Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army Developing Prototype Holodeck
Our friend, Anonymous Coward, wrote in to tell us that the U.S. Army is developing what it calls the 'Cave Automatic Virtual Environment'. The facilities use 3d video and various forms of projection technology to create a virtual, interactive environment. Note the recursive acronym. (The story's in the February issue of Popular Science.)
There's a big list of recursive acronyms in the standard emacs distribution etc directory. My favorite two were always:
FINE Is Not Emacs
THIEF Isn't Even FINE
You said: Windows is not enough, starring Linus Torvalds as James Bond, 007...
Methinks instead of the simple "007" it should be something like
"Name is Torvalds, Linus Torvalds, 0.0.7"
Heheheh
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Seriously, one of the major Holodeck features is the recreation of physical objects, such as a chair to sit on. While a couple of people working in the same space can be useful, how applicable is this sort of VR training to the real thing? I would think that you don't get a huge amount of useful training out of something that doesn't even have a real cockpit...
Interestingly, the EVL also made the 3D wire-frame projection of the Death Star trench that was used in the rebel briefing scene in Star Wars. This is a project with deep roots and has been around for quite a while ...
War is damned expensive, losing a battle because the soldiers are not properly equipped and trained is more expensive. Many modern weapons are too expensive to expend in peacetime training.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I can assure you that the average soldier understands that war is not a video game, that real people, including soldiers, get killed and wounded. That's more than I can say for some civilians.
Realistic training is vital for combat effectiveness and survival. If you have to think about it, you will be in big trouble when dealing with the high stress of combat. The advantages of virtual reality simulations are cost and safety. Field exercises with live ammunition are very expensive and safety requirements are at odds with realism.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Hoo hoo! Glad someone else here has heard of it. Saw the story...thought "There's been one at the NCSA since before I was here." Truly aweomse experience, but with one caveat:
Take Dramamine before you use it.
Hey...did you notice the barf bag on the door at the one at Beckman?
CAVE - Cave Automatic Virtual Environment. Reminds me of PINE - PINE is not elm! and GNU - Gnu's Not Unix!
yes, yes, not really on topic, but I thought it was funny.
___________________
rooooar
I never knew what WINE stood for... thank you! I assumed it was something like "Windows is not enough," or something like that...
___________________
rooooar
There are several in existence already, and they've been there for 5+ years.
NCSA.uiuc has one..
When I was at the University of Illinois I took people on a tour of the CAVE at the NCSA. It's pretty cool. Four 7 foot projecttion screens on each side of you. You stand in the middle holding a joystick that is tracked by a sensor on the ceiling. LCD goggles that flip opaceity between your eyes gives you a 3D enviroment.
They the cab to a Catapiller bulldozer that they were looking into using as some sort of computer aided training.
It's alot like a first person shooter, only with out guns or textures. Personally I don't think VR will ever become something revolutionary until we develop a more immersive enviorment (real touch (not just that lame vibration stuff) and the solving the dismounted soldier problem for example).
Izaak
The Bolachek Journals
The Cave is the big room style VR thing, linking two together may be new, but I doubt it. Whats cool is that the military are using that kind of thing for simulation :)
You can't win a fight.
The CAVE works well for visualizing N-body calculations, like galaxy mergers, because the particles can be represented by simple shapes like spheres, and because you can pare down the particles to a reasonable number without losing too much information. Unfortunately, we had less success visualizing computational fluid dynamics calculations because the number of polygons required to represent the complicated surfaces made the whole business prohibitively sluggish. That was too bad because I had had these visions of the protostellar disk models swirling in midair in front of me like the accretion disks in ``The Black Hole'' (a cheesy sci-fi movie, for those not familiar with it). Oh, well, someday.
-r
The Internet, the successor to the ARPA-net, was developed using funding from DARPA, a DoD group who funds advanced projects. The ARPA-net was designed and developed as a distributed communications system which, amongst other things, could survive a nuclear war. (That was one of the driving design goals of TCP/IP, and that's why IP is so good at surviving things like a router going down.)
I first got started using the 'net way back in '83 when I was a student at Caltech. And at that time, you were only permitted to use the 'net if you had a valid research grant which required use of the ARPA-net account. Of course by about '85, that rule was largely ignored, and the whole thing turned over to total civilian control by about the same time, as I recall.
(Of course at the time I was drinking more beer than paying attention to whose research dime I was e-mailing on; silly me. So take my cronology with a grain of salt.)
But in point of fact, the academic world designed the thing in much the same way the academic world designs things like spy satelites and better ballistic missles and radar jammers and all those other nifty high-tech death machines...
On the Department of Defense's dime.
if you beleive that killing people can ever be 'appropriate', then you have been brainwashed. the most basic tenet of any real moral philosophy is the sanctity of human life.
When a burglar breaks into your house and puts a gun to your throat, do you believe it is immoral to defend yourself, even if you have to resort to lethal force? Or do you believe you should simply yield, and perhaps die?
The analogy does extend to the international arena. I'm sorry if you don't see that, but unfortunately it does.
. it makes the US look foolish on the world stage when they say to milosevic et al. "don't kill people, killing people is a bad bad thing! hell, we think it's such a bad thing, we are going to send OUR army in and kill YOUR people. basically, they are saying "we will teach you not to kill by killing."... tha's like 'fucking for virginity'... it just makes no sense.
*shrug* I'm sorry if it doesn't make any sense to you, but it's about the use and/or the threat of use of lethal force. Sometimes you can stop someone by talking them down. Sometimes you can stop someone by threatening to blow them away. And sometimes you can't stop them--and wind up having to blow them away before they kill more people themselves.
We tried talking in Kosovo. We tried for *years*. Did no good; in fact, it got to the point where the folks there believed they could do whatever the hell they felt like because President Clinton didn't have the balls to intervene. Are you suggesting that in light of massacres and rape and pillaging and death we should send over yet another polite letter asking if they could stop?
Of course we could always just ignore things in Kosovo--quite a few people here in the United States advocated just that. But if you recall your world history, you'd remember that World War I started because of interlocking relationships between various factions that were (and are now still) fighting over there.
And if you think an isolated massacre sucks, try a world war in a world full of smaller powers with weapons of mass destruction.
how is training your army to be more effective at killing going to reduce the number of casualties, you nitwit! it might reduce the financial cost of war for you, but tha's about it.
Simple: the threat of force causes most people to think twice about starting a war themselves. In fact, it's working with you, so don't think it doesn't work with world leaders as well.
Again, if you recalled your history, you'd note the reason why the United States dropped two nuclear warheads on Japan at the end of World War II was because Japan refused to surrender and refused to stop making war on it's neighbors, and the estimated casualty count for invading Japan was in the multiple million range.
What happend in Nagasaki and Heroshima sucked. What could have happend if we had choosen to invade Japan would have been far worse.
why only two? you mean only two that you can think of... there's things like diplomacy, sanctions, the UN war crimes tribunal, etc. now, i don't have a problem if some highly highly skilled commandos capture these murderers so that they can stand trial in a court of law (what a new-age thought!) but, again, fighting to end some fighting makes you look like an idiot.
Several points.
1) Diplomacy only works when the agressors are willing to sit down and discuss reasonable measures. In the case of Kosovo, diplomacy was tried for *years*, and because the people involved had the honor of small hungry children who promise not to steal cookies from the cookie jar, diplomacy was a total and complete failure.
2) Sanctions only work when the country who is having sanctions used against it cares one whit, and when the parties imposing a sanction actually follow it. Or didn't you read about the Russian oil tankers who were attempting to run the UN imposed blockade against Iraqi oil?
By and large, with a willing leader who doesn't care about his people, sanctions don't work at all. Or did you forget about Cuba, who is moving into a quarter century of sanctions without changing it's government one millimeter?
3) A UN war tribunal only works when the governments who form the tribunal under UN authority are willing to send troups in in order to settle the situation--that is, if the UN is willing to send in troups who are prepared to kill people. Without such forces who are willing to impose the will of the tribunal, such a court of law is little more than a legal masturbation exercise--it may feel good, but ultimately produces nothing but a small mess.
4) As to the commandos: the United States has tried that on rare occassion, and has gotten into quite a bit of trouble. Frankly, sending in commandos is a violation of international law, while sending in troups is not, and for good reason: in theory, nations are not supposed to resort to undermining other nations--their complaints are supposed to be brought out in the open so the international community can know what the hell is going on.
Furthermore, the United States has made sending in commandos as you suggest illegal unless the President signs a special order. So it's not something we can "routinely" do.
well, this is just wrong again. it is not your army that protects you from domestic deathsquads (i didn't know that was a problem in the states, i guess i'll have to look for them next time i'm down there), it would be your local police dept, as far as i can tell.
There are clear lines of jurisdiction. And in the United States, it is the army who is responsible for external invaders, and the states (and by extension the local police) who are responsible for keeping local law and order.
Of course there is a lot of 'bleed over' in sharing technology: the city where I live are using technology developed for the Army to catch speeders at night. And the same training techniques are used, more or less, by the local police force to train cadets.
But what I was talking about was the fact that unlike many areas of the world, having a powerful army who is directly controlled by a civilian government, and who is embedded in a culture who prizes diversity and law and order above chaos and "kill your neighbor if he's not your brother" allows me to sleep better at night.
I believe that this is sometimes the case--I have translated acounts of some of the very same roman sooldiers and gladiators you speak of who rather enjoyed killing (or claimed to.)
Well, the predominate religion of the soldiers at that time, Mithriasm (sp?), put a high value on acting like a soldier: that is, it put a high value on killing and being killed with honor. So in a sense, killing folks and dying on your own shield were both considered holy, religious acts.
When Christianity started sweeping the Roman empire with it's acceptance by Constantine, Christianity adopted many of these "millitaristic" aspects. Thus things like "onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war" has a long, ingraned history in Christian thought. Of course Christianity borrowed heavily from earlier Roman military cults, including things like an afterlife and a "heavenly reward for a life lifed well"--well being redefined to include non-soldierly acts.
In fact, as far as I can find, in Western civilization the notion that killing someone during battle is a bad thing is a recent invention. In large part because of people's disgust at the very cold blooded and calculated way we can now kill thousands or millions with the push of a button.
So I would argue that in fact, the depersonalization of war has made war unthinkable, rather than the other way around. That is, war and killing people was more acceptable to people when we were doing it hand to hand and face to face.
My impression was not that his son was "weak", but when he died, his sons returned from doing battle to attend the funeral, and that stopped the westward momentum.
On the other hand, it was said about the Mongol empire that a well-dressed young woman could ride on horseback with two large sacks of gold from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean without once being accosted or robbed. Quite an impressive accomplishment for *any* empire or nation-state, even in today's world.
I see someone's not up on their history.
Let's see. We have the Mongolians who, in the process of spreading their might, wiped out millions, one at a time, using nothing more sophisticated than an axe. They were deadly enough that the name Khan just rang all sorts of bells with that Star Trek movie...
Then we have the Romans, whose spread of civilization was done at the cost of all of those insignificant, worthless "gauls" who weren't considered important enough by the Romans to do much more with than slaughter and enslave.
Of course we have the crusades, the various civil wars, holy causes, and of course the Inquisition. All fought with low tech. All fought more or less hand to hand. And many weapons were designed to kill someone only at very close range--such as a double-handed long sword, whose primary purpose was to dismember a knight in shiny armor in much the same way you pull apart a cooked lobster.
People have been killing people in very large numbers at very close range for thousands of years. It wasn't like the invention of a programmable missle controller chip (the predecessor to the Intel 4004) caused people to suddenly realize "hey, I don't have to take moral responsibility for who I kill, so let's fight even bloodier and bigger wars than ever before."
Nah; technology found its way to the private sector where it was used, ah, um, for stuff like this web site.
Political science theory going over your head? Here's a brief primer.
In the United States, we've studied these sorts of things to death. Things like the appropriateness and inappropriateness of war. And what most of the better thinkers in the US have come up with is that you only fight a war when another country (a) starts it, (b) that this war will affect citizens abroad in a negative way, (c) you can go in and stop it, and (d) the cost of stopping the war (by engaging the other side) is less than the cost of allowing the beligerant party to continue.
So in the United States, as we are the defacto policeman of the world (and have been to one degree or another since the Monroe Doctrine), we've been trying to figure out how to reduce the cost of war (in terms of casulties on both our side and theirs) in an attempt to promote a degree of "piece" at least for US citizens traveling abroad.
It sucks.
But until you can figure out a pieceful way to solve things like the Balkanization of Yugoslavia (yes, I appreciate the irony) and the murder and/or displacement of millions of innocent civilians in places like Chechnia, Kosovo, or Cambodia in a way which doesn't require some form of force, unfortunately you are going to have two choices.
1) Use force. And that means having very well armed people who are very well trained at killing people, or
2) Allow madmen like the Khamer Rouge run wild, murdering whoever they like.
The world sucks. But having the biggest and baddest army in the world maximizes the chance that when I go to sleep tonight, death squads won't break into my house and murder my wife as she sleeps next to me.
While, your philosophical/moral standpoint is great and I *REALLY* wish it worked that way in real life, but it doesn't. The problem with taking the attitude of, "oh, lets try and work this out, and not fight" doesn't really work in the real world. In the real world you have people like Hitler, who didn't care less about countries such as France when he just basically rolled over them with the Panza divisions. If Britain weren't able to hold out as long as they did, Europe would have fell to Germany in no time. Actually if France would have started building up their military when Germany was, they probably would have been able to hold out longer and do a better job.
The point I'm trying to make is, when you have a good army, and able to possibly stomp out the other guy, and willing to take the risk of going to war to protect your country and your freedoms from nasty people, then the philosophical/moral thing is useless. What good does it do you to have philosophical ideals when you got some dictator telling you which hand to wipe your ass with?
This is also why it's good to have things such as the CAVE so that we have better trained soldiers able to kill better and quicker. I tell you this, I quite happily enjoy the little freedoms I have left, and I'd like to keep them, thank you very much!
the appropriateness and inappropriateness of war if you beleive that killing people can ever be 'appropriate', then you have been brainwashed. the most basic tenet of any real moral philosophy is the sanctity of human life. it makes the US look foolish on the world stage when they say to milosevic et al. "don't kill people, killing people is a bad bad thing! hell, we think it's such a bad thing, we are going to send OUR army in and kill YOUR people. basically, they are saying "we will teach you not to kill by killing."... tha's like 'fucking for virginity'... it just makes no sense.
we are the defacto policeman of the world heh, tha's a good one. so basically, the US is hypocritical once again: by this logic, you have completely destroyed the notion of the soveriegn nation-state. so when the US complains about unfair trade practices or illegal immigrants, they are coming from the standpoint of: we can go anywhere in the world and do anything to anyone we want, but if anybody tries to do that to us, well, we'll just have to kill/sanction/brainwash them.
reduce the cost of war (in terms of casulties on both our side and theirs) how is training your army to be more effective at killing going to reduce the number of casualties, you nitwit! it might reduce the financial cost of war for you, but tha's about it.
you are going to have two choices why only two? you mean only two that you can think of... there's things like diplomacy, sanctions, the UN war crimes tribunal, etc. now, i don't have a problem if some highly highly skilled commandos capture these murderers so that they can stand trial in a court of law (what a new-age thought!) but, again, fighting to end some fighting makes you look like an idiot.
But having the biggest and baddest army in the world maximizes the chance that when I go to sleep tonight, death squads won't break into my house and murder my wife as she sleeps next to me. well, this is just wrong again. it is not your army that protects you from domestic deathsquads (i didn't know that was a problem in the states, i guess i'll have to look for them next time i'm down there), it would be your local police dept, as far as i can tell. of course, if you were a little more widely read even of your own citizens' writing, you would know that many of the worst deathsquads in history were armed and trained by the US military. grab some chomsky and re-assess your ideas of the nation-state.
I think you misunderstand some basic tenants of human thought. You can not tell Milosovic, 'Excuse me, we rather disapprove of you slaughtering thousands of people over there, could you please stop?' and expect him to stop. So unless you plan on selectively eliminating every human that has a potential for violence from the gene pool (which must necessarily involve violence and is usually classified as Genocide since it would end the human race) we will have violent people that must be opposed. And as nice as it is to believe that laying down in the street in front of a few dozen tanks is going to make a HUGE difference, if the driver of the tank just runs you down you're screwed.
As for Capturing people like milosovic, how exactly do you expect to do that without violence? The man doesn't just stroll down the street by himself.
I suggest you give up your hopelessly naive world view and whiny apologistic philosophy and go take a look at what REALLY happens when a violent person is given free reign to do what they will.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
We have one here at the University of Virginia Center for Advanced Computational Tech. at NASA Langley. It's kinda neat the first few times, but there's the nagging problem of getting things to wrap around the corners of the room properly. To replace it, we've invested in ARC's VisionDome. Ooooooo... :-)
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
If I remember correctly, there use to be an SGI OpenGL version of Doom. This alone would make it rather easy to transfer to a CAVE-like system. Since the CAVE in Amsterdam is also equipped (AFAIR) with a very fast network connection allowing it to connect to other CAVEs, multiplayer mode is entirely possible, and probably already done.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
http://www2.sara.nl/hec/vr/cave/.
I went there a couple of years ago and was suitably impressed. They use several high-end SGI to control the 3D display on several walls (please don't say we could do this with PC's nowadays. You can't). You need to put SGI's 3D glasses (crystal eyes) and use a "magic wand" (a 3D mouse). Several people can enter in the CAVE and view and control 3D animations. One of the most impressive is the one about galaxies merging. You feel you are there, so to speak. Unfortunately, more software is need for these CAVEs.
Maybe like in start trek, we could use these things for games. VR quake anyone?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I think that it will be several years before we see this kind of thing in our homes. The CAVE is only a 10x10 room, according to Popular Science. There are a lot of other possiblities for this type of technology, as you can guess. From holographic "batting cages" to holographic video games. This might be an interesting field to be a pioneer in.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
That's an interesting concept - I wonder if they simulate tank breakdowns?
Being an ex-military Fire controll tech let me clue you in on something...They may just apear as images on a scope but in your mind you know that thier is a living being on the recieving end of the weopon you just deployed. They have a mother maybe a wife and kids they are a person just like you...They might even be kids...but that is the burdon of a solider/sailor/airmen...You make it sound like it's something out of the book Ender's Game..let me tell you from first hand experience no matter how it is done it haunts you forever..WAR is never a good thing. But being in the postion to lose one is a worse thing. if this can help keep our troops safe than God bless it!
Is this a good thing? I think so. I don't think anybody has any illusions about whether or not war involves killing people. A lot of people in North America have WW2-Vet grandparents, but you don't hear a lot about how grandad is numb to violence. All of these training methods are designed to move war towards a Judo-like idea of finesse and economy of effort being a better approach than massive, overwhelming strength.
I _really_ like the idea of training towards tightly controlled, precision warfare; the phrase "minimum civilian casualties" sounds a lot better to me than "build me a pile of skulls." If a war has to be fought, let it be fought by the warriors, on the battleground. Not by turning schools and suburbs into smoking craters until there's nothing worth defending.
--
Mike Hoye
Amen to that! Either people are getting locked in there with the safety protocols turned off, or people are getting addicted to the alternate realities that you can create in there.
Although I do not have an addictive personality (unless you count my recent addiction to /.) I could see myself possibly getting addicted to a holodeck type of technology.
Hell, who wouldn't want to go live in their favorite TV show brought to life?
Let's just hope they never create a Commander Data, he was always malfunctioning too. :-)
Ignore Alien Orders
OTOH, at least nobody is going to get killed ort injured in these training simulations. And if there is any kind of war in teh near future , simulation programs (on both a -macro and a -micro scale) should help to at least make the battle more efficient (sounds sick, I know) and last a shorter amount of time (maybe even kill less people!!)
As for myself, I definitely think that all war should be fought by the politicians and diplomats presiding over "the peace process" (funny how they call it that), and that all such battles should be fought with battle axes, halberds, and bastard swords. The Beastly combo of 'Haglike' Hillary and 'Clever' Clinton should hold us in good stead. Maybe then international relations will be approached with a little more sanity, less concentration on overt political/economical goals, and more respect towards human life.
Plus, I bet the televised combat would get great ratings on both countries, no matter the winner. You could donate the advertising money spent by the major corporations on humanitarian relief efforts. Plus wed have fewer members of congress and the executive staff. Everybody would win, even if we lost....
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
To that, I can only add that I expect that monkey team to win, place and show in the perl poetry contest, too.
I originally saw this in an SGI magazine about 5 years ago ... the Cave was a cubic room with projections on all sides and one of the environments was a world where you created life (plants, butterflies, music) through your movements.
;)
Here are a couple of links to the Cave @ SGI: http://www.cio.com/archive/050197_et_content.html
http://www.sgi.com.au/news/cave.html
Very cool, the contact for the second one is in Sydney
-
Besides wearing glasses as someone mentioned, you use a "wand" or 3D mouse to control things. When I was working on my master's degree at Tech, I did a project with the CAVE for a class called Computer Supported Cooperative Work. We did some of the first investigations into hooking up multiple CAVEs so that people could collaborate with each other, seeing each other as an avatar in the CAVE. Unfortuntely, the link to the paper is broken, but here is some info on other projects that grew out of that class project.
now, on to your points:
the appropriateness and inappropriateness of war if you beleive that killing people can ever be 'appropriate', then you have been brainwashed. the most basic tenet of any real moral philosophy is the sanctity of human life. it makes the US look foolish on the world stage when they say to milosevic et al. "don't kill people, killing people is a bad bad thing! hell, we think it's such a bad thing, we are going to send OUR army in and kill YOUR people. basically, they are saying "we will teach you not to kill by killing."... tha's like 'fucking for virginity'... it just makes no sense.
we are the defacto policeman of the world heh, tha's a good one. so basically, the US is hypocritical once again: by this logic, you have completely destroyed the notion of the soveriegn nation-state. so when the US complains about unfair trade practices or illegal immigrants, they are coming from the standpoint of: we can go anywhere in the world and do anything to anyone we want, but if anybody tries to do that to us, well, we'll just have to kill/sanction/brainwash them.
reduce the cost of war (in terms of casulties on both our side and theirs) how is training your army to be more effective at killing going to reduce the number of casualties, you nitwit! it might reduce the financial cost of war for you, but tha's about it.
you are going to have two choices why only two? you mean only two that you can think of... there's things like diplomacy, sanctions, the UN war crimes tribunal, etc. now, i don't have a problem if some highly highly skilled commandos capture these murderers so that they can stand trial in a court of law (what a new-age thought!) but, again, fighting to end some fighting makes you look like an idiot.
But having the biggest and baddest army in the world maximizes the chance that when I go to sleep tonight, death squads won't break into my house and murder my wife as she sleeps next to me. well, this is just wrong again. it is not your army that protects you from domestic deathsquads (i didn't know that was a problem in the states, i guess i'll have to look for them next time i'm down there), it would be your local police dept, as far as i can tell. of course, if you were a little more widely read even of your own citizens' writing, you would know that many of the worst deathsquads in history were armed and trained by the US military. grab some chomsky and re-assess your ideas of the nation-state.
canadaman
-- This sig is.
More fundamentally, other than showing ride films and simulating shooting people, there's not much you can usefully do with the things. Like most VR, it's a technology in search of a killer app. High-resolution wide-screen videoconferencing, maybe?
(Hmm. As a technical concept, high-resolution (HDTV/SVGA or better) wide-screen video conferencing over wideband Internet connections might work. When the camera is fixed and the background is static, video bandwidth is relatively modest. "Relatively" is the operative word here; about 10Mb/sec is probably needed, although you wouldn't fill the pipe all the time.)
I think this is all part of the "virtualizing" of war. Think back to the Gulf War, with all those videos from the video-guided bombs as they home in on the target. It doesn't feel like they're actually killing people, does it?
I'm willing to bet that people who've been trained in machines like this one don't see it as training for killing - it's all just a big video game, right? Doesn't hurt anyone, right?
How long will it take before they start representing "targets" as icons rather than real video? "I just wiped out three of those blinking blue squares - what do you suppose they were?"
Yeah, let's fight a war where one side never has to see any blood, and all the bleeding's done by the other side. Go, U.S. Army! You guys must be real proud of your achievements.
Check this out: http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/new/c6page.html Iowa State University is building a fully-immersive CAVE called the C6. The normal configuration just has 3 walls and a floor. You can see the commercial version at: http://www.pyramidsystems.com/products.html