Came here expecting the early history of SIGINT[1].

1. http://steveblank.com/2009/03/23/if-i-told-you-i%e2%80%99d-h...

> The government is doing a lot of interesting things they don’t disclose. You have a unique perspective on what the adversary is doing and the state of computer security at a whole other level.

I believe in our government's right to privacy for security's sake, but reading this makes me sad. They get a bad rap, including from me sometimes. So, If they are really doing things that are that cool and useful, they should share them, so we can see where the tax dollars are working. I have a feeling though that this statement was just for PR. Nothing at the classified level can be all that cool. Coolness is for SAP's.

(with :sarcasm

Thanks guys, for working for the NSA and making the Internet a great secure and safe place!

)

If you can navigate certification, authority to operate, authority to connect + other long list of red tape crap, there are quite a few opportunities for start-ups in this world.

If anything, sometimes you get an opportunity to mop up after a big incompetent behemoth messed up a large long project. You can come in quickly, finish it fast and save some hire up's ass.

(Generals and other hire ups, love nothing move than to look good. Picking winning companies to purchase from. Services and products).

I wonder what percentage of stuff is in house? I mean what percentage are developers who want to create new experimental things and the poor guys stuck kludging together some huge undocumented systems of contractor libraries?

Is innovation shot down if it competes with a contractor or has monetizing potential? How many fundamental systems are designed in-house and how many are external?

Is it easier to push yourself if you understand the potential significance of your work?