US Defense Budget May Help Fund 'Hacking For Defense' Classes At Universities (ieee.org) 34
According to an instructor at Stanford, eight universities in addition to Stanford will offer a Hacking for Defense class this year: Boise State, Columbia, Georgetown, James Madison, the University of California at San Diego, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Southern California, and the University of Southern Mississippi. IEEE Spectrum reports: The class has spun out Hacking for Diplomacy, Hacking for Energy, and other targeted classes that use the same methodology. The snowballing effort is now poised to get a big push. This month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment originated by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) to support development of curriculum, best practices, and recruitment materials for the program to the tune of $15 million (a drop in the $700 billion defense budget but a big deal for a university program). In arguing for the amendment, Lipinski said, "Rapid, low-cost technological innovation is what makes Silicon Valley revolutionary, but the DOD hasn't historically had the mechanisms in place to harness this American advantage. Hacking for Defense creates ways for talented scientists and engineers to work alongside veterans, military leaders, and business mentors to innovate solutions that make America safer."
Re: (Score:1)
The US has a lot of great hackers, they just won't work for the government and DEFINITELY won't work for Democrats.
Original AC here. Nice way of turning a completely unpolitical statement into some stupid partisan bullshit. Regarding that, the Republicans are currently in charge, they won the election and so you have the childish assclown as president that you always wanted to have! In case you haven't noticed, nobody wants to work for the current government.
Re: (Score:1)
It's very noticable that you turfers are trying to draw the line:
Russia Trump Republicans (line drawn here) Democrats
Instead of
Russia (line drawn here) Trump Republicans Democrats
I don't think you're a Republican turfer because Republicans have already proposed sanctions increases against Russia for the hack. At best you're a Trump supporter. But then I notice you're not drawing this line:
Russia Trump (line drawn here) Republicans Democrats
All of Putin's satellite governments have tried to divide a country
Re: I'm skeptical (Score:2)
With the definition for hacker, as used here, hacking for defense seems to be like fucking for virginity.
Modern entrepreneurial methodology ... (Score:3)
It looks like they are taking a modern entrepreneurial methodology and applying it to DoD problems. The NSF has been doing this for a while through its variation Innovation Corp (I-Corp) programs, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pg... [nsf.gov]. Running academic researchers through this training to increase the success rate of NSF funded research making it t
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that you will get anything from researcher locked in a cognitive box, then you are yourself in the box.
Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair. I was forced to get my a** out from behind my computer and go through this NSF I-Corp training with 20+ other teams. I actually witnessed many PhDs and grad students evolve their opinions, ideas, plans, etc over a period of 4 months and hundreds of interviews.The training is designed to break that box. I witness numerous academic teams pivot their plans due to things learned during this "customer discovery". Keep in mind that these academic teams
Re: (Score:2)
>Keep in mind that these academic teams were trying to commercialize their research,
Then the problem is that you are looking for the wrong persons not researchers but engineers/commercials.
There is no lack of engineers on these teams. Nor is their a lack of mentors with commercial experience on these teams. And you are missing the point of it all. The point of this training isn't about the technical details of turning ideas into solutions. The point is to make sure one has the correct ideas about what the problems are and the ideas that you believe to be solutions, and once the ideas are sorted out that you proceed is small testable chunks where you continuously verify the things you are addi
Re: (Score:2)
>Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair.
Unlike you, I do not hypothesize on the people commenting. And I do not create a fable about researchers and how they are not doing their work. Just went back at university at 40. So happy to see far less know-it-all people like you.
I went back to the University at 43. 18 months ago I was part of one of these University teams taking NSF funded research and working to commercialize it. I went through the NSF I-Corps Teams training over a period of months. My training cohort consisted of over 20 other such University based teams starting with NSF funded research. The characterization of researchers likely having crap idea and other failings with respect to commercializing of their research is not my idea, rather it was the premise of the
Re: (Score:2)
"Its not engineering, science, etc where the researchers fail, it is in entrepreneurship that they typically fail."
And again, this is the opinion of the NSF, and the NSF has this I-Corp program to address this failure.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is about researchers failing in their side job, turning their research into a good product the commercial
This is not theirs jobs. Somebody is trying to deport his job on researchers. Doing science is hard enough to not have to handle other people problems. Research have nothing to do with entrepreneurship.
Many researchers attempt to commercialize their NSF funded work for personal reasons. Many universities encourage commercialization. The NSF also encourages it. The NSF also wants to increase funding opportunities for researchers. This can require a commercialization effort, SBIR/STTR awards for example.
The research team that completely hands off commercialization to others is potentially setting up that effort for failure.
Not needed (Score:2, Funny)
" Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017"
Putin will guard USA, Trump says so himself. So why need American hackers?
It'll be cheaper too, hackers will be paid for by Russia so no need to ask Congress for budget.
And it will be secure too. so-called NSA has that role currently, but they keep leaking stuff to Congressmen
This is not defense (Score:1)
it's literally asking your citizens to attack and sabotage other countries' networks and communication means. It's basically a declaration of war, where every citizen can take up the role of a "cyber warrior" at their own discretion. The EU and Asia should respond to this with the same means.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the solution to hacking goes ignored (Score:3)
Capability Based Security can actually fix this mess we call "computer security", but alas, it remains an obscure topic.
Re: (Score:2)
You write as if they want to fix the problem. They are only interested in exploiting it for their own gain.
with student loans as high as they are they don't (Score:2)
with student loans as high as they are they don't need to fund this.
What about an free trade school for this that does not take 4 years loaded with theory?
Let me guess what will happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The contractors that get to help with education.
A flood of graduates will skills ready for the US gov or mil.
The "willingly taught our adversaries skills they could use against us." will take decades to finally work out
The deep thinking on foreign students taking any US classes is that they will totally enjoy the USA. When the students return home they will cra
Where? (Score:2)
Low cost to whom? Consumers? Still waiting for the $50 iPhone.....
Re: (Score:2)
Each CPU is low-cost. The technological innovation is in getting the funding to build a super computer with a lot of consumer CPU parts.
Want a more rapid super computer? Buy more consumer CPU from the private sector.
The innovation is only limited by the budget for parts.
Specialized ROTC Training (Score:2)
As many have already pointed out, the number of foreign students at U.S. universities is astounding, especially at the sort of universities likely to get this funding. You'd be doing nothing more than teaching our adversaries how to attack us. This should be taught at military academies and via specialized ROTC training.
Specialized ROTC training for computer engineering grads (none of this namby-pamby CompSci shit) will provide college funding for students and a ready-made qualified talent pool for the mi
Re: (Score:2)
The best got found further testing ensured the US mil got the very best. Worked too well for decades.
The problem with that is the lack of access for contractors. If the mil and gov can find and educate generations of their own staff by doing its own testing?
The new methods open up funding to the private sector. Teaching, equipment sales, course material is done by the p