Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology

Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009? 148

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the get-stuff-done-czar dept.
With all of the recent focus on technology and the promises to continue "getting stuff done" by the US government, Techdirt's Masnick suggests that they might just be the most interesting tech startup to watch this year. "But, of course, talk is cheap (especially in politics). And, while Chopra (and Vivek Kundra, the government's CIO) both actually have a nice track record of accomplishing these sorts of goals in their past jobs, the proof is in what's actually getting done. We'd already mentioned at least one success story with the IT dashboard at USASpending.gov, but can it continue? I have to admit, a second thing that impressed me about Chopra was that, even with such a success, he didn't focus on it. The fact that he got together such a site in such a short period of time is impressive enough, and while he mentioned it in his talks, most of them were much more focused not on what he'd already done, but on what he was going to do — and the plans all seemed quite achievable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?

Comments Filter:
  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:27PM (#29096355) Homepage Journal

    No competent tech startup would pay $18 million for recovery.org

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by tvjunky (838064)

      It could have been worse... [thedailywtf.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Reverend528 (585549) *
      ...unless they could get VCs to foot the bill.
    • No competent tech startup would pay $18 million for recovery.org

      Well, it was recovery.gov [recovery.gov] not org and really the comments the first time we discussed it noted worse problems [slashdot.org]. I mean, if they have a full time staff for the site and lots of servers and a lot of research going on, $18 million is about on par with what the government drops on crap like that. Fine. The fact that it was bidless and the company that got it gives tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) is what we really should be upset about. I thought the days of Haliburten were over ...

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:40PM (#29096551) Journal

        I thought the days of Haliburten were over ...

        What would make you believe that? Because the Democrats are in charge? Pa-lease. That just means the no-bid contracts will be going to their friends instead of those of the GOP.

        Amazing how the new kind of politics looks and smells a lot like the old, isn't it?

      • by winkydink (650484) *

        thank you for correcting the .org/gov - too hasty in posting

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:54PM (#29096759)

        Where did you get the idea that it was a no-bid contract? Or did you just mean that the bidding process was accelerated [informationweek.com].

        Smartronix won the Recovery.gov contract over two other bidders, SRI International and Accenture, in an accelerated bidding process that only included companies who are part of the multi-vendor Alliant contracting vehicle.

        By law, Recovery.gov must be up and reporting stimulus spending in detail by October 10, but Pound said that the normal, full, and open competition process takes an average of 267 days to award a contract. "That's unacceptable and people would be screaming for our heads," he said. Now, the RATB expects the site will be up as early as late August.

      • by ahabswhale (1189519) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:08PM (#29096891)
        Actually, if you used the website, you would know that 30.4% of all government contracts in 2009 were no-bid. You would also know that Steny Hoyer isn't unique in any way and that they ALL do it. In fact, if you want to stay in office, you better be able to report in your election campaign all the jobs you created. Of course, the website will let you know all the money that is going to each congressional district. Everyone has their hands in the pie and USASpending.gov has plenty of pie charts to illustrate that for you. Oh, and it does this very rapidly with no evidence of /.ing.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So you're telling me that there aren't any other qualified people out there who offered to build the site for less than $18,000,000? I find that hard to believe since even if they did it for $4,000,000 they would have a massive profit on it. Surely someone would have offered a better deal.

          Oh well, the CIO position just mirrors so much of the rest of America. Either offshore all tech/information jobs or bring in cheap labor from India, like Kundra. I know some might take that as a racist comment. Or at least

          • by skarphace (812333)

            So you're telling me that there aren't any other qualified people out there who offered to build the site for less than $18,000,000? I find that hard to believe since even if they did it for $4,000,000 they would have a massive profit on it. Surely someone would have offered a better deal.

            I'd recommend looking at what that $18m contract actually has in it. The first $9m or so goes to the initial build-out.

            They have to build a massive site in 6 weeks time, setup all hardware in redundant disparate locations. And if you just consider what that entails alone, I bet you can imagine all the little administrative costs and cost of labor alone. Not to mention some of contract requirements(WTF is an XML firewall?) put some weird strain on the price.

            The rest of the contract is for two years o

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ToxicPig (1614125)

        Having worked in Federal Government IT for 15 years, I can say that it certainly DOES NOT have any kind of start up mentality. Startups can be dumb or smart, but usually they are quick to act, for better or for worse. Fed programs are slower than a snail running a cross pattern, and usually don't have nearly so clearly defined a direction. They spend good money after bad to get the best solution, and always end up being at the mercy of their vendors.

        I worked for the hosting and proserv provider for USAsp

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by R2.0 (532027)

        "I thought the days of Haliburten were over ..."

        And, not to put too fine a point on it, the services contract to which you refer WAS bid. Companies bid on the cost of their services - labor rates, markup on subcontractors, etc. They won it. Did there scope increase dramatically with the start of the war? Sure. But the only differences between KBR and, say, Bechtel doing the work are:

        1) We would have paid MORE for Bechtel
        2) No one would have heard about it because of the lack of connection to Cheney

    • It's just an artifact of the .org bubble. After the correction it will be more reasonably priced.
    • I thought the defining features of a startup were being small and not having any money.

    • by R80_JR (1094843)
      No way, no how. The Feds are more like Dilbert's "Mordac", preventers of information technology. In addition to no-bid fraud, waste, and abuse on the read-only, non-transactional "transparency" web site, add in the reaping of email addresses at whitehouse.gov (a practice carried over from the Obama campaign web sites, by the way, with no effective way to get off the list through the web site).
  • It's the Government of the United States
    Where hackers go to die
    The largest, and yet the least efficient, producer of computer software in the world.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by FlyingBishop (1293238)

      I think you have them confused with IBM.

    • Don't worry, I'm sure they'll listen to Reason.

    • I decided to spent between fourteen and fifteen seconds reading your post. It's better for higher uid's to spend too long, to show that they're intelligent, not noobish. It's better for lower uid's to go a little fast, to show good editor potential.

      • by msaavedra (29918)
        Please ignore, posting to undo mis-moderation. Seems that slashdot's javascript is a little trigger happy.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:37PM (#29096495) Homepage

    They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm. One of the biggest reasons why federal IT is so expensive is because the federal government's management culture is still not conducive to having managers hire, direct and take responsibility for contract workers directly. If they could insource the project management en masse, that would shave an incredible amount of tax payer's money off of the cost of contracting as it would reduce the overhead that they pay to the big integrators to manage the projects (as well as pay HR, etc.)

    • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:45PM (#29096631) Journal

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm.

      That will never happen. The public sector unions are huge supporters of the Democratic Party. Care to take a wild guess as to what they would think about a plan to increase the number of independent contractors working for government?

      • by EsJay (879629) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:01PM (#29096827)
        The very large DOJ org I work with has no union people in IT. Or in any support positions, except maybe the contracted cleaning crews.
        • That will change as soon as the Unions get their new "card check" [wikipedia.org] rules through the Congress. You may find yourself in a union as a condition of your employment, whether you like it or not.
          • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday August 17, 2009 @05:34PM (#29097935) Homepage Journal

            You may find yourself in a union as a condition of your employment, whether you like it or not.

            Only if more people vote for the union than vote against it. That's what elections mean, whether the votes are cast by checking a card or by raising a hand or by super-secret, computer-tallied, proprietary Sequoia machines.

            Remember, the decline of the number of union workers in the US exactly tracks the decline of real income of American workers, which has been inexorable since the election of Ronald Reagan (who coincidentally, was also anti-union). People who like to spread FUD about unions and organized labor generally really ought to take a look at how organized labor was instrumental in creating a prosperous middle class in America who could count out safe working conditions and reasonable working hours. You can also bet that the people who are most decidedly opposed to organized labor really would rather the middle and working classes be a little less prosperous.

            • by Afforess (1310263)

              Remember, the decline of the number of union workers in the US exactly tracks the decline of real income of American workers, which has been inexorable since the election of Ronald Reagan (who coincidentally, was also anti-union).

              Causation does not mean correlation. The decline in income is due to the decline in Manufacturing Jobs. The decline in Manufacturing Jobs is because of myopic management, out of control (union) wages and cheap foreign labor. You can just as easily blame the Chinese as Regan. Large-Scale economic trends almost always have more than one contributing factor. Or was WWII just because of Hitler?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Korin43 (881732)
              Even if the majority vote to join a union, how does that make it in any way fair to force everyone to join? I've heard the argument that non-members get the "benefits" of being in the union without paying for it, but have you ever considered that people might not WANT a union? Oh wait, how could they possibly disagree with you? You're probably much better at running their lives than they are..

              Unions in a lot of businesses are just there to make sure that incompetent people can't get fired, which just make
            • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday August 17, 2009 @06:53PM (#29098691) Journal

              Only if more people vote for the union than vote against it. That's what elections mean, whether the votes are cast by checking a card or by raising a hand or by super-secret, computer-tallied, proprietary Sequoia machines.

              Except if you make me raise my hand in front of my co-workers and boss I'm potentially subject to intimidation and coercion by either side. Tell me, why are the Union folks so eager to see the elimination of the secret ballot?

              People who like to spread FUD about unions and organized labor generally really ought to take a look at how organized labor was instrumental in creating a prosperous middle class in America who could count out safe working conditions and reasonable working hours.

              And people who drink the Union kool-aid really ought to look a hard look at the downsides of organized labor. Tell me, would you rather work somewhere that rewards you for competence or somewhere that rewards you based on seniority? Guess which system is more likely under the unionized shop?

              Unions were necessary back in the day. Anybody who has ever taken a tour of an old coal mine and seen the working conditions those poor bastards worked under can attest to that. The problem is that many of the Unions ceased to be about the workers a long time ago. Now they are all about protecting the institution and expanding it's power and reach. This tends to happen with most organizations after awhile and is one of the many reasons why I'm skeptical of unions.

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                Tell me, why are the Union folks so eager to see the elimination of the secret ballot?

                Because, since at least 1980, the large corporations have spent enormous resources to learn to fight any organization by their employees using any and all tactics including intimidation and firing anyone who even mentions the word "union". And not just the corporations, but chambers of commerce, right-wing think tanks and conservative "activists" have determined that the most effective way to guarantee a low-cost work fo

            • by TheSync (5291)

              Remember, the decline of the number of union workers in the US exactly tracks the decline of real income of American workers, which has been inexorable since the election of Ronald Reagan

              US total real compensation per hour (the total of wages and benefits, such as health coverage, life insurance, and 401(k) plans) has been rising monotonically since at least 1950, with the notable exception of a plateau between 1992 and 1997. Graph here [econbrowser.com].

              Moreover, US real median family income rose during the Reagan era (19

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                US total real compensation per hour (the total of wages and benefits, such as health coverage, life insurance, and 401(k) plans) has been rising monotonically since at least 1950

                Friend, you could not be more wrong. The data you cite does not take into consideration that the rapidly increasing cost of benefits skews the income numbers completely. Because the cost of health insurance has so skyrocketed, but the level of service has not, it looks like real income has gone up, when in fact, we are getting mor

                • by TheSync (5291)

                  Because the cost of health insurance has so skyrocketed, but the level of service has not,

                  I'd like to see you data that backs up the fact that "the level of service" has not increased.

                  The cost of health insurance has risen in the US, but my impression from looking at cost breakdowns is that it is mostly due to access to newer drugs, new imaging technology, and increasing state mandates on minimum insurance coverage.

                  Whether any of these actually enhance average health or not remains to be seen, but anecdotal

            • how organized labor was instrumental in creating a prosperous middle class in America who could count out safe working conditions and reasonable working hours.

              Organized labor has historically claimed credit for these achievements, but they did not come about primarily or even mostly because of unions. The decline of hours worked, increases in productivity, and improvements in standards of living were all the results of sustained economic growth and would have occurred even in the absence of unions. Sustained economic growth explains why the average American today is hundreds of times wealthier, on average, than similar people living in third world countries; no

      • That will never happen. The public sector unions are huge supporters of the Democratic Party. Care to take a wild guess as to what they would think about a plan to increase the number of independent contractors working for government?

        GP's plan was to reform government contracting so that individual technical contractors were directly supervised by civil service employees who would run the projects, rather than projects having the substantive work done by firms with technical contracts while the project over

      • by e2d2 (115622)

        It could work if you could offer the public workers some incentive similar to incentives offered to managers in the private sector. This would be a change for government, rewarding based on merit of managed projects alone, but it might work. For instance, if a project manager can manage to hire three workers on 1099 with very little ramp up time, they could potentially save a lot of money over public sector workers. Perhaps a yearly bonus would be useful?

        This really isn't a stretch from the current model, w

    • by vertinox (846076) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:45PM (#29096633)

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm.

      As someone who has worked a portion of their life living off of 1099s, I have to frown on that simply because contract work does not induce economic stability if done on a large enough scale. People want permanent jobs (well most people).

      Living off of contracts month to month is great when you are young because you can take as much vacation as you need and you don't have to worry about having a boss you don't like for that long.

      But sometimes work gets slow and you have to turn to other work besides IT especially in a down turn.

      I've always believed in having internal IT not because of the efficiency aspect but because it provides economic stability for those involved. Its more of an ethical thing to me.

      I'd rather have my tax dollars go to that.

    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:33PM (#29097217)

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm. One of the biggest reasons why federal IT is so expensive is because the federal government's management culture is still not conducive to having managers hire, direct and take responsibility for contract workers directly. If they could insource the project management en masse, that would shave an incredible amount of tax payer's money off of the cost of contracting as it would reduce the overhead that they pay to the big integrators to manage the projects (as well as pay HR, etc.)

      Instead of making it easier for the government to hire individual contractors that are supervised by regular government employees to reduce the waste from the government hiring integration contractors to manage development contractors, why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.

      • by qbzzt (11136)

        why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.

        Because it's really hard to lay off government employees when they are no longer needed. Building a Web site requires a lot more people than maintaining it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter (970822)

          why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.

          Because it's really hard to lay off government employees when they are no longer needed.

          I think you missed the phrase "ongoing technical needs", and, additionally, have failed to consider that the overall technical staff needs of a very large organization (like the government) may be far less variable than the

  • by ristonj (1195983) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:41PM (#29096561)
    • They have software processes so convoluted, you need GPS navigation to make sense of them
    • They spend money on failing projects like it's going out of style
    • They once had a well managed project, just to see what it felt like

    Quite simply, the Federal Government is....The Most Interesting Tech Startup in the World!

    • Are you sure you're not talking about Indian code farms...?
    • by dangitman (862676)

      They have software processes so convoluted, you need GPS navigation to make sense of them

      That doesn't sound very convoluted. GPS is typically used by people too stupid to read a fucking map. So, you're basically saying that their processes are straightforward enough that anybody with basic map-reading skills can easily make sense of them.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If your idea of interesting is running 10 year old operating systems on 15 year old hardware then yes it is interesting.

    If your idea of interesting is trying to run something new and being shut down by 10 year old policies, having the network gate keeper with the only word in there vocabulary is no then yes it is interesting.

    If you think its so interesting head on over to usajobs.gov and waste some of your life. I'm heading back to private industry where were driven by profit or efficiency. Find the problem

    • by AuMatar (183847) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:03PM (#29096847)

      I'm heading back to private industry where were driven by profit or efficiency. Find the problem own the problem fix the problem. Not find the problem sit in two and half years of meetings discussing the problem and one day we can actually devote some funds to fixing the problem... 3-4 years later.

      There's companies out there like that? Every one I've ever worked at has been find the problem, pass the buck, blame others, pass again, hire an outside consultant too much to fix the problem, let him do a half assed job, declare success, give the manager in charge a bonus. Private is no better than government, government just has more due to scale and gets more publicity on their problems.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        The larger any organization becomes, the more bureaucracy is encountered. The pre-breakup AT&T rivaled the dividon of motor vehicles for its bureaucracy.

        • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          The pre-breakup AT&T rivaled the dividon of motor vehicles for its bureaucracy.

          My last few trips to the DMV were very surprising. The service was excellent and efficient, the prices were less than expected, the waits were short and the staff was knowledgeable. And this is in a solidly liberal big city, where coincidentally, Obama has his family home. I don't know in what backwater you had problems with the DMV, but if you ever have to get something done in the DMV here in Chicago, you may find that yo

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            Actually the last time I visited the DMV it was also a good trip. My wallet had been stolen, and it only took five minutes and five dollars (and a bank statement to prove I was me) for them to give me a duplicate license. I didn't even have to be rephotographed.

            In years past, a visit there was pure hell. You live in Chicago I see (Obama), I'm down in Springfield. It seems that our SoS is doing a damned good job, far better than most of the goofs that came before him.

      • There's companies out there like that? Every one I've ever worked at has been find the problem, pass the buck, blame others, pass again, hire an outside consultant too much to fix the problem, let him do a half assed job, declare success, give the manager in charge a bonus. Private is no better than government, government just has more due to scale and gets more publicity on their problems.

        What you described is the typical publicly traded corporation, not a private company. Private companies are managed in a much tighter way, and mid-managers get away with much, much less crap than the chaotic world of publicly traded corporations where executives only pretend that they have the shareholders' interest at heart, while all they want is a very-short-term semblance of improvement, and then cash in and leave, and then join another such company.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Vivek Kundra lied about his credentials, he was CEO of a company with only one person and he is only in his current position due to the widespread practice of cronyism.

  • No company in their right mind would pay 18 million for a website. There are many many websites that get more page views are were made for much less. To consider that website a success is a joke.
    • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:53PM (#29096743) Homepage

      No company in their right mind would pay 18 million for a website. There are many many websites that get more page views are were made for much less. To consider that website a success is a joke.

      This was discussed to death the first time this information was posted on Slashdot [slashdot.org]...

      But it isn't like they paid 18 million for a single, static page. From the original link [abcnews.com]:

      The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

      Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

      It's a lot of money, sure. But it isn't like someone went out and spent $18 million to shine up their Facebook page, which is what some people would lead you to believe.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

        Is that $27M total, or $18M total of which $9M is this year?

        Assuming the lower amount, that comes to, what, maybe 15-25 people full-time plus $4M of initial expenses (hardware and executive/sales bonuses, I guess)?

        • Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

          Is that $27M total, or $18M total of which $9M is this year?

          Assuming the lower amount, that comes to, what, maybe 15-25 people full-time plus $4M of initial expenses (hardware and executive/sales bonuses, I guess)?

          My understanding is that it was $18 million in addition to the original $9 million... But I could be mistaken.

      • On the other hand it does something useful....

    • Please provide links for websites with similar complexity and scalability that were made for less than the $10 million they spent so far. Also be sure to include a reference to the actual cost of building and running the site so we can make the proper comparisons.

      I have to say I find it rather sad that "conservatives" don't have enough flat out failures to whine about that when the government actually produces something that's good and cheap (compared to the vast majority of government projects) that th
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by chrb (1083577)

      Well it all depends on what you mean by "web site" - $18 million is cheap for some web sites. I have worked on an internal web site for a medium size company (few thousand employees globally) and the development costs ran to over $1 million. For the amount of work that went into it, that was a pretty good deal. It's not just html pages these days - when you have developers spending several years writing, refining, and maintaining complex backends with custom databases, a few million $s begins to look cheap.

  • Kundra's Credentials (Score:4, Informative)

    by colsandurz45 (1314477) on Monday August 17, 2009 @03:46PM (#29096649)
    Kundra is at worst a fraud and at best someone who is clueless. Listen to some of the things this guy says. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/ [dvorak.org]
    • Dvorak and Curry talk at length about the guy on No Agenda #121. Some of the clips they play of this guy talking are jaw dropping. He sounds like one of those people giving a speech in a class who simply run out of things to say 10 minutes too early.
    • The Irony (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dangitman (862676)

      Kundra is at worst a fraud and at best someone who is clueless.

      And you attempt to demonstrate this by linking to well-known clueless fraud, John C. Dvorak? Excuse me while my head explodes.

    • by rsborg (111459)
      If John Dvorak says it's true, you can bet it's false. This guy has been wrong about more things than I can remember, and he still gets paid (probably because it pays to troll). I wouldn't trust his opinion other than to believe the exact opposite.
  • In a word . . . (Score:2, Informative)

    by PapaSmurph (249554)

    No.

  • "Startup"? No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:13PM (#29096955)

    Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?

    No, its not. The US Federal Government has been in business continuously since the late 18th Century. Its not, by any sane standard, a startup.

    It remains, as it has been for the whole time compting has existed, one of the biggest customers for (and funders of) new computing technology, and any major initiatives it has in that area will have potentially wide-ranging impact on the industry, but an established institution engaging in one or more new technology initiatives is a different beast than a tech startup.

  • Burn thru all their initial funding with little or nothing to show for it, then roll out something that's big on dreams and weak on funding [usatoday.com], and then blame all your problems on your potential customers and not your busines plan [usatoday.com].

    Yep, sounds like a startup to me. Well, all except for step four, quietly fold up show and go away. That hasn't happened yet.

    YET.
  • realistically (Score:3, Insightful)

    by recharged95 (782975) on Monday August 17, 2009 @04:21PM (#29097049) Journal
    The words Tech + Startup ==

    initially:
    • lots of $$$ lunches, free snacks and food.
    • corporate apartment, likely in Dupont circle
    • salaries 15% above the going average.
    • good looking receptionists, marketing folks
    • long hours........ with 3hrs of playing MMORPs intermingled
    • business development racking up huge travel costs.
    • everyone gets to go/participate in a tech convention (with usual partying with booth babes)

    AND in the end:

    • company runs out of cash
    • pissed investors
    • revolving door of Wharton, HBS, Kellogg, Columbia MBAs acting as CEO/CXXs
    • vaporware and a lot of bugs
    • software no customer wants or it out of date from delays
    • worthless options
    • jobs that are really boring
    • weight gain

    Gov't the new tech startup? This is looking bad. Really bad.

  • Talk is really expensive in politics. But most of the cost is hidden.

  • Pretty soon they'll be the ONLY startup, if you know what I mean! Argh! Socialism! Death Panels! Dogs and cats sleeping together! I'm sorry. I'm working a lot of overtime and I'm really not sure where I even am at the moment. Just mod me into oblivion. Thank you and good night.
  • by superwiz (655733)
    the government is finally embracing 10-year-old technology. before you know it, they'll abandon fax machines. you have to be innovative from a technological point of view before you can be called innovative.

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss

Working...