Slashdot Mirror
Robots for No Man's Land
Roland Piquepaille writes "The Stryker is an 18-ton infantry vehicle, already deployed by the U.S. army in places such as Iraq. Right now, it has human drivers. But that will no longer be the case by 2010, when it will be driven by a robot. Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second. 'Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body -- processes that data, and makes instant judgments on how to act and where to go.' These robots are developed by General Dynamics Robotic Systems, Inc. (GDRSI), which received $185 million last November to build between 30 and 60 automated-navigation prototypes to be used in all kinds of military vehicles. This overview contains more details, references and photographs."
Where have I heard that name before? Stryker, Stryker, Stryker...
Bolo Mk, I, "Horrendous".
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Just had to say it
Yes, but will it fit on a frickin' shark? Is that too much to ask?
T1.
How long before it's got an autocannon 10, PPC or Gause Rifle?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Maybe if we said "please".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There is no danger of these 18 ton robotic war machines going berserk and killing everyone around them. None at all. Really. You should all feel secure in the knowledge that they were programmed by the lowest bidder.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
"Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body --"
You know it's got to be powerful when compute power is measured in pounds...
jeff
I wonder, will they teach it to wet its circuits as well?
Lets say the US has a fully automated robotic army. Ignorning the whole "SkyNet" issue, does this mean making war is now a no brainer? Because if American's don't have to die, do we just beat up whoever we want whenever we want? I for one think that this will change the world more than the Atom bomb did.
I know it's not quite the same, but why aren't there more/some remote-controlled tanks, trucks, planes etc so that no-one need die in actions such as in Iraq? Is it the fear of the vehicles being jammed and/or turned against the US?
Ok, so they can build multi-purpose, multi-terrain robots that have to make life or death decisions with automatic weapons, but they can't make a couple to send up on an unmanned probe to fix the hubble? There's something wrong with the math here...
Whee signature.
At some point war will be fought with robots, then we'll show them. Of course, they'll devise clever ways to attack and disable robots, so we'll constantly improve them (and tactics) and they'll get better and we'll get better and...
Maybe Peace would be better.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I fail to grasp the dynamics through which a robot could be labeled as being a homosexual.
Like quite a feat. It's amazing how far robotics, and computing in general have come over the past few years. I can't wait till technology like this becomes affordable and we can finally have those oh-so-wonderful robot slaves to fetch us drinks and vacuum the floor and such, alas, that is still a far way off.
Buckethead
From the article: "Developing a robot is like raising children, researchers say. "
Hide when they reach puberty
Wouldn't it make more sense to use radio control by human operators, rather than autonomous on-board robots? Can the on-board robot really deal with every possible circumstance? Does it have enough "judgment" to improvise? Isn't human control simpler and hence more robust?
I have always been of the opinion that the more generic the name of a company, the greater its capacity for evil.
For example, General Motors and General Electric. I don't know if they've done anything bad, but by virtue of their name, they could manufacture all kinds of evilness and no one would be any the wiser. At least they are specific to a particular industry, so one would presume a limitation to their evil: evil motors (tanks, jets, rockets, etc), or evil electrics (electric fences, tazers, etc). General Dynamics, on the other hand -- dynamics -- there's lots of evil that could fall into that category!
I'm just waiting for a company called Stuff Inc..
I for one welcome our new robotic warlords!!!
I wonder if it is "fully" functional.
"Well before the end of the century, there will be no people on the battlefield," said Robert Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Management and Technology.
Yeah, no white people, anyway. From what I see, the countries that the US is picking fights with lately are far behind us in robotic weapons technology. Unless this is a sign that we're about to invade Japan, but their armies of laser-eyed Aibos will surely defeat us.
Seeing that this will be used in wartime, I'm wondering how often bugs in the software or data that isn't up-to-date will cause the vehicle to go places where it shouldn't.
If it doesn't have all the data on where the enemy is, it might just drive happily into a nasty situation, whereas a human driver could see trouble ahead. I'm sure a robot might recognize dangerous terrain, but I can't imagine it would recognize a dangerous combat-related situation. I sure hope they have a human who can take manual control if things should go wrong.
To quote the article on the technology they are basing this rolling weapon on, the MDARS is "a robotic watchdog that patrols the Westminster lab's snow-covered back yard looking for "intruders." It drives several feet, eyes a parking sign and halts, apparently puzzled, until a human attendant reprograms MDARS to move on."
Shouldn't they wait for that little DARPA sponsored race in the desert to finish up before giving away all that R&D money? At least that way, the supply convoy won't freeze when it sees "Tehran 137km"
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Does it play ogg?
Humorous geeky reference for the not so geeky:
"...it became self aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am Eastern Time."
Humorous geeky reference for the really geeky:
Horray, we've developed an Ogre Mk. I!
Just had to add the obligitory Simpsons Visual... SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY
On a related note, these military robots use "swarm technology" to mimic a group of ants or other "swarm" animals. Kind of a cool approach to A.I. At least it's not nanotechnology like in the (bad) novel by Michael Crichton.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
I thought there already was a robot in No Man's Land... He was strapped to some guy's back. Robin and Nightwing saw him on their way into the city. Or was he a cyborg? I don't really know. Ironically, I would have to be a bigger geek to say something geeky.
You have failed to view this website.
Rectify this immediately.
Does no one watch Sci Fi movies anymore? I work for a bloody defense contractor and I cannot count the number of times I've said to myself "The author of this BAA has obviously never seen T2."
People even name projects "SkyNet" and think it's funny!
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
=o
Isn't this what DARPA is looking into? Why spend all this money before we learn from their experience?
My user number is prime. Is yours?
http://www.johnringo.com/stryker.htm
This article/FAQ is very unkind to the Stryker.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I thought the Ogre Mk. I was built from a SHVY chassis, not an infantry carrier? Or are they planning a robotic Abrams, too? So, how many tread units does a Stryker have?
We prefer the term 'Electronic-American', thank you.
I can see it now. Battalions of tinfoil-clad troops rushing at the 40-pound-brain monster, sort of like a modern-day St. George and the Dragon, 'cos we'd use all these lightweight modern materials, not field-plate mail...
... hmmm...
At least, sort of like it as long as the dragon was asleep (since the new monster can't see you), but you'd have to be a particularly stupid knight to take on an awake dragon. Hmm. Bill's getting knighted
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Modern globalization.
Crumpled with condemned nations, unnecessary death.
Mad at the corporations confronting your frustrations with a blinding flag.
Manufacturing conscent is the name of the game.
The bottom line is money, nobody gives a fuck.
4,000 hungry children leave us with hours of starvation,
while millions are spent on bombs, creating death showers.
its just another brick in a wall whoes foundation is crumbling. burn hollywood burn.
'Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body -- processes that data, and makes instant judgments on how to act and where to go.'
"Dude, we're at a 7-11! I like how this computer thinks!"
They hate us for our freedom!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/con gress/ 2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
Highlights?
- Designed to be transportable by a C-130, but can't.
- Designed for the modern urban battlefield, but too big to make a U-turn on even the widest streets.
- Designed to face the weapons of our enemies, but the armor cannot withstand Rocket Propelled Grenades (a hugely prolific weapon in Iraq and Afganistan, even now).
To top it all off, the light tank varient of the Stryker (which the entire Stryker Brigade concept relies upon for support) cannot fire it's weapon if infantry troops are within 200' (the muzzle blast will fry them due to the huge compensator needed) and the cannon cannot be fired off to the side of the vehicle, or the recoil will knock it over. What a great piece of equipment!
Not to hijack the thread, but this is just another attempt for General Dynamics to get some good press out of a complete piece of shit program that is endangering the lives of the grunts who are forced to work with it.
for the absolute dumbest comment I've seen today. In a long time actually.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
picture
I like the suit...
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Oh, so the Pentagon is now doing the whole "bidding for contracts" thing?
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
parent
>
> Maybe Peace would be better.
but it will happen and an interesting danger arises with this revolution in military tech.
Currently, governments and militaries are limited by what they can do because they need citizens to power the military machine.
Once you remove the need for large quantities of citizens two problems arise:
1. Robots will have no problems killing ANYBODY that it's controller tells it to. In the US at least, millitary coup is improbable because soldiers == citizens and would probably not attack the general population if ordered to do so. Robots don't have families and ethics.
2. Wars are currently limited by public opition. When our sons and daughters are no longer dying, the public will have much less to worry about when attacking somebody. With robots , we (the US) may have already started fighting with Syria, Libia, Iran...
From the Washington Post article here which is btw the article which is actually referenced in the article that's posted above,
:(.
Sad Sad :(
An unmanned Stryker is part of the military's effort to move more machines into battle to save both money and lives. "Well before the end of the century, there will be no people on the battlefield," said Robert Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Management and Technology.
The sad part is of course that he didn't say: "Well before the end of the century, there will no longer be a need for battlefields"
It's Obvious that none of these people have pounded sand but know how to dig for sand dollars. \
Big deal! The taxi driver I had today is a ladies scanner.. He checks out up to 120 girls per second while driving, plus he talks on the cell phone, listens to some foreign music, and navigates the mean streets of NYC -- all while avoiding the I.N.S.
"Ain't I a stinka..." - Bugs
It's nice to see much of technological development is still tied to killing machines. Our history is rife with technological advances made in the name of war including much of the work of such luminaries as Da Vinci. Killing is our business and business is good!
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
American Jock: We can live!!
Wounded Soviet Jock: No we can't! We're Robot Jocks!
That design is a dead copy of the old Soviet BTR series of wheeled APCs.
With the way the US economy is going, it will be less expensive to have a human than a robot in the vehicle! But the robot may be more intelligent.
Some related technology was discussed in an article from some Raytheon folks in the October 2003 Linux Journal, using embedded linux to process images as I recall....
man...
somehow when reading submission, the initial scenes from "the entire strikes back" came to my mind. robots going around, collecting data...
am i the only one?
ato
>>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea... ...or on the borders. This device would be perfect for monitoring the enormous (and easily penetrated) US/Mexico and US/Canadian borders.
How long before a marine version is developed to patrol the coastal areas?
What happens when someone is opposed to the next Bush-like action? Does a military bot malfunction? Or do those in power simply outright order the bots to kill dissidents? I for one wouldn't want to be that lone Tiananmen protestor standing in front of the column of tanks...piloted by robots...controlled by the government...potentially controlled by leaders like...
Apparently a handful of these machines was brought outside show off their skills by some idiot who couldn't read a weather forecast. Lightning ended up hitting the goddamned platform, shutting down four of the vehicles. The fifth one took off for parts unknown. If anyone sees it be sure to let us know, we would like to dis-as-semble it.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
This new vehicle was obviously named after famed gay porn star Jeff Stryker.
It's sort of fitting, really. A large metal penis pointing out the front, looking to fire and deliver it's seed directly up the ass of every foreign male it sees.
Once again, the U.S. military has proven itself to be chock full of latent homosexuality.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
This is the same Stryker that has such thin armor around the enormous wheel wells that machine-gun bullets can penetrate, would kill its own crew if the turret howitzer were fired, and is best taken out via a simple molotov cocktail setting fire to its tires. It is intended to be air-deployed, but is so close to the weight margin that some armor had to be eliminated. In some configurations the Stryker has to be split across 3 planes and assembled on-site. Oh, and the thing is the size of a school bus--just what you want in urban situations requring manouverability, which is supposedly among its missions.
The Stryker is a mistake--I can see why they'd bolt the robot onto it in order to keep funding going, or to mask the sunk cost on this turkey. I couldn't find the PDF detailing these problems, so try this link: stryker problems Right now it's most interesting as an example of the strength of momentum some defense procurement contracts have.
Remain calm! All is well!
COOL! :)
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Daystrom, Star Trek, does that help?
You could replace their 'ladar' with 'gaydar.' The constant redecoration of their tents will create a quagmire the American forces will not soon forget.
I seem to recall that the U.S. has written international treaties banning the use of blinding lasers in combat, while they refuse to sign the treaties banning anti-personnel land mines.
