Slashdot Mirror
Armed Robot Guards - Sorta
jshirk writes "The Bankok Post is reporting that the Thailand Research Fund has unveiled the world's first armed robotic guard. The best part: it can be ordered to fire remotely over the Internet. Now, postal carriers have a lot more to worry about than the dog."
I did my time in the US military, so I well realize that its not really made up of the best and brightest. :) (And yes, I'm willing to concede myself in that statement ;)) That aside, I ofen wonder if our military is not WAY oversized. It is said that we need to maintain a strong defence; I would certainly never argue that point, but when you consider that we have the capability to nuke any nation on Earth into a fine sheet of glass, you have to wonder just who would be insane enough to mount an attack against the US. Its one thing to say that we'll never use nukes in an offensive capability (despite the first and only use of a nuclear weapon in a war WAS in an offesive capasity), but when the nation is actually threatened with possible takeover? I believe that we do need to maintain a moderate standing army for smaller scale conflicts that do not directly threaten the US (OK, I can't think of any good examples at the moment :)), but the one that we currently have is far more bloated than necessary.
:(
And as for small towns that rely on the military installations, well, time passes on. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but things will change, and were the US war machine able to develop robotic soldiers, they would very likely be stationed in existing bases, along with their associated support structures.
I do believe that the comment regarding the poor and minorities "being shepherded in" was patently ridiculous, but it would be nice to envision a day when matters could be settled without having to kill people off. Of course, with Vietnam Part Deux (Columbia) escalating, that time is going to be a bit too late.
Deo
Guns don't kill people. ED-209 kills people.
The report says they unveiled five robots, something tells me the lady bug is not the one packing heat.
a commy mutant fag. Oh wait.. the mutant is from Paranoia.. just a pinko commy fag then
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Maybe I've seen too much Robocop (TV series) where the robot (cyborg really) seems to shoot to disable instead of killing criminals. The gun should only be used as a last resort in stopping the intruder, and then only to injure first to disable.
The laws when hardwired are still useful if a robot is hacked. If you've ever read Asimov's novels, you'd notice that as the Robots are hardwired with the above laws, they automatically "crash" or halt when they are about to break these laws preventing them from executing anymore illegal actions either incidental or accidental, and thus in the process avoid causing more damage, injury or loss of life.
I'm not saying that Asimov's theories are perfect, but after over half a century of debate and analysis, long before the dawn of AI in computers, the Internet, or robotics, they are still the most definitive rules to guiding any robot's actions. It's no wonder why so many regard him as one of the best ever visionaries and science fiction writers the world has ever seen.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
How many people will try to hack that one? Heck, one night after a few beers I'm tempted to try to hack it. Not that I would shoot anyone, of course. Maybe shoot near someone, just to see their expression. It would be even better if you could make it talk.
DESTROY ALL HUMANS. DESTROY ALL HUMANS.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Umm in which case when people start clicking on the correct link below, does that mean that the whole of Thailand is going to be slashdotted?
~ppppppppö
Only for the very bloodthirsty. You don't HAVE to kill people. An asimovian robot would be strong, fast and not made of plastic. It would simply walk, or run upto an armed intruder and remove a potential weapon from his hand (possibly crushing the weapon into uselessness at the same time), in the simplest case it could restrain the supposed criminal. ("Please don't struggle YOU wil only hurt yourself")
Besides, wasn't it slashdot that reported a few months ago, about british research into real life stun guns - quite close now, one blast and you could be out cold for a while.
No, Asimov thought long and hard about these laws, they are quite good for those who think long and hard.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Reminds me of Robot Wars (the 'arena sport')
...and Robot Wars (the cheesy yet amusing B-movie from 1993)
--
no sig
I'm not sure which country you're in, but here in the USA, nobody is shepherded into the military. Our military is composed of fine young men and women who volunteered to serve their country,
And this is why when I turned 18, I had to send in a card to Selective Service stating where I lived, so that the US could draft me if they chose to. Yet when I put it in(there might of been a mistake), they don't respond except when I turn 19 stating that they were reminding me that they had not recieved it, and they don't like to put people in prision, or fine them, they prefere to get the information for their databanks. Yes, and if/when I get drafted, it will be completly voluntary, Yeah Right.
Sorry to break this news to you (unless you're trollong) but that precious dough they spend is your tax money. If you want to care for those small towns, fine, but why not let those soldiers do useful jobs for the same pay?
Yeah I know, this is an evil world and we all need a devence and so on. Still the only army on the plus side of a national budget is an army at war against a weak but wealthy opponent. Think Iraq.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Hey, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That goes the same for giant killer robots. I hope that people who could crack the (hopefully very secure) servers of the killer robot would be smart enough not to commit murder. Though, behind a console it would seem more like a game than anything else.
Does anyone remember that adapted doom game for killing processes??? I bet they could to the same for the robot. Now THAT would be scary.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Ah, but the trick is, humans trust only THEMSELVES with guns. We don't seem to trust others with
them. God knows, I wouldn't even trust myself. The point is, movies like terminator and robocop
are examples of why people will never generally let something like this happen. Whether it makes
logical sense or not (I'm not taking a position on that, btw), the idea of this will not appeal to the
general public for a long, long time.
And... I believe you're talking about shaft, baby.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Oh no, not the laws with "real laws" then robots would be subject to ridicilous laws or even inhuman laws under dictatorships. A powerfull tool for the one who managed to snatch power at a wrong time
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Not robot vehicles.
no sig
Stack overflow? Heap corruption? Unanticipated input?
'Nuff said.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
They have had them for years on navy ships. Automatically locks on using visual sensors, able to lock onto any visible target, computer makes calculations based on range, velocity and it hits with nearly 100% accuracy. Very deadly. Caused a few mishaps if I remember correctly. It got out of control and they had to wait for it to run out of ammo to manually disable it. But that's just off the top of my head, no sources to quote.
This is usually called a "trap"
and who's responsible when it kills the milkman?
The one responsible for deploying the robot, typically the owner. Similiar to having land mines in your lawn to keep the neigbourhood kids out.
Just alias the stop command to something memorable like:
KlatuVeradaNicto --now
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Dude you stole the words out of my damn mouth. DAMN YOU....DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOU! (had to do it :)
Seriously though, Gundam Wing is a pretty deep series. It doesn't romanticize war, it shows it for what it is: nasty sheit. Like the above poster says, it shows why using unmanned machines for battle is a bad idea. It tells us that for a soldier, the battles are never over (a recurring theme in the series, most prominently shown by the Heero/Zechs conflicts). It questions if total pacifism is possible in the world. Really makes you think about the world. Guess that's why I like the series so much.
At this stage in the game, I'd much rather robots carried no duties that are likely to be dangerous to humans. However, when we reach a time when it would be possible, perhaps it would be better to replace Asimov's laws with the real laws of the state, and class the robot as an individual under those laws.
This way, the robot could protect the bank vault- and if the robber threatened injury, then it could pop it a few. If the robot gets cracked and the intruder instructs it on a wanton rampage, the robot would freeze as soon as it is about to comit a crime- just as it would under Asimov's.
If the robot is smart enough to know when someone's attacking it, it's smart enough to check a law database to see if its response would be criminal.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
"Anyone for a quick game of Quake? I've found this server with really realistic graphics..."
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Microsoft today announced that they have released an update to their armed robotic guard system, Microsoft Patrol, used in many banks, offices, and other locations where security is needed. This update comes on the heels of a string of incidents over the past three days in which these dog-like guards have run up to and "grabbed" innocent people with their forelegs. One bank has already reported receiving a claim for $100 million from a customer who was hit in the crotch by the shoulder-mounted gun on one robot as it ran up to him making "whining dog-like sounds." The gun did not fire, fortunately, but the victim, visibly shaken, said that the he "could never, ever consider a machine like that `cute.'"
The reason for this sudden string of malfunctions is as yet undetermined, according to Microsoft. However, a security expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a computer program to cause the robots to malfunction had been created several weeks ago by hackers. Normally, unauthorized people should be unable to control the robots, but an error in the software built into the robots could have allowed the hackers to copy their rogue program over the Internet and into the "minds" of the robots, said the expert.
When asked about this statement, Microsoft said that "we have not located any errors in our software, but there is the possibility that a feature designed to allow owners of the Patrol to control it more easily may be misused by others to cause undesirable behavior. We have no conclusive evidence that this feature is related to the recent incidents, but we are proactively providing this update to all users to ensure that the Patrol will continue to function at the exacting standards demanded by the community." Microsoft also noted that the update could make controlling the robots more complex, but that the update's functionality could be switched off to revert to the current, easy-to-use control interface.
Microsoft's stock price, which has suffered heavy blows from the recent incidents, rose 26 1/2 on the announcement to 367 1/4.
You forget the even more obvious. The criminals don't even need to crack a robot guard. Organized crime will of course have their own armed robots.
People can be identified by security cameras. But all robots are perfectly equal once the serial numbers are removed.
You have 5 - 10 of those beasties guarding a warehouse. And then someone gets accidently locked in in the warehouse. I think that person can kiss his ass goodbuy
I if I had to work at such a place I think I wouldnt put a foot in that building until I knew the robots where all back in their garage.
And I would definitly not be the one to go in there and count them!
Robber: (Placing gun to own head) But you cannot allow a human to come to harm through any inaction. If you do not follow the following instructions completely, I will shoot myself. Open the safe and carry the money to my car. When you're done, bash in your head so you can't identify me.
Robot: Before you make any rash decisions i should tell you that i have already alerted the police. Your picture and voice print has been transmitted to the authorities and the building has been sealed up - it will not be possible for you to escape, nor do I have the means to open the sealed doors.
Robber: Crap! I don't believe you! You must help me! You can't allow harm to come to me!
Robot: I have checked your priors, I do not believe you intend to kill yourself.
Robber: But what if you are wrong! Your brain will fry, and you must preserve yourself!
Robot: I am unsure how my positronic brain would react should you choose to kill yourself, but i must point out that i have superior speed and strenght. The odds favour my being able to disarm and restrain you with no harm comming to yourself. But should I fail to stop you, we would both "die", but I am just a machine and can easily be replaced. Ah, i have just been informed that the Police has arrived. The building will be opened in a few moments
Robber: (sits and cries)
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Welcome to the Armed Robot 2000. WOPR anyone?
"how about a nice game of CS?"
http://siokaos.org/
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Because you moron, as HE WRITES in his article this area is still very primitive and very much has yet to be researched.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
three posts and the link is slashdotted.
someone call guiness.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Wonder how big the test team would be for this thing....."stop...disarm.....yup seems to be working fine"......booof!!!...."arrgh, we need a change request and another of those contract testers"
So, your big solution to the question of hacking is to give the robots Artificial Intelligence? OK, seems practical and [sarcasm]ooooohhh sooooo simple, why hasn't anybody thought of this already?!?![/sarcasm]
I think a better solution would be to arm the robots with magic amulets that prevent hackers from taking control of them. In the short run, it seems like a more practical solution.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
The server was probably taken out by one of the guards.
"retro-fitting for the unwitting"
The last time we had a draft, you were in diapers. We have enough reserves/national guard now that the chances of you getting drafted and, God forbid, having to actually defend the country you live in are slim to none.
...can't finish this right now. My dick's on fire.
http://www.bangkokpost.net/170 800/170800_News03.html
[:]Welcome to the Ronco Intruder Alert System. The time is 4/5/80 2:30pm .
[:] Please clearly dictate your name for entry:
---Ummmm, Dr. Mike Ronco
[:]Docter Nik Monco not on File.
[:]Please State Name:
---Dooocter Miiiiike Roooonnnnncooo
[:]Please State Name:
---Docter......Mike......Ronco
[:]Please State Name:
Mike Ronco
[:]Please State Name:
---Work Damn it!!!
[:] "Work Damn it" not on file.
[:] Hostile agressions detected.
---I barely touched you!
[:] Arming Weapon.
[:] Weapon Armed in 43 mS
[:] Scanning for targets....Found.
[:] Firing.
[:] Firing.
[:] Firing.
[:] Firing.
[:]Welcome to the Ronco Intruder Alert System.
Please clearly dictate your name for entry:
This would make one hell of a quake game. Then, as luck would have it, your boss walks in and you have to quickly ALT+TAB the screen ... DOLT!
The biggest security hole sits between the keyboard and chair.
-Andrew McAllister
Nothing would make me feel safer then a death dealing robot insect..
.50cal will protect my stuff..
Yeah, yeah, this is great, where do I get one?
Pistol eh? I wonder if I can mount something bigger in there.. I'm not convinced anything less then chain driven
Maybe some sort of fragmentation explosive just in case I really want to make sure my things are defended.. Ten or twelve pounds of high order explosive stuck in the ass somewhere.. That way even it if gets flipped over or something, I can blast the whole house off the face of the earth.. Then my stuff will be truely safe..
Homer: What are you going to do? Bring out dogs? Or bees? Or dogs with bees in their mouths so when the bark they shoot bees at you?
Mr. Burns: No. Bring out the Robot Richard Simmons.
Homer: AAAH!
New Scientist: Could the future of robotics be a toy train with a taste for flesh?
See, I think the best plan would be to combine these two types of robots. Then you would have a robot that could hunt for it's own fuel!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
gc
sure I'll have a sig.
Blame God? What would happen if God let you put him in the electric chair? he hehe (i know this conversation seems trollish, but i swear i didn't mean it).
We have the right to bear arms but, we also have the obligation to be responsible.
As an American who owns guns for protection, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunatly, stories like this (which constitute a tiny percentage of cases where guns are used for protection) tend to make us all look bad. This leads to people (like many others in this thread) assuming that American gun owners are all crazy, rasist rednecks.
Guns are constantly used legaly for stopping crimes in progress and protecting innocent people, but those stories rarely make it out of the local paper. The ones that get all the national attention are when someone misuses a gun.
packing.org is an excellent resource for news stories about gun owners using their guns to protect themselves legally.
Finkployd
The procedure for obtaining a gun in the US is, to a large extent, under local control. Urban areas tend to control sale of guns more strictly than rural areas, etc. There are also variations by state, but mostly local. I believe that in Wyoming one can purchase a hand gun at a local drug store, whereas in the San Francisco area there are (at least officially) various licensing requirements, and a waiting period (5 days?). This changes from time to time, and also from city to city. Even officially banned varieties of guns are not uncommon, so the laws are not being very strictly enforced. Just enough so that those who want to feel good about "protective" laws will feel good. Probably somebody will make this a cause celebre at some time in the future, and everyone will be properly horrified. I wouldn't guess which side will make hay over it.
The problem is that a dense urban society with good transportation is not an ideal place for weapons of violence to circulate freely. It's, of course, much more complex than that. Weapons that act at a distance tend to enable attact by surprise. Silencers tend to allow relative stealth in attacks. etc. Attack becomes much easier than defense. Of course, this was also true in the "Wild West", with ambushes being the preferred method of assault, despite what TV shows used to show (I haven't watched for over 10 years, so I don't know what they currently displsy).
OTOH, dense urban centers with good transportation tend to facilite crime even when guns are taken out of the equation. This is one of the reasons that housing developments tend to have cul de sac's and other traffic hinderances. (There are other reasons, of course.)
E.g., stores near freeway on or off ramps tend to be robbed more frequently than less accessible stores, other things being equal.
Et, multidudinous, cetera.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
>Some people simply should not be allowed to carry guns.
...and most people aren't.
To legally carry a gun in most states requires training, a license application, background check, and approval of local law enforcement.
Then once you HAVE that license, if you draw, discharge, brandish, or otherwise display that gun in public in less than a life-threatening situation, you lose that license AND are charged with any and all crimes committed as a result.
I realize this conflicts with your view of America as the land of the gun-toting wacko, but hey...
-LjM
http://www.robot.th/admin/control.php3
Login: thewest
Password: sucks
And gentlemen, try not to hit to many kids, okaaay?
What if someone created a lethal weapon, and someone stole it and killed a bunch of people?
<P>
Same thing.
You're being deliberately misleading about the facts of the case. In fact, I would call you a fucking liar. Just because you're a gun nut doesn't justify twisting the truth to suit your own ends.
.44 Magnum revolver and yelled "FREEZE!" (which Hattori didn't understand - it's another one of those "local customs" to point handguns at people while screaming "freeze", I guess); Hattori probably didn't realize it was genuine (Japan's a basically gunless society) and took a few more steps forward (still smiling), at which point the husband blew him away.
The "kid" was teenager from Japan. He was about maximum-violence "gangsta" age.
As are all the kids I know of that age... (well, DUH!) And when's the last time you saw a Japanese gangsta?
He was an exchange student, so he was moderately clueless about the local customs.
Yeah, local customs like shooting people for knocking on your door.
Like many teenagers in/from Japan at the time he had a bad habit: He would suddenly run at people, yelling and making threatening gestures, then take a picture of their expressions of fear. (A disarmed society is NOT a polite society!)
This is such complete bullshit. Get off the crack, buddy.
It was Halloween. It was after dark.
It was Halloween. It was before dark (late afternoon).
The "kid" and another teenage boy from his host's household showed up on the doorstep of a house and tried the door. When confronted, they claimed they were trying to find a party and gave a different address. They were told they were at the wrong address and to go away.
A few minutes later the householder was disturbed again: They were back, trying the door of the garage. The wife, understandably agitated, called the husband, who confronted them again.
I'm not sure why you put quotation marks around the word "kid". He WAS a kid. And the rest of your bullshit is just total fantasy. They knocked on the door, the wife came out, she panicked (well, they were wearing Halloween costumes, something which must be a real rarity on Halloween) and screamed, and the boy (whose name was Hattori, BTW) tried to calm her by taking a few steps (NOT running) towards her while smiling with his EMPTY hands outspread.
Then the woman's husband came charging out of the house brandishing a
They started to go again. But after a few steps the Japanese student suddenly turned, brandished a small black object, and ran roaring at the householder.
This is a total fabrication. Like I said, get off the crack, asshole.
The killer (NOT murderer!) did indeed get off scott free (and rightly so.) Except, of course, for the expense and risk and stress of the trial. And the stress, for himself and his family, of having killed the "kid". And the stress from the liberal press having a field day with him.
Yeah, real stressful. Still better than being dead, though.
Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan, calling for the US to ban guns. (I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
Where are you getting this crap from? What fucking "deadly assault katanas"? You really need to get a grip on reality.
You've got to be careful doing that type of shit though. A few years back here in Ontario there were a COUPLE incidents of swat teams getting the wrong address and going in for bear.
Happens here, too.
Hope it happens to you, so you can feel the effects of living in a gun-ridden society at first hand.
What if a parked car is struck by lightning, and the explosion shower bystanders with burning gasoline...
How does a machine get a pistol permit, and who's responsible when it kills the milkman?
Fear the government that fears your guns. Fear the government that fears your computers. Remove them from my email.
A smart robot with properly programmed AI would disarm the intruder, restrain him or her and then contact the police. Now that's action, not inaction or letting the intruder in.
Most people seem to be saying that Asimov's laws would stop guard robots from carrying out their task. Guarding something doesn't necessarily have to mean killing any potential thieves. I admit that injury would be inevitable in this task, but like the Police, appropriate levels of force should be assigned. A limit should be set so that if an error occurs, as say when the robot comes to believe that the whole world is a threat to the object of its protection (ala Skynet-style from Terminator), then the robot could only cause so little injury/death before it'd crash. What I am saying is that with the proper implementation of Asimov's laws into a robot's ROM would possibly prevent the robot from going berserk and injuring/killing innocent people.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
He would suddenly run at people, yelling and making threatening gestures, then take a picture of their expressions of fear. (A disarmed society is NOT a polite society!)
When all's said and done, though, I'd consider that kind of behaviour marginally more polite than shooting someone.
>Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan,
:)
>calling for the US to ban guns.
Fair enough I guess.
>(I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling
>for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
They'd think "Why don't those American's get a clue and actually look beyond the USA - we're way ahead of them as usual. Or maybe the status quo is best after all - our tech industries do quite well out of the trait".
I suggest this because my understanding is that you're 50 years too late - swordmaking has been banned in Japan since WW2. The exception is art - blades forged as works of art for aesthetic appreciation only. There are strict limits to the numbers of such works a smith can produce (hence they spend a lot of time on each masterpiece, rather than producing swords). It keeps the ancient arts alive and could even be a role-model for the USA (except that the USA* always knows best, so Weapons Are Good Things And Above Question, and Anyone Who Says Otherwise Hasn't Earned Human Rights Like Freedom. And Is Stupid. And Probably A Fag Too).
*One of the most vocal parts anyway.
:-)
2-3 problems with this:
Helium balloons want to be free.
Somehow I doubt the robot pictured was the one carrying the gun - however, such a machine isn't unique...
I ran across a hobbiest's site once who had built a machine that shot BB's out of a pneumatic gatling gun type device. Not really enough to harm someone, but enough to annoy the hell out of them.
The army has long thought about teleoperated machines and robots for use in battle. I remember one device they built that was essentially a mortar mounted on a quad, the thing could take out tanks reasonably well.
Another company that worked with the DOD for developing such devices was Odetic's Inc. (www.odetics.com) - they built a robot called the ODEX-1 (IIRC), it was a 6 legged spider type affair, that stood approx. 6 feet tall, but it could scrunch down, and do other things - in order to get into tight spaces. It was a very stable and strong platform, with stereo cameras. However, I don't know if it had any on-board computers or not.
It was developed in the mid-80's - Pop Sci had a couple of articles about it, and it was featured in more than a few robotics books. Omni magazine had a robot pic spread that included it once, as well. I was a kid at the time - but I still have a lot of the information about the machine - if anyone is interested.
Then, it just dissappeared. I don't know if funding dried up (casualty of the Cold War?), or what - but Odetics doesn't have any kind of robot or defense division. I am planning on calling them, to see if they even remember the robot. It was a great machine - I just wonder what happened to it...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The problem is that some kids will decide to have a make-out party in a mall furniture store (or something like that, this is *ahm* hypothetical of course) and when the robots go berserk they will be massacred.
Not that it ever happened before.
Andrew Borntreger
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
This whole link is nothing but a diatribe against the 'anti-gun' lobby. At least the link to the Canadian DoJ has some factual information. Guns may or may not be useful/helpful/essential but whoever uses them should have to own up to the consequences of their actions - just like any other tool (car, hammer, aircraft).
Such things are not true in all states. I once read about a store owner in Florida that got away with killing an intruder with 120V house current energized screens inside the store.
Automated weapons are a bad idea. Think about lightening strikes, and other system failures. Basic gun safety dictates pointing the thing away from people at all times. Duh! That thing should be dismantaled.
OK, the article mentions using this thing to teach Tiger Woods to be a surgeon. Now that is funny.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A human mind is not exactly 'secure' either, bribery? blackmail? Hello?
5-6 "Special" sugar cubes in their morning coffee. Mmmm LSD never tasted so good and the trip is a lot better when you are holding on to a loaded weapon. So are you talking to me?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Do you have any links to this? I'd be curious, since they fervently support the right to own machine guns and oppose any kind of real control, even to the mentally ill or felons.
:)
Not really, but I'm a reluctant member and we occationally get info on the NRA's stance and what it's lobbying for.
Often what the NRA does is blown way out of proportion. I agree that they are a little extreem, but I belong to them because they are the only ones fighting the other extreem.
When they fought against the bill that would make "plastic guns" illegal, it was because there was no such thing as a plastic gun. The Glock 17 (the gun in question) is some 80% steel, with a little plastic, and completly detectable using conventional scanners. Ironically, it's also become a favorite gun on Law Enforcement. The myth of the plastic gun was a media invention.
While machine guns ARE legal for private citizens to own (yes, I'm serious, but you need to get a permit from the BATF that costs some $500 and takes years), the NRA (IIRC) has never lobbied to make it easier to get them.
The assult weapon ban is another non-issue that they fought. According to the governments stats, the 15 or so weapons they randomly classified as assult weapons were used in less than 2% of all crimes in the US. However, many of them were popular as competition target guns.
(in case you are interested, there is lost of stats and info here: http://www.wagc.com/curious/factoids.html Like everything with an agenda, take it with a grain of salt)
so much for guns ensuring liberty.
I'm confident that for every example you show me proving lax gun laws mean a higher crime rate, I can show you an example of the opposite.
New York, strict gun laws, yet guns everywhere.
Washington D.C, No guns allowed ANYWHERE in DC, so there are never any shootings there right?
Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a hangun in public, anyone can. Yet they are not known for their high schooting rate.
Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match over this because neither of us can win. The amount of guns and gun laws in an area have not been proven to have ANY significant affect on the crime rate. There are so many variables and demographics that can be used to explain crime rates that it's an exercise in futility to attempt to explain it using just one.
Comparing the US to another country is also a bit silly, considering that our culture is completly different, we happen to have such a saturation of guns that the idea of collecting them all is laughable at best.
Yes we have a problem with crime, do you suggest that these criminals are such because they have easy access to guns? If you remove guns from all the criminals will they not just find other ways to kill, rape, etc? Perhaps there will be a huge interest pipe bombs and small biological weapons then?
I would love to live in a world where no guns exist, so when you have collected all the guns from criminals, then I'll turn in mine.
Finkployd
They started to go again. But after a few steps the Japanese student suddenly turned, brandished a small black object, and ran roaring at the householder.
Your versions is as biased as the version that you replied to. Your details really make for a perfect defence: the crazy punk kid, the terrified wife, the small black object... Let's just say that the truth must be somewhere in the middle.
Now what would happen to a teenager in Japan who twice made like he was breaking into a Samurai's house, was twice told to leave by the alerted Samurai, who then suddenly roared and charged...
I would say that it really takes a lot of research before one could manage to break into the house of a(n armed) samurai nowdays...
Assuming one could manage to find a samurai and break into his house, he'll have to deal with some heavy dose of aikido and bamboo sticks before forcing the samurai to use his sword.
I think you did a really bad comparison. Comparing the 21st century USA to the 18th century Japan is like chopping the first half of histogram in a comparison chart.
I'm off topic but you were offroad (IMO).
ciaox
And they say that films don't predict the future...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I agree with nearly everything you said, it's not just the guns, it's our whole culture that is pretty dangerous. I would love to live in a world without guns, but until I've got some evidence that all the "bad people" in the US have given up their's, I'm keeping mine.
Finkployd
Look up the precedents, they're fairly obvious (armed booby-traps). Basicly, this thing fires at anyone and the owner is criminally and civily liable.
In other news, an unknown programmer hacked a robotic security guard in Bangkok today causing it to go on a killing rampage through the city. The robot is still at large. More news at 11:00.
The person pulled out a small black object? Isn't it quite possible that it wouldn't have been a gun? And in any case, what means did the murderer take to justify shooting when he didn't even know if the object was a weapon? Not even NYC cops shoot before asking (and the ones who do so here, like in the Diallo trial, get bashed in the media extensively).
The NRA has always argued that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I say: "Guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people, and only stupid people carry guns."
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
How about that robot get hacked and then go's playing real-life quake with you a a bot!! LOL
Pidgeon lands on statue. Pidgeon fouls statue. Statue percieves pidgeon poop as a threat (law 3). Statue checks laws 1 and 2. Pidgeon is not human. Statue shoots pidgeon. The balance of power rapidly shifts back to the statues. Humanity gets rid of the little flying vermin.
It's not impossible. The shooter would have to have given you fair warning--one cannot, in most states at least, simply shoot someone in the back.
:)
Actually, inside your house there is only one state that requires you retreat instead of fire. Not only do you not have to give a warning in your house, some of the most respected experts on guns and the law (Massad Ayob for one) recommends that you do NOT give a warning. Once inside your house, an intruder has legally demonstrated a threat, and warning him simply gives him a chance to spin around and fire.
Unlike the movies NOBODY on EARTH would actually freeze when told to, expecially while pumped up on adrenalen (sp?) and tense while robbing a house.
The most common response is to jump, turn and fire at whatever startled you. Sneak up behind someone who is trying to be sneaky sometime and yell freeze if you don't believe me
All that being said, you are right, it would go to trial and depend on a judge (or if you are really gutsy, a jury) interpreting your actions with regard to the law.
Finkployd
Every thing I have heard about this case says the poster you just flamed was correct. Just because someone ownes a gun you feel the need to denounce them as a blood thirsty nazi?
When all the guns are gone, whats left to protect your freedom?
I don't own a gun, and I am not a member of the NRA. However, when the US gov turns in to a hellish nightmare of police states and marshall law (which it will) I want to be able to shoot my way out if I have to.
A gun is just a tool.. you wouldn't be so upset if he killed that dude with a knife! what is it about guns that scares you so bad?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
no sig
Imagine the following a robot enter a bank and says in a sintetised voice. "Everybody on the floor, this is an assault", while it shoots in the direction of ceiling.
:-)
"please put all the money on this bag", and then it leaves. All of this was done via internet throw a stolen acount in local university.
The robot then teleports itself... ops I think I am a little bit off here, he he he
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Guns are constantly used legaly for stopping crimes in progress and protecting innocent people, but those stories rarely make it out of the local paper.
The statistic I keep hearing is that gun owners are 40+ times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident than shoot an intruder.
Anyone know if this is true? If so, it seems to be a good case of restricting access to guns.
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct? Last year, whilst lashed I walked into the wrong house. If this was in the USA, could I have been shot?
The questionable ethics of putting lethal force into the hands of a machine reminded me of a documentary where a US military offical was addressing the issue now that technology made it more feasible.
:-)
He said something like "But I can assure you that the US military will never give a machine the decision to take a human live*".
Because this was around the same time that the USA got together with China and Burma in refusing to stop using landmines, I nearly choked at his lies (or idiocy, or mental blinkers, or whatever it was that allowed him to say that with a straight face).
High tech gee-whizzery might be more glamerous, but if the issue here is armed machines operating with little human oversight, or the risk that a machine might kill when it is patently obvious to a human not to, then we're also talking about things like landmines.
A minefield in your yard is also a pretty good guard
This post might seem somewhat off-topic, but I wrote it because some of the posts here talk as if armed machines deciding to kill people is a new (and sexy) issue. It isn't. It's old and coated in the blood of innocents.
*He might have also added some disclaimers like "until safeguards can be guarenteed", I can't remember. Speaking of which - would that be a "money-back" guarentee? Anyway...
Our military is composed of fine young men and women who volunteered to serve their country, most of whom are white and come from middle-class families.
People are going to die in wars. Period. That's the whole point of war--to get rid of a threat to our nation;
That's actually a damn good reason for war - getting rid of all those horribly stupid middle-class white people. If anything is a threat to the USA, it's them.
--
Pokéthulhu
Gotta catch you all!
then pray explain why you're saying that the govt. can own nuclear weapons and tanks, but citizens should only own handguns and puny assault rifles.
Easy, the right to bear arms has been infringed.
If you are serious about fighting the US govt., I'd recommend you upgrade your arsenal with 10,000 nuclear warheads, a few hundred F-16s, a bunch of U2s, AWACS, and assorted chemical weapons.
Then how do you explain N. Vietnam? The most advanced weapons they had were mortars and human rocket launchers. That's right, certain soldiers would have a wooden box strapped to their back and no hair on the back of their head (some severe burns too, I'd imagine). One lesson I've gathered from the Vietnam experience is that determination to keep your home can go way beyond giant armies and high technology (in case you didn't know, France spent forever fighting them before the US showed up).
If so, it seems to be a good case of restricting access to guns.
If they're only going to hurt themselves, or a family member, isn't it better to NOT restrict access? If gun owners are such horrible people, then this "cleaning" of the gene pool should not be discouraged.
btw, I am a gun owner, but I'm not in favor of creating laws that act directly against Darwin Award winners
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct?
I know that in Oregon it's only legal if they are committing criminal tresspass, threatening someone's life, or (ironically) about to committ arson. In order for criminal tresspass to happen they have to be notified that they are not welcome. So, if you enter my house and I ask you to leave and you refuse, yes I can use lethal force. However, I know of a case where someone did fire off a round after their "visitor" (who was also under a previous restraining order) refused to leave and the owner still got in trouble.
As far as criminal tresspass, I think if signs are posted with "No Tresspassing" and you cross them, you are in violation; but I'm not too sure on that one.
I think all your safety concerns are totally unfounded. If you would take the time to follow the link and look at the pictures, you can plainly see that the robot could shoot no higher than the average persons kneecap.
So while a shot to the kneecap would be excrutiatingly painfull and potientially life crippling, it's hardly a matter of life and death.
Of course, if you are robbing a bank and slip and fall on the way out, be very afraid!
If angry geeks are able to ha>0r killer robots and use them to shoot up their high schools instead of doing the killing themselves, JonKatz will be unemployed.
grep -ri 'should work'
A gun is just a tool..
Exactly. I fail to see why Americans are so obsessed by them. Knives, pistols, assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, nuclear bombs, biological weapons.
They're all weapons, and most people would agree that the more dangerous ones at the end of the list should not be available to the average person. Most first-world countries draw the line before guns, the USA draws it after. It's more a question of practicality than principles; a case of "how much should the general public be trusted" rather than "can the general public be trusted".
Yeah, I mean America's hardly being invaded on a regular basis. People talk about defending the USA, 'our soil', etc, but when was the last time that was an issue? Aside from Hawaii (then a colony rather than a state) in WW2, it's way back in the early 19th Century. The American army's main wars at home were against itself (civil war) and in genocidal wars against the Indians: hardly moral purposes.
The American military exists to defend America's interests overseas. Whether or not you think that's moral, it's a fact.
And the army is very interested in any aspect of technology: if robot soldiers were cheaper/more effective than human soldiers, they would use them. Just like tanks replaced horses.
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
Actually, the problem is more like, we don't rely on RSA technology often enough .
As long as the people you're trying to keep out don't have a quantum computer, RSA is plenty strong. Really.
The problem is, a huge proportion of internet systems don't use strong encryption at all. Even worse, most break-ins are the result of stupid things that encryption can't solve. Like buffer overflows, forgetting to validate user input before using it in a system() call or SQL query, allowing incoming emails to pass exploit code to insecure "helper" applications, sysadmins and/or software installers leaving important files and directories set world writable, leaving default passwords in place, and other bogosities.
WHat is going on with the moderation today???
my guess? Someone started partying early and mistakenly gave all the trolls mod points. The moderation in this thread _is_ really fscked up. I wish I had meta-mod points.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
"The future of warfare is changing... no longer will battles be fought on land, but in space, or on very tall mountains. And these battles will be fought by small robots. You're job as brave cadets will be to build and maintain these small robots."
Or something like that.... :-)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Flamebait, huh? Yeah, right.
.44 Magnum, pointed the gun at Hattori, and shouted, "Freeze" (36 William & Mary Law Review 1). Apparently, not understanding the order, Hattori continued toward the door and was fatally shot.
To the moderator who took me down a point (and who moderated up the idiot above me): get your facts straight.
From a Canadian Department of Justice-funded report on use of firearms in Canada and the US:
Another recent case, this time in Louisiana, also provides some insight into the manner in which armed self-defence is viewed in the United States. On October 17, 1992, Rodney Peairs fatally shot Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese high school exchange student who mistakenly approached Peairs' door while searching for a Halloween party (73 Texas Law Review 1041). Peairs' wife opened the door and, frightened by the approaching Japanese student, called out to her husband to get his gun. Rodney Peairs retrieved his
The case sparked an international furor when the jury acquitted Peairs of manslaughter, concluding that he "acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner" using "deadly force to protect himself from an intruder (36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1). It is noteworthy, however, that a Louisiana civil court subsequently awarded Hattori's parents a sizable cash award for damages, ruling that the shooting was not justified (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509).
Quite frankly, the moderation on this thread disgusts me. I thought people here were a little more reasonable and able to think for themselves, but it'd seem we have the same proportion of raving gun nuts as any other section of the US population.
I feel sorry for the guy who has to supervise these things; You just -know- your going to get some call at 4 in the morning from a bettle bot requesting permission to open fire on a fallen lamp shade.
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Exactly. I fail to see why Americans are so obsessed by them. Knives, pistols, assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, nuclear bombs, biological weapons.
The US gov.. hopefully.. would never consider using weapons of mass destruction on their own soil.. so the people only have to fear the police and the millitary, therefor we as a people must be as well armed as they. It's not a matter of "trust".. I have a RIGHT as a human being to self preservation. When my enemies have guns so must I.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
hate to burst your bubble but the govt. isn't armed with muskets anymore. The 2nd amendment was designed at at time when both the govt. and the state militia carried muskets.
And rifles (the "assault weapons" of the time). And cannon. And fully-armed warships - privately owned, in the case of the militia. (And in the case of sea pirates, the "organized crime" of the era, which is why owning fully-armed warships was economically beneficial for private persons not currently engaged in a war.)
Historical illiteracy has been promoted by the governments of the world - including, sometimes, that of the United States and many of the several states.
A case in point is the use of "state militia". They weren't "state militias". They were "militias", generally deriving their authority (such as it was) from the members (just as governments of and within the United States are supposed to derive their authority solely from the consent of the citizens). A lot has changed in the last two centuries, including additional definitions for the word "militia" and the creation of the National Guard.
In any case, by your rationale, if the purpose of weapons is to fight against the untrusted govt., then pray explain why you're saying that the govt. can own nuclear weapons and tanks, but citizens should only own handguns and puny assault rifles.
Now when did chowda say that?
Can you find anything in the Second Amendment that limits it to "handguns and puny assault rifles"? I sure can't.
(I always find it interesting when the anti-gun side of an argument about whether civilians should have a handgun to protect themselves from attack suddenly starts claiming they want nukes. B-) But it's a legitimate issue here, since we've segued to the defend-from-government-gone-bad issue.)
If you are serious about fighting the US govt., I'd recommend you upgrade your arsenal with 10,000 nuclear warheads, a few hundred F-16s, a bunch of U2s, AWACS, and assorted chemical weapons. That's what the "enemy" has, and any person of reasonable IQ wouldn't go fighting them with just simple handguns and rifles.
Just because the opposition (a hypothetical US government-gone-bad) has a particular weapon doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job if you have to fight them. For instance, a nuke or a biological would generally be counter-productive if you actually had to use it: You'd kill more of your own side than the opposition.
Weapons of mass destruction seem to be effective only as a threat, "Mutual Assured Destruction" style, to give psycopaths with power a personal consequence to think about. More precise weapons, in the hands of an adequately large and determined subset of a population, can create the "assured destruction" part of the threat while skipping the "mutual". Just as effective and much more satisfying.
(But one can always speculate whether there's be more Branch Davidians alive if they'd had a nuke or two, along with a delivery system that could reach Washington DC, as a barganing chip. Not that members of an apocalyptic sect would have done such a thing, of course.)
(Speaking of Davidians: I still recall when the morning news showed the fire. My wife's first comment was "They're not white". Turns out she'd guessed right: Less than half of them were caucasian.)
In any case, I'm curious as to why you gun nuts think citizens should be able to defend themselves against the govt., yet disagree about letting all citizens have access to full scale military weaponry (including missiles). thank you.
I don't see "gun nuts" disagreeing about "letting" all citizens have any weaponry they want. The principle is that the government does not have the power to prevent them from arming themselves with weapons of their own choice. If one potential use is as a check on government, how can it make sense to let that government pick the weapons their potential opposition may have? "We get vulcan cannon, at several thousand rounds per minute. You get one-shot-per-trigger-pull with no more than 10-round magazines."
There is considerable disagreement about what weapons they should chose. And there's considerable social pressure to avoid indiscriminate weapons and those that pose a storage hazard, in favor of things with precise control and a track record of being less of a hazard to the neighbors than a government run amok.
After all, despite ample evidence that armed citizens drastically reduce crime victimization, harm from government misbehavior, and risk of death from war, not all of the neighbors agree that armed civilians are a net benefit. The occasional personal nuke or cache of mutant plague agent, in the hands of someone with different beliefs (both political and religious) would no doubt worry them further. This would lead to more political pressure to disarm the "religious nuts with nukes", after which they'd work their way down through weapons useful against tyrants to the pocket pistol of every woman who'd rather "take back the night" than cower at home.
As with free speech, the technology may change but the principle is timeless.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The statistic I keep hearing is that gun owners are 40+ times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident than shoot an intruder.
I've heard that stat as well. Don't know if I believe it. If it is true, it is likely because one's odds of being attacked are so low that the odds of a mishap are greater. OTOH, a large number of well-conducted studies have shwn that when attacked attempting to use a gun is your best defense, followed by non-resistance, followed by every other form of resistance.
om reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct? Last year, whilst lashed I walked into the wrong house. If this was in the USA, could I have been shot?
It's not impossible. The shooter would have to have given you fair warning--one cannot, in most states at least, simply shoot someone in the back. He would have had to have reason to believe that you were attacking him (were you significantly drunk, this would have been much easier to demonstrate). And he would almost definitely go to trial after the shooting in order to defend his actions. If he was judged wrong in his actions, he could be founf guilty of as high an offense as second-degree murder.
The lesson? Don't go into people's houses:-) I've been plenty drunk in the past, but I've managed not to do that sort of thing. Going to school in Texas prob. helped--we don't take kindly to burglars and thieves down there.
While it dosen't seem like the makers of this 'armed robot guard' intend to mass produce the thing (it seems more of an intellectual exercise) the US has worked quite seriously on puting computers at the help of some pretty powerful weapons.
Recently, a program to test using windows NT to replace a number of crew members left the ship dead in the water
The trial was considered a success, of course, and the US has moved to install the system on all its other cruisers. Cruisers, btw, are armed with nuclear weapons.
Similarly, the US army is working with producing a 'smart soldier' armed with everything from radio hookup to a gun with bullets which can explode at a set distance, so as to shoot around corners, plus a variety of other systems totaling over 70 lbs.
The navy justified the move saying that their system will help respond to cutbacks by allowing a skeleton crew to man a ship. Of course, the failure to use an open source operating system is widely regarded as a political rather than a 'smart' decision.
Nuclear missle [not responding]
lovely.
I think that this stuff and stuff like it will eventually become a reality because of the advantages in efficency it offers.
Of course, once you have comptuers armed with nuclear weapons, hacking can be considered treason...
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The statistic I keep hearing is that gun owners are 40+ times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident than shoot an intruder.
Yes it's true.
When you consider suicides, and expand the defination of family member to include anyone living in your home, then expand home to include crack houses and criminal hidouts. This stat has been debunked so often that even the anti-self defence people seem to avoid it anymore.
That being said, I don't know anyone who doesn't feel guns should be restricted. The NRA supported plenty of gun bills in it's past, and I personally feel that a convicted felon or someone proven to be mentally unstable has no business having a gun. Using a gun to commit a crime should carry with it a VERY strong penalty.
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct? Last year, whilst lashed I walked into the wrong house. If this was in the USA, could I have been shot?
Possibly. If I was awakened in the middle of the night by some drunk person breaking into my house, after checking to make sure my family members were all accounted for and calling 911, I would certinly investigate with a loaded gun in hand. Some people would shoot first when seeing an intruder and they legally can do so (only inside their house, and not in Maryland, where they must retreat even inside their home).
I personally would confront the intruder and attempt to end the situation at all costs before pulling the trigger (unless I saw or had good reason to believe the intruder had a gun, then all bets are off). I would only do this because I feel confident in my ability to react quickly if the situation turned violent and because I have no desire to kill anyone. Anyone who looks forward to shooting a criminal who is breaking into their home has obviously never seen anyone die from gunshot wounds, and needs to grow up.
The simple fact is that criminals ARE out there, houses ARE broken into and people ARE killed or raped in their homes. The police are for the most part good, but they rarely stop crimes in progress, most often they arrive after the fact to clean up and attempt to find the criminal. Given this, I don't consider neglecting my and my family's safety to be an option, therefor I bought a gun and have taken several safety and proficency courses with it.
Finkployd
Why does it just seem like hooking one of these up to the internet at all is a Bad idea? If I had soething I wanted (read: needed) to keep this secure, having it conect to any sort of server wouldn't be the way to go.
Mod point free since 2001
Telerobot FAQ 12.7.14:
Q: Why does my robot go berzerk and kill all of my customers while playing classical music?
A: Your Telerobot(TM) is experiencing a TLC deficiency. Wait for Telerobot(TM) to run out of ammunition and then give it the love and attention it deserves.
If the problem persists, consider purchasing our new TeleMaid(TM) to facilitate cleanup so you can get back to business sooner.
Just rechecking some of my information, it's not the fourth law, but the Zeroth law which was published in 1985 in Prelude to Foundation. The law is as below: Laws one to three are to be obeyed except "where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth Law". An AI guard robot would be perfect for a situation such as guarding deadly viruses in a reseach facility or plutonium in a nuclear arms depot. It could be told that to let this sample be stolen would "allow humanity to come to harm." Hence, like Daniel from Prelude, the robot will do all it can, including use lethal force, and continue operating in order to carry out these instructions. Of course, if a robot becomes "too protective" of humanity, it'd be wise enough to destroy the whatever deadly sample it was guarding.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
If you really believe everything he wrote, I'm sorry for you, because you're a gullible fool without the wit to think for yourself or actually bother to learn anything about the case before shooting your mouth off.
As for your line "When all the guns are gone, whats left to protect your freedom?", how about a stable government with the support of the people? Or is that too difficult a concept for you?
Anyway, I'm truly angry about the level of ignorance displayed among some of the posters and moderators on this thread. F'chrissakes, a kid was KILLED because some redneck decided he and his wife were in a life-threatening situation. You do realize that in most countries he would have been convicted for manslaughter, if not for outright murder?
I can see the headlines now: Network hacked, three innocents dead. What have we come to?
Damn right I'm consumed by emotion - mostly disgust, actually. Who the hell moderated a pack of lies up to "5: Interesting"?
Worry about the dog?
I'd be more worried about the postal carrier who the robots soon might replace...
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
I sawed an article about an armed robot guard (with a real fire gun) about 20 years ago, in Europe.
Of course, I do not recall the exact references, but I remember it because it was very impressive. It was able to react to the presence of an intruder, and to fire if the proper answer was not replied.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
I wonder what OS people would choose if lives depended on it. Me thinks not winders.
On one hand, there's a clear benefit to this technology: it doesn't put human lives at risk -- at least not directly. If a robot guard is destroyed, it can be easily replaced, whereas a human soul can never be. Perhaps one day we'll even be able to use robot soldiers to fight our wars instead of shepherding the poor and the minority into our military.
Unforunately, the problem is that a human mind is a lot more secure than the lines of code powering these machines. It wouldn't be hard for some cracker to take out a robot guard, especially if the guards can be controlled over the Internet. It seems like only a matter of time before someone reverse-engineers the instruction protocol and uses it to start robbing banks. In fact, the robot guards can actually be used to aid crime -- when the police come to stop you, the robots would gun them down. Or the robots could commit a crime entirely by Internet control, leaving no human suspects or witnesses.
Internet security needs to improve -- and fast. We've been relying on the same RSA technology for far too long, and it's in technology like an armored guard that security becomes essential. Our banks are already vulnerable to crackers; do you want to make them even more insecure?
Your anonymous.. so I'll keep this short. I didnt say any of the things you say I did... and your argument makes no sense what-so-ever.. thanks.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Well consider yourself lucky. The last time that a drunken motherfucker stumbled into my home I was somewhat less than pleased. That young man is quite lucky that I didn't have anything heavier than a quantum physics text within arm's reach with which to strike him.
________________
They're - They are
Their - Belonging to them
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
http://www.bangkokpost.net/17080 0/170800_News03.html I think it was moved due to the time change there.
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
Come on face it, the only thing that will save you if the any somewhat organized state is trying to suppress it's own people is democracy and civil courage.
or leaving.. I don't really care enough to stick around and be any more oppressed than I already am.
Guns will only lead to more deaths, in times of peace and in times of unrest.
you can replace the word "Guns" in that sentence with almost any other word and it still holds true.. so there isn't much going on there.
The only succesful overthrowings of oppressing government in this century, that did not bring leaders to the front that made it even worse are the ones that used minimum force. You must only look at the countries in eastern europe.
Minimal force is fine.. I'm not advocating whole-sale agression against oppressive government... I'm not advocating agression at all.. just the fact that its a RIGHT to own a gun.. the only reason for a govenment to take the right away is if they want to control the people.. government should not be about that!
To think guns can protect you from the state is extremely simpleminded.
No more simple minded than thinking talking is going to stop marshall law. The only thing that can protect you from the power of the state is to get enough citizens to back you and speak up against the things you do not like.
if the state is a democracy..
If you fight with guns you aill only be denounced as a terorrist
or a revolutionary.. a tyrant.. a hero.. a conqueror.. a general.. the new president.. a savior... rebel.. murderer... what your considered depends on a lot more than *how* you fight.
I live here in Germany where we have quite strict gun laws. I cannot say i fell oppressed. I know i have the complete arsenal of a citizen of a democratic state at my hands if the state tries to oppress me. This is enough.
from what I've been hearing about the businesses and living environment in germany you have much more severe problems than gun controll... the arsenal isn't doing you guys much good there...
The only things i can see looking tu the US is that uncontrolled guns tend to produce many unnecesarry accidents and a general feeling of mistrust.
The only uncontrolled guns are those which are controlled by people who are irresposible or are untrained because gun use is so tabboo and un-PC... I know tons of people who have guns.. I trust them all.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
The fact is advanced technology simply moves the required humans around. The support crew for a technological army is massive. Factor in the fact that anyone capable of maintaining mechanized equipment is far more valuable to the commercial market and thus in greater risk of leaving and you end up with perhaps slightly fewer, but much more well paid soldiers staffing those bases.
Having said that, the cost of constant maintenance on thousands of robots is a major money drain on the military. People aren't free but they don't cost nearly as much to train as it would to replace, repair and upgrade any robot that would qualify for the rigors of military use.
Speaking of Terminator, if you read the novel adaptaions, one of the reasons that the machines were losing was that the human resistance simply reproduced too fast. The machines couldn't keep up.
The story just moved to the archives ... it's now at http://www.bangkokpost.net/170800/170800_News03.ht ml.
In other news, this story has the world's most appropriately named company ...
Wasting your time since 1997.
If you really believe everything he wrote, I'm sorry for you, because you're a gullible fool without the wit to think for yourself or actually bother to learn anything about the case before shooting your mouth off.
Your an ass.. wow... I did read about it... 2 articles... confirmed the first poster... go back to your protest...
how about a stable government with the support of the people? Or is that too difficult a concept for you?
there is nothing to be protected from if there is a stable government... duh! The guns help keep the government from making bad choices. An armed public is not always an easy public to push around.. an unarmed public is 250 million cattle to be led to slaughter. If you think the government is ALWAYS the good guy and can do no wrong then.. wow... wake up.. or bend over further cause your getting alot of air blown up your ass.
F'chrissakes, a kid was KILLED because some redneck decided he and his wife were in a life-threatening situation. You do realize that in most countries he would have been convicted for manslaughter, if not for outright murder?
What if they had been in danger? what if the kid was going to mug and kill them... happens every day.. the number of people who get killed "for no reason" is much smaller than the number getting killed by criminals.. Maybe the guy made a bad decision.. if so he should be charged with at least wrongful death.. I'm sure the man in question is not some blood thirsty vampire.. I bet he has nightmares about killing that kid.. and he'll have to live with it forever..
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
thank you! I hate responding to anonymous cowards.. but you said what I would have for the most part!
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
With a gun, not "by" a gun is one of the points that he's trying to make.
...its called an aibo. hook a mini nerf gun to that little sucker and with some creative java interface progamming, you could scare away a bladerunner with it... blah
-----
Cethiesus
"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
Anyone for some Hendrix....?
"Hey Joe, where's your robot going with a gun in its hand?
Hey Joe, where's your robot going with a gun in its hand?"
"I haven't a f***ing clue, it's been cracked, I'm running as fast as I can."
"Hey Joe, your robot's just blown my pussycat away.
Hey Joe, your robot's just blown my pussycat away."
"Never mind the cat, how's about us!? Just keep your head down and pray."
"Hey Joe, what's that robot doing following you?
Hey Joe, what's that robot doing following you?"
...
DAKADAKADAKADAKA!
Grab.
SHOOT(8) UNIX System Manager's Manual
NAME
shoot - send bullets to GPS coordinates
SYNOPSIS
shoot [-dfnqrvR] [-c count] [-i wait] [-l preload] [-p pattern] [-s calibre ] [-w waitsecs]
Man pages are scary enough without things like this.
Bob.
Asimov's "Laws of Robotics" would be better termed Asimov's "Manifesto of Robotics."
A law is either something inforced by nature (i.e. gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) OR legislation passed by political bodies.
Asimov's "Laws" fit niether of these definitions, and are more closely related to a "manifesto," which is a person or persons wishes.
I always held Asimov in contempt for his arogance at thinking he could state the "laws" of robotics and his ability to make most people think they were valid.
Don't you think it's time to start communicating?
"Hell yeah Just a few years ago some (Texan?) shot to death a kid knocking at his door late at night. "
Actually this is not the case. I live in Texas and the shooting ocurred in Louisiana NOT Texas. I do remember this and I also remember my relatives, who live in Louisiana, telling me how shocked they were that this happened so close to them.
It is a shame that this sort of thing happened. The man did have the right to defend himself if he believed that his life was truly in danger(which I hardly believe this to be the case)however, the Japanese teen should have been prepped by his host family about the dangers of racist rednecks and their big guns.
Having been to other countries, I think it is necessary to become familiar with laws that could potentially get you into trouble. For example, I visited Zimbabwe many years ago and it was known by all that if the presidents motorcade was coming through you got out of the way or you got shot.. no questions asked. Some tourists were gunned down because the flashing lights and loud sirens didnt mean anything to them and the lead military car littered their rental car with bullets. We are not the only country with gun problems.
My conclusion -- Why couldnt the man have gone back inside, shut the door, and called the police. Certainly that would have been the more civilized thing to do. If the kid then tried to force his way in then he could have shot him. I can't believe that this type of force was necessary, especially given the circumstances. We have the right to bear arms but, we also have the obligation to be responsible.
thank you! I responding to anonymous cowards.. but you said what I would have for the most part!
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
thinking bank holdups via the internet, murders via the internet, etc.?
Forget people hacking your robotic watchdog and using it against you. What's to stop me from using my own robotic watchdog offensively?
This casts the robotic squirt gun I harassed the cat and my brothers with as a kid in a perfectly gruesome light.
If I did that now, I'd be hauled away as a psychotic sociopath and would end up the 'persecuted-geek-poster-boy' for Jon Katz..
.sig: Now legally binding!
* If guns ensure liberty, why does the US have the highest gun ownership and the worst human rights record in the developed world?
:)
:)
nothing *ensures* liberty.
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
I guess it all depends on what YOU believe freedom is.. If thats what you are satisfied with.. fine.. have fun..
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
come on.. comparing me to a slave owner is not getting you anywhere.. I dont advocate take ANYONES rights away from them.. that entire statement just sucks.. Just because jefferson believed in guns and not equal rights does not mean I cant believe in equal rights just because I believe in guns.. christ...
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
I am getting an education.. almost done.. not that it means much..
I dont believe the media.. I believe what I see.. we have a VERY secretive government.. they work for us.. they take too much of our money.. the media is pushing the people into believing that taking away gun rights is a good idea...
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
Those stats mean nothing... the 51% gun owners could be among the 60% that CAN identify their country on the map..
It was a nice list you made at least.. better luck next time
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
If you understood the books, you would know why those rules won't work.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The missing photo caption on the working page is, "and this distance represents the time it will take before these things go completely apeshit on us."
Oh come on moderators, that statement was intentionally stupid to respond to an equally stupid blanket statement :)
:)
I swear, conversational irony is completly lost on you guys
Finkployd
General Tso... mmmmmmm, he makes goood chicken! He can invade my house any day, if his cooks come with him.
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Um... As if you don't have enough to worry about with people cracking your desktop and getting at your data and mounting DDOS's from your machine. Now you have to worry about them cracking your robot and shooting you in your own home! Oh, great fscking invention, guys!
The enemies of Democracy are
* If guns ensure liberty, why does the US have the highest gun ownership and the worst human rights record in the developed world?
... gun culture is not a part of these countries,
:)
The US has neither. Switzerland, for instance, beats it in gun ownership/access, by a considerable margin.
As for human rights records, the US is actually near the top. Consider: Bosnia, South Africa, the East Bank, the former Soviet Union, China, Biafra, Nazi Germany, East Germany. I could go on for pages - or just get a list of the countries of both now and the last two centuries and maybe edit out a few.
Nazi Germany is a case in point: At the time the US had its own version of that sort of politically powerful racists, in the form of the Ku Klux Klan. They had control of something near half the state governments at the time and a large chunk of the county and city governments as well. But they lost. And while the history books talk of congress and freedom rides, my wife will be happy to tell you about how her family came through: By holding them off with guns in at least two generations.
Yes I know you specified the "developed world". And I can show you how the US is near the top there, too. But it would take a while.
Instead I'll make three points:
- The US is where most of these ideals of freedom were first elucidated in a form accessable to European-derived culture. It is where people born into something less than a free society fought a war and founded a government dedicated to increasing freedom - a process that continues to this day.
- The US has a free press, which criticises it when it falls below its ideals. The others don't.
- While you're measuring limits on "freedom" don't forget to include wars and genocide. (Excuse me: "ethnic clensing").
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
Ah, yes. The Magna Carta. Composed by Dead White Serfowning Males and imposed on an English King by rebellious English Lords, using force of arms.
The Magna Carta was indeed on the path (though much more may have come from "the other branch of the family", via its "shotgun wedding" to the Iriquois Confederacy). But consider what it was: a declaration by a few privileged aristocrats that they had rights enforcible against the King.
Just as those rights have since "trickled down" to lower classes in England, the rights proclaimed by The Founders have since been extended to more and more of the US population.
And that was deliberate. They phrased the rights as universals precicely so that would happen.
* The US is just one of dozens of countries which are founded on liberty. Many of these have been free for centuries longer than the US,
That's an interesting assertion - especially since the governments of nearly all the current countries of Europe date from events surrounding World War II or later, and their current forms of government were heavily influnced by that of the US.
Two exceptions are England and Switzerland, whose governmental forms came through WWII essentially unscathed. But even England's government went from a strong king to a strong parliment well after both the American Revolution and the founding of the US Federal Government.
Switzerland is more gun-happy than the US. Not only are they all all required to have a machinegun and ammo handy, but may farmers have tanks stored in their barns. They often spend their weekends practicing with mortars, or moving the charges around on the bridges leading into the country. "Switzerland doesn't HAVE an army. It IS an army."
Isn't it interesting that, when World War II washed over most of the world, Swtizerland was a little island right in the middle of it, virtually unaffected? I wonder if there's a connection...
and they have a historically BETTER implementation of liberty than the US.
That's a value judgement. I'll pick the US
If you ask "when guns are gone, what is left to protect your freedom", I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
As I say: "Better" is your claim, and the counter-claim takes too long to go into here. "Longer" is impossible, since they are younger.
But isn't it interesting that, twice in just the last century or so, these gun-poor "freer" countries got into such bad trouble that the "Armed retards" of the United States had to come over and die by the thousands to pull their freedom out of the fire?
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
The historical revisionists have been flaming the Founders for a while now. It's convenient, when they want to disassemble a constitutional Right, to deride it as the work of "dead white men who owned slaves". Of course Jefferson composed most of the documents stating the principles, so he gets most of the flamage.
But let's get a few pieces of suppressed history onto the table.
For starters, Jefferson inherited those slaves. Under English law they were part of the estate - "entailed" - so he had to keep 'em around to pass on to HIS heirs. (That's one of the things he was insturmental in changing when the post-revolutionary government was set up.)
Secondly, he tried to free the slaves as part of setting up the post-revolution government. He got voted down. So he settled for freeing the landowners and merchants, regardless of religion, and left those paper timebombs ticking away.
And the rights have since been extended progressively to one group after another. In each case that happened when the group in question proved itself to be a power block that could organize to commit violence and had to be bought off with voting rights. (And I bet your history books didn't tell you about THAT, either.) Most recent example: The 18-21 year age group, during the Vietnam riots.
Third: When in France as ambassador he took his alleged lover (his dead wife's half-black half-sister) with him. Once they reached France she was free. Had she stayed she'd likely have been quite successful. (For starters, given the culture in France at the time she'd have been a very suitable wife for a young aristocrat.) Jefferson tried to talk her into staying, rather than returning with him to Virginia and slavery. But she chose to return.
By the way: Jefferson also founded the Democratic party. Does that mean the Democrats and their politics are also tainted, as the product of a dead white slaveowning male?
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
Sounds to me like you're the one whose been paying attention to the US media and skipping the education. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Connected to death-robot.
Escape character is '^]'.
login: joe
Password:
$ killall -9 sendmail
- Joe
-Joe
A robotic dog can shoot you, and then a robotic surgeon can patch you up. Boobie traps are illegal and immoral because they are without moral or ethical judgement (not a theological arguement!). Remember the 'police man' in The Stainless Steel Rat? How about the killing spiders in that rather bad movie with Tom Selleck and that guy from Kiss? Do we really want to create Daliks and sic them on ourselves? I do believe in the right to bear arms, but that refers to long rifles in the hands of citizens, not pistols rigged to shoot whomever. I guess anything goes in Bancock. I hope we don't fall to that level.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
"Dammit Joe, that's the fifth dog I've had to buy this week. Would you fix the robot so it will stop shooting my dogs"
"Oh damn, I'm sorry Frank, I don't know what keeps getting into him, I'll reprogram him as soon as I get home."
Later(In the Batcave):
$ telnet BeetleBorg
Trying 69.69.69.69...
Connected to BeetleBorg.franksplace.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
Linux(SuSe) 6.4
login: MastaJoe
Password:
$ pico shooting.conf
Enemy = new-> Dog;
while (Enemy) {
if (bark){
then shoot(Enemy);
undef Enemy;
}
fi
}
(save and quit)
(Picks up phone and dials)
"Hello Frank? Yea, I just finished reprogramming the bot, you shouldn't have any more problems with it. I'm really sorry about all this, you know how much I love dogs. Gotta run, catch you later? Cool, bye."
Oh, nearly forgot.
$ BeetleBorg botsnack
[logout]
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
"Recta non toleranda futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"
"Recta non toleranda futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"
Guns will only lead to more deaths, in times of peace and in times of unrest. The only succesful overthrowings of oppressing government in this century, that did not bring leaders to the front that made it even worse are the ones that used minimum force. You must only look at the countries in eastern europe.
To think guns can protect you from the state is extremely simpleminded. The only thing that can protect you from the power of the state is to get enough citizens to back you and speak up against the things you do not like.
If you fight with guns you aill only be denounced as a terorrist (quite correctly i think).
I live here in Germany where we have quite strict gun laws. I cannot say i fell oppressed. I know i have the complete arsenal of a citizen of a democratic state at my hands if the state tries to oppress me. This is enough.
The only things i can see looking tu the US is that uncontrolled guns tend to produce many unnecesarry accidents and a general feeling of mistrust.
And for your next trick, you'll join Mothers Against Cars Driven By Drunks. After all, a car makes it easy for a drunk to kill someone.
Next, you'll call cars with fuel capacity in excess of five gallons "assault cars" (can drive farther without refueling, so you can kill more pedestrians.) And, of course, no one "needs" a car with out a 65 mph speed governor.
The bizzare logic of the Anti-Self-Defense lobby always cracks me up.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Could give a whole new meaning to '..blue screen of death'. Or perhaps, 'This application has performed an illegal instruction and YOU will be TERMINATED'.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
The problem is that I don't trust anyone's programming well enough right now to get anywhere near an active robot with a loaded gun. People think robots will suddenly overtake us in the evolutionary cycle, etc., etc... Well, they'll have to stop being stupid first. AI is really not that advanced yet.
People are still way way way way way smarter than machines.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
Damn, you think the government should have all the power! You must also think things like US restrictions on strong crypto is ok also as is Carnivore. Stupid liberal.
There's another factor at work as well -- any such figures must need be based on killings that have been solved, and for obvious reasons killings by strangers are less-often solved than killings by friends and family, producing skewed stats.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
The link seems to be broken, but this seems to fall under the category of just because we can do something isn't always a good reason to do so. Several considerations are
1. It gets taken over by some malicious group.
2. Do you really want to trust a robot with some sort of weapon? Be it a stun gun, or a fire arm.
3. Legal concerns. What happens if it shoots a pregnant woman?
4. How easily can it be fooled?
I certainly wouldn't like any of these in the neighborhood. I can see it now. "Hey Joe, would you turn off the robot so I can come over and borrow a cup of sugar" or "Dammit Joe, that's the fifth dog I've had to buy this week. Would you fix the robot so it will stop shooting my dogs"
mark
My Weblog
>(I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling
>for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
[] my understanding is that you're 50 years too late - swordmaking has been banned in Japan since WW2.
Please note that I was referring to possession, not manufacture, and knives, not just swords.
You'll notice that most of the murders in Japan are committed with knives or scissors. And that's true regardless of whether you include those that are counted as suicides in Japan but would be counted as the "murder" part of a "murder-suicide" in the US.
Yes I did mention katanas. And unless I'm mistaken the manufacturing ban you refer to was imposed by the US occupation at the end of WWII - as part of an attempt to break the aristocracy responsible for getting them into a war with the US while attempting to conquer the oriental portion of the world.
But the existing historical weapons can still be possessed. And recovering family heirlooms from WWII veterans who took them as souvenirs is quite the hot button. That's why I mentioned them - in the hope that it might help some readers to understand the enormity of the insult committed by the Japanese letter-writers who called for gun bans in the US.
By the way: In my opinion the US military may have made a mistake when, in imposing an edited version of the US system on Japan, they deleted the Second Amendment. In the short run it may have been necessary for the safety of the occupying troops. (Between WWI and WWII the Japanese military had been in control of the education of the population, to bad effect.) But a more effective way to break the aristocracy and empower the general populace would have been to dismantle the arms bans on the general population, erasing the distinction between the aristocracy and the pesants.
So the occupation actually succeeded in instilling the European, rather than the US, governmental model. To this day, in Japan, "the nail that stands out will be hammered down" rather than "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan, calling for the US to ban guns. (I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
Not that it's strictly relevant, but - katanas are more strictly regulated in Japan than guns are in the US. Katana owners not only have to have a license, they have to allow government inspections on a regular basis to ensure that the katana in question really is the licensed one. (So says my uncle who lives there, anyway.)
I can understand the homeowner in the Texas case being frightened. But you seem to imply that the Japanese letter-writers were engaging in some sort of hypocrisy, and it's not the case. They are guilty perhaps of thinking that their own standards are the One True Way, but aren't we all, from time to time?
This is a great day for hackers. Screw root, murderous rampaging robots are so much more fun!
This is no argument, this is simply a not very intelligent play of words. Even if a can replace the word gun with another word the statement still holds true.
the only reason for a govenment to take the right away is if they want to control the people.. government should not be about that!
Have you ever thought about the idea that there are much more subtle ways to control people. Gun control has nothing to do with controlling people. As i stated before, owning a gun will not help you if the state tries to control you. What will you do? Shoot the laywer? Kill some cops. If you do not have the support of a great part of the population, you will not make a difference. Perhaps you should start and speak up against biased media reports, gross unfairness in trade agreements and not try to justify gun ownership, which will not help you much anyway.
No more simple minded than thinking talking is going to stop marshall law.
In a democracy talking will stop marshall law because no ruler will get the majority of the people to back him up. This is not a problem of owning guns, but a problem of education in the populace at large. What you should do to prevent to marshall law is take an interest in politics, exercise your rights and try interest others too. Here i see a problem especially in America where the mass media tries to control the general political climate, mostly in favour of Corporate America.
The only thing that can protect you from the power of the state is to get enough citizens to back you and speak up against the things you do not like
if the state is a democracy..
I always had the impression that the United States is a democracy. Correct me if i'm wrong. And even in non democracys this is a correct statement. To succesfully influence a government you will need the help of a majority of the population, or tons of money :-). Weapons can help if the goverment has nothing to loose and is fighting to the end. But if you look at some of the more succesfull revolutions in newer history, especially at the process of overthrowing the stalinist governments in Russia and Eastern Germany (Poland or Tschecheslovakia, too) you will notice that armed conflict would have been counterproductive. In the hot phase, when the old government was loosing power, an armed attack would most likely have led to civil war. This could have led to states ruled by the military, which is always a Very Bad Thing.
from what I've been hearing about the businesses and living environment in germany you have much more severe problems than gun controll... the arsenal isn't doing you guys much good there...
Oh, this is a good one. This is complete FUD. What have you heard about Germany? I would like to hear your case and not some vaporous unbacked accusations.
The only uncontrolled guns are those which are controlled by people who are irresposible or are untrained because gun use is so tabboo and un-PC... I know tons of people who have guns.. I trust them all.
Oh yes this are the People who's children take a gun and shoot themselves by playing with them. This are the people who shoot on sight if someone walks onto their lawn at night? I never said that there are no People who can be trusted to own a gun. But i'm getting sarcastic here.
I said that a gun in your house will make no big difference if the government is going to suppress you. By the way i do not think guns are evil or un-PC as you state it. I have handled guns, i have shot shot them, i know how to use them, they are simply tools, not evil, not good, but dangerous. They are simply not necessary anymore, i can live without one and do not feel something taken away from me. I can even see where the gun laws in America originated. At this time there were good reasons to encourage every citizen to own a gun. May it be the thread from Europe to control the colonies, which had no standing army at this time or the absence of a law enforcement system in huge parts of the country. But times move on. Sometimes you have reevaluate your laws and look if the reasons are still there. I think there are strong arguments that uncontrolled weapon ownership in modern democracys do more harm than good.
thomas
Just an intersting legal challenge.
I design a robot that has a feature which is designed to kill (a pistol such as this has).
I design an AI for this robot and assign certain guidelines by which it must follow. The AI is programmed to evolve.
One of the guidelines is that the robot cannot kill innocent people.
The AI evolves and develops the ability to circumvent its guideline and kill innocent people.
The robot goes out and murders several thousand innocent people before anyone is able to stop it.
To what degree am I liable?
Murder? Unlikely. I pulled no trigger, I had no target, no motive.
Manslaughter? Possibly. If I drive a car while drunk, I am intentionally endangering people's lives, while not having any intention of killing anyone. However, I specifically design the robot so it will NOT recklessly endanger innocent lives. The robot just had other plans.
Negligence seems more likely. Gun manufacturers have been sued on this point I believe, even though the responsibility isn't really with them. The robot is a tool I created, and the robot went out and killed people. It very well could be said that I am responsible for it, regardless of what happens, since I created it and programmed it.
Lets take a slightly alternitive scenario. The ram inside the robot had a single bit error which caused the evolution (and this can somehow be proved). Can the company that creates the ram be held liable? I would think not. Yet again, its a crazy world we live in.
With that thought... I go to bed. Later.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Here is the link.
I don't know about Bangkok but would this be legal in the US? Can you fire at someone when your life or another life is not in danger? The "guard" isn't alive. So can it use deadly force to protect itself (property)?
And if it is shooting in auto mode who is at fault? The programer? The owner of the machine?
Can't wait for the legal fun this is going to cause.
But can the robot guard,
once we've trained him,
train other robot guards?
. at my signal -- unleash hell .
Maybe the guy made a bad decision.. if so he should be charged with at least wrongful death.
Well, for someone who supposedly "read 2 articles" about the incident, you give a fine display of complete ignorance. The shooter was charged and acquitted for manslaughter, but the parents of the boy started a civil suit in which they won a fair amount of damages.
there is nothing to be protected from if there is a stable government... duh! The guns help keep the government from making bad choices. An armed public is not always an easy public to push around.. an unarmed public is 250 million cattle to be led to slaughter. If you think the government is ALWAYS the good guy and can do no wrong then.. wow... wake up.. or bend over further cause your getting alot of air blown up your ass
*Sigh* What I was trying to say (which seems to have escaped you) is that by working towards a better government (rather than just spending more money on guns), you might actually be able to improve the situation. BTW, when's the last time you (or anybody you know) used one of your guns to shoot at a government official?
Something like the little dogs from Snow Crash..
I guess that beats the hell out of an IP-enabled refrigerator.
nothing *ensures* liberty
No, there are many things that do. Obviously you'll never have a perfect society where everyone is singing songs and skipping happily. But a well established judiciary, free press, and a stable executive founded on democracy makes the difference between a free country and one where citizens don't have much freedom.
Don't take a binary view of "all or nothing". Different countries have different levels of individual freedom. The ones with a very good record are mostly nations following old european precedents (including the US), and 90% of them have no gun culture as a foundation of liberty. Have you wondered how they maintain a good record? And don't quote switzerland. The US and switzerland are 2 exceptions among dozens of nations like France, belgium, luxembourg, netherlands, denmark, iceland, finland, australia, new zealand, UK, portugal, etc. etc. which ensure liberty for its citizens. Ever wonder how they do it? (and don't quote some crap about them spying on your email. Like I said, it's never perfect, but developed democracies ensure liberty for their citizens, by any benchmark their present record is about the best in human history and better than the rest of the planet. Stay in the real world.)
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
There are several revolutionary wars being fought across the world today, and they aren't tea parties either. That doesn't mean that they are the movements which first founded liberty as a generally followed principle of govt.
The rest of your comments are crap, so I won't bother answering. Hope you don't mind.
w/m
The correct link is http://www.bangkokpost.net/170 800/170800_News03.html.
Mark Duell
Clearly the automated robotic guard got to the Bangkok Post and took out the server. Some security!
Yes I know you specified the "developed world". And I can show you how the US is near the top there, too. But it would take a while
Go for it.
That's an interesting assertion - especially since the governments of nearly all the current countries of Europe date from events surrounding World War II or later, and their current forms of government were heavily influnced by that of the US.
Govts. didn't appear out of thin air. They are founded on precedents from over centuries. Ever wonder why France and the UK have very similar govts. compared to Japan? It's because the methods and rules followed by a society are based on precedent. For example, divorce law in the US has a history that goes all the way back to ancient Roman law.
Switzerland is an anomaly. You gotta look at averages. A small fraction of dictatorships result in prosperous nations (eg, singapore) but the majority don't. Similarly, the US and Switzerland are only 2 developed countries w/ a high gun ownership, one of which has a positive record and one which ranks poorly in homicide rates and govt. brutality (that would be the US). The rest of the developed world has an excellent record on both counts and a near zero gun ownership rate in comparison. Look at the whole picture, I'm not convinced by exceptions.
w/m
Last night in Bangkok, The Thailand Research Fund was attacked by a robot wielding firearms. 5 people were dead before the police shot enough ammo to destroy the robot.
The robot's last words: "I 0wn j00 b1tches"
Another problem is that "acquaintance" was defined as anyone the shooter knew. This means that if Joe the crack dealer and Marvin the crack dealer knew each other from prison, and later Joe shot Marvin in a turf battle, it got recorded as an "acquaintance shooting". In the popular press, it mutated into "friend" half the time, which calls up images of best buddies killing each other in a moment of anger.
Likewise with family shootings - who's to say you can't be in mortal danger from someone who's related to you? If Rob got drunk and attacked his cousin Bill with a baseball bat, and Bill shot Rob, it got recorded as a "family shooting" (no matter how justified it was) which again, calls up images of Ozzie blowing away Harriet.
Lastly, the figure ignores cases in which no shots were fired - if a stranger approached Mary with a knife, and Mary drew a gun and the stranger fled, it just didn't go into the analysis at all, ignoring the fact that a life might have been saved.
Robot Wars iz going to have some steep competition. o.O
Didn't the US _test_ weapons of mass destruction on their own soil? That counts as use doesn't it?
I'm happy to say that I don't have any enemies. And I have no intentions of making any who have guns and the inclination to use them...
Intolerant people should be shot.
What is this world coming to?
I think the idea here was that the "Laws" actually were enforced by nature. The robots were designed with these rules as a fundamental part of their nature.
Let's take another example. The menu system in Windows applications (I'm at work) is just about always the same. Why is that? Well, you could speculate that it is actually a part of the "nature" of Windows. Common controls make it easier for the developer to do this without having to redesign an entire menu system. A useful byproduct is that users should be able to use the program's menu without much trouble. There is a difference with this and the "Laws of Robotics," of course.. These are not actually "Laws," they're just helpful.
Of course.. We can go into the "Laws of Windows Crashes" (must happen every few minutes!), but I think we already know those..
Better yet, lets put them by over and under passes, stop signs, etc, and have them take out taggers, or at least shoot their spray cans. They are even worse vermin than pigeons - and i hate pigeons too
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
When I opened the restroom door, finding the room dark of course because it was after hours, much to my suprise a giggling teenage couple came running out of the bathroom past me and headed out the door.
They must have got the keys from one of their parents, I suppose.
Bet they thought the john in an office building downtown would be a secure private place for some hanky panky - but they didn't count on there being a software company down the hall!
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
eeeck
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
I remember reading the story. It made major headlines around the world. The student was just asking for directions, and this dude has just made up a long story, which some gullible moderators have thought fit to reward.
Even if you didn't know the facts, can't you tell from the tone and the fantasy material that it's fabricated? This is the kind of stuff that makes people lose faith in moderation.
If technology ever allows the remote control of one's body by one's brain (i.e. sitting miles away, in a vat of nutrients, et al. communicating via radio...), what are the implications of the body commiting a crime, under the [remote-]control of the brain-in-vat?
E.g. which laws apply? (E.g. the ones where the brains of the operation were at the time of the crime? ...or where the body was? i.e. if they were in different states of USA)
Well, my question is: Suppose that, due to an unknown Program Bug, someone operating the Pistol-Packing Thai RogoGuard presses a button that leads directly to someone else getting shot dead?
Perhaps the button was to active a Safety (as on a gun), but the program misinterpretted the botton-press, so that the effect was to Fire.
Who is responsible for any damage and/or loss of Life, in the event that a firmware or software glitch produces unexpected results?
At which level of Artificial Intelligence do we let is suffice to put the RoboGuard into "prison" or take it all apart, instead of hunting down the operator, who may be presumed to be innocent here?
This way, the robot could protect the bank vault- and if the robber threatened injury, then it could pop it a few. If the robot gets cracked and the intruder instructs it on a wanton rampage, the robot would freeze as soon as it is about to comit a crime- just as it would under Asimov's.
Asimov's laws were consistent.
--
--
"'quines' quines" quines "quines"
It wouldn't make a very effective guard if it was the target of a DOS attack. If it's ISP was @home or netcom it could be one of those security guards who sleep on the job and no one would know it.
* If guns ensure liberty, why does the US have the highest gun ownership and the worst human rights record in the developed world?
:)
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
* The US is just one of dozens of countries which are founded on liberty. Many of these have been free for centuries longer than the US, gun culture is not a part of these countries, and they have a historically BETTER implementation of liberty than the US. If you ask "when guns are gone, what is left to protect your freedom", I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
Take a look over at SRL's website (www.srl.org), and imagine one of the more mobile machines (personally, I like the V1) being used in some kind of "devious" way - on the offensive, as you say...
OK - I just went to the site - all I can say is:
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!!!!
Sorry - damn near had an orgasm - they are returning to Phoenix!!! I went to their show in '96 - best damn time I've had in a LONG while. You better bet I'll be there again this year!
If you've never been to a showing by SRL - you haven't got a clue...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The US has the worst crime record in the developed world. And govt. misbehavior (ask your local trigger happy cop for details).
Actually, it doesn't.
Crime (both commission and victimization) among US residents of European descent in the US is lower than in their countries of origin. Ditto among US residents of African descent. Ditto among US residents of Japanese descent, etc.
Unlike the rest of the "developed world" the US has a very diverse population, and doesn't insist that they stay separated or leave their cultures entirely behind.
But among those that do assimilate and reach "middle class" income, the crime rate drops, not just below that of their ancestrial country, but to that of US residents of white European descent - below that of, for instance, England.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
*chuckle*
:-)
Americans are so funny sometimes
11*43+456^2
> replace the word "Guns" in that sentence
What, like:
"Bananas will only lead to more deaths, in times of peace and in times of unrest"?
"Wristwatches will only lead to more deaths, in times of peace and in times of unrest"?
I think you're more likely to find that it has more to do with Slashdot being a predominantly American forum...
Warning, You must have a hack skill of 2 to access this console. Your chances of success are 67%.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
> restrictions on strong crypto ... Carnivore ...
/stupid/ it is to justify the right to bear arms with "Look, it says on this bit of paper called the Constitution that I can have a gun"...
Well, exactly. Did your guns help you with that? Nope.
Face it, "citizens must have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government" is a stupid anachronism, plain and simple.
Incidentally, do you not realise how
Am I the only one who immediately thought of all the evil applications these things could be used for? Want to rob a bank but not get caught? Just send a couple of these things in to do your dirty work and don't worry about being caught. Want to overthrow your government? Just get a beowulf cluster of... ah, forget it.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
You won't get close enough....
It's about damned time...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
The famous IANAL comes into play: At least in California (USA) isn't it unlawful to shoot someone for robbery? Do they not have to be armed and about to kill you before you can shoot AT them?
Maybe the author will "open source" the robot. Imagine the next tech support call...
"Its not the power cord." :)
Me: "Check the power cord."
User:"Its not the power cord. I'm smarter than that. I already checked the power cord"
Me:"Check the power cord."
User:' What do you know, the power cord is a little lose.."
me:"Okay, I am going to send over..err..expect a visitor.."
Ten minutes later, several small ladybug robots scurry over the users cubicle and pounce on him and start jabbing him with the low power cattle prods. Of course, they scurry back to some hole in the wall.. You wouldn't want anyone to know whose they are.
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
DoS (ping flood) the robots, rob the bank, watch the bots react too late.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Mayday! Mayday! Slashdot has posted a story linking to us!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH......
The site is already down. Waiting....
-- From my Best Friend (Written to me over ICQ): "i was gonna go to a party...but i had to reinstall windows"
telnet guard /usr/bin/pistol
./fire
cd
make bullet
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
I think automated warfare is coming, and it's gonna be messy. What's the current state of these things, anyway? The autocannons from the director's cut of Aliens are little more than an academic exercise at this point. Is anyone building them? Terrorists can take advantage of death via remote control. I don't trust the anyone to make these hack-proof, and the consequences are pretty lethal.
"Hacked, hijacked psycho cyborg kills 20 in downtown Seattle Bank."
...and then...
"fortunately the cyborg's pre-existing software was poorly ported to it's new (and far superior) Operating System, causing the cyborg's internal systems to fail after a minor spree of terror. Witness's to the ordeal reported a faint, blue glow in the cyborg's eyes at the time of system failure... Stay tuned, weather at 11"
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
THE LADY BUG IS HURTING ME!!!
"The system was aimed only at teaching people how to use robots. Thai researchers did not have the funds for a manufacturing base to compete with countries like the US and Japan."
Don't worry, Thailand... the US will be exporting its own brand of killer robots to the world's "developing" nations soon enough! Would you like some stun belts with that?
Right, just what we need. The cleaning lady forgets to turn off the roboguard before dusting off the display cases, and it opens fire in a room full of Ming vases or valuable paintings. Soon, the tour guides would all be saying, "And now we turn to Picasso's bullet-hole period."
Mail carriers might have to start using ROBOTIC EXOSKELETONS to deliver mail safely. (Nothing makes you feel as safe as a shoulder mounted rail-cannon...)
You'll notice that the linked file in this article is in a directory named /today/
Since it is no longer today, the file in question has moved to the 17th of August directory.
The robot has crawled over here.
Please don't let him get away.
This is the beggining of our end..after coming home from the protests at the DNC I saw a picture of a row of stern faced riot police that I thought looked kinda like robots..of course I had seen the police at the convention and while many are very robotic, most still have common sense. Robots don't have such a luxury..robots have only code, a robot could easily have common sense programmed, but that's all in the eye of the beholder..my idea of common sense would include the inability to kill anything..but what that would boil down to is including limitations on what you can do with it..which those in command of the robots wouldn't want..they think they have enough sense to not have the robots be doing something which they shouldn't be doing..but nay..here's the scenario.. At the 2004 convention the protests have gotten larger, more people see that corporations are taking control of the system..bending it to their financial interests. They must maintain their control and that means making sure we have a democratic or republican president since they have so much influence over those two and have continually instilled the idea in the public that voting any other way is throwing away your vote..pretty much everyone is displeased but they'll always choose the lesser of the two evils..but the protesters are trying to tell people differently..that it may be unlikely that voting for anyone else will win, but only by voting for that third party can you start to build the support so that for each election that follows the percentage will grow. So that's bad for the big businesses who wouldn't want to loose any of the grip around the neck of us politics and thus the world..and now we have the technology to build robots to use as riot police..perfect..there can be as many of these bots as people..and the best thing, is that if they so desire, they can have an unlimited amount of force..instantly subdue crowds..make up an excuse later 'there looked to be a bomb' everyone knows that it's fake, an excuse..but nobody can contest it..so everyone is afraid..nobody will rebel..4 years later they're in visible distance of every public area on soil..infrared included can even see through walls into your home (that technology is already legal and used in california) I may sound orwellian, but trust me, I'm psychic..I have seen what the future can be..act now Vote Nader vote period..send letters to congress..don't just sit here and do nothing about it and think that you'll know if it's getting worse and you'll do something then. Don't think that I'm just a tree huggin hippie and you'd be glad to see all the protesters like me thrown in jail..because by the time they get to what you care about, it'll be too late to protest. They're charging people with conspiracy to commit a felony for riding bikes out there..I saw over 40 people lined up to be arrested for that. Robots getting hacked isn't the problem, the current controllers have worse things in mind than what anyone at 2600 would do. Thanks for reading! -GreenCow =)
...Oh dear,
;)
I can see one of these manning the door of my local nightclub right now.
Even worse I can see it shooting me because I didn't have the correct ID, or because it doesn't like my shoes!
..."Hasta la vista, groupie!"
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Lost count of how many people posted that the link doesnt work. NO IT DOESNT, BUT IF YOU READ SOME OF THE POSTS YOULL FIND OUT WHY. As well as the the new link.
Use those eyes, folks.
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
"It is armed with a pistol that can be programmed to shoot automatically or wait for a fire order delivered with a password from anywhere through the Internet,"
Anywhere through the internet! Yes, very good idea.
I'm glad the biggest concern I have is that the automatic doors in my building might close on me accidentally, or I forget my ID badge and get locked out of my wing of the building when going to get a Coke or Pepsi.
'Bot strokes the trigger
Dali's paintings are destroyed
Curator hits roof
(For those who don't know Dali is some sort of famous painter)
3y3 h4x0r3d j00r b07 4nD n0\/\/ 337 w11l k333l j000!!!!
Assoc Prof Chid Laowattana, of the Thon Buri campus, said this could be developed into a simulator to train people in areas like surgery.
Well yeah, I guess they could be training people for surgery when it malfunctions and shoots its owner. Just rush the patient with the gunshot wound to the college hospital and let them train away...
Tonight on FOX News: 11 dead and several dozen still in hysterics after a killer ladybugs wreaks havoc on Los Angeles.
Quote: One of the recurring themes in his fiction is the Autofac (automatic factory). Little factories that literally breed, starting off tiny as flies (AFAIK, far before people started talking about nanotechnology). Several of his stories center on a post-apocolyptic civilization where the Autofacs are the only things left fighting. Humans, by and large, have been bombed back into the stone age, except for supply drops by the Autofacs. Which just keep fighting, because they weren't programmed to stop, and they're too efficient to break down.
Dick's biggest criticism of machines was that they have no compassion, no charity (in the biblical sense). He said that there's something ineffable about humans that machines will be never be able to duplicate, only mimic.
Machines don't stop. Ob. Frank Herbert quote (hope rob hasn't instituted that "Frank Herbert filter" yet): "Mercy is the ability to stop, if only for a moment." Same idea, really. How does a robot guard know when you've surrendered? Or does it matter? If a human is shot in a forest of robots, does his death make a sound?
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
An exploit was found in the sentiel robot that makes it vulnabel to remote attacks.
It is possible for a remote attacker to execute arbertary code on the robot, and to take full control of it.
People owning a sentiel robot are advised to seek cover as soon as possible.
Think about what a Distributed attack would be like :)
Will work for bandwidth!
Yeah, I can just see this...
... and his ... Robo Carp.
Someone hacks the server and the guard guns people down.
Plausable deniability, anyone?
Even without such a gaff, consider more than one person having access. Traceable? Hmm, lots of potential problems here.
Best leave it to the game warden
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When I read the headline, I was expecting a 7 foot tall black robot with mini-gatling guns for arms...
I like how much effort these folks put into making the robot cute. Small, red shell, black spots... looks like a ladybug. The criminals will die laughing...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Yo, so like, can this thing play MP3's?
Well, if cameras and watches do...
I sure hope that the picture next to the story is one of the armed robot guard. What could be better than shooting bad guys over the net with a giant-killer-robot-ladybug? Or maybe that's just the normal size of bugs in Thailand. Japan has Godzilla and the Thai knockoff is a two-foot long ladybug that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals everywhere. Yeah.
Until AI in robotics are advanced enough to comprehend the author Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics from 1940, independent robots should not be placed in positions where their actions could jeopardise the lives of other human beings. Even if hacked, a robot hardwired to follow the three rules below would be severely limited from injuring innocent people. The three rules are: And of course, there is a fourth rule that Asimov brings up in Prelude to Foundation, in which the robot Daniel is programmed to over the first three laws in order to ensure the survival of the human race, but that law in itself is a little too far for a guard robot! For an interesting look into the implications that Asimov's laws introduce into artificial intelligence in computing and robotics, then you look at this article by Roger Clarke at the Australian National University.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
What an interesting combination of technologies. First, you can get shot multiple times by a robot gone bezerk. Then, the doctor trained by the VR with a robotic arm mentioned in the same article can go ahead and remove the bullets for you, and you're good as new! This is definitely brilliant marketing.
What would the legal ramifications be if you created an armed robot guard and someone hacked your system taking control of it and killing a bunch of people.
Will probably happen someday.
On one hand, there's a clear benefit to this technology: it doesn't put human lives at risk
Cough! Splutter? Sorry, putting a gun on a robot, and hooking it up to the internet, doesn't put human lives at risk? Would you want your pacemaker on the internet for the 5cr1p7 k1dd13z to play with?
"Oh, don't worry, I'm running my left kidney as a honeypot." Sorry.
Perhaps one day we'll even be able to use robot soldiers to fight our wars instead of shepherding the poor and the minority into our military.
That was what the inventor of the machine gun was thinking. Seriously, he was a (misguided?) humanitarian.
At the time, disease was the major killer in war - like ten times the casualties of your average enemy army. So the thinking was, why don't we make this gun that can fire a hundred times the bullets, with maybe a tenth the accuracy, of one soldier? Then it can stand in for ten soldiers, a good four or five of whom would likely have died of [dysentery, malaria, tuberculosis, the local plague] by the time the army hit the field anyway.
Didn't take too long for that to go bad, did it? And in this case, you don't even have to look too far into the future to see how this could turn really, really nasty. Just wait till the NRA gets hold of it "There should be an armed robot in half the homes in Texas, with easy browser-based configuration, before it's too late and only the criminals have armed robots."
Now, do you want MS Attack Robot prowling around your yard at night, listening to all and sundry a dozen or two ports? Kinda freaks me out.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Order yours today!
----------------
... maybe write it in perl?:
system("killall intruders") or die;
> Can you fire at someone when your life or another life is not in danger?
Depends on the jurisdiction. In most states the rule is some variant on "You can fire only when 'a reasonable and prudent man' in your situation would believe he was in danger to life or limb." So you can usually defend when attacked, but must stop when the attack is broken off.
In some states (notably, Texas) you can fire to stop, for instance, a thief making off with your property under certain circumstances. In others you must retreat if possible when attacked - but generally not when in your own home. (One exception is Maryland, where you must retreat even in your own home.) In at least one (Oregon, due to a court interpretation), a woman attacked in her home doesn't have to stop shooting, say, when the housebreaker retreats toward his car - because he might be going for a gun.
Hell yeah Just a few years ago some (Texan?) shot to death a kid knocking at his door late at night.
To paraphrase the defence: "It was dark out and I was scared!"
If I remember, it was a exchange student from Asia, who just happened to knock on the wrong house. Not understanding or speaking English when challenged by a guy with a gun didn't help.
Let's get this straight. (Here's how I remember the story. But I got it from accounts of the trial, so I might have a detail or two off...)
The "kid" was teenager from Japan. He was about maximum-violence "gangsta" age. He was an exchange student, so he was moderately clueless about the local customs. Like many teenagers in/from Japan at the time he had a bad habit: He would suddenly run at people, yelling and making threatening gestures, then take a picture of their expressions of fear. (A disarmed society is NOT a polite society!)
It was Halloween. It was after dark. The "kid" and another teenage boy from his host's household showed up on the doorstep of a house and tried the door. When confronted, they claimed they were trying to find a party and gave a different address. They were told they were at the wrong address and to go away.
A few minutes later the householder was disturbed again: They were back, trying the door of the garage. The wife, understandably agitated, called the husband, who confronted them again.
They started to go again. But after a few steps the Japanese student suddenly turned, brandished a small black object, and ran roaring at the householder.
Oops!
The 'killer' got off scott free.
The killer (NOT murderer!) did indeed get off scott free (and rightly so.) Except, of course, for the expense and risk and stress of the trial. And the stress, for himself and his family, of having killed the "kid". And the stress from the liberal press having a field day with him.
Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan, calling for the US to ban guns. (I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
One thing much of the rest of the world doesn't get about the United States: It was SUPPOSED to be a nation of free, armed people. (Think "nation of Samuari", though that isn't QUITE the right image. "Nation of Ronin" might be closer.) At this point, over half the households have at least one gun, so we're closer to that ideal than its opposite.
Now what would happen to a teenager in Japan who twice made like he was breaking into a Samurai's house, was twice told to leave by the alerted Samurai, who then suddenly roared and charged...
You've got to be careful doing that type of shit though. A few years back here in Ontario there were a COUPLE incidents of swat teams getting the wrong address and going in for bear.
Happens here, too.
BATF are big offenders, with a penchant for raiding at 4AM (to maximize the raidees' confusion), in black ski masks, breaking down doors. (One little old lady blew one away when they got the address wrong. She got off scott free, too.)
Another problem is police agencies after their cut of RICO gold. Like the ones who spotted a woman buying groceries with hundred-dollar bills. They investigated, and found she was the new wife of a fellow with a VERY large estate near Los Angeles, which some government agencies had been trying for years to get him to sell, without success. Someone made a crack about him being rich with drug money.
So they got together a multi-department task force and went after him. They managed to kill him in the process. No drugs were found.
Turns out they were honeymooning, and the hundred-dollar bills were from the weding present. As for being rich from "drug money", they sure were. The guy they blew away was named "Sandoz". He was the heir to the family fortune from the (completely legal) drug company of the same name.
Another one: The Gypsy Jokers bicycle gang was living in a house in a reasonably quiet neighborhood in Oregon. The cops decided to raid them. They also decided to "serve the warrant" by breaking down the door, guns out, in ski masks and black. The Jokers thought they were under attack by a rival gang and fought, killing at least one policeman.
The Jokers duly "got off". The judge agreed with them that they had good reason to believe, given the behavior of the police, that they were under attack by a rival gang and at risk to life or limb.
But don't expect such enlightened treatment in, say, Santa Clara, California. (I'll save THOSE stories for another time.)
One big caveat: If you're raided in the night and you blow one away, your mileage may vary, BIG time. (Remember Waco!)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I know i can't spell.
ED-209: Drop that mouse and keyboard *krzt*.
...
ED-209: Step back from that computer, luser *krzt*.
ED-209: You have 10 seconds to comply.
Luser: Hu?
You have 5 seconds to comply. *krzt*
Luser: What the
Ed-209: Budabudabudabudabudabudabudabuda *krzt*
BOFH: Muahahahahahah!
Wouldn't a guard robot that obeyed Asimov's Laws of Robotics be completely useless?
Robot: Halt. No authorized person may enter.
Robber: I order you to let me enter. Heck, while you're at it, help carry the money to my car.
Robot: I have a more sophisticated method for discriminating between comflicting orders than mere chronology. Your orders will not be followed where they conflict with my previous order to guard this building.
Robber: (Placing gun to own head) But you cannot allow a human to come to harm through any inaction. If you do not follow the following instructions completely, I will shoot myself. Open the safe and carry the money to my car. When you're done, bash in your head so you can't identify me.
Robot: Yes, sir.