OT: DARPA Robot Car Challenge

[Roger Gt]

"Fred Bloggs" wrote
: Glenn Ashmore wrote:
: > That's nothing new. Bantam Cars won the competition for the
Jeep and
: > the contract to build them was given to Willis and Ford. No
royalties
: > or anything. When Bantam raised a stink they got to build
trailers for
: > the jeeps they designed.
: >
: > Unless you have really good political connections, never trust
the DOD
: > with a good idea.
:
: This is not true anymore- just create a certified paper trail
prior to
: submittal- and you can bring the whole department to its knees.
Rumsfeld
: wants to fire the *GOOD FOR F__K__G NOTHING* "acquisition
workforce"
: altogether. Their performance record is the gold standard of
being the
: absolute worst- cannot go anywhere but up by eliminating the
worthless,
: ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, unproductive, overpaid,
bureaucratic
: SCUM! These are the vermin who brought you the Comanche fiasco-
twenty
: years and as many billions and you have absolutely nothing,
Rumsfeld
: was so eager to shed the boondoggle, he is cutting his losses
and buying
: $2B in contract termination costs. The "acquisition workforce"
is a
: *prime* Rumsfeld target to be eliminated in 2005 base
realignment and
: closure, and this is why it's important that Bush be re-elected-
: Rumsfeld is going to send them packing as well as eliminate
their legacy
: of pathetically overcomplicated, counter-productive, bureaucracy
: expanding acquisition regulations- all will be gone, and good
riddance.

By the time this improvement occurs I won't be interested any
longer. My group is already scattered and we are loosing members
to retirement and death! Our group had models to deal with many
of the problem various individuals have described and we were vary
careful to protect the features with a paper trail. However the
first thing I was ask to provide as proof of our ability to build
these devices was a working prototype of one feature only and to
sign over exclusive rights to the government. So I will wait
until some one gets their act together. I can ill afford to give
away what we spent five years developing!

The question about how long such a "Gadget" would last was
interesting, these are considered expendable in the tactical
sense, but the Hardware would last for four to ten years in use
unless destroyed. BTW, destroying one would be a hazard to the
attacker since the plan was to include a self destruct to destroy
salvageable parts and being within 10 meters when one destructed
would likely result in death!

Voice was a neutral synthesizer. No way to identify the speakers
since they would all sound the same. But not all units would
carry a voice unit.

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3d8gm$hm1$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c3c5uc01mln@drn.newsguy.com...
Paul Burridge wrote...

If they're only offering a lousy million bucks, then it's hardly
surprising. No serious team's going to emerge for that kind of
dough. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

The top teams were very serious, and spent many millions each on
their entries. Furthermore, you can be sure many will be back
next time with more advanced vehicles. The challenge was in fact
very difficult. Some commented they weren't sure they could drive
the course themselves.

The prize would likely not simply have been the $1M, but landing
a good position for a piece of DOD's future spending in this area,
which will be considerable, given the congressional mandate for
one-third of ground combat vehicles to operate unmanned by 2015.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com


Gosh!. Wish I had their uncritical faith in modern technology. I can't
even
trust my security lights to ignore the local wildlife. Never mind
imagining
some gun-toting, microsoft controlled, terminator unit.
regards

We are very close to that. We already have cruise missiles flying to their
targets by GPS coordinates, and pilotless surveillance drones equipped with
air-to-ground missiles. The drones' weapons are still under remote-operator
control. A serious threshold will be passed when a pilotless aircraft
detects a target, decides on the basis of its own programming to destroy it,
and causes a friendly-fire incident. Will the robots then be disarmed?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:39:20 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote (in <hd8l50db9nhinpkq7jrd8cq36sr46f
05an@4ax.com&gt about 'OT: DARPA Robot Car Challenge', on Fri, 19 Mar
2004:
NOBODY does it right the
first time.

Yes, what works well (for us, if not dodos) is the Universe; NOBODY did
that right the first time.

I guess you've never heard of evolution. However, even the
creationist dogma presumes that Adam and Eve were screwups for having
been busted for indecent exposure and pilfering the boss's orchard.
Maybe there wasn't enough time to do it over, but there certainly has
been a few million years of patchwork, modifications, and change
orders.

The problem with the DARPA Challenge vehicles will be solved in the
traditional manner.

1. First, a culprit must be found. No problem can be solved without
first assigning the blame. The government would normally be a good
culprit, but since they're paying the bills, that option is
unacceptable.

