Slashdot Mirror


Military Robots Get Machine Guns

javaxman writes "Next spring, the U.S. military is expecting to deploy Talon robots with machine guns. They can also be equiped with rocket launchers. Really, they're remote-controlled 'bots, not true autonomous 'bots, so you can save the Skynet jokes for, um, some day in the not-to-distant future. This is just the first, or maybe second step. As for me, I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!"

665 comments

  1. frickin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Post this again when they graduate to frickin lasers.

    1. Re:frickin by zobier · · Score: 1

      How is that a troll?

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    2. Re:frickin by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Someone call Tom Selleck and Cynthia Rhodes .. we've got a runaway ..

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  2. Captured robots by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can these robots be captured and reconfigured to turn against its ex-master, or do they have self-destruction function?

    This reminds me of an old Canon printer advertisement, where the Martians use this bubblejet printer to print realistic Mars landscape photos and place them in front of the Mars probe's visual sensor.

    1. Re:Captured robots by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      These are controlled by people, so unless an enemy whacked the soldier and took his joystick away, this shouldn't be a problem.

    2. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as they remember to enable the WEP security.

    3. Re:Captured robots by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      I'd say both. To not put a self-destruct would mean that when the battery dies, the enemy can safely do whatever they want with the lifeless set of electronics & weapons. If I were designing something like this, I'd have it self detonate if the batteries are almost dead.

      As for turning against it's ex-master, bullets tend to not care who they're shot at. If someone jams the signal, they can pick up the 100lb robot and point it wherever the heck they please.

    4. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could be the key to spurring America's global economy. We can start producing and exporting machine gun robots!

      Not onl that we can do it in the name of peice, saying if everyone fought with robots, no one with die!

    5. Re:Captured robots by PerpetualMotion · · Score: 1

      You mean jam the signal, scoop up the bot, and reprogram it? I don't think the DMCA will stop any opposition forces.

      Even hardware intrusion detection won't last long against a determined hacker with plenty of bots to play with.

      The same war is waged over real soldier's morale with propaganda. Is it so inconceivable that the next step is waves of defecting robots?

    6. Re:Captured robots by Trogre · · Score: 1

      So what's to stop you sniffing the radio waves and picking up what frequencies (or packets, I guess) make the robot do what.

      Once you've got that, it's trivial to make up such a joystick yourself.

      Okay so it might not be trivial if it's over a rotating encrypted channel, but then it's just a standard code-breaking problem.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    7. Re:Captured robots by Hobadee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comon, all of us here at Slashdot should know this. Rule #1 of hacking: He who has access to the physical device, controls the device. It would be all too easy to crack the case of one of these things and change the crystal so that instead of running off of who-knows-what frequency it's now controlled with a 72MHz RC controller! Personally, I don't want these things going into battle for us. We're gonna spend billions on these things and some kid somewhere is gonna come up with an 80 cent way to turn it against us. (Think along the lines of "drawing a circle around the circumference with a pernament marker".)

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    8. Re:Captured robots by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      It's probably on a highly encrypted link, and it probably updates its ciphers periodically, and "just a standard code-breaking problem" includes some codes that we haven't broken yet. In other words, the domain contains currently insoluble problems.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      No way. Hacking robots will be against the DMCA.

      What ? You think they are going to use these robots against non-americans ? :)

    10. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a one time pad for the fire control. A 128-bit number for each round should do it.

    11. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turning against it's ex-master

      "its".

    12. Re:Captured robots by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, although it's amazing what data you can gather from something unintelligable. A friend of mine who used to work as a translator for US army intelligence intercepts mentioned how at one point, the Soviets had figured out a system to tell what commands our troops were issuing during war games. They weren't able to decrypt our messages, mind you. They simply figured out that different messages had different lengths, and tended to be broadcast at different times, different orders, etc - and matched them up with the meanings (we fixed this when we found out, of course)

      Now, tricks like this (probably not these exact tricks) likely wouldn't let you send commands to the bot; however, they might let you know what is being sent to the bot, and what it is sending back.

      Personally, I'm kinda curious as to how effective tempest attacks would be against "secure" communication devices, especially radios. I mean, radios make sounds by using pulsed magnetic fields to vibrate a diaphragm - sounds like a good way to broadcast unwanted RF to me ;) Sure, your range wouldn't be great, but in urban combat, who knows - it could possibly prove effective.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    13. Re:Captured robots by AndyL · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't even have to jam the signal. I hear if you toss a hat on their plunger it'll completely neutralize them.

    14. Re:Captured robots by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine this thing is going to be extremely tactical. It's not going to be a regular grunt, slogging across the battlefield. It's going to be used in close-quarters urban combat, supervised by squads of Marines or Rangers at close range. You're not going to see a lot of these things get scooped up for the same reason you don't see a lot of soldiers get kidnapped during a firefight. I think for the most part, you're going to see it used in variations of the Talon's current role: bomb disposal. It's going to be the point man on a forced entry mission. The building is already surrounded, where would the bot-napper run to? It's going to take the lead whenever biological or chemical agents have been used. Probably easier to steal one from the storage facility, stateside. Hell, the core components are already easily available on the open market, why would a droid thief want to go to the trouble of snatching one out from under the noses of some very attentive soldiers? I mean, it's just a machine. The minute shenanigans are perpetrated, there'd be no reason not to shell the entire grid. A stolen or turned bot would be a big neon sign saying "cluster bomb here, please". No, I think people will want to stay very far away from these guys. And we haven't even gotten to the part where they're armed with deadly weapons.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    15. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I'm not going to stand around with a frequency counter, laptop and take the time to try to hack a giant robot that's shooting machine guns at me :)

    16. Re:Captured robots by mek2600 · · Score: 2, Funny

      good point, yet i think you're forgetting the MACHINE GUNS.

      cracking the security gets tougher when you have bullets flying at you. ever hear of anyone wardriving in Compton?

    17. Re:Captured robots by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old people capture machine-gun robots and hack them!

    18. Re:Captured robots by gekko513 · · Score: 1

      IN SOVIET RUSSIA machine-gun robots hack OLD PEOPLE ... eh?

    19. Re:Captured robots by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think it's time to get ourselves a list of everyone in California called Connor, J.

      Could come in handy...

    20. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Personally, I don't want these things going into battle for us.

      Do you think sending an 18-year-old soldier down into the caves in Afghanistan is a better idea?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    21. Re:Captured robots by grokster · · Score: 1

      Talking about putting in a self-destruct, you've gotta make sure it doesn't get triggered if the bot returns to base... or runs out of juice like a meter before it gets back to the controller...

    22. Re:Captured robots by mikechant · · Score: 1

      The new improved daleks (returning to the BBC next spring) can now climb stairs - so they may also be equiped with advanced hat-repelling plungers...

    23. Re:Captured robots by darien · · Score: 1

      A Dalek climbed some stairs in the Sylvester McCoy story "Remembrance of the Daleks" (1988). Sorry to be such a geek, but it was a watershed moment for those of us who had until then believed ourselves safe at night in our upstairs bedrooms...

    24. Re:Captured robots by swv3752 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what happens when someone converts an old microwave to an EMP blaster and shorts out the joystick, then sends thier own signal to the bot?

      Sure there are ways to harden the electronics but...

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    25. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...until someone gets the bright idea of asking Microsoft to write some AI firmware for it ;-)

      "kludge.dll has caused a general protection fault in chaingun.exe. Please remove your head. You have twenty seconds to comply."

    26. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Slashdot, only losers rehash the In Korea and In Soviet Russia jokes to every conceivable variation to the point of absurdity.

    27. Re:Captured robots by fikx · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about that. Most devices make some kind of noise in RF. Is it possible to make viewers that look at this spectrum? They make 'em for IR, how about RF? then we can use the powerful signal processors we have build in (our vision center) to detect eletronic beasts...
      Just a thought...

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
    28. Re:Captured robots by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not only did throwing a hat on my plunger never neutralize me, but it seemed to encourage the ladies...

      Wait, what were we talking about here?

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    29. Re:Captured robots by guybarr · · Score: 1


      So what happens when someone converts an old microwave to an EMP blaster and shorts out the joystick, then sends thier own signal to the bot?

      If the EMP works It will disable control for both operator and malicious signals ...

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    30. Re:Captured robots by Hobadee · · Score: 1

      Afganistan - Yes
      Iraq - No
      18 - Only if we start letting them drink beer also. ...or even better, just send lots of grenades down into the caves!

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    31. Re:Captured robots by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      HERF guns are directional. Blast the operator and his remote control no longer functions, but the malicious attacker still has a functional remote.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    32. Re:Captured robots by James.Stanton · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize Compton has secured wireless networks...

    33. Re:Captured robots by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >18 - Only if we start letting them drink beer also

      hey, we let them vote, isn't that *enough* !?

      *shudder* 18 year old drinking beer with a remote-control armed robot

      hell, I remember being 18 and getting all the beer I wanted -- now if I'd had access to an armed robot at the same time *shudder again*

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    34. Re:Captured robots by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Since the bots are remote control, and not autonomous, controlling the bot involves a constant stream of data to the bot. If you pad the stream it will just be a neverending, constant-rate flow of data. You won't be able to learn anything from that. Hell, even WASTE will pad the stream so that you can't infer anything from the amount of traffic.

      As for the issue of tempest attacks against radios, you would have to be practically on top of someone, and they would have to not be using an electret microphone, which they almost certainly are. It's not helpful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally correct, but up until recently, the physical device was not defending itself with a machine gun. You don't have physical access, you have physical proximity. I will be eyeing my routers with much suspicion from now on...

    36. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it would mistake your Pringles can for a bazooka and let you be.

    37. Re:Captured robots by sprekken · · Score: 1
      HERF guns are directional. Blast the operator and his remote control no longer functions, but the malicious attacker still has a functional remote.

      Bot loses signal from original remote -> bot broadcasts emergency transmission -> F16 flies by and bombs the thing into oblivion.

      This is just one possible scenario.

    38. Re:Captured robots by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      Don't believe everything you see in Grand Theft Auto :)

    39. Re:Captured robots by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      While there are many potential safeguards, your particular solution s poor. The bot is meant to be pointman for a squad of soldiers, ie send it in first to lay down suppression fire so it gets damaged not the soldiers.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    40. Re:Captured robots by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      send lots of grenades down into the caves

      I want you to remember this comment when you decide the DoD should downsized rather than building bigger, more explosive grenades so they don't have to send down the 18

      --
      - Sig
    41. Re:Captured robots by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      OTOH, of course, that never-ending stream of data being transmitted will make a nice homing beacon for someone with the right equipment...

    42. Re:Captured robots by hamsandwich72 · · Score: 1

      In Japan, old people talk to machine-gun robots.

    43. Re:Captured robots by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      So what happens when someone converts an old microwave to an EMP blaster and shorts out the joystick, then sends thier own signal to the bot?

      The bot operators bomb the fuck out of the grid the EMP blast came from? The bot operators bomb the fuck out of the grid the hacker signal is coming from?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    44. Re:Captured robots by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Thanks to some sort of crosstalk between the USB and audio portions of my Via 686C southbridge, I can recognize, for example, how fast the mouse is moving.

      Also, at one point during the Cold War, the American Embassy in Russia had all sorts of bugs that picked up transmissions from typists' keyboards. Or so I heard on the History Channel a few years ago... I can't find an article about it now.

    45. Re:Captured robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intelligable?

      Why are you posting a comment if you can't even form basic words of the English language? Go back to sucking cheetos in front of your fragmatch with your fat middleaged playmates. Calling your existence a half-life would be flattering indeed. Faggot!

    46. Re:Captured robots by Hobadee · · Score: 1

      ...you know, this could actually prove benificial... To fund all this crap that our tax dollars can't nearly cover, they should let the 18 year olds get drunk and use the robots in fights. (ala Robot Wars) Hell, I'd pay to whatch a battle between two robots if they were both controlled by drunk people and had machine guns on them!

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
  3. A trend by DrLZRDMN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't they get shotguns about a month ago? From what I can tell they'll have rocket launchers by the begining of next year.

    1. Re:A trend by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't they get shotguns about a month ago? From what I can tell they'll have rocket launchers by the begining of next year.

      I just hope they don't get Quad Damage.

    2. Re:A trend by a1cypher · · Score: 5, Funny

      What if we gave them a whole variety of weapons that could be rotated through. Such as a hand gun, machine gun, gatling gun, rocket launcher, shotgun, etc...

      Then we could interface the machine with an FPS game and let people select weapons with the mouse scroll wheel.. And it can pick up any munitions, "health packs" or "armor shards" that it happens to "find" and maybe even throw grenades..

      hrm.... And then you could get a whole bunch of them and stick them in one location, "map" if you will where they can duke and nuke it out forever.

      oh wait...

    3. Re:A trend by ppanon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Denied!

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    4. Re:A trend by Gromius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmm, perhaps another explaination for America's Army, its not a recruting tool its a training tool. And to think I once pointed out to an enthusiasic friend that joining the army for real would probably require more that leet mousing skillz. Boy is my face red...

    5. Re:A trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to lose some weight before joining the Army, fat boy!

    6. Re:A trend by jtsoong · · Score: 1

      I just hope they don't get Quad Damage.

      or work out how to rocket jump.

    7. Re:A trend by jtsoong · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't they get shotguns about a month ago? From what I can tell they'll have rocket launchers by the begining of next year.

      do they have an axe if they run out of ammo?

    8. Re:A trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can also be equiped with rocket launchers.

      man... talk about RTFA, this guy didn't even read the blurb

    9. Re:A trend by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the first one will be named Xan.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    10. Re:A trend by Horse+Rotorvator+JAD · · Score: 1


      That all kind of reminds me of Enders Game.

    11. Re:A trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another Visitor....

      Get Him, My Robots....

      Stay Awhile...

      Stay....

      Forever!

    12. Re:A trend by AndyL · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope the army has the foresight to disable friendly damage and to enable infinite ammo.

    13. Re:A trend by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny
      or work out how to rocket jump.

      Hmmm...

      1. Move forwards at full speed.
      2. Aim down.
      3. Jump.
      4. Fire rocket.
      5. Realise you're a robot on tracks and can't jump.
      6. ...
      7. Panic!
      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:A trend by KyleJacobson · · Score: 0

      They gave Stephen Hawking a shotgun?!?!?!?!

      --
      I have worse karma than M$.
    15. Re:A trend by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      I think we should draw the line at the Plasma Rifle.

      Definitely no BFG.

    16. Re:A trend by James.Stanton · · Score: 1

      I figure the Bush administration for more of a 'God Mode' crowd.

    17. Re:A trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! What a flashback. :)

    18. Re:A trend by hamsandwich72 · · Score: 1

      8. Profit? Um.. nevermind.

  4. Batlle bots by machocomacho · · Score: 0, Funny

    I think we should just use robots instead of people, this ensures we won't invade poor innocent countries that can't afford robots, keeping wars to a minimum.

  5. YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For today and today ONLY, YOU FAIL IT!

    1. Re:YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yuo suck at teh interweb

  6. What if... by kdougherty · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The batteries in the remote control die during fire? I don't know about you guys, but I don't want a rocket misguided into my car or house!

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
    1. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they call it "collateral damage." of course, if you live in the US and there are military robots roaming the street then it's safe to assume WW3 has begun.

  7. What about ethics? by SlashdotMirrorer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever happened to Asimov's rules of robots that they can do no harm to humans? For years, bearded terminal hackers have done their thing, hacking on software, hardware, and such, with little regard to the ethics of the situation. But now, with our creations affecting mankind in a more profound way, we give little more thought to ethics than we did with a simple BASIC shell script.

    Think about this the next time you are coding a servo controller on your Redhat compiler. Could your code be misused in a way you would not approve?

    1. Re:What about ethics? by bigberk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Whatever happened to Asimov's rules
      The Rules don't apply when you've got $400 billion of funding. No rules apply!
    2. Re:What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My code may be used in baby-mulching machines. In fact, I encourage it!

    3. Re:What about ethics? by SlashdotMirrorer · · Score: 0

      You sir, are an insult to the bearded terminal hacker spirit.

    4. Re:What about ethics? by diablobsb · · Score: 1
      ...than we did with a simple BASIC shell script.
      any geek that uses basic for his/her shell scripts should be the first ones shot by this robot...
      --
      I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
    5. Re:What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about a goverment funding.
      They have already dropped all human rights and international treaties a couple of years ago.

      Isn't this another step to a neo-nazi state?

    6. Re:What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to utterly miss the Theo / OpenBSD reference. Cut out the sappy "hacker spirit" balderdash.

    7. Re:What about ethics? by SlashdotMirrorer · · Score: 1

      balderdash Oh fuck, I loved that game (runs to find a c64 disk image).

    8. Re:What about ethics? by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But robots aren't harming humans. Humans are harming humans (and doing other more useful jobs like disposing of dangerous crap) by remote control, using a tool specialized for the job. This is not what Asimov had in mind.

    9. Re:What about ethics? by j.leidner · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Could your code be misused in a way you would not approve?

      GNU should append a clause to their licenses that military use is prohibited so that nobody can get harmed by Free code.

    10. Re:What about ethics? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      These are not robots. If they were free to act on their own, then I'd agree with you, but they're glorified R/C cars.

    11. Re:What about ethics? by kureido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By definition, inanimate constructs, whether they be machine-gun toting robots, code snippets, or Bic pens, are *amoral*. They simply don't belong in the realm of ethical vs. unethical. I could use my snazzy Bic pen to write a treatise on world peace, or I could stab a Nobel Peace laureate in the eye. Either way, the pen is an instrument, and only my use of it is subject to moral interpretation.

      No matter the field, I think scientific advancements are always potentially beneficial, weapons engineering included. The important consideration is, once we've made the breakthrough, who do we let loose on the world with it?

    12. Re:What about ethics? by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      Asimov was an idealist.. Apparently he has no concept of human history where a majority of technological innovation came about because of military conflict. I've always thought that the idea of having a robot in the home would come on the heals of robots giving out an ass-whoopin' to some enemy force.

      Besides.. these aren't even robots. They're fancy RC cars. So your point is moot.

    13. Re:What about ethics? by Cyryathorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GNU should append a clause to their licenses that military use is prohibited so that nobody can get harmed by Free code.


      Or protected by it either, I guess ...

    14. Re:What about ethics? by VivianC · · Score: 1

      Asimov was an idealist.. Apparently he has no concept of human history where a majority of technological innovation came about because of military conflict.

      Really? And I thought it mostly came from PRON.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    15. Re:What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it wouldn't be free.

    16. Re:What about ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've discussed a closely related topic when talking about HESSLA.

    17. Re:What about ethics? by Mant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Asimov just wanted to write Sci-Fi stories that avoid the cliche of square jawed human heros blow away evil robots (the irony of the I Robot film). So he came up with the laws. They also let him write neat logical puzzle type stories where the laws lead to uninteaded consequences, including the robots sometimes doing 'bad' things.

      The laws were created as a dramatic and plot device. I'm sure he had plent of concept of human history and where technological inovation came from, but he was writing about his own fictional world.

    18. Re:What about ethics? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Isn't the military all about building big fucking weapons to take stuff from people who object?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:What about ethics? by spiff42 · · Score: 1
      The golden rule:

      Who ever has the gold makes the rules.

      /Spiff

    20. Re:What about ethics? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. It's no different from someone using a handgun to kill someone, or a pair of scissors for that matter. It's the person controlling it that is doing the harm, not the tool itself.

      The concern would be if, somewhere in the future, the US military tried to program these robots with AI to do the job automatically. Maybe it's just naivety, but I don't ever see that happening.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    21. Re:What about ethics? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Oh wise up folks. These are no more robots than your typical RC car.

      They're just slightly more lethal.

      It's the grunt holding the joystick that's the real robot and he couldn't care less with Asimov's laws.

    22. Re:What about ethics? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Then lots of people would stop writing GNU code. I want my stuff accessible to anyone for any purpose, not just ones I find politically acceptable. If you want some other restrictions, go find yourself another license.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    23. Re:What about ethics? by usmcpanzer · · Score: 1

      Then get off my military developed internet and stop using your computer (its roots date back to WWII).

    24. Re:What about ethics? by o1d5ch001 · · Score: 1

      No matter the field, I think scientific advancements are always potentially beneficial, weapons engineering included. The important consideration is, once we've made the breakthrough, who do we let loose on the world with it?

      This is a classic scientific reply. "I am only searching for knowledge of the universe" The subtext here is I am searching for God, but I digress. The search for knowledge excuse is a way for business and Governments (read military) to leverage scientific in the making of weapons and industrial tools. We shall see how our inventions have helped humanity in a couple of generations. I predict that many will come back to haunt us, like DDT and the widespread use of mercury. It must be very hard for scientists of the world to question their indoctrination.

      --
      Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
    25. Re:What about ethics? by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but look what happened when Asimov used his own rules!

    26. Re: What about ethics? by j.leidner · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the HESSLA pointer.

      GNU.org:
      governments ... can simply decide they are exempt from the restrictions.

      I wonder if this holds e.g. for the US military: can they (legally) take your source code if you prohibit military use? I doubt it.

    27. Re:What about ethics? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      This is a classic scientific reply. "I am only searching for knowledge of the universe" The subtext here is I am searching for God, but I digress. The search for knowledge excuse is a way for business and Governments (read military) to leverage scientific in the making of weapons and industrial tools.

      Industrial tools mostly, believe it or not. Without the rather ingenious breakthroughs in robotics (these critters), aerospace (responsible for missiles, jet fighters) and metallurgy (bullets, tank armor); we'd still be rolling around in horse-drawn carts and dying of scurvy.

      Without robotics, originally developed as a concept for automated fabrication and assembly; the only people driving cars would be either incredibly wealthy or they built it themselves. Electronics would still be limited to pcb and random components and semiconductors from Radio Shack.

      As for those evil bastards responsible for the F-22 Raptor, they tried evening out their conscience by developing a cook on coating (yeah, the "Top Secret" stealth technology) capable of making medical equipment much more efficient and effective. Or those responsible for helicopters, whose engine design made for a standard in the automotive industry.

      Let's not forget the greatest offenders of all! The metallurgists! Their scientific contributions have led to the deaths of countless human lives! For god sakes, they're responsible for the BULLET! Who gives an everliving shit if they just happen to be an important benefactor of the medical industry: the ECG, defribulators, anaesthetics, all impossible without major breakthroughs by those cretins involved in metallurgy.

      Fucknuts like you are the reason people are STILL dying of AIDS, cancer, diabetes, stupidity, etc. because of your inability to support anything that could ever concievably be used for something unethical.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    28. Re:What about ethics? by o1d5ch001 · · Score: 1

      I love it when somebody calls me a fucknut.. its just so sweet. Back to the discussion at hand.

      Something happened when we entered into the industrial age, humans became capable of executing large scale changes to their environment. Until the Industrial Revolution, building stuff, moving stuff, keeping fed took alot of energy. This was just for the basics, never mind building a 4000 sq ft home for you and your loved one. Nope, most people lived in shacks and often had a short time on the earth. To say that my life is not easier because of modern invention would folly, but driving a sport-ute to work doesn't necessarily make my life better, just more convenient.

      My point is that scientific progress is coupled with industrial expansion. Its motivator is profit and utopian visions, not altruism. From time to time there have been great men and women of science, and those great people are saying the same things that I am. We are running down an unlit path in the pitch dark of night, do we really know were we are going and what the consequences are???

      I'll leave you with a quote from a great scientist that sums ups my fears about our progress, Albert Einstein

      "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

      --
      Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
  8. Finally! by Korgrath · · Score: 2, Funny

    finally! a way to get rid of Trolls without having to smell them!

    --
    Theory of flight?! I'll teach you the theory of fist!!
  9. Re:dupe dupe dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh well maybe not, the other one was about robots with SHOTGUNS. of COURSE.

  10. Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by omghi2u · · Score: 5, Funny

    Johnny Five ... ALIVE!

    Need I say more?

    1. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Sepper · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can already see the battlefield of the future:

      Number 5: "Hey laser lips! Your momma was a snowblower!"

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    2. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by kyouteki · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that a Johnny 5 would really enjoy /.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by caino59 · · Score: 1

      nah, too much bullshit and reposts. he'd get bored and look elsewhere...

      we lowly humans are too dumb and stick around anyway.

    4. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes, number Johnny Five... ALIVE & GONNA BUSTA CAP IN YO PUNK AZZ!

    6. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 1
      Need I say more?

      Indeed.

    7. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like robocop's ED-209...

    8. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by hippycow · · Score: 0

      Why is this only a 4? What in the hell is wrong with the moderators?

    9. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Tezkah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Number 6: "LAAAAAG!"

    10. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yo sexy momma! Wanna kill some humans?"
      -- Bender

  11. sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can they handle soccer hooligans?

    1. Re:sweet by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Of course not.

  12. What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a violation of my rights as an american citizen. cleary I should have more rights then a robot if I am granted to rights to own firearms. I could be mistaken though.

    1. Re:What... by tylernt · · Score: 1

      You too can own fully automatic firearms... and for free! Just join the Army.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    2. Re:What... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Sorry! The Army is switching away from fully automatic firearms. I guess they decided to ditch "spray and pray" in favor of "aiming."

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:What... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Or move someplace that doesn't prohibit them. A Class III license is still obtainable, as are weapons (nothing new though). Both cost a lot, shooting 'em costs a lot more.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    4. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your at least half wrong, rights are not granted to only those citizens who join the armed forces. The 2nd was aimed at all citizens who could serve in the militia.

  13. Great by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Military people were complaining gamers make crap soldiers... now we'll own them at robot wars and laugh at how they mocked us for playing space invaders!

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still fat.

    2. Re:Great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my dad and I play Crimson Skies every time he comes over here and after I pull off some tricky shit and flame all the bad guys he usually tells me the military would be very interested in me. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing certain portions of the military very interested in games who play certain kinds of games, especially including airplane, tank, and helicopter simulations. If you think about it, someone who plays a lot of heli games (or, of course, flies R/C choppers) would be ideal to run a spy UAV. They do use plenty of plane-type UAVs though, and it would be nice to be able to have human operators able to pilot them whenever it became useful, instead of just having them fly automated missions. In a lot of ways, computers are better at following orders obviously, but just as obviously, it takes a person to take advantage of serendipity - at least today.

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

      You realize that you don't get three lives in this one ? :)

    4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are overestimating the value of humans here.... I think there might be a better market for real-time-strategy experts.. people who can multi-task and make decisions from a large amount of data all at once... actual pilot-style work will be taken over by autonomous elements.
      Your video game skills are great for things that require you to aim and shoot.. not necessary anymore :-)

    5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1, America's Army the game
      2, information denial and propaganda
      3, robots with machine guns, remote controlled
      4, ??

      no.. this aint a humor post.
      see the story arch

    6. Re:Great by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Yeah, except once thing you're forgetting is that todays younger military people have started to SERIOUSLY get into video games in their free time and during simulation time. So not only are they more likely to own you in CS, when they work together, they have a much better understanding of solid military tactics than the average 1337 gamer.

      Personally, I wish there were servers for games like Desert Combat where one side would be reserved for only people connecting from a military base or something, and let other people be on the other team. It'd be good practice, and you never know, in the event the military team starts getting owned, they might learn a new tactic or two. Although somehow I don't think they're going to be instructing troops on bunnyhopping any time soon.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    7. Re:Great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      actual pilot-style work will be taken over by autonomous elements.

      In the far future, yes. However, you are conveniently forgetting that humans can think, and computers cannot. They work with preprogrammed solutions to problems they recognize (the recognition of which is of course programmed into them) and they don't react well to situations they've never seen before. Granted, with 'learning' networks you can make them learn from their mistakes (sort of) but they will never be able to handle the wide range of situations that humans can.

      In the short term, you will have people giving orders to people, who will fly the planes when they are doing anything other than flying from point A to point B - following waypoints is something trivially done by unmanned aircraft. The next phase will be to have partially autonomous craft, with humans jumping in when one is in trouble or it's especially important to complete a mission. Eventually, we'll make them fully autonomous, and they'll take over the world and send robots back in time to alter the past :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Hope they don't have a short circuit... by metachor · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Johnny #5 is alive!

  15. Well for the sake of us all.. by nilbog · · Score: 1, Funny

    Diebold didn't make them, did they?!

    --
    or else!
  16. Overlord Blah Blah... by richardoz · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our machine gun toting remote controlled robot overlords..

    OK.. I had to get that one out of the way..

    --
    All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..
    1. Re:Overlord Blah Blah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Korea, only the elderly have robotic soldiers with machine guns!

    2. Re:Overlord Blah Blah... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      "Future wars will be in space... or possibly on top of a very high mountain... and fought by small robots. As soldiers, your duty is clear; to build and maintain those robots."

      Wow, The Simpsons is right about everything!

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    3. Re:Overlord Blah Blah... by HazE_nMe · · Score: 1

      Who on earth modded this parent interesting? Funny would be much more appropriate.

  17. Haven't we had this? by lightdarkness · · Score: 1

    I thought the military released this technology months ago. Is this an improvement on the tech, or just a dupe story?

    1. Re:Haven't we had this? by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

      We've had this with an Australian company Metalstorm for ages now.

      Mind you they have flying versions which are even cooler.

    2. Re:Haven't we had this? by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      There was a show on Discovery Channel a couple months ago where the host got to fire rockets and machine guns into target bunkers via remote control.

  18. Lemming? by dev_alac · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone else notice the page file was lemming.htm?

    1. Re:Lemming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. I was thinking BS when I first read the title.. this confirms?

    2. Re:Lemming? by neon*pill · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of a "lemon" lemming makes sense - it fearlessly storms into suicidal situations. my lemmings fearlessly blow themselves up if I push the "nuke" button

    3. Re:Lemming? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Pretty legit, actually. Talons is already being used for bomb disposal and other things. It can be mounted with a shotgun for forced-entry, mostly in law enforcement sector though. Equipping it with heavier weapons for military combat isn't much of a step. It's likely uses will probably be very simmilar to what it's already used for: Bomb disposal, entering biologically, chemically, or radiologically contaminated areas, serving as first-in during building invasions, or foreward lines sighting for artillery or laser-painting for guided missiles. I'm honestly suprised that it isn't already being used for many of these jobs.

  19. Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    The Chinese have low regard for human life and would be willing to throw millions of soldiers to their death against the Americans in any war. The scenario would be like a human wave, and the idea is for the wave to overwhelm our forces.

    These machine-gun robots is the perfect answer to a Chinese wave attack. I could imagine them being amphibious. On a fine morning like 2006 December 7, millions of them would rise up out of the ocean tide and onto the beaches of China. They would march relentless across China, killing all the Chinese soldiers.

    The final destination would be Tibet.

    As that old Negro spiritual goes, "Free at last [for Tibet]. [Buddha] all mighty! Free at last!"

    1. Re:Good News in War Against China by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 4, Funny

      As that old Negro spiritual goes, "[Tibet,]free at last! [Buddha] all mighty! Free at last!"

      I would say you're smoking something, but any plant strong enough to make you come up with that would have poisoned itself first and not grown.

    2. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robots would be promptly EMP'd, or any other countless methods of defence. Military guys don't like to develope weapons which they have no counter for, after all if you have developed something it's likely your opposition has been or will be doing the same.

    3. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem is the Chinese, having manufactured the robots, could easily disable them via remote.

    4. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So once the USA has wiped out China, where will you buy all the stuff that was previously "Made in China"?

      You are a complete moron.

    5. Re:Good News in War Against China by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps the reason that the USA appears to value human life, at least in terms of its own war casualties, is because the USA has so few of them whereas the Chinese have so many?

      Some time in 2000 I spidered the CIA world factbook.

      There is an entry in that book labelled;
      "Military manpower - fit for military service"

      In the edition which I have, it lists the USA as having 2,056,762 people who are fit for military service. I believe that was supposed to include women.

      Thats less than one percent of the population.

      Every other listed country can manage at least 10% ,IIRC.

      After the Sept.11 attacks these figures were no longer listed. Instead today it says "NA"

      The USA is the *only* country listed as "NA".

      Why does the USA *need* machines like this?
      Do the math.

      I know the parent post was mostly humerous but frankly the idea of a USA with autonomous fighting machines scares the bejebits out of me since lack of manpower seems to be the *only* thing holding them back from a classic Civ endgame.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q:Who has the most advanced robots?
      Who is the best as mass producing robotics and high tech?
      A: Asia....ie China.

      This is tech that can easily be copied..
      Who is going to be able to produce massive amounts of robotic warriors...China.

      In a decade any country might be able will be able to field a large army of machines.

    7. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Quote:
      The Chinese have low regard for human life [phrusa.org]

      The assumption that all chinese have a low regard for human life based on what they are doing in Tibet is the same sort of mentality that causes people to carry out attrocities like what is happening in Tibet.

    8. Re:Good News in War Against China by Guncrazy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shh...not so loud! The military is probably planning to outsource the manufacture of these robots to China.

    9. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I just laughed at the stupidity of this post, and laughed even harder after it got a +1 interesting. But the underlying racism still annoys me (even if this post is a troll) you wrote:
      Chinese have low regard for human life
      Which I could buy if you said "in China" given the number of people and the poverty, but as it stands the statement is nothing but derogatory.
      Still I have to laugh at the paranois and war porn images you manage to generate, I especially like how the attack is supposed to go off on December 7th. Is there something about December 7th I should know? Anniversary of moving the capital to Tapei?
      Anyway, you can worry about the Chinesse hordes and their wave attack and I will eat my stir fry, cooked in my Made in China pan and thank God for peace instead of war.

    10. Re:Good News in War Against China by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have low regard for human life and would be willing to throw millions of soldiers to their death against the Americans in any war. The scenario would be like a human wave, and the idea is for the wave to overwhelm our forces. These machine-gun robots is the perfect answer to a Chinese wave attack. I could imagine them being amphibious. On a fine morning like 2006 December 7, millions of them would rise up out of the ocean tide and onto the beaches of China. They would march relentless across China, killing all the Chinese soldiers.

      Methinks you're about 55 years too late, Gen. MacArthur...

      "An old soldier never dies, he just loses the ability to hold a charge...."

    11. Re:Good News in War Against China by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have low regard for human life and would be willing to throw millions of soldiers to their death against the Americans in any war. The scenario would be like a human wave, and the idea is for the wave to overwhelm our forces.

      Your commie has no regard for human life, not even his own!

      These machine-gun robots is the perfect answer to a Chinese wave attack. I could imagine them being amphibious. On a fine morning like 2006 December 7, millions of them would rise up out of the ocean tide and onto the beaches of China. They would march relentless across China, killing all the Chinese soldiers.

      As long as our killbots' body counters are 64-bit...

      (sorry for the multireply, this parent was priceless!)

    12. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, it's not enough that the Americans take on the Arab World; they also want to take on the Oriental World!

      Considering the situation in Iraq, do you really think the Americans will last long enough to build these robots...plus the Chinese or Japanese could easily buy these robots once they are build through the all-mighty corruption magic?

      I have no doubt the current US Administration will build these robots. The question is whether other countries could also get their hands on the 'bots or not. Oh, and I think all the mighty, high tech 'bots can't stand against a 10 years old nuke.

    13. Re:Good News in War Against China by MrDickey · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing this figure. Also listed on the factbook are:
      Military Manpower
      Availability- Males 18-49 73,597,731
      Reaching military age annually- Males- 2,124,164

      With over 2 million males turning 18 every year, I really doubt that there are only 2 million some people "fit for military duty". The term is rather ambiguous, though, and it would be interesting to see how it is calculated.

      --
      I hate my sig
    14. Re:Good News in War Against China by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a Civ endgame?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    15. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks he's referring to us constantly nuking beijing to prevent them from completing their spacecraft to alpha centauri.

    16. Re:Good News in War Against China by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      So once the USA has wiped out China, where will you buy all the stuff that was previously "Made in China"?

      Wal-Mart?

      At least until all that previously-made stuff runs out..

    17. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their figure is probaly along the lines of trained military personel, that are healthy enough to pass basic endurance, strength, mental tests. Once you weed it down to people you actualy want fighitng i'm sure the number drops alot. But that doesn't mean a 99 year old cripple in a wheel chair couldn't man a observation tower, or sit behind a machine gun... or run one of these robots.

    18. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q:Who has the most advanced robots?

      A: America ie Canada

      Who is going to be able to produce massive amounts of robotic warriors... USA

      Who will have them crushed by a superior but smaller number of robotic defender CANADA , the talon is the first version of one of our robotic platform wich "again" the US as stolen/copied.

      C ourageous
      A merican
      N oble
      A merican
      D efender of
      A merica

      The best Defense is to make others think you are harmless and dont have a Real Army and try to be nice first.

      Whats the diference between Afghanistan and Irak :

      Canada

      One place is safe the other is constantly being under attack.

      A real superpower never claim to be one.

      on September 2001 a Canadian General from NATO at 11 am add to intervene and save the day. The US whas invaded and crushed that day and unable to face the threat.

    19. Re:Good News in War Against China by PerpetualMotion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Paying for lifetime US-quality medical services, life insurance, widow's benifits, orphan benifits, pension benifits, college costs, and all the other costs associated with putting the numbers of men in the field, the cost benifit ratio may well prove to favor robots and other systems that keep service members out of harms way.

      What it comes down to is the almighty dollar.

    20. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but my KillBots feature Lotus Notes AND a Machine Gun!!! -- Wernstrom --

    21. Re:Good News in War Against China by Vulcann · · Score: 1

      If the last few years and the cold war have taught anything, land assults (robots or humans) have largely become irrelevant to any war. The Soviets attached a great deal of importance to submarines with ballistic missile launch capability while the americans focussed a lot of aircraft and missile delivery systems of they're own.

      The ONLY reason the Americans really "won" the Afgan war was because they bombarded the place to a pulp even before a single US soldier set foot onto a real battleground.

      If there is really a place for robotics its to replace aircraft and submaries with robotic counterparts because they are the real force multipliers in a battle (not military headcount).

    22. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ONLY reason the Americans really "won" the Afgan war was because they bombarded the place to a pulp even before a single US soldier set foot onto a real battleground.

      If your assertation were true, Bush would not have be announcing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq.
      I'm of the opinion that a much more important reason was the international support that allowed the US to turn peacekeeping over to the UN after major combat operations were ended.

    23. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shrug* Bush already cut a load of those.

      Using more robots means the "Twitch" community will be the first to be drafted. :p

    24. Re:Good News in War Against China by kahei · · Score: 1


      You mean the USA is becoming bogged down in city management, resulting in a long boring crawl forward which everyone except complete obsessives eventually gives up on?

      Just kidding, Civ is great.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    25. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "low regard for human life" reminds me of
      another country too... one which claims
      to respect human rights but is responsible
      for the torture of masses in a prison in Iraq.

      Abu Gharib is the name of the prison, and
      U.S.A. is the name of the aforementioned country
      in case you do not know or remember.

      (Abu Gharib in Iraq is not the only place where
      U.S.A. has violated human rights.)

    26. Re:Good News in War Against China by Vulcann · · Score: 1

      If your assertation were true, Bush would not have be announcing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq....

      Hey I meant the "won" with mild sarcasm. See the point I wanted to make that unlike the Soviets who got thoroughly clobbered with guerilla warfare tactics of the Afgan militia eventually had to pull out because they're ground troops were unable to quell the local uprising. The Americans on the other hand levelled the place to kingdom come even before they set foot on the place. If they attempted a land assault they would have suffered a similar fate as the soviets. The air bombardment and the cruise missile pummeling were the defining difference.

    27. Re:Good News in War Against China by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The military is probably planning to outsource the manufacture of these robots to China.

      Most of the parts probably are made in China already.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    28. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be scared, very scared
      those dirty commies are essentially manufacturing alot of the hardware that you use in every day systems. Who is to think that they havent encrypted a kill code in every piece of silicon they have ever manufactured!

      Oh no there goes warcraft Aaargh! Among otherthings

    29. Re:Good News in War Against China by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we did build millions of these bots, we'd have to ask China (and all of our other creditors) politely to pay for them for us. On top of that, since we've let them suck away all of our manufacturing over the last 25 years, we'd have to ask them to build them for us, too.

    30. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land attacks mean you can take more of an enemy infrasctructure more intact than not. With the afghans, it was an attack more based on idealogy than anything else, there was nothing to gain there strategically more than econimicaly, so you might as well just bombard it into submission.

    31. Re:Good News in War Against China by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart is China's 8th largest trading partner.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    32. Re:Good News in War Against China by money_shot · · Score: 0

      The US Army SF units were in the country for months before the first start was fired. They largely did recon and organized the Northern Alliance to go on the offensive.

      The US bombing of Afghanistan was the endgame for the first part of the war. Your simple view of what happened is based on watching the nightly news and not on doing research or educating yourself about the historical campaign.

    33. Re:Good News in War Against China by Master+Ben · · Score: 1

      If there is really a place for robotics its to replace aircraft and submaries with robotic counterparts because they are the real force multipliers in a battle (not military headcount).

      Not true. The best place for robotics is in guerilla warfare which is where human casualties are highest. However a robot has not yet been designed for this. The robot that this article is about is one that would be "on the front lines" and would be first into battle.

      The Iraq and Afghan wars aren't really an ideal scenario for these robots. They're more suited for a WWIII scenario where a robot could go into situations that would have it heavily outnumbered.

    34. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has always had superior submarine forces. The soviets had a larger quantity of subs, but the US subs were much more quiet and had superior technology. The newest subs we have, the Seawolf class, are far more advanced than anything else out there.

    35. Re:Good News in War Against China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you're so fucking good. Can you please come and slaughter the rest of us, now that you're so rich and have so mean weapons.

    36. Re:Good News in War Against China by Vulcann · · Score: 1

      They largely did recon and organized the Northern Alliance to go on the offensive....Your simple view of what happened is based on watching the nightly news and not on doing research or educating yourself about the historical campaign....

      5 stars for patriotism but -10 for being blinded by it. If you claim you have "researched" the news and yet not see the obvious in the news its REMARKABLE! When I said "before setting foot" on the place I expected someone to at least read between the lines. I meant they didnt set foot on a battleground. Being in the country and not fighting themselves is as good as being a local tourist.

      If it were my country and it was attacked by the Taliban, I would not be so gunshy about sending my soldiers in first hand to finish off the job instead of "using" the Northern Alliance. The Taliban had no aircraft, no tanks, no laser guided munitions, nothing. So exactly what was the purpose of bombing the shit out of them first with all the air/firepower at you're disposal if ground troops could have "finished off" the job anyway ? It's because they didnt want to become kalashnikov fodder like the russians were at the hands of the dug in Taliban who knew the terrain and the guerilla tactics far better. Being patriotic is all fine and great but at least look at the situation like it is. The Red Army is a considerable force to recon with so dont take they're defeat lightly.

      You might argue that when one has the firepower why wouldnt one use it. I agree completely. But inspect you're own reasons about why they used it first. It was purely because it made the ground offensive a veritable cakewalk in comparrison to what the soviets faced facing the enemy in the eye on the ground. That was my point exactly - firepower and airpower are what win or lose a battle - not ground troops. They chose this strategy BECAUSE they learned from the Russian experience. Do you're research first before "educating" others.

  20. not really new by cyrax777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    police departments have been using shotgun armered robots for a while to shoot bombs and stuff via remote.

    1. Re:not really new by oO+Peeping+Tom+Oo · · Score: 1

      nah, they just shoot a concentrated burst of water to disable the explosive.

    2. Re:not really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Coming up next :@RoboCop Lives!

      Coming up after that : RoboBurglar Strikes back!

  21. Talon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A remote control thing with big weapons...sounds like a Farscape reference.

  22. let's hope ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they're not running Windows!

  23. Robots Make $$$ by Mad+Martigan · · Score: 1

    I think that these robots would be much better fund-raising machines than killing machines. Think about these robots on Battle Bots. I think this could get the show back on the air. Then, the DoD could use the winnings to reduce the tax burden of defense spending.

    Maybe not.

    1. Re:Robots Make $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the show was basic research? Cheaper to produce a TV show and get people to submit detailed reports on robots, which they then demonstrate till faileur, than have teams of paid engineers doing the same.

  24. M249 by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The weapons these things are carrying are the M249 SAW. They are chambered in the 5.56mm NATO round spec and carry a 200 round box which it feeds from, but it can also use the regular 30 round magazines that the M-16 uses. The gun was developed in the 70s and has been used by the US, UK, and Isreali forces. Although the original ones could accept the M-16 magazines the latest Mk.46 mod.0 version doesn't include this option as to save weight on an already hefty 6.8 kg gun.

    1. Re:M249 by xtord · · Score: 1

      6.8kg? that's nothing for a GPMG!
      The swedish gpmg weights in at 15! (We'll it did when I did military service (99), might have changed now)

      An ordinary assault rifle weights somewhere around 4-5kg.

      Also, ammo weights alot more than 6.8kg.

    2. Re:M249 by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Can these things be fitted with riot bullets?

      I know all the discussion has been over using lethal ammunition, but I think these would be great tools for law enforcement when there's a standoff or something, or during riots. Imagine being able to send a robot into a firefight instead of risking the life of a police officer? I mean, obviously there's a tradeoff in skill and ability, but I'm sure there are situations where it would be a better option.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:M249 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should really transition to the 6.8mm round for this weapon since it has most of the light weight ammo benefit of 5.56mm round and most of the knock down power of the 7.62mm round

    4. Re:M249 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the M249 isn't really a GPMG... The M60 and the M240(aka FNMAG, Ksp58 to us) which replaces it is.

      M249 is a light support weapon, and we have it too, it's just called Ksp90(aka FN Minimi).

    5. Re:M249 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      no, sorry. an ordinary modern assault rifle weights around 3.5 kg without ammo or underbarrel grenade launcher.

      light machine guns aren't much heavier than assault rifles and in some cases they are nothing more than assault rifles with a heavier and longer barrell, a bigger magazine and a folding bipod (for example rpk or rpk-74)

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    6. Re:M249 by Bishop · · Score: 1

      The m249 is not a GPMG. There is a GPMG that fires a 7.62Nato round, and is much heavier. It seems to me that this heavier machine gun has been relagated to static positions. In truth the usefullness of the light m249 is debatable. With ammunition it is much heavier then any of the standard 5.56Nato rifles. For all the extra weight the effective range, accurary, and penetration of the M249 is no better then standard rifles. The advantage is the high rate of fire. While some argue that the high rate of fire is a great advantage, just as many would argue that soldiers trained to shot accurately are better. The detrators of the M249 argue that if a machine gun is needed, it is better to take the heavier, more powerfull GPMG.

    7. Re:M249 by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Just to add to this, the FN Minimi is the little brother to the FN MAG (aka MAG 58), probably the most successful general purpose machinegun design of all time.

      Since it was designed by a Belgian company, Fabrique National, it's used by the Belgian military as well as countless other militaries around the world, including the Australian Army.

      The FN Minimi is a bit heavy but reliable, and is well liked by most soldiers.

  25. Not so bad... by zors · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I used to think that these things were unfair and that US (or the west in general) soldiers shouldn't be so out of risk or as powerful. Then i realized, fuck that. What war does to a soldier, i cannot completely comprehend. But i can comprehend it enough to say that any tech that means fewer soldiers have to die, that its a good thing.

    1. Re:Not so bad... by Grey+Tomorrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you are missing the point that only fewer soldiers on OUR SIDE die. The casulaties on the other will make up for the discrepancy.

    2. Re:Not so bad... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...any tech that means fewer soldiers have to die..."

      Fewer of ours, more of theirs...OOH RAH!

    3. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      fewer soldiers have to die
      and more casualties on the other side... yep!
    4. Re:Not so bad... by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In the short term that may be a good thing, but in the long term it means that the United States is even more powerful militarily than it has been before. Will technology like this make America more bold? Would attacking other countries such as Iran be an easier choice to make without the threat of American casualties to sway the public?

      Nobody wants to see more people die in war, but even fewer want to see a lone superpower with even less hesitancy to enforce its agenda around the world. In the end, things like this could cause more deaths than they save.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    5. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any tech that means fewer soldiers have to die, that its a good thing.

      I know - how about you don't go declaring illegal wars and basically feeding shitloads of soldiers into a sausage maker like what the mighty US of A is doing in Iraq right now? Thats easy, readily available tech that anyone can use *right now*.

    6. Re:Not so bad... by zors · · Score: 1

      uh...yeah. so?

      Sure we ought to avoid war whenever we can, but if we are at war, our men come first.

      Is that such a bad arguement?

    7. Re:Not so bad... by back_pages · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I used to think that these things were unfair and that US (or the west in general) soldiers shouldn't be so out of risk or as powerful. Then i realized, fuck that. What war does to a soldier, i cannot completely comprehend. But i can comprehend it enough to say that any tech that means fewer soldiers have to die, that its a good thing.

      Another angle on this is that mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons was enough intimidation that it prevented nuclear war. In a similar fashion, fighting a war where your side suffers human losses while the enemy loses robots would be a humiliating, demoralizing experience - perhaps to an extent that fighting against such a miliatary would be a lost cause before the first round is fired.

      There are pros and cons to that - it could be a very real deterrent to warfare, but it could just as easily alienate and silence people with a just cause for fighting. I doubt those people would shrug their shoulders and go home - they'd probably settle for guerilla warfare amongst the civilian population where an armed robot isn't a feasible option. Hm, not a far cry from terrorism.

      I'm seriously not a hippy but the prevalence of "insurgent" style warfare these days is starting to convince me that war really isn't the answer - not because war is unhappy or unpleasant, but because people who are motivated enough to fight a war will express themselves despite being outright defeated in a war. If they want to kill, they'll kill regardless of your tanks or soldiers or barricades or armed robots. It's just too bad that nobody tosses tea into the harbor anymore.

    8. Re:Not so bad... by bob+beta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fewer of 'theirs' if they get a f-ing clue and give up sooner.

    9. Re:Not so bad... by grumbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are the one that started the war, then yep, its a bad argument.

    10. Re:Not so bad... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is /. , where a portion of the posters think that everything the US Military does is evil and that anything that helps them is wrong.

      They are unable to thing things thru...

    11. Re:Not so bad... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Does Iran having Nuclear weapons and delivery systems bother you?

    12. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While these robotic attack weapons might work in a full-scale battle theatre, and therefore help discourage such all out war between nations, I am guessing that technology has a long way to go before you could use robots in an urban/mixed environment without unacceptable collateral damage or large human support teams, e.g. limit the use of robots to the final entry into a hostile room or alley much as a bomb disposal team might unpack the robot and send it in from the doorway. It's hard to say if a robot is better for that limited scenario than hand-grenades or RPGs.

      An important part of the soldier is his mind making split-second judgements right in the thick of things. So I do not think robot deployment would discourage guerilla tactics, which is arguably the greatest modern threat anyway.

    13. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the shot heard around the world put an end to that.

    14. Re:Not so bad... by ozborn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No more than any other country having nukes. Actually it may be a postive thing if they had nukes since that might prevent Bush from invading and killing who knows how many people (Iranian and American)

    15. Re:Not so bad... by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Troll

      It doesn't bother you that a country that has threatened to nuke Israel off the map is working on nuclear weapons? Most, if not all, of the current countries that have nuclear weapons are sane when it comes to there use - Iran and N Korea do not fall into that catagory.

      Perhaps you should read up on how they do things in Iran before you support them having nukes.

    16. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be the first to admit: I never thing things through

    17. Re:Not so bad... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would attacking other countries such as Iran be an easier choice to make without the threat of American casualties to sway the public?

      Man, I hope so. Otherwise, what good is it? Seriously.

      Nobody wants to see more people die in war, but even fewer want to see a lone superpower with even less hesitancy to enforce its agenda around the world.

      We all got agendas, Bunky. I have one. America and Iran have one. You clearly have one. And although I don't have the poll numbers in front of me, I believe the number of people who want to see the agenda of a country sitting atop a substantive percentage of the world's oil supply, draped in medieval-level religious fanaticism, and armed with newly-minted atomic weapons achieve ascendancy over that of a nation whose principal exports are fast food, Hollywood movies, Internet cafes, arrogance, swagger, and democracy is rather small.

      It's been over a hundred years that America could be viewed as the underdog, and pop culture teaches us never to root for the Big Lone Superpower, but when the little guys are murderous right-wing religious lunatics, aintcha glad that pop culture's got nothing on plain ol' common sense?

    18. Re:Not so bad... by AndyL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fewer of 'ours' if we do.

    19. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps you should read up on how they do things in Iran before you support them having nukes.

      Maybe you should trying living there to find out how they really do things in Iran instead of just reading about it ... and passing judgments on them.

    20. Re:Not so bad... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Perhaps I have been to Iran or I have friends who live there. You do not know, no do you? You made an assumption and it made you look like a dumbass.

    21. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh ... but the Big guy consists of murderous left-wing religious lunatics.

    22. Re:Not so bad... by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      So you want us to start a war and then allow our side to get slaughtered? What if it's a war of intervention where some country (say...Kosovo) is experiencing genocide of one ethnicity by another?

      So we should go there, try to stop it, and since we initiated the violence between us and them, we should allow thousands of troops to die?! Wow...

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    23. Re:Not so bad... by grumbel · · Score: 0, Troll

      Better thousands of ours then tens/hundred of thousands of the others. If one dead soldier of ours can save ten dead on the other side then its worth it. Military is already droping bombs on places without checking first what exactly is going on there and thus bombing a wedding every once in a while. And all that just because they didn't want to risk a few soldiers.

    24. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It helps to counter the mainstream view that everything the US military does is good, and that anything that helps them (e.g. the torture, rape and murder in Abu Ghraib) can't be wrong.

    25. Re:Not so bad... by DRobson · · Score: 1

      "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - General George Patton (1885-1945)

    26. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's exactly it. You start a war and you're wrong, your guys should get slaughtered. That's how it works. It's not a nice thing to face up to, so it's a shame the American people didn't do so when they had the chance.

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons - the bloodthirsty, gun totin', flag-fetishising, armchair warriors will be all over this in a flash.

    27. Re:Not so bad... by CurlyG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...a nation whose principal exports are fast food, Hollywood movies, Internet cafes, arrogance, swagger, and democracy"
      ...and nuclear weapons, cultural imperialism, lowest-common-denominator entertainment, anti-intellectualism, gun culture, hyper-agressive business practices, corporate owned 'democracy', business by lawsuit, capitalism as religion, religion as capitalism, all-out economic war against it's supposed allies (cloaked in fluffy terms like 'globalisation' and 'free trade'), 18th-century labour and health policies... I could go on and on and on, but your last sentence just can't go unnoted:

      "...but when the little guys are murderous right-wing religious lunatics, aintcha glad that pop culture's got nothing on plain ol' common sense?"

      And when the people in charge of the Big Lone Superpower are murderous right-wing religious lunatics with a massive military, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (and a history of actually using them), and effectively unchecked political power over the rest of the world, then please tell me, who are we supposed to root for?

      --
      You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
    28. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more than likely, Haifa, Tel Aviv, or even some city in southern Europe could be vaporized because some nutbag thinks it's the right thing to do for jihad.

    29. Re:Not so bad... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      And when the people in charge of the Big Lone Superpower are murderous right-wing religious lunatics with a massive military, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (and a history of actually using them), and effectively unchecked political power over the rest of the world, then please tell me, who are we supposed to root for?

      You don't root for anybody; you vote them out of office. Something you can't do in a medieval theocracy. Thing is, American policy and politics is fluid, it's been adapting to modern times as it has to if its leaders want their parties to stay in power. It's a self-correcting system. You simply can't compare its leaders to those whose politics remain effectively unchanged since the Ottoman Empire and before.

      America may be building an empire, but at least it's a new one.

      Look, I wouldn't worry, Ace: When we elect ineffective presidents who wear their religion on their sleeve, as we did in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, they're not around for a second term...

    30. Re:Not so bad... by Surur · · Score: 1

      Look, I wouldn't worry, Ace: When we elect ineffective presidents who wear their religion on their sleeve, as we did in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, they're not around for a second term...

      What! Have you been sleeping since 1 November ?

      Surur
      --
      Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
    31. Re:Not so bad... by guttergod · · Score: 1

      Everything is bad until leaders opt to play a game of warcraft against the opposition rather than sending people to die for their political agenda.

      --

      Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.

    32. Re:Not so bad... by typhatix- · · Score: 1

      You are an utter moron and a bad person.

    33. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he said ineffectual Presidents do not get elected for a second term. The majority of voters do not feel the same as you do. History will be the judge on whether they were right.

    34. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mutually assured destruction only works when the opponents are rational. Islamic radicals want to die and would prefer to take as many infidels with them. Does anyone actually believe that they would not use a nuclear bomb if they had one. The next response will be that the US is the only country that has used one. At the time nobody really knew what the effect of the bomb would be. As horrible as the bombs on Japan were, it could be argued that landing troops and taking the country would have caused much more suffering.

    35. Re:Not so bad... by frankie · · Score: 1

      Grumbel goes too far. A more appropriate statement would be: "If it encourages your leaders to start more wars, then yes, it's A Bad Thing".

      Make no mistake, unipolar domination with zero coffins flying to Dover, that's a no-brainer.

    36. Re:Not so bad... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
      a country sitting atop a substantive percentage of the world's oil supply, draped in medieval-level religious fanaticism, and armed with newly-minted atomic weapons

      Yeah, I agree. (reads on) Oh hang on...you weren't talking about George Bush's America, were you...

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    37. Re:Not so bad... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Sure we ought to avoid war whenever we can

      Have you been living under a rock for the last two years? ;-)

    38. Re:Not so bad... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That's, um, the point of war. War is an ugly thing, and there really are no rules. Those wich follow supposed "rules" typically end up on the losing side. Imagine a football game without referees. Now, imagine that one team plays by the rules and one team ignores them. Which team is likely to win? Now imagine it's not a game, and the life an liberty of your family is at stake in the outcome. Which approach should you take?

      The goal of war is to kill so many people on the other side that they a) give up and b) have no chance of reconsitiuting a military threat. If that means turning entire cities into smoldering radioactive glass, so be it. As I said above, war is an ugly thing. It should not be entered into without exhausting all other avenues. It's my main problem with the current policy of the US governement (re: reasons for Iraq invasion)

      .

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    39. Re:Not so bad... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Thing is, American policy and politics is fluid, it's been adapting to modern times as it has to if its leaders want their parties to stay in power. It's a self-correcting system.

      Bollocks, are you suggesting that recent (20-30 years) political changes in the US can be called "correcting"? The western worlds political systems have been destroyed by the way politicians (ab)use the media. Arguing about flip-flopping and draft-dodging when you should be arguing POLICY.

      And then there are the folks who have voted the same way for the whole of their lives, or those who base their vote on the religion of the candidate. Argh, they should not be allowed to vote!! It is their fault that the "swing" voters are the ones who actually control the result.

      It was suggested in the movie "Wag the Dog" that TV destroyed the electoral process. I wholeheartedly agree.

      When we elect ineffective presidents who wear their religion on their sleeve, as we did in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, they're not around for a second term...

      Eh? Were you sleeping in Nov, or did I miss the sarcasm? ;-)

    40. Re:Not so bad... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > "...a nation whose principal exports are fast food, Hollywood movies, Internet cafes, arrogance, swagger, and democracy"
      >
      > ...and nuclear weapons, cultural imperialism, lowest-common-denominator entertainment, anti-intellectualism, gun culture, hyper-agressive business practices, corporate owned 'democracy', business by lawsuit, capitalism as religion, religion as capitalism, all-out economic war against it's supposed allies (cloaked in fluffy terms like 'globalisation' and 'free trade'), 18th-century labour and health policies... I could go on and on and on, but your last sentence just can't go unnoted:

      And while we're on the subject of exports.

      Name two things (other than "oil" and "terror") that have been exported by the Muslim world in the past 50 - hell, the past 100 - years.

      Go on, we're waiting.

    41. Re:Not so bad... by REggert · · Score: 1
      "...a nation whose principal exports are fast food, Hollywood movies, Internet cafes, arrogance, swagger, and democracy"

      ...and nuclear weapons, cultural imperialism, lowest-common-denominator entertainment, anti-intellectualism, gun culture, hyper-agressive business practices, corporate owned 'democracy', business by lawsuit, capitalism as religion, religion as capitalism, all-out economic war against it's supposed allies (cloaked in fluffy terms like 'globalisation' and 'free trade'), 18th-century labour and health policies...

      I defy you to name a single instance in which the U.S. has exported nuclear weapons. That claim, as well as the rest of that paragraph, for that matter, is a bunch of total nonsense. I don't understand why you were modded "Insightful" instead of "Troll" or "Flamebait". Someone with mod points apparently shares your American-bashing agenda.

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    42. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I defy you to name a single instance in which the U.S. has exported nuclear weapons."

      I was told by a CIA contractor that he was 95% sure, from insider sources, that we had given a nuke to Israel. Aside from that, we certainly export nuclear weapons, they just remain within the control of U.S. troops within foreign countries.

      Many of the practices sited as being exported from the U.S. by the previous poster have at least some justification. American greed, and the techniques used to propagate it are certainly spreading around the world. We did not invent greed, but the methods are all American.

    43. Re:Not so bad... by REggert · · Score: 1

      4th-hand rumors do not in any way consistitute truth. Additionally, taking something with you to another country for your own use does not constitute "export."

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    44. Re:Not so bad... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      You start a war and you're wrong,

      Pretty much anyone who starts a war is wrong. I can't think of anything that justifies a war, except fighting for your own freedom/life, and arguably that is not starting a war, just retaliating. That thousands of people would line up into two factions to kill people they do not know, because someone else told them to is the epitome of all that is wrong with humanity.

    45. Re:Not so bad... by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1
      We all got agendas, Bunky. I have one. America and Iran have one.

      Yes, but America has put Iran into the agenda that it is in right now. By helping install the Shah as an American-friendly dictator, we alienated the Iranian people. When they rose up in a peaceful revolution, we condemned it and put sanctions on their country.

      You clearly have one.

      You are right, but it isn't political in nature. My agenda is applying basic ethical guidelines to what I see in the world. You seem incapable of doing that, as you compare an American-placed administration with the current Iranian government. Where do the thousands of lives that would be lost fit into all of this? Where would the ravaged cities come into place?

      So much of the problematic relationship that we have with many Middle Easterners stems from the foreign policy decisions we have made in Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Contrary to what George Bush says, they do not hate us because we "love freedom" or because we are westerners or Christians. They hate us because we have injured their countries in very real and tangible ways with our foreign policy decisions during the Cold War.

      P.S. I don't care what is popular or not. I will never support invasions by, as you call them, "right-wing lunatics" who have nuclear weapons. When we do that, we end up invading a country for no real reason, with estimates of up to 100,000 indigenous people dead and over 1000 of our own troops dead.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    46. Re:Not so bad... by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      The actual fighting of wars are not ideologically driven. Whoever has the best tech, most resources, and best soldiers usually wins. Ideology that started the war has very little effect on its outcome. Soldiers are pawns, and wishing them death is a cruel and horrible thing. Anything that we can do to reduce the risks our soldiers take, and at the same time inflict maximum casualties on our enemies is a good thing.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    47. Re:Not so bad... by tpgp · · Score: 1

      Name two things (other than "oil" and "terror") that have been exported by the Muslim world in the past 50 - hell, the past 100 - years.

      transistors, transport equipment, textiles, rice, leather goods, electrical appliances

      That enough for ya? Plenty more in the cia world factbook if you're interested.

      --
      My pics.
  26. EMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would the robots from the Terminator movies be susceptible to EMP waves?

    1. Re:EMP by Epcoatl · · Score: 1

      I think that's the Matrix

  27. Robomafia by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Any connection to this story?

    1. Re:Robomafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

  28. Human oversight by grunt547 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:
    "Driving, observing and shooting are always done with a man in the loop," the Foster-Miller spokesman said. "The labs like autonomy, but the users themselves always like to have control."
    It's really not too shocking to think about a computer in charge of deadly force. Sure, think about Arnold in Terminator, but this is not a new idea. We've put computers in charge of our weapons systems for years. Back in the days when strategic bombers with nuclear weapons were our primary deterrent, the computer (such as it existed in the 50s and 60s) was in charge of dropping the bombs. This was even more common on conventional platforms, where accuracy actually mattered. The computer can figure out where the best place to pickle off the bomb is, and all the pilot does is flip a consent switch that actually allows the plane to release a weapon. All the pilot knew was that the bomb would release at some point. This system offers a lot more control to the human operator, who I guess will be playing an FPS in real-life.
    1. Re:Human oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I recall a PBS show (NOVA?) on the teeny weeny branch of the US military involved in actually manning the launch stations for cold war ICBMs (called missleers or something like that). It was interesting to note how deeply the notion of human oversight goes in that setup. While there is a computer involved for flight control etc., it is absolutely dependent on humans to start and monitor the process. The notion of "THE BUTTON" is pretty far off the mark. Its actually a series of phone calls that triggers this response of progressing through all these elaborate checks, double checks and bail out points, two people per missle IIRC. The entire core is based on the notion of absolute perfection in following protocol, complete with very routine exams, where a _single_ mistake equals a long break or outright dismissal. Creepy but oddly compelling.

    2. Re:Human oversight by smallstepforman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Back in the army, I used to man an anti aircraft radar installation. The missile launch panel was protected by a series of locks / protocol codes for that day. The designers figured that this level of security (2 keys and a keypad) should be enough to protect the latch mechanism on the launch button, thus preventing soldiers from accidently launching missiles. Stick your fingers through a maintainance panel in the back, and you could manually unlock the latch protecting the launch buttons. So much for secure control panels.

      Dont fool yourself, if someone maliscious wanted to bypass the security of "the button", they would. I'm 100% confident that there are workarounds for the regular launch process.

      --
      Revolution = Evolution
    3. Re:Human oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two people per missle IIRC

      I may be going off of old protocol, but one of these two people would be an enlisted soldier while the other would be an officer. This actually severely reduces the chance that the two people would collaborate and set off their own course of destruction.

      Some of the protocols dealing with seperation of the knowledge of codes to access nuclear armaments is pretty neat as well. For instance to change the code on a safe, it requires two people, and they each know half of the code with a common middle number. One person sets the first half of the code, while the other stands X number of paces away, facing away from the safe, shaking a pill bottle full of BBs near his ear so he can't make out the clicks of the lock mechanism as the code is changed in the safe. I dunno... for some reason I just think that is a really elegant solution.

      And following protocol in such security matters is one reason that I am actually glad that the military has such a following chain of command brainwashing going on. Lest we have some Dr. Strangelove stuff going on.

    4. Re:Human oversight by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "This system offers a lot more control to the human operator, who I guess will be playing an FPS in real-life."

      If the FPS players I've known are anything to go by,
      when these guys are playing their 'deathmatch' in your backyard, get the hell out of there.

      Seriously. I bet discipline becomes a huge problem with the pilots of these things;

      If today, war has become something that we see on TV, virtually an entertainment, imagine when its something played on a game console...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Human oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You being 100% certain of something that you have no way of knowing makes me 98% certain that you're an idiot.

    6. Re:Human oversight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Out of the many gamers in the world, the assorted militaries should have no problem finding many with the necessary discipline. Also, gaming is a skill (?) which anyone with good hand-eye coordination can learn, so they can take people with the discipline, and make them video warriors. You will always need humans on the ground which is why so many people believe in the eventual development of powered armor - the only way to make your people safe all the time is to be protecting them all the time. Humanoid mecha, on the other hand, are pretty unlikely. :)

      Regardless robots are not going to replace people because all you have to do is interfere with communications and then they have to operate autonomously which is a recipe for disaster. You will always have people near the robots. The places you're going to see robots are in the hands of people in the field or supporting people in the field, and in situations where they're the only way to have any hope of accomplishing anything, in which case there won't be many of them involved.

      I do believe that we will see autonomous killing machines soon enough, but I think most of them will be pretty simple. They'll mostly be stuff like sentry guns and more intelligent smart weapons like grenades that roll towards motion. They will have as much intelligence as possible to determine whether or not they should blow something up but in general it will be assumed that they will attack anything in front of them. They will not be used in a case where you can afford to put a person there, or when you expect that you might have friendlies in front of it, the latter of which is a subset of the former. I don't think we're going to see fully autonomous killing machines for a very, very long time, at least not very good ones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Human oversight by ezeri · · Score: 1

      With our ICBM force, it is the warhead themselves that require the proper codes to detonate the weapon, and since there is a great deal of precision required in detonating a nuke, there realy is no way around it. So even if there was a way to bypass the security, and launch, it be a dud. True, it would likely start a real war, but that is beyond the scope of the bombs security. Also, as the grandparent stated, the security, for the ICMB's is just as much human as it is technical, with multiple levels of oversight, so no one person, or even two or three could actualy launch.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    8. Re:Human oversight by Znork · · Score: 1

      The longterm goal, of course, is to take the soldier out of the loop. A soldier can refuse to flip that release switch when ordered to open fire upon his own countrymen. This is not optimal for our dear leaders.

    9. Re:Human oversight by Fortress · · Score: 1

      There are more common examples of computers in control of deadly force. For instance, take the horrifying practise of WWII-era Japanese kamikaze pilot flying a plane loaded with explosives into a ship. Replace the pilot with a computer, and you've got a cruise missile.

  29. just make sure to grab the right clothespin by enrico_suave · · Score: 0

    I'd hate to see the carnage if someone else was on the same frequency crystal or if the neighbor's kid get's an RC car/plane.

    e.

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
  30. Keith Laumer by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Wrote some wicked dystopian SF with these things. It was around 1968. The only difference between then and now is that armed RPVs exist today.

    I wonder if they will use a race or religion - based FoF discrimination system? Shoot the brown people or, shoot the non Christian?

    http://www.keithlaumer.com/

    1. Re:Keith Laumer by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1

      Shoot the brown people or, shoot the non Christian?

      Both. They're probably all terrorists anyway.

    2. Re:Keith Laumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA

      They aren't autonomous and the person controlling the robot should be better equipped to determine friend or foe than a soldier would, being safe and fully in control of their facilities, and probably of the Intelligence variety.

    3. Re:Keith Laumer by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      To be in much agreement with you, soft one!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  31. Johnny 5?... Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why start with machine guns? Give then granade launchers first. Maybe then they might be good in Iraq that way. Some how I do not think they will be replacing real foot soldiers any time soon. They certainly will not cleanup urban warfare, even though that is what the average American techno military goof might think. We still have not learned the lessons of Vietnam and will pay dearly for our collective stupidity.

  32. Re:Article Text by PMJ2kx · · Score: 1
    A robot coming next year from John Deere and iRobot will ferry supplies to and from the front, navigating its travels with little human input.
    Oh, teriffic...we'll do a little farming of opium while the 'bots are kickin' trash...
  33. We already have autonomous firing systems by ca1v1n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Patriot Missile system fires with no human intervention. It uses an Identification Friend-or-Foe system to track everything in the air, and shoot down anything that shouldn't be there. During the recent Iraq invasion, a glitch in this system caused it to fire upon a British fighter jet, destroying it and killing its pilot. It was about to do the same to a US jet, but that jet was armed with fast-flying radar-seeking missiles designed to take out hostile SAM sites, and was able to take out the radar component of the Patriot system before the missile reached his plane. Notably no one was injured on the ground when he did this, since there was nobody actually sitting in front of the device, or anywhere near it.

    I think it'll be a long time before autonomously firing ground systems are in place, because it's hard enough doing IFF in the sky, let alone on the ground. I think the fire-finder system (used in the Balkans to take out mortar positions in the mountains firing upon cities) might do this in some limited capacity, but that's only anti-artillery, rather than telling the difference between a guerilla carrying an RPG and a farmer carrying a section of irrigation pipe. Sure, you could wait until they shoot first for all of these systems, since that's a lot easier to determine automatically, but I think it's quite obvious that waiting for the other guy to shoot first is very far from the policy of the current administration.

    1. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by bob+beta · · Score: 3, Funny

      rather than telling the difference between a guerilla carrying an RPG and a farmer carrying a section of irrigation pipe.

      Do farmers really carry irrigation pipe in battle zones?

      Perhaps we can pass out leaflets warning said farmers.

    2. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Make the leaflets soft but absorbing reading and they'll thank you for it.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

      In a conventional war, with a front separating the territory held by each faction, people who live on it tend to go elsewhere until the war moves along. If we still fought wars like that, autonomous firing systems would be a lot less problematic. Problem is, we spend a month fighting like that, and are left with years of guerilla warfare that follow, effectively making the entire country a battle zone.

    4. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, duh. The policy of the current administration is to shoot first, shoot some more, and keep shooting until everyone else is dead. Whether they were planning to attack, planning to watch, or were just there (because it's their country, dammit), they are all supposed to die.

      So that the administration can liberate the poor suffering oil reserves.

    5. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      "King And Country: Without a doubt my favourite magazine. Soft, strong, and thoroughly absorbant."

      (From Blackadder)

    6. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 1

      A more detailed look at the Patriot missle system is very telling of the current status, viability and danger of fully automated weaponry.
      http://www.raytheon.com/products/static/node3832.h tml
      http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/p atriot.htm
      Please search further results.
      Personally I don't think man should be trusted with a tool more devastating than a stick, but that's just me....

    7. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      Do farmers really carry irrigation pipe in battle zones?

      I don't know about farmers, but ordinary people carry table legs in the street...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    8. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... but I think it's quite obvious that waiting for the other guy to shoot first is very far from the policy of the current administration.


      Hey, they can always get George Lucas to revise things and claim that Han only shot in self defence!

    9. Re:We already have autonomous firing systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sounds good to me. shoot some more!

      unfortunately, we aren't doing that and that's the problem.

  34. So What ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strapping a gun to a bog standard, tracked, remotely operated robot is considered news worthy ? It's the kind of thing a child would think up.

  35. Mirrordot Link by b0lt · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    got sig?
  36. Duplicate story by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

    I have definitely seen this story on Slashdot recently. How did this get through the edit process?

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
  37. What a great solution by bigberk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heh, now I can see how USA of the future is going to run the world. A bunch of armed robots rolling around the middle east bringing freedom to every man, woman, and child while obese American schoolchildren hold the remote linked gamepads in their greasy palms, with attention divided between American Idol and a Kraft "cheese" commercial.

    1. Re:What a great solution by bob+beta · · Score: 0

      The Iraqi people will bring freedom to their own country, with elections.

  38. IDing friend vs. foe with low-res cameras by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    I don't see how the cameras in this thing will have enough resolution to do proper ID of friend vs. foe. Man-in-the-loop is not going to work well without some pretty intensive HDTV or better cameras. Perhaps a foveal vision system slaved to the operator's eyeball might be adequate, but I still suspect that troops will shoot first at the grainy pictures and ask questions later.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  39. Talon's Brother by loid_void · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that Talon's brother in Terminator III?

    --
    Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
  40. Send your suggestion to the millitary. by NoseBag · · Score: 1

    I for one would pay big bucks to see two or more of these little puppies go at it against each other. The commercial income could pay for the whole development program.

    At 700-800 rounds per minute (cyclic) for the onboard weapon, I really DO NOT want to see what one of these things will do to a flesh-and-blood.

    Call me a wuss...

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:Send your suggestion to the millitary. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      At 700-800 rounds per minute (cyclic) for the onboard weapon, I really DO NOT want to see what one of these things will do to a flesh-and-blood.

      Pretty much the same thing an M4 or M16 will do to a body.

  41. US Army can have the most sophisticated tech ever by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 1, Troll

    They're still going to fuck up and shoot their allies by mistake

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
  42. Re:This Will Save Lives by centipetalforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't call them terrorists- call them rebels or whatever, but not terrorists. And while in the short run this may save a couple of Americans, civilians are more at risk from killbots. A dead innocent civilian just creates at least five or ten more "terrorists". Even if it does slow the death rate of Americans, that also means the presidents approval numbers remain high and contempt for us from the real world grows. This is not a good thing at all.

  43. Re:When will they learn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    learn what?

  44. CAUTION: Parent is a link to scat site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god, for tabbed browzing, did not get a look at it.

  45. You just couldn't help yourself could you by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    You just couldn't help yourself could you.

    A shinny new cliche on a first post is a very seductive force to be reckoned with, and an even bigger heartbreak when it gets modded down as a troll. I feel your pain.

    :-P

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

    1. Re:You just couldn't help yourself could you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hail Adolf-o! Feuer of Slashdot!

  46. Saw this on SeaQuest by emtboy9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oddly enough, one of my favorite, and IMO the best, episodes of SeaQuest DSV is the episode where the crew is wisked into a future where wars are fought by armies of giant armed combat robots, which are remote controlled by children, who think that they are actually playing a total imersion video game.

    With the advances in VR and forms of total control of remote devices and such based on muscle movement and in some cases even brain wave activity, how far away are we from a time when anyone with a joystick can command a combat robot?

    It really reminds me a lot of Largo from MegaTokyo and his army of Ph34rbots.. but on a serious note, however, I really do wonder. It would seem that, while these types of things are great in that they save lives ultimately, at the same time, they could ultimately be a supreme form of evil.

    Even though bad things DO happen in any armed conflict, at least in this case, fields of robots battling it out, even if they are merely remote controlled, will keep real people from dying needlesly. However, again, how long before someone figures out how to gain control of these things and turn them against civilian populations, villages, cities, etc.

    On a side note, what I really find funny is that, traditionally, the military is the last major area of manual labor that has NOT been severly affected by technology (in the sense of robots replacing workers as they have in manufacturing and other areas) and now, there exists a real possibility of the military being downsized due to robots replacing soldiers. Maybe the Teamsters can organize the military!

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    1. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ender did this long before (Or way beyond depending how you look at it) Seaquest did.

    2. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by chickenmonger · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Ender's Game.

    3. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by cheese_wallet · · Score: 1

      "which are remote controlled by children, who think that they are actually playing a total imersion video game."

      go read ender's game

    4. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Who cares who they're supposed to be controlled by, I wanna know how easy they are to hijack.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    5. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

      Ender did this long before (Or way beyond depending how you look at it) Seaquest did.

      True, true... I didnt mean to slight Enders Game at all. Actually, I wondered at the time if that episode of SeaQuest was not based on Ender's Game.

      --
      "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    6. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1
      ... fields of robots battling it out, even if they are merely remote controlled, will keep real people from dying needlesly. However, again, how long before someone figures out how to gain control of these things and turn them against civilian populations, villages, cities, etc.

      You seriously think the Pentagon will only deploy these robots against other robots?! Would they think it too "unfair" to use them against humans?

      I don't imagine it will take the Pentagon very long to work out how to use them against civilians (hint: point and shoot).

    7. Re:Saw this on SeaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      However, again, how long before someone figures out how to gain control of these things and turn them against civilian populations, villages, cities, etc.

      Dude, they belong to the US Army. Ever heard of Vietnam? Nobody needs to "gain control" for them to be turned against civilians.

  47. Seeing your work used "for evil" by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think about this the next time you are coding a servo controller on your Redhat compiler. Could your code be misused in a way you would not approve?

    Y'know, I hear this kind of question a lot. I work for a defense contractor. When I'm explaining my work to people, invariably the question of "don't you worry that your work will be used in some future war that you don't approve of?" No, actually, I don't and the reason isn't that I approve of all (or even most) of the military actions that my country is involved in. Part of it is a bit of short-sightedness on my part. I work on very "research-y" topics: data fusion, sensor resource management, and other stuff that isn't gonna get implemented until 2015 at the very earliest. Part of it is that I think war is a necessary part of humanity. I wish it weren't but a simple examination of the human brain reveals that the "R-complex" (aka reptilian brain) is present in every person. I have learned to use my other brain portions to control my aggresive tendancies but there are lots of people who will never master that trick.

    But I think the main reason why I don't lie awake at night worrying that the results of my efforts might make the world a worse place is the same reason why parents don't usually lie awake worrying that their kids are going to turn out to cause more harm to society than benefit. I don't have kids but I'm thinking that if I did, I probably wouldn't spend too much time worrying that my kid is gonna become the next Kenneth Lay and be the cause of a great deal of suffering. I would probably think that my kid is more likely to be a benefit to society or I'd just be enjoying the process of raising my kid and not get all worried about how he's going to turn out.

    I don't see any reason why one should assume that the products of their efforts will only be used for applications that they 100% agree with. Really, I think that's terribly naive. Do sheetmetal workers lie awake at night worrying that the steel they cast that day might be used in the casing for a bomb?

    GMD

    1. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do sheetmetal workers lie awake at night worrying that the steel they cast that day might be used in the casing for a bomb?

      If we worried more about the consequences of our actions, we would probably all be better off.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      If we worried more about the consequences of our actions, we'd be too scared to get out of bed in the morning.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    3. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So because people can't control their aggressive tendancies we need to have wars?!?!!?

      I see another solution that doesn't involve killing people, and spending billions of dollars of money.

      Just take a deep breath....

    4. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The reason you and parents sleep well is mostly because you don't get to see the result of your actions in short term ...or in person.

      Or you have seen them way too many times...

      There is usually, a substantial trauma involved the first time a cop ends up killing someone in line of duty. Well, at least the first time.

    5. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that type of reasoning your reptilian brain will never become obsolete and continue to bomb, pilage, rape, and maim in the name of freedom. For instance, How convient it is to "free" over a 100,000 thousand people by putting them 6 feet under.

      We cherished those bald eagles and brought them out of extinction but certain races of human beings it seems doesn't deserve that dignity and the powers that be would rather expedite their extinction from depleted uranium ammo which have a half-life of 4 billion years. Such is the case in IRAQ today.

      Meanwhile, the founding scientist of this poison sleeps in peace only left to worry about the color of his next luxury car.

      -1.618

    6. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by servognome · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't you then worry about the consequences of your inaction?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    7. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by sponger · · Score: 0

      liberal hippy. The world is not a nice place people will always kill each other. the idea of harmony is nice. but america must always maintain its edge and preparedness

    8. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well thanks for keeping me up the rest of the night you insensitive clod!

      It just so happens that I AM A SHEETMETAL WORKER!

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    9. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by bonzoesc · · Score: 1

      I'd worry about my sheets, personally. 8 hours with no bathroom breaks is hard enough without staying there all day.

    10. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong on all accounts, and by miles..
      large half-lives are *good*, not bad.. jeez.
      100,000 people aren't being put under.. nobody outside of wingnut conspiracy theory circles even notice those dumbass political estimates.
      And the bald eagle is not yet saved from extinction.
      You get a 0 out of 3, thank you for playing... dumbass

    11. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it disturbing to see so many liberals put Hussien's murdering henchmen in the same class as civilians?

    12. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The unexamined life is not worth living".

      -Socrates

      http://www.gerzon.com/resources/unexam_life.html

      Where is his ghost when you need him?

    13. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by 01D* · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree!
      The process of making babies is way more fun than suffering the concequences!

    14. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how theoretical your work is, the only thing that can keep you work safe from strange implementations is stupid engineers.

    15. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by tratten · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be any hijacked planes, if some countries thought about the consequences of their actions.

    16. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by triznitch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't get how you can justify work for a defense contractor because "war is necessary" when one of the main reasons war happens so often is because defense contractors can profit off of it. Whether or not war is necessary will be debated for quite some time, however in the mean time, does it not irk you in the slightest that the work you are doing may very well lead to the killing of another human being (probably a civilian)?

      Even with the necessity argument, one of the main reasons that war is accepted as necessary by the general masses is because we value our lives over the lives of others. We constantly demonize the actions of nazi soldiers because they were killing innocent people, but how often does the mainstream criticize the US for Hiroshima? If we are going to look at war, I think that it's important to put the human being back into the equation. With technology increasing its presence on the battlefield, we can look more and more casualties for the "enemy" and less and less for us. This will further push the disconnect between the idea of war and the reality of war.

      --
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
    17. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You know, if you'd taken a more regretful attitude, I would have been more inclined to be charitable, since much of what would otherwise be basic research is funnelled through military channels, but when I read something like "I think war is a necessary part of humanity" I can only conclude that your knowledge of history, religion, and psychology/neuroscience is horribly deficient. Citing the fact that all humans have a reptilian brain does not automatically imply that we as a species must be subject to war forever.

      Have the grace to admit your ignorance, please. Did you major in psychology? Take lots of psych courses? I work in a neuro lab that studies emotion, and am applying for a job in another one that actually studies emotional control, and I can say for a fact that there are not "lots of people who will never master that trick".

      Matthew

    18. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large half life means that the material stays
      radioactive longer. How can this be "*good*"?

    19. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by c0p0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..., I don't and the reason isn't that I approve of all (or even most) of the military actions that my country is involved in...

      Nope, the reason is that warfare fills your mouth with food and your pockets with money. The rest of your comment is mostly trying justify yourself that you're a great guy and you're doing things necessary for the humanity.

      If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill. It's that simple. Nobody wastes loads of money just to not use what they bought.

      ...Do sheetmetal workers lie awake at night worrying that the steel they cast that day might be used in the casing for a bomb?...

      That is a fallacy. You should blame also the farmers for selling you food to keep your brain functioning... you're designing directly weapons, or support devices for ppl that carry weapons to kill. Period.

      --

      Your head a splode
    20. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Because the longer the half-life the less radioactive the substance is. The most radioactive isotopes have the shortest halflives. DU is so minorly radioactive its laughable that people are actually worried about it, especcially the same people who gladly puff away on a cig. Its much more dangerous as a toxic heavy meatal like lead than as a source of radiation.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    21. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by ogma · · Score: 1

      Let's get this straight. You think that the work you do for a defence contractor "is more likely to be a benefit to society". Do you realise how oxymoronic that is?

      Please, just be honest with yourself and us and admit you couldn't care less about what uses your work is put to. That's what your post actually says, despite all your hand-waving.

    22. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the majority of the american men in war dont have any doubt as to kill someone or not. I think its because that war has made killing impersonal, just a mere sprite map in a rather pixelated real time image of the general area. I think cops have a much better idea with what they are dealing with, and the fact that its a human life lost. Not so in war. Dirty americans and their smart bombs.

      Bring on the dirty Chinese commie revolution!

    23. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by cL0h · · Score: 1

      Countries don't hijack planes. People do !!

      --
      cL0h
    24. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think war is a necessary part of humanity

      War is a necessary part of being humane?? 'Humanity' means the condition or quality of being humane and is an abstract concept. What I think you were trying to say is "human nature".

    25. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Yes smartie. People do because they are angry because of the action doen in the name of a certain large country.

    26. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it's the majority now? In WWI the German army was more effective allegedly because they were first to psychologically screen their soldiers. Their opponents didn't and their army about 60% of the soldiers deliberately aimed 'wrong'.

    27. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Matt_UK · · Score: 1

      Try punching a sack of potatoes.

      Or save time and just shoot the potatoes insteed!

      --
      Oooh 'eck DM!
    28. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Norgus · · Score: 1

      So what? We give everyone on earth anger management? even the ones who don't want to? Even third world?

    29. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a certain kind of person to sign up for war duty. Especially when in a country such as America where is it such a commercial power(where there are plenty of jobs to fulfill in a pacifical capacity, let alone a military one. The kind of ppl that sign up for military service in USA, arent the same kind of ppl that sign up for it in Isreal. In Isreal, its bordering on pure survival, where in America, the majority of the ppl seem to strike me as people, that have nothing better to do, arent educated for anything else, and just generally psychopaths.

      In America there is no screening involved, if you are sub standard you are allocated accordingly in the command structure.

      The government of America has a place in their armed forces that need to be filled, if you are available, why not you?
      The only screening involved is to your abilities, not whether you are eligible or not. Look at all the army recruites in redneck towns where the ppls there have nothing else to do. Let war be the life for you.

      The american armed forces are only efficient because of their technology, not because of the personal. Dont get me wrong here, America is in a position of power because of a reason. But the people actually doing the work, half of them have no clue what they are fighting for, as long as the people in the positions of power dont have to die for the cause :)

      Abd thats about the sum of it all

    30. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      How did this get "insightful"?

      What war has ever happened because defence contractors can profit from it?

      As for Hiroshima, there's a genuine debate about whether the atomic bomb was a necessary thing. It may or may not have shortened the war (this also has to consider not what we know now, but what was known then). The same debate isn't ongoing about nazi atrocities.

      Sometimes war is necessary. At that point, defence contractors are rather useful.

    31. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of it is that I think war is a necessary part of humanity. Would that be your opinion if it was your neighbourhood being bombed by some nation from another side of the world, just because there's some resources near you that those others need? If it was you who got house bombed "by accident", and half of the family dead by some weapons used from fighters or carriers (so you don't even have a chance to have a fair fight face-to-face), would you still think that "war is a necessary part of humanity" and people developing those weapons are doing a "good job"? Policies of leading states of the world has nothing to do with humanity.

    32. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      don't you worry that your work will be used in some future war that you don't approve of?

      I did a project some time ago for (I can say it now) Northrup Grumman... maker of war ships, submarines, etc... When posed with the same question a few times, my response was "Hey, if someone can alter my web based reporting tool for evil purposes, they deserve to do whatever they want."

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    33. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by copper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...one of the main reasons war happens so often is because defense contractors can profit off of it.
      Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself.
      We constantly demonize the actions of nazi soldiers because they were killing innocent people, but how often does the mainstream criticize the US for Hiroshima?
      While the actions of Nazis are constantly (and rightly, IMNSHO) demonized, most documentaries and war movies relating to WWII do not treat the average German soldier the same way. For the most part they are given a soldier's respect.

      As for Hiroshima, the U.S. hasn't gotten a carte blanche on this one. I've seen plenty of criticism for this one though it seems the mainstream falls on the side of using the A-bomb as being the right one, or at least understandable given the context. I happen to agree with this assesment, if you don't, sorry, but it's not the same thing as not being criticized at all.

    34. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      wars happen if some people with enough influence to start one, found out that they would profit of it.

      defence contractors share good profits of wars.
      first and second world wars were practically started by german steel and defence contractors.

      most of bombing usa does happen for the pretty same reason.

      the war in chechnya is still ongoing for an alike reason (in this case not the defence contractors but the high rank militaries and drug dealers profit from the war)

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    35. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, the current Iraq war.

    36. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Profound · · Score: 1

      Every time the US government locks away a person in jail, or buys a weapon for the offence force some people with very close ties with the government get richer. Think carefully whether you believe that is a good thing.

      From an article by Hunter S Thompson:

      War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .

      Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
      --RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

      Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush.

    37. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill. It's that simple. Nobody wastes loads of money just to not use what they bought.

      It's never that simple. What about deterrents? Several nations have extensive stocks of WMDs that they hope never to use, because several other nations do too. Cue standard martial arts witticisms: better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, don't bring a knife to a gun fight, etc. etc.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    38. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      You have anything to back up any of those statements?

    39. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget Hiroshima, look at the firebombing of Tokyo if you want something to complain about. Hiroshima was about a demonstration of willingness to do what had to be done to end the war on US terms. It's also very hard to argue with the results of Hiroshima.

    40. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by garver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill.

      Or defend. It's not really that simple. If we hadn't developed sonar and depth charges, Germany would have ruled the atlantic indefinitely. If we hadn't developed superior aircraft, they would have ruled the skies. If Britain hadn't developed radar, many, many more of their civilians would have died. As long as bad people exist, we need to develop weapons for defense.

      you're designing directly weapons, or support devices for ppl that carry weapons to kill

      Uh, no. The poster said he's doing research for a defense company. Stuff that may be used for defense, but may also be used for some cool domestic application, like, you know the INTERNET!

      Every bit of technology ever developed has at sometime has been applied to the practice of killing people, whether directly or indirectly. Following the sheetmetal example, don't you think the first army to use body armor, shields, and swords had a decisive advantage? Should the scientists and blacksmiths at that time have gone on strike, skipped that overrated "progress" thing, and let themselves be conquered and killed by the barbarians?

    41. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      I worked for the Department of Energy for a few years writing general purpose high performance computing libraries and system maintenance software. I knew mine was used in some of the nuclear programs on campus (both offensive and non-military nuclear research) Occasioanally had the same question asked of me.

      My reponse was a little different than yours. I could sleep at night because I was damn proud if my chunk of the software went towards keeping our troops alive and killing the people we are fighting. If my software was used in simulations for training soldiers in Iraq, or designing a new missle, I couldn't be happier. In fact, should the DoD have wanted to hire me to work directly on any weapons I would have been very happy to do so (still would, but they aren't going to hire a Bachelors for that, or like the DoE I would be the first hit with layoffs).

      This was both the truth and they were usually fairly confused that I said that to them and left me alone. Though on the internet it gets a different response based on where you post it - slashdot will flame any reponse like your or mine pretty heavily.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    42. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by mi · · Score: 1
      most of bombing usa does happen for the pretty same reason.

      the war in chechnya is still ongoing for an alike reason

      By your logic, the whole world should've jumped onto the opportunity to participate in the Iraq war. You may harbor dillusions about exceptional decency of France or Germany, but why does not Russia participate in Iraq if its defence contractors are so powerful, as to keep it involved in (Muslim) Chechnya for 10 years already? Oops...

      The war in Chechnya goes on for the simple reason -- Russia can not afford to let the little country escape its domination, because the rest of the little nations coerced into Russian Federation may soon follow.

      Compared to that, the profits or loss thereof of Russian defense contractors and/or drug dealers is miniscule.

      Blaming the "big business" or the "industrial complex" for wars is like blaming advertisers for spending. You make major purchases because you need them, not because the advertisers force you to. They do affect your mind (our Toyota is better than their Honda), but they don't make it up (you decide, you need a new car).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    43. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      maybe you should more carefully read what i have written.

      there was no profit for the rest of the world in an iraqi war, mainly because usa has grabbed all the profit by itself.

      russia didn't participate in iraq because iraq was an ally.

      the war in chechnya goes on for the exactly reason i have stated. it russia just couldn't afford to let it escape the war would be already finished for years and chechnya would be a desert. it is not about the russian defence contractors in that war anyway but about high ranked militaries, drug dealers and such.

      but all this i have written already. just read more carefully next time.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    44. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Hard_Code · · Score: 1
      Don't forget about this crazy peacenik:

      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
      Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

      -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, bleeding heart liberal
      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    45. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by yasth · · Score: 1

      The R-Complex? Reptiles don't start wars.

      It is true that a certain ammount of "do or die" is/was needed to fight wars (nowadays war can be waged fairly well without rage, etc), but the planing and launching of wars is pretty much uniquely human, and a relatively modern phenomen at that. While war might have originated in battles for territory, war is much more deadly (for the losing side at least), and is waged in far larger groups.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    46. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by iwan-nl · · Score: 1

      I agree. The whole mess the world is in right now could have been avoided by *thinking about the consequences*. The current trend of fighting fire with fire is getting us nowhere. Offcourse this applies to all involved parties. It should be clear by now that we can not leave the thinking to our leaders. We need to take responsibility for our own actions. So in my opinion, it's not the countries that need to get a clue, but the people living in those countries. Face it; It's them who re-elected Dubya.

      Anyway, this is getting a bit offtopic...

      --
      I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
    47. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      depends on which statements you exactly mean.

      the history... well, read up in history books who funded hitler. krupp, stinnes, thyssen, general electrics (AEG), ig farben and more.

      first world war: hugo stinnes had huge defence contracts and very interesting plans about annecting land in the war. he was actually the representative of the german industry and after the first world war he nearly became a minister (was too radical for this position)

      alfred krupp - his company was for a while the biggest company in europe - started the european arm race which ended in the first world war. krupp weapons were very widely used in that war. krupp family was strongly tied to the german emperor.

      all i have listed were huge defence contractors

      btw funny thing... i used to live in the same town stinnes and thyssen were born. krupp was born in the neighbour town :-)

      as for the russia... no facts on paper myself, just know some people in russian special forces and so on. but if you dig a bit deeper into the background of the chechnya conflict you will find out the same thing.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    48. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by iwan-nl · · Score: 1

      Huh? Have you ever heard of a COMMUNIST hijacking a plane and flighing it into a building? Why do you compare communists to terrorists?

      It reminds me of that one monty python sketch where John Cleese is sitting in the garden screaming how much he hates those commie basterds... until his wife calls him in for dinner.

      Sponger, my friend, you are seriously retarded. Either that or your small little mind snapped under the load of all the propaganda.

      --
      I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
    49. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by mi · · Score: 1
      there was no profit for the rest of the world in an Iraqi war, mainly because USA has grabbed all the profit by itself.

      How? All armies in there use their own weapons and equipment (except, may be, for Salvador), thus enriching their defense contractors. Russia could've done the same, but did not. Why?

      Because Iraq is "an ally"? Maybe, but this would allow for considerations other than profit, which runs counter to your original "dude, follow the money" argument. Oops...

      the war in Chechnya goes on for the exactly reason i have stated.

      Well, if you say so, than yes, of course.

      but all this i have written already. just read more carefully next time.

      Thanks, but I'll skip your weekly newsletter.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    50. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by cfortin · · Score: 1

      If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill. It's that simple. Nobody wastes loads of money just to not use what they bought.


      Please tell that to every nuclear missle we've ( the US ) has ever built. Also mention that to the SSBNs, and the SSN, and the B52s ....

      Entire industries totally successful in building us a stick so large we never had to use it.

      Please, to all of the leftward leaning, slightly socialist people out the ... life/the world/everything isn't as simple as you think.

    51. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself."

      Cheney. Haliburton. Iraq.

    52. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Your thinking is wrong way around. The Nazis wanted to rearm Germany, and brought the arms dealers on side for support. Your thinking (the way I read it) is that the arms dealers influenced the Nazis to become a party of rearmament and war, where actually the Nazis planned to rearm before the arms dealers started supporting them.

      Gustav Krupp was initially hostile to the Nazi party. The fact they were going to destroy trade unions and rearm, they got support from him as well as other industrialists.

    53. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself.

      The Cold War.

      Truth is it happens a lot. We even have a word for it.

      Profiteering.

      And no, it's not a good thing.

      I'm so tired of apologists excusing evil because of some quest for personal affluence.

    54. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      has it ever occured to you that countries don't make allies just because they all are happy friends but for profit?

      russia sold weapons and hightech to iraq. it was a nice profit. a couple of russians i know still own some iraqi dinars because they have worked in iraq

      starting a war against the usa because of iraq wouldn't be profitable at all (a lost war is costly)
      starting a war against iraq with the usa wouldn't be profitable either because usa would claim the whole profit.
      either way russia would lose in the iraq war.
      the only way to keep losses low was to do nothing.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    55. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Saltine+Cracker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, just think if we were all French war would never happen.

    56. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by hsquared · · Score: 0

      "I've learned to use my other brain ... but there are lots of people who will never master that trick"

      That whole post is of course a flame bait. No real person would show their arrogance so blatantly. Hah.

      I bet you already considered answering to this. Oops, now _I_ did. Maybe I should try to learn using my other brain. Where the heck did I put it?

    57. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, it's true I'm a liberal hippie, but I still think there's room for a lot more harmony. I'm not against maintaining military preparedness until you can eliminate it in every nation, which may very well be never. The problem, as ever, is getting the whole world on the same page at the same time without fascism, which is nigh-impossible and only getting harder.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by brittm · · Score: 1

      Nope, the reason is that warfare fills your mouth with food and your pockets with money. The rest of your comment is mostly trying justify yourself that you're a great guy and you're doing things necessary for the humanity.

      This is quite an assumption. You're assuming that his actions and justifications (which you seem to decry) are soley driven by his ability to profit from them. In other words...that he is exibiting predicatable, base human behavior, driven by profit. This is interesting, since that is the exact observation used to espouse the sad inevitability of war.

    59. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French have an interesting approach. They surrender immediately, but also sell weapons (more than most other countries) to brutal dictators.

    60. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      "...one of the main reasons war happens so often is because defense contractors can profit off of it."

      Right, those spear makers really made out in the stone age. War predates the defense contractor by at least 10,000 years.

      "With technology increasing its presence on the battlefield, we can look more and more casualties for the "enemy" and less and less for us."

      And that, my friend, is how you win a war!

      Look, until the world is at a point where any wronged party can have his voice heard through non-violent means, we will have war. Parts of the world are there - much of North America, Europe, parts of Asia, Australia - and much of the world is nowhere close. You never see war between western democracies.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    61. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

      I think I speak on behalf of all potatoes everywhere when I say...

      You, sir, are a monster.

      --
      With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
    62. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Sneakabout · · Score: 0

      "Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself." Well.... some would find it suspicious when a large company which a leading official in the administration owns a chunk of the company which gains huge, vast contracts for stuff like rebuilding without an open or indeed much of any bidding process for them. I mean, that might not be "primarily", but its something to think about, eh?

      --
      Sneakabout is a mysterious figure, having done too much mathematics.
    63. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Your tax dollars are funding this.. why dont you move to Canada?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    64. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before equating the US and Axis, please consider the notion that not all ideas are of equal merit. Some actually did want to use thier fellow man as slave labor for the sole purpose of serving the perverted whims of state. The only technology required was
      cruelty. The robots of interest were quite human.

    65. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. We're a scapegoat for their every shortcomming. Why'd they hijack planes and run them into the World Trade Center? Because we kept our military bases in Saudi Arabia. At the request of Saudi Arabia. These guys are so racist that our presence insults thier warped view of religon. Why do they hate us? because we are friendly with Isreal, a country that no Arab army can defeat. Since the Arabs think themselves better warriors (well, everything really) than any Jew, it must be an outside source reason that they can't defeat the Jews. It must be the US. Whatever. There will be no peace in the ME until ME culture looks in the mirror and decides to make a human friendly change.

    66. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      does it not irk you in the slightest that the work you are doing may very well lead to the killing of another human being


      Why should it? Why can't he take satisfaction in knowing that the work he's doing is protecting the people on his side in a war that's going to happen anyway?

      Let me "defend" him by coming at this from the opposite angle. I work for a medical device manufacturer. The product of my work is used to help sick people get better, or for doctors to find out why someone is ill in the first place. I like knowing that I'm helping people in this way.

      However, the very instruments that my code runs in could be used by bioterrorists to verify that e.g., they have sufficient quantity of whatever virus they're manufacturing to cause harm to a population.

      Do I worry about this? Of course not. No one can 100% (or even nearly) control what their work will be used for. People get stabbed with screwdrivers all the time. You think the guys on the production floor at Stanley Tools lose any sleep over this?
    67. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by hamsandwich72 · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, plane hijacks you.

    68. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by KnarfO · · Score: 1

      "Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself."

      Caterpillar. Sharon. Palestine.

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    69. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      Because I'm Spanish and I only have Euros in my pockets ;P

      --

      Your head a splode
    70. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by mi · · Score: 1
      starting a war against iraq with the usa wouldn't be profitable either because usa would claim the whole profit.

      How would US claim "the whole profit" from Russia's defense contractors? This is the second time I ask, BTW.

      You postulated with your "dude, follow the money", that wars are profitable to the said contractors, from which you conclude, that wars are caused by the same. The example of Russia demonstrates your theory is not self-consistent, hence it is wrong. Enough...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    71. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America there is no screening involved, if you are sub standard you are allocated accordingly in the command structure.

      You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

    72. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by triznitch · · Score: 1

      However, the very instruments that my code runs in could be used by bioterrorists to verify that e.g., they have sufficient quantity of whatever virus they're manufacturing to cause harm to a population.

      true. but the instruments your code runs were not specifically designed to kill human beings, much unlike that of the defense industry.

      --
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
    73. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by HerbieStone · · Score: 1
      So, "war is a necessary part of humanity" because some people have never learned to control their aggressive tendencies?

      While one might argue that you need weapons to defend yourselve (and your nation, while we are at it) you must aknowledge that "the others" will find ways to get access to the new techonolgies too. So in the end, building bigger war machines will result in a arms race leading to even more brutal wars. Not more safty as you seem to imply.

      Then you go on comparing your work with raising kids and working as a sheetmetal worker. I guess the probablity that you will create something harmfull for human society is far greater while you research stuff for better arms than when you raise kids or work with metal in general.
      Additionaly, raising kids is not really optional. If we wouldn't do that, humanity would be exctinct within a generation. But I'm not sure if we really need even bigger killing machines.

    74. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      as i already have written. russian defence contractors (they are a bad example anyway, because they were always very weak - a soviet legacy) get more profit in selling weapons to iraq than in a war against iraq because russia just hasn't got money for buying new weapons.

      you are constantly tampering on a bad example - my former home.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    75. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in my opinion, it's not the countries that need to get a clue, but the people living in those countries. Face it; It's them who re-elected Dubya.

      In the terms of the Middle East, "W" certainly didn't smooth things over in the short term but can you really believe things were better without his interaction? Sometimes military action with a forceful hand can lead to long term peace. Obviously inaction by previous administrations didn't have much effect as can be seen by the Sept. 11 attacks.

    76. Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clueless. Dick. Head.

  48. But, do they run VxWorks? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Or Linux? Or WinCE? Or CustomWinEmbedded ? Given the remarkable ability of the US Gubmint to screw things up, send bids to the lowest bidder, and the generally crap state of public-sector contracting, combined with the generally crap state of off the shelf computing resources (OSes, VB scripters, and the PHBs who manage them), will this thing just be come a giant fscked up boondogle? Like the famous 'ship powered by WinNT' that had to be towed back to port?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:But, do they run VxWorks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic, but any ever notice that Windows Compact (?) Edition gets abbreviated WinCE. As in cringe. Seems a marketing blunder of sorts.

    2. Re:But, do they run VxWorks? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? These were developed by a company, not by the government. RTFA.

    3. Re:But, do they run VxWorks? by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

      So were the things he mentioned. The government rarely builds it's own tools, they are most often purchased from the lowest bidding contractor.

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
  49. Not Skynet, silly... by gilroy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but ED 209.

    Now put down that weapon. You have 30 seconds to comply. :)

    1. Re:Not Skynet, silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Not Skynet, silly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but not quite:
      "Put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
      http://www.gotwavs.com/Movies/Robocop.sh tml
      (at the bottom of the page)

  50. Real Use by mmegremis · · Score: 1
    I cant wait to have these things sent to IRAQ insted of our US Troops. I mean, why scout with people when they obvously have the tech. to scould w/ something just as good? (In a way, I know there not perfect). Think about it. Even if its not pratical to attack with, we could still use the recon.

    IF iROBOT == DEAD {
    REPORT "something_bad_happend" to "Remote Command";
    }
    IF iROBOT != DEAD {
    MOVE foward;
    }

    1. Re:Real Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF iROBOT == Shoot_At_UK_Troops {
      REPORT "Oops!" to "Remote Command";
      }

    2. Re:Real Use by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      something_bad_happened does not say whether it was killed by being shot, or hitting a tree. It does not say where the enemy is. It doesn't say what sory of enemy killed it. The list continues.

  51. Damnit by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

    They can make gun wielding robots, but they cannot make me a Tom Servo to watch movies with me and wisecrack. I tell ya, what is technology good for?
    (Sorry, saw the "In the not too distant future" quote in the article, brought up some fond memories)

  52. A genuine worry by bigberk · · Score: 1

    I'm not someone who is pro-military, however I do think that our military shouldn't be so dependent on technology. We have lots of skilled soldiers, but let's be realistic - the proof is in the pudding, if our soldiers are losing against an enemy that doesn't have all those fancy toys, then the fancy toys probably aren't as useful as we think (drone planes etc.). With the huge defence budget, a lot of companies are just dying to get a piece of the pie with their own piece of ultra technology... but real soldiers are flesh and blood killing machines.

    1. Re:A genuine worry by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1

      We are losing a soldier for every 100 of the enemy killed. We are politically losing the war, but on the battlefield are troops are kicking ass and not bothering with names.

    2. Re:A genuine worry by mikapc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say we are politically losing the war right now. We certainly aren't in a good state politically but it's not like the situation has really changed that much on the ground for the worse since abu gharib. I would say that while we lost more casulaties november then usual that was because of fallujah which I think can be looked upon as a modest success considering we very quickly took over a hostile city and the population of Iraq didn't go up in arms like it looked they were going to do back in april the last time the U.S. was thinking of clearing out fallujah.

    3. Re:A genuine worry by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      FUD? FUD!! Vietnam was a politically lost war. Where are your tens of thousands of protestors? Iraq is making progress towards autonomy and (maybe) democracy. Maybe it's slow, maybe there are a few steps back every so often, but there is still progress. Last I checked, that does not really fit the definition of "losing". YMMV.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    4. Re:A genuine worry by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      Have you looked at what the rest of the world thinks about your war? Or what we thought about it before you even started it? You know, that whole thing about not going it alone like a bunch of "We've got to kill them there sand negroes, YEEE HAAW!!"-cowboys?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    5. Re:A genuine worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 'rest of the world' is having a fit because the oil for food (in reality oil for palaces) gravy train has been taken away from them. Politicians don't like their bribes taken away. So, if the US and 30 other countries decide to do something, it's still classified as the US going alone? Or is the US not alone only if France contributes a token number of troops and Germany cheers from the sidelines?

    6. Re:A genuine worry by Mant · · Score: 1

      That isn't very relevant to losing the war polically. That is when the populace of the country waging the war are sufficiently anti-war that the politicians have to bring it to an end. The classic example is Vietnam, the US inflicted far more casulties than it suffered, but the war became so unpopular in the US they had to pull out.

      Unless the rest of the world can put enough political pressure on the US to make it change it's mind, historically almost impossible, it doesn't matter what the rest of world thinks in terms of losing the war polically.

      Things like remote soldiers are aiming to cut down on US casulties, and so help ease that pressure back home.

    7. Re:A genuine worry by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      The oil-for-food argument doesn't explain the public outcry, only why a handful of politicians would oppose the war.

      Also, by march 2004 only the UK, Italy and Poland have sent more than 2000 soldiers, I'd hardly call that overwhelming support.. In fact, except the US and it's 130k soldiers in Iraq there are only six countries who have sent more than 1000 soldiers, and a quick glance at the list gives me the impression that many of the countries sending soldiers are poorer countries who sent troops in hope of favors from the US.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  53. OS - AI by ReeprFlame · · Score: 1

    I hope their AI engine is not windows based. Oh no, I think I just shot my commander!

    1. Re:OS - AI by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope their AI engine is not windows based.

      It looks like you're trying to shoot something! What would you like to do:
      - Identify your target(s)
      - Wait for a supervisor
      - Just shoot without help

    2. Re:OS - AI by ReeprFlame · · Score: 1

      [Retry] [Ignore] [Fail] lol...yes, very scary. Maybe we should implement them in Iraq though, after we leave that is. Anything/one they shoot will be better off...

  54. Can't sleep by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

    Can't sleep, robots have guns.
    Can't sleep, robots have guns.

    Oh, and in Korea, only old robots have guns.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  55. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "terrorist" is every bit as spin-doctored of a word as "liberal" is, here in America. This administration is playing on everyone's fears and making the world accept that an American life is the only life that's worth fighting for, even if it's in a foreign country that had little/nothing to do with 9/11.

  56. 7-11 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    These will be truely accepted in our society, the first time that they are used to hold up a bank or a 7-11.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  57. Remote controlled war! by intnsred · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has to be the Pentagon's dream come true: a remote controlled war.

    Now the US can slaughter people in developing countries without the fear that some of our own soldiers -- fighting for "freedom", of course -- will be killed or injured. I suspect we'll see the number of "Operation Freedoms" increase dramatically.

    How come I don't think this is progress?

    1. Re:Remote controlled war! by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Are you this pissed about what France is doing?

    2. Re:Remote controlled war! by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone else thinking of the episode of Star Trek where the people let the computers simulate war and in the end the losing group goes to the execution chamber?

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    3. Re:Remote controlled war! by Ozric · · Score: 1

      How come I don't think this is progress?

      Maybe you are in the wrong country.

    4. Re:Remote controlled war! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt moving to the receiving end of a can of robot army asswhup would improve the slope of the progress curve. Heh.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Remote controlled war! by Angus_Dei · · Score: 1

      And we'll conveniently ignore the fact that most of the work soldiers are doing in Iraq is rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, training the Iraqi National Guard to take responsibility for the security of their own people, and establishing a foundation for a representational government.

      We'll also conveniently ignore the fact that the 'slaughter' - which I'll assume refers to the unfortunate death of civilians - is primarily due to terrorists carrying out IED attacks that target population centers such as hotels and marketplaces while the U.S. "freedom fighters" are limited in their response to avoid unnecessary collateral damage.

      Obviously your view of the "Operation Freedoms" is based on media spin - which is not uncommon, but I'd expect more from America's 'intellectual elite' on slashdot.

      And, if you've ever been shot at or had 127mm rockets exploding all around you while you huddle in a ditch hoping that the next one doesn't have your name on it, you'd probably think that using remote controlled vehicles on the ground as well as in the sky does count as progress.

    6. Re:Remote controlled war! by _|()|\| · · Score: 1
      This has to be the Pentagon's dream come true: a remote controlled war.

      The CIA already launches Hellfire missiles from the Predator. It killed a U.S. citizen in Yemen a couple of years ago.

    7. Re:Remote controlled war! by cranos · · Score: 1

      And while we are at it we'll conveniantly forget that the only reason the insurgents are letting off bombs and mortars is because the Americans are there in the first place, way to destabalise a region dudes.

    8. Re:Remote controlled war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is convenient to blaim most of civilian deaths on 'terrorists' while Pentagon specifically does not list civilian (or 'terrorist') deaths caused by USians killing them in war, isnt it?

      numbers pulled out of ass:
      Deaths, Coalition of the Pudgy and Bribed: 1500
      Deaths, Civilian by IED: 2000
      Deaths, Civilian by Coalition of the Used And Waisted: 10000
      Death, 'Terrorists': 100

    9. Re:Remote controlled war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name of that episode is A Taste of Armageddon

    10. Re:Remote controlled war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're at it, let's conveniently ignore the fact that none of this would be happening if Dick and Dubya hadn't decided to invade on the back of a lie.

    11. Re:Remote controlled war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you must have a different meaning for the word 'lie' than sane people. Unfortunately, the problem is due to the hamstringing of our intelligence agencies mainly by the Carter administration (oh, and thanks Jimmy for letting nutbags get in power and giving the S Americans incentives to use rangeland for crops and then burn down rainforest to replace the rangeland) and an over-reliance on satellite & other electronic data for sources of data.

    12. Re:Remote controlled war! by Angus_Dei · · Score: 1

      >>And while we are at it we'll conveniantly forget that the only reason the insurgents are letting off bombs and mortars is because the Americans are there in the first place, way to destabalise a region dudes.

      ROFL

      Wait, I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Iraq is *less* stable now than it was under the previous regime? I think you need to take a look at the reign of Saddam Hussein. I'll mention the tens of thousands in mass graves and the chemical weapon attacks against opposing tribes within his own country and leave out things like the palace that I work in that was built on the blood of 3,000 workers.

      I mean that 3,000 workers DIED to build it.

      (so I'm not really leaving it out :) ).

      The Iraqi National work crews on our bases have a steady, reliable job, many for the first time in their lives. They are well paid and, at least all those I have spoken to, are very grateful to the Coalition forces for taking Saddam's boot off their necks and his guns away from their heads.

      Insurgents striking against military targets is war - as a soldier, we accepted that risk when we volunteered for military service. I don't like being shot at, but that's part of my job.

      However, the insurgents are encouraged by both their religious and political leadership to attack - specifically target - civilians...both Iraqi and international. IMHO, people like that do NOT get the benefit of the doubt.

    13. Re:Remote controlled war! by intnsred · · Score: 1

      are you seriously suggesting that Iraq is *less* stable now than it was under the previous regime?

      According to the Iraqis that live there, western public opinion polls report they say that life was better before the invasion.

      Public opinion polls of Iraqis also say that huge majorities of Iraqis want the occupation forces to leave ASAP.

      Before the illegal US/UK invasion, Iraqi infant mortality was brutally high, thanks to the decade-plus of UN sanctions that we now know were not only immoral but unjustified because Saddam Hussein really did disarm after the 1991 Gulf War just like he said so.

      Yet today after the illegal US/UK invasion, Iraqi infant mortality is even higher than before the war because, in part, instead of supplying hospitals and funding the health care system, the US is doing things like seizing hospitals during the Fallujah assault, and then -- against the Geneva Conventions -- keeping people from using those facilities.

      Whether we like it or not, the resistance fighters in Iraq have the moral position.

      Yes, the resistance are brutal thugs who bomb and terrorize the occupation forces and collaborators, but then again, the US Army with its track record of torture, firing into crowds of civilians, and indiscriminate use of firepower in heavily populated urban areas isn't anything to brag about either.

      But the bottom line is that the US/UK invasion is illegal and without justification. This makes Iraqis fighting against the occupation forces as just another group of outgunned people doing anything they can to resist a foreign invader. The people of Mesopotamia have been doing that for thousands of years; to them, the Americans are little different from the Persian or British empires, and if history and the current situation is any guide, the current invaders will likely suffer the same fate.

    14. Re:Remote controlled war! by Angus_Dei · · Score: 1

      "Whether we like it or not, the resistance fighters in Iraq have the moral position."

      I think you would find some of the articles and speeches of the "moral" resistance fighters interesting. I'm just not sure where you can access them on the unclassified web.

      "Yes, the resistance are brutal thugs who bomb and terrorize the occupation forces and collaborators, but then again, the US Army with its track record of torture, firing into crowds of civilians, and indiscriminate use of firepower in heavily populated urban areas isn't anything to brag about either."

      We'll again conveniently ignore the strict rules of engagement that we operate under, costing many U.S. soldiers their lives in an attempt to protect civilians. The use of firepower in urban areas is ANYTHING but indiscriminate. We know that FOX and CNN don't show it that way, and it pisses soldiers off to see it, but trust me - it's a lot different on the ground here.

      Collateral damage is regrettable. But the U.S. NEVER knowingly targets civilians. The "moral" resistance SPECIFICALLY targets non-military targets, for example, striking at the families of those who join the work crews for U.S. bases.

      Like I said, firing mortars and laying IEDs against military targets is moral - I accepted that risk when I enlisted. But hiding behind civilians and slaughtering them as part of your political/military plan is (I submit) NOT a moral use of violence.

      "But the bottom line is that the US/UK invasion is illegal and without justification."

      In your opinion. Saddam was a very, very bad man with a lot of power and influence. A mass murderer with a ruthless disregard for human life and dignity.

      "This makes Iraqis fighting against the occupation forces as just another group of outgunned people doing anything they can to resist a foreign invader."

      And the Saudis, Syrians, Afghannis, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iranians...

    15. Re:Remote controlled war! by intnsred · · Score: 1

      I think you would find some of the articles and speeches of the "moral" resistance fighters interesting.

      That's a weak propaganda tactic -- I never called the resistance fighters moral. One can state that killing is never a moral act, or at least that's what we learn from Christ's words.

      What I said was the resistance holds the moral position of defending their own country against an unprovoked invasion by a foreign aggressor.

      I'm just not sure where you can access them on the unclassified web.

      Am I supposed to be wowed because you claim to have access to some classified web? Wow. How 3733t.

      Collateral damage is regrettable.

      Please spare me your CNN spin-speak. Talk English. Don't use language to obfuscate, use language to describe things accurately. Call it what it is. It is not "collateral damage", it's dead and wounded civilians that we're talking about.

      We'll again conveniently ignore the strict rules of engagement that we operate under

      I'm sure, at some times, some soldiers do have strict rules of engagement. But that certainly isn't the case all the time.

      For example, this SF Chronicle article cites a lieutenant giving his soldiers rules of engagement before a patrol of "Shoot to kill. No questions asked."

      Or as this British Guardian newspaper article reported about the US attack on an Iraqi wedding party, as one woman stated of her firsthand experience, "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one....I fell into the mud and an American soldier came and kicked me. I pretended to be dead so he wouldn't kill me." The Guardian confirmed this with multiple eyewitnesses and among the 42 dead were many women and children. While the US military claimed that the wedding party was a military target, video taken during the party and afterwards proved otherwise. No one was ever prosecuted for those murders, though the military claimed to be "investigating" the matter.

      Or how about the military's rules of engagement that shooting looters was fine? Or the current rules of engagement that anyone out after curfew can be shot on sight?

      Or what about the military's actions in Fallujah? In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald notes a few war crimes of the US military. The US attacked hospitals (to keep them from being used as propaganda -- another words, to keep the doctors from saying how many civilians are being killed) which is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. There are many reports that inside Fallujah the rules of engagement allowed for free fire zones. The US purposely did not allow any males from teenagers to old men to leave Fallujah, instead preferring to slaughter them inside the city. The US deliberately cut off water and electricity to a city of 300,000+ for weeks -- impacting both resistance fighters and mothers and children alike.

      But of course, thanks to a neutered US corporate mass media, few people know the extent of the war crimes of the US military. What gets reported is the mere execution of one prisoner because it was caught on video. And like the Abu Ghraib torture, the military is allowed to claim it was just a "bad apple."

      Rules of engagement, please.

      >"But the bottom line is that the US/UK invasion is illegal and without justification."

      In your opinion.


      No, not just in my opinion. Let's get this straight: The vast majority of the people of the world consider the US/UK invasion to be illegal and immoral.

      Even large majorities of people in the UK oppose (and opposed) the invasion.

      Everyone from the Pope to the Dali Lama to the UN Secretary General has declared the invasion illegal and immora

    16. Re:Remote controlled war! by Angus_Dei · · Score: 1

      "That's a weak propaganda tactic -- I never called the resistance fighters moral. One can state that killing is never a moral act, or at least that's what we learn from Christ's words."

      Though the Allah worshipped by the fundamentalist extremists find torture and killing of the infidel to be the most moral act, rewarded greatly in Heaven. Religion is a primary part of the problem here.

      "Am I supposed to be wowed because you claim to have access to some classified web? Wow. How 3733t."

      Wowed, no. But you need to understand that there is a lot of information out there that you do not have access to. Will not have access to. That's true for me too, as even with relatively high clearance it's generally need-to-know only.

      "I'm sure, at some times, some soldiers do have strict rules of engagement. But that certainly isn't the case all the time."

      The rules of engagement are quite strict - if you want, I can list some of them, we're required to carry them on us. But we are ALWAYS allowed to use deadly force to defend ourselves, other troops and civilians.

      "But of course, thanks to a neutered US corporate mass media, few people know the extent of the war crimes of the US military."

      Two things. One, many of the claims made by the insurgents and 'observers' are demonstratably false - or given heavy spin. Two, when you are under fire, when wounded fake death and then shoot you in the back, when bodies are booby trapped so that if you try to help the enemy wounded they blow up and kill you...well, one can gain a somewhat different perspective on the morality of violence than that of an armchair warrior behind a computer.

      "The US gov't should know. After all, before he came to power Saddam Hussein was on the CIA payroll. The US gov't backed Hussein's invasion of Iran; the US gov't sold Iraq chemical weapon precursors, biological agents, and other weapons; the US gov't helped to quell UN investigations into Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and the US gov't loaned Iraq hundreds and hundreds of millions to fund his war on Iran while the US navy escorted Iraqi oil out of the Persian Gulf."

      Absolutely. We created him, and it fell to us to destroy him. But remember, the Iraqi insurgents aren't fighting for a 'free Iraq'. They are fighting for the power of whatever warlord or cleric happens to hold power in that area. They are fighting for a country where they have the power because they have the guns - instead of a country where power is distributed through a vote.

      And then there are the fighters from different countries who are here essentially to kill Americans. And they are not just after military targets - they would just as happily come to your house and slaughter you and your family. At least according to their leadership...

      "It seems you've taken it upon yourself to defend the "moral" values of the US gov't/military."

      The morality of violence is always a tough issue, but it is the wanton idealist who thinks that problems can be solved without it. The fact is that men like Saddam and the insurgents will not hesitate to kill anybody who gets in their way.

      I love hearing complaints from the Iraqi people about our presence in their country, about the current power structure. Because three years ago those who spoke out publicly would have been executed, and their families would have died with them.

  58. so... by rubee · · Score: 1

    until we can replace all military personnel Microsoft Certified robots, are we going to outsource to india?

  59. I'll admit it. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before I thought about any of the ramifications of this, I thought to myself "I think war games are about to get really, really cool."

    Now about the ramifications... I'm starting to think that it's only a matter of time before some mad genius combines one of these with the robotic toilet and mankind is doomed.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  60. Wining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may help an army win a battle, but not a war. Wars has to be won politically too. Wars are not won by occupation. ALL accupation wars are won by the occupied which is almost always the weaker force.

    Kids like toys, men like cars, women like jewlery, and slashdotters like pr0n. These are just toys for the army.

    1. Re:Wining? by mikapc · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about, wars can and have to be won purely by military means. Look at U.S. versus Japan, or even better look at what ROme did to Carthage. Politics isn't necessary if the entire people composing an enemy nation are dead.

    2. Re:Wining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is how you want to win the war, then n*clear b*mbs are cheaper and more effective. No?

  61. the future is starting by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of my coworkers is a military man. He says there will always be need for a human with a gun to be on the ground in war.

    But if you have a soldier controlling a robot with a gun, he can literally have eyes in the back of his head. The thing could have cammeras on all sides. His hands would be perfectly steady. He could be simultaneously seeing infra red, heat vision, and what ever other kind of cammera they have mounted on it buy looking at multiple monitors. And think if the great help in communication. You could just yell "he's around the corner" to the other controller right next to you, like at a LAN party. No hand signals or radios needed. You could have a speaker mounted on it for ording civilians around.

    Soon we will be fighting zero casualty (on our side) battles. That is, until someone develops the perfect jammer and sells it widely.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:the future is starting by phyruxus · · Score: 1

      jammers are homing beacons for jdams

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  62. Re:This Will Save Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So tell me, what do you call those people who kidnap, beat, humiliate, and then behead innocent civilians or those setting off carbombs in crowded streets?

    I think terrorist is the niceest term to call them. More like vile scum that do not deserve to live.

  63. They are terrorists. by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

    When they torture, kill, and behead AID WORKERS because they do not like them they ARE TERRORISTS an no playing with words will change that.

    1. Re:They are terrorists. by benna · · Score: 1

      Those are the foreign fighters that are doing that mostly. The majority of the insurgency is iraqis, and they are simply fighting a gaurilla war.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:They are terrorists. by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

      And why are they in Iraq? Oh yeah, the 'religious' leaders who are leading the iraqis asked them to come...

  64. Most likely... by deathazre · · Score: 1

    the unit would cease to function, and the rocket(s) would continue on the same unguided path they were fired on. Seems rather implausible to me to guide a rocket via remote control.

    --
    Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
  65. I for one, welcome our new robot overlords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You know it had to be said.

  66. Re:This Will Save Lives by bob+beta · · Score: 1

    Don't call them terrorists- call them rebels or whatever, but not terrorists.

    Sorry. They meet most common definitions of the term 'terrorist.' Stealthy strikes indiscrimnate of military and civillian targets, aiming to strike terror into a populace and disrupt moves toward an election.

    And please don't spread astroturf stories about 'recruiting more fighters.' Unless you've been in Iraq and have actual observations to relay, your 'reverse-chickenhawk' speculation is just that.

  67. Battlebots! by gatzby3jr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Lets hope this guy doesn't enter into Battlebots ... Kinda takes the seriousness away from war if American death isn't in the picture.

  68. obDie Hard by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    "Now I have a machine-gun. Ho Ho Ho!"

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  69. Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq, so who cares if kills civilians?

    1. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Funny sites like that didn't exist when Saddam was still in power. I mean people make it sound like Iraq was Edan before we invaded and, I am sorry to say, it wasn't.

    2. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glancing through the site you posted, the majority of the "civilian casualties" are actually either caused by, or are insurgents. They are listed as "killed by car bomber" and such. Last I checked the US is not using car bombs, roadside bombs, or any o ther sort of underhanded terrorist technique to claim lives. The insurgents aren't using these new weapons. If anything there will be less because we can take care of the car bombers and such quicker. Your posting of the site was nothing more than an attempt to defame the US military in another liberal plot to take the attention off of the good things we are doing. I would liek to see an acyual list of civilian casualties CAUSED by the US. Not a site that IMPLIES US caused casualties, then goes on to list ALL casualties.

    3. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I get so tired of these people that think our soldiers go out of their way to harm innocent people. I just watch some videos of my brother in a long bow, hovering 10' over a highway to stop traffic. You can clearly hear him saying, "I hope these f-ers stop". He's saying this because fuel trucks, doing about 80mph area heading right at him. They did this so they could shoot a series suspected road-side bombs. They did this so innocent people wouldn't get hurt. And yes, traffic did come real close. These soldiers are regular guys doing the best they can given a crappy situation against a sub-human enemy. Most don't want to even be there. Most really do not want to hurt innocent people. But, just like here, no war needed, you can find serious assholes that don't have problems making everyone else look like idiots.

      Simple fact is, as a rule of thumb, soldiers are not trying to hurt innocent people. These cry babies, like the one you replied to, seem to ignore the fact that these idiots are are the ones firing on soldiers from churches, from hospitals, from people's houses. And sadly, yes, innocent people die. Name one war where innocent people did not die. Unless they can name one war where innocent people did not die, they need to either shut the hell up or go over there and fight. They sound like idiots. No one ever said war was fair. No one ever said war was clean. It's a horrible tragic thing. ...sorry...just rambling...

    4. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I mean people make it sound like Iraq was Edan before we invaded and, I am sorry to say, it wasn't.

      While other people make it sound like we invaded Iraq and turned it into Eden. I am sorry to say, both kinds of people seem to be deluding themselves.

    5. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prison abuses were done by soldiers who were "regular guys doing the best they can given a crappy situation against a sub-human enemy"? Yeah, right.

    6. Re:Yeah, but this will probably be used in Iraq by Mant · · Score: 1

      It may help if you actuall read the post you are replying to.

      Most really do not want to hurt innocent people.

      See that most part? In any large group you get some bad ones. This is true of military forces numbering the 10s of thousands. At least they are being punished for it, and it wasn't typical behvaiour.

  70. Re:This Will Save Lives by benna · · Score: 1

    Its just simple logic. I may speculate that A + B = C and that therefore B + A = C but its still certainly true.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  71. Armed robots and fig newtons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are badass!!! They invented fig newtons. It's fruit and cake!

  72. Rolling on the floor, laughing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you were being sarcastic, even though the parent poster is an ass.

    1. Re:Rolling on the floor, laughing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Being an ass, eh? are your kids fit enough to be a soldier? are you? About one third of America's children are fat, and that is going to be one fucking massive drain on the country when they grow up. Really fat kids get really phat problems.

    2. Re:Rolling on the floor, laughing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, 13 weeks on Parris Island can turn even the slimiest civilian fatbody into a killing machine.

    3. Re:Rolling on the floor, laughing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even Gomer Pile!

  73. Mod parrent WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, just, WOW

    1. Re:Mod Parrent WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I'm thinking that you just posted the same comment twice.

  74. Fine whatever but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they better not run on microsoft :o

  75. Ah, and that's when the badness starts by xtal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is, until someone develops the perfect jammer and sells it widely.

    That, my friend, is the argument for making the robots autonomous. Insert sci-fi armageddon of choice here.

    Put a M16 in Asimo's hands and you have one hell of a prototype.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Ah, and that's when the badness starts by burns210 · · Score: 1

      But we need to put a safety precaution in there, so they can't go crazy... Maybe if we power them soley by solar panels, that would keep them under control... right?

      Right?

    2. Re:Ah, and that's when the badness starts by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Aim for the knees! For God's sake, aim for the knees!!

  76. In other news.... by GreenPenInc · · Score: 1

    Sharks get laser beams.

    1. Re:In other news.... by Fussen · · Score: 1

      Finally!

      You'd think it would be more obvious..

  77. Mod Parrent WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I'm actually stunned

  78. No where near replacing soldiers. by Linuxathome · · Score: 1

    Sadly though, this news will not help those caught in the backdoor draft here in the US -- not in the near future.

    1. Re:No where near replacing soldiers. by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      Nor will it help us when they turn these things on protesters and use them to keep people under control. At least until some crowbar wielding guy with a PHD in smashing things comes along to help.

      Or maybe I've been playing too much half life.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    2. Re:No where near replacing soldiers. by ocelotbob · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      For the short term, do what I'm doing and suck a cock for freedom ;)

      Gods, being bi is great.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  79. Toys with guns by kff322 · · Score: 0

    I Can't wait till i can get one at toys 'r us hopefully they carry the rocket launcher model Just don't tell my pet cat ;) kff

  80. First Mission by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Word has it the Pentagon has decided to send them on an autonomous mission to liquidate those responsible for triple dupes on /.

  81. No this will cost lives by Quizo69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "....we can wheel these robots in and take out those suckers without risking harm to our soldiers."

    And thus negating the most important check and balance against perpetual war.

    It is necessary for soldiers to die in a war, because their death reminds us that war has a price. If you can operate a completely robotic army/navy/air force, you lose that human connection, and create a killing force that can operate without any moral conscience whatsoever.

    That makes for a generation of politicians who will decide that because there is no human cost to their side, they may as well just send in the robots and exterminate the opposition.

    You are already seeing this process in action with such edicts as not being allowed to show coffins returning from Iraq. If you don't see the cost of war you are more likely to support it, and robot killing machines are the ultimate expression of that lack of human cost to war.

    Continuing down that path will have only one outcome, and it won't be pretty.

    1. Re:No this will cost lives by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Oh right......because the danger of being shot and killed (rather than just having a broken robot) will make you less likely to want to shoot anything that moves.

    2. Re:No this will cost lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because what if both sides have robots?

      Right now the military has a vague code about only attacking valid military targets (like, enemy soldiers, or strategic bases and stuff.) Rushing in and slaughtering a bunch of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers isn't "on".

      (Ok, there's a slight exception to this with the religiously fanatic muslims, who *will* kill anyone, but for sane people...)

      If you use an army of robots, it should act as a deterrant, coz transporting those robots to an invasion point will have just as much political lead up and warning as a human invasion. So if one country invades another, instead of setting up human defenders in defensible positions, maybe they'll setup the robots?

      Net effect may be that if robots are goign to fight robots, there'll be less fights overall (as the bean counters will just do a similation and advise politicians. "We have the best soldiers in the world" is an ego-boosting piece of propaganda that wont work on robots.

      P.S. If the USA does go the path of robots, this will increase the combat-capable number of people in the country. A fat guy with asthma can still control a robot by remote, no worries.

    3. Re:No this will cost lives by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      This was covered nicely in Star Trek:TOS episode, where two societies had removed the bloodiness of war between them and "sanitized" it to the point where there was no price to pay for waging the war - and then it then went on for centuries in stalemate... ...Until dashing Capt. Kirk and crew put an end to it, of course.

      I do see the use of these robots to be expendable instead of humans for hazardous duties in the military or normal civilian life as a good thing. For ordnance disposal, mine sweeping, hazmat cleanup, etc. they're perfect, but not to replace soldiers outright for waging war directly, mostly for the reasons you bring up.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    4. Re:No this will cost lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the USA murdered about 100.000 civilians in Iraq. WTF are you talking about?

    5. Re:No this will cost lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, that's not how I remember it. Maybe we're not thinking of the same episode. The one I'm thinking of has two civilizations that, in order to avoid unnecessary destruction, lead a sanitized warfare where they play a "virtual war", like warhammer, and then to ensure an actual loss in population, they euthanized their own civilians as "points" the other team scored. Very civilized, and very scary. War as we have it today would almost be better.

    6. Re:No this will cost lives by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
      Nah. The only way politicians (who start wars) can be reminded that war has a price is if they, or their sons and daughters, are required to lead the first cavalry charge. Henry V, Richard I etc are good examples of the old school.

      Soldiers are considered expendable by amoral politicians. Hitler rather liked wars because it provided a convenient way to "get rid of all the stupid people" by sending them off to fight. After all, if your soldiers refuse to fight for an unjust cause you can just shoot them at dawn.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    7. Re:No this will cost lives by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Perpetual war implies that there would be an endless supply of war-machines (be they robots or airplanes or warships or tanks). The result will be that, for the great military powers, a war would result in a contest to see whos machines are superior, rather than whos soldiers are superior. Once an army is depleted of resouces (robots, in the potential scenereo), it has no choice but to surrender.

      The flip side is that the gap between the superpowers and small groups wishing to challenge those in power gets wider. Now, even the ground game results in a phenominal mismatch. This would, of course, include the ability of the second amendment of the US constitution to ensure that the federal government did not get out of reach of overthrow by the poplace in the event of gross corruption. (Which, imho, has been moot since WWI)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:No this will cost lives by triznitch · · Score: 1
      the military has a vague code about only attacking valid military targets (like, enemy soldiers, or strategic bases and stuff.) Rushing in and slaughtering a bunch of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers isn't "on".


      Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki
      --
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
    9. Re:No this will cost lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what our "all-volunteer" army does now?

  82. Security by LeoDavinci578 · · Score: 1

    I think the best way that these things can be employed is security. Just set them up as little mobile turrets on the top of walls, the soldiers won't be in harms way, and you will be under attack so you will know for sure who is attacking and who is just trying to get out of the way.

  83. I for one.... by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    ..welcome our new robotic overlords.

  84. Cool, dude! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    It would be cool if these things get deployed and they destroy half of the world's population. It would also be funny.

  85. Loose Control? by TekMonkey · · Score: 1

    Couldn't an enemy pick one of these things up and just rewire then so they can control them? I don't think its such a good idea. And who knows what might happen if it malfunctions. :/

  86. signal jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about jamming the various radio control
    frequencies or cracking the security key?
    either halting the robot or taking it over.

  87. Re:This Will Save Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people you call "rebels" believe you are a fucking infidel and you WILL either become Al Fuktard or die. This is what Iran stands for. This is why Rumsfield cozied up to a certain inbred known as Saddam Hussein during the 80s: lesser of two evils. When he got out of control, failed to topple Iran, started attacking Kuwait, etc., he had to go. Iran is still there. And, they are next, though the liberals won't tell you why. To them, it is just because Bush is a wacko, gun happy cowboy.

    It is bad enough that a few people's daughters, wives, sisters, and mothers get gang banged at slimy bars here in the U.S. now (though, at least we don't sentence her to death afterwards.) Under Iran's ideal, women will be chained to the bed in droves as sex slaves. My daughters will not live in an Islamic world. My sons will not treat women that way. Period. Those of you that choose submission over fighting are not American. Period. The Great Men and Women who formed this Great Country adhered to a common standard: "Give me Liberty, or, Give me Death!" I am Christian, though, religion is not the overriding issue for me. Think of the women you know. Do I sound rebellious? I think I am right. John Kerry, Al Sharpton, and you believe I am wrong. Ayatollah Khamenei believes he is right. Osama believes he is right. Lots of Islamic people believe they are wrong. Especially women. I am their Infidel. They are my terrorist. From my viewpoint, there is no argument. The only thing that can change them from terrorists to "freedom fighters" is the conversion of the world to their brand of Islam (like France.)

    Make no mistake: I am not slamming all of Islam (well, their prophet WAS an offensive war monger), but, Iran's breed of Islam cannot be allowed to take hold with Iran at its center. Christian's went through a phase similar to this. However, they did not have nuclear weapons. This crap needs to be stopped NOW. Oh. And I am still in the middle of a more thorough study of the rise of Islam, but, it appears those Crusades that I have always been taught were perpetuated by Evil Christians were fought due to the Muslims constant attacks on Europe. Regardless...they must not be allowed to acquire nukes. Iraq WAS working on this stuff. They smuggled it out to Syria, Iran, France, etc. before the war. Everyone with a brain knows this.

    The only way these fucking scum sucking terrorists become "freedom fighters" or, as you say, "rebels" is by winning.

  88. Forget Skynet, bring me Robocop! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Next spring, the U.S. military is expecting to deploy Talon robots with machine guns. They can also be equiped with rocket launchers. Really, they're remote-controlled 'bots, not true autonomous 'bots, so you can save the Skynet jokes for, um, some day in the not-to-distant future."

    You call this a glitch!?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  89. Ways you many not approve of? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well you'd better not sharpen a pencil, because I wouldn't hesitate to jab it in someone's eye, if the circumstances warranted it.

    Just think of these robots doing really dangerous things - going down terrorist booby-trapped tunnels and the like.

    Or would you feel better just sending human fodder into such situations?

    If you think wars suck, then you should like modern high-tech wars. War still sucks, but far fewer people get killed doing it.

    Hmmm is that a good thing? On balance, I think so.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Ways you many not approve of? by cL0h · · Score: 1

      Or would you feel better just sending human fodder into such situations?
      Oh you mean killing other people. These weapons... sorry robots have the potential to kill far more people than humans. But then the people they're killing aren't American so they don't count right..?

      Patriotism is the mistaken belief that one country is superior to all others because you were born there.
      George Bernard Shaw

      --
      cL0h
    2. Re:Ways you many not approve of? by sparlitup · · Score: 1

      Fewer dead kevlar clad Americans, surely? The dead conscript pesants of the 'aggressor' don't count, I guess.

      Meanwhile, back in the real world:
      At least 100,000 dead in Iraq as of September, and in an invasion, where for the most part, the Iraqi army didn't even bother to show up...

    3. Re:Ways you many not approve of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>If you think wars suck, then you should like modern high-tech wars. War still sucks, but far fewer people get killed doing it.

      Dude, we're not going to lose less guys, we're just going to fight more wars.

  90. Not seeing a human face on a battlefield by akhems_razor · · Score: 1

    I know it's already been mentioned how having an all-robot military would affect the policy makers directing the military, but what about the other parties involved in war? If you were part of a nation's Coast Guard and saw numerous amphibious robots take a beach, would you feel encouraged to attack the robots knowing that there's no human cost to reducing robots to a scrap heap? And as the remote pilot of an invading robot force, can you expect to gain sympathy from the civilians of the country you're invading?

  91. Who programmed them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully they don't run ActiveX controls.

  92. They even look like Number Five... by CapnRob · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...which means that it's only a matter of time before the U.S. Army deploys Steve Gutenberg in battle, which is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

  93. Dehumanization of Killing by NEwBoY04 · · Score: 1

    This is the type of technology that spurs controversy because of the fact that it isolates humans from the actual act of killing. While manned weapons systems today already provide a level of isolation in the act of killing (this comes from watching footage of AH-64 Apaches in Iraq where the gunship is miles away and the targets have no idea they are being watched and of Spectre gunships in Afganistan that pick of individuals with the equivalent of an airborne howitzer from near six miles away) this will only serve as a platform to somehow justify the act of taking another human life. Even better, we can do it remotely now. While I realize the importance of trying to protect American soldiers, this type of technology only serves to debase and marginalize the lives of those that are killed by such a weapons platform

    1. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. The type of thing you are referring to is generally known as 'moral numbing'. Using robots themselves do not debase or marginalize the lives of those killed automatically. This would occur only if the operators of the robots came to see war as simply a video game, and fought with little care for what they were doing.

      So long as individual soldiers in our military understand the significance of taking the lives of other people, the moral basis of just war will not be undermined. Or in terms of Kantian ethics, enemy combatants will not simply be mere means.

      This is only the first actual land deployment of armed robots. UAV's (ie, predators) have had (and used) the capability to fire air-to-ground missiles for a long time.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    2. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by $ASANY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cruise missles isolate humans from the actual act of killing in war. Before that, ballistic missiles isolated humans from this awful task. Before that it was strategic bombing, and before that it was long range artillery, and before that it was the machine gun, and before that the rifle, which came after the cannon, the trebuchet, the arrow, the rock, and everything that wasn't some sort of cutting weapon weilded in close combat. This is a recurring whine, and little more than that.

      The real concern is the number of human lives lost in stopping these recurring acts of idiocy. The actual effect of technological advancement has been to steadily reduce the number of combatant and noncombatant casualties as technology improved. Modern technology makes it possible to confront agression with less cost in human lives over shorter periods of time.

      But if it assauges your sense of moral rectitude, we can go back to the days of sword-weilding armies and the concomitant casualty rates of 20-40% of entire populations during wars. We wouldn't be isolated at all from the act of killing -- a large plurality of us would have a constant connection with death, rather than our 1-2% or so who have intimate experience with it now.

      If you think more experience with death promotes peace, talk to a Bosinan, or a Croat. They'll set you straight.

    3. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The actual effect of technological advancement has been to steadily reduce the number of combatant and noncombatant casualties as technology improved.


      No. Not really. If you look at the wars that the US has been involved in, the advent of technology from the 1700's through 1945 show a direct link between the rise of technology and an increase in number of casualties. The wars since then have been limited engagements. While midevil conflict may have had high percentages of populations slayed, that is more an issue of barbarism, not technology.


      Anyway, looking at the window of time that I indicated I don't see how your statement could be said to be true.

    4. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The real concern is the number of human lives lost in stopping these recurring acts of idiocy. The actual effect of technological advancement has been to steadily reduce the number of combatant and noncombatant casualties as technology improved. Modern technology makes it possible to confront agression with less cost in human lives over shorter periods of time.

      That statement is completely idiotic and, if anything, probably only serves to illustrate your devastating lack of education.

      In WWII, almost 60 million people were killed, about two thirds of them civilians. Without technology, such "convenient" ways of genocide as the holocaust or air raids wouldn't have been possible.

      In WWI, 15 million dead. Many died in the trenches, because such advances as machine guns and heavy artillary forced things into a deadlock.

      If there's enough of a technological imbalance, and no other factors to make up for it, the more advanced country has an easier time killing lots of enemy soldiers or civilians. The US has repeatedly been in that situation. But then there's also cases there one side is more advanced, and the other is more numerous, and a huge carnage results, such as in the Russian theater in WWII, or the Korean war.

      I find it disgusting how easily Americans like you talk about others who "whine" about yet more weapons. Your criminal government has shifted to a policy of preemtive - illegal! - wars. Thousands get killed. Sure, you in your self-righteousness watch O'Reilly and believe that it's all cool. No, it is not. People get sick of it. People get sick of wars, of killing, and of fucking arrogance as you display it.

    5. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by romania · · Score: 0

      You say 1-2%... you should complete the idea and say 1-2% of the americans if you ignore the racial crimes, the heists and other criminal activities involving guns in the US. But for those 1-2% of americans there will be twice as much involved on the other side. And because they are also on the other side of the gun they will be involved in the ways of end of life.

      So many times the Terorrist States of America blamed technology for targeting a hospital or a school instead of a military base which wasn't in the area anyway. Where are the famous Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by the way?

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    6. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by Mant · · Score: 1

      Casualties have got bigger because populations and wars have got bigger.

      However, none of the things you list are new. Many of the casualties in WWII were not in fighting, but military forces massacring civilians. That is isn't new, it has been around as long as human history.

      During Hannibal's fighting against Rome, in some battles Roman soldiers were being killed more quickly than British soldiers at the Battle of the Somme. All they had were pointed bits of metal.

      A more disciplined, technological force inflicting huge casualties on a numerically superior foe isn't new. The Romans did that a lot. Before there was the gun humans still happily killed each other, sometimes wiping out whole rival civilisations.

      None of this is new, but the scale has increased, up until WWII (although I don't think in this context conflating holocaust victims with war casualties make sense). Since then though, the scale has been smaller, there has been a lot of effort to develop more accurate technologies to reduce civilian casualties. There will, of course, always be civilian casualties and the cost of war should always be carefully considered.

      However, war will always happen. So what do you do, give you soldiers and your side the best possible chance of survival with equipment like this, or send them into battle without it, knowing some are going to die needlessly, but thinking "hey, at least people back home will appreciate the cost of war now"?

    7. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by agrino · · Score: 1
      The problem with killer robots is that make very easy to "sell" a new war against another innocent country: if none of your "boys" will die, then why not start a new war?

      I think the fear of losing your own life or a relative's life make you think twice before going to kill small childrens in Irak.

    8. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      war will always happen

      And that is exactly what is wrong with your thinking. As far as this planet is concerned we will either learn to live without war, or we will fight a final war. Basic probability pretty much guarantees that eventually a war will be devastating enough to destroy all life on earth. Some of us would like to see things go the other way.

      I'm no pacifist. I don't think killing is unethical. I do think that the only way our species will survive is if we strongly promote the ethical responsibility for killing on all levels. No one should kill someone that they do not know, and have not taken the time to understand unless their life is immediately threatened. No one should put themselves in a position where their life is immediately threatened and use that as an excuse to kill indiscriminately.

      The time for letting others think for you and decide who you should kill is rapidly coming to a close. If we continue in this course, and continue to advance technologically, our species will perish.

    9. Re:Dehumanization of Killing by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the pitched battle for Stalingrad that lasted several months, with a moving front, that killed several tens of millions of russians. (I think the number was 25 million.)

      I would also argue that the use of weapons that kill or disable your adversary as quickly as possible, thus shortening the war and the lowering the loss of life, would mostly eliminate the moving front.

  94. History repeating itself? by TigerNut · · Score: 1

    Hi

    --

    Less is more.

    1. Re:History repeating itself? by TigerNut · · Score: 2, Informative
      Doh... I hate it when that happens. Anyway...

      In WW2, the British and to some extent the Americans put a huge dent in the German advance by having a very good understanding of the psyche of their opponents and of their command structure. Both sides had radar as far back as 1940, but the British used it much more effectively and designed a defense system around it that optimally combined what little resources they could bring to the situation at that time.
      The various deceptions that were devised by the British went largely undetected by the Germans, and while their impact is difficult to measure in lives saved, there is little doubt that various decoys and false transmissions in the right places allowed the Allies to attack more effectively at a low cost in extra manpower.
      The point is that defeating your opponent is as much (or more) a mind game as it is a matter of brute strength. Robots, even with remote control, aren't going to have the agility or cunning required to survive on the battlefield.

      --

      Less is more.

    2. Re:History repeating itself? by Mant · · Score: 1

      The sort of planning and cunning you are talking about is at a strategic level. The robots are operating at a tactical level.

      The ability to plan a good air defense system, or come up with the idea of dropping a dead guy in the water near the coast with fake plans, isn't relevant when knocking down the door of a building that may be filled with armed opposition.

  95. 1st army defeated by a worm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are in a War zone, bombs are falling all over the place! Chief! We have to call back all the units! Now! There's a patch that need to be apply asp... Seriously, that's not looking good. I think the first army that will implement that level of technology will fail. They will be the beta tester...

  96. Possible to take over? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

    Overpower the control signal, robot stops moving. Better yet, decode the signal and take control of the robot to turn it on who sent it. Somehow I don't see this being a great idea.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Possible to take over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may just be the perfect jumping off point where robots fight wars against each other. We stay out of the fray. The robots, armed with the devices you suggest, work to control/kill each other. If people were to do this, they would equip more robots with machine guns. If robots go to war instead, they will be equipped with the electronic 'guns' and people would be relatively safe. That is, unless your computer-controlled automotive systems fail... or your missile defense systems.

  97. Valid Targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoot the brown people or, shoot the non Christian?

    No, just shoot the stupid people.

  98. The term Blue Screen of Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will now be literal!

  99. Re:When will they learn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In Korea, robots are given the same rights as humans.

  100. Fat and docile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Bots with guns...

  101. Where Do I Sign Up? by samantha · · Score: 1

    No, not for the Army silly. I want to sign up to help develop equivalent or better units for the "Cyber-Militia". It isn't American to only let the government have such toys.

  102. Forever Peace by devphil · · Score: 1


    Joe Haldeman wrote a not-exactly-sequel to his most excellent and classic novel, The Forever War.[*] Different story universe, updated technology, different world situations, but re-examining many of the same issues.

    Remotely-controlled soldier-robots play a key role in the plot. One of the central characters is a "mechanic" for the US Army -- a person who does the remote controlling of a ground unit.

    [*] He followed up both of them with a real sequel to TFW, entitled Forever Free, which sucks so bad it creates new black holes.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  103. Jammers should sell well by samantha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to an article in Technology Review last month our troops in Iraq often find their comm isn't too great on the frontlines for much more than sporadic email at the best. Imagine the equivalent or worse comm problems with these remote controlled robots engaged in live fire. A couple of bucks worth of nasty kidstuff electronics overcomes millions in robot devices. Sounds like another winner from those folks who cornered the market on $400 hammers.

    I wish the boys would grow up a bit or at least make toys that friggin are useable.

    1. Re:Jammers should sell well by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Ugh... every time someone want's to bash the US government, the $400 (actually the myth was $600) hammer comes up. It never happened. Never. Here's a link to an enlightening article. Please read it, and never again post information regarding expensive hammers.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  104. One Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MURDERER

    1. Re:One Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _Disgusting Bastard, you don't feel remorse because you're scumm. I'm glad you don't procreate and hope yhat you die by a Patriot rocket or something thru your head.

  105. where do i sign up? by enjoys-pigeons · · Score: 1

    hell, imagine the horror on our enemies faces when after killing their friends, they then proceed to hump the dead body while erratically doing pelvic thrusts. Then, to add insult to injury (well, death), a 14 year old voice spouts "pwned"...

    --
    Hello slashdot, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again...
  106. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  107. AVP? by cYbertr0n · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know, they'll have self-detonation devices in them (a la AVP) :P

  108. Silly Rabbit by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1

    You're supposed to make SkyNet jokes about Google.

  109. gangs of suckers by 01D* · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As for me, I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!

    It's not between "gangs of these suckers" that you will see the "action", but rather gangs of these suckers slaughtering tons of civilians somewhere in the 3rd world that doesn have any. Wars are never about fair competition.

  110. The REAL reason is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..x-mas!

    It's for our general evil, "the thing you buy to a person who already has everything". While he wanted sharks with laser beams, they were shot down by enviromental activists.

    Now how fun wouldn't it be deathmatching with theese?! :) This was very off topic.

  111. George Bush is already one step ahead of you. by i41Overlord · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're still going to fuck up and shoot their allies by mistake

    George Bush has all that figured out. You see, on the current path he's guiding our country, in a few years we won't have any allies left.

    Then we won't have to worry about that problem.

  112. Chinese Do Indeed Have Low Regard for Human Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Most Chinese do indeed have a low regard for human life.

    Look at the meetings of Amnesty International at your local university. The Chinese are underrepresented at such meetings but are overrepresented in your engineering classes.

    Look at the loud protests that the Chinese held at American universities after the American military accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia. Now, look at the absense of protests by the Chinese on the matter of Tibet.

    I back up what I say with facts. Chinese culture is very different from Western culture. Got that, Chinese pig?

  113. Yeah by anicholo · · Score: 1

    That's so totally cool,
    I could hack into one of these boys and have it as my sexual pet!

    Can't you see the genius in it???

    --
    We are The Atheists. Lower your egos and surrender your beliefs. Resistance is futile.
    1. Re:Yeah by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 0

      As in:

      "Is that a machine gun you have in your pocket? Or are you just glad to see me?"

      Each to their own ;)

  114. SAN DIEGO HONDA PARTY!!! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 2, Funny

    or something

  115. What about Farscape refrences? by xagon7 · · Score: 1

    True, Talon was a living being He was perverted by the peacekeepers as a weapon. Damn, I'm frelled. "Talon" and "weapon" mentioned in the same sentence and all I can think is Farscape. Man, I miss that show ;(

  116. http://www.whitehouse.org by agent · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.whitehouse.org

  117. Such robot wars ... would be boring. by Westacular · · Score: 1
    I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!
    Why? It would be like aerial combat has pretty much always been: whoever comes in from the right angle, and fires first, wins.

    'Robot Wars' et al. are interesting because they disallow such weapons, and force the 'bots to fight hand-to-hand (so to speak), where differences in the robots' designs and the controllers' skills is actually of consequence.
  118. Windows ? by Vulcann · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey will these babies support Longhorn?

    /sarcasm

    1. Re:Windows ? by chawly · · Score: 1

      They are, of course, controlled by a beta version of Longhorn. This is a military project we're talking about : it's obvious that they need the latest and greatest in OS.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  119. RF noise maker anyone by stewwy · · Score: 1

    1. Contact unfriendly government
    2. sell very loud RF generator as anti-robot weapon
    3. PROFIT!!!!
    Isn't capitalism wonderful?

  120. Just Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Beowulf cluster of these!

  121. scary ? by nasdev · · Score: 1

    Drop your weapon, you have ten seconds to comply.

  122. Re:Chinese Do Indeed Have Low Regard for Human Lif by bash99 · · Score: 1

    get rid of this one, moderaters.

  123. Surplus!! by kyoorius · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to get my hands one one of these things once they hit the military surplus market.

  124. How would you design the interface? by piotrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So.. these drones will be remote controlled? Yes, I read the thread, bear with me. They are going to save on "OUR" human casualties, by killing more of the enemy via a remote link to an actual soldier controlling these mechanoid suckers. Instead of losing lives, "we" will only lose millions of items of immense monetary value, which still is considered the smaller loss. Of course a surviving fighter pilot gets one hell of a scolding if the plane gets lost, but it's basically the same thing here: If you have more tech than soldiers, it's a good thing to empower every soldier with more tech than he or she is worth, so to speak.

    Now, what is the interface going to look like? I am assuming a live-feed, encrypted, RF signal with video and audio and not some command line interface thing because we don't have that kind of autonomy in AI yet... unless you count my industry. I am not in defense works, I am a game designer. We have AI that could do the job. Sure, the bots would freeze up for seconds at a time trying to convert the terrain into a pathmap grid, and it will get stuck in odd loops between rocks and hard places, but my point is that some degree of autonomy is possible if the operator is taking a piss or getting another jolt, pizza, mountain dew, what have you.

    And so, what interface will the "mechanized infantry" be using against its operator? One 'bot per remote operator "Operation Flashpoint" style (or "Mechwarrior" / "Starsiege" style?) or two to four 'bots per operator, "Hidden & Dangerous"-style or maybe even eight ("Full Spectrum Warrior") or 60 ("Ground Control") 'bots for every operator?

    Especially if bots feature some kind of learning, remembering last used commands, path maps, all of these alternatives are more or less feasible. I actually think the "Quake 3" or "OFP" approach is the least appropriate because a bot can be destroyed, chaffed, EMP'd, taken out of range, fall down a hole, lose the connection or start dropping packages like crazy. Controlling a bot lagging over radio with a jerky video feed is not a first person shooter experience you would want to participate in, not even for fun, and especially not when you are sitting in a command bunker undefended save for those ABC mechanoids.

    Instead, imagine a setup where each operator shares his or her attention between members of a squad of four or five 'bots. Equip the 'bots with a few different pieces of equipment while they're awaiting deployment, maybe tweak one of them for speed and recon, another for damage soak and a third with a long-range weapon, and so on. Now, keep in mind that a video feed is possible but not speedy enough to make instant point-and-click orders. Thunderstorms, sandstorms, building occluding the signal and so forth will make that much too unreliable. Instead, the operator gives move orders to the 'bots, identifies targets, marks them on the IFF using bandboxing or clicking, the bot remembers distingishing features and asks for confirmation when a takedown is possible.

    The only thing the USA has to worry about now is Korea. No matter how smart US operators become, how streamlined their interface or how autonomous their remote controlled heavy weapons platforms, they will remain unable to stop the Zerg rush, kekekekeke.

    --
    / Per
  125. Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! Soldier disassembled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reassemble, Stephanie! reassemble!

  126. A song? by EvilNutSack · · Score: 1

    "Military robots and machine guns" doesn't really have the same ring as "bikini girls and machine guns", nor does it promote the same imagery unless they look like the TX from T3.

    --
    --
  127. Robotjox by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Ahh......Robotjox: The Early Years.

    Wow, that reminds me, I have to rent that movie.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  128. how I long for nucular bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an' 'at

  129. Nice, but... by O.F.+Fascist · · Score: 1

    I still want my powered armor.

  130. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but that's the point, retardo......

  131. I'm Sam Waterston, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel. Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration. You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time. And when they grab you with those metal claws, you can't break free.. because they're made of metal, and robots are strong. Now, for only $4 a month, you can achieve peace of mind in a world full of grime and robots, with Old Glory Insurance. So, don't cower under your afghan any longer. Make a choice. Old Glory Insurance. For when the metal ones decide to come for you - and they will.

  132. Ethics, schmethics by Jonner · · Score: 1

    This thing is not a robot, no matter what the article says. It's a remotely controlled vehicle. It's no more a robot than an RC car. It's a far less automated weapon than guided missiles that have been around for fifty years.

    I have no idea what the "Redhat compiler" is, but if it's released under the GPL, no one can say what it can or can't be used for.

    1. Re:Ethics, schmethics by mikechant · · Score: 1

      This thing is not a robot, no matter what the article says. It's a remotely controlled vehicle.

      True up to a point, but surely it's going to have to have some sort of 'default behaviour' programmed for cases where its signal is lost or jammed. Does it just shut down (and allow the enemy to capture and study it)? Or does it self-destruct (and possibly kill non-combatants or its own soldiers)? Or does it attempt to 'return to base'?

      Personally I would say the least risky default would be a minimal self-destruct with virtually no force that just fries key components. But given the likely cost of these things it wouldn't surprise me if they tried the 'return to base' option, and then you do have an autonomous (but not very bright) armed robot wandering around.

    2. Re:Ethics, schmethics by Jonner · · Score: 1

      The article didn't say anything about automatic behavior and I sure hope it doesn't have any. Since it won't ever be more than a few hundred feet or yards from the soldiers operating it, I don't think any automation should be necessary.

  133. Video: Insurance Against Robot Attack by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

    "Old Glory Insurance: For when the metal ones decide to come for you; and they will."

    Lo-resolution (5MB):
    http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_ lo.html

    High-resolution (11MB):
    http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory _hi.html

  134. Lose the tinfoil hat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it'd be easier to hotwire and steal a police car than it would be to hijack an Army machine gun robot. For one thing, who wants to get close enough to the gun bot? It's going to have sensors. You get close, you get shot. End of story. Are you planning on driving up to it with a tank? And then grabbing a hold of it, and peel the armor away, slap your trusty 72mhz receiver in there? Then what? How in your tank and drive away? What's the range on a 72mhz receiver? 200 to 300 yards? On a battlefield, you'll have to get really close to drive your hijacked 'bot.

    We already have different remote-controlled air drones. 2 of them can launch Hellfire missiles or drop guided munitions. They patrol dangerous areas, performing discreet surveillance. Why don't we hear about these things getting hijacked by little Billy with his $12.00 Futaba 72mhz radio transmitter/receiver? Because it doesn't happen. It's encrypted satellite communications. I can't believe there are people out there modding Hobadee's post to +4 Insightful.

    1. Re:Lose the tinfoil hat. by nick+korma · · Score: 1

      Not forgetting what lightning can do to these suckers.. Johnny 5 was alive - although he had a cool laser death ray and not a machine gun.. and when he turned against his masters the most exciting thing he then went on to do was watch tv and read..

  135. Regarding posts about developing war tools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would just like to note that technology doesn't kill people in a war, politicians do.

    Supply and demand. No demand, no use to supply.
    As long as there is demand there will be supply.

    Stop war and conflict and there would be no need to produce guns and bombs.

    I wonder if that will ever happen though =(

  136. Moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War never happens because defense contractors can profit off it. War happens because a plurality of people can't agree, and to kill them is easier than comprimise. In the case of the Arabs and Islamists, their message is, "Ultimately, you hedonists of the West must convert, and submit to our religious rule, die, or kill us." Fine. Door number three it is. I say bust out the good firecrackers and create high paying low skill jobs scooping up radioactive sand. If any of them survve, I hope not, maybe they can have casinos in a hundred years or so.

    Wait for the scary part. This last election I was for all practical intents and purposes a democrat.

  137. Not so. by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go read a good book about this, namely: On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.
    He's a psychiatrist who considered the effects of different ways of killing on the mental health of the soldier and has come the conclusion that, while the US army has become extremely efficient at breaking down the natural inhibitions against murder it has not been as successfull in dealing with its aftermath. One step has always been the adding of physical distance between the soldier and his victim, in the progression you so proudly cite (have you ever thought about the "collateral damage" of a sword vs. that of a cruise missile?). Go read that, and then reconsider your opinion.

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
    1. Re:Not so. by $ASANY · · Score: 1

      I am a former infantry soldier. I never saw combat, but did work with a fair number of combat veterans during my 12 years of service. Now this military psychiatrist surely knows a whole lot more about mental health than I do, but my experience has been that it doesn't particularly bother most professional soldiers when they successfully accomplish their assigned tasks of killing people and breaking things. What weighs on them is the death and injuries of their fellow soldiers. It's hard losing comrades. Killing the enemy to protect yourself and your comrades isn't particularly hard for the soldiers I've seen to do.

      I've never seen this great angst that apparently happens when you remember the enemy you've killed. I'm sure it happens to some, but it's not a really common thing. You might choose to think it's bacause these soldiers have been dehumanized by a morally bankrupt military system, but that says more about you than it says about them. If you ask the soldier, he'll most likely tell you it wasn't something that they enjoyed or feel particularly proud of, it was just simply the job they were expected to do.

      If this were a really significant problem, I'd bet it would show up in places like Rwanda really big, where nonprofessionals hacked each other to pieces with machetes on an unimaginable scale. Despite that being the worst case scenario as far as I can imagine, I haven't heard anything about a mental health crisis there, although the obvious humanitarian crisis might well drown anything else out.

      There were a lot of WWII vets who were up close and personal, and they don't seem to suffer from this. None of the Airborne who landed in Normandy seemed scarred by their actions, nor the vets in the Pacific who were often in hand-to-hand. Again, I haven't done a study, but the vets I've talked to didn't seem to be bothered by this. So I just can't buy the notion that professional soldiers are so mentally fragile that they can't withstand performing their primary function if they can in fact see their enemy.

    2. Re:Not so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a point...the more soldiers who are dead at the end of a war, the fewer we will have to experience the adverse mental effects. Perhaps killing all solders after a war would be the best thing. That way there's no worry.

    3. Re:Not so. by DG · · Score: 1

      I'm a former Armoured soldier, and morover, I own this book. It's outstanding.

      One of the major points raised in the book is that historically, there were support networks baked into units that helped deal with the residual mental stresses.

      To use the WW2 example, a unit would be in for the duration, which means that the personel in it would remain fairly constant with time. There would be some turnover with casulties and promotions, but for the most part, the men in the unit would have trained together, fought alongside each other, and gone home together.

      I don't know about the Americans so much, but Canadian units (historically, not so much any more) were often formed from distinct population centres. The guys you went to war alongside were your friends and neighbors.

      The "gone home" part is very important. There was a time delay when units were pulled off the field and sent home, and the trip home was by boat, which is slow. So the men would have an opportunity to be in each other's company and aclimatise to the transition between incipient death/kill or be killed, and normal civillian life.

      That probably sounds all Oprah... and it's not like they sat around having group hugs and circle cries. But you know soldiers - they talk to each other. By the end of the war, they were closer than brothers. They'd be able to help each other deal with some of the mental damage (even though I doubt any of them would _express_ it that way)

      Presumably, the same sort of thing has happened throughout history. If you marched across Europe in a war of conquest (be it armed with stone axes, bronze spears, steel swords, or muskets) you're gonna be marching home again too. You'll be spending a lot of time in each other's company without the threat of death or needing to kill hanging over you.

      Compare, however, to Vietnam, with the 1 year in country tour programme. No longer was the goal to "win the war so we can all go home" - now you just had to stay alive for your year. Unit turnover was constant, so bonding between soldiers was not as common and not as profound. And it was entirely possible to be in the jungle in the morning, and be discharged and back in the US in the evening - no support network.

      And what war has the reputation for the greatest number of post-discharge mental problems? Vietnam.

      As far as the Rwanda example goes, they're living in their support structure. You and your buddies from the same tribe went out and killed people from the other tribe - together - and then you go back to your village and stay in each other's company. you can work out your residual stresses amongst themselves.

      I'm simplifying of course, but you get the idea. The book does a far better job discussing it.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    4. Re:Not so. by $ASANY · · Score: 1

      I hate to see Vietnam used as an example a lot of the time because it was a laboratory for making every stupid decision possible in regards to the soldier's well-being and seeing what happened as a result. Thankfully, the lessons seem to have pretty much been learned and corrective action has been applied. You make an excellent point about some of the effects, and I think you get how unique an environment it was and how hard it is to use experiences there as a guidepost for potential future experiences. The year-long tour of duty is one well known example. Relevant to this discussion is the "body count" statistics collection pioneered by MacNamara's boys. If anything would serve to dehumanize a soldier, it would be evaluating his performance almost entirely based upon unverified self-reporting of how many casualties a soldier (or his unit) inflicted. As far as what helped or harmed the soldier, the solder replacement system (outgrowth of the "tour of duty") failed to create unit cohesion and effective unit training. 90-day OCS graduates were not sufficiently prepared to take on combat platoon leadership, and were not provided an opportunity to learn about their men before assuming command of front-line units. The failure to widely deploy native or trained linguists to help units understand the Vietnamese caused huge "us vs. them" issues. Little or no training for junior or mid-level NCO's. The list is pretty long. Those would be pretty damaging to that support structure you mention. You'd be awfully impressed with what U.S. soldiers are like today, and that support structure is there in spades. In particular the NCO Corps is absolutely top-rate and I think nothing else can be such a force for good or ill with the private soldier. They're smarter, better trained, and better educated than ever before, and you can see by the high morale and excellent unit effectiveness in Iraq and Afganistan that they're doing their job well. They remind me of what I've heard from WWII vets, when they talked about their leaders. Those men were well taken care of.

  138. Re:Chinese culture is very different from Western by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Funny
    I back up what I say with facts. Chinese culture is very different from Western culture. Got that, Chinese pig?

    Yes Sir! /me bows smilingly.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  139. US Cowardice by Triskele · · Score: 1, Troll
    So now the USA can exercise its cowardice to even greater levels. With high altitude bombers and cruise missiles they've been able to kill in safety for a while but now they'll be able to do it on the ground as well.

    Just how many more innocent people do they intend to murder to maintain their suv-loving lifestyle? Iraqis are currently paying 30:1 in lives for Sept 11th and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    1. Re:US Cowardice by Mant · · Score: 1

      I can't believe anyone modded that crap up.

      By your insane troll logic you shouldn't give soldiers guns, because hey, cowardice by killing at a distance. Tanks, artillery and air support are right out to. What do you want soldiers to use, their teeth?

      War isn't a bravery contest, or about fighting fair face to face, you are there to win. Minimising your own casualties is something just about everyone tries to do. It is sort of important in fighting.

      I assume you are equally down on "cowardly" guerilla tactics too?

    2. Re:US Cowardice by Triskele · · Score: 2, Insightful
      War isn't a bravery contest, or about fighting fair face to face, you are there to win. Minimising your own casualties is something just about everyone tries to do. It is sort of important in fighting.

      Or you could not fight. Civilised nations took that decision with the foundation of the Geneva Convention. Something that the US now abrogates.

      You might also note that weapons of mass destruction are banned for precisely the reason that we do not want war to to be too easy to wage. Robot soldiers most definitely fall into that category.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    3. Re:US Cowardice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Geneva Convention only applies to people who put on uniforms, not terrorists.

      Things against the Geneva Convention include pretending your dead, faking surrender, and hiding among civilians. The use of long range weapons is NOT against the Geneva Convention.

    4. Re:US Cowardice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it from you strong stance against death you oppose abortion?

    5. Re:US Cowardice by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was always offended by Bush's refering to the terrorists on those planes as cowards. As one talk show host said (pls reply with name), it takes a lot of guts to fly a plane into a building, knowing you'll die.

      How many times have you realized that you really should do something, but you were afraid for your own safety? Aside from disagreeing with their beliefs, these terrorists did what they thought they needed to do, and were not cowards.

      Enemies? Sure. Needing a good ass-kicking? Definately. Hiding in Iraq? Only since the fall of Saddam.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    6. Re:US Cowardice by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      I believe that was Tom Leykas. And Tom had a very good point.

      Which is why it's odd to me to not call the "terrorists" religious fanatics instead.

    7. Re:US Cowardice by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      And bend over backwards while some bastard with a thing against the US tries to ram his sandpaper condom covered wee wee up the US' ass?

      I think the US gives too much for that kind of insult.

      And remember that just because some convention banned weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean that they won't be produced (or used) in the future. Just look at Israel, India, Pakistan, they all have nuclear weapons, and they all stole the designs from the US (though Pakistan was indirect by stealing from India what they stole from us).

      If you think that some piece of paper is going to stop a person that doesn't give a crap about that piece of paper, then you kind of deserve to have those foreign tanks rolling down mainstreet of your town.

  140. Let's just hope... by Delgul · · Score: 1

    That they encrypted their uplink decently. Might give nasty surprises otherwise!!

    1. Re:Let's just hope... by aleander · · Score: 1

      Quiet! You can awaken The Murphies...

      --
      Segmentation fault. Ore dumped.
  141. Re:Chinese Do Indeed Have Low Regard for Human Lif by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What has free speech done to you, to make you hate it so much?

  142. Pink Floyd... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    ...run rabbit, run. Dig that hole, the bot's got a gun...

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  143. Hmm Joystick? by levell · · Score: 1

    These would make an interesting premise for a 1st person shooter. It explains why "you" go in first alone, can sustain a lot of damage and why the controls aren't as fluid as in real life

    Oh dear. It worries me that I thought of this not long after being told about remote control machines equiped with guns.

    --
    Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
    1. Re:Hmm Joystick? by slimak · · Score: 1

      Along those lines of thinking... the should probably hold some massive death match tournament to find the pilots of these things. Finally a use for all those hours of my youth/adult life "wasted" -- can't wait to tell the wife.

  144. It has to be said ..... by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    I welcome our new Skynet overlords.......

    <g>

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  145. The NRA will say... by theolein · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not guns that kill people, it's robots.

  146. just me? by LoganGD · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is this sucker excited whit war and guns or what?!?!? Bad, bad,bad. So sorry, man, if you cant wait to see robot wars, jump from a bridge, you useless. This kind of machinery was not build for playing robot games you if could not tell. This is a GUN. It remote control killing people machine. Is it exciting? Wait till one of these kill the first inocent civilian in the next useless and pourposeless war. Exceting is tecnology making the life better and people happier. =D Robots are sure cool, but this kind of technology dont deserve being called science.

  147. just like on DR Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The enemy will just have to go up stairs and the robots are useless! just put piles of bricks in the streets and door ways and the robots will not be able to get anywhere.

    just like bushs son of starwars, it another hi tech idea that is expensive to make and really easy to counter.

  148. The obvious wingnut fallacy by IdahoEv · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You just made the most stereotypical warmonger fallacy with this statement:

    I believe the number of people who want to see the agenda of a country [nasty description of evil Iran] achieve ascendancy over [wholesome description of the USA] is rather small


    Yeah, of course. Nobody wants to see the mullahs take over the world. So? How does that imply that we should go to war? The uttermost wingnut error is this dogma:

    "A is evil. Therefore we should go to war with them"
    "B is evil. Therefore we should go to war with them"

    I'm no pacifist. Sometimes war is the right answer. But it isn't in all cases. The grandparent makes a point that reducing the risks of war may create a situation in which a powerful nation is more likely to start wars at the drop of a hat. Since in general wars kill people, starting more of them is not a a priori a good idea. You have to argue that a specific war is worth the cost, and you haven't done that with respect to, e.g., Iran.

    Pointing out solely that Iran has an evil agenda does not in any way shape or form refute the grandparent's argument. Yes, they're evil. So what? That's irrelevant: the point wasn't about the nature of the agendas in question, it was about the effects of the policies pursued in support of those agendas. A very different question.

    Your attitude, (which you call "common sense"), that violence is the only effective strategy against bad people, is neanderthal and ignorant of history. Even in the bloody 20th century, significantly more oppressive regimes and dictatorships were overthrown by nonviolent means than via wars. Yes, sometimes, war can overthrow a dictator and bring peace and democracy afterwards (as WWII). Sometimes, though, war can fail in its goals and set the stage for the rise of brutal dictatorships (as we failed to free Vietnam, but set the stage for Pol Pot). How many examples do you want of wars fought by the US that failed to bring democracy to the target country and/or gave rise to a brutal dictator afterwards?

    Different situations require different responses.

    History most definitely does *not* support your implicit assumption that a nation more willing to go on the warpath to enforce its agenda increases the likelihood of that agenda "winning". More often, that kind of attitude just fuels resentment and defensiveness, leading to a bigger fight and a lot more people dead, which isn't in anyone's best interests. There are a lot of arguments to be made that a more warlike America would do a great deal of harm to the cause of democracy around the world.

    Already, anti-US rhetoric and consequent terrorist recruiting in the middle east has tripled as a result of the Iraq war. From that aspect, it would seem that a little more caution might be advised, not less. There may also be positive outcomes ... we'll have to wait and see. But there's no "obvious" data to support your attitude.
    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  149. MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up!

  150. How much? by schizacopf · · Score: 0

    I need to know how much this will cost me per hour to play. Also, can I rent one of these?

  151. Terrorism and the boston tea party by IdahoEv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they'd probably settle for guerilla warfare amongst the civilian population where an armed robot isn't a feasible option. Hm, not a far cry from terrorism.

    Yeah, exactly.

    People fight when they 1) have a grudge, 2) are poor 3) feel they're being taked advantage of 4) are scared or 5) are disenfranchised and feel they don't have a say in their own future.

    How they fight depends on their circumstances. If they're wealthy, they use technology at arm's length and/or send other people (usually their own poor) to fight. This is how the US does it.

    If they're outnumbered or outgunned, they fall back on guerilla tactics and/or terrorist tactics. This is how the iraqi insurgents fight.

    Take for example Israel and Palestine. Both populations feel they have a historical and religious claim to the land. But the israelis are wealthy workers who have jobs and a vote. So they send tanks and helicopters. Palestinians are dirt poor, live under continuous occupation (=disenfranchisement) and are outgunned. So they blow themselves up and use guerilla tactics.

    If the USA were under occupation by a superior force, we'd fall back on insurgent and/or terrorist tactics, too. Go watch "Red Dawn". As a matter of fact, that's how we won our independence. We couldn't defeat the british regulars on the field, so we slinked through the forests and sniped their leaders ... an evil, terrorist tactic by 17th century standards.

    Robots won't change this scene at all. They'll just change the balance of power and drive the other side to new tactics, as you suggest. We get all high and might about how the other side uses unspeakable insurgent and/or terrorist tactics, but we would do exactly the same thing if the conditions were reversed.

    It's just too bad that nobody tosses tea into the harbor anymore.

    They do. Just nobody pays attention. The reasons people use such violent tactics these days is because in the age of sensationalist profit-driven news reporting, if you don't make a big noise nobody even hears about it.

    BTW, throwing tea in the harbor in 1773 is about equivalent moneywise to torching 15 hummers to make a political statement in 2003. That guy is headed to jail, and nobody is singing his praise...

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    1. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      If the USA were under occupation by a superior force, we'd fall back on insurgent and/or terrorist tactics, too. Go watch "Red Dawn". As a matter of fact, that's how we won our independence. We couldn't defeat the british regulars on the field, so we slinked through the forests and sniped their leaders ... an evil, terrorist tactic by 17th century standards.

      Slashdot needs to learn the difference between terrorism and resistance. Assasinatting the leaders of an army is resistance. Blowing yourself up along with enemy soldiers is resistance. Sniping random citizens because is terrorism. Blowing yourself up on a crowded street is terrorism. There is a fundamental difference which slashdot seems to ignore.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    2. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a matter of fact, that's how we won our independence. We couldn't defeat the british regulars on the field, so we slinked through the forests and sniped their leaders ... an evil, terrorist tactic by 17th century standards."

      You knowledge of American history is lacking.
      Washington certainly lost many battles, but the British were beaten on the field - see Yorktown.

    3. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      People fight when they 1) have a grudge, 2) are poor 3) feel they're being taked advantage of 4) are scared or 5) are disenfranchised and feel they don't have a say in their own future.

      People fight when an ideal or issue is more important than peace, and more important than thier own physical saftey.

      If the USA were under occupation by a superior force, we'd fall back on insurgent and/or terrorist tactics, too. Go watch "Red Dawn". As a matter of fact, that's how we won our independence. We couldn't defeat the british regulars on the field, so we slinked through the forests and sniped their leaders ... an evil, terrorist tactic by 17th century standards.

      We changed the battlefield, but we didnt target civilians and still dont. That is the supreme difference. No warfare is moral that specifically targets civilians. The more collateral damage, the more you have to rethink how important the attack was. Case in point... what if we "nuked fallujah"? Alot of people wanted that to happen, but the result would be counterproductive to democracy, and nuking a whole city just to kill a handful of terrorists is not right. Now, do you think the terrorists would think twice about using a nuke on a US city? Do you think they would hit Virgina, a naval center, or NYC and LA, polulation centers. That right there tells you the real story. Its not about defeating our military, it is about defeating our mentality. Washingtons army and the militias targeted leadership first in an attempt to confuse the troops and create disorder among the ranks. Sniping at uniformed leadership is not a terrorist action, it is a tactic.

      BTW, throwing tea in the harbor in 1773 is about equivalent moneywise to torching 15 hummers to make a political statement in 2003. That guy is headed to jail, and nobody is singing his praise...

      The Boston Tea Party was for freedom from England, because we didnt want them controlling our lives. From what I have heard about the arsonist who burned the hummers, he hates SUVs and wants them banned. So he is fighting for peoples lives to be more controlled. Instead of talking to people and getting his message across by influencing minds, he throws a tantrum and burns cars. We live in a world where our vote counts, our voice can be heard (mine is right now), and we have the right to share our opinions. Had the founding fathers been afforded this freedom there wouldnt have been a boston tea party.

    4. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      We changed the battlefield, but we didnt target civilians and still dont. That is the supreme difference. No warfare is moral that specifically targets civilians.

      WW2, Dresden, entire civilian population deliberately firebombed, complete carpet bombing of the entire city. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.

      Honestly, when will the yanks drop this master-race, "we can do no wrong" attitude. What, are you genetically different from the rest of us?

      and nuking a whole city just to kill a handful of terrorists is not right. Now, do you think the terrorists would think twice about using a nuke on a US city?

      They aren't terrorists!! They are resistance-fighters. You can't change what they are just because the retoric suits your leaders agendas. You invaded their country, get with the program.

      Sniping at uniformed leadership is not a terrorist action, it is a tactic.

      I don't agree with this view, but I've heard arguments that 9-11 can be justified under similar ideas. US foreign policy is dictated by commercialism, and that is represented by the economic powerhouse of New York.

    5. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No warfare is moral that specifically targets civilians. The more collateral damage, the more you have to rethink how important the attack was. Case in point... what if we "nuked fallujah"? Alot of people wanted that to happen, but the result would be counterproductive to democracy"

      "When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast."
      -President Harry S. Truman, August 1945

      Two nukes helped turn Japan into a peaceful democracy.

      German was completely and thoroughly crushed before it was rebuilt and reborn as a democracy.

      Even the Conferederate States of America didn't give up until the U.S. started torching their cities and fields.

      Annihilation is pretty effective in war. It's not nice, it's not pretty, but then again, it's war we're talking about.

    6. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      Dresden wasn't a moral operation. The Allies, the US included, crossed the line. While it was for vengence after the firebombimg of london, that does not justify it. The reason that stands out is because it is the exception, not the rule.

      Our genetics ARE your genetics. We came from all over the world to build america. We are not a master race, and never claimed to be. I do remember a certain EU Member in recent history asserting they were.

      They ARE terrorists. They attack with roadside bombs, suicide bombs, decapitations and the like. Great example of the distinction can be found in chechnya. When they attack the leadership of russia, or russian targets, they are resistance fighters. When they are shooting children in the back as they run from an exploding school, they are terrorists. In the same vein, when iraqi resistance attacks US Troops, while I want the iraqi fighters to be defeated, i do not label them terrorists. If someone invaded america, there would certainly be a resistance of that nature. We would try to force the foriegn army off our soil. The line is crossed when they use thier own civilians as human shields, hide in mosques and claim religious amnesty while the mass in force, and blow up iraqi police officers who just want to have a job and feed thier family. People who carry out such acts are not resistance fighters, they are terrorists. A resistance fighter looks for targets of opportunity to weaken an enemys resources. A terrorist looks to cause fear, panic, and chaos in the hopes to gain control in the midst of anarchy.

      I cant speak for everyone, but in my minds the ends do not justify the means. Even if I was fighting a foriegn army on our soil, I would not use the terrorist tactics demonstrated in Iraq. Even if it DID work, I would be destroying that which i fought for.

      As far as 9/11 being justified.... I know you dont endorse that view, as you stated. Sniping leadership being justified is a literal, not a metaphorical. The WTC attack can in NO way be construed as an attack on US leadership. The pentagon attack could be considered that way, if they didnt Hijack a plane full of civilians do what they did.

    7. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      True, but a thriving Japan and a thriving Germany were not part of the mission in ww2. Today, rebuilding a strong democracy in iraq is essential to what we are trying to accomplish. This is difficult in the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

    8. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      We are not a master race, and never claimed to be. I do remember a certain EU Member in recent history asserting they were.

      That's what I was hinting towards. The Germans viewed themselves as having the best political system etc. The general population had very little idea what was going on in their name. IMHO this is similar to what is happening in America. A lifetime of pro-us propaganda makes it hard for most people to accept what their country is up to abroad. The US is entirely different in how this came about though; the Nazi's used direct propaganda produced by the government. In the US, the propaganda is self-made by the people, in the form of Hollywood, TV, the school system etc. Even news reports are self-gratifying, for example if you were to watch US coverage of an international operation, you'd only see US troops, US food aid etc. A great example is the teaching of WW2 history; the cold-war pretty much blew away any chance of recognition of the Russia's pivital role in the conflict. It pains me every time is chat to someone from the US who is under the impression that WW2 was their victory. This is likely because I come from the UK, a country who's involvement is also understated, but not to the same extent. Movies like U-571 are insulting to everyone else.

      Sure, every nation has a biased view of history, but the US is well renowned elsewhere for being particularly bad about this. As an outsider, it's very obvious. Tell you what, as an /.'er, there is a fair chance you watch the odd bit of trek. Watch the series one intro to Enterprise and think about what I've been saying. It's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

      They ARE terrorists. They attack with roadside bombs, suicide bombs, decapitations and the like.

      I disagree, mostly. Yes, there are these things going on, but they are the minority. They are also largely criminal; motivated by randsoms.

      Roadside bombs are no different from landmines if you ask me. The only difference are the resources available to the manufacturers.

      Suicide bombs, well, I do wonder nowadays if people remember the meaning of Kamikaze nowadays. If a suicide bomber attacks a militry target, then it cannot be considered terrorism. I'd say it was more frustration and desperation. I can't recall any instances of a true suicide bomb attacking civilians in Iraq. There's been many in Israel of course, but not Iraq.

      The line is crossed when they use thier own civilians as human shields, hide in mosques and claim religious amnesty while the mass in force, and blow up iraqi police officers who just want to have a job and feed thier family.

      Well, taking your points here in order. Yes, human shields bad, but I've not heard of that in Iraq. Hiding in mosques; our shared history is full of people taking refuge on holy ground. The Iraqi police officers; well technically they could be considered the enemy as it is the US that is controlling and recruiting them. In the insurgents minds they are traitors, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you how we treat our traitors. Sure, it could be considered "just a job", if it wasn't in the middle of a warzone. I really feel for the Iraqis who just want to get on with their life, but I don't see a clean way out of this problem.

      Even if I was fighting a foriegn army on our soil, I would not use the terrorist tactics demonstrated in Iraq.

      They are a minority of the insurgents. People are dying every day over there in regular warfare. And consider this; can you imagine every one of your own countrymen having the same restraint as you with respect to an invasion? There were many despicable acts carried out on middle-eastern looking people in the US following 9/11, so I don't see why similar things wouldn't happen should a full scale invasion of the US ever take place. Especially if they were black/islamic.

      Remember also that many of those fighting in Iraq have came to Iraq in response to the invasion. The US leadership ca

    9. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      Man you totally had me considering what you were saying until you brought up the pentagon attack. While i didnt see it personally myself, a friend of the family works there and lost his office (he was held up in traffic that day). He saw alot of the situation first hand. Also check snopes on this. Also a friend of mine told me about human shield tactics that he has used, generally involving getting the gunman to leave the area to save the civilian. If you watch some news footage, there was some of this captured on film as well. I cant remember which city they were attacking in, but US troops were advancing on a bridge and the insurgents used human shields to hold thier positions.

      At Any Rate... I realize your opinion of the US Foriegn policy is low. Maybe we are a young country who "doesnt get it", but after 9/11 we cant let a gathering threat gather. I realize Iraq did NOT have anything to do with the planning of the attacks, but the point is... we let Bin Laden's group fester and it brought about several large attacks. We felt, after years of sanctions, that Iraq couldnt be given the same opportunity to strike again. Maybe sanctions would have worked if it wasnt for the oil for food program. He got plenty of money and international support. Its a real mess.

      As far as the russian part in ww2, i guess the initial pact with hitler and the gulag tarnishes the "great ally" image. I love history and I think that the accomplishments of the Russian military was pivitol. If they hadnt prevented the nazi push for oil fields and sustained hitlers offenseive then the US and British efforts in africa would have been in vain. By opening up another front, they forced him to spread his forces thin and undoubtedly saved US lives. They deserve more credit for what they did. That being said, i think the reason the US gets alot of the credit for ww2 is that we crossed the pond to fight... we were never fighting on our own soil. We fought for an ideal and for our friends. We could have signed a peace pact with hitler too, i would imagine.

      Scary times now though, with Chinese nuclear subs, political issues in Ukraine, fight over the Koreas and Taiwan. Its a big big mess. I always think of that quote "I know not what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

    10. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Man you totally had me considering what you were saying until you brought up the pentagon attack.

      Damn, in hindsight, I'd figured that would happen. A long post, wasted. Lets drop the issue, I've already seen the snopes take on it (urban legends have always interested me, I'm a regular there). Most of the "spot the boeing" stuff is child-like physics, but conspiracy nut-jobs asside, there is a lot of real evidence.

      Also a friend of mine told me about human shield tactics that he has used, generally involving getting the gunman to leave the area to save the civilian. If you watch some news footage, there was some of this captured on film as well. I cant remember which city they were attacking in, but US troops were advancing on a bridge and the insurgents used human shields to hold thier positions.

      Missed that one myself. Were they volintary shields? If so, it doesn't count and again our history is riddled with actions like that. Tianamen Square for example, one of the most memorable images in recent history? Lot's in WW2 as well, unarmed civilians taking risks to allow allies to escape.

      But if they were there against their will, then clearly they are scum.

      Maybe we are a young country who "doesnt get it", but after 9/11 we cant let a gathering threat gather.

      Agreed, but the threat is a direct concequence on your forgeign policy. Bush is flat-out lying every time he says "they hate freedom". No, they hate what the US has done. What is a serious problem is that Iraq only added to that hatred, which was a predicatable outcome. Either Bush is an idiot and genuinely didn't realise this and wanted security; or he is a callous person who stops at nothing to acheive his goals (be it personal wealth, or ensuring that the US oil supply doesn't run out).

      We felt, after years of sanctions, that Iraq couldnt be given the same opportunity to strike again. Maybe sanctions would have worked if it wasnt for the oil for food program. He got plenty of money and international support.

      I don't buy that logic. If self-security were the case, Iraq would not have been one of the first targets. Unless it is intended as a foothold in the region from which to push outwards. Again I say that the Iraq war has resulted in the exact opposite of improving the security of the US.

      Besides, 9/11 only killed 3000 or so people. I know I'm touching a sore-spot here, but it's really not all that big a deal. The civilian death toll in Iraq is already five times that number. Is it justified? How are the Iraqi lifes worth less than US ones? It's this hypocracy that drives me to speak out about these things. I don't know what it was, but someone managed to get it into my head at a relatively young age that a great way to think about things was to put yourself in someone elses shoes.

      That being said, i think the reason the US gets alot of the credit for ww2 is that we crossed the pond to fight... we were never fighting on our own soil.

      Ya, very much so. But the same applied to many other countries, but not to the same extent.

      Scary times now though, with Chinese nuclear subs, political issues in Ukraine, fight over the Koreas and Taiwan.

      Why should Chinese nuclear subs be scary though? It's this aspect of the US psyche that leads to many of the issues. You have subs, you have nukes, you have bio-weapons. Christ, you invented most of them, and you are the only nation to have used them. Why should I be more afraid of China than you? OK, so China is repressive, but I can see them growing leaps and bounds. And they don't have a recent history of impearialism, or trying to enforce things onto others. (Tibet; well I come from the UK and we still have many provinces like that, and our history is full of similar things). The biggest problem they will have is with corruption; a nation moving towards capitalism will likely suffer the same greed problems as the rest of us. But I the way I see it, most countries in the world have more to fear from the US than China.

      Cheers for the sane chat by the way. We obviously disagree on a lot, but we've kept it adult, and this being /., I repect that a lot!! :-)

    11. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Besides, 9/11 only killed 3000 or so people. I know I'm touching a sore-spot here, but it's really not all that big a deal. The civilian death toll in Iraq is already five times that number. Is it justified? How are the Iraqi lifes worth less than US ones?

      I posted the original "armed robots deter outright warfare but might foster terrorism" sentiment in this thread.

      I'm jumping into this discussion, but if you must know, Iraqi lives are worth less because they don't share in the profits of the Iraqi economy. You don't have to like it, but that's the fact.

      Say there have been 20,000 deaths in the latest Iraqi war - hell, say there have 40,000. What a travesty! Consider what's been going on simultaneously in Sudan and nobody really cares. You know why? Because those Sudanese people are poor and Sudan doesn't have enough of an economy to make a rescue mission economically feasible. If you cornered the member nations of the UN, you'd discover that they really only want to send troops to "keep the peace" in nations that can cover the bill in the years to come.

      So I guess this just establishes that I'm truly not some hippy anti-war asshole. The extent that I believe war "isn't the answer" is restricted only to the observation that a sufficiently motivated enemy will kill you beyond the battlefield, and no amount of armed robots will address that problem.

    12. Re:Terrorism and the boston tea party by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Consider what's been going on simultaneously in Sudan and nobody really cares. You know why? Because those Sudanese people are poor and Sudan doesn't have enough of an economy to make a rescue mission economically feasible. If you cornered the member nations of the UN, you'd discover that they really only want to send troops to "keep the peace" in nations that can cover the bill in the years to come.

      True. Anyone who claims Iraq was done because it was "the right thing to do" or it was for "freedom" really doesn't understand the motives. Profit.

      Oh, and 6,000 die of Aids every day in Africa. Nuff said.

  152. Wired Article on Talon by volts · · Score: 1

    There is a Wired article on the Talon here.

  153. Monkey Retard Presidents with Robot Killers by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Sounds good to me. Next stop AI hovertanks.

  154. Woohoo! by mrogers · · Score: 1
    Woohoo! Now America can invade any country it likes without even putting its soldiers' lives at risk! World peace, here we come!

    Pass the bottle.

  155. Re:This Will Save Lives by Mant · · Score: 1

    It is simple logic based on unfounded assumptions. You think that the deaths may result in more people deciding to fight, but you don't have anything to base it on.

  156. Obligatory... by Ming_Mecca · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new machine-gun wielding overlords!

  157. An Autonomous Anti-Personnel Targeting System by exa · · Score: 1

    They should have read my paper. We did simulations for all-terrain vehicles and for ones like Talon. The targeting system focuses on killing efficiency.

    I can't wait to see my research helping the next US invasion. It can kill more than 1000 individuals per hour.

    Cheers,

    --
    --exa--
  158. Autonomous by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

    For a school project I have built a completely autonomous attack vehicle, while not top of the line, it does work. I suggested that the nerf missile launcher could be replaced with a real weapon. I would link to my website about it but I know it can't handle a slashdotting.

  159. Deer Hunting by indy_bob_twobears · · Score: 1

    I really do need one of these. No more frigid blinds ...

  160. "everyone has a share, even you" by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    -- milo minderbinder, rationalizing a bomb run on his own squadron.

    (catch-22, joseph heller.)

    general advice (not directed to the parent): read a book; try to twitch your brain instead of your fingers.

  161. Hm. Prior Art? by Techguy666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I went to the Talon site and looked at the machines they were proposing. It immediately struck me that I had seen these military robots before, in 1983:
    http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/83/pacrats/missilela uncher.shtml

    Yo Joe!

  162. Our brave fighting robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the robots get parades and bios in the paper when they come home? It sure would cut down on veterans benefits costs.

  163. Obligatory Simpsons quote... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Funny

    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"

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  164. What do you expect them to use ... by edittard · · Score: 0

    What do you expect them to use, harsh language?

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  165. We are the space robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the sniper robot,
    I shoot holes in their skulls.
    I am here to protect you.
    From the Terrible Secret of Space.

  166. Machine guns, pshaw! by csoto · · Score: 1

    Click on the photo on that page, and you will see a number of weapons systems attached, including TOW and mortar tubes!

    I want one of these for my toddler to play with.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  167. Hmm by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    I wonder how these will stand up against my Terminators from Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War

    ;)

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
  168. I am Shocked, Shocked by freality · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And look at the other robotics story on the front page:

    "AFP is reporting that, starting today, "Japan's growing elderly population will be able to buy companionship in the form of a 45-centimeter (18-inch) robot" designed to help them avoid senility. The robot, named Snuggling Ifbot and developed by Dream Supply, will be able to respond to verbal commands. "If a person tells Snuggling Ifbot, "I'm bored today," the robot might respond, "Are you bored? What do you want to do?"". It retails for 576,000 yen (5,600 dollars) and there is no English version currently available but "its makers plan to program the robot in English -- not for export, but to teach the language to Japanese children.""

    Reminds me how Japan's largest computer is used to model weather and the earth, and our largest computers are used to model nuclear explosions.

    Well, I guess that's the difference between the conquered and the conqueror. If we conquer the world does that make every country more sane than us?

  169. Oh, Sure, Forget About Skynet by chaoticset · · Score: 1

    Mark my words -- the first time someone hooks up an FPS AI to one of these things, there's going to be mayhem. Not on the battlefield, either.

    --

    -----------------------
    You are what you think.
  170. Mine goes to 11! by splante · · Score: 1

    "Fast -- TALON is the fastest robot on the market today with seven speed settings." Well, mine goes to eleven! Seriously, who cares how many "settings" it has?!

  171. oh, oh, oh, oh by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    oh, oh, ask me that question, ask me, ask me (jumps with impatience), ask me, ask me! (just don't pay attention to my sig and ask me anyway!)

  172. How about a potato up the tailpipe? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    What happens to a rocket launcher if I sneak up and stuff a potato (rock, piece of wood, BOFH, etc) in the front (or back?) end of it, then the operator fires it? I'm guessing there would be a more interesting effect if it was down the front.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  173. the right to bear arms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hehe, i know this may sound crazy, but maybe in the future the public could one of these, to protect themselves...

    it would be an intelligent/remote gun

  174. 100,000 may be made up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... or not, who knows.

    An objective look may show that the "100,000" dead number is not substantiated with facts, here is an article, for example. There are others.

  175. Canadians use this too by DG · · Score: 1

    The Canadian version is called the C9.

    Ours has optical sights.

    And it is by no means "hefty". It's small and light, compared to either the C6 GPMG or the older Browning GPMG.

    Heavier than the C7/C8 assault rifles to be sure, but you can actually pick up and run with the thing. Running is not a lot of fun with the C6.

    It was by far my favourite weapon. Even though it weighed more, I preferred it to the C7/C8.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  176. One thing is certain: by jafac · · Score: 1

    The gaming industry has completely fallen asleep on the job with this one.

    Halo 2, I'm running around with plasma rifles, energy swords, driving scorpion tanks and warthogs. . . Where The Fuck is my sniper-rifle-armed remote bot? (or UAV, for that matter?)

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  177. mod me down if repetitive but... by dangil · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our mechanical overlords

  178. Re:This Will Save Lives by benna · · Score: 1

    I certainly do. There is plenty of research to support human beings vengeful.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  179. Nagasaki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about nagasaki? Whenever people talk about nuclear bombs, it's always Hiroshima this, hiroshima that. Hellooooo.. we dropped 2 bombs. But you don't hear about Nagasaki... why is that? Because Nagasaki had the largest CHRISTIAN population in Japan. We killed most of the Japanese christians when we nuked nagasaki. But we never talk about it, why? Because it would be "off message" if people found out that we vaporized thousands of japanese christians. It would have raised all kinds of ugly questions like "You mean not all japanese are heathens?" and "So being christian doesn't necessarily mean a person is safe from nuclear weapons?"

  180. Not funny, but stupid. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    But jokes aren't funny if you have to have them explained to you.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  181. More wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't think so.

    American wars are very expensive. There won't be too many.

    Whether you agree with them politically or not, you have to admit the Americans spare no expense in using precision in prosecuting a war to minimize collateral damage.

    I am sure it would be a lot cheaper to use lower-tech methods to fight a war.

  182. Re:This Will Save Lives by krenskeoz · · Score: 1

    Well actually there is no real black and white definition here. Anyone and everyone seems to be called a terrorist, but that's simply garbage. The vast majority of Insurgents/freedom foghters/terrorists are local defence militia. These militias have formed as a local police force created and guided by local religious and political groups generally organised on local tribal/town groupings.

    City fathers of towns create these groups initially because much of the country is a mess and the town needs a security force. Eventually this leads to regional Balkinization and local paranoia, especially when communications media is lacking. Obviously ongoing privation leads to radicalism and fanatical influence can easily grow. Add in revenge for accidental killings and all of a sudden there is a fringe element still supported by their local comrades that are planting bombs in their own areas to disuade / defend them from interloping forces.

    The snatch, kidnap murders of select targets is still generally disliked and many members of the basic militias dislike them a lot. The local defence militias support their own more active permanent security groups, who support their more radical insurgent sections, who may or may not support the occasional terroristing sub group. Now these groups are all orders of magnitude smaller than their base group. So 10 000 militia, leads to 1000 security militia, leads to 100 active insurgents which leads to 10 or so hard core terrorists.

    Any attempt to go into an area to find and grab the 10 hardcore terrorists will almost always cause the active insurgents to help them either as allies or just as enemies of enemies, then that can escalate to the security troops and finally the regional / town / city militia.

    Personally I believe a lot of the problem here is the massive number of ex Iraqi army weapons that just moved straight into the civilian sector at the conclusion of the first month or so of operations. This accelerated both the need for, and rapidity of the development of the militias, add in considerable animosity for civilian deaths and you rapidly generate a core of freedom fighter / insurgents, who attempt revenge. Add in the foreign terrorists as a core for the more murderous terrorists and the whole lot develops in just 2-3 months without much major direction.

    As to your statement "please don't spread astroturf stories about 'recruiting more fighters.'", that's just stupid. Almost all governments and groups use vengeance as a recruiting tool and many societies have popular mythos of aggrieved vengeance. Just look at the remember pearl harbour posters and the popularising of Ivan gaining vengeance on the Nazi hordes for the death of his entire village stories from Russian propoganda. The statement of every 6 year old child killed generates enemies is so blindingly obvious that claiming it doesn't is simply stupid. If a bear kills a child the community sets out to kill the bear and for the next generation or two the Locals dislike bears a lot. Drag that into Iraq and a bunch of foreigners blast the crap out of Mrs Hamoud and her four children with little or no explanation and the local community will treat the foreigners like maddened bears.

  183. one country IS superior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    America IS superior to other countries.

    As defined by the fact that it is THE superpower. People are still streaming in to America - almost all other nations have declining populations, but the USA is growing.

    This fits in perfectly with WHY the USA is dominant - the American economy. It grows. Individuals are free to do what they want, and what they do is buy STUFF.

    But what really makes America great is the fact that you can live there and no one MAKES you buy stuff.

    Not even mention deeper truths, like America casting off Slavery, fighting two world wars against fascism, spending $billions in (seemingly) unappreciated aide - America is the greatest nation on earth.

    Many may think America is a shallow, shit-kicking cowboy nation full of crap-beer drinking Wal-Mart shopping yahoos, but at the end of the day, they have to wonder, why is it that MY country is going down the tubes and the USA is the 800 pound gorilla thrashing about without rival?

    There are lots of Americans, proud to be Americans, who were not even born here.

  184. So how many are there out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone figured out how many war robots or near war robots there are now? I've found PackBot, OFRO, Rotundus and MDARS. Do you Slashdotters know of any more companies?

  185. intersting application by temojin · · Score: 1

    wont be long before they mount one of the devices mentioned in this slash.do: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/01/23 2248 to one of these robots... Pretty close to those early cyberdyne models.

  186. Not autonomous? Aww... by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

    They need to make then spider-like, with bubbly personalities and armour-piercing chainguns.

  187. War Profits by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I doubt many wars get started for the sake of profitting on business during the war. On the other hand, once a war is started, it tends to inspire a lot of entrepeneurs from weapons system manufacturers to vendors to prostitutes. Afterwards, they might have an interest in not having the war end, but they generally don't go around starting one. For one, starting a war is a very unpredictable; you never know for sure who will side with whom or where the war will be fought. On the other hand, in an existing war, intertia will tend to make shifts in alliances or location a bit slower, allowing you to build a business plan based on the circumstances. Yes, they're profitting off of human misery. So are drug companies, hospitals, and tech support.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  188. Human Life vs Endangered Species by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    We cherished those bald eagles and brought them out of extinction but certain races of human beings it seems doesn't deserve that dignity
    Funny, that. Smashing a Bald Eagle's eggs would probably net you a lengthy jail term. Killing unborn human babies, on the other hand, is acceptable and is a very profitable industry.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.