Why Are the Best and Brightest Not Flooding DARPA? 597
David W. White writes "Wired mag's Danger Room carried an article today that highlighted how desperate the US Military's DARPA has become in its attempts to bring in additional brain power. The tactics include filmed testimonials, folders and even playing cards all screaming join DARPA! Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?"
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nonsense, of course. In the past, plenty of highly intelligent people have contributed to warfare and advanced weaponry. Leornardo da Vinci comes to mind. The problem is has to do with what Thomas Kuhn wrote about in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". DARPA relies on a filtering mechanism that employs academics. Academics are not open to new ideas that may upset their world view. New Einsteins would do just that, disrupt their world view. They therefore tend to avoid organizations like DARPA and prefer to go it alone. Eventually, new paradigms are accepted and science experiences a seismic explosion of creativity. DARPA would do well to encourage disruptive ideas but, given that the old guard is in charge, I am not holding my breath. We might have to wait for them to die off, as Max Planck once suggested.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
After all there is a lot of private sector jobs that pay well, provide a good working environment and leave you feeling good about the work you are doing. If you of course prefer to work for the government and contribute to society as a whole (reduced pay but better job security and contributing to the society you are a part of), there is always the medical and education sectors (hey, we might all pick on government workers for fun but it mostly isn't true and mass media has jumped on the bandwagon because it has been paid to by extremely corrupt private corporations, who want to provide you with absolutely no service and charge ten times as much as the government would ever have).
Perhaps various governments might have to figure out a way to clearly separate defensive, non-aggresive technologies and companies from death at a profit companies, so they can attract better people for defence and as for offence well I'm sure there are enough jock strap wanna be computer drones to pick from, the typing monkeys thing, get enough of them and some sort of code will come out just look at M$ Vista for example ;).
You're even worse then. (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Created a completly non-lethal but entirely effective weapon with no lasting side effects B) Created a weapon of mass destruction so powerful it would prevent any conflict as long as you are its sole possessor.
Therefore, you aare responsible for all the deaths that WILL occur resulting from your inaction on weapons reasearch.
Take this with a cubic meter of salt.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a wise observation: for a particularly detailed account of one such person, read Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb [amazon.com]. It prominently features Edward Teller, who was the driving force behind the hydrogen bomb even when many of the other Manhattan project scientists, and most notably Oppenheimer, had lost their zeal for weaponry and their certainty that we are the good guys, as the GP argues.
Note too that I pitched a theory as to why this is a problem [slashdot.org] in another comment.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Wernher von Braun and J. Robert Oppenheimer would be my examples of weapons scientists, but scientists can be pacifists, too. Joseph Rotblat [pugwash.org] quit the Manhattan project, and later received a Nobel for his efforts to encourage disarmament. Linus Pauling [wikipedia.org] had a change of heart after WWII and spoke out against nuclear testing, among other things. And I think that if you talk to people today, many will express reservations about working for the military-industrial complex.
Regarding world views, Einstein had the "right" world view for the theories of relativity. However, his world view could not accommodate quantum mechanics. Despite facilitating a paradigm shift in one area of theory, Einstein was unable to accept a different shift in a different area.
I disagree that "academics are not open to new ideas". The problem these days is that there are very few "disruptive" ideas. There are few new theories worth exploring; we are mostly nailing down the outer reaches of existing ones, and discovering that what we have got works extremely well. Every scientist wants to push the envelope. After all, scientists are rewarded with Nobel prizes for radically shifting our understanding of nature.
We live in a post-Kuhn era, where the phrase "paradigm shift" is cliché. Scientists are well acquainted with his ideas, whether explicitly or implicitly. The last thing we need is a bunch of people telling us that we're locked into our paradigms, because it's simply not true. When the LHC starts up, everyone is hoping that new physics will be found, because accumulating more data to reinforce existing theories is not terribly exciting.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the perceived moral superiority of one's state has a lot to do with people's willingness to support it. I would most happily have applied my talents to supporting US military technology efforts during WWII or even the cold war, when the US really did appear to be under existential threat.
