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."
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.)
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.
"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.'"
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.