Trump Promises a Federal Technology Overhaul To Save $1 Trillion (technologyreview.com) 381
New submitter threc shares a report from MIT Technology Review: The tech world descended on Washington, D.C. yesterday to attend a tech summit at the White House. According to MIT Technology Review associate editor Jamie Condliffe: "Trump suggested he might relax his stance on immigration as a way to get tech leaders to help his cause. 'You can get the people you want,' he told the assembled CEOs. That sweetener may be a response to a very vocal backlash in the tech world against the administration's recent travel bans. Trump may hope that his business-friendly stance will offer enough allure: if tech giants scratch his back, he may later deign to scratch theirs." The report continues: "'Our goal is to lead a sweeping transformation of the federal government's technology that will deliver dramatically better services for citizens,' said Trump at the start of his meeting with the CEOs, according to the Washington Post. 'We're embracing big change, bold thinking, and outsider perspectives.' The headline announcement from the event was Trump's promise to overhaul creaking government computing infrastructure. According to Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and advisor, there's much to be done: federal agencies have over 6,000 data centers that could be consolidated, for instance, while the 10 oldest networks in use by the government are all at least 39 years old. The upgrade, said Trump, could save the country $1 trillion over the next 10 years."
It doesn't look good for I.T. (Score:2)
When the first words uttered were
They will NOT be training their own replacements!
Re: It doesn't look good for I.T. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
instead build a new, greater firewall 3.0 to protect the country from all those nasty threats like China,
And make China pay for it?
I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if Steve Jobs, William Hewitt, David Packard, Seymour Cray, Bill Joy, Linus Torvarlds, Ken Olsen, Ghandi, and Jesus Christ collaborated on this project it could save $1 trillion. These are fantasy numbers and a project this scale would have $10 trillion in hidden costs and risks.
Trumps association with it only adds 0.00001% extra uncertainty.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone surprised by the move to back off fixing H-1B abuse? I'm certainly not. I'm more surprised working technology professionals also bought into the con man's words.
Threats he pushed were simply to pressure other wealthy people to stroke his own ego and feel superior, a show of power. He's a sociopath plain and simple, he doesn't care about social/policy reform that helps your average american and never did. Everything Trump does is for Trump so stop pretending otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's different kinds of surprise. Am I surprised a politician, any politician, changed their tune? No. Trump specifically? My sense is that Trump quickly found himself lacking in people who would back him politically and has unfortunately begun to align himself more and more with the huckster caucus of the Republican party, those Republicans interested in enriching themselves and their corporate minions even further.
So Trump's turnaround in this issue is less than surprising in light of that, too, as
Re: I have my doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
My sense is that Trump quickly found himself lacking in people who would back him politically and has unfortunately begun to align himself more and more with the huckster caucus of the Republican party, those Republicans interested in enriching themselves and their corporate minions even further.
This reminds me of an abused wife talking about her husband. "He's a good man, really, he just can't control himself."
Long before his political career, Trump proved himself to be the very definition of the word Huckster. He made a university that taught nothing valuable. He re-branded regular steaks and blatantly called them the best ever. He can't keep his story, or position strait from day to day, or sometimes in the same breath! To be any more of a huckster he would have to be P.T. Barnum!
I just wish that people who voted for him could come to terms with the fact that they aren't getting any, not even one, of the things he promised to get their vote. That way they could start finding a candidate for the next cycle who isn't a Simpson's character made flesh.
Re: I have my doubts (Score:5, Informative)
I don't agree with all the H1-B hate. The alternative is that those jobs are leaving altogether and not coming back. Like you said, billions saved, so if H1-Bs didn't exist than those American tech companies would go broke to international competitors due to higher cost, or the companies would simply outsource the IT to an international company.
Baloney. If those jobs could have been moved overseas, they would have. These workers are imported because the work itself is not mobile -- the systems, data and other personnel can't be moved to India for practical or regulatory reasons.
Even a badly paid H1-B worker is much more expensive to employ in the US than in India. To achieve savings, they have to bring the worker here.
This is undercutting American wages, pure and simple. And don't start on me with "if you have the skills", either. A lot of people getting dumped for H1-Bs aren't zit-faced 20-somethings clicking next, but older workers with deep skills and experience.
Don't buy into the fantasy that YOUR job isn't oursourcable because of your unique knowledge and skills. That's the self-reinforcing myth of the long-term IT expansion -- I'm too valuable to be outsourced or replaced. No, it's just that t the demand for IT talent *in your area of expertise* just hasn't reached equilibrium yet. When it does, I'm sure you'll enjoy being lectured by someone on how you should have kept up, but you still have the chance to start your career over with "skills the market needs."
Re: (Score:3)
Contain them, light them, spin a turbine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trumps association with it only adds 0.00001% extra uncertainty.
There's no uncertainty about Trump's association. Uncertainty implies that it could go either way. Given Trump's past business dealings it is pretty damn obvious what will happen. He can't monetise his name on it so there's nothing left to generate income.
The bar is set really low (Score:2, Informative)
The bar is set rather low, however. After the most tech-savvy President ever [engadget.com] effed-up his own promise to revamp the government [foxnews.com], if Trump achieves something — anything — he'll still have done better than the predecessor. Not that you'd know about any such success — unless you are paying really close attention — from the established reporters [bwcentral.org].
Re: (Score:3)
We keep voting for these people in the hopes one day someone will live up to expectations, and finding out they are lying human beings like nearly every person on the planet.
B...b...b...b...but Trump's not a politician, he's a businessman!!!
Re:The bar is set really low (Score:4, Funny)
And he is definitely giving everyone the business.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have my doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds like something the clueless PHB would say after watching a vendor's webinar on how their new fog* technology is going to save 90% over cloud services.
*fog is the new hotness, google it
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Funny)
I was 99% sure you were just messing with people. Fuck. They even have a consortium.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was 99% sure you were just messing with people. Fuck. They even have a consortium.
So you made me google fog computing. That led me to "Mist computing".
"We are now seeing a new class of computing surface emerge called the Mist. The Mist consists of the edge, that is, the very edge: the sensor and actuator controllers. Extending computing all the way to the edge can make a lot of sense depending on the network topology needed. "
All these seem be based on water analogies.
What comes next will be "Urine computing", where we all get on our knees and receive a golden shower from a government-co
Re: (Score:2)
If you promise something and then fail to deliver, I'll call you a liar. Simple as that. And so far, that far is the OP right, pretty much the only thing he actually delivered was to start deporting illegal immigrants.
Promises are cheap. Ask anyone who lived in a Soviet country.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubts that it's going to save $1 trillion.
The goal in all these things is that the concept is to spend money now in order to save money later.
The reality in all these things is that the "spend money now" part happens, but the "save money later" part never seems to materialize.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality in all these things is that the "spend money now" part happens, but the "save money later" part never seems to materialize.
That's because the contractor's job is finished after "spend money now".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the goal was to promise $1 Trillion over 10 years. El Presidentie Tweetie knows Americans will remember the $1 Trillion, not the 10 years.
His modus operandi is to promise and predict with wild abandon. The stuff that doesn't come true is lost on the voters, the stuff that miraculously does come true, in spite of el Presidentie Tweetie, he'll trumpet. He took credit for Ford saving all those Ford Focus jobs and keeping them in America. Ford just announced it was moving production to China. Wanna bet we h
Re:I have my doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, didn't he basically just treat a "We'd like to do this thing?" as a "It's a done deal, I'm signing this now." for an air traffic control overhaul? (Or am I remembering the wrong thing?)
Regardless, Trump is all sizzle and no steak. He will say anything that makes him look good, and well, if his attention wanders later and no one ever gets around to doing anything, it doesn't matter, because Trump has already moved on to the next shiny thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, didn't he basically just treat a "We'd like to do this thing?" as a "It's a done deal, I'm signing this now." for an air traffic control overhaul?
Not exactly. He proposed that we give up on air traffic control and let the airlines handle it themselves because corporations good, governments bad.
The senate panel that reviewed his proposal didn't even put it up for a vote because they knew it would fail.
All just posturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of my feelings about Trump's lack of competence, he is undeniably a master at self promotion and posturing. Tech companies were never going to say no to hundreds of billions in new government IT contracts. But why waste an opportunity to make it seem like he masterfully negotiated the deal? He certainly knew most of his campaign promises would be disastrous, but they spoke to his base (and often independents) and gave him room to maneuver in the undiscerning public eye.
Trump never wanted to be responsible for destroying our economy with protectionist practices; it would make him look bad. Trump's performance as president has arguably shown his lack of competence at actually executing on his agenda, but his competence at self promoting himself even in the absence of accomplishments is unquestionable.
Re:All just posturing (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I'll agree that if Trump is good at anything, it's self-promotion and posturing.
But I honestly think that he thought some of his campaign promises (the border wall among them) were doable, and he's so far out of his depth with not just political reality, but reality itself, that he doesn't understand why it can't be done with a snap of his fingers.
Trump's big problem (wait, I've narrowed it down to just one?) is that he expects the government to work in the same way that a corporation works. He's the CEO of the United States, and damnit, he should be able to snap his fingers and big projects are started.
Except that it doesn't work that way, and it never has.
I lost track of how many times I've had to explain to Republicans/right-leaning independents that, no, the border wall could not be started on Day One of the Trump Presidency, because of silly things like land surveys, and floodwater surveys, and so forth.
Sometimes, it even got through to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I said so during the election. It's not like the army either.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/151... [bartleby.com]
Re:All just posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction, Mr. Trump thinks the government works the way *his* corporation works.
No investors, no board, no experts.
Even Steve Jobs had more realistic expectations on what was possible.
Re: (Score:3)
So, this prowess in self-promotion led him to having a North Korea style cabinet meeting where his department heads exclaimed what an honor it was to serve him? All that did was make him look like pompous ass he is.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Informative)
Relaxing burdensome regulations - coal mine opening (and no the coal is not used for heating or electricity but for the production of steel)
Pushing for (instead of against) the Keystone Pipeline
Pushing for (instead of against) fracking
Pushing for (instead of against) off-shore drilling
Getting out of the TPP
Getting out of the Paris Treaty
You may agree, or disagree with what's being done. I certainly have my problems with Trump and the Republicans. But you need to stop lying to yourself and others that nothing is being done and that goals are not being accomplished. And, as you mentioned, increased funding and activity on illegal immigration.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not that nothing is happening, it's that he is simply tearing up a lot of stuff without any real plan to replace it or understanding of why it is there in the first place.
The environmental stuff is the best example, but consider TPP. Trump thinks it's a bad deal and he can do better. Okay, but other countries don't want that. Japan is quite openly stalling and trying to wait out his presidency before proposing the US join TPP again, because they don't want a bilateral deal where Trump tries to bully them into making concessions. In a multilateral deal it's much harder to force single issues like tariffs on US beef in Japan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Objectively, your list is hardly one of real accomplishments. Appointing judges is just fulfilling his responsibility to choose who's appointed. "Relaxing regulations" is basically just saying "yeah go do what you want". Your list of "pushing for" is again just not standing in the way of the status quo. "Getting out of" international agreements is just a statement of "doing nothing".
In short, he's "accomplished" his goal of having the government do absolutely nothing. His supporters will be pleased.
Re: (Score:3)
His supporters are pleased, And he didn't simply appoint judges - he appointed small-gov't, free market supporting judges.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody questions that things get done.
What of all this was part of something he promised to do?
What of the promises has been fulfilled?
I know that Rome wasn't built in a day and it's unfair to expect everything being done after 4 months when former Presidents couldn't get their promises fulfilled in the 4 years they had, but I'd really like to see SOMETHING being done instead of pretty much the polar opposite of what he said he'd do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I have my doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
Free market judges will make Americans love the extra pollution?
Freeing burdensome regulations like those preventing the for-profit colleges from screwing ex-military?
Pushing for Keystone which will have a negligible effect on employment...except if they get an oil spill and foul watersheds?
Off-shore drilling in an era of a world awash in oil?
No one's curtailed fracking except Oklahoma where it is causing earthquakes.
The Paris Treaty was voluntary, all that idiot needed to do was not volunteer, but it still made his supporters think it was a great achievement while the rest of the world looked at him like he was just too stupid for words.
Getting out to the TPP will turn the Pacific Ocean into the Sea of China, the countries bordering China now know not to count on the U.S.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a list of things being done and promises kept.
Do you and I have disagreements with Trump? Yes. Probably. (I can't speak for you) But don't kid yourself. Things are getting done.
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't the point. The OP said nothing was being done and that Trump wasn't keeping his promises.
That was a list of things being done and promises kept.
Do you and I have disagreements with Trump? Yes. Probably. (I can't speak for you) But don't kid yourself. Things are getting done.
But he hasn't kept the majority of his promises. Here [donaldjtrump.com] is Trump's "Contract with the American Voter", things Trump promised to do in his first 100 days in office. Let's go through each of the promises and see if they were fulfilled:
(corruption/influence)
FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Nope
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health). Nope,
Re: (Score:3)
This one's 'a brick'...doesn't read, just repeats.
Re:I have my doubts (Score:5, Informative)
Hush! We're busy getting our foot into the Chinese door, keep the orange dud busy a bit more, will ya?
---love, Europe.
DNC lies, not Trump (Score:2, Informative)
Trump lies constantly
Sessions met with Russian ambassador. Reality, he was at a gala with hundreds of people and Sessions didn't even know ambassador was present.
DNC demanded he resign because of that meeting that didn't happen.
Flynn broke the law. Sketchy details on what he did. Reality is Flynn filled out wrong form when declaring he was paid by Turkey, not that he hid or failed to declare, just wrong form.
DNC demanded he be jailed.
Russia and Trump colluded to fake election. Reality, not a shred of evidence from ANYONE.
DN
Re: (Score:2)
So he thinks he's going to cut spending and improve services? Sounds like the hucksters and their perpetual motion machines, they both seem to think they can defy physics and common sense. (reminds me of "we're going to cut taxes but not take away social services" plan)
If he continues the way he's been going, he'll just cancel all all the Federal Technology pro
Re: (Score:2)
But actually making some of these changes work will cost huge sums and be fraught with risks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama isn't president anymore so has zero relevance to the story at hand which is about Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Right and any of those things are anywhere close to the guy who made a speech in the rain and then 10 minutes later lied to the CIA and told them it wasn't raining ...
Re:I have my doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot Pepe's working in IT.
And a lot of college dropouts (doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated) who run businesses.
Keep believing your opponents are stupid rednecks. (No. That's not racist is it? Of course if you said stupid do-rag wearing ghetto kid that wouldn't be racist either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course it's not racist. It's negatively stereotyping mostly white guys, so it's ok, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Good news/Bad news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the real annoying things about these "over 8 years, over 10 years" kind of things is that most of the savings take place AFTER the politician is out of office. The austerity and problems they cause are someone else's and the other party can sit back and be surprised at how this problem happened.
You never get "saves $200 billion in one year". It also doesn't let them freeze the budget and pretend predicted inflation is new savings.
Um, I think you got that backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if you got REALLY lucky, you might save money in the long term.
The history of government technology overhauls should indicate quite vividly that you not only spend tear-jerking amounts of money to upgrade your systems, you also spend a lot of time thereafter fixing it or throwing it all away and starting over again.
So I can't decide whether Mr. "The Cybers" man doesn't understand anything about technology, or he understands it so well that he is willing to lie to the American taxpayer about savings when what he actually means is to pump money into the (already wildly successful) technology sector. Either way, I wonder what his blue-collar supporters think about that ....
Re:Um, I think you got that backwards (Score:4, Informative)
Government tech contractors and the tech sector aren't very closely related.
Government contractors know how to game the procurement system. They are customers of the tech sector, not part of it.
There is not a single money saving technology that these leaches can't turn into a money pit. The problem is the procurement system.
The same contractors that game H1B, game the procurement system, weaseling is their 'core competency'. Getting the out of the business and getting competent groups working for the government is an 'impossible dream'.
Re:Um, I think you got that backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, I wonder what his blue-collar supporters think about that ....
At this point, I think they will support him even if he started bulldozing entire towns of his supporters while claiming it was fake news.
Re:Um, I think you got that backwards (Score:5, Informative)
6 Months later ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:6 Months later ... (Score:4, Insightful)
How could it be, all IT is is college boys sipping coffee and typing some cryptic mumbo-jumbo on their key...mouse...somethingorcyber.
The human factor (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no doubt that you could save hundreds of billions, possibly trillions over the years if smart agreeable people get together and figure it out. The problem is at some point you need to include others and then the trouble starts. Any organization over with more than 100 people run into this. The more people and departments the worse it gets. I am older now and I have seen smart ideas pass from their creators to the masses of underlings and watch it get mangled beyond belief. Your trillion dollar savings will be eaten up by those underlings a hundred fold.
Re:The human factor (Score:5, Insightful)
In my only 15 years in the industry, what has usually determined success is whether the project sponsors have given authority to the project leads who are competent enough to make decisions that affect multiple departments, or to individual VPs/Directors/Managers in charge of each department. When high ranking management are treated as subject matter experts, but with minimal control over the project, things tend to go well. When high ranking management consistently gets their way and win repeated disagreements with project leads, things spiral out of control real quick.
Competency outside of a very narrow domain is very rare in this world, and I've never seen a company capable of filling its entire management team with people who not only know their domain well but also can think critically and outside of the box during times of transformation. If average managers (no matter how far up the org chart) get too much control over transformational projects you almost always get a mess.
Re:The human factor (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no doubt that you could save hundreds of billions, possibly trillions over the years if smart agreeable people get together and figure it out. The problem is at some point you need to include others and then the trouble starts. Any organization over with more than 100 people run into this. The more people and departments the worse it gets. I am older now and I have seen smart ideas pass from their creators to the masses of underlings and watch it get mangled beyond belief. Your trillion dollar savings will be eaten up by those underlings a hundred fold.
You hit one one of the main reasons such projects fail; the tech folks fail to understand the people part. They think the Federal government is one monolithic, top down controlled organization who will do whatever the boss says; when in reality it's like pre-WWI (and earlier) Europe, a loose confederation of largely independent individual fiefdoms who will guard their turf vigorously. They have years of experience at killing things so that you only find out they're dead when the body is discovered years later in some roadside ditch, meanwhile you had been getting cards and letters from the dead person telling you how great things are going. Information is power and the bureaucracy will go to great lengths to protect their information from others; and will make common cause to do so when it is in their own best interests. They are the institution, and know they will be around when the "great idea" person is long gone and will play the long game. They will take your money but it is wise to remember Truman's advice to Eisenhower as the latter assumed the presidency and remember that when people in this town (DC) say "Yes Sir" they often are really saying "Screw You."
Like TrumpOrg's systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt someone who's own business organization was found last fall to be running Windows Server 2003 and Exchange 2007 has any bloody clue how to manage such a task.
He spoke? (Score:3)
According to Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and advisor [...]
Considering all the projects he's responsible for, what plans has he come up with?
I'm curious, as he's responsible for so much and yet I've heard so little that was actually attributed to him.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, but one thing I know for certain: He will not be held responsible for anything.
So at least say that he's allowed to dabble in a lot of projects and nobody will be able to tack it to him when (not if) he FUBARs them. It's way closer to reality.
What's old is new (Score:3)
Immigration - reading between the lies (Score:5, Funny)
> as a way to get tech leaders to help his cause. 'You can get
> the people you want,' he told the assembled CEOs.
Translation: you can bring in low paid Russian immigrants to work on government systems. The more critical systems, the better. Our voting systems need some work, and before 2018.
Re: (Score:3)
In the long run, it all comes down to you having to choose between having a job that doesn't pay as much as you want, or not having one.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why globalization. You don't need to explain it. But there is a flip side to that explanation. Employers want to screw you to line their own pockets, and shareholders. So rather than pay what the job is worth, which they could do and still profit handsomely, they offer you the choice: slave labor wag
Weird (Score:2)
We always hear about Washington, D.C. but never about Washington, A.C.
Who are they going to hire? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't hiring anyone. This is going to be like this infrastructure program which will be a massive amount of money going to private companies for contracts. In return the government will get software that doesn't meet their requirements and is buggy as hell leading to an expensive long term maintenance contract. In exchange for praising Trump, letting him claim job creation, and/or doing business with some of his companies they will find that they can bring in more H-1B employees to increase the profit
Re: (Score:2)
People who are desperate enough to go. Like always.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty obvious where this came from (Score:5, Interesting)
Readers here may recall that Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney published a budget that had a $2 Trillion [time.com] dollar [theatlantic.com] math error [gq.com].