But in today's world, it looks to many of us more like our government has been picking wars they wanted to have and seeking justification afterwards
Recent US military antics have leveraged the population's fear of from an attack that killed 3000 people to initiate a war with an unrelated country that has now resulted in the death of nearly a million people
I know there are people who feel differently than I about these events - but many also feel the same or similarly. I am no pacifist, but I feel like my current government uses kindergarten logic internationally in ways that cost millions of human lives.
That alone is plenty to keep me out of DARPA, and I suspect it is for many others as well.
If there were a real external threat, I'd be supporting my nation's efforts to fight it as would any other good patriot. Right now, the greatest threat is from within.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Violate the law that they are sworn to protect perhaps?
The constitution is supposed to protect people from government abuse but right now it is getting trampled and shown very little respect.
Personally I think it's a sad day when we have to give up our high ground because our enemy is so strong that our principles will prevent us from winning the day.
I find it strange how we act like that's the case even though the "enemy" is extraordinarily weak.
Just because they do it, is not a reason for us to do it.
Re:Kuhn, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science welcomes such things, if in fact they pan out. And yes, they can suffer from opposition at first, but in the end results are what count, and starting a revolution is a good way to get your name in the history books. That's why we know the name Einstein, because overturned what you would call "orthodoxy", but I'd call a result that had survived any practical experimentation for centuries.
Turing is basically the same as Newton in this situation. If you can disprove his theorems, or build a machine that operates under less restrictive assumptions, then get to it and make a name for yourself. The closest we've come even in theory is the quantum computer, which differs from Turing's machine in only some ways, not all. Practically there's been tremendous progress but it's still in it's infancy. This could be the very revolution you're saying is needed but not happening, even though it is happening as fast as the people working on it can do it, because it means their names may be remembered just like Turing's is.
Saying science is like a religion, where nobody dares challenge the "orthodoxy", and there's a disincentive to upturning conventional thought, is freaking ludicrous claim in light of the facts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it does not. If you are a scientist and you want to see your career plummet, try writing anything against Turing or his ideas.
Turing is basically the same as Newton in this situation.
I disagree with the analogy. Turing is not anything like Newton. Turing did not come up with anything really new about computers that had not already been invented by Charles Babbage a century earlier. If you don't believe me, ask any programmer to name one of Turing's un
Re:Kuhn, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid people are the reason for software unreliability, low productivity, and the lack of parallel programs. Synchronization primitives for parallel processing are *old*, as in 40 to 50 years old. Software unreliability was also solved around that time them with the introduction of formal proofs for algorithms. Technically, if a piece of computer code lacks a proof of correctness, it can't even be called an algorithm to begin with; it's just a heuristic.
You were probably expecting The Next Big Thing(TM) to come out as a library with bindings for your favorite programming language that would magically solve your synchronization and security problems, right? heh.
Regarding your ideas about science, how can massive paradigm shifts occur if they aren't based on existing trusted scientific experiments? You could claim that you have a great new model of gravity, but unless it contains Newton's inverse square law for objects at non relativistic speeds, it fails. If it doesn't explain general relativity (and specifically points out how it is better than GR), then it fails. Same with your brand new theories of computer science. If you can't prove that whatever new methods you come up with are a) turing complete, and b) formally correct (using existing mathematical tools), then they fail. If you can't understand why scientists might like to have new theories proven by way of trusted ones, perhaps you should go sell magic crystals to people or predict their futures.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly, because even being proven wrong doesn't mean you're wrong, if you're a philosopher.
nobody has a monopoly on opinions
And science is just another text, right?
For a bit of a laugh you should read this for instance [amazon.co.uk]
Re:Kuhn, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your claim that Turing's theories do not help to solve the problem of "software unreliability" is akin to me complaining that your comments have yet to help me change the alternator in my car; what's one got to do with the other? How do you propose that Turing's theoretical model of computational capacity at all affects "software unreliability, low productivity and the parallel programming problem" ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His resolution of the uncomfortable fact computers do algorithms and not algebra is to invoke low-level unicorn code ("the only pure alogrithmic allowed") that takes care of the details "thanks to the high speed of modern processors." That any calculation which taxes modern architecture creates an immediate no-go on the whole idea hasn't escaped him; he excuses him
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It doesn't pay as well as private organizations. Likewise, it's often not a meritocracy. I worked for a defense contractor, and I found that incompetence was rampant.
2. Most graduate level engineers/scientists cannot obtain a security clearance because they are not citizens. This puts an automatic cap on any defense related career.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, don't forget the coolness factor. During the cold war the military invested significant sums into basic research. Therefore the most advanced computers and electronics were often found in a military setting. Now, the military doesn't fund basic research to nearly the same extent, and, as a result, one is equally likely to find advanced technology in a private setting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of intelligent, well educated people that would be fine with that.
More likely it's
1 low pay (but not so much)
2 lots of bureaucracy (sooo sooo much... the bain of smart people and the joy of stupid people or controlling people)
3 stupid micro-managing managers (see 2)
---
Back after WWII, the government paid "okay" but gave you money and freedom to produce results.
You *could not* produce the space program today in 9 years. The bureaucratic overhead would smother it (it smothers the current
More money to be made elsewhere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More money to be made elsewhere? (Score:5, Informative)
military --> civil servant --> private sector --> consultant
As for why you'd work as a civil servant... it's really hard to get fired?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because I dont want to work for terrorists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really a mystery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?
We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...
DARPA has long outsourced work (Score:3, Insightful)
ARPANET (which, as you likely knew, grew into the series of tubes we know today as the Internet) was built to connect DARPA sites, and was conceived and originally built by BBN (still one of the major DARPA contractors). One of the first sites connected to ARPANET was SRI, which is still pretty big in the DARPA contracting world.
It's not new.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because... (Score:5, Funny)
Likely Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The increasing view of government agencies as mismanaged and incapable (and the fact that we somewhat consistently elect candidates that loudly proclaim this outcome as immutable and inevitable), and public sector/military work as a refuge for the bureaucratic and dull.
3) Business politics are marginally easier to put up with than ideological politics and graft.
4) The private sector pays as well or better, and you probably don't have to relocate.
4a) Fewer of the best and brightest don't choose technology/research, because it's quite clear our society values lawyers and management more.
Re:Likely Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a good point: to work at DARPA, wouldn't you have to relocate to the Washington, DC area? That place is a complete dump! You couldn't pay me enough to live in that hellhole. Maybe the government should try getting away from this idea that all Federal government stuff must absolutely be located in the DC area, and try locating in more desirable places, and then maybe they'd have more job applicants.
Hey, who wouldn't want a government job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a dream job.
Obligatory Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Because DARPA doesn't do research (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course, DARPA doesn't do research. DARPA manages contracts with other organizations that do research.
The Einsteins most likely want to be in the organizations that actually do the research.
Government Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because.. (Score:3, Insightful)
- The government is obviously corrupt and working hand in hand with organizations out to destroy the internet.
- The government is obviously corrupt and working hard to make it easier for these same organizations to engage in a domestic terrorism campaign via lawsuits.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Bad Karma (Score:5, Insightful)
While they didn't do the actual killing, they do have other options available to them.
Because management is boring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because management is boring (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and they've also taken lots of excruciatingly boring courses on understanding this process [dau.mil]. (ok, DARPA gets an exemption from that, but everyone else doesn't)
Whenever you hear about a cool new DARPA/DoD project, its not the DARPA/DoD folks who are actually doing the cool work. Its non-gov't people working for some company the gov't has a contract with that actually have all the fun.
Because they drastically reduced academic funding (Score:3, Informative)
maybe (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite simple, actually. (Score:4, Interesting)
ask slashdot for a clue (Score:5, Informative)
A little, um, research into DARPA would have uncovered that insight.
bureaucracy is killing us (Score:5, Informative)
If the government wants to succeed here, they absolutely have to throw out all the rulebooks and start over. I've been in project groups that tried to do true engineering work within the government, and it was a resource management nightmare. It would take months to order most anything. Everytime I tried to do something, I always needed something I didn't have and couldn't get for a long time. What we have now is simply an exercise in getting people paychecks. This is the real government welfare system.
I'll tell you why (Score:5, Interesting)
Government labs no longer do the stuff for the most part. There are still some pockets left, but they are few and far between, and shrinking. I graduated with a MS in computer science, with a two-year focus on computer security. I was offered a job in a research team with with a DoD lab and eagerly took it. But it wasn't research. It was contract management. Essentially, I got to read research proposals from companies, and decide whether or not those companies would be funded for their ideas. My ability to influence the actual research of the companies was quite limited. I was able to come up with 'calls for proposals,' that is, statements of new topics that we'd like proposals on from companies. By the time these ideas were raped^Wvetted by the various program and contract managers, the descriptions were so incredibly vague that the proposals received in response to the call were completely off-topic. I got frustrated very early on and left.
In my exit interview, I asked my supervisor to define research. His definition was adequate. I then asked him if that's what we did. He stammered a bit, and ultimately conceded that we, "facilitated research." We had a very interesting discussion. Due to research project overruns throughout the 80s, particularly with software projects, as well as the end of the Cold War, the Congress changed the focus of DoD research programs. New funding rules dictate that research projects are placed under contract. In this way, if a company is paid to do research and development on a project, and it fails to deliver, the government has some recourse. If actual government employees received funding and failed, there would not be much that congress could do to them (Congress could slash the non-salary portions of the failed project's budget, but that's not very intimidating to the employees when you think about it).
The place where the 'cool' stuff happens these days is by the contractors. If you want to work on ARPA and DARPA quality work, start a small business and start winning on SBIR awards. I wouldn't recommend actually working for DARPA or a government research lab, though, unless you really want to be a contract manager and not be very hands-on with technology and ideas.
Re:I'll tell you why (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to emphasize that there are some great people that work in DARPA and the various other research labs. I was definitely fortunate to work with or at least meet with the people that I did during my time in DoD. Quite a few people are technical and smart, and can see some big problems that we're facing. That is an incredibly good thing. I think that, from a human resources angle, the research labs are facing a legitimate problem though: they need people with technical expertise and passion to do a job that does not utilize that technical expertise and passion in a very glamorous way. It is downright demeaning to a lot of people with advanced degrees in a subject to do a job that doesn't involve actually doing the stuff that they studied, but instead watching other people do that stuff (and often doing it wrong!).
It is incredibly hard for DARPA and other agencies to spin the job in the right way to smart people. My point is that they're going about this whole 'selling the job' thing wrong -- they should try to change the job a bit to make it more technical in order to get people interested. Maybe they (the Congress) could require government contractors to accept the government-employed contract manager into their fold as a department head, paid for by the government. It could certainly be an interesting experiment that might yield a good outcome (which, I daresay, would be research worth funding).
Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)
We're rejecting and canning people because of even the most minor and often ancient of unrelated and innocuous financial transgressions and social relations -- even for the most insignificant of positions in government, contractors and even subcontractors thereof.
It's asinine. There are senators and congressmen with worse records and credit than contractors denied clearance to mop their floors.
The process is so intrusive and debasing that many people take one look at the paperwork and simply walk away.
We don't have the best and the brightest anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
The stipulations were
A) Had to be a resident when graduating high school
B) Had to be an instate college
C) Had to have a B average and maintain it through college
When the enacting governor left office, the replacement governor promised college for all students.
The result was grade inflation where the D average inner city kid got that magical B average
and because of affirmative action, the D average kids got head of the line admission to the universities over the real B and A achievers.
We see animosity from the educational unions over the home and private schooled kids because their results are better and it's the unions that say that the results aren't fair.
Political correctness got rid of the best and brightest.
DARPA is a contracting agency (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe at one time DARPA was something more, but thinking back to ARPANet... that was all contractors and contracted academia as well. BBN, MIT Lincoln, Mitre all immediately pop in mind.
(And yes, I am aware BAE Systems is a subsidiary of BAE plc. With the SSA and totally separate financials, it is in all but name an American company... and soon will be totall US in fact as well. Meerkat Salute!
Oh really ? (Score:3, Funny)
"Here take a beer, and let me talk to you about when I was approached to work for the NSA"
"Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president."
So fuck NSA and fuck DARPA! Now where are my sheeps ?"
It's the funding, stupid! (Score:5, Informative)
While NSF grants have little oversight, require few deliverables, and have 3-4 year terms, DARPA grants increasingly have 1.5-2 year horizons, require regular reports and site visits, and have go/no-go mid-term decisions. Furthermore, DARPA projects increasingly want deliverables and seek classification. Thus, while NSF still allows you to engage in more blue-sky, high-risk research, DARPA is interested in advanced development. Not quite the thing academics and grad students signed up for. No surprise most DARPA funding has switched from universities to contractors.
Most academics I know would love to return to the DARPA gravy-train of pre-Tony Tether days; the funding terms and dollar amounts just aren't there currently.
This CRA post summarized it well:
http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000624.html [cra.org]
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
1. The hiring process for Federal employees sucks. It is byzantine and SLOW. One of the more progressive agencies was able to bring me on in a couple of months, but another took a YEAR. The average is somewhere in the middle. I had reasons to wait at the time (had to see what was behind that big NSA fence) but why would anyone wait under normal circumstances when contractors/the private sector moves so much more quickly?
2. The pay sucks. The GS scheme tops out at around $120K right now. There are grades that pay more (SES) but without going into detail, good luck with that. Anyone with solid experience in security/enterprise IP engineering/etc can smoke that as a contractor or in the private sector.
3. The atmosphere sucks. The government may be trying to change, but everything you've ever heard about the stereotypical gov't employee is generally true. Some agencies are better than others, but at most the fat guy with the polyester leisure suit lives on.
4. The positive reinforcement sucks. Managers have little ability to give raises or promotions. In some agencies, spot awards are used, but most still view them as evil.
5. The benefits suck. Is there any other employer in this day and age that doesn't have maternity leave? The rest (medical, 401(k)) are par. The pension is nice, if you stick around long enough to qualify.
6. The culture sucks. No matter how much they try to change, years of hiring the sub-par have infused the gov't with a culture of sluggish bureaucracy. This will take decades to undo. Also, this is precisely the kind of environment that will drive a decent technical person raving mad in short order.
Noone who [knows|can do] better would ever work for the Federal Government.
benefits are still good (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to work 5 years to get a pension (1% of your salary per year for your three year high, i think you can collect it when you turn 62).
You get plenty of
Not just for the military (Score:5, Informative)
* Networking (the Internet)
* Graphics
* Timesharing systems
* VLSI
* RISC
* RAID
* Parallel and high-performance computing
As for not wanting to work there, it's like other comments have said: DARPA program managers don't *do* research, they manage people who do (and really it's more like: they manage people like professors and company project managers, and *those* people manage the students and scientists who actually *do* the research). People get PhDs for different reasons, of those who got one to do research, few of them want to be that far removed from actually doing it.
Who'd have thought (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a procurement job, not a management job (Score:4, Interesting)
A DARPA "program manager" is often what Government procurement people call a "Contracting Officer's Technical Representative". This is someone who knows what the project is about, technically, and goes out to check on progress. Back at HQ, you write reports, go to meetings concerning what projects ought to go forward, and look at incoming proposals. You get to see a lot, and have some influence over research, but don't really do much yourself. The problem is finding people smart enough to do the job, willing to work for the Government not actually doing technical work, senior enough to tell companies and professors what to do, yet not has-beens.
Although many academics are unhappy with DARPA under Dr. Tony Tether, I think he's done good work. Academic robotics needed a serious butt-kick. DARPA had been putting money into robot vehicles since 1969 without getting anything usable. Tether dreamed up the DARPA Grand Challenge to light a fire under academic researchers. Early on, the big-name schools didn't want to field entries. It was quietly made clear to them that the gravy train was over - if they couldn't compete, they weren't getting further funding in robotics. Entire academic departments were devoted to that problem, and it got results. More recently, Boston Dynamics' "Big Dog" robot has been demoed. Again, this was something far better than anything from decades of academic work. I can't speak for work outside robotics, but DARPA really has succeeded in forcing robotics groups to produce.
Location, location, location! (Score:3, Insightful)
My friends aren't there. My family isn't there. It would take a shit ton of money for me to be able to financially justify relocating there, which would involve my wife needing to quit her job to come with, as well as needing to sell my house in a shitty market for selling houses.
Sorry, but if you have only one location and you want the best and the brightest, you have to be willing to offer stupid amounts of money to make sure it's financially viable for all the best and the brightest. I think it'd be cool as hell to work on a lot of the projects I've seen come out of DARPA, but not enough to enter poverty (and more, to ask my family to enter poverty) to do it.
Several reasons: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The first letter in DARPA stands for "defense"
Most serious scientists want to create and explore, not destroy. Does NASA have problems hiring? THAT would be news. Actually they probably do have problems, as does anyone trying to get "real" scientists these days. I'd actually expect DARPA to be the last place to "dry up" because it won't get an enormous percentage of otherwise-eligible scientists apply.
2) Money.
Government agencies tend not to pay anywhere near market rates and if they do, they certainly don't keep up with those rates after a few years.
3)
I'm afraid this item is classified information and you may never, ever discuss it with anyone, ever.
4) Freedom.
Work for the government for a pittance to develop something that will then be claimed as a government invention, or work for a serious research place where you will get some credit and be able to discuss your ideas with others (that is, basically, what science is all about). You'll be able to research just about anything you want, in all kinds of esoteric fields, rather than being forced back to "make me something that'll kill more people", for instance. You'll (hopefully) be able to do it without a massive committee of people with their own agenda pushing you into areas you have little interest in.
Re:Umm... because they want to work tomorrow, too? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm... because they want to work tomorrow, too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Ignorance is the prime reason that I can think of. Tunnel vision & short sightedness comes a close second. But those aren't characteristics of the "best and the brightest".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Umm... because they want to work tomorrow, too? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the DARPA wiki [wikipedia.org].
DARPA has no research laboratories. They have no computational computer network. They are program managers. They are no more researchers than the PHB is a programmer. They are good at moving money around and have a great BS meter. The closest thing to research I have seen in SETA contractors working for a DARPA Program Manager. They do some background work, determine the state of the art, and potential for different research areas.
Re:Like the CIA (Score:4, Funny)
This person will be a valuable member to your team, they will do anything, ANYTHING, to get the job done
Sincerely, Unnamed Government Agency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our dad (wwii pilot) talked him out of it, saying "well...you can be the absolute best in that field, but you'll never be able to tell anyone about it."
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Jobs and Morals were Exported. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame Bush and 30 years of "Free Trade".
Like the MITer said, few people want to help with a war of aggression, torture and wiretap. The Bush administration has killed close to a million innocent people in Iraq, directly and by infrastructure damage. People die quickly when they don't have clean water, and few have that without the electric utilities and distribution network we bombed out but never rebuilt. All for control of oil.
We are also starting to run out of qualified young people because all of t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well your post is offtopic and insulting to boot, but it would seem to me that the jobs are here in the US. Except of course that most of them are Indian and Chinese employed by IBM and companies like that.
No, not really. I'd agree with the wars part, but the trade thing is certainly false. Why do you hate China so muc
Re:Bullshit. The Jobs and Morals were Exported. (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked for IBM for 10 years - the best and the brightest rarely stay there because it doesn't take long to realise that layoffs at IBM have more to do with stock prices quarter to quarter and politics. IBM is as guilty as the govt and many other companies regarding outsourcing. The best and the brightest beat a path to the exit.
It once was a great company, sadly they have lost their way and essentially become a marketing company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you and what the link proves. But you are not understanding my point. A great many of those people who are hired in those countries end up working here in the United States. IBM has thousands and thousands of "employees" working here, for IBM and under contract for U.S. companies. They might have be
Re:Bullshit. The Jobs and Morals were Exported. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end we find that more and more of these foreign hires go back to their own countries bringing with them the knowledge and experience gained here at lower wages. Lower because our local corporations care not one whit for the future of this country, only that they hit their quarterly marks. I don't blame the foreign workers, I would do exactly as they do. At the end we as a country have underemployed, discouraged, talented and yes even brilliant engineers and scientist who can no longer compete in the marketplace becasue they were never given the opportunity to sharpen their skills in a real world environment.
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just won't make weapons. And sorry AC, no salary would make me change my mind.
Please, flame on all, and tell me how many useful technologies are spun off from DARPA research everyday. And, come to think of it, how many weapons are created out of 'off-label' uses of otherwise innocuous. I guess, for me, it's principle.
I wonder if studies exist of correlations between higher education and pacifism...
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing along with the "other country" theme, if you step into a graduate engineering department, you're likely to find a majority of non U.S. citizens comprising the graduate student workforce. These people are also ineligible for most U.S. Govt. fellowships and jobs that require a decent level of security clearance. Thus, DARPA might be having a tough time recruiting top-notch talent because most of the talent is ineligible to work for DARPA.
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Informative)
Excerpted from his site, powerlabs.org:
From its conception, the original PowerLabs Linear Magnetic Accelerator ("Rail Gun", or "Railgun") was conceived for the primary goal of simply proving that it could be done; on a low budget, with common materials and powered by a never tried before electrolytic capacitor bank.
In that, it was extremely successful: Not only did the gun fire flawlessly over 30 times (it is not uncommon for research rail guns to break down in the first shot), but it also attracted vastly more attention than I could ever have hoped for:
After its page generated hundreds of thousands of hits, the gun was featured on Discovery Channel, TV6, numerous newspaper and magazine articles, and earned me several job offers from the private sector, research institutes, and industry. The highlight of the popularity of this project came in the form of two separate offers from laboratories associated with the department of defense (DoD), which, apparently can't hire me because I was not born in the USA (someone must have forgotten that the majority of the best scientists and engineers in the world weren't born here)...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is correct. The best and brightest US citizens are not US born, and not eligible to work for these groups. The first example I could think of off the top of my head is the story of the student who builds rail guns and laser guns for fun and for his doctorate, the DOD approached him with 2 jobs and then found out he was not a born US citizen.
You don't have to be born in the US to get clearances (even very high level ones), you just have to be a US citizen and be able to pass all the background checks. If your documentable history doesn't go back far enough it's probably hard-- I think a secret clearance goes back at least 7 years. You also can't be a direct employee of the US gov't unless you're a citizen, but most agencies deal with that by trying to have small populations of direct employees and lots of contractors (who just have to be abl
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm gonna go ahead and say that discrimination based on, you know, race is a better example of "racism". Discrimination based on national origin is called "nationalism". Note the common root words in both cases.
Now nationalism might still be a bad time, and might even lead to racism if people of a particular nationality commonly share a race, (see the use of "Mexican" as a racial slur against all latinos regardless of national origin) but it is not racism in and of itself.
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna go ahead and say that discrimination based on, you know, race is a better example of "racism". Discrimination based on national origin is called "nationalism". Note the common root words in both cases.
If a US employer decides to hire someone from the US instead of me, that's also not racist. Maybe they want to avoid all the paperwork and expense of getting me a work permit. Or maybe they want to hire someone that can come in for an interview on short notice. No one would say that a California company was being regionalist in deciding to hire a local rather than someone from New York.
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:4, Insightful)
~X~
Re:Naw (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:4, Informative)
In what alternate universe does DARPA deploy?
OTOH, your troll post may just be proof-testing of the DARPA "exploding clue" project.
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm, because .... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Perhaps they have a conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps they have a conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
fixed:
"While I've known many brilliant people involved in making stuff for the military, most intelligent people also seem to be anti-military. I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation."
The correlation is this:
You are anti-miltary.
You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does)
You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does)
I am sure that pro-military persons think that most intelligent people also seem to be pro-military.
Personally I'm anti-miltary, and really dumb.
Re:Perhaps they have a conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does)
You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does)
Re:Perhaps they have a conscience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- More wars started and continued for a longer time.
- More civilian casualties (who don't get the nice body armor) and aren't counted by US politicians or most of the voters.
- More wounded US soldiers. Improved body armor has reduced fatalities, but not wounds to extremities. In the Vietnam war, the ratio of death vs w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, one could argue that if "our soldiers" didn't have superior weaponry then they might not go to war quite so often...
Re:Because they pay crap (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying the man is infallible, and frankly that's the reason why I like him as a candidate.
He's OLD SCHOOL washington, the kind that consult experts and demand substance.
He represents the possibility of yanking the US government out of wacky-land and back into sanity, where further progressive efforts will at least be examined on merit.
Of course, my congressional votes will go republican
Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Funny)
Now, even Youtubers are flying mini-helicopters with webcams [youtube.com]
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like a good reason to join.
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Interesting)
Sheesh. DARPA is designed specifically to avoid being an "old boys network". DARPA staff are rotated out after 4-6 years -- no one is around long enough to form an "old boys network".
From Wikipedia: The staff is rotated to ensure fresh thinking and perspectives, and to have room to bring technical staff from new areas into DARPA. It also allows the program managers to be bold and not fear failure.
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Funny)
It was a complete "pipe dream."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Because DARPA is a government mess (Score:5, Funny)