Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education

Does the Military Dominate CS Research? 125

Posted by Cliff from the in-the-name-of-national-security dept.
An anonymous reader asks: "It seems at my university the military has their fingers in much of the computer science research happening on campus: sensors, intelligent agents, autonomous vehicles, supercomputing. Is this the case at other schools around the US? How about outside of the US? How is the military shaping the current state of CS research? What areas of research atrophy because the funding goes to investigating military applications of new technology?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does the Military Dominate CS Research? More

Does the Military Dominate CS Research?

Comments Filter:

  • Not actually an informed opinion, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by josefcub ( 212738 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:24PM (#7946756) Journal
    Really, if you think about it, the military will eventually, if it doesn't already, have its fingers in any technology that it thinks will further its goals. School location or subject really doesn't matter to them.

  • Just make sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by xagon7 ( 530399 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:35PM (#7946820)
    You fill their house with a giant Jiffy Pop before you ignite it with your designed (but they took control over) laser.

  • When has it not shaped the foundation of CS? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jhubbard ( 4916 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:40PM (#7946857) Homepage

    Let's be realistic here. When has it not?

    Computers were originally people who determined calculated firing tables. The first computers were used to calculate this information and break encryption codes.

    The Internet is based on equipment and protocols that DARPA paid for. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [http] Check out the current and recent solicitations [darpa.mil].

    I'll grant you that business plays a large role too. It funds its fair share, but it seems as though it is more practical and immediate. The military seems to fund things that might not be very practical now, but can possible provide the edge in battle.

    • Yup (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @07:11PM (#7947443)
      The history of computation is the history of war. From the Greeks and their studies of quadratics, to Galileo's ballistics tables (which funded all his later work), the Difference Engine, early mechanical calculators, etcetera. War has always been the driving force behind computation, sadly. Just look at super computers -- the US military keeps building new record holders JUST to model nuclear deterioration and detonation! Many physics simulations (the exact same ones that make cars safe now) were invented to test rocket, artillery, and bullet design.

      • Re:Yup (Score:4, Informative)

        by T-Ranger ( 10520 ) <jeffw@NoSPAm.chebucto.ns.ca> on Monday January 12, 2004 @12:00AM (#7949400) Homepage
        For number crunching apps, sure. You diddnt mention the use of computers as far back as WWII for number crunching for nuclear research. In WWII it was to figure out how much stuff they needed, now entire nuclear explosions can be simulated. Or so they claim.

        But there is a sepearate, distinct, and very important component of computers that isnt realy computation: data processing.

        This is where, historicly (<1975 say) where IBM (and its predecessors) worked almost exclusivly. Censuses started it all, the 1890 US Census being the first done on punch card machines (reducing a 10 year job into months). IIRC, czatist Russia leased Hollerith machines in the 19th century. (since censuses doers were the primary market for infintile IBM, and no one continiously took censuses, IBM generaly leased machines (and opearators, assumably) rather then selling them. Of course, they continue this practice, esp. on the "big iron", even today).

        Most people agree that censuses, at least, are benign. It hasent been until the last 5 years that data processing has become sufficently advanced for average people to consiter it at all threatining. Im making a distinction beteween data collection/processing itself from the application therof. Privacy concerns (for example) are now very much a concern of "normal people", even if they otherwise trust the data collectors and what happens to the data. Up untill 5 years ago no one had enough data for the data alone to be risky/dangerous/intrusive. Now, not so much. Anyway...

        On the other hand, "data processing", even before "computation", has been used for what would be universally accepted as evil purposes. Or at least one: I speak of Nazi Germany using Hollerith machines to keep tabs on the Jews. To quantify the "Jew problem" (as they saw it). And to effectivly round them up. The rest being "common" history (which I will ignore, this being a discussion of computers). The use of Hollerith machines being largely unknown, even amongst computer/IT types. Even though I dont agree with the authors basic premis (that IBM is at least morally liable for some of the Holocaust), I will point out IBM and the Holocaust : The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most PowerfulCorporation [amazon.com].

