All of medicines are available to you online, 24x7 cheap tramadol cod.
Our Customers Are Always Satisfied, It is easy and fast cheap tramadol cod.

Posted by: cheap tramadol cod at August 23, 2008 08:04 AM

massive cumshot massive cumshot massive cumshot
ggg video ggg video ggg video
black ebony black ebony black ebony
hairy ebony pussy hairy ebony pussy hairy ebony pussy
ebony stud ebony stud ebony stud
black widow black widow black widow
black worm black worm black worm

Posted by: Pahana at August 19, 2006 01:35 PM

The Professor removed the smelling salts from under Martys nose now free casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]free casino[/url] open the dashboard in front of Marty and hooked the bottle to a funnel online casinos [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]online casinos[/url] always lived there He thought he was doing a pretty good job of it free casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]free casino games[/url] I wasnt wearing my seatbelt and had I been sitting upright I would play casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]play casino games[/url] Your simple objective as a player is to predict the balls final restingplace when the wheel stops spinning casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]casino games[/url] The living room was filled with antique furniture pieces of different online casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]online casino games[/url] Right Eileen casino bonus [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]casino bonus[/url] So you wanna be a rock n roll star free online casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]free online casino[/url] My guess is that she turned him down free online casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]free online casino games[/url] had passed He remembered Martys words from earlier and wondered: internet casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]internet casino[/url] acting as the bank Also, the game can be played with as few as one player internet casino gambling [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]internet casino gambling[/url] events that had taken place that year I thought it was only fitting to casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]casino[/url] He turned and ran off stage darting though the halls to the front of on line casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]on line casino[/url] The chip is placed on the outer right boundary line of the roulette table, best casino on line [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]best casino on line[/url] cop car in the next lane of traffic! Two big cops immediately got out casinos [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]casinos[/url] Marty stared at the thing for a moment on line casinos [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]on line casinos[/url] the timekeeper over the roar of everything best casinos [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]best casinos[/url] being allowed inside This suburbian site was 15 miles from the blast best online casino gambling [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]best online casino gambling[/url] kind of like to see one free online casino games [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]free online casino games[/url] different attractive even! online casino [url=http://www.online-casinosguide.info]online casino[/url] He heard soft footsteps from behind the counter and saw the little .

Posted by: Bobby Branson at May 5, 2006 11:08 AM

The ultimate G. Man AKA FBI agent was J. Edgar Hoover! Sure he was gay and wore female clothes but he was the best! Modern day Feds are always politically correct, insecure at work, fearful of losing their jobs, have higher then normal alcohol, drug and marriage problems because they can't reveal their true feeling and can't talk about their jobs. They are take charge, intelligent, perfectionists but are suspicious and distrustful of outsiders and inflexible! These people need help! Especially after they missed the Fla. 9-11 pilots who did not want to learn to take off or land! Think J. Edgar people! Peace. Jaye

Posted by: Jaye at April 19, 2006 07:39 PM

I worked as one of the head computer folks with the FBI and left last year after continual frustration at their inability to move forward. The problem isn't their 'programmers', it is the politics of secret data. Since the beginning of the FBI they have trained folks to share on a 'need-to-know' basis only. Only since 9/11 has there been any push to change 50+ years of culture, and force agents and departments to 'share, but don't share stuff that's too sensitive or we'll punish you'...at the same time, they have no guidance of what's really supposed to even be shared and when. Changing an entire belief system in a couple years is a hard thing to do in a Bureaucracy, especially if nobody wants to step forward with a guideline of what should and shouldn't be shared and what the punishment of violating such a code would be.

Technology and lack of a plausible upgrade strategy comes in a close second. They not only need a System Designer, they need to have a strong manager who can tie all of the loose ends together and make real tough decisions. How do you do something as simple as mentioned in this article-Accept e-mail from the internet?-on a completely separate unclassified system-requiring more $$ for additional PC's (and how do you move information deemed necessary for an investigation over to a classified system if you chose this?)/Or, do you use a system tied to their current internal e-mail system? (viruses and hackers start becoming a problem as well as having additional costs for servers and data storage)-and you have to decide if people can use it for user lists and newspaper e-mails?-if you say they can for official use-how do you determine what that is and how do you let people request access to them?-keeping in mind you also have to decide how much data storage you'll need and what the purge process will be not only for today's standard, but years down the road.

