3 ms·

As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don't think I'd want some annoying UI in my eye tell

As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don't think I'd want some annoying UI in my eye telling me were to shoot.

verdverm 6y ago
HL2 is far more than a novelty, you should really try one out. Soldiers who have tried this absolutely love it and can see many places where this literally changes the game.
politician 6y ago
On the other hand, if I were responsible for inspecting and maintaining vehicles or aircraft, I might find an AR HUD to be extremely useful. "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
dirtyid 6y ago
Probably better investment than this: US Army trials augmented reality goggles for dogs https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54465361 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54465361 On the other hand AR has civilians uses. This is just US civil military fusion at work.
bpodgursky 6y ago
Soldiers spend about 1000x as much time training, inventorying, fixing things, learning, and communicating as they do in a firefight, and AR is potentially very high value-add in all of those spaces.
RestlessMind 6y ago
Taxpayers in 1970's may have thought of internet as "a waste of money" or just a novelty. Same with taxpayers in 2005 with DARPA challenge for self driving cars. Sometimes, you need government level entity to truly move the needle on technology and private sector is simply too short-term oriented[1] or too risk-averse[2] to take on meaningful challenges like moon landing or atom bomb. [1] VC funds have a life-cycle of only 10 years. Internet evolution was a 2-3 decades process. [2] Government can write off a loss of 5-10B. I can't think of any private sector entity with that kind of risk tolerance.

3 ms·

As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don't think I'd want some annoying UI in my eye tell

by fasteddie31003 6y ago

As a taxpayer this seems like a waste of money. AR is just a novelty. If I were a solider in a firefight, I don't think I'd want some annoying UI in my eye telling me were to shoot.

verdverm 6y ago
HL2 is far more than a novelty, you should really try one out. Soldiers who have tried this absolutely love it and can see many places where this literally changes the game.
politician 6y ago
On the other hand, if I were responsible for inspecting and maintaining vehicles or aircraft, I might find an AR HUD to be extremely useful. "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
dirtyid 6y ago
Probably better investment than this: US Army trials augmented reality goggles for dogs https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54465361 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54465361 On the other hand AR has civilians uses. This is just US civil military fusion at work.
bpodgursky 6y ago
Soldiers spend about 1000x as much time training, inventorying, fixing things, learning, and communicating as they do in a firefight, and AR is potentially very high value-add in all of those spaces.
RestlessMind 6y ago
Taxpayers in 1970's may have thought of internet as "a waste of money" or just a novelty. Same with taxpayers in 2005 with DARPA challenge for self driving cars. Sometimes, you need government level entity to truly move the needle on technology and private sector is simply too short-term oriented[1] or too risk-averse[2] to take on meaningful challenges like moon landing or atom bomb. [1] VC funds have a life-cycle of only 10 years. Internet evolution was a 2-3 decades process. [2] Government can write off a loss of 5-10B. I can't think of any private sector entity with that kind of risk tolerance.