Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High-Tech War Games Help Save Lives

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the more-real-than-real dept.

Medicine 142

An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting on the new training mannequins being used by the United States military. Advances in technology have allowed the training dummies to become ultra-realistic. From the article: 'New battery-operated, remote-controlled mannequins can simulate bleeding and breathing, and they have blinking eyes that dilate. Medics can test their skills on these life-like mannequins. The new units, which are packed with technology, are used at 23 US Army Medical Simulation Training Centers as part of a program to teach lifesaving techniques to medics and nonmedical personnel. A Pentagon study says the training program has saved 1,000 soldiers' lives in combat, said Lt. Col. Wilson Ariza, manager of the US Army Medical Simulation Project.'"

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes but... (2, Funny)

bytethese (1372715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531618)

I would like to play Global Thermonuclear War.

Re:Yes but... (2)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531646)

well now you can really play doctor, with really fake dying people. on the more serious side, the thing looks awesome

Re:Yes but... (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531660)

I wonder if it dreams of android sheep?

Re:Yes but... (2)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532382)

I wonder if it dreams of android sheep?

Only if its Welsh.

Re:Yes but... (2)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531866)

well now you can really play doctor, with really fake dying people.

Only the bottom half. The top half is a live actor sticking through the cot and screaming like his leg's just been blown off. No, seriously:

The screaming soldier is an actor, lying on a cot, who has only the top half of his body exposed. The bottom half is the mannequin.

Re:Yes but... (1)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531918)

Operation: the battlefield version, on the other hand, the actor getting a shock from the buzzer might be a draw back

Re:Yes but... (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531782)

I always thought that those kind of things turned people into violent mass murderers.

Re:Yes but... (1)

Seto89 (986727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531796)

Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

what side do you want? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531906)

1. US

2. USSR

3. North Korea

4. iran

Re:what side do you want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531932)

Just between you and me, I'd prefer a good game of chess.

Re:what side do you want? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533128)

5. China

Re:what side do you want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34533296)

Err, the USSR has been broken up into multiple factions. I think you're missing a patch.

Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why cant I read (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531648)

Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why can't I read his stories when logged in? This has been happening every Sun/Mon now for about three weeks. I've emailed cmdrtaco and robmalda and gotten zero response from them. Why is Samzenpus flagged as unreadable when logged in, but if I log out I can comment annonomously? I don't have particular editors censored in my settings.

Re:Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why cant I read (3, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531662)

I have no idea, but it's not working for me either. I have to log out, copy the URL, and then log in and paste it in manually because samzenpus stories don't show up for me manually. Just like you, this started happening 3 weeks ago.

Re:Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why cant I read (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531674)

It's particularly annoying, because samzenpus seems to be the only person who posts any stories at all for 24 hour stretches, as if it's some sort of half-broken story editor robot (insert bad slashdot editor jokes here). I'm pretty sure samzenpus is just a story releasing script that CmdrTaco enables from his iPhone when all the editors go on a saturday night bender and know they'll be too hung over to do their jobs on Sundays. Good job on automating your jobs, but fix the hidden story bug please(!)

Re:Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why cant I read (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532622)

What would be really interesting is if the bot can do a better job than them.

I wonder if it has a built in spell check, that might almost do it.

RealDolls... (3, Funny)

bwayne314 (1854406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531668)

... for Real Men.

Re:RealDolls... (1)

kanto (1851816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531748)

I bet that when you give those dummies proper "treatment" they scream your ip-address.

Re:RealDolls... (1)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532330)

Someone is going to repurpose one of these battle field dolls... you know it...
You know what they say... Old enough to bleed....

Re:RealDolls... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533198)

Don't need to. The parent wasn't kidding [realdoll.com] (NSFW)

Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, too. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531682)

Not getting into pointless wars, like the one in Iraq, helps save lives, too.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531696)

You make it sound like there are wars that are justified, they are not, they are bloody murder and pillaging under the mantle of righteousness.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531736)

So defending against war by waging war is unjustified? Grow up.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531786)

When was the last time US defended itself in a war it didn't actively help to get going?