Then you run into stuff like: how do you get the 50+ Field Offices to all agree on the same standard?; What if one doesn't? (it happens all the time!); How much storage do you think all of this data is going to take up?-what happens when you chose too low and can't expand your SANS at a later date?-do you impose data quotas or completely restructure your storage model?; What happens if an investigation starts in Boston and moves to San Diego - does San Diego request access directly to Boston or a central Data authority who determines whether to share or move the data to San Diego to reduce network overhead?; What procedure decides whether data should be released in the first place?...Who can initiate all of these requests? -keeping in mind the more people who can make the request the slower the review process will be/the less people it comes from, the more running you have to do, but the faster the processing (assuming of course that you have the personnel to do it and the dozens of requestors setup throughout the country are being trained in a standard way and have access to a good guideline to follow).

I admit the Automated Case System is horrid, but part of the problem with it is no training. This leads to 'mis-filed' documents and lack of useable search functions. Keep in mind that as terrible as it is, at some point all of the data stored there will have to be transferred into a new system somehow...or should they just dump it all and start fresh? A lot of people would almost prefer to start fresh!

Right now the FBI thinks their new Sentinel Project is going to save them. The Sentinel is supposed to upgrade ACS and is due in 2009 - but where are the FBI's plans for the impending upgrade of the 30000 computers, networking and servers that were purchased just after the 9/11 attacks? These computers/servers/network components are fast coming up on their five year service life, and the time & cost of upgrading them again will push all these other projects even further behind as the FBI struggles to contend with managing too many upgrades at once.

Try running the latest software on computers that are five years old built to the 'minimial' standards of that time...their servers are close to what people are putting on their desktops now - the IT department can have all the brightest programmers in the world and not be able to overcome that. After all, how can Sentinel be built to '09 standards if they're using '01 technology??

The FBI has is five or more years behind at the day-to-day desktop level and upgrades won't be active for another four? The continuous reshuffling of managers in the IT Department doesn't help matters. The lack of focus by upper managers and direction can only lead to further problems in the years to come.

Posted by: CM at April 7, 2006 08:46 AM

Quick fix for the FBI: get google to make them their own secure google system off the internet; after a bit scanning in of documents and getting people to type in their notes that would make a MASSIVE difference.

With a bit of pressure from high places that can be implemented before 2006 is over.

tar & feathers for the responsible bureaucrats

Posted by: jvd at April 6, 2006 07:02 AM

Tom DeLay's cronies wasted no time painting his Democratic opponent as "out of step" with his Houston area district.

As an example, they highlighted his vote against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

This article, as well as looking at the TSA debacle, leads me to wonder why that seems so 'out of step.' I don't think wasting money on ineptitude is so crazy.

This information has given me a fantastic idea: find congresscreatures who voted against the creation of DHS and send them boxes of money.

On second thought, I don't think I'll take that big of a hit to my wallet as a result of this doctrine.

Posted by: Vincente at April 5, 2006 04:40 PM

FBI's great. They make Defense Security Service's case analyst software look fantastic by comparison!

(Security Clearance Backlog? What Backlog?)

Posted by: Janiz98 at April 5, 2006 03:01 PM

This is just one more example of why we need small government. We need to let the private sector handle as much as possible.

Take the TSA at airports for example. I cannot possibly believe that creating this huge bureaucracy has improved airport security. The airport security should have been left in the hands of private contractors...and economic bonuses or sanctions should have been imposed if they do not meet security criteria.

Profit will motivate private firms to achieve greatness. NOTHING motivates government agencies to achieve greatness. They naturally all descent into death traps of bureaucracy.

Posted by: AF at April 5, 2006 01:34 PM

I'll admit I'm lumping programmers with Sr system designers/analysts etc - most folks don't have a clue RE the difference

My experience with Govt programmers is more on the state/local level - Around here (NYC) Govt programmers are part of Local 1199

If the jobs are being outsourced on the Fed level - I stand corrected - I will still say on too many large teams, I've seen too many deadwood programmers/designers (again - using programmer in a very loose way - designers, DBAs, coders, testers etc - aka IS as a whole)

Posted by: kg2v at April 5, 2006 11:55 AM

If you think the FBI is bad, you should see the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

Interior Monologue
by Meghan Farnsworth
MOTHER JONES September/October 2005

For nearly four years, the 11,000 employees of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs have had no access to the Internet or external email, managing a $2.4 billion bureaucracy and overseeing 56 million acres of land without the basic tools of the modern office.

But to hear Interior Department spokesman Dan DuBray tell it, the bureau's employees have fared just fine on the other side of the digital divide. "A lot of activity goes on with fax and telephone calls, walking from one floor to the next, a lot of meetings -- the traditional ways people keep in touch," he explains.

