backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Oct 18 at 10:35 PM


BAE F-35 Helmet  (Source: BAE Systems)
Fancy futuristic JSF helmet still not working

Schools are already in place to train fresh F-35 pilots now that the aircraft are inching closer to actual service duty. However, one thing that was still questionable was the wild looking helmet that is intended to give the pilot a 360-degree view around the aircraft.
 
The problem is that the high-tech helmet that the F-35 program needs is having some significant issues with performance. Specifically, the maker of the JSF helmet, Vision Systems International, has been unable to get high quality images displayed on the pilot’s visor.
 
Since the availability of that fancy helmet is questionable, a contract to create another helmet with less technology crammed in has been granted to BAE Systems.
 
BAE is using a version of the helmet that Eurofighter Typhoon pilots use. The Typhoon display that would be in the helmet is being removed and it is being replaced with a set of night vision goggles and a single eyepiece showing the heads-up display HUD.
 
"BAE Systems Electronic Systems is proud to be a part of the Lockheed Martin team for the F-35 HMD,” said Jim Garceau, vice president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE Systems. “The NVG HMD will enable all aspects of flight operations and it allows us to build on our long history of successful development programs with Lockheed Martin on the F-35, F-16 and F-22 programs.”
 
The helmet will also incorporate the BAE Q-sight and head tracking technology to help with precise weapons delivery. The modular design also allows an upgrade path for pilots to binocular visor-projected displays, alternate image sources, and night vision.
 
The helmet can also be easily modified if it becomes the main helmet for the F-35.

Sources: DefenseTech, BAE Systems



Comments     Threshold


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

Waste is still waste.
By ptmmac on 10/17/2011 6:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Any time we waste money as a country we are throwing away our children's future chance of financial security. I only hope that we can get a constitutional amendment passed to reverse the insane supreme court decision that struck down campaign finance limits on corporations. It is impossible to limit federal spending when corporations can hire lobbyists to get them more income. This should be a no brainer no matter what your political views.




RE: Waste is still waste.
By lightfoot on 10/17/2011 6:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...when corporations can hire lobbyists...

Yeah, only churches and unions should be able to hire lobbyists.

(That's sarcasm for those of you who don't realize that all three are simply groups of people.)


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FaaR on 10/18/2011 2:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Churches and unions don't have ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of money available to throw at lobbying or other propaganda efforts that multinational corps do.

Not saying lobbying should be legal for anyone, just stating facts.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By BZDTemp on 10/18/2011 3:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
You're properly right with regards to unions but not with regards to Churches plus some Churches have close ties to countries just look at Israel.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By StevoLincolnite on 10/18/2011 6:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Churches and unions don't have ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of money available to throw at lobbying or other propaganda efforts that multinational corps do.


Oh how very wrong you are.

The Catholic Church is probably the biggest corporation in the world.
Think about it...
They have a "branch office" in every neighborhood in the united states, if not in every neighborhood in the developed world. - That's allot of assets under the belt.

Then you need to factor in that multiple countries are under the church's thumb where religion can overrule common sense and general fairness of it's people.

Granted, most of it is wealth that is from property holdings and art work, but to say they don't have deep pockets is severely underestimating the religion and what it has built in the last several thousand years.

In the last several decades for instance they have spent over a billion dollars in settlements from misconducts with priests to keep their antics hush-hush.

Not sure what kind of power the churches have in the US of A, but here in Australia for instance they have been actively lobbying our government to block same-sex marriage.
Thankfully we are considered to have one of the least corrupt governments on the planet, so they haven't had much impact on our countries development or being able to successfully block past controversial legislation.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By bupkus on 10/18/2011 3:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
simply groups of people
so's a mob.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 6:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Except the surpreme court didn't end the limits on corporate campaign contributions.

They ruled that a business can spend money on an advertisement for or against a politician that they like or that they feel threatens their business. All because liberals didn't want to let a guy air a documentary on Hillary Clinton. Maybe liberals will think twice before trying to stifle free speech.

Liberals only don't like the decision because many businesses (especially smaller businesses) are fed up with government interference in their businesses with excessive regulations, fees, and taxes.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 8:03:41 PM , Rating: 1

"Except the surpreme court didn't end the limits on corporate campaign contributions."

Should have. It was a party line vote in a Republican majority SCOTUS. Having too much corporate influance in government is terrible.

"They ruled that a business can spend money on an advertisement for or against a politician that they like or that they feel threatens their business."

I personally think a business should be able to air ANY commerical for or against ANY canidate it wishes to, given that it uses truthful information.

"All because liberals didn't want to let a guy air a documentary on Hillary Clinton. Maybe liberals will think twice before trying to stifle free speech."

Nice way to group everyone together and be stereotypical. Do you know Republicans value money more then lives? It's true, all republicans are like that because a Health Insurance CEO company denied two transplants (that resulted in two deaths) while she got a nice fat bonus!

So yea, all republicans are like this!

...You can do better.

"Liberals only don't like the decision because many businesses (especially smaller businesses) are fed up with government interference in their businesses with excessive regulations, fees, and taxes."

Ohh, look at you! You're so cute with your little talking points and whatnot. Please, continue!

The USA has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Not only that, but many big corporations find loopholes in those taxes so they pay no taxes, and in some cases, get a rebate!

Please PLEASE tell me about this over taxation again please! I know it's just TERRIBLE!

Regulations are terrible? I know:( Like that pesky Glass-Stegall act that when repealed, lead to the real estate crash of 2008, ruining hundreds of thousands of loves.

But won't someone think of the poor poor corporations!

You're a terrible poster, a republican shrill, and an awful person. Educate yourself instead of just repeating talking points please.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
What the fuck are you smoking? We have one of the HIGHEST corporate tax rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_...

Companies, just like individuals, take advantage of every loophole they can find. Want a truly fair system? Fairtax. But no Democrat (and even most big government Republicans) would ever vote for it because it doesn't redistribute wealth. And you want GE to pay taxes? Why don't you go tell the president who's a big friend of their CEO.

And you mean that real estate collapse that happened because the government went so far as to sue banks who didn't give out enough loans to minorities? Yeah practices like that couldn't possibly had anything to do with why banks gave out loans to people who likely couldn't repay them. What bank would give out a loan they knew would go bad? Well wait they didn't have to worry about that since Fannie and Freddie just bought all the loans anyway without regard for the solvency of them. And now they're suing the banks for selling the loans to them when it was they who encouraged it in the first place.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I see that your political education entails watching 5 minutes of Fox every day.

Redistribute wealth? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh right, a CEO that makes 200 times what their average employee makes surely can't go without buying 4 Mercedes that year. Oh noes! And I'm sure that CEO put in 200 times the work their average worker did to get where they are today. Right.

The government did sue the banks that didn't give to minorities because the banks were basing their approvals on race. IDIOT. Black farmers won billions from that. Learn history as you are doomed to repeat it. But hey, you can go on with your life and blame the other man.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:55:35 PM , Rating: 1
Someone pays $0 taxes after they do their tax return and still gets a several thousand dollar check back every year = redistributing wealth.

No one should have a NEGATIVE tax liability.

And no the banks didn't give the loans because they saw that the people would never be able to pay the money back. Democrats saw this as racist and sued.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 11:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
40% of the countries wealth is in the hands of 400-500 families.

You want to know why we're in recession? Thats why. Fact is, the wealth has been redistributed from the many [middle class] to the few [the top 1%], and we see the end results of that approach to taxation.

And stop with the "base tax rate" nonsense; investments are taxed at only 17%, and there are so many deductions avaliable for business, they pay significantly less then the base tax rate. When the tax code is re-done, deductions HAVE to go for that reason alone.

As for campaign finance, if a CEO wants to put his own cash into advertising, thats fine. Now though, he can double dip: Once personally, and once using the coorporations wallet, using PUBLIC funds. Whats next; giving coorporations the right to vote?


RE: Waste is still waste.
By cruisin3style on 10/18/2011 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
I might be misinterpreting your post, but you do realize that people who get a rebate check had that rebate amount taken out of their paychecks over the course of the previous year right?

Or are you saying that it really IS the government's money to do with as they see fit? ;)


RE: Waste is still waste.
By lightfoot on 10/18/2011 6:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
The Earned Income Tax credit in the United States is known as a "refundable tax credit." Refundable means that you can get the full tax credit even if it exceeds your total tax liability. In many cases people get "refund" checks for taxes that they didn't even pay in the first place.

This tax credit is designed to offset the payroll taxes that the working poor pay. This effectively makes the "entitlement" programs defacto welfare programs for the poor.

Personally I am opposed to payroll taxes in the first place because they are terribly regressive. In addition they make people think that Social Security and Medicare are "entitlements" instead of the welfare programs that they really are.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By lightfoot on 10/18/2011 12:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a CEO that makes 200 times what their average employee makes

And when an average employee screws up at their job, one person loses their job.

When a CEO screws up at their job thousands of average employees can lose their job.

A good CEO is worth every penny they are paid. The problem is that far too many are NOT good CEOs.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:23:04 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. I see that your political education entails watching 5 minutes of Fox every day.

Redistribute wealth? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh right, a CEO that makes 200 times what their average employee makes surely can't go without buying 4 Mercedes that year. Oh noes! And I'm sure that CEO put in 200 times the work their average worker did to get where they are today. Right.

The government did sue the banks that didn't give to minorities because the banks were basing their approvals on race. IDIOT. Black farmers won billions from that. Learn history as you are doomed to repeat it. But hey, you can go on with your life and blame the other man.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I see that your political education entails watching 5 minutes of Fox every day.

Redistribute wealth? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh right, a CEO that makes 200 times what their average employee makes surely can't go without buying 4 Mercedes that year. Oh noes! And I'm sure that CEO put in 200 times the work their average worker did to get where they are today. Right.

The government did sue the banks that didn't give to minorities because the banks were basing their approvals on race. IDIOT. Black farmers won billions from that. Learn history as you are doomed to repeat it. But hey, you can go on with your life and blame the other man.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Way to triple post. Too much spittle on the keyboard there Chris Matthews?


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Omega215D on 10/18/2011 1:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Here we go, people like you keep throwing the "you must watch Fox News" junk when someone has a differing reason or outlook. Some of which isn't necessarily false.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here we go, people like you keep throwing the "you must watch Fox News" junk when someone has a differing reason or outlook. Some of which isn't necessarily false.


Lefties have to make attacks like this because they just don't have any better arguments to make. I think deep down inside they know their ideology and beliefs and outlooks on things just don't work, but because most Liberals are emotionally driven younger people, they express themselves poorly and go on the offense.

I don't think automatically when someone doesn't agree with me that "they must watch MSNBC" and that's the end of the argument. I actually try to share my side of the debate and demonstrate to them that they are wrong, completely and utterly.

These kids are just..well Fit, god bless you. Cause I don't think anyone can break through a solid wall of hate and ignorance that these kids are displaying.

I'll just say this, when I see idiots saying things like "The rich just get that way from the backs of others work..." and see so many Americans buying into that garbage, it just makes me sad. In America everyone has the opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness and the best life possible. In fact, the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed here in writing! The only place on Earth that that is the case. It used to be a source of pride and national uniqueness.

An American named George Hinson once had an idea to use wire "twist ties" to keep bread fresh. Such a simple and obvious thing today, I know. This idea lead to a fortune and a revolution in food sealing technology. Hinson's basic idea created an entire industry, and while it certainly made him a rich man, it provided jobs that didn't exist before. Created demand for materials which didn't exist before, allowing material suppliers to expand and create more jobs. And so on and so forth. And who's back did he stand on? Who did he "hold down" and steal from while he earned his fortune I ask you, who?


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 8:01:19 PM , Rating: 1
I stopped reading at "In America everyone has the opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness and the best life possible. In fact, the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed here in writing! ". If you HONEST believe that line of bullshit, then you're smoking some good stuff.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 8:46:03 AM , Rating: 1
"What the fuck are you smoking? We have one of the HIGHEST corporate tax rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_..."

Do you have anything a bit more recent? Considering Bush had a nice little habit of lowering taxes and whatnot?

"Companies, just like individuals, take advantage of every loophole they can find."

Then get rid of the loopholes? Still, most big corporations have a lower effective tax rate then the rest of the world though tax incentives and rebates and whatnot.

"Want a truly fair system? Fairtax. But no Democrat (and even most big government Republicans) would ever vote for it because it doesn't redistribute wealth."

You truely are blinded by "party" lines, aren't you? Please explain to me, what's so fair about this fair tax?

"And you want GE to pay taxes? Why don't you go tell the president who's a big friend of their CEO."

Yep, I'm personally going to go and tell Obama to tax GE, and he'll listen. Real good plan there pal.

However, I do think it is abhorrent that they didn't pay any taxes. I don't support it one bit.

"And you mean that real estate collapse that happened because the government went so far as to sue banks who didn't give out enough loans to minorities?"

You have proof of this other then a Fox News Blurb?

"Yeah practices like that couldn't possibly had anything to do with why banks gave out loans to people who likely couldn't repay them. What bank would give out a loan they knew would go bad?"

Are you seriously this stupid (or self deluded)? They issued loans and morgages they knew were bad so they can cut them up and sold them on the exchange market, and bet AGAINST them, because they knew they would fail. If you didn't know, the Glass–Steagall Act kept banks out of speculation, for this exact reason. Since it was repealed in 1999 (Clintons worst move, ever), it opened the floodgates for the banks to partake in speculation, and they did that by using morgages as securitys, told people they were solid investments, and shorted them because they knew they were going to fail eventually.

It had nothing to do with the big bad Government saying they better write morgages to dem damn minorities!!

"And now they're suing the banks for selling the loans to them when it was they who encouraged it in the first place."

You keep repeating this, come on, show me some numbers or something here. The Government doesn't sue banks for not giving enough loans out, not for ones people cannot afford. Need some proof here.

One thing you keep complaining about is the practice of redistributing wealth, and how it's all bad. In case you haven't noticed, for the last 30 years, this has been happening, but it's all been going up. We now have one of the worst spreads of wealth in our history. It's fine though, according to Reagen, it'll trickle back down!!

------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------

Also, FITCamaro, this is from the reply to sigmatau below me, since refuting you and showing how wrong you are is so...easy...and fun.

"Someone pays $0 taxes after they do their tax return and still gets a several thousand dollar check back every year = redistributing wealth."

How do you figure? In the last 30 or so years, we've all been doing tax returns, and yet wealth is still moving upward and concentrating at the top. So yea, it's being redistributed, but upward.

Also, this pays 0% tax is shit. Even if no one pays Payroll tax, they still pay Gas Tax, Sales Tax (Most states), estate/property tax, etc etc. Stop repeating Fox lines please, it's making you look stupid.

"No one should have a NEGATIVE tax liability."

And yet, many many corporations do...

"And no the banks didn't give the loans because they saw that the people would never be able to pay the money back."

Yes...they did. They just needed the morgages to use them as speculative items.

"Democrats saw this as racist and sued."

Tired line...source please? Show me some of them court dockets...they're all public.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Solandri on 10/18/2011 9:26:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"We have one of the HIGHEST corporate tax rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_..."

Do you have anything a bit more recent? Considering Bush had a nice little habit of lowering taxes and whatnot?

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3746,en_2649_345...
http://mercatus.org/publication/corporate-income-t...
http://businessroundtable.org/blog/on-corporate-ta...
(The last one has a historical chart which should answer your Bush question.)

The problem is larger multinational corporations are able to avoid a lot of the taxes by offshoring income (the high U.S. tax rate means they do everything they can to assign the income to a different country) and using obscure tax loopholes. It's small businesses which end up bearing the brunt of the high tax rate. In other words, those multinational corporations have taken hatred directed at them for avoiding taxes, and turned it into a high corporate tax rate which mainly hits the small businesses trying to compete against them.

Also, you may see some sites saying the U.S. corporate taxes are a smaller percentage of GDP than other countries. This ignores that taxes overall in the U.S. are a smaller percentage of GDP than in other more socialist countries. Taxes in the U.S. overall are about 25%-30% of GDP. European countries tend to be around 35%-40% of GDP. If you compensate for this and look at corporate taxes as percent of government tax revenue, the U.S. ends up about average, maybe slightly less.

Lower the corporate tax rate, but also close the loopholes. This should get multinational corporations to assign more of their income to the U.S., make it harder to avoid taxes, and help level the playing field with small businesses. You should see corporate tax revenue increase, economic activity increase, and improved competitiveness. Win/win/win. The companies/lobbyists paying for all the tax loopholes, and foreign countries which corporations use to report income are the only ones winning right now.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're way better with words then I am. I support what you're proposing here. I wouldn't mind a slightly lower corporate tax, if everyone played fair, which companies with money don't do...


RE: Waste is still waste.
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 11:27:49 AM , Rating: 2
The saddest part is that Cain, though wrong on the numbers, has the right idea: Lower the rate, and remove all deductions. He screws up by implementing a flat tax though...

FYI: The reason a Flat Tax does NOT work is simple: You would be increasing the tax rate on the poorest americans, puting more of them on government assistance, which costs more then whatever you collect via taxation in the first place. The lower and middle classes drive economic activity, and you want as much money in their pockets to spend as possible.

Thats also why the Stimulus and other economic policies have failed thus far: They focus on the Supply side: IE coorporations, rather then directly giving aid to the populace. A Federal Work Program would have ended this recession by now...

Fixing the tax code is simple: Lower all rates by 10-15%, and remove all deductions. Income gets taxed at the same rate, regardless of source [IE: INVESTMENTS].


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Again. Fairtax. A national sales tax that EVERYONE pays regardless of how they make their money. Certain items like groceries are exempt. No deductions. No tax returns. No IRS(or at least very little of one).

The poor aren't taxed because they're only buying what they need. But they also don't get thousands of dollars in other people's money. This also takes care of the problem of taxing those who earn their incomes illegally.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and I'm against corporations having negative tax liabilities. Funny though that one of the biggest companies to have a negative tax liability (GE) is so closely entwined with the Obama administration, they might as well become part of the Democrat party.

Crony capitalism at its finest. But you never hear the Democrats complaining about GE not paying taxes for some reason...hmmm....I wonder why....


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 10:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
You just heard one complain, so you can't say "never". You need to get out more bud.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're a terrible poster, a republican shrill, and an awful person. Educate yourself instead of just repeating talking points please.


Anyone that backs a republican is a traitor to their own race: humanity. I can't find one reason why an average person would vote for any republican. 99% of these idiot posters wouldn't even benefit from the tax schemes the party is trying to continue to push that is ruining our country.

The only thing I can see is they are mad at others for whatever reason, and by voting republican, they can exact some sort of revenge. I guess just like the bible thought them, right?


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Waste is still waste.
By bupkus on 10/18/2011 3:43:49 AM , Rating: 1
Since when does a large part of the population depend on the rest to support them? It's the very rich who make their money off the labors of the many. The billionaires in China make their fortunes off the cheap labor of billions of poor Chinese, made poor by the evil of their government.

Both of our political parties are guilty of screwing up. But because they are so adversarial they must win battles and not be seen to compromise. They're paychecks come mostly from special interests. The Republicans seem completely in the pockets of big business and the Dems have been fighting to find some balance for the unrepresented. If Republicans gave a shit about the middle class... most Republicans seem from privileged families with a history of old money.
Could you even imagine George W. becoming President if his daddy wasn't first? We have some really intelligent people in this country but most just aren't connected.
I agree with that other poster---until we have campaign finance reform we are fucked.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 11:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
How DARE you use logic to support your argument! Pointing out that it's the rich who gets rich by blood, sweat and tears...mostly others...


RE: Waste is still waste.
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Half of America has no or a negative tax liability. That is them being supported by the rest who do. And of the half that does pay taxes, 65% of those taxes are paid by 20% of those people. Yet you people demonize them as not paying enough. I guess in your world they should pay 100% of the taxes and everyone else should get off scott free (I would be included in this and I don't want it).

Your hatred is of people who work harder than you. Pure and simple. You have every opportunity to work hard and become one of the wealthy. You are only held back by yourselves. But you'll do everything you can to blame others. Maybe you don't want to work that hard or have that much responsibility and are fine with not having as much money. But don't demonize those who do and earn a lot.

Unlike you I don't blame people who want to make a lot of money. Or CEOs who do a crappy job. Bad CEOs come as a result of a bad Board of Directors. If you don't like a company though and how it operates, don't spend your money with them. This applies to anything. I don't like Apple and their business practices, so I don't buy Apple products. Best Buy recently pissed me off to the point to where I won't do business with them, so I don't.

That is the beauty of a capitalist system. Piss off enough free thinking people who can decide not to do business with you, and you fail. You morons who say corporations like Verizon are too big to take down are just unwilling to make some small sacrifice like not having a cell phone in order to make your message heard. Instead you depend on liberal politicians to punish these companies for you by trying to make them do what you want, which the government has no power to do.


RE: Waste is still waste.
By cruisin3style on 10/18/2011 3:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
yeah...the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates


RE: Waste is still waste.
By MrBlastman on 10/18/2011 2:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
I call BS. Technologies such as this are critically important for our fighter aircraft. The Russians have had a Helmet Mounted Sight for years and their off-aspect acquisition and launch capabilites of the AA-11 Archer IR-Guided AAM are deadly. The F-35 needs something like this to give it a chance.

However, as tax-dollars are on the line, they could in the interim outfit it with the JHMCS system (another helmet mounted sight for US Warplanes) available NOW. The F-15, F-16 and F-22 are able to use this.

http://www.ausairpower.net/hmd-technology.html

It is quite useful and powerful in its own right. Try it out yourself inside of Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.32 community mod (as real as it gets for a civilian), just released in September. They have real USAF pilots working with them on the project.

http://www.benchmarksims.org

Track IR or similar head tracking software is recommended along with HOTAS/Pedals.

Sure, it's not the real deal, but it is a pretty darned accurate representation of it and how it works.


By croc on 10/18/2011 7:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
'Merkan company tries and fails to make some high tech kit. Brits step in and save the day. 'Merkans start arguing and fighting amongst themselves over which political party is for what, Brits laugh all of the way to the bank.

That is all




Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Weren't told to be*


RE: Pfft
By lightfoot on 10/17/2011 4:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem is people that don't know the difference between Million, Billion and Trillion.

So what if several million have been spent on a failed helmet design?

Obama blew half a BILLION on a failed solar company.

And we spend TRILLIONS giving Medicare and Social Security benefits to people who DON'T NEED them. Why do retired millionares get their healthcare benefits subsidized by the government when the working poor can't afford even basic health services? MEDICARE is the single biggest problem with waste in government. Not this helmet.


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 7:52:31 PM , Rating: 1
"The real problem is people that don't know the difference between Million, Billion and Trillion."

You have to be literally retarded not to...

"So what if several million have been spent on a failed helmet design?"

Eh, couple million, what of it? It's nothing...save for some nice aide from FEMA, or money that could be spent in better ways that doesn't involve new ways to kill brown people...

"Obama blew half a BILLION on a failed solar company."

According to you, that's ok! It's only several million!!!!11!!

Just for the record, him blowing that half billion on that Solar Company is unacceptable and people should get pissed about it. Wasted money that could be better used by people who /need it/ should get people in a tissy, regardless of who's in the white house.

"And we spend TRILLIONS giving Medicare and Social Security benefits to people who DON'T NEED them."

You have a source other then your ass?

A litle basic fact-checking turns this up:

"The 2011 Medicare Trustees report, which takes into account in its projections the anticipated effects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, makes the following points: 1) “In 2010, 47.5 million people were covered by Medicare: 39.6 million aged 65 and older, and 7.9 million disabled … Total benefits paid in 2010 were $516 billion. Income was $486 billion, expenditures were $523 billion, and assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities were $344 billion" (Source: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/...

So according to that, in 2010, Medicare spent about $523 billion. $344 Billion of that wasn't from tax payers, it was from money tghe program has invested already.

"Why do retired millionares get their healthcare benefits subsidized by the government when the working poor can't afford even basic health services."

Because they paid into it and are entitled to it? The working poor not affording healthcare is a problem, and the healthcare system needs overhauling (I support a Single payer system personally, akin to Medicare for all). I personally think Medicare should subsidize /less/ then it does for the rich, kind of like how taxation (is supposed to) work.

"MEDICARE is the single biggest problem with waste in government. Not this helmet."

I have to disagree with you. The defensive budget is just insane and needs some slimming. Medicare at least helps people here in the states, and employs a lot of people, more then this helmet does.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
What Occupy Wall Street protest are you attending currently?

This "failed" helmet design is because it didn't work as planned. Like many technological innovations. Far different from a company that even the government knew was going to fail when the money was given, but it was given anyway because it furthered an agenda. Not that I expect someone with your attitude to understand that.

And way to pull the "kill brown people" card. Doesn't get old at all.

And you're basically admitting that as it exists, Medicare is doomed to fail since is paying out more in benefits than it is bringing in and that is only expected to get worse. Even the government is saying key elements of Obamacare are unsustainable now. Nevermind that there is no money in said "trust", its all just treasury bonds. Which is akin to a paper game (I believe the call it a ponzie scheme) since its just moving paper from one place to another to try to show some semblance of solvency. Any money paid back into the trust by cashing in those securities is just more borrowed money from another source.

Just keep milking that gravy train for all its worth. It'll never collapse right? I'm sure Greece thought the same thing.

And jee a liberal who wants a single payer system. Who'da thunk it.


RE: Pfft
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 11:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
As far as the medical system goes: I'm all for the SCOTUS to repeal the so-called "Obamacare" bill, simply because it leaves the public option as the only option left if you want to reform the system. Simply offer a basic coverage scheme, run AT COST [at cost is always cheaper then for profit]. If insurance companies want to offer more up-scale programs for those with more money, thats fine. But a at-cost basic plan would drastically reduce medical costs overall [since its the poorest that drive up costs, due to their inability to pay for preventive care].

Also: A public option would basically remove the need for medicare/medicade/tricare, and every other government-run healthcare program. You could probably shave a few hundred Billion off the budget with the savings found there...


RE: Pfft
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you were protesting at your local Exxon gas station when they got their multi-billion dollar welfare check this year.

Does that hurt your head? Having people in need barely get by on a government check? Aw, instead you want the to curl up and die? Awwww, the thought brings tears to my eyes.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
Another on crack.

Oil companies get the same deductions as every other corporation. It is illegal to tax one company differently than another.

And they're not paying taxes?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/top-3-us-oil-compa...

They may not pay all their taxes here. But they pay them. They go where they pay the least taxes. As any smart business does if they can. The answer is to encourage them to pay as much taxes as they can here. Not threaten them with more taxes which only encourages them to move more profits overseas.

You know what doesn't help oil companies pay taxes? When some try to force them out of business in the US by not letting them drill for oil in the Gulf. We could add tens of thousands of jobs by opening new refineries here in the states. Which would also lower gas prices since we wouldn't have to import so much refined fuel as we do now due to inadequate refining capacity. Importing refined fuel is far more expensive than importing raw crude. Because it had to be shipped somewhere else first, be refined, and then shipped to us.


RE: Pfft
By sigmatau on 10/18/2011 10:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, if I'm on crack, then you are a crack whore.

If it's ok for corporations to hide their money in other countries it's ok for people to hide all their money in Swiss bank accounts.

That's just brilliant!

Oh, and your link is not biased at all. LOL!!!! They paid taxes, but made hundreds of billions of dollars. The article writer somehow omitted what was their tax rate. Sorry buddy, but these companies got you wrapped around their pinky. You actualy defend this filth?


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 10:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The top three oil companies in the United States are ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. According to the SEC filings of those companies, as analyzed by Forbes, ExxonMobil’s pretax income in 2010 was $52 billion, from which it paid $21.6 billion in income taxes worldwide, leaving a net income of $30.5 billion. That equals a tax rate of 45 percent, which is 10 percent above the statutory corporate rate of 35 percent.

ConocoPhillips earned $19.8 billion in pretax income in 2010 and it paid $8.3 billion in taxes, leaving $11.4 billion in income. That equals a tax rate of 42 percent. Chevron made $32 billion and then paid $12.9 billion in income taxes, leaving a net income of $19.1 billion, which equals a tax rate of 40 percent.

ExxonMobil’s total tax bill, worldwide, was $89 billion in 2010, comprised mostly of sales and excise taxes. ConocoPhillips, for comparison, paid an additional $16.8 billion in “other taxes” beyond its income taxes, reported Forbes, and Chevron paid an additional $18.2 billion in “other taxes” in 2010.


Did you even read the article?

Why do oil companies make billions? Because they sell INCREDIBLY large volumes of a product. I am not going to hate a company because they sell a product the entire world desires.

But just keep up that "you're owned by the oil companies" bit. Never gets old. Much less makes an effective argument.


RE: Pfft
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 11:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
You know, we could double coorporate profits if we removed all regulations. That doesn't mean its a good idea though...

As far as oil goes, its a resource that frankly, we should be off within the next 20 years or so. Peak oil is comming, and there simply isn't enough oil to sustain current usage levels. Even if you had an infinite source, you are still limited by how much you can drill and refine per day.

The US government developed hydrogen fuel cells back in the late 60's. They got us to the moon and back. O2 + H2 = H20 + Power. The only reason we haven't moved on yet [and still cling to oil based solutions, IE Hybrids] is because no oil company would ever finance the structual changes necessary to set up the infrastructure. So, the biggest change we will get is plug-in, which only hides the problem for a little while longer.

Finally, heres an idea for you: Why drill up all our oil while its still relativly cheap? I say, wait for peak oil to hit, then sell all our oil at significantly higher then market value to foreign countries. Of course, this assumes that we ourselves took the steps necessary to ensure we won't need that excess oil...[you see how some long term thinking can be used to make a boatload of money?]

Worst case, if the US is threated by default, we could always sell Alaska [and by extension, its oil reserves] to China. Considering we only paid $10 Million, I'd say we come out ahead on that deal.


RE: Pfft
By Bad-Karma on 10/17/2011 5:10:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Meanwhile at home, people are complaining and crying about people on welfare needing to survive, crying about how their Tax Dollars are being wasted on human scum, yet think nothing of $millions being wasted on Tech we don't need, making a few people VERY VERY rich.


Do you even realize how many people are employed in the process of making these helmets. Odds are that 500-1000+ people are employed making everything from the base materials to the software? Remember, that if it doesn't grow on the surface of the earth, it has to be mined from under it.

If your "welfare" recipient would like to partake of part of this windfall contract, then I suggest they seek out the training needed in order to fill the job requirements. But I'm thinking a good majority of them won't.


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Pfft
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2011 8:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
So the military just wants to kill "brown" people, costs too much, and anyone who has a problem with Welfare is racist. That about sum it up?

I would call you a misguided Liberal but that just seems redundant given your arguments...


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 9:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Aww, how sweet of you, putting words in my mouth:) I don't think I mentioned racism /anywhere/, and I didn't say the military WANTS to kill brown people.

Also, I'd rather be called a progressive, not a liberal.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:52:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, I'd rather be called a progressive, not a liberal.


You can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. There is no difference.


RE: Pfft
By bupkus on 10/18/2011 4:41:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. There is no difference.


BTW, try to learn what liberal means. You use it too often to be completely oblivious to its meaning.
Try these links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ&feature...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6IES5BgQkg&feature...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaR5JRG0lo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puusxNAkoe4


RE: Pfft
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 11:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ok I don't know if you're an American, but here we don't adhere to the "classical" definition of Liberalism and Progressive. In American parlance, there's no difference between a Liberal and a Progressive, they are just different terms for the same belief system.

Those links.. I mean, did you even look at them? The "Classical Liberal" era ENDED in 1914 according to the video. Hello? 1914!

I really don't understand why you think this history lesson is relevant to the discussion at hand. It's one thing putting up links that support your argument, it's another thing altogether when you don't even HAVE an argument and put up irrelevant links so you can look smart. Now you look like a fool.


RE: Pfft
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 12:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...no. There is a significant difference between a liberal and a progressive. But since conservatives view both as socalists, they fail to see the often significant differences between the two.


RE: Pfft
By Reclaimer77 on 10/18/2011 12:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
They are leaves of the same tree. We can quibble on details, but at the end of the day...

But since I'm such a big idiot, why don't you lay out these differences for me? I'm all ears.

p.s. I haven't used the world 'socialist' here, come on now.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
Because both espouse the same ideals today. Progressive is just the term liberals adopted to try and sound smarter.

Yes in the past liberal meant something else. But as liberals/progressives prove time and again, they don't acknowledge that language over time means different things. Hence why they try to say the general welfare clause means they can give unlimited benefits to those they deem to deserve them.


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 10:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Because both espouse the same ideals today. Progressive is just the term liberals adopted to try and sound smarter."

Nope.

Liberals have time and time again shown to move more to the center of the political tree. Modern day Liberals are like the republicans of Yesteryear.

Progressives are for the progress of the people of this nation, not the status quo as many liberals/conservatives are.


RE: Pfft
By lightfoot on 10/18/2011 10:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're just redefining common terms to suit your own agenda. You're basically saying that "liberals" aren't extreme enough for you so you need to find a new term. You've choosen "Progressive."

"Extremist" is probably the most accurate, but you can call yourself what ever you want.

Just because some conservatives are on the extreme fringe doesn't make you better just because you are extreme in the opposite direction.

Reality is somewhere in the middle, but extremists such as yourself push people away from, and not toward, your cause.


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 8:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
How cute, resorting to swearing to get your point across.

The amount of vitriol you display is just amazing. You might want to attend some anger management classes


RE: Pfft
By sigmatau on 10/17/2011 10:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Recliamer introduces race in almost every topic he can. He must have no non-white friends. His mother must have been raped by a big black d...


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:53:04 PM , Rating: 1
Except he didn't mention race.


RE: Pfft
By sigmatau on 10/18/2011 10:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the military just wants to kill "brown" people, costs too much, and anyone who has a problem with Welfare is racist.


Typical Republican answer. Just lie.


RE: Pfft
By lightfoot on 10/18/2011 12:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Where Reclaimer was directly quoting Dradien from a seperate thread.

quote:
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 7:52:31 PM


Dradien was the first to play the race card, in response to my post that had nothing to do with race.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Don't point out the obvious. They're too simple minded.


RE: Pfft
By Bad-Karma on 10/17/2011 9:39:56 PM , Rating: 3
There are plenty of available jobs to be had. In fact my organization has been trying to fill over 700 jobs for the last 3 years. Most of them start at $90K-$150K/year. But none of them are 'entry level" jobs. You need at least a BS in engineering or 10 years of experience in any of the intelligence career fields.

Reading the help wanted adds shows several pages of jobs each week just here in local Dayton. A quick search around the internet yields tens of thousands more throughout the USA.

What your whining about is that you want someone to hand out jobs at a moderate income without putting in the time and effort working their way up the ladder. It doesn't work like that kid.

Take away someone's access to free money, aka "welfare", and when they start going hungry you'll see how many get off their butt and look for work.


RE: Pfft
By Dradien on 10/17/2011 9:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
"There are plenty of available jobs to be had. In fact my organization has been trying to fill over 700 jobs for the last 3 years. Most of them start at $90K-$150K/year. But none of them are 'entry level" jobs. You need at least a BS in engineering or 10 years of experience in any of the intelligence career fields."

And there is your problem. Education has been on a chopping block for a while, and lets be realistic here, not everyone has the means or intelligence to get a BS in engineering.

Also, your organization doesn't represent the nation as a whole. Anecdotal evidence doesn't equal facts.

"Reading the help wanted adds shows several pages of jobs each week just here in local Dayton. A quick search around the internet yields tens of thousands more throughout the USA."

Ahh yea, the magical jobs people just come in and get with no problem. Funds to get the jobs, transportation, education, mobilty, intelligence...none on this matters. Unemployment is just some magical number people come up with...for what? Jobs are scarce. If a company has 700+ jobs avilable for three years that offer $90k+ a year to start, you seriously think people see that number and say "Well Gee Wiz bang, I'd rather suffer on my paltry sum each month with foodstamps, and limited time on TANF at a terribly low rate!"

Get real dude.

"What your whining about is that you want someone to hand out jobs at a moderate income without putting in the time and effort working their way up the ladder. It doesn't work like that kid."

Where did I say I wanted people to hand out jobs? No where, stop putting words in my mouth, kid.

"Take away someone's access to free money, aka "welfare", and when they start going hungry you'll see how many get off their butt and look for work."

You are the worst kind of human being, you know that? Do you have any hard facts, not rumors and water cooler crap, that people are happy and perfectly content to live on welfare? Actual HARD numbers. I don't know a single person that would rather live on paltry sum welfare nets you over even minimum wage.

What company do you work for? What do you want to bet that they get welfare from the government, in the forms of Tax rebates/breaks? I can you get at least some. Stop being a hypocrite bud, and look at the world around you, and stop living in your goddamn walled garden.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 11:00:03 PM , Rating: 1
To say that people can't afford an education in this country is absurd. I paid for my own schooling. And I have the $60,000 in student loan debt to prove it. You may not get it for free, but you can afford an education. It just takes hard work and yes, some debt at times.


RE: Pfft
By Bad-Karma on 10/18/2011 5:05:36 PM , Rating: 3
You need to call your physician, your meds are a bit to high.

quote:
And there is your problem. Education has been on a chopping block for a while, and lets be realistic here, not everyone has the means or intelligence to get a BS in engineering.


Plenty of ditches still need to be dug and at least it's an honest days work.

quote:
If a company has 700+ jobs avilable for three years that offer $90k+ a year to start, you seriously think people see that number and say "Well Gee Wiz bang, I'd rather suffer on my paltry sum each month with foodstamps, and limited time on TANF at a terribly low rate!"


If you don't meet our qualifications for our level of jobs then your resume isn't even accepted.

Every years or so, almost like clockwork, the city councils in the area attempt to sue our org for either; not hiring enough people from the local towns; not having a diverse enough workforce; or want to levy a tax on our annual budget.

1.) As military bases around the country get closed or re-aligned we are constantly acquiring new missions (the more missions, the more manpower needed. Right now many are critically understaffed.) The level of job applicant rarely exists in the local area. We then have to spend large sums of money seeking out applicants from around the US and pay to move them into the local area.

2.) Not having a diverse enough workforce: What a joke, We're desperate for manpower but If you don't have the qualifications, don't bother applying (we can't lower out standards just to appease).

3.) This is a federal agency, local governments have no right to tax it, But large chunks of Dayton and the surrounding towns are decrepit welfare communities, so they think we somehow owe it to them.

quote:
You are the worst kind of human being, you know that? Do you have any hard facts,


I've put in 42 years serving in the defense of our country and have the scars to prove it. I've endured many hardships and long separations from my family. What the hell have you ever done but whine about how hard and unfair life is?

Let's take it a step further just to piss you off,

I don't pay into Social security, never have and never will. I don't like the fact that congress continually raids the accounts and then squanders it away on social programs. I don't trust that it will be there when I might need it so I keep my own retirement plans well away from the governments reach.

There are no state or federal withholding on my paycheck, I set the same amount aside and pocket the accrued interest from it, not the government. When it comes tax time I max out donations to science and research charities as write offs and simply pay the remaining balance, just so the government can't take it and then give that money to people who didn't earn it and certainly don't deserve it.

I'm a Alaska resident employed on federal property located in Ohio. I won't change my state of residency just so the state of Ohio and the local cities can't take the pay that I earned and waste it on people who didn't.

How's that sit with your whiny liberal sensibilities.

quote:
No where, stop putting words in my mouth, kid.


I'm 60, I'm a retired USAF O-6 at 22 years and will be retiring a second time from Government service in just under 2 years at SES pay grades. I've served in battles all over the globe so don't call me "kid", you childish moron.


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2011 10:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there are a lot of people not taking jobs who could. Why? Because they're making more on unemployment than they would working or the same so why bother to go to work? That's what happens when you have over 99 weeks of unemployment at taxpayers expense. Nearly two damn years.


RE: Pfft
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 12:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I keep hearing that statement, and I keep asking people to provide proof, and so far, none have. Especially since to obtain unemployment, you actually have to be looking for a job.

Secondly, Unemployment insurance is actually one of the more proven ways to stimulate the economy, which makes sense, as its one of the few programs that actually allows the consumer to spend, which is how you end recessions. Personally, I'd prefer the even more effective federal work program, but theres no way that would ever pass Congress, regardless of how well it would work...


RE: Pfft
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2011 12:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm NOT against basic unemployment insurance run and funded by the states. I AM against the federal government keeping people on unemployment for periods of almost two years.


RE: Pfft
By OS on 10/17/2011 5:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
social programs are a much larger portion of the federal budget than defense.


RE: Pfft
By gamerk2 on 10/18/2011 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, they aren't. They both account for ~20% of the total budget. If you don't believe me, I'd be more then happy to link you to the FY 2010 budget as proof. Defense related spending is somewhere in the $800 Billion/year region, which is frankly far too high a level. Defense needs a 33% cut.

*Works in defense.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki