Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 310 posts

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#111

Post by atoav »

high_priest wrote: post #31
blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

Life is one big war. Just because you live in a pleasant neighbourhood, doesn't mean there are no malevolent people in the world...

Even if we assume military is not only necessary, but actually good, wouldn't there still be a point where a society spends too much on it's military and everything goes to shables because of it?

Let's assume the US would reach this point — how would it look from the inside? Would the downfall happen fast or would it spawn decades? What if we are already in it?

The US could spend half of what it currently spends on the military and still be twice as powerful in terms of military force as the rest of the world combined. I'd argue investing a chunk of that money in domestic infrastructure, healthcare, poverty and a chunk of it in diplomacy would give you a more powerful US in two decades than if you would raise military spending even more.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#113

Post by remarkEon »

gopalv wrote: post #16
remarkEon wrote: post #3

Anyone work this technology and can talk about it (without breaking whatever NDA of course)? I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology for all but the most niche use-cases (think, AR for the driver in the hole of the truck). Obviously for pilots stuff similar to this has been around for a while, but the article is not really clear about how exactly this would…

> I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology The question is how integral can you make this, without retraining everyone for it. For this to be successful there needs to be a whole generation who is probably 16 or 14 right now, who are used to putting on these headsets and be habituated to moving around in a VR world - wait till they turn 18 and put them on th…

Well, it's true to a limited (but often exaggerated) extent that tech used in JSOC or other Tier 1 units eventually filters down to the grunts, but the limiting factor here is that the folks in CAG etc are operating at cognitive abilities way above the standard infantryman (sorry, it's true). So things that are interesting tech (NVGs) that are easy to use, yeah they will filter down. Suppressors being standard for USMC infantry units is another example. "Push button, see at night" and "screw on, shoot gun more quieter" vs "N hours of training and re-learning your field craft to distribute the weight".

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#114

Post by fermienrico »

blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

I have the complete opposite view: it’s such a naive thing to say we don’t want wars - ofcourse no one wants wars. Spending on defense and being prepared isn’t going to war, it’s preventing it in the first place.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#115

Post by verdverm »

frisco wrote: post #13

On the plus side, this means we are much more likely now to get actually awesome prosumer/consumer-grade AR systems with many of the current issues worked out in the next N years. It's starting to get to a point where, though it's still kind of lame, you can see how it would be awesome, but still needs $B of R&D so... I'll take it.

HL2 is the best device I've ever used, the future is definitely AR. Once you try it you will never want to have a smartphone again. Smart glasses all the way. MSFT just needs to miniaturize at this point, the UX is already there

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#116

Post by spaced-out »

harikb wrote: post #82
blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

When we say "military spending", much of it is not actually spent on wasted resources - it is sort of welfare for the military industrial complex and its dependent people. It is just like social security, medicare etc, some amount is earmarked for a different group. What we shouldn't assume is that "not spending on military" automatically implies spending on stuff that is actually good for the country.

> When we say "military spending", much of it is not actually spent on wasted resources - it is sort of welfare for the military industrial complex and its dependent people.

And what if instead of paying those people to develop weapons, we paid them to develop tech and infrastructure that would provide utility to every day people?

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#117

Post by hutzlibu »

chrisseaton wrote: post #71
blunte wrote: post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

How well does your idea work in practice if we look at examples from history? Before the Second World War Lloyd George tried to make love not war with Germany. How did that end up? Sometimes the bad people are just absolutely intent on fucking you up no matter what and you need to be able to defend yourself.

WW2 (at least in europe) was pretty much a result of the harsh on the loosers of WW1 treaty of Versailles. So germany did not feel much love from the world - the world was demanding lots of pay as reparations every year(I think it was originally planned till 1990!). They felt they have to get strong to reclaim what was theirs. (Very simply put)

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#118

Post by Shacklz »

xd wrote: post #77
blunte wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that many malevolent people, or at least their followers, would be much less malevolent or active if they had their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life. To be more specific, many of the worst people have lived through some truly horrible childhoods (often experiencing war and poverty as a child). Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are. We h…

"their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life" Who's responsibility is it to meet these needs?

Irrelevant of the answer, it helps in general if your efforts & hard work towards a better life aren't bombed into oblivion

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#119

Post by InitialLastName »

hutzlibu wrote: post #91
blunte wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that many malevolent people, or at least their followers, would be much less malevolent or active if they had their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life. To be more specific, many of the worst people have lived through some truly horrible childhoods (often experiencing war and poverty as a child). Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are. We h…

" Stop the cycle of war and poverty, and then see how naturally malevolent people are." So far it is only a hypothesis, that war can be avoided if people just would not starve anymore. (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example) Also, assuming we would distribute ressources equally (nevermind the political means to achieve that for a moment): It no doubt would be enough for everyone today. B…

> (I don't think there was really hunger in europe pre WW1 for example)

IIRC gaining and ensuring continued access to food production centers in central Europe was one of Germany's primary motivating factors leading into WWI.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#120

Post by chrisseaton »

hutzlibu wrote: post #117
chrisseaton wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well does your idea work in practice if we look at examples from history? Before the Second World War Lloyd George tried to make love not war with Germany. How did that end up? Sometimes the bad people are just absolutely intent on fucking you up no matter what and you need to be able to defend yourself.

WW2 (at least in europe) was pretty much a result of the harsh on the loosers of WW1 treaty of Versailles. So germany did not feel much love from the world - the world was demanding lots of pay as reparations every year(I think it was originally planned till 1990!). They felt they have to get strong to reclaim what was theirs. (Very simply put)

No matter how much 'love' you give, someone somewhere will want to take more from you. And if you have nothing to defend yourself with they're going to walk all over you.

What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking?

What do you do when you've given all your 'love' and have nothing left and they ask for more or they'll attack? You need a military and it needs to be good.

Post reply on HN