Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tom's Looks at Two DARPA Grand Challengers

Posted by timothy on from the thrum-thrum-thrum dept.

skeeball writes "As a follow-up to this article, Tom's Hardware has a behind the scenes article on two of the teams competing in the DARPA Grand Challenge 2005. "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) hosted the first Grand Challenge Project last year, offering a reward of $1 million. This year, the prize money has been doubled, making the competition all the more interesting.""

1 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The developments won't be used for "defence". by mi · · Score: 0, Redundant
    your government's unprovoked attack on Iraq.
    Unprovoked? How about:
    • continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
    • overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel -- $10K per homicide bomber)?
    • continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally (Kuwait) captured in 1991 and never accounted for?
    • last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
    The country your government attacked had no military capability what-so-ever.
    Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..
    If it is the goal of your military to prevent wars then why don't you go invade the countries in Africa? Oh that's right, they have no oil.

    Thanks to our firmness on Iraq, we did not even have to invade Liberia -- Charles Taylor ran away, when Marine transports approached his shores. Several years earlier we "invaded" Somalia, but our then-President did not have the guts to do it right... Check the map to find, where these two countries are...

    An argument that, although still illegal ...
    Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!
    Because even when you are presented with evidence that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein your government can always say it doesn't matter because the people of Iraq are now able to vote.
    Should I really be surprised? I'm arguing with a citizen of a country, which still considers British Queen to be its Head of State!

    Jokes aside, what is your evidence of life in Iraq being worse than before? And what value (if any) do you place on the ability to vote? Is it worse 10 daily food rations, in your opinion? Or only 5? Perhaps, 8 and free tank of gas?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.