Azgeek Wrote:Gents -
I vowed I would not go here again but I need to make this crystal clear. None of this applies to our situation. There was no dating, dancing or sleeping together. GDS is private company with no involvement whatsoever with the DoD or any other government agency. We never approached the government for any reason, never tried to sell them anything nor am I trying to sell anything here. The letter I posted was the one item I thought would illustrate I was speaking the truth without jeopardizing my own ass. It is not the secrecy order! Its a letter to our local, worthless congressional representative in response to multiple formal and legal complaints against the DoD/Army. We want nothing to to with the DOD but just to be left alone. We have absolutely no expectation or desire to do any business with the federal government.
If our products are truly "detrimental to national security", well how the hell can they claim that if they never and continue to refuse to test it? We have spent the last two years pursuing every possible administrative remedies that exist. Now we play hardball. If my attitude sucks well yea it sure does! On top of that. I can't get my dam Gendel to shoot to my satisfaction with the new, expensive Proof barrel!
Azgeek.
I am editing my post because it is too antagonistic.
Here are what I hope to be my final comments. I am offering them to guys who continue to think the DoD RD system is a corrupt bunch of bureaucrats who only want to stifle innovation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
So here we go.
Most companies want free testing so they go to DoD with a novel idea and great claims about its capabilities hoping the technology will be tested because otherwise they could never afford to fund such tests. The government normally says 'no'. For the most part because there isn't a requirement for the technology. The company then goes public saying how corrupt the DoD system is because they wouldn't do the RD testing for said company. Other times the DoD looks at the technology and says if it is viable or not. If the DoD tells a company it is viable, the company normally thinks this means the DoD will do all their testing for them and cut a contract. Wrong. No requirement, no contract.
If DoD looks at their technology and says some or all of it won't perform as the company claims, the company normally disagrees (even if they have no evidence) and insists that if the DoD only ran a test (costing several hundred thousands of dollars and taking up hundreds of man hours), the DoD would 'see' that their claims are valid. If DoD runs such a test and finds the claims are not valid, that the item did not perform as promised, said company normally goes public saying how corrupt and inefficient the DoD system is. Even after they had agreed to the test plan.
Azgeek says "If our products are truly "detrimental to national security", well how the hell can they claim that if they never and continue to refuse to test it?"
OK -- somehow this technology got to DoD where it was reviewed and a determination made that the technology should not be open source. I did not see a thing classifying the technology and fail to see how testing it would prove that it was or wasn't 'detrimental to national security'.
So, it probably comes down to DoD not testing the product and thus the investors lost confidence.
Oh yes, the Congressman did exactly as I expected. He was a messenger boy. Typical bureaucrat.
I am sure Gila will overcome this debacle pretty quickly.
Not so sure about the high speed barrel, though.
LR55