Re: Whoa

Post #351,099 by beepster 11/23/11 11:36:44 AM Reply	Re: Whoa Read the article. Says the administration, not the individuals. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,131 by crazy 11/23/11 4:44:41 PM Reply	I did. You're wrong. Sorry. http://bostonglobe.c...bhwk1K/story.html
Post #351,153 by beepster 11/23/11 10:35:47 PM Reply	Not the same article that one talks about individuals buying, and yep, thats different. Doesn't really change my opinion on the matter..but you are correct that this would not be security procedure of the administration. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,155 by S1mon_Jester 11/23/11 10:53:00 PM Reply	Actually you're wrong two ways Buy backs are acceptable (and SOP) if the administration is buying equipment from individuals for security. However, 1) Individuals buying hard-drives from governments (for security) is very unusual. Assuming it's purely security related, the other problem... 2) How is this NOT favoritism? These drives weren't auctioned off. They did NOT belong to Romney personally, they belonged to the state. If I can buy a drive, can I buy a computer? A boat? A plane? What price was paid? When I worked as a Government Contractor, I was not allowed to buy ANYTHING except through an action. But then again, Romney is a Republican. If Obama did this, you can bet people would yell. (Hell, they yelled about Clinton's administration walking off with 'W' keys from the keyboards!)
Post #351,173 by beepster 11/24/11 9:43:04 AM Reply	As I said, if you would read the initial article mentioned nothing of individuals, it was said "the administration"..which, btw, is the government. If it was individuals, then it is NOT SOP. I know this. And said as much. The opinion that doesn't change is the one where I said "I don't care". The W key thing was stupid too, but also destruction of property, not hiding anything. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,176 by Another Scott 11/24/11 10:04:32 AM Reply	GAO report. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf (220 page .PDF): Â Twenty-six EOP staff said that they observed a total of 30 to 64 computer keyboards with missing or damaged ÂWÂ keys. Two former Clinton administration staff said that they saw a total of 3 or 4 keyboards with missing ÂWÂ keys. Â Purchase records indicated that the EOP bought 62 computer keyboards on January 23 and 24, 2001. The January 23 purchase request for 31 keyboards indicated that the keyboards were Âneeded to support the transition,Â and the January 24 purchase request for another 31 keyboards indicated that it was a Âsecond request for the letter ÂWÂ problem.Â The purchase requests were approved by an OA financial manager who, in April 2001, sent an E-mail to an OA branch chief indicating that the 62 keyboards purchased in January 2001 were approximately the number that were defective because ÂWÂ keys were missing or inoperable during the transition. (The actual number of keyboards that were damaged during the transition is uncertain because of different statements provided by EOP staff regarding the number of damaged keyboards that had to be replaced.) There were 518 people working for the EOP the first few weeks of 2001. Interesting that it seemingly took 3 months for the keyboard purchases to be approved. I guess they hadn't heard of the GSA yet. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,181 by beepster 11/24/11 10:44:41 AM Reply	Interesting? That's pretty quick for gov procurement Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,184 by Another Scott 11/24/11 11:14:21 AM Reply	Heh. Don't think so.
Post #351,191 by S1mon_Jester 11/24/11 12:08:06 PM Reply	Destruction? Really? I don't know about you, but if a computer won't work with a keyboard, it certainly won't work if the hard drive is taken. Then it becomes a matter of semantics: If I take a 'W' and leave a quarter, is that better or worse than taking a hard drive and leaving $100 bill? You could argue that Romney's aides had permission...I'd argue from whom. Then I'd question if the Clinton administration officials had permission. :-) And the follow-up is still on the table - who gave Romney's aides permission to "buy" the hard drives and at what price? That question isn't insignificant.

Welcome to IWETHEY!