Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft CEO Defends Pentagon Contract Following Employee Outcry (theverge.com)

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is defending the company's $479 million contract with the Pentagon to supply augmented reality headsets to the U.S. military. "We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy," he told CNN Business at Mobile World Congress. "We were very transparent about that decision and we'll continue to have that dialogue [with employees]," he added during the exclusive interview. From the report: Microsoft was awarded the contract to supply "Integrated Visual Augmentation System" prototypes to the U.S. military in November. The company could eventually deliver over 100,000 headsets under the contract. Microsoft's HoloLens augmented reality technology allows users to see the world around them, but with virtual graphics overlaid. The Israeli military, which has taken delivery of some HoloLens headsets, says the technology can be used to help commanders visualize the battlefield and field medics to consult doctors. According to procurement documents, the U.S. military is seeking a single platform that provides its forces with "increased lethality, mobility and situational awareness" in combat. Microsoft employees have recently circulated a letter addressed to Nadella and Brad Smith, the company's president and chief legal officer, arguing that the company should not supply its HoloLens technology to the U.S. military. "It's not about taking arbitrary action by a single company, it's not about 50 people or 100 people or even 100,000 people in a company," he said. "It's really about being a responsible corporate citizen in a democracy."

113 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh, linking to the Verge? by ToTheStars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about a source that doesn't abuse YouTube's copyright system to cover their incompetence? Here's one: https://www.engadget.com/2019/...

    For context: https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    (I guess I don't know that Engadget hasn't ever misbehaved, but Vox and The Verge are pretty regularly obnoxious.)

    1. Re: Ugh, linking to the Verge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google employees were in the news not too long ago for protesting Google's military contract. They said, as employees and not as shareholders, that they have a say in how their work is used. I guess they do if management listens, but they don't have a legal claim to that. Objecting to something only because it's being done for the military is silly. The Internet was born in a defense research agency and Google is built on it.

    2. Re: Ugh, linking to the Verge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Objecting to something only because it's being done for the military is silly.

      Objecting to something because it was invented for the military is silly.

      Objecting to your thing that wasn't invented for the military being used for the military is significantly less silly.

      If it helps, suppose you thought you were helping out your country's intelligence service with some database software to help out the anti-terrorism effort, and it ended up being used for spying on American citizens, like PRISM or something. You'd feel just a little bit betrayed, too.

    3. Re:Ugh, linking to the Verge? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Add Vice to that list. Forbes for their crappy ads. Anything with a paywall.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Modern tech started with the US Military by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it wasn't for the armed forces investing lots of money in this stuff in the last 3/4 of a century most of you kiddies wouldn't have a job today except maybe factory work

    Intel started making memory chips for Minuteman missiles

    the internet and everything around it was originally a DoD program to build a network that could survive a nuclear war

    CPU development was originally financed by the military

    The ENIAC was built to calculate artillery fire tables

    NASA was a civilian program to build ballistic missiles that just happened to buy lots of then new mainframes

      DARPA funded the original AI and machine learning research as part of the war in Afghanistan.

    the US military was one of Microsoft's first customers and even used Windows and SQL server on ships in the 90's.

    The Army was buying tens of thousands of Exchange and office licenses in the 90's.

    1. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Nah.

      Porn would have picked up the slack.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    2. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the fact that the USA is an empire & its military is inextricably intertwined with US commerce seems to have escaped Microsoft's employees. It's also the employees democratic right to dissent. That puts empiricism & democracy at odds with each other. Then again corporations are more feudal than they are democratic. Let's see how this little mess of cognitive dissonance plays itself out.

    3. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah. Porn would have picked up the slack.

      Porn is a consumer of tech, and provides market incentives for innovations, but they don't fund research.

      Porn drove wide adoption of VCRs and DVDs, but pornographers exploited the tech, they did not create it.

    4. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by TigerPlish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And with the Brits, and Poles, and Germans, and.... fellas, WAR advances tech.

      Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:2, Troll)

      That said -- WTF, how is the parent modded Troll?! It's a Troll to tell the fucking truth?

      Truly, this place has gone over to the fucking dogs.

      Can someone explain to me what, exactly, was Trollish in the parent? Huh?

      Oh right, most people here use Troll instead of replying a rebuttal.

      the OP was right on the money. Just a little narrow in scope in who bumped up tech in the last big one. It was all the players... yes, even ITaly, where the hell you think the swept wing came from?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    5. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by Atmchicago · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it wasn't for the armed forces investing lots of money in this stuff in the last 3/4 of a century most of you kiddies wouldn't have a job today except maybe factory work

      First, all that money comes from taxpayers ("you kiddies"). Second, what you say just means spending on research enables discoveries and new engineering. There's no reason why that spending has to be military. It may even be the case that, had the money been spent on non-military applications, then the taxpayers would have received an even better bang-for-buck.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    6. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The dumbass snark about porn and invention has always been bullshit.

      How's laserdisc doing?

      Apparently even porn couldn't make that technology take off.

    7. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 3, Informative

      CPU development was originally financed by the military

      First CPU, the 4004, was developed for a calculator

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 1

      The computers on the Apollo rockets were little more than calculators - they did not advance the state of the art, they forked current technology into their very particular use case.

      --
      Ken
    9. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Read Accessory to War by Tyson and Lang. "The unspoken alliance between astrophysics and the military"

    10. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by MakerDusk · · Score: 1

      I will point out that the lisp machines predated the room sized computer.

    11. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

      Like porn? Like what? The iPod etc. The i-Whatever and similar? What is "more useful"?

    12. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "the US military was one of Microsoft's first customers and even used Windows and SQL server on ships in the 90's.

      The Army was buying tens of thousands of Exchange and office licenses in the 90's."

      So it is their fault. Now we all know.

    13. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Not to mention any tech company today has dumped the lion share of its US workers and replaced them with foreign imports to cover the "talent shortage" dumping US employees created. The foreign imports don't want to contribute to the US military and dominance. Suprise suprise.

    14. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by Solandri · · Score: 1

      then the taxpayers would have received an even better bang-for-buck.

      Better bang-for-the-buck almost always comes at the cost of a slower timeframe. I can save a lot of money buying a better bang-for-the-buck CPU, but someone still has to overpay for the shiny, new high-end CPUs to fund Intel and AMD's R&D to sustain their current rate of technological progress. So yeah we might have saved some money having the civilian sector develop these things instead of the military. But if we had, we would probably be at the equivalent of 1970s or 1980s technology today. And that's ignoring the possibility that we might've been part of the German or Japanese empire today. Remember, Great Britain just barely managed to hang on against Germany in WWII while waiting for the U.S. to rev up arms production and train its armed forces. And prior the battle of Midway (which the U.S. won primarily because it had radar and advanced carriers, and dumb luck), the Japanese had won every naval engagement against the allies (Australia was in danger of being invaded). If the U.S. had held back military spending prior to WWII in order to get better bang-for-the-buck, history might have turned out quite differently.

      There's also the type of research which requires extensive searching of a solution space. NASA started off as NACA - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Their primary job was to wind tunnel test every possible wing profile to see how each one performed, because the military wanted to be sure it was using the best possible wing design. No single company or research lab is going to undertake that kind of endeavor. There has to be a single large customer who wants it badly enough and who'll fund it to make it happen. And even if a civilian research lab had done it, it would've cost the same. (If a company had done it, it would've cost several times more - the information would've been proprietary, so each company would've had to duplicate it.)

    15. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Informative

      CPU development was originally financed by the military

      First CPU, the 4004, was developed for a calculator

      That was the first microprocessor, not CPU. The first small-scale integrated CPUs were designed for missile guidance systems.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    16. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by astrofurter · · Score: 2

      Shhhhhhh.... Don't mention the elephant in the room!

    17. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 1

      Lisp machines predated ENIAC?

      Citation...

      --
      Ken
    18. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 1

      No, Microsoft isn't going to let a handful of "engineers" send a half-billion dollar project down the crapper.

      A handful of people may be able to drive Amazon out of Queens, but that isn't going to happen at Microsoft. Amazon walked away from a discount on taxes and will likely get a larger discount by not having to match NYC/NYS income tax matching expenses outside of New York - see most other locations would have had much lower tax bills than NYC/Queens would after the 10% discount Dem. Gov. and Dem. Mayor negotiated.

      --
      Ken
    19. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 1

      "Think it through properly" - uhm, no. Your dystopian dream is based on the need of a soldier to use a "heads-up" display to fire his weapon. That is non-sensical.

      --
      Ken
    20. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 2

      The US Military is STILL a large customer for Microsoft products, they use Windows and SQL Server on current military vessels.

      --
      Ken
    21. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by kenh · · Score: 2

      The effort to reach the moon drove way more tech and for less than the military...

      The Vietnam war cost $168BN, in 1975 dollars:

      https://thevietnamwar.info/how...

      The Apollo space program cost $170BN:

      https://www.extremetech.com/ex...

      Or did you mean all military spending since 1775?

      --
      Ken
    22. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by war4peace · · Score: 1

      If the U.S. had held back military spending prior to WWII

      But they had... until the Japanese kicked the hornet's nest at Pearl Harbour.

      Anyway, I do remember Nobel and his peaceful-driven research, which was promptly exploited for military purposes.
      Point is, military-driven and civilian-driven research would both be applied in the military field, if there's the smallest chance it could be applicable, regardless who does the research.
      Now, if Microsoft employees don't like it, they are free to protest,. resign, sue Microsoft, do whatever they feel is right (within the boundaries of the law, of course). But make no mistake, the technology WILL be invented and WILL be used, if not by the USA first, then by other governments. Technology moves forward and all of it is militarized where applicable.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    23. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by jouassou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US has the largest prison population in the world per capita. If you define a "free country" as a "country where you deprive as few people as possible of their freedoms", then the prison population alone disproves your point.

    24. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Officially. When dipshits like you post that, you always forget to put in the "officially". And when you read through the link you posted, they admit, it doesn't include people who are in forced labor camps, reeducation camps and various other detention centers. Just prison.

    25. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      Foreign imports like Satya Nadella?

    26. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by MarkVVV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have an easy solution to that. Do not commit felonies, then you won't go to prison.

    27. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If a company had done it, it would've cost several times more - the information would've been proprietary, so each company would've had to duplicate it

      If you don't know about government contracting, please don't spread this BS. First of all, many of these efforts are handed off to contractors because government personnel rarely have the skill set, equipment, workforce, etc., required to do the job. Your claim that it would have been more expensive is bullshit. I've dealt with government contracts for decades, and the requirements contractors are handed are often ridiculously written which causes the contractor to attempt to fulfill "needs" that don't exist, and the reason why you end up with $500 hammers. As for "proprietary", that can be written into the contract that the government owns whatever gets developed.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    28. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Um, Fly by wire was a direct result of the Apollo system developed at MIT.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Just lost your geek card there ken. the first microprocessor was not the first CPU.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    30. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Laserdisc sucked in several ways, and the only ways in which it was superior were image quality, and not having to rewind. (Super Beta had PCM audio, and could have had more complex digital audio — probably would have, if it had stayed around.) Mostly, though, LD was just too expensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Intel started making memory chips for Minuteman missiles

      You know who didn't? MOS Technology.

      I mention this because the alternate timeline where Intel doesn't exist isn't one where the personal computer revolution doesn't occur. Intel certainly made a massive impression with the original 4004, but the 4004 as-was was virtually useless, it was a landmark because it was the first of a generation of CPUs that people were working on anyway.

      At the same time as the 4004 was being designed, Intel had a parallel project called the 8008. The 8008 wasn't a development of the 4004 (IIRC it wasn't even made by the same people), it was an entirely different contract. Two external businesses, one making calculators, the other terminals, had asked Intel to put all the logic into a smaller number of chips. Intel responded by putting the calculator logic in the 4004, and the terminal logic in the 8008.

      So, what does that mean? It means if Intel didn't exist, then Busicom and CTC would have found another supplier, and there were plenty of companies making chips in 1970-72 that would have made them. TI and Motorola, to name but two.

      Assuming Motorola didn't make those chips, it's safe to say Motorola would still have produced the 6800. And its designers would have hopped over to MOS Technology with the 6502.

      And so the Apple II would still have been made. And meanwhile Jack Tramiel would have bought MOS, and it would have continued to make 6502s, and memory chips, and cool graphic chips, and eventually the VIC-20 and then Commodore 64 - the world's best selling microcomputer - would have been made.

      The company that made the 4004 and 8008 might have gone in the same direction as Intel, or not, who knows. But it wouldn't have mattered much. Without the 8080 we might not have seen the Z80 or S-100 bus, but it's fair to say we would still have seen the 68000, and then the PowerPC and ARM chips. And it's reasonable to suppose that as IBM repeatedly tried to enter the PC market during the 1970s, it would have eventually hit on a formula that worked, probably in the form of a 6502 or 68000 based machine.

      The DoD did indeed pump money into the industry, but that doesn't mean we ever needed the DoD.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood what he meant. If a company is conducting research under contract to the government, then that's essentially the government doing research - for instance, Newport News Shipbuilding builds aircraft carriers, but it's just as correct to say that the government builds them because NNS wouldn't be building them without the government paying them to do so. Similarly, Apple makes iPhones, even though it's actually Foxconn that performs the physical work.

      What the OP meant was it would be far more expensive for a company to go out *on its own* with no government funding and perform the same airfoil research with no immediate guarantee of a successful design, or customers for the new technology, because the financial risk would be so great. It'd also have been proprietary because it'd be foolish to allow potential competitors to leverage their research.

      As far as the $500 hammers, I have personal experience with that. Many years ago our office was contracted by the Navy to build plastic anti-static equipment cases. Despite our warnings, they demanded that they be made with an unsuitable polymer that warped horribly after being pulled from the molds, and the only thing those sad things were useful for was, in fact, office trash cans. Amortized over the pre-production run, they worked out to cost $10K each, and about a dozen of them sat proudly beside our desks, collecting various office refuse. We loved our $10,000 trash cans. Another adventure that you'll appreciate as someone involved with contracting - we had to deliver about 450 CD-ROMs to a Navy depot, and for some reason the quartermaster got kinda snippy about the fact that there was only one DD 1149 for the entire shipment. So, for the next shipment of 450 disks, we filled out an 1149 for each and every disk and packaged them all individually. He settled right down after that.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    33. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I have an easier solution: ban elected judges and elected prosecutors, eliminate grand juries, ban private prisons, and make plea bargaining illegal.

      You'd be surprised how much the prison population will fall when it's not in anyone's financial interest to keep it artificially high.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    34. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      The term you were looking for is sell-out. Those come from everywhere. One exception is statistically insignificant.

    35. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      The guy went off the deep end at some point there. But most of his post stands and your ad hominem attack doesn't logically detract from his argument.

      "Actual facts beat alternative-history "facts".

      There's no reason why that spending has to be military.

      Yes there is. It already happened. The past can't be changed.

      It may even be the case that, had the money been spent on non-military applications, then the taxpayers would have received an even better bang-for-buck.

      Care to write a paper, have it peer-reviewed, published, and then we can discuss it here once it hits the front page.

      Until then, this statement is more likely true:"

    36. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      So you are just a xenophobic - it doesn't really matter what those people do.

    37. Re:Modern tech started with the US Military by westlake · · Score: 1

      Porn drove wide adoption of VCRs and DVDs, but pornographers exploited the tech, they did not create it.

      It is fair to suggest that Disney drove sales of VHS and DVDs, as it did color TV sales in the 1960s.

    38. Re: Modern tech started with the US Military by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

      My argument remains the same, one guy is not representative of a group. He is hardly typical of Indians and Indians hardly represent all the foreign imports nor are all the foreign workers required to be opposed for my point to stand. In fact my point doesn't even require a majority, only a substantial vocal subset. A single exception is logically meaningless.

  3. Forcing Tech Staff to Create Death by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    This is what is really going on. The tech industry has taken up all the best workers who did not want to devote their lives to murder machines, killing men, women, children, kittens and puppies and anything else they can mange and mutilate to destruction.

    M$ has nothing much left in consumer appeal so is going down the death machine route, taking up their role in the mass extinction of humanity. Work for them and you might as well be working for any other mass murder manufacturer.

    This is bad news for M$ products, they will lose the best and get the rest, so you can expect a steady deterioration in the quality of their product. High end people with a conscience will simply not work for them, they will be stuck with unimaginative anal retentive third raters and that spells doom for the company.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Forcing Tech Staff to Create Death by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      the best tech workers seem to be the ones making cool stuff like F-22's and new aircraft carriers and drones. Not writing python scripts that are in perpetual beta

    2. Re:Forcing Tech Staff to Create Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This seems to be "Microsoft invents HoloLens" and then miliitary sees the (OBVIOUS) military applications and puts in an order for 100,000.

      This does not seem to be Microsoft being pro-military. Rather, the military buying 100,000 SKU off the shelf, not unlike if they ordered 100,000 Office 365 licenses.

      But I could be wrong. Still. How many food suppliers supply the US Military? Or "Skillcraft", the company that makes US Military pens?

    3. Re:Forcing Tech Staff to Create Death by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is bad news for M$ products, they will lose the best and get the rest, so you can expect a steady deterioration in the quality of their product

      Yes, the always high quality of their products will take a slide below that of their competitors. I expect that Windows 11 will be even worse than Linux Vista or even Apple ME.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Forcing Tech Staff to Create Death by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      They will only lose those naïve enough to believe that they don't need a military, and that if we just didn't have one, everyone would hold hands and sing We Are the World...We are the Children...LA, LA, LA. Clearly, you're one of those morons. Maybe you could go ask the people in Crimea how that worked for them, or any other country that got steamrolled.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  4. Wow. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did Microsoft just refer to the Department of Defense as an "institution we elected"?

    Because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it works.

    1. Re:Wow. by Shaitan · · Score: 2

      "Because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it works."

      No, that isn't SUPPOSED to be how it works. It definitely is how it works. Another alarming phrase "corporate citizen", last I checked corporations are not citizens.

    2. Re: Wow. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who's the Commander-in-Chief of the US Department of Defense? I thought the President was, but I could be wrong, not being a U-all.

      You've got it right. The pres says what, the sec of def figures out how, and interfaces with the rest of the military so the pres doesn't have to be a military expert.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Wow. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but as "Commander in Chief", who's really the head?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re: Wow. by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Both the President and Secretary of Defense are in the chain-of-command. They can give you orders, their specific responsibilities isn't really the concern of who they give the orders to. SecDef does not automatically get a salute, the President does. The President outranks the SecDef.

      Here is a link to a deck used to help recruits in the Navy learn their chain-of-command. The top parts are universal and then it starts getting navy specific with the top ranks being over pretty much the entire navy and then of course it starts to branch into something more specific to the recruits.

      https://quizlet.com/184847149/rtc-chain-of-command-as-of-january-1-2019-us-navy-dep-study-guide-flash-cards/

  5. What does that have to do with the price of tea by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy,"

    What about institutions that got elected through gerrymandering in oligarchies to protect profits for oil barons at the expense of human lives, especially in the middle east but also all over the planet? Asking for 7.53 billion friends.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:What does that have to do with the price of tea by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, we should just shut down all commercial and military development and sing Kumbaya. Please share your plan for moving forward toward your Utopia.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  6. At least its better than the alternative by Octorian · · Score: 2

    The alternative is giving this contract to one of your more traditional defense contractors, who is probably going to charge a lot more and deliver a significantly worse product. Oh, it'll also be late and grossly over budget, if it happens at all. And when all is said and done, they might procure Microsoft hardware anyways... as some component of their system that the news doesn't report on.

    1. Re:At least its better than the alternative by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The alternative is giving this contract to one of your more traditional defense contractors, who is probably going to charge a lot more and deliver a significantly worse product.

      Worse than a Microsoft product? Go on, pull the other one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:At least its better than the alternative by Octorian · · Score: 1

      So I take it that you've never used any software developed under government contract, designed to meet a formally agreed-upon requirements document, that actually has a user interface. :-)

    3. Re:At least its better than the alternative by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So I take it that you've never used any software developed under government contract, designed to meet a formally agreed-upon requirements document, that actually has a user interface. :-)

      No, but I've suffered the CA DMV's god-awful system... except that some people seem to be able to navigate it just fine, which tells me that it's as much a training issue as anything else. Anyway, Windows for Warships, anyone?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:At least its better than the alternative by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      As someone who developed software under government contract that was successfully deployed for over ten years, please tell me more about how it really works. Do you mean the vague, requirements typically written by government contract officers who are frequently new in their jobs and wouldn't know a "shall statement" if it hit them in the face? Or do you mean the requirements that are agreed upon and designed and coded to, only to be changed by the next contract officer who replaced the last one, and is now whining that your costing him more to develop to his/her changes? What about constant scope creep?

      Yes, contractors aren't all good, but you painting them all with a evil broad brush is also bullshit.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  7. -- Are You Nuts? by Slicker · · Score: 2

    Few people want war but ignoring reality by pretending there is no International threat is wilful ignorance deserving of punishment. These are our lives and the lives of our allies around the world that depend heavily upon advanced military technologies.

    The only thing holding back Russia and China is U.S. military power and this is waning -- and this isn't working so well, as of late.. Russia now holds tanks with longer shooting and driving range, more speed, and greatly superior armor.. Russia holds exceptional surface to air defense capabilities. China seems to think it holds military comparability and is pushing the limits with its claim on control of the entire South China sea and the 1/3rd of the worlds commerce that flows through it..

    North Korea continues and has recently expanding its production of nuclear ICBMs, under the cover of peace talks..

    War -- even world war -- is closer than it has ever been since the end of the last one. The era of peace we've enjoyed for so long is likely to soon end. Keeping it depends on advancing capabilities rapidly... Not doing so is murder far greater than anything you've mentioned.

    1. Re:-- Are You Nuts? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Opposite is equally true. While the MAD holds, none of the players you mention have any ability to initiate warfare. Attempting to dislodge MAD by advancing capabilities in relevant fields too far unilaterally leads to war.

    2. Re:-- Are You Nuts? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Are you seeing Indian and Pakistani armies going to war?

      As the answer here is no, and considering that there is plenty of actual war between the two in recent history, why are you lying in context by taking a single story out of context?

    3. Re:-- Are You Nuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      umm well, there is a pretty good chance of a war between those two at the moment actually...

    4. Re:-- Are You Nuts? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The chance of war is still almost zero, because MAD is in effect. That's why essentially all warfare between the two has been between military and proxy militias. Not military vs military, because that would trigger MAD.

      Why do you persist in lying about this?

  8. Getting anti-war-machine potential recruits ... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    ... to not bother applying will be one of the outcomes.

    The real question is, is it an intended outcome?

    Maybe companies make pronouncements like this to "encourage" people they see as rabble-rousers to leave or never sign on in the first place.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Getting anti-war-machine potential recruits ... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Oh noes! One less "Anonymous Coward" at Microsoft.

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:Getting anti-war-machine potential recruits ... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your safe space, where there's no need for war, and there are no evil adversaries.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  9. Um... not exactly by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the Military was just the excuse used to get the wealthy to let themselves be taxed so we could pay for it to be developed.

    I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?

    Also, are you suggesting the Army was responsible for the horror that is Microsoft Exchange and Office? Best argument for ending war I've ever heard in my life...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?

      The military as the excess that it currently is? Or just the military at all?

      While the former is certainly a valid point, the latter has a pretty simple answer to your question:
      Because not a single human being in the entire history of humanity has come up with a way to do so.
      100% of those that have tried have been obliterated and their civilization at best is a note in a history book, or at worse not even that.

      Most of us like civilization, and that requires a military to protect against those who do not like civilization and those who must always be in control of said civilizations.

    2. Re:Um... not exactly by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?

      So, if we tax the rich we don't need a military?

      What are you, 12 years old?

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Um... not exactly by Shaitan · · Score: 1, Troll

      In his defense, the military industrial complex is not the military.

    4. Re: Um... not exactly by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's funny how "the rich who won't pay taxes no matter what" still manage to make up 70%+ of all taxes collected.

    5. Re:Um... not exactly by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Indeed, you could theoretically change the way we allocate funds and make reforms to military spending in ways that dismantle the industrial complex that surrounds it without getting rid of the military itself. Decoupling billions from the military and moving it into funding for civilian research and infrastructure IS something that could be done without actually reducing the military at all.

      For an example look at the current "national emergency." It isn't to raid emergency funds of any kind, it is simply to access the military narcotics and construction funds. Why does the military have enough funds to build a freaking wall across the border in narcotics and construction funds? Why do they have a "narcotics" fund at all?

    6. Re:Um... not exactly by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      military-industrial complex
      Dictionary result for military-industrial complex /milter indstrl kämpleks,kämpleks/

      noun

      noun: military-industrial complex; plural noun: military-industrial complexes

      a country's military establishment and those industries producing arms or other military materials, regarded as a powerful vested interest.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:Um... not exactly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why do they have a "narcotics" fund at all?

      So they can give powerful narcotics to warriors. My dad used to sing the praises of the wonderful drugs they had in the military. He was a Marine ATC in Korea...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Um... not exactly by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "War on drugs where the USA is assisting other nations with the fight against the drug lords is the reason for the Narcotics fund. The construction fund is common sense for any military. "

      First is obviously a multi-billion dollar waste of funds. A construction fund is common sense although you gave a poor example since re-outfitting a carrier, ship of war, or other weapon wouldn't be paid out of it. The military needs construction funds, what isn't clear is why they need better than $3 billion when they have domestic structure and we aren't going anywhere new. You could replace all the embassies we have around the globe with $3 billion.

      It's actually surprising he needs to declare an emergency to do this at all but it probably has something to do with it technically being domestic use of military resources.

  10. I, for one, don't mind by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, mind you I used to work for the defense industry, so I may be a bit biased...

    I think war technology is a good thing. I would much prefer to simply not go to war, but that sentiment hasn't really held sway at any point in the last few thousand years or so. Somebody always wants to abuse somebody else, and when that ambition reaches the scale of having entire demographics in conflict, you get a war.

    Like all large-scale endeavors, a war is messy. People often have their own goals for joining an organization. In a large corporation, their goals might be as sinister as "get paid to sleep", but in a war, they might find a convenient way to hide a murderous rampage under the guise of patriotic service. Of course, this is something everyone (else) would like to avoid, but it's hard to spot the difference between a psychopathic killer and a well-trained soldier.

    In the rest of society, this is where a justice system comes into play. Knowing that evidence will be collected and that a crime is likely to be punished deters further crime. Attempts to hide a crime often just produce more evidence against the perpetrators. No, it's not a perfect system, and the justice system itself can be abused, but it's still a net benefit in a peaceful society.

    In war, the rigid justice system is often placed second to completing a mission, and any allegations of wrongdoing will be accompanied by very sparse surviving evidence. Within a few days of a crime, witnesses are reassigned, memories are repressed, and new missions take priority over a bureaucratic boondoggle.

    Technology doesn't have those limits. Events can be captured, and recordings can be archived. Decisions can be made far from the field of battle, in the safety of a conference room and with the pooled knowledge and awareness of the whole team, supported by streaming intelligence from remote surveillance. Those decisions and the resulting actions can be analyzed, dissected, replayed, and repeated endlessly as a training exercise, until every soldier behaves exactly as the commanders (right up the chain to the top) have authorized.

    No, it's not going to be easy. Yes, there will be misbehavior and abuse. There will still be the rampaging marauders who use the military as a ride to a third-world country so they can indulge their own anarchist fantasy. Even if everyone acts appropriately, there will be edge cases that lead to mistakes in everyone's judgement. Nothing will be a perfect solution, but we can work to make it better.

    We can put always-on cameras on each soldier. We can use AI to suggest different interpretations of intelligence reports. We can use high-precision guided weaponry to avoid collateral damage. We can use computerized information systems to present an accurate understanding of evidence, and most importantly, we can support a military culture where soldiers know they will be accountable for their actions, and can trust that they will be guided appropriately.

    A military is a machine, and for as long as there have been soldiers, they have just been parts in that machine. With modern technology, we can improve the machine, to make it the most reliable, most accurate, and least error-prone.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re: I, for one, don't mind by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of misappropriation of technology for violent uses that makes developers kill themselves in later years

      I'm not sure why someone would kill themselves for helping an organization who delivers massive amount of assistance for natural disasters around the world, but OK.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:I, for one, don't mind by kenh · · Score: 1

      The purpose of extreme weapons is to deter potential enemies from considering an attack... It's called a "weapon of deterrence" (as popularized in the movie Dr. Strangelove), and only two things can undermine the effectiveness of such a weapon - "keeping it secret" (See Dr. Strangelove) or "promising to never use the weapon." For too long US politicians tie the hands of the military, leading to third-tier countries feeling they can attack/provoke America because America won't use it's advanced weapons.

      What good is this (the AC130), if we don't use it?

      --
      Ken
    3. Re: I, for one, don't mind by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Cuz if you develop a technology that has while being aware that there is a clear potential for abuse, and have any sort of moral integrity at all, you're going to feel responsible for everyone killed with the technology you created

    4. Re: I, for one, don't mind by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      you're going to feel responsible for everyone killed with the technology you created

      Why would a hammer maker feel remorse at creating a tool that drives nails to build a home as easily as it can stave in a skull?

      People who feel remorse for misuse of a tool have too delicate a psyche for the real world, something else would have affected them the same way eventually.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re: I, for one, don't mind by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Because they're human. I'm only one smart enough to create such technologies are too smart to avoid awareness of the ramifications of what they built. People are responsible for their creations, and by extension any fallout effects of their creations. Responsibility is not passed. responsibilities stacks. Everyone who has a chance disrupt or prevent acts of violence and do not, share responsibility for the death toll. But the person who created the potential, retroactively receives responsibility for all effects in addition to the responsibilities held by everyone else involved

    6. Re: I, for one, don't mind by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Besides the USA has been a dominant world power for quite a while now. They don't need any more help controlling the world. What They do need help with is learning to take turns and how to step down gracefully. when one entity stays in control too long it's time for turn over to prevent and dissolve perceptions of entitlement.

    7. Re: I, for one, don't mind by kenh · · Score: 1

      What is this, the UN? Everyone gets a turn being in "control" of the world? Great, I can't wait till we hand it over the the bus driver in Venezuela, and when he's done, he can hand it back to the bartender from Queens. Do the Saudi's get a turn?

      Maybe the US should simply start withdrawing troops and defensive systems installed around the world to facilitate this new "everyone gets a chance" form of world domination? I'm sure Europe would be chill with that plan, since they all settled their petty grievances a half century ago after the assignation of Arch Duke Ferdinand...

      --
      Ken
    8. Re: I, for one, don't mind by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Is there a technology that doesn't have a clear potential for abuse? I'm a techie. For my working life, I want to be part of creating technology. I'm also a citizen, and express my views about the use of technology, and in that capacity I want to prevent certain things from happening regardless of technology.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re: I, for one, don't mind by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah. when Western Civilization collapses on itself due to over reaching somebody needs to be around to continue things. So it's important not to let any certain culture or one rule become dominant. Similar to farming crops, a social or legal monoculture increases chances of one critical point of failure or exploit affecting all.

    10. Re:I, for one, don't mind by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this well written comment!

      I've been in and around the military since I enlisted at 18 in '76. I couldn't afford college, and this was a logical option to get useful training, and college paid for. In the many years since, I've never met someone I would consider to be a war monger. Sure, there are a lot of young punks in the services...that's a demographic that needs to be reined in by the seniors. And yes, there have been some disgusting events that have slipped through the cracks...Abu Ghraib for example, But conflicts happen, and you better decide if you're going to be prepared for them, or if you're going to be steamrolled. There are plenty of bully leaders out there that would be more than happy to be the wolf to your sheep. I'm a sheepdog (to paraphrase the movie line), so you're welcome. And finally, just to state what should be obvious, war should always be a last resort.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re: I, for one, don't mind by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Two of the most naïve comments I've ever seen here.

      1. Responsibility in no way is passed along, or stacks. Thousands of people die every year to being hit with a hammers (https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/30/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-according-fbi-more-people-are-kil/)
      That in no way makes the hammer manufacturers responsible for the abusive use of a tool.

      2. Your utopian idea of swapping power around isn't logical, practical, smart, or good in any way. There are and always will be bullies in power around the world. Once you grow up and accept that reality, you'll realize that you need to defend yourself against them, or ask someone to do it for you. I personally do everything I can to help maintain US military dominance (I'm a defense contractor) because I not only care about the US, but also about defending others when the need arises. And yes, you'll probably point to some shitty things the US military has done...I won't argue that they haven't. But I'd argue that the good has far outweighed the bad, and until some friendly nation steps up with even more power, somebody has to hold the big stick.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  11. Well it beats the alternative by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    M$ has nothing much left in consumer appeal so is going down the death machine route, taking up their role in the mass extinction of humanity.

    Well I certainly rather they'd be doing that than trying to push Windows 10.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Re:Food started with the farmer. by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does your farm use GPS for crop management or any other application?

    --
    Ken
  13. Outcry by somenickname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    50 people doesn't constitute an "outcry" at a company of 100,000+. 50 people barely constitutes and outcry at a company of 1000. If you don't want to work on a project that's going to be used by the military, don't work on a project that's going to be used by the military*.

    * Alternatively, fill your bosses house with a giant tinfoil pan of popcorn.

  14. Re:It's about snowflakes by kenh · · Score: 1

    Exactly - this is not "weapon technology" this is threat identification technology and could potentially save lives of soldiers by providing soldiers better information.

    --
    Ken
  15. Re: The right decision by MS!!! by edris90 · · Score: 1

    there is a greater responsibility that transcends that to country as the developer of a technology to safeguard it from military use. Remember the right thing to do is often unpopular and illegal.

  16. When working for the US mil by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    First consider the needed security clearances?
    Workers for any part of any project for the US mil should not go full outcry.
    The background investigations should have considered the politics of all staff who could have an need to outcry.
    They never should have seen or been aware of any US mil project.
    Better testing and background investigations should find the perfect staff able to work on complex mil and security sensitive tasks.
    A democracy should be able to work with any company that has security clearances to work on a mil project.
    No outcry.
    Not expect to read about such mil work in the media in real time.

    How to fox this?
    Ensure a company is actually able to keep secrets. Test the staff with a totally fictional project that f they talk about is no loss first. See who talks to the media using fictional project terms.

    Do full and actual background investigations.
    Walk the backgrounds of staff. Their politics, education, skills, hobbies, banking, network use, reading. University politics, friends, social media use.
    Friends of friends.
    See who can be trusted to work on a mil project.
    Then talk about the real project with staff.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re: When working for the US mil by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "Their politics, education, skills, hobbies, banking, network use, reading. University politics, friends, social media use.
      Friends of friends."

      Perhaps the problem is excessive secrecy. According to Wikipedia, at least 1.5 million Americans hold Top Secret clearance.

      It seems most unlikely that all 1.5 million meet the standard of Soviet style political reliability you advocate.

      The government of a democracy in peacetime - remind me, when was the last time Congress actually declared war? - need not constantly be sneaking around in the shadows. Perhaps that which cannot be done in the light of day ought not be done at all by a peacetime democracy.

      There are countless Americans who love our country very much, yet do not politically support the government's policy of military adventure overseas and cybernetic totalitarianism at home. For the sake of secrecy and on the basis of personal political views, you would exclude very many honorable patriots from serving their country. And thereby deprive the nation of the service of very many skilled and capable citizens.

    2. Re: When working for the US mil by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The walking of a persons past is normal for most nations and in the USA when needing a security clearance.
      The CIA, NSA, GCHQ, MI5/6, US mil do not want another generation of security cleared people giving away US/UK mil secrets due to their politics again.
      Checking digital citizenship and US digital academic results is not a full background investigation.
      Someone actually has to go out in person and interview a persons life story.
      Friends, teachers, fellow students, past relationships until the full story of a person is on file.
      Local court records for past criminality that might not have been put on searchable national digital networks.
      Does it match the resume presented? The past work listed? What the person told about their life during an interview.
      Spending habits, reading material, internet use, debt, holidays, ideology. Contact with media. Faith and religion with connections to another notion?
      A split loyalty?
      Gaps in their presented biographies in digital form that don't match interviews done in person with mentioned people, friends, academics.
      What was that person doing at that time? Still in the USA at that time? Who was looking after them? Savings? Payments made?
      Political connections with any other nation, years of internet support for banned groups? Funding of banned groups?
      The people who can be trusted with US mil secrets can then be found and will be able to keep US mil secrets.

      Want to work for the US mil? The security services? Expect a presented life story to be looked over.

      The "not politically support" is one of the first things any nations security clearance should detect.

      Why would any nation allow people near its secrets who are not in politically support of that nation?
      What faith, political view or other nation are they in support of?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re: When working for the US mil by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      My brother - good grief! Can you not see the difference between desiring a different political future, one more in line with traditional American values and freedoms; and being ready to sell out one's country? Are those who admire the policies of Jefferson, Jackson, Roosevelt, or Eisenhower now thought to be the enemy? Must there be one party line?

    4. Re: When working for the US mil by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      What are the option?
      1. Its CIA bait to see who looks at the project?
      Could be.

      2. When working for the US mil so type of security investigation and security clearance is needed?
      If we are reading about such a project in the media, that "clearance" did not work very well.
      Why did it not work well?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re: When working for the US mil by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Possibly this particular project, to provide the Army with hololenses, did not stay secret... because the Army publicly announced it.

      From Bloomberg last November: "Microsoft Corp. has won a $480 million contract to supply prototypes for augmented reality systems to the Army for use on combat missions and in training, the Army said." https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

    6. Re: When working for the US mil by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What does political support of a nation mean? I know a Communist who wants what's best for the US as much as I do. We differ a lot on what's best, and even more about how to get there, but we both want the US to do well.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re: When working for the US mil by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Brother, I'm no America hater. I travel a bit, have seen a bit. Some things other countries do well; some things we do better. America is absolutely the least bigoted country out there. American travelers are generally well-behaved - far better than their French, Russian, Chinese, or British counterparts. Amazingly, the First Amendment has not yet been de facto repealed (like Amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9); so we still have freedom of speech and a reasonably free press.

      Nevertheless, it's obvious to any damn fool who has been alive long enough, that we have far less freedom than we did 20 years ago. I don't pretend to know exactly what happened in 2001. But clearly our whole way of life and form of government changed - for the worse. It's painful to see my country becoming more and more like the worst aspects of the old Soviet Union. That's the cybernetic totalitarianism I was talking about. So I think the top priority for domestic politics needs to be a sort of "de-Stalinization".

      On the foreign policy front, it's time to bring the boys home. No more American soldiers dying in some shithole overseas just so some rich turd can get a little richer. It's not in the best interests of our country to play world policeman. And it's contrary to American values, to our history as a colony that revolted, to maintain an empire.

      Realistically, the US can't get our troops out of the Middle East until we can break our dependency on oil. That ought to be a real priority. Until then, we can at least begin to reduce our worldwide military footprint. America _should_ be seen as a beacon of freedom. We should _not_ be seen as imperialists spreading death, destruction, and toxic financialism everywhere we go.

  17. Re: The right decision by MS!!! by kenh · · Score: 2

    During the manhattan project, many were troubled by the massive weaponry they were developing, but they persisted because they knew that the enemies of civilization were working on the same thing, and they knew the only thing worse than developing the atom bomb first would be to not develop the atom at all and let their enemies have the weapon.

    It is arrogance to assume that a particular engineer/scientist can stop a technology from being developed. Refusal to develop it only means we won't have it when our enemies develop it.

    --
    Ken
  18. Re: Just fire them by kenh · · Score: 1

    Instead of that insidious "heads-up" display they were going to work on, or maybe just work for a company that had some folks (not them, but someone else) working on a heads-up display for soldiers.

    --
    Ken
  19. Re:Just rebrand some by kenh · · Score: 1

    You mean:

    1) secure big gov't contract for heads-up display
    2) rebrand google glass
    3) cash $480BN check!

    It just might work!

    --
    Ken
  20. Enhanced by the soldier by CaptQuark · · Score: 3, Informative

    How about the computer that runs your tractor? The integrated circuits that control the hydraulics? The touch screen that configures much of the tractor? The synthetic lubricants in the engine? The joystick that controls the accessories? How about duck tape, weather radar, synthetic rubber tires, etc.

    Many of these technologies started in the military and then became general use items, thanks to military research and development.

    --

    1. Re:Enhanced by the soldier by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Few would argue that stuff wasn't developed by/for the military, the argument is that it could have been developed without it, and in some cases it would have cost much less to do. Given that militaries run around destroying things, suggesting that we need military investment to develop technology is a variation of the broken window fallacy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Microsoft's Defense by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

    In responding, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "Come on guys, who would run a battleship on Windows? Seriously? That thing would blue-screen at the first sign of a threat. It's obvious we are trying to cause peace here."

    Richard Stallman couldn't be reached for comment, but was heard laughing in the back.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  22. Re:It's about snowflakes by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Plus they have the chance to program into it the ability to identify weddings and put up big warnings telling idiots not to shoot.

  23. Re:Food started with the farmer. by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    gps was invented for the military. Modern farming use gps. Wait, you are a dumb fuck and don't use technology to optimize your fields.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  24. Glad to see the CEO admit by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    That Microsoft is a whore and is after that sweet sweet defense contractor money.

  25. Yeah, it's so funny it's not true by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The rich pay 70% of _income_ taxes.

    That figure doesn't include Social Security & Medicare (which cap at $134k/yr), sales tax, heath insurance (I need it to live, so it's a tax, anyone who says otherwise is a fool), various governmental fees, property taxes, sin taxes, etc, etc.

    This is why I pay 52% of my income as some form of tax but see little or no benefit from the government, while the wealthy pay 1-3% of their incomes as taxes (after loopholes and offshore hideouts) and get the best civilization has to offer.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. Battlefield5 by lollllol1 · · Score: 1

    Electronic Arts and Dice made such a beautifull game but I have to get a good computer to play it. Guys, I found such a service where I can win gamer stuff by opening cases. Here it is https://drakemall.com/boxes/ga... I never faced with such services before so don`t believe in it. Maybe some of you know it? I`m afraid that it`s a fake.