<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_1328221</id>
	<title>Who's Controlling Our Vital Information Systems?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264254960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>HangingChad writes <i>"Gary Lyndaker talks about Janine Wedel's <em>Shadow Elite</em>; about how our information infrastructure is increasingly being <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-lyndaker/shadow-elite-information\_b\_432889.html">sold off to the low bidder</a>.  Contracting in state and federal government is rampant, leaving more and more of our nation's vital information in the hands of contractors, many of whom have their own agenda and set of rules.  From the article:  'Over 25 years, as an information systems developer, manager, and administrator in both state and private organizations, I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions.'  I've seen the same thing in my years in government IT, ironically much of it as a contractor.  My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed.  We're being fleeced while being put at risk."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>HangingChad writes " Gary Lyndaker talks about Janine Wedel 's Shadow Elite ; about how our information infrastructure is increasingly being sold off to the low bidder .
Contracting in state and federal government is rampant , leaving more and more of our nation 's vital information in the hands of contractors , many of whom have their own agenda and set of rules .
From the article : 'Over 25 years , as an information systems developer , manager , and administrator in both state and private organizations , I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state 's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions .
' I 've seen the same thing in my years in government IT , ironically much of it as a contractor .
My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed .
We 're being fleeced while being put at risk .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HangingChad writes "Gary Lyndaker talks about Janine Wedel's Shadow Elite; about how our information infrastructure is increasingly being sold off to the low bidder.
Contracting in state and federal government is rampant, leaving more and more of our nation's vital information in the hands of contractors, many of whom have their own agenda and set of rules.
From the article:  'Over 25 years, as an information systems developer, manager, and administrator in both state and private organizations, I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions.
'  I've seen the same thing in my years in government IT, ironically much of it as a contractor.
My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed.
We're being fleeced while being put at risk.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869774</id>
	<title>Vital Information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264263480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is controlled by Lori Beth Denberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is controlled by Lori Beth Denberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is controlled by Lori Beth Denberg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869592</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news... how?</title>
	<author>KitsuneSoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1264261560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?</p></div></blockquote><p>In principle? The bottom line of government is the best interest of the nation, the bottom line of bussinesss is profit. In practice, of course, a democratic (small 'd') government cares about being popular, so it has to keep taxes low and employment high (i.e. buy from the lowest bidder based in their own country).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself ? In principle ?
The bottom line of government is the best interest of the nation , the bottom line of bussinesss is profit .
In practice , of course , a democratic ( small 'd ' ) government cares about being popular , so it has to keep taxes low and employment high ( i.e .
buy from the lowest bidder based in their own country ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?In principle?
The bottom line of government is the best interest of the nation, the bottom line of bussinesss is profit.
In practice, of course, a democratic (small 'd') government cares about being popular, so it has to keep taxes low and employment high (i.e.
buy from the lowest bidder based in their own country).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869336</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jews control everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews control everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews control everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869980</id>
	<title>Re:Zero Incentive for Success Equals Certain Failu</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is (literally) no financial incentive to do a good job... Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information. Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.</p></div><p>Well there are issues of incentive that aren't immediately obvious, and who you work for does matter.  If you work for the government directly, there's a sense in which your stated job is basically to make the government run better, whereas when you work for an outside contractor, your stated job is to make money for the contractor.  That seeps into your head and affects the way you do things.
</p><p>I'm not saying that contractors can't be helpful or even that it can't be a better route to go, but it's not quite a simple issue.  Contractors where you're giving them steady work aren't too bad, but short-term consultants are the worst.  Their incentive is often to get things working long enough to get out the door with a check; beyond that, it can actually be in their interest to have things break now and then so you call them back in.  No thanks.
</p><p>I've learned over the years that laziness can be a terrific motivator in IT.  That's right.  Laziness.  It sounds weird if you don't understand true laziness, but what you have to remember is it takes more work to support a system that isn't working well than it is to support a system that's well designed and well maintained.  I remember learning that as a helpdesk tech, realizing that I could spend 5 minutes every day fixing the same problem, or I could spend 5 hours in one day fixing the problem properly, and then never have to fix it again.
</p><p>So one of the problems with outside contractors is, depending on the exact deal, laziness might not be a big motivator.  Contractors and consultants might be just as happy to keep all those 5-minute-a-day problems, because fixing things properly might mean the end of their contract.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is ( literally ) no financial incentive to do a good job... Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information .
Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.Well there are issues of incentive that are n't immediately obvious , and who you work for does matter .
If you work for the government directly , there 's a sense in which your stated job is basically to make the government run better , whereas when you work for an outside contractor , your stated job is to make money for the contractor .
That seeps into your head and affects the way you do things .
I 'm not saying that contractors ca n't be helpful or even that it ca n't be a better route to go , but it 's not quite a simple issue .
Contractors where you 're giving them steady work are n't too bad , but short-term consultants are the worst .
Their incentive is often to get things working long enough to get out the door with a check ; beyond that , it can actually be in their interest to have things break now and then so you call them back in .
No thanks .
I 've learned over the years that laziness can be a terrific motivator in IT .
That 's right .
Laziness. It sounds weird if you do n't understand true laziness , but what you have to remember is it takes more work to support a system that is n't working well than it is to support a system that 's well designed and well maintained .
I remember learning that as a helpdesk tech , realizing that I could spend 5 minutes every day fixing the same problem , or I could spend 5 hours in one day fixing the problem properly , and then never have to fix it again .
So one of the problems with outside contractors is , depending on the exact deal , laziness might not be a big motivator .
Contractors and consultants might be just as happy to keep all those 5-minute-a-day problems , because fixing things properly might mean the end of their contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is (literally) no financial incentive to do a good job... Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information.
Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.Well there are issues of incentive that aren't immediately obvious, and who you work for does matter.
If you work for the government directly, there's a sense in which your stated job is basically to make the government run better, whereas when you work for an outside contractor, your stated job is to make money for the contractor.
That seeps into your head and affects the way you do things.
I'm not saying that contractors can't be helpful or even that it can't be a better route to go, but it's not quite a simple issue.
Contractors where you're giving them steady work aren't too bad, but short-term consultants are the worst.
Their incentive is often to get things working long enough to get out the door with a check; beyond that, it can actually be in their interest to have things break now and then so you call them back in.
No thanks.
I've learned over the years that laziness can be a terrific motivator in IT.
That's right.
Laziness.  It sounds weird if you don't understand true laziness, but what you have to remember is it takes more work to support a system that isn't working well than it is to support a system that's well designed and well maintained.
I remember learning that as a helpdesk tech, realizing that I could spend 5 minutes every day fixing the same problem, or I could spend 5 hours in one day fixing the problem properly, and then never have to fix it again.
So one of the problems with outside contractors is, depending on the exact deal, laziness might not be a big motivator.
Contractors and consultants might be just as happy to keep all those 5-minute-a-day problems, because fixing things properly might mean the end of their contract.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869540</id>
	<title>An alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, the notion of hiring private companies to do something (or simply letting them continue to do it, e.g. shopworkers and car repairers) rather than a government doing the same, is a basic politlcal and philosophical question where no "proofs" as to what is best can be found. Both of the alternatives could be argued to have both advantages and disadvantages, and lead to slightly different situations. So the only thing people can do is make rather empty claims and point to empirical studies which may or may not apply universally. Which pretty much means that whoever shouts loudest to put their ideas in people's minds wins.</p><p>Secondly, if you are inclined towards private companies filling government functions but have a problem with poor standards, the nearest solution would be to have higher standards when you judge contracts.</p><p>Of course, higher standards leads to problems in itself. For example, if you are barring companies that haven't been in business for at least 10 years, you would in many cases basically lay the groundwork for competing monopolies (no 'new entrants' would threaten the established companies). Which may or may not be worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , the notion of hiring private companies to do something ( or simply letting them continue to do it , e.g .
shopworkers and car repairers ) rather than a government doing the same , is a basic politlcal and philosophical question where no " proofs " as to what is best can be found .
Both of the alternatives could be argued to have both advantages and disadvantages , and lead to slightly different situations .
So the only thing people can do is make rather empty claims and point to empirical studies which may or may not apply universally .
Which pretty much means that whoever shouts loudest to put their ideas in people 's minds wins.Secondly , if you are inclined towards private companies filling government functions but have a problem with poor standards , the nearest solution would be to have higher standards when you judge contracts.Of course , higher standards leads to problems in itself .
For example , if you are barring companies that have n't been in business for at least 10 years , you would in many cases basically lay the groundwork for competing monopolies ( no 'new entrants ' would threaten the established companies ) .
Which may or may not be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, the notion of hiring private companies to do something (or simply letting them continue to do it, e.g.
shopworkers and car repairers) rather than a government doing the same, is a basic politlcal and philosophical question where no "proofs" as to what is best can be found.
Both of the alternatives could be argued to have both advantages and disadvantages, and lead to slightly different situations.
So the only thing people can do is make rather empty claims and point to empirical studies which may or may not apply universally.
Which pretty much means that whoever shouts loudest to put their ideas in people's minds wins.Secondly, if you are inclined towards private companies filling government functions but have a problem with poor standards, the nearest solution would be to have higher standards when you judge contracts.Of course, higher standards leads to problems in itself.
For example, if you are barring companies that haven't been in business for at least 10 years, you would in many cases basically lay the groundwork for competing monopolies (no 'new entrants' would threaten the established companies).
Which may or may not be worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869834</id>
	<title>So why isn't the fact that contractors</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1264264080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also are in control of company data also included in this article?</p><p>Banks, credit card companys, medical instutions?</p><p>Everything we do that is recorded by IT is controled by contractors. The lowest bidder.</p><p>I think the article completley misses the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also are in control of company data also included in this article ? Banks , credit card companys , medical instutions ? Everything we do that is recorded by IT is controled by contractors .
The lowest bidder.I think the article completley misses the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also are in control of company data also included in this article?Banks, credit card companys, medical instutions?Everything we do that is recorded by IT is controled by contractors.
The lowest bidder.I think the article completley misses the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870248</id>
	<title>On what planet do you reside? !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264268040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regarding...  Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.
<br> <br>
You're just kidding, right? I actually wish there was some truth to that but it's just patently false.
<br> <br>
Govt "management style" includes petty power plays to protect their little fiefdoms at all costs including inpenetrable and unaccountable bureaucracy with endless and meaningless rules. The more rules you make, the more powerful you are.
<br> <br>
They measure their personal success in terms of the size of their budget- it has nothing to do with what you actually accomplish. The more you spend the more important you are. And you never, never want to end the year with any budget unspent because that will present a problem in getting more budget the next year. To extend your power the goal is to ask for
way more budget than you could possible need then add some to that. Appearances of holding down costs are made as some of the budget requests are cut but the game has been played and the end result is anything but cost conscious.
<br> <br>
In choosing the winning bid the contractor with the highest bid often wins. This is because they are with the in crowd having developed a reputation with govt bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are not interested in cost but in the safest, least risky route where they protect their power by doing business with a known quantity like contractors they've worked with before. If things go bad the bureaucrats protect themselves with finger pointing and the contractors are impersonal and handy. But if the sly contractor accepts the finger pointing and actually helps his client politically, he'll be on track to win future bids. The contractors learn to game the system and become experts by learning how to craft winning bids. Crafting winning bids becomes more important than performing on contracts won. One strategy is to make a lot of high bids knowing you will lose many but one will pass. Sometimes the contractors actually get busy with contracts won but they are still asked to put in a bid on a bureaucrat's meaningless pet project anyway. Since they are already busy they just submit an outrageously high bid in an effort to lose the bid so they don't get overextended... Then they actually win it. That's when the contractor hires a bunch of inexperienced people and starts throwing warm bodies at and ever increasing and unmanageable bunch of projects.
<br> <br>
I know this from personal experience having learned how to game the system. I made a lot of money with winning IT bids and networkings with other contractors, comparing notes and laughing at and ridiculing our govt clients. This experience goes way back to when I was a teenager working for my Dad who was a construction contractor. I particularly remember one govt contract to put a roof on a 2 car garage. We were given a printed manual explaining how to do the job that was over 100 pages. The man hours spent to prepare this manual were obviously greater than the man hours to actually do the job. We were told to use this tapered, specially machined insulation which served no practicle purpose but was incredibly expensive. For the gravel on top of the roof we were forced to use expensive indoor flowerpot gravel instead of the typical industrial roofing gravel. It was great for me as a teenager because the govt required that my Dad pay me and all unskilled labor an outrageously high hourly rate way more than would even be paid to a journeyman carpenter in the real world. Curiously the journeyman rates were only a dollar an hour more. Probably had something to do with supporting a political agenda to redistribute the wealth to unionized labor like the "workers of the world unite" slogan from SIEU and the failed Soviet system.
