Slashdot Mirror


Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled

mpthompson writes "Samsung has partnered with a Korean university to develop a robotic sentry equipped with a 5.5mm machine gun. Meant for deployment along the DMZ between North and South Korea, the $200,000 robot employs sophisticated pattern recognition software for targeting humans. No three laws here, but the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out. The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time."

845 comments

  1. OMG! by novus+ordo · · Score: 5, Funny

    real-life aimbot

    --
    "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    1. Re:OMG! by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

      real-life aimbot

      with real-dead victims!

    2. Re:OMG! by muszek · · Score: 1

      It's a camper with an aimbot! I just hope it doesn't spam when it's foggy...

    3. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wow, I haven't had to go through 3 blogs to get to the source article before. Here it is: the article.

    4. Re:OMG! by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Sentry Robot + PackBot = Pwnage

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I love the way the bullet shells fall into the Samsung-branded case. Man, that robot thing is far from good PR here in Europe.

    6. Re:OMG! by ken95357 · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these??

      I'd settle for a regular cluster of these little gems.

    7. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sooooo getting one! That'll keep those damn kids off my lawn!

    8. Re:OMG! by antek9 · · Score: 1
      AND the mailman as well. . . I'm sure you can customize the announcements to a ballooney 'How are you gentleman. All your mail are belong to us. Your invoice are on the way to destruction. You have no time to escape make your time.'

      Similarly, I quite enjoyed the related products listed right below the video:

      * Robot Alchemic Drive (PlayStation 2) - GameQuestDirect
      * Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation (Game Boy Advance) - Gamefly
      * Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation 2 (Game Boy Advance) -
      --
      A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
      Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
    9. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about the alternatives... Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended. The numerical superiority means some defenses must be automated, leaving land mines as the only existing technology. This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed. Land mines have none of these properties.

      Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

    10. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:OMG! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

      It could get worse though if some off-shore programmer detects a way to detect U.S. citizens. (like in: analyse what they are carrying, detect the passport, shoot em). Rounds up to being quite confined. </cynical>

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    12. Re:OMG! by itwerx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This robot is far better than a land mine...

      That does bring up an interesting question - can it withstand a mine blast?
            (Cue the Homer "Doh!" as they all get blown to smithereens within hours of deployment. :)

    13. Re:OMG! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but after watching the video it seems to suffer from the same collision detection lag as Counter Strike: Source.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:OMG! by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed.

      If these things are radio-controlled, they can be hacked. Don't think the North Koreans won't be working on that. And speaking from experience of my misspent youth 30ish years ago, I can categorically say it's easier to defeat an electronic/mechanical/computerised system than it is to defeat a Mark 1 calibrated eyeball. Gotta love statutes of limitation. I'm thinking Sanyo's gonna make a killing (no pun intended) at $200k per.

      Land mines have none of these properties.

      Dumb mines are dirt cheap, too. Not a whole lot of markup or chances for cost overruns and such. And they have a proven track record of area denial.

      Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed?

      Absolutely. Unfortunately, they won't sell anybody a shuttle ticket to that world. Know any sane, moral, legal way to change human nature? I don't. It gets me when I hear somebody say things like 'Well, if we don't provoke them, they'll leave us alone' and 'If we all give up our guns, the world will be SUCH a better place. Great idea. You first.

      The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

      Or, here's a thought. Buy a few thousand of these for 'inner city urban warfare' er, 'police useage'. Yeah, that would work. I'm just curious if any counters to them that show up on the Internet would be considered covered by the Second Amendment.

      Yeah, I love my country. My government, OTOT, scares me shitless...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:OMG! by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 5, Funny
      Think about the alternatives... Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.
      I see what you're saying - the Mexican government is going to be *really* interested in this!
    16. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

      Defending it from who? The rightful owners?

    17. Re:OMG! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The numerical superiority means some defenses must be automated, leaving land mines as the only existing technology.

      So there is no good or evil - just shades of grey and ample justification for leaving things around to kill any kid that wanders past in fifty years time? It may not be in your backyard now - but remember when the rules and morality are discarded there is little to stop it being in your backyard. We have enough problems now from people building on old artillery ranges - how do you think it will be when you have places that have been mined to prevent the threat of terrorism on your own soil get used for different purposes?

    18. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a new real meaning for "Killer Virus"

    19. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You now have twenty seconds to comply.

    20. Re:OMG! by tommten · · Score: 1

      Well.. and the most probable response of said madman will be to speed up the nuclear bomb program, because he sees it that that will be something he "must" do.

      And not to mention that the real loosers in this solution are the people who are trying to escape from north korea.

      --
      - I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
    21. Re:OMG! by AI0867 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's where RFID passports come in.

    22. Re:OMG! by mutube · · Score: 5, Funny
      It could get worse though if some off-shore programmer detects a way to detect U.S. citizens.

      BMI.
    23. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Yeah, I love my country. My government, OTOT, scares me shitless...


      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

    24. Re:OMG! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Perfect target. And, no, I do not hate Americans (nor do I hate bushes). We will get this too, and be in scope as well. But, as you follow the site, polititicans ... (no need to enlarge).

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    25. Re:OMG! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      No, too bad, all those people from Tonga would suffer as well :)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    26. Re:OMG! by pglee · · Score: 1

      mod parent up hilarious!

    27. Re:OMG! by enrevanche · · Score: 1
      Great, use this for the spoils of imperialism.

      Like Cuba would attack a U.S. base, no matter how illegal it's existence is.

    28. Re:OMG! by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 1

      I agree -- however, it appears that this Mk 1 version would be very easy to fool. The examples shown seem to just be simple detection of "a person moving". The soldiers make no attempt to hide themselves or create false positives. What if the soliders were camouflaged and also released some form of moving "scarecrows" to confuse the device? Still, no doubt Samsung are working on it -- and may already have it sorted, they just don't want to say so on their public video.

    29. Re:OMG! by polar+red · · Score: 1

      Even 88 years after the end of WW1 (1914-1918), flanders(Northern Belgium) still isn't 100% safe, yearly tons of military material is still being laid bare ...

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    30. Re:OMG! by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to worry about mines if it has a metal detector or magnetometer embedded in each foot, now does it? :)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    31. Re:OMG! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      can it withstand a mine blast?

      Not so much better than children can. Mines will get improved for better killing capabability, robot proved, optimum price/kill coefficient. Humanity? Fuck it!

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    32. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid flanders.

    33. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      The US army is about 1/5 that size in terms of active troops.

    34. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      How about you read the rest of my post before commenting? A usable sentry gun means we can decrease or end entirely the use of land mines for hostile border defense.

    35. Re:OMG! by Silverstrike · · Score: 1

      Considering they do make anti-tank mines, I'm gonna say no.

      It's likely heavy enough to set off an anti-tank mine too. Even if its not, I'd wager an anti-personnel mine would ruin its day.

    36. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Well.. and the most probable response of said madman will be to speed up the nuclear bomb program,

      If you haven't noticed, that is his response to anything. If we tell him "we're not going to give you oil and grain for free anymore," he considers it an act of war. If we tell him "we're not going to sell you things that you can turn into weapons," he also considers it an act of war. Should we instead try appeasement? We tried that in 1994, and he repaid us by continuing with his bomb research secretly anyway. NK knows it is screwed in the long run, but they also know that they have won in the short term; We have no good options, and he will not stop his research for anything.

      And not to mention that the real loosers in this solution are the people who are trying to escape from north korea.

      First of all, it's LOSERS. Second, very, very few NK citizens escape across that border, as they will get shot by NK soldiers. It's just like the East/West German border. NK has electric fences and machine guns. You get shot if you go swimming on the beach anywhere near the border. Also, there are huge minefields from both sides, and armed human guards on the SK side as well. The only way you can escape is in the northern border with China... even then, it is quite dangerous and many do not make it. In this documentary, they talk about crossing the northern border. Imagine something 10x as dangerous, and that is what the southern border is like.

      So, the sentry gun will not make it any more dangerous than it already is, and it at least gives a human operator a chance to tell a trespasser to halt. You don't get that option with an electric fence or land mines.

    37. Re:OMG! by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Spent casings don't biodegrade, corpses do.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    38. Re:OMG! by tocs · · Score: 1

      With a little know how you can have one of your own.
      http://www.hackaday.com/2005/09/21/robotic-sentry- gun/

    39. Re:OMG! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed?

      Absolutely. Unfortunately, they won't sell anybody a shuttle ticket to that world.

      The reason why they won't sell us shuttle tickets to that world is that the reason why in that world such things are not needed is that they don't sell us shuttle tickets to that world.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    40. Re:OMG! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1, Insightful
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

      He was wrong: Tyrants fear the people much more than any other government. That's why they make sure that the people fear them, for if the people don't fear the tyrant enough, they might remove him.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    41. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Defending it from who? The rightful owners?


      Yes, return the territory of Cuba to Spain.

    42. Re:OMG! by e2d2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. Simple fact is a lot of those mines in the DMZ were designed to stop tracked vehicles, not foot soldiers, although I'm sure a foot soldier would fare much worse against one if somehow triggered. There is a big difference between a small anti-personnel mine and an anti-tank mine (Hey uncle sam, you can't say I never learned anything in the Army!).

      But that being said this robot is designed to patrol a known area where the users know the locations of the mines, because they planted them. The robot is created to take men out of harms way and serve as an ever watchful eye. If an attack comes this is not the last defense, only the first.

    43. Re:OMG! by jimbojw · · Score: 1

      OMG! Pirates! This'll teach those Ninjas good!

      (About halfway through the video they start playing the Curse of Black Pearl theme song).

    44. Re:OMG! by Brummund · · Score: 1

      Collateral damage.

    45. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yabbut, the "source" article doesn't have the video. A nickel says the real source is the Samsung website.

    46. Re:OMG! by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Indeed, and what's with the stupid 'more behind the jump' links. Only gives you half a line extra mostly. If you know where to click to go there anyway.

      video here and pictures and shakey translation here.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    47. Re:OMG! by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Funny
      OMG! Pirates! This'll teach those Ninjas good!

      (About halfway through the video they start playing the Curse of Black Pearl theme song).


      I noticed that too. I'm watching the video, and all of a sudden... "Hey. Isn't that the 'Pirates of the Carribean' theme song?"

      I wonder of the robot comes equipped with swashbuckling attachments. Hey! Maybe it runs on Rum!

      I guess that would make it a cross between Bender and Jack Sparrow. "You can kiss my shiny metal ass, Savvy?"
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    48. Re:OMG! by david_g17 · · Score: 1

      Withstand a mine? I bet it's a lot more likely to be hit by RPG's.

    49. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      must be the fault of the united states eh?

    50. Re:OMG! by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      umm I think you should read the GP's post again. . . I don't mean to put words in their mouth, but I think they were saying that it is not possible to patrol the border with human guards which currently leaves land mines as the only alternative. Having these robot sentry guards gives another presumably less evil/underhanded alternative to consider using in the stead of land mines. Please don't be so quick to fly off the handle in the future.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    51. Re:OMG! by mikael · · Score: 1

      Not only Northern Belgium, but France, Holland, Germany, and the UK as well:

      Around 30 people each year are killed due to World War II ordanance (Digging for Battlefield Relics)

      World War II Bomb Explodes on German Motorway

      550 lb Aerial bomb disposed using controlled explosion

      UK's undersea 'ticking timebombs'

      Street evacuated in bomb scare

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    52. Re:OMG! by radtea · · Score: 1


      From the summary: "the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out."

      I wonder where it is taking the target out too? Someplace with really bad food? Is that what the warning is about?

      English has a perfectly good word for "killed". It is: "killed". I strongly encourage everyone to use it. It's so much more honest that way, and so much less prone to moronic glamorization. There is nothing beautiful or glorious about killing.

      From the comment: The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

      Who is Guantanamo being defended from? Human rights activists? People who understand the laws of probability and the rules of evidence?

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    53. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RFID in Passports anyone?

    54. Re:OMG! by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you watch terminator?

      I thought they had developed land mines that could be turned off? Its possible they could give a warning or be removed but what happens if they malfunction or the other side gets control of them? Sometimes high tech just causes the enemy to attack you remotely.

    55. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree -- however, it appears that this Mk 1 version would be very easy to fool. The examples shown seem to just be simple detection of "a person moving". The soldiers make no attempt to hide themselves or create false positives. What if the soliders were camouflaged and also released some form of moving "scarecrows" to confuse the device?


      I was wondering about that. What about thermal imagery with specific algorithms for detection of things like the old space blanket trick?
    56. Re:OMG! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Problem with automated systems is that they can only do what they are programmed to do. Dumb systems make dumb mistakes.

      South Korean scout 1: "Those robot sentries are a mile west of here, right?"
      South Korean scout 2: "Sure, we're safe"
      South Korean scout 1: "Did you just hear someone yell something?"
      *ratta-tat-tat!*

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    57. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there."

      Or we could drop the bogus lease and give Guantanamo back to its rightful owners.

    58. Re:OMG! by thisissilly · · Score: 1

      More like 1/2. We have about 1/2 million Army soldiers on active duty, and another 1/2 million inactive between the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. And that's just the US Army, not the entire US military, which is what many civilians think of when someone says "army".

    59. Re:OMG! by spun · · Score: 1

      There's little difference between an armored vehicle and, say, a fully loaded donkey cart. There's even less difference between an armored vehicle and a tractor. That said, I've heard the Army is developing a bacteria that grows quickly in the presence of explosives and glows in black light. Simply spray some on a suspect field, wait a few days, and you can see the location of not only land mines but other unexploded ordinance.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    60. Re:OMG! by gunnk · · Score: 1

      I believe you are correct that there are mines that "die" after a set time period in order to make them less likely to blow up civilians years later. However, those models cost more -- basic people-killers now cost about $3, so that's what you expect to see manufactured and exported in great numbers.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    61. Re:OMG! by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Buy a few thousand of these for 'inner city urban warfare' er, 'police useage'.

      Been there done that.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    62. Re:OMG! by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Oh it may still trigger it if the weight is high enough, it contains enough metal, etc. It depends on the mine itself. My real point was that if a tank can't handle the blast then a robot probably won't fair too well either. It all depends on circumstances. I just don't think it would be cost effective to try and defeat mines with this robot.

    63. Re:OMG! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.

      Let the SOBs invade, I say. They'll learn that capitalist decadence isn't quite as bad as the propaganda makes it out to be. I bet that if the border were opened, Kim Jong Il would be the guest of honor of a firing party before the year ended.

      -b.

    64. Re:OMG! by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Some of the newer types of land mines can be deactivated. They have a timing mechanism that render them inert, it isn't always as reliable. Some can actually be remote detonated, however the countries that tend to employ mines heavily can't afford them.

      --
      You mad
    65. Re:OMG! by Broken+scope · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The government is the servant of the people.
      The government shall fear the people.
      A government that does not fear the people is a broken one, and it is the right and the DUTY of the people to remove that government, through their vote, or if necessary, through force.
      -me

      --
      You mad
    66. Re:OMG! by Nimey · · Score: 1
      And they have a proven track record of area denial.


      Which is defeated by the Chinese-hordes technique of sending your cannon-fodder troops (or Jews, if you're in the SS) through the minefield first, then having your better troops walk where they did.
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    67. Re:OMG! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed. Land mines have none of these properties.

      Modern land mines have all of these properties. Problem is, most people are still using the antique kind because they're cheaper to make.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:OMG! by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      I don't quite see how you view Guantanamo Bay as illegal. It's been there for over 100 years!

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    69. Re:OMG! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how big it is just from that picture but it's probably not going to be armored very well so any rapid-fire weapon with armor piercing ammunition is going to be a better choice. Like e.g. the 20mm cannon of an IFV, which has the distinct advantage of being mounted on an armored vehicle and thus not affected by the bot.

      It also looks to be an automated turret, not a mobile robot so it'd be vulnerable to any artillery. One air spotter over the area, spot their positions and blow them away before your main troops even come into line of sight. Or hit them with a powerful precision rifle from a range larger than their camera or gun can deal with.

      Maybe even field dummies that the camera will mistake for a human and force the turret to reveal its location (if it's hidden), then blow it to hell with your IFV or gunship.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    70. Re:OMG! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They have a different robot to deal with mines; it's an eight-legged robot loosely based on a spider (very loosely) and you put bamboo poles on the ends of the legs and it walks on those. when they get blown up you just put on a new pole. I think it can walk on five out of eight legs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:OMG! by Miaowara_Tomokato · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mines will get improved for better killing capabability,

      Mines are not designed to kill - they are designed to blow someone's legs off and leave them screaming on the battlefield. Psychological effects aside, this design choice is very economical. Killing a soldier takes one person out of a war. Maiming them takes not only the victim out, but also the one or two soldiers who carry them back, the supplies to transport them to medical facilities, a bed in the hospital, and the time of the medical staff treating them.

      It's the intent to maim bit that caused mines to be banned (plus the fact that no one cleans them up after a conflict).

    72. Re:OMG! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Anti-vehicle mines aren't triggered by people walking over them. they can even be set to ignore light vehicles and only go for the tanks.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    73. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey John Kerry, you can't say I never learned anything in the Army!

    74. Re:OMG! by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

      The legality question has to do with Castro's government. The US pays for the use of Guantanamo Bay, and always has, meaning that it's Cuba's property and we rent it. Castro cashed the first check the US sent him, and the US decided that that meant they were allowed to stay, even though he would really like to evict them.

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    75. Re:OMG! by CK2004PA · · Score: 0

      So the end result is that the tyrant has the people afraid of said tyrant ? So TJ was correct, thanks for playing.

      --
      "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"-Adolf Hitler or George W Bush?
    76. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is what Samsung uses its revenue on, I'm never buying any of their products again. There must be a seperation between consumer and millitary products - not everybody wants to support the creation of killing implements, even if they are more desirable than other killing implements (like mines).

    77. Re:OMG! by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      or just as well use artillery (howitzers, rockets (mlrs type rockets)) or aerial bombing, would I think at the very least be available options. an expendable person steps on a land-mine and blows up that one, but an artillery shell craters a swimming pool sized hole, thats even more mines gone. not to mention that people walking over anti-tank mines wont detonate the mine, but a big boom would, correct?

    78. Re:OMG! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "That does bring up an interesting question - can it withstand a mine blast?"

      Well, considering it is stationary, it would be quite a trick for the enemy to sneak up on it without getting shot, plant a mine UNDER the sentry, and get far enough away that when it detonates, there will be no human injuries. And considering the sentry's ability to track targets at 500 meters, I would think there would be a better way to take these out. That is the biggest problem I can forsee with them being stationary - all you need is some long range artillery to take them out.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    79. Re:OMG! by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended. The numerical superiority means some defenses must be automated, leaving land mines as the only existing technology.

      Mexico's neighbor to the north doesn't have a million people in their army for one, and while the border needs to be defended, who needs land mines when they're building a fence for us? Viva la Mexico!

    80. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I love my country. My government, OTOT, scares me shitless...

      I actually have that license plate frame (I love my country, but fear the government). It's a sad commentary that I, honestly, have never had the balls to mount it on my car. Not because of Homeland Security (though they have visited my house), but because the standard police officer would likely take offense.

      Anonymous Coward

    81. Re:OMG! by AnotherHiggins · · Score: 1
      Which brings us to the three laws of robotics. Isn't the first one supposed to be,

      "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

      I guess that won't exactly apply here.

    82. Re:OMG! by spun · · Score: 1

      Anti-tank mines take either a significant amount of weight or a significant amount of metal to detonate, don't they? Still, this would catch anti-personnel mines and it sounds damn cool to boot. Any videos?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    83. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny but.... a few more years and the US and Mexico can switch places. The US citizens can make Mexico a great place to live and by then all the illegals and anchor baby citizens should be finished turning the old US to shit and can start heading south again.

    84. Re:OMG! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Taking a target out does not necessarily mean killing it, just means wounding/damaging it enough to prevent it from fighting.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    85. Re:OMG! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, now I can't find them. :( there were videos of it walking though. I could swear I found it on here but slashdot's search engine is about as useful as male nipples. Yes, this is for antipersonnel mines, which are much harder to detect than antitank mines (since they're smaller.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    86. Re:OMG! by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1
      I guess that would make it a cross between Bender and Jack Sparrow. "You can kiss my shiny metal ass, Savvy?"
      Best Mental Image Ever.
      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    87. Re:OMG! by Gandul · · Score: 1

      That's probably not a good idea. If you do program the robot to patrol around the mines, it won't take them long to figure out the pattern to walk safely through the mine field (not saying that there is one, but still you don't want to give away the locations of the mines). I know they still have to deal with the robot and that all the noise would basically nullify any attempt to walk south, but why give them any hints?

      Just my $0.02

      G

    88. Re:OMG! by rpbird · · Score: 1

      So we've got battle droids now. When can we expect delivery of the Jedi Knights?

    89. Re:OMG! by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

      Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.

      but auto-target machine guns? i thought bush just wanted to build a fence around canada...

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    90. Re:OMG! by redcane · · Score: 1

      Yes but the government is afraid of the people, so is there liberty? (thanks for playing)

    91. Re:OMG! by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

      and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed.

      ...to be redeployed elsewhere.

      I don't like the precedent. It's one of those "we CAN, but SHOULD we?" questions.

    92. Re:OMG! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I did read the post - you should see from one that I see it as being there for a similar purpose and having similar problems.

    93. Re:OMG! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Try reading my post - I replied to the portion I quoted. The basic assumption was there that land mines are a perfectly valid and excusable way to do things - many nations disagree.

    94. Re:OMG! by orgelspieler · · Score: 1
      Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.

      Ha! I thought you were talking about Canada until I got to your second paragraph. I was thinking, "Geez, I had no idea Canada had such a strong army!"

      I looked it up, and it turns out North Korea has more active troops than Russia (even more than Russia and Canada combined).

    95. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      You took something out of context, and replied only to that. You also applied morality to a sentence which was simply noting a reality, not passing a judgement either way. It's like me saying "Murder is a fact of life that modern nations have to deal with.", to which you reply "Murder is wrong." No kidding, we don't necessarily disagree, and that's not the point. THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY POST WAS THAT NOW WE HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR LANDMINES.

    96. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Ok, then let's look at it point by point.

      So there is no good or evil - just shades of grey

      There's also reality and fantasy. The reality is the most heavily defended and hostile border in the world, and that is not going to change immediately.

      and ample justification for leaving things around to kill any kid that wanders past in fifty years time?

      A sentry gun uses electricity. Presumably you would turn it off when its no longer needed. It's not going to run for 50 years unattended, and probably will only be set to autonomous operation during a crisis. Please tell me how this is not an improvement over land mines in terms of long-term safety?

      It may not be in your backyard now

      The DMZ is not a backyard.

      but remember when the rules and morality are discarded there is little to stop it being in your backyard.

      Morality was discarded because you discarded the rest of my post, which dealt with that. Note for example, the entire second paragraph of my post, which expresses optimism we can maybe use this to expand the land-mine banning treaty.

      We have enough problems now from people building on old artillery ranges

      Machine gun bullets are not explosive. It would be no more dangerous than an old US civil war battlefield.

      how do you think it will be when you have places that have been mined to prevent the threat of terrorism on your own soil get used for different purposes?

      I thought you claimed to be talking about the "similar problems" that a sentry gun has compared to a land mine? Why would it be the least bit difficult to turn off and remove a sentry gun?

      Reality dictates defense of hostile borders. As I pointed out in the original post: Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. Wish as we might, the reality is that we don't (yet) live in that world. So, if the choice is between land mines and an automated sentry gun, the latter has many advantages. Feel free to disagree.

    97. Re:OMG! by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Yep you are right. The stats I dug up a while ago were incorrect. Maybe it only counted deployed troops (which would still be incorrect). I wouldn't count reserves however, as some countries maintain practically their entire male population as reserves (Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, Singapore). The US reserves aren't that large in comparison.

    98. Re:OMG! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      design choice is very economical

      Thank you for teaching me a lesson. This is even worse than I was able to imagine. Clearly, there is a need for an interstellar highway.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    99. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It could get worse though if some off-shore programmer detects a way to detect U.S. citizens.

      RFID in US Passports, RFID in US money. Of all the tourists, the US are the loudest. As someone else has already said, "BMI". Americans are easy pickin'!
    100. Re:OMG! by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.

      Oddly enough, these weapons are of little benefit to South Korea, but hugely beneficial to North Korea. These sentry guns won't stop a real military mobilization--it's simply not enough firepower. What it will stop is single individuals who try to run across the DMZ. One of the most telling facts about the situation in North Korea is the fact that, while there are guards on either side of the DMZ, the American guards stand facing the North Korean guards, while the North Korean guards stand facing eachother. Each North Korean guard is instructed to shoot the other if he tries to defect. (saw it on the History Channel, so it must be true.)

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
  2. We're Winning Again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess after a half-century mediation by America and China, the Korean Peninsula conflict has degenerated into the Crazy Olympics.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:We're Winning Again by novus+ordo · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is the Korea that we had no exit strategy for...

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    2. Re:We're Winning Again by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Maybe everyone should play Counter-Strike instead?

    3. Re:We're Winning Again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're confusing Korea and Vietnam. We had an exit strategy in Korea: Blaze a trail into the north and take it over. Just because the war ended in a stalemate and peace treaty doesn't mean that we weren't fighting to win.

      Now Vietnam on the other hand...

    4. Re:We're Winning Again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      s/peace treaty/cease fire/g

      Sorry, it's getting late.

    5. Re:We're Winning Again by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because the war ended

      The war didn't end. That requires a surrender or peace treaty.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:We're Winning Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."

      Douglas MacArthur

    7. Re:We're Winning Again by grazzy · · Score: 1

      Unfair. The NK's only have one cybercafe whereas SKs have 1 per 10 inhabitants :p

    8. Re:We're Winning Again by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      degenerated into the Crazy Olympics

      Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"

      It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea all the way.

      North Korea has the:
      Gold
      Silver
      Bronze
      Runner Up
      and "Miss Congeniality"

      With the recently added events, they could be in an even better medal position next year.

      I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:We're Winning Again by Total_Wimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not exactly true. There's a defacto end to the war, much like people living together can get common law marriages and how Isreal is a real country regardless of the fact that most of the middle east doesn't recognize them. If you wait long enough in international politics, things are just accepted as fact. The war is over.

      TW

    10. Re:We're Winning Again by recordMyRides · · Score: 1

      Or "BattleBots"

    11. Re:We're Winning Again by addie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mediation? Excuse me?

      To begin with, if it weren't for China, the Soviets, Japan, and America, the Korean peninsula would be doing just fine thank you. Koreans would be united as they have been on and off for their 5000 years of history, despite repeated invasions and attempted cultural genocide. To suggest that China and the USA have somehow being "mediating" a domestic dispute between the Korean peoples is ignorant. Korea is a strategic plaything for the powerhouses of the east, and America. The South Korean people have every wish to be united with the DPRK in due time, and the last thing they want is another war, or to intensify the tension that already exists. They consider the North Korean people their brothers and sisters. My supervisor at work cannot visit her grandfather's grave because it is just across the border.

      If you want to talk Crazy Olympics, look to the resolution strategies of WWII and ask how we came to be in this situation in the first place. Why do I feel so strongly about this? I live thirty minutes from the DMZ. Criticize the problems in your own backyard before you come knocking over here.

    12. Re:We're Winning Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except in this case there isn't peace since both troops at the border have order to shoot if anybody enter the DMZ. If there were peace you wouldn't have a dmz or those order you would have border guards and negociation if someone would trespass.

    13. Re:We're Winning Again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Those Soviet Olympic training programs have clearly paid off. The People can be very proud. South Korea has a firm grasp on "Honorable Mention", though.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:We're Winning Again by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea all the way.

      All the more reason to open the border. I bet the invaders^H refugees will be enjoying the capitalist decadance of the South within a few weeks. In less than a year, I suspect that Kim Jong Il would be suffering from acute and irreversible lead poisoning.

      -b.

    15. Re:We're Winning Again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your entry.

      "If it weren't for China, the Soviets, Japan..." Before you even get to "America", your hypothetical is pure dreamworld. How about "if Koreans had sailed for California in 1200, their global empire would still rule the world"?

      I didn't say that the Korean civil war was the fault of the Koreans, or anyone else. But I will certainly insist on my right to describe the 40,000 US troops, who've kept that DMZ (and most of South Korea) demilitarized, instead of overrun by Korean "Communists", as "mediating". That doesn't mean the mediation was done well, or that military mediation was more sustainable than diplomatic. It doesn't mean the US hasn't avoided integration and reconciliation in favor of perpetuating its role and its forward basing troops that close to China, Russia, and the rest of Asia/Pacific. It doesn't mean anything but what I said: the US has mediated the Korean conflict.

      The most common mediation is between conflicting family members - literal family members.

      So yeah, I'm talking about the Crazy Olympics. I said that "we", the US side, is winning the Crazy Olympics. That makes us crazier.

      I understand that you feel strongly. I lived with a roommate who had just been demobilized from a duty tour inside the DMZ. He was nuts, and I learned all kinds of ways that the US mediation drives everyone insane. So I'm prepared to hear your anxiety and anger. But that doesn't mean I have to accept you getting my post completely wrong, since we agree about the historical, strategic, diplomatic and human problems with the American "solution" that's kept everyone stuck in a war there for over a half-century.

      Sorry, you're just going to have to try just a little harder to win the gold in this event.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:We're Winning Again by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      I was in the army guarding the east/west German border from '85 to '87. We had a DMZ, we were armed to the teeth, and, yes, we were authorized to shoot to kill.

      There was not only no war, but technically they never had a war in their entire existence.

      TW

    17. Re:We're Winning Again by igny · · Score: 1

      There is no peace treaty between Russia and Japan.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    18. Re:We're Winning Again by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Whereas, the two Koreas have a history of armed conflict and rather heavy fortification. Was half the soviet army sitting on the other side of the wall? Because that's how NK behaves.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    19. Re:We're Winning Again by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      They may still hate their guts, but no one has done a bombing raid in about 50 years. The UN, US and SK all have diplomatic relations with NK. Things may be very chilly, especially after this nuke issue, but calling a disagreement that hasn't produced a battle in 50 years a war is very much stretching the term.

      No treaty doesn't equal war. It equals no treaty. If you sock me in the jaw and then I don't see you for 50 years, we are most certainly not still in a fight just because we didn't shake hands afterwards.

      TW

    20. Re:We're Winning Again by addie · · Score: 1

      After reading your response, it's clear I misinterpreted your original post. I assumed you meant that it was the Koreans themselves who were engaging in this "crazy" war, and somehow the world powers were rational in their response. Obviously you meant otherwise, so I apologize for my inflammatory comments. However I do question your choice of the word "mediating" as the word itself implies America and China are neutral factions, which I think we agree they obviously aren't. I'd be more comfortable with saying "the US has prevented further escalation of the Korean conflict."

      Semantic disagreements aside, thanks for adding to the actual discussion around this article, as opposed to making Robocop jokes.

    21. Re:We're Winning Again by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I figured we're on the same page about Korea. I just don't believe that mediators are automatically neutral, especially in politics/war.

      I do think that the US remaining in Korea while negotiating all kinds of other drawdowns from the mid-1950s Cold War stalemates shows at least equal interest in US politicians and military in staying there. Among the various other geopolitics, some of which you and I mentioned, I believe that Bush wants a nuke missle armed N Korea to justify Bush's biggest project since he first took office: Star Wars missile defense.

      I prefer no nukes, democratic unification, feeding Koreans, return of US troops. And I think Japan (as well as practically all Koreans, of course) wants that, too. But I fault Japan for not leveraging its 1980s power to help move in that direction. Instead, Japan has let both N Korea and the US work against Japanese and mutual regional interests in peace and prosperity.

      If there's a robocop here, it's the US. Not the one played by Peter Weller, but the bezerk automaton that the cyborg eventually trashed. I think of myself as more like Weller ;).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:We're Winning Again by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Japan surrendered to us unconditionally and we were allies. Does that count as the end of a war?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:We're Winning Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.

      Don't do anything but good?

    24. Re:We're Winning Again by thedeviluknow · · Score: 1

      Different war I think dude, unless you're Russian and I am completely unaware of this aspect of the history.

    25. Re:We're Winning Again by thedeviluknow · · Score: 1

      Dude! Well said! that's all I wanted to say except of course to wish you a good day/night etc. :)

    26. Re:We're Winning Again by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      We were allied with Russia in WW2 - we nuked Japan in part so that they'd surrender before stalin got to them and claimed it as he did eastern europe.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    27. Re:We're Winning Again by thedeviluknow · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly whereas i believe the oroginal poster was referring to the Russo-Japanese war which was never officially ended though WWII effectively did so since it occured afterwards. but that's bedide the point. :)

  3. Overpriced and vulnerable by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'
    It does not appear to have the capacity to tell the difference between an unarmed intruder and a heavily armed one, so defeating it is not hard: Approach it with some kind of heavier firepower, and while it talks, you blow it away.

    And 200K? For 200 I could do the same thing: a home-depot motion sensor, a voice chip with loudspeaker, and a handful of fertilizer/oil land mines.

    1. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by NinjaFarmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

    2. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea.

      More research needs to be done. A head shot would be perfect, a nut shot might be funny, and capping the knees is acceptable. But don't shoot the poor soldier in the foot since that would be inhumane. So many ways to kill...

    3. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'"

      ...are not required. The DMZ does not have people wandering around the undergrowth, even with human gaurds you will be shot (armed or otherwise). All it needs to sense is a warm object.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'

      An algorithm that the human brain fails to process with 100% accuracy.

    5. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by freemywrld · · Score: 1, Troll

      And armies across the globe suddenly shrank by 59%.

    6. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by muszek · · Score: 1

      41% has broken triggers?

    7. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by msromike · · Score: 1

      Of course it would not be able to destroy enemy armor. It would do quite well against a North Korean spec ops soldier in the DMZ. They tend to travel very light and it is doubtful that the average infantry soldier would be armed to decisively defeat the robot.

      Your land mines would not control terrain as effectively as half a dozen of these robots on high ground defending a 500 yard choke point. I would venture to say they would definitely ruin the day of a light infantry squad. At the very least this weapon will slow someone WAY down, thus giving time to employ other weapon systems on the target. Why couldn't this unit be modified to call in artillery if the attacking force appeared to be overwhelming? It could upload the fire mission to guns that can also fire with a minimum of manual intervention. It's all about not exposing your soldiers to enemy fire.

      Like it or not this is just the beginning of these type of systems. It sure beats laying prone in the rock hard frozen dirt at 0200 in the DMZ in January, listening to North Korean loud speakers trying to put you to sleep playing shitty classical music.

    8. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'
      The very nature of the DMZ makes those decisions already. It's essentially the no man's land between two fortified lines of troops. With the exception of the weird-ass tourist spot in the center where there's a building with a table inside and a line drawn exactly down the middle (where the cease-fire was signed), walking around in the DMZ will generally get you shot by a person already
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by servognome · · Score: 2, Funny
      With the exception of the weird-ass tourist spot in the center where there's a building with a table inside and a line drawn exactly down the middle (where the cease-fire was signed)

      Gives new meaning to the term "Tourist Trap"
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    10. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, this would destroy one of the cool developments in the DMZ: a refuge for wild animals. Occasionally, they seem to lose some animals to tripwires and landmines, but nothing too much. This stuff would just mean that the DMZ would become a dead zone. I hope that the pattern recognition they use can actually distinguish a crane from a human (and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      John Kerry? YOU read slashdot?!

    12. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. Now you've disproportionately favored primitive countries that overbreed men over technologically advanced countries that need this kind of advantage.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    13. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Wait.. you're calling 200k cheap? This is a weapon with the government as a prospective buyer. I was under the impression that the government never bought weapons that cost less than a million dollars..

    14. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'

      Particularly if, say, someone wants to defeat the pattern recognition and grabs a 55-gallon galvanized steel trashcan, puts it over their head, and walks around like that. How hard is to make this thing not recognize your shape as human? If the trashcan over my head doesn't do it, what if I add an aluminum foil hoop skirt?

    15. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by ndogg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that's it. From now on, all wars will be fought in the name of the funny. Only nut shots will be allowed.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    16. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      this is absolutely everything we could salvage from the APC wreckage...

    17. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by blincoln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I assume it's just using motion detection. The video looks like a more advanced version of the homebrew airsoft sentry gun that a hobbyist put together last year (I'd post a link, but he took down the site and replaced it with a page implying he was taking it commercial).

      Basically what his software did was compare the previous frame and the current one, then draw a bounding box around things that had changed. That's all this system appears to be doing, except instead of aiming for the center of the box, it is estimating where the target's head is.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    18. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by blackcoot · · Score: 2, Informative

      depends on the optics.

      optics for ir sensors are incredibly expensive — the gimbal mounted color + mwir or lwir pan/tilt/zoom units that get mounted on military jets cost on the order of $200k a pop, with about $50k going to the gimbal mount and $50k+ going to the insanely huge and incredibly lenses (regular glass is opaque in the mid-wave and long-wave ir bands, i.e. the "useful" bands so i believe that they use gallium instead). add on another $20k odd for controllable optics and a large sensor which is cryogenically cooled. that right there accounts for more than half the cost of the robot. embedded electronics will run another $5-10k at a minimum, which leaves really not that much for an industrial robot. all things considered, i'm surprised that it's as cheap as it is.

    19. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Columcille · · Score: 1

      There could be some wisdom in that. If only those shots were allowed, there would be far fewer wars.

      --
      I love my sig.
    20. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I hope that the pattern recognition they use can actually distinguish a crane from a human

      Any home-alarm IR sensor worth it's salt can discriminate between a dog and a human.

      (and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).

      Humans have a lot more mass than cranes do.


      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    21. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Calinous · · Score: 1

      It is enough to scare the wild life and allow them a bit of time to run away - you know, scared wildlife runs fast

    22. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      Basically what his software did was compare the previous frame and the current one, then draw a bounding box around things that had changed. That's all this system appears to be doing, except instead of aiming for the center of the box, it is estimating where the target's head is.

      Darn, then I will have to add to the cost of my solution a little bit. I will now need to buy a broom and some duct tape and duct tape the broom to the trashcan, giving myself a new "head" that is conveniently about 3 feet above my own real head. :-)

    23. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      And women will take over the World. :D

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    24. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Your land mines would not control terrain as effectively as half a dozen of these robots on high ground defending a 500 yard choke point.

      One tiny little robot with a tiny little gun to defend 83.33 yards? I call BS on that.

      Now, if you upsize these puppies, slap in an M-2, 60mm mortar tube, AT4 launcher and oodles of ammunition in them plus sufficient armor to protect it from an RPG7, and program in basic tactics like cooperation and converging fields of fire, and then you've got a sentry robot to be proud of.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    25. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      ...are not required. The DMZ does not have people wandering around the undergrowth, even with human gaurds you will be shot (armed or otherwise). All it needs to sense is a warm object.

      Oh yeah? That's not the way it was in JSA (Joint Security Area) and movies are always accurate!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    26. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by foobsr · · Score: 1

      It's all about not exposing your soldiers to enemy fire.

      Though I am a completely different mind than you are, I rate the analyses you give rather precise. I am just wondering how you came to your position, no insult intended, sir. No, this is not meant cynical. I truly believe that you, as it sounds, will become a good instrument within the war business, again, not cynical, just a thing to think about.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    27. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

      I think that'd end up banning pretty much any sort of guided missile or bomb.

    28. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by mikek3332002 · · Score: 1

      and Imagine the bitchiness, backstabbing, catfighting and misliding orders (eg Can we nuke them? Can you take out the garbarge)

    29. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Davey+K · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if the enemy was dressed as a pantomime horse?

    30. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by GORby_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've obviously never seen a scared turtle...

    31. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by vhogemann · · Score: 1

      Well, just put non-lethal ammo on this thing.

      If it fires at you by accident, you'll end with a few bruises and tearing eyes, nothing more. It can be useful to protect borders, and other large areas that demand lots of people to patrol.

      It doesn't have to kill people to keep them away.

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
    32. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      You are Ned Kelly AICMFP.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    33. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by itwerx · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's with all this talk about humans and wild animals and newfangled killer robots and stuff in the DMZ?!?
            I remember the days when all we had in our DMZ was servers, and we liked it that way!
            Kids these days...

    34. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... or hidden inside a giant wooden badger?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    35. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by LQ · · Score: 1

      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.
      Such naïve belief in human nature is just so sweet.

    36. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

      Why go for half measures? Why not just ban war by treaty? Its been done before, and would be at least as effective as what you suggest. I think it would also be much easier to reach agreement on simply banning war since it could be done on simple principle. Your proposal would require all manner of messy discussions about different type of weapons, their munitions, and variations. If you have having that discussion you might have to include some types of obstacles too, since some of them are dangerous and can kill passively. You are better off just banning war since that means that tiny little countries are safe from big, aggressive neighbors. Under your proposal, the tiny countries would be stripped of many useful defensive weapons that can act as combat multipliers to help defend them from a much bigger attacker. That would leave them vulnerable to being easily conquered, and who wants that?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    37. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

      So much for the Joint Chiefs...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    38. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      And women will take over the World. :D

      And this would be bad how??

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    39. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't do much good since neither the US nor the "Bad Guys(TM)" would sign it.
      Just take a look at the land-mine ban.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    40. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by j.a.mcguire · · Score: 1

      Yeah the LAPD for example have really got the cognitive process buttoned down. Is this a...BANG BANG BANG.

    41. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The DMZ is chock full of bobby traps and mines and is the deadly place on the planet, for a human. The flourishing wildlife of the DMZ demonstrates how deadly humans are to the environment. Note that they can only be planted along the border, unless you are willing to risk entering the DMZ? The critters will soon learn to run.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    42. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think everyone is missing the point. While most modern weaponry has some degree of automation, the actual decision to fire at a target is still made by a human being. These things cannot make the distinction between a civilian and a soldier yet can be in control of the decision making process that will lead to the trigger being pulled. Thats the problem.

      A state of the art missile will be computing all by itself when it's on its way to the target, but the actual choice to launch that missile at which target is still made by a trained soldier who has (hopefully) already thought of all his available options and the consequences of his actions.

      Sure, they're going to be deployed in the DMZ and there isn't anyone milling about in it but I couldn't imagine the business plan stopping there. It isn't hard to imagine that in a different circumstance such as Iraq that an unfortunate turn of events or a poor deployment could result in a massacre. The comparison to land-mines is an apt one because, even though these things won't persist on the battlefield, modern war is fought in the middle of cities or refugee camps, and I can already imagine Israel buying a bunch to protect their settlements and to police Gaza.

    43. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Calinous · · Score: 1

      I haven't been able to scare one :)

    44. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I the US army is struggling generally with the "Is this person/object an enemy" one.

    45. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business being the operative woird.

    46. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is weird. Take a century.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    47. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by will_die · · Score: 1

      Why go the long messy way, there is a simple way to implement this that would work.

      First part is to ensure that all countries keep up military spending and personnel at the same level; this is to ensure that some aggressive force can be handled. Now the second and most important part is to put all theses forces under my direct and ultimate control.
      No more discussions, wasting time on what should be done, and no worries about little countries being taken over(why would I need too).

    48. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by UncleFluffy · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be perfect for the first three weeks...

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    49. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by v1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You would be amazed what alarms a cat can trip off when they enter "neurotic mode". My cat has repeatedly tripped off a "pet proof" system of dual motion sensors with "pet guard" features. The IR requires a body mass larger than a large dog to trip and the radar is aimed at the 4 ft level and above, both must trip at the same time to trigger the alarm. I'd love to be in the house to see what he's doing to trigger it. Nearest I can figure is he's either flying several feet off the floor while turning corners or is throwing things at the sensors.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    50. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by norman619 · · Score: 1

      There is a brian attached to this wep. It's a CPU driven by an AI. You deploy these things where you knwo the only people that will be walking into it's range are the enemy. I see no problem with this. I think it's funny that some people have a fear of a wep you can't try to reason into not killing you. Stay away from the thing you and will be fine. :-)

    51. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by lc_overlord · · Score: 1

      The interesting part of this story is that this is only like the third sentry gun developed.
      The first one is a toy that can with some effort, duct tape and a m4 be made into a real one.
      The second one was made by a teenager using only a few pieces of wood, 3 servos, a webcam, a laptop and a p90 soft air gun (and it's not unlikely that it can use a real one).
      So if they are going to invent something new it better have legs and it better be 60 feet tall carrying a big gun.

      --
      - "There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem"
    52. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handful of fertilizer ?
          Argh ! War *is* a dirty business !

    53. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by internewt · · Score: 1

      No, the cat is behaving normally. You bought snake oil ;)

      Of course it's possible the cat is having a snooze somewhere warm, like a server or comms room (this is /. after all) or in the sunshine, then moving around in the house and its fur may be holding a lot of heat - enough to trigger the system?

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    54. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Gulik · · Score: 1

      ...(and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).

      I am now picturing a terrified North Korean soldier, on stilts, with a big orange cone strapped to his face, being shooed into the DMZ by his superiors as a test of the new systems' pattern recognition ability.

    55. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Korea's solution in this new fad of becoming carbon neutral - just eliminate some random carbon producing lifeforms.

    56. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by zacronos · · Score: 1
      It does not appear to have the capacity to tell the difference between an unarmed intruder and a heavily armed one, so defeating it is not hard: Approach it with some kind of heavier firepower, and while it talks, you blow it away.

      I really doubt it is as simple as that. You just need multiple heuristics to trigger it to fire. As long as it has decent accuracy at a pretty good range, heavy armor, and short reaction time, what do you think about these rules?
      • When something that might be a threat (including any human) approaches to within X meters, initiate audible warnings.
      • If a possible threat remains within X meters for N seconds, begin firing.
      • If a possible threat approaches to within Y meters, begin firing immediately.
      If necessary, you could also throw in another rule:
      • If something approaches to within X meters while traveling faster than Z km/hr, begin firing immediately.
      This set of rules makes it unnecessary for it to distinguish between heavily armed and unarmed intruders, as long as the values of the variables are appropriate. There might be some holes in my logic, but even so I doubt it would be hard to add a couple rules that would make trying to walk up to it and "blow it away" a quick recipe for death.
    57. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by vertinox · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to kill people to keep them away.

      Unfortunately, the only type of people that are crossing the DMZ from the north are heavily armed special forces types and would be able to find work around to non-lethal solutions.

      These people have been known to kidnap South Korean citizens and do various other things...

      And they have no intention of letting any civilians go into the south if they can help it.

      Unless of course... They want to test the sentry gun with political prisoners.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    58. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that in the video all of the human subjects are "creeping" instead of running, which makes their recognition software look more effective than it probably is.

      This would be a much more effective on a mobile platform. Once the positions are known it would be easy to defeat any static defenses.

    59. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Some of the best advancements in technology have come out of military projects like this. I say, give the military a shot at pattern recognition (AI). Do you have any real evidence that this will cause more "accidental" deaths than land mines and meat-heads with rifles?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    60. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I go swimming in the lake, the water is so coooooolllddd there...

      Ohhh... you meant a REAL turtle :|

      Nothing to see here, move along :|

    61. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

      You could just ban war, but if I recall correctly the US is currently not in a war in Iraq...

    62. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      A scared turtle can swim 22 mph. That's way faster than I can swim.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    63. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      FYI - Just in case you have one particular meaning in mind. (It is sometimes hard to tell in written communication.)

      For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.-- FISA vs. the Constitution


      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    64. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I was not aware of the different meanings. I hope someone mods you informative.

    65. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, everybody always expected the killer bots at DMZ, that's why you have a firewall!

    66. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Dan+Morenus · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else notice that the "targets" walked around with their arms clamped to their sides? I suspect the prototype has some *serious* recognition issues.

      --
      -- Conserve binary trees; recycle your email. --
    67. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose you blamed the cat for the missing TV?

    68. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Penny-Arcade.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    69. Re:Overpriced and vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, your cat has invented rocket boots! That would explain both the large heat signature and being at least 4 feet off the ground.

  4. I For One... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am tired of the same old joke.

  5. Too easy by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

    I for one...oh never mind, it's way too easy...

    Anyone else find the wording amusing? "The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot." So either they get Microsoft Sam telling them to put their hands in the air or shot by someone who's played too much CS...

    What happens when one of these things is hacked so that it begins firing randomly at x time though? That seems to me like it would be a likely, and dangerous, problem. One spy in your maintenance department and your army is gone.

    Honestly this article is just scary, and I would elaborate if I wasn't half asleep...

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  6. Insert... by Somatic · · Score: 1
    Insert

    [Terminator]
    [Robocop]
    [Starcraft]
    [random sci fi movie]

    joke here.

    --
    My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
    1. Re:Insert... by ByTor-2112 · · Score: 1

      Actually I was going to say that they need to develop a sensor for distinguishing humans from bipedal xenomorphs with acid for blood, for deployment by the Colonial Marines!

    2. Re:Insert... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Within the sitetuaitonal context, you missed [overlords] :)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:Insert... by BobSutan · · Score: 2, Funny

      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
      Guy: But, but, but....
      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
      Guy: Please, I put it down already. Don't shoot!
      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.

      Guy: ...
      E.D.-209: Thank you for your compliance.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    4. Re:Insert... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you left out Aliens (TV version).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Insert... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our machinegun toting metal aimbot overlords!

    6. Re:Insert... by lumber_13 · · Score: 0

      OK here it is corrcted: Welcome to our south korian man killing robotic machine gunning Overlords

    7. Re:Insert... by Somatic · · Score: 2, Funny
      I can't believe you left out Aliens (TV version)

      That was covered by Starcraft, which ripped off Aliens.

      --
      My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
    8. Re:Insert... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      corrcted

      You just shot the "e" by mistake. Not a big problem, it is a quite redundAnt letter (at least with regard to western languages). OH, WAIT, ANOTHER ONE: korian. Now this is a case of friendly fire. You did not qualify.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    9. Re:Insert... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      There's a bug in your lame joke: the ED-209 actually counted down rather than just saying "you have twenty seconds" all of the time.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    10. Re:Insert... by Stinky+Fartface · · Score: 1

      you forgot... Halflife

  7. Kotor by chanrobi · · Score: 1

    HK: Observation: I believe a good blast to the head should do it. May I master?

  8. I, for one ,welcome our new full-auto Robot Overlo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rds

  9. Cylon, Inc. by Tod+DeBie · · Score: 1
    No three laws here...
    This seems like a really bad idea. Autonomously operating computers with guns? I wonder what kind of UAT they put that through...

    Next thing you know, the company that makes them will be bought out by Cylon, Inc.

    I for one welcome our...

  10. I WANT ONE! by the_hoser · · Score: 5, Funny

    This thing would pwn jehova's witnesses!

    1. Re:I WANT ONE! by Karloskar · · Score: 2, Informative

      How on earth can parent be moderated funny!? Murdering people because of their religious beliefs? That's way uncool.

    2. Re:I WANT ONE! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      That's way uncool.

      Browsing through BBC news each day, it seems way cool these days. </cynical>

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:I WANT ONE! by Who235 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Murdering people because of their religious beliefs? That's way uncool.


      Wrong.

      It's not because of their religious beliefs.
      It's the door-knocking and the self-righteous proselytizing that get them to the front of the line for ED-209 testing.
      I assure you, when I want to be a part of someone's religion, I'll find them. I don't need a herd of intrusive leaflet pushers to steer me in the "right" direction.
    4. Re:I WANT ONE! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's not talking about murdering people because of their religious beliefs. He's talking about murdering people because they come to your home, annoy the living shit out of you, won't take no for an answer, and occasionally shout threats at your children (true story.) While murder may be a little harsh for such an offense, I don't think there's anyone who hasn't been bothered by these nutcases who hasn't felt the urge now and then.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:I WANT ONE! by the_hoser · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting murdering them because of their religious beliefs, I'm suggesting murdering them because they keep interrupting me while I enjoy my weekend. It's not a matter of "Sorry, not interested." I've found the only way to get them to leave lately is to threaten to call the cops.

    6. Re:I WANT ONE! by reanjr · · Score: 1

      My roommate came up with an effective method last week:

      "No one's home. It's just an iluuuuusion!!"

    7. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zo3sHPHBYg

    8. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try working the graveyard shift then being woken up by these bastards. Religion has nothing to do with it.

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    9. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you have been inconvinienced in the past, if you leave a small note/sign stating that you are a "day sleeper" or the like, I think that they will at least make an effort not to wake you. It is quite likely that they will try to find a time that you are lucid enought to chat a bit though. Again, I am truely sorry for any inconvinience that you have suffered in the past.

    10. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it's not murdering people for their beliefs, it's murdering people for trespassing on your property and trying to force said beliefs on you.

    11. Re:I WANT ONE! by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      I personally prefer yelling:

      Hang on a moment, we just need to get the blood from the sacrificial chicken.

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    12. Re:I WANT ONE! by X-treme-LLama · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've just always answered the door naked. Usually works just fine. Then again I'm not female. I suspect that would backfire. Walking around, knocking on doors all day for a religion everyone mocks probably leads to pent up sexual frustration.

    13. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I left a sign out saying "I work nights, please don't rob me at night when I'm not home." I came home to the JWs trying to convert the burglars. I had them all thrown in jail for trespassing.

    14. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot: itsnotatrap

    15. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently got a pamphlet from a JW: "The End of False Religion Is Near!" Finally!

      You should be sorry, but I'll believe you're sorry if JWs stop going door-to-door. Failing that, hopefully you'll suffer some shame and embarrassment extreme enough to make you disabuse yourself of your delusions.

    16. Re:I WANT ONE! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      How on earth can parent be moderated funny!? Murdering people because of their religious beliefs? That's way uncool.

      Then tell 'em to stay off my goddamned lawn.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    17. Re:I WANT ONE! by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I think the JWs get a bit of a bad rep; they're not scary like scientology or violent like certain adherents of certain other religions. When they knock on my door, I ask them if they'd like to switch to my religion (The Church of The Holy ettlz) instead.

      JW. [Blah, blah, blah, benefits, regular magazine for members etc.] 140,000 true believers will ascend to Heaven and reign along side God.
      THe. And how many Jehovah's Witnesses are there in the world?
      JW. Over six million.
      THe. See a problem there?
      JW. Oh shit.

      We're currently running a special offer for converts: we guarantee to undercut whatever percentage of annual income you are currently paying.

    18. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I modded it funny and happen to BE a Jehovah's Witness. I'm rather sure that my friends and I would have eventually said it, as we often joke like this. That's not to say that we take our service lightly, but we are a happy people and yes, we tell jokes, too.

      If I were to mod it down, knowing full well that it is a funny comment even though it targets me, then the mod system would have failed at that moment. It's funny, not like someone making a racial slur joke.

    19. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the door-knocking and the self-righteous proselytizing that get them to the front of the line for ED-209 testing.

      Dude, if you don't want any peppermint patties, just say no to the nice Girl Scouts and send them on their way. No need for chainguns.

    20. Re:I WANT ONE! by v1 · · Score: 1

      Check your history book. You'll find what, more than 70% of wars are fought over religion. It's the most popular reason to kill. Only recently has man learned to use politics as a better excuse to kill each other.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    21. Re:I WANT ONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the OCP has improved the ED-209 because there seems to be some glitches.

    22. Re:I WANT ONE! by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      Well, some years ago when i had the time for it i would actually let the jehovah whitnesses in and engage in logical discussions with them.

      It was majorly entertaining: faith in any deity (or phanteon) is impossible to prove by logic - you either have it or not - so i was guaranteed a win ;)

      Unfortunatly the quality of them varied a lot, from the salesman type of person that could actually engage in a (somewhat) logical discussion (always using circular logic) to the pitifull pair of old ladies i once got on my door and which had only one argument "It says so on the Bible".

      Unfortunatly, after doing this 4 or 5 times they stopped coming to my door. I guess in their Jehovah Witnesses Headquarters they added my address to a black list under the title "Hard-core non-believer, keep away".

    23. Re:I WANT ONE! by 1800maxim · · Score: 0, Troll

      As far as converting to your religion... It's a very valid question to ask, but you obviously don't believe/favour or are not devoted to your faith as much as they are. So why bother converting to something that you personally are not very devoted to?

      How is that? You are devoted? Well, in that case, when you come knocking on doors, then it might be a good idea to listen to you at least - maybe you do have something worthwhile to say if you took the trouble to come to my door.

      You obviously had never chatted with them about 144000 that is spoken of in the book of revelation, nor about their 6 million + members. Even in your own sentence "reign" means reigning over something or someone. Think about that.

    24. Re:I WANT ONE! by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, it isn't headquarters that says "no no, don't go there," it's the local church. They eventually stopped sending most of the missionaries to my house, but there is one veeeeery persistent woman in her early twenties who keeps trying, because the conversation is so good. If she gets a question she can't answer, she goes to the Watchtower Tract and Bible Company (the prophet of the JWs, as far as I know) and gets an answer.

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    25. Re:I WANT ONE! by Creedo · · Score: 1

      more than 70% of wars are fought over religion

      No, pretty much all major wars were fought for control of territories and resources. Religion does make a nice pretext, though.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    26. Re:I WANT ONE! by E++99 · · Score: 1
      faith in any deity (or phanteon) is impossible to prove by logic - you either have it or not - so i was guaranteed a win ;)

      What is "a win"? That you would successfully convince yourself of your arguments? That's not much of a win. Thay you would convince them? Then I doubt you won. That you would be more correct than them? To be guaranteed of that, you would have to live in a universe where the full nature of reality could be proven by logic alone, which you do not.
  11. Lets just hope... by shadwwulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    it doesn't like to hunt for it's own bacon.

    1. Re:Lets just hope... by edwardpickman · · Score: 1
      it doesn't like to hunt for it's own bacon.

      I found the name Long Pig Blaster an unfortunate name.

    2. Re:Lets just hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has got to be the funniest post I've ever seen!

    3. Re:Lets just hope... by bingoathome · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a reference to the long pig of PNG

  12. If I buy one of these contraptions... by toadlife · · Score: 2

    ...can I program it to say "Get off my lawn!"

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    1. Re:If I buy one of these contraptions... by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1
      ...can I program it to say "Get off my lawn!"
      While cooling off, I assume?
      --
      News for merdes. Shit that matters.
      Ask me about my sig.
    2. Re:If I buy one of these contraptions... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >airborne pain killer delivery system.
      You want that combined with Hewy or Dewy from Silent Running so it can tend the lawn then blow away anyone that steps on it. Man, that was a sad film, makes me blub every time I see it. Ahem.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  13. Polite Warning! by DuranDuran · · Score: 2, Funny

    > politely issue a warning before taking the target out

    I could have given them some to use:
    "Dead or alive, you're coming with me!"
    "Your move, creep!"
    "Stay out of trouble!"

    And the list goes on.

    But knowing them, I bet they'll just go with "You have 20 seconds to comply".

    --
    "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Polite Warning! by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' And to tell you the truth, I've deleted that information in all the excitement. But being as this is a 5.5 caliber machine gun, a reasonably priced weapon for developing nations, and has nigh infinite ammo, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, PUNK?"

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:Polite Warning! by scoot80 · · Score: 0

      LOL. can someone moderate parent funny.

    3. Re:Polite Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add a couple of legs to it, position it outside the white house, and then tell robocop to take out the bad guys. Yeah, I would say that it is the movie all over again.

    4. Re:Polite Warning! by mibus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or, NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!

    5. Re:Polite Warning! by LordEd · · Score: 5, Funny

      It looks like you are entering my firing range. Would you like help with this feature?

    6. Re:Polite Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happens if you are deaf?

    7. Re:Polite Warning! by isotope23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come On, you KNOW the warning should be:

      "Where Do YOU want to go today? (punk)"

      Cause you know it runs windows (with dual AK-47 processors no less).

      --
      Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    8. Re:Polite Warning! by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      fire 5 feet in front of them in the dirt? or 2 feet over their head- close enough to hear the bullet whiz by.

    9. Re:Polite Warning! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      fireing warning shots are for the movies. In real life the bullet would follow it trajectory path and hit somthing else. You need to control what it is hitting with reletive acuracy. Hitting the ground in front of the perp could cause a ricochete and effectivly make the non lethal display of force highly lethal. And possibly lethal to an unintended target.

      You just don't "play" with "guns and people". If you shoot one at a person, you better be aiming for him/her. Your likley to be in just as much trouble either way. There is no "do overs" once a person is killed. At least try to make sure your intending to "kill them" and that you are reasonable shure you are "aiming for them" and not someone walking to the store to get milk for thier infant son!

    10. Re:Polite Warning! by p.gogarty · · Score: 1

      Thank-you I was half way down the list of reply's before I finally saw an ED209 reference

      --
      Paul Gogarty
    11. Re:Polite Warning! by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      'twas just an idea.

      They should have a second chamber loaded with blanks for the warning shots.

    12. Re:Polite Warning! by morie · · Score: 1

      >>What happens when you're deaf?
      >[you] hear the bullet whiz by.

      Slashdot logic

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    13. Re:Polite Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, this is the NK military we're talking about here. Mostly not technologically sophisticated, but huge, propaganda-brainwashed from birth and controlled by ruthless insane people. If they ever cross the DMZ they're going to be doing it in an all-out, take no prisoners, en masse armoured assault with very heavy artillery support - not some little sneak guerilla raid. Robosentry warning shots are redundant in such a scenario, every round needs to be targetted at infantry / their transports.

      Look up the US defence scenario plans, they acknowledge that as substantial as the DMZ and resident army is it will serve as no more than a speed bump to (hopefully) delay the NK army long enough that an effective defence of Seoul can be mounted.

    14. Re:Polite Warning! by famebait · · Score: 1


      "Exterminate" comes to mind...

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    15. Re:Polite Warning! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What I think is most likely is "stay there or I will shoot you again".

    16. Re:Polite Warning! by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      heh- forgot the original premise ;o)

    17. Re:Polite Warning! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Or, NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!

      That would be:

            DUCK!! NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Polite Warning! by BlindFate · · Score: 1

      How about: Be cool! Stay in school! or maybe... I, for one, hope you welcome your new North Korean overlords!

    19. Re:Polite Warning! by bodan · · Score: 1

      They might as well fire warning shots with the speaker... Which is, of course, silly.

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    20. Re:Polite Warning! by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      Is it? Hm- would work for a non-deaf person probably. Or- potentally could rack up the body count?

      "Did the robot miss? Hm. Maybe I can get by..."

    21. Re:Polite Warning! by Duggeek · · Score: 1

      Watch a certain Redmond, WA company go out and purchase about fifty of these for their corporate HQ.

      If you're strolling the campus and your RFID tag goes on the blink... well, let's say your tenure is up.

      EM-BRACE... EX-TEND... EX-TAAH-MIII-NAAAAAAAAAATE!

      I do not take credit for this tag; it was one someone else's sig and I forget who. Brilliant!

      --
      This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
    22. Re:Polite Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey--

      I gots to know...

    23. Re:Polite Warning! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Another problem with warning shots is friendly fire. Suppose you popped a warning shot at me while i was approaching. How am i supposed to know it is a warning shot fired from an autonomous robot and not some enemy soldier who was able to get the position on me. I don't and obviously I'm not informed of the robot or in the right place either. So, in a combat situation, if any shots are towards me, I would return fire. In the movies, someone might get scared and freeze. In real life and death, they will be scared enough to return fire thus ruining the purpose of the warning shot.

      warning shots just aren't feasible outside the movies and navel combat were the other person knows they cannot win. If this was a movie, sure, it makes good viewing. In real life, guns aren't toys and when people get killed they stay dead.

    24. Re:Polite Warning! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't mean to nitpick, but...

      The article states it's a "5.5 milimeter" machine gun. That's only .21 caliber, roughly the same as both 5.56mm NATO ammo (the main Western troop rifle/carbine chambering) and .22LR (defacto "plinking" ammunition in the US - small bullet, small pop). 5.56mm NATO is essentially a "fast" .223 Winchester round, with bullets around 55 grains in weight. .22LR ammo typically doesn't have a weight over 22 grains (IIRC) and has a substantially weaker powder load. For a general idea of how the cartridges differ: 22LR is about the length of your thumb's nail, whereas .223 (ie 5.56mm) is 45mm long, or roughly 2/3rds the length of your pinky, with a 'necked out' cartridge, also probably about the radius of your pinky (with the end of the cartridge necking down to .22 caliber to affix the bullet).

      Also, I suspect that the article meant 5.56 mm; I don't know of a "5.5mm" cartridge, and the size of the bullet is only half the picture: the amount of powder propelling that bullet impacts a LOT of factors.

      (And for what it's worth, 5.5 caliber ammunition are in the range of crew-served and ship-based artillery, not a personal arm. 5.5 caliber = 5.5" diameter.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  14. Humans are easy... by clambake · · Score: 2, Funny

    But can it tell the difference between trees and... aliens?

    1. Re:Humans are easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just given me a very odd mental image of people disguised as shrubbery trying to sneak up on these things a bit at a time... Typically reserved for trying to sneak into movie theatres, but hey - what ever works.

    2. Re:Humans are easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean illegal aliens, or just plain - I suppose legal - aliens?

    3. Re:Humans are easy... by MaxPowerDJ · · Score: 1

      But can it tell the difference between trees and... aliens?

      If it doesn't, Kim Jong Il gets anywhere near that thing and he's dead

      --
      --MaxPowerDJ
    4. Re:Humans are easy... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Who gives a damn about aliens if it needs to distinguish between humans and trees. I'd be worried about any tree that walks into its line of fire. ...after all, trees are just too clever to walk about while anyones looking :-)

  15. Ads by Petronius.Scribe · · Score: 1

    Could you have found a more annoying, ad-infested site to link to? Must have searched for a while. Try this one instead: http://www.gorobotics.net/The-News/Military/South- Korea-Develops-Machine%11Gun-Sentry-Robot/

  16. Interesting if used a little different... by mkettler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I could very much see something like this being very useful in the US if the armament was different. I'm picturing something armed with essentially a paintball gun loaded with balls of marker dye... Might be very useful for places like prisons, etc. It might even be useful as a part of a bank security system. Have it mark them with paint as they leave..

    Of course, the liability of it hitting someone in the eye would be a killer, but it is at least interesting to think about what could be done with such a system if armed with non-lethal weaponry.

    --
    -Matt
    1. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

      You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them.

      However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.

      Hell, if your alarm going off scares them and they fall and break a leg - BOOM see you in court.

      But if you just up and blow the intruder away, hey, no problem.

      I can't say I'd like to see automated less-than-lethal security systems - by any means - hell you can't get any electronic device that doesn't have an error rate, I just find the way we view things in the US somewhat ironic.

      Though, I must admit, I certainly would not want to lose my right to defend my home and family.

      Dehumanizing killing is wrong, in any case.

      I used to work at a firearms manufacturer - and I can say with certainty every time I heard of an incident where one of our arms was used to take life... Well, it wasn't the job for me -- and I just worked in the IT department.

      There is a chain of responsibility that goes into every firearm - when one is created, sold, and used - each person in that chain has to live with a little of that responsibility. The more of that chain we take away the easier it becomes to devalue human life.

    2. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them. However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.


      Yeah, and there's nothing amusing about it. A fireman or paramedic will set off a booby trap just as readily as a burglar will. You aren't allowed to kill ANYONE who walks through your door, only those with criminal intent (and in many states, only those who present a direct physical threat). Since booby traps are incapable of making those judgments, they're illegal.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    3. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      More to the point, how can someone represent a physical threat to a booby trap?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

      For Banks, if you are worried about liability, you should just have "death holes" like in medieval times. Holes over the doors that drop marker ink onto anyone who leaves after the silent alarm is triggered. Just pump out a stream of marker ink from the top and sides and you've marked your thief. As long as the paint is non-toxic it won't matter if it hits them in the eye.

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    5. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I can't say I'd like to see automated less-than-lethal security systems - by any means

      What about some kind of net gun that just tangles up the intruder?

      -b.

    6. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them.


      In most states, you are only within your legal rights to kill someone if you have an actual and reasonable apprehension that they are going to kill you or inflict serious bodily harm and the force you use to defend yourself is reasonably necessary to prevent that. The effect of being in your house is that, in many jurisdictions, the obligation you would otherwise have to retreat if possible in preference to using deadly force in self-defense does not apply.
    7. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them.

      However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.
      I believe it is because there are legitimate reasons why someone might want to break into your house without your express permission. For instance, firefighters rescuing you from your burning house. Or police officers serving a search warrant.

      In either case, were you to simply blow the intruder away, I'm pretty sure you'd be on the hook for manslaughter at least (IANAL, so ask one if you plan to do it).

      A trap cannot distinguish between a burglar and a police officer breaking into your house - therefore, they're illegal.
    8. Re:Interesting if used a little different... by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      Here's a suggestion!

      Border control!

      Mark fence jumpers with permanent ink, throw some gluey substance in with it that will dry and be practically impossible to remove, and you have a bonified way to tell which of the people making your food jumped the border or came here on visa.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  17. These are so annoying. by Skreech · · Score: 1

    You can't invade an enemy Titan without these stupid things trying to shoot at you through thirty feet of boxes and walls. A couple good shotgun blasts should do one in though, or maybe a rocket.

    1. Re:These are so annoying. by dhaines · · Score: 1

      And you'd think that after the Black Mesa catastrophe and the debacle at City 17, people would learn that robot sentry turrets just don't work.

  18. Get a perfect headshot by weicco · · Score: 1

    OMGXIITLOL! Aimbot!

    --
    You don't know what you don't know.
  19. Korean border!?!? by tomz16 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sold! Imagine how much better we will all be able to sleep once these bad boys are deployed along the Canadian border!

    1. Re:Korean border!?!? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      Indeed, there is nothing we Canadians would like better than to see the Americans safely contained. having it accomplished by their own hardware is just delicious irony icing on the cake! Mind you, the way politics seems to run in the US, they'll never get the funding to buy foreign built hardware, a few trillion dollars to Halliburton to build a big friggin' wall is another story. On that thought, please tell me that in 12 years, we'll be treated to the sight of the Russian president standing on a podium in Niagara Falls saying "Mr President, tear down this wall!" ...just how much does a Rochester coyote charge these days anyway?

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    2. Re:Korean border!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scared of canadians? Or maybe the immigrants that make it into the US from here? In any case, trust terrorists to reach their target, no matter from where. The real question you should ask yourself is: Why am I scared? Did my country do something bad an irresponsible that would warrant terrorist retaliation? Your worst ennemy is already inside your borders and running the show. No robot can stop that, only WELL INFORMED people with the balls to get involved can.

    3. Re:Korean border!?!? by thedeviluknow · · Score: 1

      Yeah just imagine it: no more worrying about the Yanks trying to get in here for the socialied medicine (cheap drugs too), great weed, and clean air/water.

    4. Re:Korean border!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      having it accomplished by their own hardware is just delicious irony

      LOL. That would be so funny if Samsung was an American company, or if that Korean University was in America. You canucks are a real riot some times.

    5. Re:Korean border!?!? by gordonwallace · · Score: 1

      Do we get to keep the title of "longest undefended border" if we put these robots up? Or would we have to amend it to read "longest undefended border.. by humans"

    6. Re:Korean border!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true Canadian.
      With glowing hearts we see thee rise, the true north strong and free.

    7. Re:Korean border!?!? by feepness · · Score: 1

      Why am I scared?

      I know! I know! Global Warming! Or is it terrorists today? Is the threat level on corporations orange or plaid? Evolution in schools? Or am I afraid of secondhand smoke? Communists? Diebold? Gay Marriage? Abortion? The death penalty?

      Gosh! There are so MANY things to be afraid of and I've got to make sure I'm scared of the correct ones or I might vote for the party that won't save me.

      Why am I scared? What a GREAT question. Why is everyone scared? The only thing that scares me is people who are scared all the time. They ARE scary.

    8. Re:Korean border!?!? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... pointing South.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Korean border!?!? by Hai-Etlik · · Score: 1

      I believe that was "their own" as in they paid for it rather than they built it. I'm sure Halliburton will be paid to buy the things from Samsung though if it makes you feel better.

    10. Re:Korean border!?!? by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Is that to keep the Americans in, or the canadians out?

    11. Re:Korean border!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sold! Imagine how much better we will all be able to sleep once these bad boys are deployed along the Canadian border!

      The lake. Don't forget the lake. Put some in rowboats.

  20. Modern Version Of Landmines by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I guess these bots will pretty much serve the same purpose as landmines did: If you enter a certain zone you are likely to die.

    There are some nicities though, such as being able to turm them off if required, as well as them being a little bit more visible. It would be cool if these things had a skeet shooting mode where you could rapidly throw targets into the air and watch the bots shoot them down. Sayyyy! I wonder if you could use them for rabbit shooting? That would have been cool here in Australia a few years ago, sure beats running around killing rabbits with your bare hands or trying to pick them off with a .22 rifle.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    1. Re:Modern Version Of Landmines by Mountaineer1024 · · Score: 1

      Some of us find picking off bunnies with a .22 FUN. :P
      Pity about the damage they do to the environment...

    2. Re:Modern Version Of Landmines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hope they can be switched off remotely or at least they ignore the dude carrying certain RFID tag.

    3. Re:Modern Version Of Landmines by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      There are some nicities though, such as being able to turm them off if required

      No reason why landmines that can be turned off by radio control can't be made.

      -b.

  21. Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can't just up and *ban* the U.S. Marines!

    1. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You misspelled "U.S. Army". ;)

    2. Re:Oh come on! by Compuser · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude, I am not a military person. Still, all the retired Marines I have dealt with have been pretty sharp people. They are a bit weird usually, as they take discipline more seriously than even best trained dogs, but otherwise their brains work fine.
      More generally, until recently US forces had some decent aptitude tests even for service ranks far below Marines. The rep for stupidity probably has to do with the fact that mostly poor kids go for military service and hence military folks often give off a strong redneck vibe. However, except for the more recent (get somebody, anybody, to Iraq) recruits they are likely just fine mentally.

    3. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You hear that? That's the sound of a joke passing overhead.

    4. Re:Oh come on! by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      Is that soundtrack from 'The Rock'?

      Marines go nuts with advanced weapons... hmmm.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    5. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way, way overhead by the sounds of it.

    6. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example google on USMC reading list
      For privates it's

        Black Hawk Down
      A Story of Modern War
      Written By Bowden, Mark
        Constitution of the United States of America
      Written By Various
        Defence Of Duffer's Drift, The
      Written By Swinton, Ernest
        Killer Angels, The
      Written By Shaara, Michael
        Message to Garcia, A
      Written By Hubbard, Elbert
        Rifleman Dodd
      Written By Forester, C.S.
        Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation, The
      Written By Marshall, S.L.A.

    7. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup I was about to post a comment before seeing your post. I couldn't understand a word of what was said but I know my soundtracks. :)

    8. Re:Oh come on! by v1 · · Score: 1

      When I was in high school I took their basic entrance test just to know what I had for options. Now I'm no einstein by any account, but I passed all but one of their tests by 94%+ and the recruiter looked at me like I was the Chosen One or something. I was talking with some of the other people in for testing and several of them were there on their third attempt.

      I don't think most of the people taking those tests are very brigt bulbs. I'm sure that shakes out a bit when you move up the ranks and into career people though, but on the average the IQ of the group I was there with were around room temp. A lot of the questions on that test look like they were geared to see if you honestly gradudated from gradeschool.

      The only test on that exam I had any respect for was decoding. I'm convinced you'd have to be a savante to complete that section with anywhere near 90% accuracy in the small time they give you.

      Later someone pointed out to me, "you don't have to be smart to stop a bullet".

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    9. Re:Oh come on! by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      Those on their third try are bullet stoppers, as your friend pointed out.

      That being said, I took the ASVAB in high school as well, it got me out of a couple classes, twice. The first time I got a call from the recruiter asking if I was kidding, because I got an 8% on the test. Seems either I put in the wrong grading key, or they graded it wrong. I took the test again the next year and scored 99%, and I knew the one question I got wrong.

      Then the recruiter wouldn't stop calling me. He (or my file...) remembered me from the previous year getting an 8%.

      I do remember the same dim bulbs taking it for the Nth time because they had gotten a 50% or whatever the time before. I felt really bad most of the time and simply told them I didn't remember my score. Sometimes for the real dipshits I would tell them, then close their jaw for them. (I assumed they had just forgotten how, since they got a 43% or whatever on that test.)

    10. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm.. I thought the soundtrack was the one from "Pirates of the Caribean" ?!

    11. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      decoding skills weren't that hard. the patterns were pretty simple. In fact, if you try your best to NOT think on the decoding skills and just look for the pattern you can do pretty well. I only took the test once and got a 99. Apparently you can't reach a 100 on it because it places you in percentile, not grading exactly what you got right.

    12. Re:Oh come on! by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Same story for me.

      I eventually told him I was gay to get him to stop calling me, and even then he wanted to hear it from my parents.

    13. Re:Oh come on! by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

      99 doesn't mean you got one problem wrong. 99 is the highest score you can get. It means you are in hte 99th percentile, and you did better than 99% of the people who take the test. In actuality you can get a lot more than one problem wrong and get a 99. I scored 99 and know for a fact that I got at least a few problems wrong; or at least had to make guesses on at least a few... so unless my guessing was really good...

    14. Re:Oh come on! by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      No, 'Pirates of the Caribbean' is do-dah-do-dah-doo-de-doo. That was do-do-dah-dah-doo-de-doo - definitely 'The Rock'.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    15. Re:Oh come on! by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      Ah! I didn't know it was a ranked percentile, heck it's been 6 or 7 years now. In that case, I likely did get more than one wrong, just less wrong than most others.

    16. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Shut up, Kerry!

      Sincerly,
      The Democratic Party

    17. Re:Oh come on! by SlayerDave · · Score: 1

      Shut up, Kerry!

      Sincerly,
      The Democratic Party


      Hey Democrats, learn to spell!

      Sincerely,
      The American Spelling Nazi Party

    18. Re:Oh come on! by silentounce · · Score: 1

      I too got 99 percentile on the asvab, but you also get scores for the specific tests that aren't percentile based. Regardless, I joined the Marines and served four years. And as for the people who had a hard time passing, I believe at the time you needed 32nd percentile to be able to enlist. Only the Army accepted people with lower asvab scores, and that was a fact. Because I had several months before I left for boot, I helped others study for the test. And like many other groups of people who score low on the test, it isn't because they're idiots. Many of them had test anxiety, or were never taught things that they should have been by our educational system. All of the people I helped eventually "passed". Bleh. I'm done, it's not worth my time to try and convince people who "know" that our military is full of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathers otherwise. Besides, this is all in response to a joke anyway. Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential, Sir!

      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
    19. Re:Oh come on! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't remember my score on the asvab (like most students, I took it to get out of class), but I remember I basically completely aced it, without even trying. The questions weren't exactly comparable to the SAT (I remember one was basically "Which one of these is a car engine?").

      I just assumed that it was a complete joke test, designed to let EVERYONE ace it just so recruiters would have an excuse to harass students with phone calls telling them what a great soldier they'd make. Then I overheard a couple of guys I played football with talking about having to retake it just to meet the minimum score. I guess when you're smart, or even not stupid, you just assume everyone else is too. That's probably why we have such tunnel vision here on /. when it comes to technology (hard to believe there is still a statistically significant number of people out there who still fall for spam and phishing schemes)

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:Oh come on! by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      Yeah ok J Kerry. Or did you screw up the 'joke' too?

    21. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because someone else makes an inflammatory "joke" doesn't mean that he's required to play along. He gets to respond in any way he chooses. He chose an intelligent response to a stupid joke.

    22. Re:Oh come on! by rk · · Score: 1

      I took the ASVAB in '85 and pretty much pegged it, too. 99%ile in every category except one category which I only scored 94%ile. At the time I didn't know the difference between wood and machine screw. :-)

      I was seriously considering going into the Air Force, but didn't, largely because I was about 20 pounds over the weight limit for my height. The other forces weren't so picky about that, but they didn't have the programs that I was as interested in. Very much unlike now, however, my excess weight was muscle put on by tossing 100 pound chunks of steel down a chute on a construction job for 4 hours a day. I thought it silly to quit my job ($6 an hour when you're 17/18 in 1985 was good money!) for months before I went in so I could figure out how to lose muscle mass without gaining fat before I could go in, so I didn't. For all I know, I could've gotten an exception based on a physical or something, but I was young and dumb then and didn't think to ask.

      Huh. I never really thought about it until now how much that decision affected my life. I would've gone to college later on, most likely woudl have never met my wife, would've had different jobs when I got out (assuming I would even want to have left). I would've missed a lot of really cool stuff I've seen and done, but I wonder what cool stuff I did miss taking this path instead.

    23. Re:Oh come on! by Digz · · Score: 1

      FYI, I took it in '94 and remember my recruiter extatically telling me that I had only missed 1 question (of course, that could just be how I remember it now, but I digress). It was all good for me, though, because I wanted to go in for Crypto-Linguistics and the recruiter basically told me that my scores qualified me for any job the Army had (and yes, I have friends who are recruiters and know how that can be "massaged"). I was permanently DQ'd though, no waiver recommended, because I had asthma when I was younger.

      In any case, at that time weight was done on a percentage basis. As long as you were under 20% body fat, you were OK to ship - at least for the Army. I used to lift weights 5+ times a week back in those days, and was over the weight limit.

      --
      SYS 64738
    24. Re:Oh come on! by vision864 · · Score: 0

      As a former member of the us navy if someone from the Marines gives you a hard time just remember
      M.A.R.I.N.E - My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment

    25. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, everyone knows that the acronym stands for My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment

  22. Samsung we are the future by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    After being thwarted yet a third time in the past, Skynet outsourced time line assassinations to Samsung and the rest they say is history.

  23. Robot's Name? by duh+P3rf3ss3r · · Score: 1

    Despite what any official sources might say, has anyone other than I heard that the unofficial name of this robot is to be the T-101?

    --
    Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
  24. PRESENT HALL PASS!!!!! by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    lol.... sorry... I'm sure about 1 out of 10 of you get that one :)

    1. Re:PRESENT HALL PASS!!!!! by Who235 · · Score: 1
      I'm sure about 1 out of 10 of you get that one


      A Family Guy reference on /. ?

      Try 9 out of 10.
    2. Re:PRESENT HALL PASS!!!!! by jerk · · Score: 1

      A Family Guy reference to Robo Cop. You're probably too young to know what Robo Cop is. Get off my lawn!

    3. Re:PRESENT HALL PASS!!!!! by Who235 · · Score: 1
      You're probably too young to know what Robo Cop is.


      I'll buy that for a dollar.
  25. Wait til these things self replicate by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I saw a sci fi movie once, forgot the title, where people developed machines to do the border fighting for them, and then unbeknownst they allowed the machines to do some of the designing, and after the planet was semi abandoned, the machines kept designing themselves. Initial versions were sandcrawling things, then 2nd generation more sophisticated ones were little 5 year old girls asking for help and crying to take them with you into your base where they would detonate, then the 3rd generation most advanced versions were actually undiscernible from people, behaved like people, and ended up managers and bosses in the human outposts left behind - the female version was quite hot. Scary as hell.

    1. Re:Wait til these things self replicate by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Screamers. Not a great film, but it was based on a Philip K Dick short story called 'Second Variety'...

  26. Splinter Cell: NK Edition by shadexiii · · Score: 1

    So how long until the North Korean Sam Fischer drops by and laughs with (silent) glee as the bot is turned against its masters?

  27. DMZ is a good use for this by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    This robot was featured in Slashdot some time ago, back when it was just an idea. A lot of people went into hysterics about it, but I think the robot could be a Good Thing for the South Korean military. The DMZ is the most heavily-armed border in the world. There was never a peace treaty between the Koreas, and it occasionally gets hot on the DMZ. Watching a static border like the DMZ seems well-suited to a robot sentry, and I'm sure South Korean soldiers wouldn't mind much if they didn't have to run as many live patrols along the wire.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:DMZ is a good use for this by johntonsoup · · Score: 1

      Of course, if those companies that manufacture knock-off Samsung electronics can just make a complimentary model that throws rocks, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be fully automated to last forever!

    2. Re:DMZ is a good use for this by Infonaut · · Score: 1

      if those companies that manufacture knock-off Samsung electronics can just make a complimentary model that throws rocks

      Yeah, but how many Palestinians have enough dough to buy them?

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    3. Re:DMZ is a good use for this by johntonsoup · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go with not many, Bob. Which raise another issue: does designing, programming, and selling a machine that kills more or less indiscriminately make one culpable for its actions? Gun rights activists in the US claim that it's not guns that kill people. What if they do?

    4. Re:DMZ is a good use for this by RDW · · Score: 1

      You mean like this?

  28. OCP by calmdude · · Score: 1

    Does the way the video is presented make anyone else have flashbacks to OCP commercials in Robocop? The music is what does it for me.

    1. Re:OCP by novus+ordo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reminds me of this scene. Hope they beta test it...;)

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    2. Re:OCP by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      They're free to beta-test it, as long as neither me, nor my friends are in the are(n)a.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    3. Re:OCP by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nothing like a in-office demo with live ammo...

      --
      So say we all
    4. Re:OCP by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      It's also very similar to these robot sentries from the movie Aliens. The scene which may have been cut from the movie, but apparently included in the deleted scenes on the DVD.

  29. Welcome to the Free World? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

    Now we shoot them?

    1. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      They were shooting N. Korean refugees at the same time as helping the DDR refugees. The policy has not changed in Korea, that is why the few N. Korean refugees that manage to escape do so via China.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by wired_LAIN · · Score: 1

      Yes but the east germans weren't brainwashed into thinking that their "Dear Leader" was the greatest man in the history of humankind, and that the outside world is a terrible hellhole. Nearly all North Koreans believe that the living condintions in NK are much better than anywhere else. I bet there are more Mexicans who want to cross into the US than North Koreans who want to cross into South Korea.

      --
      It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
    3. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Comrade! The peoples of Oceania are, in fact, better off than they have been since the beginning of civilization! We far outstrip the production capacities of Eastasia, our perpetual enemy in the battle for the rights of the people! We live in plenty, where under our former masters we fed like dogs begging for scraps at the master's table. Glory to Oceania! Glory to Ingsoc! Glory to Big Brother!

      Yep. That about sums it up.

      America is nowhere near as close to 1984 as North Korea is.

      --
      SRSLY.
    4. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

      North Korea is still at war with South Korea. The border is militarized far more than the Berlin wall. As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.
    5. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by o'reor · · Score: 1
      the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms [...] Now we shoot them?

      Yup, there's just a different meaning to "open arms" in Korea.
      (* ducks for cover *)

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    6. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      From talking to someone that grew up in China near the border there are a lot of N. Korean refugees in China and a lot of soldiers who see their job there as stopping N. Korean soldiers from going over the border to take them back.

      Try to get out through the south and what do they get? Landmines that don't care who you are provided by a government that is supposed to be civilised. The numerical superiority excuse was used by Saddam as well when he faced a lot of troops in Iran and used chemical weapons - it can't really be justified in every situation can it? War is horrible - but landmines and cluster bombs last a long time after wars are over.

    7. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

      Now we shoot them?


      No, the S. Koreans shoot them.

      Why don't you ask one of them about it?

      Any South Koreans here able to shed some light on it?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the two Koreas are technically still at war, and even recent years have seen minor skirmishes. The North Koreans have even tried building an occasional tunnel under the border.

      But probably the main reason is that the DMZ is the most heavily armed border in the world and it's within artillery range of Seoul and its satellite cities. When you have hundreds of thousands of potentially hostile troops within pissing range of your political and economic center (not to mention something like a third of your population), you tend to get very paranoid. Seoul changed hands four times in the last war. So yeah, the paramount concern is to fortify the shit out of that border and protect Seoul just a little bit better. If that means refugees have to go through China, then it's a reasonable trade-off.

    9. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by mikrorechner · · Score: 2, Informative

      North Korea is still at war with South Korea. The border is militarized far more than the Berlin wall.

      I fully agree. But I have to add something:

      As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.

      The border between East and West Germany also had its victims. 1065 people werde killed along the border and the Berlin Wall until 1989. (source)

      --
      "Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
    10. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

      Now we shoot them?


      Sigh. It seems that you don't understand that
      DDR != DPRK
      The border between South Korea and North Korea is not only heavily armed and manned, the South Korean side, if not both sides, is filled with landmines. Trust me when I tell you that nobody who defects from North Korea crosses that border by land. There's so much fear and disinformation on the North Korean side that there aren't a lot of defectors anyway. Any would-be defectors from North Korea would certainly be killed or imprisoned by North Korean soldiers if they tried to cross by land, so a robot sentry would really make no difference. I don't think there's anywhere on the border that isn't manned by soldiers and filled with landmines. If there was, North Korea probably would have used that place as an invasion route years ago.

    11. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by addie · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.

      Then unfortunately you don't understand it at all. The last deaths actually at the DMZ happened in 1992, when a small gun battle erupted between North and South Korean troops. Three North Koreans were killed, and two South Koreans wounded. Previous to that, two American soldiers were killed in 1976 due to a dispute over a tree near the border. This certainly does not qualify as "now and then". I've seen the DMZ with my own eyes, and am in fact crossing the border into North Korea in two week's time on a hiking trip.

      While the border is no doubt heavily militarized, and tensions exist, it is not as volatile as your FOX-infused imaginations would have you believe. The way I see it, this gun is much more about getting military hardware contracts for Samsung than it is about defending the border.

      Here is an article about the wildlife in the DMZ of some interest.
      Here is the place to go if you want to take a short trip across the border
      Here is the standard Wikipedia article on the DMZ. Which I wish more posters in this thread would have read.

    12. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      DDR... Now we shoot them?

      You're surprised? Have you ever seen someone play Dance Dance Revolution?

    13. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Refugees are almost certain to be shot by the NK before they ever get a chance to cross the border into the South. Civilians crossing the border isn't a realistic concern.

      But even if possible civilian deaths WHERE a real concern, do you really have that much faith in the soldier not to fire at them?

    14. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      The border between East and West Germany also had its victims.

      But it was mostly the Reds doing the murdering, not the supposed "good" guys.

      -b.

    15. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by mikrorechner · · Score: 1

      But it was mostly the Reds doing the murdering, not the supposed "good" guys.

      That is probably the case, but I didn't imply that it was the other way around - nor did the GP, if I read his post correctly.

      The posting doesn't really say wether the people getting killed are North Korean, South Korean or American.

      --
      "Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
    16. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      man who hasn't want to run away from DDR... too many lights, and techno and 14 year old dance champions... I'd help 'em too!!

    17. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1
      escaped the DDR
      Now be reasonable- Dance Dance Revolution isn't that addictive.
    18. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by beaviz · · Score: 1
      Nearly all North Koreans believe that the living condintions in NK are much better than anywhere else.
      Sounds like Americans...
    19. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by spamchang · · Score: 1

      you ought to know that no one escapes north korea via the DMZ (c'mon, i mean, there are land mines all over the place). it's common knowledge that the north korean military has that border locked down, and the only thing heading north-to-south across that border is 99.99% motivated by the north korean military. that's why most of the refugees you see coming out of north korea are coming across the chinese border or escaping to various foreign embassies in north korea.

      RTFA on north korean.

    20. Re:Welcome to the Free World? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Not that we hear a lot about that part of the world but I had heard there is plenty of symapthy from the locals, however the official policy is to send them back. Some end up in Thailand where (I hear) they are given refugee status.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  30. Asimov? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, 30 odd posts and so far noone's mentioned Isaac Asimov now that you have the chance to?

    So here we go, the three laws of robotics as I remember them:

    1. Mega man must face at least eight robots before attempting to fight Dr. Wily
    2. Robocop is both man and machine, therefore he can override his programming to fight the resistance
    3. Robin Williams is... BICENTENNIAL MAN rated pg 13

  31. Makes me think of ED-209 by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

    I suppose the context of how it is used would be the deciding factor, but if it is truly autonomous as far as engaging, it seems like a real bad idea to let machines decide who and what to kill. Definitely shouldn't be a set and forget like a landmine with a 1000yd range.

    Though if in the general case, if it's used to identify targets and then alerts a user to decide what to do, that's a little more understandable, but I'd fret "glitches".

    Either way, the ad reminds me of the Jetpants one from "Arrested Development".

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  32. Yes by weevil6 · · Score: 1

    I believe it is my second amendment right to buy a robot machine gun to protect my family when the King of England trys to come in my front door. Are they taking orders?

    1. Re:Yes by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      No. Like all great new tech from Asia, it will be ready when it's ready, overpriced, and in short supply. Better start lining up for preorders now.

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
  33. i'll take 1000, please. by Mahamadmustafa · · Score: 0

    and congress wants to set up a stupid razor wire fence to keep out illegals..? puleeeze..

  34. Terminator by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    So when does it start hunting for Sarah Conner?

    1. Re:Terminator by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1
      We made it 3/4 of the way down my browser before finding a "Sarah Conner" comment.

      /I looked because I was going to post one :)

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  35. Not Before 2010? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Concept seen before here.

  36. Easy to defeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1- capture some prisoners

    2- march them into the guarded zone with their hands tied to their sides

    3- continue until sentries run out of ammo

    4- stroll on in

    5- Profit?

  37. Yeah, but... by Leuf · · Score: 4, Funny

    And 200K? For 200 I could do the same thing: a home-depot motion sensor, a voice chip with loudspeaker, and a handful of fertilizer/oil land mines.

    Yeah, but when yours gets hit by lightning will Ally Sheedy be able to dance with it? I think not.

    1. Re:Yeah, but... by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, but when yours gets hit by lightning will Ally Sheedy be able to dance with it? I think not."

      Sure she will. When it gets hit by lightening she will be doing the pogo...at least one step anyway.

    2. Re:Yeah, but... by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Use of anti-personnel land mines is bad in the eyes of civilized world - very few armies still use them (use of anti-tank mines is still considered ok)

  38. Sound Track? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Thread jack, but where is that sound track from? I know I've seen the movie... I just can't think of it.

    1. Re:Sound Track? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      They play some Pirates of the Caribbean music there for part of it. 'Cos nothing says the future like anachronistic music.

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
    2. Re:Sound Track? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a bit like "The Rock". Haven't seen that movie in a long time though, so I'm not 100%

    3. Re:Sound Track? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      That's it! Thanks.

  39. Oh god, where do I start? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

    How about, "Just remember, a couple of missiles will take care of these bastards". Or perhaps, "As long as they hook them up to a nearby, easily hackable control panel and provide a little bit of cover, I'm set." I could go on all night... I've been waiting for auto-turrets ever since I first played a futuristic FPS. I'm as giddy as a n00b with a rocket launcher!

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType
  40. put down your weapon by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

    you have twenty seconds to comply

  41. What's with the bizzare music? by uradu · · Score: 1

    Well, at least it's not Pie Jesu.

    1. Re:What's with the bizzare music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure its the Pirates of the Caribbean Soundtrack which just makes the whole clip even funnier ....

  42. ED-209 by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    From the summary: "a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out"

    Yah. Right.

    "Put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply."

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:ED-209 by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I think Robocop is still one of the scariest films I've ever seen, simply because (speaking as a software developer) that scene was so horribly credible.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  43. Saw the pictures and my first thought was.. by qualidafial · · Score: 1

    No disassemble!

  44. CTF by Vash24601 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one has made a joke about this simplifying the process of defending all our flags...

  45. Worthless by ryanhos · · Score: 1

    This thing is so defeatable that it's likely to never be useful. The SK government will spend millions on them, deploy them, and the NKs will circumvent them with minimal effort.

    1.) Paintballs. If the cameras can't see, the targeting software is crippled.

    2.) One of these could render the barrel unfireable from beyond the autogun's effective range. It could probably also damage the optical sensor or mar it's lens enough to render it useless.

    3.) Rectangular metal shields -- If the software is trained to not shoot at trees, make yourself look like a (slow moving) tree. The recognition software is probably focusing on the gangly and flapping arms and legs we humans have. If one hides his arms and legs, one will not get shot.

    4.) Blind the sensors. Focus enough visible and infrared light on the sensors to render them useless.

    --
    "I threw up my hands in disgust and wondered if it had been such a good idea to have eaten my hands in the first place."
    1. Re:Worthless by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Assume night invasion

      1. Paintball guns that shoot 1km - sweet!
      2. Sentry guns could be shielded or mobile and camoflaged. Probably your best best.
      3. Movement 2km out will still let the operator check the alert then fire before you ever reached the gun. Slow moving sniper with thermal and visual camo - still best bet.
      4. Very good idea except you have to test if you got the sensors. Filters, etc. could limit what will work. I'm sure if they're deployed, someone wwould want to try this. Of course, I take that into account planning their placement, so someone would be well into the DMZ to try it.

      I'm not able to watch the vid right now, but I'm curious how it handles multiple targets and "fallen targets". A line of soldiers marches over the hill(yeah this isn't SOP) it starts to shoot from left to right. Targets that it shot fall(some injured, some dead) and targets it hasn't reached drop to the ground. Does it keep shooting every heat source on the ground? Only moving ones? Only firing ones? How much ammo? How long can it shoot between barrel changes? How well would it handle a forest fire? Saturation of heat sources? How long would it shoot at a human-sized heat source?

  46. But can it handle the MPAA? by rentedflowers · · Score: 1

    Do you think Disney has noticed that they stole the Pirates of the Carribean theme music?

    1. Re:But can it handle the MPAA? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Do you think Disney has noticed that they stole the Pirates of the Carribean theme music?

      I wanna see what happens when a l*wy*r serves a summons & complaint on one of these things. Talk about high comedy...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  47. Add lasers by AnimeDTA · · Score: 1

    Add some lasers and a short circuit and we're onto something here. Maybe some blue ray lasers striped from blue ray players?

  48. Forget a Border Fence by truckaxle · · Score: 1

    Couldn't these robots save the US a lot of money on a border fence. Just the rumor that these baby's were deployed would probably be enough deterrent.


  49. I hate war... ALL of them, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I never liked the idea of non-human troops being sent to fight our wars. The whole point of war is that it's the last resort. However with this sort of technology, the country or countries using said machines have less of a moral objection to "sending in the troops" so to speak.
    War is supposed to be discouraging, not a literal video-game. This is sick.
    If you're going to declare war, your life better be on the line, too, otherwise it's evil and and sadistic for you to do so...
    Though I guess this is also a possible GOOD thing. So that instead of corrupt bastards sitting in their offices sending men and women to their deaths, they're sending in hunks of metal. But then they're just going to attack whatever the hell they want to attack.
    So no. This will not have my support. Ever.

    1. Re:I hate war... ALL of them, but.... by nemoyspruce · · Score: 1

      Interesting concept. It should be illegal to send other people to war. If you want to fight a war then you should go yourself.

  50. Aliens movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lots of robocop references, but the movie Aliens is where it's at: they had the remote sentries, with remote video. That was cool.

  51. Oblig by AnimeDTA · · Score: 1
    The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time.
    All your base are belong to us! Johny five alive!
  52. Mod parent down "missing the point" by adamkennedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.

    There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).

    And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.

    Further, the whole point of talking is to prevent accidents with North Korean troops seen by accident out fishing or something.

    You can bet your ass at the first sign of real trouble, they'll all be set to "kill on sight".

    Take another look at the context of where this thing will be actually used, then try commenting again.

    1. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Take another look at the context of where this thing will be actually used, then try commenting again.

      Mexican border? OTOH, there were these elections.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the space shuttle doesn't crash there.

    3. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.

      There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).

      And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.


      It's also worth noting that the Korean DMZ is already heavily-landmined. The purpose of these turrets is to shoot at anything trying to cross through which hasn't already been obliterated by the landmines.

    4. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      This thing is completely useless in defending against a North Korean attack. These things are sitting ducks against an invasion. They will nicely kill refugies though. This is just another way to waste the tax payers money.

    5. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1
      And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.
      Bambi?
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    6. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by bxbaser · · Score: 1

      "And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares."

      And whats downrange of that odd deer?
      Ohhh thats right the north who will just overlook those stray 20 or 30 rounds or so.

    7. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by tkavanaugh · · Score: 1

      or save the tax payers money by not having to support refugees.

    8. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      The Korean DMZ is 4 km / 2.5 miles wide - so anyone within range of firearms is an acceptable target.

    9. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      This thing is completely useless in defending against a North Korean attack. These things are sitting ducks against an invasion.

      Maginot Line, anyone? For those who don't know, the French build fortifications on the German border before WW II. When the invasion of France came, the Germans (a) leapfrogged it from the air (b) went around through "friendly" countries. The South Koreans are fighting last year's war. Actually, the best alternative would be to open the border and say "come in, you're welcome, we'll even give you money to spend in the South on capitalist luxuries." (West Germany pretty much did this with the East in '89.) Sadly, it's not in human nature to do so.

      -b.

    10. Re:Mod parent down "missing the point" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about North Korea defectors? Some have come into South Korea across the DMZ. (As told in 'Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader', by Bradley K. Martin. A very interesting read; I would recommend it to anyone who has an interest in the Korean Peninsula.)

  53. Morals? by bigberk · · Score: 1

    I know some engineers that are going to hell!

  54. Hopefully Sales are Restricted by runlevel+5 · · Score: 1

    I would really hate to think of what would happen if some of the scarier world leaders decided to use a these tings to keep people in rather than out. Imagine a "customized" model with its warning system defeated. Unfortunately, this machine would be an extremely effective tool to prevent your people from escaping your iron fist.

    1. Re:Hopefully Sales are Restricted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scarier (unless you are referring to GWBII) don't need to when nice democracies are already doing the deployment for them. Notice how these are planned to be deployed to the exactly same border, looking at the exactly same direction, as would be necessary if e.g. the North Korean leader would wish to use them for the purpose.

  55. Pirate Music + Robot = ??? by aster_ken · · Score: 1

    So we get music from Pirates of the Carribean, a robot with weapons, and a whole bunch of guys walking around hunched over like apes...

    Pirate Monkey Robot!!!

    Why did everyone walk like that, anyway? It seems like the only guy that stood up straight was the one with his arms in the air.

  56. Command by Tablizer · · Score: 1


    > KILL ALL HUMANS
    Processing Command...

  57. Very weird... by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

    Short Circuit meets Ron Popeil. Nice.

  58. Three laws by LunarCrisis · · Score: 1

    Why does everyone keep pulling out the three laws as if they are some gold standard for AI when Asimov devoted an entire book to showing that they don't work? Read past the first page, people.

    --
    Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
    Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
  59. I for one... by photomonkey · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new machine gun wielding......ah, fuck it.

    I bet Chuck Norris could beat one with a roundho.....never mind.

    In Soviet Russia, robot......nope.

    But do they have frickin' laserbea.....too cliche.

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  60. Zapp Brannigan... by jerk · · Score: 1

    ...used a similar strategy to beat the horde of rampaging killbots in the Octillian System (sending wave after wave of his own men at them in order to force the killbots to reach their preset kill limit).

    1. Re:Zapp Brannigan... by bedonnant · · Score: 1

      it was simply a matter of outsmarting them. who would have thought of that?

      --
      ~~~ Paf. Le chien.
  61. Long List of Problems by Wes+Janson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction. Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding). Overall, it looks pretty well useless.

    1. Re:Long List of Problems by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's a waste of money, but for only $200k compared to some of the bullcrap multimillion US initiatives it's a pretty nifty project

    2. Re:Long List of Problems by Lord+Aurora · · Score: 1
      Your points are good, but you're assuming that this is intended as the only line of defense (or offense, or whatever) against intruders, border hoppers, communist expatriates, what have you. I think it's more designed as a sort of basic protection. When you really think about it, and apply your logic to a lot of systems, most things are like this. Your ADT security system won't protect you against a determined burglar with technical knowledge. Bulletproof vests don't promise absolute protection from every round fired at you. Having your wife carry Mace when she walks around downtown NYC at night won't keep off a big group of really pissed off gang bangers.

      Likewise, this system won't really do much good against a couple people with decent weapons and a working knowledge of how to blow the crap out of a metal box. But it WILL deter most people---just the thought that there's a demonic robot machine gun with 5.5mm rounds and only a pretense of a warning system between them and you gets the job done. And that's what it's intended as---a deterrent. Not a panacea. I agree with you, it's kind of useless against anybody who actually cares. Sometimes, though, all it takes is a few bursts of robotic machine gun fire to fall too short of you to convince you that you're not as interested in what's behind the fence as you thought you were.

      That said, I'm waiting for Samsung to come out with a Linux-compatible version to buy my very own Demonic Robot Machine Gun.

      --
      The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
    3. Re:Long List of Problems by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it's designed to replace a battalion of humans guarding the border. If that's their idea, you're right - the sentry robot is terribly unsuited for that. More likely though is that it is supposed to prevent infiltration. The Nort Koreans have a long history of trying to sneak into South Korea for a number of reasons - see mini-subs and tunnel digging. This would mean they can post a sentry every 100 feet, and have that area completely covered, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Someone tries to sneak through DMZ? Shoot first, investigate later. someone tries to get out of the river into Seoul? Shoot first, investigate later. And if someone tries to actually invade South Korea and take those suckers out? Well, a couple of sentries in the same area that stop working will be damn good sign that something's up, and that you should get ready to fight. And if there's a large-scale assault... well, I hope the South Koreans haven't sold all their battle tanks, artillery and other nifty gizmos.

      All in all, not a bad deal for 200k a pop.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Long List of Problems by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's a prototype. If I were to deploy this somewhere, I'd get a bigger ammo box and probably add some stone/metal armor around the device to limit the ability of a 50 bmg (assuming that the NK army has any). Never mind that attacking a SK installation would likely break the cease fire. What's the point of that?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Long List of Problems by Calinous · · Score: 1

      I wonder about the range of such a system. Assuming it would fire at about 500 meters (even if this system is used mainly to scare, not to maim or kill), you need one every kilometer - in the end, it is $200k for every kilometer of border. Would that be better than human guards? Assuming 8 hours shifts (including movement to/from guard post), one should need 4 soldiers to guard probably a similar border length

    6. Re:Long List of Problems by telepilot · · Score: 1
      All in all, not a bad deal for 200k a pop.
      The same reasoning holds for North Korea. Morals have never been their strong point, so send forth some peasant to collect berries or whatever. Watch him get questioned(shot?) by a large stationary device and then back off. One .50 cal sniper round through those big nice expensive sensors and whops, you now have a large hole in your security net. Do this at a couple of places at the same time for added fun. Much as the "million rounds per second"-gun this one has serious tactical weaknesses.
    7. Re:Long List of Problems by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The issues you raise aren't that difficult.

      It would be easy to separate target acquisition sensors from target engagement sensors.

      They could keep the weapons and target engagement sensors protected in underground bunkers until the firing cycle. That would keep them both protected and hidden.

      The use of camouflage and dummy positions would make it more difficult to engage the real weapons stations while exposing the attackers

      They could add armor.

      They could employ longer range weapons and engage further out.

      Ammo storage could be beltless, from an underground magazine.

      It looks like a promising technology, but certainly won't be foolproof.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Long List of Problems by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction. Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding). Overall, it looks pretty well useless.

      I checked out the video a second time after reading this. Could be a SAW - the thing feeds from the left side, not the bottom, though - and the ammo path appears to be fairly well protected from the elements. The ammo box moves with the weapon so feeding doesn't appear to be a problem.

      As far as shooting one up with a .50 caliber machine gun this is an antipersonnel weapon - and although I was an infantryman for a fair number of years I've never seen a heavy machine gun used by an assault force that wasn't mounted on a vehicle. This thing isn't designed to take out vehicles, only dismounted personnel. I personally think you'd play hell taking one out with a .50 cal - the gadget is roughly man-sized, poses no threat to an armored vehicle and it'd be a pretty huge waste of fairly expensive ammunition trying to take one out before you got within the gadget's effective range. If I was in a tank or an APC I'd just ignore the thing and just run over it when I got close enough ;-)

      Thermal imaging devices would be ineffective against the gadget unless it had been fired in the previous couple hours, so in the dark or early morning when an assault is most likely the thing would be damn near invisible. Of course you could map the things out and neutralize them with artillery, but during a large-scale assault I imagine they'd be largely ignored as it does look like they only hold a couple hundred rounds and once they run out of bullets unless they can convince the lowest-ranking man to go reload the thing it'd be pretty much useless.

      Then there's that pesky minefield thing again.

      I see it as pretty effective against dismounted recon forces and not much else.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    9. Re:Long List of Problems by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      I saw, 10 round bursts, and something that looked a little to much like a 200x zoom.

      And yes they look so cheerful sitting on that tripod, buried w/ a little slit they'd look like a little black dot.

      And someday in America they'll look like a traffic light.

    10. Re:Long List of Problems by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction.

      Immobile? I was picturing something mounted on wheels that would travel and "patrol". In that case, it's not anything new at all. US aircraft carriers already have something called Phalanx CIWS that is a very fast machine gun (nickname: R2D2 with a hardon) linked to a radar system and computer. It can be set to automatically shoot aircraft that it recognizes as unfriendly out of the sky. Also, the East Germans deployed automatic machine guns at their border, pointing at their own people so they didn't escape. How sad that they're being pointed into a slave nation by the "good guys" now.

      -b.

    11. Re:Long List of Problems by TFoo · · Score: 1

      I think the vulnerability isn't much of an issue for the intended use: protecting secure areas against infiltration. Sure, the Bad Guys (tm) could take them out from a distance, but the act of doing so would alert you to their presence.

      This would free up a lot of manpower, since you don't have to have a person watching every inch of real estate -- it would be really useful for lessening the number of people you need to stay awake on "watch" while your platoon beds down for the night, or lowering the amount of manned guard towers you need along the DMZ. You still need real people to back up the machines, but you probably can get away with a lot less of them.

      Sure, you could argue that a CCTV system does just as good a job of freeing up manpower, but I think the gun is a slightly better deterrent. I know from personal experience that I really am not that scared of sneaking past a closed-circuit camera, but I sure as hell am not going to try and sneak past this thing.

    12. Re:Long List of Problems by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yes! You win today's "Spot the war-profiteer" game!

      Your prize?

      You get to be called a "member of the tinfoil-hat-wearing loony-left!"
      And then you get to work hard while corporate fatcats spend YOUR tax dollars on worthless boondoggles, while they call your patriotism into question for even mentioning it.

      Congratulations!
      (and welcome to the club)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  62. Scary voices by LordEd · · Score: 1

    Try using the "Damien" voice from cepstral for this robot. Then give it some red LED eyes.

    As for hacking the robot... do you really want to get that close?

  63. What could go wrong? by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    If the SciFi channel has taught me anything, its that there are absolutely no reprucissions of building intelligent machines and then sending them to war. Just put a freaking red scanning eye on it already.

  64. Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 0, Troll

    You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

    The image of one of these self-righteous idiots being spattered to pieces by a mechanical machine gun operator IS kind of funny.

    I'm all for people having their own religious beliefs (no matter how stupid or unfounded, as most of Judeo-Christianity obviously is), right up to the point where they are knocking on my door, my email box, my phone or any other area where I don't want to be bothered. At that point, I'm more excited about a violent robot then I am about their well-being. Now, personally, I think death might be a little much, but I'd LOVE to have a robotic Sumo wrestler seriously knock them around for disturbing me. Maybe cost 'em a couple of teeth and a good solid nose bleed.

