Slashdot Mirror


Battle Roomba Tractor

jazzstep writes "This article on MSNBC introduces an interesting new duo on the robotics front. iRobot and John Deere have teamed up to create a new battle-ready robot for the Pentagon."

210 comments

  1. the battle roomba... by bje2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They better hope that the battlefield doesn't have any corners for the "battle roomba" to get stuck in...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:the battle roomba... by The+Other+White+Boy · · Score: 1

      if problems arise, they can always resort to a court marshall..

    2. Re:the battle roomba... by hammurderer · · Score: 1

      yeah if anybody hasnt noticed the roombas A.I. algorithms were programed by five year olds who do crack. better hope that the vehicle doesnt hit a wall or get stuck it might just return to base and recharge because it got confused boohoo. i think that it will self terminate itself before it gets to its objective.

    3. Re:the battle roomba... by Myridon · · Score: 1

      But how are we going to carpet the entire Middle East first?
      Maybe this has something to do with all that carpet bombing I keep hearing so much about - now it makes sense!

  2. I am so confused by erick99 · · Score: 5, Funny
    So, we are going to vacuum clean our enemies into submission?

    "All your dust bunnies are belong to us."

    Okay, works for me.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:I am so confused by LegendOfLink · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, you ever seen Iraq? There's rubble everywhere! Somebody has got to clean it.

    2. Re:I am so confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obligatory:

      "It's Mega-Maid...she's gone from suck to blow!"


    3. Re:I am so confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they meet a Dust Bun-Bun. *Ka-Click*

  3. Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by CodeWanker · · Score: 1, Funny

    So,

    1) why the driver's seat then?

    2) will it show a preference for attacking house cats?

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
    1. Re:Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by erick99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a drivers seat because one of the three modes of operation is "manual," with the other two being remote control and autonomous.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    2. Re:Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question before enlisting: "In remote control mode, what other tasks are envisioned? Dumb target material on a smart machine? And who in the hell is driving this machine in safety behind that hill?"

    3. Re:Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      If you've ever seen a tractor, you'd know that the drivers seat is a structural component. John Deere couldn't build anything that didn't have it :)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Buck is missing half of a seat. Then again, it's made by Bombardier so I guess it doesn't count.

    5. Re:Watch out for the legacy behaviors... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Lets see now:

      1. Fuel Cell Power Plant.
      2. Mobil Energy Platform.
      3. NOT Noisey, (I Need My Tunes When I Bump).
      4. ZERO Emissions, its only water, and tire tred.
      5. 80 MPH.
      6. Small Foot Print for Parking in a "Compact" Parking Space.
      7. Remote Controllable, sweeeeeeet.
      8. Coooooool Look.
      9. Multi-Configurations.

      Dear Santa,
      My Perole Officer says I've been good almost all year. I'll never put another Vibrating Whoppee Cushin in your slay again. Can I have one of these; Pleeeease?

  4. Only one thing missing.... by mikael · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...They definitely need a strobing set of red lights that goes from side to side at the front of the car.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  5. I don't get it.. by ID000001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why does it takes so much money to make a remote control car? Don't we have those for kids like ages ago for less then $100? Scales it up, still doesn't justify the high price.

    1. Re:I don't get it.. by se2schul · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't a remote control car. It has AI to make the decisions instead of someone controlling it remotely.

    2. Re:I don't get it.. by hansiboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assume the money goes mostly to the reserarch of the autonomus part...

      the remote part isent particulatly expensive and doable with off the shelf RC gear and random junk + an old car as demonstrated in the rather bad quality clip on this page... http://jdfab.com/dp2/rccar.htm

    3. Re:I don't get it.. by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why does it takes so much money to make a remote control car? Don't we have those for kids like ages ago for less then $100? Scales it up, still doesn't justify the high price.

      First off, because a plastic toy that runs on batteries and an electic motor costs a whole lot less than something made of steel and a gas/diesel engine. Second, this thing can drive itself (computers, promamming costs). It probably has bullet proof armor, EM hardening around the electronics and a whole host of other things for the military version.

      Also, we are talking something that will sell maybe 500 in a year if they are lucky and more than liekly 500 period. Mass production rules don't apply unless you are talking at least 10,000 or 100,000 products in a manufacturing run. So the $250,000 is justified.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:I don't get it.. by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      The Pentagon buys its hardware based on the principle that it's better to have one fancy expensive war machine than a thousand cheap expendable machines. If we built a thousand of these things for $200 each enough would get through the enemy defenses to get the job done and we'd be ahead $50,000. The Soviets and Chinese took the opposite philosophy. Look at the design of the M-16 versus the AK-47 for example....

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
  6. I was hoping... by soulctcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    it would transform too! Room-bots, roll out!

    1. Re:I was hoping... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would you follow a leader called Vacuous Prime?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:I was hoping... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      COME ON MODS!

      This DESERVES a +5 funny....

      Sheesh.

      (Images of a transforming Dodge Neon with blonde hair and a giant tube of lipstick and 24" spiked red fuck-me pumps...)

    3. Re:I was hoping... by soulctcher · · Score: 1

      You don't know how close you are to reality. One of the upcoming Binal-Tech (Takara)/Alternator (Hasbro) Transformers is rumored to be a Dodge Neon. Time to break out that lipstick!!

    4. Re:I was hoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps following a vacuous leader hits too close to home?

  7. Great for them by JanneM · · Score: 1, Troll

    Great new market for them I'm sure. /me decides to wait for robotic appliances not produced by a company making military gear.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Great for them by ronfar · · Score: 1

      I know, and I was going to buy a Roomba, too. Now I guess I'll just have to use an ordinary vacuum for a while longer. Oh well, I guess the exercise is good for me....

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    2. Re:Great for them by Leebert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      /me decides to wait for robotic appliances not produced by a company making military gear.

      Great idea.

      Don't forget to not use GPS.
      Oh, and don't forget that you can't get on a plane manufactured by Boeing. Or any airplane manufacturer...
      Or buy a Jeep (or any car, for that matter)...
      Or buy office furniture of any type (or even shop at Staples, Office Depot, etc.)...
      Or buy a computer from Dell, IBM, HP...

      Because Lord knows we can't support the evil corporations who sell things to willing customers with lots of money. How dare they!

    3. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I WAS going to buy a Roomba, but if they are going to start building the first stages of Sky-Net(tm) then no thanks.

    4. Re:Great for them by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I need a navigation system I will use GPS as there is no choice.

      When I fly, I can select what plane I go on; again, little choice.

      Cars: actually, most car companies are not in the business of weapon systems.

      Office furniture and so on: again, they aren't creating weapon systems or weapon platforms.

      When I have no choice, I have no choice. Often, however, I do - as in this case. At that point I take my right to use my money as I see fit. That would include not using it for products from companies that are active in developing weapon systems or platforms. I see that as a pretty big (though not all-encompassing) misfeature of their products and I act accordingly. It's called capitalism; you may have heard of it?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Great for them by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      First, your /me should be on a new line by itself. Second, this isn't IRC. Third, do you say that im public?

      Great idea you decided to wait, as companies that make military gear generally don't sell to anyone who isn't a government. Keep the protest going, though. I predict your boycott will have 100% efficiency.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, don't use the military developed Internet either!

    7. Re:Great for them by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
      I know, and I was going to buy a Roomba, too. Now I guess I'll just have to use an ordinary vacuum for a while longer. Oh well, I guess the exercise is good for me....

      Just so you know, iRobot was making robots for the military long before it came up with the Roomba. URBIE, the testbed that eventually led to the PackBot, was built under a DARPA grant in '97, fivr years before Roomba. If you're going to avoid a company for doing business with the military, you need to research more thoroughly. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Great for them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most companies are currently making or in the past have made weapons systems or parts for weapons systems, including ordinary military vehicles. The most obvious examples include volkswagon, mercedes-benz, mitsubishi, and chrysler, but they've just about all been involved at various times to some degree. They are quite simply the companies with the tooling to do so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the OP was making a joke about not wanting to have to deal with a model ED-209 toaster from OCP. You know, dual use technology run amok. Ha Ha.

    10. Re:Great for them by AEton · · Score: 1

      Be careful with your blanket statement: IBM sold things to willing customers with lots of money - like 1944 Germany. Terrorists are willing customers with lots of money. Whether or not impoverished residents of third-world countries deceived by clever marketing can count as either willing customers or ones with any money is a question of numbers.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    11. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction - the Internet was developed by ARPA, which at the time was not affiliated with the military. It was only some time later that it was placed under the Department of Defense (and renamed DARPA).

    12. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When I need a navigation system I will use GPS as there is no choice.
      Sure there is. There are Russian and there will be a European variant. But, as both of those are still Military-intended, you could simply stick to a map and compass. People got by for thousands of years without GPS.

      When I fly, I can select what plane I go on; again, little choice.
      Sure there is. You can always drive, bike, boat, or many other options. You could also just walk. People got by thousands of years without mechanized transports.

      Cars: actually, most car companies are not in the business of weapon systems.
      No, but many are in the business of military transports or armoured vehicles. Honda makes military motorcycles and ATV's, fer chrissake. God forbid you use public transport, bike, or walk to uphold your own principles.

      Office furniture and so on: again, they aren't creating weapon systems or weapon platforms.
      No, but they blatantly sell to military planners, who then use them to prepare the logistics of said weapons systems and platforms. And makers of those same weapons systems and platforms probably used them in designing and production of those same weapons. What point do you give up on the principle of 'not supporting those who aid the military'?

      When I have no choice, I have no choice. Often, however, I do - as in this case. At that point I take my right to use my money as I see fit. That would include not using it for products from companies that are active in developing weapon systems or platforms. I see that as a pretty big (though not all-encompassing) misfeature of their products and I act accordingly. It's called capitalism; you may have heard of it?
      The thing is, you ALWAYS have a choice. ALWAYS. There is not a single product out there that you *have* to buy. You can grow your own food, distill your own water, make your own clothes, whatever. The point is you simply don't want to forgo conveniences when they interfere with your 'principles'. If we abandon our principles when we find them least convenient, what good are they?
    13. Re:Great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't belittle a /. samurai, especially one that lives in his parents basement!!!

  8. Maybe it's just me... by zanidor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

    1. Re:Maybe it's just me... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?"

      Well it would have made me nervous..... back in 1974.

      I think such things are reasonably commonplace today, the level of automation on a modern warship such as an Aegis cruiser could easily be called AI. Same with Tomahawk missiles, Apache helicopters, unmanned recon planes...

    2. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

      As long as it runs Windows XP with SP2, I'll feel safe.

    3. Re:Maybe it's just me... by GozzoMan · · Score: 1
      Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?
      Damn right, man.
      Nothing can beat good old Natural Stupidity when killing people is the task at hand...

      (Sorry gents, I just had to say it.)
    4. Re:Maybe it's just me... by zanidor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I mean when I say that AI in a killing machine makes me nervous is that the idea of relegating the task of taking human life to a _machine_ seems like a bad idea. One reason it seems like a bad idea is that they could flip out and start killing everyone in some sort of sci-fi horror scenario. But, like you said, AI nowadays is probably fairly safe. What bothers me more is that there are so many _humanistic_ considerations that go into taking life. If we eventually reduce killing to a cold-blooded machine process, it just makes it easier to do. Think of how easy it will become for the United States to start a war when the soldiers don't feel so bad about wiping out any number of people. Maybe killing someone is emotionally difficult for a reason... Like I said, maybe it's just me.

    5. Re:Maybe it's just me... by heli0 · · Score: 1

      Where does it say this will be a "killing machine"? From the article: "The vehicle will be able to relay real-time video, audio and sensor readings from the field. Such capabilities could allow for unmanned perimeter patrols of a military installation, or for reconnaissance or carrying supplies such as ammunition, the companies said."

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    6. Re:Maybe it's just me... by hackstraw · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

      Any kind of intelligence added to the military would be an improvement.

    7. Re:Maybe it's just me... by GWTPict · · Score: 1
      An Aegis cruiser? Such as the USS Vincennes whose systems had a little difficulty in recognising an Iranian Air A300 Airbus in 1988?

      Ooops 1

      Or how about the patriot missile battery that mistook an RAF Tornado for an enemy missile during the Gulf War last year?

      Ooops 2

      I think your confidence in putting artificial intelligence in killing machines is a little misplaced.

    8. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, imho the problem with armed ACV's is that its putting all your eggs into one point of failure, the remote control system. If the entire command structure is gone, a soldier still has his wits to tell him what to do, or what not to do. If the automated command system has been eletronically compromised, suddenly you have a whole bunch of new charlies on your hands. The saving grace is that the maximum damage is equal to the maximum sortie deployment at one time - you can only hack that which is live. With missiles, this is minimal - missiles aren't in flight for very long (and besides, many can't do a 180 and attack home base anyways once underway). Ditto ACV bombers, but less so - they're in flight a little longer. But what happens when we've a 4000-head AVC minitank platoon?

    9. Re:Maybe it's just me... by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      LATFP (look at the fucking picture)! That thing doesn't have any guns or anything, and I don't think it will any time soon. The only way it could kill someone is by running them over, and that happens with humans behind the wheel too.

      --
      Martin
    10. Re:Maybe it's just me... by danila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question is not whether AI can accidentally kill good guys, it's whether it can do it less often than a comparable human-based system. My guess would be that existing computer-based systems are generally safer or they wouldn't have been deployed.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    11. Re:Maybe it's just me... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      "I think your confidence in putting artificial intelligence in killing machines is a little misplaced."

      I don't. You pointed out 2 cases where AI has failed. I could point out hundreds if not thousands of cases where human intelligence has failed in wartime.

      I don't trust machines.... but I don't trust humans either. Which is more likely to make a mistake?

    12. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are giving humans too much credit. Most soldiers have been programmed to the point that they don't even think about the person they are shooting at as a human. (At least not until later when the realization of what they had to do forces them into a shrink's office.)

    13. Re:Maybe it's just me... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I think your confidence in putting artificial intelligence in killing machines is a little misplaced.

