Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?

I just figured out what's wrong with cruise missiles: They're fast, and don't crawl through the dirt feeling their way along. WTF.

BTW, defense spending is a good thing (tm). Unless they start shopping it overseas, of course, which entirely defeats the purpose. Did you think bombs were the first or only result of that spending?

This has been standard practice in government procurement for decades. Before putting a lot of time into negotiating with a bidder, first make sure that they actually look like they can deliver a product. That way you don't have a kid working in his dad's basement workshop bidding on a supercarrier.

If it was a violation of the constitution I'm sure that some disgruntled wannabee would have proven it by now.

The actual wording is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It is not "unreasonable" for the government to say "if you want us to pay you money you have to let us look over your place of business". Nobody is being "forced" in that circumstance--all that you have to do to avoid the search is say "sorry, government, I don't want your money".

Well, now, if it's not "legal to tax many and to give to a selected few" then I guess that we have to quit paying all government employees.

So let's see, according to you it's a violation of the Constitution for the government to compare two or more products under field conditions prior to purchase? And to pay the producer of the better product? Gee, a lot of aircraft manufacturers would love it if that was the case.

Regardless, the Congress has a specific power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", under which heading this particular competition would appear to fall. There's also another power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"--considering that DARPA is concerned with advance research projects with potential military application, such a competition would appear to fall within the compass of _that_ power as well. The Congress also has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

It doesn't say "buy computers" in the Constitution either, so I guess it's unlawful for the GAO to use them to track the government's finances. Sorry, but the Constitution is simply not that narrow.

It's _your_ contention that such an action violates the Constitution--it's up to you to prove it. Do you have relevant case law?

Since you've listened to so many, why not provide some rulings that support your contentions?

A big assumption, that.

You also misunderstand. I'm ready to be a passenger, just as soon as cars are ready to pilot themselves.

Ride a motorcycle long enough and you'll meet and talk with people who ran into deer, or lost someone that way.

A short stretch of I-90 in Indiana has roadside large wildlife sensors. They light up warning signs spaced about a mile apart, likely corresponding to sensor zones. I've never seen them on, and have to wonder how effective they can be. Knowing that there might be deer in the neighborhood is one thing; I assume that all the time anyway. To be really effective, they would have to light up the roadside like a ballfield so you can see the deer early enough to avoid them. Alas, I think the real purpose is not so much to save the one deer or carload that are about to meet. The real danger of a deer strike is the effect on traffic behind. You can't save the deer, I don't think, but maybe you can help the car behind the car that hit the deer. Drivers on the interstate at night apparently need minutes, not milliseconds, of warning and response time. To bring this full circle and back on topic, it's all the more reason for cars to drive themselves, hopefully with better awareness of its surroundings than the zombies now holding the wheels.

You're really out there in your thinking, or perhaps, knee jerk non-thinking. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous. Where in the Constitution does it address the charter granted by Congress to the FCC? The FAA? You won't have to look very far. It's the same few sentences that allows DARPA, a US agency chartered by Congressional power, to operate in a manner supporting their charter. In other words, the Constitution absolutely and very clearly granted very broad powers to the three branches of government, including the power to hold a "race" in the middle of the desert.

True or false: NASA is unconstitutional, as was the spending to put a man on the moon.

True or false: The very existence of DHS, let alone its mission and actions, is unconstitutional.

I just want to inject some additional information into the discussion. This is from the front page article on the DARPA Grand Challenge in the October 17, 2005 issue of EE Times.

The Grand Challenge was conceived in 2002 by Darpa director Anthony Tether, ...

The agency has sponsored autonomous-vehicle research for more than a decade in hopes of meeting a Congressional mandate that one-third of all military vehicles be autonomous by 2015. Progress, however, has been so slow that Darpa decided to enlist outside help. Hence, the Grand Challenge.

"All the winners acheived something that the naysayers had said was impossible just a few years ago," Intel's Bradski pointed out.

"Previously, Darpa spent a billion dollars on autonomous-vehicle development," he said, "but in less than three years the Grand Challenge has surpassed all previous efforts. ..."

Note that DARPA has been shelling out some big bucks on this research topic over the past decade or so. It is only with the advent of the GC that they saw some real progress.

Maybe next time, Darpa will stop throwing a billion dollars at the small cadre of established research houses and spread it around a little more from the start. The GC certainly made the established outfits produce some real results for a change for fear that their big lucrative research contracts might get redirected to somewhere else.

-Wayne

Sorry? and somehow it is my fault??? Can't you even live up to your own mistakes, and misguided assumptions, without blaming me?

I didn't say the contestants signed their intellectual rights away. You were the one who said that.

(I was actually shocked when you said they did, and it was something I was going to look through the fine print myself to see. Thanks to Gordon for saving me from a wild goose chase.)

I said "They just _gave_ their work to the inspectors, ignoring their own property rights, in order to have a chance at the prize" meaning they wrote the requested white papers, and let inspectors investigate their claims at their own labs, with on-site visits, which could have been and should have been refused by Constitutionally guaranteed right, with no change in their race-qualification status. Just as you are able to refuse a search of the trunk of your car, without probable cause to do so, so all robot builders had the right to refuse to disclose their technologies or demonstrate it for inspectors. The fact that none of the "sheeple" actually stood up for their rights, and took the feds to court shows how far down the road we've gone.

I am not responsible for your inability to read. Grow up.

Further, I said government inspectors stole the best they came up with. I say that because I got private email from someone who competed the first year, congratulating me on seeing through the ruse from the beginning. They didn't understand what I was saying until afterwards, when they saw what happened with the inspectors for themselves.

They also said they'd overheard a cornel saying the whole race was a way to shame the prime contractor into lowering their price on research. DARPA didn't really give a hoot about the contest otherwise. It had already done its work, and the prime was already contrite, they'd won a financial victory.

While I recognize, one letter is a thin data set, I took their testimony for first hand experience, and deemed them credible as far as I could tell. Their experience dovetails well with my own experience as prior Naval Officer, and civilian military system supplier, both at Rockwell, then at my own company (where I learned first hand designs "handed around" by inspectors to other suppliers). I used the testimony I received as the basis of my pronouncement. I have heard of no full accounting of the source or destination of inspectors, to the contrary, to counter their position. Of course, we have to classify this as hearsay in a legal sense, since I am not a first hand witness. If I had direct, first hand evidence, I would file charges, but without it, I cannot. If anyone else does, I would strongly encourage them to file charges.

Particular since he is misrepresenting what he said, as what I said. Read it again. He read it wrong, he reported it wrong, and he blaimed me for getting it wrong. It's more than an assumption there; it is a callous or malicious misrepresentation; and an attempt to blame me for his own mistake.

Now I take it your post is a quip aimed at my position. I understand my position is not popular. That does not make it incorrect. I refer you to Voltaire's Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privelege to do so too".

Yes, and that's a pity, because I learned these opinions from reading the opinions of the guys who wrote our Constitution, and also commentary of others on their thinking.

You think mine is bad, man, read Jefferson. You get the impression if he were alive today, he'd have half of capitol hill on a bayonet. For instance he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" and meant it.

So let me ask you, where did you learn your thinking on the Constitution? Why should it be different from mine? Consider carefully your sources, and explain their motivations.

Generally all such agencies are thought to derive power from one of two clauses. One is the commerce clause, allowing the regulation of trade between the states, the other is the general welfare clause, which is the basis for much of the welfare system. Of course, you have to overlook the meaning of the word welfare as known at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and welfare as currently redefined.

For instance, for the destruction of the hurricane of 1912, no federal relief at all was sent. It was not seen as an enumerated task allowed under the Constitution at the time. Today, billions. Just by redefining a word. Which version of the Constitution were you taught? Why?

I disagree. The commerce and welfare clauses do not allow for DARPA. Brent was right in identifying the common defense as the origin of Congresses power to create DARPA. However, Congress cannot create an agency that in any way violates any other rights in the Constitution. Such as those which violate the 14th or 5th Amendment. If DARPA wants something from the people, it can legally contract with the people to make things. That doesn't mean it can use tax dollars for contests that award big prizes to one, and shaft all others. That's where you get sideways with the 14th.

Well, why don't you answer this one for your self. Where in the Constitution does it allow for NASA?

Same response. Think for yourself. What does the Constitution say? If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, work on expanding your knowledge.

So here's a question for you. Hypothetical. Let's say you work through it, and find NASA and DHS are unconstitutional. What are you going to do about it? What if no one else agrees with you? What are you going to do about it? Does their ridicule stand in in place of your conscience? Does their laughing at you, make you automatically wrong.

Now here's another one. Did cops occasionally beat citizens senseless for no good cause, before there were video tape machines? Can you prove it either way? What are your assumptions? Was it okay, as long as no one taped it? Or are improper actions, still improper, even if they do happen often? And will they stop on their own, or does someone have to take a stand, and say, this is wrong, before changes comes?

"Randy M. Dumse" wrote in news:lfS4f.139$qg1.1091 @eagle.america.net:

Yes I do know how the Wright brothers got rich. I also know one of them died in the pursuit of what?? Riches or knowledge? They were making some pretty good jack with the bicycle gig before they started flying. As for Curtis, he used to fly over my house. Of course, I wasn't quite born yet.The way I understand it, he tried to rip off the Wright Bros.

Assuming your claim is correct (a big assumption), that government inspectors visited the team's labs, I don't see how this is a problem or how it relates to any Constitutional matters. We're not talking about police searching someone's car for evidence of murder. We're talking about *voluntary* participants in a contest. Barring discrimination or other *real* legal concerns, if the contestants disagreed with any portion of the contest's rules they were free to compete elsewhere. Building an autonomous robot that can drive through the desert is not something you need government permission to do.

Is that another paraphrasing of Voltaire's essay on tolerance?

After receiving a single email, you've indicted the competition and the government of serious criminal activity? I shudder to think how you responded to the emails you get about UFOs, Viagra, and Nigerian bank loans.

Btw, the next time you start a flame-feast on Usenet, you might not want to use your company email address. Having started this debate is hardly something you want associated with your real name, much less your professional image. I only hope you didn't waste company time on this.

