Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507804,00.html

"The HULC exoskeleton is self-powered and allows a soldier flexibility for upper-body lifting and fluid movement.

"It transfers the weight from heavy loads to the ground through battery-powered, titanium "legs" that attach behind the soldier's legs. An builtin micro-computer ensures the exoskeleton moves in sync with human body."

I think they should have come up with a different acronym, though. Greenskins don't wear power armor

What on Earth possessed you to read Fox News?

Soo... the exoskeleton allows you to carry more weight...but it weighs 53 lbs. ??

I'd imagine a suit of space marine armor probably weighs at least a couple of hundred pounds.

fatal_GRACE wrote:What on Earth possessed you to read Fox News?

Because they report, you decide. Fair and balanced, dude.

I remember when they reported on Anna Nicole Smith's Baby Daddy for 3 straight weeks. That was about the time period when I decided that Fox News was completely irrelevant.

As to the OP, the Japanese revealed functional powered exoskeleton technology several years back.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

fatal_GRACE wrote:What on Earth possessed you to read Fox News?

Because they report, you decide. Fair and balanced, dude.

Fair and Balanced in the eyes of a Republican, maybe...

Soo... the exoskeleton allows you to carry more weight...but it weighs 53 lbs. ??

yea, 53 lbs without batt's
possibly around 65 ish with them.


good news: you can carry 50lbs more than usual.
bad news: your actually able to carry 15lbs less with the suit.


allthough, it says it helps to carry an object around 200lbs for an extended period of time, so more of a support than a lifting aid in its self.

Ask any marine, army, or military grunt that basically amounts to your basic "Infantryman".

....this sort of high tech garbage is just that...garbage. Simply something else to break down or get in the way of the fight at hand....

kind of shane, maybe now they can blame the lack of decent gear on this thing lol
ok, it may help a bit, but to be honest i rather have an upgraded gun or armour to a lifting aid any day.


with all this fancy junk, we still use a basic cheapo model SA80.

The first thing that came to mind when I read this article (And I realize I'm terrible for this)

"Boy, the nerds that work at Lockheed will use any excuse they can find to wear their 'Army Costume' and play soldier"

I don't recall ever meeting a soldier with a double-chin...

Remember.

This is how Fallout's Power Armor got its start.
Just a crummy exoskeleton at first...and then wambam, fully enclosed fighting unit designed to haul miniguns!

Fox News is about as fair and balanced as a battle between 750 points of dark eldar and 1500 of daemons.

Why is it that you can’t read a thread like this without some kind of “Fox News is the Devil” crap? Fox wasn’t even the topic of the tread. But if you insist on randomly flaming with no facts to back you up I guess I’ll take the bait and toss out a few facts for the trolls that.

First in defense of Fox let me sight the 2008 election coverage. This quote comes from a study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

The “FOX difference” lay not in what they covered but in how they covered the campaign. It will come as no surprise to learn that FOX carried the most positive portrayal of McCain and Palin and the most negative portrayals of Obama and Biden. By the same token, however, the tone of FOX’s coverage of the candidates was, if not the fairest, at least the most balanced of the four networks we monitored.

Full Report

Several other university studies also noted Fox as the most balanced coverage of the election cycle.

I would also like to site the study done by Tim Groseclose Department of Political Science of UCLA and Jeff Milyo Department of Economics University of Missouri called “A Measure of Media Bias”. This particular study was considered groundbreaking when released and is still considered an excellent example of how to measure bias in the media. I really think you all should take the time to read it.

UCLA Report

Highlight:

Fox News’ Special Report is approximately one point more centrist than ABC’s World News Tonight or NBC’s Nightly News. In neither case is the difference statistically significant. Given that Special Report is one hour long and the other two shows are a half-hour long, our measure implies that if a viewer watched all three shows each night, he or she would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news. (In fact, it would be slanted slightly left by 0.4 ADA points.)

In closing guys at least think for yourselves. Stop buying into the left’s talking points. If you only listen to one side of the story you never get the truth. And just for those of you about to flame me as a Fox News nut. I will list the places I get my news from: CNN, Fox, USAToday and NPR.

Anyone that tells you not to listen to the people that disagree with him is trying to make you a sheep.

*Steps off soapbox* All zealots may now begin throwing rotten food.

Nox wrote:
In closing guys at least think for yourselves. Stop buying into the left’s talking points. If you only listen to one side of the story you never get the truth. And just for those of you about to flame me as a Fox News nut. I will list the places I get my news from: CNN, Fox, USAToday and NPR.

Anyone that tells you not to listen to the people that disagree with him is trying to make you a sheep.

*Steps off soapbox* All zealots my now begin throwing rotten food.

Let me begin by saying, I'm not a member of ANY political party in the US, nor do I pay attention to either the left or the right. The truth is that Fox IS a Republican news source(Fox will also not deny this, they tend to embrace it), it's not an opinion. Don't believe me, actually listen to their news casters when they give their personal opinions. Of course, there is also the fact that there honestly is no such thing as an unbiased news source as news sources are PEOPLE, and no one is truly unbiased.

It's not zealotry, it's simply true.

So unfair but balanced.

Awesome! Still makes them liars.

FOX news is such a joke from a European standpoint, GTA IV has some O.K. satire of it.

Platuan4th wrote:

Nox wrote:
In closing guys at least think for yourselves. Stop buying into the left’s talking points. If you only listen to one side of the story you never get the truth. And just for those of you about to flame me as a Fox News nut. I will list the places I get my news from: CNN, Fox, USAToday and NPR.

Anyone that tells you not to listen to the people that disagree with him is trying to make you a sheep.

*Steps off soapbox* All zealots my now begin throwing rotten food.

Let me begin by saying, I'm not a member of ANY political party in the US, nor do I pay attention to either the left or the right. The truth is that Fox IS a Republican news source(Fox will also not deny this, they tend to embrace it), it's not an opinion. Don't believe me, actually listen to their news casters when they give their personal opinions. Of course, there is also the fact that there honestly is no such thing as an unbiased news source as news sources are PEOPLE, and no one is truly unbiased.

It's not zealotry, it's simply true.

@Platuan4th: You really should read the UCLA study it's a little dry but well worth it. It says in part just what you said, news reporters are people and people by nature are biased the trick is to make sure that you hear from enough of them that you can seperate the facts from the bias. Also I think you are confusing the talking head asses like Olberman and Hannity with news reporters. One thing you will note if you read a few of the univeristy studies out there is that they start off by eliminating the crap like that. Those aren't news shows and don't claim to be. What they are is a bunch of talking heads that feed off of divisiveness and conflict. If everone simply stopped watching the talking heads and only tuned in for the news shows then the stations would soon remove them from the air.

Finally, I wasn't trying to offend you I was simply trying to point out that you best serve yourself by making sure that hear all points of view. Then you can decide what you choose to believe and support. I just bothers me that it seems in vouge with so many people to limit their sources of information to the people that tell them what they want to here.

@AlexCage: "Awesome! Still makes them liars." Sorry but that kind of unfounded statement is just what I was talking about. Trolling plain and simple.

TERRORIST FIST BUMP!

I rest my case.

BYE

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Because they report, you decide. Fair and balanced, dude.

I think they stole that slogan from Xinhua.

Nox wrote:Finally, I wasn't trying to offend you I was simply trying to point out that you best serve yourself by making sure that hear all points of view. Then you can decide what you choose to believe and support. I just bothers me that it seems in vouge with so many people to limit their sources of information to the people that tell them what they want to here.

Oh, no offense was taken. In fact, I hold much the same opinion about CNN and their leanings to the left. The internet is actually the only place I look at the news, which is rarely, and that's only when something catches my eye on my Vista Gadget Bar(don't know the real name of it)'s News Scroll to the right hand of my screen. I'm actually generally disinterested in the news at all on a day to day basis.

Sad thing is, until effective body armour, powered or otherwise is cheaper than training and equipping new blood, the Military won't be interested.

Depressing huh?

P.S. this is based on fairly old stuff I read on the Internet. Apparently there is supremely good body armour out there which would reduce casualties considerably, and possibly more importantly, fatalities as well. But it's sufficiently pricey that military budgets are 'better' spent training more troops. Now I do see the wisdom in this, after all, 100 lightly armoured troops, compared to 20 well armoured troops otherwise identically equipped, will get the job done a heck of a lot faster, and as long as training is sufficient, casualties can be kept to minimum. Take Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite being theatres of War, casualties are surprisingly light all things considered.

So, yeah, kind of bashing the military, but from a fairly understanding point of view. I think.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sad thing is, until effective body armour, powered or otherwise is cheaper than training and equipping new blood, the Military won't be interested.

Depressing huh?

People are cheaper to make. couple of fertile kids, some booze, no birth control, done.

What does it take to make your fancy-smancy armor?

Are you talking about dragon scale, because there was a whole bunch of problems with it like not being able to get out of hummers easily. Also the uber trained super well equipped grunts strategy does not relay work very well you need boots on the ground, see General Petrauses surge. Also I don't think body armour costs anywhere near the cost's of recruitment, training, life insurance etc.

The military is not the problem the bat gak insane budget is see 2 wars and American popularity very low.

People are cheap.

Life is not.

glowgos wrote:FOX news is such a joke from a European standpoint, GTA IV has some O.K. satire of it.

Classless , from my standpoint , and normal EUpean point of view.

A selfcorrecting, selfrepairing, adjustable, trainable endoskelton with a completely free range of motion, extendable, versatile fuelsystem might not carry 200 pounds, but it will still beat the gak out of that, in any battle-field conditions.

As to the OP, the Japanese revealed functional powered exoskeleton technology several years back.

I also remeber this. It was on the CBC about 3 quarters of a year ago. Robotic legs that increase your lifting capacity to 700 pds. Which would be incredibly useful if you could actually hold 700 pds in your hands. One of the biggest problems with all sorts of battlearmor is pretty much it has to be wearable, like you would a dress. Otherwise, your going to lose seconds figuring out the exact process. Not to mention that if you can't wear it you won't be able to handle equipment with a good enough reliability to reach peak effeciency. If you want a good summary of the stuff, look up Starship Troopers, (the book obviously) by Robert A. Heinlein.

There's a reason that in Ironman he had to make some kind of super crazy power source for the suit to work properly.

Building the actual suit, and all the stuff to make it lift things, take hits, and all that - that's not too hard. Iterative design and time will take care of that (and this suit is probably part of that).

It'll never be a reality till we have breakthroughs in power sources.

PS. Please STFU about Fox News. I don't really care for them much either, but the last thing I want to hear about is politics and the "usual arguments" when reading the forum about my fun hobby.

Nox wrote:Then you can decide what you choose to believe and support.

But if you choose to believe and support the Left you're just a sheep buying into their talking points...

Building the actual suit, and all the stuff to make it lift things, take hits, and all that - that's not too hard. Iterative design and time will take care of that (and this suit is probably part of that).

What about the flying thing?