88 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

The soldiers didn't decide to start a war, you worthless dumb s**ts. Why the f**k would you hassle soldiers about whether it was warranted?That said, it's a little disappointing to hear soldiers regurgitate the "freedom" line. Everything the administration has said connecting this war to "freedom" is a lie, and most intelligent people in this country hope that soldiers are smart enough to realize that as well. War apologists attack anti-war people by idiotically shouting them down with "Support the troops! Support the troops!" as if attacking the war equals attacking the soldiers. Obviously they believe that if we discuss the TRUTH and it gets back to the soldiers, they'll be devastated.So are the soldiers here telling is that this is true? That they still cling to the lies about "freedom" and can't handle the truth?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

wow, you get internet access to post dig comments on that too?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

We are already weighed down by good ideas. There's just too much to carry.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'm a former submariner now working in the "military-industrial" sector and agree with a lot of the comments here. Unfortunately, it's very true that getting new tech through testing and deployed is often a grueling endeavor. That's changing, though. For years now, a lot of military programs have been shifting toward utilizing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, saving a vast amount of time and money between conceptualization and deployment. Getting a program into service is still incredibly painful, but once it's been approved and it's live, it's much easier to maintain support for it and keep it current.I think it could ultimately be a useful tool for soldiers, but I honestly feel it's still a long way off. The COTS model doesn't really work unless there's a healthy base to draw upon, and I don't really think wearable computing has been embraced by. . .well, anyone. Until that happens, we won't see the advancements in this field that make a program like this viable. There's also the training issue, which is touched on below in a thread that unfortunately turned into an ugly pissing contest, so I'll comment up here. Giving a system like this to people who have already been in combat and saying "Hey, here are your new toys. Now go and change the way you've kept yourself alive" simply isn't going to work. If they want soldiers to benefit from something like this, they need to use it from day one of AIT.Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I was never in combat and never had anyone shooting at me.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

i understand its heavier, but things like the look around corner device, and the magnifying scope seem like they might be good things to have. also the map that shows were friendlies are seems like it would be helpful if someones not responding because they are unconscious or you dont want to go in shooting blindly and hit you buddies.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'm sure they could deny it access to the network once they knew the equipment had been stolen, or the soldier had been killed or captured. Also, the enemy would just be revealing his own location by wearing the equipment, both through the network, and just by his appearance. Insurgencies work because the insurgents blend into the population. They can be fighting one minute, stash their weapon the next, and suddenly they're indistinguishable from a noncombatant. Also, a lot of military radios have a marking on them that shows the user where to put a bullet to disable the device permanently, and eliminate the possibility of anyone recovering the cryptographic material.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I guess you can't just throw new technology on old skool trained soldiers. In a time of crisis, they will throw it away and do it their own way. I believe for this to be really useful, it needs to be present from day one as a part of training new soldiers for future military activities.

• Reply