|
|||||||||||
|
Re: DARPA cancellation (how to try and get it uncancelled)
From: Michael Erdely <mike(at)erdelynet.com>
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 07:40:07 EDT
-----Original Message-----
Not true, bad press is bad press, and if 10m US people read /. , then you've can bet if 0.01% send a fax to their congressman, that's a f-ck load of fax paper. That's the kind of thing that gets the Navy/Army/USAF saying: "Oooh, sorry, all a big mistake, we meant to cancel the other project but some clerk goofed. All better now, here's the money." Can you post a reference to the /. article - if we all jump on it I guess it'll go up the ratings, and onto the front page?
Dom
Dom De Vitto Tel. 07855 805 271 http://www.devitto.com mailto: dom(at)devitto.com- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----Original Message-----
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Ted Goodridge wrote: > I submitted this to slashdot, for whatever good that will do. I am
You're going to write your congress critters because DARPA is no longer funding a project based in Canada? Good luck with that one. Barring the fact that it's funneling money outside of the US, DARPA tends to keep their reasons for doing things to themselves, and as noted, DARPA was simply the funnel from another military organization. You'll likely never get a satisfactory answer to your question. > This seems legally wrong...and I hope that legal counsel can help to
Actually, I'd gather it has less to do with Theo's political beliefs and if it has anything to do with something that came out of Theo's mouth, I'd say it had more to do with what was posted on deadly.org from the zdnet story. '"This really wasn't part of the DARPA grant," he said. "But it happened because the DARPA grant happened, because when you throw a bunch of...guys into a room and get them drunk, this is what you get." De Raadt was careful to point out that the group paid for its own beer.' I doubt seriously that DARPA gives a crap about political beliefs. But having to explain how they gave so much money to a group of "drunk programmers" would be very hard to explain once that got out. A harmless comment I'm sure, but the people writing the checks might not have viewed it as such. And as the deadly.org poster mentioned, there are a lot of people in government IT that read ZD publications. Still, I agree that the government never moves that fast on something like this. It generally takes an excessive amount of time for anything to happen when the federal government is involved due to the beuracracy. That's why government healthcare would be more of a nightmare than insurance companies have made it. If I had to bet money on it, I'd bet it has to do with budget cuts in the military for non-essentials. The US is coming up on a budget crunch, and even the military is going to have to cut back, specifically on programs that do not contribute to battlefield readiness. It is a bit disappointing given some of the statements on computer security from the administration, but such is life. And for what it's worth SPAWAR is a Navy program, not Air Force, but OpenBSD would certainly fit into the kind of projects SPAWAR would look to support. I won't even get into the absurdity of people calling the DARPA grant "blood money" after the fact. Without DARPA "blood money" from the 1980's supporting Berkeley, BSD as a whole wouldn't be where it is today and it's likely OpenBSD would not exist at all. Regards, -- JosephReceived on Fri Apr 18 07:45:05 2003 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 13:34:10 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||