Microsoft CEO Defends Pentagon Contract Following Employee Outcry (theverge.com) 221
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is defending the company's $479 million contract with the Pentagon to supply augmented reality headsets to the U.S. military. "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," he told CNN Business at Mobile World Congress. "We were very transparent about that decision and we'll continue to have that dialogue [with employees]," he added during the exclusive interview. From the report: Microsoft was awarded the contract to supply "Integrated Visual Augmentation System" prototypes to the U.S. military in November. The company could eventually deliver over 100,000 headsets under the contract. Microsoft's HoloLens augmented reality technology allows users to see the world around them, but with virtual graphics overlaid. The Israeli military, which has taken delivery of some HoloLens headsets, says the technology can be used to help commanders visualize the battlefield and field medics to consult doctors. According to procurement documents, the U.S. military is seeking a single platform that provides its forces with "increased lethality, mobility and situational awareness" in combat. Microsoft employees have recently circulated a letter addressed to Nadella and Brad Smith, the company's president and chief legal officer, arguing that the company should not supply its HoloLens technology to the U.S. military. "It's not about taking arbitrary action by a single company, it's not about 50 people or 100 people or even 100,000 people in a company," he said. "It's really about being a responsible corporate citizen in a democracy."
Ugh, linking to the Verge? (Score:5, Interesting)
For context: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
(I guess I don't know that Engadget hasn't ever misbehaved, but Vox and The Verge are pretty regularly obnoxious.)
Re: (Score:2)
Add Vice to that list. Forbes for their crappy ads. Anything with a paywall.
Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:4, Informative)
If it wasn't for the armed forces investing lots of money in this stuff in the last 3/4 of a century most of you kiddies wouldn't have a job today except maybe factory work
Intel started making memory chips for Minuteman missiles
the internet and everything around it was originally a DoD program to build a network that could survive a nuclear war
CPU development was originally financed by the military
The ENIAC was built to calculate artillery fire tables
NASA was a civilian program to build ballistic missiles that just happened to buy lots of then new mainframes
DARPA funded the original AI and machine learning research as part of the war in Afghanistan.
the US military was one of Microsoft's first customers and even used Windows and SQL server on ships in the 90's.
The Army was buying tens of thousands of Exchange and office licenses in the 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.
Porn would have picked up the slack.
Re:Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:5, Informative)
Nah. Porn would have picked up the slack.
Porn is a consumer of tech, and provides market incentives for innovations, but they don't fund research.
Porn drove wide adoption of VCRs and DVDs, but pornographers exploited the tech, they did not create it.
Re: (Score:2)
Laserdisc sucked in several ways, and the only ways in which it was superior were image quality, and not having to rewind. (Super Beta had PCM audio, and could have had more complex digital audio — probably would have, if it had stayed around.) Mostly, though, LD was just too expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And with the Brits, and Poles, and Germans, and.... fellas, WAR advances tech.
Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:2, Troll)
That said -- WTF, how is the parent modded Troll?! It's a Troll to tell the fucking truth?
Truly, this place has gone over to the fucking dogs.
Can someone explain to me what, exactly, was Trollish in the parent? Huh?
Oh right, most people here use Troll instead of replying a rebuttal.
the OP was right on the money. Just a little narrow in scope in who bumped up tech in the last big one. It was all the players... yes, even ITaly, w
Re:Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:5, Interesting)
First, all that money comes from taxpayers ("you kiddies"). Second, what you say just means spending on research enables discoveries and new engineering. There's no reason why that spending has to be military. It may even be the case that, had the money been spent on non-military applications, then the taxpayers would have received an even better bang-for-buck.
Re: (Score:2)
Better bang-for-the-buck almost always comes at the cost of a slower timeframe. I can save a lot of money buying a better bang-for-the-buck CPU, but someone still has to overpay for the shiny, new high-end CPUs to fund Intel and AMD's R&D to sustain their current rate of technological progress. So yeah we might have saved some money having the civilian sector develop these things instead of the military. But if we had, we would pro
Re: (Score:2)
If the U.S. had held back military spending prior to WWII
But they had... until the Japanese kicked the hornet's nest at Pearl Harbour.
Anyway, I do remember Nobel and his peaceful-driven research, which was promptly exploited for military purposes.
Point is, military-driven and civilian-driven research would both be applied in the military field, if there's the smallest chance it could be applicable, regardless who does the research.
Now, if Microsoft employees don't like it, they are free to protest,. resign, sue Microsoft, do whatever they feel is right (within th
Re: (Score:2)
If a company had done it, it would've cost several times more - the information would've been proprietary, so each company would've had to duplicate it
If you don't know about government contracting, please don't spread this BS. First of all, many of these efforts are handed off to contractors because government personnel rarely have the skill set, equipment, workforce, etc., required to do the job. Your claim that it would have been more expensive is bullshit. I've dealt with government contracts for decades, and the requirements contractors are handed are often ridiculously written which causes the contractor to attempt to fulfill "needs" that don't e
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood what he meant. If a company is conducting research under contract to the government, then that's essentially the government doing research - for instance, Newport News Shipbuilding builds aircraft carriers, but it's just as correct to say that the government builds them because NNS wouldn't be building them without the government paying them to do so. Similarly, Apple makes iPhones, even though it's actually Foxconn that performs the physical work.
What the OP meant was it would be
Re: (Score:2)
The guy went off the deep end at some point there. But most of his post stands and your ad hominem attack doesn't logically detract from his argument.
"Actual facts beat alternative-history "facts".
There's no reason why that spending has to be military.
Yes there is. It already happened. The past can't be changed.
It may even be the case that, had the money been spent on non-military applications, then the taxpayers would have received an even better bang-for-buck.
Care to write a paper, have it peer-reviewed,
Um... not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?
Also, are you suggesting the Army was responsible for the horror that is Microsoft Exchange and Office? Best argument for ending war I've ever heard in my life...
Re:Um... not exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?
So, if we tax the rich we don't need a military?
What are you, 12 years old?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In his defense, the military industrial complex is not the military.
Re: (Score:2)
military-industrial complex /milter indstrl kämpleks,kämpleks/
Dictionary result for military-industrial complex
noun
noun: military-industrial complex; plural noun: military-industrial complexes
a country's military establishment and those industries producing arms or other military materials, regarded as a powerful vested interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, you could theoretically change the way we allocate funds and make reforms to military spending in ways that dismantle the industrial complex that surrounds it without getting rid of the military itself. Decoupling billions from the military and moving it into funding for civilian research and infrastructure IS something that could be done without actually reducing the military at all.
For an example look at the current "national emergency." It isn't to raid emergency funds of any kind, it is simply t
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they have a "narcotics" fund at all?
So they can give powerful narcotics to warriors. My dad used to sing the praises of the wonderful drugs they had in the military. He was a Marine ATC in Korea...
Re: (Score:2)
"War on drugs where the USA is assisting other nations with the fight against the drug lords is the reason for the Narcotics fund. The construction fund is common sense for any military. "
First is obviously a multi-billion dollar waste of funds. A construction fund is common sense although you gave a poor example since re-outfitting a carrier, ship of war, or other weapon wouldn't be paid out of it. The military needs construction funds, what isn't clear is why they need better than $3 billion when they hav
Re: Um... not exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny how "the rich who won't pay taxes no matter what" still manage to make up 70%+ of all taxes collected.
Yeah, it's so funny it's not true (Score:2)
That figure doesn't include Social Security & Medicare (which cap at $134k/yr), sales tax, heath insurance (I need it to live, so it's a tax, anyone who says otherwise is a fool), various governmental fees, property taxes, sin taxes, etc, etc.
This is why I pay 52% of my income as some form of tax but see little or no benefit from the government, while the wealthy pay 1-3% of their incomes as taxes (after loopholes and offshore hideouts) and get the best civiliz
Re:Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:4, Informative)
CPU development was originally financed by the military
First CPU, the 4004, was developed for a calculator [wikipedia.org]
Re:Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:4, Informative)
CPU development was originally financed by the military
First CPU, the 4004, was developed for a calculator [wikipedia.org]
That was the first microprocessor, not CPU. The first small-scale integrated CPUs were designed for missile guidance systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Just lost your geek card there ken. the first microprocessor was not the first CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the US military was one of Microsoft's first customers and even used Windows and SQL server on ships in the 90's.
