Print 65 comment(s) - last by pikestaff.. on Dec 31 at 4:23 PM

Regenerative medicine was just one of the research projects displayed at the 26th Army Science Convention recently.

Imagine medicine made of combined properties from the intestinal lining and the urinary bladder, which can help to regenerate a missing digit or limb – this was only one out of hundreds of technological research projects displayed at the 26th Army Science convention held recently in Orlando, Florida.

Scientists from around the world gathered at the four-day conference, displaying hundreds of research projects developed with one purpose: to make soldiers both safer and increasingly effective in their abilities. The Army’s research laboratories, universities and partner industries all had some hand in a variety of the technological innovations displayed.

As for the regenerative medicine, known as Extracellular Matrix, U.S. Army Biological Scientist Sgt. Glen Rossman explained,  “The cream-colored crystallized powder, called ‘magic dust,’ boosts the body's natural tendency to repair itself...the body thinks it's back in the womb [when the matrix has been applied to a missing digit or limb]."

One nonmilitant study participant gained a first-hand experience of Extracellular Matrix's abilities. After four weeks of researchers continuously applying the medicine to a missing tip of the participant's finger, which had been lost in a model plane’s propeller, replenishing new skin and tissue grew over the damaged area. 

Tissue and skin are not the only regenerative interests of the Armed Forces. In fact, the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine is also studying nerve and vein transplantation, which includes the treatment of burns without scarring, along with the regeneration of tissue, skin and bone.

Both animals and humans have aided in regenerative studies, enabling the institute to develop therapies for the generous amount of soldiers who become victim of explosives.

Armed Forces Institute Scientists have also developed an engineered skin substitute from patients' cells. A sample of skin approximately the size of a postage stamp actually has the ability to grow significantly. Placing the substitute over a wound or burn provides reduced chances for infection and has the ability to eventually grow and cover large areas of the injured body.

Army scientists have even developed a method for regrowth in areas missing bone. Hydroxyapatite, a biodegradable, web-like tube of calcium-phosphate ceramic, is placed in the location of the missing bone to create a scaffold-effect. This scaffold provides a base for the body, allowing it to grow natural tissue, bone and veins again. Although up until this point the method has resulted in a maximum 3-centimeter growth of bone in rats, researchers are hoping to increase this number to 5 centimeters over the course of the next two years. 

Aside from regenerative displays, visitors could find complementing technology at the convention, as well. For example, the Battlefield Extraction Assist Robot, or BEAR, provides one option for removing wounded soldiers from combat zones, so that they can be treated for things such as missing limbs. Built by Vecna Technologies in association with the Army, the human-shaped prototype comes equipped with eyes, ears, arms, lights, two cameras and infrared abilities. With a maximum speed of 10 mph, BEAR can lift 250 pounds while balancing on its toes and can also help to increase the safety of soldiers' human rescuers.

Elaborating on BEAR's value, Vecna robotic engineer Andrew Allen explained, “BEAR can easily be replaced; it costs money and not lives."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By AntiM on 12/24/2008 10:21:03 AM , Rating: 3
No doubt that man's penchant for war has led to many inventions and discoveries that have advanced our technology. However, it seems asinine to spend billions of dollars devising better ways to kill people and then spend billions of dollars figuring out how to heal them. These advances will find their way into civilian medicine and help many people, but hopefully you see my point. Maybe we should research ways to avoid war in the first place.

RE: War
By MrBungle123 on 12/24/2008 10:43:37 AM , Rating: 5
it seems asinine to spend billions of dollars devising better ways to kill people and then spend billions of dollars figuring out how to heal them. These advances will find their way into civilian medicine and help many people, but hopefully you see my point. Maybe we should research ways to avoid war in the first place.

We've already spent billions of dollars avoiding war... It’s called nuclear arsenal.

RE: War
By AntiM on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: War
By MrBungle123 on 12/24/2008 11:14:11 AM , Rating: 5
I suggest you use some of that vastly superior intellect and study history.

RE: War
By BruceLeet on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: War
By UNHchabo on 12/24/2008 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 5
Not if "vastly" is used as an adverb, modifying "superior", instead of as an adjective, modifying "intellect". This is the case, as most words ending in "ly" are adverbs.

RE: War
By dflynchimp on 12/24/2008 12:11:29 PM , Rating: 5
Ahhhhhhhhh the grammer nazis...*head explodes*

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/24/2008 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
Nazis is with a capital N.

RE: War
By PhoenixKnight on 12/24/2008 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 5
You forgot to correct him on his misspelling of the word 'grammar'.

RE: War
By Lystat2k2se on 12/24/2008 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2

RE: War
By curiousgeorgieo on 12/26/2008 3:24:15 PM , Rating: 2

RE: War
By ggordonliddy on 12/24/2008 8:35:15 PM , Rating: 1
> It would be "vast superior intellect"


RE: War
By AntiM on 12/24/2008 9:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you use some of that vastly superior intellect and study history.

I've studied history and what I've learned is that humans haven't learned from it.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/25/2008 2:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
I can't say as I agree with you there. Our leaders know full well that war is a tool used to control its citizens. I think 1984 really opened my eyes up to that one. Imagine, if all the world no longer fought wars, how much wealth everyone could have. And if the hate wasn't directed at the foreigners whom our leaders choose, it would likely be aimed at them. Our leaders have learned from history, and for that reason we go to war. Not for peace, but for repression of those both at home and abroad.

RE: War
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 10:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'll stipulate you can find examples supporting your assertion, but I rather doubt you can build a persuasive case.

I suggest you consider an alternate explanation, perhaps one not requiring malice and featuring more incompetence.


RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/26/2008 7:59:11 AM , Rating: 3
George Orwell was the one who pointed it out to me. The best way to destroy wealth, and thereby continue repression, is to go to war. I don't need to persuade anyone. War is a tool used by leaders to control their own people, there's no mystery behind it. Heck, that whole Hate Week in 1984 can be reflected in our own Armistice Day/Remembrance Day celebration. These aren't necessarily facts, but I found Orwell's arguments rather compelling.

My question, Greg, is why would you suggest to me finding an incompetent explanation?

RE: War
By Misty Dingos on 12/26/2008 9:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
OK I’ll bite. And because I am nice and I like to help out folks when I can I will explain a few things to you.

George Orwell wrote fiction. He wrote it because he wanted to eat. The stories that he wrote, well he wrote them because he thought they would sell a lot of books. So that he could buy food, clothing and shelter.

He really wasn’t trying to tell you that the world sucks and that if you didn’t read his books you would get sucked into some dystopian hell.

In fact while you may feel differently, the world today may have some really nasty places but by and large things are moving in the direction of more peacefulness and not less. OH RELAX! I will explain.

In less than two years (barring any unforeseen circumstances) there will not be any foreign troops in Iraq. Hopefully the citizens of Iraq will choose to live relatively peacefully with each other. Afghanistan is likely to take much longer to repair and I will make no predictions as to when you will be able to vacation there. Or in fact want to. The whole of Africa faces enormous troubles. Much of these troubles are because of the European colonial period. But many of the issues that plague the citizens of Africa are rooted in tribalism and ignorance. It will be several generations until there is true peace in Africa. But with international care and persistent effort it to will be peace there too.

India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Guess what? They haven’t used them on each other. Care to ask why. Because the use of these weapons would be worse than almost any conflict their leaders can imagine. The same holds true for Israel. South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons and Libya verifiably gave up its own nuclear and chemical weapons programs. Why? Well simply it is easier to buy and sell things on the world market than it is to try and threaten your neighbors with WMDs.

In general the world as a whole just won’t put up with it anymore. Border conflicts will continue for some time but as a whole the world seems to be trying to be nicer to one another. Yes there are still lots of saber rattling going on but internationally people seemed much more concerned about Global Warming (this is not a comment on whether or not HIGW is real or not) or sustainability issues than whether or not the country on their border is going to invade them.

The type of rabid nationalism that is described in Orwell’s books just isn’t the reality (with the possible exception of North Korea).

I assume you live in one of the first world countries so if you don’t I apologize. You have the right to go where you wish without government supervision or permission. You have delineated human, civil, and legal rights. You can not be held incommunicado by your government. You have every right to legal and competent representation no matter what crime you may be accused of. In our societies you are more likely to die of your rampant consumption than any dystopian want by far.

In short, get your nose out of the dystopian books, quit looking for the governmental boogey man and start looking for ways to make things better. Join the Peace Corp or run for political office but relax a bit. Hell go for a walk in a park and hang out with friends talk about how to make things better maybe you will come up with the way to make the world a better place. If you do someone will listen to you.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/26/2008 1:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
George Orwell wrote a commentary on England. It wasn't until the editor suggested it be set in the future that it got the title 1984. Much of the comments in 1984 are absolutely spot on. George Orwell was so much more than just a common fiction writer. To throw him into the lot of those whose only concerns are temporal is an insult to your intelligence. If you ever peel away the layers of 1984, you'll quickly discover how much of it is relevant, and how misconstrued it is, oversimplified and poorly understood, by the media.

Now, since I have a few minutes to waste, I'll put a few of those things in perspective.

Remember how in 1984 the way in which the government would at one time call one side of the conflict either its ally or its enemy, depending on the situation, and how avidly the population would follow that decree? Did you not notice how quickly Bin Laden and Hussein went from being American allies to American foes? A few decades ago Hussein, with American support, was attacking Iran with WMD and America was supplying the Taliban with arms to fight the Soviets. How times have changed... and what a coincidence that the fictional realm that Orwell created and the reality that our leaders have created are categorically identical.

The type of rabid nationalism that is described in Orwell’s books just isn’t the reality (with the possible exception of North Korea).

American nationalism is just as rabid is N. Korea. Every fourth of July the US simply goes nationalism crazy. US flags on everything. Heck, for some time it's even been illegal to be unAmerican. Where in 1984 the government watched and listened to their citizens, here in 2008 folks are being wiretapped without warrants. Where in 1984 folks were sent to ministries for physical and psychological torture, the US has Guantanamo Bay.

Now, I know not everyone can understand the real meaning behind a book, that not everything is as it seems. But you have to understand that great writers often have to code their work. But, 1984 is a challenging book. All the time I meet people who say they've read it, but clearly don't understand the messages and the implications.

Now, can you handle the truth about your own culture?

RE: War
By Misty Dingos on 12/26/2008 5:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
I see that you have a great love for George (the author not the current president). Hey that’s great. And no I did not throw him in with every other fiction writer but facts are facts. You publish works in fiction because you want to and expect to get paid for the effort. Orwell was an exceptional writer. He could not have the influence on today that he has had without skill and perception. And I give him his due. Yet still a paycheck is still a paycheck.

Now I must take exception with your comments about the Fourth of July. Like many people do you misconstrue patriotism for nationalism. There is a difference. Fanatical nationalism led Germany into WWII. Patriotism allows the USA to field the finest if not the best military in the world with volunteers. Men and women that serve their country despite an unpopular war (like there was ever a really popular war with those fighting it). Yes no conscription here. You talk to the average soldier in the field what they think of their enemy. They will tell you that they hate them. Ask them what they think of the Iraqi people and they will tell you that they hope that they can make their country work. That they seem to be people just trying to get by. They don’t hate the Iraqi people. They simply want to accomplish their assigned mission and come home.

Nationalism is destructive. Patriotism is not. Having love and respect for your country is not dangerous. Having a fevered hatred for all things not your country is nationalism. If you feel that the Fourth of July is fevered nationalism then you do not understand it or what it is to be a citizen of the USA. A simple celebration of the birth of our nation is not some nationalistic fervor.

You mention Gitmo. The legal status of persons captured on the battle field or in the act of preparing terrorist acts in countries they are not citizens of or are not legally in themselves present real international legal issues. The current administration chose the location they did precisely because it would isolate the subjects from the normal federal legal system of the USA. Then proceed with a military tribunal system. The process has not been, I think, what anyone would want nor has it benefited the USA in anyway.

There are many people at Gitmo that should never see the light of day again. They are the worst terrorists that the modern world has produced. But there are also a large number of people there that should be given access to a system that would allow them to seek their freedom. The reality of Gitmo is that it isn’t a writer’s fantasy it is a reality that has to be dealt with. What do you do with someone you captured in a distant land under dubious legal footing? This is exactly why the Clinton administration refused to take possession of Bin Laden when he was offered to them. Lawyers, go figure.

You can’t oversimplify the issues of today’s world by saying. “Oh look at that, Orwell had it all pegged decades ago.” While he may have been a great writer he didn’t have all the answers. If he did you wouldn’t be reading about Gitmo, Iraq or Afghanistan today at best and if he did have the answers you never would have been able to read the book. Because the society you live in could only have been described as dystopian.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/27/2008 12:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
I see that you have a great love for George (the author not the current president). Hey that’s great. And no I did not throw him in with every other fiction writer but facts are facts. You publish works in fiction because you want to and expect to get paid for the effort. Orwell was an exceptional writer. He could not have the influence on today that he has had without skill and perception. And I give him his due. Yet still a paycheck is still a paycheck.

Not all writers' only concern is monetary. His book was a deep look into the psyche of society. Fiction can, and the good stuff often does, take a look into social, personal, political, and religious (though not all of them at once) state of culture and man. There's a reason Freud based a lot of his speculations on fiction. There's a reason we often clothe the harsh realities inside fiction. Unfortunately, most people lack the ability to penetrate the true meaning of texts.

Nationalism is patriotism: The most accurate description of what it means is #3 from the top. The US is absolutely fanatic with its 4th of July celebrations. It's there for a reason: to convince its people that it's free, that it's the moral compass for the world.

As for conscription... well, the US has a funny way of dealing with it. Make the poor poorer and offer the military as a way out of poverty. Now, those young men and women have been stripped of their civil rights. ie, they cannot sue doctors for malpractice. They do not have freedom of speech. They cannot refuse a command without risking prison. They cannot simply say, "I don't believe in this war" followed by walking off. Even when there is conscription, the US Gov. has a nifty way of keeping its wealthy young out of service. They just had to go to college or university to avoid the draft. Soldiers have been taught to be afraid, and through that fear learned to hate. Generally speaking, they're no more conscious of the reason why they're in Iraq. They simply believe in the fiction that their government has created to obscure the truth. Can you imagine if governments around the world actually started being honest? I cannot imagine what would happen - that would make for an interesting fiction I'm sure. Utopian or dystopian... hard to say.

Patriotism and nationalism are both designed to manipulate the population.

As for Gitmo and some of the other military prisons: you seem to have accepted the propaganda hook-line-and-sinker. Most of the folks in those prisons have nothing to do with terrorism. Furthermore, there's supposed to be this thing called the Geneva Convention which prevents much of the torture that's being applied to them. Torture isn't even effective. If you torture someone, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. More often than not, it's useless information. There are better ways to extract information than torture which results in good intelligence.

You're right that Orwell didn't encapsulate everything. What's amazing is how much he did manage to cover that was as relevant in his day as it is today, perhaps even more so as technology advances. Our cultures, American, British, French, Canadian, all of them, suffer to greater or lesser extents, most of the things he created in his book. It would be unfair to simply target the US exclusively. Even if the Canadian authorities don't perform the same acts, they do contribute to the prison populations which is in its own way worse: by doing so they try to wash their hands clean. But for me it would be no different than delivering a child to a child molester. Sure, the delivery guy isn't molesting the child, but he's just as guilty of the act.

George Orwell wrote two great books, the lesser of the two being a historical record of the French revolution (aka Animal Farm) and 1984, which is a serious look into how governments work.

It's far easier to exist in a culture, believing in everything it says than it is to question it and see it for what it is. Yet, I manage just as well. I'm not unhappy because of it. We want to slumber inside the fiction that our government creates. That's the real fiction, and its purpose is power and control. Even if you see through all that, you're just as helpless as the people who buy into it. So what does it change? Quite frankly, I think it's easier and less stressful. After all, you're less likely to be afraid when the government tells you to fear. Subsequently, you're less likely to hate when the government tells you to hate. Being without fear and hate are good things.

By the way, those folks in Gitmo aren't nearly as dangerous as Bush and his administration. If anyone belongs in there, it's them. In fact, given a few months with them, I'm pretty sure we could get the to admit to any crime that we wanted them to.

RE: War
By SilthDraeth on 12/27/2008 1:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
America is so Nationalistic and dystopian that you will be sent to Gitmo for expressing your views here on Daily Tech.

You do know the American Government monitors all digital transactions, and yet you risk their ire by posting. You sir are a true radical freedom fighter.

I pray that you are long gone when the black helicopters show up tonight to take you away.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/28/2008 11:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just a prole. I'm not too worried. Though, that's not to say I might not disappear one night should my opinions become persuasive on a large scale.

RE: War
By foolsgambit11 on 12/25/2008 12:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see, since we built the nuclear bomb, we've had:

Korean War (1950-1953) - 36516 U.S. dead
Vietnam War (1965-1973) - 58159 U.S. dead
Desert Storm (1990-1991) - 148 U.S. dead from combat
War in Afganistan (2001-Present) - approx. 629 U.S. dead
War in Iraq (2003-Present) - 4216 U.S. dead

That's 21 out of 63 year with war - 1/3rd of the time, the U.S. is at war. We also have:

Bay of Pigs (1961)
Grenada (1983)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnian Conflict (1995)
Kosovo Conflict (1999)

Not to mention the two 'wars':

Cold War (1945-1991)
War on Terror (2001-Present)

Additionally, the number of major attacks on the U.S. in the 63 years before the A-bomb - 1. (Assuming you count Hawaii as part of the U.S. then.) Number of major attacks on U.S., A-bomb to present - 1. (Assuming you don't count the first WTC bombing as 'major', or any of the embassy attacks, or the Cole....)

So how is that nuclear arsenal really working as a deterrent to war? Granted, no state has attacked U.S. soil since we got the bomb, but we don't need countries to attack us to start wars. The best deterrent to the U.S. entering a war seems to be to deter the U.S., not other countries. Apparently, what we should have done with those billions was give every country a nuke - then we wouldn't dare attack them.

RE: War
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 10:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
Respectfully, your focus on US casualties is typical of Americans - A terribly young society. (I'm a native, but spent my youth abroad)

Also, US conventional forces are tiny compared to Russia or China. The 1950s would have drowned us in a sea of cannon fodder, absent nuclear weapons.

Your handle is apt for your argument, as you consider only one side of the equation. Fortunately, statesmen seek both sides and thus rarely find themselves in Fools Mate.


RE: War
By foolsgambit11 on 12/28/2008 8:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
On paragraph 1: I purposefully focused on U.S. casualties because I thought that would be the best way to make my point to the OP. My goal wasn't to put forth the entirety of a platform for pacifism; it was solely to refute the MrBungle123's argument. So I focused on the facts that seemed would be the most effective rebuttal for him. (Additionally, this research is for the U.S. armed forces, so it's interesting to look at the scope of the problem this treatment is aimed at solving. But for that, I should have put in data on those injured in the wars. Back on topic....) In general, I'm the kind of person who cringes every time someone says that 'more than 4000 people have died in the Iraq War'. Of course, the number is most likely somewhere around a half million, give or take a half million. (Numbers highly debated, I'm sure you know.)

On paragraph 2: You have a good counterargument here, although it is premised on the idea that Russian and/or China would attack the U.S. unprovoked. There is no doubt that history has turned out the way it has in part due to the nuclear deterrent. The world would be different, but I don't think war would have been inevitable. The combined military strength of modern NATO countries very well could have been an effective deterrent for Russia without nuclear arms. Nor do I think that a war between Communists and Capitalists would have been as much of a decisive win as you posit. But quibbling about what might have been is almost always a dead end. We have no way of knowing what the world would have been like without nukes.

In the end, though, even granting your argument says little about the overall efficacy of a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. The fact remains that it hasn't prevented war. My post was designed to point out that, as a deterrent to war, the U.S. nuclear arsenal (and the Russian one, for that matter) haven't proved fully successful. Now perhaps no strategy would have proven fully successful, and it's unfair of me to demand that a nuclear arsenal prevent all war. But I'd argue that the reason history since the A-bomb is littered with American interventionism is at least partially because of the nuclear arsenal it has. The security the America has because it is a nuclear power (the security Iran covets) has given it a free hand to engage in conflicts from a position of relative safety. Now, of course, America's geographic position and economic power also contribute to America's security and willingness to exercise power. But I'd say the nuclear arsenal is a factor in its hawkishness. This is the reason I (rather tongue-in-cheek) suggested giving the Bomb to every country. Then it would be a real deterrent to American (and all other countries') belligerence.

Additionally, the fact remains that nuclear weapons do nothing to prevent non-state actors from attacking the U.S. Indeed, the proliferation of nuclear technology creates new security threats that must be diligently and carefully handled to keep America safe. So going forward, the question of the overall value of America's nuclear arsenal becomes more convoluted. While you can't uninvent the Bomb, a return to negotiations for a structured disarmament of the nuclear powers may begin to make sense to more people. It certainly should receive more consideration than it has for the past decade or so.

Still, despite all of these hypothetical arguments about nuclear deterrence, it is here now, and it is partially responsible for why the world is the way it is today. The fact that you interpreted my argument the way you did is a bit odd to me. To review the argument that happened above:

AntiM's Point : Why spend money making people whole after war, after spending so much money on the war? We should spend the money to prevent war in the first place.
MrBungle123's Counterpoint : We did, nukes.
My counter-counterpoint : Nukes haven't prevented U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from being killed and wounded in war.

Notice that my counter-counterpoint refutes the counterpoint - it does nothing to validate the OP's comment. Nor does it argue that no nukes would have prevented U.S. casualties of war. It only points out the prima facie evidence against MrBungle123's argument. Your assumption that I held a position in the argument, and wasn't simply arguing against facetiousness, that argument is what I'd call a "fool's gambit". Taking uncalculated risks for intangible gains.

Sorry. I've droned on way too long. And I could have simply said, "please don't assume an argument against 'A' is an argument for A's opponent."

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/26/2008 8:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
You left out Bush I's conflict over the Panama canal.

In any case, you put the case well. Perhaps what the other fella was trying to suggest is that if all nations had nuclear arms, we'd have peace at long last. Somehow I find that conclusion doubtful. Without war, people would look more carefully at their own governments, which is something no government wants.

RE: War
By MrPoletski on 12/31/2008 8:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Without war, people would look more carefully at their own governments, which is something no government wants.

No incompetant government anyway. If the leaders are doing a fabulous job then why would they want attention diverted away from that?

Ther is something else about that list of wars too, the vast majority of all of them were started by .... you guessed it.

RE: War
By AlexWade on 12/24/2008 8:15:12 PM , Rating: 1
Responding to a dumb statement like that would be unworthy of my vastly superior intellect, so...

Translation: I've got no answer because I've been bested therefore I will act all uppity to make myself superior once again.

RE: War
By BladeVenom on 12/24/2008 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
Peace through superior firepower.

RE: War
By vulcanproject on 12/24/2008 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
so, this digit surgery yeah? the army is actually creating MORE itchy trigger fingers now? brilliant!

RE: War
By FaceMaster on 12/25/2008 7:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
We've already spent billions of dollars avoiding war... It’s called nuclear arsenal.

I prefer to think of it as saving it all up for one massive showdown. It's inevitable, just a matter of time.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/27/2008 12:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. It would be like giving a nuke to a husband and wife when they get married. In the majority of those ill fated marriages, eventually one or the other would use it.

RE: War
By MrPoletski on 12/31/2008 8:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
Dang thats gotta be one BITTER, BITTER pair of people lol.

RE: War
By DanD85 on 12/24/2008 11:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
I understand your point but have you ever think that without war can you truly appreciate peace and without the casualties that wars bring, do you feel the need to create medicine?

Everything have its places in the world man, without evil you cannot understand what good is.

RE: War
By Baov on 12/24/2008 12:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
"... shut up buddha"

That relativist statement is really nearsighted and if the thought is pushed with enough rigor, will self-contradict itself. There are things that are untrue because there is a truth, you don't need there to be lies to know what truth is.

RE: War
By wordsworm on 12/24/2008 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
That relativist statement is really nearsighted and if the thought is pushed with enough rigor, will self-contradict itself. There are things that are untrue because there is a truth, you don't need there to be lies to know what truth is.

It's not terribly dissimilar to how food tastes best when you're hungry. Or how, after feeling great pain relief is better than orgasmic. For the most part, evil is just an invention of the mind. As The Prince and the Pauper seemed to point out, terrible dictators can be caring and loving fathers. The son watching his father destroyed would call the rebels evil, while the rebels would call the father evil. Relativism does not contradict itself unless you yourself are confused.

RE: War
By vulcanproject on 12/24/2008 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
i was once told by a wise man, you dont need suffering to appreciate happiness.

say you go on holiday. you have been waiting for this holiday for months. you are really enjoying the break. its wonderful! the weather is perfect, the food is perfect. you love it.

but you get a phone call from back home. its one of your relatives. they tell you that after you left, your house burnt down, and all of your charcoal possessions have now been swept into a small pile in the gap where your house once was.

how many people would put the phone down, smile and say to themselves, FANTASTIC! i can really truly appreciate my holiday even more now........

RE: War
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 7:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
This comparison is foolishly extreme, and also just foolish. You enjoy the vacation all the more because it is a contrast to the months of hard work you have just experienced. Throwing a devastating tragedy into the vacation will obviously not make it more enjoyable.

Peace is sweeter to those who have tasted war. And to the man whose home burned, once he gets back in a home, he will appreciate it more because he once went without it. You have to compare apples to apples.

Now, does this mean society needs war to be happy? I doubt anybody could prove such a statement, but you could have a really long, really good philosophical debate about it.

Whether we need it or not, war definitely serves a function in society, and as long as there are a$$holes in the world, there will be war. Not all of its effects are bad, though. We here in the US once fought a war with England that had pretty good results.

RE: War
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 8:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
i was once told by a wise man, you dont need suffering to appreciate happiness.

I would tend to disagree. If you have never suffered, how would you even define happiness, let alone appreciate it? Now this doesn't mean you need tragedy to appreciate happiness, but a little suffering definitely helps.

There is actually a device they have where you can get in, and you feel no pleasure, no pain, nothing. No light, no darkness. It's all just a sort of indistinguishable gray.

It's called a sensory deprivation chamber, and it's a form of torture. It drives people mad. Eventually they'll tell you anything just to be able to feel again.

Life is about ups and downs. A professor of mine once told me that every observable phenomenon in the universe oscillates. Peaks and troughs. If you're not doing that, you're not living. You're just in a big sensory deprivation chamber.

RE: War
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 9:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
Further, I would add that adversity is what spurs people to better themselves. People must rise to meet a challenge, but nobody rises to meet something they can do lying down. This is, in my opinion, why all great societies eventually collapse. They become so successful that the society faces no collective challenge, individuals face little or no personal challenge, and they become complacent, corrupt and lazy. Meanwhile, another society with less privilege and more adversity is posturing to elevate itself, and rises to defeat the old one.

RE: War
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 10:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
A good and interesting point, but one tending to distract and not required to justify war.

RE: War
By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 1
Have not studied history have you? Leftys are such idiots.

How do you:

apply to a missing digit or limb

Isn't that like playing air guitar?

RE: War
By bodar on 12/24/2008 4:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
-- Gen. George S. Patton

RE: War
By MrPoletski on 12/31/2008 8:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
So... how about a technique to revive those vapourised by nuclear weapons? ;p

Downside of BEAR
By wordsworm on 12/24/2008 1:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most soldiers lack intelligence, despite the oxymoron to the effect. If they get caught, the amount of information that they can give to their captors is limited. What if BEAR is caught? Sure they can give it GPS to track it, but the enemy can also give use a scrambler, throw it into a container, and reverse engineer the bot, thereby coming up with their own technology.

Just seems to me that they are asking for trouble doing this.

RE: Downside of BEAR
By wingless on 12/24/2008 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
It should be equipped with self destruct mode. BOOM! Problem solved.

RE: Downside of BEAR
By wordsworm on 12/25/2008 2:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's what would happen *after* the middle east managed to produce their own.

RE: Downside of BEAR
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 7:44:27 AM , Rating: 1
Most soldiers lack intelligence

Really? Do we? Source please. Otherwise, STFU.

RE: Downside of BEAR
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 10:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Loco, Thank you for your service. Unfortunately, the comment was on information encapsulation, not calling you an "ox moron".

Alternative uses...
By Amiga500 on 12/24/2008 10:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
Elaborating on BEAR's value, Vecna robotic engineer Andrew Allen explained, “BEAR can easily be replaced; it costs money and not lives."

Or how about sticking machine guns on it and removing the human from the line of fire completely?

No doubt under consideration as the army already has limited robotic combat units.

RE: Alternative uses...
By UNHchabo on 12/24/2008 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Machines have to be programmed for a specific job. Even the T-1000 can't do more than one thing at a time, really.

RE: Alternative uses...
By daar on 12/24/2008 12:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
He works for Vecna? No doubt they've had the thought of machine guns on it in their minds all this time!

RE: Alternative uses...
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 7:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
This VECNA sounds rather autonomous, which is why it won't get weapons. You will not see an autonomous combat robot, as the decision of whether to kill or not has to be made by a human being. At least, that's what everything I've heard or read on the subject says. Combat robots will all be RC.

By dflynchimp on 12/24/2008 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
Can I grow myself a bigger penis?

RE: So...
By Baov on 12/24/2008 1:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
just by participating in the war against irak, your penis will grow by 50%!

RE: So...
By wordsworm on 12/24/2008 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
just by participating in the war against irak, your penis will grow by 50%!

I think they'd have a far easier time finding recruits - if they took people in their 50s. You deserve a 6 for that and a future in recruitment centers.

RE: So...
By elgueroloco on 12/25/2008 8:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
What?! When did they start that benefit program? Mine hasn't grown at all since I got here! I'm getting ripped off! I'd better go talk to my S-1 and make sure I get what I'm entitled to...

By tastyratz on 12/24/2008 9:59:03 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder just how limited this is, or if someday you could grow the greater from the lesser instead of vise versa. Imagine someone cutting off your thumb and growing a copy of you. If the body can remake a limb, who's to say the dna contained matched to a form of life support couldn't do the reverse?
Could we re-grow a head?

This has been one technology that has interested me quite a bit, sometimes I think scifi movies of the past are just simple foreshadowing.

RE: limitations
By therealnickdanger on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
By HmmSureYNot on 12/24/2008 9:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Mr Bobbit could have used this years ago!

RE: Hmm
By Motoman on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
Magic dust dry rub
By Cuddlez on 12/24/2008 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
* 1/2 cup paprika
* 1/4 cup kosher salt, finely ground
* 1/4 cup sugar
* 2 tablespoons mustard powder
* 1/4 cup chili powder
* 1/4 cup ground cumin
* 2 tablespoons ground black pepper
* 1/4 cup granulated garlic
* 2 tablespoons cayenne

Mix all ingredients and store in a tightly covered container.

So good it grows back limbs!!!

War & amputation
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 11:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
20 years ago, when I was young and foolish enough to view the military akin to the boy scouts, I lost both arms to an electric transformer.

In the years since, I've often regretted not serving in defense of the Constitution of the United States of America, a cause for which I would now willingly surrender much more than mere hands.

Something to consider.


By pikestaff on 12/31/2008 4:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
What American president said 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' sorry for any spelling mistakes.

By Baov on 12/24/2008 12:05:48 PM , Rating: 1
Growing stuff is easy. The hard part is to have it grow in the shape that you want, and to stop when you need it. If i wanted to grow extra limbs, i could just graft cancerous cells to my body.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki