4 ms·

Where exactly is the limit? Windows, Microsoft Office and other Software is used "for war" all the time, and not just by the US.

imglorp 8y ago
I think that's a false dichotomy. Office software is general purpose, and maybe the military buys it like everyone else. AR gear for soldiers is not general purpose. Similarly, criminals and non-criminals alike use public roads and internet, but only one of those groups would have need of a weapon with a ground-off serial number, for example. So is the point the buyer, or the purpose?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Microsoft is a defense contractor. They've been working closely with the military since the 90s. I'm not sure when people decided to suddenly ignore or forget this.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Does it matter when? If the employees decide they don't want to develop for the military, that's their prerogative. They can try to change their current employer's practices, or they can leave.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  HoloLens is not much less dual-use as Ms Office, I'd say...
shireboy 8y ago
Exactly. So is Linux, C++, and Java. I remember being at a conference where this was discussed ages ago. The speaker was describing a colleague chastising her for working on code for a guidance system. He had helped develop a mouse, which she pointed out was also used throughout the military. It’s good that there are people who do not want to find more and more better ways to blow each other up, but disingenuous to try to ban a particular technology. If MS doesn’t get the contracts, someone else will. Some exceptions-nuclear and maybe autonomous AI. But even the later seems inevitable. AR will either be a flop or ubiquitous, and so you can’t prevent that any more than Englebert could prevent the mouse being used for military purposes.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  For me the only meaningful line is where Software is clearly and mainly intended for use in a weapon system. For example a guidance system for a particular rocket, autopilot software for a military drone etc. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that in a relatively sane jurisdiction, either. The only good reason to have a powerful military force run by a democratic government is to guard against powerful military forces run by someone else.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    I have come to a different conclusion on the last part: I live in Germany, a relatively peaceful country that is reluctant to use its military. Yet, there big weapon manufacturers here and they sell what they develop for the German government also abroad. So countries like Saudi Arabia get access to our stuff. Thus, I am fairly certain that almost every weapon system that has been developed in Germany since the second world war has been used to shoot at people in situations that Germany has no control over. Weapon exports from the US and other countries are much the same. When it is built, it will be used. And it won't generally be used by the power that you entrusted with that tech.
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      The system isn't perfect. Just refusing to arm your own country and your allies can't be the perfect answer, either.
izacus 8y ago
How about we start at someplace obvious like not assisting people carrying weapons from blowing other peoples brains out. Or marking people who need to be murdered on a projected display. That seems pretty obvious to me. We can even extend it to not being used by people who's job description involves killing foreigners (including countrymen of many Microsoft employees) on command. We can refine from there.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  Yeah, good idea. Let's not have armies. I'm sure the people whose ideology or religion we'd rather not be forced to adhere to will do entirely the same thing.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    Maybe, just maybe, these radicals would have less support in their home countries now if the US hadn't marched into their home countries and occupied them. That antagonized a lot of people. But that is not what happened.
    - apple4ever 8y ago
      Oh sure, but you are talking about a specific scenario. Did France antagonize Germany in the 1930’s? Or did Germany have something they want to do and just went and did it? We can dream of a utopia where the military is not necessary. But that is not the reality of this world.

imglorp 8y ago

I think that's a false dichotomy. Office software is general purpose, and maybe the military buys it like everyone else. AR gear for soldiers is not general purpose. Similarly, criminals and non-criminals alike use public roads and internet, but only one of those groups would have need of a weapon with a ground-off serial number, for example. So is the point the buyer, or the purpose?

jplayer01 8y ago
Microsoft is a defense contractor. They've been working closely with the military since the 90s. I'm not sure when people decided to suddenly ignore or forget this.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Does it matter when? If the employees decide they don't want to develop for the military, that's their prerogative. They can try to change their current employer's practices, or they can leave.
bayesian_horse 8y ago
HoloLens is not much less dual-use as Ms Office, I'd say...

shireboy 8y ago

Exactly. So is Linux, C++, and Java. I remember being at a conference where this was discussed ages ago. The speaker was describing a colleague chastising her for working on code for a guidance system. He had helped develop a mouse, which she pointed out was also used throughout the military. It’s good that there are people who do not want to find more and more better ways to blow each other up, but disingenuous to try to ban a particular technology. If MS doesn’t get the contracts, someone else will. Some exceptions-nuclear and maybe autonomous AI. But even the later seems inevitable. AR will either be a flop or ubiquitous, and so you can’t prevent that any more than Englebert could prevent the mouse being used for military purposes.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
For me the only meaningful line is where Software is clearly and mainly intended for use in a weapon system. For example a guidance system for a particular rocket, autopilot software for a military drone etc. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that in a relatively sane jurisdiction, either. The only good reason to have a powerful military force run by a democratic government is to guard against powerful military forces run by someone else.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  I have come to a different conclusion on the last part: I live in Germany, a relatively peaceful country that is reluctant to use its military. Yet, there big weapon manufacturers here and they sell what they develop for the German government also abroad. So countries like Saudi Arabia get access to our stuff. Thus, I am fairly certain that almost every weapon system that has been developed in Germany since the second world war has been used to shoot at people in situations that Germany has no control over. Weapon exports from the US and other countries are much the same. When it is built, it will be used. And it won't generally be used by the power that you entrusted with that tech.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    The system isn't perfect. Just refusing to arm your own country and your allies can't be the perfect answer, either.

izacus 8y ago

How about we start at someplace obvious like not assisting people carrying weapons from blowing other peoples brains out. Or marking people who need to be murdered on a projected display. That seems pretty obvious to me. We can even extend it to not being used by people who's job description involves killing foreigners (including countrymen of many Microsoft employees) on command. We can refine from there.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
Yeah, good idea. Let's not have armies. I'm sure the people whose ideology or religion we'd rather not be forced to adhere to will do entirely the same thing.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Maybe, just maybe, these radicals would have less support in their home countries now if the US hadn't marched into their home countries and occupied them. That antagonized a lot of people. But that is not what happened.
  - apple4ever 8y ago
    Oh sure, but you are talking about a specific scenario. Did France antagonize Germany in the 1930’s? Or did Germany have something they want to do and just went and did it? We can dream of a utopia where the military is not necessary. But that is not the reality of this world.