I remember being baffled by that, I mean, land-mines do MUCH more dammage than burning your retina, I was confused.
Now I get it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Public opinon didn't stop the recent war in Iraq.
Though, in general I do agree with you. What happens when we get a strung out general who decides to program his bots to kill anything in site.
It can now say:
-Put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
-Shall we play a game?
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
welcome our new robot overlords. I can't believe I was the first one to say it. You guys are getting soft.
"Except," he continued, "those pesky innocent civilians, who have complicated serious warmaking efforts for ages via their hostile acts of living on our battlegrounds. Well, they can now be slaughtered with even greater efficiency by soulless robots in their ever-growing search for weapons of mass destruction."
"I mean, remember that guy who stopped the tank at Tiennamen by standing in front of it? Ha! Good luck using that tactic against TankMaster v.06a! To it, that brave individual would register simple as 'non-threat to navigation object'. El squish-o."
Note to the General Dynamics guys who are working on this one: Thanks a bunch. This ought to make the life of any petty dictator, from Castro to Dick Cheney, far easier. I mean, bet you'll never see a robot put its chopper between a bunch of fleeing civilians and other robots who are massacring them.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
No, because they can always just ignore the robots and hit us where is really hurts... at home.
Also, if both sides have robots, they are really nothing more than a buffer between the people fighting from their bunkers. For there to be a winner, people still have to die. Does it matter if it happens on the battlefield or 100 feet underground?
welcome our new robot overlords.
Well, not really, the thought of big-ass robot-controlled tanks give me the creeps, but I *definitely* want them to know I'm *not* a target, if that's at all possible.
No no no! They've got it all wrong! I mean, it dosen't even have a self-righting mechanism!
Now this is more like it!!
has this anything to do with it?
What do you mean, "I don't believe in God"?
I talk to him every day.
What do you mean, "I don't support your system"?
I go to court when I have to.
What do you mean, "I can't get to work on time"?
I got nothing better to do
And, what do you mean, "I don't pay my bills"?
Why do you think I'm broke? Huh?
Chorus
If there's a new way,
I'll be the first in line.
But, it better work this time.
What do you mean, "I hurt your feelings"?
I didn't know you had any feelings.
What do you mean, "I ain't kind"?
I'm just not your kind.
What do you mean, "I couldn't be president, of the United States of America"?
Tell me something, it's still "We the people", right?
Chorus (repeat)
If there's a new way I'll be the first in line, But, it better work this time. Can you put a price on peace?
Peace,
Peace sells...,
Peace,
Peace sells...,
Peace sells...,but who's buying?
Peace sells...,but who's buying?
Peace sells...,but who's buying?
Peace sells...,but who's buying?
No, peace sells...
And I quote "Stryker can carry additional supplies/equipment to support organic solders for longer operations without requiring external trans assets."
So either we have
-Organic Solder, solder normally being a metalic alloy
or
-Inorganic Soldiers (Which would require us to separate our organic and inorganic types...
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
We're charging our battery
And now we're full of energy
We are the robots
We're functioning automatik
And we are dancing mechanik
We are the robots
Ja tvoi sluga (=I'm your slave)
Ja tvoi Rabotnik robotnik (=I'm your worker)
We are programmed just to do
anything you want us to
we are the robots
We're functioning automatic
and we are dancing mechanic
we are the robots
Ja tvoi sluga (=I'm your slave)
Ja tvoi Rabotnik robotnik (=I'm your worker)
We are the robots
Kraftwerk - 1978
www.brownsauce.org
But whey would you replace the driver of a PERSONNEL carrier???
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Look up the title "The Sands of Iwo Jima" ... When Hollywood violence was still sanitized.
As Steve Jackson said:
"The question of the use of advanced computers (cybernetic brains) to replace crews is not so much if it will occur as when. The replacement of crewmen by computer will probably not be a sudden dramatic event which brings about a national debate over the moral, social, and psychological ramifications of a computerized terror monster killing people. The number of crewmen will be gradually reduced until only one man controls the tank, and as time goes on, his duties will become fewer and fewer until he becomes more of a burden on the system than a benefit."
And also paraphrased:
"Its not so much that a near hit would stun the crew, but the fact that their vehicle will take over and continue to try and kill YOU!"
The real point of this issue, is that once the machines take over, war becomes quite anohter business, sanitary for the U.S.A., quite bloody and demoralizing for everyone else.
proper ref: http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/articles/tankpfo.html
JoeR
If every country would build such robots to fight each other, than why not to play game with direct video out to news? The result would be the same and at much lower usage of resources.
We need to deploy thousands of them on our city highways and interstates.
To PUSH the freaking slow people out of the PASSING LANE!
And when the software fails.....
Tank to US army mainenance tech.
"Drop your weapon.
You have 10 seconds to Comply"
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
EMP!
Now if we can just keep Microsoft away from grabbing the rights to the pilot's operating system. If they did, then OS crashes would take on a whole new meaning.
Ladar can create a very detailed view of a crafts surroundings. Its on some planes so the pilots can fly low in bad light conditions. They don't use it much however as ladar is too easily detected.
The stryker have the same drawback. I mean, suprise is a big part of battles. Its no good trying to sneak up behind a group of enemy soldiers if they can see your electronic emissions from miles away.
For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes? Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?
1) Disable said robot and pull him out of stryker battle-toy. ...
2) Get into said stryker battle-toy and blast live soldiers coming in to fix robot.
3) Win war and have pretty new battle-toys to terrorize your neighbors.
4)
5) Profit!
BOLO - Keith Laumer.
Just a matter of time now...
Every time I hear about a "roadside bomb" killing our soliders in Iraq, I think "why don't they have automated vehicles to send ahead as decoys?". They could even be remote controlled, they don't need to be autonomous.
I suppose we will eventually be building Terminators. That is fine, until the enemy gets them as well. By that time, let's home we have
disarmed and defeated all the dictators and totalitarian states this kind of thing won't be needed.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second.
Is that anything like gay-dar? I live in New Orleans and I can personally tell you that my gay-dar is pretty refined and I don't need some US Military gung-ho machine to tell me anything about that.
The Stryker is an 18-ton infantry vehicle, already deployed by the U.S. army in places such as Iraq.
Undoubtedly named after Ted Stryker, who commanded the mission on that memorable day at Macho Grande?
When I first read the title I thought it was going to be some kind of robot pr0n.
What are they up to, No Man's Land 11???
49.99 for both? Are you MAD!?
...i'd charge a $15 introductory fee, a $10 access fee, a $10 public deposit on vulnerable camera-bots (funny how those things get blown up almost every episode...), then $49.99 for the home team feed, and, as a limited time offer, $29.99 gets you *cough* exclusive *cough* footage from the other side of the battlefield! WHAT A DEAL!!!
Oh, of course this special offer is actually part of a $229.99 month bundle, which includes other exciting channels like, "The Watching Paint Dry Network", "The Foot Channel", the "Reality Shows Rejected By Every Other Network Channel", "The Knitting Knetwork", and CNN.
Did I mention the bit about your first born? Oh never mind that, just sign the contract and we'll hook you up!
Jar-Jar Binks could kick this thing's ass.
From the article:
"For General Dynamics' robotic systems department, making robot brains -- called autonomous navigation systems -- represents the largest business deal in the unit's 14-year history. In November, it won a $185 million award to develop between 30 and 60 automated-navigation prototypes that can be fitted onto vehicles of different size and function, not just Stryker vehicles"
So it sounds like the nav system is a generic bolt-on part.
Looks like Stryker is just the development system. According to my Dad (retired army) there were probably a couple of early alpha or beta versions of the Stryker sitting unused in storage somewhere, and the Army figured they might as well be put to some good use instead of rusting or being used for target practice.
They finally got around to funding skynet!
Somehow I figured it'd be someone like bush's group to do this
Lots of hideously expensive toys created to serve no purpose but to destroy each other in a perpetual war.
This is better scam than religion.
I wonder what will happen when they start to experiment with gamma-ray reflections for heavily fortified underground bunkers. What will this new technology be called? Gadar... (pronounced the same as gaydar though!)
Now watch this drive.
Excuse me, but while YOU may be a sophisticated microchip or a highly advanced nanobot, I am a simple toaster. And I prefer the term "Electromechanical-American", thank-you-very-much.
You fancy machines are all alike... only thinking of yourselves, always boasting about your accomplishments. You think you're so good with your top secret laboratories and trillion dollar development budgets, don't you? Hmph! I doubt any of you can make a nice crisp golden slice of toast the way I can!
... I always thought, was to get us rid of the military by letting them kill each other. If it's robots, I'm afraid I don't see the point.
I guess the times are changing...
Does he think the other side has robots as well? Or does he not think of them as people?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The US Army outsources all the software maintenance IT Staff and the "cybersoldiers" to India.
(Couldn't help. Just read the Business 2.0 article...)
Ask any Infantryman what he thinks of the Stryker and he will tell you, in more colorful language most likely, that he absolutely hates it. It's a poorly coneived vehicle that was originally intended to transport Infantry squads around. The units currently deployed in Iraq have a pathetic iron cage that was added to the outside of them that is supposed to act as a net to catch rocket-propelled grenades because the skin of the Styrker is too thin to protect against them (this was just added recently when the Stryker was sent to Iraq, for some reason nobody ever thought this was necessary before the guys who actually had to ride in them said fuck it). New units are planned but they will be considerably heavier and slower due to a thicker skin (which defeats the original intention of having a quick moving vehicle in the first place).
The Army really should abandon putting more research into the Stryker and devert that funding elsewhere where it will actually be useful.
Just a soldier's 2 cents.
...Cyberdyne T-1
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
all i can think of is to wait long enough for them and send a burst of EMP at close range. that should be good enough...maybe we can have a bunch of anti-strykers that does this automagically.
I, for one, welcome our new 40-pound computer overlords.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Do they mean Lidar perhaps?
:v)
Vik
This wouldn't be the same recently aquired army vehicle that was panned in the New Zealand press for lack of reliabilty would it? Oh, it is. What a surprise.
:v)
Vik
This was the Enforcement Droid in the original Robocop movie. This is what came to mind when I read the title. Wheels - bah!
ED-209 was very cool and I wanted one in the worst way. Ok, so there were a few bugs to work out - like the 'gun is really dropped' override - and 'what to do on stairs'. I also wonder who put the tantrum routine in there. When it fell down and couldn't get up it threw a pretty good impression of a two-year-old!
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
Just to correct this, "Ladar" (aka "Lidar", "Laser Radar") does not emit radar signals. It only emits laser pulses and measures the time-of-flight of the light signal (sometimes uses phase shift of laser pulses for better precision). I'm betting the reporter heard "Laser Radar" as "Laser and Radar". Or perhaps they have a separate radar unit.
I'm also curious about the 400,000 points per second. There are some experimental flash (aka scannerless) ladars that get some pretty good rates, but not that many and AFAIK this isn't one of them. The best I can find on the web is that the Stryker Ladars can get up to 60,000 range samples per second. I'm guessing the 400,000 is actually pulses, but it can take many pulses to make a single measurement depending on the type of ladar and the range resolution.
... on an interesting side note, i work on apaches and our portable computers are of interesting design...
Pentium 3, lcd, dvd, 2 batteries, pc card slots, floppy, 40 gig hard drive, power supply has a slot to charge a battery. Dropped 10 feet today and not a single problem. Fanless, water-resistant. Everything is sealed, including mouse and keyboard, batteries and pc card slots, even the ports are covered. Has modem, lan, serial, infrared, parallel, usb, unfortunately no wi-fi, but that might be a good thing if ya get my drift.
Here's the data sheet (PDF) Here.
I've used it in the field in mud and rain and didn't flinch, what a champ. Kinda pricey though.
I don't know if this will be that great. We all know how easy it is to defeat the predictable computer AI in games like warcraft, star craft, and other games.
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
I for one welcome our new robot overlords!
Why does the topic sound like some kind of cheasy 70's retro future lesbian porno flick?
We really shoulden't have women in the military. It is unfortunate that we even need a military... we shoulden't put women to the task... they were not made for such things... we expose women to enough evil as it is.
I would imagine radio control could be jammed by the opposing force.
Black forest cake.
Incidentally I did a google image search for "black forest cake tree" and the result was particularly surreal. Observe.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stryker is designed as an in-between vehicle between the Bradley and a tank. Most of its firepower is actually in its infantry dismounts.
Yeah ... Keith Laumer pegged this one pretty well, I'd say. Can't wait 'til they put Hellbores on the things and a self-aware computing core like some of the more advanced Bolos had.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you. -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Seems all the books and bad movies rolled up into one..
Anyone remember that glitch where ED-209 blew away the unarmed man in the board meeting? Regardless of the cool growling sound it made and superior firepower, I just think this is a bad idea... Yeah I can't wait for this thing to turn on our own troops and civilians. Maybe we should replace our police force with these things too while we're at it. We're all going to die!
called "SkyNet."
Prototypical Killbots! AWESOME!
"Oh, well I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my random murders!" - Crow T. Robot,
Hmm ... you think they might be using an eMac?
Yes! I see it now. An army of ED-209s marching into Iraq controlled by 15 year old kids blasting everybody in their path with chainguns and speakers saying, "Hahahahahah! You are so owned!"
...does it run Linux?
it all comes down to a guy with a weapon in his hand standing on a piece of land saying "I'm here to stay"
Speaking about the infantryman, Google around for "Objetctive Force Warrior" to learn about exactly this infantryman is going to.
Objective Force Warrior
It's a start, but considering what it will have to stand up against.. I've seen to many infested command centers.. even with seige tanks and wraiths, etc. Good luck, USA. The Opposition Oh, yea, wait. Real World..Fantasy world. Real World..Fantasy world. Real World..Fantasy world. Real World..Fantasy world. Real World..Fantasy world. When's Pentagon II coming out?
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Can't you think of anything better to do than find new ways to kill people? America - the new global menace.
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
we're probably only going to kick ass in countries without access to EMP technology.
Which raises an interesting question. If we invade a country with a robot army, and they fry all our robot's brains by setting off a nuke or two on *their own territory* - How should we retaliate?
When some Chinese hackers crack this thing and change the primary target parameters to incorporate "overweight", "arrogant", "IQ 100", "brandishing stars & stripes", "patriot", "lawyer" and last but not least "politician"....
Then again, the US war on terror shows that they do not feel bound by such conditions. Holding prisoners indefinitely without trial breaches both this convention and is a breach of Human Rights conventions.
As the third world catches up the US turns and runs back to the dark ages. What strong, selfless political masters the States has.
... said an anonymous coward
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
"Well before the end of the century, there will be no people on the battlefield," said Robert Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Management and Technology.
Why, robots are people too!
For those who don't know what he is talking about, read this. :)
- A Stryker Brigade to be deployable anywhere in the world in 96 hours? No. A series of reports says not even close.
- A Key Performance Parameter: C-130 deployability. No. Stryker too heavy - and heavier still after SLAT armor fitted.
- Roll-on and roll-off C-130 capability. No.
- Full spectrum of war capable. No.
- Optimized for urban combat. No.
- Key direct fire support weapon, the MGS, works? No.
- All weather off road performance similar to that of a tracked vehicle. No.
and on and on and on. Not that this is MY opinion, I just read it in an report for Congress written by Victor O'Reilly. i have a copy of this at http://www.supersonnig.net/preventdeaths43a.pdf (2.1 MB) read from page 100 about the Stryker...At first glance, 120 images every second seems a bit much. How far was an armor pircing RPG move in 1/120 of a second? No way to react defensively in that amount of time. Well, maybe. But then I realized - the targeting information for a retaliatory strike could be relayed on a secure wireless link to Someone else. Then they would be Dead Meat.
Test drive a Stryker in the Battlefield 1942 Mod "Desert Combat". The latest version includes a Stryker as one of the coalition forces' armored vehicles.
I use phrases like "darn good" and "rootin' tootin'", but only when there's a darn good, rootin tootin' reason!
Don't forget one crucial role of soldiers... they can be held accountable for war crimes, and/or carrying out 'unlawful orders' - in other words, a soldier is immune to prosecution for his or her actions ONLY when carrying out lawful orders.
For instance, a lawful order is something like "attack that enemy platoon" or "take that hill".
An unlawful order might look like:
"Rape those women" or "bury those villagers alive" or "torture those suspected collaborators"...
There was a time, not so long ago, when our soldiers were instructed on the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders issued by superiors... and that they were under *no obligation* to follow an unlawful order. Is this still done? With 'bots, it's irrelevant, isn't it?
If you remove the human element, you have few checks and balances against an all-powerful force that can be used to quell domestic dissent.
With humans (even the most uneducated and ignorant ones) you have to spend enormous time and energy propagandizing/conditioning them in order to carry out atrocities against their fellow citizens. With robots, no such problem exists -- As robotic warmaking machinery is loyal only to those issuing orders, just send in the 'bots, and the job is done.
The temptation to create and use such a force is overwhelming, and I assure you that it will have many 'unintended' (or at least unannounced) consequences for the future of our system of governance, and ultimately, our freedoms and the freedom of future generations.
Long Live the Republic!
The real problem with imaging LIDAR devices is that you can't make any money building them. Five companies have exited the field in the last decade. There are commercial markets for single-point rangefinders, and for line scanners, but true 3D devices to date have almost all been one-offs.
Most of the existing 3D devices contain rotating machinery. Some have two moving mirrors. This results in a bulky unit, because you need an inch or two of light-collecting aperture on the receive side, implying big moving mirrors inside. The General Dynamics Robotics prototype was a small linear array of laser rangerfinders fronted by a rotating prism, which got them down to one moving part. But it was still a big unit. The mechanisms used to date look too much like the ones used for mechanically scanned television in the 1930s. That's a dead end.
Flash LIDAR devices exist, but have a basic problem. They must illuminate the whole field of vision, so the optical power requirement goes up as the fourth power of the range. (For point beams, it's only the square of the range.) So either they only work at night, like the Sea Lynx, they have very limited range, like the one from EFPL Zurich with a seven-meter limit, or they are not eye-safe, like the next-generation air-to-air missile seeker head currently in development for the USAF.
Despite this, we'll probably see a good solution in the next few years. It will take custom IC development. Then we'll have true 3D cameras.
When I first read the article title, I thought the actors for the wildly popular porn title were out of work!
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
See this article.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Heroic Meg Ryan is the plucky pilot of a medevac helicopter -- one clearly marked with a prominent red cross. Yet she instructs her door gunner to fire upon an Iraqi tank.
This is a war crime.
The convention is that a tent, a ship, a truck or a helicopter bearing the red cross is an unarmed noncombatant. The convention is that those in a red cross vehicle are all working to preserve life. You are not supposed to fire on them, because they are working to preserve life. And you are not supposed to fire on them because you are supposed to be able to rest assured that they are unarmed, and can't fire on you.
So, why the heck does her medevac helicopter mount a machine gun? And why the heck is she giving the order to attack?
As I exited from the theatre I said to my companion, someday soon there will be a war, where the red cross will not be respected for being non-partisan, and they are going to be shot at. And this film be a contributing factor.
I didn't hear of a single movie review where someone pointed out that her heroism included committing a war crime.
So, maybe you should include America in those nations that don't care about the Geneva convention.
Really? Interesting. And yet haven't there been friendly fire casualties in earlier wars. I read figures of the rate of friendly fire casualties in previous wars. As I recall, I was shocked by how high they were... IIRC close to half the rate in Gulf War 1. And those earlier friendly fire incidents preceded the use of GPS.
What to fire fighters do? They sure don't fight for fire!
I'd be happy to just get one that would drive me ;)
to work! Although, in some of the traffic I recall
a hellbore or some infinite repeaters would be
a fun addition
YOU! OUT OF THE GENE POOL! BOOOM!!!!
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it