Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Government Data Center Consolidation Behind Schedule, Cost Savings Uncertain

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the metrics-are-hard dept.

Government 95

itwbennett writes "The goal of saving $3 billion by closing 1253 data centers is 'very realistic,' says David Powner, director of IT management issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office — except that agencies haven't been able to track cost savings for the initiative. Eighteen months from the 2015 deadline, 'we have no idea how much we've saved the taxpayers,' said Steve O'Keeffe, founder of MeriTalk, an online community for government IT issues. This isn't the first snag in the project. Almost a year ago, Slashdot reported that the project was woefully behind schedule." The government released a summary of what data they do have (PDF), and at least the DoD expects to save $575 million next fiscal year. Also see the full GAO report.

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

!able, unwilling (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43731849)

I'm guessing that they'd be able to track those metrics very well if they tried. My experience with the PHB management types is that they don't want to do anything unless they absolutely have to, especially if that something would create accountability for them or anyone on their teams.

Re:!able, unwilling (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43731903)

i worked for an DoD agency 13 years ago for a year. We had a main NT domain with a child domain for each of the 6 regional offices

the admin in one of the offices refused to set up a trust between his domain and the main domain. for some reason no one could make him do it. i bet same here. some of the admins in the smaller offices are refusing to go along with this

Re:!able, unwilling (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#43731983)

Sure, any organization has internal conflicts of interest when somebody is tasked to train their own replacement etc. That half billion in savings is mainly going to be salaries after all.

Re:!able, unwilling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732113)

Do you understand why I'm wiggling my rancid asshole in front of your putrid cock? Because I absolutely adore cum farts, and it'll be your cum that I fart out! In fact, a few lovely surprises may shoot out with your cum... What say you?

Re:!able, unwilling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732293)

You don't need to suffer untreated. You can get help. Maybe you can start here: Mental Health [nih.gov] and Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator [samhsa.gov] .

I'll say a prayer for you.

Re:!able, unwilling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43735845)

Treatments are available in most gay bars across the nation. Lets pray the AC gets his rectum full and nicely spread for that extra pleasure.

Re:!able, unwilling (3, Informative)

NecroPuppy (222648) | about a year ago | (#43733645)

I'm (sorta) one of those admins.

It's not that local sites are refusing to go along with the data center consolidation, as we have to justify anything that stays here instead of moving to the data center 400 miles away, it's that in a lot of cases the data center people are saying, "You have to move", and then not understanding the reasons why we can't.

Whether or not this lack of understanding is deliberate or not, I'm not sure. We lowered our explanation to about a 6th grade comprehension level, and they finally seemed to get it, at least while they were on site.

Stuff like:

"These are the daily and weekly tasks we must perform with this system - you will have to sign an MOU/MOA (Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement) where you will accomplish these tasks how we tell you to." (Often, they didn't have the trained personnel to do it.)

"You will have to provide 24/7/365 uptime, with at least three 9s reliability (yes, I know that's low, but we couldn't justify higher), including the ability to do file level restoration." (They really balked at the file level restoration.)

"You have to have trained support personnel with OS experience." Their response was, "We can upgrade that to ." Our rebuttal, "No you can't, it has to stay in that exact configuration until changes are tested and approved by Echelon II."

We got to keep most of our stuff, at least so far.

Re:!able, unwilling (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year ago | (#43735249)

The problem is proving that the total actual savings are in alignment, requiring cooperation between a number of different departments. If the program is optimized to maximize ROI (which they never are), you target avoided capital expenditures first by consolidating into sites with available capacity, and onto existing systems with available processing/storage from sites that require major infrastructure upgrades. One trigger is often battery replacement, and you use the opportunity to move towards a better solution.

Later rounds try to further improve by avoiding the CapEx of replacement equipment at multiple sites.

Goldbricking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43731863)

Rather than do it themselves in less than two years they've hired "contractors" and they have no idea what the business case for this consolidation is because they haven't hired a consultant to do the evaluation yet.

If you have to ask.... (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43731871)

The answer is probably "0"

It's in the name (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43731885)

Powner, Director of IT? Can't make that up.

surprise surprise (2, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43731891)

Ever notice how easy it is to spend other peoples money? they have no real reason to try and save that 3 billion because its not from their pockets. just raise taxes again and it will all be ok. In the end this will probably be like everything else

"we know we told you this project would save you 3 billion but we made an error"

what was the error?

"well we meant to say cost, not save. this change will cost you 3 billion"

Re:surprise surprise (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43731955)

Ever notice how easy it is to spend other peoples money? they have no real reason to try and save that 3 billion because its not from their pockets. just raise taxes again and it will all be ok. In the end this will probably be like everything else
    "we know we told you this project would save you 3 billion but we made an error"
    what was the error?
  "well we meant to say cost, not save. this change will cost you 3 billion"

savings would mean that some people would be making themselves redundant. so what to do? fire half the people in the projects randomly in advance. sounds stupid, but works.

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732181)

Except that you may then find out that you just have fired the only one who knows at least roughly how the system works ...

If something sounds stupid, it usually is.

And before you explain that in a well-organized IT this doesn't happen: In a well-organized IT you don't have many superfluous people to fire anyway.

Re:surprise surprise (-1, Offtopic)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43732041)

I swear someone is going out of their way to down mod my posts recently. how is this troll??

Re:surprise surprise (1, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43732163)

I swear someone is going out of their way to down mod my posts recently. how is this troll??

If I had to guess:
Because it dramatically simplifies a situation, represents a sarcastically presented political position rather than a cogent point, and fails to delivery an adequate punchline for its overly politicized setup.

Re:surprise surprise (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43732581)

So. If we take your explanation at face value.
The GP was not a troll.
So the problem here is that you do not know what a troll is. Let me help.

An Internet Troll [wikipedia.org]

Re:surprise surprise (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43733301)

Eh, inflammatory matches what I said to a reasonable degree. Sure, it matches slashdot's definition of flamebait better, but that mod is basically the forgotten step-child of the slashdot moderating world. Overrated gets more play.

Also the bizarre meta-modding through modding my post is weird. I was honestly just trying to inform the GP of what aspects he could address if he wanted the mods to be less severe in the future. Answering a query about the motives of others isn't substantiating them.

Re:surprise surprise (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43735235)

Bullshit, and a big-ole steaming pile of it. Many times /. moderation is not about really marking people as Trolls or Flame baiting. It's about people that don't like your opinion so mod you something to make you invisible, reduce your karma, and make you stop posting. The persons post was not flame bait by anyone's definition, nor was it a troll.

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732421)

I have seen this too. Basically it is 'I do not agree with you in any way whatsoever so you MUST BE A TROLL'.

No a troll is someone who deliberately picks an opposite view just to tick people off

Or to mess with people like ... http://cheezburger.com/7446136832

I am considering doing that to a close loved one soon :)

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732327)

Man, you have a cynical view of life. Though I suspect your outrage is more towards the government.

Believe it or not, people can be wrong even with their OWN money.

Like me, I just bought something, but I'm torn by nagging doubts over whether it was worth it, whether it'll benefit me enough for it to matter, and so forth.

Re:surprise surprise (2)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year ago | (#43732495)

It's just basic economics. When you aren't spending your own money, you aren't incentivized to control costs.

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733257)

If that's basic economics then it's no wonder economist can't predict anything. I work for a large company. None of us are spending our money. However, some people penny pinch and some people spend without a care. In the personal finances of the people I have met over my life the same is true. Some people penny pinch and some spend without care and it's not even related at all to how much money people make. Hence, why so many people are in debt. Your basic economics is wrong. There is some subset of the population that may be truly incentivized by money but I feel sorry for those people. It's such an unfulfilling thing to be motivated by. It takes so little effort to meet basic necessities.

Re:surprise surprise (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year ago | (#43733737)

I didn't say every single person will try to spend as much as possible when they don't have to pay the bill. I said they aren't incentivized to control spending. That's true.

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734135)

It's just basic economics. When you aren't spending your own money, you aren't incentivized to control costs.

Pretty much every working person in the country is spending someone else's money. People working for the government are no different than people working for corporations in that respect. Are you really sure those people aren't incentivized to control costs? That seems highly unlikely to me. Does you boss care how much money you waste? Are you under a budget? I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who isn't.

Re:surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732973)

The agencies might have faced little difficulties in selling that high priced data center real-estate nobody wants. They should have gone about it in an organic fashion through a some kind of a national shared data center initiative program, or NSDCIP as they would probably like to call it, without forced time lines and with a strict mission times value orientation.

Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (3, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#43731981)

If, as even the Democrats admit, the government is "too vast" for the President to be responsible [nationalreview.com] , we ought to be shrinking it, rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732009)

Agreed. The last thing we need is anything at all protecting us, in even the slightest, from complete corporate slavery.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43732175)

You know, I'm thankful for all those long-running political debates that were easily settled with a single sentence of hyperbole, like ...
um...
I'm sure it's happened lots.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0, Troll)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43732061)

Healthcare in America is 5 times more expensive for half the benefit compared to other countries with socialized medicine. At current rates, sometime in the next few decades it will pose an existential crisis for America because it will consume a larger portion of our GDP than any other area of the economy. The majority of people will no longer be able to access healthcare at all, illness and disease will sap our productivity and we will return to a third world country where the average lifespan is 30 or 40 years.

Failure to deal with the nation ending enormous failure of the "free market" solution to a social issue of health care is for lack of a better word traitorous, an intentional sabotage of your own nation to hasten its destruction.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732195)

Really? I did some work up in Canada for awhile.. Got hurt on the job, medical treatment was not any cheaper than here. Or any better for that matter.

Since 'Socialized' medicine has already proven to raise costs for average Americans, I guess it would just accelerate your concern mentioned above.

If you think Govt can manage Healthcare, you are obviously lost in your own mind, it's not like we dont have thousands of examples from the gov't of terrible management - even on smaller scales.

Geez.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (-1, Troll)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43732333)

And it isn't like we don't have thousands of examples of the gov't successful management either.

No, socialized medicine, is proven to be dramatically less expensive than what we have. that is real socialized medicine, not the welfare for the wealthy who own the medical insurance industry that Obamacare was perverted into in order to satiate the conservatives need to bleed this country dry,

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43732449)

Forget all those statistics and other fancy nancy stuff - the PP has an anecdote! Case closed.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43732603)

And it isn't like we don't have thousands of examples of the gov't successful management either.

Um. Ok. So list 50.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43732729)

Only the failures make the news. Things going normally are not news worthy.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#43733233)

Only the failures make the news. Things going normally are not news worthy.

Well, that did not prevent you from claiming, there are "thousands" of successes... But then you get called on it and can not name even a handful... Maybe, there really aren't (that m)any?

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43736323)

I can not think of a single the that the government does better than private industry.
There are things that only government should do. But government is Slower, more expensive for less stuff and the worst customer service.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43732369)

As a non-canadian, you didn't qualify for coverage of your healthcare in Canada. Funny how that works when people from south of the border come north looking for jobs.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (3, Informative)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#43732445)

Failure to deal with the nation ending enormous failure of the "free market" solution to a social issue of health care

Sadly, the healthcare market in the US has not been free since the 1940-ies. During the War the government sought to limit workers' salaries, so, to attract talent, employers started offering "benefits" — like health insurance. This separated payers for health-care from the consumers of it — triggering the spiraling costs as the patients demanded the very best, while blaming the insurers for attempts to keep the costs sensible. The government compounded the problem making such benefits tax-deductible for employers, without counting them as taxable income for the employees.

