boingboing — 2014-05-15T08:00:35-04:00 — #1
thaumatechnicia — 2014-05-15T08:48:35-04:00 — #2
So, it's not because of their training, their dedication,
their blind obedience to the oligarchy an almost fanatical devotion to the pope oligarchy.
It's the equipment. Gotcha.
(Edited, 'cuz it's what my reptile brain wanted to say, but my fingers typed the wrong words.)
(..and my snarky comment about the article still stands.)
euansmith — 2014-05-15T08:54:59-04:00 — #3
Of course, the SBS can do all this and more with a folding canoe and a sten gun.
euansmith — 2014-05-15T08:58:53-04:00 — #4
Proto 2? Is the intention to replace existing limbs with cyber limbs or is this a replacement system to retain damaged human resources? Does it function without a mains extension lead?
felonmarmer — 2014-05-15T09:58:56-04:00 — #5
Sten gun? All they need is a handful of gravel.
mister44 — 2014-05-15T10:18:49-04:00 — #6
I'd like to see you say that to certain people's faces.
trond — 2014-05-15T10:23:41-04:00 — #7
I really hope the Big Dog Legged Squad Support System becomes affordable and available for the general public soon. It'd be a fantastic support vehicle for long bike vacations. Heck, a wheeled version would do fine in most cases.
dacree — 2014-05-15T10:36:34-04:00 — #8
I'm so proud my country spends billions on defense research to make sure we have the best killing equipment in the world. Isn't it just ducky! I mean, screw the sick, homeless, and unemployed. We are the best killers in the world. yay....
hmsgoose — 2014-05-15T10:40:52-04:00 — #9
BUT do they have grenades that play a single, mournful tune before expiring?
mister44 — 2014-05-15T10:41:51-04:00 — #10
Of course nothing in the article is an actual weapon, and all of them have potential civilian, peaceful applications.
dacree — 2014-05-15T10:49:52-04:00 — #11
Sure, some DARPA projects actually end up benefiting the civilian population. That does not detract from the simple fact that we spend these billions each year to research how better to wage war and not how to solve domestic problems many of which can be easily solved with cash.. cash that goes to defense spending.. aka killing people.
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-15T10:53:31-04:00 — #12
I'd like to see you say that to certain people's faces.
Why? Something that scares you that we should also be afraid of? or is it that you like like watching the way peoples lips form their words?
(Might have been an internet-tough-guy statement, may have been admission of a fetish. Not seeing other contexts in which to understand your words.) Care to elaborate on who those certain people are and why you'd love to see it?
mister44 — 2014-05-15T11:06:15-04:00 — #13
I think it was an insulting jab. Of course none of the people who may be insulted are here, and if they were it's the internet, what are you going to do? But I think one would be less free with their words and be a bit more polite if they were faced with the people they were insulting.
While overall I'd like to see a reduction in defense spending, DARPA has a lot of cool projects that have a lot of non-military applications. Most of them aren't even directly related to killing. For example the self driving car competitions they have held will eventually revolutionize the way the world transports people and goods.
I have to chuckle at the "easily solved with cash" bit. We spend billions on social services (including private orgs), and I wouldn't say much has gotten better over the last several decades. A complex problem, probably a solvable one. But way more complex that just throwing money at it. There have been countless examples of money being thrown at problem and it didn't do any good. e.g.: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/zuckerberg-advocacy-group-100-million-donation-newark-schools
dacree — 2014-05-15T11:30:52-04:00 — #14
Most of them aren't even directly related to killing. For example the self driving car competitions they have held will eventually revolutionize the way the world transports people and goods.
That project exists to create autonomous military vehicles for use in war zones. Civilian use is a side effect, not a goal.
I'm glad you get a chuckle from the idea that spending more on domestic issues will help with domestic issues. It's pretty self evident. Pointing out that people spend money poorly is simply a red herring and has nothing to do with it. The same hold true for the idea that these issues are too complex to consider funding as a solution. That line of reasoning is why we don't move on fixing so many of these problems. Politicians simply say it's too complex and nothing gets done.
Take the unemployment problem for example. The US has a major problem with failing, old, and crumbling infrastructure. You can have a major impact on both issues by spending federal dollars on repairing that infrastructure while employing people in every state.
I'd say the 13 billion we are spending right now on the new aircraft carrier CVN 78 (Gerald R Ford) would make a significant difference in the lives of Americans if spent domestically. I definitely don't think what this country needs is another aircraft carrier so we can bully other nations and kill their people.
Instead of DARPA which is for military research, how about spending that money on a civilian research foundation. Focus that spending on something like the antibiotic crisis and solve a problem that effects everyone everywhere instead of lining the pockets of the defense contractors who are in the business of ending life.
mister44 — 2014-05-15T11:49:20-04:00 — #15
I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money on those issues, but some people (and perhaps I'm assuming to much from one line of text) have a naive view that the only thing standing in the way of success is a lack of funds.
That actually is a really good point. Although I hesitate adding more government workers, the original projects that came out of the depression in the 30s helped build the infrastructure that is now i need of repair and replacement. Investing in infrastructure would be a good thing and like in the 30s, it would put people to work.
I'd be for an increase in civilian research as well. Note though that the Army and other branches of the military do research that isn't directly related to war. For example, I suffer from Neurofibromitosis, and the Army is actually one of the biggest researchers into the disease. Likewise, many DARPA projects could be used by the military, but aren't used as weapons and have tons of other use potential. The GPS system we all now use like it isn't fucking amazing was a military only project. Saying it's only for "lining the pockets of the defense contractors" is like saying NASA only benefits people who build rockets.
leoooog — 2014-05-15T11:49:53-04:00 — #16
mister44 — 2014-05-15T11:53:11-04:00 — #17
Haha - I knew that was the video before I clicked it. That's a great show, I wonder if it's still on?
uniqueusername — 2014-05-15T12:10:21-04:00 — #18
Hate to be that guy, but that flying car project is doomed to fail. While I'm sure that advanced composites could make a flying car more feasible, it doesn't address the problem of the vehicle being both a shitty car and a shitty plane/helicopter.
dacree — 2014-05-15T12:13:03-04:00 — #19
Not sure if you were aware but the NF Research Program is one of the Department of Defense’s Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP). It is not a DARPA project and the reason the Army is doing this research is simply because congress mandated that they do so. Congress could just as well funded the research through traditional public funding of private companies and the university system. I feel that would be more appropriate than military research.
I never said it only lined their pockets, I simply said that it does. Sure, there are others who benefit and research done can make it to the civilian sector, but how about starting with the civilian option first and letting that research make it back to the military where they can determine if it will benefit them.
Our military budget is simply too big to justify. Our military is simply too powerful to justify. Why spend more money on the military and defense contractors when it could be better put to use domestically? Why must we spend our hard earned money funding a war machine that regularly murders civilians and kills people around the world with impunity? Many people around the world have learned to hate Americans after we killed their family, shot reporters, or committed any of a number of atrocities in the name of freedom and peace.
No, I'm afraid I will never agree with funding murder and global extortion, even if there are some positive side effects and outcomes, especially when domestic funding can produce the same outcomes without all the killing.
brainspore — 2014-05-15T12:15:06-04:00 — #20
What I want to know is how the hell Batman can apparently fit one of those things in his utility belt. With multiple cartridges and a lifting winch, no less!
next page →