Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: darpa.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to darpa.gov.

Comments · 8

  1. Location, location, location! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Why Are the Best and Brightest Not Flooding DARPA?

    A lot of people don't want to work for DARPA because it means living in or around Arlington, Virginia. (Source: http://www.darpa.gov/hrd/ )

    My friends aren't there. My family isn't there. It would take a shit ton of money for me to be able to financially justify relocating there, which would involve my wife needing to quit her job to come with, as well as needing to sell my house in a shitty market for selling houses.

    Sorry, but if you have only one location and you want the best and the brightest, you have to be willing to offer stupid amounts of money to make sure it's financially viable for all the best and the brightest. I think it'd be cool as hell to work on a lot of the projects I've seen come out of DARPA, but not enough to enter poverty (and more, to ask my family to enter poverty) to do it.

  2. Re:Same thing is happening everywhere by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative · on From Sputnik to the WWW, a History of ARPA
    Our politicans have surrendered the long term, instead looking for the quick fix.

    Except that they haven't. The DARPA spokesman in the article is right, and the "horizon" for DARPA (and CERDEC) programs are at LEAST 4-5 years out. In fact, some might argue that DARPA spends *TOO MUCH* money these days on pie-in-the-sky research and not enough on things that will directly benefit warfighters or civilians. Perhaps some particular program director is hard-nosed about this stuff, but it's certainly not true of DARPA in general.

    Just peruse the list of some of the stuff DARPA is funding for proof of the long horizon:

  3. Re:Same thing is happening everywhere by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative · on From Sputnik to the WWW, a History of ARPA
    Our politicans have surrendered the long term, instead looking for the quick fix.

    Except that they haven't. The DARPA spokesman in the article is right, and the "horizon" for DARPA (and CERDEC) programs are at LEAST 4-5 years out. In fact, some might argue that DARPA spends *TOO MUCH* money these days on pie-in-the-sky research and not enough on things that will directly benefit warfighters or civilians. Perhaps some particular program director is hard-nosed about this stuff, but it's certainly not true of DARPA in general.

    Just peruse the list of some of the stuff DARPA is funding for proof of the long horizon:

  4. Re:Same thing is happening everywhere by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative · on From Sputnik to the WWW, a History of ARPA
    Our politicans have surrendered the long term, instead looking for the quick fix.

    Except that they haven't. The DARPA spokesman in the article is right, and the "horizon" for DARPA (and CERDEC) programs are at LEAST 4-5 years out. In fact, some might argue that DARPA spends *TOO MUCH* money these days on pie-in-the-sky research and not enough on things that will directly benefit warfighters or civilians. Perhaps some particular program director is hard-nosed about this stuff, but it's certainly not true of DARPA in general.

    Just peruse the list of some of the stuff DARPA is funding for proof of the long horizon:

  5. Re:Same thing is happening everywhere by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative · on From Sputnik to the WWW, a History of ARPA
    Our politicans have surrendered the long term, instead looking for the quick fix.

    Except that they haven't. The DARPA spokesman in the article is right, and the "horizon" for DARPA (and CERDEC) programs are at LEAST 4-5 years out. In fact, some might argue that DARPA spends *TOO MUCH* money these days on pie-in-the-sky research and not enough on things that will directly benefit warfighters or civilians. Perhaps some particular program director is hard-nosed about this stuff, but it's certainly not true of DARPA in general.

    Just peruse the list of some of the stuff DARPA is funding for proof of the long horizon:

  6. Re:Same thing is happening everywhere by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative · on From Sputnik to the WWW, a History of ARPA
    Our politicans have surrendered the long term, instead looking for the quick fix.

    Except that they haven't. The DARPA spokesman in the article is right, and the "horizon" for DARPA (and CERDEC) programs are at LEAST 4-5 years out. In fact, some might argue that DARPA spends *TOO MUCH* money these days on pie-in-the-sky research and not enough on things that will directly benefit warfighters or civilians. Perhaps some particular program director is hard-nosed about this stuff, but it's certainly not true of DARPA in general.

    Just peruse the list of some of the stuff DARPA is funding for proof of the long horizon:

  7. More efficient, yes, easier to use, NO by Tmack · · Score: 2, Interesting · on DARPA Develops Dolphin-like Tail For Divers

    Not a lot of information available, but found this http://www.darpa.gov/dso/thrusts/bio/biologically/ powerswim/index.htm/ that states that this device is 85% efficient, whereas typical recreational fins are only 10% efficient. Interesting, but does that mean that the device is going to be 75% more difficult to use that regular fins?

    For the ammount of energy expended to move forward, as the other posters stated, no. It actually will take less effort to go faster, since its more efficient, thus more of your exerted power goes to moving you forward.

    From a usability aspect, after watching the video of it in use, I have to say YES, it will be more difficult. Besides remembering to not extend your legs so far that the thing will hit you in the nuts, as you bring your legs back it extends down and away from you, just waiting to snag stuff on the bottom. This thing would only be good for swimming pools and open water where you have no intention of getting near the bottom.

    SCUBA divers have a hard enough time as it is controling bouyancy so they can stay at a position close to the bottom without kicking up silt or breaking the delicate reefs. Having something like this just asks for trouble, and I seriously doubt any practial use for SCUBA exists. This being a DARPA project though, its more likely for military use such as covert SEAL ops requiring faster underwater swims. There it definately has potential, so long as they can shrink it down so its as small as/smaller than current fins when stowed, and can be put on/taken off just as quickly.

    tm

  8. 85% efficiency by K.os023 · · Score: 3, Informative · on DARPA Develops Dolphin-like Tail For Divers

    Not a lot of information available, but found this http://www.darpa.gov/dso/thrusts/bio/biologically/ powerswim/index.htm/ that states that this device is 85% efficient, whereas typical recreational fins are only 10% efficient. Interesting, but does that mean that the device is going to be 75% more difficult to use that regular fins?