Actually freeing the market would've helped — but, for some reason, the "reformers" were dead set against the competition (without which the market can not be considered free). Even buying a health plan from a different State is illegal, certainly not from a foreign insurer. One can even be forgiven for thinking, the sabotage of the market was deliberate — so as to allow to claim "market failure" and finally give the politicians the power they all tend to crave after 2 or 3 terms in office (some even sooner).

Instead of freeing, the market got under an even harder government control. Yes, control of that same benevolent omniscient government, that can not consolidate freaking datacenters... But don't worry, they will know, how to best allocate your monies (that you paid in taxes through your life) to your healthcare — that you will need primarily after retiring...

Oh, and the actual government agency ensuring compliance will be the same one, that already picks targets for audits and scrutiny based on the taxpayers' political persuasion. Are you honestly claiming, healthcare will improve in such circumstances? Will you really be surprised to learn, 30 years from now, that Conservatives are having their life-support turned-off, say, 30% sooner, than Progressives because the local "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (a.k.a. "death panel") decided against their case?

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43732633)

Imagine the death rate of members of the party not in control of the IPAB just before a big election.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733713)

When you use a term like 'death panel' you are showing that you have not separated emotion from logic. It's a word used solely to activate an emotional response. It's completely meaningless as any healthcare whether private or public will make a cost/benefit analysis. Do you call every decision that a private health insurer makes a 'death panel'? You may make some decent points but as long as you are allowing your emotion to fill in those little gaps in knowledge that everyone has you will not see the entire problem.

If you compare countries with and without socialized healthcare the lifespan and living conditions of people are dramatically different. What was the lifespan in 1930? What exactly are you comparing to the last 70 years too? What cross country comparisons have you made? What other variables and factors have you taken into consideration? Have you really thought about this or did you have a position and then find things that fit your view? Any honest consideration of socialized healthcare would find both positive and negative issues. If you only find negative ones (or positive ones for that matter) then you view is distorted and your opinion questionable.

Here's a hint for everybody. All large organizations have similar positives (economies of scale and explicit processes) and negatives (slow to change and overhead). It doesn't really matter whether you call that large organization a company, a government or a church.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734445)

Except that the government also has unique elements on both sides as well. Positively, at least in our democracy, we get to vote on things. Of course, that positive is affected by how much your vote is worth on any one decision and what the majority votes for. We will still call that positive, however, because it nominally is so.

On the negative side, the government maintains a monopoly on the use of force. Again, that is not entirely negative, as I certainly don't want people using force at will or without process, but it is nominally negative as it can force people to comply when something is decidedly against their interests.

So, ultimately, we do need to confine force to as small a group as possible, but we also need to limit what that force can be used for without individuals agreeing to it. While personally, I might object to allowing our money to be used for foreign adventures, I accept that military spending was at least a designated power in the Constitution. What is not there is the welfare state, and certainly not the welfare state that is imposed from top down.

I agree that bigger does not necessarily mean bad, and I am not against free care necessarily, but I think the government itself already has too much power and responsibility to be given more. And while we want to believe that "this part" of the government is free from political pandering, look at how other, supposedly non-political parts of the government, like the IRS or even the FCC find themselves coming out against groups based on political leanings.

In the end, it's too big, the issues are too complex, and our individual voices are so diluted that the political debate is almost completely style over substance at the national level. There is also the issue of who gets the care, and who is going to pay for it. There's little incentive for most citizens to demand reform, unless they feel the reforms help them personally. Already we have such a dependence on social programs that they are almost untouchable, even if they are badly broken.

Do I think we couldn't set something up? No. We probably could set something up. That's never been the issue. The question is what happens 10 or 20 years down the road when we have to pay for it, and it is forcing certain mandates down our throats without any chance of serious reform.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43737253)

The question is what happens 10 or 20 years down the road when we have to pay for it,

And this is definitely where it breaks down. So I wonder. Is it that there is not enough scientist to develop new medicine? Is it that we don't have the technology? Did we run out of a resource and weren't able to create a solution? Do we not have a big enough labor pool? What exactly is the reason that we can't afford to pay for it?

and it is forcing certain mandates down our throats without any chance of serious reform.

I agree. Government doesn't need to be involved in everything. But if it is to be involved in something we should get a serious debate and legislation on the matter. The mangled legislation that currently gets passed is horrendous. If a freeze on new legislation wouldn't work I would like to see more cooperation on producing something meaningful than the bluster both sides produce now. Now, ff we're lucky we get broken legislation and if we're unlikely our rights are stretched by unanimous vote.

I'm against our current politicians not against government. I want a good government. Not a small broken one or a large bloated one.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43734559)

A healthcare system where the user pays no marginal cost for services will create nearly infinite demand for services. Government cannot possibly pay for this. Therefore, services must be rationed and limited to constrain costs. Yes, "death panel" is emotional rhetoric, but it has an element of accuracy. In a government-run healthcare system, bureaucrats will inevitably be making life and death decisions.

The benefits of socialized medicine are that everyone has access to services at no marginal cost, the role of the middle man is very limited and billing procedures are simplified.

The negatives are too numerous to list in this comment, but it's essentially the same as every other socialistic scheme. Everyone is equal and equally miserable.

The free market is the solution for providing the most services to the most people at the lowest cost and with the highest quality. The free market WORKS when government doesn't wreck it. The drawback is that some people will not be able to afford services. That's where WE, as individuals or as part of charitable organizations (not the F&*%ing government) have a moral responsibility.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43737353)

bureaucrats will inevitably be making life and death decisions.

This is going to be true of any insurance. There are going to be actuaries and there are going to be decisions made by the numbers. That may be a reason against insurance in general but that's another debate.

As far as free markets go, can you point to an example where a free market has increased the life span in a country? I'm open minded if I see the evidence. The free market has a great many positives but it is not some religious idea that just solves everything. Like communism it looks great on paper. In reality they don't quite work the same as theory.

Preventative and regular care can yield much improved health for little cost. Overall I think a basic publicly provided health care program is a good idea. As an American I don't think the Federal government should do it without a constitutional amendment. I also think the State I live in should do it. I don't care what your State does. :)

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43752705)

If you have a contract with an insurance company which covers specified services, actuaries might determine the premiums, but I don't see how they would make life and death decisions. A service is covered, or it isn't.

"can you point to an example where a free market has increased the life span in a country? "

That could be the subject of a doctoral thesis. Lifespan is easily quantified, but if lifespan = f (x, y, z ... fm) how do you quantify 'fm'? Is the invention of antibiotics and vaccines market-driven? That could be a debate in and of itself.

I don't claim free markets solve everything. I do believe that markets are the method by which we can maximize the total amount of services provided. In my ideal system, the local doctors and hospitals have to compete like all other retailers. I want to see a flier and coupons in the Sunday newspaper advertising weekly specials on EKGs or a 2-for-1 deal on routine physicals. Price transparency is desperately needed in healthcare so consumers can make choices.

Government can help by making sure medical service providers obey the same anti-trust and anti-price discrimination laws that every other business must follow.

I agree wholeheartedly with your solution of getting federal government OUT of the healthcare business and letting the states do their own thing. That's how the Canadian system started. A single province. I'd like nothing better than to observe what happens as various states try various approaches and I'll vote with my feet to find the system I like best.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43732719)

Yes and no. See, I am very interested in what will happen if / when socialized medicine manages to make its full debut in the US.

Why, you ask? Well, there has been a long-standing argument about whether or not the US medical patient has been subsidizing the developmental costs of those drugs...and whether the rest of the world's citizenry has gotten to ride for free as a result. On one hand, you have the pharms, who have political lobbyists, IP trickery, loads of scams, but occasionally some novel drugs coming out; on the other hand, you have host governments claiming that pharms are overcharging for new drugs, benefiting from basic research on the public's dime, etc.

If socialized medicine takes place in the US, and new drug research drops off a cliff, then we have a fair idea that the US medical patient was, in fact, subsidizing the rest of the world, and that, the prices charged by the pharms were possibly, on some level, aside from whatever inefficiencies and graft taking place, necessary (for lack of a better word). Up until now, we've only heard that the pharms have been raping us, and that socialized medicine will save the day; perhaps it's because I'm a programmer, but I am curious as to those odd end cases or exceptions where that might not be true. The above scenario, of course, comes with many caveats, so getting a simple yes or no, in the even that the US actually does run that way, may take a fair amount of analysis.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43734587)

I've been interested in that question myself. The reality will likely be somewhere in-between. The pharmaceutical companies probably will find some way to cope, quite probably with government aid. How that aid adds to the behind the scenes costs of socialized medicine would be another question.

Certainly, someone is either not telling the whole truth, or at least, has a serious misperception. The ability of other governments to negotiate lower prices may actually represent the fact that actually "producing" a drug is not all that expensive once it has been discovered and tested. So, when the foreign governments use their collective bargaining power to get lower costs, the producers can probably tread water by simply taking a markup on the production costs, as opposed to adding in the development costs. In that case, the US consumer would likely be the only group supporting actual forward progress on drugs, and your worst-case scenario could come about.

However, if the pharmaceutical companies are simply charging the US consumer what they can get, and calling it "research costs", that's different. Although I know there are liars and cheats out there in the business world, I rarely assume they are outright lying about something like this. That does not mean that they are telling the complete truth, for whatever reason.

There is also the possibility that the swamplike morass of US regulation could cause the costs to be higher. In that event, it is anyone's guess whether socializing medicine would make that better or worse.

It is not easy to argue against a health care program that isn't going to overcharge me and abandon me or my family when they need it the most. On the surface, it is like fighting against my own self-interest. The problem is, if everyone only thinks of their own self-interest, it may be that no one's interests get served.

History reminds me that the population of the City of Rome used to be maintained by a free grain distribution by the state. When it was time for Octavian to assemble the powers he used to assure his power as Rome's first emperor, he made sure that the source of the grain (Egypt), was made his personal domain. By controlling the welfare of the people of Rome, he ensured his power in a very realistic way, even while pretending to simply be "first among equals". Handing centralized control of our welfare to the government hands whoever is control of that government significant power. As much as I'd like a health care system that isn't going to shaft me, I am aware that the only way you can avoid trusting the wrong person is by making sure you don't have to trust any one person with all the power in the first place.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43734363)

"...enormous failure of the "free market" solution to a social issue of health care"

It never ceases to amaze me that we can have a situation where the big government "solution" has been an utter and complete catastrophe, but the government worshipers INSIST that the evil "free market" is the problem.

Government implemented Medicare. They implemented Medicaid. They ordered hospitals to treat everyone at the ER regardless of whether or not they could pay. They mandate what services insurance policies must cover. They encourage and facilitate cartel behavior in both healthcare and insurance. They ban competition in the drug and medical device markets.

Obviously this system sucks, and it's a direct result of the fact that government destroyed the free market through price fixing, cost shifting, unfunded mandates and stupid regulations.

The only sectors of the economy that even compare to the healthcare disaster are housing and higher education, which the government has also ruined with their stupid policies.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43732271)

we ought to be shrinking [the government], rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...

Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well. Ignore Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and virtually every other developed country in the world whose governments handle than it better than our system, because they must be outliers, and it defies your version of "common sense" (which trumps real world data) and uh, oh yeah, you're ideologically indisposed to face reality. While you're at it, ignore our own limited socialized health insurance (aka Medicare) because it, uh, has problems! Yeah, that's it, it isn't perfect! Never mind that it's cheaper, more effective and has a lower inflation rate than the mess of a system for people under 65.

The problem with Obamacare isn't that it involves government, but that it doesn't involve government enough. Obama and the Dems, in the great "third way" tradition, didn't go for a simple and efficient universal public health insurer (ok, that approach has destroyed what was once our Northern neighbor) or even allow a public option. Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector" to guarantee profits and bloated salaries for worthless middle men.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

deKernel (65640) | about a year ago | (#43732457)

Then by all means, please move to where you believe the health care system is better. Nobody is saying you have to stay here and ruin the current system.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733507)

Yeah, no. We live here too and we're going to drag you kicking and screaming in to the future because you're too stupid to do so yourself. Your behavior and beliefs are not only harmful to yourself, but to us as well.

We know you're going to bitch and scream and throw a childlike tantrum in the process, and continue to do so even as you benefit from it. We're used to it. We're liberals.

You're welcome.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43734169)

"we're going to drag you kicking and screaming in to the future"

"you're too stupid to do so yourself."

You arbitrarily assert your intellectual superiority and thus decide that you're going to steal my wealth and coerce my behavior under threat of violence? For my own good?

"We're liberals."

Oh really? Never would have guessed.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734255)

Yes. We even help the sycophantic toadies of the rich.

Again, you're welcome.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734659)

Amusingly, the "liberals" are just as often the rich or the powerful themselves. After all, they don't have to deal with the mess they are creating, all they have to do is pat themselves on the back for being smarter than everyone else. Do you think our great liberal families like the Kennedys would ever have to wait in line for actual medical care unless they wanted a PR boost? Or Hollywood stars. Or media executives. Heh.

The fact that the so-called liberals are on the side of the "People" is just posturing. You're throwing money around to buy votes off. Maybe it even makes you feel better about yourselves. That works until you spend all the money. And then it doesn't matter because then everything goes to shit. Just make sure you've emigrated by the time the indiscriminate butchering of the "rich" begins.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43734727)

Didn't your parents explain to you that violence is only justified in response to aggression? I thought liberals were peaceful people? What justification do you have for imposing your beliefs on others with threats of violence? Having delusions about the superiority of your intelligence doesn't qualify.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43737929)

Didn't your parents explain to you that violence is only justified in response to aggression?

Personal attack.

I thought liberals were peaceful people?

Sarcastic attack.

What justification do you have for imposing your beliefs on others with threats of violence?

At least somewhat valid. Of course all social order is maintained by threat of violence. We really should debate the pros and cons of a given topic and whether it's a federal or state issue rather than explaining how laws are enforced.

Having delusions about the superiority of your intelligence doesn't qualify.

Second personal attack. Do you see how your argument sounds to others? You and the AC sound the same to me.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43751505)

Point taken. I momentarily forgot that the discussion was being observed by third parties. I'll keep that in mind.

I don't think a rational argument works with a person who has openly stated their intent to impose their will on you under the threat of violence which they claim is justified on the basis of their superior intelligence.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43752775)

I don't think a rational argument works with a person who has openly stated their intent to impose their will on you under the threat of violence which they claim is justified on the basis of their superior intelligence.

I think you just proved your inferior intelligence.

You think the other AC is incapable of rational argument, and is not above using threats of violence. You know, typical liberal thug.

In response to that, you decided it's a good idea to engage him in mud slinging and insults - a field that liberal thugs tend to be even better at, if not excel in.

In short, you're trying to out-liberal a liberal. That is a very stupid thing to do.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733805)

So you disagree that the rest of the developed world has a working medical system, you then tell someone to leave the country? How pathetic are you? When you have a major medical problem you lose your job because you cannot work (assuming you're even old enough), you will be refused insurance or won't be able to afford it. You'll be like all the other selfish wankers that spout "I'm alright, Jack. Fuck you", and be first inline demanding someone else pays for it. In your system, the only logical conclusion is to kill sick people once their own money has been exhausted.

No doubt you're in favor of constantly invading other counties to steal their resources in the name of a few corporations and investors.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43734087)

Then by all means, please move to where you believe the health care system is better.

Let me translate:

America, love it or leave it

Very retro. I think I just saw Richard Nixon and Abbie Hoffman strolling by.

Of course that attitude is a great American tradition. It's entirely reasonable to say that I should leave the country where I was born, have lived my whole life, and am a citizen of by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, because I think it's desirable to change some particular aspect. Many famous Americans have avoided discord by offering and following that advice, from George Washington to Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King.

P.S. If you ever come with an argument instead of a silly shopworn slogan, let me know.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43737799)

You could move to Latin America where health is as close to a free market as you're going to get. Let me know how that works out.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (2)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#43732615)

Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well.

"Fallacy of excluded middle". I did not say it is "impossible". It is possible — and is, indeed, done in all the places you list. But it is done poorly in all of those places.

Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector"

Free market is the most efficient thing humanity has come up with. Our problem was that this particular market was not at all free — not for decades... Instead of freeing it, Obamacare made it even worse...

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43743829)

Free market is the most efficient thing humanity has come up with.

Your conclusion is simply based on your conclusion. There is no such thing as a 'free market' in reality. The closest we have is the black market. And it is not necessarily the best of all markets. Every market requires some regulation. If even just to enforce contracts between people and to explicitly make clear to all parties how those contracts are interpreted. The 'free market' is a theory. It's a model. It's not a best of anything. Progress made by mankind has been pretty consistent throughout history. It would seem that our society evolves regardless of what ideologies we decide to fight about.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year ago | (#43732735)

Obama and the Democrats did what was politically possible. The public option would have been too politically unpalatable for the most conservative Democrats. Under the rules, they needed every single Democrat; no Republican would have given serious consideration to any plan, even the one that is actually substantially similar to their own (and could have been even more similar if they'd participated in the development of it).

In hindsight, they might as well have gone for a public option: most of the conservative Democrats who put the kibosh on it to protect their right flanks lost anyway in the resulting outrage (a bizarre combination of complaints about the cost with complaints about nonexistent "death panels" whose actual purpose was to reduce costs). If they'd plotted it out better, they'd have just expanded Medicare as an insurance provider, which would have been far neater and cleaner than the state-run exchanges that are supposed to do the job. (People like to praise state governments over federal ones, largely because people are so focused on what they imagine is The Big Picture that they have no idea how badly their state governments mismanage things, and how little scrutiny they get for it, while suffering from massive losses to scale than the federal government achieves.)

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43735331)

Obama and the Democrats did what was politically possible.

No. It'd be one thing if Obama had tried and failed, but he didn't even try. He's notorious for first compromising with himself then using that as a starting point for negotiations. Any kid knows that's not the way you bargain. Not that I think Obama doesn't know how to be persuasive. He learned politics in Chicago, where you're not twisting somebody's arm enough until you break it. Obama is very good at playing hardball, but only does it for things he actually cares about. The premature "compromises" and excuses about bipartisanship just mean that he never really wanted it in the first place.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733197)

The problem with Obamacare isn't that it involves government, but that it doesn't involve government enough.

With everything we've learned about our government in the past week, you seriously still believe that? That's the most delusional statement I've ever heard.

But, sure, wish that a government that explicitly targets its political opponents for extra scrutiny, that bugs and listens in on the laughably "free" press, that covers up its malfeasance that got Americans killed, that won't listen to warnings from other governments about imminent terrorist attacks, and that gives guns to criminal organizations - tell me how that government should be allowed to take over health care.

The United States has the best health care in the world, BECAUSE of the free market. With Obamacare, prices are already skyrocketing and quality is already dropping. The most important thing we can do as a nation was to prevent Obama from getting a second term. We failed that, so now the most important thing we can do is repeal Obamacare and allow our nation's economy to grow. Too bad about the senate, but 2014 will fix that.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (3, Interesting)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43734123)

Medicare is "cheaper"? Yeah, because government fixes the prices they pay. Nothing is "free". Government stiffs the hospital by price fixing Medicaid/Medicare services, so hospitals just shift that cost onto everyone else, especially the uninsured.
Government forces hospitals to treat people at emergency rooms regardless of their willingness or ability to pay, but does not fund this mandate, so that also translates into higher bills for everyone else. Government bans re-importation of prescription drugs & medical devices, thus forcing Americans to subsidize R&D for the rest of the world and guarantee profits for big pharma.

With all of this cost shifting, retail prices are insanely expensive, so people are compelled to buy insurance. There's how your worthless middle man enters the picture, and now you MUST buy his product or the IRS will be after you.

Government has been heavily involved in the healthcare system for 50 years. What's the result? Costs have exploded, millions are unable to afford basic services, quality of service is poor for the price paid, etc. etc. Yet people think that even more government is the "solution"? That's how Einstein defined "insanity".

Eliminating a middle man would reduce costs. Competition and innovation would also drive down costs and increase quality. Government price controls and mandates do exactly the opposite.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733191)

The problem with "shrinking" government is that those previously covered services still need to be performed. Demand/need does not magically go away. This means private companies fill the void.

I don't trust for profit entities to properly serve large scale public functions, like health care. There is no incentive for them to do anything but rip people off wholesale. Ideas like "Deregulation" and "Privatization" have been proven to be means to funnel public money in to private hands. People advocate the ending public functions to siphon up the freed up dollars. Actually performing services is seen as an inconvenience.

If there's anything that I've learned in my short 30ish years on this planet, it's that the only thing I can trust less than the government, it's for-profit entities. I've never come to know a more ruthless, immoral, evil, disgusting excuse for a group of human beings that call themselves American businessmen.

Yes, this includes the mafia and other criminal organizations. At least they have enforced codes of ethics.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43733883)

We should shrink the FEDERAL government. It's up to people to decide what sort of government (if any) that they want, but even if you believe in a huge role for government it should be created in a "bottom up" fashion. Perform as many services as possible at the local or country level, do some at the state level and only as an absolute last resort, give the central government power.

This country is F*&^%$ up because we have a bunch of A$$#0!z in Washington D.C. trying to micro-manage the lives of 330 million people in a very large and diverse country. It's not working for the benefit of the people.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734685)

Except that local governments tend to be corrupt, and get more corrupt the more 'local' they get. It's easy for money to buy a county or a state, harder to buy all the states. "Local" also has the problem of creating stratification. Poor areas will get poor service because there is little money available for services, and those areas are likely to get more poor as a result. Those poor areas drag down the rest of the country because the country is an open system Unless you fence them in, violate their human rights, etc- Sounds a lot like a dystopian scifi story, doesn't it?. Living a class based world where the haves rule the have nots is, frankly, bad. History teaches us this.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733563)

No shit. But nobody agrees on what we should cut. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military. Which ones do you want to cut and how? Everything else is useless distraction.

Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43734773)

We should cut all of them. The problem is that no one in power wants to cut any of them.

That is why you resist giving those same people more stuff that they will have to manage in the future, because even if they had the courage to do it, their own constituents won't let them make meaningful reform when the time comes. The only "reform" they will accept are unfunded mandates (which leaves the costs on the private entities to pass on), or more services to band-aid the ones we have now.

The one thing people miss is that there is no great human "right" to health care. For the two million years or so before humanity had social insurance, there was nothing at all the government provided except in very specific intervals, and mostly to maintain public order (ie. bread and circuses). While misery certainly existed, like it still does today, for the most part, people found other solutions to those issues.

Health care, by it's nature is a gigantic black hole that you throw money into. The longer people live due to your system, the more they need your system. It's a cost that not only increases with every eligible member, but it's very successes can make it more expensive. That means that health care is always a losing battle unless you define some sort of realistic scenario for wrapping up or limiting benefits. What happens when you try and do that today? On the Right they talk about "death panels", and on the Left, there's always some dread disease that affects some minority that absolutely must be cured no matter what, even if you could overcome the disease though changing your lifestyle.

The government does not have to solve all our problems for us. It may not be an evil proto-totalitarian communist state, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to hand over all our problems to it.

Save now vs. over time (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about a year ago | (#43731985)

How much have they saved now? Probably not much, and probably spent more.

It costs money to find the location, arrange the contracts, hire new people/lay off or move staff, and move equipment between rooms. Even then, many organizations may say it's cheaper to buy new hardware than it is to move 5+ year old servers.

However, the efficiency once many of those data centers is closed will become apparent. Space/power/cooling/networking/staff isn't cheap. Consolidating will give you some amazing savings a few years in.

Re:Save now vs. over time (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43732079)

Most likely they can't say how much they saved because the previous accounting of the cost of those numerous data centers was sporadic at best. You can't know how much you saved if you don't know how much it cost to run what you replaced.

Re:Save now vs. over time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733057)

Knowing the government, they're probably using this opportunity to grow datacenter capacity and nothing else. Cost savings is just an excuse to get the bean counters all giddy and foaming at the mouth, while the real game goes on behind their backs.

Re:Save now vs. over time (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year ago | (#43735287)

...until you find you have all this orphaned equipment that nobody actually knows what it does in 5 years.

US Budget Deficit Shrinks Far Faster Than Expected (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732021)

Maybe we should slow down with the deficit reductions; [cnbc.com] this consolodation may not be necessary and may be detrimental.

Since the recession ended four years ago, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion every year. But now the government's annual deficit is shrinking far faster than anyone in Washington expected, and perhaps even faster than many economists think is advisable for the health of the economy.

That is the thrust of a new report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimating that the deficit for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, will fall to about $642 billion, or 4 percent of the nation's annual economic output, about $200 billion lower than the agency estimated just three months ago.

The agency forecast that the deficit, which topped 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, could shrink to as little as 2.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2015 — a level that most analysts say would be easily sustainable over the long run — before beginning to climb gradually through the rest of the decade.

"Revenues have been strong as the economy has outperformed a bit," said Joel Prakken, a founder of Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm based in St. Louis.

Over all, the figures demonstrate how the economic recovery has begun to refill the government's coffers. At the same time, Washington, despite its political paralysis, has proved remarkably successful at slashing the deficit through a variety of tax increases and cuts in domestic and military programs.

A Sign of the Times (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43732039)

You know you're in trouble when they speak of how much money they're saving instead of how much they spent to acquire a feature or benefit. What about the data center that stores every digital interaction in America? I bet that costs a pretty penny to operate, let's shut it down, it's not doing us any good. Didn't stop the Boston Bombing... Hell, zoning laws could have prevented the recent explosion in West, TX (which was more harmful than the Boston bombs), but I don't see them trying to save anything at all anywhere -- Not even lives.

"Honey, look what I got, you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!" -- No. She spent money, didn't "save" a dime. I'll evaluate cost to benefit ratio to determine if the purchases were wise.

Want to save money? Why not get rid of the DHS? They're not needed. We have FBI and cops already. We don't need a huge cumbersome annoying workforce of security guards who don't actually provide security. You Can't Provide Security for others -- They can only protect themselves, and should be aware of surroundings and cautious of dangers if need be; That saves money and lives.

How much of the money they're spending on 3rd party contractors is wasted by inflating the costs to turn a profit? I'm not stupid. They haven't saved a dime one.

This isn't news. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732065)

Government program behind schedule and over budget exactly according to plan.

some of us saw this coming (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year ago | (#43732095)

Some of us saw this coming since the day it was announced.

a) This is big government we're talking about. We're lucky the costs aren't higher.
b) Since when has anything orchestrated by this administration been anything but the opposite of what claimed?
c) We're lucky they're actually telling us at this point.

Government is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732099)

I work for a large DoD organization in MD as a contractor. I have worked here for a 1 year. Prior to that most of career was in commercial software engineering world. The level of waste, irresponsibility, small "kingdoms", personal ownership of public domain and laziness is unimaginable. There are people who make 100K plus but are completely useless because they refuse to do any work, alarmist, or get in other peoples ways and prevent them from being productive.

The government is not "vast" or "large" rather it is "stupid", "childish" and "irresponsible". Specially DoD then again what do we expect from an organization that is primarly run by people who are too dumb find their own asses. These people enrolled in the DoD (Army, Navy, AF and others) to take order so they don't have be bothered with any decisions or actual responsiblity in life.

 

Re:Government is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733767)

You don't have to out anybody but I would like to hear details of a couple of your examples.

I don't doubt there's some waste, but I do doubt it's anywhere near the level that some people's hyperbolic claims seem to indicate. After all, people do get work done and things happen. How could it be any worse than the waste and empire building that goes on in private companies? Look at all the billion-dollar failures of ERP system migrations that we read about all the time. Same goes for pet projects that are allowed to fester for years before getting defunded because some VP manages to keep the board pumping money in.

Again, I'm sure you have your examples and they're valid, but this sounds a lot like the old anti-union argument that starts out something like -- "I was at a trade show at Convention Center X, and tried to plug my equipment in, and a union electrician stopped me and said his guys had to do that."

"...Cost savings uncertain..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732103)

...fancy that.

To quote John Glenn (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year ago | (#43732107)

"How do you think you'd feel if you knew you were on top of two million parts built by the lowest bidder in a government contract?"

They need another datacenter (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43732173)

They need another datacenter to hold the computers that track the cost savings from the other datacenters.

Re:They need another datacenter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43733157)

You're starting to catch on kid...

Two things are certain. (2)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#43732183)

Hovernment does not know how to budget and Software is always behind schedule.
Put the two toigether and you'll not have any savings at all but a growing cost.

You have to want to change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43732891)

To get a project done, you have to want to get it done.

Server and data center consolidation projects require some interest on the part of eliminating or consolidating old systems.

Government workers, in my experience, have no interest in server consolidation.

If they built a system using a 286 processor, and have no choice, they'll keep using the 286 based system.

Tis unfortunate, but it's what I've seen.

Been there before (1)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about a year ago | (#43734215)

Data center consolidations are never easy, and this is most likely being handled by a for-profit contractor, so tack on an extra 20% to whatever price tag it is, just for overhead.

Think of all the stuff that has to happen:
- All the connectivity to various networks has to be moved or duplicated. If we're not talking IPsec over the Internet, that means circuit orders, routing changes, etc. which quickly multiply and all involve tons of coordination.
- If you're doing P2V, that has to be carefully scheduled and everything needs to be tested on the consolidation hardware before you decommission the old stuff completely.
- If you're doing lift-and-move for things that can't or shouldn't be on VMs, downtime, network changes and logistics to get it to the new place need to be coordinated.
- All the system dependencies need to be worked out. System X will break without connectivity to Systems S, T and Z. System T will fail intermittently if the latency between System F goes above a certain point, taking down A, B and N. Etc. Etc. Yay for integration.

Also, DC migration plans tend to expose all the skeletons that previous admins left in the closet. Well-worn examples of undocumented networks, networks that unexpectedly rely on some crappy Linksys switch backboning traffic between key segments are par for the course. [1]

My experience from the private sector with consolidations is usually large companies wanting to shovel things that started off in branches up to a central point, or to move IT someplace with a lower cost of living. In every case, it's never paid off right away. The fact that it's the federal government just means they have more real estate at their disposal, so it's a bigger job, not necessarily more or less cost.

[1] My favorite comes from the dark ages of Token Ring where it turned out that the link between two components of a very important, must-be-running system depended on TR gateway software running on an original IBM PC AT with two TR NICs.- and this was in the 90s. It was never meant to be that way, but it turned out that someone never documented this and it was found during a move.

Re:Been there before (1)

BlueGMan (1215404) | about a year ago | (#43739209)

I work for a rather large agency... our initial numbers are coming back at 3X the cost to "consolidate".. So any savings for power, space, etc are trumped by those "for-profit" contractors running the data centers. At this point it almost looks like it was a plan to put money in someone's pocket, not save anything since the "big-boys" are getting all of the work.

the number is greatly exaggerated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43734467)

I am a DoD sysadmin.

The 1,200 data centers comment is misleading. The DoD classified a closet with a few servers as a "data center". Only a hand full of actual data centers exist. Eventually all those small closet "data centers". Will be gobbled up by the hand full of big ones. The cost cutting will be giving control to admins in the central locations. Closing the small ones and moving the servers to virtualization.

The big question is...who? GSA, DISA and private firms are all lobbying for control.

New data center... heh! (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year ago | (#43734893)

A few years ago, we got a "new" data center. I was all excited to move our old and busted applications at least off of old an busted hardware!

However what we got was a new building.

Rather than getting new servers, what we actually got was a few days of downtime while they unplugged and loaded it all on a truck and drove our busted hardware to the new building! Progress!

When I was told, I had one of those laughs... Although all I could think of was what would happen if the semi truck carrying all our stuff crashed... sure it is all backed up, but man we would have been screwed.

Inside the DoD (1)

Gogo0 (877020) | about a year ago | (#43736509)

I work for the DoD (Army) and have seen the datacenter consolidation progress in my organization and others in my Theatre. There is no method or order to collect energy savings analysis, so we are never going to know how much money/power is being saved. No one, at least in my Signal command or lower, ever asked for it.

Of course, being that the consolidation is mostly-complete in my Theatre, its too late go gather any real data. Most likely, Brigades will simply make estimates based on the number of servers then and now.

We also have nearly every user workstation hibernating after ten minutes of user inactivity as part of the three billion dollar energy-saving presidential order. No data has been collected on how effective that is either.

Its all typical DoD kneejerk bullshit, no one knows the true impact, they just want to finish before their peer Commanders to look good for promotion.

We are moving across town (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43736839)

It will cost millions without any gains in efficency. The new facility has to upgrade their utilities for us to move in. We are moving from a Government facility to a Leased one. Bring your own chair there is no room for you.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>