Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft AI Government The Military

In an Open Letter, Microsoft Employees Urge the Company To Not Bid on the US Military's Project JEDI (medium.com) 330

Posted by msmash from the fighting-back dept.
On Tuesday, Microsoft expressed its intent to bid on the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract -- a contract that represents a $10 billion project to build cloud services for the Department of Defense. The contract is massive in scope and shrouded in secrecy, which makes it nearly impossible to know what technologies Microsoft would be building for the Department of Defense. At an industry day for JEDI, DoD Chief Management Officer John H. Gibson II explained the program's impact, saying, "We need to be very clear. This program is truly about increasing the lethality of our department." This has ruffled a few feathers inside the Redmond-based software giant. In an open letter published Saturday, an unspecified number of Microsoft employees stated their disapproval. They wrote: Many Microsoft employees don't believe that what we build should be used for waging war. When we decided to work at Microsoft, we were doing so in the hopes of "empowering every person on the planet to achieve more," not with the intent of ending lives and enhancing lethality. For those who say that another company will simply pick up JEDI where Microsoft leaves it, we would ask workers at that company to do the same. A race to the bottom is not an ethical position. Like those who took action at Google, Salesforce, and Amazon, we ask all employees of tech companies to ask how your work will be used, where it will be applied, and act according to your principles.

We need to put JEDI in perspective. This is a secretive $10 billion project with the ambition of building "a more lethal" military force overseen by the Trump Administration. The Google workers who protested these collaborations and forced the company to take action saw this. We do too. So we ask, what are Microsoft's A.I. Principles, especially regarding the violent application of powerful A.I. technology? How will workers, who build and maintain these services in the first place, know whether our work is being used to aid profiling, surveillance, or killing? Earlier this year Microsoft published "The Future Computed," examining the applications and potential dangers of A.I. It argues that strong ethical principles are necessary for the development of A.I. that will benefit people, and defines six core principles: "fair, reliable and safe, private and secure, inclusive, transparent, and accountable."

With JEDI, Microsoft executives are on track to betray these principles in exchange for short-term profits. If Microsoft is to be accountable for the products and services it makes, we need clear ethical guidelines and meaningful accountability governing how we determine which uses of our technology are acceptable, and which are off the table. Microsoft has already acknowledged the dangers of the tech it builds, even calling on the federal government to regulate A.I. technologies. But there is no law preventing the company from exercising its own internal scrutiny and standing by its own ethical compass. Further reading: Google Drops Out of Pentagon's $10 Billion Cloud Competition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In an Open Letter, Microsoft Employees Urge the Company To Not Bid on the US Military's Project JEDI More

In an Open Letter, Microsoft Employees Urge the Company To Not Bid on the US Military's Project JEDI

Comments Filter:

  • It's bad when trump does it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    But A-OK when Obama did it!

    • Re: It's bad when trump does it (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This submission screams political interest piece courtesy of msmash. I wonder how many heads would explode if these people were told that war has been waged for tens of thousands of years and Donald Trump is just the current president keeping the arms sharpened.

      At least it's not Obama bombing us Nationals with drones.

      • Re: It's bad when trump does it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @10:23AM (#57475856)

        This submission screams political interest piece courtesy of msmash.

        How is it a political piece and not an story on ethics? This is of genuine interest to the people who are interested in IT. How should people who don't work in a traditional defense industry react when they are asked to work on a project that is described by DOD's chief management officer as "about increasing the lethality of our department"? Do you think that this story should have been swept under the carpet?

        I wonder how many heads would explode if these people were told that war has been waged for tens of thousands of years and Donald Trump is just the current president keeping the arms sharpened.

        These aren't stupid people. You aren't going to teach them anything by pointing out that war isn't a new thing. But just because war has been waged for thousands of years does not mean to that they want to play a part in killing people. And the message in the letter is not that they object to working the Trump administration (there are plenty of government contracts that Microsoft bids for that doesn't generate a backlash).