Republicans (think Paul Ryan) often (always?) produce budgets that contain all sorts of tax cuts for upper brackets and then a "magic asterisk [msnbc.com]" that gives no detail but says the shortfall will be made up by a) economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts and b) cost savings from cutting government waste.
So my take is the bad optics of all this finally bubbled up to Trump (I guess Fox News couldn't filter it out totally) and he gave the command to his minions to find trillions of dollars of "government waste and inefficiency" to save the budget. So they came up with this.
It doesn't have to make sense. All he wants to do is get headlines out there that proclaim Trump Saves Us Trillions and for most of his base and way too much of the swing voters that is all they will see. It is ideal for this media purpose. If the topic gets the slightest bit technical he can count on the talking airheads to gloss it over and he'd up with "opposing views on this story" in the worst case.
What that means: enough voters will think have this view: Trump and Republicans produced a budget that will save our economy and Democrats are Fighting It. . They don't have to be right. They just have to throw up enough chaff to confuse the voter and Republicans win the mid-terms again.
Well, it really needs to be done... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cynical.
Trump might be on to something. There are crazy amounts of funds being burned in even the average IT department because nobody wants to clean ship, like throwing the outdated shit out, sign off on the costs to replace it with something better.
That is because managers these days think in quaterly earnings, and such a project takes several quarters, if not several years. It's like driving your own car because you don't want to spend money on a new car - after some point, you are actually losing money
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:The problem is intractable (Score:5, Insightful)
All of that is the reason why you don't subcontract if you don't have to. Ignore the consultants you recommend outsourcing, they are only there to make a killing on the outsourcing, then propose insourcing to your successor and make another killing on basically reverting everything.
If you outsource and immediately make a contract with the outsourced company for the exact same services that it used to provide in-house, you didn't understand anything.
There are scenarios where outsourcing makes sense. Most of the actual outsourcings done are not in that set.
And if you are the federal government, your job is not to provide business to a small number of IT companies. Your job is to serve the people of your country in the best possible way, and having your own IT that doesn't answer to any other business goals is one important part of that mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump knows technology? (Score:2)
Acrobat. Not Lotus. (Score:2)
As a civilian user of government IT systems, I can tell you that they are byzantine and often use severely outdated technology. I listened to some of the technology leaders' comments yesterday and I noticed that Apple and Alphabet seems very upbeat about it all but IBM seemed to poo-poo the idea. I have an idea why. Take, for example, the State Department's system for getting ITAR export licenses. These fools are STILL using Lotus as a document submission system. It only runs on Windows and it must be
Been doing that for a while now... (Score:3)
He claims $1T in savings... (Score:2)
Sounds legit! (Score:2)
Because "big change" and "bold thinking" never lead to projects going over budget.
But hey, there's no headlines in saying "We're encouraging our agencies to consider consolidating services over the next five years."
Cost-cutting is the wrong focus. (Score:2)
Government systems should be refactored to make government services better. Full stop. Saving money might be a useful side effect, but it might not, but cost-savings should not be the goal. Cost-saving projects run the risk of not actually saving anything while also screwing up things which already (kind of) worked.
As a for-instance, when a bank merges with another bank, they'll often claim some crazy cost-savings from merging backend operations. But it would be stupid to run a bank with multiple sets o
Yea, good luck with that... (Score:3)
Re:Why do ppl think old tech os bad tech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Young people entering the marketplace and want the newest shiny things.
Older people have enough experience to actually understand the meaning of "if it works, don't fuck with it".
Re: (Score:2)
Because a new administration has new friends that need government contracts, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not allowed to say that here. It's racist and anti-American to say "we need to put the American citizens before all others" why, I don't understand but I know I've been mod slammed in the past for saying it.
Re: (Score:3)
If yu think you're not allowed that in the USA - trying saying that in Germany.
Actually, don't.
No, seriousy. Don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are aware that your economy is propped up by a sea of migrant workers, yes?
You think you could buy shirts for 5 bucks and apples for a few cents if AMERICANS made and picked them?
Re: (Score:3)
Gift? Yes, in the German sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones that matter: his voting base.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely for it!
Remember what property clouds have: A little bit of wind and poof, all is gone.
I think more companies should entrust the data they collect about us to the cloud...
Re: (Score:2)
He'll twitter them into submission, as usual.