<br> <br>
After a few years of this my moral conscious finally kicked in to rescue my soul so I got out of the govt contract system. Now I make less but I live better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding... Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind .
You 're just kidding , right ?
I actually wish there was some truth to that but it 's just patently false .
Govt " management style " includes petty power plays to protect their little fiefdoms at all costs including inpenetrable and unaccountable bureaucracy with endless and meaningless rules .
The more rules you make , the more powerful you are .
They measure their personal success in terms of the size of their budget- it has nothing to do with what you actually accomplish .
The more you spend the more important you are .
And you never , never want to end the year with any budget unspent because that will present a problem in getting more budget the next year .
To extend your power the goal is to ask for way more budget than you could possible need then add some to that .
Appearances of holding down costs are made as some of the budget requests are cut but the game has been played and the end result is anything but cost conscious .
In choosing the winning bid the contractor with the highest bid often wins .
This is because they are with the in crowd having developed a reputation with govt bureaucrats .
The bureaucrats are not interested in cost but in the safest , least risky route where they protect their power by doing business with a known quantity like contractors they 've worked with before .
If things go bad the bureaucrats protect themselves with finger pointing and the contractors are impersonal and handy .
But if the sly contractor accepts the finger pointing and actually helps his client politically , he 'll be on track to win future bids .
The contractors learn to game the system and become experts by learning how to craft winning bids .
Crafting winning bids becomes more important than performing on contracts won .
One strategy is to make a lot of high bids knowing you will lose many but one will pass .
Sometimes the contractors actually get busy with contracts won but they are still asked to put in a bid on a bureaucrat 's meaningless pet project anyway .
Since they are already busy they just submit an outrageously high bid in an effort to lose the bid so they do n't get overextended... Then they actually win it .
That 's when the contractor hires a bunch of inexperienced people and starts throwing warm bodies at and ever increasing and unmanageable bunch of projects .
I know this from personal experience having learned how to game the system .
I made a lot of money with winning IT bids and networkings with other contractors , comparing notes and laughing at and ridiculing our govt clients .
This experience goes way back to when I was a teenager working for my Dad who was a construction contractor .
I particularly remember one govt contract to put a roof on a 2 car garage .
We were given a printed manual explaining how to do the job that was over 100 pages .
The man hours spent to prepare this manual were obviously greater than the man hours to actually do the job .
We were told to use this tapered , specially machined insulation which served no practicle purpose but was incredibly expensive .
For the gravel on top of the roof we were forced to use expensive indoor flowerpot gravel instead of the typical industrial roofing gravel .
It was great for me as a teenager because the govt required that my Dad pay me and all unskilled labor an outrageously high hourly rate way more than would even be paid to a journeyman carpenter in the real world .
Curiously the journeyman rates were only a dollar an hour more .
Probably had something to do with supporting a political agenda to redistribute the wealth to unionized labor like the " workers of the world unite " slogan from SIEU and the failed Soviet system .
After a few years of this my moral conscious finally kicked in to rescue my soul so I got out of the govt contract system .
Now I make less but I live better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding...  Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.
You're just kidding, right?
I actually wish there was some truth to that but it's just patently false.
Govt "management style" includes petty power plays to protect their little fiefdoms at all costs including inpenetrable and unaccountable bureaucracy with endless and meaningless rules.
The more rules you make, the more powerful you are.
They measure their personal success in terms of the size of their budget- it has nothing to do with what you actually accomplish.
The more you spend the more important you are.
And you never, never want to end the year with any budget unspent because that will present a problem in getting more budget the next year.
To extend your power the goal is to ask for
way more budget than you could possible need then add some to that.
Appearances of holding down costs are made as some of the budget requests are cut but the game has been played and the end result is anything but cost conscious.
In choosing the winning bid the contractor with the highest bid often wins.
This is because they are with the in crowd having developed a reputation with govt bureaucrats.
The bureaucrats are not interested in cost but in the safest, least risky route where they protect their power by doing business with a known quantity like contractors they've worked with before.
If things go bad the bureaucrats protect themselves with finger pointing and the contractors are impersonal and handy.
But if the sly contractor accepts the finger pointing and actually helps his client politically, he'll be on track to win future bids.
The contractors learn to game the system and become experts by learning how to craft winning bids.
Crafting winning bids becomes more important than performing on contracts won.
One strategy is to make a lot of high bids knowing you will lose many but one will pass.
Sometimes the contractors actually get busy with contracts won but they are still asked to put in a bid on a bureaucrat's meaningless pet project anyway.
Since they are already busy they just submit an outrageously high bid in an effort to lose the bid so they don't get overextended... Then they actually win it.
That's when the contractor hires a bunch of inexperienced people and starts throwing warm bodies at and ever increasing and unmanageable bunch of projects.
I know this from personal experience having learned how to game the system.
I made a lot of money with winning IT bids and networkings with other contractors, comparing notes and laughing at and ridiculing our govt clients.
This experience goes way back to when I was a teenager working for my Dad who was a construction contractor.
I particularly remember one govt contract to put a roof on a 2 car garage.
We were given a printed manual explaining how to do the job that was over 100 pages.
The man hours spent to prepare this manual were obviously greater than the man hours to actually do the job.
We were told to use this tapered, specially machined insulation which served no practicle purpose but was incredibly expensive.
For the gravel on top of the roof we were forced to use expensive indoor flowerpot gravel instead of the typical industrial roofing gravel.
It was great for me as a teenager because the govt required that my Dad pay me and all unskilled labor an outrageously high hourly rate way more than would even be paid to a journeyman carpenter in the real world.
Curiously the journeyman rates were only a dollar an hour more.
Probably had something to do with supporting a political agenda to redistribute the wealth to unionized labor like the "workers of the world unite" slogan from SIEU and the failed Soviet system.
After a few years of this my moral conscious finally kicked in to rescue my soul so I got out of the govt contract system.
Now I make less but I live better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670</id>
	<title>Zero Incentive for Success Equals Certain Failure</title>
	<author>silverspringer</author>
	<datestamp>1264262340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bottom line is that the operation of a country's IT infrastructure is a thankless job. There is (literally) no financial incentive to do a good job. There is almost no incentive whatsoever to do a good job; some might argue that reputation and respect are valid incentives but there's not much of that in the government IT world. Build a system where success isn't recognized and you're sure to have failure overall. Why would anyone work for no (significant) money, no respect, no long term benefits, no challenge even (it's not like government systems are cutting edge)?</p><p>Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information. Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.</p><p>Fixing the problems is a non-trivial task. Hell, identifying all the problems is a non-trivial task. The only trivial task is the too common announcement of "oh my god, the world is falling, our country won't survive this apocalyptic disaster that's brewing in our infrastructure".</p><p>The reason this crazy system works at all is that it's a distributed system. Failure in one section doesn't lead to failure in other sections. Just like most natural systems (think of the way a river flows, often in separate channels) our infrastructure adapts to problems as needed.</p><p>It's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems. For example, name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American. Katrina, which wiped out a big section of the country for several weeks didn't impact the Northeast, Northwest, etc. in the least (aside from non-stop news coverage). FAA flight control screw ups are probably the most significant failures and note that it's a centralized system.</p><p>Government systems need to be operated as distributed systems, managed by many different people, because that is the primary security control protecting us from catastrophic failure. Government or contractor management has nothing to do with this, both options can do well, both can do poorly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that the operation of a country 's IT infrastructure is a thankless job .
There is ( literally ) no financial incentive to do a good job .
There is almost no incentive whatsoever to do a good job ; some might argue that reputation and respect are valid incentives but there 's not much of that in the government IT world .
Build a system where success is n't recognized and you 're sure to have failure overall .
Why would anyone work for no ( significant ) money , no respect , no long term benefits , no challenge even ( it 's not like government systems are cutting edge ) ? Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information .
Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.Fixing the problems is a non-trivial task .
Hell , identifying all the problems is a non-trivial task .
The only trivial task is the too common announcement of " oh my god , the world is falling , our country wo n't survive this apocalyptic disaster that 's brewing in our infrastructure " .The reason this crazy system works at all is that it 's a distributed system .
Failure in one section does n't lead to failure in other sections .
Just like most natural systems ( think of the way a river flows , often in separate channels ) our infrastructure adapts to problems as needed.It 's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems .
For example , name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American .
Katrina , which wiped out a big section of the country for several weeks did n't impact the Northeast , Northwest , etc .
in the least ( aside from non-stop news coverage ) .
FAA flight control screw ups are probably the most significant failures and note that it 's a centralized system.Government systems need to be operated as distributed systems , managed by many different people , because that is the primary security control protecting us from catastrophic failure .
Government or contractor management has nothing to do with this , both options can do well , both can do poorly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that the operation of a country's IT infrastructure is a thankless job.
There is (literally) no financial incentive to do a good job.
There is almost no incentive whatsoever to do a good job; some might argue that reputation and respect are valid incentives but there's not much of that in the government IT world.
Build a system where success isn't recognized and you're sure to have failure overall.
Why would anyone work for no (significant) money, no respect, no long term benefits, no challenge even (it's not like government systems are cutting edge)?Pointing the fingers at contractors is simply extraneous information.
Good teams do good work no matter who they work for.Fixing the problems is a non-trivial task.
Hell, identifying all the problems is a non-trivial task.
The only trivial task is the too common announcement of "oh my god, the world is falling, our country won't survive this apocalyptic disaster that's brewing in our infrastructure".The reason this crazy system works at all is that it's a distributed system.
Failure in one section doesn't lead to failure in other sections.
Just like most natural systems (think of the way a river flows, often in separate channels) our infrastructure adapts to problems as needed.It's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems.
For example, name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American.
Katrina, which wiped out a big section of the country for several weeks didn't impact the Northeast, Northwest, etc.
in the least (aside from non-stop news coverage).
FAA flight control screw ups are probably the most significant failures and note that it's a centralized system.Government systems need to be operated as distributed systems, managed by many different people, because that is the primary security control protecting us from catastrophic failure.
Government or contractor management has nothing to do with this, both options can do well, both can do poorly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872524</id>
	<title>Contracting Studies</title>
	<author>tengu1sd</author>
	<datestamp>1264241160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was involved in a large out-sourcing contract where a county government laid off it's entire IT staff and hired a team of contractors to support and maintain systems.  The majority of staff moved to winning bidder.  The key issues with this contract where the short term focus on metrics like time to resolve a ticket.  If rebooting a system led to ticket resolution, that was that.  If a system went down every three days and rebooting was the fix, well, that only brings up your average.  Any sort of long term upgrades were considered add work and needed to be funded.  This led to silliness such as refreshing a server (Wintel server refresh built into the contract) with newly installed out of support software.  Migration to the latest version of Oracle wasn't covered in the server refresh you got new hardware with an out date o/s and a version of Oracle that went of support last month.  Would you like to fund that update?  No?
<p>
The short term focus leads to a infrastructure that older and older and held together by quick fixes.  With no one in IT encouraged to take a long term big picture view, the deferred costs continue to add up.  Eventually I left since I was bored and didn't want to become a reboot monkey.  There's a spectacular failure coming up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was involved in a large out-sourcing contract where a county government laid off it 's entire IT staff and hired a team of contractors to support and maintain systems .
The majority of staff moved to winning bidder .
The key issues with this contract where the short term focus on metrics like time to resolve a ticket .
If rebooting a system led to ticket resolution , that was that .
If a system went down every three days and rebooting was the fix , well , that only brings up your average .
Any sort of long term upgrades were considered add work and needed to be funded .
This led to silliness such as refreshing a server ( Wintel server refresh built into the contract ) with newly installed out of support software .
Migration to the latest version of Oracle was n't covered in the server refresh you got new hardware with an out date o/s and a version of Oracle that went of support last month .
Would you like to fund that update ?
No ? The short term focus leads to a infrastructure that older and older and held together by quick fixes .
With no one in IT encouraged to take a long term big picture view , the deferred costs continue to add up .
Eventually I left since I was bored and did n't want to become a reboot monkey .
There 's a spectacular failure coming up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was involved in a large out-sourcing contract where a county government laid off it's entire IT staff and hired a team of contractors to support and maintain systems.
The majority of staff moved to winning bidder.
The key issues with this contract where the short term focus on metrics like time to resolve a ticket.
If rebooting a system led to ticket resolution, that was that.
If a system went down every three days and rebooting was the fix, well, that only brings up your average.
Any sort of long term upgrades were considered add work and needed to be funded.
This led to silliness such as refreshing a server (Wintel server refresh built into the contract) with newly installed out of support software.
Migration to the latest version of Oracle wasn't covered in the server refresh you got new hardware with an out date o/s and a version of Oracle that went of support last month.
Would you like to fund that update?
No?

The short term focus leads to a infrastructure that older and older and held together by quick fixes.
With no one in IT encouraged to take a long term big picture view, the deferred costs continue to add up.
Eventually I left since I was bored and didn't want to become a reboot monkey.
There's a spectacular failure coming up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368</id>
	<title>And this is news... how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what, this is exactly how the military has been run for decades.  What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what , this is exactly how the military has been run for decades .
What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what, this is exactly how the military has been run for decades.
What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870126</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news... how?</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1264267020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Guess what, this is exactly how the military has been run for decades.  What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?</p></div><p>It's not contractors you want to worry about. It's large amounts of your data ended up in India being worked on by people paid pennies. It's easy to bribe people if their monthly pay is about what you spent on lunch today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what , this is exactly how the military has been run for decades .
What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself ? It 's not contractors you want to worry about .
It 's large amounts of your data ended up in India being worked on by people paid pennies .
It 's easy to bribe people if their monthly pay is about what you spent on lunch today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what, this is exactly how the military has been run for decades.
What makes a contractor any better or worse at managing information than the government itself?It's not contractors you want to worry about.
It's large amounts of your data ended up in India being worked on by people paid pennies.
It's easy to bribe people if their monthly pay is about what you spent on lunch today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869804</id>
	<title>Who is controlling it? China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264263780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We may argue about how info is sold, but when somebody, or a nation, can get to it, just by the backdoors in the hardware and software, then THEY OWN IT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We may argue about how info is sold , but when somebody , or a nation , can get to it , just by the backdoors in the hardware and software , then THEY OWN IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may argue about how info is sold, but when somebody, or a nation, can get to it, just by the backdoors in the hardware and software, then THEY OWN IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869942</id>
	<title>Who ya gonna call?</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1264265280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most enterprises just hire the cheapest possible labor and call the expensive guys/girls only when something breaks and the cheap labor can't fix it.  If it works for them this way, and if it's cheaper just to declare bankruptcy on a system failure vs. doing it right in the first place, why would they change their ways?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most enterprises just hire the cheapest possible labor and call the expensive guys/girls only when something breaks and the cheap labor ca n't fix it .
If it works for them this way , and if it 's cheaper just to declare bankruptcy on a system failure vs. doing it right in the first place , why would they change their ways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most enterprises just hire the cheapest possible labor and call the expensive guys/girls only when something breaks and the cheap labor can't fix it.
If it works for them this way, and if it's cheaper just to declare bankruptcy on a system failure vs. doing it right in the first place, why would they change their ways?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869310</id>
	<title>Niggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you stop five nigger bucks from raping a white woman?  Throw em a basketball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you stop five nigger bucks from raping a white woman ?
Throw em a basketball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you stop five nigger bucks from raping a white woman?
Throw em a basketball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869552</id>
	<title>Ted Turner</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1264261260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ted Turner</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ted Turner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ted Turner</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450</id>
	<title>Public regulation, private provision?</title>
	<author>giladpn</author>
	<datestamp>1264260300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is an interesting debate going on world wide about how best to manage privatization.
<br> <br>
Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector, but the actual provision of the services being private.
<br> <br>
Just as an example, it seems education in Scandinavian countries is provided like that.
<br> <br>
So why is that bad for IT? It could be a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an interesting debate going on world wide about how best to manage privatization .
Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector , but the actual provision of the services being private .
Just as an example , it seems education in Scandinavian countries is provided like that .
So why is that bad for IT ?
It could be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an interesting debate going on world wide about how best to manage privatization.
Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector, but the actual provision of the services being private.
Just as an example, it seems education in Scandinavian countries is provided like that.
So why is that bad for IT?
It could be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870182</id>
	<title>Some thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264267380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what The People get for buying in to that Reagan-esque Reinventing Government shell game. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of...what? Well, it used to be Money, but now there's no money so how about, oh...Entertainment? Yea, that's it. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what The People get for buying in to that Reagan-esque Reinventing Government shell game .
Life , Liberty and the pursuit of...what ?
Well , it used to be Money , but now there 's no money so how about , oh...Entertainment ?
Yea , that 's it .
Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what The People get for buying in to that Reagan-esque Reinventing Government shell game.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of...what?
Well, it used to be Money, but now there's no money so how about, oh...Entertainment?
Yea, that's it.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Entertainment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869900</id>
	<title>The other side of the coin</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1264264740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other perspective is that we are handing off critical and complex systems to those more better able to handle them due to experience and training.  Further, as any government employee will tell you, you can't rely on the politicians to understand why IT needs as much money as we do.  They often fail to understand that if they want x, they need to pay y.  By outsourcing the operation, the costs are better controlled ( something the bean counters love ), and interruption to the service is less likely.</p><p>Not that the OP doesn't have a good point, he does.  But it really does make more sense to let specialized companies handle the complex operations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other perspective is that we are handing off critical and complex systems to those more better able to handle them due to experience and training .
Further , as any government employee will tell you , you ca n't rely on the politicians to understand why IT needs as much money as we do .
They often fail to understand that if they want x , they need to pay y. By outsourcing the operation , the costs are better controlled ( something the bean counters love ) , and interruption to the service is less likely.Not that the OP does n't have a good point , he does .
But it really does make more sense to let specialized companies handle the complex operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other perspective is that we are handing off critical and complex systems to those more better able to handle them due to experience and training.
Further, as any government employee will tell you, you can't rely on the politicians to understand why IT needs as much money as we do.
They often fail to understand that if they want x, they need to pay y.  By outsourcing the operation, the costs are better controlled ( something the bean counters love ), and interruption to the service is less likely.Not that the OP doesn't have a good point, he does.
But it really does make more sense to let specialized companies handle the complex operations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869412</id>
	<title>Round and round the Mulberry bush</title>
	<author>wheelema</author>
	<datestamp>1264260060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Budget strapped State/County/Municipal I.T. organizations do not employ the best and brightest and their budgeting process is simplified by off loading functionality at a constant fixed cost.  It is with this in mind that outsourcing firms market services to them.  Once that contract is signed... usually with language that gives the contractor significant leeway and discretion to torque their service model so as to maximize profitability... the problem is off of everyone's mind.   I.T. management is free to focus elsewhere, the contractor is free to find new worlds to conquer, and no one gives a damn if the process delivers what was promised until it's too late.</p><p>Then it's off to Court you go where only the public loses.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Budget strapped State/County/Municipal I.T .
organizations do not employ the best and brightest and their budgeting process is simplified by off loading functionality at a constant fixed cost .
It is with this in mind that outsourcing firms market services to them .
Once that contract is signed... usually with language that gives the contractor significant leeway and discretion to torque their service model so as to maximize profitability... the problem is off of everyone 's mind .
I.T. management is free to focus elsewhere , the contractor is free to find new worlds to conquer , and no one gives a damn if the process delivers what was promised until it 's too late.Then it 's off to Court you go where only the public loses .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Budget strapped State/County/Municipal I.T.
organizations do not employ the best and brightest and their budgeting process is simplified by off loading functionality at a constant fixed cost.
It is with this in mind that outsourcing firms market services to them.
Once that contract is signed... usually with language that gives the contractor significant leeway and discretion to torque their service model so as to maximize profitability... the problem is off of everyone's mind.
I.T. management is free to focus elsewhere, the contractor is free to find new worlds to conquer, and no one gives a damn if the process delivers what was promised until it's too late.Then it's off to Court you go where only the public loses.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084</id>
	<title>Even dumber</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264266600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that ultimately, disabling an in-house government operation actually winds up raising overall costs in the long run.  Initially, yeah, the venture capitalists that fund the privatization give the feds a pretty good deal, but contrary to all the babble about short sightedness, these folks are in it for the long haul.  They bide their time, and let the inevitable churn of politics and government action mean a greater demand for services, which they provide.</p><p>Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense, and what do we have, but only 1700 fighter aircraft for the USAF, not even 300 ships for the USN, and the whole time the contractors wave around "complexity" as if it is a magic bullet to allow brute force engineering that costs a fortune, cost overruns and bad designs papered over in "blocks".</p><p>I point at the F-22, as exhibit A, the littoral combat ship, the next generation aircraft carrier.  All of this stuff is, well, pretty feature rich, but, the F-22 needs a thousand people a pop to get it off the ground, which is insane, the LCS is now too expensive to be the disposable combat vessel it was supposed to be, and the next generation aircraft carrier is insane.</p><p>When you are down to just -one- possible vendor for the government, at that point, you almost have to just nationalize the business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that ultimately , disabling an in-house government operation actually winds up raising overall costs in the long run .
Initially , yeah , the venture capitalists that fund the privatization give the feds a pretty good deal , but contrary to all the babble about short sightedness , these folks are in it for the long haul .
They bide their time , and let the inevitable churn of politics and government action mean a greater demand for services , which they provide.Seriously , right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense , and what do we have , but only 1700 fighter aircraft for the USAF , not even 300 ships for the USN , and the whole time the contractors wave around " complexity " as if it is a magic bullet to allow brute force engineering that costs a fortune , cost overruns and bad designs papered over in " blocks " .I point at the F-22 , as exhibit A , the littoral combat ship , the next generation aircraft carrier .
All of this stuff is , well , pretty feature rich , but , the F-22 needs a thousand people a pop to get it off the ground , which is insane , the LCS is now too expensive to be the disposable combat vessel it was supposed to be , and the next generation aircraft carrier is insane.When you are down to just -one- possible vendor for the government , at that point , you almost have to just nationalize the business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that ultimately, disabling an in-house government operation actually winds up raising overall costs in the long run.
Initially, yeah, the venture capitalists that fund the privatization give the feds a pretty good deal, but contrary to all the babble about short sightedness, these folks are in it for the long haul.
They bide their time, and let the inevitable churn of politics and government action mean a greater demand for services, which they provide.Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense, and what do we have, but only 1700 fighter aircraft for the USAF, not even 300 ships for the USN, and the whole time the contractors wave around "complexity" as if it is a magic bullet to allow brute force engineering that costs a fortune, cost overruns and bad designs papered over in "blocks".I point at the F-22, as exhibit A, the littoral combat ship, the next generation aircraft carrier.
All of this stuff is, well, pretty feature rich, but, the F-22 needs a thousand people a pop to get it off the ground, which is insane, the LCS is now too expensive to be the disposable combat vessel it was supposed to be, and the next generation aircraft carrier is insane.When you are down to just -one- possible vendor for the government, at that point, you almost have to just nationalize the business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869576</id>
	<title>Re:Hard vs. Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's quite easy to build a top-notch IT organization. Given sufficient funding, there are just a few simple rules to follow:</p><p>1) Only hire people trained in first-world Western nations. That basically means just employing Americans, Brits, Japanese, French, Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Scandinavians. Don't bother with anyone else, especially Indians. Their education system does nothing but churn out people who can memorize huge amounts of information, but who cannot apply any of it in a real-world setting.</p><p>2) Use hardware from IBM or Sun.</p><p>3) Use Oracle or PostgreSQL for database needs. Never use MySQL.</p><p>4) Implement software using Java and Python. Never hire Ruby developers, because many have a horrible attitude problem (they consider themselves to be "code ninjas"). Never hire Perl developers, because the code they write is unmaintainable. Never hire PHP developers, because they're fucking morons for using PHP.</p><p>5) Run 2) through 4) on Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux.</p><p>6) All desktop systems that are deployed run Linux or Mac OS X. This will make administration easy, prevent workers from accidentally installing malware, and keep your job simple.</p><p>7) If Windows must be used, it is never on real hardware. Windows is only suitable for use within a virtualized environment that can be discarded at the first sign of a malware infestation. Routinely discard Windows VMs on a weekly basis, replacing them with a known "good" installation.</p><p>8) Never hire software architects. These guys can draw pretty pictures, and fuck up your software systems to no end. They'll recommend all sorts of stupid shit that sounds great in theory, but breaks constantly in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's quite easy to build a top-notch IT organization .
Given sufficient funding , there are just a few simple rules to follow : 1 ) Only hire people trained in first-world Western nations .
That basically means just employing Americans , Brits , Japanese , French , Germans , Canadians , Australians , New Zealanders , and Scandinavians .
Do n't bother with anyone else , especially Indians .
Their education system does nothing but churn out people who can memorize huge amounts of information , but who can not apply any of it in a real-world setting.2 ) Use hardware from IBM or Sun.3 ) Use Oracle or PostgreSQL for database needs .
Never use MySQL.4 ) Implement software using Java and Python .
Never hire Ruby developers , because many have a horrible attitude problem ( they consider themselves to be " code ninjas " ) .
Never hire Perl developers , because the code they write is unmaintainable .
Never hire PHP developers , because they 're fucking morons for using PHP.5 ) Run 2 ) through 4 ) on Solaris , FreeBSD and Linux.6 ) All desktop systems that are deployed run Linux or Mac OS X. This will make administration easy , prevent workers from accidentally installing malware , and keep your job simple.7 ) If Windows must be used , it is never on real hardware .
Windows is only suitable for use within a virtualized environment that can be discarded at the first sign of a malware infestation .
Routinely discard Windows VMs on a weekly basis , replacing them with a known " good " installation.8 ) Never hire software architects .
These guys can draw pretty pictures , and fuck up your software systems to no end .
They 'll recommend all sorts of stupid shit that sounds great in theory , but breaks constantly in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's quite easy to build a top-notch IT organization.
Given sufficient funding, there are just a few simple rules to follow:1) Only hire people trained in first-world Western nations.
That basically means just employing Americans, Brits, Japanese, French, Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Scandinavians.
Don't bother with anyone else, especially Indians.
Their education system does nothing but churn out people who can memorize huge amounts of information, but who cannot apply any of it in a real-world setting.2) Use hardware from IBM or Sun.3) Use Oracle or PostgreSQL for database needs.
Never use MySQL.4) Implement software using Java and Python.
Never hire Ruby developers, because many have a horrible attitude problem (they consider themselves to be "code ninjas").
Never hire Perl developers, because the code they write is unmaintainable.
Never hire PHP developers, because they're fucking morons for using PHP.5) Run 2) through 4) on Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux.6) All desktop systems that are deployed run Linux or Mac OS X. This will make administration easy, prevent workers from accidentally installing malware, and keep your job simple.7) If Windows must be used, it is never on real hardware.
Windows is only suitable for use within a virtualized environment that can be discarded at the first sign of a malware infestation.
Routinely discard Windows VMs on a weekly basis, replacing them with a known "good" installation.8) Never hire software architects.
These guys can draw pretty pictures, and fuck up your software systems to no end.
They'll recommend all sorts of stupid shit that sounds great in theory, but breaks constantly in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869940</id>
	<title>Re:Trend will continue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264265280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that governments also are dominated by the bean-counters approach:  outsource so you don't have employees to directly pay and provide benefits for.  "That must be cheaper.  Cheaper is better, correct?"</p><p>It seems to be a dangerous illusion to labor under.   I think it's better to call it the "cheaper is stupider" approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that governments also are dominated by the bean-counters approach : outsource so you do n't have employees to directly pay and provide benefits for .
" That must be cheaper .
Cheaper is better , correct ?
" It seems to be a dangerous illusion to labor under .
I think it 's better to call it the " cheaper is stupider " approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that governments also are dominated by the bean-counters approach:  outsource so you don't have employees to directly pay and provide benefits for.
"That must be cheaper.
Cheaper is better, correct?
"It seems to be a dangerous illusion to labor under.
I think it's better to call it the "cheaper is stupider" approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869500</id>
	<title>Republicans...</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1264260720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet another reason why the Republican way of thinking is flawed.
<br> <br>
This is all they preach "less government, but what government we have we should outsource".<br> <br>
Good thing we outsourced the Atom bomb...<br> <br>
Whoopsiedoodle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason why the Republican way of thinking is flawed .
This is all they preach " less government , but what government we have we should outsource " .
Good thing we outsourced the Atom bomb.. . Whoopsiedoodle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason why the Republican way of thinking is flawed.
This is all they preach "less government, but what government we have we should outsource".
Good thing we outsourced the Atom bomb... 
Whoopsiedoodle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870024</id>
	<title>Maintenance</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1264266000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All four examples from TFA have the common theme of one outsourced group does the development, and a different group does the maintenance, resulting in loss of institutional and system knowledge.  This is a flaw in outsourcing approach.  The solitication should be for development and system lifetime maintenance, with contractual penalties for failure to respond to or fix problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All four examples from TFA have the common theme of one outsourced group does the development , and a different group does the maintenance , resulting in loss of institutional and system knowledge .
This is a flaw in outsourcing approach .
The solitication should be for development and system lifetime maintenance , with contractual penalties for failure to respond to or fix problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All four examples from TFA have the common theme of one outsourced group does the development, and a different group does the maintenance, resulting in loss of institutional and system knowledge.
This is a flaw in outsourcing approach.
The solitication should be for development and system lifetime maintenance, with contractual penalties for failure to respond to or fix problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870768</id>
	<title>Re:The Jobs</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1264271940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The survivors are not the sociopaths. First of all, there just aren't that many sociopaths.</p><p>The survivors are the ones who learn treat their jobs as routine amoral functions that have no impact on their personal lives or self worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The survivors are not the sociopaths .
First of all , there just are n't that many sociopaths.The survivors are the ones who learn treat their jobs as routine amoral functions that have no impact on their personal lives or self worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The survivors are not the sociopaths.
First of all, there just aren't that many sociopaths.The survivors are the ones who learn treat their jobs as routine amoral functions that have no impact on their personal lives or self worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870744</id>
	<title>Re:Hard vs. Easy</title>
	<author>Punctuated\_Equilibri</author>
	<datestamp>1264271760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People seem to think good organizations come from Hollywood central casting. The president says 'make it so' and in the next scene you have an office full of analysts looking at big screens and people walking around with clipboards. <p>

You can't have any kind of good organization without good managers, and government bureaucracies are so suffocating any talented manager will get out as quickly as possible.  Contracting out is a way of trying to apply the flexibility of private organizations to public purposes. These may suck but in my experience they suck less than having government employees do the same work.</p><p>

People have elaborate fantasies about governments taking on complex jobs, I think it is based on what they see in movies.  Real life government organizations, in my experience, are at a primitive stage of evolution, more like "segmented worm" than "primate".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to think good organizations come from Hollywood central casting .
The president says 'make it so ' and in the next scene you have an office full of analysts looking at big screens and people walking around with clipboards .
You ca n't have any kind of good organization without good managers , and government bureaucracies are so suffocating any talented manager will get out as quickly as possible .
Contracting out is a way of trying to apply the flexibility of private organizations to public purposes .
These may suck but in my experience they suck less than having government employees do the same work .
People have elaborate fantasies about governments taking on complex jobs , I think it is based on what they see in movies .
Real life government organizations , in my experience , are at a primitive stage of evolution , more like " segmented worm " than " primate " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to think good organizations come from Hollywood central casting.
The president says 'make it so' and in the next scene you have an office full of analysts looking at big screens and people walking around with clipboards.
You can't have any kind of good organization without good managers, and government bureaucracies are so suffocating any talented manager will get out as quickly as possible.
Contracting out is a way of trying to apply the flexibility of private organizations to public purposes.
These may suck but in my experience they suck less than having government employees do the same work.
People have elaborate fantasies about governments taking on complex jobs, I think it is based on what they see in movies.
Real life government organizations, in my experience, are at a primitive stage of evolution, more like "segmented worm" than "primate".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870730</id>
	<title>Who's Controlling Our Vital Information Systems?</title>
	<author>jeremyflores</author>
	<datestamp>1264271640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I AM.</p><p>Now, give me mod points or Something Terrible will happen. Muahahaha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I AM.Now , give me mod points or Something Terrible will happen .
Muahahaha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I AM.Now, give me mod points or Something Terrible will happen.
Muahahaha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872058</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264237860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what do you want to field, the 21st century equivalent of the 'good enough' BF-109? Mass produced mediocrity? The F-22 is, unequivocally, the most superior aircraft extant in its role. What pricetag do you put on 'the best'? What logistical costs are acceptable?<br> <br>

I would say that designing the LCS to be disposable was a bad idea in the first place. There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1) crew safety 2) combat effectiveness 3) resource efficiency in operation. If it costs more money to accomplish those goals, spend it, or you'll regret it. You'll get things like the P-39, where the brass decided they could save money on the engine, at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what do you want to field , the 21st century equivalent of the 'good enough ' BF-109 ?
Mass produced mediocrity ?
The F-22 is , unequivocally , the most superior aircraft extant in its role .
What pricetag do you put on 'the best ' ?
What logistical costs are acceptable ?
I would say that designing the LCS to be disposable was a bad idea in the first place .
There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1 ) crew safety 2 ) combat effectiveness 3 ) resource efficiency in operation .
If it costs more money to accomplish those goals , spend it , or you 'll regret it .
You 'll get things like the P-39 , where the brass decided they could save money on the engine , at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what do you want to field, the 21st century equivalent of the 'good enough' BF-109?
Mass produced mediocrity?
The F-22 is, unequivocally, the most superior aircraft extant in its role.
What pricetag do you put on 'the best'?
What logistical costs are acceptable?
I would say that designing the LCS to be disposable was a bad idea in the first place.
There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1) crew safety 2) combat effectiveness 3) resource efficiency in operation.
If it costs more money to accomplish those goals, spend it, or you'll regret it.
You'll get things like the P-39, where the brass decided they could save money on the engine, at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869546</id>
	<title>Where's the risk?</title>
	<author>EatHam</author>
	<datestamp>1264261140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well, my interaction with my state's operations have made me increasingly come to the conclusion that I would trust a rowdy herd of poorly trained chimpanzees over the state's employees.  So bring on the contractors, I say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state 's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions .
Well , my interaction with my state 's operations have made me increasingly come to the conclusion that I would trust a rowdy herd of poorly trained chimpanzees over the state 's employees .
So bring on the contractors , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we are putting our state's operations at risk and compromising the trust of the people of our state by outsourcing core government functions.
Well, my interaction with my state's operations have made me increasingly come to the conclusion that I would trust a rowdy herd of poorly trained chimpanzees over the state's employees.
So bring on the contractors, I say.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873224</id>
	<title>Its not just the government</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1264246560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the entire American IT structure. Many businesses also don't understand the ramifications and just bid out and take the lowest price attached to the best looking sales rep.</p><p>Once they do get burnt, they bring it back in house.</p><p>I don't know if its a misunderstanding of what role IT plays in their organization, or if its just the overall mentality of slashing all immediate costs ( I have seen both... )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the entire American IT structure .
Many businesses also do n't understand the ramifications and just bid out and take the lowest price attached to the best looking sales rep.Once they do get burnt , they bring it back in house.I do n't know if its a misunderstanding of what role IT plays in their organization , or if its just the overall mentality of slashing all immediate costs ( I have seen both... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the entire American IT structure.
Many businesses also don't understand the ramifications and just bid out and take the lowest price attached to the best looking sales rep.Once they do get burnt, they bring it back in house.I don't know if its a misunderstanding of what role IT plays in their organization, or if its just the overall mentality of slashing all immediate costs ( I have seen both... )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869728</id>
	<title>The danger is Goverment, not contractors.</title>
	<author>wilby</author>
	<datestamp>1264262880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The original poster wrote- "My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed. We're being fleeced while being put at risk."</p><p>The problem is government.  Government and mismanagement have gone together for at least the last 50+ years.  To think that government employees would perform better than contractors is pure fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original poster wrote- " My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed .
We 're being fleeced while being put at risk .
" The problem is government .
Government and mismanagement have gone together for at least the last 50 + years .
To think that government employees would perform better than contractors is pure fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The original poster wrote- "My opinion is this is a dangerous trend that needs to be reversed.
We're being fleeced while being put at risk.
"The problem is government.
Government and mismanagement have gone together for at least the last 50+ years.
To think that government employees would perform better than contractors is pure fantasy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870464</id>
	<title>Re:Public regulation, private provision?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264269660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector</p></div></blockquote><p>
"Regulating"? Like establishing the rules and ensuring that they are followed? Yeah... We are not doing that - Free market is supposed to regulate itself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector " Regulating " ?
Like establishing the rules and ensuring that they are followed ?
Yeah... We are not doing that - Free market is supposed to regulate itself : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many successful examples follow the example of government regulating the private sector
"Regulating"?
Like establishing the rules and ensuring that they are followed?
Yeah... We are not doing that - Free market is supposed to regulate itself :-P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869962</id>
	<title>"...sold off to the low bidder."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264265400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty objectionable alright.  When you sell something it is supposed to go to the high bidder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty objectionable alright .
When you sell something it is supposed to go to the high bidder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty objectionable alright.
When you sell something it is supposed to go to the high bidder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869522</id>
	<title>That's Life</title>
	<author>amcdiarmid</author>
	<datestamp>1264260900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Government does not pay all that well (and previously less well).  You are talking about large networks, that are very complicated. As a result, you do not have a whole lot of government staff with experience to run a network that is that complicated.</p><p>I work in a very small (5K users) government (federal) office.  I have to deal with 12 windows domains, 11 Political groups, and offer support to all Regional Admins, and departmental admins - as well as dealing with a help desk which has been told "we don't investigate error logs."</p><p>Unfortunately, some of the government staff can't find their ***es with both hands. This is because 12 years ago, the government paid much less than the contractors. Good technical people could earn twice a much contracting a working for the government.  Those people are still contracting (mostly), and are the ones that you would want in the government running the show. The people who have "more senior" positions in gvt now?  They are largely the ones who couldn't get the better paid contracting jobs, and state: Helpdesk personnel should not be investigating application event logs.</p><p>Furthermore, this is also the case for many large businesses: They outsourced the tech support years ago (cheaper); most users get someone in india to change passwords, while sr. staff get concierge service.  Those large businesses have similar issues as well: but they have an explicit 2-tier service system.</p><p>It's been going on for years, but I don't see any way to rectify it: especially as the job listings still seem to be opaque, and difficult to decode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government does not pay all that well ( and previously less well ) .
You are talking about large networks , that are very complicated .
As a result , you do not have a whole lot of government staff with experience to run a network that is that complicated.I work in a very small ( 5K users ) government ( federal ) office .
I have to deal with 12 windows domains , 11 Political groups , and offer support to all Regional Admins , and departmental admins - as well as dealing with a help desk which has been told " we do n't investigate error logs .
" Unfortunately , some of the government staff ca n't find their * * * es with both hands .
This is because 12 years ago , the government paid much less than the contractors .
Good technical people could earn twice a much contracting a working for the government .
Those people are still contracting ( mostly ) , and are the ones that you would want in the government running the show .
The people who have " more senior " positions in gvt now ?
They are largely the ones who could n't get the better paid contracting jobs , and state : Helpdesk personnel should not be investigating application event logs.Furthermore , this is also the case for many large businesses : They outsourced the tech support years ago ( cheaper ) ; most users get someone in india to change passwords , while sr. staff get concierge service .
Those large businesses have similar issues as well : but they have an explicit 2-tier service system.It 's been going on for years , but I do n't see any way to rectify it : especially as the job listings still seem to be opaque , and difficult to decode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government does not pay all that well (and previously less well).
You are talking about large networks, that are very complicated.
As a result, you do not have a whole lot of government staff with experience to run a network that is that complicated.I work in a very small (5K users) government (federal) office.
I have to deal with 12 windows domains, 11 Political groups, and offer support to all Regional Admins, and departmental admins - as well as dealing with a help desk which has been told "we don't investigate error logs.
"Unfortunately, some of the government staff can't find their ***es with both hands.
This is because 12 years ago, the government paid much less than the contractors.
Good technical people could earn twice a much contracting a working for the government.
Those people are still contracting (mostly), and are the ones that you would want in the government running the show.
The people who have "more senior" positions in gvt now?
They are largely the ones who couldn't get the better paid contracting jobs, and state: Helpdesk personnel should not be investigating application event logs.Furthermore, this is also the case for many large businesses: They outsourced the tech support years ago (cheaper); most users get someone in india to change passwords, while sr. staff get concierge service.
Those large businesses have similar issues as well: but they have an explicit 2-tier service system.It's been going on for years, but I don't see any way to rectify it: especially as the job listings still seem to be opaque, and difficult to decode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30880268</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected</i></p><p>At least the Superhornet is ok in the speed department. I like the F-22 for the speedy airframe and advanced avionics, and gasp, I dare say that one might wonder whether for some missions we might just as well keep the plane but trade off some of its stealthy features just so it would be operational more often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while it 's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems ( 60 's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detectedAt least the Superhornet is ok in the speed department .
I like the F-22 for the speedy airframe and advanced avionics , and gasp , I dare say that one might wonder whether for some missions we might just as well keep the plane but trade off some of its stealthy features just so it would be operational more often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detectedAt least the Superhornet is ok in the speed department.
I like the F-22 for the speedy airframe and advanced avionics, and gasp, I dare say that one might wonder whether for some missions we might just as well keep the plane but trade off some of its stealthy features just so it would be operational more often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869976</id>
	<title>Re:Trend will continue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264265640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates: Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.</p> </div><p>Anything else would be a waste of tax payer's money. Right? It's all about keeping government small in the Land of the Free(tm). Right?</p><p>Isn't that the stereotypical American view?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates : Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind .
Anything else would be a waste of tax payer 's money .
Right ? It 's all about keeping government small in the Land of the Free ( tm ) .
Right ? Is n't that the stereotypical American view ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates: Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.
Anything else would be a waste of tax payer's money.
Right? It's all about keeping government small in the Land of the Free(tm).
Right?Isn't that the stereotypical American view?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869840</id>
	<title>There's a bigger issue embedded within...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264264140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and Slashdot acknowledged it earlier. It's the end run, by law enforcement agencies and national intelligence, around the 4th amendment.</p><p>See: <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/0247236/Using-Fourth-Party-Data-Brokers-To-Bypass-the-Fourth-Amendment" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Fourth Party Data Brokers</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>There's an idealistic view that people who work in "public service" should be willing and able to operate ethically and measure their decisions in a constitutional context. This notwithstanding the perception that legislators with even greater power are beholden to their constituents in a similar manner to the mythical obligation that the primary metric of corporate management should be the short-term, bottom-line view of Wall Street.</p><p>Assuming the above is an accurate depiction of American values, why should anyone be surprised that the governments' information assets (about us and the operations of our government) are managed with any ethical integrity whatsoever? Most MBA's will tell you, that cost reduction, as much as anything else, is a primary concern, even though we all 'know' through the continual barrage of advertising, that quality solutions require greater expenditure.</p><p>The easiest way to see how this paradox of low-cost vs. quality plays out it is to listen to the Tea-Baggers who chant the mantra, "government that governs least governs best." Then compare this general lack of critical thinking to the contrary evidence, efew.g. the total failure of the many multi-billion dollar IS debacles in the Intelligence black budgets, FEMA's performance in the context of New Orleans (after the Bush-Conservative gutting of its expertise)or the bankruptcy of Orange County (as a harbinger of the current meltdown/swindle/bailout of the investment banking sector), as a few examples.</p><p>The fundamental questions arise: how to do define or measure quality, and how do you convince anyone that spending more money on managing information is logical. As ever, in the absence of a clear definition of the specific goals necessary to effect a long-range planing process, it's difficult to determine much, other than discontent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and Slashdot acknowledged it earlier .
It 's the end run , by law enforcement agencies and national intelligence , around the 4th amendment.See : Fourth Party Data Brokers [ slashdot.org ] There 's an idealistic view that people who work in " public service " should be willing and able to operate ethically and measure their decisions in a constitutional context .
This notwithstanding the perception that legislators with even greater power are beholden to their constituents in a similar manner to the mythical obligation that the primary metric of corporate management should be the short-term , bottom-line view of Wall Street.Assuming the above is an accurate depiction of American values , why should anyone be surprised that the governments ' information assets ( about us and the operations of our government ) are managed with any ethical integrity whatsoever ?
Most MBA 's will tell you , that cost reduction , as much as anything else , is a primary concern , even though we all 'know ' through the continual barrage of advertising , that quality solutions require greater expenditure.The easiest way to see how this paradox of low-cost vs. quality plays out it is to listen to the Tea-Baggers who chant the mantra , " government that governs least governs best .
" Then compare this general lack of critical thinking to the contrary evidence , efew.g .
the total failure of the many multi-billion dollar IS debacles in the Intelligence black budgets , FEMA 's performance in the context of New Orleans ( after the Bush-Conservative gutting of its expertise ) or the bankruptcy of Orange County ( as a harbinger of the current meltdown/swindle/bailout of the investment banking sector ) , as a few examples.The fundamental questions arise : how to do define or measure quality , and how do you convince anyone that spending more money on managing information is logical .
As ever , in the absence of a clear definition of the specific goals necessary to effect a long-range planing process , it 's difficult to determine much , other than discontent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and Slashdot acknowledged it earlier.
It's the end run, by law enforcement agencies and national intelligence, around the 4th amendment.See: Fourth Party Data Brokers [slashdot.org]There's an idealistic view that people who work in "public service" should be willing and able to operate ethically and measure their decisions in a constitutional context.
This notwithstanding the perception that legislators with even greater power are beholden to their constituents in a similar manner to the mythical obligation that the primary metric of corporate management should be the short-term, bottom-line view of Wall Street.Assuming the above is an accurate depiction of American values, why should anyone be surprised that the governments' information assets (about us and the operations of our government) are managed with any ethical integrity whatsoever?
Most MBA's will tell you, that cost reduction, as much as anything else, is a primary concern, even though we all 'know' through the continual barrage of advertising, that quality solutions require greater expenditure.The easiest way to see how this paradox of low-cost vs. quality plays out it is to listen to the Tea-Baggers who chant the mantra, "government that governs least governs best.
" Then compare this general lack of critical thinking to the contrary evidence, efew.g.
the total failure of the many multi-billion dollar IS debacles in the Intelligence black budgets, FEMA's performance in the context of New Orleans (after the Bush-Conservative gutting of its expertise)or the bankruptcy of Orange County (as a harbinger of the current meltdown/swindle/bailout of the investment banking sector), as a few examples.The fundamental questions arise: how to do define or measure quality, and how do you convince anyone that spending more money on managing information is logical.
As ever, in the absence of a clear definition of the specific goals necessary to effect a long-range planing process, it's difficult to determine much, other than discontent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869708</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>unholy1</author>
	<datestamp>1264262820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">ARIA</a> [imdb.com] will soon be in control!</htmltext>
<tokenext>ARIA [ imdb.com ] will soon be in control !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARIA [imdb.com] will soon be in control!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870266</id>
	<title>Where's Matthew Sobol when we need him?</title>
	<author>JSC</author>
	<datestamp>1264268160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the setup for <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/01/26/1453216/Daemon" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Daemon</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the setup for Daemon [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the setup for Daemon [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869666</id>
	<title>The Jobs</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1264262280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could be totally wrong and often am, but the voices in my head say the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. spin on this speaks to working conditions more then management philosophy.</p><p>Many of us have done early-career stints in larger organizations where we learned to our horror that technical experts are viewed as evil twits, not assets. That's why so many of us nerds of a certain age walk around with pinched pained expressions. Caused by thoughts like, why doesn't anything make any SENSE? You would think, working in technology and all, being a wizard would bring with it a certain amount of status and security. It just doesn't seem to be the case.</p><p>It's not so much the sub vs in-house question as the management vs expert question that always seems to get answered in a predictably bad way. What's even worse, former geeks who grow up and get into decision-making positions are often i.m.experience the worst offenders, becoming the most vicious defenders of the bottom-line view of things, lording it over the rest of us who see our jobs as being to tease Mother Nature into behaving long enough to do something useful. And she's a fickle old witch.</p><p>The big organizations who do seem to do some technology ok, the GEs, the HPs, the IBMs, well as far as I can tell they accomplish it by being practically Darwinian. They have their research chairs sure, but they succeed in business by absolutely grinding middle management into powder so that the survivors are just about sociopaths.</p><p>I don't know, I guess in this phase of human development if a person wants to do something with love and passion it has to be a hobby. A few lucky ones might get paid for it. Everybody else chases bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could be totally wrong and often am , but the voices in my head say the / .
spin on this speaks to working conditions more then management philosophy.Many of us have done early-career stints in larger organizations where we learned to our horror that technical experts are viewed as evil twits , not assets .
That 's why so many of us nerds of a certain age walk around with pinched pained expressions .
Caused by thoughts like , why does n't anything make any SENSE ?
You would think , working in technology and all , being a wizard would bring with it a certain amount of status and security .
It just does n't seem to be the case.It 's not so much the sub vs in-house question as the management vs expert question that always seems to get answered in a predictably bad way .
What 's even worse , former geeks who grow up and get into decision-making positions are often i.m.experience the worst offenders , becoming the most vicious defenders of the bottom-line view of things , lording it over the rest of us who see our jobs as being to tease Mother Nature into behaving long enough to do something useful .
And she 's a fickle old witch.The big organizations who do seem to do some technology ok , the GEs , the HPs , the IBMs , well as far as I can tell they accomplish it by being practically Darwinian .
They have their research chairs sure , but they succeed in business by absolutely grinding middle management into powder so that the survivors are just about sociopaths.I do n't know , I guess in this phase of human development if a person wants to do something with love and passion it has to be a hobby .
A few lucky ones might get paid for it .
Everybody else chases bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could be totally wrong and often am, but the voices in my head say the /.
spin on this speaks to working conditions more then management philosophy.Many of us have done early-career stints in larger organizations where we learned to our horror that technical experts are viewed as evil twits, not assets.
That's why so many of us nerds of a certain age walk around with pinched pained expressions.
Caused by thoughts like, why doesn't anything make any SENSE?
You would think, working in technology and all, being a wizard would bring with it a certain amount of status and security.
It just doesn't seem to be the case.It's not so much the sub vs in-house question as the management vs expert question that always seems to get answered in a predictably bad way.
What's even worse, former geeks who grow up and get into decision-making positions are often i.m.experience the worst offenders, becoming the most vicious defenders of the bottom-line view of things, lording it over the rest of us who see our jobs as being to tease Mother Nature into behaving long enough to do something useful.
And she's a fickle old witch.The big organizations who do seem to do some technology ok, the GEs, the HPs, the IBMs, well as far as I can tell they accomplish it by being practically Darwinian.
They have their research chairs sure, but they succeed in business by absolutely grinding middle management into powder so that the survivors are just about sociopaths.I don't know, I guess in this phase of human development if a person wants to do something with love and passion it has to be a hobby.
A few lucky ones might get paid for it.
Everybody else chases bucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882566</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems</p> </div><p>We already know how to deal with SAM systems that are an actual threat for planes like F-35 in the scenario ("third-world dictators and terrorists") you describe - you just send in low-flying attack choppers first, and they clear a passage. It's precisely how it was done at the beginning of Desert Storm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problem with the F-35 is that it 's overkill for most of its intended uses ( stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists ) , while it 's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems We already know how to deal with SAM systems that are an actual threat for planes like F-35 in the scenario ( " third-world dictators and terrorists " ) you describe - you just send in low-flying attack choppers first , and they clear a passage .
It 's precisely how it was done at the beginning of Desert Storm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems We already know how to deal with SAM systems that are an actual threat for planes like F-35 in the scenario ("third-world dictators and terrorists") you describe - you just send in low-flying attack choppers first, and they clear a passage.
It's precisely how it was done at the beginning of Desert Storm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869422</id>
	<title>Control</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1264260060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q: Who controls the vital information systems?
A: The botnets?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : Who controls the vital information systems ?
A : The botnets ?
: o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: Who controls the vital information systems?
A: The botnets?
:o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882514</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264329720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'll get things like the P-39, where the brass decided they could save money on the engine, at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap.</p></div><p>P-39, an "ineffective death trap", really? It was so ineffective that it was the plane of choice of several Soviet fighter aces - such as Alexandr Pokryshkin, who also happened to be the 3rd highest scoring Allied ace. In fact, Soviet pilots scored more kills flying P-39 than anyone else, including Americans themselves.</p><p>Another ironic thing is that P-39 is actually the aircraft that still holds the honor of being the highest-scoring U.S.-made aircraft ever - 44 confirmed kills by one pilot - thanks to another Soviet ace, Grigory Rechkalov.</p><p>As to your original statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1) crew safety 2) combat effectiveness 3) resource efficiency in operation. If it costs more money to accomplish those goals, spend it, or you'll regret it.</p> </div><p>Germans followed the same guidelines in WW2. Their later tanks, such as Panther, had awesome armor and impressive combat efficiency, and were less prone to breakage. They were also very comfortable for the crew to operate. One on one, no Soviet tank stood any chance until the heavy IS-2 appeared late in the game.</p><p>But guess what? In the words of one German tanker, "we knew we could take 5 T-34s head on and win, but Russians knew that too, so they always had 6". If, for the price (not just money, but also effort and time required to produce) of your wunderwaffe, the enemy can produce more cheap alternatives that, if used together, are more powerful than your single unit, the enemy will win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll get things like the P-39 , where the brass decided they could save money on the engine , at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap.P-39 , an " ineffective death trap " , really ?
It was so ineffective that it was the plane of choice of several Soviet fighter aces - such as Alexandr Pokryshkin , who also happened to be the 3rd highest scoring Allied ace .
In fact , Soviet pilots scored more kills flying P-39 than anyone else , including Americans themselves.Another ironic thing is that P-39 is actually the aircraft that still holds the honor of being the highest-scoring U.S.-made aircraft ever - 44 confirmed kills by one pilot - thanks to another Soviet ace , Grigory Rechkalov.As to your original statement : There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1 ) crew safety 2 ) combat effectiveness 3 ) resource efficiency in operation .
If it costs more money to accomplish those goals , spend it , or you 'll regret it .
Germans followed the same guidelines in WW2 .
Their later tanks , such as Panther , had awesome armor and impressive combat efficiency , and were less prone to breakage .
They were also very comfortable for the crew to operate .
One on one , no Soviet tank stood any chance until the heavy IS-2 appeared late in the game.But guess what ?
In the words of one German tanker , " we knew we could take 5 T-34s head on and win , but Russians knew that too , so they always had 6 " .
If , for the price ( not just money , but also effort and time required to produce ) of your wunderwaffe , the enemy can produce more cheap alternatives that , if used together , are more powerful than your single unit , the enemy will win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll get things like the P-39, where the brass decided they could save money on the engine, at the cost of making it a combat ineffective death trap.P-39, an "ineffective death trap", really?
It was so ineffective that it was the plane of choice of several Soviet fighter aces - such as Alexandr Pokryshkin, who also happened to be the 3rd highest scoring Allied ace.
In fact, Soviet pilots scored more kills flying P-39 than anyone else, including Americans themselves.Another ironic thing is that P-39 is actually the aircraft that still holds the honor of being the highest-scoring U.S.-made aircraft ever - 44 confirmed kills by one pilot - thanks to another Soviet ace, Grigory Rechkalov.As to your original statement:There should be only three design goals for any military hardware 1) crew safety 2) combat effectiveness 3) resource efficiency in operation.
If it costs more money to accomplish those goals, spend it, or you'll regret it.
Germans followed the same guidelines in WW2.
Their later tanks, such as Panther, had awesome armor and impressive combat efficiency, and were less prone to breakage.
They were also very comfortable for the crew to operate.
One on one, no Soviet tank stood any chance until the heavy IS-2 appeared late in the game.But guess what?
In the words of one German tanker, "we knew we could take 5 T-34s head on and win, but Russians knew that too, so they always had 6".
If, for the price (not just money, but also effort and time required to produce) of your wunderwaffe, the enemy can produce more cheap alternatives that, if used together, are more powerful than your single unit, the enemy will win.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869572</id>
	<title>Would the state do better?</title>
	<author>haus</author>
	<datestamp>1264261380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have spent over a dozen years working on various federal government systems. I have seen things that would make your head spin.</p><p>But I see no evidence that if contractors were phased of of the Missouri IT systems that things would necessarily get better.  Sure the author mentions the grade of 'A' from Governing Magazine, but this is not a heavy hitting name in the IT world, I would not be surprised if a good part of this 'A' grade is because the state has been aggressive with outsourcing of IT.</p><p>Outsourcing it s not an excuse for management to not be involved in these process. It does not matter if work is being done by employees or contractors, it must be managed, a failure to do so will lead to bad situations. What we have here appears to be an inability to manage, changing the color of the badges for those doing the work is not likely to resolve this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have spent over a dozen years working on various federal government systems .
I have seen things that would make your head spin.But I see no evidence that if contractors were phased of of the Missouri IT systems that things would necessarily get better .
Sure the author mentions the grade of 'A ' from Governing Magazine , but this is not a heavy hitting name in the IT world , I would not be surprised if a good part of this 'A ' grade is because the state has been aggressive with outsourcing of IT.Outsourcing it s not an excuse for management to not be involved in these process .
It does not matter if work is being done by employees or contractors , it must be managed , a failure to do so will lead to bad situations .
What we have here appears to be an inability to manage , changing the color of the badges for those doing the work is not likely to resolve this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have spent over a dozen years working on various federal government systems.
I have seen things that would make your head spin.But I see no evidence that if contractors were phased of of the Missouri IT systems that things would necessarily get better.
Sure the author mentions the grade of 'A' from Governing Magazine, but this is not a heavy hitting name in the IT world, I would not be surprised if a good part of this 'A' grade is because the state has been aggressive with outsourcing of IT.Outsourcing it s not an excuse for management to not be involved in these process.
It does not matter if work is being done by employees or contractors, it must be managed, a failure to do so will lead to bad situations.
What we have here appears to be an inability to manage, changing the color of the badges for those doing the work is not likely to resolve this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30871250</id>
	<title>Medicaid</title>
	<author>caramuru</author>
	<datestamp>1264275960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't speak to all of the poster's comments, but I can address the Medicaid point. I have worked for over 25 years for Medicaid contractors and have done so in 14 states, so I have a pretty good perspective on the pluses and minuses of outsourcing this service.  Medicaid is usually the largest line item in a state's budget. Consequently, IT and other services required to run the program are not only expensive, but highly visible. Many state bureaucracies have concluded that they do not want to risk such exposure and are willing to pay for the privilege of pointing their fingers at a contractor whenever there are problems. Most of these contracts' operational expenses pay for non-IT services such as mail room, data entry, call center, and other staff. These personnel fall into the same category as the janitors, security personnel, and others that the poster identifies. Most of these contracts require the contractor to develop at a fixed price a system for the state to be used in the operations phase of the contract. State IT units are unwilling to take on such risk and, instead, only develop systems on a cost-plus basis. Most of these contracts require the contractor to supply a minimum number of IT staff devoted to change orders, so the contractor only makes additional money when the volume of change orders exceeds the capacity of the contracted minimum of staff. Additionally, maintenance required for bug fixes is usually not a reimbursable expense. Again, contractors are required to assume risk that states will not take on. Health care administration is a rapidly changing (You cannot imagine the impact of HIPAA on health care administrators, public and private), and contractors with multiple contracts are much better able to understand the changing environment, develop solutions for the changes, and leverage experience from all of their contracts for the benefit of each individual contract. Although there are only about five contractors in this market, the competition is brutal, resulting in lower prices for states. Although it would seem that states lose valuable expertise when an incumbent contractor loses a re-bid, the reality is that people working for the old contractor tend to go to work for the new contractor.
<p>
Are these contractors perfect? Absolutely not. I have seen failures that could only be resolved by kicking the contractor out. This is obviously painful to the contractor, but very disruptive to the state. States could save themselves this disruption by changing some of their procurement rules (e.g., the bidder with the lowest bid price exceeds a minimum technical score) that reward lower quality proposals. They could also increase the Medicaid program's performance by optimizing their end-to-end business processes prior to issuing an RFP. Many states' business processes are fundamentally broken. If you compare the head count used in a state-staffed operation vs. the head count used in a contractor-staffed operation, you often see a two- or three-to-one difference. Medicaid RFPs are notoriously ambiguous and routinely include phrases such as "including but limited to" in requirements statements. Fully modeled and documented processes generate fully developed use cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak to all of the poster 's comments , but I can address the Medicaid point .
I have worked for over 25 years for Medicaid contractors and have done so in 14 states , so I have a pretty good perspective on the pluses and minuses of outsourcing this service .
Medicaid is usually the largest line item in a state 's budget .
Consequently , IT and other services required to run the program are not only expensive , but highly visible .
Many state bureaucracies have concluded that they do not want to risk such exposure and are willing to pay for the privilege of pointing their fingers at a contractor whenever there are problems .
Most of these contracts ' operational expenses pay for non-IT services such as mail room , data entry , call center , and other staff .
These personnel fall into the same category as the janitors , security personnel , and others that the poster identifies .
Most of these contracts require the contractor to develop at a fixed price a system for the state to be used in the operations phase of the contract .
State IT units are unwilling to take on such risk and , instead , only develop systems on a cost-plus basis .
Most of these contracts require the contractor to supply a minimum number of IT staff devoted to change orders , so the contractor only makes additional money when the volume of change orders exceeds the capacity of the contracted minimum of staff .
Additionally , maintenance required for bug fixes is usually not a reimbursable expense .
Again , contractors are required to assume risk that states will not take on .
Health care administration is a rapidly changing ( You can not imagine the impact of HIPAA on health care administrators , public and private ) , and contractors with multiple contracts are much better able to understand the changing environment , develop solutions for the changes , and leverage experience from all of their contracts for the benefit of each individual contract .
Although there are only about five contractors in this market , the competition is brutal , resulting in lower prices for states .
Although it would seem that states lose valuable expertise when an incumbent contractor loses a re-bid , the reality is that people working for the old contractor tend to go to work for the new contractor .
Are these contractors perfect ?
Absolutely not .
I have seen failures that could only be resolved by kicking the contractor out .
This is obviously painful to the contractor , but very disruptive to the state .
States could save themselves this disruption by changing some of their procurement rules ( e.g. , the bidder with the lowest bid price exceeds a minimum technical score ) that reward lower quality proposals .
They could also increase the Medicaid program 's performance by optimizing their end-to-end business processes prior to issuing an RFP .
Many states ' business processes are fundamentally broken .
If you compare the head count used in a state-staffed operation vs. the head count used in a contractor-staffed operation , you often see a two- or three-to-one difference .
Medicaid RFPs are notoriously ambiguous and routinely include phrases such as " including but limited to " in requirements statements .
Fully modeled and documented processes generate fully developed use cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak to all of the poster's comments, but I can address the Medicaid point.
I have worked for over 25 years for Medicaid contractors and have done so in 14 states, so I have a pretty good perspective on the pluses and minuses of outsourcing this service.
Medicaid is usually the largest line item in a state's budget.
Consequently, IT and other services required to run the program are not only expensive, but highly visible.
Many state bureaucracies have concluded that they do not want to risk such exposure and are willing to pay for the privilege of pointing their fingers at a contractor whenever there are problems.
Most of these contracts' operational expenses pay for non-IT services such as mail room, data entry, call center, and other staff.
These personnel fall into the same category as the janitors, security personnel, and others that the poster identifies.
Most of these contracts require the contractor to develop at a fixed price a system for the state to be used in the operations phase of the contract.
State IT units are unwilling to take on such risk and, instead, only develop systems on a cost-plus basis.
Most of these contracts require the contractor to supply a minimum number of IT staff devoted to change orders, so the contractor only makes additional money when the volume of change orders exceeds the capacity of the contracted minimum of staff.
Additionally, maintenance required for bug fixes is usually not a reimbursable expense.
Again, contractors are required to assume risk that states will not take on.
Health care administration is a rapidly changing (You cannot imagine the impact of HIPAA on health care administrators, public and private), and contractors with multiple contracts are much better able to understand the changing environment, develop solutions for the changes, and leverage experience from all of their contracts for the benefit of each individual contract.
Although there are only about five contractors in this market, the competition is brutal, resulting in lower prices for states.
Although it would seem that states lose valuable expertise when an incumbent contractor loses a re-bid, the reality is that people working for the old contractor tend to go to work for the new contractor.
Are these contractors perfect?
Absolutely not.
I have seen failures that could only be resolved by kicking the contractor out.
This is obviously painful to the contractor, but very disruptive to the state.
States could save themselves this disruption by changing some of their procurement rules (e.g., the bidder with the lowest bid price exceeds a minimum technical score) that reward lower quality proposals.
They could also increase the Medicaid program's performance by optimizing their end-to-end business processes prior to issuing an RFP.
Many states' business processes are fundamentally broken.
If you compare the head count used in a state-staffed operation vs. the head count used in a contractor-staffed operation, you often see a two- or three-to-one difference.
Medicaid RFPs are notoriously ambiguous and routinely include phrases such as "including but limited to" in requirements statements.
Fully modeled and documented processes generate fully developed use cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873222</id>
	<title>You don't manage privatization - it manages you</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1264246560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't know how to respond to a post like yours -- perhaps you unaware of the article and history of modern life -- perhaps you're simply unaware.</p><p>to put it as unsophisticated as possible -- the American intelligence community is majority privatized -- that means no FOIA, no transparency, no control, and 1,000 times the cost.  PERIOD!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't know how to respond to a post like yours -- perhaps you unaware of the article and history of modern life -- perhaps you 're simply unaware.to put it as unsophisticated as possible -- the American intelligence community is majority privatized -- that means no FOIA , no transparency , no control , and 1,000 times the cost .
PERIOD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't know how to respond to a post like yours -- perhaps you unaware of the article and history of modern life -- perhaps you're simply unaware.to put it as unsophisticated as possible -- the American intelligence community is majority privatized -- that means no FOIA, no transparency, no control, and 1,000 times the cost.
PERIOD!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869316</id>
	<title>re Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Who's on first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's on first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Who's on first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869894</id>
	<title>Re:Zero Incentive for Success Equals Certain Failu</title>
	<author>CantGetAUserName</author>
	<datestamp>1264264680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the fault can be laid squarely at whoever wrote the original contract. One of the contracts in the UK that's currently just starting to make the press is notable because the consultants managing the process (why would you let a consultant manage the process?! Consultants *consult*, dummy! Not a dig at consultants, but the fool who handed over control of the entire process to a third party...) are being paid 10\% of the procurement cost of the contract as a bonus.</p><p>Yes, you read that right, they're effectively being *told* to buy the most expensive thing possible, with somebody else's money. And, as an added bonus, the system they've chosen (at an estimated 5 times the cost of one of the losers - whom they didn't actually permit to bid) will require months of (paid, of course) work from the consultants concerned to get it to work. I'm in the wrong line of work, really I am...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the fault can be laid squarely at whoever wrote the original contract .
One of the contracts in the UK that 's currently just starting to make the press is notable because the consultants managing the process ( why would you let a consultant manage the process ? !
Consultants * consult * , dummy !
Not a dig at consultants , but the fool who handed over control of the entire process to a third party... ) are being paid 10 \ % of the procurement cost of the contract as a bonus.Yes , you read that right , they 're effectively being * told * to buy the most expensive thing possible , with somebody else 's money .
And , as an added bonus , the system they 've chosen ( at an estimated 5 times the cost of one of the losers - whom they did n't actually permit to bid ) will require months of ( paid , of course ) work from the consultants concerned to get it to work .
I 'm in the wrong line of work , really I am.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the fault can be laid squarely at whoever wrote the original contract.
One of the contracts in the UK that's currently just starting to make the press is notable because the consultants managing the process (why would you let a consultant manage the process?!
Consultants *consult*, dummy!
Not a dig at consultants, but the fool who handed over control of the entire process to a third party...) are being paid 10\% of the procurement cost of the contract as a bonus.Yes, you read that right, they're effectively being *told* to buy the most expensive thing possible, with somebody else's money.
And, as an added bonus, the system they've chosen (at an estimated 5 times the cost of one of the losers - whom they didn't actually permit to bid) will require months of (paid, of course) work from the consultants concerned to get it to work.
I'm in the wrong line of work, really I am...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870098</id>
	<title>Re:Hard vs. Easy</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1264266660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant post.  That couldn't be any more right.  And I might add:</p><p>...hiring another contractor who does the exact same thing because of utter lack of qualification and skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant post .
That could n't be any more right .
And I might add : ...hiring another contractor who does the exact same thing because of utter lack of qualification and skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant post.
That couldn't be any more right.
And I might add:...hiring another contractor who does the exact same thing because of utter lack of qualification and skill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>LeperPuppet</author>
	<datestamp>1264244820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Military project costs tend to blowout, yet governments keep signing up for projects with unproven technologies and surprisingly low initial costs.  As long as everyone gets their share of Congressional pork, don't expect this to change.
</p><p>
While the F-22 is damned expensive, it's also the best fighter aircraft in the world, so there's at least some value in owning them.  It's high-end features are best utilised with a large fleet of lesser aircraft that are cheaper to purchase and maintain.  Which the USAF currently owns (F-15 and F-16 fleet) and stupidly wants to replace with a lesser number of unproven and increasingly expensive F-35s.  The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Military project costs tend to blowout , yet governments keep signing up for projects with unproven technologies and surprisingly low initial costs .
As long as everyone gets their share of Congressional pork , do n't expect this to change .
While the F-22 is damned expensive , it 's also the best fighter aircraft in the world , so there 's at least some value in owning them .
It 's high-end features are best utilised with a large fleet of lesser aircraft that are cheaper to purchase and maintain .
Which the USAF currently owns ( F-15 and F-16 fleet ) and stupidly wants to replace with a lesser number of unproven and increasingly expensive F-35s .
The worst problem with the F-35 is that it 's overkill for most of its intended uses ( stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists ) , while it 's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems ( 60 's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Military project costs tend to blowout, yet governments keep signing up for projects with unproven technologies and surprisingly low initial costs.
As long as everyone gets their share of Congressional pork, don't expect this to change.
While the F-22 is damned expensive, it's also the best fighter aircraft in the world, so there's at least some value in owning them.
It's high-end features are best utilised with a large fleet of lesser aircraft that are cheaper to purchase and maintain.
Which the USAF currently owns (F-15 and F-16 fleet) and stupidly wants to replace with a lesser number of unproven and increasingly expensive F-35s.
The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869510</id>
	<title>Contracting is a way around public employee unions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And good riddance.</p><p>The contractors do a great job, pay well and don't leave the taxpayers on the hook for an underfunded pension plan.</p><p>And no amount of union screaming will stop it. At the federal, state and local levels, government is INSOLVENT.</p><p>So I expect to see more of this. And I for one welcome it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And good riddance.The contractors do a great job , pay well and do n't leave the taxpayers on the hook for an underfunded pension plan.And no amount of union screaming will stop it .
At the federal , state and local levels , government is INSOLVENT.So I expect to see more of this .
And I for one welcome it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And good riddance.The contractors do a great job, pay well and don't leave the taxpayers on the hook for an underfunded pension plan.And no amount of union screaming will stop it.
At the federal, state and local levels, government is INSOLVENT.So I expect to see more of this.
And I for one welcome it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446</id>
	<title>Hard vs. Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard: building a top notch IT organization.</p><p>Easy: paying somebody to hide the problems, firing them when the problems can't be ignored, then hiring another contractor who does exactly the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard : building a top notch IT organization.Easy : paying somebody to hide the problems , firing them when the problems ca n't be ignored , then hiring another contractor who does exactly the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard: building a top notch IT organization.Easy: paying somebody to hide the problems, firing them when the problems can't be ignored, then hiring another contractor who does exactly the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870044</id>
	<title>Re:Trend will continue...</title>
	<author>some-old-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1264266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has done any number of stories over the past couple of years that indicate IT contractors are significantly more expensive than Wisconsin state employees.  The problem (in WI) is that you can find money to hire contract staff build your application; you can't get additional positions to build it.  Getting additional positions is almost impossible.
<br> <br>
So you pony up money, hire contract staff, and build the application for some factor N greater cost, but you <b>do</b> get your application.  Project is completed, contractors go off to their next project in another organization.  Then there's no one to maintain the thing.  Also remember it was built by people who <b>knew</b> they wouldn't have to maintain it, so it might be crap.  It might also be wonderful because taking pride in your work isn't a trait that's confined to permanent staff.  I've seen both, but more often the former.
<br> <br>
Having state staff build the system means they <b>know</b> they have to maintain it.  Usually that results in better quality, but not always.  Again, I've seen both, more often than not the staff create something maintainable (if not elegant) because they have to live with the consequences.
<br> <br>
<i>[Cue a whole bunch of twits with variations on "but that doesn't make sense" because they think bureaucracies are supposed to make sense.]</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has done any number of stories over the past couple of years that indicate IT contractors are significantly more expensive than Wisconsin state employees .
The problem ( in WI ) is that you can find money to hire contract staff build your application ; you ca n't get additional positions to build it .
Getting additional positions is almost impossible .
So you pony up money , hire contract staff , and build the application for some factor N greater cost , but you do get your application .
Project is completed , contractors go off to their next project in another organization .
Then there 's no one to maintain the thing .
Also remember it was built by people who knew they would n't have to maintain it , so it might be crap .
It might also be wonderful because taking pride in your work is n't a trait that 's confined to permanent staff .
I 've seen both , but more often the former .
Having state staff build the system means they know they have to maintain it .
Usually that results in better quality , but not always .
Again , I 've seen both , more often than not the staff create something maintainable ( if not elegant ) because they have to live with the consequences .
[ Cue a whole bunch of twits with variations on " but that does n't make sense " because they think bureaucracies are supposed to make sense .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has done any number of stories over the past couple of years that indicate IT contractors are significantly more expensive than Wisconsin state employees.
The problem (in WI) is that you can find money to hire contract staff build your application; you can't get additional positions to build it.
Getting additional positions is almost impossible.
So you pony up money, hire contract staff, and build the application for some factor N greater cost, but you do get your application.
Project is completed, contractors go off to their next project in another organization.
Then there's no one to maintain the thing.
Also remember it was built by people who knew they wouldn't have to maintain it, so it might be crap.
It might also be wonderful because taking pride in your work isn't a trait that's confined to permanent staff.
I've seen both, but more often the former.
Having state staff build the system means they know they have to maintain it.
Usually that results in better quality, but not always.
Again, I've seen both, more often than not the staff create something maintainable (if not elegant) because they have to live with the consequences.
[Cue a whole bunch of twits with variations on "but that doesn't make sense" because they think bureaucracies are supposed to make sense.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870696</id>
	<title>Re:re Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264271400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ME !!! mu ha ha ha !!!</p><p>{insert obligatory simpson reference to the masons , illumanti here }</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ME ! ! !
mu ha ha ha ! ! !
{ insert obligatory simpson reference to the masons , illumanti here }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ME !!!
mu ha ha ha !!!
{insert obligatory simpson reference to the masons , illumanti here }</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870448</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the risk?</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1264269600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a state government employee who worked for several years in the private sector. By my reckoning, the distribution of incompetent people is about the same than at your average large company -- they just look different. Most state governments expanded rapidly in the 70's and 80's, so you have this massive cadre of 45-60 year olds who are burnt out and useless. Big corporate places purge the old people, replace them with clueless foreigners (working for a bodyshops that happen to be run by some Exec VP's wife in most cases), laid off corporate types who are now consulting, and recent graduates without clue.</p><p>The real problem with government is the leadership. In the past, the professional managers blunted the effect of politically appointed executives who couldn't find their ass with both hands. Today, the corps of those professionals is in dire straits in most states, because most states did not hire and "grow" new employees in the 90's and 00's. So the smart people are retiring, only to be replaced by people who will be retiring in 3 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a state government employee who worked for several years in the private sector .
By my reckoning , the distribution of incompetent people is about the same than at your average large company -- they just look different .
Most state governments expanded rapidly in the 70 's and 80 's , so you have this massive cadre of 45-60 year olds who are burnt out and useless .
Big corporate places purge the old people , replace them with clueless foreigners ( working for a bodyshops that happen to be run by some Exec VP 's wife in most cases ) , laid off corporate types who are now consulting , and recent graduates without clue.The real problem with government is the leadership .
In the past , the professional managers blunted the effect of politically appointed executives who could n't find their ass with both hands .
Today , the corps of those professionals is in dire straits in most states , because most states did not hire and " grow " new employees in the 90 's and 00 's .
So the smart people are retiring , only to be replaced by people who will be retiring in 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a state government employee who worked for several years in the private sector.
By my reckoning, the distribution of incompetent people is about the same than at your average large company -- they just look different.
Most state governments expanded rapidly in the 70's and 80's, so you have this massive cadre of 45-60 year olds who are burnt out and useless.
Big corporate places purge the old people, replace them with clueless foreigners (working for a bodyshops that happen to be run by some Exec VP's wife in most cases), laid off corporate types who are now consulting, and recent graduates without clue.The real problem with government is the leadership.
In the past, the professional managers blunted the effect of politically appointed executives who couldn't find their ass with both hands.
Today, the corps of those professionals is in dire straits in most states, because most states did not hire and "grow" new employees in the 90's and 00's.
So the smart people are retiring, only to be replaced by people who will be retiring in 3 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30871072</id>
	<title>EDS &amp; Identity Theft</title>
	<author>mim</author>
	<datestamp>1264274820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recently here in Wisconsin the contracted company that manages some of the Medicaid and other social programs printed out the Social Security numbers of all recipients of a large mailing on the OUTSIDE of the envelopes.  OOPS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently here in Wisconsin the contracted company that manages some of the Medicaid and other social programs printed out the Social Security numbers of all recipients of a large mailing on the OUTSIDE of the envelopes .
OOPS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently here in Wisconsin the contracted company that manages some of the Medicaid and other social programs printed out the Social Security numbers of all recipients of a large mailing on the OUTSIDE of the envelopes.
OOPS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870826</id>
	<title>Core Competency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264272660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The overriding principle of outsourcing is that you never outsource your core competency.</p><p>While we might engage in endless 'dialog' about the level of competency various governments display, ceding their information functions to private interests is first order corruption.</p><p>Any government official, elected or otherwise, who advocates this practice is clueless or on the take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overriding principle of outsourcing is that you never outsource your core competency.While we might engage in endless 'dialog ' about the level of competency various governments display , ceding their information functions to private interests is first order corruption.Any government official , elected or otherwise , who advocates this practice is clueless or on the take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overriding principle of outsourcing is that you never outsource your core competency.While we might engage in endless 'dialog' about the level of competency various governments display, ceding their information functions to private interests is first order corruption.Any government official, elected or otherwise, who advocates this practice is clueless or on the take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869738</id>
	<title>The best of both worlds.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264263000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We transfer liabilities and with some clever arrangements, can still make some money on the process.</p><p>We are being controlled by Corporate Evil because we pay them to control us. They are ordered to pwn us.</p><p>Isn't that great? Thank the pigs in the farm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We transfer liabilities and with some clever arrangements , can still make some money on the process.We are being controlled by Corporate Evil because we pay them to control us .
They are ordered to pwn us.Is n't that great ?
Thank the pigs in the farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We transfer liabilities and with some clever arrangements, can still make some money on the process.We are being controlled by Corporate Evil because we pay them to control us.
They are ordered to pwn us.Isn't that great?
Thank the pigs in the farm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396</id>
	<title>Trend will continue...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1264259820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates:  Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.  It's really no different than people in society who try to live and act like rockstar's on a McDonald's budget.  FTFA, IT, in particular, is in shambles because the mass employee attrition related to budget woes.  So maybe you get the "diamond-in-the-rough" person who picked up the in's and out's of the infrastructure and singlely-handed administers the whole network themselves, you'd be ignorant to think he's going to stick any long when anything remotely better in the private sector surfaces again.  Just like any place, Gov't IT creates their own single point of failure because they 1) Won't purchase what you need to succeed because they are under the esteemed impression that they pay you to come up with enterprise solutions out of thin-air, and 2)  charge the gov't 1.5x the salary than they are paying the contractors to do it.  You don't build tenure and stability that way, folks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates : Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind .
It 's really no different than people in society who try to live and act like rockstar 's on a McDonald 's budget .
FTFA , IT , in particular , is in shambles because the mass employee attrition related to budget woes .
So maybe you get the " diamond-in-the-rough " person who picked up the in 's and out 's of the infrastructure and singlely-handed administers the whole network themselves , you 'd be ignorant to think he 's going to stick any long when anything remotely better in the private sector surfaces again .
Just like any place , Gov't IT creates their own single point of failure because they 1 ) Wo n't purchase what you need to succeed because they are under the esteemed impression that they pay you to come up with enterprise solutions out of thin-air , and 2 ) charge the gov't 1.5x the salary than they are paying the contractors to do it .
You do n't build tenure and stability that way , folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately this is the way our American gov't operates:  Bottom-line management style approach to everything with only the lowest budget in mind.
It's really no different than people in society who try to live and act like rockstar's on a McDonald's budget.
FTFA, IT, in particular, is in shambles because the mass employee attrition related to budget woes.
So maybe you get the "diamond-in-the-rough" person who picked up the in's and out's of the infrastructure and singlely-handed administers the whole network themselves, you'd be ignorant to think he's going to stick any long when anything remotely better in the private sector surfaces again.
Just like any place, Gov't IT creates their own single point of failure because they 1) Won't purchase what you need to succeed because they are under the esteemed impression that they pay you to come up with enterprise solutions out of thin-air, and 2)  charge the gov't 1.5x the salary than they are paying the contractors to do it.
You don't build tenure and stability that way, folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870670</id>
	<title>Re:Even dumber</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1264271220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defense</p></div><p>I assume you're in the U.S., so I have to say... wha?  We're in two wars right now!  Maybe you mean that, in our current state of war, we're spending many multiples of peacetime levels?
<br> <br>
Of course, your point is still valid-- military spending is extremely high even in peacetime.  Sadly, that is the cost of being the first to do something.  There's a very good account of this phenomena in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Moon-Rising-Sputnik-Rivalries/dp/B001FB62JG" title="amazon.com">Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age</a> [amazon.com].  Eisenhower was keenly aware of and attempted to avoid the problems of a large and influential military-industrial complex, and yet, he is largely responsible for getting it off the ground.  In the end, pressure from both the American people and his own military forced his hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defenseI assume you 're in the U.S. , so I have to say... wha ? We 're in two wars right now !
Maybe you mean that , in our current state of war , we 're spending many multiples of peacetime levels ?
Of course , your point is still valid-- military spending is extremely high even in peacetime .
Sadly , that is the cost of being the first to do something .
There 's a very good account of this phenomena in the book Red Moon Rising : Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age [ amazon.com ] .
Eisenhower was keenly aware of and attempted to avoid the problems of a large and influential military-industrial complex , and yet , he is largely responsible for getting it off the ground .
In the end , pressure from both the American people and his own military forced his hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, right now we are spending record peacetime levels on defenseI assume you're in the U.S., so I have to say... wha?  We're in two wars right now!
Maybe you mean that, in our current state of war, we're spending many multiples of peacetime levels?
Of course, your point is still valid-- military spending is extremely high even in peacetime.
Sadly, that is the cost of being the first to do something.
There's a very good account of this phenomena in the book Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age [amazon.com].
Eisenhower was keenly aware of and attempted to avoid the problems of a large and influential military-industrial complex, and yet, he is largely responsible for getting it off the ground.
In the end, pressure from both the American people and his own military forced his hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869454</id>
	<title>If a business chooses the cheapest contractor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...without due diligence and a complete lack of knowledge of what is necessary, does that mean it's absolved of all blame when something goes wrong? If the government makes a series of stupid decisions with regard to contractors, it doesn't mean they will suddenly be able to do the work better themselves, any more than f I chose a restaurant poorly, it means I'll suddenly be able to make delicious meals at home.</p><p>And before anyone can say "businesses are only in it for the money" -- sure, that is almost always true, but the government doesn't even have *that* incentive.  Seriously, why would a government worker try to stay within a budget when they can cry for more tax revenue, and why would they bother trying something new that might work better or be cheaper when there is no reward and they have a captive audience? Government workers are not paragons of virtue compared to those in the private sector, they are the same type of people with a bigger budget and less accountability. Until you can actually sit down and list the requirements for a particular project and then align the incentives with the results you want, you are going to have crap outcomes, whether you outsource a service or bring it in-house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...without due diligence and a complete lack of knowledge of what is necessary , does that mean it 's absolved of all blame when something goes wrong ?
If the government makes a series of stupid decisions with regard to contractors , it does n't mean they will suddenly be able to do the work better themselves , any more than f I chose a restaurant poorly , it means I 'll suddenly be able to make delicious meals at home.And before anyone can say " businesses are only in it for the money " -- sure , that is almost always true , but the government does n't even have * that * incentive .
Seriously , why would a government worker try to stay within a budget when they can cry for more tax revenue , and why would they bother trying something new that might work better or be cheaper when there is no reward and they have a captive audience ?
Government workers are not paragons of virtue compared to those in the private sector , they are the same type of people with a bigger budget and less accountability .
Until you can actually sit down and list the requirements for a particular project and then align the incentives with the results you want , you are going to have crap outcomes , whether you outsource a service or bring it in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...without due diligence and a complete lack of knowledge of what is necessary, does that mean it's absolved of all blame when something goes wrong?
If the government makes a series of stupid decisions with regard to contractors, it doesn't mean they will suddenly be able to do the work better themselves, any more than f I chose a restaurant poorly, it means I'll suddenly be able to make delicious meals at home.And before anyone can say "businesses are only in it for the money" -- sure, that is almost always true, but the government doesn't even have *that* incentive.
Seriously, why would a government worker try to stay within a budget when they can cry for more tax revenue, and why would they bother trying something new that might work better or be cheaper when there is no reward and they have a captive audience?
Government workers are not paragons of virtue compared to those in the private sector, they are the same type of people with a bigger budget and less accountability.
Until you can actually sit down and list the requirements for a particular project and then align the incentives with the results you want, you are going to have crap outcomes, whether you outsource a service or bring it in-house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869532</id>
	<title>No leadership</title>
	<author>MikeB0Lton</author>
	<datestamp>1264261020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I think the biggest problem in government organizations is the lack of effective leadership.  They don't run things like the real world works and they aren't usually willing to pay enough money to recruit talent that can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think the biggest problem in government organizations is the lack of effective leadership .
They do n't run things like the real world works and they are n't usually willing to pay enough money to recruit talent that can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think the biggest problem in government organizations is the lack of effective leadership.
They don't run things like the real world works and they aren't usually willing to pay enough money to recruit talent that can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872750</id>
	<title>Re:No leadership</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1264243020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're all political appointees. So there are two things at work here: 1) The job was given to a non-IT crony of the current administration, or b) when this administration is voted out, there goes your job. Better to find a nice cozy home for yourself by delivering a fat contract to some IT support firm (which is probably where you were found by the administration in the first place).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're all political appointees .
So there are two things at work here : 1 ) The job was given to a non-IT crony of the current administration , or b ) when this administration is voted out , there goes your job .
Better to find a nice cozy home for yourself by delivering a fat contract to some IT support firm ( which is probably where you were found by the administration in the first place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're all political appointees.
So there are two things at work here: 1) The job was given to a non-IT crony of the current administration, or b) when this administration is voted out, there goes your job.
Better to find a nice cozy home for yourself by delivering a fat contract to some IT support firm (which is probably where you were found by the administration in the first place).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869882</id>
	<title>Re:Zero Incentive for Success Equals Certain Failu</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1264264500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems. For example, name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American.</p></div></blockquote><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_Blackout\_of\_2003" title="wikipedia.org">Northeast Blackout of 2003</a> [wikipedia.org] probably comes close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems .
For example , name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American.The Northeast Blackout of 2003 [ wikipedia.org ] probably comes close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that people predict massive problems despite there never being any massive problems.
For example, name a single infrastructure event that impacted the daily lives of every American.The Northeast Blackout of 2003 [wikipedia.org] probably comes close.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30880268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_1328221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30882566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30880268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30872750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30873222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_1328221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30869546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_1328221.30870448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