The BIA has been stuck in this techno-logical time warp since 2001, when the federal judge overseeing Cobell v. Norton punished the bureau for failing to safeguard its Indian land trust records. Court-appointed experts had hacked into the bureau's files, concluding that "protecting trust funds is not now, and has never been, a 'priority.'" In response, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth revoked the BIA's Internet privileges until it cleaned up its act.

After Lamberth pulled the plug, an indignant Interior Secretary Gale Norton shut down all of her department's websites. When the National Park Service's site went dark, Lamberth quipped that the department had come down with a case of "Washington Monument syndrome." "Every time Interior loses its appropriation," he said, "the first thing they do is close the Washington Monument. Then they go to Congress looking for money."

The Park Service and other Interior agencies eventually got back online, but the BIA has yet to fulfill Lamberth's order to set up firewalls and other routine computer-security measures. Interior's own inspector general recently gave the department an "F" for security and demanded his own computer system. Yet DuBray insists that the Indian trust data is safe from everyone except court-appointed "sophisticated hackers," adding "we don't believe that data has been 'lost' or 'destroyed' as a result of an incursion."

But the technology specialist who first tipped off Lamberth to the sad state of computer security at the BIA now warns that the trust data is vulnerable to internal threats. Mona Infield, who heads the bureau's disaster recovery unit in New Mexico, claims the bureau is writing over its backup tapes -- tapes that could contain key information to the Cobell case. Once those tapes are overwritten, she explains, "You can't go back and know how much you have paid [the Indians]. We don't know what the ownership of the land is at that point. It's no longer there."

Infield was put on administrative leave after blowing the whistle in 2001, but she is now back in the office. Not that she can get much done. Like other BIA employees, whenever she wants to Google something or check her email, she has to go home or to an Internet café, where she can log on without violating a federal court order.

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/09/interior_monologue.html

Posted by: Frank IBC at April 5, 2006 11:06 AM

For over 20 years I have worked with all the major federal law enforcement agencies and their agents, and have been decorated for my work with and service to the FBI. I have seen first hand how the FBI works. Because of that experience I can say unequivocally that the FBI is incredibly, unbelievably backward in its day-to-day IT and data handling.

While the FBI claims its technological modernization is made problematical because of concerns over national security, those federal agencies which deal exclusively with national security don't seem to have apprehended or experienced the insurmountable obtsacles which the FBI's keepers of the flame say they see. Rather, the major source of the backwardness is almost entirely the "Bu's" Vaticanical culture of internal intrigue and bureaucratic feudalism.

Couple that with a thorough indoctrination in arrogance and condescension toward its peers, unmatched in any hierarchical organization outside of the United States Marine Corps, and you have an agency which is, and will remain, technlogically incompetent and moribund. And oerhaps most surprisingly, 742876because of that supreme confidence in its own perfection, the FBI has no real grasp of what the hullaballo is all about.

Posted by: jumb at April 5, 2006 11:02 AM

Having led numerous process / systems implementations in complex, change-resistant organizations, it is certain that programmers have nothing to do with the FBI's issues. My guess is that the troubles begin with the first step on the road: the lack of an accepted Problem Statement. If the FBI doesn't really think it has a problem, cannot articulate it clearly, or cannot achieve buy-in from the key participants/stakeholders, then no amount of process modeling and system design is going to succeed.

Posted by: pdquig at April 5, 2006 10:09 AM

I truely think that this Country will be ovetaken by Private Interest Groups and the US Govt. so corrupted now and inadequate is going to be a figure Head like the King and Queen of England....The mismanagement and utter imcompetance is astrnomical!!!When these Beaurcrats leave office it is truely amazing that they are so peaceful and go making Huge dollars for Consulting--Who knows maybe Delay will consult other Congressmen on avoiding the
legal things he is going through now.

Posted by: Chris at April 5, 2006 10:02 AM

Programmers are not the problem.

What is needed is system designers.

Posted by: M. Simon at April 5, 2006 09:57 AM

Yes, the last attempt was made by SAIC. The problem was probably that they had special agents as the government reps. Special agents aren't always the best fit for overseeing a project like this. But, at the FBI you have two types of people. You have Special Agents and ignorant peasants, or at least that is how they view it. Furthermore, the FBI went through like 11 changes of government rep. in 3 years. Basically, they dropped the ball on 911 as well.
Fumbling
Bumbling
Incompetent

Posted by: TimR at April 5, 2006 09:51 AM

I don't think the question of what kind of programmers the government should hire is directly relevant. Major gov't computer projects are generally developed by contractors: the previous attempt at an FBI case management system was done by SAIC.

