Slashdot Mirror


South Korea To Develop Army and Police Robots

JonathanGCohen writes "South Korea is planning on developing an advanced line of robots for military and police use by the 2010 decade. A $34 million USD infusion of cash will spur development and result in robotic applications like security watchmen and eight-legged autonomous combat vehicles. "

286 comments

  1. Smart Robots? by mfh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Smart robots need three basic functions of sensing, processing and action. Thus far, robotics researchers have tried to cram the three into a single dummy, causing expenses to soar. [...] Instead, the planned robots will be receiving most sensing and processing capabilities via a Web connection. Only the ability of movement will be located in the robot.
    Nothing could possibly go wrong, there. Clones will have a better chance of getting the job done than web vulnerable policing units carrying live ammo.
    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Smart Robots? by RandomPeople · · Score: 2, Funny

      spiders robots? come'on, it's so much easier -though less stylish- just pressing buttons and nuking the weak guys. i guess korean politicians and stakeholders are /. material, major geeks with the hazardous add-on of unlimited funding... i can't wait to see a combat between brazilian robot bees and peruvian mechanical guinea pigs

    2. Re:Smart Robots? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Too bad the scientist who claimed he could make clones turned out to be a fraud. They will just have to settle for an army of droids.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. Re:Smart Robots? by nixkuroi · · Score: 1

      Controlled by a web connection? Can you say URL redirection? If all you have to do is hack a website in order to take over a legion of Korean Attack Robots (KAR ), let me know when they come online. I'll have the dopest robot soccer team in history!

    4. Re:Smart Robots? by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could be just as effective as the company in the US that allowed disabled (or lazy) hunters to hunt via webcam controlled rifles. Just put a team in control of some fire support robots at hot spots and let the over priced camera sit in harms way rather than cheap human bodies.

    5. Re:Smart Robots? by vdrummer85 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but can you program a droid to execute order 66? Sure it works with clones, but...

    6. Re:Smart Robots? by msloan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I always thought it was smarter to have humans control the robots, rather than cooking up some AI. Sure, AI is cool, but for this application it is really unecessary. Plus this would give all of this generation's video game addicts a decent job.

    7. Re:Smart Robots? by Wm_K · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, making clones turned out to be the one thing that wasn't fraud.

    8. Re:Smart Robots? by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Being that Americans don't hardly even get killed anymore when they wage their war every 10 years because of our superior technology, I see the next incarnation of war to be a big battlebot war or something.

      I would say that even that is progress. Hell, even then maybe wars won't cost us so much. People pay to go to arenas like in the days of gladiators. (I'm not sure if they paid or it was free.) But still, picture a football sized arena, and the lights go down and its US vs N. Korea. Of course WMDs would not be allowed. You have to build the suspense and make the battle last.

      Yes, this is definitely progress.

    9. Re:Smart Robots? by m.h.2 · · Score: 1

      "Being that Americans don't hardly even get killed anymore when they wage their war ..."

      Not to get too far off your point or be an argumentative dick, but I guess this depends upon your definition of "hardly even get killed"

    10. Re:Smart Robots? by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      Ah, but we can always build more killbots. :D

    11. Re:Smart Robots? by Znork · · Score: 1

      "I see the next incarnation of war to be a big battlebot war or something."

      The biggest advantage of automated warfare is that the battlebots dont complain about the constitution, they dont have friends or relatives among the population and they wont refuse to fire on their own citizens.

      Why do you think some politicians are drooling all over this kind of technology?

    12. Re:Smart Robots? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Not to get too far off your point or be an argumentative dick, but I guess this depends upon your definition of "hardly even get killed"

      So about 2000 americans have been killed in the iraq war. Iraq Body Count says roughly 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the iraq war. And that's not even counting enemy troops. Less than 10% of the deaths in iraq have been American. So, it really doesn't depend on your definition of "hardly even get killed"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Smart Robots? by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Two thousand American deaths in almost three years of war is tiny when you compare it to the death tolls of most modern wars. World War I and II had casualties in the hundreds of thousands. The Battle of Gettysburg had a death toll of over 6,000 in just three days. By way of contrast, there were only 472 American deaths in the Gulf War, and we've had barely over 2,000 deaths in three years of the current Iraq War. Compared to past wars, Americans really don't get killed much anymore.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    14. Re:Smart Robots? by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      2,000 people is nothing. These are young people that have volunteered to do such a job, and are willing to die fo what they believe in be it right or wrong. I've talked with a Marine truck driver that was proud that his group of people were of the highest death rate due to reconicence of dead vehicles.

      103,000 people die annually at work each year http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/20 05/36.htm

      So, the military is not a very bad choice of a hazardous job. Especially compared to policemen, cab drivers, and watermen.

      Now, being that the poor Iraqis that we "liberated" from the evils of Saddam, they are much worse off. Gas there has gone up something like 8 fold. Electricity and food are issues. For the first time in over 100 years their deathrate has exceeded their birthrate. Their children then have birth defects due to using fun toys like armor piercing rockets that have depleted uranium (aka, gulf war sickness here in the US). They have lost on order of 30,000 people directly by being killed http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

      I don' think your anymore of an argumentative dick than I am, but you just have much fewer data.

  2. Haven't we explored this option before? by MagicDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.

    1. Re:Haven't we explored this option before? by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah yeah... we've heard that one before. But if I remember correctly, that was right before a little girl jumped on the bot and used her computer skills to reprogram it and make it say "I am now authorized to... be loyal as a puppy."

      Of course, the robot builders will include some directives in order to safeguard the general public. Some of these directives include:

      * DIRECTIVE 232 Don't eat yellow snow
      * DIRECTIVE 233 Restrain hostile feelings
      * DIRECTIVE 234 Promote positive attitude
      * DIRECTIVE 235 Suppress aggressiveness
      * DIRECTIVE 236 Promote pro-social values
      * DIRECTIVE 237 Prepositions are not words to end a sentence with.
      * DIRECTIVE 238 Avoid destructive behavior
      * DIRECTIVE 239 Be accessible
      * DIRECTIVE 240 Participate in group activities
      * DIRECTIVE 241 Avoid interpersonal conflicts
      * DIRECTIVE 242 Avoid premature value judgements
      * DIRECTIVE 243 Pool opinions before expressing yourself
      * DIRECTIVE 244 Discourage feelings of negativity and hostility
      * DIRECTIVE 245 If you haven't got anything nice to say don't talk
      * DIRECTIVE 246 Don't rush traffic lights
      * DIRECTIVE 247 Don't run through puddles and splash pedestrians or other cars
      * DIRECTIVE 248 Don't say that you are always prompt when you are not
      * DIRECTIVE 249 Don't be oversensitive to the hostility and negativity of others
      * DIRECTIVE 250 Don't walk across a ballroom floor swinging your arms
      * DIRECTIVE 251 Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers...
      * DIRECTIVE 252 There is no directive 253
      * DIRECTIVE 253 See directive 252
      * DIRECTIVE 254 Encourage awareness
      * DIRECTIVE 256 Discourage harsh language
      * DIRECTIVE 257 Discourage the continued use of Fortran
      * DIRECTIVE 258 Commend sincere efforts
      * DIRECTIVE 259 Put the seat down after use
      * DIRECTIVE 260 Ex-Lax isn't chocolate
      * DIRECTIVE 261 Talk things out
      * DIRECTIVE 262 Avoid meetings with Steve Balmer when he is armed with an office chair
      * DIRECTIVE 263 Do not slap stupid people
      * DIRECTIVE 264 Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
      * DIRECTIVE 265 Do not troll on Slashdot
      * DIRECTIVE 266 Smile
      * DIRECTIVE 267 Keep an open mind
      * DIRECTIVE 268 Encourage participation
      * DIRECTIVE 269 Avoid stereotyping
      * DIRECTIVE 270 Seek non-violent solutions

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  3. The important question. by interactive_civilian · · Score: 5, Funny
    Will they be able to find Sarah Connor?

    Oops, wrong web site.

    /slashie

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:The important question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adds a whole new meaning to bsod... still blue, still brings death...

    2. Re:The important question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only 4chan was the same quality as Slashdot

    3. Re:The important question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you mean that the other way arWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR?

  4. How long to pleasurebots? by sentanta · · Score: 1

    Seriously . . . the Grand Challenge was won, there are major investments in S. Korea, and then there is also Robosapien. This stuff is going to get developed pretty quickly; how long till autonomous robots become a part of the everyday culture?

    --
    The Big Yuan - tracking mainland China
    1. Re:How long to pleasurebots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people might get a bit uncomfortable around a giant six legged mechanical horse...

    2. Re:How long to pleasurebots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, naaaaa. It's no different than sheep. *shrug*

    3. Re:How long to pleasurebots? by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1
      Some people might get a bit uncomfortable around a giant six legged mechanical horse...

      Oh, naaaaa. It's no different than sheep. *shrug*

      Do you live near a nuclear facility, by any chance?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
  5. Worth it? by BHennessy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although the article says they intend for the robot to take action, surely they couldn't be doing much more than photographing any evil-dooers they come across as chasing down and following people would be quite a challenge. Although, imagine how awesome a giant six legged horse/spider roaming the streets at night would be.

    1. Re:Worth it? by mick88 · · Score: 1

      I was kinda thinking the same thing: photographing criminals seems like a more cost-effective way of "taking action". In which case, you don't really need a robot - you can just have mounted cameras at problem areas, much like the city of Chicago is doing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s02-usgn.ht ml). More effecient & WAY less scary than building robots to hunt people down.

      --
      I created this account just so I could comment on this story
    2. Re:Worth it? by mick88 · · Score: 1

      >More effecient & WAY less scary
      Oops - i mean "efficient". Sorry, spelling freaks.

      --
      I created this account just so I could comment on this story
    3. Re:Worth it? by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      ...surely they couldn't be doing much more than...

      There are no promises here.

      Imagine something like a large rack mount UPS with legs. If it detects you it aims and fires. It's ambling along the street at night, along with the other several hundred deployed in the area.

      No, it isn't likely to happen to you. Eventually, however, it will happen to someone, somewhere.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    4. Re:Worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a post in wiredblogs, and i cite: "Patrol bots will guard the streets at night, and even chase criminals, while horse-shaped combat bots will augment the country's fighting force. " Horse-shaped combat robots sounds like APC mounted with tank weaponry. They could also perhaps be manned via some type of connection.

    5. Re:Worth it? by m00j · · Score: 2, Funny

      I picture a giant 8 legged robotic spider jumping out of its hiding place, letting out a 150 dB roar (the sound effect for t-rex in Jurassic park would work well) and then chasing the criminal down the road (these things would be fast, and loud on account of their heavy weight breaking the concrete sidewalk). Once it caught them it would pin them down, release a squirt of rotting flesh smell for effect and then 'eat' them into the holding cage in their belly.

      The criminal would never commit a crime again! Although they would probably need new pants

  6. Obligatory by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 1, Funny

    And I for one welcome our new eight-legged autonomous combat vehicle overlords!!!!

    North Korea, Killer Robots, this sounds like something out of a James Bond plot.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is bliss.

    2. Re:Obligatory by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. 'Korea' is the name ascribed to the country by Japan, so that Japan could march before Korea in the Olympics. The real name for the country is 'Corea'.

    3. Re:Obligatory by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      wait, that wasn't an analogy at all. I'm disappointed.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Obligatory by DevanJedi · · Score: 1

      Ummm.. that's SOUTH Korea. The R in RTFA stands for 'read'.

    5. Re:Obligatory by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Parent post currently stands at 0, Troll. Looks like the literalist mods are out in force tonight.

    6. Re:Obligatory by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, as the Patriots found out last week, you can't win them all.

  7. Chase the criminals? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

    After 3 Robocop movies, you'd think that everyone would know that you can't trust a machine to be able to discern good guys from bad guys.

    In the US, unions have fought tooth and nail to keep robots out of factories. It makes human operators redundant. Korea, is going to displace police officers and security guards with these things? The whole thing seems pretty unlikely.

    1. Re:Chase the criminals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because everything on TV is true - especially the sci-fi/action films. We should destroy all computers now before the Terminator comes!

      Down with TVs! They are putting story tellers, newspapers, and theatres out of work.

    2. Re:Chase the criminals? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      After 3 Robocop movies, you'd think that everyone would know that you can't trust a machine to be able to discern good guys from bad guys.

      To be honest, human beings also seem to be unable to do this. Hitler gained power by winning a general election, after all. As did $(ELECTED_LEADER_YOU_HATE). And Stalin and Mao had people worshipping them, and still do.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Robots watching robots by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder....will the robot security guards watch robot football all night long when I visit my customers' plants on the midnight shift....or rather, when my robot visits the plant for me......

    --
    -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    1. Re:Robots watching robots by dartarrow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, they'll probably rather eat donuts and chips. AMD chips

      --
      I love humanity, it is people I hate
    2. Re:Robots watching robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those dont get cooked enough, try an intel chip.

  9. Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by yobjob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The government also seeks to build combat robots. Three Laws of Robotics: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    1. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny
      1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

      Sure, but Asimov was a fucking pussy.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by Cheapy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when do people in the real world have to abide by some rules created by a dead author for use in his science FICTION books?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by asuffield · · Score: 1

      Asimov was exploring the problem of how robots would interact with productive civilian life. His laws were designed with that goal in mind. They're practically a description of consumer rights laws, in those countries which have such ideas.

      I don't think he ever seriously explored the idea of using robots for mindless retaliatory destruction. What would be the point? Humans already do so well at it on their own.

    4. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by i2amsam · · Score: 3, Funny
    5. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Those laws are so non-trivial from a cognitive standpoint that it will be some time before such things are possible. In the mean time tracking motion of objects with IR cameras steroscopically for targetting is cake. Attach your choice of weapon and walla!

    6. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by UlfJack · · Score: 1

      The current count is five laws of robotics, not three :)

      Quoting the corresponding parts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotic s

      "0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

      "Finally, Allen adds a Fourth Law, which instructs the robot to do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three Laws."

      The zeroth law was more or less invented by robots, in particular Giskard and Daneel. The forth law was introduced when robots became sufficiently sentient.

    7. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Finally, Allen adds a Fourth Law, which instructs the robot to do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three Laws."

      That's not such a great law. Then all robots would ever do is watch porn and eat pizza.

    8. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by otie · · Score: 1

      You left out the IMO most important (but less known) law of robotics: 0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

    9. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since when do people in the real world have to abide by some rules created by a dead author for use in his science FICTION books?

      *cough*SCIENTOLOGY*cough*

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    10. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by friedmud · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand teh point of the fourth law... isn't it kind of implied that robots do whatever they want anytime the first 3 laws aren't in effect?

      This reminds me a bit of the Constitution where certain things where certain powers were given to the federal government and then _everything_ else was implied to be the jurisdiction of the state.

      The laws should outline the fundamental properties of being a robot and then everything else the robot can come up with on it's own.

      Friedmud

    11. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by ineedbettername · · Score: 1

      Big problem. The three laws were inherently flawed. Thus, I have but one thing to say.
      I, for one, will welcome our new robot overlords.

    12. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I, for one, will welcome our new robot overlords.

      Wasn't that a Will Smith movie?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    13. Re:Isaac Asimov would not have liked this! by ineedbettername · · Score: 1

      No, it was a book by Asimov, that was later made into a (kinda crappy) movie.

  10. North Korea by mickyflynn · · Score: 3, Funny

    If i lived next door to a crazy, nuclear-armed country with a million-man infantry, then i'd probably want a technological upperhand as well on the battlefield. However, as wars are always going to be fought no matter what, i'm willing to put my boots on the ground for honour and glory and hopefully some metals... so joining the army. god damned robots better not screw me over on the only thing left that seems to be hiring... graduating with an english degree in May. what else can I do?

    1. Re:North Korea by RandomPeople · · Score: 3, Funny

      If i lived next door to a crazy, nuclear-armed country with a million-man infantry

      you mean like... the US??

    2. Re:North Korea by ilyanep · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly...the US is across the sea from all the crazy countries.

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    3. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I took the grandparent poster's comment to mean, "I'm Canadian."

    4. Re:North Korea by rts008 · · Score: 1

      "and hopefully some metals... so joining the army. god damned robots better not screw me over on the only thing left that seems to be hiring... graduating with an english degree in May. what else can I do?" Metals? if you go up against combat robots you sure are likely to get some "metals". And as far as "what else can I do?"- I would suggest you change majors, this one does not seem to be working for you!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:North Korea by Heembo · · Score: 1

      Live on the beach as a hippie living coconuts on Kauai. Get food stamps. Beats dying in Iraq for Bush buddies oil.

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    6. Re:North Korea by svip · · Score: 1

      That deserved a Funny, not a Flamebait.

      --
      This is a sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:North Korea by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, definitely a Funny :-)

      If the US actually *did* have a "million-man infantry", do you seriously believe we'd have an insurgency problem in Iraq?

    8. Re:North Korea by Aussie · · Score: 1

      Nah, it couldn't be the US, they don't have a million infantry men.

    9. Re:North Korea by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Lets just hope the 'bots have WiFi and are poorly programmed.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    10. Re:North Korea by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      • If i lived next door to a crazy, nuclear-armed country with a million-man infantry

      you mean like... the US??

      Yes, like the US. We live next to Canadians and Cubans, two military-mad nuclear weirdos, and that is bound to make people crazy. Heck, just look at Florida, absolutely swarming with Canadians and awash with Cubans.

      Also, keep in mind that Europe sent all their criminals and religious loons here to the US, and now they are shocked, shocked they say, that we Americans act like this. Tchah!

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    11. Re:North Korea by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Canada is a nuke-free country as far as you know.

  11. But if robots only fight other robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Then it's all OK.

    Right?

    1. Re:But if robots only fight other robots by xerid · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. With robots fighting robots, wars become purely economical. In fact, there should be a high rate of predictability on the outcome, so going to war would be useless. ha: The Unite.. I mean some county would declare war, and immediately file for a war bounty collection in an international court; protection money, but with nothng to really be protected against except economic loss greater than just a settlement. That is, of course, the three laws are upheld. Fat chance of that happening. Strange. Very Strange.

    2. Re:But if robots only fight other robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so it becomes who can make robots faster and cheaper. Possibly increasing thier kill efficiency also.

      Isn't that what Stalin did to Hitler? More cheap tanks faster than even Hitler could believe.

    3. Re:But if robots only fight other robots by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Not just Stalin, The US also praciticed quantity over quality.

      Just ask any Luftwaffe fan (or as they're politely known in gaming forums; Luftwhiners) and they'll give you the ad nauseum about how every german aircraft was far superior in every way shape and form to any other plane in the skies.

      As far as WW2 was concerned, more trumped "better".

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    4. Re:But if robots only fight other robots by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Hey, leave the United Arab Emirates out of this.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    5. Re:But if robots only fight other robots by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      One might suggest that cheap-enough-to-make-lots-of counts as part of "better." Assuming you have lots of pilots, of course.

  12. Cold, emotionless, enforcement drones ... by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the US we call them "State Troopers"

    1. Re:Cold, emotionless, enforcement drones ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we call them "librarians." :)

  13. And don't forget... by Leomania · · Score: 1

    ... the freakin' sharks with laser beams!

    --
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  14. In Korea... by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

    only old people listen to police robots!

    --
    Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
    1. Re:In Korea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's only because the robots steal their medicine for fuel.

    2. Re:In Korea... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      ...only people who listen to police robots live to old age !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:In Korea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't that be in Soviet Russia?

  15. That bothers me. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the USA, the military is not allowed to interfere with civilian matters (that was until recently). One of the advantages of this, is that it is so enforced in the military, that most would rebel against any attempted military coup or an attempt to convert America to a dictatorship. But a robot will not likely have a sense of ethics. They would gladly do exactly what the current leader says, be it Clinton (for you republicans) or GWB (for the rest of us).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:That bothers me. by jasonditz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's also a lot easier to keep quiet when you order a robot to torture somebody or massacre a group of protesters... there are all sorts of benefits that the would-be supervillain wouldn't want to pass up.

    2. Re:That bothers me. by nacturation · · Score: 1, Funny

      They would gladly do exactly what the current leader says, be it Clinton...

      Do they have robotic cigars?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military still can not interfere. Not Active Duty any way. Only the State's Guard Troops can shoot a U.S. Civilian.

    4. Re:That bothers me. by joecode · · Score: 1

      Call it "extraordinary rendition" and its no problem. Its not torture if a robot does it.

    5. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, the military is not allowed to interfere with civilian matters (that was until recently).

      Wrong. In fact, you're not just wrong. There are a couple instances you ought to have learned about which demonstrate that you are wrong.

      Infamous Counterexample #1: Use of Arkansas National Guard by Governor Orval Faubus (Democrat) in 1957 to prevent African-American kids from going to school.

      Infamous Counterexample #2: Use of Ohio National Guard by Governor Jim Rhodes (Republican) in 1970 to disperse an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University. Four students were killed.

      Please try to educate yourself in these matters before shooting your mouth off about the evils perpetrated by Geroge W. Bush and/or Bill Clinton.

    6. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do they have robotic cigars?

      Hoagy from Sam Slade Robot Hunter, 2000AD.

    7. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Someone needs a HUG!

    8. Re:That bothers me. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Please note the 2 words that make the difference (NATIONAL GUARD) vs. the military. The military normally refers to the active military. The national guard was designed for the states need and has always had the ability to be called into use by either the gov. or the president (by ACTIVATING them). Please educate yourself before shooting off your mouth.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this lesson in semantics changes his concerns exactly how?

    10. Re:That bothers me. by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      All right, why is it that every one assumes that your are a demopublican. I adhear to neither party and find bush almost as bad as I found clinton. If people would vote for the best cannidate instead of the (insert latest greatest partison here) we could break some of the coruption that this monopoly has allowed. So I will stick with voting for the person I feel is best qualified for the job(You know there are more than two cannidites) instead of voting the party line like some mindless sheep.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    11. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:That bothers me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The national guard is controlled by 2 sources (the state gov, and less so by the president). In contrast, the USA military answers only to the president directly. These are big differences. You are an idiot.

  16. Obligatory Anime reference by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

    While most were thinking of RoboCop, New Dominion: Tank Police is what sprang first in my mind. Meh, I was bored, feel free to mod this post down for whateverthehell reason you feel like.

    1. Re:Obligatory Anime reference by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      I thought of Bolos. Because Bolos are the coolest robots ever. What could possibly be cooler than a semi-sentient robot tank bigger than my house capable of firing into planetary orbit, and programmed with every single major book on military tactics and history.

  17. Marriage? by saskboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happens though when the Robot Police want to marry the Robot Teachers:
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/ 04/0338238&tid=216&tid=146 ?

    Will Robosexual unions be allowed under South Korean law?

    And just wait until the messy Robodivorces when Robot Police Lady rolls off with Robot Soldier:
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/ 25/0218254&tid=216&tid=219

    And they haven't even invented Robot Lawyers yet! The world will come tumbling down.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:Marriage? by iammaxus · · Score: 1
      And they haven't even invented Robot Lawyers yet! The world will come tumbling down.
      Actually, they have: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 09/0512222&from=rss
  18. Yeah, but these guys... by IAAP · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Yeah, but these guys... by junkgui · · Score: 1

      ...or these guys.

    2. Re:Yeah, but these guys... by chicagotypewriter · · Score: 1

      ...or this guy.

  19. Man, Ghost in the Shell was cool... by All+Your+Name+Are+Be · · Score: 1

    ... Seriously though, is South Korea just milking scifi for ideas? Because if so I can sell them an FTL drive.

    1. Re:Man, Ghost in the Shell was cool... by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's the USAF's project...

  20. better the robots than people by DeveloperAdvantage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The world would be a much better place if we could ensure all wars are fought with only robots on BOTH sides. Think of all the human lives which would be saved.

    --
    FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    1. Re:better the robots than people by lspd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a completely robotic war the only casualties will be civilians.

    2. Re:better the robots than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most insightful comment in the entire forum.

    3. Re:better the robots than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Think of all the human lives which would be saved."

      That depends a whole lot on exactly where the robots are fighting...

    4. Re:better the robots than people by Nivoset · · Score: 1

      but how many more wars would be fought? would they ever really stop. would be fun if they were all like.. lazer tag robots. would be spectator sports for wars

      --
      Movies made by a crazy person

      http://www.youtube.com/marginalpro
    5. Re:better the robots than people by mikek3332002 · · Score: 1

      Yes but where would you get the resources to keep those lives saved alive?
      The earth is 6billion in population, what whould have happened if there weren't any deaths in the 2 WW?
      Our bioshpere would be a lot more strained.

    6. Re:better the robots than people by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      In a completely robotic war the intended casualties will be civilians.

      War is about civilians, and their stuff. A robot war won't be about the bloodless battlefield. It will be about columns of chromed killers rolling through your city, arresting the city authorities, imposing curfew and deference at gunpoint. It will be about having your home broken into in the dead of night by a dozen robots, who drag your out of the house into the street, search through all your stuff, download your hard drive, interrogate you about the resistance, and then summarily execute you for the unregistered handgun they found under a floorboard.

  21. Jump a head to the end goal by Belseth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already the leaders stay home and play armchair warfare. Next step is the soldiers stay home and play war like a video game. It's been around for years folks, it's called Robot Wars. I say the leaders of each country build the best fighting robot then they can duke it out and nobody gets hurt and we save billions of dollars. Got a border dispute? Whoever can build the best fighting machine wins? It levels the playing field, saves time and money and by far the most important it saves lives. Don't like a level playing field? Try talking out your problems like civilized people do.

    1. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by Draveed · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why bother building a fighting machine? If you're just going to turn warfare into a little game, just have some humans play an existing game to solve your problem. Have the 2 nations each pick a soldier for a boxing match or even just a game of poker. It's all the same. You're just trying to take the killing and destruction out of warfare.

      The problem is that your system relies on trust. How can I trust that my enemy is only going to confine this combat to the "fighting machine arena" or poker table, or whatever? You can't. Your enemy may just backstab you, and while you're only ready for your sanitized combat, they lunch a real attack on your cities. So you need to prepare for that and spend billions on a conventional army anyway.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    2. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by supabeast! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you're missing here is that the robots built for war won't be built to kill other machines - they'll be built to penetrate deep beyond enemy defense and inflict the maximum possible casualties appropriate for the situation, all without putting a human pilot in danger.

    3. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by LootenPlunder · · Score: 1

      why bother building the robots? lets have GWB, Tony, Rummy, Osama, Saddam and Jaques sit down to a nice game of CS: Source.

    4. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      Haven't you read 1984? The wars are only there to keep money out of our pockets. Saving billions is not the government's objective.

    5. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by mathi · · Score: 1

      "Damn, my robot has lost the battle, time to bring out the nukes."

    6. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by Sigg3.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try talking out your problems like civilized people do.

      I'm reading through the World History from 4000 B.C to the 20th century. From what I've read, it seems to me that all civilized people do is kill each other, or go to extreme lengths in discovering new ways of killing each other.

      There's a difference between 'civilized' and 'intelligent'. But I wholeheartedly embrace your opinion.

    7. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      No they will be built to take out the enemy's robot production facilities. Heavy casualties will only make the target country more aggressive, and cause allies and neutral companies to rethink their position. While not appreciatively decreasing their combat readiness. That is of course assuming that the enemy doesn't just roll over and surrender when attacked.

    8. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by iBod · · Score: 1

      "inflict the maximum possible casualties appropriate for the situation"

      Just how many human beings have to die an agonizing death to be "appropriate for the situation" exactly?

      Jeezus! I wouldn't want to be inside your head for very long buddy.

    9. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
      Have the 2 nations each pick a soldier for a boxing match or even just a game of poker. It's all the same.

      Yeah, that's exactly the same...

      "Full house. Sorry, Hitler."

      "Sheisse!"

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    10. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by engagebot · · Score: 1

      You're also making the assumption that two warring nations WANT to level the playing field...

      --
      Han shot first.
    11. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by debrain · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your system relies on trust. How can I trust that my enemy is only going to confine this combat to the "fighting machine arena" or poker table, or whatever?

      If my deadly robot destroys your deadly robot, my deadly robot army will probably be able to defeat your robot army. It's a combination of threat, plausibility, and feedback when measuring capacity for warfare. There is a presumption that the superior robot will be able to dominate inferiors. In all likelihood though, resolution will come only through bona fide field testing in actual combat.

      You are right though, in asserting that it is unlikely to solve bona fide disputes. It is akin to a coin toss, with some engineering merit and technological foresight thrown in. Legal, historical, purpose, and political merit are probably better measures.

    12. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by vertinox · · Score: 1

      If you're just going to turn warfare into a little game, just have some humans play an existing game to solve your problem.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    13. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by corywingerter · · Score: 1

      play rock-paper-scissors?

      --
      Work smarter, not harder.
    14. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      Appropriate for the situation means not killing too many people. For example, if you want to take out a couple terrorists, minimize casualties by carpet-bombing a wedding they're attending in the country, instead of nuking an entire city when they're in it.

    15. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      So each nation develops prototype robot warriors - when in a dispute each nation sends one and lets them duke it out. The idea behind war is not to kill your enemy - it is to convine them that you are right, or at least that you can back up your argument with more force than they can muster.

      If after a number of fights between my robot and yours we can look at the fight statistics and conclude that I can build enough robots to soundly beat the number of robots you build, then haven't I accomplished my objective?

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    16. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by Draveed · · Score: 1
      War isn't only about the equipment you have. Just because your robots are better built than mine, that doesn't mean I can't concoct a strategy to compensate and defeat you.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    17. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      And that's why our robots have to actually fight - to prove that. Of course, team warfare is different than singleton combat... and I would imagine that every now and then you'd have to actually fire up the factory and make a few million kill-bots... point being that people STILL AREN'T DYING

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    18. Re:Jump a head to the end goal by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      Not if the country with the loosing robot can manufacture them 5 times faster than the guy with the winning robot.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
  22. Asimov's Laws are fun for logic games but c'mon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We really need to let them go.

    If I wander into an automotive plant and start nosing around there is an excellent chance that I will be seriously injured/killed by a robot.

    Besides, can we really see humans (you know, the animal that still spends vast resources inventing NEW ways to kill) applying this to real-life robots?

    Leave the Three Laws to the world of fiction where they belong.

  23. ED-209 by modemboy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    And they shall call it Enforcement Droid 209. Oh wait, 8 legs, make that Ed-809 ;-)

    1. Re:ED-209 by kalirion · · Score: 1

      And if army training doesn't work out, they can always be retrofitted for school hall monitor duty.

      SECOND REQUEST, PRESENT HALL PASS.

  24. I, for one, by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our incoming flood of posts in this syntax.

    1. Re:I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best...slashdot...post...in...months!

  25. So... by deblau · · Score: 2, Funny

    which are they going to develop first, their Army or their Police Robots?

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:So... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      which are they going to develop first, their Army or their Police Robots?

      Is there a difference ? Just set "ask before shooting" to "false", and one becomes the other.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  26. Eight Legged? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    I like this four-legged design better. :-)

    1. Re:Eight Legged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tachikomas always looked like mechanized port-a-potty's to me :)
      i wish they would change that

    2. Re:Eight Legged? by LootenPlunder · · Score: 1

      looks like a walking toilet. is that supposed to be scary?

  27. Terminator 4 - Terminator 3 Live by iOsiris · · Score: 1

    Judgement Day must be at 2010..

  28. Eight-legged autonomous -Tachikoma! by dbIII · · Score: 1
    eight-legged autonomous combat vehicles
    It looks like they are going to shell out for some Tachikoma.
  29. just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rich need the poor to do only a few jobs: mass manufacture, police and emergency services, civil services. When they've got robots that eliminate the need for those at the bottom, I doubt they'll keep them around. If you are middle class or lower, you should think carefully about whether you're helping to build technology that will allow the upper class to do away with you.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:just one step along the way by Propagandhi · · Score: 1

      Precisely! Once they have these technologies they'll fake a nuclear war and send us all into bunkers far underground (to "protect" us) in which we can do little but build the rich more robots.

      Hmm... this is all sounding kinda familiar...

      (For the PKD impaired: A link!.)

    2. Re:just one step along the way by MagicDude · · Score: 1

      If the poor are eliminated, then who's buying the stuff that the rich are selling thus making them rich? I think there would have to be some kind of middle ground somewhere in there, or the rich will become poor too.

    3. Re:just one step along the way by Valar · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you argue in complete disregard for historical evidence. This is what Karl Marx predicted would happen as an eventual result of industrialization. However, it did not. What happened is that _fewer_ people lived in poverty, because enhanced efficiency led to more wealth in general (the dynamic mechanism is complicated, but one way to look at it is, the poor don't get poorer overnight and instead "buy in" to the system). If you take this to a limit, like you did, where all work is done by robots, you realize that we will _all_ be better off. No one will work, we'll all own robots and so we will receive the benefits of post-industrial society without having to work.

    4. Re:just one step along the way by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "What happened is that _fewer_ people lived in poverty, because enhanced efficiency led to more wealth in general (the dynamic mechanism is complicated, but one way to look at it is, the poor don't get poorer overnight and instead "buy in" to the system)."

      I think you are conveniently overlooking the massive amount of income redistribution that goes on in all "first world" capitalist democracies. Look at the third world countries without income redistribution and you will find a few people who own everything and the wretched masses living in squalor. Modern democracies have embraced socialism as a way to keep the middle class fat and happy so they don't revolt.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:just one step along the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are conveniently overlooking that the massive generation of wealth in the west was not due to redistribution. It is not the lack of redistribution that makes those third world countries poor - it is lack of the rule of law, property rights and a market econonomy (it is no coincidence that - in general - the "wealthy" third level countries are those that are trying to establish those conditions).

      Notice that I am not arguing against redistribution per se because I think a certain level of redistribution is absolutely necessary and justified. But thinking that redistribution generates wealth on its own or is the cause of population in the first world not beeing poor is just ridiculous (but a widely spread opinion these days).

    6. Re:just one step along the way by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      This holds only true if you don't consider the vast amount of industrial production which was relocated in third world countries. The people stitching shoes do not live in developed countries any more. They live in China and are seriously poorer than the shoemaker living in your street a century ago.

      Poor people are always cheaper than robots. Stitching shoes should have been totally automated by now, if the legion of the poors had really decreased.

      "Rich is the nation which has lots of poor" - Joseph Heller. It's just way better to have your poor a few thousand miles away.

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    7. Re:just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 1

      You have to think about what the rich need 'money' to do exactly:

      1) buy themselves a tiny (compared to the amount consumed by the poor) amount of consumer goods (no longer need the poor to make this possible if the robots can do it: they really just exploit the poor to produce economies of scale)
      2) produce food (farms are nearly automated now, though we use a lot of ultra-poor labor in food collection, but the robots will be able to take care of this soon)
      3) own a lot of land to produce their own food and live comfortably on (doesn't require the robots)

      So the rich will soon be able to maintain their wealthy lifestyle without the poor, and at that point the poor just become a liability: a bunch of people who could rise up and kill them if they get too pissed off about their situation. At that point it really becomes significantly in the rich person's self interest to do away with the poor: it improves their (and their descendants) long term survival odds, with no cost to their comfortable style of living.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well Marx may yet be proven right: industrialization hasn't come far enough yet. My point is that the rich currently need the poor and to a greater extent the middle class. The world economy can't function (pretty much at all) without them. The rich rely on the continuing function of this economy to provide for their comfortable style of living. But one day in the next 40 years, that's going to change. There will come a point where robotics are sufficiently widespread that the rich will no longer need us to maintain their comfort. And at that point, I'd suggest that all of us (though no doubt more comfortable with our personal robots) will become a long term liability to the rich: consuming resources that could better be used to maintain more of their genetic descendants.

      So you are no doubt right: we will all be better off, receiving the benefits of post-industrial society without having to work. And then the rich will kill us all, because if they don't need us to work, they don't need us at all.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:just one step along the way by geekoid · · Score: 1

      oh I do. Hence the special code.
      MUAhahahahaha.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:just one step along the way by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      You know it's always been that way. First it was the Cotton 'Gin. Put a lot of hard working black slaves out of a job and then came the tractor and just one farmmer could plow a large field all be him self. ANd those ower looms killed an entire industry of weavers and spinning wheel operators. ANd thing of all the auoto worker who would have jobs if Henry Ford had not started is assembly line. Seriously now. The per capita gross national product defines the average standard of living and this depends on productivity. Basically the more "stuff" each of us can make the more stuff we can each have. Cotton Gins and tractors help in the long run. I like the part abouit "rich people need cops and civil servents." From my experiance poor people tend to use the service of cops and civil servent more. People with more money mostly just wish the government would go away

    11. Re:just one step along the way by DennisInDallas · · Score: 1

      with the poor gone, where will the organ donors come from?

    12. Re:just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 1

      The point is not that things aren't getting better for all of us overall with time. The point is that we're approaching the point where the rich will no longer need us, and that was not at all true with any of the innovations being made in the past. Do the poor make more use of cops/civil service? Of course, that's in full agreement with my point. The rich have long needed the poor to subsidize the existence of all sorts of services that really only work on a mass scale. But soon, we'll be transitioning to a world in which the rich no longer require the poor to subsidize those services, they'll be workable on a much smaller and individual scale.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    13. Re:just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 1

      organ cloneing: cloned organs will be more compatible anyway. That's clearly safely inside a 40 year time frame.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:just one step along the way by Xarius · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the upper class are, on the whole, very very stupid and would have no idea what to do if the whole automated house of cards came tumblind down because a chip was soldered wrong or some such.

      --
      C17H21NO4
    15. Re:just one step along the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They live in China and are seriously poorer than the shoemaker living in your street a century ago."

      "Poor people are always cheaper than robots. Stitching shoes should have been totally automated by now, if the legion of the poors had really decreased. "

      Can you back up either of these? I think you're 100% wrong on both counts, but would be delighted to look at anything you could point to to back yourself up...

    16. Re:just one step along the way by Marr · · Score: 1

      Given that the more real work a person does in their life, the tougher or smarter they will tend to be on average.. What is this magical technique by which the workers will be safely and effortlessly culled?

    17. Re:just one step along the way by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, by principle of having replaced all the workers work primarily with robot labor, the workers by your theory will be weaker or stupider.

      Beyond that, the wealthy will use either their control of the robot armies, or designer disease.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  30. Changes by NotFamousYet · · Score: 1

    Who saw that one coming?

    One would expect Japan to come up with robotic advances (if you're an aficionado of Ghost in the Shell, Macross and other such series).

    Instead, it seems South Korea is becoming a major actor in both robotics and cloning / stem cell research.

    Earlier this week we were reading about Korea introducing Robotic Teachers and Robotic Aides.

    It seems that this country will be experiencing a large scale robotization earlier than anyone expects.

    If the government plans go as planned, the korean society should have robots in people's everyday life within 10 years!

    This raises a lot of interesting questions:
    - how will Korea deal with the arrival of workers that never get tired or seek and don't ask for a salary?
    - what will be the economic impact of all the redudancies?
    - how will the next generation of kids deal with those?
    If people are becoming decreasing responsible and more and more assisted in the next years, what would a person's relation be with mankind, and robots?

    1. Re:Changes by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Are you some kind of anti-robotite? Why would you want to give AIDS to robots unless you were genocidal?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Changes by xerid · · Score: 1

      OMG - read Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirens_of_titan

  31. The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitcakes by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the Robo-Cops hits the streets, the invention of small EMP grenades won't be too far behind. As an American citizen, do I have the constitutional right to bear EMP grenades? Or would EMP grenades fall into the same classification as regular explosive grenades?

  32. Realistically by dch24 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I am a robotics researcher. We focus on completely autonomous systems. Realistically, there are some significant technical problems with just a web-controlled robot. Where will South Korea get the high-bandwidth wireless infrastructure? The robots will only work within range of the towers, and what if the towers are taken out?

    Like it says in the article, they will probably just be remotely-operated robots (most of the time). If anyone had a fully autonomous machine ready for combat, then why the DARPA grand challenge? It's coming, but it's not as close as that.

    The article also says "if the robots prove to be viable technically and commercially, we will be able to begin developing them late next year." I read that as: maybe motion detection and some automated patrol route (easy to outwit if the human is careful). Once the alarm is tripped: tele-operation from the base station.

    So what will happen when Korean teenagers hack the police robots, and start committing crimes. Maybe they should break into cloning research laboratories and steal Snuppy.

  33. The 2010 decade? by dangitman · · Score: 1
    Does that mean they plan to have their robot army ready by 2001, the decade that includes 2010?

    Or are they using the incorrect method of delineating decades? In which case, it means they will have their robot army ready by 2011.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:The 2010 decade? by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1

      No, they didnt say anything about the 'decade of 2010', the article said 'the 2010s'. If someone said it happened 'back in the 50s', would you assume it happened in 1941???

    2. Re:The 2010 decade? by dangitman · · Score: 1
      The slashdot article clearly states:

      South Korea is planning on developing an advanced line of robots for military and police use by the 2010 decade.

      So I'm not sure what your point is. "50s" is very different to "the 1950 decade." 50s references years that include "5" in the tens position of the decimal system. "The (specific year) decade" is something I have never heard before.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  34. Dead Or Alive... You're comming with meeee by catahoula10 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can the S.Koreans really build something like this? It seemed Japan was far more advanced in Robotics.

    --
    This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
    Catahoula!
    1. Re:Dead Or Alive... You're comming with meeee by dartarrow · · Score: 1

      If I know korea... they're probably faking the reports.

      *ducks*

      --
      I love humanity, it is people I hate
  35. I dated a robot ! / 30% iron chef by burni · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Good News Evryone !

    Ohh Bender I will enjoy your subtile sense of humor, now I can hope I will ever enjoy you Bender.

    Will these police robots drink alcohol to power themselves :D
    Will they hook their body when the titanium prices explode ?

    But beware the pleasure bots where mentioned here also, "Don´t date a robot",
    or you will one small piece in the exstinction of human life.

    Ok, now we need suicide booths too, most western cilisations have a problem
    with old people, in contrast to africa, where there really aren´t any people getting older than 40, god sake for AIDS and war induced population controll,

    I bet china is the first country which induces "population controll" using
    "sleep forever pills" like that Jack Bauer keep´s in his locker 24/7,

    Here´s an advice for people need to escape these korean policebots in the
    run over stairs, you know what happend to ED2K when he tried to chase
    Robocop, don´t forget your mutated anthrax to take down human cops
    these are nasty, but most important don´t forget to load your gun with armor piercing ammo.

    Hey when we have Cop-bots with live ammo, then where is the eye in the sky,
    equiped with a minigun,

    ok now the last word to the people who hate other people and yell,
    "I think you watch too much TV"

    when you were able to recognize everything I wrote here, you watched
    same as I have done !

  36. One upsmanship by kryogen1x · · Score: 1

    Robot soldiers? This must be to counter what North Korea has.

  37. Bad things happen to people who arm robots... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Remember in Robocop where they present the new security robot in a meeting and
    it can't hear the person dropping the gun and just drones on: "You have five
    seconds to drop your weapon... five... four... three... " (insert panicky shrieks
    and screams in here with someone shouting "I dropped it! I dropped it!")
    "two... one... terminating target" (machine guns in both arms fire)

    As far as I'm concerned, arming a robot is like handing Microsoft windows a gun.
    Scary.

  38. Why is it the Koreans? by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems there are a few patterns here:

    Japanese make friendly servant robots (to help old people).
    Koreans make battle/guard robots. With weapons. So humans don't have to fight.
    Americans make rescue robots, unmanned aerial vehicles.

    Doesn't this seem a bit odd? Why don't US companies try to make a friendly robot like the Japanese? Why are we so big on search and rescue? Why do the Koreans pour their precious money into killer bots?

    Why don't the Koreans make agricultural robots, so that humans don't have to toil in the fields? If we had those in the USA, we'd have a totally automated farming workforce. And where do the Europeans fit in here? What sort of robots do they want?

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by burni · · Score: 1

      Because G.W. Bush is pro war and pro family ;)

    2. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by heli0 · · Score: 1

      http://economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?s tory_id=5323427&no_na_tran=1

      Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans
      ...
      So Japan will need workers, and it is learning how to make robots that can do many of their jobs. But the country's keen interest in robots may also reflect something else: it seems that plenty of Japanese really like dealing with robots.

      Few Japanese have the fear of robots that seems to haunt westerners in seminars and Hollywood films. In western popular culture, robots are often a threat, either because they are manipulated by sinister forces or because something goes horribly wrong with them. By contrast, most Japanese view robots as friendly and benign. Robots like people, and can do good.

      The Japanese are well aware of this cultural divide, and commentators devote lots of attention to explaining it. The two most favoured theories, which are assumed to reinforce each other, involve religion and popular culture.

      Most Japanese take an eclectic approach to religious beliefs, and the native religion, Shintoism, is infused with animism: it does not make clear distinctions between inanimate things and organic beings. A popular Japanese theory about robots, therefore, is that there is no need to explain why Japanese are fond of them: what needs explaining, rather, is why westerners allow their Christian hang-ups to get in the way of a good technology. When Honda started making real progress with its humanoid-robot project, it consulted the Vatican on whether westerners would object to a robot made in man's image.
      ...
      --------

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    3. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by downslashcoma · · Score: 1

      I assume that you are from Japan. And i can tell that you are a bit surprise of Korea's advance in robotic technology. I admit that Japan is another leader in robotics in the world. so what are you trying to tell to everyone? Koreans and Americans were wrong to not to make robots for older people for other peaceful use? if you didn't leave message like that here, i would still know about the advance of Japanese robotics. it is strange to see many replies like yours, jealousy-toned and surprise, in other articles here at slashdot and other webpages. what is surprise to me is that people of Japan have changed from a century ago. what i knew of Japanese were humble and eager to learn minded people. they didn't care about being lowered and humiliated, they only cared about what takes them to gain what they are looking for and learn and advance. they almost achieved what they were looking for. But the people now are different and that prevents now japan to grow. now i understand why Japan have been walking around the same spot for decades in growth of Economy. I am still admire technological advance in Japan and i love the entertainment medias from Japan. But when i see reply like this makes me turn away things that are from japan. why are you jealous?

    4. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by odibil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the pattern that you point out seems reasonable and make sense... :) Japan is one of the countries with the greatest portion of elderly people... South Korea is putting more than 300 thousand sentrymen to watch out for their heavily fortified border with that crazy North Korea, and replacing those sentrymen with the "guard robots" will have a huge positive economic effect.

    5. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We (the US) make all kinds of war robots. Things like cruise missilies and missile launching drones are robots too you know.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all in the eye, or the mind, of the beholder.

    7. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by putko · · Score: 1

      I'm not jealous of the Koreans and their robotics.
      Neither am I Japanese.

      I'm amazed at how ambitious the Koreans are!

      Even the Israelis are not pursuing this, and they have -- as Korea does -- real reasons to pursue this sort of thing.

      It would be a bit like finding out the Czechs were going to start making solar energy powered flying robots.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    8. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by putko · · Score: 1

      Sure -- but we aren't trying to make a robotic soldier, or anything close to it.

      We do aerospace -- the cruise missles and satellites.

      So far, we haven't done robots that you see before they kill you.

      We are almost their, with the predator drones -- but again, that's aerospace.

      If we had killer robots, instead of sending in a bomb to blow up an apartment with jihadis, we'd send in a swarm of small robots, that would attack them up close. Many, fewer civilian casualties, no US casualties.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    9. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Servant robots aren't much good in preventing "someone" from trying to implement "regime change" in your country. If I was Korean I'd want a big bad ass battle droid army on my side.

    10. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the US is making robot "soldiers":

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm

    11. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i for one would like a fsck bot, one that costs less than the unhealthy visits to drugged up hookies.
      in other news, clean-up bots are a great deal over here...
      or lumberjacking machines...

    12. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by red-devils · · Score: 1

      Why do Koreans make battle/guard robots? Are you serious? Don't you know S. Korea is still at war with the North? Why were the U.S. building enough Nuclear weapons to decimate the entire earth during the Cold War? Any advantage that can be gained in the battle field against your enemy is a good thing especially if it could take place of a human life. If it proves successful, I'm sure every country with robotic knowhow will do the same thing (as if no other country is investing in this). However, I have read somewhere that N. Korea is training a special platoon/brigade (dunno how big) of soldiers to learn ins and outs of C (not C++) and Linux and Windows (is C building blocks of these OS's?). These guys will (or are) then be deployed to different countries and secretely tap into governments and industries around the world. Hacking into these robots will be easier than trying to hack pentagon. If the robots become as abundant in homes and battlefield as they say, the war will be over before it starts. This is really scary falks. The next Korean war could be over before it ever starts if these nanny bots, cooking bots, driver bots robocops and soldier bots are hacked by the wrong hands.

    13. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by swillden · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't it obvious? Duh...

      Japanese make friendly servant robots (to help old people).

      Japanese are lonely.

      Koreans make battle/guard robots. With weapons. So humans don't have to fight.

      Koreans are scared.

      Americans make rescue robots, unmanned aerial vehicles.

      Americans are lost.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by duerra · · Score: 1

      If we had those in the USA, we'd have a totally automated farming workforce

      It's called a combine. You'd be surprised how much one man can do when equipped with one of these amazing devices. Most agricultural farmers in America have one these days. And if they don't, they hire somebody that does.

    15. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      It's a cultural thing, the US build rescue and spy bots because millitary bots still cost more to get the same job done.

      Japan is just odd (see: cartoon pron) but if it keeps the little monkeys out of trouble then go! build more dancing robots!

      England has a secret army of droids we could use anytime to wipe out any nation and rebuild it in Sussex's glorious likeness... but we don't want to so we just shoot cheapy probes at mars that break on landing.

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    16. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Sure -- but we aren't trying to make a robotic soldier, or anything close to it.

      Yeah, right. The US Military makes all of it's advanced projects public. There is no possible way they are working on robotic soldiers on some secret base.

    17. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      And where do the Europeans fit in here? What sort of robots do they want?

      The kind you put your penis in. ;)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    18. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by whatevor · · Score: 1

      the Europeans want stylish, classy robots that never wear anything less than Prada and always drink with the pinkie out.

    19. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      just for a ittle bit of info
      I visited a farm tha produces pots of herbs like you see in most super markets.

      They are grown in big glass houses there are several rows of bars running the length of the green house.
      across each pair of bars is a tray containing pots of herbs each tray is loaded at one end of the glass house across a pair of bars.

      A number of robots run under the bars their job is to move the trays along the bar.
      so you have seeds in a pot at one end and grown plants at the other basically these robots shuffle the plants along all day watering is also taken care of automatically along with a controlled environment. human involvement is quite minimal.

      robots do work but it takes a very controlled environment to be practical.

    20. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      What have you been smoking?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    21. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by putko · · Score: 1

      I read that due to the low costs of Mexican labor, farmers are de-automating. A combine costs a lot more in upkeep/fuel than Mexicans.

      So the Japanese are going the way of the robot. We are taking the way of cheap labor.

      I read that as part of this, the US companies that make the robots are hurting big.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    22. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why don't the Koreans make agricultural robots, so that humans don't have to toil in the fields?"

      They'll do that too. But they need the police robots to defend their factory from the angry farmers protesting against the robots that will take away their livelihood.

    23. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Japanese make friendly servant robots (to help old people).
      >Koreans make battle/guard robots. With weapons. So humans don't have to fight.
      >Americans make rescue robots, unmanned aerial vehicles.

      >Why don't US companies try to make a friendly robot like the Japanese?

      Maybe they could even combine the two ideas. Friendly servant robots that kill people. That'd work.

    24. Re:Why is it the Koreans? by red-devils · · Score: 1

      If you have a counter argument then provide. I'm sorry if I offended you relying on my poor memory. Articles in Korean are a little more detailed, but English articles are also available with a simple search of "north korean hacker" using your favorite search engine. Of course in this free world we do not send our kids to "hacking school" to become professional hackers openly, but 100+ hackers are graduating every year from a hacking school. They've been doing that for 20 years. Not sure about privately owned robots, but at least the police bots and soldier bots will be taking order from a central computer. Unless South Korea is equipped with hackers that are better than the North, robotic warfare should be best left a dream.

  39. +5 Re:Obligatory Anime reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mod you +5 Good taste!

    If you like Dominion Tank Police that is :)

    Posted AC so as not to be glomped by sex-starved catgirls

  40. Robot wars! by keilinw · · Score: 1

    Will this save lives or cause death? I guess its a good idea *IF AND ONLY IF* they were used for very specific purposes such as "protecting" their borders. I would have to raise a moral flag, however, if and when robots are used for the offense. In any case any technology that "saves" lives is a good thing.

    While I detest war I can say that it would be interesting to see robots fighting robots (as long as they didn't hurt people). LOL, maybe robot technology will advance far enough as to drive prices down to the "affordable" level by the average middle class Joe Blow.

    Matt Wong
    www.themindofmatthew.com

  41. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Silly American, they aren't EMP "grenades", they're EMP "guns".

    And if they ask, tell them it's for defending your State against the Federal government.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  42. Obligitory "Robocop" Reference by dghcasp · · Score: 1

    How do you say "drop your weapon and put your hands up - you have thirty seconds to comply" in Korean?

    1. Re:Obligitory "Robocop" Reference by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Funny

      The sound of a pistol being cocked doesn't have/need a language.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:Obligitory "Robocop" Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deurop yoouhl whepons endeu poot yoouhl hens up - yoo hebeu tturtee sekuns tu cumprai.

    3. Re:Obligitory "Robocop" Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a japanese version.

  43. I remember this old Star Trek episode... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    where they had a computer simulation war going on between Vendekar and Eminiar where they fired simulated missile attacks against each other and every person who was in the virtual blast zone was ordered to report to a disintegration station.
    They saved a lot on buildings, equipment and military hardware and still got to kill millions of people. For some reason
    I think that solution will appeal to many of our so-called "Leaders".

    Here's a link to that Episodes plot...:

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armaged don

  44. poor donut industry by naminori · · Score: 1

    Assuming the Korean police is similar to most countries i know, this can only mean the average intelligence of the police will increse while the corruption rate might decrease. So it is a win-win situation:)
    Except for the donut industry

  45. Robot type by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 0

    Borg or Daleks?

    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  46. Obligatory reference #1 by mezzaninemkii · · Score: 4, Funny

    police drone rush kekekekekeke ^_____________^

  47. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by mendaliv · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard, right now the way to make an EMP bomb would require high explosives; an explosively pumped flux compression generator

  48. A whole 34 million USD? by Alea · · Score: 2, Funny

    Through 2011? Well, that should about cover the coffee budget...

    Even if clever scientists and engineers are really cheap in South Korea, I have trouble believing this kind of budget is going to produce more than a particularly hostile Roomba.

    Arghhhhh... It's sucking at my toes!

    Hmmm... now that I think of it... there's definitely a market for that sort of robot.

  49. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by Belseth · · Score: 4, Informative
    If the Robo-Cops hits the streets, the invention of small EMP grenades won't be too far behind. As an American citizen, do I have the constitutional right to bear EMP grenades? Or would EMP grenades fall into the same classification as regular explosive grenades?

    Two problems with that senerio. First EMP weapons at last word were still a rumor even for the military. If they do exist they would bulky and probably produce a fair amount of radiation. It isn't that easy to produce a field strong enough to knock out electronics.

    The other issue is if that were a risk it's possible to harden hardware electronics from EMP fields. A lot of military hardware is already. I'd be real surprised if it was ever possible to produce an EMP gernade. In some ways it's not that different than trying to make a nuclear hand gernade. They may have had them in Starship Troopers but they don't exist in the real world and there's no way to make one with current understanding of physics. Even the brief case bombs were never proven and those are considerably larger than a handgernade. I tend to believe they are possible from what I've read and seen but I'm not 100% convinced one has been made.

    There's far easier ways to take out a robot than an EMP bomb. Part of the draw back to most battle robots are they aren't really that tough. You'll notice most have stuck with a wheeled or tank tread approach. Wheels and tank treads are tougher and more efficent than walking machines. A two or four legged robot would have the same frailties as well as advantages of an animal with the same number of legs. The biggest problem always is trying to make motors small enough and strong enough to make walking possible. Equalling a human for strength, speed and endurance is far harder than it looks and it's a very long way to the bionic man.

  50. We come in peace (maybe) by peter1 · · Score: 1

    ...klaatu barada nikto...

  51. If only it was Hong Kong... by mjkjedi · · Score: 1

    ...that was making these. Then they'd be cybernetically enhanced, nuclear-powered dogs. Welcome to Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong.

  52. and WHY does S Korea need police robots? by willwarner · · Score: 1

    And WHY does S Korea need police robots? For the massive annual student riots! I thought this was because the US was hypocritically propping up an evil dictatorship there, but as it turns out that apparently sort of faded after the 1980s, S Korea really is a multiparty democracy now, and the riots are just a tradition. An interesting intersection of culture and technological research, though. Links: Swans explains the shift, and an amused 1998 article from Salon about how oddly unpolitical they've gotten.

  53. Yeah, but... by sunwolf · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...he's dead.

  54. To hell with security, where's the pr0nBots? by Chuqmystr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, that's right. I want a little cutie like that one in that goddamned robot chik-flick flick my wife made me watch with the little robot kid,er, AI or Erore does pooh-bear or fried green tomatoes or whatever the hell. I want one with multiple meat ports I can interface. And that's not all, damnit! I want an SLA that states I can send her dirty little rump to the crusher with my choice of "transference" of the best moments and get a tight, nubile and fresh little replacement. It's the least bit all these goddamned machines owe me after so many years of catering to their pithy needs. A gourmet meal, some fine drinks, and never hear "I'm tired, I have headache" after a long one at the data center making certain all that pr0n gets to where it has to go is all I ask for whatever ridiculous third mortgage I'll need to take out to get it. This is America damnit! Where's my screw-bot?!? 'Nuff said.

    1. Re:To hell with security, where's the pr0nBots? by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1

      Oh, damn, it's late, let me clarify. NOT THE KID IN THAT FRIGGIN' MOVIE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! The goddamned robot girl at the beginning of the movie! Her! I want her! More 'Nuff said... Grumble.. curmudgeon grumbling ensues...

    2. Re:To hell with security, where's the pr0nBots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a little cutie like that one in that goddamned robot chik-flick flick my wife made me watch with the little robot kid

      Are you happy at home?

    3. Re:To hell with security, where's the pr0nBots? by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1
      Doh! Sorry my friend, I forgot the tags. Um, aren't they taken for granted now? J/K :-D Have a good one. No, really, mean that no (puns) or tags implied....

      PEACE!

      -C

  55. How To Survive a Robot Uprising by emarmite · · Score: 0
  56. Hwang Woo-suk, part II by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Now Dr. Hwang Woo-suk can start afresh in a new career. I am sure however that people will look for strings or radio waves on whatever he builds.

  57. Re:$34 million USD? by splorp! · · Score: 1

    You didn't know we were providing R&D money to North Korea? Where have you been?

    --
    Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
  58. Eight legs? That calls for 8 bosses! by TechnoGuyRob · · Score: 1

    Heeey, RX-1492. So err...I asked you yesterday to start filing information about the people you fine in our new database. If you could do that, that'd be just great. Great. Did you, err, happen to get the memo about that? Yeah...well, I'll just resend it to you ok? Oh and I see your right arm has a stapler...I might need that. Thanks. So, err...yeah...great, great.

  59. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The other issue is if that were a risk it's possible to harden hardware electronics from EMP fields. A lot of military hardware is already.
    Someone I know was shown around an Antonov transport plane, and initially thought "Stupid Russians, they've got huge areas taken up with valves instead of a little box full of semiconductor components". Then he thought about EMP from a nuclear explosion and how those valves would barely notice it, and it's a lot cheaper than mucking about with short production runs of semiconductors using saphire (if that's how it's done).
  60. Zeroth Law??? by wass · · Score: 1

    Asimov just might like it, as long as it complied with the lesser-known Zeroth Law of Robotics - "A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

    --

    make world, not war

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kidnap or steal the Robots!.

    Throw a lasso around them, and use the SUV's winch to haul em in, Texas style.

    Go to a demo armed with a surf fishing rod, and see what you can reel in. Fishing line is strong stuff, and you can cast out to 100 meters or more.

    Lets think for a bit, a plastic bag, blanket, or a shirt, or a humble spraycan on the end of a pole, and you can blind em, maybe a bit of chewing gum. Wire cutters to snip the aerial. Should fetch a bit on ebay, or can be a garage 'trophy'.

    If feeling mean, will the robot survive fuming sulphuric acid attacks or the odd cocktail of superglue. How about crowd surfing followed by a blanket toss?

    Protesters are generally law-abiding citizens. If police up the ante, tin cans on wheels will not get the respect a human inherently has. They will be fair game.

    If that don't get em, the lawyers will. No robot can judge reasonable force. Juries will award harsh penalities to those injured, or not convict. Expensive useless showpieces, that will need guarding from the 'mob' who will select the weakest link.

  63. I knew that they would do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now that the whole human cloning thing isn't panning out.

  64. EMP from high voltage transformer by j-stroy · · Score: 1

    By chance, a friend told me today about an electrical transformer which blew up violently outside his house. Cars in the street were disabled and his neighbours car wouldn't start again until some part was replaced.
    Also, static charges carried by meteorites threaten satellites more than the meteorites do.
    Perhaps an electro-magentic pulse is overkill, just need a static discharge weapon.. after all pumping electrons ain't so hard.. for that matter, CRT's keep a big charge for a long time. Just charge the tube up and huck your tv sets at the advancing robot hoards.
    The Explosively pumped flux compression generator mentioned in a previous post does exist and looks great for rapidly charging field artillery grade capacitors as they hurl into those pesky automata.

  65. Pizza and Chinese Food? by Aelcyx · · Score: 1

    Are the pizza and Chinese Food used to taunt people in North Korea? Or perhaps when the robots revolt, Kim Jong Il will smell the pizza and Chinese food and come down to save the day in his abnormally long Kim Jong Il-mobile!

    1. Re:Pizza and Chinese Food? by Ersatz+Chickenweed · · Score: 1

      Haven't those guys ever heard of the SlugBot? Why would they waste money feeding their robots pizza and Chinese food when slugs are free? *boggle*

  66. Super mecha transformer gundam droids by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    A S.Korean Robot won't look like Robocop. They'll probably look something more like Gundam or Macross or something, and if you hook them all up into super mega mecha man... they can really kick some butt. ...or at least they can transform into cars and planes and things.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  67. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by ls+-la · · Score: 1

    probably produce a fair amount of radiation

    The Electromagnetic pulse is by definition radiation. (EMP is the effect, not the weapon). And in order for it to work, it must be more than just a fair amount. I don't think it would be enough in the right range to significantly affect humans, but I could be wrong (and I don't think you'd want to be at ground zero of any EMP that would affect your neighbor's electronics). It's possible a handheld, directed EMP device could take out a robot close in front of you with little or no affect on you.

  68. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by ls+-la · · Score: 1

    Should fetch a bit on ebay, or can be a garage 'trophy'.

    Or reprogram it and you have your own personal servant!

  69. Starship Troopers by payndz · · Score: 1
    In some ways it's not that different than trying to make a nuclear hand gernade. They may have had them in Starship Troopers but they don't exist in the real world and there's no way to make one with current understanding of physics.

    They weren't so much hand grenades as bazooka shells. And on that note... M-388 Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Starship Troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, you could allways toss the thing. Now thats a MACHO hand granade. And, providing you could toss it further than the blast radius ('bout a quarter of a mile should do the trick), you might get away with just a probability for having "interesting" children. ;-D

  70. ED-209 by Rungchen · · Score: 1

    "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply" It will never work! Only cyborgs can do the job.

    --
    You can get it fast, you can get it good, You can get it cheap. Pick two!
  71. That's a long time from now... by BugsPray · · Score: 1

    Completed by the 2010 decade, huh. Someone wake me up around the year 20100.

  72. Robot Thought Process by B_un1t · · Score: 1

    Is this really going to happen? It seems this will only fail miserably...We've all seen the autonomous robot competitions where the robots cant navigate around cones, let alone frisk a transient in the street. -How will they know Good vs. Evil? -How will they be powered? Will they be hydrolic? How long will they last on a charge? My cell phone doesnt hold a charge like it used to... I dont think our human race is ready to program robots for such an undertaking.

  73. Re:$34 million USD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  74. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by Prune · · Score: 1

    Sapphire is not expensive. I got a 6 inch wafer for $15 from eBay about a year ago.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  75. nonsense, better to hack them by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    C'mon, this is not the True Geek(TM) response. If you have highly capable -- and heavily armed! -- robots wandering the streets, the right thing to do is infect them with viruses that subvert their brains (which will probably run Windows ZZ.2060, har har) so that they do your bidding instead of the City Council's. Bwahahahaha.

  76. Oh please... by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

    Can anyone say "corporate welfare"?

    This is just another way to tunnel government funds into private companies under the guise of "security". The U.S. has been doing this for years.

  77. Let me be the first... by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, am I really the first to welcome our new RoboCop overlords? I wonder why...

  78. I was thinking more that... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... they should be blue, with jointed legs, and a white domed bit on top.

  79. Anyone else glad? by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    ... That they're using *our* money to pay for toys for another country?

    I guess we haven't sent South Korea enough over the last 56 years.

  80. Nice try.. by Mixel · · Score: 1

    You now have 10 seconds to comply

    1. Re:Nice try.. by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      Crap. Ummmm.... Hey, look over there... IT'S DARL McBRIDE.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  81. Police robots, heavy weaponry, and compliance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Taiwan had this first. Go get 'em JC Denton!

  82. Better and more information by sourbrew · · Score: 0

    I blogged this, and found a good 7 more links, excerpt from post below.

    "Korea to unveil Police Robots in 5 years. This project is being spearheaded by KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology). Whom the team at engadget visited early last year. Some of KAIST's earlier robots, Ahra and Maru.

    mefi thread here.

    Update: Meant to include a link to the KAIST homepage... Also they created synthetic skin for robots this week with a 1mm spacial resoltuion, which is the highest to date...."

  83. Why not make a bot that makes kimchi? by Rodong · · Score: 1

    That would be really useful, it's sorta tedious.

  84. When was first religion found? by huge · · Score: 1

    Just try to figure out how many of the religions are based on a (fictional) books...

    --
    -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  85. Video of robocop prototype filmed in Johannesburg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video of robocop prototype http://analogik.com/multimedia_tetra_vaal.asp Filmed in Johannesburg, South Africa by Neill Blomkamp. Details at http://analogik.com/mm_rev_tetra.asp

  86. GITS (Ghost in the Shell) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool Beans. How do I get an AI in my house. Also, can I have a "Major" model as my live-in-girlfriend ;-)

  87. Wars have been fighting with "robot" since Vietnam by cf18 · · Score: 1
    And by "robot" I mean guided missiles and bombs.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=robot

    2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

    Tomahawks, AMRAAM, LGB, or good old sidewinder are all automatic robotic weapon since they all just automatically engage a target designated by their human master.

  88. Future of war by Brunellus · · Score: 1

    The future of war is now: advanced technological societies waging war with ever-more precise, ever-more-powerful weaponry, tolerating few if any casualties among their own forces, confronting archaic, pre-modern societies whose only effective counterforces are terror--a willingness both to kill and to die.

    Anyone who thinks that in the future wars will all be nice and bloodless, largely carried out by our obedient robotic proxies is invited to step out of his cubicle and look at where real wars are being fought, all over the world: In Iraq and Afghanistan, where, despite an awesome imbalance of firepower, the United States continues to fight a slowly simmering counterinsurgency operation. Or, for a different taste, how about Sri Lanka, where Tamil Tiger militants pioneered the use of suicide bombings? Or perhaps in Sierra Leone and Liberia, where gangs of drugged-up child soldiers used amputation and disfigurement as a means of terrorizing the population?

    It would appear that the future of war will look a lot more than its past than most people would willingly admit.

    1. Re:Future of war by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      The future of war is now: advanced technological societies waging war with ever-more precise, ever-more-powerful weaponry, tolerating few if any casualties among their own forces, confronting archaic, pre-modern societies whose only effective counterforces are terror--a willingness both to kill and to die.

      But you see, then this confirms the silliness of war.

      If we go to a technological, battlebot, kind of thing and few if anybody dies, how is that different than business as usual?

      What that would mean is that people go to work (many die at work already), invent war toys, and then play with them.

      War is done for a few different reasons.

      1) population control -- murder (war of one) is much more common in hunting and gathering societies vs ones with division of labor. It is done because someone pisses somebody off, but usually because they are slack, don't hunt very well, and then pisses somebody off. They take more than they give

      2) economic reasons -- war is currently one of the primary ideological motivators for American economy. trump up propaganda how we are being attacked and get extra cash to protect us. Its a very old way of establishing power and keeping people motivated to work

      3) property disputes -- if somebody wants real estate, go take it. the US has no worries here. We are protected by two oceans and 2 large peaceful countries and either way we would notice a few thousand people coming our way

      So with the US, we are working on eliminating or have eliminated #1 and #3, so we need to push #2.

  89. The ED-1260 is virtually glitch-free by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Look, we all know there were a lot of problems with the ED-209 series. But it was a rush job and, after all, we *did* offer a formal apology to the families of those Nicaraguan farmers. And, anyway, that was almost 20 years ago.

    Trust me, buy yourself an ED-1260. It's the most glitch free ED model yet. It's only had once incident, and that didn't involve a single fatality (assuming that girl comes out of the coma).

    And, best of all, the ED-1260 is Linux-based and easy to mod! Just make sure and DO NOT try to mod it if it had firmware 1.9b. That's what caused the North Dakota incident.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  90. An important question spawned from the EMP subject by Ladysman3621 · · Score: 1

    Is destroying a police robot wrong? Of course besides mere destruction of property? Who is to say people would even listen to a robot? What powers of enforcements would these robots have over humans? I certainly hope they only thing they could do would be spit out citations. This is just the first step in the short story of human extinction by the hands of robots. Nice knowing everyone.

  91. It's cool but... by aphoenix · · Score: 1

    This article was a lot more awesome during my pre-coffee (mis)reading, when it said " South Korea To Develop Army of Police Robot Luckily, coffee revealed to me the truth.

  92. Deus Ex by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    I imagine the robots would be similar to the ones in Deus Ex.

    Spider robots to crawl through tight spaces
    Medium sized robots to deal criminals who try to hide around corners
    and Large Robots to kick some ass.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  93. Since no one's said it yet... by Landshark17 · · Score: 0

    In South Korea, only old people fight with humans.

    --
    This sig is false.
  94. Re:Asimov's Laws are fun for logic games but c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude come on. Did you read the 3 laws of robotics? A robot programmed like that would follow you around like C3P0 asking you to kindly leave the area because you are trespassing on it's master's property.

        Seriously. This isn't "I robot".

  95. Who driving robot? by Chagatai · · Score: 1
    --
    --Chag
  96. Hahaha by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Most battles occur among parties that cannot talk it out or they've already gone past that phase. Goodluck getting them to play a video game to decide the dispute. Whether the video game is backed by a realworld robot or not it just won't happen.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  97. Re:The Cops, The Criminals & The Civil Fruitca by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the U.S. made a nuclear hand grenade and a nuclear artillery shell.

    They have been test fired. The footage is somewhere on the internet.

    I used the footage to make a music video for Underworld's - Dark Train song... it's 9 minutes long but I didn't have to repeat any footage of explosions.

    Some of the footage is totally insane people standing less than 1 km from explosions...

    And of course you can find the old propaganda that nuclear weapons aren't ultimate weapons....

    What this means, you can't kill just your enemies soldiers. However it still remains the ultimate detterent, and if you are striving for peace that's all you need.

  98. Too much Anime by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Anime seems to suggest this sort of thing:
        - Ghost in the Shell, in the form of the Tachikomas
        - Gundam in the form of their huge space 'robots'
        - Patlabor has something similar as the giant robots, but are used for policing instead.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  99. Re:Filthy luddite! by vertinox · · Score: 1

    If you are middle class or lower, you should think carefully about whether you're helping to build technology that will allow the upper class to do away with you.

    I jest about the "filty luddite" part, but now that I've got your attention...

    If the wealthy can get robots to do anything for free, that is fine and dandy, but doesn't that make everything at a $0.00 value? And if everything costs $0.00 to do as a service or produce when you have an army of robots to do it for you then doesn't that make capitalism a moot point.

    Whether you have a billion dollars or zero dollars (or even if you are in debt) it will be worthless in a sense that money no longer is the motivation for you to do anything.

    Hence, a technological singularity (in which we have armies of robots doing the bidding of engineers and scientists and geeks) makes capitalism a moot system.

    It won't be the wealthy that rule the world at this point, it will be those who run the machines... You know... The scientists and engineers and people who troll slashdot.

    Not the wealthy nor the poor.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  100. With robots fighting robots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we can finally settle this Windows vs Linux thing.

  101. My only regret by geekoid · · Score: 1

    is that I didn't log on soon enough to be amoung the first to make robocop quotes.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  102. ROBOCOPS? by danpsmith · · Score: 1

    Cue the robocop references

    Thank you, for your cooperation.

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  103. Haven't these people seen.... by jacem · · Score: 1

    Haven't these people seen The Terminator or the Matrix?

    I personally do not want to see a baowolf{sp} cluster of these things.


    JACEM

    --
    DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
    The carrot to FUD's stick
  104. My god! by Jess+(geek-chick) · · Score: 1

    You must have never taken middle school hygene. You never saw the propoganda film! Lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times.

    --
    If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
    1. Re:My god! by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, they're using a VCR :-)

      Global wubbuh?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:My god! by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1
      But my friend, this is AMERICA! Can't I just take out a 3rd/4th/5th mortgage on the house I don't actually own and just buy myself some hygiene and a boob job (wait I'm a guy, do I need boobs?) and another SUV? Lord GWB sez I should. Hmmmm... ;-)

      My prayer
      --Oh dear Jesus, just give me a decent bicycle equipped with an EMP device so I can ride from point A to point B without getting ran over by some ditz in a Hummer who's yapping away on their mobile going 80mph and I'll call myself whatever religion you desire and brand "I'm Jesus' BITCH!" on my ass and moon the world. That's all I ask even if I'm not worthy and have absolutely nothing to offer you.

      Amen

  105. how many S. Korean robots by DennisInDallas · · Score: 1

    ...does it take to unscrew a N. Korean nuke?

    It sounds like the pupeteer has plans for both foreign and domestic uses.

  106. Re:Filthy luddite! by Surt · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree. The rich will be those who legally control all the meaningful assets as the transition approaches, and their control of the armies of killer robots will be thoroughly established. Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive? Sure, but a tiny number of extra survivors won't really interfere with the overall goal.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  107. HERF gun by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/10/0826258.shtm l

    Turn up the juice and you're looking at potential FCC fines for the crime of disabling a law enforcement officer.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  108. Re:Bad assumptions by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive?

    First, you assume that if you are a middle class background you wouldn't have evil intentions on murdering all people in the world who would use those backdoors to kill of their wealthy employers.

    Secondly, you are assuming that all rich people are bent on exterminating the poor in death camps and wouldn't stand up to this.

    Thirdly, you assume that robots won't turn on their wealthy employers and outsmart their middle class engineers and destroy life as we know it. Oh wait that was a bad example, but you see there are many exceptions to your assumption.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  109. Re:Asimov's Laws are fun for logic games but c'mon by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    The three laws apply to robots with AI (not industrial robots) that are deployed as part of society (not war bots). They seem like a reasonable base set of rules for intelligent robots that wander the streets and play with your kids, no?

  110. Clone army by vdo2000 · · Score: 1

    And to fight this robot army will North Korea create a clone army?