backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by Xietsu.. on May 26 at 11:21 PM


Sarcos Inc. employee Rex Jameson is the Sarcos Suit's test pilot. With the suit he can bench press 500 lbs, head a soccer ball, climb stairs, and punch (pulverize) a punching bag.  (Source: AP)
Real life technologies mimics the comic books with breakthroughs in human exoskeletons.

The summer's hottest blockbuster thus far has been Iron Man -- not even the runaway hit Grand Theft Auto IV could slow it down.  The movie centers around a super hero using a high tech suit to perform heroic feats no ordinary man could.  What's intriguing is just how close real life technology is to creating a slightly less insanely overpowered "Iron Man" suit.

In the first entry of a two part series, this article examines the developments in exoskeleton technology from an enterprising startup recently acquired by a major defense contractor.  The exoskeleton starts with a simple concept -- while large war machines like tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) are mighty weapons, they lack the maneuverability of ground soldiers and provide a large target.  However, ground soldiers lack the strength to carry sufficient stopping power to take on heavy vehicles.

Sarcos Inc. has taken this concept and run with it, producing a mature exoskeleton design that may just possibly lead to the first real life "Iron Man" suit.  Sarcos comes from a decidedly non-militaristic background of designing robots for "Jurassic Park" rides at the Universal Studios theme park.  However, the contractor quickly morphed into a military contractor embarking on an exciting new project -- the Sarcos Suit.

While athletic, Sarcos engineer Rex Jameson, standing at 5'11" is no superman.  While he can press a modest 200 lbs on a good day, his strength is by no means superhuman.  Until he puts on the Sarcos Suit that is.  Gripping the claw-like hand guides of the exoskeleton, Jameson recently ripped off dozens of 500 lb presses at a recent demonstration of the suit.

The stunned audience eventually got bored, because Jameson just wasn't stopping, it was far too easy.  Says Jameson, "Everyone gets bored much more quickly than I get tired."

The experience proved an exciting demo of the 150 lb suit's potential to give the soldier of the future superpowers.  The U.S. Army, which is funding Sarcos, hopes that the technology will be used on the battlefield.  It has given Sarcos a $10 million, two-year contract to develop the suit.  Initial applications will be off the battlefield and will include heavy lifting and cargo operations.

The suit works on a basic level by detecting the user's every movement and amplifying it.  The suit currently has a rather impressive 30 minute battery life, and can operate indefinitely tethered to a power cord.  Sarcos hopes to extend the battery life so that the suit can operate for longer periods of time on the battlefield.  They also hope to bring down the cost, which is currently rather high. 

Stephen Jacobsen, chief designer of the Sarcos suit, says that human muscle movement amplification, a frequent comic fantasy, has become a reality.  He states, "Everybody likes the idea of being a superhero, and this is all about expanding the capabilities of a human."

While the army started exoskeleton research as early as 1995, the Sarcos suit is the first major success to date.  The suit so impressed Waltham, Massachusetts-based defense contracting giant Raytheon, that it bought Sarcos Inc. this past November.

Jack Obusek, a former colonel now employed in the Army's Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, foresees the suits initially providing invaluable support.  From loading heavy ammo crates, to fixing tanks in the battlefield that would otherwise have to be scrapped to prevent American tank from falling into enemy hands, the potential is enormous he feels.

Jacobsen adds that the technology may also serve home-front uses, helping construction workers build, helping firemen carry gear inside burning houses, and helping disabled people move more freely.  Jacobsen states, "We see the value being realized when these suits can be built in great numbers for both military and commercial uses, and they start coming down in cost to within the range of the price of a small car."

While Jacobsen declines to estimate an exact price for the mass-produced version of the suit, the "price of a small car" comment seems exciting indeed.  However, certainly such a possibility would raise questions of restrictions, as having a host of super-power endowed citizens might lead to dangerous possibilities.

Meanwhile Sarcos is concentrating on the power issue.  While noisy, Sarcos says a gas engine is one possibility.  A small gas engine could fit inside the suits backpack, they say.  Obusek states, "The power issue is probably the No. 1 challenge standing in the way of getting this thing in the field."

Obusek says that while fine-tuning is still needed, the good news is Sarcos seems to have overcome the challenge of amplifying muscle movements by pairing super-fast microprocessors to detect joint movement with powerful mechanics.  The system processes its data in a central computer and then actuates powerful hydraulic valves, which mimics the human body's tendons in a natural, but powered up movement.

The suit lags slightly behind human response times.  Obusek states, "With all the previous attempts at this technology, there has been a slight lag time between the intent of the human, and the actual movement of the machine."

In a demonstration, Jameson was able to bounce a soccer ball off his helmeted head, punch a punching bag (not as fast as a boxer, but at a reasonable pace), and slowly ascend a flight of stairs.

Jameson says the suit takes a bit of getting used to. He states, "It feels less agile than it is.  Because of the way the control laws work, it's ever so slightly slower than I am. And because we are so in tune with our bodies' responses, this tiny delay initially made me tense." 

However, he quickly adapted and has discovered that the human body uses the suit in unforeseen ways.  He explains, "I can regain my balance naturally after stumbling -- something I discovered completely by accident.  It takes no special training, beyond learning to relax and trust the robot."

While the suit can't fly, it could certainly lug some impressive firepower on the battlefield someday with a few modifications.  As to the flying, stay tuned for part two of making a real life "Iron Man".



Comments     Threshold


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

Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
as having a host of super-power endowed citizens might lead to dangerous possibilities
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the 2nd amendment either?

It's funny how people inherantly are comfortable with government (the single entity with a monopoly on the legal use of deadly force) having certain technology and not individuals.




RE: Bill of Rights?
By Misty Dingos on 5/16/2008 1:49:12 PM , Rating: 5
Fear of an over arching government has been replaced by a paranoid fear of your next door neighbor.

I am not sure which of those is sadder.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By michal1980 on 5/16/2008 1:54:33 PM , Rating: 5
why not fear both?

oh and can I get a suit :-p


RE: Bill of Rights?
By tastyratz on 5/16/2008 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
there's a waiting period


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Ryanman on 5/17/2008 7:09:48 PM , Rating: 4
because we all know that most gun related deaths are attributed to men shooting their cheating wives, as opposed to gang violence using stolen weapons : D


RE: Bill of Rights?
By i3arracuda on 5/16/2008 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fear of an over arching government has been replaced by a paranoid fear of your next door neighbor.


My next door neighbor can't control how I live.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Carl B on 5/16/2008 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 5
But he could kill you.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kromis on 5/16/2008 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, that is the most impressive reply I have read today


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Myg on 5/16/2008 3:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
If he had to kill you, that means he couldn't control you. To allow someone to defeat you as a person can be more damaging to your soul/being and those around you then being killed outright.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Parhel on 5/16/2008 3:09:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If he had to kill you, that means he couldn't control you.


. . . or he could just be crazy.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By sinful on 5/17/2008 2:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
In which case he just might kill you with his bare hands, since people certainly don't need weapons to kill each other....
(it just helps)


RE: Bill of Rights?
By rcc on 5/16/2008 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 3
He that can destroy a thing, controls it.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By HVAC on 5/20/2008 10:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong.

Control implies an imposition of will strong enough to overcome a target's resistance to said will. Proof of control is in target's behavior when no immediate sense of danger or retribution is detectable.

Destruction of a target can occur without overcoming target's resistance to will.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Chernobyl68 on 5/16/2008 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, but I'd be dead, and not much concerned that my soul was in good shape...


RE: Bill of Rights?
By i3arracuda on 5/16/2008 3:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But he could kill you.


So could any idiot with a gun.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/16/2008 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 5
Or a knife. Or a baseball bat...or even just his fists.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Schrag4 on 5/16/2008 4:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. So we ban guns and rely on the police and military to keep us safe from people with guns. Maybe we should create an arm of the government that will come to our house and cut our steaks for us. I guess we really need frying pans, so I'm ok with a 5 day waiting period and a backround check for those.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 4:33:13 PM , Rating: 5
Don't forget sharpened pencils. I've always had a very rational paranoia about sharpened pencils. Or perhaps the pencil-sharpeners themselves

"Pencils don't kill people... pencil-sharpeners do." Or is it the trees from which pencils are made? Ooooh, I know... it's the CO2 taken in by the trees from which pencils are made! Finally, the answer as to why CO2 is bad.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By TimberJon on 5/16/2008 5:44:11 PM , Rating: 5
BBUUUZZZZ! ::John Spartan, you have been fined 500 credits for...::


RE: Bill of Rights?
By gamefoo21 on 5/18/2008 4:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome, the best comic book movie ever.

Thanks for posting that.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By HVAC on 5/20/2008 10:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
How DO you use the three shells ... ?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By freaqie on 5/17/2008 4:34:28 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah. So we ban guns and rely on the police and military to keep us safe from people with guns.

well yeah..
it works for the rest of the world
where I live ( europe) we have a lot less crime.
and the crime that does take place is usually less serious.
and the police is very rarely threatened with firearms.

so criminals heve less guns ( some do, but far fewer) and the rest of people do not have acces to them either, so in a rage do not have the ability to shoot someone.

so yeah, leave the guns to the police and state,
it is sufficient


RE: Bill of Rights?
By A5un on 5/17/2008 5:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
That is exactly what I was thinking...

Though I will acknowledge that guns themselves aren't the problem, banning of guns is certainly one method that have worked well for other places.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/17/2008 10:16:39 AM , Rating: 4
There are important reasons why when the American founders setup the first truly free nation in existence, they quickly amended the constitution to very explicitly define the most fundamental rights of its citizens in defense of the inherent corruptness of all governments... which included the right to gun ownership.

Even with this explicitness in the constitution, the US government perpetually tries to redefine and restrict this right. And the highly privileged citizenry often forgets why history might be important in discerning its usefulness.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Strunf on 5/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bill of Rights?
By DRMichael on 5/18/2008 11:47:20 AM , Rating: 5
U.S. Constitution Ratification: 1788

Number of years since agreement: 220

Someone claiming that it's 300 years old while using the word “Dude”: Priceless

There are some things ignorance can’t buy. For everything else there’s education.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Strunf on 5/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/19/2008 2:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly a perfect document, the US constitution is relavant because it distilled into words a world-wide revolution of personal economic and political freedom that has been mimicked by many countries since then.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Strunf on 5/20/2008 6:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
If it matters that much for the people then I wonder why it keeps getting violated now and then by your own government without much of fuzz...


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Xietsu on 5/26/2008 11:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
Those born into liberty feel it is nothing but an asset to placate their leisure. I am one of those. Most all who read here are one of those. Who is it that is ready to ensure corruption doesn't compromise our communities, but those already in power. I find it almost appalling that our Supreme Court is even trying a case that seeks to limit firearms to law enforcement and not the legal citizen.

People rebel and incite insurrection under oppression. In the current scheme of things, legislative lingo and convoluted concepts conceal the topics that matter from ever reaching the masses, those that ought be upset with many ongoings. Those in the Southern and Central Americas, just within decades of late have they seen positive political reform. They are activists by the hundreds of thousands, and some of the only ones that have the American spirit in any meaningful portion of population.

And when I mention "the American spirit", I speak on terms of what it was in its envisioning -- the will and discipline to challenge the constructs that confound our founding framework, structures that impede an instillation of equal opportunity, representation of individuals, or privilege with no partisanships. But as it is, the notion of nonpartisan rights reformation is, seemingly and remorsefully, null.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By iNGEN on 5/17/2008 2:09:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
where I live ( europe) we have a lot less crime.
and the crime that does take place is usually less serious.


That is not accurate. The rates for the three major violent crimes (rape, battery, murder) are higher per capita in Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain than they are in the United States.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By JustTom on 5/18/2008 1:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The rates for the three major violent crimes (rape, battery, murder) are higher per capita in Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain than they are in the United States.


Wrong. The United States has higher per capita crime rates than those European nations in just about every category you could imagine.

http://tinyurl.com/r7het


RE: Bill of Rights?
By nofranchise on 5/19/2008 4:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
Actually gun induced homicide is even more fun:

http://tinyurl.com/34hosl

Right up there with Zimbabwe and Colombia. Nice work America.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By The Irish Patient on 5/19/2008 12:02:04 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked the site for further amusement.

Let's see. According to this site, Australia and Canada have almost the highest numbers of rapes per capita of all the nations of the world. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has the lowest rate for any of the listed countries, and the number of rapes per capita is so low in Haiti, Uganda, Zaire, Sudan, or Ethiopia that these countries don't even make the list.

It's a proven fact: life is safe, secure and crime free in Haiti.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/19/2008 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Gun "homicide" statistics often include suicides. Since guns are more available in the US, this increaases the rate for "gun related deaths" even thought the suicide rate is often lower in the US than those countries it is compared against.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Strunf on 5/20/2008 6:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
lmao I honestly didn't know that a suicide was now a crime, if I kill myself what do I risk ?...


RE: Bill of Rights?
By mattclary on 5/17/2008 10:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
A lot less likely if you are armed.

When was the last time you heard a story of police preventing a murder? ;)


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Strunf on 5/18/2008 7:22:50 AM , Rating: 1
If you're armed and he's armed he just have to wait that you sleep and bang... as easy as if you weren't armed at all.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By mattclary on 5/18/2008 9:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
In that case, especially if he is that determined, I think him having a gun is beside the point.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 3:17:42 PM , Rating: 1
Which is more likely, the government raiding my house, or a citizen breaking in and stealing my television etc.?
How about getting shot by a bank robber versus the army shooting me?

We are far more likely to be directly stolen from and attacked by citizens than we are the government. Therefore criminals etc. are a far more immediate threat. The government however, is possibly a more subtle and long term threat. So protect ourselves from the criminal elements in society, but in doing so we have to look at the long term and keep the government in check as well.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By BladeVenom on 5/16/2008 3:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
The most likely source of an unnatural death in the last century was clearly by governments.

Read, Death by Government by R. J. Rummel.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 3
We aren't talking about all governments, or even governments killing other countries citizens. In this context, the discussion is about the US government and US citzens, and I seriously doubt the most likey source of unnatural death for US citizens was the US government.

Now if you blame the US government for all US losses in war, that might make more sense, but I hardly blame the government for our losses in the world wars etc.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 4:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
Bingo. Which is why citizens must be ever-vigilent to sustain the individual freedoms upon which America was built.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 4:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
I would find it hard to believe that this last century was unique in that regard. Again, not only are people more likely to be killed through government action... it's the only entity who can do so legally. It's justifiable to keep this sort of power under a watchful eye.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Donkeyshins on 5/16/2008 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
And here I would have guessed autoerotic asphyxiation...


RE: Bill of Rights?
By JonnyDough on 5/16/2008 4:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
The question is not which is more likely, but why would a citizen break in and stealing your tv in the first place?

Maybe he was sent to Vietnam in the draft and is now crazy?

Maybe he needs money for child support so he doesn't go to jail and get a record, which would make it much harder for him to pay his support in the future.

Maybe his father was sent to jail for protesting, or died in the Gulf War so he grew up running around in gangs and doesn't know any better?

Maybe he owes a judge or politician some money because of a lost bet.

The government has more influence upon our lives than what we realize.

The issue of an army or bank robber shooting you is nullified by the fact that it matters WHAT Army it is, and WHO you are. We kill hundreds of thousands of foreign people on a yearly basis, but rarely do we ask ourselves what we would do if our mighty military was turned against us. When will people learn? It's a simple fact, violence begets one thing. More violence.

By the way, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we've all failed at our posts. The government is NOT in check. WE are supposed to BE the government. Yet, we all talk about it as though it is a separate entity. Hello? America? Why does it feel like I'm the only one that recognizes this sometimes?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 5:29:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why does it feel like I'm the only one that recognizes this sometimes?

Because it's always been a seperate entity. The US is a republic. We elect the politicians, but after the election it's in their hands till the next election. For us to truly be the government, it would have to be an actual full blown democracy. Of course with the size of the country, a true democracy wouldn't work. Nothing would ever get accomplished if the entire nation voted on everything. That said, it is true we haven't been holding our politicians nearly as accountable as we should be. I do what I can when I disagree with the government. I vote and I write my congressman etc. Unfortunately there's just not enough of us doing so.

The government does have a lot of influence on our lives, hence why I mentioned it does but is more subtle in my post. I hardly think it's responsible for causing all criminal activity like your post implies though. People make their own damn choices. If you become a criminal, it's your choice. Stop blaming others for people's own actions.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 6:09:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote>Maybe he needs money for child support so he doesn't go to jail and get a record, which would make it much harder for him to pay his support in the future.
So he chooses to become a criminal, go to jail, and get a record for being a thief instead? Makes a lot of sense.

quote:
Maybe he owes a judge or politician some money because of a lost bet.

He chose to make a bet and lost. His own fault, period.

quote:
Maybe he was sent to Vietnam in the draft and is now crazy?

Mental illness whether genetic or aquired through trauma is bad yes, and I'll give ya that some might not be able to rationally choose whether or not to steal. But come on, how many cases of break-ins are related to this?

quote:
Maybe his father was sent to jail for protesting, or died in the Gulf War so he grew up running around in gangs and doesn't know any better?

There's also many true stories of people growing up in that kind of environment rising up and making a good life for themselves. Again, it's a choice. To say they don't know better is pure rubbish. If was destined and they had no choice, there would be no success stories. Can you honestly believe that these people don't know that it's wrong?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By nofranchise on 5/19/2008 4:52:05 AM , Rating: 1
You clearly know nothing about how a real society works.

Ever heard about social inheritance, the factors of environment in upbringing or the importance of stimuli in upbrining?

People do not choose to become criminals. That choice is made for them, by their parents or other powers outside their control. Their parents probably made those poor decisions, because others before them made poor decisions.

It is simply ignorant - but also very classic - to claim that the more unfortunate in our societies only have themselves to blame.

It is very convenient in a society like the US, to make this assumption. I need not worry about the welfare of my fellow man, it is his own fault if he stumbles. As long as my ass is dry I don't care about anybody else.

If my fellow man tries to rob me, kill me or in any other way ham my way of life, I and my way of life has no influence on the actions and decisions of that individual. He chose to be poor through his actions.

Urgh - why even bother. I already hear the libertarian neoconning imbeciles crawling out of the woodwork...

"Communist, communist, communist! The evil red bastard cares for his fellow man! He thinks of others before money! He wants to pay taxes, to help others break out of their social inheritance! Stone him! Stone him! He is not a true capitalist!"

*sprays himself with anti-republican flame retardant*


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/19/2008 2:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The evil red bastard cares for his fellow man!
It's precisely the opposite that is true. While I don't doubt that some socialists have not been educated enough to actually believe their actions produces the intended consequences, I do know that a brief perusal of history will show that socialist minded policies do the opposite of what you claim.

Intention <> Results

You need to look at results. And it's very clear that the amount of economic freedom enjoyed by citizens of a country is directly proportional to the wealth, well-being and even political freedom enjoyed by the average and poorest of it's citizenry.

You're opposition to evil capitalism is simply an opposition to allowing individuals the freedom to conduct transactions where both parties perceive a benefit.

It's popular to say you care by confiscating and distributing wealth earned by others... but that is not "caring." If you care, do like capitalists have done for the last two hundred years and use your own money to found or fund the charities of your choice, charities that are held resposible to achieve results, not government programs that burden both the recipient and tax-payer.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 6:22:57 AM , Rating: 1
I live and breathe in a European social democratic nation that is one of the world richest. We have extremely limited poverty, very high equality and a tax paid welfare system that works well.

We have very little crime and almost no violent crime.

I was never talking about communism in it's malformed and unsuccessful Bolshevik form.

Economic freedom = good
Capitalist egoism = bad

Combining economic freedom with social responsibility is the the only humane and civilized way of going forward.

This old school capitalism is both stupid and futile in the long run. The masses are waking up and until we get a robot workforce, we cannot all be executives.

Now - the discussion was about social inheritance - not political systems.

How does economic freedom solve these problems? Do you really believe we humans are all so boringly similar, that it is singularly your own fault, if you don't succeed in life? That the goal of getting rich biatch is enough for everyone? To stop being lazy and start working for the Benjamins?

Ack - why even bother. You pure bred capitalists cannot see further than your own dong, wallet and tie anyway.



RE: Bill of Rights?
By nofranchise on 5/20/2008 6:34:35 AM , Rating: 1
Oh I almost forgot.

Greed is an ugly ugly thing.

But I guess you don't think so?

Aah the hypocrisy of most Christian neocons is just hilarious.

How exactly did Jesus feel about rich guys who did not help their fellow man?

Now I am no Christian, but I am pretty sure he wasn't too happy about people existing solely to enrich themselves.

But I guess you'll find some way to say that Jesus was really a communist, or that true Christians believe his words were changed BY communists.

McCarthyism alive and well.

What a sad country this once great nation has become.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By namechamps on 5/21/2008 2:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
What country are you a citizen of?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/21/2008 2:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about choosing to be poor? I know some people start out with crappy lives and even worse parents. I had a lot of friends growing up in that boat. One of my best friends ended up going the gang and drug running route, and it ended up costing his life. His brother however (who grew up in exactly the same way) chose not to, and eventually worked his way out. Last time I talkied to him he has his own handy man business. It's not a lot of money, but it's better than in jail or dead. Another girl I knew was poor to begin with, but got pregnant at 16 and her parents kicked her out on the street. What did she choose to do? She worked 2 crappy jobs, paid rent, racked up huge hosiptal bills, but still managed to get her GED. She then worked 3 jobs and put herself through massage therapist school, and she did it with no government help either (which personally I think she was crazy for applying for). It took a long damn time to pay off her debts, but she finally did. They don't choose to be poor, but it's what they do with it that's their choice. Commit crimes, or don't commit crimes.

The point is I've known plety of people that grew up on the "wrong side of the fence" who made a conscious choice to get away from it. I've also seen people that grew up with silver spoons completly throw their lives away. Environment and upbringing is important, but it can be overcome.

I also never said I didn't care about their welfare, or that they should just be ignored. I have no problem at all helping someone that wants out, but that's the thing. No matter what you do to help someone, they have to CHOOSE to accept that help.

Bottom line is that it's not a pure right and wrong issue. Technically I'm in the middle, I believe it's a choice, but I also understand it's a very very hard choice to make when you grew up a certain way. They are to blame for their actions (not their circumstances), but that doesn't mean that there isn't some blame on society as well. What I don't agree with and was responding to was the implied lack of any responsibility for what they do. The problem with painting people with that brush, is it creates that loop. If they have no choice, why should they try?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/21/2008 3:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(which personally I think she was crazy for applying for).

Oops, obviously I meant I thought she was crazy for NOT getting government assistance.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By AlmostExAMD on 5/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bill of Rights?
By iNGEN on 5/17/2008 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is more likely, the government raiding my house, or a citizen breaking in and stealing my television etc.?


Statistically speaking they are about equal, according to the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Crime Statistics. In 2006 there were 2,183,746 reported criminal home entries (a composite of home invasions and burglaries resulting in violent crime). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's March 2008 Enforcement Action Report 2,081,763 American homes were forcibly entered by federal and state agencies during 2006. Note this number does not include any raids by county or municipal police agencies.

quote:
We are far more likely to be directly stolen from and attacked by citizens than we are the government. Therefore criminals etc. are a far more immediate threat.


The above statement is false by both of two counts. First, the frequency of government confiscation of private property far exceeds the frequency of private theft in the United States. The validity of your statement may be well challenged based upon reasoned definition of "stolen". Second, only roughly 50% of known unlawful entries are performed by citizens. The remainder are performed by various legal and illegal non-citizen residents. It then follows that, presuming you live in the U.S.A., it is far more likely the government raid your house than a citizen breaking in and stealing your television.

quote:
The government however, is possibly a more subtle and long term threat. So protect ourselves from the criminal elements in society, but in doing so we have to look at the long term and keep the government in check as well.


On this point we are in agreement. I caution, however, do not presume that an action is legal (not criminal), just because it is performed by government. Additionally, some may argue the immediacy of the threat posed by government.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By namechamps on 5/21/2008 1:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY.

It is far worse when it comes to MURDER.

#1 absolute fact is that in just the 20th century governments murdered 169 million of THEIR OWN people.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF

The fact that it never happened in the US is due to the 2nd ammendment. Governments should fear the people not people fearing the governments.

Before anyone says it can't happen "here" tell that to people in Germany prior to rise of Nazi party. The German government moved from liberal gun rights to gun registration to gun confiscation. When the German goverment systematically exterminated 20 million of it's own people they had no method to fight back.

Without the right to defend yourself from your government you have NO RIGHTS . The crime rate stats don't tell the whole picture. Factor in MURDER by the government and most European nations have higher murder rate than the US. It doesn't matter who killed you. Little comfort to the 169 million murdered that it wasn't by citizens.

Lastly GUNS don't cause crime. Canada has higher per captia gun ownership rate than the US and lower crime stats than most countries.

To quote Charlton Heston:
[The government can take my guns] "From my Cold Dead Hands"


RE: Bill of Rights?
By hlper on 5/16/2008 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
This same line struck me. The second amendment argument is only one extreme example of how wrongheaded this comment is. I was thinking just about how easy it is to do damage, or even kill, with a car, or perhaps construction equipment. I can't run at 70mph, so I guess my car makes me super human every time I drive on the freeway.

Perhaps some sort of mandatory licensing/training would be appropriate similar to what we have with cars, but I don't think there is anything particularly alarming about this new piece of equipment.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By HelToupee on 5/16/2008 3:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, your car does (kind of) make you 'super-human', depending on your reference point on 'human'. Humans use tools and machines of ever-increasing complexity to give them 'super-human' powers. See how I'm talking to you over great distance? 50 years ago, I'd have to use a telephone. 50 years before that, a telegraph. 50 years before that, well, I could stand on top of my house and yell really loud. Technology has become mankind's "evolution", in a way. You could look at Iron Man as just a more "evolved" human being (just because he has an awesome suit to climb into). The guy in this thing is just slightly more "evolved" that a normal human being - actually, I take that back. In this construct, this suit could be viewed as a 'potentially benificial mutation'. Evolution happens when a species adopts one of these mutations. Automobiles, as you pointed out before are a technology/beneficial mutation that has been adopted by our species. We "evolved" to gain the ability to travel 70mph down the highway. Put yourself in the shoes of someone from the 1800's, though, and your car may look to them like Iron Man's suit looks to you.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By iNGEN on 5/17/2008 2:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Read your state's registration and driver's licensing laws and you will find the purpose is the funding of the construction and maintenance of the roads themselves. Few states even mention safety or common welfare in their registration or licensing legislation.

In effect, your driver's license and registration are little more than receipts evidencing delivery of rent.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2008 2:03:13 PM , Rating: 1
Personally I say throw caution to the wind and let people buy sweet supersuits! =D

But if this were ever to be commercially released, as it well might, the second the public sees a person using one of these things to smash in a city store window at night, steal, a bunch of stuff and then get in a firefight/battle with cops, I see there being a public outcry, particularly if people are hurt.

I raise the issue as it may well eventually become a very real and valid debate. Such issues could also eventually arise in fields such as genetic enhancements, but this would be about as direct as you could possibly get with it, as no genetic enhancement is likely going to give you 500-1000 lbs of instant force in your hands.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 2:12:40 PM , Rating: 5
As mentioned above, their are many industrial tools that could be described similarly (nail guns, fork-lifts, etc.) Even less exciting, are cars, which give much, much more than 500-1000lbs of instant force in your hands, and are ubiquitous.

It would just be refreshing to hear a little rational thought from the media by including these sort of obvious parallels. It's even more discouraging to hear government intervention blindly suggested for every little thing.

Repeat after me... the government is not my nanny.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By ChronoReverse on 5/16/2008 2:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say let anyone buy one... if they get a license.

After all, we need licenses to drive a car. I'd think some training with these would be in order before letting people loose on these if only to keep them from injuring themselves.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/16/2008 3:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if only to keep them from injuring themselves
One more time... "the government is not my nanny." Rinse and repeat.

I can't think of anyway in which the founders of the US intended its formation to protect individuals from harming themselves.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By callmeroy on 5/16/2008 4:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
No the government isn't our nanny, yes the 2nd amendment is worth defending.

However - don't let your hatred for the government lead to stupidity.

Whatever your view on personal freedoms or government control, the thought of "just let anyone do whatever they want w/o restrictions whatsoever" is so beyond insane and illogical to me I can't begin to describe it.

What a gun -- ok you have the RIGHT to have a gun, but you MUST have a license, register it and take a course or two on its proper user and handling. That isn't unreasonable to me - and that isn't "big bad government controlling me again"...that's logical and common sense.

Same thing in the case with these suits - should one day they actually become available there is no hindrance of your rights if you need to attend a training course and get certified or something before you are allowed to purchase one.

I mean come on guys -- I know this site is famous for the huge goverment sucks debates...but have some damn common sense.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By callmeroy on 5/16/2008 4:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
forgot to add something too -- on the 2nd amendment which is so often used as the cover all to have weapons....while the 2nd amendment does provide for the right to keep and bare arms for ones protection and defense of one's family -- it also should be noted it doesn't really suggest one should nuke a city block in order to kill a gnat either. ;)


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Donkeyshins on 5/16/2008 4:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
And everyone always conveniently forgets the whole 'well organized militia' part of the 2nd amendment as well...

And I'm assuming you meant 'bear arms' not 'bare arms' - not that I have anything against short-sleeved shirts.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And everyone always conveniently forgets the whole 'well organized militia' part of the 2nd amendment as well...


Thats nitpicking and you know it. Obey the spirit of the law, not the letter. They could not have known back then that we would have state funded " police ".


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Bender 123 on 5/18/2008 12:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
It aint nitpicking when talking about me!!! I go out with bare arms and get stopped all the time for carrying around these guns!


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/17/2008 10:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
don't let your hatred for the government lead to stupidity
You're quite wrong in your assumption. As for me, and most people I've met who value individual liberties, we have some of the greatest pride in our country. Pride in a system that has created these personal freedoms and has been mimicked by countries around the globe. But I try to retain the awareness that these freedoms do not come from the natural course of events... but were hard-won and must be cherished and fostered to remain alive.

quote:
just let anyone do whatever they want w/o restrictions whatsoever
Where did you get this from? Liberty can be defined by actions that do not impose upon another individual's right to liberty. So no, I do not have the delusion that complete lawlessness is good. Those who advocate personal freedom realize that these must be maintained through a system of laws, and that government does serve an extremely valuable purpose... to protect those freedoms and arbitrate disputes.

On the other hand, those with little appreciation of freedom often look to individual politicians for answers instead of relying on foundational laws that defend freedom.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By namechamps on 5/21/2008 3:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
Of course that depends on the state.
In VA I have a right to own a gun.
I don't need to register it.
I don't need to have a license.

I can wear it openly in most public & private places.
I only need a permit if I want to conceal it.

Criminals don't obey the law. Passing laws to restrict criminals doesn't even make sense.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By DRMichael on 5/18/2008 12:23:32 PM , Rating: 5
While I usually find myself agreeing with your comments 99% of the time, I have to differ on this one.

The Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I clearly see this as our forefather’s intent on protecting its citizens, even from ourselves. While I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, I do believe that the government has the right to create laws to ensure user accountability. By user accountability, I refer to the insurance that users of firearms are: not felons, not mentally handicapped, and additionally that users become trained and tested before being allowed to own a firearm.

As a firearm instructor during my time in the Marine Corps, I can say that I have never once gone a week without throwing at least one person off my pistol or rifle range. And these were not recruits at Parris Island or San Diego; this included the ranks of Private through Major. It’s hard for me to say, but even the most seasoned veteran can make the most rookie mistakes when it comes to firearm safety. Seeing safety violations occur with people who go through in depth instruction and qualification either semi-annually or annually has made me realize that we must demand our government implement a training course and licensing procedure for our citizens.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/19/2008 2:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
I believe both of the phrases you highlight were directed towards the establishment of internal exectutive enforcement of laws... not meddling by trying to prevent citizens from hurting themselves.

What about knives? Should we required waiting periods, licensing, safety courses before we are allowed to use this tool? What about electric carving knives? Power drills? Table saws? Nail guns? Gas stoves? Bar-b-ques? Car-jacks? Ant & Wasp spray? Hot coffee cup from McD's?

I was trying to point out that the founders choose to enumerate this freedom for a very special purpose... to ensure that the citizens of this country are never in a position that a progressive corruption of government gets to a point where citizens are not in a position to retard such corruption or protect themselves from the government.

Allowing restrictions requireing licensing, certification and the like is in direct opposition to the goal of the 2nd amendment, because those actions can very easily progress toward government restricting all access. Why weren't such programs instituted immediatly after the founding of our country?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By dever on 5/19/2008 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention that I have little qualms about trying to restrict access of firearms from criminals, specifically those that have misused firearms themselves. However, as I'm sure you are aware, it is precisely those individuals who are least likely to observe such restrictions. So, in effect, such restrictions simply deprive freedom from those least likely to misuse it.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By i3arracuda on 5/16/2008 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

But if this were ever to be commercially released, as it well might, the second the public sees a person using one of these things to smash in a city store window at night, steal, a bunch of stuff and then get in a firefight/battle with cops, I see there being a public outcry, particularly if people are hurt.


Then, it's probably a good thing that this tech would most likely be exorbitantly expensive, requiring exotic fuel to power it, and probably attract a class of buyer who is least likely to need to hold up a convenience store for beer and cigarettes.

At least until the value depreciates to the level of, say, a 1978 Pontiac Firebird. Then we're all screwed.

"Hey, ya'll, this looks like a job for Super Red Ass!"


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Fronzbot on 5/16/2008 3:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then, it's probably a good thing that this tech would most likely be exorbitantly expensive, requiring exotic fuel to power it, and probably attract a class of buyer who is least likely to need to hold up a convenience store for beer and cigarettes.


An article in Popular Science, or maybe Mechanics, was talking about this and the power would be generated from a back-pack of sorts that recharges using the force of each step you take. It's supposed to be developed within the year.

Also, releasing this type of suit to the public isn't a horrible idea because, as you pointed out i3arracuda, it will be relatively expensive. I think it would be better for an industrial work place to aid the workers rather than an item you have lying around the house in a closet or something.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By JustTom on 5/16/2008 4:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
You in the suit, me with a Glock at 50 yards. Wanna lay odds?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By the goat on 5/16/2008 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
While I was logging in your rating was bumped from a "3" to a "5". So I can't vote you up. Hey moderators make his post a "6".


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the 2nd amendment either?

You can't just use the 2nd amendment to cover everything. If you follow that logic, then everyone should have a right to have nuclear weapons, or drive tanks around. There has to a be a line somwehere. Now I don't think a suit like this crosses that line, I'm just saying the 2nd amendment doesn't automatically give us the right to anything that might be a weapon.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By bobsmith1492 on 5/16/2008 4:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
If I build a tank or nuclear bomb in my basement, is it illegal? Why?


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 5:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Having nuclear material period is illegal without a license, let alone making a bomb with it.

For the tank it depends on your defenition. I was referring to a fully armed tank, and yes a fully functioning tank cannon is illegal. So are all automatic firearms, and most tanks have machine guns. Even unarmed it isn't street legal. So maybe you could own, but you couldn't legally drive it around.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/16/2008 5:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, even a simple pipe bomb is illegal, but go for it. Make a nuclear bomb, call the FBI, and see what happens :)


RE: Bill of Rights?
By v3rt1g0 on 5/17/2008 4:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So are all automatic firearms


Wrong.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns_legali...


RE: Bill of Rights?
By Kenenniah on 5/21/2008 11:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
In my state they are, so no, not wrong.


RE: Bill of Rights?
By ADDAvenger on 5/16/2008 9:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually my first thought was

"When everyone is super, no one will be (insert evil laugh here."


but really?
By Cheapshot on 5/16/2008 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
Are we to believe these suits will make any difference on the battlefield. An RPG might not hurt the suit much but will certainly make an impact on the soft gooey center.

And forget stealth operation with a screaming John Deere motor approaching the enemy.




RE: but really?
By Gastrian on 5/16/2008 3:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just go with the good old feudal armour, one big plate of body armour to deflect the blow and a shed load of padding underneath to absorb the blow. It won't be 100% effective but should absorb a good part of the impact and the suit shouldn't be that big either so a direct hit with an anti-tank weapon would prove unlikely.


RE: but really?
By JustTom on 5/16/2008 4:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
And eventually it will be big enough that you might as well be in a tank.


RE: but really?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2008 4:13:37 PM , Rating: 4
Thats why I believe the power armor concept, for today, is a crock. Why ? Because it all hinges on some mythical fantasy comic book type power source. We have nothing now, or in the forseable future, that could realistically power such a thing and still allow it to be light weight, quiet, etc etc.


RE: but really?
By Strunf on 5/16/2008 6:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's completely dumb... you don't even need an rpg, there are bullets that pierce through armors including the ones used in tanks.

As for the sound they could use electrical engines, powered by batteries or why not a nuclear reactor :D


RE: but really?
By JustTom on 5/17/2008 2:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
What bullet can pierce the armor of a modern MBT?


RE: but really?
By Strunf on 5/18/2008 8:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
Look for "Armor-piercing" in wikipedia.


RE: but really?
By namechamps on 5/21/2008 2:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of enemy ground force isn't RPG it is small arms. We already have body armor plates that can stop 0.50 cal but it is far too heavy to wear into combat by ground troops.

The ability to armor and arm ground troops so they are well protected against small arms is a battle changer.

Even if the other side switched to all RPG the battle would be one sided.

Side A: powered armor with high capacity, high rate automatic small arms

Side B: unarmored w/ RPG.

Rate of fire matters a lot in urban warfare. You have just forced your enemy to move from weapon systems with ROF of 300+rounds/min (AK-47) to 1-2 rounds/min (RPG-7).

Even if every soldier isn't equiped with powered armor the ability for a heavy weapons team to bring heavy firepower, armor, and carry 500+ pounds of supplies is invaluable.

Trust me I am 12 year veteran of Army as 11B with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

The goal isn't to make "super soldiers". The goal is to allow soldiers to
1)Not be fatigued as quickly. 120deg+ heat + body armor + 80lbs of gear reduces time you are effective very quickly

2)Carry heavier armor. Current body armor is 30lbs+. We cna make it heavier but soldiers can't carry the weight.

3) Carry larger caliber weapons and more ammo. We are stuck with combat load of 210 rounds of 5.56mm simply because of weight. A suit allowing a soldier to carry a combat load of 1000 rounds of 6.8mm would be a major asset.


"To the everlasting glory of the infantry..."
By Polynikes on 5/16/2008 2:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
If we manage to create powered exoskeletons like in Starship Troopers (the book) within 10 years or so, I'll go back in the military to join the Mobile Infantry. :)




RE: "To the everlasting glory of the infantry..."
By afkrotch on 5/16/2008 2:12:19 PM , Rating: 4
I'd be a forklift operator, like in Aliens. That power loader was cool.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2008 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd be a forklift operator, like in Aliens. That power loader was cool.


" HA Ha Ha ! Bay twelve please ! "


By Bender 123 on 5/16/2008 9:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
We need these exosuits to fight off the aliens that were messing with our spy satellites...If the missiles didnt wreck it...Or the flying dollar signs...Or the giant fire ball.

Just bring back the picture and add this onto it...please!


By Fronzbot on 5/16/2008 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
I want to be a citizen too!


By JonnyDough on 5/16/2008 4:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, my first thought wasn't really of Ironman either. I was thinking about how the Punisher could be thrown through a wall by a huge Russian and keep fighting. This suit could turn you into...The Punisher. Or maybe the Incredible Hulk.


By nukunukoo on 5/17/2008 12:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
So who's the shrimp now??? eh? I can't hear you!...


PS
By ksherman on 5/16/2008 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
Just read about all this in Popular Science from this month. Some exciting stuff, especially in giving diabled people back some parts of their lives back.

On another note, Bill Gates probably already has an "Iron Man" suit, since it obviously only requires rediculious amounts of money and advnaced computers to design and fabricate an suit. :D




RE: PS
By daInvincibleGama on 5/16/2008 2:04:00 PM , Rating: 4
Advanced computers? M$ runs windows, remember?


RE: PS
By habibo on 5/16/2008 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 4
Your "Iron Man" suit has performed an illegal operation and must be terminated.


RE: PS
By Bender 123 on 5/18/2008 12:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gives a new meaning to the term fatal error...


By Amiga500 on 5/16/2008 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 3
We're getting closer to stem cells solving diseases, nanotechnology dealing with cancer...

Can you imagine how this would revolutionise construction, farming, disaster relief work, spacesuits (and construction of moonbases etc) as well as just the military?

The adage that knowledge growth is exponential certainly seems to be true - we are learning more and more quicker and quicker. Good times ahead (if we don't kill ourselves in the process).




RE: Another revolution in human development on the way?
By Myg on 5/16/08, Rating: -1
By JustTom on 5/16/2008 4:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious on how you derived the 100 year figure.


By MozeeToby on 5/16/2008 4:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hundreds of years? My mother is comfortable using the Internet to communicate, look up the weather and news, shop, and do research. She uses it for work, fun, and education.

The internet is undeniably a new era in human progress, one which did not even exist when she was born. And yet she has adapted to it. Myself, growing up when the technology was just going mainstream has embraced it even more so.

I am excited for Nanotech and an age of plenty (if it turns out to be possible). Stems cells to cure disease and an unlimited potential lifespan? Bring it on. My children will not understand the world that I grew up in, my grandchildren won't even be able to imagine it.

With a little luck, they will look back at us, the most prosperous nation in human history, the way we look back on the Great Depresion. With a lot of luck, they will look back on us like the middle ages.


By Tsuwamono on 5/16/2008 5:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
Hell, my GRANDMOTHER was born in 1920 and she was quite willing to watch tv, drive a car, use the internet.

When she was born they didnt even have electricity where she lived.

I agree completely


More lazy journalism from Jason Mick
By borismkv on 5/16/2008 4:15:55 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, this article is almost a complete reproduction of the AP article. Aside from Jason's signature editorial comments about the dangers of this technology, almost everything here after the first three paragraphs is pulled straight from the AP article he links to. The quotes are all pulled straight from the article, and one quote, which was originally two separate quotes, is incorrectly tied together to form one. This is getting really close to the lines of plagiarism, if it isn't over it. Not once does Mick specifically state that he gets his information from the AP, aside from a link that not everyone will either follow or read, and his re-wording is a common plagiaristic mistake made by college freshmen the world over. I think DailyTech needs to seriously consider more thorough investigation of Mick's work before publishing it. I'm sure they don't want to get sued because Mick is too lazy to do his own work.




RE: More lazy journalism from Jason Mick
By JustTom on 5/16/2008 4:28:21 PM , Rating: 1
You expect anything less from a Jason Mick article? He truly is the king of cut and paste journalism.


By borismkv on 5/16/2008 4:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
I expect a little bit more from DailyTech. And rewriting an AP article as if it were his own is something that DailyTech probably can get sued over. Particularly since it's a revenue generating publication.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/16/2008 7:25:01 PM , Rating: 1
Or you'd be interested in reading the Raytheon press release that both Jason and the AP pulled from. Someone linked it below.


By borismkv on 5/17/2008 1:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well, actually, I spent a good bit of time digging through the media linked on that site, as a matter of fact, Jason got one thing wrong. The test pilot was known for doing up to 500 reps of 200 pounds...not bench pressing 500 pounds. But hey...I could just do a side by side comparison...

Mick's article...
quote:
While the army started exoskeleton research as early as 1995, the Sarcos suit is the first major success to date. The suit so impressed Waltham, Massachusetts-based defense contracting giant Raytheon, that it bought Sarcos Inc. this past November.


AP Article...
quote:
The Army's exoskeleton research dates to 1995, but has yet to yield practical suits. Sarcos' technology sufficiently impressed Raytheon Co., however, that the Waltham, Massachusetts-based defense contractor bought Sarcos' robotics business last November.


Mick's Article...
quote:
Jack Obusek, a former colonel now employed in the Army's Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center, foresees the suits initially providing invaluable support. From loading heavy ammo crates, to fixing tanks in the battlefield that would otherwise have to be scrapped to prevent American tank from falling into enemy hands, the potential is enormous he feels.


AP Article...
quote:
Jack Obusek, a former colonel now with the Army's Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center in the Boston suburb of Natick, foresees robot-suited soldiers unloading heavy ammunition boxes from helicopters, lugging hundreds of pounds of gear over rough terrain or even relying on the suit's strength-enhancing capabilities to make repairs to tanks that break down in inconvenient locations.


That's...an astonishing similarity. I added some italics where the wording is exactly the same. And those two paragraphs are right next to each other, in the same order, in both articles. And that's just two of the paragraphs.

Since you're the editor in chief, Mr. Kibicki, you really should know about this...
quote:
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Grand Theft Auto?
By Some1ne on 5/16/2008 3:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
Why do people keep making comments suggesting that Iron Man's success flies in the face of GTA4? I know they were released at essentially the same time, and commentators (for equally unknown reasons) made a big deal out of that fact, but one is a movie, and the other is a game (ignoring the fact that there is an Iron Man PC game). I doubt there are many people who say "I'm going to skip this movie so I can buy a game" or who say "I'm going to skip this game so I can see a movie". They're seperate things, and to suggest that the success of one is in spite of the other is invalid (doubly so because they have both done extremely well, which would be impossible if they really were inversely linked to each other).

I could certainly see GTA4 disrupting sales of the Iron Man video game, but to suggest that GTA4 has any impact on movie ticket sales is just stupid, and I with the Anandtech columnists would stop doing it.

For the record, I went to see Iron Man, and will be buying GTA4 as soon as the PC version comes out.




RE: Grand Theft Auto?
By Some1ne on 5/16/2008 3:09:31 PM , Rating: 1
typo: with = wish


RE: Grand Theft Auto?
By Keeir on 5/16/2008 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 1
A few months ago, the movie industry was blaming game such as Halo 3 for reducing box office takes


RE: Grand Theft Auto?
By michal1980 on 5/16/2008 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
the moive, like music industry is grasping for excuses...

When they are missing the real reason for generally declinging sales: Bad product.


RE: Grand Theft Auto?
By Some1ne on 5/16/2008 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 1
There's also the issue of the generally slow economy right now. That would also be a more valid complaint than trying to blame video game sales for taking away from movie ticket sales.

And I agree, for the two or three months before Iron Man, there really weren't many interesting new movies coming out at all.


Why Iron Man???
By elessar1 on 5/16/2008 2:13:01 PM , Rating: 3
Why build Iron Man if whe could be building Gundams???

http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/st_gu...

Estimated cost of Gundam parts: $724,310,000

Totally possible ;)

From SCL...

elessar




RE: Why Iron Man???
By encia on 5/16/2008 6:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
For TFlops, why not 480 AMD/ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2?


Aliens?
By Spivonious on 5/16/2008 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
The suit reminds me much more of the thing Ripley gets in in Aliens than the Ironman suit.




RE: Aliens?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/16/2008 2:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we should have the loader from Aliens instead of Iron Man.. Booo Hisss!


I just want to fly
By NicePants42 on 5/16/2008 2:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As to the flying, stay tuned for part two of making a real life "Iron Man".


Since I can already bore people with 500lb bench presses, I'd prefer to be able to fly over the alps.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...

Sure, the guy has to be dropped from a plane and then parachutes to the ground, but with a steep hill, some roller-skates, and good medical insurance, I'm optimistic the he'll be able to take off and land solely under his own power.




Video & Pictures
By ziggo on 5/16/2008 2:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
More information along with pictures and video are available from the page for the press release

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn08_...

Enjoy.




Thing that'll make you say "Hmm"
By JonnyDough on 5/16/2008 4:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
"The summer's hottest blockbuster thus far has been Iron Man"

See, here I thought summer started in late June. Silly me.




Semi-old?
By five40 on 5/16/2008 5:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't this come out a while ago? I think the only new piece of information was the battery pack which is pretty impressive to me. When this was first released it had to be tethered to the power supply.




WOOOT
By ineedaname on 5/17/2008 12:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
I just need one of these + one of those swiss flying machines and I'm IRONMAN WOOT!!!

http://www.dailytech.com/Swiss+Rocket+Man+Sets+Spe...




Trust
By Lastfreethinker on 5/17/2008 1:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
How can I trust your vote if you cannot trust me with a gun?




Finally
By Nihility on 5/17/2008 2:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
Finally something to replace the Segway!




By BeastieBoy on 5/17/2008 5:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
Just remember to take the glove off before going to stand at the urinal.




A New Marine?
By iNGEN on 5/17/2008 2:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
I look forward to the day when the most feared weapon in the world will instead be "The United States Marine and his Iron Suit".




We need Tony Starks
By Sungpooz on 5/17/2008 3:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile Sarcos is concentrating on the power issue. While noisy, Sarcos says a gas engine is one possibility. A small gas engine could fit inside the suits backpack, they say. Obusek states, " The power issue is probably the No. 1 challenge standing in the way of getting this thing in the field."


Arc Reactor




gundum!!
By AmazighQ on 5/18/2008 4:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
when can i expect part III. where you explain and show how you can build a Gundum, an Evangelion, a Spidermansuit, an Autobot/Decepticon, The StarShip Enterprise E, the Battlestar Gallactica, the Cylons and the Termainator with today technoly.




improved construction?
By Hase0 on 5/20/2008 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
SCV ready to go




Bill of Rights?
By cmontyburns on 5/16/08, Rating: 0
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














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