1. IT is a meritocracy, you are awarded contracts or jobs based upon proven performance. To give a contract to a company specifically based on the gender of the owner is bad business. Gov't spending out money the wrong way, yet again. 2. Why is it a 'problem' when specific gender is not highly represented in a specific industry? Nothing against women in IT, I have and do work with many women in IT who are stand out performers and are extrememly intelligent. I just don't think we should be granting contracts based specifically upon the gender of the submitter.

It's the only explanation.

I agree with you completely. The current CIO probably did crap his pants when he saw the state of the OMB networks in 2008 and realized what he had gotten himself into. But, interns are generally not the ones you want handling systems, and that's really not what they're used for in the WH environment. Everyone in that environment tends to think they are too good for any kind of menial work.

It's a free to play game with upgrades attainable faster if you choose to pay. I love the game, have played it a lot and have spent more $$ over time than I'd have paid for a one-off $60 fee. In fact, I would have never played it if it cost $60 up front, and I'm sure there are many other games out there that I would enjoy but never even tried because the upfront I-don't-even-know-if-I-like-this-game-yet fee is too steep. The Free to Play initially approach is a very strong business model when done right.

Yeah... but that's not real money.

The problem is the procurement process. It takes a hell of a long time to get IT resources ordered, and often by the time they are actually put into service half of their warranty life-time has expired. It has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge on the OMB IT front, it's got everything to do with the red tape they have to cut through to make anything happen.

Scientists just come along and steal the food you've had stashed for 30,000 years... being a squirrel is rough.

Way to take the typical govt stance that the answer to any complaint about too much govt is... more government! He just took a complaint about the TSA's overwhelming presense and turned it into an arguement to hire more TSA workers.

"You must know basic calculus and linear algebra and have some background in differential equations." Stupid math... someone point me to a refresher....

An interesting take on attacking an SSL stream, but like said above how useful is this really? As the first reply said, it does sounds like a known-plaintext attack in that you know to look for a certain number of bits, and when taken together with other certain numbers of bits you can deduce the area of the world being viewed. Seems mostly academic, unless you're law enforcement or some other such entity who is recording traffic from a known bad guy and trying to determine his next target... (which then again is sorta what counter-terror units do these days)

While great for Starcraft, this model falls apart when you're talking about units who carry a very limited number of offensive weapons (Air-to-Air missiles), the radar ranging and tracking capabilities, and computer sophistication to track and lock on to many targets at once. Add in the latest stealth capabilities of US fighters and their ability to share targeting info (we call it a force multiplier now), and a swarm of older fighters no longer beats a smaller number of more advanced fighter aircraft. What they have chosen to do is an old gambler's move. Rather than bet it all on one roll of the dice, they are choosing to spread out their money in the hopes that they can beat any local air force. They realized that if the do go up against the US or another very modern air force, it's hopeless.

Let's face it, anything by CompTIA and to an increasing degree at the lower certification level, Microsoft, is worthless. If it's a straight memorize, take test, do a braindump and update your resume type of exam... eventually even HR types will catch on to it and it will go from a 'preferred experience' to a 'job requirement'. Employers will continue to use certs as yardsticks to measure potential hires, especially when they can obtain 'Partner' or 'Gold' status and add a cool logo to their website by claiming to have X number of MCPs, but the real IT people who do the interviewing will see through it immediately. There are higher level certs that still hold weight... CCIE, CISSP, VCDX, some others I don't know or care about, that will continue to hold weight. Also do not forget that the US govt is continually requiring it's employees in certain positions to hold specific certs... *cough*CISSP*cough* which in a sense floods the certified ranks with those who took a mandatory class and otherwise would never have attempted the exam and artificially inflates the numbers of people certified, which in the end will de-value the cert. I generally don't look at most certs as real means of proving I know something, I look at them as a way to market myself to the HR types who will be the first to review my resume. If I can match enough acronyms to make them happy, I can get an interview with the tech people who will actually determine if I am qualified for the position. It's just a big game and geek pride thing that we, as IT types, must endure.

I didn't read, I don't know what this person is accused of. In the interest of objectivity, I don't want to know. He/she/it may be deserving of The Chair for all I know, but it's a right which is near and dear to our Previously Glorious Country's very foundation that if you choose to do so, you can refrain from saying or admitting evidence that may OR MAY NOT incriminate you. You are only refusing to give the prosecution potential evidence to incriminate you, and do you think you really understand all of the laws where you live better than your tax-payer funded local prosecutors?? And in Today's America, damn near any admission to police can incriminate you in one way or another. Therefore, pleading the 5th should be the default response to police questioning, it's an exorcise of your rights. It's NOT an admission of guilt, it's an embrace of your Constitutional rights. Police are trained to find a way to get you to say something, anything which is not 100% true, and from there they can tear apart your character in court and win a conviction. I've been there and seen it,as soon as an officer can contradict ANYTHING you say in court, you are finished in the eyes of most judges. The courts do not care, their salary is dependent upon convicting and fining a certain percentage of people. You don't have to be a master criminal, you just have to be a citizen that doesn't understand our modern justice system and it's goals. Not saying anything is not only your right, but it prevents police and prosecutors from turning your words against you. In other words, NEVER talk to police.... be it a statement or password.

A firewall won't prevent your ISP from telling advertisers that you like to google Nike shoes and them then targeting you with advertisements... that is information upstream of your local connection. At best, you could use it to try to block ads from certains domains from loading. SSL or a VPN is a better alternative, but it's not always available. At the end of the day, it's just your ISP selling you to advertisers to make even more money at your expense. The outrage is present, there are simply fewer real alternatives these days.