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532060)

You can defend from war by building up defenses (both military and diplomatic) before an actual conflict starts, pillage is quite profitable, a war of attrition is quite the opposite. As an example, Spain never invaded Portugal for the very reasons I commented above.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532256)

You think that waging war defends agains war? Grow up.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Canadian Window C'er (1772648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532452)

What he said. :)

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (4, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531756)

I'm by no means a warmonger, and the US has gotten involved in a bunch of stupid wars. Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted. But, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you need to beat the crap out of an enemy for your safety or for what's right. It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.

If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531774)

Maybe he meant that initializing a war in the first place is pointless. The scenarios you described were really about defending yourself or others.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531816)

You should always initialize war: int war=0;

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531912)

int bodyCount = 0;

for(;;)
bodyCount++;

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532020)

I said: war = whatIsItGoodFor()

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533106)

Type mismatch on line 1.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533210)

Pretty sure the prototype for whatIsItGoodFor is:

null whatIsItGoodFor(const char *war);

so that wouldn't work.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533324)

I said: war = whatIsItGoodFor()

That method returns:

ABS(0);

That's "Absolutely Nothin!" for the song-impaired [oldielyrics.com] .

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532248)

const int war = 0;

War never changes.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Canadian Window C'er (1772648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532458)

Fallout quote! The first and 2nd one have such good intro's.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (5, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531844)

It's hardly pointless. It might be cruel, or evil, to start a war, but it's worth remembering that quite a lot of wars have achieved their goals magnificently. The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful. Britain's colonial wars? With the exception of the American Revolution, spectacularly successful.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532712)

The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful.

Yeah, Britain and Spain sure did exterminate the Native Americans, albeit mostly through disease, not war. The US government then spent the last 200+ years trying to cope with the broken societies that those colonial powers left behind, and trying to get new European immigrants under control.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533076)

The US Army spent most of its time in the 19th century killing Indians. Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison all fought those wars, to name a few "war hero" presidents. Disease did play an outsized role in reducing the numbers, and the US govt did eventually relent, but the same diseases affected Central and South America. It's worth noting that the Spaniards tried to keep them alive to work as slaves, while the Americans tried to marginalize and kill them to use the land themselves. A quick look at the demographics reveals the success of this technique.

These sins are hardly unique to the US, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. Genocides work, which is why they keep cropping up. And they're a great example of wars that could usually be avoided, but aren't.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531896)

What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack? What about defending the citizens of Iraq targeted by Operation Anfal [wikipedia.org] ? Where's the line between initiating a war and defending others?

Maybe the ones who initiated Operation Anfal were the Kurds, who settled down to live in Iraq where they might someday have not been wanted. Maybe it's the fault of the immigrants' parents, for having children who might settle there. Maybe it's the fault of the first people over a thousand years ago who separated into modern-day Kurds.

Or maybe, just maybe, war isn't something that can be so easily avoided.

Conflicts happen in any society, and the violence increases as they escalate. I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment. Everyone feels their cause is justified, whether it's bloody murder or not. The best anyone can do is try to reduce the number of conflicts (by choosing skilled diplomats as leaders) or reduce the amount of pain (by improving the accuracy of weapons, control of troops, and improving the medical care).

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531994)

What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack?

If you've been attacked first, then I don't see the problem with defending yourself. When I said "initializing a war," I also meant attacking others, even if that isn't really correct. That should never happen in the first place.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531998)

I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment.

No, but there's those that will start wars over profit or power, and there has been plenty of insane excuses to start wars or attack others (such as religion), but that's not really surprising.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532660)

Or maybe, just maybe, war isn't something that can be so easily avoided.

We haven't exactly been going out of our way to prove this point recently. Unless your point is that idiots will inevitably get elected and wage war on other idiots.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34533062)

We only initialized one of those wars: WWII

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531930)

It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.

No argument from me about Hitler.

Many historians would point out to you that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't completely unprovoked, however: Japan never forgave Biddle, Glynn and Perry for threatening to bomb Edo Palace (now Tokyo) to force trade agreements through, and the final straw was when the US joined Great Brittain in a full trade embargo of Japan in July 1941 starving it of much-needed resources. One could argue that the US has never lost its strong-arm mentality in the name of "democracy" and "freedom."