        Nor are they advocating that the JEDI program should not exist. There message is simply that they do not want to be part of it.

        • Re: It's bad when trump does it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @11:08AM (#57476074)

          Nor are they advocating that the JEDI program should not exist. There message is simply that they do not want to be part of it.

          Two things:

          1) if they don't want to be part of it, then they can always leave MS for some other company...

          2) "There message" --- their message? where message?

          • 1) if they don't want to be part of it, then they can always leave MS for some other company...

            I have already addressed this in another message. There is no need for them to quit the company before it has bid for and won the contract. In the meantime, they have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. I am sure that if there were mass resignations at Microsoft, the executives would rather have been warned of the possibility prior to them bidding for the contract.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by vlad30 ( 44644 )

            Nor are they advocating that the JEDI program should not exist. There message is simply that they do not want to be part of it.

            And these are the first people that either beg to be saved or just roll over to the other side when things go bad. If you don't want to be part of it and support your own country go to that country you do support and live there. Just a few questions in which country were these people born or from what nation are they descended from recently, doesn't Microsoft like importing workers? Is it these workers making this letter?

        • Re: It's bad when trump does it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @12:38PM (#57476508)

          How is it a political piece and not an story on ethics?

          Because Microsoft sells lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of software to the DoD already. All of it is in service of killing people - that's what the DoD does.

          To suddenly be concerned that there could be classified Azure instances would seem like a strange place to draw the line if you were so concerned that your company's software could be used for violence. You'd think their deep non-violent beliefs would also extend to the rest of Microsoft's software.

    • Re: It's bad when trump does it (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think the heart of the letter is not far off from a good point, adding Trump in there certainly is illogical and hurts their argument though

  • Deport them (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They're Microsoft employees. Send them back to India!

  • Shouldn't LucasFilm sue the U.S. government for trademark infringement?
  • I wonder what these same employees would do when China comes knocking on their freedom. Hmmm.

    • Re:Defense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @09:27AM (#57475606)

      I wonder what these same employees would do when China comes knocking on their freedom.

      China has no interest in "attacking our freedom".

      America has 170,000 troops in East Asia. China has none in North America.

      • don't worry bill,
        they are there to slow them down, once the bombs go flying it's all over for us all anyway

      • freedom of navigation. 9-dash line. look it up.

      • America has 170,000 troops in East Asia. China has none in North America.

        Troops, guns and sharp pointy things are not the only ways to wage war.

        There's economic, social and probably a zillion more than I can think of.

        America is (was?) an Empire, just not a military one. 20 years ago you could go to Bumfuck Africa, and have an Oscar Meyer hot dog, wash it down with a Coke, while your companion took a picture of this with Kodak film, while smoking a Marlboro.

        If that's not an Empire, I dunno what is.

        Anyway, I digress. Yes, we are at war. Economic war, this time, and we not only

        • If that's not an Empire, I dunno what is.

          I got you covered.

          empire
          NOUN
          An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.

          Just to be clear, the thing you were describing is called "trade".

      • And yet, China is pushing for us to get out of South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, middle east, etc. But every time that we do that, CHina and/or their allies invades those nations. Even now, CHina is helping North Korea get set up to invade South Korea, support Iran and other nations into supporting fighting in the middle east, support terrorists groups working against these nations.

        And CHina is putting troops into Venezuela, along with Nicaragua. And that is in addition, to China's putting troops all over

        • And yet, China is pushing for us to get out of South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, middle east, etc.

          No they aren't. They object to THAAD in Korea, but not to our military presence.

          But every time that we do that, CHina and/or their allies invades those nations.

          1. China has no allies.
          2. China has never invaded Japan, or the Philippines, or the Middle East.

          Even now, CHina is helping North Korea get set up to invade South Korea

          China supported the latest UN sanctions on NK.

          ... support Iran and other nations into supporting fighting in the middle east

          China was an active participant in the nuke deal with Iran, and has given Iran no support in Syria or Iraq.

          support terrorists groups working against these nations.

          China has their own problems with Islamic extremists in Xinjiang. They oppose the Taliban and ISIS.

          And CHina is putting troops into Venezuela, along with Nicaragua.

          Citation?

    • that is a great response, While I don't think you were trolling, it's just a statement of what
      the underlying truth might be. As when at a bar, and you mumble about some news cast,
      you are not angry, you are reporting what you feel...

      With the above said, A few things we have to note, Americans ( in this case USA ) have for
      A very long while not experienced massive losses of troops. WW2 was the last there I can
      think of 8000 dead in a 2 to 4 days

      Being that I am 51 and a slight perspective buff, I asked this ques

      • The weapons we design are to make profit.for arms manufacturers. The reason that we aren't being bombed is because nobody has both a reason to bomb and the resources to do so.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Correction, these weapons are intended to keep the death toll one sided. Essentially, this is a delayed response to an important lesson learned in Vietnam: When middle aged generally conservative leaning Americans see their sons (and now daughters) coming home in a box, they start asking hard questions about what the supposed benefit is and to whom does it accrue.

        That's the danger of weapons like these, they allow the hawks to project force everywhere and cause a great deal of carnage without worrying about

  • Why won't those folks just quit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @09:17AM (#57475566)

    Many Microsoft employees don't believe that what we build should be used for waging war. When we decided to work at Microsoft, we were doing so in the hopes of "empowering every person on the planet to achieve more," not with the intent of ending lives and enhancing lethality

    It's for this very reason that these employees should quit. I mean...the USA is a "free" country, no? In fact they (the USA), pride themselves with the mantra:

    "The land of the free."

    Further, they (the people), and the media "echo chamber" *cough* *cough*, refer to their president as being the "leader" of the free world.

    So, why don't they just quit?

    I understand that folks here may simply say that the same freedom I am talking about allows them to do exactly whet they are doing. Just quit...problem solved.

    • Re:Why won't those folks just quit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @09:52AM (#57475750)

      Many Microsoft employees don't believe that what we build should be used for waging war. When we decided to work at Microsoft, we were doing so in the hopes of "empowering every person on the planet to achieve more," not with the intent of ending lives and enhancing lethality

      It's for this very reason that these employees should quit. I mean...the USA is a "free" country, no?

      Why would you quit if doing so would do nothing to prevent the very thing you objected to? It only makes sense to quit after you make your objections clear and they ignore them.

      You should be glad this is the land of the free because people like you are free to say the absolute dumbest things without being jailed. ;)

      • Why would you quit if doing so would do nothing to prevent the very thing you objected to?

        The DoD is one of Microsoft's largest customers. Why would you go to work for Microsoft if you thought it was wrong for your products to be used for waging war?

      • Why would you quit if doing so would do nothing to prevent the very thing you objected to? It only makes sense to quit after you make your objections clear and they ignore them.

        Except you and I both know they wouldn't quit after the contract was won.

        There are plenty of people that like to complain with no effort, but when it comes down to action will do nothing.

        Quitting beforehand in large numbers would really show Microsoft they had a problem, and people could always be re-hired if Microsoft dropped the co

        • Except you and I both know they wouldn't quit after the contract was won.

          Incorrect, you presume they would not quit. If I were you, I would presume far fewer things because of how extreme your viewpoint is on so many issues. You are not a good judge of character.

    • It's for this very reason that these employees should quit.

      Why? Microsoft hasn't bid on or won the contract yet, so surely it would be premature to quit their jobs. If they do win it, then some of the people who are asked to betray their principles will probably quit. But the sensible thing to do at this stage is make their feelings known before it comes to such a drastic stage.

      If they think that this sort of contract goes against what their departments stand for then they have the right (and even the duty) to point it out.

    • well it's not like they have said they won't quit. isn't the typical sane order, first ask and express your disagreement to the people making the decision. That way in their pro's and cons list they are aware that a good portion of their employees quitting if they do it is a potential con.

