Empire of the Iguanadons

So what do you get when you cross military hardware with Hollywood style illusion affects? Apparently you get the latest toy the British military has in testing. No, it doesn't use cloaking devices or bend light or shift into an alternate dimension like the cool stuff in a sci-fi show. It uses some simple video techniques to project a shot of the landscape behind the tank onto the opposite side, thus obscuring it from view.

Imagine being able to deploy weapons like this into the battlefield and roll right up on that forest hideout of the dictator you've been sent to depose. A couple of these babies and nobody would ever know what hit them. The fact that we've been allowed to find this out suggests that such weapons are probably already out there somewhere, unseen. Though they're telling us that deployment isn't expected until at least 2012.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

I'm not sure whether I should be more impressed or more scared by this disclosure.. It's a pretty amazing concept, but what could it mean for modern warfare methods? Is this going to have as great an impact as the first guerilla tactics were?

I guess it depends on how this technology is developed and perfected. It's certainly a huge asset on the battlefield, but it's such a huge advantage that our enemies will be wanting it too and if it falls into their hands, then things could turn ugly fast.

The thing I find interesting is that the announcement came from British news sources. Which can be taken one of two ways: Either we don't have it, or we've done a better job keeping it quiet. I'd really like to think we've just been better at keeping it quiet.

It's fairly unfortunate that a tank won't fit under my Christmas tree, because I want one.

I imagine that if the US doesn't already have stuff like this, we'll get it sooner or later in trade. But.

I should also think that, in the near term at least, this sort of thing will be Yet Another Force Multiplier in favor of the Good Guys, as the folks we fight generally don't have in sufficient numbers the sorts of things likely to foil the system. The exceptions being Russia, China, and maybe India, which if we're fighting them, we've got enough issues already.

Think specifically that noise and heat aren't likely to be stealthed by the system, one of which is easier to pick up on than the other. Too, it's likely to be expensive and non-trivial to maintain, which is another mark against 3rd world countries who still think the T-55 is state of the art.

That aside, what bothers ME is the human-wearable version of this that IIRC the Japanese were working on among probably others. Strikes me as a lot easier to get ahold of, and even one of them could cause some damage to the infantryman, who isn't equipped nearly as well to deal with it.

OTOH, the ridiculous sorts of things our side could be doing with such a system.

While interesting, until it works like mimetic polycarbon, it's not going to be practical to use in combat situations. What are you going to do, have some squad sneak in and setup projectors in enemy territory before you roll the tanks in? I can see this being used to hide stuff that's not being used in combat, but past that, just no.

Not to mention that the main kind of war we're fighting today is urban combat, where infantry are much more important than tanks. If we ever start the kind of large war where tanks are a main element of combat, we can start ticking off the days we have left... :-/

(Note that in the current war, tanks were only used in the very beginning, the "taking" of Baghdad. That's when we "declared victory", and when the real war started.)

Has it occurred to any of you that if they can come up with something like what's being discussed here: Australian Army Invests in Electrical Shirts, then adding the extra projection equipment isn't such a far leap beyond that.. frankly, if they can do this sort of projections for a tank, why wouldn't they just as easily also be able to do the same for a troop/squad of men who are staying in formation behind the screening projection until they're in position to strike?

What makes you think they don't already have stealth projection suits for foot soldiers? If we're hearing about this kind of stuff from the British and Australians it's likely we already have it as well.

And not to get into an argument about the Iraq war, but technically with the fall of Baghdad the Iraq war that began in 1991 finally came to an end. What we're dealing with now is an insurgency. Tanks and foot soldier equipment like this could be a huge help in putting that down for good.

Exactly my position. If we're hearing about this sort of technology from the Brits and the Aussies, why wouldn't we already have the same available to us too, or if not, certainly in the very near future... but either way, aside from the more obvious warfare implications, can you imagine what this sort of technology could do to our: Criminal element? Political assassins? Espionage? and so forth? :shudder:

I still say the real solution to Iraq is a few megatons of nuclear pest control... :P

How exactly would you go about projecting video onto infantry moving through buildings...?

Frankly I think it would be worth a lot more to pursue new materials technologies, e.g. nanotube bullet-proof vests, or healing-accelerating liquids. (Seriously. Look up some of the stuff they're doing with nanotech.) A visual cloaking device that relies on a projector isn't going to help an awful lot in urban combat. But saving the lives of your soldiers, and increasing their resistance to damage in general, is worth a huge amount, not only for the obvious human benefit of keeping your troops alive but also the tactical advantage of having soldiers that can take more bullets with fewer injuries.

And I note a usage of 2003 tech: http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

Well, I'd imagine that you'd project what's on the other side of those bodies while moving through buildings the same way you would while moving outdoors, you simply use a real time camera system to capture what's on one side of them while projecting it onto the other side. What about that is so hard to imagine? (At least, given that I've had nothing to do with the development of the above cited projects, that's how it'd work.)

I'm sure that some of those technologies would be better research goals, but that doesn't change that the technology that exists now does exist now and will be improved upon as steadily as possible for military application nor that it will likely "leak" into non-official uses eventually either.

I disagree, and I believe the pentagon would too, having soldiers who are more resistant to damage and heal faster from it is very nice, but soldiers who can strike with surgical precision without taking almost any damage at all (because no one knew they were even there until it was far too late to counter strike) is far more valuable to the military.

Where do you put the camera? Where do you put the projector? Do you have dudes following your soldiers with camera and projection equipment? (Uhh, don't mind us, we're, err, with the press... yeah...) And moving outdoors isn't exactly easy, either -- what do you do if there's a tree between your projection and the surface you are projecting onto?

Conner said:
but soldiers who can strike with surgical precision without taking almost any damage at all (because no one knew they were even there until it was far too late to counter strike) is far more valuable to the military.

You're talking about invisibility cloaks and sound dampeners for infantry here. That's not what the technology described is. Sure, if you could make soldiers completely undetectable, that'd be great, but that's just not what is being described here. What I meant is that as far as immediate goals are concerned, the stuff I described is very close to being ready, whereas the tech described here (this projection business) is still far away and a pipe dream.

I have always held the opinion that when we hear about technology like this that the military or whoever is several steps ahead of it in development, and sometimes even in deployment. So while it may seem a bit silly for a tank to be outfitted with projection equipment, suppose they already have something like this in the field that works and nobody knows about it because they haven't actually seen one?

With foot soldiers it's going to be more difficult to pull off but they have some pretty small projectors these days so it isn't entirely out of the question for them to be equipped with something mobile on their helmets.

There's no way to make a 360 degree cloaking material. The best we could do is a mimetic fabric that changes colors like a chameleon's skin.

Taking an image from one side of any particular unit and putting it onto the other side isn't the problem here. It's the off-axis view.

Perhaps someday light bending will be possible at the nanoscale level or some crap that could enable a magical visual cloaking device to work well enough for deployment, but it's not happening today.

Samson said:
I have always held the opinion that when we hear about technology like this that the military or whoever is several steps ahead of it in development, and sometimes even in deployment. So while it may seem a bit silly for a tank to be outfitted with projection equipment, suppose they already have something like this in the field that works and nobody knows about it because they haven't actually seen one?

