This intrigues me. Because I wonder if there is a lot of second guessing at this point. I mean, when the WTC was attacked, people broke down each second of the days and weeks and months leading up to the attack to see if there was anything that they could have done to prevent it. In this instance, something was done. It was done incorrectly and with possible ethical implications just like everything else in New Orleans (or so it seems to the outside world). My questions regarding this are multiple. a) Why did it take until 2004 to think about disaster communications? b) How did the municipal government decide on "Exos Communications" in Denver to deliver the product? c) How did Holcomb decide to invest in said company? d) If all the other pieces had fallen together so nicely, why didn't anyone just ask Holcomb to either step down or sell his stock? e) What is "chief scientist" and can I become one? f) Would any of this truly have made a difference? g) If the "chief technology officer" (and can I be one?) can break into an Office Depot and make a "wi-fi cloud," do we really need $7 million and a communications company in Denver to do it for us? Or did he get directions from Microsoft?
So are we communicating yet?
US Attorney Cannizzaro pros and cons - What is Leon Cannizzaro's stance on Sanctuary Cities? This article cites gun control as one potential sticking point in a possible Cannizzaro nomination fo...
17 hours ago