    • Now why I think they won't quit is not so simple.
      a secure job is a secure job.
      the job market is easy for a good coder ( which I am guessing are the one's protesting )

      Problem is the letter in your file when a reference is asked and the reply is given
      "Fired due to Non-participation in government contracts". ( which you can say ) along with,
      they were always on time and the other required stuff.

      That might stop a career for many people. and thinking like a business person, I need
      to generate revenue, so w

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Is there no middle ground between silently objecting to what your employer is asking you to do and quitting?

      • Do as they say, but do it badly. If anyone can do that it's Microsoft employees.

        Hang on, belay that. If they tried to intentionally produce something shite it'd probably come out beyond perfection.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      It makes more sense to keep one's job and try to change the direction of the company that one works for *before* quitting, doesn't it?

      Your smarmy straw man argument doesn't really work. Try again.

  • Did you vote for Obama in his second term? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @09:29AM (#57475624) Homepage Journal

    If you did you already actively gave approval for military action. Sorry but trying to pretend you are too good of a person when you already voted for a president that takes unilateral military action in nations we are not at war with. That is active consnet folks. If you say pull the trigger refusing the make the bullets is just lying to yourself.

    • Re:Did you vote for Obama in his second term? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @10:45AM (#57475946) Homepage Journal

      Logical fallacy. There was a choice of two candidates, likely both would have continued with military action and killed innocent people, and opting for the least bad choice is not an endorsement of everything they do. In fact voting for anyone is not an endorsement of every action they take, either up to that point or in the unknowable future.

      • Re:Did you vote for Obama in his second term? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @10:54AM (#57475994) Homepage Journal
        No. There were more than two candidates. The OP is right. If you voted for Obama you are voting for the status quo. And don't give me that BS that "there are really only two candidates". No, there weren't. You just liked "your guy", and like a good SJW perception is reality.

        • Bullocks.

          The closest thing the US has had to a viable third-party candidate, in my lifetime at least, was Ralph Nader in 2000. And even then, there was no realistic chance of his actually winning. It was just assumed that, with the exemplary Clinton economy and given the thoroughly dismal performance of the previous Bush administration, there was no chance of enough people being daft enough to vote to regress back to another Bush economy and warmongering. So a lot of us voted Nader in the hopes of pushin

    • Arguably, if you take "unilateral military action" in a foreign nation, then you are in war with it.

  • I really wish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sqreater ( 895148 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @09:51AM (#57475738)
    I really wish we could all be naive hyper-liberal globalist-humanists. I would jump on that bandwagon in a second if the whole world went in that direction at the same time. But it isn't. There are really bad actors in this world who would like to destroy all our rights, freedoms, and our safety, even our lives. And the nation is the container of those things. If we do not take actions to protect the container of everything we have and are those things will spill out, destroyed. So, feel smug, hyper-liberals, but you will be responsible for your own demise. And yes boys and girls, sometimes you as a nation have to kill those people trying to kill you. That's the real world. Grow up.

    • And yes boys and girls, sometimes you as a nation have to kill those people trying to kill you. That's the real world. Grow up.

      Perhaps... but that doesn't mean people should have to take part in something they find morally objectionable, does it?

      Also, you might find this hard to believe but a lot more people are killed by domestic bad actors than foreign bad actors. It makes little sense to spend so much on people who are such a small threat.

      • Re:I really wish (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @10:12AM (#57475812)

        And yes boys and girls, sometimes you as a nation have to kill those people trying to kill you. That's the real world. Grow up.

        Perhaps... but that doesn't mean people should have to take part in something they find morally objectionable, does it?

        Also, you might find this hard to believe but a lot more people are killed by domestic bad actors than foreign bad actors. It makes little sense to spend so much on people who are such a small threat.

        No they should not be forced to participate in something that they find to be morally objectionable. But I think they fail to realize that increasing the lethality of the US Military does not automatically equate to people dying somewhere. It's quite possible that doing so would deter a war that would have ultimately resulted in even more deaths than this program *may* potentially result in. They may be saving lives around the world and, almost certainly, would be saving lives of members of the US military. Technology can be used for good or for evil.