Oh, I'm sure that there's a shift between what gets reported and what's actually going on. But what I'm disputing is the physical feasibility of putting a projection device on the tank itself.

Think about what that's saying:
You need a *projector* to put the images onto the tank's surface.
Where do you put the projector? Do you dangle it off to the tank's side? OK, sure, but now how do you hide the projector? You need to put the projector far enough away that you have sufficient angle for projecting onto the whole tank -- that's quite a distance, more than a foot or two in any case.

If this technology were somehow linked to the material itself, like the material was a screen that displayed something, or did light bending or whatever, this wouldn't be a problem.

But an actual camera/projector system *requires* an external setup, by definition. (Otherwise it wouldn't be called a camera/projector system.) And, actually, the camera isn't really the problem (on a tank), it's the projector...

And yes, the off-axis view is a problem, but nonetheless if you had "bad" camouflage that didn't handle it right, it'd still be better than nothing. You'd see weird things moving, but you wouldn't necessarily see the actual tank. (This is assuming the projection problem went away.)

Hey could you post a link to where you saw this? I want to read the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=490669&in_page_id=1811

I don't know if the article there is going to be much better at explaining it. But that's where I got it.

David, have you never seen a big screen television before? The projector can be behind the image being projected these days, we've had that technology for years commercially, it doesn't have to be "external" at all, nor does it require a "screen". As Samson said, maybe they just give each soldier several "cameras" and "projectors" (aligned in opposition to one another) to cover different angles, as I said earlier, I've had no part in the development of this so I don't know any more about how it works than you do, I can only guess based on what I do know of technology and what I can imagine based on what we've been told. Again, as Samson said, I tend to believe that the military wouldn't tell us about stuff like this unless they were already working on something even more technical or had finished deploying this long ago enough that they feel it's already been thoroughly tested, afterall, the military knows full well that our enemies do read our news media too.

What do you mean, it doesn't require a screen? What exactly do you think the thing is projecting onto? And even so, you need a pretty big backlight. Either way, you see how big those things are, right? How do you plan on installing backlights and projectors on infantry?

Think about the optics of putting projectors on infantry. That is why the projector would have to be external on a soldier, simply because you have nowhere to put the projector on the person. What are you going to do, wrap them in a projection screen and install the many tens of projectors it would take to cover the screen? Again, just consider the optics. Projectors can't bend the light they're projecting to fit a person's body...

I mean the tank (or soldier) can be the screen, just like when Hollywood dresses someone in all blue to stand before a blue screen so they'll appear invisible later in the film. As for installing backlights and projectors on infantry, I'll say it a third time, David, I had nothing to do with designing this system that we're talking about, and frankly, even you should realize that, if I had, I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss the details of it anyway. We're engaging in speculation. Obviously they fond a way to do it for a tank, what could possibly prevent them from even using the same system they've come up with for the tank to conceal a moving area that the infantry simply stay shielded behind by remaining in formation and being quiet?

Why would they need to bend the light? As you, yourself, said, even "if you had "bad" camouflage that didn't handle it right, it'd still be better than nothing." For that matter, as I just tried to explain, the projection system wouldn't really have to be on the soldiers themselves, it could just conceal the area that the soldiers are standing/walking in.

Dressing somebody in blue isn't going to help you project onto them. If you're talking about rear-projection onto a surface, that surface has to be on the soldier, and your projector has to be between the soldier's body and that surface.

Conner said:
even you should realize

... why "even me" ...?

Of course this is just speculation, but I am positing that this is a basic question of physics... not necessarily related to this particular technology. Unless you are going to argue that they have found a way to break the physical laws of optics and projection, it's fair to discuss those physical laws. And remember, they were talking about tanks, not infantry. You can do a lot more on a vehicle in terms of mounting surfaces and image displays than on a human body.

Conner said:
what could possibly prevent them from even using the same system they've come up with for the tank to conceal a moving area

Oh, I don't know, having to mount a projection screen and system? :-)

"Hey guys, don't mind us, we're just Hollywood people going to film a movie here... yeah... this screen is for a movie... oh, this is a warzone? Umm, err, well, yeah, that's cool... umm, it's a documentary about the war?"

And how exactly is this projection setup going to follow the soldiers as they navigate a complex, dense urban environment?

Conner said:
Why would they need to bend the light?

Because you need to project onto the surface, not just parts of it. A surface wrapped around somebody's body isn't exactly projector-friendly.

And sure, even just hiding their back and front torso (areas with relatively little bend) would be a good start. But, you still have the "minor" problem of needing to mount a projection system onto the soldier! (Big screen TVs aren't exactly small or light...)

It's not about dressing the soldiers in blue, that was an example from television/movies that I happen to be able to easily relate to because i've done television producion before.
No, the surface can be a screen on wheels next to the group of soldiers... or frankly, even some sort of hoographic projection, who knows what technology exists that we aren't allowed to be told about yet.

"Even you" is primarily an expression, but in this case, it also applies to the fact that you grew up in another country and thus had a bit of a different education than I did, but generally our government is pretty protective about subjects they consider classified.

I disagree, I don't think we're trying to redefine nor break laws of physics at all, I think we're talking about something that's obviously possible since they've announced that they've already done it. We're just discussing miniaturization (if that's even needed in this case) to deal with the smaller scale of troops rather than tanks.

David, the whole idea behind the screen is so that no one can see, from the other side, what's behind it because they're only seeing what's being displayed to them, so there'd be no reason for a holywood team to play Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

If theres enough room for the troops and their gear to move through their course, why would a "complex, dense urban environment" photograph any differently than any other environment?

Not if the surface isn't actually attached to the body.. as I've explained above. But even if it were attached to the body, what's wrong with using some sort of mimetic polycarbon like Whir said?

Frankly, I'm not even sure that you'd need to hide their front/back torsos, why would you need to hide even more than just the one facing that the enemy has line of sight of.

No, big screen TVs aren't light nor small, but again, it was only an example to demonstrate that the projection system doesn't need to be externalized because we already use systems commonly that don't require external projection to cast images on a surface. Frankly, LCD monitors and TVs also accomplish something similiar and are capable of being made fairly small and light. Why are you so determined to "prove" that what the media says already exists can't exist? I guess I just don't understand your position here.

Conner said:
David, the whole idea behind the screen is so that no one can see, from the other side, what's behind it because they're only seeing what's being displayed to them, so there'd be no reason for a holywood team to play Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

That comment was in reference to the people setting up the screen, not what people are doing behind it. If you need to deploy your troops, you have to get the screen there somehow. How are you going to keep that screen discrete and hidden from all sides? What if somebody sees the other side of the screen?

Conner said:
If theres enough room for the troops and their gear to move through their course, why would a "complex, dense urban environment" photograph any differently than any other environment?

Troops and gear? A bunch of soldiers walking through buildings (i.e., dense urban environment) won't have room for a whole projection screen. It's not a question of whether or not the environment is more or less suited to being filmed. But since you bring it up, distortions due to off-axis views of the screen will be much more pronounced in a complicated urban scene than in e.g. a desert scene where the scenery is mostly sand anyhow.

Conner said:
But even if it were attached to the body, what's wrong with using some sort of mimetic polycarbon like Whir said?

Because that isn't the technology that this article is talking about. I am not criticizing the idea of hiding troops, but rather the applicability of this particular projection technology to hiding a group of soldiers on foot.

Conner said:
Frankly, I'm not even sure that you'd need to hide their front/back torsos, why would you need to hide even more than just the one facing that the enemy has line of sight of.

Because we don't fight line-vs-line. The enemy isn't necessarily in front of you in urban combat, e.g. when you are going through buildings and the like. The enemy could be on a rooftop of a building you just walked past.

Conner said:
Why are you so determined to "prove" that what the media says already exists can't exist?

Hey now -- the article was talking about a TANK, not infantry equipped with portable cloaking devices! It didn't say anything at all about hiding soldiers; you were the one who said that it could be applied to infantry too. I am arguing against the usefulness of a projector system for infantry.

The technology being discussed in the article seems like it's in preliminary stages of development - at least as far as we've been told by the British press. Even supposing they weren't allowed to know about this yet, if the military was confident enough to test it out in the open where the press might find out that suggests the actual technology is much farther along.

As far as hiding foot soldiers, with the information we have now it would seem unlikely to be possible unless they were walking in formation near the tank and using it for camouflage, as has been done in war ever since we've had tanks. This would just make it far more effective. And again, considering how military tech development works, they may already have something soldier-sized capable of camouflaging them directly.

The problem isn't the feasibility of the projection technology itself. It's the feasibility of taking that and turning it into a cloaking device. Even in science fiction ( good sci fi anyway ) it's generally accepted that such a device capable of bending light and concealing things would require far more energy than a soldier on foot could carry. Stuff like that would likely be restricted to ships at sea, larger planes, and maybe even troop transport vehicles on the ground. But that alone would be a huge advantage for whoever had it. Don't think we've got the ability? Philadelphia Experiment anyone? Not the movie either - the project the movie was based on. Where they were experimenting with methods for making a ship radar invisible and supposedly caused it to disappear visually as well.

Samson said:
The problem isn't the feasibility of the projection technology itself. It's the feasibility of taking that and turning it into a cloaking device.

Not sure I understand the distinction here. Are you saying that the problem isn't the existence of the tech in general, but instead, the ability to shrink it to the point where it can be carried by people?

Samson said:
And again, considering how military tech development works, they may already have something soldier-sized capable of camouflaging them directly.

Not all military development is Area-51-style uber-top-secret. When they do research with universities, such as Stanford or MIT, the project is well known to exist. The nano tech stuff I talked about, technology still in development mind you, is being done by research labs. Now, the details and implementation might indeed be more or less secret, but the fact that they're working on something isn't. I can walk down the hall, or go to seminars, and find out about some of the most advanced research going on in some of these areas.

Some of the most advanced research going on - that you know about. If you seriously think the government partners with universities and civilian contractors for every last thing they do, you need to think again. A military grade cloaking device is almost certainly going to be one of those Area51 uber projects. Putting something like that out within reach of the private sector would be ludicrous.

Samson said:
If you seriously think the government partners with universities and civilian contractors for every last thing they do, you need to think again.

Last time I checked, "some" != "every last thing". And I said, and you responded to, "some", not "every last thing"... :-)

You discount a little too heavily, however, the importance of university and company research. Just look at computer technology...

I didn't discount anything. You're putting words in my mouth. Your statement indicated that the military partners with private sector interests on just about everything, which isn't the case. Yes, they do plenty of research with universities, private companies, and individual civilian scientists. But we're discussing the cloaking technology and I'm not convinced that we'd be doing that kind of research out in the open. It's certainly possible that universities are doing this, but they're likely doing it independently of the military.

Comparing research done on computers with classified Top Secret military projects is pretty silly. Most of the general research done on microchips and semiconductors was done in the civilian sector. The military merely made use of it and added their own research to the mix. It's unlikely the military is going to be so willing to share their cloaking devices and death rays with the rest of us :)

Samson said:
Your statement indicated that the military partners with private sector interests on just about everything, which isn't the case.

Please cite exactly where I say or even suggest "just about everything", if you would. I said not all. Last I checked, "not all" doesn't mean "just about everything" ...

Samson said:
It's certainly possible that universities are doing this, but they're likely doing it independently of the military.

I'm not sure why you think it would necessarily be independently. The military funds, or contributes to the funding of, a huge amount of research even if it's not directly related to their current R&D. You should look up the kind of stuff DARPA funds...

Samson said:
Comparing research done on computers with classified Top Secret military projects is pretty silly.

The point wasn't to compare computer research with military projects directly. The point was that not all (NOT ALL, not ALMOST NO, just to be clear here . . .) advanced research takes place in the military labs.

And all I'm saying is that cloaking devices and death rays aren't something you're likely to find the military willing to share with universities and private sector interests. Neither was the atomic bomb back in the 40s. Things of this nature are simply too super sensitive to leave where civilians can get at it.

This doesn't mean it won't ever be. Afterall, nuclear power became widespread after the close of World War II. It's still highly regulated and you don't find folks wandering the streets with nuclear powered gadgets. Just as it would be unlikely for folks to be wandering around with cloaking devices. Death rays might make it that far eventually since it would be a logical extension of firearms.

I have the feeling that you are not responding to what I wrote. All I said was that there is a significant amount (but not a near-totality...) of research done by universities and companies, such as the nano-technology that I mentioned previously. Heck, even I have worked on projects funded directly by the DoD and DARPA. But I didn't say that's where "death rays" and other weapons are being developed...

I'm glad that the bit about "just about everything" was cleared up, though.

How about an insider perspective?

As far as the U.S. Military goes, All technology is developed at soldier level first. Not equipment level. If the British do it backwards, that's their prerogative. But I'll tell you right now, and I'm not at liberty to discuss the things I've been trained on, in the use of, and operations for. But this kind of thing, is more than likely a lot more possible than even the British realize. Hell, We **MIGHT** even have it in active deployment with Delta Force, SEALs, Green Berets, and the rest of the Black Ops qualified units. But if it is Black Ops, you can bet no one in the U.S. will know a damn thing until the Military is confident enough in it's active use that they begin to outfit the normal grunts and ground pounders in it.

Yes, The British "cloaking" a tank is a nice trick and all, but since when is a foreign power anywhere ahead of the U.S. in Weapons Development? Japan is one of the only nations to outdo us in the technology department, only because of their work ethic, and the lacking of a work ethic in the U.S. But that's for another time. The U.S. has been unmatched in Weapons Development on a large scale, such as weapons of war, for a very long time, and there's a reason for that.

We ARE the military superpower of the world.

I don't care what anyone has to say about it. It's the truth.

Also,

I'm going to have to ask, David, that you refrain from trying to act as though you have any kind of idea of what combat is like in any environment, I personally, being one who has friends and family who have been through it, and myself having personally experienced it to an extent, find it slightly offensive that someone who's never actually seen combat aside from the pansy shit the news shows, freely comments on what would and would not be best for the troops.

Just because you think the nanotech stuff is good for them, doesn't mean the Military sees it as more important than making it so that they take no hits at all. Honestly, if I was ever told, "Here, wear this, It'l allow you to take more hits without injury." I would have been keen on the response, "Fuck that, I prefer to just not get hit, thanks." Besides, very very few of the casualties since the fall of Baghdad have actually been to gunfire. 90% or more of them have been from roadside bombs put in place by Insurgent Forces. I don't know how strong you think that nanotech deal is, but I don't think it can stop shrapnel, car parts, and fire from a IED. (Improvised Explosive Devise, for the record.) What science says is good, and what the common sense of a soldier says is good, are not normally anywhere close to each other.

Yes, the military might well buy the nanotech and distribute it to the troops, but as Conner said, they'll be far more likely to invest money in the approach that will prevent troops from taking fire, than allowing them to take more hits or heal quicker. I don't know if you're one of those people who thinks that a quick recovery remedies everything, but I've got news for you. It doesn't. You know what remedies everything? Not getting hit in the first place.

I love you too, Kayle. Go be a superpower or something.

Wow, after a set of posts like that, I hate to contradict Kayle.. especially when he's even agreeing with me.. but on one fairly minor point, just to set the record straight, I will anyway:

Kayle said:
Japan is one of the only nations to outdo us in the technology department, only because of their work ethic, and the lacking of a work ethic in the U.S. But that's for another time. The U.S. has been unmatched in Weapons Development on a large scale, such as weapons of war, for a very long time, and there's a reason for that.

Actually, Israel's been ahead of us in militdary weapons (and practices) development for decades and it's got nothing to do with work ethic, it's because they're in a constant state of war and are a small enough country that military weapons and such are their national pasttime like baseball is here.. well, I don't know the real reason why, maybe they just got a better slice from the gene pool when it came to scientists who develop military weapons, or maybe it's because even their scientists have to serve in the military too. But, whatever the reason, Israel should be noted just as quickly as Japan if not more so.

Otherwise, great posts Kayle.. though you might not have needed to be quite as harsh towards David over his positions, Samson hasn't served either but is certainly qualified to have an opinion regardless, so David should be entitled to one too. It is one of the things we served to preserve in the first place afterall. I don't happen to know David's background other than what he's posted in the past, while I do know Samson has at least a couple of generations of military family, but they're both American citizens with all the rights and liberties that accords them, thanks to our military's eternal vigilence.

(Before anyone gets fired up over what I just said, please note that I'm not discounting or accrediting anyone's opinion(s), I'm just reminding Kayle of what he was taught in basic: that whether he likes David's opinion or not, David's right to have such an opinion is one of the liberties that those of us who have served were serving to protect.)

This isn't a question of the right to hold an opinion in general. Kayle's position that you can't talk about something if you have not been actively involved in it is self-defeating in the way he uses it. He is not a research scientist, he is not a scientist in general, and is certainly not a scientist involved in the development of nanotechnology, yet he cheerfully talks about what nanotech can and cannot do. *shrug* By his own argument, he has no business doing so.

Not only that, but it's borderline stupid to spit in the face of technology that will sometimes help you, even though it won't always save you -- especially when you don't even know what it does. Sorry, Kayle, I simply cannot take you seriously on this one, as you might have already noticed. And, like, wow, thank you so much for setting the record straight about what an IED is. Heh. (Too bad you spelled "device" wrong.)

Conner said:
I don't happen to know David's background other than what he's posted in the past, while I do know Samson has at least a couple of generations of military family,

Why does this even matter? My family's military history (and there is some, for whatever that's worth) has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of what I have to say. How would you feel if I started quizzing people on their family history in the development of computing when trying to evaluate their ability? And then if, upon revealing that their family was not involved in it, I heaped scorn upon them and said their claims were worthless? That would be ridiculous; I would be ashamed of myself to behave in such a way.

Conner said:
well, I don't know the real reason why, maybe they just got a better slice from the gene pool when it came to scientists who develop military weapons, or maybe it's because even their scientists have to serve in the military too.

I think you got it right the first time around; they feel much more directly and constantly threatened then we are, and so have much more of an incentive to develop. It's a lot like the USA (and the USSR, for that matter) during the Cold War.

It might just interest everyone to realize that Israel for the most part has expanded on technologies we provided to them. If we hadn't been there to sell them the cool goodies like F15 fighters and top of the line battle tanks and soldier's weapons and gear, there wouldn't be an Israel around today to take what we've given them and improve upon it for their own survival. Left strictly to their own devices they wouldn't have been here long enough to get what they have.

Let's also not discount the fact that we handed them nuclear weapons and it's provided a very powerful deterrent against being wiped off the face of the Earth the way Ahmadinejad would like to see happen. If any of our allies in the world end up with cloaking tanks and death ray weapons, it'll be them because they'll need it to stay alive.

First, I'd like to point out that Israel gets about 85% of their weapons from the US as Samson mentioned, any advancements they've made, are merely improvements based on their tactical position in a never ending war to the weapons we've provided them.

Second, I was not disputing David's right to an opinion, I was merely stating that his examples about the personal cloaking not being feasible in an "urban" combat environment offended the hell out of me, because he has no idea what he's talking about in that department. Allow me to elaborate.
1. It's not called "urban" combat, it's a close quarters combat environment.
2. When you're involved in such a situation, you're more worried about seeing the enemy before they see you. Not how many hits can I take before I get hurt or killed. Therefore, if there is an option to prevent them from seeing friendlies, it's more likely that government funding will go that way.
3. Surgical precision is everything. Especially in a close quarters engagement. Your main weapon in a CQCE is your reaction and processing time. The faster you can process a situation and react the more likely you are to survive.
4. As I said before, If someone were to walk up to any soldier who has seen or been in an engagement in a CQCE, hands them a piece of equipment and says "This will allow you to take more hits and not get hurt," They're more likely to respond, "I'd rather just not get hit, thanks." and walk away. This nanotech stuff would have to be as light and non-cumbersome as an every day t-shirt to have anyone wear it, with the rest of their gear in a close quarters situation. Hell, most people are pissed off that they have to wear the Kevlar plating, or the vest.


As far as spelling device wrong? Big deal. It was 12:30 in the morning for me. I'm surprised that was the only thing I spelled wrong, being that I had been up since 6am.

Once again, to clarify, I was not disputing the right to an opinion, but the evidence supplied to support that opinion.

As for:

David Haley said:
I love you too, Kayle. Go be a superpower or something.

No can do. Being injured from serving and all.

Conner said:

I don't happen to know David's background other than what he's posted in the past, while I do know Samson has at least a couple of generations of military family,

Why does this even matter? My family's military history (and there is some, for whatever that's worth) has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of what I have to say. How would you feel if I started quizzing people on their family history in the development of computing when trying to evaluate their ability? And then if, upon revealing that their family was not involved in it, I heaped scorn upon them and said their claims were worthless? That would be ridiculous; I would be ashamed of myself to behave in such a way.

Development of computing plays absolutely no roll in surviving any form of combat situation, Are you going to program your way out of being shot at? Military history and heritage rubs off on you, when you join and serve, you're changed, your entire outlook on life changes, and you do things differently then the average citizen. You're taught integrity, a sense of selfless service, to pursue excellence in everything you do, and the ability to pay attention to even the most minute detail. Because face it, when you're out there alone, even the tiniest detail could save your life. When you go through Basic Training, You develop into a better person, and as such, you then in turn teach your children that. And they teach their children that, and THAT, David, is what your military heritage matters. And whatever military history your family has, it's obviously not from a parent or grandparent, otherwise you'd think a little differently when it comes to these issues, unless of course it's french military heritage in which case, I think you're right on the money.

And if you think that's a little harsh, Well, Oh well, I don't recall seeing any French soldiers over in Iraq, freeing those people from the grasp of a murderous dictator.

I'll not even begin to dispute that Israel is a tiny country that has relied heavily on US support for its very survival, but to say that

Kayle said:
any advancements they've made, are merely improvements based on their tactical position in a never ending war to the weapons we've provided them.

is a bit of a fallacy. Israel has certainly made some remarkable advancements on the technology that we've given them (thus the reason we have an ongoing "exchange" program with them for training and for R&D with regards to the CIA and the Mussad as well as with our Special Forces and theirs) but they did invent stuff that we hadn't given them either, as just the first example off the top of my head would be the Uzi.

As for the direction the rest of this conversation has taken.. I'm almost sorry I interjected now... Kayle is right that having a military family background does count for more than not having one, though in some cases it can actually be counterproductive depending on what you actually learned from that background. To cite a specific example, Samson's expressed, on many occassions, his deep respect for the military and such based on what his parents and grandparents have taught him about their experiences in the wars in which they respectivelly served, where as David has not once mentioned any sort of military background for himself via personal experiences nor family, thus leading an observer to believe that either David has no military background at all or disdain for the military background that he has had.

I really think Bush Sr. could have ended all the problems we're having in Iraq today years ago when he was in office by simply letting the military do its job while they were there the first time, but I understand that there were political and economical reasons that he didn't. I feel it was very bad form, to say the least, for the French Nato Representatives to choose not to help this time around. To then further actually accuse the US of warmongering and such and then to refuse support of any kind was even worse.. still, you have to admit that the French do have a distinguished military history, from Napoleon to the Legionairres... If nothing else, France did play a positive role during World War II, so we have to give credit where it's due.. besides, where would we be without crossoints? ;)

Kayle said:
1. It's not called "urban" combat, it's a close quarters combat environment.

Oooh, I didn't use the right jargon, so clearly everything else is wrong. Woe be unto you the next time you use the wrong word, Kayle...

Kayle said:
2. When you're involved in such a situation, you're more worried about seeing the enemy before they see you. Not how many hits can I take before I get hurt or killed.

Thanks for the clarification, Captain Obvious. Too bad you missed the point that I was talking about the feasibility of moving projection screens around inside "close quarters".

Kayle said:
This nanotech stuff would have to be as light and non-cumbersome as an every day t-shirt to have anyone wear it, with the rest of their gear in a close quarters situation. Hell, most people are pissed off that they have to wear the Kevlar plating, or the vest.

Oh, yeah, because the projection stuff wouldn't have to be as light and non-cumbersome as a t-shirt, too. Kayle, you crack me up! Your responses indicate to me that you have no idea what I'm arguing and you're just pissed because I dare say anything whatsoever about the military.

Incidentally, you might want to get a clue as to what the nanotech actually does before talking about it. (You know, your own reasoning and all.) One of the things I mentioned was an external device (it's fabric research: something more resistant yet lighter than Kevlar). The other is a fluid that is injected into the blood stream to accelerate tissue healing. No question of being light or cumbersome there, although you might (justifiably) feel queasy about the idea of an injection of this stuff. But frankly, if I were in a position in which I was being shot at, and this stuff had the potential to save my life (which it does), I would consider myself kind of dumb to refuse it... maybe I'm not superheroic enough like you, hmm?

Kayle said:
Development of computing plays absolutely no roll in surviving any form of combat situation, Are you going to program your way out of being shot at?

LOL! You really didn't get it, do you? You completely missed the point, because you're so wrapped up in your own inanities. Do you want me to clear it up or is that a waste of our time? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with combat, and everything to do with the silliness of the argument you are presenting. Oh, by the way, next time you say anything about computing, I'mma gonna tell you it's worthless because your parents weren't involved in developing the computer industry. Chuckle.

Kayle said:
You're taught integrity, a sense of selfless service, to pursue excellence in everything you do, and the ability to pay attention to even the most minute detail.

Yup, things that are absolutely impossible to learn everywhere else. Were I taking you seriously, I would be incredibly insulted that you even thought to suggest that you can't learn those qualities elsewhere. But I'm not, so I'm mostly just having a ball. (My apologies for doing so at your expense.)

Kayle said:
And whatever military history your family has, it's obviously not from a parent or grandparent,

You have no factual basis for making that claim, so unfortunately you have just spoken out of your ass. Not that it matters whatsoever as to the truth of any claim you or I have made, but as it turns out, both grandfathers were decorated officers, one in the Army during WW II and the other in the Navy during the Korean War.

Kayle said:
otherwise you'd think a little differently when it comes to these issues, unless of course it's french military heritage in which case, I think you're right on the money.

Haha! And now you are reduced to shit-slinging about the French? This is great!

Conner said:
where as David has not once mentioned any sort of military background for himself via personal experiences nor family, thus leading an observer to believe that either David has no military background at all or disdain for the military background that he has had.

Actually, Conner, I did, just above. But to be completely frank, such an observer would be making a pretty dumb mistake, because such an observer is making all kinds of inferences that have no basis whatsoever. I have stated that I feel that military background is not relevant to the truth or falseness of what I have to say, and up until this conversation, it hasn't been remotely relevant in the first place. Kayle is cloaking (with a projector??) what he has to say in a patriotic cape of military heroism, and somehow expecting that to make it more true. Well, it doesn't, but it's pretty damn funny. It's all the more amusing that his cloak of patriotism seems to have covered his ears, and he's responding to arguments I never made...

That said, please do not suggest again that I have disdain for something unless I actually say so, especially if you are going to go on to suggest that such disdain somehow affects the truth of what I have to say.

I'm just noting for the record here that, once again, SOMEONE has resorted to the use of personal attacks because they didn't like what the other person had to say - and before anyone makes the leap that it was me, it wasn't. So nyah!

As it currently exists - and that we know of - the projector technology isn't feasible for use on foot soldiers. I don't think anyone is really trying to say it is. It's a nice idea and all, but as Kayle points out, I think most people would be far more interested in technology which allows soldiers to see the enemy before they see us.

A nanotech based bullet proof vest is certainly a worthy advancement. If you end up taking a hit, something like this that's lighter, and stronger than kevlar would be nice to have. But I'd rather see effort being spent on motion sensors and body heat trackers for the soldiers. See enemy, kill enemy. Take no hits.

We're going to see cloaking technology on vehicles before we ever see it on people. It's just that simple. Miniaturization is always an expensive and difficult process.

Samson said:
I don't think anyone is really trying to say it is.

One wonders, then, why I am being blasted for saying that I don't think it's feasible for use on foot soldiers at the moment.

Samson said:
We're going to see cloaking technology on vehicles before we ever see it on people. It's just that simple. Miniaturization is always an expensive and difficult process.

Actually with nanotechnology that might not be the case, for once. The miniaturization has already happened, after all. If you had a chameleon-type material, it could be a lot easier to put it onto the relatively small surface of a soldier's body rather than the very large surface of a tank. (Furthermore, putting it on e.g. treads might be hard because of the constant abrasion with the ground.) Speculation, of course, since I do not know how such material would work.

Well, Thanks for that retarded personal attack, I'm glad I can still piss people off like I used to be able to. Also glad to see that it never fails in the least that you'll resort to personal attacks when you have no other argument. :)

Thanks for the clarification, Captain Obvious. Too bad you missed the point that I was talking about the feasibility of moving projection screens around inside "close quarters".

Let's revisit my statement real fast:

2. When you're involved in such a situation, you're more worried about seeing the enemy before they see you. Not how many hits can I take before I get hurt or killed. Therefore, if there is an option to prevent them from seeing friendlies, it's more likely that government funding will go that way.

I don't see anywhere in there where I mention a damn thing about projector equipment.

Oh, yeah, because the projection stuff wouldn't have to be as light and non-cumbersome as a t-shirt, too. Kayle, you crack me up! Your responses indicate to me that you have no idea what I'm arguing and you're just pissed because I dare say anything whatsoever about the military.

Again, let's revisit:

4. As I said before, If someone were to walk up to any soldier who has seen or been in an engagement in a CQCE, hands them a piece of equipment and says "This will allow you to take more hits and not get hurt," They're more likely to respond, "I'd rather just not get hit, thanks." and walk away. This nanotech stuff would have to be as light and non-cumbersome as an every day t-shirt to have anyone wear it, with the rest of their gear in a close quarters situation. Hell, most people are pissed off that they have to wear the Kevlar plating, or the vest.

And again.. I don't see any mention of any form of projector equipment.

Yup, things that are absolutely impossible to learn everywhere else. Were I taking you seriously, I would be incredibly insulted that you even thought to suggest that you can't learn those qualities elsewhere. But I'm not, so I'm mostly just having a ball. (My apologies for doing so at your expense.)

Revisiting, Again:

Military history and heritage rubs off on you, when you join and serve, you're changed, your entire outlook on life changes, and you do things differently then the average citizen. You're taught integrity, a sense of selfless service, to pursue excellence in everything you do, and the ability to pay attention to even the most minute detail. Because face it, when you're out there alone, even the tiniest detail could save your life. When you go through Basic Training, You develop into a better person, and as such, you then in turn teach your children that. And they teach their children that, and THAT, David, is what your military heritage matters.

No where in my statements did I EVER say that you can't learn those traits anywhere else. I said they become your way of life after military training.

LOL! You really didn't get it, do you? You completely missed the point, because you're so wrapped up in your own inanities. Do you want me to clear it up or is that a waste of our time? Here's a hint: it had nothing to do with combat, and everything to do with the silliness of the argument you are presenting. Oh, by the way, next time you say anything about computing, I'mma gonna tell you it's worthless because your parents weren't involved in developing the computer industry. Chuckle.

Allow me to do the clearing up, that's what's called a snappy comeback, it's meant to be funny and poke fun at the absurdness of your argument.

You have no factual basis for making that claim, so unfortunately you have just spoken out of your ass. Not that it matters whatsoever as to the truth of any claim you or I have made, but as it turns out, both grandfathers were decorated officers, one in the Army during WW II and the other in the Navy during the Korean War.

Well, I daresay then, that your parents didn't learn much from your grandfathers. Or you must not have a very good relationship with your grandfather, and in turn came to hate the military and anything it stands for.

I have stated that I feel that military background is not relevant to the truth or falseness of what I have to say, and up until this conversation, it hasn't been remotely relevant in the first place.

No one has ever said that anything you've said has been true or false. The fact that you're pulling that from the things I say is rather humorous.

Kayle is cloaking (with a projector??) what he has to say in a patriotic cape of military heroism, and somehow expecting that to make it more true.

<sarcasm>Yes, let me wrap myself tighter in this patriotic cape of military heroism.</sarcasm>
I haven't been cloaking anything. Once again, You're reading farther between the lines than anyone should be, and attempting to twist my words into your own argument. Even in my initial comment, I barely spoke of the issue of cloaking. So to quote someone else:

Too bad you missed the point that I was talking about

I've not been talking about the projection equipment at all, but what's important in the eyes of a soldier. Which is seeing the enemy before they see you and AVOIDING injury. And one more thing.

Haha! And now you are reduced to shit-slinging about the French? This is great!

I'm glad you think it's so funny that the French refused to help unseat a murderous dictator because they were too busy negotiating multi-billion dollar oil contracts with him, and didn't want to risk screwing it up. :)
Anyone heard of UN resolution 1483 and how that immediately ended Frances involvement in the Iraqi Oil industry? Hmm...

Kayle said:
I don't see anywhere in there where I mention a damn thing about projector equipment.

I was talking about projector equipment and the feasibility of moving it around in an urban zone (oh, sorry, "close quarters"), so if you weren't, you were making a non-sequitur response to my comments... well, a lot of stuff makes more sense now, I suppose, if you weren't talking about the same thing I was...

Kayle said:
No where in my statements did I EVER say that you can't learn those traits anywhere else. (...) Well, I daresay then, that your parents didn't learn much from your grandfathers. Or you must not have a very good relationship with your grandfather, and in turn came to hate the military and anything it stands for.

If you aren't meaning to say that you can't learn the traits elsewhere, then the second part I quote is a silly thing to say. And I note that you are now insulting my parents, in addition to myself, suggesting they didn't learn integrity etc. from their fathers.

And please, don't even try guessing what my relationship with my parents or grandparents is or was like...

Kayle said:
I've not been talking about the projection equipment at all, but what's important in the eyes of a soldier. Which is seeing the enemy before they see you and AVOIDING injury.

I don't believe I ever disputed the claim that the primary goal is to avoid injury in the first place. I was talking about the feasibility of the projection stuff in "close quarters". I did say that it is borderline stupid to spit in the face of technology that can help you survive an injury, if that is what you mean.

Kayle said:
No one has ever said that anything you've said has been true or false.

Oh?? Then what exactly have you been doing? Are you saying that I could be perfectly correct in everything I say, and still have no right to say it because I'm not a soldier myself?

If you aren't meaning to say that you can't learn the traits elsewhere, then the second part I quote is a silly thing to say. And I note that you are now insulting my parents, in addition to myself, suggesting they didn't learn integrity etc. from their fathers.

And please, don't even try guessing what my relationship with my parents or grandparents is or was like...

Well, If you can resort to personal attacks, Why can't I? That's exactly the kind of double standard I've come to expect from you though. So I suppose in all fairness, you reacted precisely the way I expected you would.

I did say that it is borderline stupid to spit in the face of technology that can help you survive an injury, if that is what you mean.

No where did I say that they would spit in the face of technology. What I did say is that if you just walked up to them and told them that if they wore that they could take more hits without getting hurt, chances are they'd laugh at you. See here's what you're failing to comprehend. Unless a Superior Officer or NCO comes along and tells someone that they're going to need to wear this, because it's going to allow them increased survivability in a situation where they take hits, they will. But a college student coming up carrying it, and saying here, this'll save your life, is going to be laughed at. Military personnel follow a strict set of Rules of Engagment, and in those rules, the equipment they are allowed to carry, and that which is required is laid out. Unless they recieve word that something changed in the ROE, then they'll ignore anything anyone tries to get them to wear. Because well, a military court martial, is quite simply, not a pleasant experience.

Oh?? Then what exactly have you been doing? Are you saying that I could be perfectly correct in everything I say, and still have no right to say it because I'm not a soldier myself?

Not in the least. I'm saying you have no experience, so preaching your opinions like the gospel will only piss those of us who HAVE experience in the issue off. As for what I've been doing, Offering the view of a soldier on these issues. Why? Because I was a soldier. And Because I HAVE experience in a close quarters engagement, and had to drag my CO out of the middle of a firefight because he took a grazing round to side of his neck, So I dare say, will that nanotech liquid heal a damaged artery? Or what about that nanotech armor, is it going to be feasible to cover all parts of the body?

Just keep in mind, David, While you were sitting at college playing with Lua, and talking with Nick Gammon about how you could implement that in a MUD, or whatever you do in your free time. I was out risking my life to bring other people the rights and liberties you hold dear. Have you done anything like that? Or is developing the computer industry more important to you?

And for the record, I think it might be in your best interest to stop reading things as you want them, and read them how they're said.

Kayle said:
Well, If you can resort to personal attacks, Why can't I?

If you're going to make personal attacks, at least make them around an intelligent argument. But I note that you have nothing to say about your self-contradiction.

Kayle said:
I'm saying you have no experience, so preaching your opinions like the gospel will only piss those of us who HAVE experience in the issue off.

Which opinion is it, exactly and precisely, that you object to?

So far, you have told me that you weren't responding to my comments about the projection technology, despite the fact that that was the bulk of my argument. You have also told me that you're fine with technology that saves lives, which was the other point I was making. So, please do tell, which opinions exactly are you objecting to? And, if you would be so kind, please cite my words precisely.

Kayle said:
So I dare say, will that nanotech liquid heal a damaged artery?

Actually, yes. I'm glad that we're finally talking about actual issues. What it does is immensely accelerate and improve the coagulation process, cutting off all blood loss in a matter of seconds. It won't regrow an entire artery, but it will keep the person alive until better care can be provided.

Kayle said:
Or what about that nanotech armor, is it going to be feasible to cover all parts of the body?

That's the point of it, yes. It's a material that is very flexible, but solidifies upon strong impact. It's a lot like Kevlar in many ways, but improves on many of the defects. So yes, you could cover all, or at least most, of the body. Don't know about fingers...

Kayle said:
Just keep in mind, David, While you were sitting at college (...) I was out risking my life to bring other people the rights and liberties you hold dear.

I beg your pardon -- what are you trying to tell me, Kayle? Are you trying to tell me that you are a more worthy person than I am? Since you have been so clear that I should read things as they are said, I am asking you: what exactly are you trying to say?

http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html <-- Dwip posted this link 3 days ago but it seems to have been overlooked. Apparently someone else is working on a similar project, or was 4 years ago. So perhaps this technology has since been militarized and has been advanced forward enough that it is indeed feasible for ground troops.

But I note that you have nothing to say about your self-contradiction.

If you can ignore certain things, so can I. Although I'm surprised you didn't mock me for misspelling the words Engagement and receive in the following excerpt:

Rules of Engagment, and in those rules, the equipment they are allowed to carry, and that which is required is laid out. Unless they recieve

As far as exact quotes, I'm really not in the mood to scroll all the way through the long list of comments here, and pick out the exact things you've said that I disagree with. Or have knowledge to the contrary of that I'm not allowed to discuss. Those are the kinds of things that come with the qualifications I earned.

what exactly are you trying to say?

I'm saying that you sicken me, plain and simple, with your whole scientific approach and dissection of everything. The whole thread started out as a speculation into how the technology COULD evolve. Not a discussion on how best to do it. Or Where money would be better spent. You're an intelligent individual, but the way you dissect everything and point out every tiny flaw is, well.. socialistic. I could have gone to college right after high school, and never joined, but I decided I wanted to be one of the soldiers like every member of my family for as long as I could remember has been. I decided that I wanted to help other people, and learn more about other cultures, and if need be, defend those in this country that either weren't qualified to serve, weren't sure they could stomach it, or just didn't feel they needed to put their lives on the line for the good of others.

Oh, sorry, did you want that candy coated? Here: <candycoating>I don't like the things you've said.</candycoating>

To clarify:

Those are the kinds of things that come with the qualifications I earned.

Was in reference to the things I'm not allowed to discuss.

Kayle said:
Although I'm surprised you didn't mock me for misspelling the words Engagement and receive in the following excerpt:

The reason I brought up the spelling mistake was because I found it somewhat amusing for you to get on your high horse explaining to the ignorant masses what IEDs were and then make a mistake in doing so. I mean, if you're going to be pompous about something, you had better do it correctly...

Kayle said:
As far as exact quotes, I'm really not in the mood to scroll all the way through the long list of comments here,

I guess I have no choice but to give you the benefit of the doubt, although I'm sorely tempted to believe that what you object to is the mere fact that I am voicing an opinion period, not the content of any opinion I have to voice. You've more or less said as much, in any case, by asking me to not say anything about something unless I've had direct experience in it.

Kayle said:
Or have knowledge to the contrary of that I'm not allowed to discuss.

That seems like an awfully easy way out, Kayle. But ok, I'll play along for a moment. Knowledge to the contrary about what? You are blasting me for holding opinions but you refuse to identify those opinions.

Kayle said:
with your whole scientific approach and dissection of everything. (...) You're an intelligent individual, but the way you dissect everything and point out every tiny flaw is, well.. socialistic.

Let me get this straight: you are telling me that it is sickening and "socialistic" (??) to analyze ideas with a "scientific approach" and make sure that strong and weak points are identified?

I'm a little surprised... I'd have thought that, when you got sent to fight with a probability of injury or death, a probability you unfortunately got to know all too personally, you would have wanted whoever sent you in to have thought it through. And I would have thought that you would want whoever designed your gear to have paid very careful attention to every last detail. You said yourself that: "even the tiniest detail could save your life". But then, you tell me that it is sickening to think things through to every last detail? I admit that I really don't understand your position, Kayle.

Kayle said:
I decided that I wanted to help other people, and learn more about other cultures, and if need be, defend those in this country

Those are certainly noble goals and I respect you for wanting to achieve them. What I would, however, like to point out is that there are many ways to achieve those goals, and being a soldier is not the only way; I would ask you to respect those people who wish to achieve the same goals by other means. You can help people without fighting for them; you can learn about cultures without going to war; you can defend people without shooting a gun.

Samson said:
http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html <-- Dwip posted this link 3 days ago but it seems to have been overlooked. Apparently someone else is working on a similar project, or was 4 years ago. So perhaps this technology has since been militarized and has been advanced forward enough that it is indeed feasible for ground troops.

That's a pretty interesting link. Two things I find interesting about it are that (1) it was developed at a university (hmm) and more importantly (2) it requires an external projector (see their diagram). I'm fairly certain that for this to be viable for mobile objects (say, people) you would need to do something other than projection. There's been work in chameleon-type material that I find to be very interesting, and IMHO much more promising for actual "cloaking".

That seems like an awfully easy way out, Kayle. But ok, I'll play along for a moment. Knowledge to the contrary about what? You are blasting me for holding opinions but you refuse to identify those opinions.

What part of I'm not allowed to discuss hard to understand? I was discharged under the instruction not to discuss things I had seen, used, or been trained on. Some of the things you comment about, are things I can't discuss. What about this seems like an easy way out? I don't refuse to identify them, I refuse to scroll through the 50 some odd posts and find them all.

Let me get this straight: you are telling me that it is sickening and "socialistic" (??) to analyze ideas with a "scientific approach" and make sure that strong and weak points are identified?

No, I'm saying the degree you take it to, is sickening and socialistic. And by socialistic, I mean, of or pertaining to a socialist nature. Since I'm assuming that's what the (??) was for.

I'm a little surprised... I'd have thought that, when you got sent to fight with a probability of injury or death, a probability you unfortunately got to know all too personally, you would have wanted whoever sent you in to have thought it through. And I would have thought that you would want whoever designed your gear to have paid very careful attention to every last detail. You said yourself that: "even the tiniest detail could save your life".

A lot of what goes on when you're out on patrol in the streets of Baghdad isn't about what someone else thought through. It was where you were and at what time, and if that happened to be when insurgents decided to strike. And I don't want anything, I expect those designing and producing combat gear for the military to pay close attention to the little details. But paying attention to details, and picking out every single flaw in something when it's all purely speculative is what you were doing.

You can help people without fighting for them; you can learn about cultures without going to war; you can defend people without shooting a gun.

This is all too true, but it was the path I chose based on family tradition.

Grammar correction:


What part of I'm not allowed to discuss is so hard to understand?

Kayle said:
And by socialistic, I mean, of or pertaining to a socialist nature. Since I'm assuming that's what the (??) was for.

I know that "socialistic" means "pertaining to a socialist nature". What I was trying to figure out is how exactly it is "socialist" to think something through. It makes it sound as if you believe capitalism does not believe in careful analysis. That's pretty funny, because pillars of capitalism like Smith, Taylor and Ford founded most of their work on very careful analysis of efficiency and so forth.

Kayle said:
What about this seems like an easy way out?

What makes it seem like an easy way out is that you are using it to say "I'm right, you're wrong, so there". It would be like: oh, by the way Kayle, I worked on military projects that I'm not allowed to discuss, but what I did there proves that I'm right, but yeah, I can't tell you why because you're not cleared to know. (FWIW, it's true that I worked in military-funded research, but nothing classified. The place I'll work at starting Aprilish, though, is "secretive" in that I'll be dealing with trade secrets. Oooh, secrets... :P)

Kayle said:
I don't refuse to identify them, I refuse to scroll through the 50 some odd posts and find them all.

The distinction being drawn is somewhat bizarre, and sounds like another easy way out. (It's an easy way out because you have made a pretty bold claim but are unwilling to back it up.) But hey, whatever, dude...

Kayle said:
But paying attention to details, and picking out every single flaw in something when it's all purely speculative is what you were doing.

So it's necessary to be vigilant towards detail in some cases, but then it's sickening to do so when discussing science you're not producing? One basic rule of science, and in fact intellectual work in general, is to not stand for inaccuracy. (And no, I'm not saying that this is unique to scientific endeavor.) To not point out inaccuracy would be much like a failure in integrity. If you think it is sickening for me to stand up for what I believe to be fundamental integrity, well, I guess that's kind of too bad, but the way it is.

Kayle said:
This is all too true, but it was the path I chose based on family tradition.

Why, then, do you come out blasting me for not having been a soldier myself? Is the fact that you followed your family's footsteps more valuable than the fact that I followed mine? I am not criticizing your choice, and am not entirely sure why you feel it necessary (or justified) to do so for mine.

I dunno, Honestly I've been pulling some of this out of my ass to see if I could get a Blog entry to break 50 comments. And I guess a part of me wanted to see just how easy it would be to get under your skin as well. Why? I dunno. Boredom mostly I would think.

To clarify, about 90% of what was directed AT you, David, was me being a shit head, and pulling things out of my ass, just to see how far above 50 I could get this list of comments, but I'm bored now, and going to go back about ripping my hair out over the tedious little things involved in rewriting character creation in Smaug.

Does that mean the last 15 didn't count or something? :P

Regardless of whether you were poking fun, kidding, or whatever, I do think David has been over analyzing the applications of the cloaking technology. And with that link Dwip provided it's become clear that the projector method is just plain silly. So continuing to worry about how they're supposed to hide the things seems entirely moot.

David, you do have an odd tendency to get riled up easily. I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this, but I'm going to anyway. It's typical of folks on the left to wildly overreact to anything that's presented in a blunt or harsh manner, even if the presenter is dead on in their analysis. It's part of what made the last major topic so interesting. I've also noticed you do tend to explain something and then get upset when people read your words and it's apparently not exactly what you meant. The confusion only gets worse when others begin to pick at what's been said, leading to runaway threads. Like this one :P

I kind of like how a vindication of what I was saying is somehow turned against me, Samson. :-) BTW, Akismet ate my reply to your post reminding us about the link. (Akismet has been doing that to me a fair bit these days...)

I thought your argument in the last topic was all just a big hoot -- how can it be dead on in its analysis if you were just messing around saying things that you believe to be untrue? :-)

I don't think it's so terrible to not like being misunderstood, especially if that misunderstanding is turned against you. If the misunderstanding was my fault, then I need to use better words or explain myself otherwise; if the misunderstanding was somebody else's fault, then I want to figure out what happened and determine if it was accidental (vast majority of cases) or intentional (very small minority of cases). But if people pick at what's been said, that's fine too, (as long as I am given a chance to explain myself) but I like them to actually cite what's said, not dance around the point saying they don't feel like citing what I said.

As for Kayle, well, I call bull and yet another easy way out (let's call it, say, an "emergency backpedaling maneuver"), but this is an easy way out that is favorable to me as well since it means Kayle isn't as unpleasant (to not use his words, "a shit head") as he was apparently just pretending to be. For what it's worth, if it is all just a big joke, I don't find it terribly amusing to tell people how much they sicken you and how little integrity they have...