The Army was buying tens of thousands of Exchange and office licenses in the 90's."
So it is their fault. Now we all know.
Re: (Score:3)
The US Military is STILL a large customer for Microsoft products, they use Windows and SQL Server on current military vessels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Food started with the farmer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does your farm use GPS [grindgis.com] for crop management or any other application?
Enhanced by the soldier (Score:4, Informative)
Many of these technologies started in the military and then became general use items, thanks to military research and development.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Few would argue that stuff wasn't developed by/for the military, the argument is that it could have been developed without it, and in some cases it would have cost much less to do. Given that militaries run around destroying things, suggesting that we need military investment to develop technology is a variation of the broken window fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The computers on the Apollo rockets were little more than calculators - they did not advance the state of the art, they forked current technology into their very particular use case.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Fly by wire was a direct result of the Apollo system developed at MIT.
Re: (Score:2)
Lisp machines predated ENIAC?
Citation...
Re: (Score:2)
Like porn? Like what? The iPod etc. The i-Whatever and similar? What is "more useful"?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention any tech company today has dumped the lion share of its US workers and replaced them with foreign imports to cover the "talent shortage" dumping US employees created. The foreign imports don't want to contribute to the US military and dominance. Suprise suprise.
Re: Modern tech started with the US Military (Score:3)
Shhhhhhh.... Don't mention the elephant in the room!
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign imports like Satya Nadella?
Re: (Score:2)
The term you were looking for is sell-out. Those come from everywhere. One exception is statistically insignificant.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Officially. When dipshits like you post that, you always forget to put in the "officially". And when you read through the link you posted, they admit, it doesn't include people who are in forced labor camps, reeducation camps and various other detention centers. Just prison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an easier solution: ban elected judges and elected prosecutors, eliminate grand juries, ban private prisons, and make plea bargaining illegal.
You'd be surprised how much the prison population will fall when it's not in anyone's financial interest to keep it artificially high.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Microsoft isn't going to let a handful of "engineers" send a half-billion dollar project down the crapper.
A handful of people may be able to drive Amazon out of Queens, but that isn't going to happen at Microsoft. Amazon walked away from a discount on taxes and will likely get a larger discount by not having to match NYC/NYS income tax matching expenses outside of New York - see most other locations would have had much lower tax bills than NYC/Queens would after the 10% discount Dem. Gov. and Dem. Mayor
Re: (Score:2)
"Think it through properly" - uhm, no. Your dystopian dream is based on the need of a soldier to use a "heads-up" display to fire his weapon. That is non-sensical.
Re: (Score:3)
The effort to reach the moon drove way more tech and for less than the military...
The Vietnam war cost $168BN, in 1975 dollars:
https://thevietnamwar.info/how... [thevietnamwar.info]
The Apollo space program cost $170BN:
https://www.extremetech.com/ex... [extremetech.com]
Or did you mean all military spending since 1775?
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
"Because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it works."
No, that isn't SUPPOSED to be how it works. It definitely is how it works. Another alarming phrase "corporate citizen", last I checked corporations are not citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but as "Commander in Chief", who's really the head?
Re: (Score:2)
Who's the Commander-in-Chief of the US Department of Defense? I thought the President was, but I could be wrong, not being a U-all.
You've got it right [wikipedia.org]. The pres says what, the sec of def [careertrend.com] figures out how, and interfaces with the rest of the military so the pres doesn't have to be a military expert.
Re: (Score:2)
Both the President and Secretary of Defense are in the chain-of-command. They can give you orders, their specific responsibilities isn't really the concern of who they give the orders to. SecDef does not automatically get a salute, the President does. The President outranks the SecDef.
Here is a link to a deck used to help recruits in the Navy learn their chain-of-command. The top parts are universal and then it starts getting navy specific with the top ranks being over pretty much the entire navy and then o
What does that have to do with the price of tea (Score:5, Insightful)
"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,"
What about institutions that got elected through gerrymandering in oligarchies to protect profits for oil barons at the expense of human lives, especially in the middle east but also all over the planet? Asking for 7.53 billion friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, we should just shut down all commercial and military development and sing Kumbaya. Please share your plan for moving forward toward your Utopia.
At least its better than the alternative (Score:3)
The alternative is giving this contract to one of your more traditional defense contractors, who is probably going to charge a lot more and deliver a significantly worse product. Oh, it'll also be late and grossly over budget, if it happens at all. And when all is said and done, they might procure Microsoft hardware anyways... as some component of their system that the news doesn't report on.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is giving this contract to one of your more traditional defense contractors, who is probably going to charge a lot more and deliver a significantly worse product.
Worse than a Microsoft product? Go on, pull the other one.
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it that you've never used any software developed under government contract, designed to meet a formally agreed-upon requirements document, that actually has a user interface. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it that you've never used any software developed under government contract, designed to meet a formally agreed-upon requirements document, that actually has a user interface. :-)
No, but I've suffered the CA DMV's god-awful system... except that some people seem to be able to navigate it just fine, which tells me that it's as much a training issue as anything else. Anyway, Windows for Warships, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who developed software under government contract that was successfully deployed for over ten years, please tell me more about how it really works. Do you mean the vague, requirements typically written by government contract officers who are frequently new in their jobs and wouldn't know a "shall statement" if it hit them in the face? Or do you mean the requirements that are agreed upon and designed and coded to, only to be changed by the next contract officer who replaced the last one, and is n
I, for one, don't mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, mind you I used to work for the defense industry, so I may be a bit biased...
I think war technology is a good thing. I would much prefer to simply not go to war, but that sentiment hasn't really held sway at any point in the last few thousand years or so. Somebody always wants to abuse somebody else, and when that ambition reaches the scale of having entire demographics in conflict, you get a war.
Like all large-scale endeavors, a war is messy. People often have their own goals for joining an organization. In a large corporation, their goals might be as sinister as "get paid to sleep", but in a war, they might find a convenient way to hide a murderous rampage under the guise of patriotic service. Of course, this is something everyone (else) would like to avoid, but it's hard to spot the difference between a psychopathic killer and a well-trained soldier.
In the rest of society, this is where a justice system comes into play. Knowing that evidence will be collected and that a crime is likely to be punished deters further crime. Attempts to hide a crime often just produce more evidence against the perpetrators. No, it's not a perfect system, and the justice system itself can be abused, but it's still a net benefit in a peaceful society.
In war, the rigid justice system is often placed second to completing a mission, and any allegations of wrongdoing will be accompanied by very sparse surviving evidence. Within a few days of a crime, witnesses are reassigned, memories are repressed, and new missions take priority over a bureaucratic boondoggle.
Technology doesn't have those limits. Events can be captured, and recordings can be archived. Decisions can be made far from the field of battle, in the safety of a conference room and with the pooled knowledge and awareness of the whole team, supported by streaming intelligence from remote surveillance. Those decisions and the resulting actions can be analyzed, dissected, replayed, and repeated endlessly as a training exercise, until every soldier behaves exactly as the commanders (right up the chain to the top) have authorized.
No, it's not going to be easy. Yes, there will be misbehavior and abuse. There will still be the rampaging marauders who use the military as a ride to a third-world country so they can indulge their own anarchist fantasy. Even if everyone acts appropriately, there will be edge cases that lead to mistakes in everyone's judgement. Nothing will be a perfect solution, but we can work to make it better.
We can put always-on cameras on each soldier. We can use AI to suggest different interpretations of intelligence reports. We can use high-precision guided weaponry to avoid collateral damage. We can use computerized information systems to present an accurate understanding of evidence, and most importantly, we can support a military culture where soldiers know they will be accountable for their actions, and can trust that they will be guided appropriately.
A military is a machine, and for as long as there have been soldiers, they have just been parts in that machine. With modern technology, we can improve the machine, to make it the most reliable, most accurate, and least error-prone.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of extreme weapons is to deter potential enemies from considering an attack... It's called a "weapon of deterrence" (as popularized in the movie Dr. Strangelove), and only two things can undermine the effectiveness of such a weapon - "keeping it secret" (See Dr. Strangelove) or "promising to never use the weapon." For too long US politicians tie the hands of the military, leading to third-tier countries feeling they can attack/provoke America because America won't use it's advanced weapons.
What
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this well written comment!
I've been in and around the military since I enlisted at 18 in '76. I couldn't afford college, and this was a logical option to get useful training, and college paid for. In the many years since, I've never met someone I would consider to be a war monger. Sure, there are a lot of young punks in the services...that's a demographic that needs to be reined in by the seniors. And yes, there have been some disgusting events that have slipped through the cracks...Abu Gh
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of misappropriation of technology for violent uses that makes developers kill themselves in later years
I'm not sure why someone would kill themselves for helping an organization who delivers massive amount of assistance for natural disasters around the world, but OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're going to feel responsible for everyone killed with the technology you created
Why would a hammer maker feel remorse at creating a tool that drives nails to build a home as easily as it can stave in a skull?
People who feel remorse for misuse of a tool have too delicate a psyche for the real world, something else would have affected them the same way eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this, the UN? Everyone gets a turn being in "control" of the world? Great, I can't wait till we hand it over the the bus driver in Venezuela, and when he's done, he can hand it back to the bartender from Queens. Do the Saudi's get a turn?
Maybe the US should simply start withdrawing troops and defensive systems installed around the world to facilitate this new "everyone gets a chance" form of world domination? I'm sure Europe would be chill with that plan, since they all settled their petty grievance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two of the most naïve comments I've ever seen here.
1. Responsibility in no way is passed along, or stacks. Thousands of people die every year to being hit with a hammers (https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/30/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-according-fbi-more-people-are-kil/)
That in no way makes the hammer manufacturers responsible for the abusive use of a tool.
2. Your utopian idea of swapping power around isn't logical, practical, smart, or good in any way. There are and always will b
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a technology that doesn't have a clear potential for abuse? I'm a techie. For my working life, I want to be part of creating technology. I'm also a citizen, and express my views about the use of technology, and in that capacity I want to prevent certain things from happening regardless of technology.
Outcry (Score:4, Insightful)
50 people doesn't constitute an "outcry" at a company of 100,000+. 50 people barely constitutes and outcry at a company of 1000. If you don't want to work on a project that's going to be used by the military, don't work on a project that's going to be used by the military*.
* Alternatively, fill your bosses house with a giant tinfoil pan of popcorn.
When working for the US mil (Score:2)
Workers for any part of any project for the US mil should not go full outcry.
The background investigations should have considered the politics of all staff who could have an need to outcry.
They never should have seen or been aware of any US mil project.
Better testing and background investigations should find the perfect staff able to work on complex mil and security sensitive tasks.
A democracy should be able to work with any company that has security clea
Re: When working for the US mil (Score:2)
"Their politics, education, skills, hobbies, banking, network use, reading. University politics, friends, social media use.
Friends of friends."
Perhaps the problem is excessive secrecy. According to Wikipedia, at least 1.5 million Americans hold Top Secret clearance.
It seems most unlikely that all 1.5 million meet the standard of Soviet style political reliability you advocate.
The government of a democracy in peacetime - remind me, when was the last time Congress actually declared war? - need not constantly
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA, NSA, GCHQ, MI5/6, US mil do not want another generation of security cleared people giving away US/UK mil secrets due to their politics again.
Checking digital citizenship and US digital academic results is not a full background investigation.
Someone actually has to go out in person and interview a persons life story.
Friends, teachers, fellow students, past relationships until the full story
Re: When working for the US mil (Score:2)
My brother - good grief! Can you not see the difference between desiring a different political future, one more in line with traditional American values and freedoms; and being ready to sell out one's country? Are those who admire the policies of Jefferson, Jackson, Roosevelt, or Eisenhower now thought to be the enemy? Must there be one party line?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Its CIA bait to see who looks at the project?
Could be.
2. When working for the US mil so type of security investigation and security clearance is needed?
If we are reading about such a project in the media, that "clearance" did not work very well.
Why did it not work well?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly this particular project, to provide the Army with hololenses, did not stay secret... because the Army publicly announced it.
From Bloomberg last November: "Microsoft Corp. has won a $480 million contract to supply prototypes for augmented reality systems to the Army for use on combat missions and in training, the Army said." https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What does political support of a nation mean? I know a Communist who wants what's best for the US as much as I do. We differ a lot on what's best, and even more about how to get there, but we both want the US to do well.
Re: When working for the US mil (Score:2)
Brother, I'm no America hater. I travel a bit, have seen a bit. Some things other countries do well; some things we do better. America is absolutely the least bigoted country out there. American travelers are generally well-behaved - far better than their French, Russian, Chinese, or British counterparts. Amazingly, the First Amendment has not yet been de facto repealed (like Amendments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9); so we still have freedom of speech and a reasonably free press.
Nevertheless, it's obvious to any damn f
Microsoft's Defense (Score:4, Funny)
Richard Stallman couldn't be reached for comment, but was heard laughing in the back.
Glad to see the CEO admit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the best tech workers seem to be the ones making cool stuff like F-22's and new aircraft carriers and drones. Not writing python scripts that are in perpetual beta
-- Are You Nuts? (Score:3)
Few people want war but ignoring reality by pretending there is no International threat is wilful ignorance deserving of punishment. These are our lives and the lives of our allies around the world that depend heavily upon advanced military technologies.
The only thing holding back Russia and China is U.S. military power and this is waning -- and this isn't working so well, as of late.. Russia now holds tanks with longer shooting and driving range, more speed, and greatly superior armor.. Russia holds exc
Re: (Score:2)
Opposite is equally true. While the MAD holds, none of the players you mention have any ability to initiate warfare. Attempting to dislodge MAD by advancing capabilities in relevant fields too far unilaterally leads to war.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seeing Indian and Pakistani armies going to war?
As the answer here is no, and considering that there is plenty of actual war between the two in recent history, why are you lying in context by taking a single story out of context?
Re: (Score:2)
The chance of war is still almost zero, because MAD is in effect. That's why essentially all warfare between the two has been between military and proxy militias. Not military vs military, because that would trigger MAD.
Why do you persist in lying about this?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This seems to be "Microsoft invents HoloLens" and then miliitary sees the (OBVIOUS) military applications and puts in an order for 100,000.
This does not seem to be Microsoft being pro-military. Rather, the military buying 100,000 SKU off the shelf, not unlike if they ordered 100,000 Office 365 licenses.
But I could be wrong. Still. How many food suppliers supply the US Military? Or "Skillcraft", the company that makes US Military pens?
Well it beats the alternative (Score:2)
M$ has nothing much left in consumer appeal so is going down the death machine route, taking up their role in the mass extinction of humanity.
Well I certainly rather they'd be doing that than trying to push Windows 10.
Re: (Score:2)
This is bad news for M$ products, they will lose the best and get the rest, so you can expect a steady deterioration in the quality of their product
Yes, the always high quality of their products will take a slide below that of their competitors. I expect that Windows 11 will be even worse than Linux Vista or even Apple ME.
Re: (Score:2)
They will only lose those naïve enough to believe that they don't need a military, and that if we just didn't have one, everyone would hold hands and sing We Are the World...We are the Children...LA, LA, LA. Clearly, you're one of those morons. Maybe you could go ask the people in Crimea how that worked for them, or any other country that got steamrolled.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - this is not "weapon technology" this is threat identification technology and could potentially save lives of soldiers by providing soldiers better information.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Plus they have the chance to program into it the ability to identify weddings and put up big warnings telling idiots not to shoot.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! One less "Anonymous Coward" at Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy your safe space, where there's no need for war, and there are no evil adversaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
During the manhattan project, many were troubled by the massive weaponry they were developing, but they persisted because they knew that the enemies of civilization were working on the same thing, and they knew the only thing worse than developing the atom bomb first would be to not develop the atom at all and let their enemies have the weapon.
It is arrogance to assume that a particular engineer/scientist can stop a technology from being developed. Refusal to develop it only means we won't have it when our
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of that insidious "heads-up" display they were going to work on, or maybe just work for a company that had some folks (not them, but someone else) working on a heads-up display for soldiers.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean:
1) secure big gov't contract for heads-up display
2) rebrand google glass
3) cash $480BN check!
It just might work!