Drop your weapons! you have 10 seconds to comply!

[moerty 0]

i wonder if it'll work out as nicely.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw020610_1_n.shtml

[Guest]

I suppose it could work if you wanted to laugh your enemy to death. "Look, It's the guy from Lost in Space!! Gwahahahaha. *ugh*"

[Aculaud 0]

I'm not holding out much faith for this. All this advanced armor shit wont amount to anything. Cause the next thing that will come out after this is a way to defeat it.

[Indychuck 0]

There is always ways to defeat something when it comes out. It's getting the funding to come up with ways to defeat it. Not something everyone can do. Just like stealth technology. It's fairly easy to build a stealth aircraft but not everyone has a fleet of them. Even night vision is easy to have. Yet a lot of forces around the world don't have the money to give them to every soldier. Just another example of what they come up with when they have unlimited funding. Too bad they can't use that to make prescription drugs lower for the elderly

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Too bad they can't use that to make prescription drugs lower for the elderly<span id='postcolor'>

that has nothing to do with research dollars. It has to do with greedy corporations. They charge all the market will bear for as long as they can to reap obscene profits from people who generally dont have the money to afford it. Then they complain when their patent runs out and other companies can make a generic.

Thankfully things work a little differently in Canada. They arent protected as long, so drug prices here are, generally, lower. It's why in the cities near the US borders, many pharmacies have more american customers than canadian ones.

Personally I think some drugs should be made available for the base manufacturers cost plus a very small markup. No more than that punishable by law. Because then health wouldnt just be for the wealthy in the first world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just like stealth technology. It's fairly easy to build a stealth aircraft but not everyone has a fleet of them.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually stealth aircraft are hellishly expensive to design and build, compared to their non stealthy kindred. Your night vision example is a much better point about how smaller militaries cannot affor the latest and greatest all the time.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Equip all elderly with NVgoggles!

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ June 16 2002,03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thankfully things work a little differently in Canada. They arent protected as long, so drug prices here are, generally, lower.  It's why in the cities near the US borders, many pharmacies have more american customers than canadian ones.<span id='postcolor'>

in addition, Canadian gov't subsidixes difference with tax. so that's why ppl enjoy lower price for prescription drugs.

ofcourse, gov't has better bargaining power with drug companies too, so they might get less expensive then what US citiznes pay.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and i think even though we have gadgets, truting your old physical fitness is the best thing

[red oct 2]

that suit looks a little dated, was it from a old news article?

[theavonlady 2]

I hope it has climate control!

[dayglow 2]

Yah Canada, our cost of living sucks, but we get drugs cheap

COLINMAN

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Funny- i assume they might try a bit harder with the camoflage in the actual combat versions?

I seem to remember that the landwarrior system failed abysmally in its last test with massive information overload, and similar is true with a British version i saw tested a few years ago -too bulky for not enough added effectiveness.

Theres still nothing there that a peep with an AK couldnt waste....

im sceptical

[scottmillerukctrg 12]

Did anyone else get the reference? 8:28