Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology? 150

Andy Updegrove writes "Governments are beginning to realize that perhaps the Internet really has changed everything, at least for them, and that they are going to have to deal with new responsibilities in this area. How will they deal with financial and medical data breaches? What can they do to ensure that first responders will be able to communicate the next time that terrorists strike in the Homeland, and how will the refugees of the next Katrina be able to access their electronic medical records? And what must governments do to ensure that public records will be available in fifty years, if they no longer maintain paper archives? Whether government should incline towards leading, following or simply getting out of the way is a matter upon which there are likely to be strongly held differences of opinion. It's also likely, though, that government will not have the luxury of opting for the third choice in some of the areas just mentioned. How well government chooses among those roles, and how well it executes when it chooses to lead, will likely have a profound impact on our lives in the years ahead."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology?

Comments Filter:
  • Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by fatduck ( 961824 ) * on Monday April 30, 2007 @02:59PM (#18932231)
    This is the government, right? They can just ask Jesus.
    • Very Easy (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      fatduck@gmail.com
      • Re:Very Easy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:28PM (#18932641) Homepage Journal
        "and how will the refugees of the next Katrina be able to access their electronic medical records? "

        Hell, why not worry how the CURRENT victims of Katrina will access their medical records. I pretty much have none. Not a problem in my case, but, those that needed meds and all still have a hell of a time...

        I think it will be interesting in the next catastrophy, to see what the US's reaction will be...especially if it is in another part of the US. If the next big hurricane hits NYC (which IS overdue for a major storm), or San Fran. gets creamed by an earthquake...will the gov response be any better? Will any of the money pledged actually get to the state? Very little of it has actually made it to LA even yet. And what little has, is held up by the state having to deal with the severe red tape attached to the funds by the Feds.

        A recent report on the radio here said that out of about $840M donated by foreign countries to help the victims of Katrina...only about $40M of it was sent to the gulf south region. The rest...was funneled to other govt. programs or lost I guess.

        I think it will be interesting to see if the next city that gets f*cked by mother nature, gets the same sub-par treatment from the govt as NOLA did. 2 years past and the neighborhoods that were decimated, not by a hurricane, but, by the US govt.'s levee system's failure due to poor worksmanship, poor engineering and it appears now, downright criminal negligance.....they still look like a bomb went off, and we hear daily the the Corps of Engineers is still cutting corners and fscking up the rebuild of the pumps and levees.

        Ok...*sigh* [/soapbox mode]

        • Re:Very Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by paeanblack ( 191171 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:50PM (#18932935)
          I think it will be interesting to see if the next city that gets f*cked by mother nature, gets the same sub-par treatment from the govt as NOLA did. 2 years past and the neighborhoods that were decimated, not by a hurricane, but, by the US govt.'s levee system's failure due to poor worksmanship, poor engineering and it appears now, downright criminal negligance.....they still look like a bomb went off, and we hear daily the the Corps of Engineers is still cutting corners and fscking up the rebuild of the pumps and levees.

          What about the Louisiana Corp of Engineers? What about the New Orleans Corp of Engineers? Doesn't a city get to a point where they realize after decades of inattention to those levees from the Feds, they have to step up to bat and deal with local problems on a local scale? Every big city has unique problems, and sitting and waiting for the cavalry to arrive after the fact isn't the most efficient way of actually getting things accomplished. ...end rant
          • "What about the Louisiana Corp of Engineers? What about the New Orleans Corp of Engineers?"

            Interesting idea. I honestly have no idea if they exist. If they do...well, the area is hurting so badly for resources right now...we can't afford to pay for it by local means.

            We have gotten some wins in congress, which will finally get us some long term money by finally getting more $$ for oil leases offshore, but, that won't start coming in for a few years (I hope to God it goes to coastal restoration, the first

            • by TFloore ( 27278 )
              We have gotten some wins in congress, which will finally get us some long term money by finally getting more $$ for oil leases offshore, but, that won't start coming in for a few years (I hope to God it goes to coastal restoration, the first line of defense against a hurricane).

              Bzzt. Sorry, thanks for playing.

              A couple posts up you talked about the levies, which are still being screwed up by the Corps of Engineers, and which you want rebuilt.

              Sorry, but you can either pick rebuilt levies, or coastal restorati
        • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @04:20PM (#18933303)
          A recent report on the radio here said that out of about $840M donated by foreign countries to help the victims of Katrina...only about $40M of it was sent to the gulf south region. The rest...was funneled to other govt. programs or lost I guess.

          So does that mean the US is now offically a third world country where foreign aid is channeled from aid to poor people/refugees to those with government connections to their overpriced pet projects?
        • hurricane hits NYC (which IS overdue for a major storm), or San Fran. gets creamed by an earthquake...will the gov response be any better
          Yes because the local governments are prepared to handle what they are suppose to.
          During all the time that the New Orleans and state government were complaining how things went wrong and they did not know what to do, other states disaster organizers were tring to get as much air time to show off thier places and procedures as is thier responsibility.
    • Re:Easy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:24PM (#18932577) Homepage
      They should just stay the hell out of it. Every time a government gets involved in anything they just end up screwing it up and making it an expensive, bloated mess. Lets face it governments are made up of people who'd probably be completely unemployable anywhere else, so why should anyone listen to their "ideas" about the 'net. The 'net has grown nicely without government meddling; why not leave it that way?
      • Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Redlazer ( 786403 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:37PM (#18932745) Homepage
        I agree 100%.


        Whenever you may find yourself asking "Maybe the government should be doing this?" the answer is almost ALWAYS "no."

        It would be like giving a nine year old a company to run. He has no understanding of it, and is most likely totally incapable of learning about it, so instead will apply stupid rules when things go wrong.

        The government is evil. Always.

        -Red

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Watson Ladd ( 955755 )
          Easy for you to say in the comfort of your well-policed neighborhood, where everyone has a somewhat safe job and no one dies from smallpox, over the internet, with a bank account that won't vanish overnight. Or do you live in Somalia?
        • by asninn ( 1071320 )
          That's true, but at times, it can be a necessary evil, too. The fact that you're not allowed to go out and murder random people is an infringement of your freedom, for example, but nobody in their right mind would complain about that or say that the government's evil for creating a law that prohibits random murders.

          Governments are still evil, of course - governments are made of people, and people are corrupted by power (not to mention that pretty much all systems seem to favour the most ruthless sociopaths,
      • by DM9290 ( 797337 )
        "The 'net has grown nicely without government meddling;"

        when did that imaginary scenario happen?
    • You missed the obvious answer:
      Q: "How Will Governments Keep Up WIth Technology?"
      A: Poorly, Very Poorly
  • by httpamphibio.us ( 579491 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:00PM (#18932241)
    That's it...
    • Government is always behind with technology (with one exception, below). When government catches up with technology that everyone else is using, they do it badly and it costs far too much.

      The one exception is that sometimes, governments will try a new technological approach before anyone else has tried it. In those cases, the approach being tried is always a bad idea.

      There's no solution, although strict regulations on government use of technology might be a good idea. I'd suggest taxes, but that doesn't
      • by samkass ( 174571 )
        It's ironic that your opinion is being read over the Internet.
        • It's ironic that your opinion is being read over the Internet.

          Don't worry, that'll be fixed soon enough.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by alienmole ( 15522 )
          Arpanet succeeded because of the involvement of universities, which most government technology projects don't have the benefit of. Perhaps I should have mentioned that option as a possible fix: governments and universities collaborating on multi-hundred-million-dollar technology projects, what could go wrong?
      • Government is always behind with technology (with one exception, below). When government catches up with technology that everyone else is using, they do it badly and it costs far too much.

        Someone already noted the irony of this statement, so I'll move on to the idea behind why this view misses the point. Simply, all tech you have in your hands RIGHT NOW is of government origin (at some point. Even cutlery was a product of Richelieu.) Google for "military Keynesianism" to get just a taste of why that is--and
        • I dealt with the alleged irony issue in another response. It doesn't affect my point.

