Taxpayers should not be paying for someone's pet cause
... Proper action would be to mandate the government to use the best software for the task at hand ... Let the technical merits decide.
I'm sorry, but while technical merits should be paramount, they are not the only consideration. Public contracting is not an exact science, and it is entirely appropriate to have non-technical considerations tip the scales in close cases. So while Free Software should not be mandatory, legislating a preference for it makes perfect sense.
Furthermore, there are considerations beyond the needs of a specific project and tender. Free Software has an externality: when the government (as a customer) requests modifications and improvements (and pays for them to be created), everyone benefits. For example, when my university has Blackboard Inc fix a bug (or improve the software) only Blackboard captures the value (when they sell their software to the next customre). If we were using Moodle, every other Moodle user would automatically benefit. Had we opted for Moodle, we'd also benefit from fixes made by other universities.
Reading the paper, the most notable feature is that their algorithm is efficiency for constant characteristic, including the common case of fields of characteristic 2. It's also okay for the characteristic to grow somewhat with the size of the field, but not very fast.
This is not at all relevant to most implementations of DH, which use prime fields of large characteristic. For example, DSA depends on discrete log modulu a large prime p. In particular, I wouldn't worry about forward secrecy of current internet traffic.
If DNA sequencing means taxonomy is now straightforward, then it's good students are switching to other fields. The goal of science is to solve problems, not to ossify. In this case, while taxonomy may cease to be a significant research field, morphology (understanding the structure and evolution of plants and animals) is surely going to continue. The people doing it will simply not be called "taxonomists" anymore.
During the 80s and 90s there were different projects trying to determine the cosmological parameters (mass density, curvature, cosmological constant, Hubble constant, etc). Then WMAP was launched in 2001, and by 2006 (release of 3-year data) the previous techniques were obsolete. Do you think many students in 2001 started working on the old techniques? Should they have? But we haven't lost interest in the cosmological parameters.
Many publishers will try to bribe professors to use their book for a course. Either you're very honest & kind or your class is small.
Do you have first-hand experience with this? It has never happened to me. Publishers routinely send me free books with the hope I'll use them for a course. Almost all have a policy of giving you a free copy of any book you make mandatory for a large enough class (say 100 students) -- which is the closest it gets to a "bribe" -- but in fact it's basically irrelevant to the decision. First of all, the only reason I need the book is for teaching purposes, I'm not particularily motivated to own it except for use during that particular class. Second, since the book is for teaching, if I don't have a copy the academic department (my employer) will buy one for me to use during the course. So the only thing this "desk copy" policy do is save some money for my boss; it has no effect on how I choose a textbook.
A manufacturer is attempting to circumvent the secondary market by only lending its products instead of selling them. This isn't an end run around the "first sale" principle exactly because the publisher doesn't plan to sell the books in the first place.
What they are trying to do should be legal -- but hopefully it won't work because professors will refuse to assign this textbooks.
If all else fails, lower your standards.