        I don't think any sane or rational being would want anyone to die in a conflict and yet we continue to have war and conflict throughout the world. The world would be a lot better off if no one had to work on these sorts of projects but could spend their time and their energy doing things that benefit humanity. Unfortunately, I don't believe that human nature and global events will change any time soon.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's quite possible that doing so would deter a war that would have ultimately resulted in even more deaths than this program *may* potentially result in.

          But more more likely is the military using it to kill more terrorists with drones. And by terrorists I mean random people who happened to be in the area they suspect the bad people are. And by bad people I mean people that the US doesn't like and doesn't feel the need to give any due process to.

          You could argue that Iran and North Korea having nukes would act as a deterrent and stop people dying. In the case of NK it actually may have. But would you help them develop those weapons?

          • No. Tools like drones have allowed us to stop using vastly less precise and far more deadly (to non-combatants) weapons like dumb bombs, artillery, and the horror show of columns of ground forces rolling through a region to accomplish the same ends in much, much bloodier ways. Your cartoon vision of someone using drones to randomly kill people in regions where we think everyone is bad is ... junior high school drama divorced from reality. A terrifying, lethal military superiority in the hands of a constitu

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Go read up on how drones are used in Afghanistan. Anyone in the target area is retroactively designated a terrorist to justify their deaths as legal.

              • Yep, you get all your news from memes. You'd obviously prefer carpet bombing. Why? Why would you prefer to kill innocent people?

            • Your point would be more coherent if any military conflict we've been in this century was even remotely justified. We're creating terrorists and backing dictators. That drones have the theoretical capacity to be more of a precision weapon has been offset by the fact that we use them without limit due to zero risk to the pilots.

              You are the one that needs to grow up, because we aren't the good guys, we're the big bad.

        • No they should not be forced to participate in something that they find to be morally objectionable.

          I highly doubt that they are going to work on it. To make sure that military secrets aren't leaked into the normal commercial space, or for normal commercial space to starve resources from the military side, I would be shocked if this isn't air gapped from the rest of everything else the company is working on. And to cross the air gap is going to require special military background checks. It would boggle my mind if anyone working on it wouldn't be very aware of what they're working on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        You're not forced to work on the project. You don't like the company, leave, if there are enough objectors, the company will do badly.

        Yes, many people are killed domestically but does that mean we shouldn't protect against foreign actors? It's the same argumentation that people use for not going to space - too many problems on earth. If we always have to wait for something else to be fixed we won't ever make progress. If the US wasn't a benevolent super power, who would be in charge of the Middle East? How

        • The best way to "protect against foreign actors" is to put everyone in US military leadership in jail. We are a global menace.

    • Re:I really wish (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @11:30AM (#57476178)
      There are really bad actors in this world who would like to destroy all our rights, freedoms, and our safety, even our lives.

      Jesus, straight from the mouth of warmongers.

      You're right. There are some crazy people. Always have been. Always will be. But this idea that the whole world would is out to get is is hysterical bullshit. The US's defense/military dwarfs everybody else's on the planet by orders of magnitude. Nobody can invade us or hurt you. Just fucking relax and turn off Fox News. Maybe try to travel to other countries, where you'll see that 99.999% of people are just trying to get through this life, just the same as you.

      We, as a country, do not need to spend any more money defending ourselves from the boogeyman.
      • The very nature of life at all levels is competition and self preservation. It would be nice if we could all agree on a cooperation model, but it doesn't currently exist.

        At best we can position ourselves to meet any offensive attack with a solid defense while attempting to increase cooperation and reducing armed conflict. But you can't just leave yourself open or weak because not everyone in the world agrees with the current state of things and less so for future state.

    • There are really bad actors in this world who would like to destroy all our rights, freedoms, and our safety, even our lives

      Yes, they are also known as "The US government."

  • This is the what happens when national defense is the problem of "some other kids" who you will never meet or work with. At least with a draft, everyone gets involved. Well, everyone except for the really rich jerks who have a mommy and daddy with connections, but they will be pro-defense no matter what they do.

    • Actually, we need to require boot camp of ALL 18 y.o.s, and then have a draft for 2 year terms with no non-medical excuses ( other than religious reason ). But yeah, rich ppl's kids need to be in the same boat.
      Far too many ppl today, do not realize the real threat that is out there. Only once they work/serve in DoD or in our intelligence world, will they find out that the threats out there are VERY real.
    • I've got a much better idea. If you start a war, you get executed. Then, the only time we'd go to war is when someone with the balls to put their own life on the line for the sake of the country.
  • Microsoft has been working with DoD for years, from providing Windows and Office licenses, to servers, to IT infrastructure support, and NOW some employees are getting picky about who Microsoft works with? Since this open letter was supported by an "unspecified number of Microsoft employees stated their disapproval" it would be nice to know just how many. I suspect it's a very small (less than 0.1% of their workforce) number of employees behind the open letter. Microsoft should uncover who they are and remi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Or, Microsoft could change their corporate policy.

  • When Obama bombed all those countries and funded ISIS those same Microsoft employees didn’t say a word. I wonder why that is.

  • First, the question should be what is a server network going to be used for? The answer is that this is NOT a weapon. It may be used to TRACK weapons. It may be used to track how effective (i.e. lethal) a weapon is. It may be used to hold intelligence about a field, a base, etc. It may also be used to track terrorists and enemy movements.
    Far more likely, it would become ALL OF THAT.

    BUT, even when tracking terrorists, it is not about killing them and everything around them. The military does this stuff

    • Good news for you, Microsoft Windows has been and is used in various weapons systems, for a very long time. Microsoft Windows has killed enemies of the USA, get over it.

  • Squeak long and loud when you are outraged at A, but are completely blind to (if the same principles behind outrage at A are applied) B through Z and more. Honestly, if these people claim to be smart, well, they should just give up now and go get a job flipping burgers.

  • Microsoft, dominant player through aggressive monopoly abuse, having recently shoved down everyone's throats an OS that hits the evil trifecta of being malware, spyware, and adware as it fights against user control and privacy at every turn... that Microsoft would compromise their ethics and principles in the name of short term profit by helping the military kill people better in our numerous pointless wars?? I'm shocked. Oh please, help me my heart has stopped from the surprise. I gasped so hard in shock I

  • Microsoft Windows has been used in weapons systems for a very long time, at least since Windows XP that I know of for Navy and Army. That horse left the barn decades ago .

    • Yes but I think these employees realize Windows wasn't actually helping the DoD, it was making their job harder, so it was ok.
  • I wonder if the unspecified number is 0, and this whole thing was written by an ex-Microsoft employee looking the make a fuss.

  • If you really didn't like the military, you would encourage anything that led to the performance of the military depending on Microsoft.

  • "ManyÂMicrosoftÂemployees don't believe that what we build should be used for waging war."

    A bit hypocritical when you consider they have absolutely no problem waging war against their customers. From Clippy to Windows 'telemetry', among many things. Next up: "Renting Windows 10 For Beginners" and "Recovering Lost Data After Windows Update - A Guide For The Consumer".

  • Surely 'SITH' would be more apt for the US military?

  • America is Going to Fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rally2xs ( 1093023 ) on Sunday October 14, 2018 @05:20PM (#57477624)

    Its plain. When its citizens don't agree that the country is worth protecting in the most effective ways possible, then other countries are going to deploy similar technology and defeat us. Its similar to hang together or hang separately. I'm glad I'm 71, and likely won't live to see the ultimate calamity of Chinese or maybe even Indian subjugation of the American people.

  • We can go about our business. Move along.

  • Then the US gov and mil is free to support much better US brands that fully support the USA.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

Close