Chris

Not the way I heard it. Wilbur was broken up in a plane crash (out demonstrating the technology with an Army inspector who works for Wright's competitor), later during the lawsuites over their rights dies of typhus. Orville eventually looses his intellectual property rights.

I haven't done a very extensive serach, but from:

"Orville wins the patent battle, but it's a hollow victory. When World War I starts just two years later, the government frees all the airplane companies from patent restrictions so they can build better planes"

That's why I say this is such a good example from the history book. They guys who brought us lighter than air aviation were stripped of their rights and technologies by the government a few years later.

Such repeated governmental behavior is the basis for my saying, "Our little robotics community just spent, ?what?, $40 million or more, creating something that we should have been paid $40 billion for? and without even the promise of a kiss afterwards."

You think our fine government will respect any patents that came out of the DAPRA GC? Why should they? Besides, they got advanced copies of all the ideas. They were handed them over to the inspectors.

So you think you DARPA racers are anything or anyone more important than Wilbur or Orville Wright? Learn from how they were treated, and expect less for yourselves.

There is a well established precedent for treating you so. Did you participants all do this so you could be used as unpaid slave labor? Because that is the likely reward awaiting your hours of sacrifice. Like I said, the party is over, DARPA's goals were all met, the prize money has gone to one of their long term associates. (Look up the definition of shill on Wikipedia, not legality comment on same.)

Despite my many detractors, I hope it is coming clear to some of the reasonable readers out there, I am not making things up, I am simply pointing at history. Some ought to be scratching their heads about now, and wondering, huh, maybe DAPRA GC wasn not a good thing. Only if history repeats itself.

The wording is basically the same as it was last year:

"DARPA claims no intellectual property (IP) rights from entrants..." and they go on to say that includes the winner. They disclaim any right to trade secrets, patents, copyrights, etc.

I re-read Randy's comments (he's a good guy, give him a break! ) and it does look like he suggests otherwise, but I realize there are other things than assigning formal IP rights. For example, DARPA can see what's possible, glean enough non-proprietary information from the contestants, then go to their favorite defense contractor and say, "See, it *can* be done! Now get to work!!"

Will they do that? Doubtful. It's cheaper just to buy the technology they want, since the gobment can set the value if they deem the technology critical to national interests. I think the Grand Challenge is more about a fishing expedition where you find the fish, but don't take any out just yet. But you know where the catch is, and that's the secret to good fishin'. Before this who knew where the next breakthroughs in AV's would come from. A Volkswagon??

While I'm not keen on developing yet another way to kill a human being, I also recognize the potential in SAVING lives, and this is where a whole cottage industry can crop up. Like the deer/moose thing (one respondant was absolutely correct -- hit a moose at 50-60 MPH, and you better have your will made out). Since the AVs in the Grand Challenge route are basically a Hummer-full of sensors, who can say what else those sensors might do, apart from driving a vehicle into a desert one night so it can fire a gattling gun at some people it suspects are terrorists? (In which case fire away, but what if they're not...)

I prefer not to think about the possible misuse of this technology, and concentrate on the positive ones. The fact that DARPA has a budget to fund these things is, well, a fact of life. Our Apollo missions weren't all about bringing back some moon rocks, after all. The US government has never been altruistic, depsite what we may want to think.

-- Gordon

Correction, with more careful reading, it is Orville who is broken up in the crash, and Wilbur who dies from typhus. Orville survives but looses his property rights.

Quite a trick considering that they died in 1799 and 1810 respectively, and were French citizens living in France to boot.

The same reason they would respect such patents that did _not_ come from that source?

Is it your contention that the winner cheated somehow? If not, exactly what is your contention? Generally speaking research agencies have long term relationships with the more capable research establishments, so it is not surprising that one of their long term associates was able to produce the most successful device.

What's becoming clear is that you (a) are not rational on this topic and (b) should not take up the practice of law any time soon.

>

These are all side-effects; the primary value, as you have outlined it, is making "more accurate and lethal weapons".

Why , you would prefer people to hide behind false email addresses ?

I'm confused. Wasn't he talking about Wilbur and Orville Wright? Wilbur died young before WWI, but Orville lived until 1948 or 1949. Both were born in the midwest, and were American citizens through-and-through. I think they flew and did some things in France from time to time, but I think that's about the extent of their French Connection.

-- Gordon

I believe that statement is pretty clear. Perhaps you would like to define what _gave_ means with repect to the term "property rights" in that sentence. That is unless you want to determine what the meaning of "is" is.

Even adults make mistakes. It is an understandable one considering your statement. Nevertheless, my arguments stand up, even if an individual statement is in error. That's a claim I don't believe you can make in this discussion. I make no apologies for my contention that this isn't some grand conspiracy, and that the DOD is acting in good faith to do what our elected representatives have asked them. I believe once you start parsing sentences and telling people to grow up you have ventured off the subject and into ad hominem land. Perfection is a lot to ask for, especially considering you nor anyone else can offer it. Now, back to the subject at hand...

Brent S.