4 ms·
Honestly, I agree with Nadella here. They built a technology which happens to be useful to the military (and has many, more numerous, non-military applications)
by FreakyT 8y ago
Honestly, I agree with Nadella here. They built a technology which happens to be useful to the military (and has many, more numerous, non-military applications), and the military (understandably) wanted to use it.
Protesting selling Hololens to the military here is like protesting contributing to Linux because the US DoD uses it. Should we all boycott Linux because of the lack of an anti-military-use clause in the GPL?
- brandonjm 8y agoIs the contract simply "selling Hololens to the military"? My understanding was that they already had contracts in place to sell them to the military for training purposes and have done so for many years. I was under the impression from other articles that the employees are upset over the request for "targeting ... capabilities" to be embedded into the devices. Edit: Upon reading their 'letter' it appears they take most issue with the use of Hololens to 'increase lethality'. I would argue that even the use of Hololens for training purposes (as they have done so in the past) would increase lethality anyway (as training of any kind might) and they apparently had no issue with it before. Even then, the military doesn't need Microsoft to do it, they could pay any of their contractors to implement it.
- rickycook 8y agoyup exactly: if it was for medics, there would be no problem
- smartbit 8y ago"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" I wonder what Virtual Reality glasses Microsoft-ceo Satya Nadella was wearing when implicitly denying the existence of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_co...