Do you agree with some today that DARPA has pulled back from the long-range, high-risk projects?
There certainly has been a change, and it's not for the better. But it may be inevitable. I'm not sure one could start the old ARPA nowadays. It would be illegal, perhaps. We now live under tight controls by many people who don't understand much about substance.
What was unique about IPTO was that it was very broad technically and philosophically, and nobody told you how to structure it. We structured it. It's very hard to do that today.
But why? Why couldn't a Licklider come in today and do big things?
Because the people that you have to persuade are too busy, don't know enough about the subject and are highly risk-averse. When President Eisenhower said, "You, Department X, will do Y," they'd salute and say, "Yes, sir." Now they say, "We'll get back to you." I blame Congress for a good part of it. And agency heads are all wishy-washy. What's missing is leadership that understands what it is doing.
The Washington Post [on Aug. 13] ran a Page 1 story saying that the FBI had given emergency responders $25 million in "computer kits" for exchanging information on suspected explosives, including weapons of mass destruction. But, The Post said, many of the kits didn't work and some were just abandoned. What do you make of that kind of report?
We are becoming incapable of handling a technology challenge of any major magnitude. We are losing the ability to do big, complicated things. In your example, nobody thought that someone had to organize a maintenance space for repairs, spare parts and so on. They only thought about buying the radios.
Is it partly a failure of technology?
Absolutely not. We have technology on the shelf we don't know what to do with, and we are buying more every day, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. What's missing is leadership that understands what it is doing. The whole thing is just off the rails.
What's the story at the National Science Foundation?
My friends complain that they have to submit 10 proposals to get one funded. Cuckoo. And it's tremendously demoralizing and very inefficient. The process is too risk-averse. But doing really good research is a high-risk proposition. If the system does not fund thinking about big problems, you think about small problems.
Could there be another Sputnik?
Yes, I expect it. In the biological world, it may be an accident. Someone is doing virus research and comes up with something that spreads easily and kills a lot of people. There is terrorism. It is absolutely thinkable that these guys will steal a nuclear weapon, have some technical help and blow it off in New York Harbor.
Gary Anthes is a Computerworld national correspondent.
Read more about Hardware in Computerworld's Hardware Topic Center.
- An Insightful Approach to Optimizing Mainframe MLC Spend This paper discusses how you can penetrate the complexity of IBM mainframe MLC products and the MLC price model to gain insight into...
- Meeting the Exploding Demand for New IT Services In this eBook, explore the top trends driving the New IT for IT Service Management, and how leading organizations are evolving to focus...
- Hybrid IT-A Low-Risk Path from On-Premise to ITaaS This white paper provides a strategy to move part or all of your ITSM suite to the cloud as a stepping stone to...
- Paving the Windows XP Migration Path to Success Support for Windows XP has ended, leaving organizations with three choices: Windows 8, Windows 7 or a combination. With the right planning and...
- Increase Your Data Center IQ Discover how to improve network efficiency, lower IT costs and more proactively manage your physical, virtual and cloud environments.
- Optimize Data Center Resources and Plan for the Future Eliminate over-provisioning and capacity shortfalls with pro-active capacity optimization. Join us in the evolution from capacity monitoring to capacity optimization in your data... All Hardware White Papers | Webcasts