ShrikeHawk

The "Snark" is a UAV Helicopter with impressive capabilities. It's been developed by a company in New Zealand. Some strange anti-military laws prevented them from exporting the system to other countries. But as of 2009, they were looking for a new host country to continue development. I hope it was us. Details about the Snark http://www.gizmag.com/go/4785/ Details about the company's future http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/1452/

Happy B'Day!

Many lives lost, serious injuries, and a Mustang destroyed. Tragic. http://abcnews.go.com/US/reno-nevada-air-race-crash-investigators-comb-debris/story?id=14546398

I was starting to get worried. Thanks for hanging in there Erik. Your efforts are much appreciated.

I think David Copperfield set up that test.

Nice! It would be cool if it had a working gun.

Awesome! I'm still chuckling and will be for a while.

I thought it was excellent. I really enjoyed that.

Even in the US, free speech has limits. Shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater as joke, and you'll be breaking the law. Try making a mere joke about planting a bomb on an airliner, the police will be waiting with handcuffs when you disembark. Nobody will care that it was a joke, you'll be convicted. Personally, I'm glad the troll got convicted. Free speech is a wonderful tool, but when it's used as a weapon to cause harm, the criminals need to be punished without remorse.

F-ing A!

That's a great story, Jedi. Thanks for sharing.

.

Fantastic Show!

Oh yes, the "fair and unbiased" news channel. When considering any of their stories I always try to gauge the "degree of truth" they are using. This story strikes me as similar to the scandal created by Reagan's comment, "I've decided to outlaw Russia. We begin bombing in five minutes." It was a joke and it wasn't meant for public consumption. This is incredibly obvious, but people still managed to take it entirely out of context. It seems Fox is taking certain unrelated facts and stringing them along to build a story where there isn't one.

I've been watching the skies carefully (and unattended bags) every year on that terrible anniversary.

Oh that was good.

Sounds like the same tactic the Taliban are using in Afghanistan.

Sad to hear it. My deepest sympathies. Once again, the people killed in these blasts have nothing to do with the problem the bombers are concerned about. Why should "Hawkers" have to die for the bomber's cause? The bombers are just going for a body count and they don't care who dies. I don't think India is backing Israel significantly, so what's the excuse this time?

Absolute invisibility is incredibly hard, but Adaptive Camouflage (meaning the camouflage 'uniform' changes to match the background) isn't that far off. It won't be extremely heavy and will require a little more power than your cell phone. Here's a link for what they're doing at the University of Tokyo and how they do it. The video below that shows how they do it. This tech requires a vid cam behind the wearer so, of course, this would be useless for a foot soldier. But right now, work is being done on nano-tech cameras that would add almost zero weight and serve as the "backside camera." check it out: http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm Here's the vid: After all that, I still don't think the vid that starts this thread is for real. Too many inconsistencies. Still, when Adaptive Camouflage finally deploys it'll be a game changer.

For me, I notice that the guy is apparently invisible while running across the field. When he arrives at the tank, he's clearly visible again. Since a tank had just been mined or more likely struck by an IED, they were in a combat situation. So I can think of no reason why invisibility should be turned off when he arrives at the tank. That alone makes the video suspicious.

Just stumbled across this on YouTube. It looks like a hoax to me. The first version I saw of it had a lot of text how the Army made youtube take the video down...and then it goes ahead and shows the video anyway. This version has all that nonsense removed. I know the various studies are working on adaptive camouflage, but this video seems suspect to me. What do you guys think? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VomB58z0ZE&feature=related

I thought this was pretty cool too.