If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   U.S. military to soon become Google's single largest customer. Unfortunately no one in the military has ever thought to use Google to look up "winning military strategy"   (dailycaller.com) divider line 78
    More: Interesting, U.S., Google, U.S. military, militarization, U.S. Defense Department, military strategist, In-Q-Tel, Boston Dynamics  
•       •       •

3922 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2014 at 10:12 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-13 08:35:59 AM
TFA has a stick up it's ass.

Google does innovative and fundamental research. How many companies are doing fundamental research today? Not many. The thing about fundamental research is that it's broadly applicable- TFA makes it sound like the only reason Google is into robots and self-driving cars is so that it can become a military contractor, and totally ignores the other reasons it has for doing that stuff.

Google is in the data business. All of the intelligent doodads of the future are going to need a *lot* of data to operate. They'll need everything that Google is offering, from their complete map of the world's road networks (with ground-level pictures) to things like databases that help them recognize and react to people. Google wants to be at the ground floor, selling the infrastructure we'll use throughout the next century of commerce, and they want to create new markets for the data they do have.

So Google goes out and develops the first commercial self-driving car. Of course there are military applications, but there are just as lucrative civilian applications as well. Same with drones and robots- yes there are military applications, but there are untold numbers of civilian applications as well, of which we're just starting to see the tip of the iceberg with things like Amazon's drone delivery service.

Sometime inside of this century, robots and drones will become commonplace. Maybe not pervasive, but it won't be a shock when someone tells you that their infirm grandparents have a robot that helps around the house, or when you see a truck driving itself, or when you see an autonomous robot walking down the street. Likewise, it won't be a shock when you hear about a new drone soldier or drone vehicle killing people in Afghanistan or someplace.

And Google wants to be right there, at the foundation, selling people the data they need to do all those things.
 
2014-01-13 08:39:08 AM
Just like drones are the future of air warfare, humanoid robots and self-driving vehicles will be the future of ground warfare according to U.S. defense plans.

static1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-13 08:52:07 AM
Wouldn't profiting from war be against their motto?
 
2014-01-13 08:54:59 AM
Eeexcelent.  The circle is nearing completion.

scstylecaster.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-13 09:17:53 AM
Subby is another one of those "Shock and Awe" Fulda jerkoffers. We've won the wars - utterly and completely. It's the nation building part we suck at.

You can't build an ice sculpture with a white hot sledgehammer.

At some point, however, we'll realize that when someone says "We'll be greated as liberators!" and they aren't referring to France circa 1944, they can be safely classified an idiot.
 
2014-01-13 09:29:50 AM

Fubini: TFA has a stick up it's ass.

Google does innovative and fundamental research. How many companies are doing fundamental research today? Not many. The thing about fundamental research is that it's broadly applicable- TFA makes it sound like the only reason Google is into robots and self-driving cars is so that it can become a military contractor, and totally ignores the other reasons it has for doing that stuff.

Google is in the data business. All of the intelligent doodads of the future are going to need a *lot* of data to operate. They'll need everything that Google is offering, from their complete map of the world's road networks (with ground-level pictures) to things like databases that help them recognize and react to people. Google wants to be at the ground floor, selling the infrastructure we'll use throughout the next century of commerce, and they want to create new markets for the data they do have.

So Google goes out and develops the first commercial self-driving car. Of course there are military applications, but there are just as lucrative civilian applications as well. Same with drones and robots- yes there are military applications, but there are untold numbers of civilian applications as well, of which we're just starting to see the tip of the iceberg with things like Amazon's drone delivery service.

Sometime inside of this century, robots and drones will become commonplace. Maybe not pervasive, but it won't be a shock when someone tells you that their infirm grandparents have a robot that helps around the house, or when you see a truck driving itself, or when you see an autonomous robot walking down the street. Likewise, it won't be a shock when you hear about a new drone soldier or drone vehicle killing people in Afghanistan or someplace.

And Google wants to be right there, at the foundation, selling people the data they need to do all those things.


This post brought to you by Google employee#15567
 
2014-01-13 09:33:35 AM
Why does The Daily Caller hate the troops?
 
2014-01-13 09:41:20 AM

gopher321: This post brought to you by Google employee#15567


Nope.

The whole point is that basic research doesn't take sides. Explosives are used for mining. Rocket propellants are used to go to space. Radar is used for air traffic control. All of those have immediate and obvious military applications, but they're used far more in civilian life than they are by the military.

Autonomous vehicles and robots are a thing now. You can't close up pandora's box. Google didn't set out to create an autonomous military vehicle, but it's a nearly trivial extension of what they've currently done. Saying that Google develops military technology is silly.

I'll give you a hint: real military contractors don't give away their products for free on the internet, nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.
 
2014-01-13 09:47:27 AM

hardinparamedic: We've won the wars - utterly and completely


They weren't wars, they were occupations. It's ironic that they didn't even call Korea or VietNam wars but these two faces were.
 
2014-01-13 09:57:48 AM

Fubini: I'll give you a hint: real military contractors don't give away their products for free on the internet, nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.


Uh, you sure about that?
 
2014-01-13 10:08:45 AM

hardinparamedic: Fubini: I'll give you a hint: real military contractors don't give away their products for free on the internet, nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.

Uh, you sure about that?


An arms dealer isn't the same thing as a military contractor (though military contractors do sell weapons).

When was the last time you saw Boeing or Lockheed Martin flash around the latest stuff in their skunkworks?
 
2014-01-13 10:11:13 AM

Fubini: When was the last time you saw Boeing or Lockheed Martin flash around the latest stuff in their skunkworks?


i.dailymail.co.uk

NROL-15

www.murdoconline.net

Ride, X-37B, Ride!
 
2014-01-13 10:14:13 AM
Google sells ads on the internet.
 
2014-01-13 10:16:48 AM

Fubini: nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.


yeah this is wrong.  Look up "business development", and for a great example see Raytheon.
 
2014-01-13 10:17:53 AM
Something something Microsoft Apple
 
2014-01-13 10:18:09 AM

Fubini: gopher321: This post brought to you by Google employee#15567

Nope.

The whole point is that basic research doesn't take sides. Explosives are used for mining. Rocket propellants are used to go to space. Radar is used for air traffic control. All of those have immediate and obvious military applications, but they're used far more in civilian life than they are by the military.

Autonomous vehicles and robots are a thing now. You can't close up pandora's box. Google didn't set out to create an autonomous military vehicle, but it's a nearly trivial extension of what they've currently done. Saying that Google develops military technology is silly.

I'll give you a hint: real military contractors don't give away their products for free on the internet, nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.


The NSA is using OpenStack, which is a free open source platform
 
2014-01-13 10:23:29 AM

hardinparamedic: Fubini: When was the last time you saw Boeing or Lockheed Martin flash around the latest stuff in their skunkworks?

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x509]

NROL-15

[www.murdoconline.net image 850x566]

Ride, X-37B, Ride!


Rocket launches aren't exactly something you can keep quiet.

Tell me, where have they publicly announced those payloads?


johnny_vegas: Fubini: nor do they have massive marketing campaigns to showcase their technology.

yeah this is wrong.  Look up "business development", and for a great example see Raytheon.


The business side of Raytheon does development campaigns and tries to find buyers.

The military contractor side of Raytheon does not.
 
2014-01-13 10:23:59 AM
As an intelligence weapon, may need a little more armoring and camouflage when doing recon in a town with an exotic name and even more exotic food. Probably needs to Google "How not to be seen."

www.androidheadlines.com
 
2014-01-13 10:24:44 AM

hardinparamedic: Subby is another one of those "Shock and Awe" Fulda jerkoffers. We've won the wars - utterly and completely. It's the nation building part we suck at.

You can't build an ice sculpture with a white hot sledgehammer.

At some point, however, we'll realize that when someone says "We'll be greated as liberators!" and they aren't referring to France circa 1944, they can be safely classified an idiot.


This.  Success is due in large part to your surroundings.  The British Army was superior to ours in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.  We won both wars, but not because of the superiority of our armed forces.
 
2014-01-13 10:26:07 AM
是故百戰百勝,非善之善者也;不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也

Roughly:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
--Sun Tsu
 
2014-01-13 10:26:13 AM
What? we are pro's at winning. We win everything... or kill way more people (what was nam 3mil to 55K?) anyway. And that is a win of sorts. I mean sure we spend billions against governments spending millions. But a kill is a kill.
 
2014-01-13 10:28:57 AM

Fubini: The business side of Raytheon does development campaigns and tries to find buyers.

The military contractor side of Raytheon does not.


umm, no sorry.  business development hawks their wares to potential customers to include the military.

here is an example:  raytheon sells Tomahawk to the military.  On its own dime, Raytheon has done research (and some development maybe) into an advanced (or just specialized) warhead for Tomahawk.  Business development advertises it to the military and tries to garner interest in it.
 
2014-01-13 10:31:27 AM
So google is one of the big corporation defense contractors that are supposed to be 'evil'.

I wonder if Occupy Wall St will be picketing their offices this year.

Maybe 2014 will be the year to rein in the huge corporate defense machine that is GOOGLE
 
2014-01-13 10:31:28 AM

johnny_vegas: Fubini: The business side of Raytheon does development campaigns and tries to find buyers.

The military contractor side of Raytheon does not.

umm, no sorry.  business development hawks their wares to potential customers to include the military.

here is an example:  raytheon sells Tomahawk to the military.  On its own dime, Raytheon has done research (and some development maybe) into an advanced (or just specialized) warhead for Tomahawk.  Business development advertises it to the military and tries to garner interest in it.


media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-13 10:33:22 AM

Fubini: And Google wants to be right there, at the foundation, selling people the data they need to do all those things


do no evil
 
2014-01-13 10:33:44 AM
GIS for "winning military strategy":

www.securitysalestraining.com

Oh, OK, that's all I have to do?
/breaks out RISK
 
2014-01-13 10:34:09 AM
Too late, Subby.

I used Google to look up "winning military strategy".

Unless you want to win the battle of Waterloo, your best bet is Wikipedia.
 
2014-01-13 10:35:06 AM
Subby is a liberal troll who hates the military. Big shocker, a liberal farker.
The DOD can win wars just fine on its own, it's when the White House gets involved in the minutiae with its strategy where we go downhill. And the whole rebuilding thing, like was already said. But we can kick in the bad guys' teeth like a boss.
 
2014-01-13 10:35:55 AM
Here's a list of military strategies.

Do what all the generals do. Throw a dart at it and then wait for orders from Washington.
 
2014-01-13 10:38:03 AM
I don't think most people want to know or have the stomach for what an actual "winning" military strategy looks like.
I just hope for our sake we never actually get into a war with China.
Because I think we'd find out really quick what a war fought without the handcuffs of public opinion and CNN cameras would look like.
 
2014-01-13 10:39:37 AM

brantgoose: Too late, Subby.

I used Google to look up "winning military strategy".

Unless you want to win the battle of Waterloo, your best bet is Wikipedia.


It's out there and is studied by many, it is just not as fast, sexy, or vote garnering as politicians (military and civilian ones) would like.

upload.wikimedia.org

B.H. Liddell Hart
 
2014-01-13 10:43:22 AM
Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-13 10:44:08 AM

FLMountainMan: War of 1812.  We won both wars


*cough* wut ?

// love the white house - the paint hides the burn
 
2014-01-13 10:44:39 AM
Assault Google

what did I win?
 
2014-01-13 10:44:59 AM
"Make the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country"

/salutes
//drops mic
 
2014-01-13 10:48:10 AM
Google maps:  "Find enemy location"

"turn right here" *goes over cliff while screaming and hits enemy convoy causing it to explode*
 
2014-01-13 10:48:43 AM
The only "winning military strategy" is to keep the racket going.

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
 
2014-01-13 10:52:17 AM
So when is Google going to rebrand itself Massive Dynamic?
 
2014-01-13 10:52:58 AM

flynn80: The only "winning military strategy" is to keep the racket going.

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler


although a lot of his thoughts are motivated by an isolationist policy, some of the examples he uses are very apropos today.
 
2014-01-13 10:54:51 AM
"You got access to military weaponry?"

"We practically are the military."
 
2014-01-13 10:54:54 AM
Here's an interesting thought experiment.

Instead of asking what military contracts Google could now attain with this portfolio of new companies, imagine that Google's goal was, say, to become the place where the merger of theoretical and practical robotics technologies in the next decade radically changes the civilian world.

Now ask yourself, were that your company's aim, and you had the resources to purchase best-of-class companies to approach that goal... What companies would you be purchasing that  didn't have a hand in the military-applications pie?

There haven't traditionally been many private corporations with either the resources or the foresight to be bankrolling big-idea robotics; the military has been in that business for decades. You want to do big-idea robotics? You buy DARPA's suppliers.
 
2014-01-13 10:55:30 AM

MBooda: GIS for "winning military strategy":

[www.securitysalestraining.com image 300x225]

Oh, OK, that's all I have to do?
/breaks out RISK


2.bp.blogspot.com
amirite?
 
2014-01-13 11:03:01 AM

Quick Fixer: Here's an interesting thought experiment.

Instead of asking what military contracts Google could now attain with this portfolio of new companies, imagine that Google's goal was, say, to become the place where the merger of theoretical and practical robotics technologies in the next decade radically changes the civilian world.

Now ask yourself, were that your company's aim, and you had the resources to purchase best-of-class companies to approach that goal... What companies would you be purchasing that  didn't have a hand in the military-applications pie?

There haven't traditionally been many private corporations with either the resources or the foresight to be bankrolling big-idea robotics; the military has been in that business for decades. You want to do big-idea robotics? You buy DARPA's suppliers.


Pretty much.  Google is moving into robotics.  The military is throwing lots of money into robotics.  It's not really that surprising that there's a relationship there.
 
2014-01-13 11:03:16 AM
Apparently with unlimited population comes unlimited war. Probably no mass destruction (but who knows because we certainly have the weapons capability) but certainly unending war.

If you want to be at the top of the oil industry, you have to upset the drilling, refining, support, and distributing areas of the industry to your favor using military action. While lying to the world about liberation and terrorism.

I guess if we thought the 20th century was a tough one on civilian populations, just wait till the 21st is over.
 
2014-01-13 11:09:03 AM
www.screamingfrog.co.uk
 
2014-01-13 11:14:42 AM
Ghostery blocked 28 trackers on that Daily Caller page, including Google +1 and Google Analytics.

/they're in on it, maaaan
 
2014-01-13 11:15:04 AM

echomike23: MBooda: GIS for "winning military strategy":

[www.securitysalestraining.com image 300x225]

Oh, OK, that's all I have to do?
/breaks out RISK

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x478]
amirite?


Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.
 
2014-01-13 11:24:35 AM

johnny_vegas: here is an example:  raytheon sells Tomahawk to the military.  On its own dime, Raytheon has done research (and some development maybe) into an advanced (or just specialized) warhead for Tomahawk.  Business development advertises it to the military and tries to garner interest in it.


I'm not going to pretend to know the accounting practices of Raytheon in detail, but I guaran-damn-tee you that R&D "on its own dime" thing is not a sinkhole.  I'm sure those costs are healthily rolled up into the margins or overhead and passed onto the taxpayers.
 
2014-01-13 11:25:02 AM

hardinparamedic: Subby is another one of those "Shock and Awe" Fulda jerkoffers. We've won the wars - utterly and completely. It's the nation building part we suck at.

You can't build an ice sculpture with a white hot sledgehammer.

At some point, however, we'll realize that when someone says "We'll be greated as liberators!" and they aren't referring to France circa 1944, they can be safely classified an idiot.


You win.

/Veteran
 
2014-01-13 11:25:14 AM
Sorry Subby, but the US Military knows how to win a war. It's the idiots in DC that won't let them employ it. Basically, if you're wondering, it's the model we used in WWII where we killed everything that moved and destroyed their cities. When the people have lost every ounce of their will to fight. Then we move in  to rebuild their society. Japan and Germany are perfect examples of this. But no one in DC want to do this anymore, because it makes us look like a bully and it's not fair.

War is not meant to be fair. It's ment to be dirty and ugly so people won't wont to do it so often.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report