Spiga

Soldier of the Future

It's the year 2030. As a soldier enters a crowded marketplace, sensors mounted on his helmet automatically scan faces in the crowd, identifying a known insurgent; a cursor in the heads-up display highlights the target and cues the weapon, which can be set to stun or kill; a simple voice command unlocks the trigger.


Aided by "smart drugs," enhanced with prosthetics, and protected by a lightweight suit of armor, this soldier of the future possesses near super-human capabilities and weapons that would make even Iron Man jealous. He's suited up in an "exoskeleton" - essentially a Storm Trooper-esque external shell - that allows him to carry heavy loads. Electronics integrated in his outfit allow for simultaneous language translation, automatic identification of potential foes, and video-game-like targeting. If the soldier is tired, overworked, or injured, neural and physiological sensors automatically send an alert to headquarters.


It's all part of the Army's starry-eyed vision of grunts 20 years from now, and it's just one aspect of the Pentagon's ambitious thinking about technologies that will transform the way the military fights. There are also plans for advanced robotic aircraft; missiles that travel seven times the speed of sound; and ship- and aircraft-based laser weapons that could blast missiles out of the sky.


These aren't fantasy. Many of these technologies are plausible, or in development. Whether the military can afford them is an entirely different question.


Each branch of the military has its own plans, but the Army concept of tomorrow's soldier borrows heavily from nearly every genre of science fiction. Dubbed "Future Soldier 2030," the vision is the brainchild of the Natick Soldier Systems Center in Massachusetts, an Army organization responsible for researching and developing new technologies for the individual fighter.


The idea driving this vision is a "soldier as a system," a sort of man-as-machine concept that looks at soldiers as you would an aircraft or tank. "We're building an F-16 [fighter] on legs," says Natick's Dutch DeGay. Does that vision run the risk of making soldier look like some sort of science fiction villain? DeGay notes the Army is aware of this potential pitfall: "We work hard to be cognizant of what the overall ensemble looks like." While some of the technologies are already under development - prototype exoskeletons exist, for example - others, such as an elaborate, light-weight power system needed to power all these fancy gadgets, are still many years away. There are also some provocative ideas behind the plans: the Army envisions "neural prosthetics" and drugs that aid cognitive ability. Such things may be "controversial now, but perhaps ubiquitous in 2030," officials note.


With all those advanced sensors, electronics, and weapons systems, such a suit, the Army realizes, would be a potential bonanza for enemies if captured. For that possibility, the Army has another solution: If a soldier is killed, the outfit will "zeroize" itself - that is, wipe out its own electronic systems - so the equipment can't be exploited by enemy forces.


Beyond individual soldiers, the Pentagon has other big ideas: the Air Force, for example, is working on a hypersonic missile that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour; a prototype, dubbed the X-51 "waverider," will be flight tested later this year. Laser weapons are also popular. The Pentagon plans for a megawatt-class laser that would fit on the nose cone of a Boeing 747 and capable of blasting North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles out of the sky. After over a decade of work, the Pentagon plans to finally test the weapon against missiles later this year. The Navy is also working on its own missile-blasting weapon that would go on ships, called the Free Electron Laser.


Another major initiative for the future is replacing manned aircraft with drones. In Pakistan, for example, armed Predator drones are conducting air strikes that would have once been carried out only by piloted aircraft. But these unmanned aircraft are still ultimately controlled by human operators. In the pipeline are armed drones that could operate with no human intervention. Northrop Grumman is working on a Navy-funded project called the X-47B, which would take off and land from carriers ships, and Boeing recently unveiled Phantom Ray, another unmanned combat aircraft that the company hopes will interest the Air Force.


This is not to say that that the future military will necessarily be equipped with the latest and greatest in weaponry. With the costs of weapons skyrocketing, and the Pentagon under pressure to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of the military's big ideas have simply proved too costly. The Army's Future Combat System, a $160 billion program that included robots, sensors, drones and ground vehicles, is now slated for cancellation.


Likewise, the Navy's dreams for its future fleet have been dramatically scaled back. And the Air Force's plans for a new bomber are also on the chopping block, another victim of the latest round of cutbacks in the new Pentagon budget. Even equipment for the commander-in-chief is in jeopardy: the Navy recently canceled plans to buy a fleet of new presidential helicopters.


So how much, for example, would the outfit for the future soldier of 2030 cost and can the Army really afford it? The Army won't say. Although many of the component technologies are under development through various research efforts, the Army isn't actually putting any money into the full ensemble yet. But history may be a guide. One of the Army's more recent attempts to create a high-technology soldier outfit, called the "Land Warrior System," produced mixed results and a price tag of over $30,000 each. After spending over 10 years and half a billion dollars, the Army was forced to scale back or cancel many of the technologies.


That brings to mind an old joke that cynics use about all-ambitious technologies, be they laser weapons, hypersonic missiles, or super-human soldier suits: These are the weapons of the future - and they always will be.

Source: NYPost

Adobe beams up new Strobe video framework

As part of the Streaming Media East conference in New York, Adobe has unveiled "Strobe," the open-source Flash video player framework that the company first announced last month. It's expected to be available in the third quarter of this year.



Since you were probably wondering: No, Adobe is not tweaking the pronunciation of "Strobe" so that it rhymes. Thank goodness.


But here's what it is: Strobe is a product and architecture for accompanying plug-ins based on Adobe's Flash technology that lets a company build a custom video player more easily, should it want to host online videos in-house rather than relying on YouTube or its ilk.


While Adobe's ActionScript language is "very flexible," explained Jennifer Taylor, director of product management for Flash distribution, "everybody's sort of had to recreate that from scratch, and as a result it's taken people longer than they've wanted to to to get their video players up to get their video online."


The meat of Tuesday's announcement at Streaming Media East is that a host of big new partners are on board, from content delivery networks to analytics firms. The full list of supporters is Adap.tv, Akamai, Blip.tv, Brightcove, CDNetworks, Digital Smiths, Eyewonder, GlanceGuide, Grab Media, Incited Media, iStreamplanet, KickApps, Level3, Limelight Networks, Multicast, Nielsen, Omniture, Panache, PointRoll, ScanScout, Thumbplay, Visible Measures, and YuMe.


Strobe is "taking the mystery out of creating video players, and also streamlining and simplifying that process, so people can do it much faster than they could before," Taylor said. She added that ComScore statistics have said that Flash is used to serve up 80 percent of all online videos.


The Strobe framework will be free, and Adobe does not have plans to charge for it. "Our intent is to not monetize Strobe directly," Taylor said. "Obviously, we anticipate and hope that Strobe will help accelerate the adoption of Flash video, and the rising tide helps all boats: it's going to help our partners and those who provide plug-ins for the framework."

Source: Cnet

Is there only one Internet ?

Probably - for now. The internet is a disparate mix of interconnected computers, many of them on large networks run by universities, businesses and so on. What unites this network of networks are the communication languages known as the Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol, collectively TCP/IP.


There are also a few large networks that use different protocols and which remain largely isolated from the internet, including something called FidoNet, which links bulletin board systems via the global telephone network, as well as a handful of military networks. The main internet is the only one of any significant size, as far as we know.


Yet while a common computer language has proved a key to the internet's phenomenal success, another form of language - this time human - could eventually trigger its fragmentation into several separate regional internets. In 2007, under pressure from China and Russia, ICANN finally allowed the use of non-Latin characters in online addresses. The move will help billions of Chinese and Russian speakers use the internet, making communications easier and improving online trade within these countries. However, it could also prove to be the beginning of the end for the internet as we know it.


One possibility is that we could see the appearance of domain names that are not recognised by the rest of the network. If servers or routers aren't set up to recognise the characters in these addresses, the domain names will not be readily accessible from all parts of the world.


Worse will come if, say, the Chinese government decides to set up its own root directory of Chinese domain names, held on its own computers and independent of the existing US-based directory. This could give the Chinese authorities control over which sites its citizens access, potentially giving it the power to largely isolate them from the rest of the net. "The language changes will accelerate national fragmentation of the internet," warns Tim Wu, professor of technology and law at Columbia University in New York. He predicts this will lead us down a road towards a divided internet: one part controlled by the US, one by China, and another by Russia.