Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft's stock didn't budge. Is this contract going to go directly to Microvision?
> (MSFT) didn’t budge ??? The 2:00-2:05 (CDT) 5 minute candle for MSFT was a 2% move, that’s not nothing for a 1.77T company lol The candle low was 234.47 and the candle high was 239.10, this is in a 5 minute span
Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
231–240 of 310 posts
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm inclined to agree. While it might be nice in theory to have your battlefield painted with where the friendlies are or something, there are so many issues with that in practice I can't imagine it actually getting used by infantry. Just off the top: All the electronics shit is gonna add weight, bulk, and power requirements. It's gonna get dirty, fogs up, w/e. It's gonna not work for one reason or another b/c it can…
I honestly don’t see this being used by infantry for all the reasons you list foremost being that by the time the MIL STD folks are done with it, it’ll be way too heavy. Most likely HQ so the brass can play command and conquer with the infantry and at a push on vehicles similar to the Helmets on the F-32.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#233Anyone 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 inclined to agree. While it might be nice in theory to have your battlefield painted with where the friendlies are or something, there are so many issues with that in practice I can't imagine it actually getting used by infantry. Just off the top: All the electronics shit is gonna add weight, bulk, and power requirements. It's gonna get dirty, fogs up, w/e. It's gonna not work for one reason or another b/c it can…
* Fixed a bug that occasionally caused friendly units to display as hostile ones.
* Corrected AR ammo counter to correctly match actual rounds in small arm.
* Adjusted networking code to ensure headsets remain synced with team leaders.
And hundreds of other potentially dangerous and hilarious patch notes...
Looking forward to everyone saying, "My life for AIUR!" while using these.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#234(1) US Research Universities. For nearly all the US research universities, a huge fraction of their annual budgets comes from Federally funded research grants via the National Science Foundation (NSF), but, trust me on this, passes Congress and gets signed by the POTUS heavily for US national security, i.e., the US military.
As a result, the teaching is heavily supported by that funding. Else college would cost much more.
Yes, not all the Federal funding is so closely tied to the US military: Since the Members of Congress also like progress in medicine, there is also a lot of funding via the National Institutes of Health for bio-medical research and, thus, support for the research-teaching hospitals.
(2) GPS.
The Global Positioning System (GPS), now heavily used for non-military purposes, was done by the US Air Force (USAF) and built on the work of the earlier system for the US Navy. GPS has been terrific for the US military.
(3) Aircraft Engines.
Aircraft engine development got a big push during WWI and then again during WWII. By the end of WWII, the best piston aircraft engines were mechanical marvels.
But near the end of WWII, both the Germans and the British saw that just for military purposes jet engines would be much better. And the US saw the same: GE had been making turbines for supercharging the piston engines so with their turbine experience moved to make some of the best jet engines.
With an aircraft engine, we use energy from the fuel to generate gas pressure to push mass out the back of the engine. Then the momentem of that mass (momentum is mass m times velocity v) provides force to propel the plane. But the mass moves out with kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. So, we want to pick a pair, mass m and velocity v, to maximize the momentum for the given energy. Since in energy we pay for velocity v with v^2 but mass m with just m, we should pick the pair to have mass m large and velocity v small. So, going out the back of the engine (from a propeller or a jet) we want lots of mass moving slowly, not a small mass moving quickly.
So, the US military saw this point for, e.g., their big cargo plane the C5A and developed "high bypass jet engines" where the turbine at the back of the engine drives a shaft to drive the compressor but also is used to drive a huge fan at the front of the engine that acts as a propeller in a duct to move huge amounts of cool air around, past (bypass), the engine and out the back. Now essentially all large commercial aircraft have high bypass jet engines -- the cost of jet fuel makes this crucial.
Actually a little before the high bypass development, could also get some of the same benefits with just an aft fan: So, mount a fan, turbine, on the back of the engine. Have the fan blades relatively long so that they extend pass the flow of the hot gas from burning the fuel. Then the hot gas turns the fan and the extended parts of the fan blades push cold air out the back. A GE engine did that early on; the French Dassault FanJet Falcon DA-20 used two of those aft fan engines; and FedEx started with 33 of those planes modified for cargo.
So, net, the jet engines used in commercial airplanes were heavily developed by the US military.
(4) Digital Computers.
So, sure, digital computers got developed in WWII for calculating artillery tables, etc. And after the war the US military was a big customer of digital computers and pushed the computer companies -- IBM, GE, Hewlett-Packard, Univac, Control Data, Systems Engineering Laboratories, etc. -- hard for more powerful computers.
(5) Atomic Power.
We have atomic power for the electric grid and applied nuclear physics more generally due mostly to developments paid for by the US military.
Then it is common for the electronics on spacecraft -- often for science and not specifically for the military -- to be powered by nuclear power.
(6) Radar.
Commercial aviation is massively dependent on radar, and the first developments were for military purposes.
(7) The Hubble Telescope.
We can regard the Hubble telescope as used heavily for non-military science, but in simple terms the Hubble was a US military Keyhole surveillance telescope (supposedly can read car license plate numbers from orbit) but aimed away from the earth.
(8) Rockets.
Rockets are crucial for getting spacecraft into orbit (around the earth, the sun, Mars, etc.) or at escape velocity from the earth, and of course most of rocket development was for military purposes.
(9) Optimization.
Optimization, e.g., linear and non-linear programming, grew out of WWII military logistics efforts by G. Dantzig and others. Then asking for whole number solutions led us to the research on computational complexity and one of the most important research problems today, the question of P versus NP.
(10) The Internet.
Early on the Internet was ARPA-Net, funded by ARPA, the US military's Advanced Research Projects Agency.
(11) The Interstate Highways.
Early on President Eisenhower wanted the Interstate highways as a big contribution to US military logistics, that is, moving supplies and equipment.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Most economists would say it does not matter what they build. The economic results would be the same if the Military Industrial complex were paid to dig holes and fill them in again.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#236And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government entities, whether ICE or the Army. There is way too much money to be lost.
[1] yes, I know about global offices and global workforce. But it is still an American company in terms of leadership, culture and values.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half of the US family has less than $500 in the bank. A large portion of people spent less than $10 per day on food. That's an absurd stand to argue that people can afford to go hungry for 7 straight days just so the military get some headsets. I'm not into heavy politics. But if you want to argue about job creation, I can bet that spending the above money on infrastructure (like last mile fiber internet) will create…
Half of the US pays $0 in federal taxes.
The idea that some unjustified spending is OK just because it's "cheap" per capital is an absurd idea.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#238Technology, useful for the US military and also useful later for US civilians? Are there any examples? (1) US Research Universities. For nearly all the US research universities, a huge fraction of their annual budgets comes from Federally funded research grants via the National Science Foundation (NSF), but, trust me on this, passes Congress and gets signed by the POTUS heavily for US national security, i.e., the US…
Typical blind government praise riddled with misinformation, meaningless platitutdes, and logical falacies.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stuff is cheaper in China too.
That's a pretty interesting point! I hadn't ever really considered how cost of living or cost of goods differences in different nations would impact a graph like that. I'm a bit skeptical that many military supplies (e.g. the cost of a grenade or of a standard issue rifle with comparable specs) vary dramatically, but personnel wages, basic supplies, housing, repairs, etc. all probably have a big impact.
Well, how much do you think china is paying for one of their own developed (or copied) and manufactured assaults rifles - and how much is the US?
I didn't look up the numbers now, but I am pretty sure they do vary dramatically.
The change might get less, when we are talking about very advanced war tech, like fighter missiles and radar systems, but overall China with all of its big factories and strong central controlled government - might have an edge there.
Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets
#240As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don't think I'd want some annoying UI in my eye telling me were to shoot.
[1] VC funds have a life-cycle of only 10 years. Internet evolution was a 2-3 decades process.
[2] Government can write off a loss of 5-10B. I can't think of any private sector entity with that kind of risk tolerance.