up.
That being said, space weapons that actually attack targets on the ground are highly unlikely. Space based lasers would have problems with - cloud cover, large amount of fuel required (600 lbs if I remember correctly) and easy defence (a large pool of water over the building, thick ceilings). Kinetic weapons working on the principle of Force = Mass * Acceleration, instead of explosive power aren't that much more effective than conventional weapons. Add to all that the cost of defending these specialized weapons leads another arms race, that thankfully no country really wants to run.
As implied in the article satelites are the real vulnerability, because they provide such essential communications technology. However, the threats aren't there yet. So, nothing against the Air Force, but they need to be focused on the real issues and threats of today, not Buck Rogers time.
FYI - From what I'm reading on the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission it is a part of the "Organization of American States" - kind of a UN for North and South America. That's how the State Department is even involved in this.
I'm far from a Republican apologist, (Libertarian) but I tend to agree with the administration more than not. However I have a problem with both sides on this -
Those that are screaming about a fascist state are stretching things further than Gumby. The Religious Right wants a country similar to the 14 points, but its not (hopefully) going to get there any time soon. On the other hand, this is another notch on the Republican power consolidation bedpost that will get them burned and voted out eventually.
Do they have the right to do this? Absolutely, this is their right as the State Department to choose who they want to represent them in international meetings. And, despite the noise about it, I support the president choosing people that agree with him. Outside the White House he has 49% of the nation that thinks someone else would do the job better. I'd want some friends close too.
The formal system of checks and balances in the government - and the informal one in the media will prevent him from doing anything too stupid - John Bolton....
Now the more important question - Should they do this? No, I think it is much more important for the Government to be worried about national security, Social Security, Iraq, the national debt, and than a few geeks getting together to talk about telecom.
Slashdot Mirror
Some more information about our company. We are a company that has gone from 3 employees to 500 total in about 30 years. The current president founded the company, does not understand technology, same with most vice-presidents around him. The divisions in the company are run pretty much like separate companies, but IT comes out of every budget.
The CIO attempts to fix by bringing current problems by e.g. we're running at 95% of network storage, and we don't have backup email server if the power goes out (twice last month) to the board meeting. The vice-presidents who don't understand the technology or the implications say no to the cost without understanding the impact.
Me and other users would like to coordinate with IT so that before they go to the president and ask for money that they come through us so they can get the support from the us as well. But the other issue that we have is that they will roll out "upgrades" without coordinating first.
CIO - We're going to Office 2003, here is the upgrade schedule, it's been blessed by the President
US - We have customers that require Access 2000, and converting them back and forth is a good way to crash them
CIO - We're locking down the computers effective today so you can't install anything.
US - We create executables for distribution, we can't test on our machines.
Granted these problems can be worked out, but its better to do it in advance. How would you create the hooks so the IT staff is responsible to user requests, but still remains the clearinghouse for technology?
BTW - None of yagu's potential problems are here, no layoffs, bene's are great, and most people are generally happy. Senior IT management isn't that technical, but that's for another day.
Thanks for the intellectual debate and your reponse to all the other comments that came up. Although we disagree it is nice to see that we can do it civily.
Yes, the US gives training and military support to dubious regiemes. But, we do it with just about every country, the only exceptions are probably Lybia, North Korea and Iran. Military interaction is about one step above diplomatic interaction on the relationship scale between war and trusted ally. It doesn't cost either country much, both can learn and the military will most likely get along. At my officer training course - we had 6 international students (IIRC - Saudia Arabia, Thailand, Nigeria, Poland, a South American country, and a former Soviet block country), and EVERY class had international students.
I'm not happy with Saudi Arabia's closed society, or their relative blind eye to terrorism, but the bombing that hit them recently is starting to open their eyes. It's not perfect, but calling Saudi Arabia a terrorist shelter is to similar to calling the UK a terrorist shelter, not just because of the 7/7 bombings, but because the IRA history.
Overall, I think that the majority of the international community would like the US to have the same foreign policy that we had during the Cold War. The US was very generous to our allies, and those on the fence. The Soviets was very generous to their allies, and those on the fence. Now that there isn't another superpower out there (yet!) everyone is out there with their hand out and with an opinion about how we should run our country. When we don't give what they expect or what we used to, they feel like we not sharing. I'm sorry to say, but just like we shouldn't be the world's policeman, we shouldn't be the world's social security system either.
Moreover, the US itself has engaged in direct military action and invading foreign countries in a manner I'm sure many of their citizens would describe as terroris
Here is an abridged version of the wars that the US has been in last century.
World War I (1917-1918) - UK invited
World War II (1941-1945) - We were attacked
Korean War (1950-1953)- UN sponsored
Vietnam War (1964-1973) - South Vietnam invited
Grenada Invasion (1983) - Skirmish in the Cold War
Panama Invasion (1989) - Panama declared war
Second Persian Gulf War (1991) - UN Sponsored
Somalia Intervention (1992-1993) - UN sponsored humanitarian mission that was caused by warlords who wanted to continue to fight
Bosnian /Kosovo War (1995-1999) NATO sponsored humanitarian mission that was caused by warlords who wanted to continue to fight, this time we stayed
The War in Afghanistan (2001-Present) If the Taliban weren't terrorists I don't know what was. Definite implicit UN support, hell when I was there, even the French had troops there.
I've RTFA on Amnesty International, not much there initially, but I did read around. The legal loophole isn't in the US legal system, but in international precedent. This is standard procedure between those at war. You hold my prisoners until it's done, I hold yours, we relase when done. These people were engaged in armed conflict against the US. They were captured as prisoners of war. The war isn't over, we don't have to release them. This is the legal precedent, but if you read anywhere, it's not about the legal recourse, but about rights. The US has not agreed to these rights. Just like if you commit a crime in a foreign country you are subject to the rights that the foreign country decides you have regardless of what right you have at home. There is a strong argument from both sides that we were the government in Afghanistan. Despite this argument, the "right" and correct thing to do is give these people a REAL trial
Two pet peeves when arguing this - The Geneva convention is BETWEEN COUNTRIES, not BETWEEN PEOPLE. Al Queida hasn't signed the Geneva convention, we don't have to treat their prisoners according to it. (We would be stupid not to, but we are not bound by law to do it). Second, these people aren't citizens - they don't get citizen rights. What is the incentive to become a citizen if all non-citizens get the same rights.
I'm far from an apologist for the US government - and I am especially not an apologist for what other people say on the internet, because the first set of statements are either false (production of everyday consumables), trumped up (world center for arts), or follow bad logic (big military = policeman)
But I have problems with your devil's advocate positions
Biggest liability economy - MANY countries are like this, including Europe and the developed East Asian countries, mostly because of growing aging population, and declining birthrates. The ironic part about this is that America shutting down its greatest resource, other countries people - immigrants, because of overzealous security.
Lawsuits - Agree, kill the lawyers
Environment - Touchy subject, but I think the global environment damage issue is overblown.
Military - Complaining?? WTF?? Who are we complaining to? Who could right the wrong that we are feeling?? The UN??? This is absurd.
Presidential elections - Yes, the presidential election system is based on 1787 ideas for government. But you're attacking a two party system that is present in many countries, not just America.
State sponsor of Terror - My favorite line from Anti-Americans. What airplanes have we blown up or rammed into buildings, what Walmart sells bomb jackets, and what car bombs do we drive down the street?
WMD - not to belabor the Hiroshima debate again, but deaths were in the thousands, not millions, and during WWII cities (and innocent civilians) were considered appropriate targets. (They weren't)
Constitution for big business - If you're talking the Kelo decision, yes, but Merck is paying a 1/4 of a BILLION for one death. Big tobacco is still paying for anti-smoking ads 7 years after the decision.
Gitmo - I'd love to talk in detail about this, but the short of it is - the legal arguments don't exist, the moral arguments do. IF the foreign government wants them back, we should; speedy trials instead of years. But, I remember reading a story about how a terrorist in the UK when apprehended in his house immediately cried out "I have rights!!!"
Average US citizen - most citizens don't know anything about the government, this is horrible. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I appreciate an intelligent debate and constructive criticism.
Back to the original debate - I still think that we're doing okay. Religion is taking pot shots at the outside edges, but this won't last. I think that we still have an edge in Silicon Valley and most of the medical research. These areas are the key areas of growth for the future.
Space has been militarized, but not weaponized, that is to say the military is using space, but there are no weapons in space. This is somewhat analogous to the internet - in that the military uses the internet, but there are no known military weapons for use on the internet that aren't available to the public. To respond to a previous poster's comment on spy satelites as weapons, I've used google maps, and I wasn't able to blow anything up.
That being said, space weapons that actually attack targets on the ground are highly unlikely. Space based lasers would have problems with - cloud cover, large amount of fuel required (600 lbs if I remember correctly) and easy defence (a large pool of water over the building, thick ceilings). Kinetic weapons working on the principle of Force = Mass * Acceleration, instead of explosive power aren't that much more effective than conventional weapons. Add to all that the cost of defending these specialized weapons leads another arms race, that thankfully no country really wants to run.
As implied in the article satelites are the real vulnerability, because they provide such essential communications technology. However, the threats aren't there yet. So, nothing against the Air Force, but they need to be focused on the real issues and threats of today, not Buck Rogers time.
FYI - From what I'm reading on the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission it is a part of the "Organization of American States" - kind of a UN for North and South America. That's how the State Department is even involved in this.
http://www.oas.org/main/english/
http://www.citel.oas.org/general.asp
I'm far from a Republican apologist, (Libertarian) but I tend to agree with the administration more than not. However I have a problem with both sides on this -
Those that are screaming about a fascist state are stretching things further than Gumby. The Religious Right wants a country similar to the 14 points, but its not (hopefully) going to get there any time soon. On the other hand, this is another notch on the Republican power consolidation bedpost that will get them burned and voted out eventually.
Do they have the right to do this? Absolutely, this is their right as the State Department to choose who they want to represent them in international meetings. And, despite the noise about it, I support the president choosing people that agree with him. Outside the White House he has 49% of the nation that thinks someone else would do the job better. I'd want some friends close too.
The formal system of checks and balances in the government - and the informal one in the media will prevent him from doing anything too stupid - John Bolton....
Now the more important question - Should they do this? No, I think it is much more important for the Government to be worried about national security, Social Security, Iraq, the national debt, and than a few geeks getting together to talk about telecom.