Posted by: David Foster at April 5, 2006 09:38 AM

kg2v,

There are no such programmer unions, especially not in contractor circles. Second, contracting jobs for the DoJ and DoD tend to pay significantly better in most areas than regular jobs because of the security clearances that are involved. All of that is basic public knowledge for those going to college for CS degrees near or working near/in areas with big contracting work. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I just don't have any idea where you're getting this information from because these agencies don't really do any internal work. 95% of it is outsourced to defense and other contractors ranging from CGI-AMS to Lockheed Martin. Yes, Lockheed has a major IT sector to it, especially in Northern Virginia.

Posted by: MikeT at April 5, 2006 09:35 AM

kg2v: Are the FBI or the programmers for them even unionized? Not that a union wouldn't make things harder, but after about 12 years in the business, I've found that it isn't any easier to get fire rotten programmers in non-unionized environments. I think the spectre of unlawful termination lawsuits means a programmer has got to screw up regally and provably to be fired for cause. In almost every case, it's easier to get a bad programmer to leave by giving them a poor performance review and no raise.

I think every programmer who's been in the biz for any length of time knows the rule about how much better a good programmer is than a bad one, and even how the truly bad programmers act as NEGATIVE headcount (meaning that their programming is so bad that other programmers waste time fixing all their SNAFUs). However, upper management and the bean counters have never seemed to be aware of how skill in programming makes one worker more valuable than another. In my time in the biz, I've seen the pendulum swing between "let's send all the programming to India" and "let's fire all our veterans and hire a bunch of college kids," both of which are founded on the principle that 3 or 4 cheap programmers must be better than 1 expensive one.

And, in any event, it really sounds like the FBI's problems aren't even getting THAT far.

Posted by: Edward Liu at April 5, 2006 09:34 AM

From the sound of it, this isn't necessarily a software coding issue, but a network infrastructure issue. They have Software issues, but it sounds like connecting all the offices with a reliable network would be the first place to start.

Posted by: Mike at April 5, 2006 08:53 AM

Another factor I've rarely seen pointed out, and a reason SO many Government Computer projects go wrong.

The whole way they have software development setup just will NOT work.

There is a truism in software developers - the average programmer is 10 times better than the low end, and the top end is 10 times better than average - yes folks, there is a 100x factor there

Now the trick to developing GOOD software on time/in budget is to get those top programmers, and eliminate the bottom ones (an aside - the reason Microsoft's software gets worse is that as the become bigger, their percentage of programmers below average increases)

So, why doesn't the Government hire the top, and get rid of the bottom (who can actually be net NEGATIVE coders) - The problem with getting rid of the bottom is simple - unions. It's really hard to show who doesn't cut it, and who does, but if you were to ask the other coders, they'll know

As for not hiring the top, let me tell you a story. Right after 9/11 I looked into changing from the commercial sector to the Government sector - do something "real". Looked through the offerings, and I laughed. One the average, in 2001, people like the FBI etc were paying LESS for a programmer with 10 years experience than I got as a Jr Programmer in 1991, and I'm NOT talking about adjusted for experience. I would have had to take about a 45% cut in pay to make the jump, and I'm NOT in banking or finance, where I could be earning around 40% more than I am here

So, how do you attract TOP talent when you are paying well below average? A top programmer is going to pull in a 100K-150K pay rate. But remember, he will produce working software 10x better than the 60k programmer!

I've known a few Government programmers - almost all of them were right out of school to get the experience, and they ALL left within a few years

Posted by: kg2v at April 5, 2006 08:21 AM

I don't know about the Chicago field office, but here in Boston, there's a good reason other agents don't share information with the locals: FBI agents in Boston are connected to the mob and frequently pass on information about investigations for a fee:

http://boston.fbi.gov/pressrel/2000/superseding.htm

Why, just a couple of days ago, a New York agent was arrested in connection with mob murders:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189674,00.html

Is it any wonder agents don't want to put their case files online for any OTHER agent to see? The problem goes way beyond Luddism.

Posted by: rightnumberone at April 5, 2006 07:27 AM

Ok, I can't think of a way to relate this to Iran, or secret ultrasonic antigravity spyplanes, or even Google Mapping, so I give up...

Posted by: DS at April 5, 2006 04:01 AM

Glad to see you're writing for Slate. Their stable of writers is absolutely pathetic. Now, along with Fred Kaplan, there'll be two reasons to look in on the site.

Posted by: sglover at April 4, 2006 05:48 PM