      When a machine makes a bad decision, it is publicized. When a helicopter is shot down from friendly fire, it is a mistake overlooked by the media. The friendly fire rate is much lower with the evil AI killing machines than people.

    14. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Bazer · · Score: 1

      Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

      Remember 'The Cyberiad' and the Gargantuan theory?

      I, for one, welcome our hippie AI overlords.

    15. Re:Maybe it's just me... by quisph · · Score: 1
      The question is not whether AI can accidentally kill good guys, it's whether it can do it less often than a comparable human-based system.
      Asked and answered. Didn't you see RoboCop?
    16. Re:Maybe it's just me... by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      "Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?"

      Not at all.

      Unless your name is Sarah Conner. Otherwise, I'll be back.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    17. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      However, ideally, if the good guys aren't in range- automated mission deployment as well- then theoretically do we care if the machine flips out and starts removing future potential terrorists (aka, civilians)?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'airplane' was first used for recon.
      Then someone got the idea to fire a pistol.
      Then someone got the idea to mount a gun. ...it's only a matter of time...

    19. Re:Maybe it's just me... by the+uncarved+block · · Score: 1

      One thing that people are assuming here is that this is some sort of attack vehicle. It's an autonomous utility vehicle. I'm not saying they won't put weapons on it. They will. I'm saying it's intended and will be mainly used for carrying supplies and wounded, and patrolling perimeters.

    20. Re:Maybe it's just me... by cakefool · · Score: 1

      replace machine with gubmint and read that again...

    21. Re:Maybe it's just me... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer Windows 95, since after 49.7 days, it'll fuck itself up.

    22. Re:Maybe it's just me... by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      I think your confidence in putting artificial intelligence in killing machines is a little misplaced

      Artificial Intelligence NEVER Has been, and NEVER will be period

      Humans have a million year history of patterns built into them. Do you think it is easy for machines to evolve like that?

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    23. Re:Maybe it's just me... by GWTPict · · Score: 1

      So you have a faulty system, billions spent on developing it, careers, maybe political reputations on the line etc and you really think safety is the only deciding issue? A little naive I think.

    24. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Sorry- I still don't have a problem with it. Now if you said, replace machine with corporations- well, isn't that what they're already doing?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    25. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Whyrph · · Score: 0

      My guess would be that existing computer-based systems are generally safer or they wouldn't have been deployed.

      My guess is that they're cheaper and more effective. I'm not sure how much safety was considered.

    26. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

      And suddenly, the hum of a vaccuum cleaner in the distance was heard, and zanidor was no more.

    27. Re:Maybe it's just me... by psyclo · · Score: 1

      This is just a modified JD Gator, typically used to haul stuff around. It is smaller than a humvee, and more fuel efficient, but by no means is a "killing machine".

      --
      =======================
      Psyclo, the dark night.
      Mike, the computer geek.
    28. Re:Maybe it's just me... by flynniec6 · · Score: 1

      "Flip out and start killing everyone" - it's just a robot. Not a Real Ultimate Robot. On a more relevant note, maybe we could reduce war to "Your robots killed all my robots. You win."

  9. Forgeting something... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Asimov will twist and turn in his grave, what about the Laws of Robotics?!

    BattleBot and Robot.. they don't mix!

    1. Re:Forgeting something... by b0r0din · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's only one law of robotics...

      Kill John Conner.

      ok, and maybe afterwards do some vacuuming and make some chai green tea.

    2. Re:Forgeting something... by chris234 · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me, it was just a story......

    3. Re:Forgeting something... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
      Asimov will twist and turn in his grave, what about the Laws of Robotics?!

      BattleBot and Robot.. they don't mix!

      What the hell are you talking about? If you'd actually read the book "I, Robot" you'd understand Asimov's point with the so-called "laws of robotics". They were a not meant to be taken seriously. Nearly every chapter in the book was its own little story about how yet another robot goes haywire because of its slavish adherence to the three laws. He wasn't trying to present his laws as the end-all be-all of robotic ethics. On the contrary, he was showing the folly of depending on something as simplistic as the three laws. People need to quit parroting something they heard third hand and actually read from the source.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Forgeting something... by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1

      This thing has nothing to do with battle...its a freaking gator with some RC capabilities built in. We've got one(sans RC since apparently the pentagon hasnt deployed them yet, or doesnt care about us. Take your pick :-). We use it for hauling dirt. Driving it was one of the few joys in my life until they made me stop. And now, they try to prevent any possibility of me ever doing it again! Those bastards!

      --
      Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    5. Re:Forgeting something... by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Actually I disagree, I have read the book a couple times, but if you read you find out that the three rules are nearly perfect. The point of each story was to show how the robots used the three rules to accomplish the goals in different ways. One believed it was worshipping God, but got the job done. Another was simply overloaded so his task load was to be simpified. Yet another just couldnt make a sound decision, not due to the 3 laws but in my opinion due to poor programming as the robot did not learn and ended up going crazy due to it. The final story shows that when the 3 laws are used to their fullest the robots end up being the ultimate slaves by ruling over us all so we can be happy. But you know this since you read the book.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:Forgeting something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually like to think of "true" robots as a sentient mechanical species, not these rediculous toys people seem so impressed by. What, a car that drives itself? So what. Can it hold an intelligent conversation? No? Then it's not a robot, in my mind.

    7. Re:Forgeting something... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Get a 12 pack, or a big pot of your favorite libation, go over to k5, and read Prime Intellect Which is a little less obtuse about the 3 laws.

    8. Re:Forgeting something... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the folly of depending on something as simplistic as the three laws.

      I always interpreted it as a commentary on another 10 laws that we hear so often about....

    9. Re:Forgeting something... by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      I don't normally get into religious conversations, but to be on topic, according to the bible it was apparent to God that we could not adhere to the absolute profection required to follow the 10 commandments. That is why the Messiah was brought into the picture, to give us a chance at heaven reguardless of the fact that we would never be able to meet God's original expectations.

    10. Re:Forgeting something... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The point of each story was to show how the robots used the three rules to accomplish the goals in different ways. One believed it was worshipping God, but got the job done.

      God forbid (pardon the pun!) that they should ever have to get those robot-church zealots to change the way they do things! The usefulness of those robots is severly lessened because they cannot by "reprogrammed" for a new task. Another was simply overloaded so his task load was to be simpified.

      The 3 laws put an additional burden on the human masters by forcing them to devise special orders in order to satisfy the robot's need to follow the laws. It would've been safer to have a robot that just does as it's told.

      Yet another just couldnt make a sound decision, not due to the 3 laws but in my opinion due to poor programming as the robot did not learn and ended up going crazy due to it.

      Which one, the mind reading robot? In that case, the programming was fine. It was the intersection of the programmed orders with the 3 laws that caused trouble. The robot's programmed purpose was viciously monkey-wrenched by an irrational adherence to the 3 laws, essentially rendering it useless. If the application doesn't work because of something, that something isn't a feature, it's a BUG.

      The final story shows that when the 3 laws are used to their fullest the robots end up being the ultimate slaves by ruling over us all so we can be happy.

      Ugh. That's not my idea of a happy ending.

      But you know this since you read the book.

