Hacker News Reader

Comment by marshallp | Hacker News Reader

I disagree that dod has the best tech already in "top secret". The best tech is often dod sponsored, but is made public by the university researchers who usually create it. And it's not costly, you can go read it and use it, often the stuff is released as open source software on the researchers' website.

View on HN

We're not aware of what they have that's considered classified. Back in the 70s, a former prof of mine was doing his phd. He was trying to figure stuff out and couldn't. Through one turn or another, he said the DoD told him, "OK, kid, come over here, we'll help yo out." He got classified access to see stuff that blew his mind and helped him get going.

The point is that back then, at least one guy's experience was that the military helped the university researchers, not the other way around. When I look at some of the capabilities in military hardware today, I wouldn't doubt that the DoD is still way up there. Certainly, a lot of medical innovations (as one example) are still made on the battlefield first, even today.

How would you know if it is top secret? Most top secret tech never gets seen outside of the top secret circles. Unless you have a TS/SCI clearance, the best you can do is speculate on what exists now. Obviously not all fields are covered in the government, but things that are very important to them (signal intelligence, networking, logistical management, satellite communication) are all very well ahead of the consumer/public space in my experiences.

I've got doubts about their logistical and abilities, now that they increasingly use private companies to get their stuff around.

I think we'd be surprised to see some of the things that might be in the bowels of, say, Sandia.

I used to think they were all special genius places, until i see that it's not their people winning publicly open challenges like netflix, darpa grand challenge, x prize, or goldfarb.

People at those "special genius places" can't participate in any of the things you mentioned. They get paid for other, much more important jobs. Darpa grand challenge wasn't due to the government not being able to do something, it was due to it being much cheaper to just pay someone to do it for you. In the end, lots of teams competed and only a few got any money out of it, the rest of us ended up just volunteering for the government for a while in the hopes of making a lot of money.

I've worked with some GOTS software that came from Sandia and some that came from Lawrence Livermore. It's honestly kind of crappy.

here's a good test: the ROSE framework is developed by LLNL. it's basically an LLVM also-ran. compare its code quality, its use experience, and its overall worth (the code for both is open source!)

I don't believe that's true. The military's been trying to develop self driving vehicles for decades and one of their teams did compete in the darpa challenge and lost. And I don't see self-driving vehicles being unimportant now that the wars are fought against civilian combatants. The military is (or should be) desperate for them, they would avoid almost all military deaths that occur now (ied's blowing up humvees transporting things from the greenzone in baghdad for example).

What are the more important stuff that government scientists deal with that academic/industrial scientists are not up to? Don't believe the hype the military-industrial complex sells about itself.

No one from the government competed in the Darpa Grand Challenge. It was all private companies or universities. I was there, DARPA sponsored it and oversaw it, that's all. Check the wiki link below and tell me which team listed was from the DoD?

They wanted self-driving cars for military transport into dangerous locations. The first DGC there were only a few competitors and none of us did very well. In 2005 there were quite a few (listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2005)) with lots of teams making it through to the desert final stage.

I was part of the military-industrial complex, and yes there is a lot of wasteful B.S. only there to make more things to make more money, but there is stuff there that is not being done at all (or at least not well) outside of the government. Those things are the things that are labelled Secret or Top Secret in most cases. Like all governments, if the US government has an advantage in any little way, it likes to keep it that way.

Wouldn't you consider the mitre entry basically a government entry (it's a non-profit funded by the government).

No, because they are all civilians who don't even carry GS rankings. Mitre is just a government contractor like everyone else in that space, but they are different because they are a not-for-profit corporation. They serve contracts for the government, but so do people like Lockheed and Northrop. Like those other two, the government couldn't just shut down Mitre.

"But is made public by the university researchers who usually create it" <-- yeah, the stuff you know about is made public, and the stuff you don't.... isn't. That's what secret means. I think I heard that 50% of the research in Neuroscience labs today is DoD sponsored and never sees the light of day. Mind-hacking anyone?

Tech that could be applied to civilians and made money on doesn't stay hidden for long - this is one place where the "greedy" mba types are the good guys.

I take it you think there are MBA types that wander around NSA headquarters, grab the dragonfly-size spy robots and bring them to market?

yeah, exactly.

there has to be a management structure even at nsa, and management types are "networkers" who'll talk to people with money to invest.

NSA gets their money whether you like it or not. They certainly have people in charge who talk to the legislative branch, but they aren't MBA/marketing people. The are usually ex-generals. Other agencies might seek outside contractors, but the NSA is one of the few who do most of their work themselves. I didn't work there, but that was my understanding at the time I worked in other parts of the government.

Doesn't matter about their backgrounds, mba or ex-general, people who rise to executive levels rub shoulders with investors at cocktail parties and deals happen.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What investors? You have proven you don't know what you are talking about in this thread, but I am curious what you think is true? Who are the heads of the NSA meeting with who would be considered investors? The NSA meets with the Armed Services board and the Senate intelligence board, and that's about it. I get it, you think the government is b.s., but groups like the NSA don't seek outside investment.

No need to get rude, I'm not some teenage troll guy, I'm here for intelligent discussion. I don't seen where I've "proven" myself wrong.

This thread is not about investment into nsa, but commercialization of nsa (or other military/government org) technology. My point was that regardless of nsa'a official stance of secrecy, tech gets "leaked" out into the commercial sphere. You can't stop a good thing from spreading, no matter how hard you try.

Are nuclear bombs good? Do the heads of our national security agencies take technologies that could potentially kill the whole world's population and, because they, like every other executive in the world, are an MBA-types, sell it to whoever they happen to meet at a cocktail party? You may not be a teenager, but I can't say that you aren't a troll.

Nuclear tech, in the form of reactors has been commercialized for quite some time if you haven't noticed. And no, I'm not a troll, just because someone takes a contrary view they are not automatically a troll.

There aren't profit-oriented 'managers', there are 'administrators'.

Having recently ended four years working in a neuroscience department at Harvard Medical School...

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com