• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 

From the article…

The Defence Department has adopted new ways to determine whether companies can actually meet their commitments, one of which was used for the first time during the search-and-rescue airplane competition won by Airbus.

“It was the first time,” Crosby said of the test used for the Kingfisher. “And we’ve learned from that because it could have been done better. We’re now bringing the same philosophy to other competitive procurements.”

So DND was using a new method to determine a contractor’s ability to deliver…on FWSAR…and it wants to use that philosophy/methodology on future projects?
 
From the article…



So DND was using a new method to determine a contractor’s ability to deliver…on FWSAR…and it wants to use that philosophy/methodology on future projects?
hope their lessons learnt include contracting for a product that will actually perform according to the requirements without 5 years or more of dithering
 
From the article…



So DND was using a new method to determine a contractor’s ability to deliver…on FWSAR…and it wants to use that philosophy/methodology on future projects?

So, does CAF actually mean:

A. Canadian Armed Forces; or

B. Clusterfuck Asinine Forces?


TL:dr
Stupidity Are You Stupid GIF
 
From the article…



So DND was using a new method to determine a contractor’s ability to deliver…on FWSAR…and it wants to use that philosophy/methodology on future projects?
Literally, just the way it reads...

"Yeah we tried something for the first time, and it could have gone better..."

Then...

"We're going to be using it on other competitive projects."

🤦‍♂️


(I think I get the context in which it was meant, but the literal reading of it is almost comedy skit material)
 
Elon has a vision of the future for humanity, the intelligence to know what's truly achievable & what isn't, what's dangerous & what isn't, and the drive to get us going in the right direction.

It seems like he's the super smart, crazy hard working guy just dragging the rest of us along with him the best he can

Bell and Edison are names that spring to mind.
 
In my view, there is.

Champagne Socialists want to use the power of the state to get the middle class to pay for their upper class guilt.

Corporatists use the power of middle class guilt to support the state to further their own corporate interests.

A minor modification.
 
Name me an original idea...

A few million years of shoulders behind us.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that many things have not been improved before commercialization. But I found those two examples to be pretty interesting given they were not the first in their field, just the more successful.

I don’t see Elon the way you do.
I don’t think he has an altruistic bone in his body, and I think he’d happily open Pandora’s box just to see the reactions of watching him
 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that many things have not been improved before commercialization. But I found those two examples to be pretty interesting given they were not the first in their field, just the more successful.

I don’t see Elon the way you do.
I don’t think he has an altruistic bone in his body, and I think he’d happily open Pandora’s box just to see the reactions of watching him

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that many things have not been improved before commercialization. But I found those two examples to be pretty interesting given they were not the first in their field, just the more successful.

I don’t see Elon the way you do.
I don’t think he has an altruistic bone in his body, and I think he’d happily open Pandora’s box just to see the reactions of watching him
I see him in a much more favorable light than you do. (I'm not always a great judge of character however, I'm slow to see whats right infront of me at times)

I don't think anybody can argue that he isn't a smart guy. Incredibly intelligent. And a genuinely hard worker.

Setting aside some specific views he has of what we need to do moving forwards as a species (stuff I tend to support) -- I see Elon as someone trying to protect us from those very same Pandora's Boxes.

I think he's right to be extremely cautious about the development of AI, and what the developers allow it to have access to. I think he's right to recommend we hold off on its development after a certain point, because it truly is a Panora's Box.

An intelligence who's cells are made from silicon rather than carbon, that can learn at a speed & level thats drastically above that of the human race, can apply that knowledge immediately in real time, that is self aware, and starts to develop an understanding of friendships & enemies, and has access to all of humanity's retained knowledge via the internet --- to say the potential for problems is huge would be an understatement.

(I think we were chatting about this once before - the human race is FAR from being an apex species, even on our own planet. We have no business pretending to be God's, creating a form of life that is self aware & astoundingly more capable than we are)

Elon has been trying to warn us away from this Pandora's Box for while now. Yet Google, Facebook/Meta, China, DARPA etc are all racing ahead on it regardless...


(Edison stood out as an ironic example to use, but I get the point you were making)

It's like each generation has a select few that carry the rest of us monkeys forwards into the next
step of the future with them



(Its the folks at CERN that worry me...)
 
I see him in a much more favorable light than you do. (I'm not always a great judge of character however, I'm slow to see whats right infront of me at times)

I don't think anybody can argue that he isn't a smart guy. Incredibly intelligent. And a genuinely hard worker.

Setting aside some specific views he has of what we need to do moving forwards as a species (stuff I tend to support) -- I see Elon as someone trying to protect us from those very same Pandora's Boxes.

I think he's right to be extremely cautious about the development of AI, and what the developers allow it to have access to. I think he's right to recommend we hold off on its development after a certain point, because it truly is a Panora's Box.

An intelligence who's cells are made from silicon rather than carbon, that can learn at a speed & level thats drastically above that of the human race, can apply that knowledge immediately in real time, that is self aware, and starts to develop an understanding of friendships & enemies, and has access to all of humanity's retained knowledge via the internet --- to say the potential for problems is huge would be an understatement.

(I think we were chatting about this once before - the human race is FAR from being an apex species, even on our own planet. We have no business pretending to be God's, creating a form of life that is self aware & astoundingly more capable than we are)

Elon has been trying to warn us away from this Pandora's Box for while now. Yet Google, Facebook/Meta, China, DARPA etc are all racing ahead on it regardless...


(Edison stood out as an ironic example to use, but I get the point you were making)

It's like each generation has a select few that carry the rest of us monkeys forwards into the next
step of the future with them



(Its the folks at CERN that worry me...)
To clarify…

- I know you didn’t bring up Edison as an example, that was for Kirkhill

- It was just ironic seeing that Elon owns a company called Tesla, and it was Edison of all people who screwed Nikola Tesla right up until the end

(I’m exhausted, my post was lacking in a few ways, sorry!)



On the topic of Pandora’s Box, we should really have in place a strong, clear, and enforceable global policy/law when it comes to researching certain things.

AI I believe is one of those things, as well as whatever it is they do at CERN now.

I fear that not only are we studying things we maybe shouldn’t be studying just yet, but we’re attempting to do things just because we can, and we aren’t thinking as a species whether it’s something we should be doing



For example…

We have a ton of safeguards around nuclear weapons, including safeguards incase one goes missing or the vehicle carrying one crashes.

Once the Cold War ended, we haven’t really had to worry too much about them…they are kept in extremely secure areas, armed security, requires multiple people with specific authorities to activate them, professional and trained crews to transport/launch them, and have abort features in the case all of the above fails.

As a species we’ve all collectively agreed that nuclear weapons are of such power there needs to be mutually respected & stringently enforced rules around their use.


For AI, we have nothing. Nothing except a hope that the various scientists working on this or that will all make good choices… but if they don’t, the world could get even stranger than it’s already getting.

Elon has long advocated for some sort of regulation on the development of AI because, in his words, it’s a Pandora’s Box.

I think he’s got our collective best interests at heart. (I don’t know if Edison did, I’m thinking he was motivated by greed & fame mostly……I don’t know much about Bell at all tbh outside of his claim to fame)
 
On the topic of Pandora’s Box, we should really have in place a strong, clear, and enforceable global policy/law when it comes to researching certain things.

I was going to put a :ROFLMAO: emoji here but thought that might just look insulting when what I'm really thinking that there isn't a fat chance in hell we'll ever get anyone to agree to it.

Nuclear power was limited because its so dreadfully expensive to create an atom bomb that only wealthy and determined nations would undertake the effort. AI, like biological weapons, are relatively cheap. It's surprising that there's only been one Covid event so far - that we know of.

AI, unfortunately, has many peaceful uses, assuming it stays contained, and computing power gets cheaper and can also be highjacked by bad actors. People all over the world will keep on pushing the envelope. Bad actors will get on board.

I highly doubt we'd ever be able to craft a law that would actually be acceptable by all nations - it only takes one holdout to make such a law useless. Just look at North Korea's blatant theft of bank accounts and China's technological espionage campaign. In the unlikely circumstances that one could get universal agreement and government compliance, it would still never be enforceable as there are simply too many individual bad actors out there to circumvent it.

Nope, boys and girls, IA is gonna be a bumpy ride. On this issue I'm turning my usually "glass half-full" attitude over to "glass half-empty".

😖
 
I was going to put a :ROFLMAO: emoji here but thought that might just look insulting when what I'm really thinking that there isn't a fat chance in hell we'll ever get anyone to agree to it.

Nuclear power was limited because its so dreadfully expensive to create an atom bomb that only wealthy and determined nations would undertake the effort. AI, like biological weapons, are relatively cheap. It's surprising that there's only been one Covid event so far - that we know of.

AI, unfortunately, has many peaceful uses, assuming it stays contained, and computing power gets cheaper and can also be highjacked by bad actors. People all over the world will keep on pushing the envelope. Bad actors will get on board.

I highly doubt we'd ever be able to craft a law that would actually be acceptable by all nations - it only takes one holdout to make such a law useless. Just look at North Korea's blatant theft of bank accounts and China's technological espionage campaign. In the unlikely circumstances that one could get universal agreement and government compliance, it would still never be enforceable as there are simply too many individual bad actors out there to circumvent it.

Nope, boys and girls, IA is gonna be a bumpy ride. On this issue I'm turning my usually "glass half-full" attitude over to "glass half-empty".

😖
When you mention bio weapons,you don't know the half of it .
There are bloody hobbyists joyfully playing with bugs in their basements. All you basically need is a sink and power.
Guy I know writes science fiction for a living pretty successfully too. He ended up doing research for a novel and came away fairly disturbed by some of the things he come across.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top