PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Mac-savvy team lands in Microsoft hell at White House


Freshmixture
Jan 22, 2009, 09:30 PM
This country is in trouble already........

http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Obamas_Mac-savvy_team_finds_itself_in_Microsoft_hell38124339.html

Enjoy!

Fresh (Doug)

Eidorian
Jan 22, 2009, 09:33 PM
It's a big mess given their presence online and maintaining it now.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 09:37 PM
Well, considering the government runs 99% XP machines, they should have known. Sounds naive to expect anything else.

NT1440
Jan 22, 2009, 09:39 PM
Well, considering the government runs 99% XP machines, they should have known. Sounds naive to expect anything else.'

Why would one expect the base of the free world to be running outdated systems?

GoCubsGo
Jan 22, 2009, 09:40 PM
Oh good lord. Please!
Screw the computers and get to work on this so-called "change" we're all supposed to see.

NT1440
Jan 22, 2009, 09:40 PM
Oh good lord. Please!
Screw the computers and get to work on this so-called "change" we're all supposed to see.

And communications is a big part of that......

numbersyx
Jan 22, 2009, 09:43 PM
It sort of feels right that the Obama camp used Macs whilst the Bush admin was using Windows. Just who was the evil empire, George?

Blue Velvet
Jan 22, 2009, 09:46 PM
Oh good lord. Please!
Screw the computers and get to work on this so-called "change" we're all supposed to see.


Er. Can't get much done if no-one can get through on the phone.

The original Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012104249.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009012104276&s_pos=) is longer and more detailed than the excerpt presented at the top of this thread. It's just not about the computers, and in many ways, poses a serious question: you wouldn't expect to do business these days in that sort of technological environment.

NC MacGuy
Jan 22, 2009, 09:46 PM
It is the govt., why expect anything else.
Time to learn some Windows.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 09:46 PM
Why would one expect the base of the free world to be running outdated systems?

And what, besides trouble for IT, does Vista bring that XP doesn't offer?

We were supposed to switch last year, but Vista failed the IT tests.

BTW, the machines themselves are only about 2-3 years old.

NT1440
Jan 22, 2009, 09:48 PM
And what, besides trouble for IT, does Vista bring that XP doesn't offer?

We were supposed to switch last year, but Vista failed the IT tests.

BTW, the machines themselves are only about 2-3 years old.

I coulda sworn I saw somewhere them running 6 year old machines. But as BV said, its more about the anti technology mindset thats a hinderance.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 09:51 PM
I coulda sworn I saw somewhere them running 6 year old machines. But as BV said, its more about the anti technology mindset thats a hinderance.

Yes, the mindset is a hinderance, but I will say that my 3-year-old Dell 820 is the fastest XP notebook I have ever used - because it is so tightly restricted by IT.

Blue Velvet
Jan 22, 2009, 09:52 PM
I coulda sworn I saw somewhere them running 6 year old machines. But as BV said, its more about the anti technology mindset thats a hinderance.

I wouldn't say it's anti-technology. They have strict security clearances and other concerns to worry about in terms of their systems. Just as parts of the White House and Airforce One have been upgraded and restored by various presidents, I'm sure at some point they'll review what they have and take things forward.

It is literally like moving into a house combined with a business and having to use what the last tenants had been happy with. A lot has changed in eight years.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 09:55 PM
I like this part of BV's Post article:

But there were no missing letters from the computer keyboards, as Bush officials had complained of during their transition in 2001.

Abstract
Jan 22, 2009, 10:01 PM
And communications is a big part of that......

Then they should switch to new Windows computers so that there are no issues with all the other systems they need to communicate with.

Some people are talking about Macs (versus evil PCs.....surprise surprise), but that's not what's really important. The most important thing is that they can get everything done with their equipment, and if that means Obama's guys may have to switch to XP or Vista, then they've got to do it.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 10:10 PM
It's a big mess given their presence online and maintaining it now.

They can maintain it just as well with XP. A computer is just a tool.

It sort of feels right that the Obama camp used Macs whilst the Bush admin was using Windows. Just who was the evil empire, George?

Yes, because Windows PCs are evil ... :rolleyes: See the tool reference above.

Consultant
Jan 22, 2009, 10:27 PM
Sounds like a regular windows based IT dept was managing the IT.

Hope they switch to something more usable.

