If you need proof that not everything DARPA does is going to immediately commit mass murder, consider the internet you used to post your teenaged witticism.
I think people are mixing with this article about with their future "expectations" about DARPA
Because if it leads to techniques to make more efficient killing machines of the soldiers they'll pass them over? Or because they are not researching that too, all the time?
>If you need proof that not everything DARPA does is going to immediately commit mass murder, consider the internet you used to post your teenaged witticism.
That was created to facilitate a nuclear war scenario, so that the army facilities could still operate and have fault tolerant distributed communication etc. While we don't use it for that now, it's not the best example to make your point.
Besides it seems you missed the whole:
"The question that should punctuate everything DARPA does, Jacobsen suggests, is “How can this be weaponized?”"
thing, from somebody who has studied DARPA long time...
You may want to look into the history of the military in the U.S., both right and left share in it's excesses.
I take it you've never heard of Skynet?
Yeah, do you need a teenage witticism to understand that or not?