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (2)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532094)

What is right to somebody is wrong for someone else, that is why History is written by those who won the conflict. Gandhi managed to get independence from the British without waging war, is there any reason why it would have been impossible for the colonies to achieve the same using the same diplomatic strategy? The Civil War did not started because of freeing the slaves, that was an afterthought, it was merely a politically motivated war (remember Iraq?) by a very politically weakened Lincoln (would you like today a civil war just because the president is a sitting duck, think carefully, you might get your wish). World War II would have never happened if the Versailles did not placed such draconian economic penalties over the germans.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1, Interesting)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532400)

Good try, but history sometimes is pretty black-and-white (at least compared to most history).

Gandhi was fighting a British state that was pretty much ready to give up their colonies anyway. Look at Canada, they just kinda let them go. I'm not saying that what he did wasn't important, significant, or difficult - I'm sure it was. But Britain wasn't exactly convinced anymore that they needed their colonies by that time - though in 1776 they fought like hell to keep the new States. You're also forgetting that the American colonists were largely British anyway - the native Americans, even by then, were pretty much subdued (regrettably). The Indians (from India) were absolutely *not* from Britain. The occupying force dynamic is much, much different than the "but we're British!" thing the Americans had. And Gandhi wasn't exactly a diplomat... he used force, but an entirely different kind of force.

You've got the Civil War turned on its head here. The South seceded after Lincoln was elected, like they said they would. They also largely didn't vote in his Presidential election - funny that he won, isn't it? It'd be like if the Northeast and California just didn't vote in 2004. But in any case, the South fired the first shot (at Fort Sumter) and started the war. Not exactly Lincoln's political motivation at work, but he was perfectly willing, and expecting it, so you might count that. I'm not quite sure how you compare Iraq to the Civil War. What if Texas said "we're our own state" then started shooting us for good measure? Responding to an insurrection is absolutely different than going on some snipe hunt justified by lies. And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on. To the North (or Lincoln at least), the South hadn't seceded because that was impossible, so in his mind it was really a war against the "states currently in rebellion" as he put it. So it wasn't a war about slavery to Lincoln, it probably was to most of the North (though they may have agreed with Lincoln), and it definitely was for the South.

What happened to the Germans at WWII was quite unfair, and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment, not to mention fear of the Communists next door. But, according to you, shouldn't he have sought remedy through diplomatic channels instead of engaging in lebensraum? And before you talk about the Munich agreement and "peace for our time", that wasn't exactly diplomacy since Hitler wasn't acting in good faith. But disregarding WWI for a moment, and assuming that the situation sprang into being (of course not true), how else could you deal with it?

Your view of history has been twisted by your ideology. Don't worry, that happens pretty commonly - it's really the origin of a lot of quotes about history, really. But you've turned the Civil War, in particular, on its head. I suggest you read a number of different takes on history, from different viewpoints. It's fascinating stuff.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532740)

Any references to back up your claims that the British decided to give up the Colonies but Gandhi fought anyway; and British fought like hell to keep the US?

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532744)

What happened to the Germans [after WWI] was quite unfair,

I'm not sure it was unfair. Germany was a militaristic power not satisfied with the status quo and bent on dominating Europe. That's why it had the capacity to wage WWI in the first place. Europe mainly wanted to demilitarize Germany and demanded reparations for the damage that Germany had done. If Germany's goal had been to right the wrong of colonialism, it would have been good, but all Germany wanted was its own cut.

and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment,

Hitler only got a minority of the vote. What put him over the top in parliament were the votes of the Christian party (essentially same party that's in power now in Germany). The Christian party was fervently anti-Communist, dubious about democracy, and liked Hitler's party program of traditional Christian values and family values (sound familiar?); they voted for Hitler in parliament after Hitler made a deal with the Vatican. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know, but it's all there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533214)

And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on.

Waaaay out of context quotes. The whole point was the feds were bypassing the states and telling the states how their people will be governed. Not a fight over the finer points details of the regulations, although plenty of whining came from the folks whom were getting screwed over, but a fight over the concept of the feds infringing on the states turf. Its hard for moderns to understand, because the concept of any group other than the feds having any control over our lives has been so effectively crushed. Yet, thats how it was, back then.

Out of context quotes from slaveowners proves it was about slave ownership, in much the same way as out of context quotes from railroad executives about federal regulations proves it was about railroads, out of context quotes from cotton wholesalers about federal cotton tariffs proves it was about cotton, or out of context quotes from telegraph monopolies about federal common carrier regulation proves it was about telegraph monopolies.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34533392)

The South seceded after Lincoln's election because it demonstrated that they had lost any effective power in national government. This had been an ongoing trend - urbanization and immigration in the north led to a loss of parity in the House, then admitting California cost the South parity in the Senate, leaving the presidency as their only real check on issues of north/south disagreement. When Lincoln demonstrated that the south had no real power in picking the president, they realized they were disenfranchised and decided to secede. Fort Sumter was fired upon after Lincoln failed to respect the will of the South Carolina people and attempted to resupply a military base on Confederate soil. If the Civil War was primarily about slavery, why did the state with the fewest slaves, (I forget whether these figures are per capita or gross) North Carolina, send the most soldiers off to war? To some southern politicians, slavery was a key issue, but for many, particularly in those states that only seceded when the Union refused to let the Confederate States go peacefully, it was about state sovereignty and defending their homes. The war was about national power - were the states the prime power and so had the right to secede and return to their natural state as independent or was the national government preeminent as we see in the transition to "The United States" rather than "These United States"? Emancipation was a means of keeping Britain and other European powers out of the war, as demonstrated by the cynical emancipation of only those slaves that the US government could not actually emancipate at that moment.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1, Interesting)

Canadian Window C'er (1772648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532698)

Okay, I'll take that offer. Thank you though for expressing your opinion politely, and for inviting a response.

In World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to take up arms on any and all sides of the conflict. This is because Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to do like the first century Christians; Jesus said that his followers were "no part of the world" and that "all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."(John 15:19 [watchtower.org] ; Matthew 26:52 [watchtower.org] ). During the second World War, this earned them persecution from many of the countries involved.

This though, is not to say that they are pacifists, because they recognize God's right to wage war. They do not participate in wars because they realize that only Jehovah has the solution for all of the problems on the Earth, as well as the Power to accomplish that. More to the point of this issue, I'd like to quote directly this scripture, which shows God's means for cleaning the Earth of wickedness:

Jeremiah 25:31-33 [watchtower.org] :
31 “‘A noise will certainly come clear to the farthest part of the earth, for there is a controversy that Jehovah has with the nations. He must personally put himself in judgment with all flesh. As regards the wicked ones, he must give them to the sword,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.

32 “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Look! A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. 33 And those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be bewailed, neither will they be gathered up or be buried. As manure on the surface of the ground they will become.’

Note: As a resource for this comment, I used the May 8, 1997 Awake Magazine. Also, I'm willing to provide further notation/sources on request.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533074)

Maybe not colonial control and a Nazi Europe, but secession was definitely an acceptable outcome. If the south had won, you would be saying "it was time for the south to be independent". Instead of letting the South go, just as you clearly believe Britain should have let the US go, we started a 140-year spiral into the black hole of centralization.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533188)

If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that .... secession ... are not acceptable outcomes in this game.

Any reasoning for that particular one beyond "slimjim sez so"? Is civil war in always acceptable?

Also w/ regard to a war being required to end colonial control, most (all?) former British colonies did not have to fight an outright war to become independent. Its hardly necessary. There were "Boston Massacre" or "Kent State" or much larger police actions in India, but I'm struggling to find another major intercontinental war ending British colonial control. The war of Australian independence? The war of Canadian independence? The war of Jamaican independence? The Falkland Islands war between regional powers whom wanted to control the islands in the 80s does not apply.

Like yourself, I'm by no means a peacenik nor warmonger, but when 2/3 of the "proof" is obviously wrong, then its looking like a trolling attempt.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34533224)

Just to play devil's advocate, the US was rather hypocritical to revolt and declare our independence from Britain and yet insist that the southern states did not have the same right to secede from the resulting nation. I think it was in the best long term interests of the US that the Civil War was fought, but there was nothing equivalent to the Nazis that the Union was fighting - abolition as a war aim was a political calculation to keep the European powers out of the war and not an initial key issue. The south did have some legitimate grievances before the war in terms of tariffs and other measures that helped the north at the expense of the south, issues that they were powerless to redress due to the balance of congressional power being broken with the admission of California and the loss of the traditional counterbalance in the form of a southern president. They realized their interests were not represented by the federal government and so sought redress by their only real option, succession. The south viewed the war as one of defense (striking into the north only after it became clear that defensive victories could not end the war).

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532068)

Not getting into pointless wars, like the one in Iraq, helps save lives, too.

I was against the war: Bush lied and the war was extremely expensive. But Saddam Hussein murdered many times more people in the decade prior to the US invasion than the entire Iraq cost, including Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. On the whole, the US war in Iraq probably saved lots of lives.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533048)

But Saddam Hussein murdered many times more people in the decade prior to the US invasion than the entire Iraq cost, including Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.

Really? Did he also develop nuclear weapons, and do other things Bush attributed to him? Do you even know how many people were killed in US invasion?

Sensationalized Headline, much? (3, Interesting)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531694)

Medical training dummy = high tech war game?

Re:Sensationalized Headline, much? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531982)

Saving soldiers = longer wars ?

The problem with dummies.... (0)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531698)

... is that you end seeing real people as dummies too. Is not "game over" anymore, but that a real life was lost, or that will have to live x amount of years without an arm or things like that.

Re:The problem with dummies.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531720)

RTFA:

"The screaming soldier is an actor, lying on a cot, who has only the top half of his body exposed. The bottom half is the mannequin."

Re:The problem with dummies.... (4, Insightful)

hoytak (1148181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531726)

If you RTFS, the dummies here are used to train soldiers in field medicine, not target practice. They represent an injured comrade. In such situations, you really don't want to be emotional, as that soldier's survival depends on you thinking clearly, and that's where lifelike training is exactly what is great -- when confronted with such a situation, you do what you're trained to do. Of course, afterwards, processing things can be tough.

How do you think the dummies got injured?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532718)

If you RTFS, the dummies here are used to train soldiers in field medicine, not target practice.

How do you think the dummies get injured in the first place? They're obviously first used for target practice, then for field medicine!

NO SIR! (4, Funny)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531702)

I did not see you playing with your dolls again!

"Packed with technology" (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531710)

Come on CNN, surely you can do better. "Technology" is not a thing you can count, you might as well say they are "innervated with ideas" or "filled with facts" or that they "are expensive and have expensive stuff in them." If you don't know, don't say anything, but don't report like a dumbed-down version of simple wikipedia.

Re:"Packed with technology" (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532666)

It's CNN. Be thankful they didn't refer to it as filled with an information superhighway.

I've done this... (4, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531738)

It's a little hard to tell from the article, but Googling makes it look like these are the ones made by METI [meti.com] . They are good physical simulators with a decent physiological computer model. (Most of the time, it's really good, but when it goes off track it goes waaaaaaay off.) I've served as an instructor for my medical center's simulation center for almost two years now, and they really do help people develop emergency management skills. We use them pretty routinely for medical students rotating through anesthesiology, and for getting beginning emergency medicine and anesthesiology residents up to speed with crisis management.

s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (1, Interesting)

sahonen (680948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531760)

...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531830)

Not the case. Improved medicine reduces casualties overall.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531856)

...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

Which is what war is all about:

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. ...

- George S Patton.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531948)

> ...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

The goal is not to save net lives.

If the goal were to save net lives, it probably makes sense to betray a country in symmetric wars. (The enemy knows better where to strike and the war doesn't drag out as long.) But we trust foreign governments less than we trust our own, and foreign cultures less than we trust our own. Also, the last time we were in a symmetric war was really WW2; and there are sometimes normative concerns that make sheer logic and net saved lives irrelevant. In this case, I have a normative preference not to betray the rather-free world to the Nazis. Because Nazis suck.

So I'm okay with not saving net lives.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (3, Insightful)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532002)

...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

Wow, you're deep *rolls eyes*. But wait, maybe killing more enemies ends up saving more lives in the long run? Or maybe one of the saved soldiers goes home and ends up being the next Norman Borlaug [wikipedia.com] and saves millions (and counting)? How do we know this isn't the single most important life-saving technology ever invented, in some "butterfly effect" fashion?

Or you could just silence your snarky pseudo-intellectualism and enjoy the damned article.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532868)

your post is much more full of "pseudo-intellectualism" than the GP. He has a point.

All you have is a made-up example, peppered with snobbish phrases and names that you think make you sound cool, and a wikipedia link that doesn't bear on your story at all.

not all POWs are in perfect shape on (2)

alizard (107678) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532064)

capture. Some of them have exactly the same kind of trauma US troops have when captured, with the main difference being whose taxpayers paid for the ammo that blew holes in them. These skills will be used to save the lives of POWs, too.

And maybe even your life, lots of military medical personnel stay in medicine when they become civilians.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532668)

These are simulating soldiers with such damage that we have to simulate their legs with robots. I'm guessing they're getting wheeled onto the first cargo flight home.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533094)

a battle not fought because the enemy decided to surrender is worth more than 3 battles fought and won

(i would bet thats found in The Art of War somewhere somehow)
this would of course save lives on both sides

Do you know what also helps saves lives? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531772)

Not starting decade-long wars under false pretenses.

Re:Do you know what also helps saves lives? (0)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532086)

To be fair, Afghanistan wasn't under a false pretense from any point of view. That debate is about Iraq, which is basically over.

Re:Do you know what also helps saves lives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532476)

To be fair, it is now known that the Bin Laden has most likely bin hiding in the Pakistan. Since that was the pretext to attack the Afghanistan, claiming it wasn't "a false pretense from any point of view" is stretching it a wee bit.

But, hey, all that heroin isn't going to grow itself.

Re:Do you know what also helps saves lives? (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532558)

He escaped to Pakistan after the Army lost him at Tora Bora, and the Taliban had been hiding and supporting him. Afghanistan is not Iraq. There is very good reason to be there.

Re:Do you know what also helps saves lives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532774)

Yeah, sure, he "escaped". With his dialysis kit too? In a US medical helicopter maybe? Some Emmanuel Goldstein, this Bin Laden.

There was no legitimate reason, good or otherwise for any Americans in Afghanistan, except its proximity to the Caspian basin. Bin Laden was an excuse for military intervention into the region in the same way the Iraqi nukes were an excuse for the occupation of Iraq. The reason was the same - fuel control.

Too bad your government botched (from your point of view, at least) the whole thing and left you with a large bill and no oil. On the positive side, a lot of your army commanders probably have offshore companies in the Middle East that are still collecting.

Sorry, I don't buy it (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531802)

There is nothing like a human in distress on which to practice the analysis of a human in distress.
Dummies can only display a short list of items to assess, view, watch. They are extremely limited.
And they have become an excuse for supplying less hands-on experience, which is what is really needed, because getting that experience is less convenient and more costly.
I don't care what statistics you invent to prove how wonderful they are.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531852)

So when was the last time you volunteered to be shot in the chest, to help train field medics? Sure, dummies are limited, but every advancement means better knowledge beforehand. That means fewer mistakes when the real thing comes along.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (4, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531880)

You've obviously never used these. No, they're not real humans, but then again, there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people. The state of the art in medical simulation is a good physical facsimile of a human being with a very well modeled physiological system - they breathe, they open and close their eyes, their pupils dilate and constrict, they have pulses, they have veins, they vomit, they can be intubated. If you aren't giving chest compressions strongly enough, or in the right place, your patient will die. Conversely, if you do it right, the model will recognize that and will give the patient a readable blood pressure and pulse.He might even wake up.

I've trained dozens of medical students and new residents with these. They generally find it to be a very good simulation - not perfect, but very good - of the real thing.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532650)

there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people

actually, you're wrong, US has managed to find large supply of real humans for target practice and weapons testing pretty easily since WWII.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532886)

there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people

Can I suggest some?

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531882)

This just in: all simulations are worthless because they do not match reality.

Sorry, physics!

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532080)

So if statistics showed that medics trained on the dummies had much better success rates than medics trained via old methods, you wouldn't care which medic worked on you when your bleeding out? Good to know your hubris exceeds your desire for the truth.

Old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531954)

We had these dolls in my school of nursing since 2009, and I'm guessing they're older than that. Now I think their use to train battlefield medics is brilliant.

I am not a robot (2)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532012)

and I absolutely refuse to be treated as one. This is a direct violation of my rights.

asics and mac (0)

adelamanda (1954906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532072)

asics running [asicsshoesshop.com] , asics gel shoes [asicsshoesshop.com] , running shoes asics [asicsshoesshop.com] , asics running [asicsshoesshop.com] asics gel shoes [asicsshoesshop.com] running shoes asics [asicsshoesshop.com] 180 color eyeshadow [mac-wholesale.com] , mac makeup [mac-wholesale.com] , mac brush [mac-wholesale.com] , 180 color eyeshadow [mac-wholesale.com] mac makeup [mac-wholesale.com] mac brush [mac-wholesale.com] moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] , moncler vest [sellingmoncler.com] moncler shiny thomas [sellingmoncler.com] moncler bulgarie [sellingmoncler.com] WOMEN MINI COOPER [asicsshoesshop.com] women Whizzer Lo [asicsshoesshop.com] Kid [asicsshoesshop.com] 3 color eyeshadow-046 [mac-wholesale.com] 4 color eyeshadow-099 [mac-wholesale.com] 5 color eyeshadow-078 [mac-wholesale.com] Moncler Gueran white women jacket [sellingmoncler.com] Moncler Chamonix black men jacket [sellingmoncler.com] Moncler rosyred 52 vest [sellingmoncler.com] http://www.asicsshoesshop.com/ [asicsshoesshop.com] our email:asicsshoesshop@hotmail.com http://www.mac-wholesale.com/ [mac-wholesale.com] our email:mac-wholesale@hotmail.com http://www.sellingmoncler.com/ [sellingmoncler.com] our email:sellingmoncler@hotmail.com

Or they could just shoot pigs. (4, Interesting)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532082)

Which is much better training because you actually get a sense of death with the things, simulates human anatomy(from a gunshot wound perspective) surprisingly well, is comparatively cheap, and we're going to kill and eat the thing anyway? Oh wait, PETA would protest the military if we did that. God forbid PETA doesn't like the military. (We actually do this, we just don't advertise it anymore because of groups like PETA).

The Dreaded S-E-X (0)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532222)

But can they perform sex? You won't have financially viable android production until they can properly perform that most profitable of human activities. And once you invent a better sex-bot then you'll have all the money you need to develop the technology to serve in other areas as well.

Re:The Dreaded S-E-X (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532272)

Awesome-O... Are you a pleasure model?

"Games"? (2)

Feinu (1956378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532246)

After only reading the title:
"Mom, I can't stop playing Black Ops to clean my room - Slashdot says I'm saving lives!"

Naive Idea (1)

cheetah_spottycat (106624) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532876)

You'd think that avoiding war saves more lives. Or is that solution already patented?

Stupid statistics (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532898)

The program saved 1.000 lives it says, but is that the whole program or just the part where the dolls are used? So if they would have not used the dolls, would there be 1000 more deaths?

I am sure that it will be good to use a doll, just like one learns mouth on mouth with a doll. I am also sure that before the dolls were used, some training was given and people were saved as well.

So what is the REAL number and if it is indeed that high, why is it not used anywhere else?

Re: High-Tech War Games Help Save Lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532936)

So the military gets a new doll and we get a headline. Great!

Does it spit vegetable soup in your mouth? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34533052)

Or scream in your ear when you check its breathing? Or start convulsing and thrashing so hard that you need to have three people lie on it before you can treat it? No? Then it's not a replacement for an experienced casualty actor, who will do any or all of the above.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>