          Your definition of government is far broader than the one I was using, so what you're saying and what I'm saying aren't entirely at odds. I'm simply referring to what government departments themselves tend to do with technology, internally. Take a look at software projects at, to pick three nice juicy examples, the FBI, the IRS, and the FAA. If you don't already know, the software systems that have been developed in tho
    • I think it was on Free to Choose [ideachannel.tv] where Milton Friedman pointed out that technology allowed government to expand to new levels sizes with technology. Of course as the article states there is a flip-side, and it will probably be really poor at adapting. It excels in expanding bureaucracy and diminishing individual liberty but not much else.
  • Ham's (Score:3, Informative)

    by jshriverWVU ( 810740 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:01PM (#18932257)
    Amateur radio is a great backup system when all else fails in the arena of communication.
    • Wouldn't it be better just to ensure that emergency cell towers were put in place? It seems like more responders have access to cell technology rather than amateur radio, and cutting out the middleman of having to relay messages through an operator would help things out. Also, it would allow people to call for help instead of climbing on their roofs and holding up sheets that say "Please Help".
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by zippthorne ( 748122 )
        That depends on what's failed. Amateur radio has significantly greater range (two or three orders of magnitude with inexpensive equipment) than cellular. Cell towers already have battery backup, and some have generator backup. IIRC, phone companies also have mobile power units as well as mobile cell towers with generators.

        Also, Amateur radio nets can function as a kid of "chat room" for emergency responders and volunteers. Issues that might get ignored through normal channels can be addressed by volunte
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by azrider ( 918631 )
          Some insight on Amateur Radio from a 20-year licensee. Ham operators tend to specialize (mine is disaster management). While it is nice to wish for a cell tower wherever it is needed in an emergency, it is extremely impractical. By contrast, I and my other Emergency Coordinators can set up a world wide radio net with batteries (or solar).

          Google for "ARRL" and "Field Day" - we do this at least once a year, every year.

          Google for "NDMS" (National Disaster Medical System) - we are intimately involved in ea

          • Woah.. I think you've posted one too low here. I support amateur radio. And hold a license. Though I haven't done much recently; too many other interests to remember to get join a RACES group before hurricane season hits..

            My main point was that there's no need for "emergency cell towers" when the existing infrastructure is already configured to work as such; the emergency towers would be just as likely as the existing network to go down, and would have far less coverage or redundancy anyway.

            I do however
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by paeanblack ( 191171 )
        Wouldn't it be better just to ensure that emergency cell towers were put in place? It seems like more responders have access to cell technology rather than amateur radio, and cutting out the middleman of having to relay messages through an operator would help things out.

        Your challenge, should you choose to accept it:

        Design an emergency cell tower that will survive a hurricane/tornado/tsunami/etc and will get approved by the zoning board, city beautification commission, and the historical society.

        Stuff break
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I'd probably use a blimp or some such. The government can afford to put together a handful of them for just this sort of emergency, and you could get more by offering companies that manage blimps for advertising, etc, tax incentives to make their blimps capable of supporting the mobile tower infrastructure...Talk about some people who'd be happy to see the Goodyear blimp.

          Building emergency towers on the ground is hugely foolish. You would never be able to guarantee power, never be able to guarantee that you
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • What about a couple of satellites with 2-way data getups?

          Look at Hughesnet; that works everywhere in North America. Stick a few satellite dishes on vans/boats and a mobile setup in a few emergency response planes, and you can drop in communication anywhere you want in the U.S.
        • unless the attacking aliens ionize the atmosphere to such a degree that even radio won't work!
           
          Then we'd be forced to rely on amateur smoke signals. Talk about low bandwidth...
        • by Gilmoure ( 18428 )
          How about building basic P2P texting into cell phones. That way, messages to be passed phone-to-phone even if a central switch goes down. Keeping at the text level would reduce message packet size, too.
  • Big Brother.
  • by darjen ( 879890 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:05PM (#18932309)
    Along with this explosion of information, I wonder how governments will be able to maintain their collective grips on society as a whole. Never before has access to anti-government information been so readily available. Maybe they will have to rely on ever more draconian measures to maintain the status quo - but I hope not.
    • MMmm vast topic.

      In the '90 governements were heavily involved in IT standardization though national comitees like ISO and so on. A big chunk of this disapeared although some standard comitees made significant contributions (ATM Forum, GSM by ETSI, ...).

      I agree with the author : we do need technical standards. But my own experience tend to make that standard making should be left to these tech commitees and I believe that a good government cannot lead but should keep looking into these matter with a certain
  • Keep up? (Score:2, Interesting)

    You have to be current to keep up. Last I checked, we weren't current.

    A funny addendum; our military is - from a technology standpoint - the best in the world...and that technology mostly ranges from the early 70s until about 2002. The recently retired F-15, which was developed in the 70s and 80s, hardly had a match in the world and I believe was never shot down (at least by enemy aircraft)...and would still punch everything else out of the sky except other American aircraft and maybe a modern MIG with a
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikew03 ( 186778 )
      The F-15 has not been retired, but the F-22 will be slowly replacing it over the next decade or two. And you are correct, no F-15 has ever been lost to enemy action in its entire 30+ year service life.
    • It would be an interesting show to see SU 30 [wikipedia.org], SU 35 [wikipedia.org], SU 37 [wikipedia.org], MiG 29 [wikipedia.org], MiG 31 [wikipedia.org], MiG 33 [wikipedia.org], MiG 35 [wikipedia.org] as well as F15 [wikipedia.org], F16 [wikipedia.org], F18 [wikipedia.org] and F22 [wikipedia.org] in a joint excercise fighting each other, how about 'the last man standing' game? Who would win? Would it be the best pilot in any of the above aircrafts or would it be a good pilot in the best (which ever one that is) plane?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This is generally true of big equipment. There aren't a whole lot of economies that can support development of a competitive fighter jet and then build it in quantity, along with all of the other support industries a project like that needs.

      For technologies that are closer to commodities the US military doesn't do so well. Currently they seem to be compensating by relaxing the rules on non-issue gear. When I was an active duty Marine (discharged in 1996) you could maybe get away with wearing non-issue cloth
      • by Gilmoure ( 18428 )
        Back in the 80's, we sometimes had to go off base for parts for B-52's and KC-135's, to keep enough of them up and running. We'd have 5 planes on the ground, all waiting for the same damn hydraulic fitting. Pissed us off. Still, SAC food was the best. They were even better than Sizzler.
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      The F-15 has not been retired.
      Many F-15s have had their radar updated as well as their engines. Not all mind you.
      The F-15 lost an exercise vs Indian Su-32s or some such version of the SU-27. Some would say that the it was stacked in the SUs favor but the F-15 still lost.
      Here is a news flash. The real reason the F-15 is still a good fighter is that the AIM-120 is a great missile.
      The AIM-120 isn't old tech...

  • Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:08PM (#18932349)
    Technology requires new levels of accountability from government. The words that every politician dreads to hear... Open Government.

    It's no longer acceptable or possible to hide inconvenient facts and delete damning emails. And the same Big Brother surveillance machine that governments are so enthusiastically creating is going to be watching them too. We will know when they meet in smokey backroom dealings, when they visit their prostitutes, who *exactly* issued an order that resulted in the deaths of innocents.

    Hopefully the burden of responsibility it puts on the shoulders of elected representatives will be so high that it weeds out those who are mere power hungry psychopaths.

    • Hopefully the burden of responsibility it puts on the shoulders of elected representatives will be so high that it weeds out those who are mere power hungry psychopaths.
      More likely, it weeds out those who are not power hungry psychopaths.

      Altruists will realize that their energy is better spent elsewhere for greater utility.
  • Its what governments do with things they don't like, such as free (ie 'hate') speech, competitors against their favorite lobbyists (eg marijuana) to name but a few.

    Expect huge bans on 'dangerous' technologies such as reading and writing or drawing pictures; these can all be used for 'hate' (or other emotive) speech or depictions of 'child abuse'.

    • Hate speech has never been banned in the US. It may be banned in the REST of the world, but Americans still have that particular right. As to the rest....does being a melodramatic paranoid-delusional headcase give you a woody or something?
      • does being a melodramatic paranoid-delusional headcase give you a woody or something?

        Get with the times; it gives me an etch.
  • A large dollop of FUD and an iron fist.
  • Well in the US, it would be helpful to have legislators at least somewhat familiar with the underlying technology of the things they are legislating. That may not happen until some younger blood gets elected. Old men in suits may have plenty of gravitas, but have their assistants print off their e-mails every day. It's another example of what gets you elected is often at odds with what is required to govern.
  • 1. Regulate

    2. Tax

    3. Sell licenses to our corporate masters.
  • How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology?

    The same way they always have - They'll ban it.

    ...Right up until they figure out how to exploit it to either spy on us or extract tax dollars from us, at which point it becomes compulsory.

    What a silly question!
    • What an ignorant post. Why don't you familiarize yourself with NIST [nist.gov]. Yea they'll just ban it like they always have. Oh wait they continually are on the leading edge of publishing standards and key guidance for the government and for general public consumption and use.
      • by pla ( 258480 )
        What an ignorant post.

        What a humorless shill.



        And FYI, the FP says "GovernmentS", not "The US Government". Why don't you familiarize yourself which which "N" NIST stands for.
        • Hey I actually owe you and apology and I'm gonna go ahead and write it instead of just not responding. I had read three posts before yours specifically referring to the U.S. and didn't notice you were answering to the overall "plural" governments. So just to let you know.. I apologize.. if you happen to read this. Thanks. :D
  • It can't. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baba Ram Dass ( 1033456 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:16PM (#18932463)
    Government can hardly deliver my mail intact (USPS), competently educate my children (public schools), take care of my grandparent's health (Medicare), or ensure my retirement (the ridiculous failure that is Social Security).
    • Other countries seem to have very good postal services, education systems, medical care and retirement systems, as well as functional public transportation and high speed rail.

      Maybe it's just that Americans suck at governing.

      • by treeves ( 963993 )
        How many countries have you lived in for comparison? I'm sure it's a very nice place, but Iceland doesn't count, in case your URL means what I think it means.

        What is the population of Iceland? Less than population of the Portland,OR metro area, where I live.

        How diverse is the population of Iceland? For example, 82.1% of the population are members of the National Church of Iceland.

        Maybe you're thinking of another country. Please do tell.

        • I'm amazed a slashdotter missed a Brave New World reference...

          Other countries, let's see... Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Spain, and Japan. Or basically the rest of the developed world.

    • Government can hardly deliver my mail intact (USPS), competently educate my children (public schools), take care of my grandparent's health (Medicare), ensure my retirement (the ridiculous failure that is Social Security).

      I'm as down as the next guy about the state of health care coverage in the U.S., the problems both public and private pension systems are facing, and I probably have a better understanding than most about the problems of education having actually been in the classroom as a teacher. Every one of these institutions could use significant improvement.

      But first off -- c'mon, USPS? How often *does* the gubmint lose or mangle your mail? I've had more negative encounters on that front with the private shippers (UPS and FedEx, I'm looking at you), and the number of things I've sent or received by US Mail is orders of magnitude larger.

      And second of all, I think the standard "Government Can't Do Nothin' Right" rant is actually one of the most dangerous ideas floating around our society today. It is, plain and simple, completely corrosive to the ability to build effective public institutions. Somehow, we the people have gotten to the point where we *accept* the argument that it's OK for the Feds to turn in a D- performance when it comes to disaster relief -- because hey, government's never effective, so it's never their job. And we readily elect people who loudly vocalize the idea that there's no such thing as an effective public solution.

      Why are we surprised that we don't have them? We're hiring vegetarian butchers to package and deliver the meat, folks.

      You don't have to accept the idea that public institutions are the answer to everything. Markets are great tools, if you understand them rather than treating them as a panacea. Private non-profits can do a significant amount of good. Churches do too. And in general, healthy social communities just make everything better.

      But everything in its place. Sometimes the right tool for the job is, in fact, a public institution. Sometimes, if you actually want to stablish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, what you're looking for is a government.

      We need to stop assuming government can't do anything. We need to start asking how it can do better -- what can make public institutions run effectively.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:19PM (#18932509)
    Please, PLEASE stop using the word "Homeland" - I'm not a Nazi or a Stalinist, and I can't stand members of Government or just fellow citizens talking like same - with the Mother/Father/Home-land bullshit.

    'Domestic' is a perfectly adequate adjective for describing things within the national boundaries of the United States. We're a young republic comprised of successive waves of immigrants - jingoistic vocab attached to the dirt, of all things, has no place here . . .

    -Nate
    • by Nimey ( 114278 )
      The Corps is Rodina, the Corps is Deutschland.
    • by Knara ( 9377 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @04:03PM (#18933129)
      Agreed. The whole 'Homeland' thing is really unnerving. From my viewpoint, the last thing this country needs is more nationalistic fervor. We already have too much of it being relabeled as "patriotism" (though that's been going on for a couple of centuries, but still).
      • That's so ignorant, it's downright funny. I can't think of a single country in the world which hates itself as much as America seems to hate itself.
        • by Knara ( 9377 )
          I'm not sure why not having "American" as an essential part of your self-identity is a requirement. What's the point of liking your country, anyway? Your government is a necessary evil, and your countrymen are not your family. A country should not be like a social club or an extended family, it is a structure of convenience and utilitarian necessity. Taking so much pride in mostly arbitrary national borders gets you all sorts of great things... like for example, world wars!
          • Ironically, it is the countries which have the least to be patriotic about, that are the most patriotic. Take North Koreans for example. They're starving, have a medical system right out of the dark ages, and are oppressed worse than any other people in the world. Yet they're downright fanatical about their patriotism, and treat Kim Jong Il like a God. THAT sort of patriotism gets your world wars. The American kind tends to stop them.
  • For the governments this Internet thing is nothing out of ordinary, just another level of complete misunderstanding and incompetence, just another level of bureaucracy to feed from. More meaningless and costly rules and regulations will be established, more red-tape will be created, the only difference is that in this case some governments may start working together, since the Internet knows no borders, which means the rules will have to be equalized for all countries (mostly,) to allow for equal punishmen
  • This is funny. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CherniyVolk ( 513591 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:41PM (#18932787)
    Governments catching up with technology? Seriously, there's a lot of people who believe technology only originates or is engineered in someones garage, in the openness of acadamia, universities and research labs of major corporations.

    First, Research and Development is akin to flushing money down the toilet; because it's not like an assembly line where you can accurately project shipped product at the end of the day. With Research and Development, you can go for decades and still have NOTHING. Keep this in mind, because the reality is, even Microsoft can't even afford a sustained and honest Research and Development lab. The ONLY people that have the TECHNOLOGY, AUTHORITY and WEALTH to handle such research is the GOVERNMENT. IF a company, university or individual presents something from research, 99.9% of the time that person was heavily funded by a GOVERNMENT entity; via contract or most commonly a federal grant.

    Governments DO have all the technology. Without fueling the conspiracy theorist, yes, governments tend to have applied technology or even awareness of algorithms, methods, theories even before acadamia has such benefit; tons of cryptography, physics and organic chemistry for example.

    MOST if not ALL technology is developed with ONE interest in mind. Military, and if it can give us an advantage. Ironically, this always boils down to a more efficient way of killing another man. We don't like this part of life, but military often does have fun with technology long before anyone else.

    I'm sorry if I'm getting a little over-zealous. It just kills me knowing that there are many people who think the government is the bane of technology while corporations are were it all comes from. Minus federal funding or incentive, corporations ever since the East Indian Trading Company probably can soley account to ONE invention... and we can probably think real hard for that and probably debate this invention... stocks. That's IT! A socio-path CEO to some Company didn't voluntarily give his entire fortune for the sake of good-will and to fund research in making adhesives, anethetics, plastic, space travel, computers, guns, aspirin, paper, jet engines... or even a damn fiber glass fishing pole!

    Companies wait for the government to de-classify technology, and shift through it looking for something that they feel they can market to the general public. Who do you think was behind developing the optical mouse... or, more specifically, who do you think has been behind 100% of all LASER research and application?
    • by sane? ( 179855 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:53PM (#18932993)

      Boy are you ever wrong. Military systems are often decades behind commercial products. The complexity of getting anything from government labs to fielded systems is so poor that its a wonder you ever see any output. The reason you see new concepts moving from government labs to commercial exploitation is because that's easier than military exploitation.

      The funding of short term research by commercial interests is many times that of the military domain. What used to be better was long term research, but that has essentially been killed off to fund the wars we've been having. Don't hold your breath for much of the long term nature coming out of government funding in future.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TFloore ( 27278 )
        Boy are you ever wrong.

        Both of you, really. Or, at least, you are talking about different things, and your comments about each other's topics are incorrect because you are not talking about the same things.

        Military systems are often decades behind commercial products.

        There is a reason for this. Logistics. Supply. Lifecycle support. The military buys systems and uses them for 20, 30, or more years. The US Air Force is flying B-52 bombers built in the 1950s, and plans to keep flying them into the 2030s. Well,
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Seriously, there's a lot of people who believe technology only originates or is engineered in someones garage

      That's because it is. Apple. HP. Yahoo. Google. I could go on all day here, but the idea that the government is the source of most new products is an insultingly stupid idea.

      Even if it were anywhere close to the end-all be-all that you describe, it's an absolutely abysmal return on [forced] investment. Imagine what kind of cool stuff we'd have today if I could [voluntarily] help fund more research by
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dkf ( 304284 )

      Keep this in mind, because the reality is, even Microsoft can't even afford a sustained and honest Research and Development lab.

      But the reality is you're wrong. Firstly, MS do keep a highly regarded research lab, and they'd not be highly regarded if they weren't sustained and honest. Secondly, there are much bigger companies than MS who also have excellent research labs. Sure it's true that such labs are often involved in research projects funded by governments (everyone always loves external funding, where

  • by DrData99 ( 916924 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @03:48PM (#18932911)
    While it is very easy to take cheap shots at what the government can and can't do, the National Archives and Records Administration (http://www.archives.gov/) is taking a very proactive approach towards dealing with the long-term electronic records problem. NARA employs some of the most dedicated and highly trained archivists in the country, and this is one area where the government will probably lead.
  • When I clicked the link I thought it said "Wii Government". I got excited and thought Nintendo bought a country... :-/
  • "Governments are beginning to realize that perhaps the Internet really has changed everything, at least for them, and that they are going to have to deal with new responsibilities in this area. How will they deal with financial and medical data breaches? What can they do to ensure that first responders will be able to communicate the next time that terrorists strike in the Homeland, and how will the refugees of the next Katrina be able to access their electronic medical records? And what must governments do to ensure that public records will be available in fifty years, if they no longer maintain paper archives? Whether government should incline towards leading, following or simply getting out of the way is a matter upon which there are likely to be strongly held differences of opinion. It's also likely, though, that government will not have the luxury of opting for the third choice in some of the areas just mentioned. How well government chooses among those roles, and how well it executes when it chooses to lead, will likely have a profound impact on our lives in the years ahead."

    Why is government always the answer to any problem anymore? The internet is much like the printing press.. are we to controll what people are able to read too?

    I say internet regulation is not governments job.

    • "Whether government should incline towards leading, following or simply getting out of the way is a matter upon which there are likely to be strongly held differences of opinion."

      Vila: You've decided to be led like the rest of us.
      Avon: I shall continue to follow. It's not quite the same thing.
      Vila: I don't see the difference.
      Avon: I didn't really think that you would.

  • by MrNougat ( 927651 ) <ckratsch@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 30, 2007 @04:21PM (#18933317)
    If govt's are now, in 2007, just beginning to realize that they should try to keep up with technology, they're about twenty years too late. I say that's a good thing.

    Governments have always had their caches of data, dossiers on various people, classified documents. They've had systems (whether they be electronic or not) to manage that data. The citizenry, historically, has not had the ability to collect, distribute, or parse data on the scale that governments have.

    Yes, governments can control populations with brute force, but it's much more effective to control populations with information - through misrepresentation, repetition, omission, incorrect weighting, and selective release. Populations have not been able to organize well against these kinds of propaganda strategies. Until now.

    The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy. Some individuals are finding a space on the national and world stage, even if that space is in their niche area.

    I pray that governments continue to stay behind the technology curve. Take away my Second Amendment rights all you want; you'll have to pry the internet from my cold dead hands.
    • > The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy.

      In your dreams! There's more information than ever on the internet. Anything can be looked up in a few seconds. And in this time we have:

      - Fox News channel
      - truckloads of myths circulating
      - Americans supporting a war completely because of false information despite virtually the whole world

  • They'll do it like this. [sdsu.edu]
  • Stated simply, government will never keep up with technology, since they are not involved in its innovation. At best, we can hope that the gap between "current" technology and that in the hands of government shrinks to the point where government is no longer living in the land of fossils.
  • My guess is never, seeing as how the gov't still hasn't repealed the second amendment.

    [puts on flame retardent suit]

  • With the exception of the military and possibly NASA, it'll be lagging behind the front-runners and get the technology a few years after it's tested and more polished than when it first comes out. It'll also probably experience fewer problems than companies that jump from one new technology to the next as soon as they're introduced. Governments have been keeping up with technology for the past few thousands of years. Sure, it wasn't always electronics, but you think that they had the technology to build

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Working...