Skip

Incredible HULC
March 13, 2009 9:36 AM   Subscribe

Lockheed Martin Unveils Exoskeleton Technology At the Association of the US Army Winter Symposium last month, Lockheed Martin unveiled the Human Universal Load Carrier (HULC)

But the technology has constructive uses, too. Consider the uses for people with disabilities and rehabilitation from trauma.
posted by njbradburn (67 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm newish to MeFi, but have seen enough snark to know better. Yes, fully aware of the irony that technology built to disable... ;>
posted by njbradburn at 9:38 AM on March 13, 2009


After checking out the last link to see how much this incredible HULC might look like the loaders in Aliens, I was shown this message:

Upon leaving our website, you may be selected to take part in a customer satisfaction survey... The feedback obtained from this survey will help us to enhance our website. All results are strictly confidential.

Why do I suddenly feel uneasy?
posted by Joe Beese at 9:44 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


If there has ever been a thread where people should be welcoming our alien/robotic overlords...this is pretty much it.
posted by greekphilosophy at 9:47 AM on March 13, 2009


Yeah, that freaked my shit a little, too. I took a chance and ignored it--so far, no tanks pulling up to the door to take me to re-education camp.
posted by njbradburn at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2009


They also have ones that actually go on your arms and can help you lift heavy weights as well, but I'm surprised how light and small this one is.

Why do I suddenly feel uneasy?

Umm, because you're really paranoid? What is the problem with a website doing a survey in a popup window or whatever?
posted by delmoi at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2009


When did soldiers become "Warfighters"?
posted by gottabefunky at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


Already drowning in debt, Lockheed (then the number one U. S. defense contractor) asked the U. S. Government for a loan guarantee, to avoid certain insolvency. - Wikipedia

Everything old is new again.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2009


Pepsi Metal Gear Solid?
posted by Happy Dave at 9:50 AM on March 13, 2009


I hadn't considered the Aliens loaders. I imagined hunky Robocop
posted by njbradburn at 9:50 AM on March 13, 2009


So, we have the Raytheon pain ray, killer robots, satellite-controlled armed drones, persistent surveillance, and now powered military exoskeletons.

Welcome to the dystopian future.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:56 AM on March 13, 2009 [4 favorites]


Damn military gets all the cool stuff. I could so use one of these around the house.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 9:58 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


delmoi: "Umm, because you're really paranoid? What is the problem with a website doing a survey in a popup window or whatever?"

Not that I'm not really paranoid. But some corporations are more of a trigger than others.

According to Vive le Canada founder Susan Thompson, most boycotters felt that a U.S.-owned company, and in particular a military contractor such as Lockheed Martin, should not be involved with the Canadian census, especially during the unpopular Iraq war. ... Another concern was privacy. It remains unclear whether information gathered by the Canadian census falls under the American PATRIOT Act if gathered in part by a U.S.-owned company. Through the PATRIOT Act, the U.S. military potentially has access to any information held by a U.S. corporation. - Wikipedia
posted by Joe Beese at 9:58 AM on March 13, 2009


...will meet future mobility and sustainment needs of Warfighters...

Warfighters? I missed that memo...
posted by Thorzdad at 10:07 AM on March 13, 2009


I think the potential civilian and medical uses are astounding. However.

Let me fucking get this straight. We are currently embroiled in TWO, count 'em, TWO asymmetrical wars. Wars where the enemy can field 50 highly mobile fighters for around $300-$500. This has rendered mostly impotent all our great machines of war. Our Billion Dollar Stealth technology. Our Gazillion Fast Attack Carrier Groups and submarines. And out super high tech tanks.

And now we want to essentially triple the cost of our individual infantrymen when the country is literally bleeding it's treasury dry? This is their answer?

Fuck me.

Yes. Schlepping around 140lbs of battle rattle in 120 Degree heat or up and down the Hindu Kush sucks ass. I sympathize.

How about this. Maybe. Juuuust maybe we need to encourage the genius boss architects of these wars to be more selective in where and how and with whom they pick wars. Maybe stomping into countries where you know fuck all about the local culture is bad idea. MAYBE you wanna minimize your foot print FIRST and actually get know the people. Maybe you may not wanna BOMB THE LIVING FUCK OUT OF THE CHILDREN first.

And then just maybe when you need to go in after some bad guys you can, for three dollars, hire fifteen local kids to schlep your shit for you and you won't have to worry about them blowing themselves up. And maybe you should just keep your lazy fat asses in shape and not march into hell holes with so much death metal.
posted by tkchrist at 10:09 AM on March 13, 2009 [8 favorites]


According to Vive le Canada founder Susan Thompson, most boycotters felt that a U.S.-owned company, and in particular a military contractor such as Lockheed Martin, should not be involved with the Canadian census

Not saying I disagree with Ms. Thompson's concerns, but I wonder if the issue is a little deeper than Wikipedia suggests. Canadian corporations have frequently used NAFTA-based lawsuits to take over jobs provided by American companies within the United States. One could be using a (rightfully) contentious and probably illegal war as a means to keep a Canadian company doing work for the Canadian government, even though (by NAFTA's wording) an American company such as Lockheed Martin would have as many rights to bid for the contract as any other North American entity.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Video, for those who want to see it in action.

Snarking aside, this is pretty amazing technology, although I'm sceptical until I could actually feel the effects of wearing one. When I trained in the Territorials, I occasionally carried loads around the 90 - 100lb mark, and that can be close to the debilitating line over long distances.

If this thing made it possible for troops to carry double that (as claimed in the video), then it's pretty mind-blowing. It changes all sorts of assumptions about the capabilities of forces at the end of long or air-dropped supply lines. Especially special forces.

Of course, the whir-click, whir-click it makes as you trundle through the desert dust ("The Yankee robo man is over there, quick, shoot him!"), the batteries required and its susceptibility to failure may make it more trouble than it's worth.
posted by Happy Dave at 10:13 AM on March 13, 2009


I was putting together a post on powered exoskeletons, so I'll just add the links here:

Raytheon SARCOS (video) (wiki)

I've been waiting for power armor for a long time, and this is a much needed first step. I can now see a point in a not too distant future where I can finally live out my Robocop/ Starship Troopers/ Halo/ Marathon fantasies of being an unstoppable robot powered killing machine.

Though I have no need to kill, so instead, I will be an unstoppable mechanical hugging machine. With armor.
posted by quin at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2009 [3 favorites]


When did soldiers become "Warfighters"?

This is defense industry lingo, and has been in use for a long time. I first noticed it years ago on the billboard ads in the Pentagon metro station in D.C.
posted by jsonic at 10:16 AM on March 13, 2009


Am I the only one involuntarily visualizing tripping and falling forward with 200lb to help my descent? Hello Mr. Rock.
posted by jester69 at 10:17 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why do defense contractors invariably use the same bland generic shitty electric guitar music for their unveiling videos?
posted by Scoo at 10:18 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


the batteries required and its susceptibility to failure may make it more trouble than it's worth.

I'm thinking more about what happens when you stumble or turn a cuff the wrong way around and the skeleton decides that your leg now needs to bend the other way.
posted by rokusan at 10:20 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


When did soldiers become "Warfighters"?

Marketing.

"Soldier" sounds mindless, like "drone". Warfighter sounds noble, powerful, heroic.
posted by rokusan at 10:21 AM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


When did soldiers become "Warfighters"?

"Warfighter is a term used by the United States Department of Defense to refer to any member of the US armed forces or a member of any armed forces under the US flag. It is intended to be neutral regarding military service or branch, gender and service status. It is frequently used in Defense Dept memos or directives which are intended to apply to all services equally."

In other words, it's an invented term so sailors, Marines and airmen can still call themselves sailors, Marines and airmen, and not "soldiers," which is what you call someone in the U.S. Army.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:23 AM on March 13, 2009


When I was watching the video of the guy with the gear and he suddennly started to run, in my head I heard "RUN, FORREST!"

I was greatly disappointed when the braces didn't pop off his legs.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:26 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


But the technology has constructive uses, too. Consider the uses for people with disabilities and rehabilitation from trauma.
posted by njbradburn (23 comments total)


Consider the constructive uses in construction. Or for UPS drivers. Given economies of scale and a leaner design, this invention could improve the quality of life for people in many manual-labor intensive fields.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:31 AM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


How about this. Maybe. Juuuust maybe we need to encourage the genius boss architects of these wars to be more selective in where and how and with whom they pick wars.

In theory (theory!), this will allow commanders to do just that. Allowing your "warfighters" to carry twice as much gear through bad terrain means that in theory (theory!), you can send fewer guys overall. Which may, in theory (theory!), allow you to be more selective, flexible and effective.

Recall that in Afghanistan Part I, Mazar-i-Sharif was taken through a combination of big-ass planes playing the role of "bomb truck" with GPS-guided munitions, called in by guys on horseback. That's a whole lot better than sending in an entire battalion.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:32 AM on March 13, 2009


"Warfighters"?

HULC smash!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:35 AM on March 13, 2009


Rational responses to current US military needs, listed in reverse order of most sensible:

Country 1: Let's spend $billions developing machinery to enable our soldiers Warfighters to carry up to 90kg in equipment.

Country 2: Let's spend $millions developing lighter equipment for our soldiers.

Country 3: Let's have our soldiers carry less equipment.

Country 4: Let's have fewer wars in godforsaken hellholes where soldiers have to carry their equipment over long pitiless desrts.

Country 5: Let's have fewer wars.

Country 6: Let's have fewer soldiers.

Country 7: Welcome to Iceland!


Okay, I'm snarking seriously here, but Lockheed Martin's website lists its stockprice on nearly every page. That's a fucking hint and a half.
posted by Sova at 10:39 AM on March 13, 2009 [6 favorites]


One step closer to the Gundam universe... and on the flip side of that coin, one step closer to the world of Wall-E. Good heavens.

Kudos for the health benefits though.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 10:47 AM on March 13, 2009


In Japan, they are using this technology for more agrarian purposes.
posted by ikahime at 10:52 AM on March 13, 2009


...or, you know, they could just carry less crap.
posted by Xoebe at 10:53 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, "warfighters" is big-time DoD (and contractors thereto) jargon. Also, I'm an anti-military commie pinko but I don't get the problem with this device. It's a wearable handtruck, not a nuclear bomb. Somebody watches this video and re-invents it (avoiding patent problems1) for everyday use and we'll love it.

1Actually, they shouldn't have to have problems with this. Stuff sold to the DoD is still that I, the taxpayer, own. Design should be open and public property, etc and so forth.
posted by DU at 10:58 AM on March 13, 2009


I'm thinking more about what happens when you stumble or turn a cuff the wrong way around and the skeleton decides that your leg now needs to bend the other way.

It's not really much of a skeleton. It looks more like it just supplements your natural strength. I doubt it's going to be killing the wearer--it looks kinda flimsy. Which also answers the objection to the battery problem. It's not like this thing is lifting tons. It's just giving you a little boost, presumably optimally timed to your gait.
posted by DU at 11:04 AM on March 13, 2009


This is great! This should widen the pool of potential draftees to include 46 year-old, out-of-shape bureaucrats. Except, of course, those of us doing essential work. Now where'd that bag of Doritos get to?
posted by marxchivist at 11:25 AM on March 13, 2009


Also excepting the "most productive" taxpayers, naturally.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:29 AM on March 13, 2009


This is even worse than the Ang Lee version.
posted by Mister_A at 11:34 AM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Country 7: Welcome to Iceland!

property of RussiaCorp!
posted by Justinian at 11:47 AM on March 13, 2009


These have been prototyped for a while, because being able to better utilize the troops on the ground is always a good plan, if you're into wars and all that. Raytheon also has one, though that prototype looks more full-body. UC Berkeley was also working on one, which may have become incorporated into something else (Berkeley's was shown back in 2004).

There was a "power suit" designed in Japan for hospital use, demoed in 2006.

For what it's worth, military investments do end up being used for the public good, but it's usually in more of a trickle-down fashion. It'd be great if the United States was willing to fund research for general good instead of military might, but there is a lot of momentum behind the military complex, from corporations and lobbyists, to notions of national pride and dominance on a global scale. Howard Zinn, amongst others, was hoping Obama would change that, but believes there need to be more protests and public outcry for things to really change.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2009


Technology is not a winning formula against religious or nationalist fervour. Just so everyone is aware of that fact now. Having a warfighter trained to the peak of physical fitness and carrying the latest and most lethal technology is not going to stop him getting killed by a roadside bomb. It's not going to help against a kid with a $50 Kalashnikov knock-off who is pissed about the invasion of his country.

Having the best toys is not a guarantee of victory.

tl, dr - War is bad, despite it being a catalyst for technology that helps everyone.
posted by longbaugh at 11:54 AM on March 13, 2009


In theory (theory!), this will allow commanders to do just that. Allowing your "warfighters" to carry twice as much gear through bad terrain means that in theory (theory!), you can send fewer guys overall. Which may, in theory (theory!), allow you to be more selective, flexible and effective.

Great. So now we give fewer soldiers more shit to do in the worst geographically remote places on earth with more highly complex expensive technology. That is not recipe for banana bread my friend.

The only way this will work Theoretically is get rid of the all volunteer military and draft smarter people who we can then train for multiple roles if this is indeed the "theory". A smaller more nimble military is awesome. Unless it's populated by drooling under-paid dunces who're just one step out of prison for gang banging. And that's who we are left with because of these idiotic wars of Bush's. The military is bleeding competent and experienced people left and right.

And it seems to me these malnourished scrawny third worlders don't seem to hassle much with scampering well on rough terrain hauling all their shit around? But we are losing wars due to it?

I'll tell you what the theory is. The Theory is to pad Lockheed Martin's stock with more war profiteering bullshit. That's what the theory is.

If they had half a brain they would be selling these things to hospitals and Port Authorities and steal plants and shit.

These things are great for logistical support, stevedore work, loading missiles and shit like that. But out in the field? Let's say I'd rather spend that money building relationships and human intelligence, edible MRE's, decently armored Humvees and plane 'ol body fucking armor.


Recall that in Afghanistan Part I, Mazar-i-Sharif was taken through a combination of big-ass planes playing the role of "bomb truck" with GPS-guided munitions, called in by guys on horseback. That's a whole lot better than sending in an entire battalion.


Uh. Maybe. Unless you actually, you know. Want to win a war.

If it's jumping in after bad guys to arrest them and pop back out again then then having some super human special forces might be handy. But our plan in Afghanistan was drive out the Taliban and establish a stable government. Which requires War. Occupation. Which requires a Battalion. Which in Afghanistan was admittedly a stupid god damned idea given history.

And these are the conflicts we in which are presently engaged. Wars of occupation.

I'm ALL for having technological superiority in our military. Superiority over the right set needs.
posted by tkchrist at 12:11 PM on March 13, 2009


Consider the constructive uses in construction. Or for UPS drivers. Given economies of scale and a leaner design, this invention could improve the quality of life for people in many manual-labor intensive fields.

Yes, because in general, employers would rather pay tens of thousands of dollars to double a workers productivity, instead of hiring 10 minimum-wage slaves for half the price to do the same work.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:25 PM on March 13, 2009


Warfighters? I missed that memo...

It was the same memo where "prisoners" were renamed "detainees."
posted by rusty at 12:26 PM on March 13, 2009


Consider the constructive uses in construction. Or for UPS drivers.

So now the driver can hurl my package from two blocks away and/or crush it under a 200lb foot, instead of merely kicking it toward the door and driving away before I can yell at him?

Goddamn UPS bastards...
posted by rokusan at 12:34 PM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


They also unveiled the Universal Human Load Carrier, your mom
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:03 PM on March 13, 2009


They also unveiled the Universal Human Load Carrier, your mom
I am UHLC. Hear me roar.
posted by njbradburn at 1:41 PM on March 13, 2009


Warfighters

For some reason every time I read that word I mentally insert "Tom Clancy's..." in front of it.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:05 PM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


And now we want to essentially triple the cost of our individual infantrymen when the country is literally bleeding it's treasury dry? This is their answer? Fuck me.

The military spends money on quite a few things that aren't going to see a battlefield any time soon.

I mean, consider the DARPA grand challenge for driverless cars, Boston Dynamics' BigDog, and things like that. And think back to things like DARPANet - military-funded, questionably useful to the military itself, but turned out a worthwhile investment overall.

The thing about military spending is, here's how it looks from a politician's perspective: You get the benefits of Keynesian government-spends-to-stimulate-the-economy, jobs created etc; the contracts can all go to American companies with American employees buying from American suppliers because it's for defence, don't you know; and politicians can say "look at me, I'm pro-defence and tough on our enemies". Hence, even small-government republicans like funding the military.
posted by Mike1024 at 2:35 PM on March 13, 2009


HULC SMASH ENEMY!
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:39 PM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh, sorry, Kirth Gerson, I didn't preview properly.

Also instead of the wimpy little model from Lockheed, I was hoping to see this.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:43 PM on March 13, 2009


In response to Lockheed's Human Universal Load Carrier (HULC), the Taleban have presented to the world their Mover of Universal Loads - Equine (MULE).

According to a Taleban spokesman, the MULE is a preferably tethered, hay-powered equinomorphic animal that provides users with the ability to carry loads of up to far more than 200 lbs for extended periods of time and over all terrains. Its flexible design allows for deep squats, crawls and upper-body lifting. There is no joystick or other control mechanism. The animal senses what users want to do and where they want to go, although it may decide not to follow suit. It augments their ability, strength and endurance, even if it may occasionally exhaust their patience. An onboard brain ensures the animal moves in concert with the individual - if it wants to. Its self-preservation instinct does not allow for major components to be swapped out in the field. Additionally, its unique power-saving design allows the user to operate without battery power for extended missions. The MULE’s load-carrying ability works even when power is not available, as do its shin-kicking skills.
posted by Skeptic at 2:52 PM on March 13, 2009 [6 favorites]


Also, it's an hybrid.
posted by Skeptic at 2:52 PM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


I was also thinking of doing a post about exoskeletons. Here is one called HAL from Cyberdyne of all places.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:11 PM on March 13, 2009


You joke Skeptic, but the Army is working on just that very thing, they even went with the same name.
posted by quin at 3:28 PM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


questionably useful to the military itself, but turned out a worthwhile investment overall

Like I said its obvious the potential for civilian uses of this exoskeleton. But attempting to equip every infantryman with an exoskeleton is just plain dumb. Not merely questionable. Unquestionably idiotic.

BTW DARPANet wasn't developed by a corporation. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was a GOVERNMENT agency of R&D scientist and was asigned to specific tasks by the defense department.

At the time DARPANet was unquestionably useful. Providing the crucial ability for strategic locations to communicate and share data in a decentralized way even while under nuclear attack. And it was pretty small investment.
posted by tkchrist at 4:11 PM on March 13, 2009


Oh, sorry, Kirth Gerson...

That's OK, MW. Apparently, we both missed the title of the post.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:24 PM on March 13, 2009


*Beep beep beep* major - fracture - detected.
*tshhk* morphine - administered. seek - medical - attention - immediately.

posted by yoHighness at 4:52 PM on March 13, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think this idea that soldiers can somehow carry less stuff just because they don't want to lug it is pretty stupid. It's not like they're carrying useless gear.
posted by quosimosaur at 5:12 PM on March 13, 2009


I think this idea that soldiers can somehow carry less stuff just because they don't want to lug it is pretty stupid. It's not like they're carrying useless gear.

You realize that average war kit went up like 40lbs between Vietnam and the gulf war and went up again for Iraq, right? Not including hydration.

You have IR and right vision gear now. You got frigg'n laptops and shit. The amount of shit an infantryman is issued and expected to haul is ridiculous. And the first thing anybody experienced with combat will do is go through a noobs gear and toss shit out.

One reason they have so much gear isn't necessarily becuase it's required for the mission. No. If that was the case our guys would've had actual functioning body armor in Iraq.

No. They get all this shit because of lucrative defense contracts spreading pork around. Every Senator has a contractor providing energy bars or Gortex socks or some such shit. Everybody get's some sweet action in a war.

And also the fact that the logistic systems are all run by fucking contractors now - from latrines to chow - like Blackwater who don't want to get too close to the action and crinkle thier nija outfits so the grunt has got to mule in more stuff closer to the combat zones.

Look. I am all for making a soldiers life and mission better, safer, and successful. As cool as an exoskeleton might be it's not gonna do that. Well. Not for a couple more decades. And by then we won't be to afford a military.
posted by tkchrist at 5:52 PM on March 13, 2009


Like I said its obvious the potential for civilian uses of this exoskeleton. But attempting to equip every infantryman with an exoskeleton is just plain dumb. Not merely questionable. Unquestionably idiotic.

What I was trying to express was: The military can research things, but not deploy that research's results on the battlefield. This has happened in the past, which is what I hoped to illustrate, and is likely with this project too.

Equipping every soldier with one of these might be a bad idea, but they aren't going to do that, so what's the problem?

At the time DARPANet was unquestionably useful. Providing the crucial ability for strategic locations to communicate and share data in a decentralized way even while under nuclear attack.

True, but my thinking was: Does that much military traffic actually use the internet as it is now? I was under the impression (and I'm no expert on such things) that the military has its own communications channels, separate from the internet for security reasons. I mean, if there's a nuclear war I don't think the military would be relying on the internet to launch their nuclear missiles - even though that was its original design goal.

So DARPANet started out being called a military communication network, and eventually evolved into something useful to the civilian populace, but not all that useful to the military in the way it was originally promoted.

This exoskeleton could be like DARPANet; the military funds it with some application in mind; and it takes off and finds many civilian applications; but the military doesn't end up relying on the product because they find some better way of doing what they want to do.
posted by Mike1024 at 6:21 PM on March 13, 2009



Why are we so into preparing to fight wars?

Oops. Got it. Profit.
posted by notreally at 7:04 PM on March 13, 2009


I HATE it when my Ninja outfit gets wrinkly! It takes forever to iron that shit out.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:25 PM on March 13, 2009


Great! Now those soldiers with amputations can finally get off their butts and rejoin the battle!
posted by orme at 7:42 PM on March 13, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh man, this is gonna be the coolest thing when I go backpacking. I can carry cast iron frying pan, car batteries, and saxophone. I put in an order for one, not sure if my credit card will handle a 7 million dollar charge right now though, I just put groceries on it.
posted by jcworth at 8:18 PM on March 13, 2009


Mike1024 - The military can research things, but not deploy that research's results on the battlefield. This has happened in the past, which is what I hoped to illustrate, and is likely with this project too.

I was at a 50th anniv. Gairdner symposium a couple of days ago celebrating the future of science and medicine. Four nobel laureates (imho, 3 of the 4 gave really great presentations) and a bunch of mooks. One of the mooks was a big guy at the CDC and his presentation was lamenting how funding bioscience was stupid because only a handful of the many things that received government funding reached stage 4 (not just stage 3) clinical trials and how us basic science types are stupid without saying anything about what us stupid basic science types could do in the future to improve things and get stuff into the FDA pipeline. He also spent an inordinate amount of time flogging the CDC's 'scientific journal.' I need to look up what impact factor that journal is rated. I suspect something <1, but I haven't checked.

That is, without mentioning the barriers to bringing basic research into practice and the barriers that the pharmaceutical companies have made to prevent public research from entering the clinical trials stage.

I wonder what the response would be if a presentation with a similar tack and tone was given to an auditorium full of DARPA money recipients.
posted by porpoise at 8:31 PM on March 13, 2009


I wonder what the response would be if a presentation with a similar tack and tone was given to an auditorium full of DARPA money recipients.

Just a hint: those are armed.
posted by Skeptic at 4:32 AM on March 14, 2009


this is very "starship troopers".
posted by fancyoats at 10:58 AM on March 14, 2009


"Yes, because in general, employers would rather pay tens of thousands of dollars to double a workers productivity, instead of hiring 10 minimum-wage slaves for half the price to do the same work."

They already do. A pallet jack costs several weeks wages. A forklift half a years. A container handling port must be several hundred man years of labour. And there is lots of labour out there that can't be parallelled anymore than making a baby can.
posted by Mitheral at 6:09 PM on March 14, 2009


« Older Dude, I never made it to this screen before!   |   Storyreading Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post