Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
United States Government Republicans Security The Almighty Buck The Internet Politics

House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity 198

dcblogs writes: A U.S. House bill that will set the nation's basic research agenda for the next two years increases funding for computer science, but at the expense of other research areas. The funding bill, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, hikes funding for computer science, but cuts — almost by half — social sciences funding, which includes the study of human behavior. Cybersecurity uses human behavior research because humans are often the weakest security link. Research funding social, behavioral and economic sciences will fall from $272 million to $150 million, a 45% decrease. The bill also takes a big cut out of geosciences research, which includes climate change study, from $1.3 billion to $1.2 billion, an 8% decrease. The insight into human behaviors that comes from the social science research, "is critical to understanding how best to design and implement hardware and software systems that are more secure and easier to use," wrote J. Strother Moore, the Computing Research Association chair and a professor of computer science at the University of Texas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

Comments Filter:
  • that research-thingy is so techo-whatever.
  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:21PM (#49532973)

    because every area facing cuts is always "critical".

    And it's impossible for anyone to make software easy to use without government money to run a study.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Why don't we cut a couple hundred billion out of the multi-trillion dollar "war on everything" Military–industrial complex that's obviously going so well?

      Fun-fact: We used to look at the Vietnam War as obviously fruitless and a waste of money and lives. Yet we've been in Afghanistan since 2001.
      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Because it's "critical".

      • by schnell ( 163007 ) <me&schnell,net> on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:44PM (#49533459) Homepage

        Why don't we cut a couple hundred billion out of the multi-trillion dollar "war on everything" Militaryâ"industrial complex that's obviously going so well?

        I gather that you don't like or see much benefit from the US military. I saw a commenter a few slots above you suggesting that the thing to cut is Obamacare, which provides health care to people who are probably not the commenter. Some poster who is 65 will inevitably suggest that the rotten Education department must go, while someone else who is 18 will invariably suggest it should be Medicare. I have no doubt someone who lives in Arizona will suggest that Federal subsidies for homeowners living in hurricane zones be cut, and someone else from Florida will suggest that it's that Gestapo border protection troop that needs to be slashed.

        It's funny how everyone seems to know with great certainty exactly the things that are totally worthless and should be cut from the Federal budget with no ill effects - which, purely coincidentally happen to be the things that they disagree with or they don't benefit from directly.

      • If you recall what actually happened, as opposed to what your dad claims to remember from that decade he was on SO MUCH POT, you'll recall that the primary justification for involving US Ground Troops in 'Nam were a pair of attacks on one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Legally speaking, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the only justification for their presence. Only it turned out that the second attack was the artifact of having a bunch of first-year Naval conscripts try to read 60s-era RADAR and SONA

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          OTOH, our reason for being in Afghanistan was that one of their best buddies leveled a couple office buildings and they wouldn't turn him over to face the music.

          Actually they asked for prove before they'd hand him over. Pretty normal when a country asks for an extradition.

          It's very easy to poke holes in our Afghanistan policy. What I have yet to see, from anyone, is an alternative plan that would have a) been politically possible on S12, and b) would have worked a tenth as well as what we actually did.

          Yet America found a way to deal with him when it turned out that he was actually hanging out with a different best buddy.

          • You missed the phrase "politically possible." Since you said nothing about the politics of America on S12 you failed to counter my point. At all. You aren't presenting a counter-argument, you're presenting a non sequitur.

            How about a second try, only this time you bother to read the whole thing.

          • He wasn't hanging out with a different buddy when we first went into Afghanistan. By the time he fled to Pakistan the Taliban had already been removed from power and the new government needed time to become established and capable of standing on it's own.
        • by meglon ( 1001833 )
          Other than Afghanistan being willing to extradite him if they were given evidence he was complicit in the crime? Here's an idea.... give the fucking Afganie gov the fucking evidence! I'd suggest that would have been a whole fucking hell of a lot better than what we did on pretty much every fucking level.. unless you're a fucking murderous sociopath that needs to be removed from society because you're a danger to everyone around you.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sou... [bbc.co.uk]

          http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
          • And if you're gonna ignore my entire argument because you'd rather just flame me, why bother?

            I didn't say that some nation of magical saints wouldn't have said had options beyond what we did in Afghanistan, I said that there were no options that were politically possible.

            Which means your case has to be based on whether it would have been politically possible for let Bin laden chill in Kandahar for six months while we waited for Prosecutors to come up with evidence or you are setting upa straw man.

        • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday April 23, 2015 @05:19AM (#49534925) Journal

          OTOH, our reason for being in Afghanistan was that one of their best buddies leveled a couple office buildings

          I think you are confusing Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia.

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:37PM (#49533425) Journal

      because every area facing cuts is always "critical".

      Like this one?

      http://blogs.reuters.com/great... [reuters.com]

      Over three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that,

      In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

      “The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

      $59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

      For something that no one in the military actually wants.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @10:18PM (#49533611)

        For something that no one in the military actually wants.

        That is not true - the Air Force wants it desperately. You know, the same Air Force who gave us the F4 Phantom, which was without a doubt one of the worst aircraft ever built. And it was also to be an aircraft "used by all branches of the armed forces, for all types of missions - air defense, ground attack, close air support, reconnaissance", just like the F35 - which does nothing well, and costs a LOT more per airframe; the are already having to perform retrofits and modifications for little things like:

        A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:

                The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
                Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
                The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
                Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
                The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
                Even in its third iteration, the F-35â(TM)s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilotsâ(TM) situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
                The number of Block 2Bâ(TM)s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corpsâ(TM) FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
                ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and âoeunacceptable workaroundsâ;
                Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
                The programâ(TM)s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
                Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

        Three different types of data âoemassagingâ are identified in the DOT&E report: moving failures from one category to another, less important one; ignoring repetitive failures, thus inflating numbers of failure-free hours; and improper scoring of reliability

        In conclusion: A piece of shit that should be stopped NOW.

        • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          the same Air Force who gave us the F4 Phantom, which was without a doubt one of the worst aircraft ever built

          And that's all it takes to show you have no clue what you're talking about,
          and your entire comment is neither insightful nor informative.

          For starters, the F4 came from the Navy, who wanted a twin engine high speed all weather missile-boat interceptor/fighter to replace the Demon in the early 50's. In fact it's original name for the project was "Super Demon". And its physical origins in the Demon design are quite evident.

          And it was never billed as the everything plane for every service.
          The Marines bought in

      • Dude,

        The military wants the JSF. If the Military did not want the JSF they'd have kept funding the F-22, or they'd have their pet Congressman propose a new fighter competition. The idea is that a) it goes Mach 1.6, and b) it's virtually impossible to detect via RADR. If both a) and b) are true it's impossible to take out with missiles (which require a target of some sort before you can fire them), and it can sit back fire a load of missiles, and run away at 1.6 times the speed of sound before the enemy can

        • Three quarters of a TRILLION dollars, for a fighter that by your own admission is not really suitable for any of the branches' needs.

          Dude.

          • Where do you get this "by your own admission is not really suitable" crap?

            I just said that if it works the way it should work then we'll be Gods of the Skies and the entire Russian Air Force will be roughly as useful as the Gloster Gladiator. They all want that.

        • How is other Western nations ordering the awful F-35 evidence of anything other than massive corruption and the true nature of the relationship between the US government and their supposed allies?

          And you're a goddamn fucking retard if you think that that plane is being ordered for its air to air capabilities. "make every other combat aircraft anyone has ever designed obsolete"... You are fucking stupid and know nothing about combat aircraft. Nothing. Su-35s club these things like baby seals. F-35s are fo
          • I didn't say F-35 would win a VFR dogfight. I said the entire point of the damn thing was to avoid VFR dogfights. I said it had rails for air-to-air missiles, and it would be very difficult to impossible for Su-35s (or even F-22s) to get a strong enough lock on it to engage outside of VFR.

            As for our allies, approximately how much do you think we're paying Canada to buy F-35 rather then upgrade the FA-18 Superhornet into a CF-18 Hornet II of some sort? The answer is $0.

            • I didn't say F-35 would win a VFR dogfight. I said the entire point of the damn thing was to avoid VFR dogfights. I said it had rails for air-to-air missiles, and it would be very difficult to impossible for Su-35s (or even F-22s) to get a strong enough lock on it to engage outside of VFR.

              As for our allies, approximately how much do you think we're paying Canada to buy F-35 rather then upgrade the FA-18 Superhornet into a CF-18 Hornet II of some sort? The answer is $0.

              You do know stealth is a total bumf? It may work with varying success against high frequency X band type radar types aircraft but get a ground or awacs based in S or L band radar in and it all goes to pot, Russia has been building these for years and sell them all over the show (see the 1999 f-117 shootdown over Yugoslavia). Combinations of all three could easily lead to the intercept and shootdown of a stealth aircraft or group of. Fun fact, if every stealth design of today was flying over the English chan

              • The f-117 shootdown was pure dumb luck, it was hit by a ZSU firing blindly into the air. The ZSU works because it puts so much metal in the air that if you fly over-it at low altitude as that plane did, you are going to get hit. Shooting it down had nothing to do with countering the stealth capabilities. The Iraqi's had much more capable systems and didn't get a hit on any of our stealth birds.
                • No it just wasn't. It was shot down by a radar system that was modified to use a longer wavelength and was able to detect it when the bomb bay door opened. They detected, fired and shut down in about 20 seconds before any SEAD could come down on them. They say several missiles were fired but the pilot says he saw too. One passed by close enough to buffet and the second detonated. Granted it's not a great example. I'm not saying stealth is useless but it doesn't mean you can fly around with impunity. They ha
        • a) it goes Mach 1.6, and b) it's virtually impossible to detect via RADR. If both a) and b) are true it's impossible to take out with missiles (which require a target of some sort before you can fire them)

          Two things. First, Mach 1.6 is not that fast relative to the speed of air-to-air missiles. Sidewinders (from 1956) travel at Mach 2.5, modern AAMs exceed Mach 4. Second, RADAR is not the only way of targeting missiles. Modern anti-aircraft weapons use a combination of RADAR, IR, and acoustic targeting. The kinds of jet engines that can get you to Mach 1.6 basically paint an enormous IR arrow in the sky with the tip at your aircraft. This was old tech a decade ago.

          This will, in theory, make every other combat aircraft anyone has ever designed obsolete.

          No, they're going to be made obsolete

          • To get that lock you need to be mighty close to the F-35. If the US squadron let's fly 75 miles from you, changes vector, and goes Mach 1.6 for 30 seconds you ain't gonna be close enough to see where they end up with IR, much less get weapons lock.

            As for drones, you could say the same about all manned aircraft. But until the technology improves some, the Mach 4, 20G turning, drones of our dreams ain't happening. The computer network couldn't keep up with the drone so the pilot in Nevada would lose control.

            • Hence, "semi autonomous." The controller in Nevada flies the drones into position and says "blow up everything over there." After that it doesn't matter if he has control or not.

              And yes, I know there's lots of talk about the ethics of killer robots. But do you think that's going to stop the US military?

      • For something that no one in the military actually wants.

        Think of it as.... as a "concept plane". I perpetual R&D funding project to filter into other projects. The F-35 just so happens to be that catalyst.

        Yes, yes, YES!! It's all so clear now is it not? Yeah, fucking disgusting is what it is!

      • Imagine if we spent that money and the Iraq War money on building wind turbines and solar panels, and battery research. We'd probably be at 100% renewables. Neocons are insane little monkeys who can only think about war.

      • because every area facing cuts is always "critical".

        Like this one?

        http://blogs.reuters.com/great... [reuters.com]

        Over three-quarters of a TRILLION dollars on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that,

        In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35s fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

        “The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

        $59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

        For something that no one in the military actually wants.

        The real irony is it was supposed to be the cheap one to put up in numbers to support the F-22. The same way the F-16 is the cheap numerous one to support the F-15. Ended up costing probably more money than all the recent fighters combined.

        • It still will be when it goes into production. The cost per bird will drop greatly once we've fielded over 2500 of them.
    • Have you ever lived in America? Because it is really fucking hard for an idea to become law here. Particularly an idea that actually spends money.

      To get funded a government program had to a) convince the chair of the relevent House Subcommittee it was important enough to bring up for a vote, b) win the vote, c) convince the chair of the Full Committee it was important enough for a vote, c) win that vote, d) convince the Speaker it was important enough to bring to the Rules Committee, d) convince the members

      • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

        > a) convince the chair of the relevent House Subcommittee it was important enough to bring up for a vote

        That's a convoluted way to avoid saying, "bribe"

        • > a) convince the chair of the relevent House Subcommittee it was important enough to bring up for a vote

          That's a convoluted way to avoid saying, "bribe"

          Campaign donations are one way to get a vote, but they're far from the only one. That's why all the pressure groups you've ever heard of have frequent "Days of Action" where their minions all call the local Congressman to demand something.

          Even most campaign donations are not quid pro quos. Pressure groups find people who agree with them and would be good candidates. Then they get them to run. The donation is supporting the sincerely-held-view of the candidate, not bribing the candidate to change his mind. T

          • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

            > Campaign donations are one way to get a vote, but they're far from the only one

            There's also insider information, making allowances for political families or associated PAC members, the layers and opportunities are all bribes, in essence. These are the most effective ways to influence those who are not philosophically aligned. Those friendly groups don't require such a gross exchange.

            > the guy you whose on your side because you paid him off will almost certainly decide not to vote for your spending

    • And it's impossible for anyone to make software easy to use without government money to run a study.

      I don't know. Further research is necessary...

    • The correct statement is : were other area increased , like military ? If yes, what is the justification to increase military expenditure at the expanse of science, when really the budget already is so humongus that other country in the world match it by an order of magnitude, and you really have no threat from your nearest neighbors (Mexico, Canada do not have a comparable budget by any order of magnitude, and your east/west neighbors are fishes).

      I hold that the military US budget could be made to be co
      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Shorter version: "We spend too much on the military so we should also spend too much on everything else."

  • What difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:25PM (#49533001)

    At this point, what difference does it make? If the Secretary of State can run her own email server at home, what does it matter how much money is spent on "cybersecurity"?

  • These jackasses cut funding for research, for the poor, for the middle class and yet can give these extremely wealthy parasites tax cuts. They don't cut corporate welfare, they increase an already bloated defense budget. What ass**les.
  • by felrom ( 2923513 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @08:55PM (#49533193)

    It's quite the logical leap to go from

    cuts — almost by half — social sciences funding

    to

    House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

    only based on the vague claim that

    Cybersecurity uses human behavior research because humans are often the weakest security link.

    The submitter had to really stretch things to get enough almost-tech-related and republican-hating to have his story accepted.

    • There are basically three Slashdot submitters that put out this kind of stuff. They're the same ones that put out the, "SJWs are ruining technology!" stories every Friday and the "Boy, those egghead scientists don't know a goddamn thing" stories mid-week.

      I noticed the pattern at the beginning of the year, but it probably has gone on longer than that. It's basically click-bait for the Fox News/8chan crowd.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Crashmarik ( 635988 )

        There are basically three Slashdot submitters that put out this kind of stuff. They're the same ones that put out the, "SJWs are ruining technology!" stories every Friday and the "Boy, those egghead scientists don't know a goddamn thing" stories mid-week.

        I noticed the pattern at the beginning of the year, but it probably has gone on longer than that. It's basically click-bait for the Fox News/8chan crowd.

        This is just for you

        http://www.grammarbank.com/rea... [grammarbank.com]

      • How come just about every post today seems to get louder and more shrill squealing and blearing about social justive warriors? This thread joins the earlier one on cache-line side channel attachs where someone blames SJWs for people getting pwn3d and got modded up too.

        There are basically three Slashdot submitters that put out this kind of stuff. They're the same ones that put out the, "SJWs are ruining technology!" stories every Friday and the "Boy, those egghead scientists don't know a goddamn thing" stori

  • by monkeyzoo ( 3985097 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:02PM (#49533241)

    The bill also takes a big cut out of geosciences research, which includes climate change study, from $1.3 billion to $1.2 billion, an 8% decrease.

    I thought the Republicans were concerned that the "science wasn't certain yet" on climate change? Strange they would cut the funding to keep looking into it then. Unless... they know damn well what the science has already figured out and will keep figuring out and know it won't sit well with their oil industry fatcat buddies and doubt-peddling narrative.

  • by zapadnik ( 2965889 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:08PM (#49533269)

    It is a sad day on Slashdot when there is wailing and gnashing of teeth by (alleged) Slashdotters when funding for Computer Science is INCREASED and funding for pseudo-science is decreased to cover the boost for Computer Science.

    A sad, sad day indeed.

    • Agreed. To be fair, I doubt many read past the headline.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Crashmarik ( 635988 )

      Ahhh looks like they were just trolling the Social Justice Assholes. Anything that even hints of reducing the size of government is a giant red flag that they MUST CHARGE.

      • I think you have a serious paranoia/persecution complex about these alleged "SJWs". Perhaps you should see a doctor. I think they make pills to fix chemical imbalances in the brain now. Come to think of it, now you all have health care, it ought to be covered and won't bankrupt you.

        PS Also, can you kindly STFU on dragging "SJW" into every sodding thread? It's like the systemd jokes blaming it for everything. It was funny for about the first two unrelated threads. After that it got rather tedious.

        • You obviously missed this at some point in your life so let me do the good deed and explain this to you.

          You have a brain, and a nervous system that controls the functions of your body.
          One of the things these control are your eyeballs.
          If you don't want to see things, use them to direct your eyeballs to look elsewhere.

          If you find yourself unable to do so, you might not want to go out in public.

          • You have a brain,

            I guess that's what separates us then!

            • I guess that's what separates us then!

              I doubt that there is anyone who regrets being separate from you.

              • I doubt that there is anyone who regrets being separate from you.

                Well of course you don't. In my world I can't just squeal and squall about "teh evul SJW". I'm sure it gives you a warm sense of purpose and the panic from seeing them lurk around every corner must make you feel alive. Plus it always gives you someone to blame for basically everything. It must be a good, almost religious like feeling to know that bad things are out of your hands and safely guided by a higher power.

                I'll bet my world is grey and

  • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:14PM (#49533293)

    ... if this research is so obviously critical, it's not like only the government benefits from or cares about network security. Let those who think it is so critical pay for some.

    • Let those who think it is so critical pay for some

      Which is why they increased funding for Computer Science and decreased it for Social Studies and Psychology.

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @09:19PM (#49533345)

    Not quite as bat-shit crazy as Scientologists. But these are the ones that believe everything can be healed by prayer. So its no wonder that scientific research into human behavior would be rejected by their members.

    But then most religions are suspicious of any kind of investigation into the sanity of people who think invisible people living in the sky are talking to them.

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday April 22, 2015 @10:02PM (#49533533) Journal

      It's funny, but it does appear that knowledge, whether "critical" or not, is simply kryptonite to American conservatives. They get so damn mad when somebody wants to find something out. They all cry "waste" while passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution that funds anything and everything that can possibly make the maximum number of people dead and the maximum number of their friends rich.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        It's not just the knowledge. But understanding and countering the social engineering skills used by many hackers could undermine the proselytizing that many evangelicals do which use the very same social engineering techniques.

        • But understanding and countering the social engineering skills used by many hackers could undermine the proselytizing that many evangelicals do which use the very same social engineering techniques.

          That's very good. I had not thought of it that way.

  • A tiny fraction of that may go to cybersecurity; most of it goes to research intended to demonstrate economic and social inequalities, victimization, discrimination, etc., carried out by people with political agendas.

    • Only people with agendas care enough to do the research. It tends to be underpaid and astonishingly frustrating, with live examples of abuse overwhelming objectivity.

      • I think the reason for the sorry state of sociology is much simpler: it's pretty much impossible to do solid science in that area because human behavior is simply too complex and because controlled experiments and double-blind experiments are impossible.

        • by meglon ( 1001833 )
          That's why we call it a "social science," and why real scientists point at them and laugh. The past few years we've seen some absolutely horrendous papers put out by these people who use fatally flawed methodology to set up experiments, and then come up with completely bat-shit stupid conclusions from their "research." The sad thing is, this isn't a recent thing... i remember review mags in the 80's and seeing some of the same kind of shit research. All you could do is just look around the lab and join i
          • That's why we call it a "social science," and why real scientists point at them and laugh.

            A classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

            climate researchers just do it for the paychecks they get form the government

            No, they do it for the same reason as sociologists: career accident, admiration of peers and students, self-importance, political influence, and it beats making foamed lattes at Starbucks.

  • Before whining about decrease in next period - it would be nice if someone explained what did US citizens get for their $272 million spent on "social, behavioral and economic sciences" and $1.3 billion "geosciences research, which includes climate change study" spent in previous period.

  • There are three issues here 1) overall science funding, 2) geosciences funding, 3) social science funding.

    This is a funding proposal that increases NSF (aka "basic science") funding by the government by 3.4%. It increases computer science funding at NSF by 14%. The government already provides more basic and applied research funding per year than the combined angel and VC annual investment in all US startup companies. That's pretty damn good. Government funding is not the rate limiting factor in scientific

  • are never happy.
  • Lamar Smith, who I assume doesn't know jack about computer science or cyber security, probably uses the same code on his luggage as for all his passwords: 1-2-3-4-5
  • How about we redirect some of the defense budget into this social sciences research (in the name of "being able to better detect suspicious behavior on the part of a potential terrorist at an airport" if we need to motivate it to the "Won't someone please think of the terrorists" crowd?)

    By one set of measurements on the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org], we spend about 4 and a half times what China does in military spending. We outspend China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Germany, and South Korea COMBIN

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...