jeh@ritcv.UUCP (James E Heliotis) (11/25/83)
There is something that we, as computer scientists, can do to slow down
the technology of death, and to voice our protest. We can refuse research
funding from the military (e.g., ARPA).
Enough Said.
Jim Heliotis
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jeh
rocksvax!ritcv!jeh
ritcv!jeh@Rochesterheliotis@rochester.UUCP (Jim Heliotis) (11/26/83)
Jim, Sorry, but I just cannot agree with you on that. First of all, if the military is foolish enough to fund you on research that ends up doing them no good, you have actually helped the cause of humanity by taking their money. On the other hand, if you don't accept their money, someone else will, and all he has to do is read your publications and pick up where you left off, so, are we ahead or worse off? I also think you might be a little less inclined to take this step if you worked at an institution that depended more heavily on government grants, such as where I am a student. It's easy to renounce ARPA when your salary comes from tuition and private contributions. Yes, "it's" SHOULD be spelled with the apostrophe here. rochester!heliotis
heliotis@rochester.UUCP (11/26/83)
References: <833@ritcv.UUCP> Relay-Version:version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP Path:duke!decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!rochester!heliotis Message-ID:<3954@rochester.UUCP> Date:Fri, 25-Nov-83 19:52:46 EST Organization:U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Jim, Sorry, but I just cannot agree with you on that. First of all, if the military is foolish enough to fund you on research that ends up doing them no good, you have actually helped the cause of humanity by taking their money. On the other hand, if you don't accept their money, someone else will, and all he has to do is read your publications and pick up where you left off, so, are we ahead or worse off? I also think you might be a little less inclined to take this step if you worked at an institution that depended more heavily on government grants, such as where I am a student. It's easy to renounce ARPA when your salary comes from tuition and private contributions. Yes, "it's" SHOULD be spelled with the apostrophe here. rochester!heliotis
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/29/83)
"There is something that we, as computer scientists, can do to slow down the technology of death, and to voice our protest. We can refuse research funding from the military (e.g., ARPA)." Right on, Jim! But wait until you see the stream of rationalizations that come streaming in from all the nuke researchers and military software engineers. Reminds me of a line from the recent film, "The Big Chill". One character suggests that rationalizations are more important than sex. "Ever try to go a week without a rationalization?" he asks. What about it, military researchers? Ever try that? Mike Kelly tty3b!mjk
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (11/29/83)
Good, you do that. I just love Ivory Tower thinking. It makes life easier for the rest of us as we can then dismiss it as the ravings of those who don't live in the real world. I too made pronouncements from the lofty heights thinking I was the holder of the true word. Funny, though, it all went away once I had to feed myself. pyuxa!wetcw
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (12/01/83)
Jim Heliotis said: First of all, if the military is foolish enough to fund you on research that ends up doing them no good, you have actually helped the cause of humanity by taking their money. The problem with this is that "they" is all of the taxpayers including you and me. You may want to recast this statement in terms of the Military having a set amount of money taken from the general thieving of the IRS, in which case, anything you spend that doesn't promote the military hurts our Department of War. Or, you may want to remember that whatever you take from the government is stolen money, and someone somewhere is poorer because of it.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/06/83)
Sam Hall accuses me of McCarthyite tactics in labeling responses from military researchers "rationalizations" (since it tends to denounce anything they say in advance). I didn't mean to dis- courage military researchers from contributing. Several friends of mine from school are now working at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California (one of the major nuclear weapons R&D sites), and most of their responses to me are simple rationalizations: "wouldn't you rather have me doing this than some real nut?" "If I don't do it, someone else will.", etc. I guess I've just come to expect this from military researchers. I don't doubt that some truly believe in what they're doing. But I also know many do not, and it puzzles me that they continue in this kind of work when there are so many jobs available in CS and EE that are not directly military-related. I know that 'everything is military related'; that's what happens when you run a war economy, as we do in the U.S. But there's an important message in explicitly refusing to work directly for the military and stating WHY you are refusing the job. Furthermore, that's not unilateral disarmament. It's taking direct action to help slow down the arms race. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/08/83)
I guess I've just come to expect this from military researchers. I don't doubt that some truly believe in what they're doing. But I also know many do not, and it puzzles me that they continue in this kind of work when there are so many jobs available in CS and EE that are not directly military-related. As I said in a previous article, there are some of us (like myself) who find that they must work in government-related industry on government-sponsored projects because their interests lie in areas which are sponsored only by the government. True, there are lots of opportunities in EE/CS that are not directly military-related, but they do not necessarily fall into the scope of interests of these people who tend towards military-related research jobs. As I was telling a friend of mine one day, it's a shame that private companies do not fund communications research as much as the government does, 'cause I want to do communications research and the only people who seem to be doing it now are the military. --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) GDS@XX (arpa)
bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (12/08/83)
...Mike Kelly reports: >Right on, Jim! But wait until you see the stream of >rationalizations that come streaming in from all the nuke >reseachers and military software engineers. Reminds me of a line >from the recent film, "The Big Chill". One character suggests that >rationalizations are more important than sex. "Ever try to go a >week without a rationalization?" he asks. What about it, military >researchers? Ever try that? This is a simple "McCarthyism" to preempt debate. You assume that whatever group is "bad" (military researchers?), then suggest that any response from this group will be "rationalizations" (or somehow, invalid) because they have a vested interest in being in that group. So, e.g., the pope can't talk about Catholicism, or, at least, we should a priori dismiss anything he has to say on the subject, because of his vested interest in the subject ("just wait 'til the pope comes back with some preachy platitude about..."). As a simple student (with no income from any defense-related activity--is that a prerequisite for you to listen to me, Mike?), I see unilateral disarmament as ineffective and, quite possibly, dangerous. That's my current opinion, but I see no reason to prejudge any arguments to the contrary, or to try to discourage responses (isn't "open discussion" a reason for having the net?). Nor do I view military research, per se, as "bad". You are welcome to express a different opinion, Mike; I just wish you wouldn't be so self-righteous about it. Sam Hall {decvax}!ucbvax!bitmap@ucbtopaz "Now just wait until Mike Kelly or his ilk comes back with some asinine, sneering remark", right?
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/09/83)
Great Balls of Fire, Mr Skinner, I don't know what they are teaching up there at MIT, but you better start questioning them about what's going on out here in the real world. When you say that only the military seems to be funding communications projects, You have it backwards. There is more money going into this type of research in the private sector than ever before in history. Check out Bell Labs, Western Electric, Western Union, ITT, Northern Telcom, IBM, and literally hundreds of other firms from one end of this country to the other. There has been an explosion in this industry. With the breakup of the Bell System, everyone is poised to get into the act. Look at MCI, Southern Pacific, and GTE for starters. The military is an after the fact user of many of the systems being developed for commercial use. Don't worry about not being able to find a place in the communications industry that does not accept military funding for communications research. Most of this type work is funded through the private sector. The military usually gets involved only after a particular system has been developed and they want one too. Granted, the military does fund some communications research, however, that funding is a drop in the bucket compared to what the private sector is doing. Take a look at the New York Times Business Section on any given Sunday. I would venture that at least 30% of the ads are for comunications types, not conected with military spending. T. C. Wheeler
mag@whuxle.UUCP (Gray Mike) (12/10/83)
. . . As I was telling a friend of mine one day, it's a shame that private companies do not fund communications research as much as the government does, 'cause I want to do communications research and the only people who seem to be doing it now are the military. --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) GDS@XX (arpa) Ever heard of Bell Telephone Laboratories? Mike Gray, BTL, WH.
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/11/83)
*** Great Balls of Fire, Mr Skinner, I don't know what they are teaching up there at MIT, but you better start questioning them about what's going on out here in the real world. When you say that only the military seems to be funding communications projects, You have it backwards. There is more money going into this type of research in the private sector than ever before in history. Check out Bell Labs, Western Electric, Western Union, ITT, Northern Telcom, IBM, and literally hundreds of other firms from one end of this country to the other. There has been an explosion in this industry. With the breakup of the Bell System, everyone is poised to get into the act. Look at MCI, Southern Pacific, and GTE for starters. The military is an after the fact user of many of the systems being developed for commercial use. Don't worry about not being able to find a place in the communications industry that does not accept military funding for communications research. Most of this type work is funded through the private sector. The military usually gets involved only after a particular system has been developed and they want one too. Granted, the military does fund some communications research, however, that funding is a drop in the bucket compared to what the private sector is doing. Take a look at the New York Times Business Section on any given Sunday. I would venture that at least 30% of the ads are for comunications types, not conected with military spending. *** Mayhaps I should clarify my earlier statement. The private sector does indeed participate in *communications* more than the military does, but not in communications *research*. I think that the people who work for companies that are funded by the government are interested in developing new techniques in communications, rather than developing random mail systems or taking old ideas and integrating them in different contexts. The companies you mentioned seem to do the latter. ---greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds ...ihnp4!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) gds%mit-eddie@mit-mc (arpa)