2. Project progress will be equally divided and polarized between
proponents of most favorite ideas, original thinking, visionary
ideals, and grandiose schemes. Much of the development time will be
lost trying to reconcile these impractical options. When a decision
is finally reached, nobody can be found willing to implement it.

3. 90% of the real work will be performed by the thankless few that
keep their mouth shut, work systematically, ignore the experts, and
pretend to accept supervision. These heroic individuals will blunder
onward in the face of criticism, recover gracefully from all attempts
by project leaders to actually lead, and apply great ingenuity to
practical problems such as stealing parts.

4. Immediately preceding the next race or trial, the "fatal flaw(tm)"
is discovered. While the project leaders are busy discussing the
relative merits of resurrecting everyone's discarded schemes, the
thankless few are methodically working through the problem towards a
suitable temporary band-aid or kludge.

5. On the day of the race, any and all failures will be blamed on
everything other than disorganization, diversion, grandstanding, and
insufficient testing. Whatever the failure mode, the blame will be
assigned by the leadership to the thankless few, for their inability
to deliver the requisite miracles and anticipate all eventualities.

6. After a few successive failures, the leadership will drift away
for other projects they can disorganize, leaving the thankless few
with relatively free reign to accomplish the original goal. This will
be achieved without fanfare, publicity, proper funding, and credit.
After their success, the former leadership will re-appear to grab
credit whenever possible.

That last race I was involved with was the Baha 500 for Cal Poly
Pomona in about 1969. Our entry was a recycled L.A. Yellow Cab taxi.
Everything worked fine until the rear axle half-shaft broke about 17
miles from the start. We forgot to calculate and test the added
weight load of all the extra fuel in the trunk. The next years
followed the aforementioned pattern and failed at about 100 miles.



--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote (in <mcim50lgprgkc3015oodf0s08d00n3
58uf@4ax.com&gt about 'OT: DARPA Robot Car Challenge', on Fri, 19 Mar
2004:

I guess you've never heard of evolution.

I guess you didn't get the joke.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Chris Carlen]

Guy Macon wrote:

Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> says...


What I think makes much more sense, because it capitalizes on the
virtues of both the robotic as well as the human capabilities, is remote
controlled vehicles. This seems so obvious that I find the DOD plan
really quite disturbing.


How do you communicate with the remotes? Radio? Jamming and
anti-radiation missiles. Lasers? Smoke. Fiber optics?
Fletchettes.

Hmm. Interesting considerations. I place my bets on communications
technologies being more reliable than an autonomous robot, but you've
got me thinking that there are no easy answers.

However if a highly directional antenna were used and directed at a
satellite rather than a ground station, then it would be very difficult
and improbable to find the radiation source.


Good day!


--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19

 

[John Jardine]

Richard Henry <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:SJH6c.19092$uh.4679@fed1read02...

"John Jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3d8gm$hm1$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c3c5uc01mln@drn.newsguy.com...
Paul Burridge wrote...

If they're only offering a lousy million bucks, then it's hardly
surprising. No serious team's going to emerge for that kind of
dough. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

The top teams were very serious, and spent many millions each on
their entries. Furthermore, you can be sure many will be back
next time with more advanced vehicles. The challenge was in fact
very difficult. Some commented they weren't sure they could drive
the course themselves.

The prize would likely not simply have been the $1M, but landing
a good position for a piece of DOD's future spending in this area,
which will be considerable, given the congressional mandate for
one-third of ground combat vehicles to operate unmanned by 2015.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com


Gosh!. Wish I had their uncritical faith in modern technology. I can't
even
trust my security lights to ignore the local wildlife. Never mind
imagining
some gun-toting, microsoft controlled, terminator unit.
regards

We are very close to that. We already have cruise missiles flying to
their
targets by GPS coordinates, and pilotless surveillance drones equipped
with
air-to-ground missiles. The drones' weapons are still under
remote-operator
control. A serious threshold will be passed when a pilotless aircraft
detects a target, decides on the basis of its own programming to destroy
it,
and causes a friendly-fire incident. Will the robots then be disarmed?


Good point. My concern is that passing this 'autonomous capability

threshold', is perceived at high levels as a simple linear function of
throwing enough cash/research/development/effort at the idea. I.e it should
be the natural outcome of incremental development to present robotic
systems. The enthusiasm being based on the known success of past humungous
projects, such as the A-bomb , moon landings etc. (I won't include the UK's
Beagle non-lander .
10 years is simply not enough. This problem's been thought about for at
least the past 1000 and we're no nearer now than we were then. Nowadays
we've the technical sophistication and tooling to build this kind of exotic
machinery but no idea of how the controlling AI can be achieved.
My vision of hell is in 10 years for the military contractors to be hawking
supposed "autonomous" lethal machinery, controlled by software nightmares,
using 'rule based' computer programmes.
For gawds sake, we need a total paridigm shift. Let's spend the next 10
years simply finding out what are the questions we need to be asking.
regards
john

 

[Winfield Hill]

Fred Bloggs wrote...

Daniel Haude wrote:
Ooooh yeah- you know allllllll about that too do you- you worthless,
insignificant, piss ant of a low level peon German punk. Your biggest
challenge in life is probably elbowing your way to the front of the
schnitzel and sour KRAUT bar at noon sharp each day...oink oink.

Clearly Bloggs is on your case. A hopeless situation really,
mucho mud flinging at any opportunity, very predicatable, etc.
At least Bloggs' longterm memory hasn't gone yet.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote...

Daniel Haude wrote:
Ooooh yeah- you know allllllll about that too do you- you worthless,
insignificant, piss ant of a low level peon German punk. Your biggest
challenge in life is probably elbowing your way to the front of the
schnitzel and sour KRAUT bar at noon sharp each day...oink oink.


Clearly Bloggs is on your case. A hopeless situation really,
mucho mud flinging at any opportunity, very predicatable, etc.
At least Bloggs' longterm memory hasn't gone yet.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.
-- Aldous Huxley

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that maxfoo <maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass
..com> wrote (in <5dko50t368gcj6thtm5vuqgpo3ro6tansn@4ax.com&gt about 'OT:
DARPA Robot Car Challenge', on Sat, 20 Mar 2004:

How do you know that the current Universe is the first attempt?

I'm afraid I can't disclose that. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[JeffM]

imagining some gun-toting, microsoft controlled, terminator unit.
John Jardine

That was my first thought. The opening scene from Terminator I.
Glenn Ashmore

or the demo in Robocop--before they decided to go cyborg.
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=robocop+robot+robots+OR+robotics&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

The top teams were very serious, and spent many millions each on
their entries. Furthermore, you can be sure many will be back
next time with more advanced vehicles. The challenge was in fact
very difficult. Some commented they weren't sure they could drive
the course themselves.

I wonder how many of the teams had tested their vehicles and knew that
realistically they didn't stand a chance? But showed up anyway just for the
sake of making a good showing of some good, honest, hard work?

It is a very difficult challenge, and clearly the reward money is not going
to attract any private companies (directly), but it seems as though plenty
of the times were able to secure a large amount of private cash and
equipment, which is a good sign.

The prize would likely not simply have been the $1M, but landing
a good position for a piece of DOD's future spending in this area,
which will be considerable, given the congressional mandate for
one-third of ground combat vehicles to operate unmanned by 2015.

Is that unmanned and autonomously? I can't see that happening by 2015!
Unmanned and remotely 'piloted' as has been done with some surveilance plans
in the Gulf Wars seems quite doable.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:

Quack wrote:
Okay so if you were to use remote control cars, and the enemy 'jammed'
your transmissions, do you want your cars to sit there stupidly doing
nothing ?
Maybe this is a backup system for remote controlled vehicles.

Huans can be 'jammed' as well... with bullets, ultra-high pressure sound
waves, lasers, chemical weapons, etc.

Anyway, I think developing jam-proof communications would be easier than
a highly reliable autonomous robot vehicle.

Guess where some of the ideas behind spread spectrum communication systems
came from?

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@
Yahoo.Com> wrote (in <c3isqo$8tm$1@news.oregonstate.edu&gt about 'OT:
DARPA Robot Car Challenge', on Sat, 20 Mar 2004:

I wonder how many of the teams had tested their vehicles and knew that
realistically they didn't stand a chance?

You might read the write-up of the 'Sandstorm' project in 'Scientific
American' March 2004. It recounts quite a number of crises that simply
should not have happened (notably 'short-circuits') if the team had been
employing sensible standards of workmanship.

Most of the entrants failed at the start line or very shortly after, and
not because of complex failures in the high-tech stuff. This, too,
suggests an inadequate level of competence. Most entrants in 'Robot
Wars' (UK version of 'Battlebots') seem to be far more reliable, under
conditions at least as harsh as those at the start line.

I expect the 2005 competition (if there is one) to give much better
results. Most people 'learn big' from big mistakes.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

You might read the write-up of the 'Sandstorm' project in 'Scientific
American' March 2004. It recounts quite a number of crises that simply
should not have happened (notably 'short-circuits') if the team had been
employing sensible standards of workmanship.

Most of the entrants failed at the start line or very shortly after, and
not because of complex failures in the high-tech stuff. This, too,
suggests an inadequate level of competence. Most entrants in 'Robot
Wars' (UK version of 'Battlebots') seem to be far more reliable, under
conditions at least as harsh as those at the start line.

I expect the 2005 competition (if there is one) to give much better
results. Most people 'learn big' from big mistakes.

Oh they do? You should have seen our PBS documentary on the development
engineering team at JPL who worked on the Rovers- totally screwed up,
airhead riffraff. Anything short of catastrophic malfunction in those
very poorly engineered kluges is an accident.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <405D831E.9010001@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: DARPA Robot Car
Challenge', on Sun, 21 Mar 2004:

John Woodgate wrote:


You might read the write-up of the 'Sandstorm' project in 'Scientific
American' March 2004. It recounts quite a number of crises that simply
should not have happened (notably 'short-circuits') if the team had been
employing sensible standards of workmanship.

Most of the entrants failed at the start line or very shortly after, and
not because of complex failures in the high-tech stuff. This, too,
suggests an inadequate level of competence. Most entrants in 'Robot
Wars' (UK version of 'Battlebots') seem to be far more reliable, under
conditions at least as harsh as those at the start line.

I expect the 2005 competition (if there is one) to give much better
results. Most people 'learn big' from big mistakes.

Oh they do? You should have seen our PBS documentary on the development
engineering team at JPL who worked on the Rovers- totally screwed up,
airhead riffraff. Anything short of catastrophic malfunction in those
very poorly engineered kluges is an accident.

Well, I was being 'charitable', a word that is unlikely in the extreme

to be in your vocabulary. Nevertheless, I hope they DO learn.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote (in <405D831E.9010001@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: DARPA Robot Car
Challenge', on Sun, 21 Mar 2004:


John Woodgate wrote:


You might read the write-up of the 'Sandstorm' project in 'Scientific
American' March 2004. It recounts quite a number of crises that simply
should not have happened (notably 'short-circuits') if the team had been
employing sensible standards of workmanship.

Most of the entrants failed at the start line or very shortly after, and
not because of complex failures in the high-tech stuff. This, too,
suggests an inadequate level of competence. Most entrants in 'Robot
Wars' (UK version of 'Battlebots') seem to be far more reliable, under
conditions at least as harsh as those at the start line.

I expect the 2005 competition (if there is one) to give much better
results. Most people 'learn big' from big mistakes.

Oh they do? You should have seen our PBS documentary on the development
engineering team at JPL who worked on the Rovers- totally screwed up,
airhead riffraff. Anything short of catastrophic malfunction in those
very poorly engineered kluges is an accident.


Well, I was being 'charitable', a word that is unlikely in the extreme
to be in your vocabulary. Nevertheless, I hope they DO learn.

The riffraff I observed were all well into/past mid-life, they are
beyond hope- career workfare slobs is what they were, an overwhelming
aura of sloppiness in appearance and work habits, laziness, apathy, and
practiced ostentatious display of faux enthusiasm- we should shoot them
into space- one way.

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:<c3it2f$93q$1@news.oregonstate.edu>...

Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:
Quack wrote:
Okay so if you were to use remote control cars, and the enemy 'jammed'
your transmissions, do you want your cars to sit there stupidly doing
nothing ?
Maybe this is a backup system for remote controlled vehicles.

Huans can be 'jammed' as well... with bullets, ultra-high pressure sound
waves, lasers, chemical weapons, etc.

Anyway, I think developing jam-proof communications would be easier than
a highly reliable autonomous robot vehicle.

Guess where some of the ideas behind spread spectrum communication systems
came from?

Hedy Lamar and remotely controlled torpedoes ....

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Winfield Hill]

Fred Bloggs wrote...

$2B in contract termination costs. The "acquisition workforce" is a
*prime* Rumsfeld target to be eliminated in 2005 base realignment and
closure, and this is why it's important that Bush be re-elected-
Rumsfeld is going to send them packing as well as eliminate their
legacy of pathetically overcomplicated, counter-productive, bureaucracy
expanding acquisition regulations- all will be gone, and good riddance.

I think the Democrats would be just as happy to see these folks gone.
There were dramatic changes (improvements) in the procurement systems
of the non-DOD departments during the Clinton administration. In many
cases an individual needing something, and having room in his budget,
would simply make the purchase from industry, without the procurement
system involved (this is something I have personal knowledge of - my
DOD knowledge for the Clinton years being limited).

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote...

$2B in contract termination costs. The "acquisition workforce" is a
*prime* Rumsfeld target to be eliminated in 2005 base realignment and
closure, and this is why it's important that Bush be re-elected-
Rumsfeld is going to send them packing as well as eliminate their
legacy of pathetically overcomplicated, counter-productive, bureaucracy
expanding acquisition regulations- all will be gone, and good riddance.


I think the Democrats would be just as happy to see these folks gone.
There were dramatic changes (improvements) in the procurement systems
of the non-DOD departments during the Clinton administration. In many
cases an individual needing something, and having room in his budget,
would simply make the purchase from industry, without the procurement
system involved (this is something I have personal knowledge of - my
DOD knowledge for the Clinton years being limited).

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

I am not talking about those folks, buyers and contract administration
personnel, actually my observation has been that they are very
competent, efficient, and professional employees. My remarks pertain to
the enormous program management overhead and their support personnel,
the system architects, the high level program decision authorities, the
armies of personnel involved in system development planning, testing,
review, progress audits and so forth, the people who create an
adversarial working relationship with the contractor, duplicate much of
the contractor programmatic work, and make bad and/or ill-informed
decisions. It's not just Dod- see the FAA fiasco upgrading ATC radars
and the IRS fiasco upgrading their central computing. The essential
element here is that you have a large bureaucracy with no real
accountability who have in each and every case abused their authority,
not to produce a product, but to further the goals of their
organizations which uniformly across the board are : expand to as great
a size as possible with the creation of the maximum number of well-paid
positions, and secure long term steady funding for that expansion. This
is what needs to be eliminated, and it will be done by moving this
function into the private sector wherein this activity is no longer
protected by federal law- the GAO can do much more than just call these
people dirty names- the government can fire them- an impossible thing to
do with the civil service.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<405DB6D1.6040304@nospam.com>...

Winfield Hill wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote...

$2B in contract termination costs. The "acquisition workforce" is a
*prime* Rumsfeld target to be eliminated in 2005 base realignment and
closure, and this is why it's important that Bush be re-elected-
Rumsfeld is going to send them packing as well as eliminate their
legacy of pathetically overcomplicated, counter-productive, bureaucracy
expanding acquisition regulations- all will be gone, and good riddance.


I think the Democrats would be just as happy to see these folks gone.
There were dramatic changes (improvements) in the procurement systems
of the non-DOD departments during the Clinton administration. In many
cases an individual needing something, and having room in his budget,
would simply make the purchase from industry, without the procurement
system involved (this is something I have personal knowledge of - my
DOD knowledge for the Clinton years being limited).

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com


I am not talking about those folks, buyers and contract administration
personnel, actually my observation has been that they are very
competent, efficient, and professional employees. My remarks pertain to
the enormous program management overhead and their support personnel,
the system architects, the high level program decision authorities, the
armies of personnel involved in system development planning, testing,
review, progress audits and so forth, the people who create an
adversarial working relationship with the contractor, duplicate much of
the contractor programmatic work, and make bad and/or ill-informed
decisions. It's not just Dod- see the FAA fiasco upgrading ATC radars
and the IRS fiasco upgrading their central computing. The essential
element here is that you have a large bureaucracy with no real
accountability who have in each and every case abused their authority,
not to produce a product, but to further the goals of their
organizations which uniformly across the board are : expand to as great
a size as possible with the creation of the maximum number of well-paid
positions, and secure long term steady funding for that expansion. This
is what needs to be eliminated, and it will be done by moving this
function into the private sector wherein this activity is no longer
protected by federal law- the GAO can do much more than just call these
people dirty names- the government can fire them- an impossible thing to
do with the civil service.

See the book "Parkinson's Law" ISBN: 1568490151 still in print and
available from Amazon, though first published in 1958.

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/parkinsl.html

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen