Slashdot Mirror
CMU's Snooping Robot Headed for Iraq
mike_the_kid writes "Here's an interesting article about a robot near the end of development at CMU. It's a four-wheeler called the Dragon Runner. This robot has no 'right side up,' so no matter which way it lands, its ready to go. The user (currently projected to be a US Marine) throws the robot over a fence or up a flight of stairs. The robot has cameras that send live video back to the operator, and directional microphones that can relay as well. A cool feature is that it can tell the operator where there is movement (via audio or tactile feedback)." We first mentioned the Dragon Runner a while back, but the previous article was more about the Dragon Eye, a small remote-controlled airplane.
If they're sending these things to Iraq so late in May does anyone really believe that Iraq will be handed back to the Iraqis on June 30?
Trolling is a art,
Bush sticks to June 30 deadline for handover. The real reason they're sending these over is to reduce the number of bodybags coming home in an election year. A noble idea driven by the wrong reasons.
So far the US approach has been to bomb the crap out of building with helicopters and planes from miles away, and then go an look at the bodies.
If the marines are never close enough to people when they are alive to identify that it is a wedding party not a group of fighters then this is hardly going to help. Unless of course it can be deployed from 20 miles away.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Shouldn't be too long now until we have spiders like in Minority Report.
Toss 'em in the building and let them tell you whats in every room.
A big problem with entering buildings, and around corners is that nobody knows whats behind it. If a coalition soldier sees that there are no insurgent force, or confirm that there is one, then it will greatly enhance their fighting capabilities and situational awareness.
This is exactly why continuing research of defense technologies is needed. It's not to better kill, it's to better save lives.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
This is definitely a neat little gizmo, that will help gather information that would otherwise be hard to collect.
You are absolutely correct, after all, surveillance satellites have a very difficult time seeing over fences.
Just another stupid toy that helps kill people, it'll probably make some defense contractor rich. Isn't that what this war is about.
As far as your "Red China" notion goes (it's spelt "China" by the way) all you have done is made yourself sound like a racist. They (the Chinese) make your clothes, your household products, most of your steel, and nearly all the parts that make up your computer. So, you trust them with nearly every aspect of your life (after all, what would happen if all the things they supply you suddenly started to fail?) why do you imply we can't trust "them" with our technology, because when you actually look at it, we already do.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
Safe place? Didn't you mean primary target of the other side's robots?
If it's small and light enough for a Marine to throw one over a wall, then what's stopping someone from throwing it back?
This is true. However, as an US tax payer, tell me why I should care? I'm tired of wasting money on that country.
War and the justice system are orthogonal institutions. One has nothing to do with the other.
In other words, you can have my military technology when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, we may have won the war against Saddam, but we could easily lose the war against fanaticism in Iraq if we are forced to pull out before a legitimate Iraqi government can control that country. Everyone hates the tactics that Saddam used, but the reality is that that was what he found necessary to control that country. Hopefully, a legitimate government won't be facing the kind of resentment Saddam's rule did, and so require less force, but there are still many other factions to deal with and that will require proportionally more effort in order to use more acceptable means than Saddam did.
Looks like something that I'd want to sneak up on from behind and cannibalize. A little LCD screen and a nice big solar panel? I'm so there. Bet it's got some nice batteries also.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One would think that we would learn from history, but we dont.
Civilian deaths and disregard of the Geneva convention is what has plased the US in trouble a lot of times! (politically, that is)
This device is intended to minimize the civilian deaths, without getting more dead american soldiers (which gets you into trouble in the US)
Maybe i'm missing something, but shouldn't those WMDs have been found before dropping a bunch of bombs and killing a bunch of people, rather than after?
That would be nice. Unfortunately, sometimes they don't let you find them first. Sorta like with search warrants -- they're usually given before the Bad Thing is found on account of the relative difficulty of finding it before you're allowed to try to find it. See? Probable cause is the only thing you can argue about here, I'm afraid.
anyone still remember that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing?
Yep. And 10 outstanding priors and several very reasonable arrest warrants is a damn good reason to take someone in and hold them until they get their day in court where that is decided, as will happen in this case. The fact that the suspect has an army and is the leader of a country should have no impact on this procedure.
everything in moderation
Wow, that robot costs $46,000... but when they cost $23,000, they'll be more willing to blow it up.
I love DoD projects.
In the article, it states that the robot has no "up" side. In those pictures, it does.
It seems like you were duped by this administration too.
The iraqis will have "limited sovereignty". Basically that means that they will have no say over over the US military and the laws of iraq will not apply to the US military. It will also mean that they will not be able to control their oil fields any way they want (i.e they will not be able to privatise them). Finally they will under no circumstances be allowed to join OPEC.
In actuality they will not be able to make any decision with wich the US would disagree. Of course nobody is suggesting that a set of hand picked puppets is going to look out for the interest of iraqis over the interest of americans but they could'nt even if they wanted to.
evil is as evil does
"The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War."
Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them. They built facilities that our satellites couldn't see. With that in mind, it's possible they'll never be found. (On the other hand, it is pretty damning that the weapons weren't used against our army. Frankly, that overrides my previous statement.)
"Iraq was not a threat to the US."
This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups. I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)
"Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had."
I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.
Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't. All this rationale that people have proposed describing how evil Bush is is riddled with holes. Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive. US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil. I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us. Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc.
I could keep going but the longer this gets, the more stupid flaming messages will come. I really hope people just read, comprehend, make their own opinion, and move on. I'll listen to polite/tactful rebuttals, though. As I said before, my mind isn't made up.
"Derp de derp."
"Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them."
Nice try. Bush and Co claimed that they had exact knowledge of what was where and why it was a threat to the US.
We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere.
Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge.
"This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups."
Yes, the nefarious "similar groups".
By "similar groups" do you mean "groups that have attacked US citizens in the US"? If so, then you are WRONG!
The closest thing anyone has ever been able to tie Iraq with is Saddam's attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's all.
Iraq was NOT a threat.
"I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)"
Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts.
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well."
Again, I cannot convince anyone as "pro-Bush" as you are that he lied. He went on national TV and talked about the "yellow cake" incident AFTER it was discredited.
Ah, but that wasn't HIM telling a lie. It was his STAFF that gave him incorrect information.
Your defense of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is that he didn't lie, he's a dupe.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE.
So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
"evil"? There is no "evil". There are just different agendas and values. As I've pointed out, Bush lied when he said he had exact information about "WMD's". Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed.
"Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive."
Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not.
"US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil."
Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells.
"I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us."
Why not? He gets to take out a "bad man" (his words) and show the world how tough the US is AND the US gets a US friendly government with lots of cheap oil. That sounds like an assured re-election to me.
"Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc."
Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself.