From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 9 Apr 92 17:40:53 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.e du!convex!spray@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Rob Spray) Subject: Re: Open comment to Ted Holden Message-ID: List-Id: In <1992Apr9.155334.20536@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> nedervol@schaefer.math.wisc.e du (Eric Nedervold) writes: >Does this argument extend to hardware too? Like $500 toilet seats? I believe that most of these popular DoD-bashing anecdotes are driven by: a) Poor or overlooked requirements specifications that cause things like expensive coffee pots because all equipment on a certain aircraft has some blanket requirement that it be radiation-hardened or will continue to operate if the aircraft is inverted! b) The result of cost-recovery by contractors driven by the current government procurement practises that almost preclude accurately costed proposals from winning contracts. c) Blanket requirements for specifications and documentation, that, for example, drive up the procured cost of what the "general public" could buy commercially. I think it is specious to introduce hot button phrases like "$500 toilet seats" into some people's attempts at a rational discussion on software technology transfer. --Rob spray@convex.com Flaming for myself.