Eidorian
Jan 22, 2009, 10:29 PM
They can maintain it just as well with XP. A computer is just a tool.I never said you couldn't They're just going to need to learn to use what they have and try to requisition what they can. :rolleyes:

Peace
Jan 22, 2009, 10:32 PM
Personally I hope they stick with Windows in the White House. I know it's selfish but if they went with Macs that would invite every anti-US group in the world to make OSX their targets thus creating more viruses,malware and trojans for OSX.

r.j.s
Jan 22, 2009, 10:33 PM
I never said you couldn't They're just going to need to learn to use what they have and try to requisition what they can. :rolleyes:

True. Macs aren't unheard of in the government, they do have their place as graphic editors and video editors, but for normal, day-to-day email and communication, Exchange is hard to beat. Especially with the laws that all communications must be archived. (Although I'm not sure that I want someone to know what I was planning for lunch the other day.)

duncanapple
Jan 22, 2009, 10:59 PM
Seriously, enough of the Bush bashing... OMG, <sarcasm> six year old software, gasp, thats like, office 2003! </sarcasm>.

How many of your companies (large companies, such as the government that is) are still using Windows XP and MS Office 2003? A greater majority of them I would assume. As for the laptops vs desktops... I would wager a guess that its a big security concern. Laptops stay in secure areas, aren't moved, etc. There is a whole new layer of security involved in laptops as they leave the office and go to airports, homes, car trunks, etc. This is more than likely intentional.

I see this as another non-story story. Another pointless piece of garbage "journalism" knocking a prior administration that quite frankly, doesn't deserve nearly the bashing it gets. What DOESN'T get blamed on the Bush administration these days? Whats next?

I guess I am venting, cmon people, wake up.

crackpip
Jan 23, 2009, 08:35 AM
Having worked in the government, I can attest to the kinds of headaches involved when security trumps productivity. It is understandable given much of the subject matter, but you also have to remember that anything and everything is considered sensitive until explicitly reviewed. IT becomes a one-size-fits-all kind of atmosphere unless you expend a lot of effort getting a variance.

I had to do this to get a linux machine (better for the type of work I was doing) rather than using Windows (Mac's were not an option). It was two-months before I had a networked computer on my desk. I was not working on anything sensitive. Almost everything marked as freeware was completely banned. Despite budget limitations, if I needed software it had to cost something or else I had to apply for an exception citing importance, lack of alternatives, etc. While I liked my job and the people, this aspect was not fun.

I see this as another non-story story. Another pointless piece of garbage "journalism" knocking a prior administration that quite frankly, doesn't deserve nearly the bashing it gets. What DOESN'T get blamed on the Bush administration these days? Whats next?

The Bush administration deserves every single knock they've gotten. Never in my lifetime have I seen such a mix of incompetence, arrogance, corruption and ill will right from the start in 2000. However, my impression is that this is not due to the previous administration so much as the White House IT regulations and IT staff, who may be permanent hires rather than appointments. In fact, I remember reading at one point that Bush was a Mac user.

crackpip

MacDuck
Jan 23, 2009, 01:02 PM
Having worked in the Senate (in DC) not that long ago, I can attest to outmoded tech.

Most of the junior staff was using Windows 2000 on old Compaq Presarios. Only the senior staff had "updated" HPs with WinXP. I had to share a computer with an intern, even though I was an aide.

I can commiserate with the Obama staff. Like someone else said earlier, "Welcome to government".

As we speak, I work in state government, and have to use an old Dell for my work. I was supposed to get an upgrade last month, but have yet to hear anything, probably due to the 600 million dollar budget shortfall we are currently in.

Consultant
Jan 23, 2009, 02:23 PM
Well they already signed to close Gitmo on the first day, so anything could happen. They are the executive branch and can probably make some changes.

Personally I hope they stick with Windows in the White House. I know it's selfish but if they went with Macs that would invite every anti-US group in the world to make OSX their targets thus creating more viruses,malware and trojans for OSX.

Wrong.

Giz Explains: Why OS X Shrugs Off Viruses Better Than Windows
http://i.gizmodo.com/5101337/giz-explains-why-os-x-shrugs-off-viruses-better-than-windows

The Unavoidable Malware Myth
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/01/the-unavoidable-malware-myth-why-apple-wont-inherit-microsofts-malware-crown/

Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bit security
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/16/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bit_security.html

savar
Jan 23, 2009, 02:43 PM
And what, besides trouble for IT, does Vista bring that XP doesn't offer?

