Slashdot Mirror


Military Develops Liquid Body Armor

kai5263499 writes "Military.com has an article about a new liquid body armor the U.S. Army Research Laboratory has developed. According to Dr. Eric Wetzel, the project coordinator: 'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'."

688 comments

  1. Screenshots. by monstroyer · · Score: 5, Funny
    No screen shots on the linked page, but i work as personel in the michigan militia and have set up some servers to show you what the armor in action looks like.
    Your tax dollars at work.

    1. Re:Screenshots. by panck · · Score: 0

      Your tax dollars at work.

      You government employees, always wasting your time posting on slashdot...

      --
      "What thou shalt not, I shalt did!" -Bart Simpson
    2. Re:Screenshots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 idiot

    3. Re:Screenshots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /.
      Your question is too redundant to achieve rhetorical status, silly rabbit.

    4. Re:Screenshots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "the same principal for the genitals "

      Wow, who is this principal and why do you use the same guy for all the genitals?

      Oh, did you mean PRINCIPLE?

    5. Re:Screenshots. by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      You know the parent wasn't a republican right?
      Oh and where did you get that figure of 40 years?

      Stop using your ass as your only source of information.

      I know I'm proud to be an American.

  2. Liquid Armor by larry2k · · Score: 1, Funny
    In addition to saving Soldiers' lives, Wetzel said liquid armor in Kevlar vests could help those who work in law enforcement.

    Like the RIAA?

    --

    The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X

    1. Re:Liquid Armor by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's funny is that we already have a massive kill to killed ratio.

      Even in iraq we have only lost 700 soldiers compared to tens of thousands of iraqis killed. One day in the not too distant future we will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people without losing a single US soldier or even having one injury.

      I don't know if that's good or bad to tell you the truth. When wars become even more painless I suppose we might wage them more often. OTOH we tend to wage war every few years now as it is.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      One day in the not too distant future we will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people without losing a single US soldier or even having one injury.

      Been there. Done that. It's called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look it up.

    3. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We can alreay kill millions of people without endangering a single US soldier.

      It is called nuclear option and could render entire Middle Eeast inooperable for another 50 years in about 10 minutes.

    4. Re:Liquid Armor by geekoid · · Score: 0, Redundant

      one day? we have the ability now. ICBM.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Liquid Armor by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      One day in the not too distant future we will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people without losing a single US soldier or even having one injury.
      Ummmm. We already do. It's called a nuke.

    6. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, you mean a real country like, hmmm, France? We could defeat the French using nothing but a bunch of irate Cub Scouts.

      Go ahead, coward, name the country that could even stand up to us for more than a few days.

    7. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Please measure your penis in private.

    8. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nukes are not always desirable.

      For example you may want something the country has *cough* oil *cough*. In that case you don't want to make the country uninhabitable. Not only do you want to make sure the occupying army is unharmed but you will need the labor of the civillians to make the gears of industry turn.

      If we dropped nukes on iraq who would pump the oil and transport it to our ships? How could our soldiers stay in the country for a decade to make sure people do what we say?

    9. Re:Liquid Armor by b0neman · · Score: 1

      But then Captain Kirk and Officer Spock will come down to our planet and destroy all our shiny new war computers. Then all of our fun will be over or rather, "You... can't... wage war........ any more!"

    10. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean a real country like, hmmm, France? We could defeat the French using nothing but a bunch of irate Cub Scouts.

      Actually, attacking the French would turn your large cities into radioactive wastelands, since the frogs have nukes. And I wouldn't count on the UK or any other European country as allies in that campaign. And don't get me started on supply chains and other shit if you really attacked Europe using only conventional stuff.

      Go ahead and make your pathetic the-french-are-cowards and the-eu-and-un-can-only-talk jokes. Fact is: the only countries you can beat are pathetic desert shitholes. Nothing more, nothing less. Enjoy your lives as the brave warriors who can beat anyone, as long as he doesn't have a real military.

    11. Re:Liquid Armor by John+Courtland · · Score: 2, Informative

      All but one of the guys who dropped the nukes committed suicide. 3:250000. Respectable I suppose.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    12. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greater invulnerability could actually lead to more casualties due to changes in policy and strategy. For example, our "smart" guided weapons supposedly make it easier to kill "the bad guys" without killing civilians. Except now that we have "smart bombs" we're more likely to use them in an urban area (high civilian population) where before it would have been unthinkable. Result? More civilians killed--caused by more urban bombardment--caused by the existence of "smart weapons" that attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

      It's the same thing with super body armor. The more invulnerable each soldier is, the fewer of them you need--and you can send them into more dangerous situations too. And where do you think that leads?

      Then there's things that aren't as quantifiable--like if we had a REALLY high kill ratio in Iraq, would they really hate us less? You can win every battle and still lose the war.

    13. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but that probably means the opposite side will simply give up the guns straight away, and then get the bombs out.

      I think most of the dead americans were killed by explosives, not bullets, so the end result will still be the same.

    14. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      All but one of the guys who dropped the nukes committed suicide.

      Post some factual references please. Oh wait, your statement is utter bullshit so you can't possibly have any factual references. Nervermind.

    15. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we have many more nukes than the French and in a first strike, none of their nukes would make it out of France. You see, we have these things called submarines that could launch their missiles totally unexpected from almost anywhere. The frogs would never know what hit 'em. So, go ahead and live in your pathetic little Euro dream world. You're not safe from us or even a few terrorists.

    16. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pathetic desert shitholes like, em, Germany? I seem to remember you guys (I'm assuming you're Brit) weren't having such an easy time of it, even with weapons freebies on the lend-lease plan. And just how many nukes does France have anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it about 60 on bombers (good luck getting those past a couple of squadrons of F22s) and 60 on ICBMs (which, given the Ariane failure rate, suggests only 40 would be successfully launched, with maybe 20 on target). So yes, maybe France could wipe 20 cities. And be glowing dust the next day when the other 5,000 US warheads hit.

    17. Re:Liquid Armor by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

      China

    18. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, submarines can't go everywhere undetected. And it doesn't really matter if 60 or 60.000 nukes hit your country. Your lives will be crap afterwards either way.

      So, go ahead and live in your pathetic little Euro dream world. You're not safe from us or even a few terrorists.

      We're pretty safe from you. And if I remember correctly, it was your fucking skyscrapers which collapsed, not ours. Go figure, yank.

    19. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We here in Europe have been kicking each other's asses for millenia. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Only a stupid American would assume that he's invincible. (And throw vaporware like the F22 at me. Get a clue, kid.) You wouldn't even have nukes, missiles or jet aircraft of any kind if it wasn't for basic research done in Europe.

    20. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't even have nukes, missiles or jet aircraft of any kind if it wasn't for basic research done in Europe.

      Bullshit. That's like saying if a caveman hadn't figured out how to harness fire long ago, we'd all be living in caves still.

    21. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity the fool who modded this funny...

    22. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hadn't stolen so many stuff after ww2, you wouldn't even have been the first nation on the moon.

    23. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if I remember correctly, it was your fucking skyscrapers which collapsed, not ours. Go figure, yank.

      That's because the enemy is targetting countries that might offer real opposition. They know as soon as they turn their attention to France, it'll fold (again). They started with the big dogs, and they'll fucking die for it.

    24. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words: You are clueless losers who can't even come up with a decent EXCUSE. Much less a decent DEFENCE.

    25. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      who would pump the oil

      Not the brits. They won't even put up with depleted uranium shells where they hang out.

    26. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to point out that by your logic, no one can defeat anyone who has nukes. Such is not the case.

      I don't think the French have the guts to use their nukes, really.

    27. Re:Liquid Armor by whovian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you don't want to make the country uninhabitable

      Yes, this is why neutron devices are preferable to nukes. Eliminate the people but leave the infrastructure intact. Or so I recall from whatever sci-fi....

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    28. Re:Liquid Armor by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 0

      Actually, they didn't "start with the big dogs" they started with the oppressors. The people who forced a certain culture and religion onto them. and by the way, if the US does this first strike against france, what do you think every other country in the world would do? launch all their nukes at USA
      how many bullets are in those guns? Not enought I dont think -- Merovingian
      Do you think that you have enough nukes and ABM and whatever else you have in defence to stop every single attack and simnultaniously destroy every other country? Oh, and if you do, what then? most of the world will have been destroyed by radiation etc.. Imports? Exports?

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    29. Re:Liquid Armor by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All but one of the guys who dropped the nukes committed suicide.

      And so did many victims of the Holocaust.

      And yet, many of the Nazis who committed what were -- unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- unarguably war crimes, did not commit suicide, and some continue to collect pensions from the German government to this day.

      I'm not trying to say that no American ever committed war crimes; My Lai was also unarguably a war crime (and may Calley burn in Hell!), and some of the U.S. military's actions in Iraq -- as in throwing prisoners in a river to drown -- surely are atrocities.

      I'm just pointing out that suicide isn't necessarily what the guilty do. Indeed, I'd be inclined to suggest that the really guilty, people like Josef Mengele ("Angel of Death" responsible for human experimentation at Auschwitz, died vacationing at a Brazilian beach), Rudolf Höß (first commandant of Auschwitz, executed), and Erich_Priebke (perpetrator of the Ardeatine caves massacre, still alive), tend to be so -- for lack of a better word -- evil that they feel they're not guilty and therefore feel no need for suicide or other punishment. (Indeed, Priebke so strongly felt that the killing 350 Italian civilians was not his responsibility but the responsibility of those who ordered him to do it, that he openly admitted his actions from fifty years later to a television news crew's cameras -- and it was only this admission that led to his trial).

      For the record, I believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more illegal than any bombing of cities in the war -- and all major combatants bombed cities in World War II. Dead by conventional bomb, dead by V1 rocket, dead by fire-bombing, dead by atomic bomb -- they're all dead. I'm unaware of any difference in ways of being dead, with the possible exception that atomic bombs mean a quicker death.

      Also, for the record, I believe any crime involved in dropping the atomic bombs pales beside the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Korea, China (in "the Rape of Nanking" (warning: link includes a disturbing picture of mass decapitation) the word "rape" is used pretty literally -- but includes ripping babies from their mothers' arms and bashing the babies' heads against walls, prior to raping the mother), the Philippines, and the Bataan Death March, not to mention the Japanese forced labor camps in which tens of thousands died.

      To those who contend that we "could have" beaten Japan without recourse to atomic bombs, I ask them how many more America boys would have had to have died to achieve an unconditional Japanese surrender using only conventional weapons -- and if those arguing against using atomic bombs had any of their family members on the line.

      I wasn't in the Pacific fighting Japan, but Paul Fussell (later professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania) was -- after fighting Hitler's legions in Europe -- and I'll defer to his opinion and that of the other boots on the ground: "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb"

      But let me ask you: how many American boys would you have sacrificed in further conventional war against Japan, so that you, safe at home, could claim the moral high ground of an atomic-bomb-free but protracted conventional war ?

    30. Re:Liquid Armor by John+Courtland · · Score: 0, Troll

      I whole heartedly agree with dropping the bomb. Operation Olympic was looking at losses of over 25 million. I'm just saying that the people who flew the bombs over japan were too involved. Killing 100,000 people isn't as simple as killing 1.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    31. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      china doesnt have a force that could withstand a total conflict. It does have enough to protect itself, but hardly enough to fight the U.S. and win.

    32. Re:Liquid Armor by It'sYerMam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "with the possible exception that atomic bombs mean a quicker death."

      Excuse me? A quicker death my ass! If you were dying of radiation sickness right now, or were a child with one and a half arms, soon to die from cancer I don't think you'd be so keen to drop nuclear bombs.
      I do not know whether it was "economical" (although using that word in references to human lives disgusts me) to drop the bombs, but doing something such as that was definitely an atrocity. Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils, but it was still damn evil - and everyone should recognise that.

      When it comes to a falloutesque situation, I hope it was, at least, "economical."

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    33. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You Sir, made my day!


      Too bad there is no +5 Biting Sarcasmus mod!

    34. Re:Liquid Armor by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exposing a metal structure (Let say, a tank) to a large dose of neutron radiation, makes it radioactive. FAFAIK A neutron bomb is a standard nuke without the depleted uranium shield to keep the neutrons inside the bomb until the bomb blasts apart.
      It was designed as a countermeasure against the vast numbers of Soviet tanks. There were some places in Europe where those tanks would need to drive close together to pass and if a neutron bomb would be detonated above those tanks, it would turn the invading armor devisions into radioactive metal and death bodies.

    35. Re:Liquid Armor by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      What are you quoting? The parent post didn't use the term 'economical' at all!

      Imagine how many more cities would of been destroyed before the war would of ended if the bombs weren't dropped. I bet it would be a hell of a lot more than 2.

    36. Re:Liquid Armor by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      I wasn't quoting - just using quotation marks... Sorry for the misunderstanding, but 'tis a common technique.

      Anyway, I was not talking about the number of cities/people involved, but the horrific, painful and slow deaths the populations had to go through.
      What I meant was that perhaps it was necessary to destroy two cities utterly to stop the war, but that the method used caused an incredible amount of suffering, perhaps more in that sense than would have come about had the war continued.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    37. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a rumour that:

      - China offered Russia a Pacific harbour
      if the Russians would kick the
      Japanse out of China

      - the Russians were kicking the Japanese out

      - the Japanese were very worried about
      facing both Russia and USA and the front door

      - the USA did not want Russia to get
      a Pacific harbor and put pressure on China

      - this pressure involved showing military
      strength by leveling Japanese cities

      I cant find any links to confirm such
      a rumour. Any of you have more info?

    38. Re:Liquid Armor by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what my grandfather, a retired US Army E-9 told me, the major benefits of the Neutron bomb were that the radioactive materials created from the detonation of a Neutron Bomb had extremely short (In Terms of Radioactives) half-lives. So you can drop one on a country, then move in when it cools down. Also, the Neutron Radiation caused water to boil, which will destroy wood, concrete, paper, et cetera, et cetera. I'm guessing, though I'm no Physics Major, that it would also probably destroy the oil.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    39. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pathetic desert shitholes like, em, Germany? I seem to remember you guys (I'm assuming you're Brit) weren't having such an easy time of it

      And neither did you.

      How many times it needs to be said before your brainless empty skulls absorb the goddamned truth: Yanks did not stop Germany. Soviets did.

    40. Re:Liquid Armor by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      But let me ask you: how many American boys would you have sacrificed in further conventional war against Japan

      How many innocent Japanese would you have sacrificed to save one American soldier? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand?

      You're correct that Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were really no worse that, say, Tokyo or Dresden. But comparing atrocities is a tricky calculus. Was 9/11 worse than the Trail of Tears? Was Ted Bundy more sick and twisted than Jack the Ripper?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    41. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it would be a hell of a lot more than 2.

      It already was a hell of a lot more than two.

      Hiroshima was a civilian city with little to no military value.

      It was chosen because it was one of the few cities in Japan that was still standing at that point in the war, which would make it easier to accurately estimate the amount of damage our new toy had done.

      We dropped a bomb and killed 10s of thousands of people as a *test*.

      Three days later we droped another, just to prove to the Russians that we could.

      If the deliberate mass slaughter of civillians is not a war crime then I don't know what is.

    42. Re:Liquid Armor by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils, but it was still damn evil - and everyone should recognise that.

      It most definately was the lesser of two evils, it is unfortunate that the Axis powers put the US in a position where it was also a necessary evil.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    43. Re:Liquid Armor by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      "with the possible exception that atomic bombs mean a quicker death."

      Its only quick if you get hit in the blast zone. Much of the victims will suffer 3rd degree burns over 50% of their bodies. So picture being burned half to death, and then taking 3-5 days to actually croak. Then there are the victims that will be exposed to a leathal does of radiation from the fallout. The radioactive particles kill the cells it comes in contact with, and cause somatic mutation in others. So picture slowly dying of cancer in every part of your body for two weeks to a month. Oh yeah, that includes your outer skin sloughing off, which is a dispassionate way to describe being flayed alive; the result is similar to 3rd degree burns. I assure you all the above deaths are quite excruciatingly painful, as eyewitnesses recounted.

      For the record, I believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more illegal than any bombing of cities in the war -- and all major combatants bombed cities in World War II

      I tend to agree with that. Dresden was a pretty gruesome bombing, the only difference was the absence of radioactive fallout. But historical records show that motivation to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to limit Russian influence in that part of the world. Military analysts did not believe there would be the level of casualties experienced at Iwo Jima, etc. .

      You'll get Japanese whining about the inhumanity of dropping the atomic bomb. But if their purpose is only to show that Americans were as premeditated barbaric and inhuman as the Japanese, I'll have to give them that point. So what? They're not telling me or any native American anything new. Odd how some people will try to make other people look like shit and then somehow conclude themselves to be better or that its acceptable to behave in the same manner.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    44. Re:Liquid Armor by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its about time we got rid of those troublemaking Israelis! Gee, the nuclear fallout would kill them too, wouldn't it?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    45. Re:Liquid Armor by timts · · Score: 0

      one day or later they might do that to any country on earth, without any pre-notification, anybody really feels so great about THAT day? that's developed by our tax dollar?

    46. Re:Liquid Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case you somehow read this, I invite you to say that to my face. Just reply to this, I'll meet you anywhere. You say it to me and see what happens.

  3. Terminate! by blackmonday · · Score: 0, Troll

    In other news, Skynet just got a little closer to completion today...Yikes!

  4. Polyethylene Glycol? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How is that non toxic? Ethylene Glycol is the antifreeze you find in coolant and windshield wiper fluid and I assure you it is very toxic. Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    1. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Frambooz · · Score: 0

      Poly == more! Weee!

      --
      No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
    2. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by black+mariah · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a water-soluble, waxy solid that is used extensively in the cosmetic and toiletry industry."

      http://www.google.com/search?q=Polyethylene%20Glyc ol&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf- 8&oe=utf-8
      That's from the first link.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    3. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by RogueProtoKol · · Score: 1

      Well the Di in Dihydrogen Monoxide makes alot of difference as far as water is cocerned

    4. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Thng · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Polyetheylene glycol also used to be in Dr. Pepper (at least 10 years ago).

    5. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by kegger64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most anti-freeze is proplyene glycol, not polyethylene glycol.

      --
      653899 - Another prime Slashdot UID
    6. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by the+MaD+HuNGaRIaN · · Score: 2, Informative

      How in hell did this post get Modded "Insterestng"?

      If you really want to know: look here

      BTW, that was the first hit in google.

    7. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by ramk13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "poly" changes it completely. Binyl chloride is pretty nasty (much much worse than ethylene glycol), but polyvinyl chloride is PVC and that's all over the place. Generally when you polymerize a monomer you are using up the reactive sites that would normally cause toxicity to form bonds with other monomer molecules. The same thing goes for a whole lot of other monomers.

      Polyethylene glycol is actually really bio-friendly. Proteins don't stick to it well so it can be used in the body. You can even eat the stuff. I can't think of specific products, but I know it's on the ingredient label of lots of things we eat.

    8. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      Sodium explosively combusts in water! Chlorine gas is highly toxic! Can the combination really change their properties all that much?

    9. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, it does quite a bit. PEG is used in shampoos and drugs all the time to make them nice and goopy.

      EG is toxic because it's metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase to form glycolic acid, causing acidosis (too much acid in the bloodstream), or various other nasty downstream products. PEG isn't metabolized, so it's safe.

    10. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ethylene Glycol: C2H6O2

      Polyethylene Glycol: C2H4O

      So they are pretty different from a chemical standpoint. Good old Ethylene Glycol melts at -13C, while the "poly" melts at 60C. However, when looking up an MSDS on this stuff, I get "May act as an irritant. Toxicology not fully investigated" so I wonder about it being completely non-toxic.

      See link here.

    11. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by zuikaku · · Score: 1
      If you eat too much of it, it'll clean out your guts.

    12. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Polyethylene glycol is found in a lot of cosmetics and even some foods. It is sometimes used to treat constipation. Remember, Google is your friend.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    13. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by coryboehne · · Score: 2, Informative

      And is used as a major component of both cough syrup and paintballs...

    14. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it does. Or at least can, I don't know about this specific case. Ethylene Glycol has an ethylene functional group in it, which is characterised by a reactive carbon-carbon double bond. That reactive bond is almost certainly related to its toxicity. The poly in polyethylene glycol refers to polymerization. In this process, that double bond is converted into a single bond, and attaches on either end to another ethylene glycol molecule, creating a long chain of single bonds, which are far less reactive and quite possibly nontoxic. I don't know about PEG in specific, but a modest knowledge of polymer chem suggests that is what's happening. I'm sure someone can correct me if I've got it wrong, though.

    15. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      ...is the antifreeze you find in coolant and windshield wiper fluid and I assure you it is very toxic

      I don't think the idea is to drink the stuff. Presumably, there would be the risk of it getting into shrapnel wounds, but I'd imagine that there'd be a barrier layer to mitigate this.

    16. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      chemistry is a starnge and wonderous thing. One electron on a chlorine molecule stands between it possibly giving you cancer.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    17. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Myridon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Methanol-Ethanol - who cares! It's practically the same... HEY - who turned off the sun!!!

    18. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethylene glycol really isn't that toxic. Once it's consumed, it's filtered out by the kidneys. Regular ethylene glycol has no effect on the kidneys. BUT, the liver metabolizes a small percentage of it into an oxalate (can't remember the exact one) which precipitates into calcium oxalate crystals in the kidneys. This causes renal failure and death. The method of treatment is 4-MP or good ol' ethanol. These two substrates compete for the same enzyme in the liver, preventing the liver from screwing over the kidneys. That way, straight ethylene glycol can be pissed out before any toxic metabolites are formed.

      The lesson? If people complain about your drinking...tell 'em you ingested antifreeze.

    19. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by eaolson · · Score: 4, Informative
      How is that non toxic? Ethylene Glycol is the antifreeze you find in coolant and windshield wiper fluid and I assure you it is very toxic. Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      Absolutely.

      Ethylene glycol is OH-CH2-CH2-OH and is fairly toxic. I would suspect it behaves similarly to ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH) in the bloodstream, but I don't really know. Contrast this with propylene glycol, CH2-CH2-(CHOH)-OH which is pretty much completely non-toxic.

      Polyethylene glycol is (-CH2-CH2-O-)n, where n is some large number. It's a polymer. There are different kinds of PEG, but glancing at the web, there appear to be a number of different kinds available, and they appear to be reasonably non-toxic.

    20. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Otter · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I believe it's hazardous if drunk in a large quantity (which is not so uncommon as it tastes sweet and dogs, and sometimes small children, will drink puddles of it). But it's "nontoxic" in the sense that you can get in on your skin, or even in your mouth or eyes in small amounts, without major consequences. (I disclaim responsibility for the consequences if you try it, though.)

      Like people have said, it's used in cosmetics and pharmaceutical formulations.

    21. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by rrkap · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      In a word, yes. Here are the Material Safety Data Sheets for both chemicals:

      ethylene glycol

      polyethylene glycol

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    22. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "poly" means that it's a polymer, like the polyethylene that's otherwise known as plastic.

      Polymerization chains up lots of molecules together, so it's not surprising that something that was previously toxic can be "used extensively in the cosmetic and toiletry industry." Because of the new chain structure, polyethylene glycol is a waxy substance whereas ethylene glycol is liquid. There's no way to inhale it, and no way to drink it, and anyway, the new structure has rendered it non-toxic.

      Well, okay, the MSDS says "large doses of the lower molecular weight products may cause gastro-intestinal upset."

    23. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      polyethylene glycol is a misnomer; the product is actually peo, polyethylene oxide it is WIDELY used in food, cosmetics etc and accepted as non toxix the nomenclature of PEG is completely misleading, and u r right that ethylene glycol is toxic interestingly, peo (=peg) is made from oxirane, an extreemely toxic gas

    24. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by cybermace5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water-soluble, eh?

      So...is this armor pretty much out of the question for amphibious units, or soldiers in the rain?

      Does it freeze and shatter in cold weather, or bake out in hot weather? Does it absorb sweat during a march and then your armor runs down your leg?

      --
      ...
    25. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by frankmu · · Score: 1

      here is a website touting the use of polyethlene glycol for "toiletry" uses

      miralax

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    26. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by jb_davis · · Score: 0

      Proplyene glycol is also found in cigarettes.

      --
      "Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
    27. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by emarkp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only is it "non-toxic", but it's an ingredient of one of my favorite carbonated beverages, Dr Pepper.

    28. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Sexy+Bern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Any chemist worth his salt would be able to answer that.

    29. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by ewn · · Score: 1
      Ethylene Glycol has an ethylene functional group in it, which is characterised by a reactive carbon-carbon double bond.

      This is just not true. Ethylene glycol is HO-CH_2-CH_2-OH, no double bonds involved. For toxicity info, see here or here.

      Besides, the compund the article talks about is polyethylene glycol, which is the polymer of ethylene glycol (as the name says), chemical formula is HO-(CH_2-CH_2-O)_n-H (n usually >>100). See here.

    30. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shampoo-based armor? My taxpayer dollars are paying for shampoo-based armor?

      Blech, I'm moving to Luxemborg.

    31. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main reason that Ethylene Glycol is toxic is that a metabolic byproduct is glycoaldehyde, a close relative of Formaldehyde, the acidosis is bad but would rarely be fatal on its own. The treatment for Ethylene Glycol poisoning is Ethanol ingestion because "Ethanol will competitively inhibit alcohol dehydrogenase", so if someone ingests EG give them a glass of Vodka and take em to the ER for observation.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    32. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really are fucking dumb

    33. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Funny

      No wonder why both of them taste like absolute shit.

    34. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hydrogen is explosive, oxygen promotes burning
      yet water puts out fire.

    35. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe PVC is relatively non-toxic (nothing is completely non-toxic probably), mostly it is mixed with all kinds of chemicals which can be quite nasty. If I remember correctly the weakeners & hardeners are the biggest issue.

      So don't go byte in that first piece of PVC you come around now, even if it looks apetizing.

    36. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by subtillus · · Score: 1

      IIRC,

      PEG is used as a humectant in most salad dressings...

    37. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windshield washer fluid contains either methyl alcohol (Methanol, wood alcohol) or ethyl alcohol (ethanol, grain alcohol). Ethylene Glycol is also green colored, sweet tasting (that's why animals like to drink it) and more expensive. Propylene Glycol (Sierra brand) is much less toxic, and also used as an antifreeze/coolant.

    38. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      But what with hard silica particles?

    39. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Raunch · · Score: 1

      That shouldn't surprise you, after all water(H2O) is that major component of your body, but Hydrogen Peroxide(H2O2) would kill you, and all it has in one more oxygen.

      So one one hand we have the basis of all life and argurably the most harmless liquid on the planet, and on the other, a rocket propellant.

      Don't anyone respond with that crackpot shite about hyper-oxygenation therapy. I'm talking about concentrated stuff. Here's what wiki has to say about it.

      "35 percent Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide", which is 35% pure hydrogen peroxide, has been marketed under names such as "Oxywater" or "H2O2", with claims of medicinal or therapeutic value. According to peddlers of the product, it can be diluted and used for "hyper-oxygenation therapy" to cure AIDS, cancer, and many other conditions. Some have claimed that information about these "beneficial" uses of peroxide have been suppressed by the scientific community. The US Food and Drug administration has published a warning against the use of 35% peroxide in the home for any purpose. At least one death, and several serious injuries, have occurred as a result of ingesting this treatment. People who use 35% hydrogen peroxide "water it down" to whatever concentration is needed for the specific situation. Storing 35% makes it convenient to keep enough on hand, which is why people buy it this way. For example, use of 1 cup of 35% H2O2 in a warm bath is simple (and cheap), where use of 3% H2O2 would be less convenient (about 11 cups) and more expensive.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    40. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by forel · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're confusing Polyethylene Glycol with just Ethylene Glycol, which does taste sweet and dogs often lick up puddles of it as it is in antifreeze and ends up on driveways. Not good for fido.

      --
      -- What I don't have in intelligence, I make up for in a lack thereof.
    41. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by forel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm, wrong. Most antifreeze is Ethylene Glycol, not Propylene Glycol nor Polyethylene Glycol. Propylene Glycol is often found is candy and is the liquid used to make fog in fog machines.

      --
      -- What I don't have in intelligence, I make up for in a lack thereof.
    42. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethylene glycol is colorless, and if you buy it pure as a chemical it comes that way, but the stuff sold in bulk for automotive use has a color added in an attempt to make it more obvious that it's not intended to be consumed. (Of course, people later decided to color some soft drinks green, so now kids may think green drinks are edible...)

    43. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by deathazre · · Score: 1

      I also believe PEG is used in some soft drinks as a coloring agent or something like that.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    44. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by CheshireCat · · Score: 1

      The chemical to which you are referring is ethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze. Polyethylene glycol is an entirely different substance, and is indeed safe to ingest.

    45. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "And is used as a major component of both cough syrup and paintballs..." ... and flaming Moe's!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    46. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i use polyethylene glycol to cleanse my patients bowels prior to doing endoscopy. Products like Golytely and Nulytely use this polymer as a hydrophilic purgative. When you drink it and really does not go lightly!

    47. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by GypC · · Score: 1

      Chlorine is a deadly poison. Does Sodium really change it all that much?

    48. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      "major component of both cough syrup and paintballs" That's why paintballs taste so bad!

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    49. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by kegger64 · · Score: 1

      Erm, not for long...

      http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim4 43.htm#PartTitle:4.%20%20USES

      Actually, you ARE right. Most auto antifreeze is currently ethylene glycol, but there's legislation in California to move to propylene glycol as a non-toxic substitute. Freeze point depression isn't as good as eth-gly, so it probably won't ever happen in Northern states.

      --
      653899 - Another prime Slashdot UID
    50. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read in my grade 4 science book that the heat of formation of water; hydrogen gas and oxygen gas is high, such that the product (water) has low potential to do just about anything. Same goes for sodium and chlorine.

      Next we are learning how to subtract numbers!

    51. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhhh, the fluid is inside of little packets. The packets are fairly flexable, since they contain liquid, but they solidify when sudden force is applied, such as a bullet/shrapnel impact, or a concussive blast. They are inset into combat gear, instead of rigid plates.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    52. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by gilrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      My experience with MSDS sheets is that if it doesn't say it will rot your arm off, it's probably pretty damn safe. They try to cover all the bases, and relatively everyday materials wind up sounding alarmingly dangerous... Of course, you ought to check a MSDS before handling any material you're unfamiliar with -- but with a large enough grain of salt that you don't wind up paranoid of toching sand, or something. Seriously, look sand up -- dangerous stuff. :)

    53. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Mad+Alchemist · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sort of. Ethylene glycol looks like this:

      HO-CH2-CH2-OH

      The repeat unit of polyethylene glycol looks like this:

      -CH2-CH2-O-

      So with polyethylene glycol, just attach that unit end-to-end over and over again. How many repeat units you have in the polymer will determine the melting point and many other properties. The MSDS you link to is for PEG-8000, which probably means it has a molecular weight of 8000.

      Incidentally, you'll notice that the ethylene glycol unit (the monomer) is different from the PEG repeat unit by an H2O -- water is a byproduct of the polymerization.

      Polymerization does make a huge difference in properties. Polyethylene is basically ethane (or, if you look at it another way, methane) attached end-to-end, but polyethylene, of course, is very different chemically from methane.

      Finally, I get to post to Slashdot about a technical subject I know something about. Quick, someone, mod me up! It may never happen again! :)

    54. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly makes this insightful? It was a joke (hint: he said "both of them taste like absolute shit."; who eats PAINTBALLS?!).

    55. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Hell, even I can answer that! The combination does change their properties that much!

      ;-)

    56. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Where are you from? Any high school student should know that.

    57. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on packets of sugar substitutes and other powdered products. Sometimes you'll find "silicon dioxide" listed.

      Just toss a little sand in there to prevent caking.

    58. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been shot in the mouth with a paintball I see...those air vents over the mouth of your mask work both ways :)

    59. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that? The article says "To make liquid armor, STF is soaked into all layers of the Kevlar vest. The Kevlar fabric holds the STF in place, and also helps to stop the bullet. The saturated fabric can be soaked, draped, and sewn just like any other fabric."

      Doesn't say anything about little packets.

      --
      ...
    60. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Well, that will teach me to think I remember things from polymer chem class several years ago.

    61. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by dwbassett42 · · Score: 1

      In a word, yes. Polyethylene glycol is that different from ethylene glycol. Both are used as antifreeze because they are completely miscible in water, and have a much lower freezing point. You are correct that ethylene glycol is very toxic, less than a cup should be more than enough to kill you.

    62. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by raodin · · Score: 1

      Well, since its liquid, its pretty safe to say the thing is sealed somehow. Otherwise the armor would probably drip dry, eventually.

    63. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have missed this part "worth his ***salt***"

    64. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Mad+Alchemist · · Score: 1
      Since the PEG a fluid, I'm guessing that the vest has to be sealed anyway. Maybe I'm assuming too much, though.

      Polyethylene glycol (or any polymer, for that matter) can be made at various molecular weights. Molecular weight will determine its physical properties, including melting/freezing point, as will the amount of silica mixed in. I don't see anything in the article indicating its MW, but hopefully they'd make sure it's workable within a wide temperature range.

    65. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      It's been a while so this may have changed, but diet coke syrup (the stuff you mix with carbonated wate to get fountain diet coke) was once on the local list of things you had to have MSDS for in this state.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    66. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sodium explosively combusts in water! Chlorine gas is highly toxic! Can the combination really change their properties all that much?

      Not only that but chlorine and sodium are mostly made up of the radiating matter in alpha and beta radioactivity.

    67. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      When NaCl is dissolved in water it splits up in Na+ and Cl-. So the difference between a lethal toxin and food is a mere electron.
      All bow down for the allmighty electron.

    68. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by coryboehne · · Score: 1

      It's actually a common contest at NPPL & other competition events. The challenge is to consume (usually) 10 paintballs as quickly as possible. Yeah, they do taste like crap, but they're safe.

    69. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 1

      Actually I would compare it most to ethanols strung end to end, with a hydrogen cleaved off both sides...Oxygen makes for some big changes (especially in acidity, electronegativity, and the like) because of those unshared electron pairs. I have to admit though, at first I didn't even think "Oh, a polymer." See, Organic Chem 2 rots your brain. I'm forgetting basic things of my supposed "major"!

    70. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Mad+Alchemist · · Score: 1
      Right. I was trying to explain how polymerization can have a huge effect on properties, using an example that most people would be familiar with. Not many of us have a chance to play with ethylene glycol or PEG, but almost everyone is familiar with polyethylene, and probably also knows the general properties of methane, if not ethane. Guess I should have made that clear. Sorry.

      And yes, organic chem 2 rots your brain. Organic chem 3 melts it completely. Polymer synthesis, however, is just plain fun. :)

    71. Re:Polyethylene Glycol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!

  5. Countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lots of salt or huge silica gel packets.

    1. Re:Countermeasures by dlosey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This actually brings up a good point. If it's a liquid, it will be much less breathable than kevlar. If you are running around wearing this, you are going to build up body heat. The liquid substance will act as an insulator. The problems with this are that you will sweat and you will overheat. Your (salty) sweat could react with the body armor and possibly make it less effective.

    2. Re:Countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your (salty) sweat could react with the body armor and possibly make it less effective.

      No, because the liquid is going to be sealed inside packets which will be inserted in your clothing where metal plates or other very hard (and equally non-breathable) materials currently are.

      The only time your sweat would actually contact the liquid is if the packets came open, in which case the effective use of your body armor in the future would be the last thing on your mind.

    3. Re:Countermeasures by denise_yenko · · Score: 1

      Most of the comments in this post miss the main technical point. It is the silica nano particles that do the trick. The liquid suspension medium is probably just a compromise between competing characteristics of similar liquids. I expained all this in an earlier post.

      --
      I'm armed and I haven't changed my patch, so don't start with me -- you *know* how I get!
  6. Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God bless our brave soldiers.

    2. Re:Picture by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think he ate some too.

    3. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up please!! that's friggin funny not a troll

    4. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that's missing from that photo are the bunny ears.

    5. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My eyes!

      Oblig Simpsons - "Ze Gogglez! Zey do nothing!" etc...

    6. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His belly is wellfor^H^H^Hprotected...

    7. Re:Picture by pixel-fodder · · Score: 3, Funny

      amazing how less manacing the soldier looks as a result. Maybe an unanticipated side effect of this kind of body armour is that the opposing forces would be temporarily confused / rolling around in puddles of piss from too much laughter.

    8. Re:Picture by Takara · · Score: 1

      That man was actually making a tron costume. The results are quite frightening.

    9. Re:Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG you had me dying on the floor.

    10. Re:Picture by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me.

      I didn't click your link. I'd rather click on a goatsex link that any of that fat spandex tron bullshit.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  7. It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Scareduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It sounds like it works on the same principle that making a dive into your swimming pool is different from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge into the Pacific. Nifty stuff, although it seems that its resistance to stabbing has to be called into question when you consider that it's also sewable.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by jimmcq · · Score: 5, Informative

      its resistance to stabbing has to be called into question

      According to the article: "Liquid armor is much more stab resistant than conventional body armor. This capability is especially important for prison guards, who are most often attacked with handmade sharp weapons."

    2. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by kippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nifty stuff, although it seems that its resistance to stabbing has to be called into question when you consider that it's also sewable.

      not getting into situations where it breaks down to a knife fight is probably the best defense against that.

    3. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      It sounds like it works on the same principle that making a dive into your swimming pool is different from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge into the Pacific.

      I think a better analogy would be the difference between sinking into quicksand and jumping into it from the top of a tall building (I'd have kept the Golden Gate but it's hard to move it to the quicksand).

      Of course, everyone's favorite material that's hard when you hit it is Silly Putty , but presumably it's hard to impregnate Kevlar with it.

    4. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 3, Informative
      *sigh*

      that is exactly the parent's point. If its stab resistant how can it also be sewable. Since sewing is essentially stabbing a piece of cloth with a needle that has some thread going through it.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    5. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sewing needle impacts more slowly than shrapnel, so I'd image it'd have a different effect. That said, I wonder if this "suddenly rigid fluid" could be turned into a liability. Imagine a projectile designed to imact this fluid armor in such a way that the stiffened armor fluid hurtles back toward the wearer in a nasty pointy shape.

      Hook it into an RFID scanner, so you can scan your opponent to figure out what sort of ammo to use.

      But no military in the world would be dumb enough to put RFID tags on their equipment to make inventory easier...right?

    6. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is the speed of impact - being stabbed usually involves a short, fast stroke, whereas sewing is much more gentler.

      Otherwise, imagine the court cases - 'your honour, the cause of death was repeated strikes over a period of time in a herringbone pattern' :)

    7. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Sewing involves applying force over a very small area. Stabbing involves applying that force over a much larger area.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    8. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Dravik · · Score: 1

      It says more stab resistant than normal body armor. Not stab proof. I'll bet it takes a bit more force on the needle to sew it.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    9. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Threni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >*sigh*
      >
      > that is exactly the parent's point. If its stab resistant how can it also be sewable. Since > sewing is essentially stabbing a piece of cloth with a needle that has some thread going > through it.

      It's probably the same reason you can pour it slowly as a liquid. When you sew it you're using a small amount of energy on a small area, whereas a bullet has a lot more energy and mass and causes more of a chain reaction. Probably.

    10. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by chadjg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, you're right, but is that realistic?

      Take a prison guard, for example. I'm sure they have institutional procedures and general street smarts to help them out, but they still get hurt. That's why they need things like this.

      But, 7.5 pounds of sweaty armor just for stab protection is a lot of weight, and asking someone to wear another vest just for ballistic protection may be unrealistic. A vest that does both and is more comfortable than standard armor could be useful.

      And notice that the above item is designed for protection against ice picks. Knives aren't the only things that can puncture a person's hide. I defy anyone to see and avoid an ice pick in the middle of a crowd.

      --
      Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    11. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by phoneyman · · Score: 1

      not getting into situations where it breaks down to a knife fight is probably the best defense against that.

      Wow, your brilliance is unmatched - really! Commanders, just tell your soldiers "You don't need guns, ammo, armour, none of that crap - here's how it works: Just don't get into a situation where it'll come down to a fight! Right, off you go!"

      The whole idea of body armour is to protect against an inevitable danger. People who really need it don't have a choice about avoiding a situation where they may have to have a knife fight, or gun fight, or whatever. Their job or situation puts them squarely in the path of danger.

      Pierre

    12. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by The+Almighty+Dave · · Score: 1
      Have you ever used a sewing machine?

      They usually involve a short, fast stroke.

    13. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      Conjures up memories of David Lynch's Dune:

      "The slow blade penetrates the shield."

      Odds are you can push a needle through the armor as long as you're not running the machine at full speed. The stuff only turns hard if you hit it with a lot of energy. By using a slower moving needle, you can avoid triggering the armor's rigidity.

      Of course, the pointier the stabbing implement, the less effective the armor. The needle probably can go faster than a knife, in part because it's so sharp.

      --AC

    14. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sewing machines drive the needle with a cam which can be shaped to vary the speed profile of the stroke.

    15. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Eevee · · Score: 1
      "During normal handling, the STF is very deformable and flows like a liquid. However, once a bullet or frag hits the vest, it transitions to a rigid material, which prevents the projectile from penetrating the Soldier's body,"

      It bends under normal pressure, but stiffens under force. So, all you have to do is keep your needle from impacting the armor at high speed and you're good to go. Even a home sewing machine lets you control the speed; a commercial unit shouldn't have any problem at all.

    16. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by ParadoxDruid · · Score: 1

      It's all about the impact speeds (amount of force and timescale) for flexible polymeric materials like this.

      A good example is Silly Putty (actually a quite remarkable material). If you apply small forces to it, it easily stretches and bends. But throw it at the ground, and it bounces without deforming shape.

      When the force is weak, the material can easily relax through various orientations. But when the force is strong and the timescale short, you have to break chemical bonds in the polymer to get deformation, making it much harder.

      So I'd imagine you can sew it (if rather more slowly than normal), but someone stabbing you with a knife would find it MUCH harder.

      A good explanation of material such as this can be found here (scroll down to "answer for chemistry majors):
      http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/toy s/5ac8/det ail/

      --
      This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
    17. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      What kind of knives do you use? He said 'stabbing' not 'cutting'. Knives put a lot of force in a *very* small area.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    18. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes I have - at school (years back) we had a term where we were taught 'home economics' (as it was called back then). I learned how to use a sewing machine, and how to cook rice. Can't remember anything else though, but it's good to know that the taxpayers money wasn't entirely wasted.

      You have a foot pedal where you can change the speed. you can make the needle rattle along pulling the fabric out of your fingers (well... oops, ow, ow, scissors needed here), or really, really, really slowly - generally used for the tricky bits (i.e. doing straight lines for me).

      Now, where are the girls on /. to back me up. Oh yeah, I remember, asserting their post-feminist privileges and status :)

      You'll just have to go on a sewing machine for yourself. Let us know how you get on.

    19. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Speed is probably a factor as well.

      There's an old trick with a paper towel tube, some salt, and wax paper.

      If you put a stick through the salt slowly enough it pierces the paper. But if you ram it quickly the particles of salt bind and resist the force.

    20. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One solution would be to sew it slowly...

    21. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by citrik · · Score: 1

      Just sew slowly....

    22. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Raunch · · Score: 1


      It sounds like it works on the same principle that making a dive into your swimming pool is different from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge into the Pacific. Nifty stuff, although it seems that its resistance to stabbing has to be called into question when you consider that it's also sewable.


      If the material is really linked to speed of impact, then wouldn't that just mean that it would have to be sewed slowly?

      You ought to read dune, that's how their armor worked (sans the force field part), it was speed related.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    23. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about your water comparison. The Pacific does a great job of stopping you when you're jumping off the bridge, but not such a good job when you're standing on the beach and you slip your hand into the water. I'm guessing a low-speed needle would slide right through.

    24. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "that is exactly the parent's point. If its stab resistant how can it also be sewable?"

      Ever notice that you can't really stab somebody with an in-tact baseball bat?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I duno. about that one, consdering that considering places like sell stuff takes a broadblad to dent

    26. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by grmoc · · Score: 1

      1) Sew slowly. (i.e. move the needle slowly)
      2) A needle has a much smaller surface area than a bullet, and it seems quite likely that the PSI applied is much higher.

    27. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Simple, it's speed dependant

      Or to put it in SciFi terms

      "The Slow Blade Penetrates The Shield"

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    28. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Starchy liquids have similar properties. A UK TV show called Brainiacs showed a guy walking on custard.

    29. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      So sew slower. Its stab resistant because presumably the kinfe is moving quickly. If you move it slowly, the liquid remains liquid. If you sew it by moving the needle slowly you should be fine. Actually I think the article mentions that the kevlar fabric is impregnated in the kevlar fabric. So you could sew the kevlar fabric ahead of time then just soak it in the liquid.

      --

    30. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Rostin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no, it doesn't.

      (Very) brief lesson in fluid dynamics.. Newtonian fluids obey this "law:"

      Shear stress = - viscosity * shear rate.

      Imagine you have two panes of glass. You lay one out horizontally and pour a layer of liquid on to it (we'll pretend it stays on and doesn't run off onto the floor). Then you place the second pane of glass on top. You apply a constant, horizontal force to the top pane of glass, and it begins to move at a certain velocity.

      shear stress = the force * the area of the glass
      shear rate = the velocity / the distance between the two panes (not really, but close enough for our example)

      Fluids with viscosities that don't depend on the shear rate are called Newtonian. Water is largely a Newtonian fluid. It's viscosity depends very strongly on temperature, but not much on shear rate. Doubling the shrear stress (the force) would result in a doubling of the shear rate.

      Ketchup is a good example of a non-newtonian shear-thinning fluid. If you put ketchup between your glass panes, you'd find that smaller and smaller amounts of additional shear stress are necessary to increase the shear rate by equal amounts. This is easy to understand, b/c our everday experience with ketchup tells us that it can take a big shock to get it moving, but once it goes, it goes quickly. (The viscosity is high at low shear rates, like when it isn't moving, and so a lot of shear stress is required. Once it starts, the shear rate goes up, the viscosity decreases, and less shear stress is needed).

      The fluid in these vests is the opposite of ketchup. It is shear-thickening. At the shear rates the armor is subjected to in ordinary movement, its viscosity presumably remains low, allowing the soldier to move. But when someone tries to stab through it (a fast, high shear movement) it thickens (its viscosity increases) and the blade/bullet/whatever is stopped.

      I don't know how the stuff is sewn, but it could be sewn slowly without a problem. Remember, it's shear rate that makes it thicken up.

    31. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by wattersa · · Score: 1

      > I defy anyone to see and avoid an ice pick in the middle of a crowd

      I for one welcome our new ice pick-wielding overlords!

    32. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by artson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The science fiction novel by John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar, talks about a personal weapon called the karatand. This was a plastic glove that was normally flexible but very rigid when punching or chopping.

      Prescient.

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    33. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obvioulsy you've never sewed before. Sewing isn't stabbing, it's fitting a needle in between threads of the fabric.

      First, assume that your knife has a point that is to sharp it does fit between a couple of threads of the fabric. Next, when you push it farther in, it must cut the fabric or spread it apart, otherwise it won't go any further. I don't know of a knife that sharp that can hold an edge, so the first thing you'd have to do with the first stab is break a few strands of thread so you can start sliding in and cutting. (Yes, I realize the cutting itself is affected by the amount of force behind the blow)

      Sewing and stabbing are two completely different actions and are not comparable in any way.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    34. Re: It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > There's an old trick with a paper towel tube, some salt, and wax paper.

      The way I heard it, you use a gerbil instead of the salt and wax paper.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    35. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Funny

      > There's an old trick with a paper towel tube, some salt, and wax paper.

      There's an older trick which has been known for thousands of years.

      The Go'ald (Egyptian Gods to our ancestors) employ a personal defence shield. This shield is resistant to high-energy weapons, such as a Zatnikatel, staff weapon, or bullets. Yet a weapon with lower kinetic energy, such as a hand-thrown knife, can pass through the shield unmolested.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    36. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by GoliaththeX · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent example of the benefits available from nanotechnology research! I can't seem to find the article, but there was another excellent example a few months back in Chemical & Engineering News about nano iron oxide particles dispersed in a liquid that when energized would turn from a pourable liquid to a rigid solid. This technology would make good prision clothing. Push one button and every inmate would be instantly imobalized and unable to move.

    37. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by darkitecture · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... what you're saying is... the slow blade penetrates the shield?

    38. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been waiting for Years to see a Star Gate Ref... YEAH!!!!!!!! Here's to stargate Atlantis being a good show.

    39. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is exactly the parent's point. If its stab resistant how can it also be sewable.
      look up thixotrophy in any old physical chemistry textbook. theres heaps of examples of particle in suspension materials - the bc would be better off using fibre in suspension but i guess particles are cheaper to make

    40. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original use of this was Dune.

    41. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      then i will stab solider with very long needles

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    42. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Right, and because of the way that works you're cutting strangs one-at-a-time (or so). Very effective at penetrating most body armor...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    43. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I heard about this from a guy who got back from jail. It's called a fifi. Lotion, toilet paper tube and plastic wrap. Crap, I forget the rest, but it did involve "ramming it quickly"...

      Oh, wait...

    44. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      imagine a perforated plate --- like a colander --- I could easily sew plates like that into an uncomfortable jacket, and it would be stab resistant.

      The needle doesn't break the threads -- it goes inbetween.

    45. Re:It sounds like hitting water at high speed by Xybot · · Score: 1

      I would have imagined that it more similar to the experiment using cornflower and water. When mixed to the right consistency it is possible to dip your hand in it, slowly insert a knife etc. But when greater force is used then it spontaneously hardens. It is possible to literally crack this liquid when hitting it with a hammer.

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
  8. Call me dense by Millbuddah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to remember a gradeschool experiment where we mixed cornstarch and water in a pan and tried to slap it. Thanks to the starch, the stuff would just kinda slap you back. Is this body armor kinda doing the same thing then?

    1. Re:Call me dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that once with a chic and the same thing happened.

    2. Re:Call me dense by 955301 · · Score: 1


      You put a chic in a pan with water and cornstarch? What did you eat for dinner that night?

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    3. Re:Call me dense by lacheur · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, this is the same type of process. Fluid when handled gently, but it becomes rigid when subjected to a sharp impact.

      If you jab it, it feels hard and your finger won't go in very far. You can pour it slowly, but you can grab a clump of it, almost as if it's a solid. This kind of fluid is called dilatant. It becomes more viscous when agitated or compressed.

      The cornstarch mixture is sometime called ooblick.

    4. Re:Call me dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      her- with a side dish of corn starch

    5. Re:Call me dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right! This is related to what is known as "viscoelasticity". The idea is that, basically, the response of the fluid (e.g. a polymeric solution, or a colloid, like cornstarch in water) is much slower than the caracteristic times of the excitation (e.g. a bullet): the higher the frequency/intensity of the excitation (sp?), the more viscous the fluid.

      I guess that 'silly putty' (the putty that can bounce) is a material with similar properties.

    6. Re:Call me dense by kalel666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked a few years ago for Brookfield Engineering (a viscometer and rheometer manufacturer) as Rheology Lab Manager. Part of my duties included conducting training classes monthly for customers.

      We tried to use experimentation to illustrate rheological properties, including using cornstarch in solution. This demonstrates dilatancy (shear thickening), and we would put a spoon in a jar of the stuff, which was very fluid. When you try to pull the spoon out quickly, viscosity increases, and the solution gets real "thick".

      Well, of course, I thought this was pretty boring, so I decided to punch it up a bit. I made a much larger sample of the solution, and put it in a large bowl. I would swirl it around and show everyone how liquid it was. Without warning, I would then move the bowl quickly, like I was going to completely douche someone with it. The solution would thicken, and stay in the bowl (thank you Penn & Teller). Pretty cool, actually, but god help you if you got the mixture wrong!

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
    7. Re:Call me dense by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Silly putty has the same properties.

    8. Re:Call me dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I seem to remember a gradeschool experiment where we mixed cornstarch and water in a pan and tried to slap it.


      I love that experiment. The best part is that if you don't hit it hard enough, it flies everywhere.

    9. Re:Call me dense by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fluid when handled gently, but it becomes rigid when subjected to a sharp impact.

      I can see a huge market for this in sports gear (protective equipment). How would it react to an Al MacInnis slapshot?

    10. Re:Call me dense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Without warning, I would then move the bowl quickly, like I was going to completely douche someone with it."

      Sounds like you got the instructions wrong. How to Use a Douche Bag.

    11. Re:Call me dense by wass · · Score: 1
      This was discussed a few years ago by a professor in soft condensed-matter physics, in one of my classes. Silly putty is a common example of this, as someone said.

      I don't remember the physical details, but the basis is that these complex materials don't specifically act as fully solid or fully fluid, and in this case the 'phase' of the material depends on the timescale. Long times (ie, slow) it looks fluid, but short time scales (a quick jab) it responds quickly to the shear and looks more like a solid.

      I think quicksand is similar too, which is why people that panic if they fall in can't get out, but slow careful movements help one get out easier.

      --

      make world, not war

    12. Re:Call me dense by Sethus · · Score: 1

      This totally reminds me of the Dune style combat shields O_o (Except they covered the whole body)

      "The slow blade penetrates the shield"

      "May your blade chip and shatter"

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    13. Re:Call me dense by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Funny

      " I would swirl it around and show everyone how liquid it was. Without warning, I would then move the bowl quickly, like I was going to completely douche someone with it. The solution would thicken, and stay in the bowl

      Wow, these demonstrations sound very up close and intimate.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    14. Re:Call me dense by Wingchild · · Score: 1

      If you jab it, it feels hard and your finger won't go in very far. You can pour it slowly, but you can grab a clump of it, almost as if it's a solid. This kind of fluid is called dilatant. It becomes more viscous when agitated or compressed.


      The slow blade penetrates the shield!

      It's a fine day when life becomes more like Dune. :)

    15. Re:Call me dense by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      It's called Oobleck.

    16. Re:Call me dense by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      It would probably shatter, if anything.

      There's probably a certain speed where a projectile would transfer energy so fast the substance would react like it were glass.

      Now whether that's hockey puck speed or not obviously I can't say for sure, but I know damn well it wouldn't do much to ease the blow the goalie feels. ;)

    17. Re:Call me dense by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I was just wondering, since a frozen puck has a bit more mass than a bullet (but of course travels much, much slower) if the impact over a larger area would defeat the device.

      If this is the case, I can see the enemy counter-deploying innocent-looking devices with lots of frontal area. Say, like, maybe a stuffed, fuzzy bunny with nasty, pointy teeth.

      Sorry. Need more sleep, less beer.

    18. Re:Call me dense by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

      actually it might, it'll knock the goalie back of course but as you said it'd shatter which would mean that if the substance is strong enough, as this seems the case (it stops bullets) it would absorb most of the energy from the puck, leaving the goalie with a dazed feeling and a vulnerable spot but it'd be cool none the less

    19. Re:Call me dense by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      On a UK TV science show called Braniac, Jon Tickle walked across a swimming pool filled with custard.

    20. Re:Call me dense by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      I thought the exact same thing about corn starch. Sadly I also thought about using a similiar saturate for flexible body armor. Shoulda', coulda', woulda' on that patent. Oh well - I'm sure some sci-fi book gave them the idea long before I had it.

      PS I wonder if Tillman would have been saved by this stuff. RIP.

  9. Could be good for VIP protection by Dav3K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Armor that is lighter and more flexible would be more comfortable to wear. This makes it more likely to be worn. I would expect to eventually see designer suits utilizing this stuff to be bought up by politicians, rap stars, etc. Bascially anyone who would be interested in an armor plated limo.

    1. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I will finally be able to be a super hero!

    2. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you think the bullies at school call you wet now!

    3. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by Kyont · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I, for one, welcome our new impenetrable, goo-covered overlords.

      (Hey, someone had to say it).

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
    4. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by oO+Peeping+Tom+Oo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah! We can be safe AND more stylin' than fifty cent!

    5. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by patternjuggler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would probably be bad for soldiers and VIPs alike if instead of a small hole appearing in a normal vest, and perhaps a little blood if there's penetratio- there's this huge splatter of possibly colored liquid (mixed with blood maybe) that lets the assailant know very graphically that they've scored a direct hit? Remember from your FPS experience that it's much more satisfying as well as easier to zero in on targets when there's a bunch of blood that sprays out, as opposed to pre-rag-doll-physics kid-friendly bloodless games where you have to shoot a whole lot more and wildly too until you know the target is really down.

      Maybe they could make the liquid gooey so it would congeal and limit blood loss for bullet holes left by bullets that do go through.

    6. Re:Could be good for VIP protection by refactored · · Score: 1

      Imagine the tabloid/fox headlines. "Prez has Green Goo instead of Blood! Our Prez is an Illegal Alien!"

  10. Sounds like Snow Crash by Trespass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The skate couriers in the novel wore armor based on this principle. Flexible, but with an increasing resistance curve like a catcher's mitt. It's good that it's lightweight, because if it's too bulky to do your job in, it's not really useful.

    I imagine this could be combined with a chem warfare suit (maybe with build-in cooling) to make an ABC system for the footsoldier that's actually practical.

    1. Re:Sounds like Snow Crash by -tji · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking..

      I think he called it "Armorgel", and used it to protect the joints mostly - along with "Arachnofiber" a breathable kevlar-like material for the rest of the suit.

    2. Re:Sounds like Snow Crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Feels like gritty Jello, protects like a stack of phone books."

    3. Re:Sounds like Snow Crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shield turns the fast blow, admits the slow kindjal.

  11. Fun by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1

    the soldiers could have goldfish companions put in their armor to accompany them into battle.

  12. ThinkGeek Inspired! by JNighthawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Very similar to Smart Mass Thinking Puddy. Is the military beginning to read /. and buy products from ThinkGeek for inspiration for R&D?

    --
    Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    1. Re:ThinkGeek Inspired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It lifts comics!"

      lifts comics, eh? sounds like a tool for a worldwide comics piracy syndicate!

      i'm calling ashcroft..

  13. Ewwww. by Mateito · · Score: 0, Troll

    First word that came into my mind was "bukkake".

    TGIF.

    1. Re:Ewwww. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you could have said, "...popped into my mind...", but I guess that has the same meaning...

    2. Re:Ewwww. by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      But I bet you're the kind of guy who associates bukkake with everything...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  14. Snow Crash by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "sintered armorgel: feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books."

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
  15. won't kevlar still be the weak link? by kippy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In my sharp shooting class (yes really) the instructor was telling us about Kevlar. Apparently, it works by distributing the force of impact because it's a lattice of stiff plasticy stuff. Problem is, if you hit it or drop it, you crack that lattice and if you get hit in that spot, the Kevlar won't do much.

    He was bemoaning the fact that the army went from 25 cent metal helmets to $50 Kevlar ones because all you had to do was drop it a few times to render it useless. Over the course of a few years, it's pretty likely that it will get banged around quite a bit.

    Back to the point, this stuff sounds like it's still linked to Kevlar. I wonder if it still relies on Kevlar's properties and is vulnerable to the same problems.

    1. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Thai-Pan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think your instructor is a little bit misinformed.

      Kevlar fabric isn't really a lattice. It's woven from very fine strands of a plastic which is VERY strong under tension. The material also has a tremendous coefficient of friction and even when a strand is broken, it can often be held in place by being squeezed by its neighbouring strands; even under impact. Anyone who has ever handled kevlar can attest to this as the material will give you severe friction burns easily (imagine a bad papercut and carpet burn on one spot just by casually sliding your hand down a thread -- OUCH! I cringe just remembering the stuff).

      A lot of the strength of kevlar comes from its weave; bulletproof applications and such have very fine weaves to prevent particles from getting between the threads. I assure you, it is VERY difficult to damage the kevlar weave badly enough that it is rendered useless. I did a university research project that involved kevlar, and I would definitely trust a battered and beaten kevlar helmet over a steel one any day.

    2. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Chuut-Riit · · Score: 1

      I think the way that kevlar and other ballistic fabrics work is that the impact of the projectile splits the fibers into a bunch of little fibrils, and this splitting consumes enough of the kinetic energy of the projectile to reduce the damage it does to the body behind the fabric. I guess if you dropped a helmet from a high enough distance on a sharp enough object, that might split some fibrils and decrease the energy absorption of the fabric, but I really doubt that a few casual drops onto the ground would render the helmet useless, even over a small region. This is especially true if there are multiple layers of fabric in the helmet.

    3. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by joemc91 · · Score: 1

      Kevlar doesn't crack as far as I know. At school we've built car components with it without problems as well as aircraft components (Rutan Defiant). And if it did crack so easily, why would it be used in radial tires to hold them together? That is what DuPont originally developed it for. It is a very tough and strong material able to withstand enormous forces, when sewn or molded correctly that is.

    4. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by eericson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your instructor was talking about the hard Kevlar for the PAGST helmets. Kevlar vests (which ironically usually aren't Kevlar anymore, rather some kind of Aramid fiber) are still a lattice or weave of fibers. They work on two priciples 1) Extending the moment of impact by stretching out, and 2) by spreading the force of the impact across a wider area. When a bullet hits a "Kevlar" vest, the vest doesn't stop it cold instantly, rather the vest fibers stretch and entangle the round and slow it's progress. (The vest and bullet do actually move back into the body cavity slightly, but not enough to do permanent damage).

      The current limiting factor with soft armor is that it won't stop a rifle round (Due to its extreme speed). So to provide protection to NIJ III+ or IV levels (i.e stopping rifle rounds) hard armor plates (usually a ceramic and titanium composite) are inserted in over vital areas.

      The advantage of the liquid armor is that much less fabric will be needed to provide the same level of protection, and the hard armor plates won't be necessary.

      Hit www.galls.com 's body armor section for more info on levels of protection and whatnot.

      -E2

      (BTW: Shadowrun had the liquid armor idea waaayyy before Snow Crash came out.)

      --
      The evil monkey commands you to dance.
    5. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used kevlar for parachute lines for an air-dropped bouy. Like you said, it's strong but brittle. It's abrasion resistance is pretty bad - pulling it with a little tension over a sharp edge just tore it up. That explains why it was easy to cut with a pair of sharp scissors.

    6. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Dravik · · Score: 1

      I believe your instructor was mixing up the properties of of kevlar with the properties of the cermaic plates used to provide additional protection.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    7. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50$ kevlar helmets may suck for the soldiers but it rocks for people in the kevlar industry!

      Remember American war-making is basically just a big business.

      Gotta love the military industrial complex!

    8. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of the strength of kevlar comes from its weave; bulletproof applications and such have very fine weaves to prevent particles from getting between the threads. I assure you, it is VERY difficult to damage the kevlar weave badly enough that it is rendered useless. I did a university research project that involved kevlar, and I would definitely trust a battered and beaten kevlar helmet over a steel one any day.

      I think you're forgetting a KEY factor here. A kevlar helmet would be useless. The bullet would just push the kevlar into your skull.

      Kevlar is mixed with epoxy when put into actualy use, resulting in a composite material like fiberglass. Like fiberglass, it doesn't not hold up well if you put a dent in it. The dent causes the material to flex and concetrates stresses at particular points.

      You can beat a dent out of steel, but you can't do the same with kevlar. It's structure's been comprimised.

      If I got a choice of new helmets, I'd take the kevlar, but if I had to pick between a damaged steel helmet and a damaged kevlar helmet, I'd take the steel in a heartbeat.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    9. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it works by distributing the force of impact because it's a lattice of stiff plasticy stuff

      The orientation of the fibres suspended within the matrix also is a factor, apparently. Isn't this the speculation about Chobham armour?

    10. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by paganizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You may take the steel helmet, but i'll go for the Mithril every time.
      Stylish, light and very, very expensive(Have you priced it lately? it's out of this world).

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    11. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kevlar and Nylon are both Aramid fibers. As is Spectra, I think the strongest aramid fiber yet. But it's not just that Aramid fibers are strong, they're also light and ridiculously tough.

      The armor plates, very strong, not so tough. This new armor with better plates might be able to stop up to .50, and better withstand blast effects from all manner of explosive devices.

    12. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Spectra + Compound 18. Should keep anyone alive ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    13. Re:won't kevlar still be the weak link? by burbilog · · Score: 1

      Helmet material doesn't matter really, except that kevlar helmet is lighter and easier to carry. Helmets are made to protect you from splinters, not from bullets. There is no helmet in the world, kevlar or steel that can stop a bullet. Actually even if you make a helmet that CAN stop a bullet (from titanium) then the energy from the bullet will transfer to the helmet and snap your neck with 100% guarantee. Feeling better?

  16. See the effect for yourself by Animus+Howard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mix corn starch and water to form a paste. Stir slowly, or pour the mixture, and it acts like a liquid. Stir fast, or hit the surface, and it "breaks" like a solid, dissipating energy.

    1. Re:See the effect for yourself by Inda · · Score: 1

      mmmm custard.

      Not that ready made stuff either.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  17. Sounds like a Good Idea by nevek · · Score: 1

    Definatly Innovative, If successful, I think it will definatly serve well in domestic incidences. It will probably help to stop more 9mm and small automatic arms (tech9, uzi).

    Against a rifle or 357 I dont know how well it will hold up, kevlar is pretty much inneffective to anything above .357 or something like an AK or M16,

    The bullets size and velocity are just too migh at anything but extremly long range.

    1. Re:Sounds like a Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The reason flack vests were invented was to protect against shrapnel wounds. During the second world war, a lot of data was accumulated about combat injuries, and it was found that a lot of casualties were caused by shrapnel. Shrapnel is generally low-velocity, as opposed to rifle bullets so flack vests aren't too good at stopping high velocity projectiles. The fact that the vests stopped (low velocity) pistol rounds was just a nice side effect, since during a war, you don't often employ pistols. Police agencies loved it though. Thus was born the flack vest.

    2. Re:Sounds like a Good Idea by Shinobi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Read this, it could be useful for you: Data about vest classes

  18. Next James Bond Movie! by radiumhahn · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the next james bond movie they will use this stuff in breast implants to make SUPER boobs.

    1. Re:Next James Bond Movie! by eofpi · · Score: 1

      Nah, that sounds more like Austin Powers

      --
      Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
    2. Re:Next James Bond Movie! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      No, the Elizabeth Hurley fembot had machine guns, not armor in her breasts

    3. Re:Next James Bond Movie! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shear-hardening breast implants are no joke - soft and pliable when you're nice to them, but try to bite down hard, and you're going to lose some teeth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Next James Bond Movie! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Shear-hardening breast implants are no joke - soft and pliable when you're nice to them, but try to bite down hard, and you're going to lose some teeth.

      Also a cheap Viagra substitute for the S&M crowd.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re: Next James Bond Movie! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > No, the Elizabeth Hurley fembot had machine guns, not armor in her breasts

      But the next generation of fembots will be able to pass the foreplay test and then beat you to death with their bouncies.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Next James Bond Movie! by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      That must have happened to Jaws.

    7. Re: Next James Bond Movie! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What foreplay test? Austin: I never noticed those before. Fembot: Why don't you try some foreplay? Or did I miss something?

  19. Don't know about liquid armor by pegr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't know about liquid armor, but I imagine if I was in an active war zone, I might fill my own armor with liquid!

    1. Re:Don't know about liquid armor by Soko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh.

      That would be STFU, bud.

      (Sheer Terror Fluid Underwear, for those not versed in TLAs)

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:Don't know about liquid armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Don't know about liquid armor by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Thats an ETLA!.

    4. Re:Don't know about liquid armor by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Tim: That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
      Robin: You tit! I soiled my armour I was so scared!
      Tim: Look, that rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer!

  20. Oliver North by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "..he was just poured into that uniform." -Homer

  21. Just got mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killer, I'm gonna try this tonight, I just got my liquid armor in today from
    think geek.
    Now where'd that shot gun go...

  22. Its not that unusual... by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a non-newtonian fluid. Go mix cornstarch and water, borax and something (forget what, its been a while since 6th grade science, dishsoap maybe) or get some of this. You get the same basic thing, but the point of this is that it probably doesn't shatter under the impact of a bullet... I've been kicking around the idea of something like this for a while myself actually, but more along the lines of that ferrous oil stuff they use in super high end variable shock absorbers that has a current applied to it and hardens when it senses a projectile. Not sure how to go about sensing that though, so a passive option i probably better.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Its not that unusual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been kicking around the idea of something like this for a while myself actually, but more along the lines of that ferrous oil stuff they use in super high end variable shock absorbers that has a current applied to it and hardens when it senses a projectile.

      or the viscous coupling in some all wheel drive systems... Subaru body armour.

    2. Re:Its not that unusual... by NonSequor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Adding Elmer's glue to a solution of sodium borate (borax) will yield a substance very much like what was once sold as Nickelodeon Gak.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    3. Re:Its not that unusual... by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not sure how to go about sensing that though, so a passive option i probably better.


      How about using a piezoelectric effect? Deforming the outer surface (e.g. a bullet strike) creates a charge that propogates through the fluid beneath the outer sheath and causes it to stiffen.

    4. Re:Its not that unusual... by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Why not coat the stuff with a layer of some piezoelectric substance that will generate enough current to harden the layer beneath?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    5. Re:Its not that unusual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know.... Eeeeww!! :o

    6. Re:Its not that unusual... by Rostin · · Score: 1

      The chemical plant I work for makes the "active ingredient" in gak (guar gum). If you want to make the real stuff, I've heard you can find guar gum at some health food stores. It works better when the appropriate reactions have been done on it (to increase the number of sites for the borax crosslinker to bind to), but I imagine the right ratio of guar (a little goes a long way), water, borax, and maybe a little caustic to give a slightly basic pH (once again, to increase the effectiveness of the crosslink) would yield something closer to the real thing.

    7. Re:Its not that unusual... by Xybot · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that the cornstarch solution will harden when an electric current is applied also...

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
  23. So it's a non-newtonian fluid by swagr · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Like silly-putty or cornstarch and water.

    It's actually surprising no-one has figured this out sooner. (or maybe the idea has been around a long time but the perfect materials were the key).

    --

    -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
  24. Infiltrate by nightsweat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's the damage if this stuff does get penetrated? Is it worse for the wound than a bullet passing all the way through?

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  25. Very cool technology by the_crowbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a former member of the US armed forces I had to wear a kevlar vest from time to time. The vests I wore hindered movement considerably. They were not that heavy, but the inflexibility was the worst part. As I was finishing my term new vest were just making their way into use that incorporated ballistic plates (steel I think, maybe ceramic) to actually stop bullets. The vest I wore were only said to stop fragments not a direct bullet impact. The downside to the newer vests was heavier weight. If they can make the vest more flexible, lighter weight, and have better stopping great.

    Our service members need every advantage they can get. Wether or not you agree with the politics that puts our troops in harms way a person must be very anti-American to not want them all to come home again.

    That is all for my rant. Time to go home for the day. :)

    the_crowbar
    --
    Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    1. Re:Very cool technology by Sarth · · Score: 1
      --

      ... and, so began, the legend of the Five-point Atkins Exploding Heart Technique!

    2. Re:Very cool technology by spune · · Score: 1

      The armor is indeed made with ceramic plates, with the idea being that the ceramic will shatter the bullet while the kevlar and the rest of the suit will help absorb the force of impact.

    3. Re:Very cool technology by Jacer · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm very against the politics of our current armed conflict. However, at the same time, I want nothing short of the safe return of our troops. People who risk their lives to defend the rights that I hold dear command a great deal of respect from me. I do get a bit flustered when someone says that because I don't agree with the current war, that I don't support my troops.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    4. Re:Very cool technology by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As a former member of the US armed forces I had to wear a kevlar vest from time to time. The vests I wore hindered movement considerably. They were not that heavy, but the inflexibility was the worst part. As I was finishing my term new vest were just making their way into use that incorporated ballistic plates (steel I think, maybe ceramic) to actually stop bullets. The vest I wore were only said to stop fragments not a direct bullet impact. The downside to the newer vests was heavier weight. If they can make the vest more flexible, lighter weight, and have better stopping great.

      Was that the big ol' shoulder pad looking kevlar vest, or the REALLY old ballistic nylon/kevlar combo vest? We had the stupid shoulder-pad monster in Saudi in '91 and they SUCK! You feel like an inflexible barrel with stubby arms. You can't turn your head very far and forget looking up with that stupid collar.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Very cool technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Our service members need every advantage they can get. Wether or not you agree with the politics that puts our troops in harms way a person must be very anti-American to not want them all to come home again.

      I want them to come home so badly that I even wish we hadn't sent them over there in the first place. I wish my president cared about our soldiers as much as I do.

    6. Re:Very cool technology by the_crowbar · · Score: 1

      The vest I wore as a pogue was definately the "big ol' shoulder pad looking kevlar vest." The "new" vests had pockets for ballistic plates, but they were essentially the same vest I wore. I have never seen the other vest you posted a link to.

      In case anyone was wondering, in the Marine Corps, pogue is a (usually derogitory) term used to describe any non-combat MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). i.e. I was a computer tech during my term of service...a pogue, not a rifleman.


      the_crowbar
      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
  26. better stab resistance by Jafa · · Score: 1

    Actually the article says that stab resistance is better than standard armor.
    J

    1. Re:better stab resistance by phoneyman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the article says that stab resistance is better than standard armor.

      That means it's better than standard Kevlar armour, which has very poor stab resistance. Body armour meant to protect against both bullets and blades is reinforced with hard plates over the "problem" areas.

      Pierre

  27. That "Poly" makes a huge difference by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative
    waxy substance
    Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a water-soluble, waxy solid that is used extensively in the cosmetic and toiletry industry. As the molecular weight of PEG increases, viscosity and freezing point increase
    Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution
    Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) is used to cleanse the bowel before a gastrointestinal examination or surgery. It works by causing diarrhea... Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) comes as a powder to take by mouth
    Last but not least, the obligatory Google Search
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:That "Poly" makes a huge difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) is used to cleanse the bowel before a gastrointestinal examination or surgery. It works by causing diarrhea...


      I always thought they used this

  28. You mean I'm drinking Hydrogen!!!! by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 1

    You mean this stuff I'm drinking right now is only one atom from that flammable gas that can explode into a big fireball! And that additional atom, Oxygen, is highly flammable too! My glass of water may just spontaneously combust into a huge fireball in my stomach!

    Arg, there should be a Chem 101, Phys 101, and Bio 101 prereq before posting on Slashdot. In chem, minor changes make a BIG difference.

    Brian Ellenberger

  29. It feels like gritty jello... by Deus_Ex_Machina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But does it protect like a stack of phonebooks? :)

    Why has it taken so long for the military to start experimenting with this stuff? I must have been all of five years old when I made the connection between starch and water's impact-absorbing-fluid properties and its flexible armor potential.

    Oh well, better late than never!

    1. Re:It feels like gritty jello... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider:

      Water has a relatively large weight.

      My body is already 70% water and probably doesn't protect me well against small arms fire.

      I don't think it's the right material to be looking at.

    2. Re:It feels like gritty jello... by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      I doubt it's taken them this long to start, more likely it's taken them this long to get it to a usable form.

  30. How about your friends? by Gates82 · · Score: 1

    So if a friend gives you a little punch in the shoulder, will it break his hand?

    1. Re:How about your friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he punches you hard enough for a hard surface to break his hand, it better.

  31. Godammit! I spent HOURS on this Tron outfit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste...

  32. That's how the armor gets repaired by Toxygen · · Score: 1

    Just make sure you drink plenty of water before getting into a hostile situation. Or beer. Soldiers love beer.

    1. Re:That's how the armor gets repaired by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Or beer. Soldiers love beer.

      As the first test message from the field team on a new intel reporting system I helped test said: "Send help; privates angry; need beer to placate them; CPT Janss"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:That's how the armor gets repaired by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Stereotypically: the part involving privates usually comes after the beer.

      --
  33. Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by mfh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sadly this invention was too late to save Pat Tillman. Armor like this could save lives, and that's what it's all about. I'm all for it.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by droleary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly this invention was too late to save Pat Tillman.

      How very disrespectful to single out this one man out as "a Hero" for the mere media value that he played in the NFL. His pre-war job was to play a silly game for millions of dollars; how is that significant? It is a sad commentary that that is the reason his death gets any more coverage than other soldiers killed in this political bloodbath. The NFL probably paused for all of 5 seconds before casting him aside and filling his position with someone else, and now they're latching on to mountains of press coverage because he's dead.

      It's hard to say that without seeming to take away from Pat or without seeming to sound like a troll, but it had to be said in light of you being moderated up. So, yes, think about why Pat went to fight, but don't forget about all the others who sacrificed to fight and who died without all the fanfare. You should be far more thankful for their history of anonymous sacrifice.

    2. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      He turned down a 3.6 million dollar contract for a 18k a year job in the Rangers. Plus he fought in Iraq, came back to the US then opted to go to Afghanistan. Everyone who has so far died in this conflict is a hero to me but this guy was extraordinary.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    3. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rubbish, it's not disrespectful to anyone. The guy turned down $ millions to volunteer to go fight for a cause he believed in after returning from his honeymoon. That demonstrates unusual and quite incredible selflessness, sacrifice and commitment to his country, he was also well known and liked by many fans whatever you think of that. He made the Army Rangers, an elite force and now he's joined the ranks of America's war dead. Telling his story takes nothing away from the others, I remember when this guy joined up with his brother, he was being interviewed (nobody could quite figure out why he was doing it and he was reticent about going into details) and I remember thinking, "that's one hell of a guy", now we've learned today that he's been killed. If anything it brings the loss of the thousands of family members into sharp focus through our fleeting familiarity with this hero. And no I ain't even an NFL fan.

      You belittling his sacrifice and claiming his career was silly is ignorant and disrespectful.

    4. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I think some people (maybe most?) join the military because they are poor and have no good career options at home. This man gave up a successful career that paid millions of dollars per year for one that doesn't pay jack. He joined the military soely to help his country. That's why it's newsworthy. Point to other people who would give up multi-million dollar contracts willingly to fight.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

    6. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Gewis · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much. I am grateful that Pat Tillman went out and did what he did. I'm grateful for all the people who are on the ground now. I'm an intelligence analyst in the 19th SF, and our unit has taken several casualties in Afghanistan. That Pat Tillman received more publicity than others somewhat unnerves me. He's a hero, no doubt, but no moreso than Sgt. Romero or Sgt. Vance, both from my group. Why didn't they receive front page coverage? They weren't former NFL players. And to think on it, I don't think Pat Tillman would have appreciated being made something special either.

    7. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also heard on NPR that the guy didn't even own a car. He rode his bicycle to work (football)... he also turned down 9 mil to play for a 3 mil team, strictly because he felt he had a commitment. I think it was the Rams and the Cards.

      The coach was interviewed and said he tried to keep him, but this guy was absolute in what he wanted. He even did 2 tours. I think he was going to go back to playing at the end of this one.

      Anyone that dies is bad... but this guy wasn't your average Joe. He was committed. His reasons for joining was very non-typical. It doesn't belittle others in the forces, but it should bring his dedication to light.

    8. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rubbish, it's not disrespectful to anyone. The guy turned down $ millions . . .

      This is directly disrespectful because you are making it firstly about the money when he did not. In that way, yes, he is a far better person than you are, but that doesn't necessarily make him a better person than others who are over there fighting. If he is over there because he thought it was the right thing to do, then everyone over there doing the right thing deserves the same amount of praise. I give it to them. You shit on them by saying they didn't give up $3 million first. You're an asshole not deserving the freedoms provided by the sacrifices made by all our troops.

      You belittling his sacrifice and claiming his career was silly is ignorant and disrespectful.

      Absolutely wrong. Pat himself knew how unimportant playing football was, and that was why he went to do something significant. You people saying football and money were difficult things to give up are the ones who belittle him. From the linked article:

      "My great grandfather was at Pearl Harbor, and a lot of my family has ... gone and fought in wars, and I really haven't done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that," Tillman told NBC News in an interview the day after the attacks.

    9. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by droleary · · Score: 1

      He turned down a 3.6 million dollar contract for a 18k a year job in the Rangers. Plus he fought in Iraq, came back to the US then opted to go to Afghanistan. Everyone who has so far died in this conflict is a hero to me but this guy was extraordinary.

      If you really believe that, then why do you (like so many others) latch on to the money as a significant sacrifice he made? He isn't the only one who gave up a lot to fight for what they believed in, but you dirty his accomplishments by putting a dollar figure on his life.

    10. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by droleary · · Score: 1

      Point to other people who would give up multi-million dollar contracts willingly to fight.

      If you think giving up the money was his greatest sacrifice, you dishonor his life. The more people talk about the money or an NFL career, the less they actually think about his reasons for going into combat. It's sickening to see so many people here not get it.

    11. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by shiftless · · Score: 1

      His pre-war job was to play a silly game for millions of dollars; how is that significant?

      Because he quit that game, left those millions of dollars behind, and stepped up to defend his nation. THAT makes him a hero.

      Why is it you feel that pointing out one notable person means we don't recognize anyone else?

    12. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by bwy · · Score: 1

      I certainly respect Tillman, but for a different reason. I don't think he made any sacrifice at all- at least I hope he didn't feel that way.

      A good soldier is a selfish one. Ask any general in history if he'd rather have a volunteer army or a drafted one. People fight the strongest and the bravest when they are fighting for something they believe in. Tillman felt his country, his family, and the values he held true to his heart (freedom, liberty, all that we are known for) were worth fighting and dying for. Think of the militias that continually defended Texas against Mexico. These types of men are some of the most courageous, respectable, admirable, selfish heros this country will ever know.

      A sacrifice is a gesture made when no value is returned, like giving a 10 spot to a bum and having him curse you in return. Or having the company you work for force you to donate to the United Way even if you don't believe in some of their causes or motives. Or having to die for a cause you don't believe in- such as being drafted to go to Vietnam.

      So, hopefully he felt he was going to Iraq to keep us safe. That is what this was supposed to be about in the beginning. It burns me up to here Bush's after-the-fact motives- this "liberate the Iraqi people bullshit because it is our duty." Ask our boys to die defending our borders anywhere in the world and they'll respond. But don't ask them to give their life for some fucking group of militant, Islamic thugs who will thank us for their liberation from Saddam by killing and mutilating our boys for the local "news." If these son of a bitches ever figure out how to build a boat and sail over here, I'll be one of the first joining up with a local militia to greet them at the border. Like the Alamo, I'll fight along right along side the U.S. Military.

      If you want to see a hero, don't turn on ESPN or MTV. Look for the guy cooking meals for his unit in the desert or the guy flying a fighter jet. God bless our troops.

    13. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by droleary · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much.

      Don't thank me for words. Words are easy. Thanks go to you and everyone else over there doing their duty. I don't care if being there means you gave up $3 million or just a hound dog named Pooch. I don't even care that there are a lot of things I don't particularly agree with from the political side of the war. Thank you. Thank all of you.

      Why didn't they receive front page coverage? They weren't former NFL players. And to think on it, I don't think Pat Tillman would have appreciated being made something special either.

      On a bit of a tangent, there has always be something more profound for me about the Unknown Soldier. Local headlines can still be made by people who weren't sports stars, but even then it doesn't feel right because it's like they're trying to force me to know the person, as though reading about them will give the loss more of an impact. For me, that somehow lessens the sacrifice. I'm much more affected knowing that someone put their life on the line for me without them knowing me or me knowing them.

      Here's hoping you never make the headlines.

    14. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being unnecessarily harsh. If you went up to each and every member of the armed services and said "I'll pay you $3 million to resign," you don't think a lot of them would take you up on it? Some wouldn't, of course, but we have no way of knowing which ones those are. So when you have someone who was given such an offer, and turned it down, that's pretty remarkable.

    15. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So his making a silly and predictable decision makes him a hero? He's not a hero, he's just another young man that like Bruce Willis wants to "play" war until he finds out it's actually dangerous.

    16. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bla bla bla, fuck off you TV pwned t00l ... you got nuthin'

    17. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a Hero by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      wtf are you talking about... he could have played football for 3.6 million dollars... but this guy turned it down to go fight for his country. Thats pretty impressive and rare. I'm not putting a dollar figure on his life I'm if anything showing how much this guy wanted to fight for his country. Ask someone would you rather play football and get 3.6 million or die in a desert for your country. I'm sure 99% would take the money but this guy was part of the 1% who values honor and sacrifice over money.
      I dont dirty his accomplishments... I celebrate them

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  34. Basic questions by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How heavy is it? How hot does it make the wearer? Can a Private break it?

    1. Re:Basic questions by raider_red · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course a private can break it, but not as fast or effectively as a lieutenant.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    2. Re:Basic questions by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Well put :) Imagine how fast an Lt w/ a map could break it :)

    3. Re:Basic questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But also:

      The faster the erection, the greater the deflection.

  35. Ooblick Body Armor? by wfolta · · Score: 1

    Wow, I wondered when someone would find a good use for Ooblick. (Besides the standard party trick.)

  36. The next Alfred Nobel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...part ballistic. It would lead with a chemical attack that allows the ballistic part to punch through and possibly bring along some poisonous end product into the body of the soldier.

  37. How do you remove it? by TTop · · Score: 1

    So if you pour this stuff on, how do you get it off? Some other compound? Chip it off?

    Will there be warnings like freezers? ("Do not remove armor with sharp implement.")

  38. Yes, yes, that's nice and all...... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

    'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'

    Sounds very high-tech and all that. But will it stop bullets from piercing my tender hide?

  39. Dune by complexmath · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one thinking of Shield Belts? I wonder if this tech will inspire the creation of new weapons.

    And I can only imagine what would happen if you made a flexible weapon such as a bullwhip out of this stuff. Does the material only become rigid for penatration type deformation or will any high-velocity change do?

    1. Re:Dune by uberjoe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Pretty soon we will be fighting wars with edged weapons again. Unless of course they come out with lasguns.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    2. Re:Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it.

  40. Emergency Laxative! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 0, Interesting
    Polyethylene glycol is sold as a pharmaceutical under the name Miralax. Boy, that stuff works great! My kid with CP used to suffer from severe constipation, to the point where we had to give him weekly enemas if he was going to be able to crap at all. Then his gastroenterologist started him on regular doses of Miralax. Woosh! Now his crap all has the consistency of chocolate pudding, and he hasn't bee seriously constipated since.

    Needless to say, I stay away from chocolate pudding these days....

    "Sarge! I gotta crap bad, but I can't!"
    "Dammit, soldier! Suck down that armor and get a move on!"

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
    1. Re:Emergency Laxative! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Sarge! I gotta crap bad, but I can't!"

      "dont panic son, we're into combat soon, oh, and you're on point"

      "phhhrrrrrrrrp" :)

    2. Re:Emergency Laxative! by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Where's the -1 disgusting mod when you need it?

    3. Re:Emergency Laxative! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      Apparently that's what "Overrated" is for....

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  41. Scientific Paper & News Article by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative


    For a scientific paper on the subject, see Advanced Body Armor Utilizing Shear Thickening Fluids, by Y. S. Lee, R. G. Egres Jr. and N. J. Wagner, all of the Center for Composite Materials and Dept. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Delaware, and E. D. Wetzel of the Army Research Laboratory, Weapons and Materials Research Directorate Aberdeen Proving Ground.

    For a University of Delaware Press Release (with photos), see here.

  42. Thank you. by John+Courtland · · Score: 0, Troll

    See, these are the answers I like, and I appreciate, because instead of getting into all the chemical formulas that I don't have time for at the present, I can ask a 20 second question and get a good descriptive answer. Not these knee-jerk "Water has oxygen and hydrogen, that must mean it's explosive, aahhh I'm a fuckin' flamer!!!" comments. Please. I'm obviously smart enough to realize that if Ethyleve Glycol is toxic, what makes it toxic. The liver metabolizes it into formaldehyde, and drinking ethanol or ethyl alcohol is the best way to stop it. Drinking beer after a lung of coolant vapor is an old mechanics trick. I simply didn't realize the Poly meant it was a 100% different chemical. I thought poly meant "many", not "change the whole damn molecular structure." So in conclusion, thank you to the people that actually wrote intelligent responses, and the rest of you can think up some more brain dead responses.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    1. Re:Thank you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the liver metabolizes *methanol*, aka wood alcohol, into formaldehyde. It metabolizes ethylene glycol into *oxalic acid*. Wrong # of carbons.

      Couldn't resist... ;)

  43. So, basically... by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 1

    What we have here is super-advanced Silly Putty?

  44. Re:Build the war budget high! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great news. The homeless don't want money anyway. If they did, they could go and get a fucking job.

  45. Re:We are the Borg by seanmckay · · Score: 1

    Don't know about polyethylene glycol, but propylene glycol is used as a carrier for flavors. You find it in, among other things, Pyramid Brewing's Apricon Ale

    Everything can be beer related, if you try hard enough.

  46. Re:Call me dense (Okay "You're dense") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unset cement behaves the same way.

    Of course, after it sets, it behaves differently.

  47. The Wren by errant-nonsense · · Score: 1

    All the Snowcrash quotes left out the best part about the armor: "A bullet will bounce off its arachno-fiber weave like a wren hitting a patio door." Probably not applicable, but damn I love that line... I'm still laughing about it years later.

  48. Motorcycles? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You know, just thinking about this stuff made me realize that it might have some great applications worked into motorcycle suits.

    Also, perhaps this stuff could give stuntmen a whole new level of safety while still giving them a lot of mobility.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Motorcycles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many motorcycle suits that use kevlar, but Aerostich, the preferred maker of riding suits of dyed in the wool bikers, does not use it, and here is why

      As someone who has slid down the road at 70 mph in an Aerostich suit (and known many others who have as well), these guys really know their stuff.

      Yes, they are expensive, but if you ride regularly, it becomes your best friend on the bike.

    2. Re:Motorcycles? by mindbooger · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least when they were new (dunno if it's changed, but don't really see how it could -- everybody in the GPs and WSB and AMA still wears leather, afaik), the big knock against the kevlar suits was that their coefficient of friction was too low -- you'd slide until you hit something immovable (guardrail, car, etc.). Wrapping yourself in cow is still just about the optimal compromise between slowing down quickly enough and not catching and starting to tumble.

      Moo. :-)

  49. Re:Call me dense (Okay "You're dense") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa, whoa. Slow down there egghead.

  50. As someone who opposes the war... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think I can speak for nearly all of us when I say the last thing we want is to see American soldiers die. That's kind of the whole point.

    1. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by BlueCup · · Score: 1

      Well, that, and some of us don't want to see the other sides soldiers and citizens die as well.

      --
      WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
    2. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, that, and some of us don't want to see the other sides soldiers and citizens die as well.

      That's just the point of this material.

      Most civilian deaths come from soldiers coming under fire, in urban combat like Iraq and Palestine often in the midst of crowds with children, and the soldiers, lives in danger, fire back to disperse the shooters.

      If a soldier's life is not in danger (or in less danger) from enemy fire, soldiers will be much more reluctant to fire back at said shooters, and greatly reducing civilian deaths.

      So, everybody wins really.

    3. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Keeping American soldiers alive is not the whole point of opposing the war.
      I do not want non-Americans to die either.

      Incidentally, did anyone else note the peculiar capitalization of the word 'soldier' at every occurance in that article? Perhaps this is some kind of tradition in the ancillary defense research/business?

    4. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will also make the government more likely to start wars all over the world, since it truly does seem like a video game now that our soldiers are impervious to everything but Kryptonite.

      I'm afraid that much of the TV-watching public will have no reservations left.

    5. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      The problem with better defensive measures is that they force the opposition to improve their offensive measures. IIRC, the .223 round was selected over the .30-06 because it tended to wound or maim rather than kill. Studies showed that a wounded opponent would occupy up to four enemy soldiers vs. a dead opponent which only occupied the dead one.

      So as we get better defenses, we can expect our opponents to step up their firepower. Superior technology isn't keeping Americans from getting killed in our current wars... and it won't in any other.

      But this certainly is cool and I'd rather have it in a fire fight than not. Remind's me of Niven's leather impact armor; I always wanted a suit of that.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    6. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It will also make the government more likely to start wars all over the world, since it truly does seem like a video game now that our soldiers are impervious to everything but Kryptonite.

      put away your tin foil hat. body armor hasn't anything to do with that. if that was our goal we'd just carpet bomb the hell out of the country instead of sending in troops.

    7. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I can tell you, I'd rather see less people die at the hands of American soldiers. I can't say that were I in the attacked's shoes, that I wouldn't retaliate as well..

    8. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless their entire body is covered in this stuff, they're still partially exposed and you could probably still crack a rib with a large enough bullet. You'd have to have balls of steel not to want to return fire immediately.

      Too illustrate my point, tanks don't have much to worry about snipers, yet in the heat of combat they'll accidentally take out a room full of reporters.

    9. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually lots of us do want as many US civilian-murderers killed as possible for being stupid enough to fight for israel

    10. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Actually, no, I find it quite amusing when American soldiers die.

      Almost makes up for the Iraqi civilians they keep killing.

      Almost.

    11. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      A fair number of people in Iraq oppose the war too and having "American soldiers die" is an important part of their opposition.

      Pity not enough US folk opposed the war or called Bush out for his deception.

      The WMD reason just smelt a bit fishy to many of us in the rest of the world. Same went for the Saddam reason, regime change reason, Iraq supporting Al-Qaeda reason, saving the Iraqis reason etc. I'm no longer bothering to keep track of the latest reason Bush/US Gov is giving.

      But somehow the US people don't seem very angry at Bush.

      Sure the US people are angry at Al-Qaeda but if they're angry at Al Qaeda, what's this with letting Bush spend time, billions, resources and lives in Iraq?

      How would that reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in the USA? How would that weaken or destroy the Al-Qaeda? Heck, it would seem that Bush is on the Al-Qaeda's side - generating anti-US sentiment.

      Doh.

      --
    12. Re:As someone who opposes the war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the filthy americans were as civilized as you.

  51. Dude! by cr0sh · · Score: 1

    It's oobleck (also "ooblick") armor!

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  52. Come on now! by SteakandcheeseUm · · Score: 1

    Aquaman!

    hello? jhweese!

  53. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  54. N on-Newtonian Fluids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    These are called non-Newtonian fluids. Here is the Wikipedia entry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

  55. What's easier? by Lord+of+the+Fries · · Score: 1

    Spending the years of effort it takes to develop something like this OR the time it'll take a couple balistics perks to design and get approval for the use of bigger badder bullets that'll blow the crap out of anyone wearing this wet armor?

    I'm holding out for a personal force field personally.

    --
    One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
  56. Slap me bald and call me, "Myrtle" by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't tell the military! They'll really be annoyed they wasted all that money when they could have just used cornstarch.

    1. Re:Slap me bald and call me, "Myrtle" by crem_d_genes · · Score: 1

      Not to fear - They'll find the supplier with the $600/oz cornstarch

  57. Mod me down... by cr0sh · · Score: 1

    I was beaten to it...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  58. Larry Niven by LagDemon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't believe that no one has mentioned the books by Larry Niven. I forget which one, exactly, but somewhere he describes armor almost exactly like this. It's soft and flexible, until you hit it, and it becomes very hard.

    --


    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    1. Re:Larry Niven by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Impact armour. from Ringworld, or all the known space books really.

    2. Re:Larry Niven by supertsaar · · Score: 1

      Before Larry Niven, there was silliputty...

      --
      The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
    3. Re:Larry Niven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Known Space books, it was called Impact Armor.

      Something similar is also in the Cross Time Engineer books. The people from the future have their skin covered by a fungus, each colony of which has a small armor plate. On impact with something, the fungus snaps the armor together. They mentioned using it for shaving, since the plates clicking together cut away hair.

    4. Re:Larry Niven by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Niven was basically just taking the two ideal properties of an armour and combining them in a super-material of unexplained mechanism. Nothing wrong with that but I bet it's been the holy grail of armour technology since some guy said "Hmm, maybe if I boil a leather coat for a couple of hours it'll stop arrows and still bend a bit when I move."

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
  59. Doh! Link here. by chadjg · · Score: 1

    Sorry folks, the below link will get you to the vest i was talking about.

    http://www.galls.com/style.html?style=BP086&asso rt =general_catalog

    Don't know what's wrong with my html today...

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
  60. From just reading the summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...this reminds me of something I saw in QUT when I was doing this science thing in Year 10.

    The professor demonstrating an experiment had a container of corn flour and water and asked everyone what would happen if he pounded the mix.

    The answers were varied but basically were "a huge splat".

    When he did thump the mix, nothing happened.

    The explanation was that corn flour particles, when suspended in a liquid, will "solidify" when a fast moving mass strikes them due to the unique structure of each individual particle.

    I wonder if the ingredients list of the liquid armour mix includes corn flour. :)

  61. drying out by MikeHunt69 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but how long until it dries out?

  62. Personal Temperature Control by youknowmewell · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anybody know if this stuff can be artificially heated or cooled with some portable device? Seems like a Good Idea to me.

  63. Degradation by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Polyethylene glycol's pretty good on one hand: it's dirt cheap, comes in a variety of weights (we have on the shelf in lab average molecular weight PEGs from 200 to 20,000 daltons) and as has been mentioned above is nontoxic. What's bad about PEG is that it degrades fairly easily--it should be stored in the dark and kept cold, at least if you're going to use it as a reagent. This makes me wonder about the shelf life of the armor, although PEG degredation might not be the limiting factor; physical wear and tear might be.

    1. Re:Degradation by rzei · · Score: 1
      Well, after eyeing quickly through the article at army.mil;
      To make liquid armor, STF is soaked into all layers of the Kevlar vest. The Kevlar fabric holds the STF in place, and also helps to stop the bullet. The saturated fabric can be soaked, draped, and sewn just like any other fabric.
      So when it's inside the vest, it is at least in dark.. How does the temperature affect the material, of that I've got no idea. Not much info on the degradation point you made..

      As the scientists have been awarded with "-- the 2002 Paul A. Siple Award, the Army's highest award for scientific achievement --" I don't think this just some PR thingy, for making us all drool about l33t new armors..

      I wonder if the "liquid" needs to be changed, like oil in 4-stroke engines :)
    2. Re:Degradation by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are plenty of high-temperature glycols, typically the more high-temperature they are, the more hydroscopic they are. This is unfortunate because water generally degrades glycols' performance characteristics rather rapidly.

      In terms of automotive applications, glycol are used in brake fluid and in automatic transmission fluid. They are actually used specifically for their shear and (related) viscosity characteristics in the case of the transmissions, and for their high heat tolerance in brake systems. Automatic transmissions also get quite hot as well.

      The stuff is pretty toxic when burned, better hope they have some very slick strategy to save your ass in the event that you catch a tracer...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Degradation by Spirilis · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Engine Coolant (antifreeze); Automatic Transmission Fluid is mostly oil right?

      I think glycol-based lubricants are also used in some R-134a refrigerant A/C systems (PAG)

      --
      the real at&t mix
    4. Re:Degradation by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most transmission fluids are indeed oil.

      PAG is definitely a glycol (poly-alkaline glycol) and is the recommended lubricant for basically all R-134a sytems. However, ester oil works just as well and is cheaper, as well as working just fine for R-12. One inexpensive product to carry makes life much easier.

      Engine coolant is definitely glycol-based as well, and in some cases it does get pretty hot...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Degradation by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Automatic Transmission Fluid is mostly oil right?

      If that was the case, why don't you just dump a quart of oil in there and see what happens? ;)

      No, ATF is not mostly oil. It has some oil in it, yes, to lubricate moving parts, but it's hydraulic fluid. In a pinch you can use brake fluid in place of ATF (although don't expect to get very far, and service the fucking thing asap). Some transmission problems can actually be cured with brake fluid! (rare, but happens)

      You automatic transmission is a hydraulic box. The reason you lose power in it is because your engine is connected to the driveshaft (or axleshafts) by a box full of water, essentially. In your torque converter, on the outside of the inside, there are a series of fins. As your flywheel spins, these fins cause the fluid inside the converter to flow. In the center of the converter, there is another set of fins that connect to the frontshaft sticking out of the transmission (and usually leading right into a piston + chamber). As your flywheel spins faster, the fluid in the torque converter "locks up". Before it locks up, though, torque is transmitted through the hydraulic fluid to the fins in the center, spinning the frontshaft. That's why, in many cars, when you get over a certain speed and you're in your top gear you get better gas mileage. The fluid in the converter actually becomes a solid for a time.

      Sweet, eh? But don't let that fool you into sacrificing your semi-metallic clutch disc. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    6. Re:Degradation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, You the fuild doesn't do the locking as I understand, it is actully of them semi-metallic clutchs, That are actuated in side the torque converter, so that is locks up and the torque converte spins along with the locked up center shaft. Of course I have not real been into newer trannys and I manly drive stickshifts(better fuel economy). But I have not seen fuilds any new automatic fuild that would become soild under presure, like high rotational speed. One other thing is that many manufactures of use custumized blends of dexron, this means you need to use an additive to get optimuim trainy performence. I have been thinking of getting a lockup kit for my ford rancho, that gets about 10 mpg. It is a diferent converter, with a eletronic clutch in the middle, that causes it to lockup. The lockup is not automatic it requires one to flip a switch. which I guess means I can stall out with my automatic tranny.

  64. Bulletproof Inners by salmonz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this non-toxie liquid stuff mean that if I were to drink it, I would be bulletproof? Wicked!

    1. Re:Bulletproof Inners by segfault7375 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Probably not, but your toilet would be. :)

    2. Re:Bulletproof Inners by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Nah... you won't be pulletbroof... it will probably only make you constipated.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    3. Re:Bulletproof Inners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the opposite. As others have posted, it's a laxative

  65. Reverse process? by torok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So they're thinking of putting it in jump boots - once it stiffens up, does it then just become liquid again immediately afterward? Even when hit with a bullet?

    1. Re:Reverse process? by Goobermunch · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand the science, the kinetic energy of the bullet causes a state change in the material. It gets hard. It dissipates the energy (most likely as heat) and returns to its liquid state quickly.

      --AC

  66. Overheard on the test range by Ichijo · · Score: 0

    "Intelligence says the enemy is headed our way. Quick! To the showers!"

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  67. Inflexibility by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm in the same status as Crowbar. The vest I wore had the same inflexibility problem the_crowbar mentions. It may not seem like a big deal, but it really is, particularly when you are in situations where range of motion is critical.

    For example, in urban combat, you are constantly looking up, and pointing your weapon up. As you crane your neck backward and move your non-firing hand above your head, with a traditional kevlar vest you reach a flexibility limitation. If you then have to contort your body laterally for some reason (and they always arise) your trunk is limited in flexiblity as well.

    A vest that could incorporate greater flexiblity and some sort of heat-dissipation mechanism would be a real boon to soldiers who need body armor protection.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Inflexibility by io-waiter · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed shrapnel "proof" vests ar hell when its warm and/or you need to be agile.
      They are rather nice when you can just sit down lean your head on the collar and sleep for 5 minutes though,
      or when you dive for cover and land on something sharp and pointy.
      How the actually work when somebody pounds you with a mortar Im happily unaware of.
      io-waiter

    2. Re:Inflexibility by the_crowbar · · Score: 1

      Infonaut, you have touched on a very important point that I did not mention...heat dissipation. The kevlar vest I wore ('96-'00 USMC) were hot. We had many people who wore them when they ran simply to sweat more. The old/current (not sure which anymore) vests are difficult to deal with. However (IMHO) they are much better than nothing. Thankfully I was never in a postition to need the vest, but I was thankful I had it.

      Cheers,
      the_crowbar
      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
  68. Where does Kevlar Putty [tm] come from? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Silly Putty , but presumably it's hard to impregnate Kevlar with it.

    I really don't want to know how this works.

  69. Re:More from the paste files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Short, short version:

    Another one bites the dust.

  70. AAAIIIGGHH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MY EYES!!!!!!

  71. No offence but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know Pat Tillman is a hero. But what I don't understand is why a lot of people acknowledge his while a lot of soldiers die every day and all they get is a place in the body count.

    1. Re:No offence but... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody is downplaying the loss of life nor dimishing their status as heros.

      Simply, Pat Tillman was a public figure who gave up a promising NFL career to do something that he believed in. To him, the cause was sufficient enough that he gave up a $3.6 million dollar contract. And he, like the others, felt the cause sufficient enough to put their lives on the line.

      The irony is that the announcement of "liquid armor" comes on the same day that he lost his life.

      I have mixed views on the pictures of the flag drapped caskets on the plane. On one hand, they showed the price being paid for this war very vividly. Those individuals are no longer mere body counts but rather images that will stick in the minds of all Americans. On the other hand, the fallen and their families should be shown proper respect. But, I believe very few people would disagree that they were all heros who fought for what they believed in.

    2. Re:No offence but... by Whatchamacallit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Turns out those pictures of flag drapped coffins may have actually been the shuttle crew and not Soldiers who died in Iraq!

      http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=94 7

      The pictures were obtained from thememoryhole.org and were mixed up in an Internet snafu.

      From the Drudge Report:

      WASHINGTON POST, REUTERS, CNN, AP RUN PHOTOS OF SPACE SHUTTLE COFFINS -- AS IRAQ WAR DEAD! ... AFTER INTERNET MIX-UP: Russ Kick of thememoryhole.org filed a Freedom of Information Act requesting 'all photographs showing caskets (or other devices) containing the remains of US military personnel at Dover AFB. This would include, but not be limited to, caskets arriving, caskets departing, and any funerary rites/rituals being performed. The timeframe for these photos is from 01 February 2003 to the present.'

      But Kick appears to have assumed all the photos given to him were of the WAR ON TERROR/IRAQ dead!

      On Thursday NASA claimed more than 70 photos featured in Kick's war dead -- were photos of Space Shuttle Columbia's crew! The shuttle blew up on 2/1/03.

      'An initial review of the images featured on the Internet site www.thememoryhole.org shows that more than 18 rows of images from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware are actually photographs of honors rendered to Columbia's seven astronauts,' NASA said.

      CNN aired space shuttle coffins as Iraq dead from thememoryhole.org. The Washington Post printed a shuttle dead photo on page A10. [The paper is planning a correction on Saturday, sources tell DRUDGE.] Reuters is also distributing a photo of the Columbia crew remains. AP has a screen grab of the first page of photos - all of which are of Columbia crew remains. AP titles the image as 'A page from the Memory Hole.org's homepage shows photographs of American war dead arriving at Dover Air Force, the nation's largest military mortuary, Thursday, April 22, 2004'... It is not clear if other media outlets are currently featuring space shuttle coffins in their rotations...

    3. Re:No offence but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point, so I will explain it to you :

      The US Government has been suppressing free speech, in order
      to prevent their adventures in Iraq from becoming less popular.

      THAT is what matters, not nitpicking details about which
      photos were of which dead.

  72. Freshly Napalmed Forest by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the Snowcrash quotes left out the best part about the armor: "A bullet will bounce off its arachno-fiber weave like a wren hitting a patio door." Probably not applicable, but damn I love that line... I'm still laughing about it years later.

    But wait -- there's more! -- the really best part of the Snow Crash quote is:

    " ... but excess perspiration will waft through it like a breeze through a freshly napalmed forest."

    Stephenson may have his faults, but he's got the gift for cool similes.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  73. Another scientific paper. by David+Hume · · Score: 3, Informative


    Another scientific paper on the subject: "The ballistic impact characteristics of Kevlar (R)
    woven fabrics impregnated with a colloidal
    shear thickening fluid," JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE 38 (2003) 2825 - 2833.

  74. Military.com ripped the story by NoYes19 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is straight off of Army News Service.
    And they even have a picture!

    1. Re:Military.com ripped the story by zipwow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or maybe it was a press release?

      There are options that don't come from the receivers in your tinfoil hat.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    2. Re:Military.com ripped the story by segfault7375 · · Score: 1

      And they even have a picture! That's not a picture, it's a computer sim. There is a big difference between the two.

    3. Re:Military.com ripped the story by ChrsJxn · · Score: 1

      Looking at that picture, I wonder if after being struck it goes soft again quickly.
      The pic seems like it's now stuck in that hard state.
      And, unfortunately for someone wearing the vest, the shape it got stuck in seems like it would seriously be moving some body parts around. Probably body parts you wouldn't want moved around.

      Could be a good thing to figure out before we all get really happy about the possibilities.

      --
      I once saw a /. article with 1 comment.
      I should've got a screenshot.
  75. Sounds like Brunner, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like Stephenson, all right, but what I first thought of was the Karatand, from John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. It was a synthetic glove, like leather, cushioned on the inside. Like this stuff, it hardened on impact. You didn't use it so much to protect your hand as to let you hit things harder.

  76. Metal Mario Anyone??? by SpikeSpiegal · · Score: 1

    I'm just joking, but that's my take on it. LOL.

  77. TMI by rlanctot · · Score: 1

    Oo

  78. Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a motorcyclist, the kit I wear has a shit load of armour in it, shoulders, hips, elbows, back, shins, ankles but even with that the inevitable is broken bones when you slam into some street furniture.

    If this stuff goes rigid when there's an impact it might just distribute the impulse over a large enough area to reduce the internal injuries.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re: Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > If this stuff goes rigid when there's an impact it might just distribute the impulse over a large enough area to reduce the internal injuries.

      I thought the goal for bikers was to avoid being spread out over too large an area.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Years ago, Popular Science magazine's "What's New" section described a motorcycle jacket with gel-filled pads at elbows, shoulders and (I think) kidneys. The pads were designed to go rigid on impact, distributing the force over a larger area and reducing the chance of serious injury.

      klode

    3. Re: Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      He's talking about dissipation of the hit. Not of the person's body.

      Stab your bare arm with a needle. Now cover your arm with a metal plate and stab it with the needle. The hit has been dissipated, and thus won't damage you. In a motorcycle crash, this is a difference between being impaled on (for instance) a corner of a bench and just getting a big hit from it all over your abdomen.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    4. Re:Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Such was my first thought, also.

      It would *have to* distribute the kinetic energy of impact - there's nowhere else for it to go, after all.

      One would probably end up bruised over a larger area, but it would reduce point impact damage considerably.

      Shit, I wish this stuff had been available for leathers 13 years ago - would have saved me a lot of pain.

      Another application that excites me is clothing for construction workers - sharp impacts and trauma are a large cause of most injuries.

      Wow.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Sounds like it might be handy as bike armour. by Xybot · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this already available as motorcycle armour. I remember a colleague of mine having some very expensive motorcycle gear with gel filled pads over knees and elbows, the problem he said was that the gel was only good for a couple of decent impacts and then had to be replaced.

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
  79. Resistant does not mean impenetrable by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All body armour is resistant against what is intended to prevent, not invincible. Bullet proof vests are actually nothing of the sort, they are bullet resistant. Shoot a Type II vest with a 9mm pistol round, it won't penetrate, shoot it with a 5.56mm rifle round, it'll go right through.

    So just because something resists stabbing doesn't mean it can't be done. Needles more so. The way a knife or needle works is based of of high pressure on a small amount of surface. Well a needle has a much smaller area to penetrate than a knife thus can achieve more PSI with less input force.

    It may not be sewable by hand, it may need a machine with an extra hard needle but so what? BP vests are expensive items as is, it is ok if there are some extra manufacturing costs with this new kind.

    1. Re:Resistant does not mean impenetrable by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      For some 9x19 variants you need Class III-A, even if fired from pistols. One such round is the Swedish Army M/39b.

    2. Re:Resistant does not mean impenetrable by twenty-exty-six · · Score: 0

      All I wanna know is if my Long Sword of Penetration +5 will go through it? I paid a ton of gold pieces for it and I don't want the thing becoming obsolete already.

  80. Will it stop lasers and guass rifles? by Thinkit4 · · Score: 1

    Anytime now we'll have weapons that will shoot right through that science fiction book you're engrossed with, plus your kevlar vest, and through your vital parts.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:Will it stop lasers and guass rifles? by Run4yourlives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We Aready have those... they're called m-16's.

      Contrary to popular belief, Kevlar vests do not completly negate the effects of a 5.56 round hitting the soldier.

      They're designed to prevent injury from fragmentation, (explosions, etc) which accounts for most battlefield injures.

      Although in some cases vests have saved soldiers from the effects of bullet wounds, that's not the intent.

    2. Re:Will it stop lasers and guass rifles? by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Contrary to popular belief, Kevlar vests do not completly negate the effects of a 5.56 round hitting the soldier.

      Whose vest are you talking about? My vest (Safariland Zero-G level III-A) should actually stop bullets. It's rated for that, anyway.

      I'm not sure if they're effective against the .223 rounds in question, but I can test this easily enough. I replace the vest anyway around Halloween, and shooting the old vests is a time-honored cop tradition. :)

      So, anybody want to pony up for a few boxes of SS109?

      And reading about how military ballistic vests don't actually stop bullets, has anybody ever wondered why an EMT-Basic working for AMR has a better (lighter AND more effective) vest than most soldiers? Someone should pass on to the Army that it's really not that hard to get decent body armor. Even a dumb-assed ticket-writing nazi pig like me can manage it.

  81. Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Couple of issues here (avoiding the whole flame aspect):

    1) While logistics would be a pain, if the US camped a couple of carrier battle groups off the coast of a given country, they would own the sky and sea in short order. It becomes much easier to keep supplied when you can do that.

    2) Iraq had something like the 3rd largest army in the world back in 1991, which the US effectively neutralized in a month or so. Again, airpower is king. The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe.

    3) If Iraq is small, then there aren't many countries that are a big military threat. Germany, the UK, israel... the list is small and we're on good terms of most of the strongest countries (coincidence? I think not)

    4) The fact that the US hasn't fought a "big" country in years doesn't mean jack with regards to the ability to. I've never mugged someone, that doesn't mean I'm too weak to.

    Sure, there's some arrogance from the US on the military front, it makes sense. Like it or not, the US posesses the strongest military force in the world.

    Hate us for our culture, politics, whatever, that's an subjective opinion and you are welcome to them. But military strength is an objective thing, and hatred of the States doesn't diminish that.

    And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten. There are a zillion better reasons not to attack, least of all being that France is a strong ally...

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While logistics would be a pain, if the US camped a couple of carrier battle groups off the coast of a given country, they would own the sky and sea in short order. It becomes much easier to keep supplied when you can do that.

      Good luck on keeping your carriers and escorts alive. You seem to confuse this with situations like Iraq, where you just park your stuff somewhere and then attack when it's convenient for you, since the attacked country won't be able to do something about it anyway.

      Iraq had something like the 3rd largest army in the world back in 1991, which the US effectively neutralized in a month or so. Again, airpower is king. The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe.

      Iraq's army was crap, what did they have? A lot of crappy old soviet tanks and modified missile systems, great. A lousy air force and anti air defence.

      If Iraq is small, then there aren't many countries that are a big military threat. Germany, the UK, israel... the list is small and we're on good terms of most of the strongest countries (coincidence? I think not)

      That would change very quickly if you were to attack one of them. You would certainly be fighting a unified Europe as I can't imagine anyone who would help you conquering it. Hell, I wouldn't even be too sure about Israel.

      The fact that the US hasn't fought a "big" country in years doesn't mean jack with regards to the ability to. I've never mugged someone, that doesn't mean I'm too weak to. Sure, there's some arrogance from the US on the military front, it makes sense. Like it or not, the US posesses the strongest military force in the world.

      Some of you really seem to think that you're invincible. But that's normal, it was that way with every country who had the strongest military at some point in time. They all collapsed. Learn something from it.

      are a zillion better reasons not to attack, least of all being that France is a strong ally...

      And I really wouldn't underestimate France just because of a few surrender monkey jokes. I'm pretty sure they're able to defend themselves.

    2. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Again, airpower is king."

      *cough*Vietnam
      *cough*Serbia

      Not to mention the whole Battle of Britain thing.

      I'm tired of AF jocks going on and on about how air power is the alpha and omega of modern warfare. When all is said and done they're simply taking the place of artillery in older forces, and chucking explosives at someone (and doing nothing more) won't get you all that far.

      That, and once somebody figures out a viable, tactical surface-to-air laser then there won't be any more combat aircraft. Even hypersonic jets can't outrun the speed of light.

      "The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe."

      There is such a thing as giving the allied forces too much credit. Don't forget the ineptitude of the Iraqi commanders. "They'll never attack from the Saudi border! They'll get lost in the featureless desert!" Nevermind the fact that we crossed two freakin' oceans without getting lost to get there to begin with... Sun-Tzu who?

      "Germany, the UK, israel... the list is small and we're on good terms of most of the strongest countries (coincidence? I think not)"

      Germany is on good terms with the US (like most of western Europe) because they don't like having to pay for their own defense. For example, with Europe so advanced and modern and first-world and whatever, why did North American countries have to get involved in the meltdown of Yugoslavia? NATO did what it was supposed to do (Americans in, Soviets out, Germans down, etc.), but it seems to have worked a little too well.

      The UK is an interesting anomally as far as "western Europe" goes (which is certainly nothing new), but some of the "good relations" can be blamed on a common language (I can't remember which Nineteenth Century German bigwig portended problems for his country from that front).

      Israel has other things to worry about. Their neighbors are still smarting over military defeats that most of their citizens are too young to remember first-hand. (In my opinion, the US also has better things to worry about, but God forbid we leave the Arabs and Israelis to their own devices and let them kill each other off like they so desperately want to do.)

      "The fact that the US hasn't fought a "big" country in years doesn't mean jack with regards to the ability to."

      It means we ran out of cruise missiles in the aforementioned Serbian fiasco. We've suddenly found ourselves backpedaling from our traditional aversion to standing peacetime armies (again) after a decade of downsizing.

      "And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten."

      Not for the next decade at least. Even though troops and materiel have been crossing the Atlantic fairly regularly for the past half-century now, most of that has been one-way in nature and I don't see European navies able to try it out in the other direction any time soon.

    3. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by charyou-tree · · Score: 1

      And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten.

      I doubt it. Don't overestimate the ability of a bunch of relatively small, poorly funded armies who rarely (or never!) train together to put up an effective defense. (The notable exception to Europe's military mediocrity is Britain.)

      None of the above is intended to insult or slight Europe. But the reality is that Europe's collective military might isn't just the sum of its parts.

    4. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You doubt it, but it will happpen. Europe's armies are better than their image. And certainly much better than what your cheap propaganda wants you to believe. You know, some countries here even have compulsory military service. So when you try to invade, expect that most of the male population have at least military basic training and can handle all kinds of weapons.

    5. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Good luck on keeping your carriers and escorts alive."

      Those escorts include destroyers and, IIRC, the occasional cruiser and attack submarine. And there's still the aircraft that linger around the battlegroup on CAP. In general, to take on a US carrier battlegroup at sea you either need your own battlegroup or tactical nukes. France has been trying to work on the former, but their experience with nuclear power plants doesn't seem to be enough to keep them from irradiating their own crew.

      And for sustained ground support missions they'd probably re-un-retire the battleships for the umpteenth time. 16" shells are still cheaper than cruise missiles and are a very different kind of scary (ask the Lebanese).

      "A lot of crappy old soviet tanks and modified missile systems, great."

      Mock not Soviet equipment, for they tend to be reliable, cheap and plentiful. There are reasons why things like the T-34 and the AK-47 linger around for so long.

      "A lousy air force and anti air defence."

      They had great air defenses, they just didn't know how to use it. Baghdad's system at the time was pretty similar to what Belgrade had, but the Serbs knew how to use it. I'm tempted to say Iraq's greatest enemy was nepotism.

      "That would change very quickly if you were to attack one of them."

      Just remember how many US troops are already in Europe as we speak. You'd have a better chance if you weren't so reliant on us so much to begin with.

      "You would certainly be fighting a unified Europe"

      So, how's the whole EU thing working out for you so far? Got Cypruss all straightened out yet? How about relations with the former Warsaw Pact members and the apparent Franco-German bloc?

      (Reminds me of some interesting things I heard coming out of Germany when it was suggested that German troops serve under a Polish commander in Afghanistan... I guess old habits die hard!)

    6. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not for the next decade at least. Even though troops and materiel have been crossing the Atlantic fairly regularly for the past half-century now, most of that has been one-way in nature and I don't see European navies able to try it out in the other direction any time soon.

      No one here in Europe wants to conquer the US. We're happy when we're able to defend ourselves against your mad cow disease ridden president. That's enough. No empire for us.

    7. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, to take on a US carrier battlegroup at sea you either need your own battlegroup or tactical nukes. France has been trying to work on the former, but their experience with nuclear power plants doesn't seem to be enough to keep them from irradiating their own crew.

      You can be sure there's something in their arsenal (and if not in theirs, the UK will have something) to blow a carrier battle group operating near your shore away. You don't really have all that much experience with carriers vs. modern weapons.

      Mock not Soviet equipment

      It may be cheap, reliable, but also totally outdated.

      Just remember how many US troops are already in Europe as we speak. You'd have a better chance if you weren't so reliant on us so much to begin with.

      Question is, can they hold their bases before reinforcements are there or is that just some free equipment we can capture?

      So, how's the whole EU thing working out for you so far? Got Cypruss all straightened out yet? How about relations with the former Warsaw Pact members and the apparent Franco-German bloc? (Reminds me of some interesting things I heard coming out of Germany when it was suggested that German troops serve under a Polish commander in Afghanistan... I guess old habits die hard!)

      True, but give them a reason to unite, and they'll throw the old habits overboard faster than you think. An attack by a non-European nation on Europe would certainly be a great catalyst for European unification.

    8. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is on good terms with the US (like most of western Europe) because they don't like having to pay for their own defense.

      Ummm... the US forces stationed in Germany are 100% irrelevant for the country's defence. There is no east Germany or Soviet empire there anymore, remember? They are there so you can have bases to start your little turf wars in the east from. And even now you're slowly relocating them into Poland, because that's even closer to the countries in which you are interested.

    9. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just to clarify a couple of things:

      1) Absolutely, air forces aren't a panacea. In responding to the fellow asking how a supply line would be supported, I invoked airpower. Since aircraft are very good at sinking ships and destroying ground forces, the supply lines would be pretty well protected. Of course you need ground forces to _keep_ territory, but you can kill most everything in it from a distance (artillery, air, missles, whatever).

      2) Sure, some of the iragi leaders were bad, but there were some very tough forces. Not to mention more of them than american soldiers. I think it's a very bad idea to assume the enemy is stupid.

      3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.

      4) If none of these float your boat, then just rack me up as a naive fool who refuses to have black and white opinions. You wouldn't be the first.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    10. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons."

      Bullshit. We lost Viet Nam, despite all the advantages we had, and all the dirty tricks we pulled.

      And the reason we lost is that the little yellow men were fighting
      for their _own_ country, and we were just visiting.

      As for air power, it did a lot of good on 9/11, didn't it ?

      Welcome to the 21st century, bucko. The new rules are :

      THERE ARE NO RULES.

      Put the Tom Clancy book down, and read some Sun Tzu. Maybe then you'll have a clue.

    11. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You can be sure there's something in their arsenal (and if not in theirs, the UK will have something) to blow a carrier battle group operating near your shore away. You don't really have all that much experience with carriers vs. modern weapons.

      Actually, wrong. The US Navy has EXCELLENT defenses against high tech weaponery. Feel free to read up on The Aegis Combat System. It's low tech that we continue to have a problem with, as men in row boats and boobytrapped bikes have proved and continue to prove. It's easier to fight a civilized country; they use civilized weapons. Weapons we largely know exactly how to counteract because we were crucial to the design of most of them.

      If we were to engage France, we'd probably blow the hell out of them with a First Strike policy. The only sane way to fight a first world country is with inhumane weapons. In Iraq the battle was possible without having to play defense, if we fought France clearly they are able to reach us, so we would have to be sure our first strike was devastating. Translation: Nuclear wasteland.

      In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world. If you aren't being targetted for attacks, if you aren't providing money, and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us, what gives you the right to dictate policy on how the United States should defend itself. Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because they had a train bombed? Fine. I don't see them giving the destroyers back that we subsidized so they could afford them. Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.

    12. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That would change very quickly if you were to attack one of them. You would certainly be fighting a unified Europe as I can't imagine anyone who would help you conquering it. Hell, I wouldn't even be too sure about Israel.

      Unified Europe? Under French command I hope! Ha what a joke. We know for sure the French and Belge will be hiding under the nearest convenient rock.. the Germans, being German, will wake up to things fast and realize they can take France again on way to USA, but if they stop before the ocean they can keep it this time. The Scandinavians are fierce, but tend to prefer beer and vodka. Oh and Spain. All you need to do to stop them is threaten to set off a bomb.

      Face it.. Europe is not, and will not likely ever again, be a military force of any kind, individually or combined. They haven't the equipment, the trained men, nor the will. Frankly I think the Brits could kick Europes ass on their own if they wanted to.

      And as far as countries that have collapsed militarily.. well its quite funny you put USA on brink to be in same boat as continental Europe has been for.. oh.. 2 or 300 years.

      I wonder how low this can be mod?

    13. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hmm... the US destroyed damn near every military target (sometimes repeatedly). US soldiers were able to take nearly any land they wanted (although it was often abandoned within days). The numbers are sketchy, but it appears that 10 to 20 vietnamese were killed per american loss. Sounds like the US was pretty dominant, when it wanted to be. And when it didn't, the soldiers left and the country fell. This is losing?

      Just because it's too easy: the 9/11 analogy is flawed. For example: An Abrahms tank is a hell of a fighting vehicle. But it won't stop a car from veering onto the sidewalk and killing people any more than a F-16 can stop a jet verring toward a building, IF WE DON'T KNOW IT's GOING TO HAPPEN. Once the US realized what was going on, F-16s were dispatched to shoot down one of the planes, but it crashed before they got there.

      Out of curiousity, are we trying to decide something here? Because if we're just comparing dick size, I'd be happy to let you win, if you'll just shut up.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    14. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France and Spain would surrender before the battle even starts.

    15. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world.

      Oh right, of course. It's EVERYBODY ELSE that's got the problem. Newflash: When all your friends start acting weird, it's not them that have lost the plot.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    16. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Suidae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back

      Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Spain would have been a target if they didn't get involved with the whole thing. The US was attacked on home soil (very rare, and we like it that way), so a very strong response was made. If it had just been another embassy bombing or something it probably wouldn't have resulting in the occupation of two middle east countries.

      I wonder if Irans leaders are feeling a little uncomfortable having so much US military power occuping two opposite borders?

    17. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... Maybe they're acting weird is because they're engaged in illegal deals with the country in question? Nah, that can't be the case.... it's always the American's fault... always!

    18. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons. If we were to defeat them we would have to have a massive first strike.

      Of course no American president would risk the jewish vote by attacking israel in he first place.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    19. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by neema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "2) Iraq had something like the 3rd largest army in the world back in 1991, which the US effectively neutralized in a month or so. Again, airpower is king. The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe."

      What? First off, let's remember that if an olympic runner races against a bunch of 5 year olds, we can still point to a 5 year old and label him the third best runner. Doesn't mean he's a threat to the olympic runner at all.

      During the 80s, Iraq had both Soviet and US support (weapons, intelligence, etc) and attacked Iran, creating the infamous Iran-Iraq war. Despite the fact that Iran had cut much of its military after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and resorted to using minors to fight the war, they still beat Iraq back. This was that formidable "military foe" you spoke about, back when two superpowers supported them and no one said a thing.

      Since then? The Soviet Union has collapsed, the United States has withdrawn their aid and has since launched an embargo on the country that has reaked havok on it. Iraq wasn't "quite a military foe".

      To return to your general issue, the big problem now for the US isn't fighting a one-on-one battle with some nation... clearly, the US will win. Foreign Affairs last year gave a statistic around the lines that just our military research and development funding is ahead, multiplied by a few times, of the next 5 major countries TOTAL military spending.

      The problem is, however, exactly what we see in Iraq. Guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings, whatever. It doesn't matter what technology you have, a random person in a crowd throwing a grade towards soldiers is going to cause some trouble. The only way to really avoid attacks like that is get the people of the country you're attacking (Iraqis in this case) to support you. And the US hasn't developed that trick just yet. They're finding out, again, that waving American flags and giving out some chocolate bars isn't adequate.

    20. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Moreover, there's no reason to attack, and a lot of reasons not to. Hell, most of the israeli military uses american equipment (altho they do make damn good guns). I was just using them as an example of a militarily strong country, since they have firepower and are not hesitant to use it.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    21. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, some people (both inside and outside USA) realise that the world is more complex and that things can multiple people's fault. Most major countries have engaged with dodgy deals with Iraq, including US, UK, Germany, France and Russia. But then you get your politicians saying things like "You're either with us or against us". Sigh.

      The grandparent post had a good point which you didn't refute. When most of your allies are advising you that your tactics is a bad idea, maybe you should consider that they may have a point. They may be wrong, but also consider that maybe you have it wrong.

      Don't take criticisms of your government policy as an attack on your country. If you want to elect a government that spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined, then feel free to live with the consequences. But if you think that it is going to buy USA abolute security, you've got blinkers on. USA will only have abolute security when the rest of the world is in slavery or dead - do you want that?

    22. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1
      "hmmm... Maybe they're acting weird is because they're engaged in illegal deals with the country in question? Nah, that can't be the case.... it's always the American's fault... always!"

      Might also help explain why certain countries with veto power refused to do anything other than sign useless resolution after useless resolution. And why Saddam thought he could get away with not following them.

      Mycroft
      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    23. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten.

      Not a chance. The US reportedly does over half of the military spending in the world, and could easily defeat the entire military force of the rest of the planet.

      That's disregarding nuclear missiles, where the US is also vastly dominant but still vulnerable.

      For one thing, no other country has any naval power at all that can stand up, so the US owns the oceans. With aircraft carriers that means they also own the airspace of any region they wish to pick off first. I don't think I need go on.

    24. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " Moreover, there's no reason to attack, and a lot of reasons not to."

      I never did get our relationship with israel. We give them a lot of money and weapons but I still havent figured out what we get back in return.

      It sure as hell aint peace and stability in the middle east that's for sure.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    25. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      No, but it is a staging ground for military action in the area until we acquired AFB Iraq, it was about our best shot.

      Long range bombers, aircraft carriers, etc. make this less important, I suppose.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    26. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by dekashizl · · Score: 1

      Israel is a sole rose bush in a field of weeds. We water it with the hope that some day we will have a field of flowers.

    27. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, not sure how low it could be modded, though it deserves to be quite low indeed. Maybe -5: Historical Ignorance. Up until 1943 or so(only about 60 years ago unless I recently slipped through a time warp) most of the major European powers had more military power than the US so I don't think that they were "collasped militarily"

    28. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that "defense" costs. I *knew* there was a reason we don't have good healthcare, schools, public infrastructure, etc..

    29. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to reply (3):

      Please read the Book "Secrets" by Daniel Ellsberg that perfectly tells how the American public was deceived numerous times as to the state of affairs in Vietnam. The author is the one who released the secret papers exposing the truth and got tried in court for that. Mind you, he actually went to 'Nam and fought there alongside with the soldiers. The Americans did not win a single war there. If you call the Mai Lai massacre a war, well they won that against the elderly, the women and the kids. Tough job!

      I don't blame you or the likes of you for being so gullible as you have been fed with lies and nothing but lies for a long amount of time that it's just impossible for you to see the truth. However, there is still hope for you: get information before getting ideas !

    30. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      hm... according to percent of GDP spent on military the US is 47th in the world with 3.2%.

      Number 1 is N Korea with 33.9% of their GDP.

      Unless the US's GDP is THAT much higher than the 46 countries above us, your facts are wrong.

      Want my source?
      http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factb ook/ranko rder/2034rank.html

    31. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      If they didn't get involved the terrorists wouldn't of bothered attacking them, yet.

      Do you think that being friendly with terrorists is gonna make you immune to their attacks?

      The most likely way you can prevent the terrorists attacks in your country (without actually going out and cutting off their supply of recruits, and resources) is to give in to their every demand. And if you do that your just pathetic for changing your whole society just because some fanatic with a bomb tells you to.

      Also what would you do if 2 seperate terrorist groups demanded mutually exclusive things of you?

    32. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      What wars were won by any of them.. I'm reaching back to
      Napolean here..that was 200 yrs ago.. WWI neeed Americans
      to break a long stupid stalemate. Spain? mmm.. no dont
      think they won anything for a long time though they seemed
      to have kept getting into skirmishes with the US (and losing). Even when the Brits had us by the balls in 1812
      we *still* managed to get out of it.

    33. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a chance. The US reportedly does over half of the military spending in the world, and could easily defeat the entire military force of the rest of the planet.

      LOL, I officially declare you the most brainwashed person on the entire planet!

    34. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by njdj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten. There are a zillion better reasons not to attack, least of all being that France is a strong ally...

      No, you would not be beaten, at first. Apart from the Brits, European military forces are just a joke. And you far outnumber the Brits, and have a much bigger quantity of modern weaponry. A war between the US and Europe would last weeks, not months, and the US could then occupy any part of the continent it wanted to.

      But occupying a place is not the end. A resistance movement builds up a guerilla war to kick out the invader. Why do you never see this? You lost in Vietnam, you're losing in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you'd lose in Europe. Calling the resistance movement "terrorists" is a bright new propaganda idea, but doesn't change the facts.

    35. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if we fought France clearly they are able to reach us, so we would have to be sure our first strike was devastating. Translation: Nuclear wasteland.

      Our nuclear submarines will bomb you under tons of rotten cheese just after.

      (a frog)

    36. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam

      In a recent documentary, McNamara related that after the war, he said the same thing to a Vietnamese colonel. The colonel shrugged and said that was true, but irrelevant.

      The purpose of a guerrilla war is not to defeat your enemy in battle, but to make the cost of occupation higher than he can stand. This is exactly what the Vietnamese did, and it's exactly what Iraq is attempting to do to us now. (Incidentally, U.S. casualties in Iraq so far have been higher than in our first *three* years in Vietnam.)

    37. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      We have bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi one is being phased out now that we own iraq but it's been there a long time. Turkey is very strategically located.

      I don't buy the staging argument.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    38. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Rose bush? Israel? I don't think so.

      A country which has an official policy of torture. A country which calls itself a democracy but does not grant rights to half to humans living in their borders? A country which kills thousands of civillians every year. A country which has killed dozens of US citizens by dropping bombs in their neighborhoods. A country which spies on the US and is not ashamed of it.

      Hardly a rose bush.

      If you want a rose bush look at Turkey. A true democracy with strict speration of church and state.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    39. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with Israel you have a powerful destabilizing agent in middle-east without being directly responsible.

      Good to have some excuse for going after arab nation after arab nation, eh?

    40. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by charyou-tree · · Score: 1

      Europe's armies are better than their image.

      I'm not suggesting that they're bad. The point is that it is hard to forge an effective alliance out of military units that rarely if ever work together, speak different languages, use different and often incompatible equipment, follow different doctrines ...

      There's a reason why Europe is essentially incapable of projecting power. It's not that they're incompetent - it's that the pieces weren't designed to work together.

      Believing that Europe's combined military might can somehow compare to the better funded, completely integrated US military is naive ignorance at best.

      You know, some countries here even have compulsory military service.

      This is not an advantage.

      US reservists are far behind their active duty counterparts in almost every respect (there's only so much one weekend a month and two weeks a year can do), and I'll take a reservist over a draftee any day.

    41. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wars won don't necessarily have anything at all to do with military strength of any one side.

      WW1 was a long stalemate because every side was powerful, heck, over 9 million soldiers died on that battlefield.

    42. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without actually going out and cutting off their supply of recruits, and resources

      Being friendly IS cutting terrorists off their supply of recruits and resources. Waging a war against nation because of few inviduals, on the other hand is giving them a million times bigger pool of recruits.

      That supply of recruits being the bitter, mistreated human husks that have nothing to lose. Like the current and next generation Iraqis who had their homes destroyed, their parents killed, by you. What the hell do you except them to do? Cheer and wave US flags?

    43. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by burbilog · · Score: 1
      2) Iraq had something like the 3rd largest army in the world back in 1991, which the US effectively neutralized in a month or so. Again, airpower is king. The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe.

      US did not neutralize Iraq army. US bought a way in. A donkey with the sack of gold opens any fortress. US was delayed by few Iraq solders who did not abide superior's order not to fight for several days. Then they walked in safely because Iraq commanders ordered everyone NOT to fight. They did not like Saddam, they were bribed by US. But then US made a huge mistake -- they disbanded Iraq army, essentially leaving best people of Iraq without job (and as result without food and money) and started to messing with internal politics without respect for anyone except the US itself. That's why Iraq is rebelling now and things are getting worse and worse... and no matter how's strong your military force winning against guerillia means genocide of population.

      On other hand US is wielding enormous propaganda machine, far better than USSR's one and it's quite possible to feed the public with a reason why genocide is neccecary that they will eat.

    44. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.

      To quote Clausewitz: "War is . . . an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

      What was the goal of the US in Vietnam?
      Stabilizing the South Vietnamese government, preventing a communist Vietnam for fear of a "domino effect" in South-East Asia.

      And the goal of the North Vietnamese/Vietcong?
      No US in Vietnam and "liberating" the South from the imperialist enemy.

      yeah, definitely a draw

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    45. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Fjandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen. All these people who ooh and ahh about military strength don't seem to recall history. Any conventional army can be beaten with guerrilla tactics. The only way a conventional army can win utterly is to absolutely destroy all defenders. It's been happening as long as there have been armies. It happened in Vietnam. It will happen again in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the end, the US will eventually go the way of Britain, Rome, Mongolia, etc.

    46. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn the french!!!!

      allys? HA, those damn french pretend to be allys until it come time to fight, then they boycott you and go back to smoking too damn much.

      Tear down the staute of liberty and send it back, that's what i say!!

    47. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by cavebear42 · · Score: 1
      I don't belive that it crashed in a field in PA. I spent that day in a government building (work related) and we were watching the news pretty close. The plane was under the control of a terrorist pilot, the piolet was not reponding. Two F-16s caught up the the plane and were escorting it. THe plane went down in a field, the front was over 5 miles from the tail, this indicates an explotion occured on the plane, or, that the plane was shot down.

      Minutes later, the president made a statement that all planes were accounted for and that the heros rushed the plane and it was lost. The wrekage was never again discussed and no news agency wanted to state that the people on the plane were not the heros. The story died. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I'm pretty sure that this story was not covered with the standard fervor of the american press.

    48. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Hmm, I was talking about absolute figures, not a percentage of GDP. But I looked up references and discovered I had exaggerated, US military spending is not greater than the rest of the world combined (ie 50% or more of total global spending), but merely 45%.

      Here are some references:
      Showing the 45% figures
      In graph form

      When you look up figures, how fresh they are are vital. The Iraqi and Afghan war has substantially boosted the USA military spending.

      Unless the US's GDP is THAT much higher than the 46 countries above us, your facts are wrong.

      The answer to that is yes. The US GDP is indeed that much higher than most of the 46 countries above you (except China).

      Another possibility is that the CIA is biased (or incompetent). As their recent record in Iraq shows, their intelligences obviously isn't that great (unless you reckon they deliberately mislead the public). See the discrepency between their figures (that US spends $280B/year and the other figures $420B/year. Part of this is also probably because the Afghan, Iraqi and war on terror figures haven't made their way into the CIA factbook. Military spending in dollar figures.

      Anyway, my central contention holds, that the fear by Roosevelt of the military-industrial complex has become a fact. That such spending will over time lead to China, India, Indonesia and Europe increasing their spending without necessarily buying security for anyone -- you, me, the citizens of USA or other countries. We all lose, this is MAD. (pun intended)

    49. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      The US Navy has EXCELLENT defenses against high tech weaponery. Feel free to read up on The Aegis Combat System.

      Aegis won't do squat when someone fires a tactical nuke at the battlegroup. More likely an ICBM, while the carrier group takes two weeks to get into position. The carrier group of today is the battleship group of WW II. You're just too dim to see it.

      If we were to engage France, we'd probably blow the hell out of them with a First Strike policy.

      Oh goody. Irradiate the countries friendliest to us (sad, isn't it?), and risk a nuke hitting NYC, LA, or Washington DC. Whoopee, we win... not. Is this the brilliant strategy we're going employ against China?

      In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world.

      lol. World, forgive us. Our arrogance problem is based on our stupidity. And everyone knows you can't correct stupidity.

      If you aren't being targetted for attacks, if you aren't providing money, and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us, what gives you the right to dictate policy on how the United States should defend itself.

      The same right that had the US attack Serbia. Self interest, and humanitarian concerns.

      Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.

      No, what Spain will learn is that if you avoid confrontation with a bloodthirsty opponent, you won't experience terrorist attacks by them. Who goes around talking about how imperialist the Spanish are today? What motivation will Al-Queda have to instigate another terrorist attack in Spain??? The US, on the other hand, has its hand in every part of the globe. We can't turn the other cheek.

      When our gov't gets hit, we sort of hit back, and then use our tragedy to invade a country for its oil. What we will learn is nothing. Its uncanny how many parallels can be made politically and strategically with the Vietnam Conflict and Iraq. (And to a lesser extent, the British & Iraq.) And still, we make every political and strategic blunder.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    50. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.

      No, the US lost. In the same way that they won the American War of Independence - the colonists didn't have to win the majority of battles - indeed, even Washington lost more battles than he won - they just had to keep fighting and win when it counted. The US did that against the British in the 18th century, the Vietnamese did that against the US in the 20th.

    51. Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if this is true (I'm not doubting you, but I don't know for sure one way or the other), shooting down that plane, while not an ideal solution, is better than having that plane crash into a building and killing thousands, along with the people in the plane. I would even argue that it would be better than taking out the White House or Capitol. It not kill as many people as died in the WTC, but it would most likely be more than were in the plane, and it would be a huge blow to the US and a huge victory for the terrorists. The people in the plane die either way, and although it seems very wrong for a nation's military to kill its own citizens, one must look at the bigger picture. And I know it's easy for me to say this, since I don't know anyone on any of the planes in question.

      It would be a hard decision to make, but stuff like that happens. However, if that is true (that is was shot down) I would certainly want to know, rather than there being a cover-up about it. I think that most of the American people would understand that it had to be done. The ones that didn't would probably mostly consist of the people who think the US can't do anything right anyway.

  82. Re:Avoid war by compupc1 · · Score: 1

    True, but many if not most technologies in civilian use today (including our beloved Internet) started as military related research... I'm not saying anything either way about the merits or evils of war, but this argument really isn't at all valid.

    --
    -James
  83. and a movie by gacp · · Score: 2

    Rembember that rubbery black bodyglove under the white armor... ;-)

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  84. Stabbing... slowly by jtheory · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder... sewing it at a high speed would probably break the machine, but as long as you keep everything slow, you're fine.

    So technically, if you manage to hold that prison guard still while you slowly push the shiv through his armor, it'll work just fine (for you, not the guard). Interesting -- so throwing yourself on the knife might actually be a useful defense!

    It reminds me of a fight scene in Dune (was that the movie? -- does anyone remember this?); they had force fields that detected and warded off quick attacks, but allowed a slow entry into the field would be allowed... so the trick to knifing someone was to do it slowly.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
    1. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Verteiron · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was Dune, yes. Although this stuff reminds me more of Niven's "impact armor", a sort of jumpsuit that would go completely rigid upon impact. Padding on the inside would shield your body from the transferred kinetic energy. If the impact was localized, the rest of the suit retained mobility. With a full suit of this stuff it was possible to fall off a small building and land on your head. You'd be jostled and have a mild concussion, but you'd be alive and able to walk away in one piece.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Stabbing... slowly by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I keep thinking of Neal Stevenson:
      "Sintered ArmorGel...Feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books"

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Dunno about dune, but that kind of thing was in Stargate... they had force fields that deflected bullets, but were basically useless against knives.

    4. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      So technically, if you manage to hold that prison guard still while you slowly push the shiv through his armor, it'll work just fine (for you, not the guard). Interesting -- so throwing yourself on the knife might actually be a useful defense!
      Presumably if you were holding down the guard, you'd go for a more vulnerable spot like his neck or head, rather than trying to work the knife through the vest.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:Stabbing... slowly by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Do we have to talk about killing prison guards??? eeeeeeghhhh

      Did you ever see that documentary about Marion? Horrific...

    6. Re:Stabbing... slowly by MayonakaHa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Dune personal shield was almost exactly like this stuff. The Holtzman effect field would prevent higher velocity objects from penetrating. The higher the speed, the tougher it is to penetrate the field, the lower the speed, the easier it was for something to pass through. So yeah, the trick was to slow your attacks at the right moment to penetrate the field and injure your opponent. So yeah, if you moved the needle slowly enough, it would easily penetrate the armor with no additional force than "dry" armor. Here's an analogy I think is good. Jump out over a swimming pool about a foot above it laterally so you do a soft belly flop. Doesn't sting too much does it? Now do a belly flop from 50 ft ;)

    7. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      With a full suit of this stuff it was possible to fall off a small building and land on your head. You'd be jostled and have a mild concussion, but you'd be alive and able to walk away in one piece.

      How so? The way I see it, if the head portion goes rigid, all that's happening is that instead of landing on the concrete, you're "landing" on your rigid suit. The kinetic energy is still transferred through to your skull, you still splatter. You did mention padding on the inside of the suit, which would help, but it's the padding that's helping, not the armor.

      What the suit would be useful for are attacks with little overall kinetic energy, like a bullet. Bullets have so little energy that a person shot in the chest is as likely to fall forward as backwards. So when the suit goes rigid, the force is distributed across the front of your body, leaving you unharmed.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    8. Re:Stabbing... slowly by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Bullets have so little energy that a person shot in the chest is as likely to fall forward as backwards.

      It's momentum they have little of. They have enough energy to do significant damage, mostly through hydrostatic shock.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    9. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Hmm, doing some quick google searches, I'm coming up with about 120 grams for a 9mm pistol round, and a muzzle velocity of up to 1200 feet/second (366 m/s). 0.12 x 366^2 = about 26,000 Joules, or 6.2 kcals. Enough to cause a lot of damage if focused on a very small point, but not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Put in perspective, that's about enough energy to raise your body temperature 1/10th of a degree (Celsius).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    10. Re:Stabbing... slowly by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also sounds rather like the Non-Newtonian Fluids experiment that they did in Brainiac (a satellite tv show in the uk which did stupid science experiments to show what happened)

      They filled a swimming pool with custard (cornflower based) and demonstrated that a person could walk across it as long as they kept moving, and thus impacting the surface with their feet, the moment the guy stood still he started to sink.

      the show also revelled in destroying caravans, but thats beside the point. :)

    11. Re:Stabbing... slowly by zytheran · · Score: 1

      Fall off building and land on your head?? Totally wrong!
      Here's why.When you fall and hit the ground the damage isn't the impact of your skull and the ground, it's your brain and the inside of your skull. Plus the stretching/twisting applied to the spinal cord. Even though your skull may be cusioned, your actual brain isn't, so *it* slams into your skull, hey presto, haemorage and death from internal bleeding and/or swelling.
      That's why playgrounds are meant to have deep padding and why cars are meant to crumple, it prolongs the deceleration in an accident so the g force on your gooey brain isn't so high.

    12. Re:Stabbing... slowly by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. The cusioning on the inside of the armor would help protect, but a rigid suit would not.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    13. Re:Stabbing... slowly by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      Now do a belly flop from 50 ft ;)

      I did that from about 15. OW. Quite high enough for me, thanks.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  85. That's What She Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties."

  86. RTFA by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
    Quote from article:

    The saturated fabric can be soaked, draped, and sewn just like any other fabric.

    That's how.

    1. Re:RTFA by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      you do realize that staement doesn't explain how it can be swewd, right?

      moron

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  87. Yo. MODS! by filmsmith · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    knock parent up a notch with a shot of your spice weasles. The man bitch-slapped that stupid flame war down.

    And because I believe in talking directly to whom I'm replying, damn good job on bringing actual intelligence to that idiodic debate.

    fs

    1. Re:Yo. MODS! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Thank you :)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:Yo. MODS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you know that this guy would have said exactly the same if you had just replied "GOD BLESS THE USA! GO USA! GO USA! GO USA!" to the original message, don't you?

    3. Re:Yo. MODS! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      He would have said something about slapping down a flame war when I was adding wood to the fire? Nah, try again AC.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    4. Re:Yo. MODS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any pro-USA post would have been considered 100% true and "slapping down the flame war" by this guy. You obviously have never been here

  88. Ok now if we applied it to a completely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    different industry, say condoms, will it be able to help me when my sweet heart still wants to go and I'm out of gas, will it stay hard?

    1. Re:Ok now if we applied it to a completely... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      different industry, say condoms, will it be able to help me when my sweet heart still wants to go and I'm out of gas, will it stay hard?

      Only if you slap it hard enough.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  89. not to be an ass... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But how does a footbal player turn soldier qualify as a hero, exacty?

    I was a soldier, am I a hero? Are football players heroes?

    What about Iraqi soldiers, are they heroes?

    1. Re:not to be an ass... by jgardn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To answer your question, he is no more a hero than a poor Iraqi who decided to help the Americans and got killed for it.

      What is impressive is that the sacrifice that so many make daily is so obvious in his case. He turned down several million dollars to get himself killed in a desert. He left his newlywed wife.

      He didn't want to be made a spectacle of. He avoided the media, went in quietly. If you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't be able to tell him from the other recruits. He wasn't setting an example, he was following the example of so many others.

      It is easier to make him a "poster child" because he sacrificed so much so that I can sit here and type away my comments. He left his newly married wife. That's a huge sacrifice. I think even God says that newlyweds don't have to fight in times of war in the bible. He left a successful and promising career. He left his homeland to fight in some hell-hole. He died for his comrades. He died for his country. He died for me, like the hundreds of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the thousands in Vietnam, and the untold numbers in other wars before.

      He is a hero like my uncle was a hero in Vietnam. Only my uncle doesn't have national name recognition and only chose between college and the Marines.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  90. You're both right by The+Tyro · · Score: 2, Informative

    at certain stages of metabolism, both of the products you and the parent poster mentioned are formed.

    In years past, the only treatment was competitive enzyme inhibition via an alcohol drip (that's still the treatment in some places)... though fomepizole (Trade name is Antizol, I believe) is the safest treatment now, and a hell of a lot easier to get than persuading the pharmacy to mix up an ethanol drip.

    Ethylene Glycol is a nasty poisoning... and thankfully not that common. I'm pretty thankful that I haven't taken care of a case of that in a few years.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  91. Oh shut up... by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 1

    ... and go and change your armor.

    [PS> The new coffee table autobio The Pythons is great!]

    --

    I bought this house and you know I'm boss
    Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off

  92. Like corn starch and water... by rindeee · · Score: 1, Redundant

    ...that we used to mix when I was a kid. It was liquid until pressure was applied at which point it became sort of solid. Cool stuff. I remember "rolling" it into a ball and smacking it with a hammer which caused it to shatter. Then the pieces would "melt" into little puddles. It made the perfect weapon. You could roll it into a hard ball and bean someone with it, after which it would fall onto the ground and melt into the grass. What fun.

    1. Re:Like corn starch and water... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      The fact that you took the corn starch and water trick and figured out how to use it as a weapon says a lot about humanity, I think.

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
  93. Re:Great Armor but Too Late for a nobody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the knob played football for one of the most pathetic teams in the league, sounds like a dose of vitamin W for WHO GIVES A FUCK! And this gets modded informative!

    If he joined the Rangers thinkin he would be selling flowers to people who love him he got what he had coming.

    On Topic:
    yeah cool liquid stuff that has lots of potential and no definates.

  94. From Dune... by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    We have finally invented personal shields. Another science fiction invention brought to life.

    I wonder if they also blow up if hit by a lasgun.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:From Dune... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "wonder if they also blow up if hit by a lasgun"

      That's the silly part about Dune. All that is probably so that he can have this hand to hand combat thing.

      But the Dune reasoning is flawed. So what if the lasgun blows up? The person firing it doesn't have to be there anymore. You could also use lasguns as pretty effective mines against shield wearing people. Barriers that cut unshielded people and blow up shielded people.

      Maybe he should have said the lasgun blows up but the shield doesn't. That'll make lasguns as ranged weapons less useful. Dunno why he didn't do it that way.

      lasgun+shield as mininukes would still be viable either way.

      Dune's a nice story, have to turn brain off though.

      --
  95. There is a commercial preparation by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Informative

    of PEG... it's called Golytely... here's a bit of info.

    It's commonly used by gastroenterologists to clean out the colon prior to endoscopy. You have to drink an entire gallon...it's usually referred to as a "bowel prep."

    To those of us familiar with it, it's also affectionately known as "GoHeavily," "GoFrequently," or "GoEndlessly." I've also seen it used to treat bad constipation... ingestion of the required amount virtually guarantees an impressive "code brown."

    Yes, I realize that's waaaaay more than you wanted to know. Sorry.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:There is a commercial preparation by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Been there - drank that. And when you you geeks get older, you probably will too - It's called a Colonoscopy, and you should really start getting them around age 40

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  96. Re:Avoid war by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

    This has more uses besides war - as the article says, it could also be used for police and prison guards.

  97. 6 degrees from beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything can be beer related, if you try hard enough.


    OK. Back it up. Let's see you do the six degrees of separation from beer on these:

    1. Risin. That's the poisonous bean extract that kills you within minutes or seconds depending on concentration.

    2. WMDs.

    3. George Bush.

    1. Re:6 degrees from beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, come on.

      1. Risin. Shit, that sucks. Better have a beer.

      2. WMDs. Shit, man, George Bush is looking for those.

      Which ties to:
      3. George Bush. Went to Yale. We drink a lot of beer at Yale.

      Done and done, sir.

  98. Amazing by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    The "Liquid Body Armor" sounds absolutely amazing. It is only for military right now, but I am sure that in about ten to fifteen years it will get mainstream and everyone will be able to drink it.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  99. Magic Mud by terrab0t · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid we called this Magic Mud.

    Basically, you mix water and cornstarch and the result is a substance that feels hard when you poke it, but drowns your GI-JOE's like quicksand. It's nice to see the military has caught up to afterschool science.

  100. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pro American, so it must be insightful somehow! I'm not exactly sure how, but I'm damn sure it is!

  101. STF? by WhiskerTheMad · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that initially read this as "STFU" Armor?

    I'd buy some!!!

    --
    Love your country always, but respect your government only when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
  102. Vital Information by epmos · · Score: 1

    So what's the max DEX bonus?

    Yes, I am that much of a geek.

  103. No. by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I definitely want the Al Queda fuckers to die. Miserably. I just don't believe that Iraq has anything to do with that, though the foreign guerillas streaming into Iraq to shoot at Americans can all fucking eat shit and die.

  104. Follows the existing pattern... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    After all, liquid courage has been a part of the military since the beginning of time.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Follows the existing pattern... by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      ...or at least the invention of guiness

      --

    2. Re:Follows the existing pattern... by inmodulo · · Score: 0
      All I know is that after 10 pints of guiness on a friday night I feel pretty damn bulletproof. Plus it has the added bonus of delaying any pain to the next day. Think of the applications - soldiers being able to get back to the medical unit before the pain kicked in.

      Alcahol - keeping things warm and fuzzy ince 2000BC

  105. Sounds like more SciFi made real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems very similar to the impact armor from Larry Nivens Known Space books (Ringworld, Man-Kzinti Wars, Puppeteer, etc...). There it was apparently a cloth, but the effect was very similar. Isn't it fun when real tech duplicates the effect of sci-fi writings from 50 years ago... >^_^

  106. Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dune characters had such a shield...
    i wonder what happens when you fire a laser at them *ducks*

  107. ThinkGeek includes explaination by Jafa · · Score: 1

    ThinkGeek also includes an explaination on how their putty works. Not sure how much it applies precisely to this body armor, but it's interesting nonetheless.

    J

  108. Attention Tony Stark by rbotoms · · Score: 1

    Iron Man is due out in 2005, this is perfect timing.

  109. PEG and getting scoped up your butt by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    I read the label and I remember that PEG was the main ingredient in that gallon of citrus-flavored slime you are supposed to drink for a colon scoping. I haven't had to do this quite yet, but as you approach 50, gee, I guess I may have to look forward to all of that.

    Ethylene glycol is not only animal toxic, it also did a number on an evergreen tree. I have these wood timber front steps that are starting to rot, and a landscaping dude wanted 7K to replace them in stone, and I read that a mixture of ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) and boric acid makes a good wood preservative, and the steps are holding up OK but this tree really took a hit. The tree is not quite dead yet and I am hoping it still comes around.

    1. Re:PEG and getting scoped up your butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it kind of obvious that most "preservatives" of any kind are highly toxic, after all, that's the whole point - they kill everything that would live in (and eat, or degrade in other way) whatever is to be preserved.

  110. They aren't heroes, they are suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry, but these people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan
    didn't do a damned thing to protect anyone in the US, any
    more than the guys who died in Viet Nam did.

    All their deaths are much more tragic because they died for
    the "empire-building" attitudes of the current US regime.

    Quit being sucked in by propaganda, people, and realize that
    the real heroes are not those who go along with misguided
    government policies.

    1. Re:They aren't heroes, they are suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got my vote!

  111. nano-particles by Epistax · · Score: 1

    Of course, as oppose to non-nano particles.

    I have a 12 kg particle of carbon

  112. Re:kill ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, if you knew what's good for your karma, you would have written something about how cool and brave it is to shoot unarmed people and their families in the head. Americans really get a boner when they hear something like that.

    After all, every single high school failure with a rifle in Iraq is a hero for these people!

  113. Sintered Armogel by eoinatstraylight · · Score: 1

    Neil Stephenson talked about this in snow crash. At last, we have sintered Armogel. All I need now is a sword!

  114. Another application... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This could also have some very valuable applications where protective garmentation for sports are required... If bullets can't penetrate the armor, it would easily protect against hockey sticks and pucks, collisions with trees, and, of course, smacking pavement at a high velocity.

    Never mind how a jacket of the stuff would affect the school bully... ;)

    1. Re:Another application... by norkakn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no... far different types of impacts

      Modern bullet proof vests would not work well as hockey pads, they are mean to stop a fast moving small dull projectile, nothing else.

      yeah, I know this is just meant to be funny, but this is /. and people will believe _anything_

    2. Re:Another application... by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wasn't meant to be funny... it was a thought of less-bulky protective gear that could work for non-combative situations.

      I will grant you this; this armor would not protect against impact. It would protect against side effects of that impact, such as protrusions in a tree, or the ever-present danger of scraping when one falls onto pavement.

  115. Is it anything like Mimetic Polymetal... by vdo2000 · · Score: 1

    ...made by Cyberdyne Systems?

  116. Water guns the new weapon of choice? by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    hmmm, this might sound funny, but in seriousness, couldnt a criminal just equip himself with a super soaker and spray the officer down then fire on him since this stuff is water soluble?

  117. If I can be painted with the Evil American brush.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can all stand to be painted with fast neutrons of purification. Hell no I didn't want to send Americans over there. For what? I say we just send over the thermonuclear weapons and let the arabs and muslims pay us back in shadows and photons.

  118. "soldier" is not a proper noun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the article capitalize "soldier"?

  119. Like Stretch Armstrong/Monster? by RayMarron · · Score: 1

    Remember those? You could stretch them forever, but if you punched it, you'd break you hand it was so hard! :)

    --
    ON DELETE CASCADE
  120. yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can it stop the T1000?

  121. "(American war) dead" or (American) war dead"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    You decide...

  122. Missed the Point by mfh · · Score: 1

    > His pre-war job was to play a silly game for millions of dollars; how is that significant?

    You missed the point. The reason Tillman is a hero is that he turned down millions to fight for his country, and protect freedom. The fact he played football has nothing to do with the fact he was a selfless person, who died to protect his nation (someone who lead by example, and died to do so). I am Canadian and I can recognize this, and I respect it as much as I would respect Mother Teresa for saving lives performing selfless acts of heroism in her own way, risking her life to save others.

    The terrorists killed thousands on 9/11. And they have killed a hero now. They have only made a martyr.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Missed the Point by droleary · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. The reason Tillman is a hero is that he turned down millions to fight for his country, and protect freedom.

      You're disgusting. It is you who misses the point. To Pat, it wasn't about money. You lessen his sacrifice when you equate it to money.

      And they have killed a hero now.

      Now? News flash for you, son; they've been killing that kind of hero for over a year.

    2. Re:Missed the Point by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You're missing a bigger point.

      While he probably believed he was fighting for his country, it's still not certain whether he's actually fighting for his country or not.

      That cheapens his sacrifice more.

      I mean what is the war about? Is it the WMD, or is it getting rid of Saddam or regime change? Or is it about setting up a puppet gov to get cheap oil? Or is it just about Bush screwing up?

      Where's the truth? What are the real reasons for the war vs the various reasons the soldiers and everyone else was given.

      So far the reasons the US Gov have given don't have the smell of truth. Rather fishy - esp when they keep mentioning 9-11 in the same breath as Iraq/Saddam.

      I find that more disgusting.

      Naturally Bush and the US Gov will keep "honouring" the sacrificed soldiers, call them heroes and say politically correct things etc etc.

      I dunno about you, but I don't think you honour someone by lying to them so that they fight for your hidden agenda.

      --
    3. Re:Missed the Point by droleary · · Score: 1

      While he probably believed he was fighting for his country, it's still not certain whether he's actually fighting for his country or not.

      He was fighting for his country. The real question is whether or not the government is fighting a just war. Like you, I really doubt it. For Tillman's part, he made the decision to enlist just after 9-11. He couldn't know how things would play out. Hell, we still don't know how things are going to play out.

      So far the reasons the US Gov have given don't have the smell of truth. Rather fishy - esp when they keep mentioning 9-11 in the same breath as Iraq/Saddam.

      I agree, but that's a much larger issue. For the purposes of any soldier fighting today, they are doing their duty. Is this something that should have been taken care of over a decade ago with the other Bush? Absolutely. That is not the fault of the men and women over there now, though. I'm not looking to knock anyone down, I'm just trying to point out that too many have put this one man on a high a pedestal for the wrong reason. He may indeed deserve to be called a hero, but not because he used to play in the fucking NFL and not because of the money.

    4. Re:Missed the Point by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Actually the world would be a much better place if soldiers actually would use their brains and consciences and refuse to fight wars that are unjustified.

      There are so many dictators who are kept in power by soldiers who are "just following orders" or "just doing their duty". Their frigging duty is to protect the country, not allow a greedy psychopath to destroy it.

      A single dictator cannot bring a country to ruin if not enough soldiers obey him when he asks them to kill and torture.

      Of course there are military leaders who performed coups when things really got out of hand and then actually stood back and allowed free elections to be held. Those are real heroes - made really difficult and risky decisions for the greater good.

      How hard is it for soldiers to figure out that their commanders/generals are pretty bad people and doing bad things? It is harder to go wrong following a leader who tons of people love and respect than following a leader who tons of people fear and hate.

      There was a study which involved people electrocuting others. When ordered to do so a high percentage of people were willing to increase the electrocution past what they were previously told were dangerous levels - despite the extreme discomfort their victims were obviously experiencing.

      Just doing their duty and following orders. Real heroes - all of them.

      The world sure needs such heroes eh?

      --
    5. Re:Missed the Point by droleary · · Score: 1

      How hard is it for soldiers to figure out that their commanders/generals are pretty bad people and doing bad things?

      It's not nearly that black and white. The soldier get orders to take out an enemy holding civilian hostages: good or bad? That soldier is only there to take action because the President lied about WMD: good or bad? A soldier can easily refuse to obey any order, subject to court martial, and should rightly refuse to obey an illegal order. That's why you shouldn't hold the soldiers responsible for the governments policy. Take it one step too far and you might start to blame even civilians for their government policy, which is what terrorists do.

    6. Re:Missed the Point by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "It's not nearly that black and white."

      That's what I hope the soldiers keep in mind from time to time (not all the time - would affect performance) as they are ordered to kill and risk their lives.

      When it starts getting close to black and white and when your leaders start to do pretty bad stuff that's when soldiers/people should start to think.

      But for some people it is: "just follow orders", "just doing my duty", genocide? No problem. Kill those with "wrong religion"? Sure no problem.

      --
  123. Karma by gacp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thanks, but we gods cannot be bothered with karma :-P

    And please, stop calling them "Americans". I am as American as any Usan, and we (Ibero)Americans really hate the Usans taking over our name and covering it with shame and blood. And since we outnumber them 2 to 1, in any case, it is *us* and not Usans who are the true "Americans".

    On the rest of your post, how much must I agree, I lament! The USA is high on self-destruction mode, and we better take cover :(

    As-salaam aleikum, Paz, Peace.

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  124. I remember the Kraken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a novel called "Stand on Zanzibar." Soft fabric that became hard as steel when shocked. People wore gloves made of it for self defence.

  125. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so wrong, yet so funny
    ^Bump^

  126. From 3.6 Mil to 18 thousand a year by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    That's what Tillman did. We have parents complaining about their kids having to go fight when they only signed on to the service so they could get money for college.

    Tillman cut out of a 3.6 million dollar contract to go fight a war for 18 thousand a year.

    He was never over there for the money and no one can ever question he wanted to be there. That's what makes him a hero worth singling out.

    Ben

    1. Re:From 3.6 Mil to 18 thousand a year by droleary · · Score: 1

      Tillman cut out of a 3.6 million dollar contract to go fight a war for 18 thousand a year.

      Money, money, money. That's all I'm hearing from you. You're exactly why I noted the problem in the first place. The money and the game didn't matter to Pat. You all keep bringing it up as though it should make a difference. It's sad because it makes me think that given the choice between money and doing the right thing, most of you would go for the money. Don't try to drag Pat, or any other soldier, down to your level.

  127. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not flamebait at all. He's right on the money. Anyone who would give up millions to fight for freedom deserves mention, especially in a story about armor that can protect soldiers.

  128. Liquid distribution by beesquee · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the liquid soaked in the kevlar eventually pool? Even if it were a thick gel or paste, which I'm not sure if they could be considered as liquids, settling is sure to cause a problem. (think of silly putty sculptures and how they sag and flatten over time) It just seems to be getting this stuff evenly distributed over the entire area of the vest would be a difficult task.

    --
    Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise
  129. Inflexibility-A Loopy idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So whatever happened to chain mail?

    1. Re:Inflexibility-A Loopy idea. by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Funny
      So whatever happened to chain mail?

      Bullets.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  130. Cornstarch and water? by kuzb · · Score: 1

    This kinda reminds me of cornstarch and water mixtures we used to play with as kids. It's liquid if you move slowly through it, but it hardens into a solid when forcefully agitated.

    Great stuff at parties, you can put your hand under it an hit it with a hammer, and the properties of the mix are surprisingly effective at absorbing the shock and preventing broken digits ;)

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  131. Picture vs. computer simulation by ajna · · Score: 1

    The article stated that the impact was by a "fragment simulating particle", but it was not stated that the image was simulated. Indeed, looking at the larger version of the picture reveals that it's a photo, grid-like background notwithstanding. In particular note the softness of the photo and the wispy strands of kevlar hanging around the edges. I doubt that a computer generated graphic would have either of these characteristics.

    1. Re:Picture vs. computer simulation by segfault7375 · · Score: 1

      Yep, you are correct.. I hadn't seen the larger version of the picture yet.

  132. sounds like an ublix by zejackal · · Score: 1

    I can't find ublix anywhere on the web (although I'm certain I've found stuff before searching for the word ublix). Anyway, an ublix is a non-newtonian fluid. You can make an ublix at home with corn starch and water. It's really fun stuff. It flows like a thick liquid, you can rest your hand on it and it will sink in, but if you hit it with your fist, it will harden in proportion to the force you apply and so your punch will go nowhere. If you let your hand sink in, ball it up, then try to pull it out quickly, the ublix won't budge and your hand will stay stuck. It's a lot of fun, and it is exactly what I thought of when I read the slashdot headline. Here is a link to a short description of the mixture. It's not much help, but I'm hoping someone out there can post a better link.

  133. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if we had avoided war, there wouldn't be a United States of America, now would there?

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. I should have said UNNECESSARY war.
      -hey

  134. Not me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the Taliban, you insensitive clod!

  135. Well Consider by mfh · · Score: 1

    > I'm an intelligence analyst in the 19th SF, and our unit has taken several casualties in Afghanistan.

    Well first off, let me tip my hat to you and your unit, and your fallen. I think you guys are really doing something special by protecting the free world from evil.

    > That Pat Tillman received more publicity than others somewhat unnerves me. He's a hero, no doubt, but no moreso than Sgt. Romero or Sgt. Vance, both from my group.

    I do not wish to detract from anyone you know who died fighting for freedom. My mention of Tillman was only because I was moved by his personal sacrifice; first he gave up $3.6 mil/yr., then he gave up his time and blood/sweat/tears to get on the Rangers, then he served in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, and then he gave his life.

    > Tillman would have appreciated being made something special either.

    Well that is likely true, and that makes him even more of a hero.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Well Consider by Holi · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, no disrespect to any of the fallen, but going to fight a war does not make you a hero, It's what you do there that makes that distinction. The act of doing your duty makes youa soldier. Going above and beyond the call of duty is what spereates the heroes from the soldiers.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Well Consider by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Going above and beyond the call of duty is what spereates the heroes from the soldiers.

      Absolutely. I respect the hell out of anyone who fights for another person's freedom, but that should not be considered a heroic act, it should be considered a solemn act of every free person. Every time people point to the $3 million as important, they disrespect not only Pat but every other soldier out there who is leaving things at home they value far more than money.

  136. Re:Depends by Bastian · · Score: 1

    It depends on if this stuff improves abrasion resistance - if it's not better than Kevlar, you're better off just adding another layer of the stuff.

    Granted, if it thickens enough with a small enough amount of force, it might be terribly useful in protecting a motorcyclist from broken bones.

  137. Re:If I can be painted with the Evil American brus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you're sick.

    A "final solution" , that?

    If you didn't notice, that's exactly the kind of thinking bin Laden used to justify murdering American civilians going about their workday.

    Well, stupid of me, to think of arguing with somebody who expresses genocidal views.

  138. Well, another saying bites the dust. by argent · · Score: 1

    "STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF."

    So you really CAN stiffen up a bucket of spit with a handful of buckshot, if it's fine enough. :)

  139. Re:Avoid war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The old adage that necessity is the mother of invention seems true to me. If you are at war then
    the necessity is things to kill or avoid being killed (eg armor). If you are at peace the you need to invent things to have people make orange juice easier, cook food faster, thinner condoms, etc.

    -hey (not signed on since at public terminal and
    can't recall password)

  140. The question of the future by serutan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We would first like to put this material in a soldier's sleeves and pants..."

    So the hookers of the future will ask soldiers, "Is that shear-thickening liquid armor in your pants, or are you just glad to see me?"

  141. Silly Putty has the same properties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not trying to get modded "Funny" here. Seriously, Silly Putty has the same (similar) properties as is discussed here. It is liquid in it's normal "at rest" state, but strike it with a hammer, and it becomes "solid" during the impact. (Go ahead, try it!)

    1. Re:Silly Putty has the same properties by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      That's just what I was thinking.

      But everyone who sleeps in their armor will have flat spots until calisthenics.

  142. Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hello, Secret Service."?

    I knew you could.

  143. Did you know any killed on 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I did.

    So I say this with all my heart:

    FUCK YOU

    It's the people like Pat Tillman who allow chickenshit bastards like you to spout bullshit about "empire building".

    1. Re:Did you know any killed on 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's people like you who make it easy for tyrants like the current occupants of the White House to screw over the whole country,and waste the lives of good American men.

      In case you need a clue, sonny :

      Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

      As for your "fuck you", post your name and address, and I'll come over to your house. Then we'll see what kind of balls YOU
      have...

    2. Re:Did you know any killed on 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's the people like Pat Tillman who allow chickenshit bastards like you to spout bullshit about "empire building"

      You are wrong. The right of free speech was NEVER in danger from anyone in Iraq. Ironically, the biggest danger to free speech
      in the US is the US Government. If you don't believe that, you don't know much about your country.

      It's the people like Tillman who allow people like Bush to continue to engage in military aggression which results in
      much of the rest of the world becoming very angry with the
      United States.

      This in turn results in things like 9/11.

      So, if you want to find the correct person to blame for 9/11, you had better look toward Washington, D.C. and realize that as long as the power-mongers there keep playing games with other countries, there will continue to be consequences.

      It's a simple concept, really. When you mess with someone, they will retaliate. And unless you can kill every single man woman and child who is opposed to the US, retaliation is virtually inevitable.

  144. RFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    WRT STF, I would like to submit the following taxonomy:

    S-------SingleLetterAcronym

    SA-----State-like Acronym

    TLA---Three Letter Acronym

    FLAA-Four Letter Array Acronym
    Quarles Wolfgang Imboodaga (QWI),
    President, STF-U
    Your Silent Education Resource (YSER)

  145. we be jellin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This liquid armor makes me think of those stupid gel shoe insert commercials: "yeah, we be jellin'."

  146. It's a life size Stretch Armstrong suit by aolsheepdog · · Score: 1

    I remember this stuff from when I was a kid. It was in a toy called Stretch Armstrong (obligatory link) Soft and pliable when you pull and push him slowly but hit him fast and it hurt like hell. Of course we all ran around demonstrating how soft his was and then getting our buddies to punch him hard. Damn that hurt.

    1. Re:It's a life size Stretch Armstrong suit by aolsheepdog · · Score: 1

      So I'm fixing the damn link an hit the submit button. Yes, I posted it screwed up. Here it is - really.
      click me

    2. Re:It's a life size Stretch Armstrong suit by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      I only had experience with the newer strech armstrong (and fetch armstrong) and i never remember him hardening with an impact. He just seemed to be some sort of silicone vinyl type material, and the stuff he was filled with, which leaked if you streched him too much, was just corn syrup IIRC...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:It's a life size Stretch Armstrong suit by Erebus · · Score: 1

      My first thought exactly - Stretch Armstrong. They also made little 'stress reliever' squeeze dolls from the same stuff. I seem to recall it being fairly heavy, for it's size, though. Guess I should RTFA, see if they fixed that...

  147. Re:NO!!!!!! by Bastian · · Score: 1

    Try not to forget that the foreign guerillas streaming into Iraq are human, too. I'm sure they see themselves as a resistance or a liberating force trying to help an ally against a common foe. (It's worth noting that they don't have to have the majority of Iraq be opposed to the American occupation to hold this point of view.) Talking this way about them is a step toward the same sort of hateful mindset that drives Al Qaeda. Yes, they do want you to "eat shit and die," but responding to this with the exact same attitude just escalates the conflict.

    The best solution is the one that keeps as many people alive as possible on both sides of the fence in the long run. Granted, this opinion isn't very popular because it's a subtle one. It means that you look for tactics that try to stem the tide of guerillas into Iraq rather than one that waits and attacks them after they've already blown up a Humvee. On the other hand, it also means you can't play Santa Claus and let all prisoners free - many people can and will try to attack American soldiers and other Iraqis if they are released. They do need to be permanently imprisoned, or executed if necessary.

    But just going in and hating and killing is a bad idea. Even if you don't find that attitude morally objectionable, it's simply a stupid policy for an occupying force to have. We learned this first hand in Vietnam, where approaching the war with this attitude ultimately caused us to lose it. Israel is currently learning this the hard way, too. It's just not possible to make people like you when you're holding them at gunpoint.

    All that said, I do agree that I would rather see every Iraqi insurgent die than see one more American soldier or Iraqi civilian or police officer die. It's just that even more than that I'd like to see nobody dying.

  148. Re:kai5263499 reads Fark by kai5263499 · · Score: 1

    Actually it came from the militray.com newsletter. (Today's edition).

    --
    -Wes
  149. What the military needs by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The modern challenge for our military is not war mongering - we rule at making war - but peace keeping - that is respecting people and serving a population while being vulnerable to rogue dissendents.

    This raises the need to identify the location of a stray bullet in real time.

    Imagine a self organized network of wearable computers with pretty basic microwave doppler shift detectors.

    Even a single bullet fired would create a doppler shifted frequency in a reflected microwave signal, and the network could compare notes and triangulate the trajectory - even calculating a return fire path and indicate if not photograph or return at least rubber bullets on the perpetrator.

    That would be awesome defensive gear.

    AIK

    1. Re:What the military needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have sonic sniper detectors, that can backtrack sniper bullets based on their shockwaves. Active radar equipment would tend to paint you up like a light bulb, so maybe that's why they haven't considered it, since it'd be pretty useless for fighting the Soviets. Ahem.

  150. Oh great - they got an award in 2002 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And today is 2004 - and most reserved military personel in Iraq doesnt even get any armor. What are they doing? writing another 50000 pages manual before they even allow manufacturing of the vest?
    Let see - 2003 - writing design document on the chemical makeup of the armor, 2004 - environment safety study design, 2005 - vendor evaluation study, 2006 - chemical evaluation study, 2007 - safety and EPA study, 2008 - stress testing analysis, 2009 - prototype of the first vest, 2010 - field test study, 2011 - initial 10000 vest manufacturing, 2012 - manufacturing cost study, 2013 - vest is alpha test, 2014 - another 10000 vest to be manufactured , 2015 - 1000,000 vest to be produced

  151. High Tech Sandbags & DU body Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take a dry body armour, and fill the gaps with fluid, it will be heavier - compare shoveling dry sand, as opposed to shoveling wet cement.

    A wet, water soaked sandbag stops bullets better. A sandbag with mixed size granular sand particles works better, ie clay and rocky bits in there too. And if we put a plastic bag over it to stop it drying out, even better.

    If that plastic bag was really tough - non stretchable, then the non-compressibility of H2O, would make it great. Disguising Kevlar coated wet sandbags, into new seasons fashion garmets is a tough sell job, because they will be a lot heavier.

    So, if the troops swap a light, dry, vest, with a heavier fluid soaked vest, it will be heavier, and much hotter and unbreathable - air ia a damm good, and cheap insulator. Those armoured socks will stink.

    Obviously, adding depleted uranium (DU) plates to the finished product would be even better, even if they are fluid suspended molecules, would be the bees-kneees. DU treated vests,pants and underwear, may have long term fertility implications.

    Somehow, the finished product would be 20 pound boots, and a 60 pound jackets. Notice how WEIGHT is not discussed, and a sane comparison to extra plys of cloth Vs soaking the vest in wet goo, then working out how to keep the damm thing watertight/leakproof.

  152. Sports is the new opiate of the masses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative +5 and a Troll +5 in one!

    Football sucks.

    1. Re:Sports is the new opiate of the masses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I agree with you. As for that football player who joined the Army so the US could maintain control over oil supplies, well,
      "stupid is as stupid does".

      BUT :

      Football is perfect for _many_ Americans. Here's why :

      1) It has plenty of breaks so you can over-eat and drink

      2) It is simple, and violent.

      3) It occupies tiny minds, and provides the illusion of involvement in a sport.

      Oh, and in case you wonder, I am American, but I am increasingly embarassed to be one, what with the numbers of
      SUV-driving, Bush-loving idiots out there.

      Maybe SARs will mutate and clean this mess up...

    2. Re:Sports is the new opiate of the masses... by Pooua · · Score: 1
      I am increasingly embarassed to be one, what with the numbers of SUV-driving, Bush-loving idiots out there.

      Candidate Kerry's family owns an SUV, according to him.

      "Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

      "'The family has it. I don't have it,' he said."

      Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He

      I suppose the same could be said of the Gulfstream private jet he uses.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  153. I laughed when I read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but it's true.

  154. You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You forgot something.
    You may have beat Iraq, but now who's bleeding? US soldiers die daily in iraq you idiot ! Power!=Arrogance.

    When will you Americans learn that Power alone does not matter in this world.

    Putting an aircraft carrier or two doesn;t mean you own the airspace. It provides a larger target for the enemy to attack. Where were you when USS Cole was bombed?

    The conventional forms of warfare are Gone. Kaput!

    1. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Yes, soldiers are dying. Not very many, considering that an entire country was occupied (No, I'm not minimizing the deaths. 50 years ago we'd be happy to take a country with 20,000 deaths. the 800 or so coalition deaths are small relative to that.)

      Sure, there are other things than power. I never stated otherwise. But since politics is collective will, and military action is an extension of politics... it would be silly to discount.

      A carrier battle group generally controls the airspace within a few hundred miles, unless another CBG is in the neighborhood. There are many historical precedents for this. Where's your contrary evidence?

      I was at home. The Cole, however, was in a friendly harbor, in peacetime. It was neither in an active battlegroup, nor on duty. How is this a an angument?

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      You forgot something. You may have beat Iraq, but now who's bleeding? US soldiers die daily in iraq you idiot ! Power!=Arrogance.

      Yes and for each one down about 10 or 15 Sunni or non-Iraqi arab go down. Hey you got something right... power does not equal arrogance.

      It provides a larger target for the enemy to attack. Where were you when USS Cole was bombed?

      Assuming the enemy can get there. Personally I think I was in bed when the Cole was hit. By the way.. it was in port.

      The conventional forms of warfare are Gone. Kaput!

      You know what pisses me off most? Not naive idiots like you, but that George Bush was a pussy. If we had treated Iraq like we did Germany or France at the end of WWII there would be *no* uprisings, car bombs, or anyother getting out of line. But no. Jr. had to go and do a 'humane' war. Dont bomb infrastructure.. dont bomb civies. Uncle.

    3. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by neema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You know what pisses me off most? Not naive idiots like you, but that George Bush was a pussy. If we had treated Iraq like we did Germany or France at the end of WWII there would be *no* uprisings, car bombs, or anyother getting out of line. But no. Jr. had to go and do a 'humane' war. Dont bomb infrastructure.. dont bomb civies. Uncle."

      That's right. Because, as we know, the repressive tactics the Soviets used in Eastern Europe translated into "no uprisings, car bombs, or anyother getting out of line".

    4. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we had treated Iraq like we did Germany or France at the end of WWII there would be *no*"

      Wow! Just how stupid do you have to be to not draw a distinction between the way France (an ally) and Germany (THE ENEMY) were treated at the end of World War Two ????

    5. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      ooops.. it was very late when I posted that.. clearly I
      meant Japan, not France. Both of those countries were
      basically hammered into submission to the point where they
      had no will left to fight.

    6. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      See correction - meant Japan & Germany. In any event, I said
      nothing about the Soviet side of Europe, but if you want
      to drag them into it.. they had what..1 'uprsing'.. the
      Prague Spring.

      The point is both countries were crushed to the point there
      was no fight left in them. What we did in Iraq was to
      crush the military (yes you can debate how many are acting
      as guerillas now). But we left the rest of the country
      intact. Remember that to some what we view 'humanity' is
      viewed as 'weakness'.

    7. Re:You forgot something...Re:Put 'em away, kids... by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      You know what pisses me off most? Not naive idiots like you, but that George Bush was a pussy. If we had treated Iraq like we did Germany or France at the end of WWII there would be *no* uprisings, car bombs, or anyother getting out of line. But no. Jr. had to go and do a 'humane' war. Dont bomb infrastructure.. dont bomb civies. Uncle.

      But I thought we were there to "liberate" them. But then again, we were also there to eliminate a "clear and present danger" from "weapons of mass destruction." If the government is going to use patently false motives and act contrary to their declarations, then why aren't they going all the way?

      Well, you'd better get used to it. Half-assed implementation of wildly unrealistic policy is the hallmark of the Bush administration.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  155. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  156. Try a demonstration... by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a wonderful demonstration of how this works. Make a wet paste of cornstarch. You'll notice if you take a stick or even your finger and stir it around very slowly... it will act like a viscous liquid. It flows around your stick and the path left in the paste slowly fills back in. Now try moving the stick quickly through the paste and it suddenly becomes solid, the wet gloss of it's surface disappears, and the paste cracks and breaks like a hard material. Literally the force applied to the paste shifts it from liquid to solid state and upon release of stress it becomes liquid again.

    This makes for a variety of interesting properties. A protective shield of this material was used as part of an engineering experiment at UCI in 1978, when a box of specific size was thrown off the engineering building and an egg in the box survived.

    Genda

  157. Update by dejetal · · Score: 1

    There's a new version of the Shear Thickening Fluid armor that's due to be released soon, dubbed the "Ultra" version, or STFU.



    --
    the rest is silence...
  158. Wanna try this for yourself? by JRHelgeson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you'd like to replicate the characteristics of this product for yourself, go to your kitchen and grab the corn starch.

    Take corn starch and pour about 1 tablespoon into a small bowl, then add a small amount of cold water, about a teaspoon or so. These amounts are estimates, use more or less of each to reach a desired consistancy.

    Mix it up, and you'll start to see the similarities.

    If you let the 'mixture' sit, it will remain liquid, but the moment you stir it, it'll harden. Pour it into your hand and play with it, as you play with it you'll notice its a solid substance, the instant you stop playing with it, it'll turn back into a liquid and run through your fingers.

    Pretty cool stuff, pretty fun, and cheap to do!

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  159. Hey! by raehl · · Score: 1

    I don't have any salt, you insensitive clod!

  160. Exactly. This is why... by devphil · · Score: 1


    ...I can feel relatively safe against broken blades in my fencing gear, but still use a sewing needle to restitch the straps when those threads work loose.

    Mind, it's a really sharp sewing needle, but still. (And for some reason, dental floss holds up longer than thread.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  161. I'll tell you.. He is a symbol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking the same thing today.
    Many more people soldiers die in Iraq.
    Why talk about some football player compared to all the rest, I even got angry at the media for a second. But then I realized

    As most things he's just a symbol.
    He was doing something many Americans would love to do, not only play, but be really good at football in the NFL. He was making at least mid 6 figure income, and gave that all up to serve his country.

    I saw a interview they did with him right after Sept 11, 2001. In in he says something like this,
    "My grandad was at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese struck, many other of my ancestors died in war, and I haven't done anything with my life."

    He said it exactlly as you did, he knew he was just a football player, and wanted to be more then that. He symbolizes how some Americans feel right now. I for one look at my life and realize I haven't done shit with it. Meanwhile one of my friends a year younger then me has been in both Afghanistan and was with the Army 3rd ID in Iraq.

    He probably means many things to many people. But his story of giving up millions of dollars over his lifetime and giving his life for his country is something that U.S. needs to learn. Perhaps if more people were like this man, enemy nations wouldn't think that the U.S will go home when the public sees some bodies dragged around on televison.

  162. Don't think so.. by Jonathan+Hamilton · · Score: 0

    Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons yes.
    However, you can be assured that most if not all of them are very small yield nukes, and only have a theater range missle. (less them 1000KM.)

    Israel has never seen America as that big of a threat (the just attack our spy ships in internation waters when they feel like.) They are worried about the Arabic countries around them.

    Wouldn't it make sense to focus missile development on short range, and put the resources needed for long range some where else?

    Say they even have 10+ missiles that can make it to the United States. Sure the biggest populated cities might be gone, but a whole lot of the U.S. and U.S. military bases around the world. (Lets not forget subs!) Would still be good to go.

    1. Re:Don't think so.. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Israel is more likely to explode bombs in the US by smuggling them in then to try and launch them from missiles. They have a very large spy network in the US and it would be very easy to smuggle in nuclear bombs and plant them at the hundred largest cities in the US. Let them all go at once and we are pretty much sunk.

      The worry about israel is not so much that they see us a threat (after all they suckle on our teats) it's that they are a rougue nation which believes that international law does not apply to them.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Don't think so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's that they [Israel] are a rougue nation which believes that international law does not apply to them.

      Well, seems you've got a whole lot in common, then.

    3. Re:Don't think so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm. Yeah we'd all be dead but israel would surely be coming with us or whoever we thought did it.

    4. Re:Don't think so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right. And the Palestinians so obey the laws. Really. They accept the roadmap unconditionally on the condition that they don't have to dismantle terror organizations. I am tired of hearing how everything is Israel's fault and none of the Palestinians. History showed differently. How many countries has Arafat got booted out for involvements in civil wars? Many people who just blame Israel know no history at all.

      It takes one to make war. It takes two to make peace.

      Israel has offered 95% of the territory. Where was Arafat's counter offer?

      Disclaimer: No, I am not a Jew, an Israeli, a zionist nor an American.

    5. Re:Don't think so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Right. And the Palestinians so obey the laws."

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      "It takes one to make war. It takes two to make peace."

      Neither Arafat nor Sharon is interested in peace. They are both war criminals. They are both terrorists. The only difference between them is that Sharon is better armed and kills more palestenians every day. Arafat would kill as many israelis as sharon kills palestenians but he does not have the means.

      "Israel has offered 95% of the territory. Where was Arafat's counter offer?"

      First of all it's not 95%

      Secondly israel has offered to put palestenians in reservations inside israel. The palestenians don't get a continuous plot of land they get the so called 67 borders.

      Finally in what moral framework is it ok to steal only 5% of somebodies property?

      "Disclaimer: No, I am not a Jew, an Israeli, a zionist nor an American."

      I don't buy it.

  163. Sodium doesn't combust in water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A combustion reaction releases water and CO2 as byproducts.

    Sodium does react with water however to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

    1. Re:Sodium doesn't combust in water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A combustion reaction releases water and CO2 as byproducts.

      Wrong. Combustion is any chemical reaction involving some kind of fuel combining with oxygen. CO2 and water are common byproducts because hydrocarbons are most common fuels, but by no means a requirement.

      Sodium does react with water however to produce sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

      Sodium steals oxygen from water, so yes, it is indeed burning.

  164. Another ignorant American by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, I'm ashamed of my fellow countrymen. Like the majority who *still* believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

    they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government.

    The bombs didn't kick PP out of office, PP trying to pin the blame on ETA instead of Al Quaeda(despite all evidence to the contrary) and using 3/11 for political gain is what handed victory to the PSOE. PP was already slipping in the polls leading up to the attacks; Aznar's shameful behaviour turned it into a rout.

    Maybe if you had been paying attention instead of watching Fox News, you'd realize that.

    Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because they had a train bombed?

    Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because Iraq is a clusterfnck and their people never wanted to be there in the first place.

    Again, maybe if you had been paying attention instead of watching Fox News, you'd realize that.

    In Iraq the battle was possible without having to play defense

    Iraq went easy because the CIA bought off Hussein's top generals and got them to order their troops to standdown. Of course, since we never actually defeated and disarmed Iraq's army... we're experiencing technical difficulties now with the populace.

    If you aren't being targetted for attacks

    Other countries have always had a problem with terrorism. The US just joined the club.

    if you aren't providing money

    European gov'ts, in general, allocate a greater % of their budget towards foreign aid than the United States.

    and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us

    I guess you missed the recent round of Trade War Chicken that Bush lost against the EU?

    Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.

    Yeah, we hit back, let the perp get away and then started hitting the neighbour with whom we had a personal score to settle and who had nothing to do with the actual crime.

  165. Old news by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    That's been going on in Japan for quite some time now...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  166. Can you run in it? by menscher · · Score: 1

    Ok, so everyone's caught on to the fact that it prevents fast motions, and allows slow ones. So, can you run? How fast is too fast?

  167. tt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tt

  168. I thought of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was younger, I used to pretend I had a substance I could spray on that would make me bullet proof. It has finally come true!

  169. Ahh yes. by programgeek · · Score: 0

    Heh, well just incase you were wondering what new additions were coming in unreal 2005 ;D

    --
    Georgia
  170. You speak only for Americans by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By far most of the people who oppose the war are not American, and their primary reason to oppose it is the tens of thousands of Iraqis that were and are killed. Not that most people want the American soldiers dead, but those 700 are a much lesser concern, especially since they did do most of all that killing.

    The tendency of Americans to completely forget/not care that there even were any Iraqis hurt is maybe the most disturbing thing about this country to me.

    1. Re:You speak only for Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a country supposed to look out for its own interests first?

    2. Re:You speak only for Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, them or us. Fuck those sand niggers. Ideally, we should never have gone into Iraq - we should have just nuked the whole thing from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

    3. Re:You speak only for Americans by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Sir, I believe that you are lumping American soldiers and civilians with the American government and/or media. Many Americans also oppose the invansion of Iraq, and wish that no lives were lost at all. Unfortunately, American media is based on ratings, which also means "more blood=more ratings".

      It is true that right after the attacks on the World Trade Center that most Americans wou;d have probably approved of nuking Great Britian and various other Islamic countries. Thannkfully we (as a country) didn't push that button.

      I can say with a straight face that most Americans truely want to make the world a better place. I can not explain how such goodwill gets so perverted in application. I hate that people die for no reason; it seems that the truley evil people get away with everything and live in luxury while good people die in annonymity.

      And please do not say that the 700 soldiers that have died are a "lesser concern". They volunteered their lives for their country, whether the country's policy's were right or wrong. Those soldiers believed in something greater than themselves, and gave more than you or me would probably want to even think about.

      Shit- drop by and I'll buy you a couple of beers and we can play foosball to decide international concerns!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    4. Re:You speak only for Americans by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "The tendency of Americans to completely forget/not care that there even were any Iraqis hurt is maybe the most disturbing thing about this country to me."

      The irony and self contradictory nature of this comment is so blatant as to make me wonder about the mental state of the person who wrote it.

      The facts of the case are that American soldiers deposed a government that was excercising the worst form of opression and was simultaneously decimating a portion of the populace through state instituted murder and torture.

      The best way to prevent Iraquis from being "hurt" was to remove the dictator that was controlling the country. This entails removing the power base (loyal supporters). This means that the people who are willing to die in order to make sure that they can keep on murdering and torturing must do so.

      Whatever the count of Iraquis dead from this "war" it is far fewer than would be killed had the government of Iraq been left alone. This does not even mention the content of those who were killed. Most of the Iraquis killed in the invasion are those who supported the dictatorial government. This is not a great endorsement of their character.

      Those who end up in the mass graves and torture chambers tend to be members of minority groups, political objectors, or someone who just gets in the way of the wrong person. Not exactly someone deserving of being tortured to death if you ask me.

      You have just fulfilled your own most disturbing case. You seem to have forgotten or not cared that there were thousands of innocent Iraquis being kidnapped, maimed, starved, tortured, raped, and killed each year by their own governmnet. Not to mention the fact that they were opressed in law and by fear.

      If you were so worried about the health and well being of the Iraquis you should have had on a uniform and been over there helping liberate them. Instead you sit back and criticize the people who are doing the only thing that has changed their chances to have a life free from a constant fear of death.

      I find it fascinating that you would think in this way. So blind to the forest AND the trees, you can't even see that you are a hipocrite.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    5. Re:You speak only for Americans by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, American media is based on ratings, which also means "more blood=more ratings".

      So why haven't I seen a single dead arab in US media? They're not hard to find. The rest of the world sees them.

      Americans don't get a lot of the facts about what's happening like other countries do. This explains a lot of the differce of perception.

      And please do not say that the 700 soldiers that have died are a "lesser concern".

      You prove my point. To you 20.000 dead Iraqis are a lesser concern than 700 dead Americans. Even disregarding that the Americans are the aggressors and the Iraqis the victims, it shows that you don't consider them fully human.

      Don't be surprised when foreigners dislike you with that attitude.

      I can say with a straight face that most Americans truely want to make the world a better place.

      Of course they do. As do the vast majority of people everywhere.

      Those soldiers believed in something greater than themselves...

      Do you actually know any US soldiers?? I do. They're not any better or worse than other people, in my experience. Rather than the lofty motives you proclaim, they typically didn't have many other options, and jumped on this to get a job and/or education.

    6. Re:You speak only for Americans by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      That's a great answer to something I didn't write.

      You offer no evidence that Americans are in fact concerned by the suffering of the Iraqi people, or are even aware of it.

      When I follow these discussions among Americans in the media and around me, the killing of tens of thousands of people is almost never brought up, even as something worth considering if it was good or bad. The 700 dead US soldiers are at least a 100 times bigger concern. Many times phrases like "700 people have been killed so far!" are used, which makes it very clear the speaker either don't consider Iraqis people, or aren't aware of their deaths.

      If the invasion was a good or bad idea is a different issue, which I didn't even address in my post, which was a response to someone saying that avoiding US soldiers getting killed was the main reason anyone opposed the war.

      Despite what you seem to think, almost literally everyone, including war opponents, is happy that Saddam is gone. The fact that he was put there by the US in the first place makes your talk of irony and self contradictory nature quite ironic.

    7. Re:You speak only for Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of Iraqis killed is more like in the thousands, not ten thousands. As such, by historical standards this was an extraordinarily cheap war by any measure, especially considering what it accomplished (the overthrow of a brutal dictator who killed many times that number in any given year).

      The occupation is a different story. While still relatively cheap in lives, historically speaking, it hasn't exactly been a ringing success. I put most of the blame for this on the shoulders of the Bush administration's failure to plan for the post-war period. They simply were derelict in their duty to the American people.

      Still, let's not succumb to hyperbole, hmm?

    8. Re:You speak only for Americans by geckofiend · · Score: 1

      You know, people like you will find anything they can to justify their point of view. It has nothing to do with who is considered human or not.

      If you woke up in the morning and read in the paper that your father/brother/mom/sister had been shot and then read that some guy you've never heard of from a town on the far side of the country was killed. Who would you be more concerned with.

      Tell me, if the US had stepped in to do something about Hitler would you be claiming the Nazis were just innocents? Elminating Sadam was a good thing, regardless of WMDs I support the war simply becuase it's deposed a monster.

    9. Re:You speak only for Americans by geckofiend · · Score: 1

      Americans don't get a lot of the facts about what's happening like other countries do. This explains a lot of the differce of perception.


      Gee with quotes like: By who? The probability is by US snipers," he said.

      and: Asked whether these were warning or attacking shots, he said: "One was shot two or three times - a sniper does not shoot an ambulance three times by mistake."

      Is the driver dead? Then it wasn't a sniper and certainly not a US sniper shootig at it. Doing so would violate international law and the uniform code. US soldiers have the felxilbity to disobey orders that are clearly illegal.

      If they were warning shots, why didn't the ambulance driver turn back? If you're getting warnign shots fired at you and you continue to do whatever caused the warning shots in the first place you have no right to complain.

      The whole aritcle is a bunch reports of people being shot at while in the US controlled areas. So therefore it MUST be US. I mean it's not like the Iraqis would ever harm an innocent right?

    10. Re:You speak only for Americans by Gorimek · · Score: 1
      You know, people like you will...

      You know nothing about what kind of person I am. And it's not really important anyway. Let's stick to the issues.

      It has nothing to do with who is considered human or not.

      If you woke up in the morning and read in the paper that your father/brother/mom/sister had been shot and then read that some guy you've never heard of from a town on the far side of the country was killed.


      My relative, of course.

      But how does this explain what Americans mean when they say "700 people have died in Iraq"?

      If you mean that Americans naturally are more interested to hear about American deaths, that is eexactly what I was saying, and not much of a counterargument to it.

      Tell me, if the US had stepped in to do something about Hitler would you be claiming the Nazis were just innocents?

      No. Whatever that proves...

      I support the war simply becuase it's deposed a monster.

      I hope you're right, but I'll reserve judgement until 5-10 years pass and we see if there isn't a new monster running the place. Right now things are certainly constantly getting worse.

      ...and the other one

      If they were warning shots, why didn't the ambulance driver turn back? If you're getting warnign shots fired at you and you continue to do whatever caused the warning shots in the first place you have no right to complain.

      The whole aritcle is a bunch reports of people being shot at while in the US controlled areas. So therefore it MUST be US. I mean it's not like the Iraqis would ever harm an innocent right?


      So you would agree then that this is a different media picture than the one given by the US media? This is not some far left crazy media outlet, but stodgy old conservative BBC. I assure you the average media outlet anywhere else in the world depicts the US in even worse light. Worldwide conspiracy, or with a grain of truth?

      You're right that the article doesn't prove that the allegations against the US troops are true. But it does report both sides of the situation, including Iraqi eye witnesses on the ground, while the US media mostly just reprints Pentagon press releases.

      Seriously. Don't take my word for it, read some foreign media on the web for a while. There is plenty of British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, and many other english language news sources you can read.

      Is the driver dead? Then it wasn't a sniper and certainly not a US sniper shootig at it. Doing so would violate international law and the uniform code. US soldiers have the felxilbity to disobey orders that are clearly illegal.

      Are you implying the US never violates international law or commits war crimes? There is plenty of easily accessible documentation of the opposite.

  171. Re:If I can be painted with the Evil American brus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Their own morality is too good for them?

    Maybe when everything is said and done, they can have reseravtions and casinos. Note that the Native Americans weren't the ass-hats in that case.

    The fact of the matter is the Islamist want to kill or convert us. In my world the penelty for that is death. Everything good they have is a gift from us. All the inequities they suffer are entirely of their own making. They we unable to form solid nations and still are, and so they were imposed upon them. They were incapable of forming their own democracies and allowed strongmen to take over. (And forming a democracy and immediatly provoking the United States to end it doesn't count. A fledgling nation that picks a fight that is sure to kill it is stillborn. Besides how's Egypt's "democracy" working out?) They can all die, preferably on CNN where I can enjoy the spectical. At least I won't be passing out candy.

  172. Don't hate us, join us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the whole hate of "Americans"
    thing to be utterly ridiculous,
    having hated Americans until a few years ago,
    and especially since I became an american
    last year. I find it funnier still that people from my country who became Americans about the same time I did, including my father,
    often find themselves saying things like "those americans, look how they eat lunch" and i'm like, hey dad,
    there's no such thing as an "american way" to eat lunch, and guess what, you're an american too.

    The only way to stop america is to vote thieving
    moron assholes like bush out of office,
    and to do that you have to be an American, so don't hate us, join us

    1. Re:Don't hate us, join us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from which country are you?

  173. At least he had some kind of armor (kevlar) by Otis_INF · · Score: 1

    ... Iraqi soldiers didn't nor do the people who fight for their safety in their own country (for you: Iraq's not Pat's country nor yours).

    Every US soldier has a kevlar vest, none of their opponents has. Oh and please stop the hero crap. He was a US soldier, invaded another country and killed people in their own country. So, how is killing people in Iraq protecting any kind of 'freedom' in the US? Perhaps you should watch some other news channels than Fox news, for example some european news channels.

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
    1. Re:At least he had some kind of armor (kevlar) by Pooua · · Score: 1
      Every US soldier has a kevlar vest, none of their opponents has.

      Good. Our goal is to kill our opponents. That's why we sent the military and not the Girl Scouts.

      BTW, the Iraqi soldier is not our opponent. Our opponents are the Iraqi terrorists, who have butchered hundreds of their own people in recent weeks in the effort to keep Iraq from being free. If al-Sadr had any decency, he would be calling for his people to build Iraq, not destroy it, but al-Sadr is a criminal wanted for murder by the Iraqi government.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    2. Re:At least he had some kind of armor (kevlar) by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "al-Sadr is a criminal wanted for murder by the Iraqi government."

      Yes but he would be one of many.

      Why are the US people singling him out for potential martyrdom? He had only a thousand supporters till the US did what they did.

      There were and are plenty of other battles. Why did they choose this one?

      The US are not letting Iraqis pick their own gov. They just want a puppet gov under US control. And Sadr might be a miscalculation in their machinations (it might not be a miscalc, or might be correctable).

      --
  174. We're in Iraq for democracy, not oil. by jgardn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We have yet to start pumping any oil from Iraq. If the military had its mind on getting oil from Iraq, we would've been pumping from day one of the invasion. We could set up guards and patrol with infrared AWACS the entire pipeline. We could displace every single native Iraqi within a hundred miles of the pipelines, ensuring no one but America's finest could even see it. We could bring in people to man the stations, turn the knobs, steer the ships.

    But we didn't. And we won't. We're not in Iraq for the oil, you see. It may be a priority, but it isn't our top one.

    Our object in Iraq is exactly what President Bush said it was: To bring democracy to the Middle East, thus destroying terrorism at its source. If a successful democracy blooms in Iraq, then toppling Iran and Syria will be no problem. We could even set up a Kurdistan under a democracy and I believe the Turks would go for that when they see how domesticated and profitable Iraq has become. Then we move from there to the next neighbors. Pretty soon, people in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be demanding the right to vote like their rich cousins in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. When psychopaths like Saddam or Osama try to rally up another dictatorship or theocracy, or try to convince people that the only way to heaven is by strapping bombs to their chests and running to an Israeli restaurant filled with teenagers, the people will turn them out on their ear, throw them in prison, or execute them themselves, whithout American intervention.

    I can't believe after four years of President Bush in action, with President Bush following up almost every promise he has made with exact execution, that people still don't take President Bush at face value. He doesn't use double-talk, he just says things straight out and answers questions with "yes" and "no".

    I laugh when people call President Bush dimwitted, only to see them fall into his trap every time he springs one. I'll help you identify the next one. They all look the same. President Bush says A, but all his opponents interpret it to mean B. After all, what politician would say what he meant? It's kind of like a general announcing to his enemies what his next move will be. The last thing the enemy expects is for the general to follow through. So they set a trap for Bush at B. When Bush shows up at A, they are surprised and flabbergasted, knocked off balance, and the joke's on them.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:We're in Iraq for democracy, not oil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really got your head WAYYY!! up your ass dont you????

    2. Re:We're in Iraq for democracy, not oil. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If a successful democracy blooms in Iraq, then toppling Iran and Syria will be no problem.

      Why do you assume that it is our place to topple such regimes? Saddam was a bad, BAD guy. His sons were bad, BAD guys. No doubt Iraq and the world are better off without them.

      It's very dangerous for us to go around trying to destablize countries just because we don't like how they do things internally. By doing that, we legitimize the actions of those who wish to do the same thing to us.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  175. usa is stronger than ALL ELSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten."

    Nonsense. The USA can not be beaten by ANY human power outside the USA.

    We could destroy the rest of the world, creating a nuclear winter which would then destoy all human civilization.

    We could defeat any attack on us by any combination of the rest of the world.

    But we can not occupy any large part of the rest of the world for any real lengh of time (humans are not really all that domesticated - we humans will die for freedom).

    Also any pro War effort in the USA will be met with an anti War effort WITHIN the USA; so we will always be limited in our ability to utilize this vast war machine we've built (thank God!).

    In short, the USA Military is best at defense and problematic when used for offense. Democracies are better at peace than war.

    SO let's stop the Republicans in their efforts to change us from a democracy/republic into a facist state. Vote Democrat this Fall!

    1. Re:usa is stronger than ALL ELSE by ronlamb · · Score: 1

      Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter. If you believe the Democratic Party would not have attacked Iraq you are very naive. Ignoring the rhetoric, there is no real difference between the Democratic and Republic parties, both are for big business. Clinton de-regulated industry far more than Reagon ever did.

      Removing Bush from office, while needed, would not make much of a change. It would take much more than this to fix things, including replacing most of Congress, state legislatures and governors, and finally mayors and the city councils in the larger cities. Additional strong political parties as well as more independent candidates would also help.

      As for attacking Iraq, this would have happened regardless of who is President for one reason. September 11th. The government had to show that it was doing something. Afghanistan wasn't a newsworthy a target, so Iraq was chosen.

      Personally, I have no problem with attacking Iraq. What I do have a problem with was it took over ten years after the first Gulf War to remove Saddam from power and the excuse given for the attacking.

      It was complete idiocy to leave Saddam in power to balance a perceived threat from Iran. Many of the soldiers I know who came back from the first Gulf War complained about this and even warned that we would have to do it again a decade or two later. In fact it aided the extremists in recruiting new members due in part to our increased presence in the Middle East to contain Saddam, although thats not saying our presense would not have been there anyway, it would have been smaller if we removed him the first time.

  176. Hyperion by E1v!$ · · Score: 1

    And here I thought we were going to start seeing robots with razors for fingers any moment....

  177. You are a hero. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I was a soldier, am I a hero?


    Yes, you are a hero. As was my Dad who fought in Vietnam. As are firefighters who enter burning building when all others are leaving. As is any person who faces danger for others while the others who are being helped retreat or stay in safety.

    You don't say whose side you were on, but that doesn't determine IF you were a hero, only WHO you were a hero to.

    Look in the mirror. Face a hero.

  178. Heil Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I salute our great leader and driver, George Walker Bush!

  179. Gifs? Jpgs? Pngs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's commonly used by gastroenterologists to clean out the colon prior to endoscopy.

    You post about this subject, and you managed to not include one single photo!?!?

  180. Excellent... Does this mean I can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I can keep my dexterity bonus?

    If only they could imbue it with +4 against RPGs.

  181. Liquid armor is still undergoing laboratory tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob: Ha! Sammy, your turn (Hands over wet vest)
    Sammy: Hell No, its my turn with the gun!
    Bob: Two words, Sammy, 'Research Grant'?
    Sammy: Gimme that.. if it wasnt for that last clause!

    *BANG*

    Sammy: Mother-^%$#@!!

  182. silly putty by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    the specialty that studies weird flowing behaviour is called rheology. Honey is viscous but given time , it flattens out. It's still a 'normal' substance.

    Mayonnaise is 'extra hard' when treated softly: the mini mountainscape in the pot can stay for months. But it's much softer than honey when you apply force. Silly putty flows when treated softly, but freezes when you apply force(specifically, it bounces).

    So at first sight, the new STF thingy looks like SSP (super silly putty). For some reason military preferred some other name over SSP. Pity. But to be fair, there's more params.

  183. Its an old trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just add cornflower to water. Why dont they not use this for military and use it to save people in car crashes. Also it can save my laptop from the 100th drop.

  184. Understatement of the week by IdahoEv · · Score: 1
    Nukes are not always desirable.


    Ummm... no shit.
    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  185. 9/11, Iraq, and strange coincidences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Read how former Clinton administration advisor Laurie Mylroie ties Iraq to the first WTC attack in 1993.

    Note also that Ramzi Yousef, involved in the 1993 WTC attack, is the nephew of former Al Qeada #3 Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and that Yousef was arrested in the Phillipines with plans to use simultaneously suicide-bomb about a dozen airliners.

    Oh yeah, Iraq had this place called Salman Pak, where Iraqi intelligence trained small groups of terrorists how to take over airliners with small knives.

    But no, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks - because you say so...

  186. John Brunner by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I recall the 'karatand' in the book Stand on Zanzibar. It was a soft glove that would become rigid when hit. So the bearer would stick his hand between a door that slams shut, and he would have an instant fist iron in a fist fight

  187. Hypersensitive by mfh · · Score: 1

    Maybe you are hypersensitive?

    > You're disgusting. It is you who misses the point. To Pat, it wasn't about money. You lessen his sacrifice when you equate it to money.

    When someone is selfless, you are correct that money never enters their minds. But the chance to make millions or fight for your country... that is the mark of a selfless hero -- the choice of service over selfishness.

    Let me tell you why Pat Tillman is a hero: he was the reluctant hero. He didn't want the press machine behind his decision to serve. These facts all contribute to his hero status, in my mind.

    I can't say anything about any other soldier because I don't know each story. I hear about heroes and then I hear stories about Jessica Lynch, which were hype-machine stories. She was nearly killed a few times by Americans. But the press labeled her a hero for surviving the horrible Iraqi treatment (which was a farce because she even said so herself that they saved her life on numerous occasions). Maybe she is a hero for surviving the friendly fire...

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Hypersensitive by droleary · · Score: 1

      Maybe you are hypersensitive?

      Let's see. Men and women being (again) sent off to die because some guy's daddy took a lickin' a decade ago while trying to prove he wasn't a wimp? Check. Rumblings of reinstating the draft to supply bodies to that unjust effort? Check. Countless acts of lies and deception under the FUD of terrorism? Check. Me being hypersensitive? I don't see it.

      Let me tell you why Pat Tillman is a hero: he was the reluctant hero. He didn't want the press machine behind his decision to serve. These facts all contribute to his hero status, in my mind.

      Wow, it's amazing that you can say that and still not get my point. You all clearly know he didn't want the fanfare, and yet the media imposes it anyway! That is why you disrespect him directly. If you actually think he was a hero, you would be as disgusted as I am by the coverage his death is getting and the reason it is given.

  188. Anyone else remember Silly Putty? by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

    A flash-back from my childhood. Silly Putty was a commercial example of a shear-thickening visco-elastic fluid. Under normal pressure it would flow like goo, but give it a sudden yank and it would turn rigid and snap leaving a clean shear plane. I suspect they're working along similar lines to develop this body armor enhancement. Also, I suspect "liquid" is just market-speak. "Fluid" would probably be a more accurate description.

  189. Well by mfh · · Score: 1

    > He was a US soldier, invaded another country and killed people in their own country.

    I agree with this statement, to a point. I am pretty much against the Iraq war; the US is committed, so the whole thing has pretty much become another Vietnam. I don't look at soldiers to place blame, I look at the Commander in Chief.

    > So, how is killing people in Iraq protecting any kind of 'freedom' in the US?

    War is hell.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  190. You're a hero! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, some people would think so.

  191. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even Lithuania (a small flat country) had resistance, organized and fighting soviet regime up until 1959 I think. Caucasus nations were uneasy during ENTIRE soviet occupation. Read some books that weren't written by soviets about what was happening in eastern Europe after WW2, then talk.

    --Coder

  192. Mod down now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >You belittling his sacrifice and claiming his career was silly is ignorant and disrespectful.
    You are blaming him for something he very explicitly said he did not mean. Just how did you get modded up??

  193. I'm a great proponent of... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Here's an analogy I think is good. Jump out over a swimming pool about a foot above it laterally so you do a soft belly flop. Doesn't sting too much does it? Now do a belly flop from 50 ft ;)

    ...live and learn. Might want to increase that gradually until you get the point. If you don't, well there's something to be said for natural selection.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  194. Liquid Body Armor by denise_yenko · · Score: 2, Informative

    in 1967 and 1968 at Ohio State University, I researched and used this property of thixotropes as both an acoustic coupler and as a high-pass filter. My department (Welding Engineering) was doing research on non-destructive testing of concrete highways -- contractors got paid for the average depth of the concrete emplaced, (nominally nine inches) and that had always been tested and documented with core samples.

    We attempted to do it with a sonar method. Basiclly, we whacked the concrete with a half microsecond, 2Mhz pulse from barium ferrite crystals mounted rigidly in a big aluminum ring, and measured the time in and out.

    Problems were the aggregate nature of concrete, impedance of the interface, and both physical and acoustic coupling in and out.

    I discovered that a tube of a hair grooming product called "Groom and Clean" rang when tapped. Curious as to why, and having all these neat acoustic toys to play with in our lab, I discovered several things.

    First, what thixotropes are, (Groom and Clean was primarily methyl cellulose suspended in water) second, what other similar materials existed, third, what cheaper materials were available (bentonite) and what the stuff was good for.

    All thixotropes have the property of flowing like liquids when moved gently., and acting like glass when shocked. IOW, you can stir it, but if you fire a projectile at it, or simply whack it with a hammer, it will shatter like flint or a big chunk of glass in a characteristic 'conchoidal' fracture. the key feature is though, that it *immediately* slumps into a liquid again!

    OK, why is this? The composite material is small flakes of a wettable, but insoluble crystalline material. In bentonite it's plain old ordinary kaolin type clay, with a particular sheetlike structure. When this is wetted, and suspended in water, (I found early on, that plain old antifreese worked better, but I had trouble enough squeezing any cash out of the administrator, without having to beg for a 55 gal drum of propylene glycol), the result is just a big tub of gray glop (bear in mind these are all scientific terms of art.)

    A projectile, or more to the point, in my research, any fast-onset shock, turned the plates up on edge, more quickly than they could flow out of the way of each other. The flakes, in touching each other, produced a temporary rigid matrix that acted like glass, or flint (both super-viscous liquids)

    In retrospect, the intuitive leap required to soak a fabric in this stuff, and use it as armor should have been obvious, but it was not the focus of my interest, or needs. Oh well, the University would have had patent anyway, since I was just a lowly bench researcher

    At any rate, the end result was that I could use it as a pysical acoustic coupler (the gooey characteristic) under my big aluminum ring, and and the glop also acted as an impedance transformer for the 2Mhz 'bong' from the piezo-electric crystals, because very high frequency pulses would pass through, selectively, more easily than the low frequency rumbles and internal reflections from inside the aluminum block. (a Fourier analysis for a single .5 microsecond pulse gives a long train of harmonics athat were not only not useful to my purpose, but were, in fact a distraction.) It also filtered out the low frequency multi-path reflections within the concrete.

    The receiver, in a close fitting hole in the ring, got slathered on the sides and end with the bentonite as well. Before the drillers mud improvements, our oscilloscope had a lot of 'grass' that made spotting the echo difficult, and often times impossible. Knowing the mean trasnmission times thruogh various types of concrete was helpful, but not definitive. Our new ability to clean up both the input signal (the bong!) and the received echo made the return signal much more obvious in the now much reduced 'grass' on the oscilloscope.

    I had previously worked with concrete (as the scion of a big readi-mix c

    --
    I'm armed and I haven't changed my patch, so don't start with me -- you *know* how I get!
  195. The ./ affect strikes.. by Distortions · · Score: 1

    Mirror anyone?

    --
    Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
  196. Here Ya Go by mfh · · Score: 1

    > You all clearly know he didn't want the fanfare, and yet the media imposes it anyway!

    Nobody can control the love or hatred of the people. The best examples of humanity are etched into history, because they motivate us. The worst people are also there, as a reminder of how things can go horribly wrong. Tillman is a hero, and you can't control it. So just accept it.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Here Ya Go by droleary · · Score: 1

      Tillman is a hero, and you can't control it. So just accept it.

      You still don't get it. For all he did, he's still considered a football "hero". That's wrong. Football is a stupid little game and Tillman knew that. What mattered to him is serving his country, and that is something all military personnel make great sacrifices to do. He died in that service and if he wanted to be considered a hero for anything, it would be for that. But he is singled out for fanfare only because of the NFL connection, which disrespects the personal sacrifices made by all who have died in war.

      That is not acceptable, but I won't presume to control it. All I can do is distance myself from morons who cheer when a muscle-headed millionaire runs a ball past a line and does a self-aggrandizing dance. Tillman knew that was a meaningless game, and it's sad that he couldn't distance himself far enough away from it; not in going overseas and not in death. I can't control that people think like you do, and the only way I can distance myself here is to make you a foe. I encourage you to actually think about what makes a man a hero. Until you get your priorities straight, you're an unbearable person to be around.

  197. Do it yourself: LiquidBodyArmor beneath your skin by Gery · · Score: 1

    I have my liquid body armor all over my stomach and on the side of my hips for 8 years now and there were no problems yet.

    You can make your own LBA: fat fast food and bear make it grow very quickly. I have not tested it on bullets or knives yet as I live in Europe but the LBA forms quite well over my N/A-muscles.

    But beware of sport...

    Gery

    --
    The answer is yes, me.
  198. Holy by mfh · · Score: 1

    I've heard rants on Slashdot before, but you take the cake, man. People can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Not every person has to share the same view... the world is better for having multiple views. I can appreciate how you dislike football, football players and even football heroes.

    But what I was saying and what you're saying don't match up as adversarial statements.

    > You still don't get it. For all he did, he's still considered a football "hero".

    I never said he was a football hero. I said he was a hero for giving up millions to join the fight against terrorism. Point out any other millionaire who has given his life to serve and I'll likely be looking at another hero. There are heroes of valour (guys that perform excellent military service like the character of Forest Gump), but Tillman is a hero of sacrifice, and that extends beyond military service, IMHO.

    > But he is singled out for fanfare only because of the NFL connection, which disrespects the personal sacrifices made by all who have died in war.

    I never said anything about NFL; just that he gave up significant monetary gains to serve. I wouldn't necessarily single him out for fanfare, either; I would remember that as an example of self-sacrifice.

    Don't look at me as if I'm siding with the press. I don't like the press very much, and I've had direct contact with them before that was unpleasant, in that they tend to mess everything up and make a story, rather than report news.

    > All I can do is distance myself from morons who cheer when a muscle-headed millionaire runs a ball past a line and does a self-aggrandizing dance.

    This only shows your hatred for football, nothing significant there really because it's a subjective analysis only.

    > Tillman knew that was a meaningless game, and it's sad that he couldn't distance himself far enough away from it; not in going overseas and not in death.

    How could you possibly know this? Did you know the man? Do you know someone that knew him?

    > I can't control that people think like you do, and the only way I can distance myself here is to make you a foe.

    This is obviously your decision to make. Why bother posting about it? That's trollish.

    > I encourage you to actually think about what makes a man a hero. Until you get your priorities straight, you're an unbearable person to be around.

    Can it be so easily quantified, what makes a hero? I think not. It's like art; I know what art is when I see it, but I can't define art. How could anyone define art? How could anyone define what makes a hero? I know what some ingredients are, and I've seen many of them in the people I know.

    You likely aren't a hero, because you have to become disagreeable when you disagree. Maybe if you could be agreeable, even in debate, you would find yourself exhibiting hero qualities. You obviously have the intellect for it... maybe not the patience?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  199. The one drawback is... by hplasm · · Score: 1

    that after the first shot hits, the liquid rains away through the hole.....

    --
    ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  200. Re:sounds like an ublix [Oobleck] by edraven · · Score: 1

    The word you're looking for is Oobleck, and derives from the Dr. Seuss book: Bartholomew and the Oobleck.

  201. Re:sounds like an ublix [Oobleck] by zejackal · · Score: 1

    Thank you. I was pretty sure I had it wrong. Now I know what to search for.

  202. USSiraqafrance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I ain't saying

  203. "The slow blade pierces the shield" by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    Hey, Frank Herbert's Dune got it right.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?