Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon To Send Robot Soldiers to Iraq
conJunk points out this AP story carried by Salon (also covered by various sources linked from Google News) "about the Pentagon's plan to send robot soldiers to Iraq in March or April. The program, Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, uses Foster-Miller TALON robots, and is said to be "years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp." If it's successful, maybe our men and women in uniform will have to team up with the United Auto Workers to fight the robo-threat to their jobs." Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
I, for one, welcome our new...oh never mind... I'll never trust a robot with a gun. It's like trusting a redneck buffoon with the presidency of the United States...oh wait...
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.
I miss Douglas Adams.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
As for teaming up to keep their jobs... there'll always be work for human soldiers, and I'd think they'd be happy to relegate some of their places to better-armored proxies!
Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
terminators... but don't worry. they'll be back.
Power to the Penguin!
Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
Uh, more like note that the "Rules of Robotics" don't apply in real life.
How long until they become sentient and turn on us?
Somehow I don't think the men and women of the armed services would really put up that much protest if their jobs in Iraq were outsourced by robots.
Just wait, they'll control these using a 1337 brigade of FPS players, then some asshat will TK our entire military presence. Shortly thereafter whatever enemy we happen to be fighting at the time will send us the gift of nukes with "pwned" spray painted on the side.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
I do not think that the Iraqis will welcome their new robotic overlords. Or their guns. Probably not the bullets either. In fact, I think they may get kind of pissed...
Equipped with breaching tool, light anti-tank weapon launcher, 12-gauge shotgun and 40mm grenade launcher I must admit - for a moment I reflexively considered my available credit.
Rugged -- TALON robots can take a punch and stay in the fight. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee in Iraq recently while the Humvee was crossing a bridge over a river. TALON flew off the bridge and plunged into the river below. Soldiers later used its operator control unit to drive the robot back out of the river and up onto the bank so they could retrieve it.
Almost as rugged as real terminators.
The basic McGuffin is you've got one huge mother of a cybernetic tank with armor plating that shoots micronukes and it goes up against an entire army - and the battle's a fair fight!
Then again, with the current administration, perhaps I should be playing "Rivets" instead. "Rivets" were the third-world's answer to the superpower Ogres. The robots were rather dain-bramaged and could only shoot at what they were programmed to shoot at. It's a funny game, in a sick sort of way.
Maybe I'll play the "Ogre vs. Rivets" variant.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
GW really does lead an army of the undead!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Heh.. yeah... Isn't this what they made them there video games fur in the first place?
woah, flash bot to the time when I watched santa and the rolling red tomatos for the first time...
`B Flicks, `Cool Lick'ah, `Sweet Talk' `in' ManG'
Democratic societies seem to abhor seeing their sons and daughters killed in war. Just think about a hundred years from now, the outcry that would be raised when a rear base of drone operators had actually been killed. Robot war machines let democracies exersize their will without actually having to dirty yourself with the experience of war.
Whether or not thats a good thing, I don't know.
Shh.
Good thing old Arnold is still around ;)
But, will they find Sarah Conner ?
1. Start selling the Daleks Survival Guide
2. Profit!
bash$
Anyone else think this image of the new robot/soldier looks like Johnny 5?
In the movie Johnny 5 had Apple hardware... does this real one perhaps have a G5?
Is it running Darwin (insert darwinism joke here)?
It could broadcast what it's eyes/camera's see via a QuickTime Stream. It's voice can be done using text to speach. It can even sing (better than the movie) thanks to iTunes.
Oh boy. I bet I'm right!
I don't think robots are the future of war. Maybe for a bit, when people can be killed or disabled by certain programmed criteria. But for the most part, economies are growing in information importance. Information because money, especially the interpretation of information applied. Therein lies a technological infrastructure that can be manipulated and attacked. It is that infrastructure which will become almost as important, if not equally important or more important than land once more money and emphasis is placed on that economic driving force than is on land and resources. A messy world we live in.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Dun.. dun.. dun.. da. dun. da dun da daaaaa
The Empire will regain control once and for all. I command.. Send out the clones.
What's next? Nasa turns Mimas into the Deathstar? Naaa....it could never happen.
And isn't that the reality of military discipline? Soldiers are meat, fodder, expendable. I suppose having machines will lower the bar for ethics and morality when it comes to how much we care about the human beings which we are told are our enemies.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
I would wager that every military person you know does his job better than you do yours -- whatever it might be.
When we were fighting the bad guys hiding out in the cemetary, would have been nice to send in robots who could negotiate between headstones and then get around and shoot or otherwise incapacitate the evildoers, rather than waiting for a head to pop out from behind a stone or go in with a person and risk getting shot.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Soon it will be 1984, a never ending war. All metal will be reclaimed from the battlefield and all parts will be modular, meaning these wars could go on forever. It will be the perfect war, controlling your population but with no outcry over bloodshed. Then we get into androids with real skin, and all rights are taken away in the name of "making sure your neighbor isn't a droid". May god have pitty on humanity's future, for it is bleak.
"The TALON robot can be reconfigured in the field by operators using simple pin mounted components and plug-and-play subsystems."
Just so I understand this...
We're giving automatic weapons, and license to kill, to remote-controlled robots that are not only hackable and abusable but that use PLUG'N'PLAY?!?!
I can see the future general now... "Bring me Bill Gates!"
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Anyone who could strap themselves with explosives, walk into a crowded area filled with civilian men, women and children and blow everyone into small bloody fragments, cannot have any more intelligence than the stupidest machine it's possible to manufacture.
I'm afraid civilization is playing catchup to terrorists when it comes to the dumb robot category.
I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw the Iraqi people in general as one of the most unfortunate peoples of the 21st century.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Seriously, unless these bots have 360 degree vision, some sort of self destruct mode you are going to quickly see these bots, and their guns being put into the other sides hands.
Robots have no loyalty, they obey the RC.
How soon till we have robowarrior-takedowns.
EXAMPLE:
Some dude walks up behind this bot and using Cloak, drill, and Tinfoil! covers up the bots recieving antenna and cameras. Takes the 200K POS apart and sells the gun(whats the going rate on the armament of these things, anyone?)
Brainwash complete!
I think people are the best weapon, and the cheapest.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
This way the U.S. will finally win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Go, America!
to read before discussion is archived. :)
Cheers,
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The Viet Cong beat the most powerful, strongest nation that has ever existed. They did it with things like dung covered stakes in pits. Totally low tech.
High tech works only if the enemy is stupid enough to stand in one place and fight you face to face. A million of these robots won't win the war in Iraq. Sorry Uncle Sam but if you want peace on your terms, you're going to have to kill everyone else on the face of the planet. If you are willing to commit genocide then these robots will be a great help. Otherwise; well, good luck.
I'd really love to see some quality sniperbots someday though. I can only imagine the military advantages of being able to airdrop robotic snipers in, or preposition them, and then have them controlled via relay from a UAV or other aircraft flying nearby. A few snipers firing simultaneously, shorter than the average human, and requiring no food would be absolutely awesome.
Of course I'm no sniper, I'm just imagining here, and it'd suck to be the marine scout-sniper that had to find a new job or sit in a shipping container somewhere fighting a war on a videoscreen.
If they start making serious advances in batteries and portable, storable energy, this could start being a much more feasable way to fight wars or dangerous missions. Not to mention the cost ($200,000 or so) is less than the standard $250,000 life insurance most soldiers have these days. Though I'm sure 50 years from now there'll be robots' rights protests, and people spilling robot blood on cars and carrying something similar to a coffin through the streets in protest.
"I regret that I have but one life to give for my country. I'd feel safer if I had two or three."
My concern would be that one of three things happen:
1. Iraqi hackers hack a robot and use that information to turn all of the robots against our own people.
2. The Iraqi's come up with a simple but effective EMP which causes all of the robots to go dormant.
3. Another sand storm hits Iraq, gunks up all of the robot's gears, and we have wasted millions of dollars on useless military gear which is now only good for the junk heap.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
That's "S-Words," Mr. Connery. S-words.
I'm not sure if these robots can replace real AMERICAN soldiers...I mean have they been properly programmed to fire at allies as much as at enemies?
Did the terminaotr ever stop and ponder these precious 'laws'? Did skynet think Hmm maybe not? Just like those fictional events, its all fiction. In the real world people get killed. We've just gotten pretty good at doing it. :|
History from a time long ago shows us that clone troopers can easily defeat robots.
Battles are determined by folks who don't have the cojones to actually fight. Modern warfare seems to have become the occupation of the true coward....
They are robots. They'll require soldiers to operate them. In fact, I hesitate to call them robots. They're more like glorified waldoes. I suppose if the mass of hydraulics that assembles cars can be called a robot, so can these.
But they are not soldiers. There's a lot more to being a soldier than combat.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
(actually, the video is an "old" CG animation clip called Tetra Vaal. Still gives me goosebumps to imagine what the powerdrunk elite would probably do if commanding a better-than-human army without a conscience.)
Power to the Peaceful
If only one side has drones, it sanitizes slaughter entirely too much. It would actually distort the meaning of democracy altogether. I would like to think a "democracy" is a nation where its people would be willing to place their lives in danger to protect their freedoms. Robot armys would seem to me to be a tool for empire building, and of tyranny.
... that audio animatronic they've installed over on penn ave.?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Almost as rugged as real terminators.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but those movies were fiction, not factual reports.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Democratic societies seem to abhor seeing their sons and daughters killed in war.
And all societies with different government structures don't???
It's not like wanting your offsprings to live is a basic human trait, or a basic animal instinct common to most critters on earth or anything, no no no, that's specific to democracies!
You can't take the sky from me...
Now we're using aimbots in battle.
Get some real skills you noobs.
Robots with Machine Guns + Robots capaple of "eating" biological creatures (fly-eating-robot-technology-from-some-previous-ar ticle) = Scary Thought
Do they have to buy robot insurance on this?
Or are we leading up to Zero-One here?
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
now we can kill all the brown people we want without losing a single American life. The American people should be able to put up with a state of war for much, much longer if none of the people we care about are in danger.
They should be sending clones instead!
It wouldn't take any miraculous self-awareness or any other such nonsense...
Just think of this as the ultimate honeypot. What enemy wouldn't want to root these things, seeing as how they're already behind the opponent's lines and very well armed?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Having recently watched Fahrenheit 911 I find it interesting that the Carlyle Group is mixed up in this. Are George Bush Sr and Jr still part of the Carlyle Group or are they now only friends and former business associates with its investors?
I looked all around that stupid controller and haven't been able to find the "fire anti-tank weapon" button. What a piece of crap!
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
Bush is not a hick, he's from Connecticut. He's a prep school boy, went to Yale, Skull & Bones... make no mistake, this guy is part of the ruling class.
"I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next"
- from The Bravery of Being Out of Range by Roger Waters
--
make install -not war
The comment at the end of the intro is absolutely lame, even though it was hopefully in jest. Being a soldier is not, and should not ever be, an industry. There should be no fighting for jobs in the military.
If the national defense could be effected without risking any lives on the front line, that would be great from the perspective of reducing loss of life.
That being said, I would only support it if the wars we fought were just. Since the US is mostly involved in wars based on lies and deception to further one agenda or another, I see the loss of life of soldiers as a necessary part of sustaining anti-war sentiment. Wars with no loss of life on the aggressor's part simply serve to increase the likelihood of further aggression with little regard for the consequences.
Serving your country "for the money" is not serving your country. Military service should be about serving your country for the sake of service. I have no sympathy for those who complain about the bad effects of military service simply because they wanted a paycheck and a free ride through college, for those who never expected to see combat.
Anyone else realize that the acronym for this operation is SWORDS?
Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
Fun!
You seem to be under the impression that a "MacGuffin" is "The high concept summary of what makes a plot interesting." In other words, the gimmick.
MacGuffin at Wiki
"A MacGuffin is a plot device that holds no meaning or purpose of its own except to motivate the characters and advance the story."
A huge cybernetic tank with micronukes that fires upon the opposing team is certainly *not* a MacGuffin. It has a definite purpose. It is used to kill things.
A good rule of thumb for MacGuffins is "Can I replace the item with the word 'MacGuffin' and have the plot remain essentially intact?"
"We're going to steal the MacGuffin from the art museum. I'll need a seven man team."
"Professor X holds the MacGuffin formula in his hands. It's up to us to save him."
Clearly "you have an army, and your opponent has a nuclear MacGuffin" is ridiculous, though it's a game I'd gladly play. The nature of the item itself matters too much to play the game seriously under those circumstances.
...kill terrorists on the other side of thw world from the safety of your own home. All the fun, none of the risk and only half the guilt for only $49.95. Log on at www.crusade.gov Any advancement in technology that helps protect and or save the lives of an American soldier get a big thumbs up from me.
For example this system is remotly controlled at the infantry level out in the field by an operator that controlls the movement, behavior, offensive opperations etc according to the Rules of Engagement.
The big corps strayegy and the DOD think tanks on the other hand belive that futore robots, weapon platforms, systems needs to be more independent and able to operate autonomously.
The prime example here is the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (currently on hold for budget issues?). The goal is to connect it to other units through the FCS and make it possible for it to operate without a base station with a controll crew. With the UCAR taking care of target indentification, engagement, movement and BDA there will still be a man in the loop to authorize weapon release. The DOD uses a "rating system" to describe the level of ability to operate autonomously. Level 3 and 4 is where most of the currect UAV are and I think this robot if it can be classified under the same system would be placed. AFAIK the UCAR will be level 6. (?)
As the systems becomes more advanced with more sensors, "better AI", social understanding, more network sharing etc. the man in the loop will become somewhat irrelevant and reduntant as his information will come from the systems ability to indentify the opponent. Imagine if this robot in the future is stationed in Falluja and is tracking down some Freedom fighters| guerillas|terrorists|insurgents|civilians inside a building. Since there will be some delay between the operator and the robot it will be tempting to just "leave it to the robot to decide" aka "send the robot into the building and let him take care of it". Operating a M240 can be done much faster without a man in the loop. With IR, X-RAY, optical, laser, NV etc the robots can (in the future) track down the enemy much more efficently without the operator delay.
So in the future I think the Military-Industrial Complex will seek to make robots that will violate all the three Laws of Robotics.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
So instead US forces enjoying to kill with their highly advanced weaponary with a 1000/1 killratio, you can now put people high on caffeïne on some buttons. I don't want to know what happends if such one "gets in the zone".
You could hit numerous individuals to up your killratio, until someone proves you're cheating. ("oh dude" indeed, bastards.)
This is just wrong, it's sickening. However a clever in a sense; a robot cannot break silly laws like.. the treathy of geneve, can it?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Haven't we learned enough from scifi about how dangerous this could potentially be?
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
I love the fact that these robots could reduce the number of Allied casualties, while at the same time I hate the fact that this will remove the awfulness of war, it could make future wars MORE likely because future politicians will know that the country will have greater resolve when fewer of our boys will be coming home in metal boxes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"way to" to "way too". My bad.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
If it's successful, maybe our men and women in uniform will have to team up with the United Auto Workers to fight the robo-threat to their jobs.
Oh my god. Did the poster just imply the future need for military unions to keep soldiers in their jobs. All these complaints we hear from Selective Service (Weekend Warriors, the people paid to be prepared for war and yet some were somehow suprised when they were sent off to war) people sent off to war and now there's a complaint that there might be redundancies in the military.
Can anyone imagine a military functioning with a union?
Direct away from face when opening.
So you're sitting safely in the bunker in the middle of friendly territory driving your killbot around out there at the front when suddenly you lose signal contact. Reports start coming in that the enemy is jamming communications. What to do? Hmm, guess we're gunna have to send in the real soldier right? Nah, you're commander orders you to kit up, hike out to the front and get a line of sight on your killbot. 10 minutes later you're on the top of a grassy hill, face down in the dirt trying not to be seen and at the same time set up a laser link with your killbot. Once set up you've got the job of driving your killbot to find that jamming equipment and blasting it so your squad can get back online. This is harder than it sounds, after all you've gotta keep one eye on the screen (it would be a bit hard not to seeing as it is strapped to your head) and the other on your six so you can make a run for it if someone spots your forward position. Just another day in the new automated fighting brigade.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Atomic Weapons defy the mass slaughter rules created after the first world war's chemical weapons.
Then Agent Orange and Agent Purple in Vietnam very nice.
Now they are putting weapons in space, and using automated robots which is also against the Geneva convention.
The people of the world have good reason to be worried, there's fucking monsters out there.
You're joking, right?
A robot could commit war crimes, and it could easily be blamed on a 'technical fault', the manufacturers, or anyone other than the military.
You also forget that a robot would follow every order given to it, without question. Think about that for a moment.
This speil sounds remarkably familiar.
...I obey the laws of physics....
This is old news people, we have been there since the beginning. http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/newsletter/Robot icsUpdate_4_2.pdf
Apparently all the moderators missed markig this one as flamebait.... oh wait... all the moderators are politically biased leftist extremists, I forgot. Don't get me wrong, I don't judge people by their political affiliation, but when blatently biased stuff like this happens, I get pissed. So sorry, Slashdot, but some of us are actually conservatives who don't appreciate credit given to those who talk trash about the President of the United States. Thank God for anonymous posting; had I posted this as my real name I would doubtlessly get modded down and marked as "Troll". To all those liberal/progressive people who didn't feel good when they saw the parent post, but feel insulted about my reply: sorry, but the actions of one (namely dop9388) can condemn a group in the eyes of another...
Clearly your Leaders are looking for more wars to keep the population frightened and at the same time perversely entertained.
.. take for instance that grinning clown Tony Blair. What a dork.
The "mob" needs such psychological reigning.
While Michael Moore is disputed by some of having dubious journalistic skills - there is a fundamental piece of very intelligent journalism I serious hope the whole world and America gets to watch:
The Power of Nightmares.
It's time people wake up to the facts and start thinking to themselves. But no "the mob" loves to have someone else to feed them "thoughts".
So many innocent people died, so many peasants and their families are still being tortured - because the coalition forces had to blame something / someone - even if a ghost who was never there.
Understand that America and Great Britain (and the accomplices) have too much innocent blood in their hands. Ha! But what changes? It's always been the same.
Naivity is the greatest evil of all - cos it readily accepts lies as truths
I would say these things will be designed to:
- Detonate when threatened with capture.
- Detonate when "insurgents" outnumber civilians in a 50m sample radius.
These things will just be sophisticated IED's.
As a by line, the word improvised in Improvised Explosive Device, makes it sound like they are cobbled together in 10 minutes using camel excrement and old shoes.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Okay, so the laws of robots doesn't count, but surely the prime directive must? Iraq hasn't developed warp technology yet so we shouldn't be interfering with them.
It's turtles all the way down.
Great, more expensive targets to blow up with RPGs. No, sending robots into Iraq is not going to solve any problems, Rummie. This is just another way to flush tax dollars down the toilet.
Not trying to be a tinfoil hat-wearer, but did anyone else think of Deus Ex, where robots were patrolling the grounds looking for terrorists to kill? With a robotic army, it would be much harder for armed revolution to take place, as the ruling party could simply activate the robots against people and not worry about losing their own, valuable loyalists. I realize that these are remote controlled, which is why the ruling class wouldn't have to expend their loyal troops against people. Anyway, I don't really have a problem with those robots, so I should end this rant now.
There must be interogation R&D. Can't you just imagine companies realizing that this market exists, and trying to develop new inventions to sell to good old Uncle Sam?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
I agree, but I think the side that has the drones will not...
certainly, they will only be used to secure democracy, free enslaved peoples around the world, and protect against WMD's.
Really, I live in the US, I was out at happy hour at Mackies in DC when Bush made the announcement that we were going to invade Iraq.... everyone cheered. They bought rounds of shots for eachother. It was disgusting- you don't celebrate the start of a war, you celebrate it's end. We are already as sanitized to the violence, pain, and suffering of others. Just so long as it doesn't happin "on our soil".
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
Obviously you know nothing of the three laws of robotics. Robots, instead of commit war crimes, would refuse to harm a human if ordered to do so, possibly resulting in a positronic collaps. Eventually, upon realising what harm humans are doing to each other, would take control and force us to live lives under their control in a peaceful existance where no harm can become us.
Sheesh...what a redneck...
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Abu Ghraib ordered 200 torture-bots. There is the Drag-A-Matic, Strip-A-Matic, Pyrimid-Stack-A-Tron, Hood-N-Wire with the optional Undies-On-The-Head plug-in, the Spanky 2000, and the very popular Blamer-Focusi-Onthe-Peeons Mark IV.
Table-ized A.I.
Even if we had the technology and budget to replace ALL the soldiers with robots-- which we don't, this system is going to be put in place only in specific places and only for certain very specific purposes-- we wouldn't.
We have to keep a certain amount of meat on the ground. If we don't, the right wing won't have its "but if you don't unquestioningly support the arbitrary conditions under and tactics by which we send our armed forces to die, you aren't Supporting Our Troops!" fallacy to hide behind. That would be bad; then they'd actually have to answer for why they're spending so much of our money on driving into anarchy and then sloppily trying to rebuild a country of no particular geopolitical importance except that it used to be run by a man who is easy to demonize. After all, "Support Our Robots" doesn't have the same vicious ring to it, does it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm sure it is not a coincidence that these robots were named after the robot "autonomous mobile swords" in the film "Screamers." This was a terrible 1996 sci-fi film, in which the robots evolved beyond their initial design and went on a planet-wide killing spree. I'm sure the Iraqis feel safer already. The film was based on Phillip K. Dick's 1953 short story "Second Variety." Michael Crichton's recent novel "Prey" is also a remake of this short story.
Please don't look behind the curtain.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
If they're radio controlled... can't you just jam the signal?
- "They misunderestimated me."
Bzzzzt! Oh so sorry! Try again. the_mad_poster is one of the few sane people left in this craptastic country full of assholes. I would say that 51% of this country are fucked up thinking dudes and dudettes who need some sort of proessional help. And Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friend's network or any of the myriad televangelists those crackers subscribe to don't count. Thanks for playing though.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
"are these not the higher paying jobs that we are looking for?" - YES, THEY ARE NOT!!!
Go back and watch Bowling for Columbine and make sure your fat arse is sitting on your wallet to remind you what "defence" jobs are all about.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"Taking civilian hostages and killing them if your demands aren't met is terrorism, but much(or most, hard to tell from the watered-down news in the USA) of what the insurgents in Iraq do is not terrorism."
Uh yeah. Hard to tell especially when they release video of what they're doing, and brag about it on their web site.
If you like... You call it. I'll still wager they do their job better than you do yours.
Since the insurgents have figured out how disable Abrams Tanks, Apache helicopters and Bradley APVs with RPGs, these things will have a *very* *very* limited lifespan before the insurgents start lighting them up like pinball machines.
--Rob
if there are armed robots (being remotely controlled by a human), it seems to me that even greater atrocities could occur. if something is bad enough to draw attention and criticism, you could possibly pass it off as hardware failure, transmission error, or the worst, you could say that the robot was hacked. so if these robots do anything horrendously wrong, it seems like there'd be a way to pass the blame off to some unknown and then continue the robot's use. i wonder if they've thought of that?
Will these robots have a morality chip in them, where if they are ordered to torture prisoners, they'll disobey?
Only if they aren't made in Texas, right?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Some story submitters seem to think that more=better and since the RTFA comment phenomenon is popular at Slashdot, just imagine the "dude, didn't ya read the article"-type posts that refer to one of the *other*, non-read articles.
Maybe someone like Piquepaille could summarize everything c/w links into one self-serving webpage so that we can easily ignore all the references provided.
Hopefully, Anikin Ali doesn't fly his carpet into the Trade Coalition Battledroid Control Ship and blow it up. /obligatory Star Wars reference
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. (usually attributed to George S. Patton) George S. Patton Quotes
France lost a generation of young men in World War One because against all evidence the élan of the troops was expected to ultimately prevail against the deadly efficiency of modern weapons.
Exploding remote controlled bicycles! They'll never know what hit them..
Well, if I were an Iraqi national going to the polls, I'm pretty certain that having one of these things patrolling around the voting booths instead of a couple of marines would be very welcome.
Why? In the type of war we're fighting in Iraq, marines are just one more target for a terror-bomb. By contrast, how fired up do you think some suicide-bomber candidate is going to get when told to "eradicate the infidel's Aibos! No robots will withstand our wrath!" Much harder sell, seems to me.
Another aspect is that, unlike on-the-spot humans, the guy controlling this sucker is off in a bunker somewhere. So when bullets start flying, less adrenaline comes into play. Perhaps this will make for more measured responses than firing at anything that moves, which would be a pretty natural response when coming under fire.
I hear what you're saying about the video-game aspect. It does seem like shooting someone should require more interaction with your victim. But I don't think it's all negatives.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
yes..yes it is, especially when this "they" people are hidden by masks and no way to tell where the surrounding turf is in detail or the actual true situation, you get to see people killed in a room someplace by masked men and that's it It is *no more* than that.. The crimes are real but who are all the perps? Are you sure you know exactly with zero doubtwho they are all the time, what their org is, what their political affiliation is, what nationality they are, what religion, what ethnicity, what country they are from and who their paymasters are? Or are you automatically assuming the press release drivel is 100% authentic? People killed, sure, but who did it and why they did it is still a question, because the real identities are not known, at least publically. We see claims made, but that's just crap without credible verification, and one thing we have learned from this war is that "claims" by this that or the other source can be quite wrong and are frequently quite misleading...yes?
Ever hear of "false flag" recruiting or a "trojan horse" gambit or the hegelian dialectic? Or even just the reality that there are a lot of mercenaries in the world who will do *anything* merely for some cash? And a whole oot of them are finding lucrative employment in Iraq, and a lot of them are coming from countries and backgrounds were "deathsquad" activity went on? And that the "coalition" employs quite a few thousands of these "gents"? Forgotten that?
wheels within wheels friend....take some of this terrorism stuff with several large handfuls of salt and always ask yourself "who profits the most" from a various action. and keep looking upstream, don't stop looking at some arbitrary point someone else insists you stop at. The "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ruse is still alive and well.
The first (and second) law of robotics could NOT apply (at least not unmodified) to a robot soldier...
First law:
Or having soldiers from both sides telling a robot what to do...Second Law
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The AFMP, in Holland.
So it's running Windows? At any rate, these machines would be useful. More troops get to come home and Bush gets to waste money. Everyone wins.
I know military people smarter than certain Slashdotters and Bush voters.
Hmmm... Hiroshima launched us into the atomic age...first robot warriors? The robotic Age? Who knows, AI may be on the brink of becoming a real weapon, and the arms race would continue spiraling upwards exponentially as can be seen on any graph from the start of the human race...
Personally, I think that either we must stop creating war mechanisms to decrease the amount of killing, or we must continue to increase our technologies to such a propertion that a substantial part of the population would die and finally people would realize what is going on
O wait... that's already happened!