        Of course the topic of discussion here is military usage of computers. Censuses certenly dont count. I dont think the Nazis use of computers does either. There is a distinction beteween the German Military/Navy, and the German (Nazi) Government, and "special" (ie, SS) forces.

        • Re:Yup (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Too bad they haven't figured out how to program a computer to check spelling. Oh wait... they have.
        • Most people agree that censuses, at least, are benign.

          I don't know about that. History has plenty of examples of people freaking out over censuses. There's an example in the Old Testament of King David ordering a census, and people rioted because of it. The Domesday Book was so named because people thought King William ordering a census would cause the world to end. And of course you list the prime example of census taking gone awry: the Nazis cataloguing the Jews. I'm sure there are others, but you get t

  • It's not uncommon. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:45PM (#7946894)
    That was similar to my experience back when I was in school.

    And considering the history of computing, it is to be expected.

    Computers are tool for automating complicated by not particularly egaging tasks.

    From code breaking, to calculating artillary tables, to distributing information. It's not know how that's the obstical, but maintaing focus and attention. With the millitary, few people have the resources or the motivations to tackle the extremes that remain, besides them. The upside is, while the projects might be defense oriented as far as the money is concerned. The people aren't. Some of the people writing their doctoral thesis based on those projects might just want to make the most kickass games (like one of my CSE TA's). Smarter robots might well lead to smarter monsters.

    That's just the nature of the bleeding edge, the inscentive is always going to be strongest for militaries. You can get wrapped up in black helicopters or Chile 1950. Or you can step back and know them for what they are, individual quanta which are part of vast spectrum. While the military might have given us ICBM, and the possibility of nuclear holocaust, the secondary benefits were world wide communications satillites, GPS, the internet, aluminum cans, nuclear power, the death star, and the only chance to defend ourselves from a rogue asteroid.

    Be happy for the money. Be happy for the challenge. Be happy for the opportunity to hone your skills.
  • But, then I'd have to kill you.

  • The question doesn't make sense. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theNote ( 319197 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:49PM (#7946922)
    I'm a little confused on the premise of this question.

    Research needs funding.
    If the military wasn't funding autonomous sensors, who else would?

    And what does having military funding for some projects have to do with the "atrophy" of other non military projects?

    Are you surprised you can't find funding for research no one wants?

    Its little like asking how McDonald's research on hamburger recipes is adversely affecting research on hydrogen energy.

    What do they have to do with each other?

    • Re:The question doesn't make sense. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The point is that copious funding for military technology applications draws brains away from research in technology with no or little military application, things that might have great benefit in the day-to-day lives of most citizens.
      • draws brains away from research in technology with no or little military application, things that might have great benefit in the day-to-day lives of most citizens.

        And what EXACTLY those technologies might be? Anything powerful enough to heal people can be used to kill them as well...

        Paul B.
    • If the military wasn't funding autonomous sensors, who else would?

      Gee, I don't know, maybe those who need them? And if no-one else needs them, end of story.

      If the military wasn't funding mustard gas, nerve poison, clusterbombs, tactical nukes, etc., who else would?

      Let the military stay out of non-military institutions. They engineer stuff with one ultimate applicable purpuse only: killing human beings.
      • Nerve poison is very useful for insecticide.

        Tactical nukes are useful for large scale engineering, think picking apart asteroids for mineral wealth among other things.

        I'm sure I could think up or look up alternative uses for mustard gas and cluster bombs if I really cared to answer your question, these were ones off the top of my head.
        • Yeah, if you look real hard, you can think up stupid uses for any technology.

          Spoons can be assault weapons if thrown fast enough, eyeglasses can be fighterstarters, and scissors can be advanced carving tools if ever you're in a cave with no paper and pencil.
        • mustard gas, nitrogen mustard is (or was) used as an antineoplastic or cancer drug. A very close relative of nerve agents are used to treat Myasthenia Gravis.