We were supposed to switch last year, but Vista failed the IT tests.

BTW, the machines themselves are only about 2-3 years old.

My agency still runs Windows 2000! Yikes! Also still running office 2003. And my workstation is a 5 year old Dell Optiplex tower.

Most of these computers are about to fall apart. Mine chugs at the disk for any basic operation, such as opening a folder. I can barely run outlook and a browser at the same time. I frequently close my e-mail just so I can get some work one.

Although we are promised new machines early this year, and those will be pre-installed with Vista.

savar
Jan 23, 2009, 02:48 PM
As for the laptops vs desktops... I would wager a guess that its a big security concern. Laptops stay in secure areas, aren't moved, etc. There is a whole new layer of security involved in laptops as they leave the office and go to airports, homes, car trunks, etc. This is more than likely intentional.

You're more than right about the security ramifications, but this is 2008 -- we've solved those problems already. Fortune 50 companies give laptops to anybody who has any reasonable need for portable computing. Security risks are mitigated by using off-the-shelf, driver-level encryption. All VPN tunnels are encrypted using multi-factor authentication. Big companies are selling these solutions and other big companies are buying them. It's simply NBD anymore.

The real problem is just that the government is usually not very savvy at anything other than bureaucracy. Hell, most high-level officials can barely use a computer. This administration will begin to turn that around, however, as they won the election -- in part -- because of their technology savvy. The generation that grew up using the internet is just turning old enough to run for Congress, too.

chewietobbacca
Jan 23, 2009, 03:49 PM
Welcome to government. Why do you think it takes thousands to simply get things done.

As rjs stated, this isn't a Windows vs. Mac thing. It's a matter of what works better for the task, and like the vast majority of corporations out there, Windows provides the better solution.

First of all, Macs fall very short of what Windows Server and infrastructure can bring. Yeah, Windows is more susceptible to viruses, but that's expected given their 89% market share and the increased likelihood of stupid users.

Anyone who has worked at a major company with a major IT infrastructure knows that there are numerous benefits to running a Windows-based server. And in the government, security and other things needed are much more likely to be provided by Windows based software, given that the government runs a lot of these things like corporations do (just much less efficiently).

Its the same reason Obama won't have an iPhone anytime soon. It just wouldn't pass the security requirements.

As for being outdated, the government is slow to change anything in case you havent noticed. And updating an infrastructure as big as the government is no easy task. So all this talk of 6 year old stuff is nonsense. You don't just update and change everything overnight wihtout some serious looks at current capability, future capability, costs, etc.

Its the same reason that Macs will never become the dominant foothold in government so long as Apple dictates what can be modified and not in the OS, what kind of hardware is required, etc.

r.j.s
Jan 23, 2009, 03:52 PM
... snip ...

Oh, yes, I forgot. CAC card compatibility. Without that working flawlessly, Macs will never take hold in the government.

Unspeaked
Jan 23, 2009, 03:56 PM
I'd like to see a major government that isn't running Windows XP (or older) as their primary operating system.

Or better yet, one that doesn't use Windows at all (in lieu of anything - Macs, Linux, UNIX).

I find it highly unlikely...

seashellz
Jan 23, 2009, 04:03 PM
well, ive read and heard that the Military, nervous about the reliability of Windows under alert/emergencies/daily use presures have purchased Macs one-to one-as backups-who knows-OS X may defend our country one day when Windows poops out in the middle of WW3

r.j.s
Jan 23, 2009, 04:14 PM
well, ive read and heard that the Military, nervous about the reliability of Windows under alert/emergencies/daily use presures have purchased Macs one-to one-as backups-who knows-OS X may defend our country one day when Windows poops out in the middle of WW3

Not true. Although, they do use a lot of OS X Servers.

Consultant
Jan 23, 2009, 04:21 PM
Oh, yes, I forgot. CAC card compatibility. Without that working flawlessly, Macs will never take hold in the government.

CAC on OSX. Just in time. (In case you don't know how to run windows on a mac).
http://www.army.mil/AKO/info/guides/CACconfig/setup/index.html

Army's use of Macs
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/12/20/apple-army-hackers-tech-security-cx_ag_1221army.html

r.j.s
Jan 23, 2009, 04:25 PM
CAC on mac. Just in time.
http://www.army.mil/AKO/info/guides/CACconfig/setup/index.html


I said flawlessly. It doesn't work with MOST CAC readers, and is quite quirky. I don't know if you have actually done any research on the topic, but those instructions are for Tiger. Leopard has issues with CAC cards.

As for the other link, it says what I said, servers mostly. Yes, there are some units that have independently purchased a Mac for graphics/video work.

You won't see every Soldier that works on a computer using a Mac for many, many years, if ever.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 23, 2009, 05:04 PM
Seriously, enough of the Bush bashing... OMG, <sarcasm> six year old software, gasp, thats like, office 2003! </sarcasm>.

How many of your companies (large companies, such as the government that is) are still using Windows XP and MS Office 2003? A greater majority of them I would assume. As for the laptops vs desktops... I would wager a guess that its a big security concern. Laptops stay in secure areas, aren't moved, etc. There is a whole new layer of security involved in laptops as they leave the office and go to airports, homes, car trunks, etc. This is more than likely intentional.

I see this as another non-story story. Another pointless piece of garbage "journalism" knocking a prior administration that quite frankly, doesn't deserve nearly the bashing it gets. What DOESN'T get blamed on the Bush administration these days? Whats next?

I guess I am venting, cmon people, wake up.

+1 on that. I read though the WP article and none of that seemed out of place. ALL OF IT seem very normal for bussiness.

This is yet another example of why the media is crap and no longer cares about the truth. Instead it is how can we make it look bad.

It would be nice to see the media report the truth instead of some BS like this and take the truth and spins it so much that it is no longer any where near what it reality is.

brad.c
Jan 23, 2009, 09:19 PM
At least CTU uses Macs (or Mac monitors at least), even when they're off the grid.

NoSmokingBandit
Jan 23, 2009, 09:40 PM
Hold on a minute there....
These are the people we expect to run our country and when they were faced with xp they "couldn't complete the most basic of online tasks"???
Are these people retarded or do they just want another thing to bitch about from Bush's administration?

.Andy
Jan 24, 2009, 02:01 AM
Hold on a minute there....
These are the people we expect to run our country and when they were faced with xp they "couldn't complete the most basic of online tasks"???
No that's not it at all. The bureaucracy required to get everything set up and running is an enormous task. There's the whole administration needing passwords and accounts and phone numbers etc etc all in one day. They've also got to familiarise and navigate a completely new system and rules which they aren't used to.
Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts.
Senior advisers chafed at the new arrangements, which severely limit mobility — partly by tradition but also for security reasons and to ensure that all official work is preserved under the Presidential Records Act.

"It is what it is," said a White House staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Nobody is being a blockade right now. It's just the system we need to go through."

Are these people retarded or do they just want another thing to bitch about from Bush's administration?
No one is "bitching" about Bush at all. There's even a quote from a Bush staffer reliving the same kind of problems they had when they initially moved in.
The system has daunted past White House employees. David Almacy, who became President George W. Bush's Internet director in 2005, recalled having a week-long delay between his arrival at the White House and getting set up with a computer and a BlackBerry.

I have absolutely no idea where people are getting the idea that this article is a "bitch" about Bush. It's certainly not in the article.

maestrocasa
Jan 24, 2009, 07:37 AM
I have a hard time believing that the government uses the most heavily hacked and malware-targeted OS on earth. Nevermind Mac V. PC, shouldn't they be using some sort of high-security UNIX or something?

r.j.s
Jan 24, 2009, 08:05 AM
No that's not it at all. The bureaucracy required to get everything set up and running is an enormous task. There's the whole administration needing passwords and accounts and phone numbers etc etc all in one day. They've also got to familiarise and navigate a completely new system and rules which they aren't used to.

The question is, why wasn't all this done during the transition? It's not like they just suddenly dropped by the WH and said, 'We're here, give us our accounts.' The permanent WH staff knew when the new admin was coming.

All of the needed paperwork should have been done before Jan. 20.

EmperorDarius
Jan 24, 2009, 08:15 AM
Obama should buy a bunch of iMacs :D

r.j.s
Jan 24, 2009, 08:35 AM
Obama should buy a bunch of iMacs :D

Did you even read the thread?

brad.c
Jan 24, 2009, 09:44 AM
... The bureaucracy required to get everything set up and running is an enormous task. There's the whole administration needing passwords and accounts and phone numbers etc etc all in one day. ...

Sounds as straightforward as the MobileMe rollout. :)

r.j.s
Jan 24, 2009, 09:47 AM
Sounds as straightforward as the MobileMe rollout. :)

Yes, but it should have all been done before they took over.

brad.c
Jan 24, 2009, 09:54 AM
Yes, but it should have all been done before they took over.

Probably not as simple as that. Aren't they still appointing operational staff as well as the bigger heads, too? Besides, go to any large company and ask if an IT update or platform change should be scheduled at the same time as a large personnel turnover.

Melrose
Jan 24, 2009, 09:59 AM
Well, considering the government runs 99% XP machines, they should have known. Sounds naive to expect anything else.

You'd think they would at least have caught a glimpse of the technology before they moved in.

It would be cool to see the White House switch...

robanga
Jan 24, 2009, 10:11 AM
I'm thinking that was a manufactured story " Cool hip administration comes in and finds remains of old stodgy administration"

Sensational journalism but probably not rooted in much reality.

NoSmokingBandit
Jan 24, 2009, 10:43 AM
No one is "bitching" about Bush at all. There's even a quote from a Bush staffer reliving the same kind of problems they had when they initially moved in.

"Obama staffers were flummoxed by all the out-of-date Microsoft software left over from the Bush administration"
Fair statement fail.

Did Obama really think the government could drop $1000+ for every computer the whitehouse uses so he could have a mac? Not only that, but its freaking XP! Its been around for a while and if you dont know how to use it you cant blame Bush for "leftover" tech.

It seems that Obama likes to have some excuse why everything wqas done wrong prior to him. It seems like he missed the wagon on this one and wasnt prepared for the switch.

robanga
Jan 24, 2009, 10:45 AM
"Obama staffers were flummoxed by all the out-of-date Microsoft software left over from the Bush administration"
Fair statement fail.

Did Obama really think the government could drop $1000+ for every computer the whitehouse uses so he could have a mac? Not only that, but its freaking XP! Its been around for a while and if you dont know how to use it you cant blame Bush for "leftover" tech.

It seems that Obama likes to have some excuse why everything wqas done wrong prior to him. It seems like he missed the wagon on this one and wasnt prepared for the switch.

I doubt it was the Pres that was complaining, likely the busy body press corps looking for stories and chatty new staff settling into their new digs.

r.j.s
Jan 24, 2009, 11:08 AM
Probably not as simple as that. Aren't they still appointing operational staff as well as the bigger heads, too? Besides, go to any large company and ask if an IT update or platform change should be scheduled at the same time as a large personnel turnover.

I'm not talking about a hardware changeover.

They should have had everybody's accounts and paperwork done before the 20th.

carlgo
Jan 24, 2009, 12:14 PM
I saw a retort from the Bush admin denying that the tech was old, but of course that admin was real sensitive about any competency issues.

I'm sure the IT guys kept the system that worked for them. They understood it and could keep it going. They probably spent all their time keeping hackers out. Would they have had the time to install and become as one with an all-new system?

Surely, the old system probably is lacking big-time, but it will take a really big effort to install and tame an all new system. This will be done, but it will take a while and a lot of money.

brad.c
Jan 24, 2009, 01:27 PM
I'm not talking about a hardware changeover.
Perhaps not you, but the general thesis of this thread suggests one. Even a platform update would be a risky proposition at this time.
They should have had everybody's accounts and paperwork done before the 20th.
Again, I suggest that people are still being confirmed and hired, from Secretary of Paperclips on down. That means all the sys admins would have leading up to the transfer would be a long list of TBDs.

SkyBell
Jan 24, 2009, 01:58 PM
'

Why would one expect the base of the free world to be running outdated systems?

XP is hardly outdated. And besides, I imagine it's the most used operating system in the world, so why wouldn't governments use it?

r.j.s
Jan 24, 2009, 02:05 PM
Perhaps not you, but the general thesis of this thread suggests one. Even a platform update would be a risky proposition at this time.

The general theme of thread is that uninformed people would like one, however, I don't see it happening any time in the next several years.

Again, I suggest that people are still being confirmed and hired, from Secretary of Paperclips on down. That means all the sys admins would have leading up to the transfer would be a long list of TBDs.

Yeah, the appointees are being confirmed, but the normal staffers have know for a while that they will be working there.

Like I said, you don't just 'show up' to work at WH.

mrbrown
Jan 24, 2009, 02:20 PM
It sort of feels right that the Obama camp used Macs whilst the Bush admin was using Windows. Just who was the evil empire, George?

'Cept that wasn't George's doing; the government has their IT policies, like a business, and you have to follow them. Ironically, I think the only government department that has a wide deployment of Macs is Homeland Security.

Incidentally, I believe Bush was a Mac guy pre-White House - there are quite a few pictures of him on the campaign trail (and in the Governor's mansion) with a PowerBook.

.Andy
Jan 24, 2009, 03:01 PM
The question is, why wasn't all this done during the transition? It's not like they just suddenly dropped by the WH and said, 'We're here, give us our accounts.'
That would be the ideal situation. I guess it would depend if this is possible which i've no idea about. I'd assume they wouldn't get processed and get their security clearance until the day they move in.

Sounds as straightforward as the MobileMe rollout.
Haha :D!

"Obama staffers were flummoxed by all the out-of-date Microsoft software left over from the Bush administration"
That's not in the WP article. That's a editorial added by a blogger. If you think that constitutes "bush bitching" you're on a hair trigger. You'd do well to read the article - Obama's staff never bitch or blame bush at all.

Did Obama really think the government could drop $1000+ for every computer the whitehouse uses so he could have a mac?
Of course not. Where in the article does it even say anything of the sort :confused:? It is highlighting the difference between the technology used in the campaign (which allowed a relative freedom) to the bureaucracy and rigmarole required by whitehouse policy and Obama staffers struggling to get orientated.

Not only that, but its freaking XP! Its been around for a while and if you dont know how to use it you cant blame Bush for "leftover" tech.
Again this has nothing to do with Obama's staff in the WP article. They never blame bush for not being able to use the tech. Again I suggest you read the article. They don't blame anybody but themselves and the process.

It seems that Obama likes to have some excuse why everything wqas done wrong prior to him.
There aren't any excuses from Obama in the article at all. You're making things up.

It seems like he missed the wagon on this one and wasnt prepared for the switch.
I agree with this. The general idea of the article is that the Obama camp is in relative disarray compared to their campaign. Whether this is down to whitehouse policy or their own unfamiliarity with a different tech systems is up for debate.

gotzero
Jan 24, 2009, 04:40 PM
I think they probably took the real equipment with them when they left (http://ivoryterminal.com/2009/01/22/at-least-they-will-save-some-money-on-archives/).

Old computers are one thing, especially if everyone had laptops anyway, but non-working phones seem pretty unlikely. Based on the secrecy of the administration regarding saved communications, I do not think they were leaving anything up to chance.

NoSmokingBandit
Jan 24, 2009, 04:45 PM
That's not in the WP article. That's a editorial added by a blogger. If you think that constitutes "bush bitching" you're on a hair trigger. You'd do well to read the article - Obama's staff never bitch or blame bush at all.


Im sorry, heres a quote from the article itself:
1•"Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages"
also:
2•"The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software."
3•"The team was left struggling to put closed captions on online videos."


1•Since when is XP from the "dark ages" of tech? Most big businesses are still running xp. Im still running xp. My school still runs xp. My workpace still runs xp. Dark ages? I think not.

2•They lack the ability to go from osx to xp? I understand that some people arent that great with tech to begin with, and this gets worse as you age, but if they cant handle using xp i really dont have any faith in them to ever get their computers under control. Like i said up there^^ Xp is everywhere, if you cant transition between osx and xp you really have nobody to blame but yourself.

3•I have never edited video, but i guarantee you that i could figure it out with 15 minutes and google. It really just seems like they arent trying. Either that or the media is spinning this like a pottery wheel (sorry, i suck at similes...) and making it sound like Bush failed to do anything in the white house, which wouldnt surprise me; bush takes alot of flak for things that he didnt do. Granted, he messed up quite a bit, but people actually blame him for the stock market when it was slowly building up to this for a long time :rolleyes:
Im all for pointing fingers, just make sure you have the right guy first.

robanga
Jan 24, 2009, 04:49 PM
3•I have never edited video, but i guarantee you that i could figure it out with 15 minutes and google. It really just seems like they arent trying. Either that or the media is spinning this like a pottery wheel (sorry, i suck at similes...) and making it sound like Bush failed to do anything in the white house, which wouldnt surprise me; bush takes alot of flak for things that he didnt do. Granted, he messed up quite a bit, but people actually blame him for the stock market when it was slowly building up to this for a long time :rolleyes:
Im all for pointing fingers, just make sure you have the right guy first.

Precisely. It was junk journalism, plain and simple. The less money that can be made in journalism, the worse their product gets.