DARPA Issues Call For Computer Science Devotees 80
coondoggie writes "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for a few good university-based computer science researchers who might be interested in developing systems for the US military. The move is seen, in part anyway, as a way for the agency to win more hearts and minds of the advanced science community."
In case you mssed it: (Score:4, Insightful)
These are JOB postings, guys. Rare enough in the US these days.
Of course, you'll have to pass a background check, so you all just go ahead.
Re:Am I wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe, maybe not. I know of researchers who have no problem with weapons funding whereas I do for the most part. IME, the DARPA program managers are sharp, but I reckon they're lap dogs of the military who simply want $WEAPON and don't really understand the science, and there are willing to throw money -- a lot of money -- at the problem.
In the current funding climate, it's perhaps inevitable to have to accept some funding from entities whose interests are not terribly academically aligned.
Re:I don't think I want them winning hearts or min (Score:3, Insightful)
You will be developing our SkyNet and Colossus robot based anti personnel devices.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could develop stuff like the Internet without at the same time spending such a vast quantity of otherwise productive wealth on deadweight loss activities like developing weapons systems?
And if we simply must pour huge amounts of otherwise productive wealth into deadweight loss activities, why not make it space exploration, unlikely-to-pay-off energy research, a cure for the common heartbreak?
What is it about killing people in large numbers that is so fascinating that it compels our interest?
It certainly isn't any actual utility: violience is the least efficient and effective way of solving any problem. History supports this with endless examples and a handful of counter-examples. So it can't be that anyone remotely sane ever looks at the world and says, "I know, what we need is more and better ways of killing people, because what we have isn't enough!"
So what is it? Why do people build such huge deadweight loss systems, far beyond anything required to simply protect ourselves from invasion by others? It can't be the purported serendipitous benefits because they could be had in far less devastating ways.
Re:Too bad they kill innocent people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think I want them winning hearts or min (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, a slashdove who acknowledges that DARPA actually had a positive role...
It gets results.
An item of faith among pacifists, particularly those protected by a government willing to use violence at a drop of a hat. But false; violence is quite effective, perhaps uniquely so; that's why all current systems of government are based on it.
Re:Am I wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, the internet is a product of DARPA (formerly ARPA). Having advanced communications is essential for an effective military spread over the world, but it also happens to be very handy for everyone else too. Military campaigns are about more than just shooting things and blowing things up; fundamentally, they're really just giant exercises in logistics. Logistics have many applications outside the military: construction, commerce, etc. Someone who develops tools to improve logistical capabilities would be helping not only the military, but many other areas of human endeavor as well.