Excellent point. I appreciate your honesty about this, because there's a lot of noise out there that tries to obscure the core issue.
For the rest of you, if you're in favor of regulations on free speech, then just come out and say so. Explain your reasoning, talk about extenuating circumstances, just like timeOday has done. Stop pretending that this isn't a limitation on free speech.
The Supreme Court has struck down numerous campaign finance laws over first amendment issues (Buckley vs US, anyone?). Former house majority leader (Democrat) Dick Gephardt responded by suggesting that the First Amendment be changed to allow campaign finance limits. The current SCOTUS has ruled that campaign finance IS a limitation on free speech, but that extenuating circumstances (making things appear less corrupt) justifies it.
For my part, I'm opposed to any attempt by do-gooder meddlers to limit free speech just because they think that paid advertising == mind control. Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion. The FEC has ruled that blogs will be regulated and controlled by the campaign finance laws, and the defeat of this bill (to stop the menace of banner ads and popups) reaffirms that this is the Law of the Land.
If you're a Democrat, do the decent thing and be embarrassed. Your party isn't right all the time, any more than Libertarians or Republicans are. Admit that your side got this one wrong, contribute to the EFF, and go to local party meetings and tell them that as a loyal democrat you're astonished that you'd see normally smart good people doing this.
I'm a Republican, but I try to have the intellectual honesty to admit when my party has it wrong-- which we often are. You're doing your party a service by keeping them honest.
Agreed, that's all we need. We go to all the trouble of promoting a superior alternative that makes the market competitive again, and what do we do? Push for a new monopolist? No way.
The National Review Online once mentioned in their blog a "hemline index" of how serious the global situation was. When a serious situation develops, female anchors need to be seen as serious journalists, so their skirts would get longer and more professional. During a slow news cycle, they'd wear shorter skirts to boost ratings. Prior to 9/11, they were practically wearing micro-minis. Male anchors, of course, wear the same stuff no matter what. Unless they're military consultants, in which case every day is biz cas fri.
Look, network news hasn't, and probably can't, produce valuable content. They're simply not specialized enough to compete with the news channels. Back in The Day, they were on top because they were the ONLY option.
But as Hackstraw points out, TV as a medium is designed to deliver EVENTS, not news. Events are things you can write a topical article or blog entry on. News includes a much broader array of content, including trends and highlights of continuing situations. News magazines like the Economist can handle that much better, and are more properly covering news in its entirety. But any single medium is going to be lacking: the immediacy and emotional content of video and audio, the context and depth of text.
The web can deliver.. somewhat. Blogs handle the immediacy, and sites that deliver print news, combined with resources like wikipedia, can handle the context and depth. But there's still no good source for video and audio. Also, the web is still mostly in the business of repackaging other media and delivering them in a multi-modal sort of way.
Fox was a leader on the video front, and now it looks like NBC will be, too. But until there's an easy, pervasive way to get video onto the web from ordinary people, we'll still just be watching inferior TV.
The solution? More hard drive capacity, cheaper, lighter DV cameras, better DV formats, and faster bandwidth. In other words, let moore's law work for a few more years. In the meantime, celebrate. The Web as it stands is delivering the ultimate TV news killer: fast, in-depth, continuously updated TEXT. And we always knew that print journalism was better anyway, didn't we?
Even worse is the vote for the Diplomat of the Year. They recommend Marc Otte on the basis of "he plays an important role in the peace process in Palestine".
WTF???
I actually LIKED that they weren't issuing recommendations except on the basis of their patent position. Listen, this award isn't just about software patents. When you're casting your vote, you're implying a position on scores of issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with IT. Be VERY careful before accepting their recommendations.
Ultimately, they're a single issue lobbying group. Their position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, or the Orange revolution in Ukraine, or the dictatorship in Belarus, or anything else is totally off topic. They're entitled to their opinion, but don't be a lemming.
Warren Buffet is the classic counterexample. He lives frugally in a middle class home. He has 14 employees. He's giving his 43 billion to charity when he dies, minus a small trust fund for his kids. Admittedly rare, but still a good counterexample.
There are many wealthy company owners who don't want to wake up every morning wondering what investors think of their performance that day, and pandering to the investment press. They prefer to collect their profits and be their own bosses.