      We read the same book, but we sure got different things out of it. What I saw was an illustration of how Rules are not a suitable replacement for Ethics, Reason, and Responsibility. Robots who simply follow orders given by ethical, reasonable, and responsible human masters are far less dangerous and more useful than robots who follow the 3 laws. It's meant to show how it's better to instill ethics and responsibility in people by educating them, rather than posting a list of Laws and using the threat of punishment to make them obey. The former enriches all, while the latter is a road to nowhere.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Forgeting something... by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, thanks for the well thought out response.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  10. Battle Robots IN the Pentagon? by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

    That's the obligatory response to any robot battles in the Pentagon.

    1. Re:Battle Robots IN the Pentagon? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Robot battles are best done on your computer. Doesn't look like it's been updated in a while, though.

  11. Misconception by coobachey · · Score: 3, Informative

    RC would be more fitting than robot status. This one will be controlled via human interface remotely whereas a robot having AI enough to maneuver on its own making decisions doesnt need a human at least for periods of time.

    Welcome back to 82'!

    1. Re:Misconception by jedaustin · · Score: 2, Informative
      Guess you didn't read the article :)
      The vehicle, five feet wide, has three basic modes: autonomous, remote control or manually driven by onboard human operators. Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said.


      Roomba, RC, Human Driven.

      Now all we need are robotic guns onboard to complete the 'So you decided to mess with America' clue patrol :)
    2. Re:Misconception by heli0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The vehicle, five feet wide, has three basic modes: autonomous, remote control or manually driven by onboard human operators. Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  12. Heh by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reminds me of a bad film I once saw. Short Circuit had the cuteness that iRobots have... with John Deere traction! Maybe it'll evolve this way?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Heh by helfen · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a bad film I once saw. Short Circuit had the cuteness that iRobots have... with John Deere traction! Maybe it'll evolve this way?

      it reminds me of a quite good film - The Straight Story ;-)

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a slightly related note, I bet this thing is going to hate Will Smith.

  13. Makes sense.... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the John Deere part chops the enemies up into little pieces, and the roomba part vacuums them up?

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  14. Fly before you can walk? by TigrOoOo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised the military hasn't done this before. We already have drone planes that fly via remote. Granted, they have very little AI and only perform one task (reconaissance), but I would have thought that the military would have started off with a land robot/roomba/automated car. I can certainly see more uses for one, like if troops are pinned down in a dangerous environment, etc.

    1. Re:Fly before you can walk? by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      These vehicles have killed by remote control already.

    2. Re:Fly before you can walk? by se2schul · · Score: 1

      I'm in the military electronics industry and our company makes UAV's (the unmanned air vehicles) you mention. I don't work on the UAV project at all though. UAV's are much simpler than land based, since they don't negotiate rough terrain, they just fly over it. Even with something as simple as UAV's, it's very tough to get all the required electronics, photo, sensors, etc into a small enough package so that it can be deployed easily by ground troops anywhere. BTW, UAV's can certainly be used for more than recon...

    3. Re:Fly before you can walk? by TigrOoOo · · Score: 1

      Just did a little bit of googling... I stand corrected :)

  15. Picture a porch in country by Illserve · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two old farmers, one chewing a stalk of wheat.

    "Abe, you gettin some new equipment for the next harvest?"

    "Yep, I was gonna get me one of them Aytonomous Assault Vehicles to help in the south field."

    "the 312?"

    "nah, the 412, it's got the bailer attachment on the rear gun deck."

    "John Deer always did make good AAV's"

    "hell it'll get rid of the varmints too"

    1. Re:Picture a porch in country by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice redneck bashing, but actually robots such as this one will soon be used for crop harvesting. This will enable greater amounts of food to be made with the same number of people, thus alleviating world hunger.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Picture a porch in country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "Bolo Continental Siege Unit"?
      As in the Mark XXII Bolo, from the Bolo division of General Motors? As in BOLOs - A Short History

    3. Re:Picture a porch in country by mini+me · · Score: 1

      This will enable greater amounts of food to be made with the same number of people, thus alleviating world hunger.

      What about all the surplus food we already have? Growing even more food will not solve the problem.

    4. Re:Picture a porch in country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good joke... right?

    5. Re:Picture a porch in country by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are relying upon an incorrect assumption: that world hunger is due mostly to a shortage of food. yes, technically hunger *is* a 'shortage of food', but what I mean is that there is food enough to feed people, but it just isn't going to those people. In many cases, such as in Swaziland, local authorities refuse to distribute food that is sitting in warehouses locally. Thus the food rots, and the people die. Not because there was no food, and not even because there was no food near them, but because people in power refused to distribute food to them. No matter how much food is produced worldwide, if it is not getting into people's bellies, it's not helping.

    6. Re:Picture a porch in country by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      World hunger is Bush's fault, not the Swazi people's fault. How dare you blame the victim.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Picture a porch in country by You+Been+Rob-ed! · · Score: 1

      Having ridden along in a John Deere 9750 STS combine picking wheat this summer, I don't think we need robots for crop harvesting. We picked a 37 acre field of wheat in about four hours. That took one man to drive the combine. Automation really is not a limiting factor currently. To increase crop production you either need to put more land into production, or increase yield per acre. Putting more land into production is not limited by human power but by available land. Here in central Indiana it's almost all in production. What's not in production wouldn't pay to convert to crop fields. So the big area is increasing crop yield per acre. Modern combines have yield meters which tell you how much the yield/acre at any particular spot is. That information is combined with GPS information to create yield maps of fields. These allow the farmer to concentrate fertilzation where needed. Of course John Deere, Case, et al. would probably go out of buisness if the federal government eliminated the tax-payer funded crop price supports. But food prices would drop like a rock... The government price supports really kill the little guy and favor agribuisness because the of investment required in paperwork and meeting government requirements to get the subsidies. You have to be pretty big to break even on it.

      --
      For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!
    8. Re:Picture a porch in country by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes. Very funny. It's obvious you care nothing about starvation. Good for you. Apparently, it doesn't matter how many people have to suffer as long as you can get in a dig at the President. Please note: I am not a Bush supporter, I am a Michael Badnarik supporter. A quick read through my posts will show that. However, it makes me sick to my stomach when people care more about blaming some guy they've never met (especially incorrectly) than the horrible deaths of people they've never met. Your priorities are out of whack. I realize you're trolling, but that doesn't excuse you. Starvation is a bigger issue than which rich white D.C. insider wins the POTUS. I would venture to guess that you've never spent even a week without food; you probably wouldn't be so glib if you'd ever experienced real hunger. Ah well, who knows what the future holds?

  16. Bad idea by Bluesman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think of all the time it will waste killing people over and over again.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  17. The way of the future... by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Funny
    The R-1000

    Features

    • Liquid Metal Construction.
    • Ability to morph into any simple object (no moving parts).
    • Can travel back in time to eliminate your enemies while they are small, deliquent boys.
    • 70% possibility of correctly detecting corners or stairs.
    1. Re:The way of the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way before we see that, we'll see an ED-209.

  18. quite innovative by helfen · · Score: 1

    a few weeks ago DARPA shown project aimed at building robot based on Seagway, and now Pentagon and John Deere - a tractor engineer. Don't you think that they are quite innovative sometimes?

    1. Re:quite innovative by k12linux · · Score: 1

      If you are thinking about the old green tractor from 1950s, then you could be forgiven for that opinion. The tractors of today, however, can be extremely high-tech and run well over $100k. They are also well tested over a large variety of terrain.

  19. Coming soon to a street corner near you... by TheLogster · · Score: 1

    An example slashdot article coming in the next few years.. "Introducting ... John's Deere and OCP presents the first robotic crossing guard. The ED209 With optional gattling gun hardpoint and patented "forget and fire" technology." Don't you just love it when companines/movies get their names mixed up.. TheLogster

    1. Re:Coming soon to a street corner near you... by Java+Pimp · · Score: 2, Funny

      The ED209 was a bouncer at one of our shows last year.

      Man, no one would piss with that dude!

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
  20. i know what it does! by wedgiesaurus · · Score: 0

    i bet this beast of war is designed to cut the grass that the enemies are hiding in, while also airating the soil and destroying the massive amounts of illicit drugs they are obviously harvesting. And even cooler, the thing is really scary and quiet and at night sneaks up on their encampments to demoralize them!!! Nothing runs like a deere. 'Cept an enemy, running from a deere.

  21. The Roomba Defense by bunratty · · Score: 4, Funny

    And in other news, North Korea has just started work on its new defense -- fringed rugs!

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  22. Wurnstrom! by freeze128 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "My killbot has lotus notes and a machine gun."

  23. But the most pressing choice is.... by stevedc2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will it be in Miltary green, or John Deere green?

    1. Re:But the most pressing choice is.... by theGreater · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly, as you can see here, many of their products are now copy Cat (har har) Yellow. Of course, it beats those abominable blue ford tractors. -theGreater.

    2. Re:But the most pressing choice is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blue ford tractors

      That's New Holland, you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:But the most pressing choice is.... by ErrataMatrix · · Score: 1

      Military green would cost extra. prob $1,000+ a quart

    4. Re:But the most pressing choice is.... by Dop · · Score: 1

      Typically only the Deere construction equipment is yellow, all of the tractors, combines, etc are green. It probably has something to do with visibility on a construction site.

      Now, interestingly enough, the Standard series Gator (which I believe this was built from) actually does come in an almost military green color. It's also going to run you about $11k retail if you want the diesel engine.

    5. Re:But the most pressing choice is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or one grunt in the motorpool and about 15 minutes.

  24. Brought to you by: Roomba! The Robotic Floor Vac by Quobobo · · Score: 1

    Is it wrong that I wouldn't know of Roomba if it weren't for Achewood?

  25. Hmmm by stimey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder what OS that thing runs on and if it has wireless networking.
    You dont want the "enemy" to hack into the robots and send them back to attack the creators ?

    1. Re:Hmmm by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will be very easy to hack this thing. The communication will probably be using a very good encryption algorithm changed regularly with key lengths of at least 4KBytes at a minimum. [Some passwords that the DoD used ten years ago had to be stored on flopies (essentialy used like a physical key).] Anything that doesn't get decrypted properly gets junked and not sent to the processor.

      I do wonder though, who is to say that they are using an OS at all? You can do plenty of things without an OS and still run it properly as long as you know how to do your task switching properly. Just because we have Windows CE and Linux Embeded doesn't mean they have to be used in something like this.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  26. This thing'll really... by absolut_kurant · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...mow down the enemy...

    --
    Yes.
  27. Robotic lawn mower? by johndeeregator · · Score: 1

    So seriously, can this thing mow my lawn by itself? And, unlike my Roomba, will it be able to traverse 1/8" computer cables?

    1. Re:Robotic lawn mower? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      So seriously, can this thing mow my lawn by itself? And, unlike my Roomba, will it be able to traverse 1/8" computer cables?

      No, but this can.

  28. collect them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can also get a John Deere Bicycle.

    John Deere, it's not just for rednecks anymore.

    1. Re:collect them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A firend of mine has an old school John Deere bicycle. It looks like it's from the '70s.

  29. Flying is easier than walking for machines by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Funny

    The drone planes can also attack remotely now (hellfire missiles).

    Flying is actually easier than driving because you don't have to worry about terrain and collisions as much. Take something as simple as a hill. The calculations and sensors to figure out that it's a hill, not a curb or other blockage, then figure out whether the slope is within climbing margins, etc, is actualy quite difficult. We're getting there, but people and animals have the equivalent of a supercomputer neural net trained for years just for processing visual information for this.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Flying is easier than walking for machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...people and animals have the equivalent of a supercomputer neural net..."

      Just caught me funny that the technology intended to mimick the brain is used to refer back to the brain itself...

    2. Re:Flying is easier than walking for machines by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Just caught me funny that the technology intended to mimick the brain is used to refer back to the brain itself...
      My thought was that that to mimick "just" the part of the brain that deals with visual analysis would require a rather large supercomputer. A little much to stuff into a plane, much less a vehicle meant to navagate on land without being as big as one of these

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  30. Very simple to defeat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just throw some speaker wire in front of this thing and it will be snared! Works every time with my Roomba but at least once you untangle it, it will find its home and recharge.

  31. I for one by NotWallaceStevens · · Score: 2, Funny

    welcome our autonomous dust-sucking made-in-the-USA robot tractor overlords.

  32. And in a related story... by Perdition · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tragedy strikes as the military's "seek, locate, EXTERMINATE!" commands are accidently downloaded into every combine and tractor in North America.

    Maximum Overdrive, indeed.

    "Nothing kills like a Deere"

    --
    Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
  33. Red Flag by adsl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes this is a huge "wheel" forward for the military. But I understand that for safety reasons (running over of friendly troops) the spec still calls for a soldier to walk in front of the machine waving a red Flag to warn our troops. If, however, he sees the enemy he switches immediately to waving a Green Flag to crush our enemies.

  34. what to do with your free time? by MrPrefect · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks" gives a whole new meaning to car sex...

  35. Old Slogan, new meaning by kalpol · · Score: 1

    Brings new meaning to "Nothing Runs Like A Deere".

    --
    12:50 - press return.
  36. Armageddon by DARKFORCE123 · · Score: 0

    Armageddon is going to be a hell of a lot cleaner now !

  37. Good Idea by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Funny


    Apparently the DOD has put a high priority on frightening the enemy's pets.

    -B

  38. Too Wimpy but... by flyneye · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That wimpy little buggy looks like a Kerry solution.
    Heres the model they should've used. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/serie s/9020.html
    I can see sending one of these in to a battlefield or warzone.Big enough to do what it wants,when it wants,where it wants.Just armor it up,fit it with cameras,guns and a sound system(for "ride of the valkyries" of course) and a blade to fill in any foxholes it encounters. Turn it loose to harvest info and enemy.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    1. Re:Too Wimpy but... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course it will be small - don't you remember?

      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"

    2. Re:Too Wimpy but... by flyneye · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Bigger is better and biggest is best.- Wm Burroughs
      The battles of the future will still be against mans wills therefore the battle will still be against men.(like the feeble minded Kerry supporter who modded my original thread down as offtopic)
      No man would cower or retreat from a cheesy dune buggy recon vehicle but when you put them up against this: http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/serie s/9020.html
      I suspect they'll run screaming as it fills in foxholes,crushes vehicles,buildings and slow camels.I could even see painting a shark face on it like the old fighter planes.Armor and arm it and let it do the dirty work.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Too Wimpy but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange. Semi-randoming wandering around looking for WMD, getting stuck in corners of Iraq, and sucking badly sounds like the other guy.

    4. Re:Too Wimpy but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Heck- have you seen the front end on those things? Farm tractors are built to last- that means HUGE steel bars protecting the engine. I doubt you could stop a John Deere 9600 series with the types of armament that our soldiers are facing in Iraq- stock. No need to armor it at all.

      I'd be all for putting a roomba brain in one of these, adding a GPS unit to provide input to the "wall" sensors- and just letting it patrol a sector all by itself.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Too Wimpy but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have tanks, you moron.

      This thing fits a different need.

  39. Crazy Taxi by Plocmstart · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said."
    So you're putting your driver in a box somewhere behind the frontlines and letting him drive a vehicle full of people into what may be a dangerous battlezone, and without the full feedback of actually being there. Sounds like a bad idea to me, but if I get drafted I want that job. ;)

    1. Re:Crazy Taxi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much different than modern tank warfare... buddy of mine was a tank driver for 4 or 5 years and he said that about 80-90% of the time he was just following driving directions from the tank commander. ("left 3, hurry", "troops ahead, slow down", etc) The driver's position in an M1A1 or M1A2 tank is such that

      a) he can't get out unless the turret is facing directly backwards (driver doesn't leave during battle)
      b) the driver has 3 little periscopes that he can't look at simultaneously (located at about 10, 12 and 2 o'clock) each providing about a 15 degree view angle

      so its not much different... as long as one guy is watching and one guy is driving

  40. offtopic? It was right ontopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are talking here about using a farm type weight hauling implement (with a pretty inferior engine compared to a real tractor if you must know, and a really inferior carburetor), and using it for mission critical warfare applications. I am familiar with these things and various other farm type implements. A 25 cent caltrop WILL significantly slow down this 250 thousand dollar machine. A freaking WILD MULTIFLORA ROSE BUSH with thorns will slow one down. Seen it. Perhaps joe mod doesn't know what a caltrop is? A five dollar IED designed to spread PAINT or even free used crankcase oil will blind one of these things, again, making them useless. A simple covered pit that is two feet deep will probably break it enough to stop it if it is traveling at any speed. 3 feet deep and it's stuck AND broken, not moving at all. Given any ASW grunt with one backpack full of *cheap* gear, he could deal with several of these things successfully. It is a typical military industrial complex profit centered boondoggle, this is PORK.

  41. It's a fake by Dikeman · · Score: 1

    It's not remote controlled at all, it's being controlled by a farmer using his secret cloaking device. You can see the seat right through him!

    Making it remote controlled would be way too difficult.

  42. driverless vehicles and The Pentagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't do any worse than some of the vehicles with drivers I've seen going around the Pentagon!

    Oh, wait ..... not the roundabout near the cricket ground, where the A61, A52 and the main road out of Derby come together? (Ordnance Survey ref. SK363365) Damn!

    --
    If you think this is off-topic, you probably just aren't from Derby. Please mod -0, didn't get joke.

  43. A farmzoid? by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

    Diddent one of the nuts in Spaced Invaders already cook this up? Was called a Farmzoid. Use as a deversion I think.

  44. Information about drones? by koi88 · · Score: 0, Troll


    Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

    Are these unmanned drones used in Israel AI-driven?
    The article says, the drone killed two 14- and 15-year-old children.
    Does anybody know about these?

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:Information about drones? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      If you're playing soldier within 200 meters of actual soldiers, and your role in play is to be their enemy, I'd put you up for a Darwin Award. And that's exactly what this article claims.

      Sure sounds to me like they were "seeking Shahada", and got what they wanted. If that's their attitude, quite honestly I see no moral problem with bringing them their wish before they strap on a suicide bomb and kill innocents.

      That aside, the drone was almost certainly like any other drone -- remote controlled by IDF soldiers, not an AI.

      D

    2. Re:Information about drones? by koi88 · · Score: 1

      I see no moral problem
      Considering they were children, I find this comment really cynical.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    3. Re:Information about drones? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      I don't judge people based on being kids or adults. I judge them based on their actions.

      A 15 year old killer is every bit as evil as a 28 year old killer.

      Read the article I linked to and you'll get the picture a little better. The Palistinian Authority trains kids to be killers, and they are sent out on suicide missions starting at around 14.

      These kids were 15, and they were handling explosive substances 200 meters away from an Israeli tank position.

      You could say that the kids were not to blame for their indocriniation, but once they become killers, the duty of the Israeli Defence Forces is to destroy them before they kill innocents.

      My conclusion is that the Israeli action was correct.

      D

  45. and good luck. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I'll believe it when they make it pass the course everyone else flunked last year with the best going 7.4 miles. Where were those "big players" then?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  46. Green? by dickens · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Will it come in any color other than John Deere Green?

  47. AAARGH (the people in firethorns plane) by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Gee gods, don't have to worry about terrain and collisions and such when flying?

    Someone shoot this guy if he ever comes within a mile of a plane.

    The cruise missle system was such an achievement precisly because it did worry about the terrain. It could follow the terrain at low level flying between hills and other obstructions to its target.

    Same with the tornado aircraft wich again is so effective because it is constantly trying to keep as close as possible to the terrain while avoid collisions.

    This stuff is actually very very complex and so far can only be done when the computer on board knows exactly what to expect and is having plenty of power to spare (both the missle and missle don't really have to worry about weather conditions as the more glider based predator) to climb or turn as needed.

    Yes on the ground you have some other aspects but you have some huge advantages. You can reverse (something that is very very hard to do in a jet) have a turning circle that is not measured in miles. Have brakes that actually slow you before the end of the centurie and can always just stand still and look around.

    Also most storms do not tend to blow a car all over the place, try flying a remote in anything but a calm wind and you will agree that a car is just so much easier.

    Flying is not easier then driving. You gain some ease in detecting obstacles (everything you detect is an obstacle to be avoided) but loose in having to control something in a far more fluid enviroment. A car driving up an incline that is to steep will simply come to a stop. An aircraft trying to climb to fast to avoid a hill will either stall and crash or plow into the hill.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:AAARGH (the people in firethorns plane) by mwlewis · · Score: 1

      Actually, the terrain following part was more for navigation (pre-GPS). Inertial guidance over several hundred miles tends to be inaccurate due to getting pushed off course by wind. So they digitized the terrain, and used radar to correct the missile's location in its navigation.

      --
      JOIN US FOR PONG!
    2. Re:AAARGH (the people in firethorns plane) by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Gee gods, don't have to worry about terrain and collisions and such when flying?

      Calm down. He means that dealing with a hill when flying is a simple matter of gaining altitude. Figuring out if passing over a hill is possible when you have wheels requires some pretty serious hill-analysis.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  48. Slashdoted MSNBC.com! by EDinNY · · Score: 1

    Amazing. Did not think you could overload a site like MSNBC.com. Guess I was wrong!

  49. Counterattack by ptelligence · · Score: 1
    Apparently the enemy just purchased an entire warehouse of Roomba virtual boundary walls rendering this new vehicle powerless.



    I'm paying $250K for these things. What a con!

  50. perfect weapon for large-field battle by swschrad · · Score: 1

    particularly in cornrows or hayfields. air-conditioned cab is extra. CD player is standard.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  51. i won't be caught dissing them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one, welcome our tracterBot overlords...

    Vote Kodos!!!

  52. Great new threat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clean your room.... or else.

  53. Sales of the Roomba Virtual Wall has risen 146% by chamilto0516 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In response to this recent product announcement several middle eastern countries have purchased large quantities of the Roomba Virtual Wall accessories and it is rumored that these are being installed along territory borders.

    --
    Magic Eight Ball: Outlook not so good., Hmmm, how about Excel and Word?
  54. In both the incidents you quoted... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... the reason for the mishap was human error. Particularly in the case of VINCENNES, if the crew had attended to the data the ship was providing, they would not have shot down the airliner.

    Sean

  55. New use for tractor extensions by BeannieBrewer · · Score: 1

    Hey too bad this isn't available in Iraq yet. once the roomba get's into range of the enemy, all it has to do is suck and blow. Imagine sandblasting the enemy until the batteries run out!!!

    --
    Thanks, Beannie
    1. Re:New use for tractor extensions by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Imagine sandblasting the enemy until the batteries run out!!!

      I doubt the enemy is worried... the batteries don't last long enough to clean my dining room.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  56. US Restricts Export of Vacume Cleaners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In line with the National Secrets Act, it appears that iRobot does not export its highly sensitive technology outside of the US. Until such a time as virtual walls maybe placed on the Northern Boarder, Canada will continue to be able to enjoy the privillege of having its lawns floors vacumed.

    In other news, Lego Mindscape have teamed up with Ferrari to produce an autonomous sports car which gives the appearance of its being driven by a man with a large yellow head.

  57. why didn't it win the Darpa Grand Challenge? by enbody · · Score: 1

    Why didn't it win the Darpa Grand Challenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge ?
    No vehicle in the contest made it more than seven miles. If this vehicle is ready for production, why wasn't it out winning the contest earlier this year?

    1. Re:why didn't it win the Darpa Grand Challenge? by abennett · · Score: 1

      Don't put too much stock in who did or did not attend the Grand Challenge. The DARPA rules state that no gov't funds can be used, either directly or indirectly, to help with the "design, development, construction or operation" of the robots or their software (Rules, p.8, Section 2.4). Delete all gov't funded robot efforts and that takes out an awful lot of research, projects, algorithms, software, etc. Just try to locate a robot research paper that doesn't refer to some gov't funded effort in its history somewhere. It's both impressive to see how far they got and depressing when most of the failure modes seen are known, fixed issues. But the fixes were done by groups working on gov't funded (in whole or in part) efforts so they're going to have to re-invent those wheels all over again...

  58. Anime Ja Nai! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (For those who don't know Japanese/aren't anime otaku, Anime Ja Nai is the title of the opening song for a series called Gundam ZZ, which is (in essence) about large robots. It's literal meaning is ``It's not anime'' (vis. story department) )

  59. Not a special drone - just an RC aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure it's so special. Doesn't say much about AI, just your standard run of the mill flying cirvalance plane.

    1. Re:Not a special drone - just an RC aircraft by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      'Not sure it's so special. Doesn't say much about AI, just your standard run of the mill flying cirvalance plane.'

      surveillance?

      And no, we have UAVs that carry 2 hellfire type missiles, and autonomously fly in a given area trying to detect targets. Once it thinks it has found a target, it sends info back to base where a human decides whether or not to fire the missiles. While the UAV is not making the decision to kill, its doing _everything_ else up to that point.

  60. And when it's on a brickwork plinth... by ettlz · · Score: 1

    The ultimate test of this thing would be in the run-down area of a town somewhere in the UK after 22.30 on a Friday night. It's only good if (1) it's not alight; and (2) it's still got all its wheels.

  61. The more intelligence they can put in... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    the better.

    I know you're afraid of the ole Hal 9000 syndrome.

    But I'm afraid of the opposite... robots without inhibitions.

    what happens when the guy we elect as "root" goes nuts and uses the robots to subjugate us all into his own personal slaves?

    At least human soldiers have to believe in what they are doing... which makes gradual enslavement SLIGHTLY more difficult to do within a 4-8 year period.

    1. Re:The more intelligence they can put in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>At least human soldiers have to believe in what they are doing... which makes gradual enslavement SLIGHTLY more difficult to do within a 4-8 year period.

      Um, no. Soldiers serve their country. They do not consider the ethical, political or social implications of following their orders. Look at Vietnam. Hell, look at Iraq. Many of the soldiers knew/know that their mission is not essential to the interests of their country, sometimes, not even right at all.

      Gradual enslavement? Reagan, Bush and Clinton all signed bills that increase the power of the executive at the expense of the congress and judiciary. Technically, we've been in state of quasi-unenforced martial law since '86. All it takes to "enslave" us is one executive order directing the nat'l guard, police, across the country to sweep the streets of the crowds, and a curfew enacted. Do you think Fox News would decry this? 50% of the country would equate this action with the "war on terror" and the other 50% would either keep their mouth shut, or wake up in Cuba.

      If you think the concentration of power isn't an emergent, self reinforcing process, then you need look no further than Germany, 1939. Or the Bolshevik revolution. That's two examples in just the past century. History is littered with the empty, forgotten borders of nations whose rulers decided that their kingdom existed for their personal pleasure.

      But hey, it can't happen here, because our leaders are Christians! God is on our side, like, fer sher. Hey, didn't someone else *lose* when they though that? Except they pronounced it "Got Mit Uns"? Oh well, their magic was spelled wrong, surely God only answers English. Latin? Um.. well... have faith!

      No, I don't think the US is in imminent danger of becoming an active police state (even though it could, easily). Why bother with that, when manipulating the news and elections is so effective? To Conquer, divide, and to keep conquered, keep divided. Old money is doing the conquering, and the unwashed masses (me, you, and 99.99% of the rest of the human race) is the loot.

    2. Re:The more intelligence they can put in... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Soldiers serve their country. They do not consider the ethical, political or social implications of following their orders. Look at Vietnam. Hell, look at Iraq. Many of the soldiers knew/know that their mission is not essential to the interests of their country, sometimes, not even right at all.

      I misstated what I meant. I agree with everything you said...

      But there is something in a soldier's mind that prevents him from shooting his brother.

      As an example, look at Tiananmen Square. The first soldiers they had would not shoot the protesters... instead, the government called in the soldiers from the inner provinces and fed them a bunch of propaganda so that they could be trusted to massacre their own countrymen.

      That would have not have been necessary were the soldiers just robots... nor would it have been necessary if the soldiers were people with no conscious whatsoever...

      Yes, soldiers have to do what they're told and they aren't "supposed to think" as a soldier friend of mine once told me. But they are still human beings.