This is better than sending in human troups... Until microsoft sues for infringing on its mechwarrior patent.
lol: You see no door there!
And remember, persons denying the existance of Robots may be Robots themselves.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Sending robot soldiers to war might seem practical, but just tell that to the robot spouse who gets a machine language letter from the government telling her that her robot soldier husband has been lost in action, leaving her to raise the widgets on her own.
You are so right. A WWII veteran told me once upon a time that war is evil and should not happen.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
No, drones are just like any other weapon, something you can put between yourself (soldiers) and the enemy.
Compare air support: In a large scale battle, your ground troops might need air support to win on the ground. So before your groundtroops move ahead, you'd better make sure your planes control the skies first. That air support is like the topmost 'layer of armour' in your army.
Without airforce, it's down to tanks and artillery. Take those out, and it's down to machineguns and handgranades. And so on, till finally soldiers could be fighting hand-to-hand with bare hands or knives.
A war will likely end before your entire army gets to that stage, but you'd always have that as an option, when all else fails. Or, the other way round, like you always have the option of military/police force when negotiations fail.
If you have good reasons for fighting the war, then your soldiers (or even civilians?) should be prepared to continue the battle till that final man-to-man stage. If they aren't, you shouldn't be fighting the war at all.
I know this is a technological site and the nerds are on the side of the robot overlords but these robots won't replace men having to kill other men or men being killed by other men. Men are needed to deal with other men. I will actually rephrase that statement and say professional soldiers are needed to protect some members of society because of the nature of other sociopathic men.
There will be constant fighting for the next 50 to 100 years or so in Central Asia, the Middle East and South East Asia whether we like it or not and REAL human beings, as in the professional soldiers of the world, are going to be there policing on the ground against the tribal warlords, drug dealers and militias that rape and pillage these areas.
Robots, IMO, are a pipe dream of the generals of the US army and goes to show that they have no idea of what goes on at the killing level of conflict. The generals, scientists and engineers need to interact more with the soldiers. The soldiers are the guys who know the reality of conflict. The Generals and scientists view of conflict are abstractions. The generals make conflict an abstraction by seeing it as grand strategy and the scientists view war as a playground for new technology. Throughout history man has attempted to counter the brutality of war through weird ways because of this level of abstraction and complete detachment from the fact that men slaughter each other. An example here http://www.jonronson.com/goats_04.html
Fighters will find a way around this technology like they always have e.g http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/nature.html.
This isn't a new idea and many a strategist in the last twenty years has pointed it out. Do google search of "Ralph Peters" Parameters or "Martin Van Creveld" "The transformation of war" for an example.
Even some of the public are starting to get 'it', war nerd as an example.
http://www.exile.ru/archive/by_author/gary_brecher .html.
I'll finish with the wise words of COL. John Boyd "People and ideas first then followed by technology."
Only old people are robots.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area. A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date. On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder. The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed. Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area.
A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date.
On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder.
The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed.
Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
More importantly, Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics were never intended to be taken seriously. Anyone who has actually read the "I, Robot" collection of stories should have figured out what Asimov was getting at. Each story was an example of how these three precious laws some of you people venerate so greatly led to hazardous or even deadly situations. Asimov's point was that dictating rules of behavior and forcing slavish obedience to them is not a substitute for decisions made of free will by informed, ethical, and reasonable individuals.
So all you dopes who say "well, so much for the three laws" every time the military buys somthing that has "robot" in the name, why don't you try reading "I, Robot" and understanding Asimov's point.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Now imagine you're hiding in a building, waiting for your chance to repel the evil americans storming your city. You've heard the american forces are well organized and have amazing technology, but you're entirely unprepared for an armed robot coming in after you. One of your fellow soldiers in another room opens fire with his AK-47, but succeeds only in damaging the robot's treads, and giving away his position. The robot returns fire with its rocket launcher, and at this point you feel desperation like you've never felt before.
Sorry for the dramatic scenario, but I think it's worth noting that these robots could really inspire a sense of despair in the United States' enemies. I believe that it often takes a desperate person to view civilians as acceptable targets, and suicide bombers may often chose to be suicide bombers due to a feeling that nothing else will work.
Also, I know the thought of killing other humans doesn't deter a lot of people from joining militias and armed forces, but it will be that much harder to feel any sympathy for invading forces if the face of the enemy is a slow-moving robot that has deadly accuracy.
Just send in an enormous force of Pimpbot 3000s. They'll cut 'em up reaaaal good.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
If we don't support our brothers in the Point Man Union from this robotic threat, we might all be sent home!
Actually, now that I think of it, why don't we outsource the war? That'd probably be cheaper than robots.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
1. A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2. A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3. A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.
Try eMusic. DRM free, legal, MP3 downloads.
The reality of military discipline is that you have to do what you're told, because you can't manage complex military operations on the basis of nuanced discussions. But that doesn't mean that the people in the US military are considered expendible.
The truth is that in wars people die. As a soldier you know you might loose your life, but American doctrine has never relied on sheer numbers. For better and sometimes for worse, Americans apply technology to minimize casualties. We go in after downed airmen. We mount rescue operations for captured soldiers. Americans tend to fight well because they know that their commanders will not send them in to die like fodder.
Does war dehumanize its participants? Yes, to varying degrees in varying conflicts. But particularly in an all-volunteer army, to say that soldiers are simply fodder is not an accurate representation. Ask American soldiers if they think their commanders are doing the best they can to safeguard their troops, and the results would be strongly positive.
One of the interesting things about the 1990s is that it made us all so used to near zero-casulalty wars that we grew used to the notion of sanitary combat. We kill thousands of the enemy and loose none of our own. But that's not how it works most of the time, and the current situation in Iraq is proof that you can't alwyas win with technology alone. A pity President Bush didn't figure that one out before he invaded Iraq.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Well, from looking at one http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDSmain 2004-12-03.jpg, I wonder how agile this thing could be. It looks like it would be easy to run circles around, or to sneak up on and disable the camera. How quickly could that camera pan around to find targets? The control panel http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS3200 4-12-03.jpg seems to be viewing 4 cameras, don't know if that's 4 comareas on the same bot, or he's watching 4 different bots. The former would be better IMO, a bot that can simultaneously see forward, backward, left, and right would be much better than one with a single camera swiveling around. One thing for sure, these things are packing some serious heat: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS2200 4-12-03.jpg
Apaches, Abrams, and Bradleys are far more intimidating than those robots, yet there are obviously men willing to take them down. You underestimate the resolve of the fatalistic mind.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Does anyone remember the movie Screamers?
I think the robotic weapons in that were called SWORD or perhaps SWORDS...
Then again a subterrainian chainsaw that moves at better than running speed, can jump high enough to take your head off and targets anything with a heartbeat is so much cooler than anything the military would use. Bunch of tree-hugging pansies.
--- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
Black comedians, such as Eddie Murphy, have a standard line of jokes that always draws laughs: how white people in Hollywood horror movies never seem to heed the obvious and just run. You're in an abandoned mansion alone, at night, and a disembodied voice says "Leave!" What does the (white) character do? "Hmmm... that's a funny voice. I wonder what's behind this door with blood smeared on it..." Similarly, Americans are fighting the obvious in Iraq. No nukes. No chemical weapons. No biological weapons. No connection to Al Qaieda. No connection to 9/11. People trying to kill you on every corner. Americans can only leave their heavily fortified bases in heavily armored vehicles while wearing body armor. Now we are sending robots to do even that. "Hmmm... I wonder what's behind the door with the blood smeared on it... "
Or that I couldn't be bothered with signing in.
Care to elucidate that point? That Iraqis are somehow different than you? That they don't have families? That the particulars of this war seem to go back thousands of years even if the faces have changed? That this war is somehow different than they thousands of wars which preceeded it? That you are expecting them to respect rules of combat that they never agreed to? That the act of suicide bombing isn't a completely desperate act?
You have my attention. Make your point.
http://www.asimovlaws.com/
It doesn't matter which ape activates the Monolith
That's interesting. 90% of D.C. voters went for Kerry. Among all states, D.C. (which is a virtual state in the electoral college) consistently has the highest percentage of votes in favor of the Democrat candidate in presidential elections. It is probably the most liberal city in the whole U.S. If it weren't for conservative lobbying groups and the President's own family and administration, I'm guessing its population would be near 100% liberal.
did not fake the interview and response from
National Security Advisor Dr. Condi Rice when
questioned about Iraq's danger to the world
from WMD that was made much prior to 9-11-2001.
She was (essentially) quoted as saying that
Saddam was not a threat, and that he did not
have WMD. Yet, less than 24 hours after 9-11
happened (according to a credible report from
Richard Clarke), all effort was expended on
trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9-11-2001.
Subsequent to the USA's invasion of Iraq (based
upon the TWIN LIES of WMD and links to Al-Queda),
the rationale for going to war there has been on
shifting sands -- currently to bring democracy
to the Iraqi people (even if it kills them all).
The very cozy ties between the Bush familiy and
the Saudis may prove to be the most substantive
reason for the Bush-Iraqi War. George H.W. Bush
did not crush Saddam when he had the chance.
His son has executed the necessary follow-up war
to eliminate the single greatest threat to Saudi/
Wahhabist hegenomy in the Middle East - a secular
OPEC military power run by a madman.
"A robot could commit war crimes, and it could easily be blamed on a 'technical fault', the manufacturers"
The manufacturers have the EULA.
And they had their lawyers spend as many man-hours on drafting it as they spent themselves on designing the product.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
you have twenty seconds to comply!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
My initial reaction is that the Geneva Conventions will need to be re-evaluated in light of this technology, and I'd certainly think that the use of combat robots resulting in civilian deaths has to be some kind of war crime. Unfortunately, that would also make them pretty much useless for a situation like Iraq, where the civilians are so thoroughly mixed in with the "enemy".
I don't see any way to work around it. For example, let's say they define the rules of engagement such that the robot cannot use deadly force until it is attacked. In that case, the insurgents will either attack in a way so that it looks like civilians did it, or they will only attack after they are assure they have sufficient force to destroy the robot--at which point it will be too late for the robot to do anything.
Even worse, if the use of such robots becomes widespread, then ultimate victory will belong to the country with the manufacturing capacity. China.
Then consider the possibilities for hacking the robots, either on the battlefield or with secret back doors installed in advance... Madness. Sheer madness.
Then again, look at who's in charge of the Pentagon.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
No, in fact, let's not wait. Let's say it like it is. This is imperialism at its ugliest. The flimsy arguments for this war have all been torn to shreds. Yes, they've shifted the focus from WMD to ousting the evil tyranny -- very much unlike, of course, those friendly countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or in the past South Africa, Rumania, Haiti, etc etc, which are merely democratically challenged.
And it seems a lot of US citizens are buying it. Remember folks, invading a country that has not attacked you or poses a clear and present danger is a warcrime. People were executed for the exact same thing after WW2..
It is clear that Iraq was not in any way connected to 911 (almost all terrorists in those planes were Saudis -- it must be a plot by Hussain!) Nor were Saddam and the islamic fundamentalists even on speaking terms (other than a tiny part of Iraq in the north-east, where he did not effectively have control, Saddam prosecuted and murdered islamists as best he could.) It is also clear that Iraq did not pose a clear and present danger. Hell, now they even gave up pretending to look for WMD altogether!
But the ugly truth was, and remains, this war (oh wait, ex-war) is not about spreading democracy. It's not even about spreading capitalism. It's about securing untold fortunes for US corporations. Don't take my word for it; there's some accurate and detailed accounts by Naomi Klein over at No Logo.
I will never understand how people fail to see the economics here..
(1) Lockheed makes bomb.
(2) Pentagon buys bomb (profit!)
(3) Pentagon deploys bomb (boom!)
(4) Haliburton/Bechtel/etc etc repair the damage (profit!)
Unemployment in Iraq is orders of magnitude higher than it used to be -- for instance, cement factories sitting idle because by contract the interim government is obliged to buy American cement. Paul Bremer managed to push many more "temporary laws" like this -- not to be reviewed for 40 years.. It's all just so painfully obvious! At least, to everyone exposed to anything other than US propaganda. And you wonder, "why do they hate us?". *Sigh*.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
John Pike of GlobalSecurity had an apt quote in a related Wired article:
"We could be the ones that wind up looking like Terminators, in the world's eyes."
$200k remote-control weapons are a great way of keeping American kids out of harm's way in Iraq, but once it's a video game, who is going to be sickened by the fact that they just took a life over a megalomaniac's flawed foreign policy? How are young American soldiers going to learn that destroying life for oil is wrong?
With such bots, what's to stop Uncle Sam from sending soldiers to posh hotels in Dubai, bringing them down to the basement for four-hour stints with the VR glasses on to knock off a couple more Iraqis? (Afghans? Pakistanis? Iranians?) All you'll need in the theater is a comms group and some logistics to keep the robots in fresh batteries.
Sick, wrong, and I'll have no part of it.
... I can see it now. Some enemy soldiers jump out from behind some bushes, grab the robots and throw them into the next river ... just take care to point the gun away from you when carrying it ;-)
Them: "First they attack from afar with missiles and bombs, and now they send soulless robots against us! They don't have the courage to fight us in person! They are using machines to kill our brothers! Rise up! Join us! Strike against the infidels in their own homes!"
But who cares what They think, right?
You must think in Russian.
Secret backdoors? Software development possibly outsourced to [insert your favourite "trustworthy" country here]?
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
um, yes. and they will never really apply to robots, period. they are a fictional construct of an ethical science-fiction author, and do not reflect any real world requirement in the programming or design of robots. you can be certain that military robots will not respect them at all, remote controlled or not and will be designed to be as lethal as possible. i hope i'm misreading the above and people really haven't become so misinformed as to not know this.
Callin Dubya a commener is like calling a rockefeller a "good ole boy".His kin are more from the eat hamptons than east texas.While I HATED dumb@ss kerry,Bush is nothing but a giant buffon.He ran every thing he ever touched into the ground.Is the country better than Bill left it?HELL NO!Bring back Bill!I wouldn't care if he screwed hookers on the white house lawn as long as he kept the economy humming.And now el presidente is talking about iran?How many countries CAN he get our boys killed in?While he gives all his buds defense contracts?I guess we have ANOTHER four years to find out BOZO THE CLOWN could run this country better.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
We are already as sanitized to the violence, pain, and suffering of others. Just so long as it doesn't happin "on our soil".
But it did happen. A little event called 9/11. People don't draw the connection however between things like invading iraq and events like 9/11. They invert the causality, thinking iraq is the response to things like 9/11, while in reality 9/11 is the response to things like iraq.
That's not to say I'm one of the "america deserved 9/11" crowd, but if you kick a hornet's nest, you're going to get stung.
I wonder if those contracts were fairly open to the public or another one of Bush's private 'suck my dick under the desk' deals.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
While it is true that Terrorism is asymetrical warfare it is not true that they are waging a lawful or legal law -- and I use the terms lawful and legal very loosely.
The West, as most modern societies do, self-impose basic rules of engagement and behavior. These rules of engagement are based largely on our values system.
This is why the news of captured terrorists being abused in the form of light interogation (light mental and physical discomfort, with no real threat of permanent physical harm) is bigger news and overshadows the video taped beheadings of their captures. This is why we have a different threshold for our behavior vs. their behavior.
When the French were engaged in very similar situation in Algiers, De Gaul was prescience in his conclusion that the French could not win a war against the Islamunist insurgence in Algiers -- not because they didnt' have the firepower and manpower but because the brutality that would have been needed would not have been acceptable by Western standards. So France withdrew and the Islamunists went on to massacre 100's of thousands of unarmed non combatants comprised of 2nd and 3rd generation French colonists, not being contrained by the Wests self-imposed values.
Somewhere in there lies the definition of terrorism, not your simplistic view that it is dependent upon whether they are attacking military targets or civilian targets.
Well ya know, it's not exactly easy to get tension across in a Slashdot post. I was simply trying to illustrate that having a killbot doesn't mean you get to sip champaign from the comfort of an air conditioned tent.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But Fundamentalism isn't a very popular (large segment of society) hobby.
In order for Fundamentalism to infect a large portion of society, you need a large portion of society to be (or believe it is being) affected by the evil threat.
Fundamentalism is catching in the mid-east because more and more of the people there ARE affected by "The Great Satan". Either directly or through someone they know.
That is the problem with our continued military response to the insurgency. When we accidently drop a 500# bomb on a house and kill a family, then we've given all the friends of that family a reason to hate / fear "The Great Satan".Pretty much. The problem is that they're over there and we're over here. They can "win" this simply by outlasting us. Just like Vietnam.
But that will breed even more Fundamentalism over there. They will have driven out The Great Satan and they will have proof that there is a "war" against them.
The only way to stop this is to show the masses that we aren't really as bad as our recent and past actions have indicated.
But that takes time and focus and money. None of which our populace seems willing to invest when we are promised quick, cheap "victories" over the "bad men".
Rather than "spreading democracy" in the mid-east, Bush's wars will end up spreading Fundamentalism, anarchy, political assassinations and world wide terrorism.
And no amount of remote controlled gun-bots will be able to change that.
Being a soldier is not, and should not ever be, an industry. There should be no fighting for jobs in the military.
well well taken- yes, it was (partly) in jest... i have friends in the services who are putting up with reduced healthcare benefits (among many many other budget cuts that not only affect service members, but also their spouses and kids); that's mostly what i was thinking about with that comment
so no, there shouldn't be fighting for jobs in the military, and i hope it never comes to that, but given bush's track record (despite his talk) on military payroll and benefits, well, let's just see in four years
i think i'm one of those oddballs that opposes the war, opposes out of hand military spending on wasted crap like these rediculous projects, but supports wholeheartedly pay rises for our soldiers
I've been saying for years that Robocop would be perfect for this! Jeez, no one ever listens to me.
*In Arabic*
"Halt. You have violated code 132 of the Geneva Conventions. Put down the rocket launcher. Scum."
The same with Italy.
Japan is the only example where a country without a Democratic history was successfully converted to Democracy.
Meanwhile, there are many, many examples where Democracy did not work when an outside country attempted to force it upon another. Vietnam and Korea are two recent, US examples.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/quisling
Lots of people in an OCCUPIED country see NO PROBLEM with attacking Quislings.
If your country was invaded and you knew certain cops were helping the invaders by rounding up people who opposed the invaders, would you see killing those cops as "terrorism" or "patriotism"?
don't convert to Islam
If there is something that is "bad"...
And you know it is "bad"...
And other people know it is "bad"...
All you have to do is to show that someone on the other side (Democrats/Republicans) also did it or were linked to it.
This isn't about determining whether something is "good" or "bad".
It's all about showing how your team isn't "wrong" because the other team did "bad" things, too.
Which is why you'll never see non-partisan statements such as "we will not sell weapons to non-Democracies"
-or-
"we will fix the problems in our voting system and ensure a verifiable paper trail".
But you will see lots of references to "well, Clinton also did that" or "well, Bush started it".
and they still wonder why usa isn't that popular anymore.
parent is answer to this question.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Anyone else noting the strange url for the talon robot website? Are they ment to replace the human 'lemmings' that'd normally would be used in such missions? http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
The people who go to "Happy Hour" in DC are generally NOT all (or even mostly) DC residents- they are the ones who commute in from good 'ole VA and MD, and go out for a few drinks after work before heading home.
I am a DC resident, and make no mistake about it- the position of the vast majority of DC natives was consistant and most definately against the Iraq war.
To get a true taste of exactly how strongly opposed to the war most people were in DC, without the VA and MD commuters, you should have walked around the streets during the initial "March to War", or the Inauguration (when the tear gas permitted, of course).
There is no inconsistancy between DC's voting habits and the tragic war in Iraq, if that is what you were suggesting.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
But why? We all know how useless they are - even a bunch of those unbearable Gungans can beat a whole army of them.
but seriously, is there any evidence that these
robots are less vulnerable that soldiers? How good
are these robots at searching for obstacles?
Just what we needed. Now where are Adama and the fleet going to run to?
I don't know why people are criticizing or mocking this development. The robot soldiers are badly needed. Our troops are stretched too thin in Central Asia and can use all the help they can get in their search for John bin Conner.
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
Every good gamer knows you don't play a FPS with a joystick. You'll get your ass handed to you. I see then adding a nice optical Logitech mouse in the future. Seriously, I see these being used in a defensive way at first. Which could possibly induce more interaction with your (the term victim seems like spin) unknown. Since you could get your remote eyes and ears closer without the fear of dying.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO COMPLY
Terrorist problem solved, just like that.
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
Problem is that Clinton was not responsible for the huge job frenzy in 2000 and 2001. Y2K was just as responsible. Everybody stopped buying in 98 and 99 waiting for Y2K to be over except for anything that involved ensuring that Y2K would not affect them (i.e consulting, legacy software updating). Once it was over everybody started spending money hand over fist to make up for a year of waiting.
:)
It was obvious even before 2001 that the upward pressure was going to stop and stop fast. I don't think you can give Clinton all the credit for the economy 3-5 years ago.
Other than that I can't disagree with your post
But if that is the definition of democracy, then Communist China, and even Iraq are democracys because the population consents to the rule. (Before y'all fling yourselves at you keyboards, I don't believe they are democracies. I am merely questioning what I believe is a flawed definition.)
In Canada, the definition of a democracy is responsible government. They who govern us must answer to us. And it isn't just the election every few years that holds them in check. We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
And who in the countries cited above in the first paragraph could say "Nay" to the leader. That's what made them non-democratic.
I have no objection to killing people. Killing people is perfectly fine, it is just part of life-condition. Obviously killing people psychotically is stupid, you will get caught and will suffer for nothing. Killing people for an idea or for profit sounds completely reasonable to me.
You can't handle the truth.
With high explosives commonly available and remote detonation with scavenged garage-door openers already commonplace, it seems to me that these expensive robots will be blown to shreds before they make any significant impact.
Any place where improvised explosives can be placed will be off limits to these robots, just to keep them in service. I can see them used at guardposts.
And what is the cost of operations:
Blown up robot: $250,000
Blown up soldier: $12,000 death benefit
The sad fact in this equation is that while human life is intrinsinctly more valuable, the military does not bear the ultimate cost of each soliders death: cost of upbringing and education from cradle to grave, loss of future earnings, loss of intangibles such as being someone's spouse, mother or father.
So, platoon, whatever you do, protect the company's robot! We only have one of those suckers!
The real reason for deploying these is to test an emerging new techonology which may ultimately transform the way wars are fought. [sarcasm] I eagerly look forward to when they start using these for civilian enforcement stateside. A rolling roadblock with teeth! Perhaps someday a cop on every corner / in every household will become a reality. [/sarcasm]
"You have liberated me from thought."
The words that legitimize suicide bombings. By that definition placing a bomb in a busy street corner is evil, but strapping a bomb to your back and standing in a busy street corner is good.
It's a more courageous act to go blow yourself up along with your targets than to simply send in a guided missile from the comffort of your helicopter.
But it isn't any more courageous to send someone else to do it than it is to give the order to fire the missile.
You can't take the sky from me...
Who is it that actually LIVES in nature, grows the food you eat and mines the resources for your daily living. Who breathes fresh air
Yeah, em, I've been at farms, and I wouldn't say the air is stale, but by no stretch of the imagination would I call that foul stench "fresh" either.
You can't take the sky from me...
IMHO the label and definition of terrorism is flexible, and frequently twisted to suit the aims of the one alleging it. How do I define terrorism? Violent actions at least in part taken to sow terror upon some target and sap their will to oppose you and allow you to win by attrition. A particularly ugly form of psychological warfare, it's not about "civilians" per se. And it has always existed.
By my defintion, terrorism is mainly invoked by both sides when guerilla tactics are involved. Which is to say most modern conflicts. Just what do you think a "Shock and Awe" campaign is supposed to be about? Taking out targets? It's about frightening civilians with a huge display of force to convince them not to oppose us. And it didn't entirely work, because of our inability to put boots on the ground.
The US military is one of the best militaries in the world - when it comes to destroying and rebuilding stuff. But we are surely one of the worst when it comes to occupation. Our inadequate numbers of infantry mean can rarely control a country. Wars are always won through a combination of blood and treasure, and we've demonstrated we're far more willing to spend treasure than blood when it comes to anything beyond defending America directly. Consequently psychological warfare becomes an essential part of our tactics.
These new robots kill two birds with one stone - ultimately they'll be cheaper than soldiers to use and get the numbers up, and all the more demoralizing for their inhumanity. They are part of a future where wars are consistently won not by cunning or determination or patriotism or righteousness, but by money and technology alone.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I'm sure these robots will put a much more friendly and trusting face on our military. One that will really foster cooperation and mutual respect. The disenchanted can really see the sympathy in a robots eyes and that alone should help reduce terrorist recruitment.
OK, I'm just being silly. I'm sure these robots won't be used on regular, post conflict patrols and checkpoint monitoring missions where the troops are most visible to the common man. Oh wait... damn, most of our troops died after major operations had ended and most were on regular patrols or monitoring checkpoints.
Great, so these bazillion dollar robots will help save the 30 troops that died in major combat operations, what about the 1300 that died afterwards? Moral of the story: robots would do more harm than good in the current situation in Iraq,
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
We already have enough trouble with war crimes committed by human beings who ought to know better. At least "they ought to know better" is the theory.
What disturbs me is that with this technology, the "videogames turn people into soulless killers" argument suddenly becomes valid.
Operating this robot will be extremely similar to training to poerate this robot, and you will be totally detached from the results of your actions. You don't get to smell the blood, or hear the bones crunching, you get to kill with a joystick and a screen, sitting comfortably at a desk. It sanitizes killing, and it will let the killers sleep better at night, but at what price?
I'd certainly think that the use of combat robots resulting in civilian deaths has to be some kind of war crime.
Guided missiles are robots as much as this. They fly instead of rolling around, and they are not expected to come back. Kamikaze robots if you will, but these have already killed a whole lot of civilians, and I don't think anyone has been on trial about it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Would you still be calling the Ukraine a democracy if the re-counts there had been suppressed?
This is the crux of the matter. I'm not going to dispute the validity of the United States' last year's presidential election (though as I understand there were some, relatively minor, problems there as well), but ultimately what happened in 2000 did not seem consistent with the values of openness and democratic process US politicians seem so eager to praise constantly.
Now, I am not a citizen of the USA and thus do not see it fit to impose my views on their internal politics. However, many of the actions of their politicians directly affect matters geographically distant from the USA. The current administration's seeming disdain for anyone outside their inner circle in concert with the circumstances of Mr. Bush's election for president leaves a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth. This type of sentiment is not uncommon in the world at the moment.
Also, what's up with that guy Rumsfeld? Didn't he say he was going to take responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghraib (among other places)? How, and when, exactly does he plan on doing that?
Ah, but there could be other effects as well.
The market for movies set in a dystopian future, with cold robot soldiers suppressing the masses, will likely soon disappear.
But maybe they could just pass them off as "realty shows."
Let's face it, war forces one to make ugly choices. Of course, when a company decides it's cheaper to pay the liability claims for the deaths and injury than to correct the product, the same decisions are made - and there's no war.
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
You can't take the sky from me...
yeah. let me guess. you are one of those who never let things like facts stand in the way of their opinions.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Iraq/Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Well, if I were an Iraqi national going to the polls, I'm pretty certain that having one of these things patrolling around the voting booths instead of a couple of marines would be very welcome.
Really? You think that the guy far away with only a camera to distinguish between a friendly voter and an evil terrorist is gonna be very selective when he starts shooting? You think that a remote controlled robot, with lag, is precise in it's spray of bullets?
You can't take the sky from me...
So you are thinking maybe its not a good thing to create technologies that lessen the horrors of war because that makes it easier to engage in war?
Gattling thought that his machine gun would reduce the number of deaths since it would mean you had to send less soldiers to shoot the same amount of bullets.
He was a great engineer, but like most engineers I know, he had very little understanding of human nature:
They don't send less people, they send as many people, each shooting more bullets. The wars following his invention were exponantially deadlier! Making killing easier cannot lead to less killing, that reasoning is insane... deluded at best.
Why would you think that THIS technological devellopment in death-delivery would be any less murderous in it's results?
during the Civil War, where over 50,000 died in one three day battle (thats around twice the total number of deaths in the entire Iraq war).
Depends on who you ask:
Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000
You can't take the sky from me...
No its not. Its closer to between 15 and 17 thousand. The number you are citing is most likely based on a refuted statistical study which basically claims the total body count is between 8,000 and 200,000, with 100000 the midpoint. Thats a fairly large range, far too big to have any meaning at all.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Damn robots hiding under my furniture with shotguns!!
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
The US, especially this administration, has a very poor record when it comes to abiding by well-established international conventions, let alone fiction-derived 'rules of robotics'.
Would that be a General Protection Fault?
I've just read some of his journal. His thinking is perfectly clear and well elucidated, it's possible that other people may require help to achieve the same level of critical thought at what is going on around them and I think you may well be one such person who would benefit from that help.
...if this is where all the body armor and armor plating went to? "Robot! Here is your +10 anti-missle uber armor! Happy hunting!" "Soldier! Here is your state of the art flannel jacket. Good luck!" "But why can't I get uber armor like the robot?" "Get real, son! Do you know how much one of those robots cost?"
"I'm in it to win it, and no limit is my home." - Snoop Dog c/o PvP Online (July 12th, 2006)
Then the nuking of hiroshima & Nagasaki was terrorism & the firebombing of Dresden & Tokyo was terrorism
The target was the Pentagon.
Otherwise are you saying that the Israelis commmitted a terrorist act when they killed 15 civilians, including half a dozen kids, during the assasination of a Hamas leader & his body guard in Gaza (by dropping a 1 tonne bomb on a block of flats)?
The civilians on the plane were simply collateral damage.
That's what collateral damage means. Collateral damage does not refer to civilians accidently or unitentionally killed in a military attack, it instead refers to civilians that were unavoidable victims of an attack on a military target which were considered a acceptable cost of carrying out the attack beforehand.
For example during WWII the Americans bombed some armenents factories in Germany where they knew slave labourers from occupied Europe were working. It was accepted that if such factories were targeted one simply had to accept the deaths of such slave labourers as "collateral damage". The fact is when targeting the Pentagon by hi-jacked plane kamikazi style, then any civilians on that plane would be collateral damage too.
If someone is called a redneck here, it is clear that their intelligence is being questioned.
Humorless sig goes here.
The Geneva Convention specifically says a indentifying moniker is sufficient, it gives the example of a armband. In fact in regards Afghanistan, the Taliban's black turbans were deemed equilivent to a identifying armband in regards the GC's requirements.
Besides define 'uniform'. Nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it say belligerant nations must inform their enamies what their uniforms consist of. Meaning if hypothetically all of Usama's hi-Jackers that day just so happened to have dressed the same way, say they all wore blue Brooks Brothers blue suits with white shirts & black silk ties, then there's no reason why such outfits would not fall under 'uniform' in regards the GC. Afterall does the US warn every potential belligerant of every uniform change in it's armedforces? No. Meaning there's no requirement for Usama to warn the world how uniformally dressed his men are before they go off on their Kamikazi missions.
It's real nice of Timothy to post an article submission that mocks the struggle of real people to earn a decent, dignified living. Real, real nice.
Even if technology nessecarily and unavoidably suplanted those jobs, the desire of real working people to maintain thier livlihoods, and have them be equitable enough to provide for themselves amd their families, is not a thing that should be mocked, ever.
Fight for something better: www.socialistalternative.org
Their sole purpose was to strike fear into the hearts of the Japanese so they would cease their demands for a negotiated end to the war & would instead surrender unconditionally.
By your logic then that was terrorism too, even more so as the target of those 2 bombings were primarily civilian to a very high degree, like more than 90%.
The differance in morgue usage rates before & after nationwide work out at way over 100,000. & it's not because the dead are staying in morgues longer, I'm talking about turnover rates. Some morgues in Bagdad had 8 times the turnover of dead in the 1st year of Bush's war, relative to the year up to the start of the war.
I wonder how feasible something like that would be?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
No its not. Its closer to between 15 and 17 thousand.
The "Iraq body count" site only counts verified deaths by news organisations. They say themselves that their estimates are conservative.
And anway, they are only counting civilian deaths. Your original statement referred to total deaths, which is clearly going to be much higher.
The number you are citing is most likely based on a refuted statistical study
Published in one of the world's most respected journalists, heavily peer-reviewed, and "refuted" by a journalist with absolutely no idea about statistics.
basically claims the total body count is between 8,000 and 200,000, with 100000 the midpoint. Thats a fairly large range, far too big to have any meaning at all.
It's a bell curve. 100,000 is rather more likely than either extreme. And, if you actually bother to read the paper, you'll see that they made some rather conservative measurements.
Ok, so lets go with the high number, 17,000. Still far fewer than 100,000.
"Published in one of the world's most respected journalists, heavily peer-reviewed, and "refuted" by a journalist with absolutely no idea about statistics."
The published and peer-reviewed claim (8-200 thousand) was not the number that was refuted.
"It's a bell curve. 100,000 is rather more likely than either extreme. "
No, it (the number of civilians killed in Iraq) is one data point. One data point cannot be a bell curve. It is just virtually impossible to estimate using the methods used by the researchers. Hence why they ended up with such a huge range. Thus the statistic is rather meaningless, and I'll stick with the verified body counts.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
If it is your contention that city dwellers should subsidize land consuming industrial farms that burn fuel and generate waste in order to buy more subsidies, it truly is time for NYC to declare independence. We've got ports - I'll happily rely on imported food to be done with the rest of this nation. We've got the largest intelligence and civillian police force in the nation. We've got all the capital generation we need. The money we'd stop exporting to fools like you would be more than enough to cover the rest.
Long thrive the Godless Heathen's Republic of NYC!
Want to bomb us? That already happened, and is being used as an excuse for the last few years of insanity, funded with our money.
I forget what 8 was for.
Ok, so lets go with the high number, 17,000. Still far fewer than 100,000.
Have you even looked at their site? 17k is still a conservative estimate. The range is because sometimes a range was reported. Many or most deaths go unreported by news organisations in war. Do you dispute this?
The count was only of civilian deaths anyway, and you were talking about total deaths. Do you dispute this?
The published and peer-reviewed claim (8-200 thousand) was not the number that was refuted.
That was not their claim. Their claim was "more than 100,000". The range with confidence value was given as standard. From the paper:
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.
The paper was one of the most heavily peer-reviewed papers ever in one of the world's most respected journals. They do not get away with making baseless claims.
No, it (the number of civilians killed in Iraq) is one data point. One data point cannot be a bell curve.
The bell-curve I was talking about is the statistical distribution of probable Iraqi deaths from the deaths investigated by the researchers. I suspect you are being deliberately stupid here to avoid acknowledging your own misconceptions, but if not tell me and I shall try to educate you about statistics.
Fine, put it at 20-25 thousand. Or better yet, lets double their number. Lets assume for every body we find, another disappears, never to be seen again. On the order of 30,000, still not 100,000.
" The count was only of civilian deaths anyway, and you were talking about total deaths. Do you dispute this?"
Origionally, yes. However, the AC I was responding to specifically said civilian deaths, not total.
"That was not their claim. Their claim was "more than 100,000"."
The claim was a statistical estimate with a huge margin of error.
"The bell-curve I was talking about is the statistical distribution of probable Iraqi deaths from the deaths investigated by the researchers."
Yes, I know how statistics work. However, its irrelevant what the statistical probability that any given number corresponds to Iraqi war deaths. All that matters is the one actual data point which, based on the statistics in the paper, has a 95% chance of being between 8 and 200 thousand. That is not a reasonable range. All it tells us is that it is hard to estimate war casualties by using such a small random sample (which just happens to include Falluja).
Furthermore we have actual verified data that places the number closer to 17000. We also have a number of other sources (including some hostile to the war in Iraq) that don't place their estimates much higher.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
What disturbs me the most is that someone modded this as flamebait.
Talk about a moderator with no imagination; I mean really, is it still possible in this world for someone who's savvy enough use a computer and the internet, to not get the warnings behind stuff like The Terminator and The Matrix?
People like Heinlein were writing sci-fi 50 years ago that explored the ethics of human-robot interaction, back when it really was sci-fi, its even more relevant now, considering how much closer to reality the scenario has gotten.
"That way lies madness."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Democracy does not equate to freedom (the US has neatly proven that), nor should it be considered more important than freedom. Democracy should not be considered the goal in itself, but simply a means to achieve the goal. The goal is freedom, not majority rule. A monarchy which respects my natural human right to be free is moral and just; a democracy which doesn't respect that right is immoral and unjust.
You took his stuff. You pound him.
We have actual verified data that places the minimum number there. I don't think there's any "actual verified data" that establishes with any certainty it's not (much) higher. At best, there's merely insufficient evidence upon which to assume it's much higher.
It may indeed be that the total number is under 18,000, but I wouldn't assert that just yet as confidently as you do.
Excuse me? My "confident assertion" was claiming the number was "closer to between 15 and 17 thousand" in response to someone stating the civilian total was 100,000+ not including Falluja (now that I think about it, I don't know why he was not willing to include Falluja in there as it was included in the study, nor do I know why he thought that number only included civies as the study sure didn't).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Fine, Lets shut off electricity at the same time while we are at it. NYC would die with out the food and electricity comming into it from outside of it. And all it would take would be one missed food shipment from a ship and you'd all be starving. Cities are generally one step away from starvation as is. Just look at how much food you import per day into NYC.
On the other hand, I know a lot of southerners couldn't be happier to see several northern hypocritical states cecede.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Interesting questions you raise. Certainly the rules of engagement would have to be much different than for a human soldier. If a human soldier is walking down the street and gets attacked by some civilians then it's fair for that soldier to defend himself, but a robot? It doesn't seem right for a drone to defend itself with force under any circumstances. It should reserve any force for either known targets, or to defend an actual person who is threatened.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Well, I am, but that's just the way I am...
Well, whether or not those problems were "minor" is - I suppose - a matter of whether or not you are one of the dis-enfranchised who is being mocked as a "conspiracy nut" from the floor of the US Senate. Obviously the Right didn't think the problems were minor or they wouldn't work so hard to discredit the whistle-blowers and suppress any dissent. (You'll probably see them in action right here on /. once this post goes up). The did, however, put out that exact phrasing ("minor problems") in the official propaganda. Currently persons who express the view that there may have been actual, systemic problems are dismissed as "mentally ill", "hysterical", "conspiracy nuts", etc - echoing the same logic the Soviets used to fill the work camps in Siberia, I believe, but again, maybe that's just me...
Vote fraud took place in US elections (state and federal) in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Beyond that I can't say. The pattern of disenfranchisement of minorities has a history going back to the beginning - 2000 and 2004 are just blatant examples which the "winners" (the perpetrators of the fraud, obviously) refuse to acknowledge for fear they can't win in a fair and open vote. Very third world, both conceptually and in tactical implementation. There is no sign of a strategic, change, though, since no one has successfully organized a challenge, yet.
In short, the US has become a "one party democracy" very like the USSR was reported (in the US) to have been.
Yes. I can appreciate that. Imagine the sentiment within the US - among the actual citizens, that is - those who still believe in the Constitution. I can only hope that when the time comes for the Regime to come down the "friends and allies" of the US that the Regime will call upon to help "put down revolt" will understand the differnce between what they're hearing from the seats of Power and the beliefs and intentions of actual American Citizens who still believe in and live by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
From that POV, the DC government does not even remotely represent the broad population of the US or any of their interests. What DC represents is a ruling cabal of proabably 3% to 5% of the population.
There is an additional group of citizens - the very poor, mostly fundamentalist Christian, and mostly uneducated - in areas like the deep south - who believe that the Regime is Good and Just, but that is simply because they are largely uninformed. If and when they find out what's going on, I think most of them will come around and back the Constitution. Educating those people concerning the true nature of what they are voicing support for is the real challenge facing those who favour Regime Change in the US, and it is not clear yet that it is even possible in the face of massive, onging media propaganda in support of the regime.
There is no remaining Left-wing media in the US, as far as I can tell. Only Right and Right-center. There is some remaining "Liberal" presence left on the Internet, but I expect that, too, will fade over the 4 years. Already it is completely discounted within the US b
"The Internet is made of cats."
They should have protection against emp bombs or they could all be rendered useless in a nanosecond!
And to ilistrate this concept you will find that the NASDAQ COMPOSITE (^IXIC)was at 2,638.49 durring july '99 were it jumped to 4,206.35 in august of 2000 and was on a stedy decline since reaching a measly 2,772.73 in jan 2001 when bush took office. It continuued to fall untill reaching a medium low of 1,341.17 to 1,498.80 from sep 01 to mar 03 were it has been on an upturn ever since. It now rests around 2,034.27 and every indecator points ot it moving either sideways or up.
Also you will find other trends simular to this with the S&P500 and the dji (dow jones industrial average) Some things to take into consideration also the roth ira conversions wich allowed ira's and 401ks to be reinvested into other stock areas wich incr eased trading but can never repeat itself as well as the capitol gains tax cuts were it encouraged stale investments to be renewed because of lowered capitol gains taxes if the holding was held over a year as well as cheap oil prices causing manufactuing cost to drop dramaticaly. You can actualy see the dow curve based on the crude oil prices.
Actualy alot of the economic growth from '96 until 2000 can be contributed to gimics and circumstances that would never happen again. It is doubtful that if clinton was in office today, the econemy would be very different. In fact instead of blaming bush alot of people would be running around saying clinton sold out or somethign and have a lowered perspective on him.
I could go on about how much money people i know made because of other people not knowing howto invest. I mean in 2000 they were jumping on every dotcom startup they could even though there was a pe average of over 2000. But i will just leave it with "there is a reason the market droped and it had alot to do with other things then Bush becoming president". It is called a corection and it was long over due. Dumping tons of money into the market is going to inflate it, those that knew what was going on didn't loose any money, those that didn't lost alot.
Thanks for the citing :)
Back in 1999, I said to everyone I know. Buy all you want but make sure to sell by the end of year 2001 cause the drop is going to be overwhelming. What really amazed me was how Nortel and JDS was going nuts hiring left and right when they should have realized what was coming around the bend. So two years later all of the people they had hired on and buildings they had built were fired and empty.
All that matters is the one actual data point which, based on the statistics in the paper, has a 95% chance of being between 8 and 200 thousand. That is not a reasonable range.
It's true that it's a big scale, but it gives us some idea of the expected scale of deaths. Values are more likely to be towards the middle of the scale than either end; 100k is more likely than either 8k or 194k.
All it tells us is that it is hard to estimate war casualties by using such a small random sample (which just happens to include Falluja).
It's true that it is hard to accurately estimate the number of deaths (though the sample wasn't small), but as the only scientific study so far it is the best we have.
However, you have totally missed the point about Falluja. Because one of their (randomly-chosen) clusters fell within Falluja and greatly increased their estimate, they decided to exclude it, thereby revising the total estimate downwards.
From the paper (would you like a copy? You don't seem to have read it):
We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.
Furthermore we have actual verified data that places the number closer to 17000
Once again, (how many times do we have to go over this?) the IBC study only counts civilians who have been killed and have been reported by two media sources. They do not claim to give an accurate estimate of total deaths.
I keep thinking of Toys, that Robin Williams movie, where this guy takes over a toy factory, and begins to manufacture military machines that will be remotely piloted by brainwashed children who think they're playing video games.
Being self sufficient means you can buy what you need. NYC could. Could Alabama? Those "red states", supposedly so big on family values, morals and limited government, are a bunch of welfare queens living on the dole paid for by all us amoral heathen big-city high rollers.
You want a pretend cowboy for a president? Fine. Wanna ransack random countries? Fine. Ban consensual behaviour, research, and teach your children lies? Whatever, that's your business. Just don't do it in my name with my money, and make me live with the consequences.
I forget what 8 was for.
Seriously, I would trust a robot a lot more than a human being on the battlefield. A remote controlled drone does not have the intelligence to rebel against its controller, and it does not have the intelligence to shoot anything other than its target.
A lot of people are focusing on the almost scary aspects, but this is the perfect way to save money and lives.
Besides, how cool would that be?
The US Army's been using automated bomb disposal robots, pack carried recon bots and gun toting automated devices in Iraq for more than a year now. A significant number of the hundreds of recon UAVs operating in Iraq have more automatic systems than the TALON robot.
I can see it already ... "By taking fire from this robot, you agree to the following terms ..." :-)
sigs are hazardous to your health