You never hear about these people because private companies keep a low profile and don't have a stock value to keep the press interested. They're not takeover targets, either. Also, these companies don't get the big infusions of cash from their issues, so they are typically smaller. But they're a big part of the ecology. Ikea, for example, is private.
There's a lot to be said for not going public. Peace of mind for the managers is one thing. The ability to invest for the long term without quarterly pressures is another. IPOs are useful for generating a big chunk of cash for rapid expansion, but my main experience in IT has been that it's the exit strategy for the investors-- they build a company and then sell it to the marketplace, sell off their shares, then go off and do something else.
Hey! Didn't the unibomber sign his manifestos "FC"??? So not only is this a Chloroflourocarbon, it's also a terrorist!
:)
I'm actually glad that they're developing safer alternatives for halon systems. This is a pretty good step, but I wouldn't have thought of it as slashdottable-- except for the CPU cooling potential. Sheesh, some of you people would move to finland for the sake of overclocking.
That would fit. Much like Microsoft, the RIAA's only profitable division is their complaints department.
More likely, they're trying to kill online music sales as a business model. A couple major outfits go out of business and they can go back to the way things were. Except, of course, that you can never go back in time. But there's not shortage of people who want to try.
Sure-- good clarification. Much of our legal codes are actually protocols for interaction rather than specific moral statements.
But I'd argue that holding society together IS a moral judgement. An easy one, to be sure, but anarchists a century ago would have disputed even that. Overall, though, yeah I agree that standardization drives many of our laws.
"You can't kill a man because if you could kill at a whim, society would tear itself apart."
Sure you could. There are lots of societies, including Europe's until the past two centuries, where murder wasn't a crime-- except insomuch as killing someone with property or armed relatives is risky. What about slavery? Or women's rights? Or the separation of church and state itself, now that I think of it. Why bother with welfare? Or public education?
If we killed people with terminal diseases, we would save billions in healthcare.
We have to accept that these are cultural preferences by our society, that are grounded in moral principles. That doesn't make it wrong to advance them; I honestly feel that we as a nation have the best moral outlook in the world. But we might as well recognize it.
While we're at it, let's remember that the separation of church and state is a strong protection for Religion-- EVEN THE MAJORITY. The worldly requirements of running a country, with all the practical compromises and political maneuvers inevitably corrupt religious establishments. Religion is at its best when it is a voice for moral behavior but has no hand whatsoever in the actual political process. Tamper with it, and religious movements gradually degenerate into political factions filled with power-hungry climbers.
That's a moral decision. Iran, for example, has a system much like ours, except that instead of a Supreme Court, they have a panel of islamic clerics. The Catholic Church, in the days of its greatest power, was riddled with corruption.
Our decision as a society to separate church and state is a moral one-- one that has, so far, worked very well. But we need to remember that pure logic leads nowhere without some moral premise to establish how logic should be applied.
Excuse me saying so, but this is totally unfounded nonsense. I worked for five years in politics, and never encountered any major official who was involved in such a thing.
Once or twice, a local party official, it's true, has cheated-- and they're looked down upon and attacked, especially by the ones they 'help'. Did the United Corporations of whatever-you're-saying choose President Clinton? And President Carter? And President Reagan? Did Paul Wellstone and Phil Gramm both answer to these secret masters? The disputed system in Florida, for example, was designed by a Democrat-- one who fully supported VP Gore.
Part of democracy is living with the fact that your views aren't always going to win or be popular. You may call that half of America stupid or wrong or manipulated or whatever you want, but under a democracy, a majority wins. It's a fact of life that close elections happen. If 2000 had gone the other way, no doubt I'd be writing this to someone else.
Conspiracy theories like this do little other than encourage higher levels of acrimony and lower levels of voter turnout. If you want an excuse not to participate (by volunteering, voting in the primaries, or voting in the general election) then just say:
"I don't want to be responsible for the people I elect."
or "I'd rather not participate in democracy because I don't like what everyone else votes for."
or "I'm not confident enough in my beliefs to admit that my opponents are as earnest and well-intentioned as I am.
I'm actually one of those guys who loved his early work more than his more recent stuff. I find alot of what I read lately a little on the preachy side. He's still a very smart guy-- and a brilliant writer.
Read The Hacker Crackdown-- it's literary freeware, and so there's no excuse not to.
Then, go buy Schizmatrix Plus. This is one of my all-time favorite science fiction books. I can't find the words to tell you how great this book is. It manages to be both epic and intensely personal.
I've worked in the wireless / PDA space for a while. And the same issues keep coming up: power and antenna. Army guys say that on pound on your feet equals five pounds on your back. I'd say that goes double for your arms.
Why not have a huge battery integrated into a belt, designed to be flat and unobtrusive, along with the antenna. Then have your cell phone, screen/keyboard, digital camera, earpiece, etc mount on the belt, with capacitors charged by induction.
This way, you have an easy, light form factor that holds maybe.5-1 hr of charge, but is easily and quickly charged by its holster. The real weight is on the belt, and since it isn't designed to be regularly pulled out and used, it can be designed solely for comfortable wear.
As a side benefit, you only have one thing to remember to plug in at night, and all your devices share power, so the power is used by whatever device requires it (nothing is wasted). Plus, you have one GOOD wireless transceiver instead of six-odd mediocre ones.
At work, everyone said it was a good idea, but that you'd never get the companies to agree on an open standard for the recharger. Ahh, well...
Oh, come on, you mean you haven't seen the TV show where the Gummint tries use the evil, forbidden power to fight evil???? You must not receive the Fox network.:)
In all seriousness, it is pretty impressive that Groove got their FIPS certification. My old company gave up once they saw all the hoops they would have had to jump though.
The thing is, the first priority is the value that Linux is providing Munich. Security and stability are big points in Linux's favor. Customization should be another. If we can't offer compelling value, people will smile, nod, say "good for you guys, I'm rooting for you" -- and then plunk down money for the product that fits their needs.
We can't as a community wish away these transaction costs of switching. The whole point Ballmer is making when he highlights stories like these is that Open Source is NOT free.
You need expertise in-house, custom development to meet your needs, tech support, administration, management. All these things are expensive. If Linux is to win, it needs to prove that it isn't just hiding its costs.
I'd like to see the community really engage the guys in Munich to ascertain 1. what the problems have been 2. what we can do (new software, utilities, companies, services) to alleviate these transition pains.
That's what MS does with their customers. If we're to really challenge them, we need to be even more responsive and useful. We have the advantage, but that doesn't mean we're using it.
The presentation talks about this a little, but I think you're right-- the weight you'd need to get enough power is important.
Here's something else: he's using compressed air to power a device that generates compressed air. That's like powering my battery charger with the battery I'm charging.
I totally agree. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but this seems like a complicated perpetual motion machine to me.
Note one line from the presentation: "gliders have glide ratios of up to 60 to one, and aerostatic balloons have been known to reach altitudes of up to ten miles" (don't know if I got the figures right). That's like saying, "Sports cars have been known to reach speeds of 200+ mph, and bicycles don't require power. Therefore, my hybrid has both qualities."
I'll ask around, but for now I'd call this an interesting way to part an investor from his money. Con artistry is the only truly perpetual motion I've ever heard of.
This happens all the time. Look, when the copter was first designed, it was the mid-80's and we were expecting twenty more years of Cold War or more. Then, in the 90's, we weren't sure how the post-Cold War period would play out. Or which technologies would work out and which wouldn't.
So after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that drones are effective, useful and reliable. And cheap. So now that we have proof, we cancel the project. It would be more wasteful to cancel programs willy-nilly without a combat test of the alternatives.
If it's any consolation, most of the technological advances that went into the program (improved usability, reduced radar cross section, engine reliability, data aggregation, etc) are not lost. They'll find their way into other projects soon enough-- including drones.
Look, these systems take decades to finish. The whole time you're guessing about the future and what it will look like. Production is much more expensive than R&D usually (in the quantities the DoD buys in). So you do what you can.
The Paladin artillery system was cancelled for similar reasons. I'd rather have a weapon ready if it's needed then have to wait ten years to invent it. And I'd rather cut my losses if it turns out to be unnecessary than buy it just because I already have money on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. I appreciate your honesty about this, because there's a lot of noise out there that tries to obscure the core issue.
For the rest of you, if you're in favor of regulations on free speech, then just come out and say so. Explain your reasoning, talk about extenuating circumstances, just like timeOday has done. Stop pretending that this isn't a limitation on free speech.
The Supreme Court has struck down numerous campaign finance laws over first amendment issues (Buckley vs US, anyone?). Former house majority leader (Democrat) Dick Gephardt responded by suggesting that the First Amendment be changed to allow campaign finance limits. The current SCOTUS has ruled that campaign finance IS a limitation on free speech, but that extenuating circumstances (making things appear less corrupt) justifies it.
For my part, I'm opposed to any attempt by do-gooder meddlers to limit free speech just because they think that paid advertising == mind control. Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion. The FEC has ruled that blogs will be regulated and controlled by the campaign finance laws, and the defeat of this bill (to stop the menace of banner ads and popups) reaffirms that this is the Law of the Land.
If you're a Democrat, do the decent thing and be embarrassed. Your party isn't right all the time, any more than Libertarians or Republicans are. Admit that your side got this one wrong, contribute to the EFF, and go to local party meetings and tell them that as a loyal democrat you're astonished that you'd see normally smart good people doing this.
I'm a Republican, but I try to have the intellectual honesty to admit when my party has it wrong-- which we often are. You're doing your party a service by keeping them honest.
Agreed, that's all we need. We go to all the trouble of promoting a superior alternative that makes the market competitive again, and what do we do? Push for a new monopolist? No way.
The National Review Online once mentioned in their blog a "hemline index" of how serious the global situation was. When a serious situation develops, female anchors need to be seen as serious journalists, so their skirts would get longer and more professional. During a slow news cycle, they'd wear shorter skirts to boost ratings. Prior to 9/11, they were practically wearing micro-minis. Male anchors, of course, wear the same stuff no matter what. Unless they're military consultants, in which case every day is biz cas fri.
Look, network news hasn't, and probably can't, produce valuable content. They're simply not specialized enough to compete with the news channels. Back in The Day, they were on top because they were the ONLY option.
But as Hackstraw points out, TV as a medium is designed to deliver EVENTS, not news. Events are things you can write a topical article or blog entry on. News includes a much broader array of content, including trends and highlights of continuing situations. News magazines like the Economist can handle that much better, and are more properly covering news in its entirety. But any single medium is going to be lacking: the immediacy and emotional content of video and audio, the context and depth of text.
The web can deliver.. somewhat. Blogs handle the immediacy, and sites that deliver print news, combined with resources like wikipedia, can handle the context and depth. But there's still no good source for video and audio. Also, the web is still mostly in the business of repackaging other media and delivering them in a multi-modal sort of way.
Fox was a leader on the video front, and now it looks like NBC will be, too. But until there's an easy, pervasive way to get video onto the web from ordinary people, we'll still just be watching inferior TV.
The solution? More hard drive capacity, cheaper, lighter DV cameras, better DV formats, and faster bandwidth. In other words, let moore's law work for a few more years. In the meantime, celebrate. The Web as it stands is delivering the ultimate TV news killer: fast, in-depth, continuously updated TEXT. And we always knew that print journalism was better anyway, didn't we?
Even worse is the vote for the Diplomat of the Year. They recommend Marc Otte on the basis of "he plays an important role in the peace process in Palestine".
WTF???
I actually LIKED that they weren't issuing recommendations except on the basis of their patent position. Listen, this award isn't just about software patents. When you're casting your vote, you're implying a position on scores of issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with IT. Be VERY careful before accepting their recommendations.
Ultimately, they're a single issue lobbying group. Their position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, or the Orange revolution in Ukraine, or the dictatorship in Belarus, or anything else is totally off topic. They're entitled to their opinion, but don't be a lemming.
First rule of government contracting: Why order one when you can get two at twice the price?
Warren Buffet is the classic counterexample. He lives frugally in a middle class home. He has 14 employees. He's giving his 43 billion to charity when he dies, minus a small trust fund for his kids. Admittedly rare, but still a good counterexample.
There are many wealthy company owners who don't want to wake up every morning wondering what investors think of their performance that day, and pandering to the investment press. They prefer to collect their profits and be their own bosses.
You never hear about these people because private companies keep a low profile and don't have a stock value to keep the press interested. They're not takeover targets, either. Also, these companies don't get the big infusions of cash from their issues, so they are typically smaller. But they're a big part of the ecology. Ikea, for example, is private.
There's a lot to be said for not going public. Peace of mind for the managers is one thing. The ability to invest for the long term without quarterly pressures is another. IPOs are useful for generating a big chunk of cash for rapid expansion, but my main experience in IT has been that it's the exit strategy for the investors-- they build a company and then sell it to the marketplace, sell off their shares, then go off and do something else.
Hey! Didn't the unibomber sign his manifestos "FC"??? So not only is this a Chloroflourocarbon, it's also a terrorist!
:)I'm actually glad that they're developing safer alternatives for halon systems. This is a pretty good step, but I wouldn't have thought of it as slashdottable-- except for the CPU cooling potential. Sheesh, some of you people would move to finland for the sake of overclocking.
That would fit. Much like Microsoft, the RIAA's only profitable division is their complaints department.
More likely, they're trying to kill online music sales as a business model. A couple major outfits go out of business and they can go back to the way things were. Except, of course, that you can never go back in time. But there's not shortage of people who want to try.
Another sterling success for AMD. I'll put up a sticker right away!!
Sure-- good clarification. Much of our legal codes are actually protocols for interaction rather than specific moral statements.
But I'd argue that holding society together IS a moral judgement. An easy one, to be sure, but anarchists a century ago would have disputed even that. Overall, though, yeah I agree that standardization drives many of our laws.
"You can't kill a man because if you could kill at a whim, society would tear itself apart."
Sure you could. There are lots of societies, including Europe's until the past two centuries, where murder wasn't a crime-- except insomuch as killing someone with property or armed relatives is risky. What about slavery? Or women's rights? Or the separation of church and state itself, now that I think of it. Why bother with welfare? Or public education?
If we killed people with terminal diseases, we would save billions in healthcare.
We have to accept that these are cultural preferences by our society, that are grounded in moral principles. That doesn't make it wrong to advance them; I honestly feel that we as a nation have the best moral outlook in the world. But we might as well recognize it.
While we're at it, let's remember that the separation of church and state is a strong protection for Religion-- EVEN THE MAJORITY. The worldly requirements of running a country, with all the practical compromises and political maneuvers inevitably corrupt religious establishments. Religion is at its best when it is a voice for moral behavior but has no hand whatsoever in the actual political process. Tamper with it, and religious movements gradually degenerate into political factions filled with power-hungry climbers.
That's a moral decision. Iran, for example, has a system much like ours, except that instead of a Supreme Court, they have a panel of islamic clerics. The Catholic Church, in the days of its greatest power, was riddled with corruption.
Our decision as a society to separate church and state is a moral one-- one that has, so far, worked very well. But we need to remember that pure logic leads nowhere without some moral premise to establish how logic should be applied.
Once or twice, a local party official, it's true, has cheated-- and they're looked down upon and attacked, especially by the ones they 'help'. Did the United Corporations of whatever-you're-saying choose President Clinton? And President Carter? And President Reagan? Did Paul Wellstone and Phil Gramm both answer to these secret masters? The disputed system in Florida, for example, was designed by a Democrat-- one who fully supported VP Gore.
Part of democracy is living with the fact that your views aren't always going to win or be popular. You may call that half of America stupid or wrong or manipulated or whatever you want, but under a democracy, a majority wins. It's a fact of life that close elections happen. If 2000 had gone the other way, no doubt I'd be writing this to someone else.
Conspiracy theories like this do little other than encourage higher levels of acrimony and lower levels of voter turnout. If you want an excuse not to participate (by volunteering, voting in the primaries, or voting in the general election) then just say:
- "I don't want to be responsible for the people I elect."
- or "I'd rather not participate in democracy because I don't like what everyone else votes for."
- or "I'm not confident enough in my beliefs to admit that my opponents are as earnest and well-intentioned as I am.
- or, quite simply, "I'm lazy."
</rant>Awesome, thanks!
:)
Excellent company.... I'm rooting for them at least.
Bruce Sterling is phenomenal.
I'm actually one of those guys who loved his early work more than his more recent stuff. I find alot of what I read lately a little on the preachy side. He's still a very smart guy-- and a brilliant writer.
Read The Hacker Crackdown-- it's literary freeware, and so there's no excuse not to.
Then, go buy Schizmatrix Plus. This is one of my all-time favorite science fiction books. I can't find the words to tell you how great this book is. It manages to be both epic and intensely personal.
That thing looks real big and clunky.
.5-1 hr of charge, but is easily and quickly charged by its holster. The real weight is on the belt, and since it isn't designed to be regularly pulled out and used, it can be designed solely for comfortable wear.
I've worked in the wireless / PDA space for a while. And the same issues keep coming up: power and antenna. Army guys say that on pound on your feet equals five pounds on your back. I'd say that goes double for your arms.
Why not have a huge battery integrated into a belt, designed to be flat and unobtrusive, along with the antenna. Then have your cell phone, screen/keyboard, digital camera, earpiece, etc mount on the belt, with capacitors charged by induction.
This way, you have an easy, light form factor that holds maybe
As a side benefit, you only have one thing to remember to plug in at night, and all your devices share power, so the power is used by whatever device requires it (nothing is wasted). Plus, you have one GOOD wireless transceiver instead of six-odd mediocre ones.
At work, everyone said it was a good idea, but that you'd never get the companies to agree on an open standard for the recharger. Ahh, well...
Oh, come on, you mean you haven't seen the TV show where the Gummint tries use the evil, forbidden power to fight evil???? You must not receive the Fox network. :)
In all seriousness, it is pretty impressive that Groove got their FIPS certification. My old company gave up once they saw all the hoops they would have had to jump though.
Be careful, people take their opinions very seriously, and sometimes lash out. I'd hate to see this thread turn violet.
Tractor beams also work wonders with The Ladies.
Exactly.
The thing is, the first priority is the value that Linux is providing Munich. Security and stability are big points in Linux's favor. Customization should be another. If we can't offer compelling value, people will smile, nod, say "good for you guys, I'm rooting for you" -- and then plunk down money for the product that fits their needs.
We can't as a community wish away these transaction costs of switching. The whole point Ballmer is making when he highlights stories like these is that Open Source is NOT free.
You need expertise in-house, custom development to meet your needs, tech support, administration, management. All these things are expensive. If Linux is to win, it needs to prove that it isn't just hiding its costs.
I'd like to see the community really engage the guys in Munich to ascertain 1. what the problems have been 2. what we can do (new software, utilities, companies, services) to alleviate these transition pains.
That's what MS does with their customers. If we're to really challenge them, we need to be even more responsive and useful. We have the advantage, but that doesn't mean we're using it.
The presentation talks about this a little, but I think you're right-- the weight you'd need to get enough power is important.
Here's something else: he's using compressed air to power a device that generates compressed air. That's like powering my battery charger with the battery I'm charging.
I totally agree. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but this seems like a complicated perpetual motion machine to me.
Note one line from the presentation: "gliders have glide ratios of up to 60 to one, and aerostatic balloons have been known to reach altitudes of up to ten miles" (don't know if I got the figures right). That's like saying, "Sports cars have been known to reach speeds of 200+ mph, and bicycles don't require power. Therefore, my hybrid has both qualities."
I'll ask around, but for now I'd call this an interesting way to part an investor from his money. Con artistry is the only truly perpetual motion I've ever heard of.
Um, you are all aware that Britain doesn't have free speech?
By tradition, speech isn't regulated, but the Government can and does often quash news stories it finds offensive.
You're right, I'm wrong. I caught that yesterday, but didn't bother posting a correction.
Achem...
/. admin, you can just update the original post after contacting SpaceWorks and confirming his identity.
Moderators:
Please mod the parent of this post up... it's from one of the SpaceWorks scientists and answers some questions that have come up.
Or if you're a
This happens all the time. Look, when the copter was first designed, it was the mid-80's and we were expecting twenty more years of Cold War or more. Then, in the 90's, we weren't sure how the post-Cold War period would play out. Or which technologies would work out and which wouldn't.
So after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that drones are effective, useful and reliable. And cheap. So now that we have proof, we cancel the project. It would be more wasteful to cancel programs willy-nilly without a combat test of the alternatives.
If it's any consolation, most of the technological advances that went into the program (improved usability, reduced radar cross section, engine reliability, data aggregation, etc) are not lost. They'll find their way into other projects soon enough-- including drones.
Look, these systems take decades to finish. The whole time you're guessing about the future and what it will look like. Production is much more expensive than R&D usually (in the quantities the DoD buys in). So you do what you can.
The Paladin artillery system was cancelled for similar reasons. I'd rather have a weapon ready if it's needed then have to wait ten years to invent it. And I'd rather cut my losses if it turns out to be unnecessary than buy it just because I already have money on the table.