3 ms·

The military is a great source of funding, it is pretty much that straight forward. I knew a number of students that did work for the military because they woul

The military is a great source of funding, it is pretty much that straight forward. I knew a number of students that did work for the military because they would pay scholarships. If someone thinks this is a bad relationship, then move that funding to the NSF or NASA or NOAA instead and authorize them to fund out-there ambitious projects just like DARPA and the military.

zhemao 11y ago
Yeah, exactly. A lot of research done on DARPA grants is only tangentially related to military applications. For instance, our lab gets half our funding from DARPA and we work on general-purpose CPUs and vector accelerators. You can't get NSF funding for ambitious long-term research projects. They just don't have the budget for it.
- derefr 11y ago
  It'd be interesting to re-graph the US budget with the "science paid for by the military" going into the science slice of the pie, rather than the defense slice.
jacobolus 11y ago
DARPA is one of the only government science sponsors that doesn’t come under fire from Republican lawmakers for wasting taxpayer dollars. Money spent on science is considered a waste, unless/until you slap the name “defense” on. Look at the nonsense Lamar Smith is currently putting NOAA through. http://www.wired.com/2015/11/congress-chief-climate-denier-and-noaa-are-at-war/ http://www.wired.com/2015/11/congress-chief-climate-denier-a... Having Smith as the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the House (which oversees research funding for NASA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, etc.) is a travesty, and he individually deserves blame, but the whole GOP leadership is on board with his basic goals and tactics.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  And please no one forget that "Department of Defense" used to be called "Department of War". A funny change given how most of the USA's fighting happens away from its soil.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    Why else would you need to change the name?
  - vacri 11y ago
    I've always found it amusing that Captain America's gimmick is his shield. A shield is normally a wholly defensive item, but Captain America routinely uses it by throwing it at people...
- Agustus 11y ago
  That article is stilted to say the least. Representative Smith has a number of initiatives for science Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and the STEM Education Act of 2014. The goal with any Congress is to think what if the parties were reversed. Would the conversation be the same if Hank "[Guam] the island will tip over" Johnson asked for information on the collusion between an agency and outside agencies. We have a government agency turning down a request by a voted in member representing the populace of the United States of America that elected him. There is no reason for a government agency to be doing this. They should be accorded the respect of the position, no matter how much someone disagrees with it. We have a situation where the Republicans postulated that the IRS was coordinating against a group of individuals to prevent their recognition during an election, and were proven correct despite agency stonewalling. The agency head had a secret e-mail to avoid FOIA, so searching for a slip-up required going through thousands of e-mails. Another agency had its Secretary running a private server as an end run around the FOIA. Where upon closer inspection reveals that the agency publicly deceived the populace on originations of a terrorist attack. Additionally, the federal government has been on a bender with coordinating against individuals in the name of political purposes. Witness former Senator Stevens railroading, IRS' Lois Lerner, and EPA's Phillip North coordinating with EPA on Pebble Mine.

zhemao 11y ago

Yeah, exactly. A lot of research done on DARPA grants is only tangentially related to military applications. For instance, our lab gets half our funding from DARPA and we work on general-purpose CPUs and vector accelerators. You can't get NSF funding for ambitious long-term research projects. They just don't have the budget for it.

derefr 11y ago
It'd be interesting to re-graph the US budget with the "science paid for by the military" going into the science slice of the pie, rather than the defense slice.

jacobolus 11y ago

DARPA is one of the only government science sponsors that doesn’t come under fire from Republican lawmakers for wasting taxpayer dollars. Money spent on science is considered a waste, unless/until you slap the name “defense” on. Look at the nonsense Lamar Smith is currently putting NOAA through. http://www.wired.com/2015/11/congress-chief-climate-denier-and-noaa-are-at-war/ http://www.wired.com/2015/11/congress-chief-climate-denier-a... Having Smith as the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the House (which oversees research funding for NASA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, etc.) is a travesty, and he individually deserves blame, but the whole GOP leadership is on board with his basic goals and tactics.

hellbanner 11y ago
And please no one forget that "Department of Defense" used to be called "Department of War". A funny change given how most of the USA's fighting happens away from its soil.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  Why else would you need to change the name?
- vacri 11y ago
  I've always found it amusing that Captain America's gimmick is his shield. A shield is normally a wholly defensive item, but Captain America routinely uses it by throwing it at people...
Agustus 11y ago
That article is stilted to say the least. Representative Smith has a number of initiatives for science Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and the STEM Education Act of 2014. The goal with any Congress is to think what if the parties were reversed. Would the conversation be the same if Hank "[Guam] the island will tip over" Johnson asked for information on the collusion between an agency and outside agencies. We have a government agency turning down a request by a voted in member representing the populace of the United States of America that elected him. There is no reason for a government agency to be doing this. They should be accorded the respect of the position, no matter how much someone disagrees with it. We have a situation where the Republicans postulated that the IRS was coordinating against a group of individuals to prevent their recognition during an election, and were proven correct despite agency stonewalling. The agency head had a secret e-mail to avoid FOIA, so searching for a slip-up required going through thousands of e-mails. Another agency had its Secretary running a private server as an end run around the FOIA. Where upon closer inspection reveals that the agency publicly deceived the populace on originations of a terrorist attack. Additionally, the federal government has been on a bender with coordinating against individuals in the name of political purposes. Witness former Senator Stevens railroading, IRS' Lois Lerner, and EPA's Phillip North coordinating with EPA on Pebble Mine.