          The truth is the military is very concerned about things like logistics, medicine, personel management and security all areas that are also the concerns of any bussiness or government. Most civilians have no idea of how little military activity is involved with the direct application of combat power

      • Re:The question doesn't make sense. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2004 @10:39PM (#7948835)
        The military is one of the few institutions to tackle fundemental research, and almost hopeless challenges on a large scale. Why, their need is great, their reasources are large, and so are the rewards.

        It is arguable that computers would not exist at all without the military. Let alone global computer networks. Add to that communications satillites, and anything in space. For both the US and USSR the space race was about puting nukes on people. But that also gave us aluminum cans. And a lot of ceramic technologies. Need I point out RADAR, and the multitude of uses we put it to today? Or the lives it saves with weather forecasting? Or nuclear power. Did I mention jet engines? Or turbine technology in all it's incarnations? Let alone consumer products like Jeeps and Humvees. Or trauma medicine. The stirup? Can't leave out frequency hopping.

        All this, monsterously large segments of the civilian economy, exists because of a military need at one time. General solutions to nearly forgotten problems. Take the military our of research institutions and you put a lot of researchers out of work.

        So nothing new, another SNAFU, and your argument is FUBAR, another goof ball with a hemp cap and not enough common sense to fill it. Have a little appretiation for the freedom you enjoy, the freedom to bitch, and not know any better. More admirable people than yourself die to stamp your hand at the door of the little freedom party, and many of them never killed anyone. So your task, should you find you have any personal honor and decide to accept it, is to learn about the US Army Core of Engineers. [army.mil]

      • Oh the irony (Score:2, Interesting)

        by sideshow ( 99249 )
        Guess the military should have stayed away from that whole ARPANET thing. At the very least I wouldn't have to put up with morons on the internet because there would be no internet.
        • That's a good point. It does not, however, imply that the Internet could not have been developed without military support.

          I'm sure that some of the stuff the military develops has other uses (rocketry is an example), but those are spin-offs. The military, no matter which country's, exists solely for the destruction of human life.

          There are countless examples of Bad Things (TM) with a nice-to-have morsel in them, but embracing them is just head-in-bush utilitarism.
          • I'll grant you that the military's job is to kill people and break things (in fact, I wish more people would remember this when they talk of sending in "peace keepers"). But the military also has an active interest in protecting its own people, and in making sure they have the tools to get their jobs done. Most of the "military research" that goes on is in one of those two spheres, and is not directly related to war fighting.
      • Let the military stay out of non-military institutions. They engineer stuff with one ultimate applicable purpuse only: killing human beings.

        Not always true. The military has also granted funding to projects on how to create better parachutes; new surgical techniques; communications and team building; and many others.

        Check out the DARPA Programs page [darpa.mil] to browse through and see what your tax dollars have paid for over the years. You might be surprised.
    • Either the researchers make a railgun to kill arabs, or they make a mass-launcher to reduce the cost of space exploration/colonization.

      I'll leave it to you to guess which one *benefits* society in the end.
      • They come out of the same budget, dipshit

        As someone who knows more than just a little about governent/military procurement:
        NO THEY DON'T

        Budgets are made completely independent of each other. This is where deficits come from.

        When NASA needs a couple billion dollars to make a more efficient computer to run the toilet on a trip to Mars, or the DoI wants a billion to sutdy the effect of crickets on the national parks, congress looks at the books and tells them there's no money.

        When you need money for the m
        • Eventually, it all comes out of my pocket, either directly or indirectly.

          These are the four ways to fund the military as I see them:

          1) taxes -> reduction in income
          2) duties -> increased prices of goods
          3) printing money -> inflation -> increased prices
          4) war bonds -> delayed inflation -> increased prices

          I pay for it all one way or another. Since civilian research tends to create capital, and the military tends to destroy it, I'd rather invest in research that will tend to increase my st
          • Eventually, you reach a certain point when you have to admit the following points:
            • Military forces exist primarily for defensive purposes.
            • Some people/groups/nations do have bad intentions.
            • These people (bullies) prey on the weak, and fear the strong.
            • When they prey on you, it's far too late to build an adequate defense.
            • A military force that fails to repel an atacker, is useless.
            • For a military force to be useful, it must always be prepared to be attacked.
            • Due to the failure-resistant nature of military fo
    • "Research needs funding.
      If the military wasn't funding autonomous sensors, who else would?

      And what does having military funding for some projects have to do with the "atrophy" of other non military projects?"

      Hmmmm...maybe because if we didn't spend half our federal budget on the military we'd have money for other things? There are plenty of people that want to do other things, beautiful, fun, happy things they just don't have the guns to make you and I pay for it.

  • How dare they! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What areas of research atrophy because the funding goes to investigating military applications of new technology?"

    Indeed, how dare the military fail to fund research into non-military applications!

    It's obviously the military's fault if you can't get a grant.
    After all, thier charter demands they fund all worth research, no matter how militarily useless! ...doesn't it?

    It's not like there are private corporations doing research for non-military products ...are there?

  • Which areas atrophy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PM4RK5 ( 265536 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @05:56PM (#7946973)
    My guess would be that the fundamentals of system design atrophy. In many ways the computer science field has seen very little innovation as far as "operating systems" are concerned. At least in the recent past.

    Most systems try to mimick windows or something else, except for Apple's OS X. But on the other hand, it is also built atop a UNIX-style system, and is thus somewhat based on old ideas.

    The IT industry has created such large barriers to entry that any new or radical ideas as far as desktop systems go (or servers, for that matter) have failed to enter the market successfully. Arguably, Linux's success is due to the fact that it's just a reimplementation of the old UNIX system design.

    Colleges and other higher-level academic institutions are the testbed for new ideas in the CS field, and things like system design and a computers' fundamental setup have atrophied over the past few years, since I, for one, have seen very little that qualifies as "new."

    One thing I would like to do is try to completely reinvent the desktop system in college as a project, because many, many technologies are just improvements upon older ones. What the industry needs is a radically new system that takes advantage of what's out there now, as far as both ideas go and as far as hardware goes.

    This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.

    This is why I think basic system design has atrophied at the expense of other areas.

    • Re:Which areas atrophy? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Phaid ( 938 )
      This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.

      That's basically because the problem has been solved, and there's just no need to go reinventing that wheel. The approaches to operating systems, whether for desktops, small embedded systems, etc, are well understood, they are tested and reliable, and there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them. The only r
      • "there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them"

        Nobody can make such a statement about ANYTHING with accuracy. The fact is that if there is a magnificant new technique that improve something, we aren't going to find it if there is no research being done on the subject.

      • Re:Which areas atrophy? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rocky ( 56404 )
        Your answer is too simplistic.

        Here [bell-labs.com] is an excellent overview of exactly what is wrong with current systems research.

        The gist of it is (IMHO): the current research atmosphere is too short term to support a truly revolutionary systems research program - and a good one requires more resources than one can justify. The problems are nowhere near solved - everyone has just settled on some fixpoint.

        • Re:Which areas atrophy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Phaid ( 938 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @01:10AM (#7949812) Homepage
          Yeah except that paper really doesn't do anything more than rail against the current state of affairs. So what if 20 years ago people coming into Bell Labs were used to using 20 different operating systems and now they only use one? That doesn't disprove what I said in any way at all. It's basically just a longer and more eloquent way of saying the exact same thing that the original poster I responded to was saying -- quoting this back to me is really just begging the question.

          Look, we already know how to make a protected memory, multitasking operating system that runs on commodity hardware and which, for the average user, provides multitasking performance indistinguishable from running individual tasks on a dedicated machine. We already know how to make a hard real-time operating system (and yes, BeOS shows us that essentially, realtime suitability multiplied by desktop suitability is a constant). We already know that microkernels don't do much more than protect you from badly coded drivers, and at a performance cost. None of these things are a mystery any more, and there just isn't a single-processor operating system model that's going to come along and revolutionize OS design on current hardware.

          Multiprocessor OS'es? Yes, as I said there's plenty of room for research there. Come up with an analog processor or some other hardware revolution that we don't currently think about? Yes, that would likely turn commodity OS thinking on its ear. But there is simply no interesting innovation left in the nuts and bolts of operating system software for current commodity hardware - all of the interesting research is either at a lower (hardware) level or at a higher (way more hardware) level.

          In terms of fostering new research, the one genuinely interesting statement in that paper is:

          Only one GUI has ever been seriously tried, and its best ideas date from the 1970s. (In some ways, it's been getting worse; today the screen is overed with confusing little pictures.) Surely there are other possibilities. (Linux's interface isn't even as good as Windows!)

          But look! He's talking about user interfaces there, not the core of the operating system. With all due respect to Robert Pike, all he's doing in this paper is expressing frustration that the good old days are over and people aren't doing fun research any more
          • I think you have a different idea of what systems research is compared to PM4RK5 and Robert Pike.

            Basically what you are saying is that we know how to build OS's, like they are designed today, really well so there is no need to do further research into improvements of those techniques. Which I agree with, to a large extent, although there are still improvements going on in those areas.

            But what PM4RK5 was saying was that we need to research fundementally different ideas. Things like plan 9, which extends th
    • I think this is more due to the fact that large companies really don't have an economic interest in a completely new operating system, and the hardware that would be required for something revolutionary isn't cheap enough for a hobbyist to develop on.

      And the fact is, with the ridiculously backward 32 bit Intel x86 architecture being ubiquitous, Unix and Windows are pretty much as good as it gets anyway.

      64 bit architectures could bring a huge revolution in operating systems. They'll make feasible tagged a
  • was the OpenBSD / DARPA funding: article here [com.com]
  • I'm not really a big fan of the military in general, though obviously it has its uses. However, historically they have driven quite a bit of important research. Although not specific to computer science research they have done things like invent the magnetron (used in nuclear physics and microwave ovens), helped split the atom (bombs and nuclear power plants), and a number of other well known and important inventions. My point is that we know why the military wants technology, but it is up to us to find oth
    • Hmm... the typical comment is that everything that we create for constructive purposes will ve used for destructive purposes... This actually seems a worthy goal too...
      • By the way - don't confuse the goals of the military with the goals of the politicians. Most military people I have worked with are not warmongers. Nor are they in any way like the typical paranoid fears given in popular media.
        On the other hand, I did work for a commercial web development company that encouraged weapons in the workplace, and had death threats between employees. And had an ex-partner call in a bomb-threat in a fit of anger (he didn't mean it though).
        I am glad that the military is in charge
  • At Wake Forest University [wfu.edu], ROTC and Information Systems share a building (#26 on the campus map [wfu.edu]).

  • Either the military... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...or the terrorists. Depends which side has stronger players. It's about 50:50, Counterstrike is very ballanced game.

  • Face it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @07:00PM (#7947371) Homepage
    The reason most things get done is because there is a pressing need, and people in the military understand this better than anyone else. Defending yourself and defending a nation is a pressing need, whether you'd like it to be or not.

    It would be nice if we could all hold hands and do research for the good of humanity, but unfortunately, human beings aren't wired that way. Nothing would get done. This is why communist societies, which are beautiful ideas on paper, don't work.

    One of the major fallacies that far too many people put a lot of faith in is that people are basically good. We are not.

    I know this might sound harsh and cynical, but the fact of the matter is, once you accept the fact that human nature is brutal, selfish, and ugly, you're most of the way there toward a realistic world view.

    And if you look at it pragmatically, you'll realize that necessity is the mother of invention, and almost all of the great technological advances in history stem from military necessity.

    Yeah, it's not nice. No, I don't like it. But that's how it works.
    • Yes, humans can be brutal, selfish and ugly and the US military proves that. Is that a good reason to fund them? I find it odd that your argument(which I think we've all heard countless times) is used as a justification for giving MORE power, MORE money, MORE leeway to the most violent and militaristic among us. What makes you trust our generals and technocrats so much? Aren't they human too? Despite my humanity I don't spend all my time trying to come up with better ways to kill my fellow humans, I wo

      • Re:Face it (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bluesman ( 104513 )
        >What makes you trust our generals and technocrats so much?

        If you don't trust someone in the military more than you trust an average joe, odds are you haven't spent much time working with the military, if any at all. I have no qualms about saying that people who serve in the military are hands down the best people a country has to offer. That goes for most modern democratic societies. It's why you hear all the anti war crowd still saying "oh, I still support the troops." Why would you support the tr
        • You make interesting points, but here goes: It's best to be prepared. I'm for giving my generals the military might they need to win decisively, because, hell, they're on my side, and I think my side is better than all of the others.

          Surely whether your side is better depends on the conflict your country decides to enter (not decided by the military themselves, I admit). For example if you were a US citizen you might have backed them in WWII and the first gulf war say, but not the second one or vietnam.


    • It would be nice if we could all hold hands and do research for the good of humanity, but unfortunately, human beings aren't wired that way.

      In the voice of Jodie Foster:
      "The world is what we make of it."

      -metic

  • Hell yeah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Will Sargent ( 2751 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @07:22PM (#7947542) Homepage
    The military funded the Internet.

    The military, as one of the largest software developers on Earth, basically created software engineering and still pushes for hard numbers from projects and code.

    When the military tried out OO technologies on flight simulators, they scheduled five different projects, the first one of which was set up to fail(!) so they could accurately determine what actual benefit they could get from OO.

    The military is funding the semantic web technologies, notably DAML, in hopes of getting better AI -- this will be needed for better drones and autonomous agents, not to mention scanning for terrorist activities...

    There's just no question involved. The military will do things no other organization would even think of doing.
    • > The military is funding the semantic
      > web technologies

      Quite right. Speaking of which, here's a new project site for semantic web [semwebcentral.org] projects that just came online about a week ago.

      Nothing much there yet, but stuff from the DAML [daml.org] site will start migrating that way soon...
    • I think an important thing to point out along side your post is that the Army is able to fund multiple version os the same goal(like your flight sim example) is because the Army doesn't have to be profitable. While a corporation has to show finances and answer to stockholders, much of the army is simply given money and told to do X. where X is buy guns, and research new guns to eventually buy.

      Yes, congress can resize the Army's budget along with the President and blah blah... The point is, TONS of money is
    • they scheduled five different projects, the first one of which was set up to fail(!)

      This isn't as uncommon as one might think. It's an informal Army tradition that new soldiers fresh out of basic training will get assigned an impossible task. A soldier I know of was told to go get a chemlight (the military's version of a glow stick) battery from the motorpool. He returned with a 50 Lb. humvee battery...

  • Here at the University of Alberta [ualberta.ca] (Canada) the reasearch department does a wide variety of reasearch [ualberta.ca]. Skimming through the various webpages, I had difficulty finding even one that was obviously connected to the military.
    Basically, the short answer is no.
    I did however, recently see a very interesting presentation on an AI project called ScriptEase [ualberta.ca]. It is a program to reduce programming requirements abd ease module design for the game Neverwinter Nights [bioware.com]. It is funded by Bioware (the company that produced Neve
  • Very little research funding in the UK or continental Europe is funded by the military. I've heard of the odd project related to defense against biological warfare, but never met anyone who took up such funding. In the UK, university funding comes state research councils (BBSRC, NERC, SERC etc.), national agencies (Carnegie, English Nature etc.), and a charitable trusts (Wellcome Trust, Beit Trust etc.). European funding is available from the European Commission under the Framework programmes - these are of
  • I would think its a good training tool for the military. I can just imagine it: soldiers bunny hopping and strafing through Baghdad, or 1 person with the riot shield (in CS 1.6) owning all of Iraq with a knife, hehe. :)

  • I attended Wright State University near Dayton, Ohio. Almost all of the research being done there was for the Air Force or its contractors. Also, many of WSU's CS graduates (but not me, I program cash registers) went on to work for the Air Force or a contractor thereof. This is probably because the University is maybe 1/4 mile from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and thus may not represent the typical university. Sometimes I would while away time between classes lying on my back on the quad watching C-1

  • It always has been that way. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @11:04PM (#7948987) Journal
    Back in the early 80's, I was a geneticists/Bio-Tech. The industry had collapsed and the fueher had moved funding from civil to Defense via Darpa. What was interesting was the military came in and had us change protocols. When we first applied, we were a defense based grant. As time went on, I suddenly realized that we were not doing defense but offense. It was an eye opener. (The more interesting part was the number of Iraqi's that we were training back then; I understand that Texas did the bulk of the training though)

    Recently, when we did the iraqi WMD inspections, We insisted on inspecting the universities. It was a wise precaution.

    So yes, Virginia, we do the bulk of our research in the open at Universities, but it is not what it appears to be.
  • Here in Canada, we're relatively lucky. Instead of the military, we have corporations like RIM, Nortel and dominating research. Its lucky because the students can then go on and join those companies, compared to the US where the tech can be snatched and shelved and classified, and youre not employed if youre Pakistani :)

  • The military no longer drives CS research (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A little background,

    I'm a United States Army Officer, who majored in Computer Science at West Point. I'm currently the computer security officer, and the network designer for Afghanistan.

    While the military has come up with some great toys recently, they don't drive research anymore. Darpanet (pre-internet), secure transmission (with the help of NSA), the atom bomb, are over 50 years old. But when you really think about it - the last thing the military research has done for the average joe is GPS, and t
  • It would seem that the NSF should be brought into the discussion. They fund a variety of CS and computer related research. Their recent reorganization (yes, we realize that this is a b-school weighted nonsense term) is based on better addressing "real" needs in the area.

    If you are not familiar with the projects they fund, you really are not looking hard enough.

    • NSF does a lot of funding for supercomputing, although the majority of that money is used by the two main funded supercomputer centers for hardware.

      Very little "research" in CS and supercomputing in particular at these sites, unfortunately. They're mainly used as places that other researchers (atmospheric sciences, astronomy, etc) use for CPU cycles.
  • I personally don't know about CS research, but as far as nanotechnology goes, I know that most of the funding comes from the military. The "holy grail" for a research professor is a five year multi-million dollar DARPA grant.

    They put the most money out there, so more people do research for them. In many cases, I don't think military policy determines what is researched. There are many of these great grants which go unclaimed. Usually I think a professor will try and get a grant offer written to match h

  • More interesting constraint sets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @08:21AM (#7951247) Homepage Journal
    There is a certain sense of urgency in solving military problems. In that domain, requirements documents imply "...or many people will die". In a corporate environment, the requirements imply "...or we'll have to keep doing it the old way".

    Then add to that "...and if it screws up even the slightest bit, under any circumstance, in such a way as to so much as hurt somebody's feelings, we're screwed." In that regard, the military provides a hell of a test bed for high-risk, high-concept toys, well away from the prying eyes of trial lawyers. Adaptive cruise control probably could not have been developed in a liability-conscious environment like, well, the real world. Without years in the hands of testers who knew enough about personal responsibility to be entrusted with extremely fickle multimillion dollar jets, your ludicrous SUV would be that much harder to drive inattentively. A decade keeping jet fighters about a meter from each other at supersonic speeds refined the product to the point it could be implemented in an environment that, while far more mundane, is far more expensive to fuck up in.

  • No, but I do imagine they pretty much pwn America's Army [americasarmy.com]
  • DARPA used to have a huge role in CS research. But that's no longer the case.

    The defining moment was when they pulled the plug in Berkeley's BSD group in the early 1980s (DARPA decided to fund Mach instead) and BSD went on anyway, with private funding.

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Close