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."
Maybe if we said "please".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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..
"SAVE THE HUBBLE" has replaced "SAVE THE WHALES" as the silly tagline of the day, it seems. Let's think rationally about this for just a second, shall we?
Hubble costs money to operate and costs money to service. A single service mission to Hubble costs a cubic buttload of cash, cash that might be better reserved for Hubble's successor. Would it be nice to retrieve Hubble, to display it in the Smithsonian? Sure it would, and if money were free I'm sure we'd do it. Money is not free, and NASA needs to spend its money where it'll do the most good. Saving Hubble is an emotional argument, not a technically practical one.
There's also another item to consider: the only "spacecraft" vehicles on the entire planet capable of retrieving Hubble have lost 40% of its fleet due to launch explosions or atmospheric disintegration due to tile failure. Let's assume for a moment that money to retrieve/fix/run Hubble existed. How would you feel if seven astronauts were killed trying to extend Hubbles life a few years, or to return it to the ground? It's not worth it, and the only arguments to the contrary are emotional arguments. NASA should be about science, not emotion.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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.