  62. Too big?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cool, but if it's too wide to fit through the Stargate, the MALP will never be replaced.

  63. MIT competition by martin · · Score: 1

    Until they can do the MIT robotic vehicle 'test' I'd be nervous....

    Or maybe the roomba will be to pass that test first and 'clean up' the prize :-) (ouch)

  64. Battle Roomba by Farce+Pest · · Score: 1

    I figured a Battle Roomba would look more like Ziggo.

    --
    This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
  65. I can see it now... by Uptown+Joe · · Score: 0

    Mesh back John Deere Battle Helmets.

  66. EXPECTING A MECH by pronobozo · · Score: 1

    i was really expecting somethign way more interesting that a remote controlled jeep :-P john deere has some cool robotics check this out for instance.. A 6 legged robot the size of a car. big robot now put guns ont hat and we've got something cool.

    --
    ------
    insert sig here,here, and here
    1. Re:EXPECTING A MECH by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

      That is the coolest thing I have ever seen.

  67. Our robotic Polaris Ranger is faster by Animats · · Score: 1
    Our Overbot is built on the Polaris Ranger platform, which, like the Gator, has six wheels. The Ranger has a little more power, true 6 wheel drive, and a faster top speed of 40MPH.

    See our video (6MB, Quicktime) here. This is our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle.

  68. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that makes killing towelheads more efficient is good with me.

    Hopefully that pussy Kerry doesn't get elected and cut the program.

  69. Bolo Mark I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am already becoming emotionally attached to my Bolo Mark I.

  70. Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly every chapter in the book was its own little story about how yet another robot goes haywire because of its slavish adherence to the three laws.

    The reason why they went haywire is because the laws worked. They were ment to cease if they were to disobey any of the laws.

    1. Re:Not quite... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Nearly every chapter in the book was its own little story about how yet another robot goes haywire because of its slavish adherence to the three laws.

      The reason why they went haywire is because the laws worked. They were ment to cease if they were to disobey any of the laws.

      But the problem with the laws is that frequently they require more information than the robots had in order to properly obey them. For example, when they sent the speedy robot out to get selenium it got stuck in an oscillating condition where one law would overpower another and vice-versa because the robot overrated the danger to itself and did not fully comprehend the danger to its human masters. It would be better to have a robot that just gets the damn selenium because it's been told to rather than have to remember beforehand to tell the robot how important it is to the humans' survival to complete the mission. The laws are a nice philosophical idea, but engineering-wise they're an accident waiting to happen. The whole book is about the pitfalls of unintended consequences.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  71. Asimov was part of the Satanic Jewish conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The three laws are a thinly-veiled attack on the Ten Commandmants.

    He's saying, three immutable laws for Robots doesn't work, why should Man limit himself by the ten laws given to him by God?

  72. this is a joke, right? by cout · · Score: 1

    Will it repond to human voice ala hal9000 or furby?

  73. Hahahah! Eddie Murphy! HAHAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  74. The person in my plane is just fine(he's a pilot) by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Not as much of a concern. Yes, there are all sorts of hairy things that can happen on a plane. But I was answering about why we have robot planes/cruise missiles when we can't even make an autopilot for a truck on the highway.

    You can reverse
    Not very quickly at 55-75 mph, and not even at 25 if the AI isn't quick enough. Besides, do you want to reverse after smaking into a wierdly painted sign at 65, or do you think inching along at 5-10 mph is sufficient?

    Flying is not easier then driving. You gain some ease in detecting obstacles (everything you detect is an obstacle to be avoided) but loose in having to control something in a far more fluid enviroment. A car driving up an incline that is to steep will simply come to a stop. An aircraft trying to climb to fast to avoid a hill will either stall and crash or plow into the hill.

    And for many vehicles today if the "hill" is too steep to climb, the car is just as capable of crashing into it. My point was that planes don't have to worry about all sorts of little "crash" objects if they stay high enough.

    Terrestrial life devotes quite a bit of brainpower to handling this, but so far technology has conquered robotic flight better.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  75. Serious adaptations... by dfj225 · · Score: 1

    I sure hope they seriously modified the AI from the Roomba because as someone who lives in a house that has a roomba, I can say I wouldn't want that thing on the battlefield:

    *Run over soldier
    *turn right
    *Run over soldier
    *turn right
    *no soldiers around
    *spiral until run over soldier

    --
    SIGFAULT
  76. The hard line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We will grease the treads of our robots with the bodies of their infidel children. The enemy's streets will run red with their blood as our untiring robot armies crush them flat. We will build and deploy huge armies of killer robots until the last terrorists, their familes, friends, and relatives lie dead and the scourge of terrorism is wiped from the face of the earth. God Bless America and President George W. Bush Jr!"

  77. I can't remember my Skynet password... by nanojath · · Score: 1

    Does it bother anyone else that due to our inability to stop needing to kill one another to acheive our political goals, the human race seems to blithely be living out the plot of the Terminator franchise?

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    1. Re:I can't remember my Skynet password... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK, we can send a future president back in time to battle it, thereby increasing his popularity in the past and winning him the election.

  78. Real problems with robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew some folks who built a vehicle based robot in the early '90s that had some unique problems. They used an off-road vehicle, a VME bus computer, and a Honda generator (not enough power from the vehicle).
    First they had problems with intermittent software errors. They couldn't find a common software problem so they started looking at the hardware. After changing out every board in the VME chassis, they finally tracked the problem back to the vehicle engine. As an off-road vehicle, it used old fashioned spark plugs that caused real RFI (automobiles have a resistor that minimizes this problem). So the first lesson - if you have software problems in your vehicle robot, change your spark plugs.
    Every time the system would brake really hard, the entire CPU would reset. Again, lots of debugging, culminating in the discovery that the Honda generator had a low oil safety shutoff. Whenever the vehicle braked hard, the oil all flowed away from the oil level sensor, causing the generator to shutdown, blipping the power, and causing the CPU to reset. Second lesson - if you have system software problems, change your oil (sensor).

  79. at AUSA by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    iRobet and JD have a booth at the annual AUSA (Association of the US Army) conference. I thought it was a reference to some wierd Asimov / lawn tractor combo. Guess I'll have to swing by tomorow.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  80. Not all that new by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

    From the pic, it appears to be a version of the John Deere Gator
    We use them at work, and the gas models aren't very sturdy. They are a maintaince nightmare.

  81. How it should be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good if it works - and if it's used right. Imagine this:

    R-Gator patrols perimeter of outpost in Auto Mode. Soldiers inside see something (e.g.: gunsmoke) and switch it to Manual. After the vehicle is close enough, the operator confirms their suspicions through the A/V sensors on board. The soldiers throw grenades. Meanwhile, the operator (now in control via RC Mode) sends the R-Gator around to another position while the soldiers ready their Assault Rifles.

    Of course, this requires strategic planning, logical thinking, and thinking in general - not what we've come to expect from the gung-ho US military. They'd probably just lock out the Manual mode and kamikaze the trapped troops into the enemy.

  82. I hope they wouldnt send it to Iraq. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    1 RPG = $250000 of taxpayers money.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil