US Defense Secretary Mulls Rapid Grants For Tech Companies 58
itwbennett writes: The push for greater cooperation with tech companies has been a big theme for the DOD in the last year, but many big tech companies so far have been wary of the government's overtures following NSA spying revelations. Now, the government is taking a more 'if you can't join them, build your own' approach. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering offering rapid seed funding to private companies as a way to encourage more work on technology projects with the commercial sector, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said Wednesday. 'The DOD has to tap into all the streams of innovation and emerging technology and it has to do so much more quickly,' Carter told DARPA's Wait, What? conference in St. Louis, Missouri.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
I forget which conference is being co-hosted this year -- is it O RLY or Srsly? Do I get a discount if I also register for "Yeah I Went There"?
Re: (Score:2)
Keynote speech at this year's LMFDARPAO conference: "My missile defense array feels. I can't even."
Re: (Score:3)
Secretary of WAR! Damn pussies today!
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Republican? I was under the impression the current Secretary of Defense was part of a Democratic administration. Granted, when it comes to defense spending it's hard to tell the difference.
In any event, when we get our well deserved Trumpublican administration, things will change. More winning. More artful deals. More classy and sophisticated. Five big neon letters on the White House facade. Finally, I'll be able to stop worrying abut my children's future.
In case this has you scratching your head (Score:1, Insightful)
The DoD has been reaching out to the tech sector for decades and has found that even outright dropping money into the laps of tech companies is not enough to get them to do business with the military, er, government. So they're trying again, hoping the new generation is dumber than the last. Hint, kids: no one helps them unless they have a gun to their heads for [wikipedia.org] very [wikipedia.org] good [wikipedia.org] reasons. [wikipedia.org]
wait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...what do they call it when you begin to blend government and business..."
Well, it really depends on the way they blend.
In this case it is the government seeding ownership for the means of production, therefore, "communism" is the word.
Wait... wasn't "communism" a rude word in USA? Weren't communists USA arch-enemies? Too high a danger. Maybe USA should nuke the entire DoD from orbit, it's the only way to be sure, after all.
Re: (Score:1)
The USA doesn't do it that way, they do it the corporate fascist way. You know, like the Nazis
Re: (Score:2)
"The USA doesn't do it that way, they do it the corporate fascist way. You know, like the Nazis"
Maybe as a general matter you are right, but I was talking strictly about this case, it looked communist to me.
Nevertheless... humm... Weren't those "Nazis" guys of you Captain America's arch-enemies? I know from Marvel that Captain America is All The Good America Represents, therefore Captain America's arch-enemies must be really nasty guys so... Let USA nuke the entire USA from orbit, it's the only way to be s
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe as a general matter you are right, but I was talking strictly about this case, it looked communist to me.
LOL! Wait...are you serious? Perhaps you should retake Polysci 101.
The goal of communism is to create a classless society by eliminating the power of the bourgeoisie. If the government (DOD) is "seeding" the means of production by handing over money/power to the proletariat, then you would be correct in describing the policy as communist. But for some reason, I have a sneaking suspicion that proles won't be reaping any benefits of this arrangement. It is the bourgeoisie that will benefit.
So no, not
Re: (Score:1)
Generally correct, but I believe a more accurate description of the US is a fascist oligarchy composed of the power elite in politics and finance/banking and currency (the Fed for just one example).
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't those "Nazis" guys of you Captain America's arch-enemies?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly
Re: (Score:1)
> I forget the name, but I do recall there were a lot of dead bodies. So, probably a mistake.
I think the answer is here [youtube.com] somewhere...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh huh. And I'm sure it was all smiles and sunshine pre 2003. Not saying we didn't blow the execution to an extent that some people shouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror, but some places just invite chaos by their very nature. Case in point: Egypt, Syria, Libya: not a single American boot on the ground before the "unpleasantness". One could make the case the same thing would have happened in Iraq regardless.
It's as though the parent poster talked about Subject A, and you replied as though you were making a response to him/her, but proceeded to talk about Unrelated Subject B.
Re: (Score:2)
It's as though you didn't actually think out what they guy you're replying to was actually talking about.
He's saying Iraq was a shithole with mass killings and on the verge of civil war before we went in. And he's right. The other countries he named are pretty much the same (well, not so much Egypt). While we're directly or indirectly responsible for most of the death in Iraq, all we really did was pop the lid on the pressure cooker. The pressure was already there.
I don't think we should have gone to Ir
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
So... the oil for food program would have kept things going smoothly after Saddam Hussein's death or a coup?
It was a bandage at best. Iraq's problems were only kept in check by its government, and its government revolved around the Hussein family. It was an inherently unstable situation.
You can blame us for setting it off early, but it would have happened eventually whether or not we were there. Some would say it would have been worse, but that's a debate for the experts.
Re: (Score:2)
Inherently unstable? Really? Saddam ruled Iraq for around 24 years. Sounds pretty stable to me.
The USSR was stable under Stalin. North Korea is stable under the Kim family.
The difference? The Soviet Union had formal way of determining leadership, and most of it had a long history of being "Russia." It had a multilayered government under Stalin that could keep things going. Regime change was pretty much "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."
North Korea is a unified people with a government organized around a bureaucratic military. It doesn't matter who is at the top; the structure under
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying Iraq was a shithole with mass killings and on the verge of civil war before we went in.
True, but we invented whole new levels in stupidity with our Iraq policy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly not disputing that.
I wish I could say we'll learn from it, but considering we apparently didn't learn from Vietnam, we'll probably do it again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US GOVERNMENT leaves nothing but DEATH in its wake
I'm OK with death. What I don't want to have happen is to get my technology slapped with an dual use, ITAR, Wassenaar classification. So they can strangle the market for my product and turn me into a slave for the Pentagon.
Re: (Score:3)
The US GOVERNMENT leaves nothing but DEATH in its wake
See: internet
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US government leaves death in its wake over there.
It leaves money in its wake over here.
Guess where it's trying to woo businesses?
this is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Crony capitalism... on speed! What a great idea!
Re: this is... (Score:1)
Crony capitalism worked pretty well for obamacare, oh wait nevermind
You lie down with dogs... (Score:1)
...you get up with fleas.
Re: (Score:2)
"two things happen when you tangle with a pig; you get dirty, and the pig has fun."
(ok, who's next?)
There's an ancient term for this (Score:2)
The push for greater cooperation with tech companies has been a big theme for the DOD in the last year, but many big tech companies so far have been wary of the government's overtures following NSA spying revelations.
This is called reaping what you sow.
Rapid spending ... (Score:1)
So essentially they want to bypass all forms of spending oversight, and want to be able to freewheel spending money on long bets with nobody telling them how they can spend it.
A paranoid DoD jumping at shadows, and looking to throw money at the private sector for whatever buzzword someone comes up with. Yeah, like this won't lead to massive amounts of utterly wasted money without any adult supervision. This is a license to spent like drunken monkeys on whatever random shit gets in someone's head.
Essential
Can't we relax for a couple of years? (Score:2)
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said Wednesday. 'The DOD has to tap into all the streams of innovation and emerging technology and it has to do so much more quickly,'
Question 1: Do we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined [washingtonpost.com]?(*)
Question 2: Is our military already 1,000 times stronger [military1.com] than the next strongest power?
Question 3: Is there an immediate threat to the US from... anyone?
We're killing our country with all this needless spending.
Can't we just sit back and relax for a couple of years?
(*) This doesn't count militarization of the police, or internal police forces such as Homeland security, DEA, TSA, National Guard, and others.
Re: (Score:1)
Can't we just sit back and relax for a couple of years?
Depends on how many shares of the military industrial complex you own.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Not as a percentage of GDP, no. And we do more with our military than the rest of the world combined.
2) I question that statistic. So do people in the comments on that page you linked to.
3) Depends how you define "threat." And we don't just protect ourselves; we also protect S. Korea, Japan, Germany, and various other places by treaty. S. Korea, and to a lesser extent, Japan are definitely under constant threat. And our politicians are under threat; if a terrorist attack happens on our soil, no m
Re: (Score:2)
We used to be, sure. It's debatable now. It's not like we run the place any more, we just don't let them have their own military (except the SDF). I've lived there, and funny thing - I had to obey Japanese laws when I was there. You know, the ones created by the elected Japanese government.
I've seen enough of Japanese culture to know that, unlike the Germans, the Japanese still have all the nationalism and sense of racial cohesion required for the atrocities committed during their occupation of China, K
Re: (Score:2)
Which falls squarely into the "so what" category. The Pentagon frequently pleads Congress to stop buying weapons systems it doesn't need or want, and lawmakers continue to buy them - often without providing maintenance funds for said systems. Meanwhile, infrastructure in the US is crumbling. But I guess your attitude is that "All is well. Nothing to see here. Move along".
Wow, it's hard to breathe with all those words you're stuffing into my mouth.
First off, to the "so what" comment: It's important because we are the largest economy in the world. We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.
Second, what infrastructure? Be specific. I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.
As far as my attitude goes, you apparently think you can read
Idea for a Grant (Score:2)