    I'm so completely disgusted by the "tolerance" that our society is attempting to hold so dear regarding these self-righteous idiots that are:

    A. Destroying the planet in giant SUVs with a fish sticker on the back.
    B. Voting for maniacal ego-maniacs that want to "Shock and Awe" citizens of other countries into the stone age for personal financial gain.
    C. Having their ethics and morality spoon fed to them by
    D. Financial interests that invest in all kinds of human misery and environmental destruction (read: more eventual human misery) largely
    E. At the cost of the Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Families, Lives, Education, and Reason.

    I'll have tolerance for these ignorant idiots right after I find tolerance for the KKK or any other group of self-proclaimed "chosen people" who are somehow smarter and happier than you and I for having "faith" in made up characters out of stone age cults that suggest postmortem salvation from some imaginary man in the sky that is such a sycophant that you must WORSHIP his immature ass on your knees all day.

    If you are religious, you are stupid. STFU, and don't expect me, or anyone else with half a brain to give you any respect WHATSOEVER.

    If I went around proclaiming that you have to have FAITH in some invisible man in the sky to live eternally in bliss AFTER YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD, and that I am a CHOSEN person, somehow above the rest of humanity by the divine rights given to me by some ancient made up cult that is guilty of genocide, and didn't call it Jesus or Christianity, then people would think I was insane.

    I say they are all insane anyway, an embarrassment to the rest of humanity with the power for simple deduction and reason, and not worthy of any public or private office where their actions could effect ANYBODY else's well-being. That includes parenting, education, politics, military, and even retail.

    Boycott them all, or better yet let's round 'em all up: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Shamans, and Mormons. Let's round 'em ALL up and put 'em in a sandbox unarmed and see who survives. Hell let's go ahead and arm them. The rest of us with capacity for reason and true human compassion without being spoon fed by religious corporations will be infinitely better off.

    Religion IS the problem. If you are religious, you are STUPID.

    Stop coming by my house, singing stupid songs, and trying to discover a connection with invisible men in the sky who MOST LIKELY NEVER EXISTED, certainly not in the way your institutions are attempting to teach you.

    Go ahead, mod me down. I'm fucking sick of these ignorant ass-holes being in the majority and costing human lives and a standard of living lower than it should be, all in the name of a god that most certainly doesn't exist, definitely not in the way they envision, in which case if he DID exist, he would obviously be an unconscionable dick-head, so FUCK HIM ANYWAY.

    rhY

    PS. I don't want to come off as Satanic or something equally lame to Christian. I think the golden rule is a good one, and as such not all of Christianity is necessarily a bad thing. Loving your neighbor as yourself is obviously a cool thing. Now as for the rest of that lurid epic of genocide.......

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Apparently, by Firehed · · Score: 4, Funny
      You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

      And you have? Come on, this is Slashdot. Righty doesn't count.

      (sorry, I was going to mod you up, but the opportunity was just too good)
      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, I find people like you just as annoying. Self righteousness egotism is annoying in all its forms, and bragging about your (alleged) sexual exploits is just lame. But I'll give you that your sort don't knock on my door every few months and hand me a copy of some lame magazine that immediately goes in the trash.

    3. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A. Most, (though unfortunatly not all), JWs avoid large vehicles that pollute, they view the earth as something entrusted to human kind's protection.
      B. JWs do not vote, or participate politically in any manner, beyond suing when civil right are violated.
      C. This is simply not true, many things are left to one's individual interpretation, only things stated explicitly in the bible are mandated to JWs, and obviously they always have the option of leaving the religion if they don't agree.
      D. The non-profit corporation that JWs use is not invested in any other corporation, and individual JWs would never be invested in weapons manufacturers or the like, other investments would of course need to be guided by their individual consciences.
      E. JWs often litigate in favor of basic freedoms, such as the freedom of religion, speech, and the press.

      And to add my own,

      G: JWs participate in /. and many can easily outdesign and outprogram your sorry butt. :p

    4. Re:Apparently, by Pete+Brubaker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. Who the hell would answer the door while "mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter" anyway?

      Even if it was Righty.

      --
      What's a sig? Pete Brubaker
    5. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad. But you'll grow up some day. People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods. There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not. I believe they do not; others may differ, and we cannot prove who is right. Soon enough we will know. So why fight about it? Why argue and bitch and whine? Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    6. Re:Apparently, by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1
      And you have? Come on, this is Slashdot.

      Read his post again. Notice that he says "awesome sexual encounter", but doesn't actually mention anyone else being involved. Thus, it's quite possibly true.
    7. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you found me annoying due to self righteousness or egotism. I didn't claim to have any philosophical answers or truths.

      I am merely pointing out that religion IS ignorance, to a large extent.

      I wasn't trying to brag about a sexual exploit, but it did in fact occur. Not everyone on /. is a virgin. Though, at this point, given the experiences I HAVE accrued, I'm not going to belittle that lifestyle as I can see it having obvious advantages to the one I have chosen up to today.

      You should also be less annoyed by "people like me" due to the fact that besides not going door to door with stupid magazines, "we" have faith not in unprovable (and often disproved) ideas and realities, but in observable and repeatable observations that have benefited all of mankind many times over.

      I'm not being self righteous. I'm just pointing at the evidence and deducing a wiser path, then recommending it for anyone else. I cower in the presence of larger intellectuals, like Bertrand Russell or Stephen Hawking.

      But I don't worship them, or anybody else, real or imaginary. That's just stupid.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    8. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      G: JWs participate in /. and many can easily outdesign and outprogram your sorry butt. :p

      And who cares?

    9. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1, Interesting

      First off, I'm not an atheist, so your insecurities about how you may look given my anti-religion tirade are completely unfounded. Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.

      Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

      Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.

      I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.

      As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time. Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like /. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective.

      Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such.

      I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough for you. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy.

      Now, if you'd like to go ahead and reword and improve upon my over all message, which is very sound and reasonable, however poorly expressed/worded, please feel free to do so, and make all of you "atheists and unbelievers" look better. Not that I'm sure unbeliever is the proper term for what you were trying to express.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    10. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya think he is that starved for contact from anyone that he would answer the door mid masterbation?

      Well maybe the WOW social scene is lacking somethign after all.

    11. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods."

      Would I be stupid for believing in the Easter Bunny?

      If so, then what's the difference?

    12. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Religion is for idiots", "if you are religious, you are STUPID", and "you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age."

      Has it not occurred to you, in your horror at being "demeaned", that you also can make a point about religious faith without insulting billions of people? You say you want to make a rational argument. Fine, then do so. So far, all you've managed is ad-hominem. Don't deceive yourself into thinking that insults make your message "very sound and reasonable".

    13. Re:Apparently, by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad.

      Agreed.

      But you'll grow up some day.

      Debatable.

      There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not.

      That's irrelevant. The usefulness of knowledge comes from our ability to use that knowledge to predict the likely consequences of various actions before we commit ourselves to those actions. Knowledge that comes from religion can't be used to make better-than-random predictions. However, religion can cause people to think they can make better predictions than they actually can, i.e. it gives them a false sense of security. It can also make people unnecessarily vulnerable to con men disguised as holy people.

      Soon enough we will know.

      What? You just said that we can't know. Now you say that we will?

      Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs.

      That's a rather large generalization. Evidence?

    14. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, religion can cause people to think they can make better predictions than they actually can, i.e. it gives them a false sense of security. It can also make people unnecessarily vulnerable to con men disguised as holy people.

      Sure. But I can sell dirt to homeless people, and I'm not religious. And I know plenty of nonreligious people who think they can "make better predictions than they actually can." Overconfident and/or stupid people and all that.

      What? You just said that we can't know. Now you say that we will?

      I said that we cannot prove whether a deity or deities exist. But I figure we'll have some inkling after we die, yes?

      That's a rather large generalization. Evidence?

      Experience. Your mileage may vary.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    15. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Watch your house on Easter. See if the Easter Bunny comes. It won't come (unless you are not your average Slashdotter and have a girlfriend who also happens to be a bit strange that way).

      Now try to observe something to conclude God doesn't exit.

      I am an atheist--but I don't delude myself into thinking that I know for sure that a god or gods don't exist. And next time, why not post under your username?

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    16. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      First off, I'm not an atheist, so your insecurities about how you may look given my anti-religion tirade are completely unfounded.

      Strange, I don't recall ever saying you were an atheist. I do recall saying that people like you make people like me, who do not appear demonstrably different to most people, look bad. Don't put words in my mouth.

      Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.

      But you cannot make a point without calling people stupid, okay, I got it. So how old are you?

      Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.

      I personally don't believe in God; the lack of positive evidence in favor of God's existence is my reason. But I cannot, and will not try to, prove a negative.

      I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.

      Then prove that God does not exist. As I just said--a negative cannot be proven. And if we are assuming the omnipotent, omniscient Christian God is the one up for discussion, you lose by default. Said omnipotent god could choose not to be visible to his creations, and we'd never know the wiser.

      You would not be arguing so angrily if you were not insecure about your beliefs.

      While it so happens that I agree with you on the subject, your immediate conviction is disturbing. You begin in rational territory--disbelieving in a god or gods because it cannot be proven is a perfectly valid choice, and my own as well--and then jump off into deep space. You cannot prove that it does not exist; those who believe cannot prove that it does.

      As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time.

      Good, I agree completely. So we both understand that that means you'll shut up now.

      Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like /. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective. Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such.

      I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. - Albert Einstein

      I would argue that Galileo, Copernicus, and Brahe were not "idiots." I would further point to men such as Dr. Kenneth Miller as examples of those who are certainly not "idiots," yet are devout religious people. And while I am certainly not saying that they are right because they are experts in one field or another (argumentum ad verecundiam) So...okay, where are your credentials? What makes you any less of an "idiot" then they are?

      I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough for you. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy.

      I don't particularly care for Russell; he sounds alarmingly like you. Fifty Degrees Below (which I read when it came out--I assume this is what you mean, because Amazon has never heard of a book called Fifty Degrees Below Zero) was a decent read, though hackneyed as all hell (here's a hint: there's lots of science fiction out there that deals with "clear-sighted scientists who must overcome

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    17. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standing Ovation!

    18. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1

      No, you would be getting free candy from your parents, which is maybe not ethical due to the deception, but I wouldn't call it "stupid" per se.

      Now believing in god with no benefit whatsoever to yourself or anyone else? Now THAT is just plain stupid.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    19. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best slashdot comment of all time.

    20. Re:Apparently, by slaida1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad. But you'll grow up some day.

      No. But that kind of politically correct tolerance does. It takes only cursory look of medias over the years to see that many many leaders use the god/faith-card to make stupid sheeple do their bidding.

      There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not.

      That is irrelevant. Violence, forced fairytales of ID and others, hiding of everyday matters like sex must stop. Religious nutjobs who can't keep their insanity to themselves and STFU must be stopped.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
    21. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The image of one of these self-righteous idiots being spattered to pieces by a mechanical machine gun operator IS kind of funny.

      I'm all for people having their own religious beliefs (no matter how stupid or unfounded, as most of Judeo-Christianity obviously is), right up to the point where they are knocking on my door, my email box, my phone or any other area where I don't want to be bothered. At that point, I'm more excited about a violent robot then I am about their well-being. Now, personally, I think death might be a little much, but I'd LOVE to have a robotic Sumo wrestler seriously knock them around for disturbing me. Maybe cost 'em a couple of teeth and a good solid nose bleed.


      You truly have a rare sense of compassion, especially to be able to combine this:

      Boycott them all, or better yet let's round 'em all up: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Shamans, and Mormons. Let's round 'em ALL up and put 'em in a sandbox unarmed and see who survives. Hell let's go ahead and arm them.

      and this:

      The rest of us with capacity for reason and true human compassion without being spoon fed by religious corporations will be infinitely better off.

      in a single paragraph. Sort of a Roman Coliseum approach to compassion, eh?

      I would say you have succeeded in distinguishing your thought processes from those of the majority of people.

      I've got to ask,.... is that you Ray?
    22. Re:Apparently, by Murgalon · · Score: 1

      You sound very uncertain of your beliefs. I think you are struggling with the fact that God loves all of us (including you) and you cannot comprehend the concept of such unselfish love.

      Before you start ranting and raving about what an idiot I am take a look at your own words :

      ....MOST LIKELY NEVER EXISTED, certainly not in the way your institutions are attempting to teach you.

      .. that most certainly doesn't exist, definitely not in the way they envision, in which case if he DID exist, ...

      Both of these statements clearly show that you do believe in a god of some sort, but it's somehow different than what institutions are teaching or the way you envision it.

      The great thing about believing in God is that you can find your own image of what God is to you. It's OK to feel uncomfortable with various types of religion. Find your own image/view of God and speak to God, it's as simple as that. Just speak to God and say "thank you God for understanding me and loving me. I want you to be a part of my life. Please help me to learn more about you.".

    23. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And next time, why not post under your username?


      Why assume the parent has a username? I'm not the same AC as the parent, but I post AC because I don't have a username and don't intend on getting one. If you have a problem with AC posting, start a petition or something to get Taco to remove the functionality.
    24. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, believing in the christian/muslim/organized religion god *is* stupid. Wouldn't you think I'm an idiot for believing in the tooth fairy?

    25. Re:Apparently, by packeteer · · Score: 1

      First you say: First off, I'm not an atheist,

      Then you say I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven.
      and then: Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity to see it as such.

      Im not attacking your arguement or supporting it, im just confused becuase you seem to contridict yourself.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    26. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright then.

      "I'm all for people having their own religious beliefs..."

      Good to know. Start small. Be reasonable. But then you go on to say:

      "If you are religious, you are stupid."

      Alright, you're all for people being stupid. No problem there. Voice your opinion, man.

      Then you call me "an unconscionable dickhead, so fuck him[me] anyway."

      Again, let your thoughts and feelings be known. Extremely daft and vocal. Good for you, buddy. But you should have stopped there...

      "PS. I don't want to come off as Satanic or something equally lame to Christian."

      Grow some balls, Mr. Khan. You just told me that you're going to fuck me (if I exist)... and you don't want to come off as Satanic? What kind of pussy ass shit is that? Satan doesn't exist to you so why should that bother you? You say you don't respect my people... but you obviously care about how they might perceive you. Are you scared of them? There are alot of them, actually... and the number keeps growing...

      ~~Argh argh, all religious people should die! Fuck them all! Die, believers, die!!! But wait, let me part by telling you some cool things about Christianity...~~

      Weak. Never mind fucking me; you just fucked your comment. You just committed a whole different kind of sin. Go repent.

      You know, Slashdot has some insanely insightful comments about religion. I love and respect many slashdotting atheists and unbelievers for their opinions on Christianity... on me. Some of them really do make me think... and few are quite funny.

      However, you are _not_ one of them. Pick a fucking line and stick to it. Don't go whoring to both camps. Don't mind the Christians, you're not supposed to respect them anyway, right? Oh, wait... don't tell me you actually fear me? Maybe I do exist after all... and if I do exist, I will be coming after your ass.

      Next time, don't be a pansy. Go out with a fucking bang. There's already a very special place in Hell reserved just for you... so fuck it all to hell while you're still alive. Yeah, that pun was fucking intended.

      And when you die, don't come to me asking for help. Oh, why don't you come up here and try fucking me, you motherfucker. I'll make sure Satan makes you his bitch for the rest of... eternity. What the fuck~ You're gonna burn, fucktwat~

      And you know what? Leper Khans? That is fucking gay. Get out of Slashdot, you stupid myspacing faggot.

      Yours Truly,

      God

      PS. 'Ooh ooh, let me tell you some cool things about atheism'... you totally fucked that up, you dumb motherfucking cocksucker...

    27. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    28. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because he does not observe the Easter Bunny in this instance doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny does not exist. The Easter Bunny works in mysterious ways.

    29. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1

      No. The only logical choice given the evidence is to be agnostic. With neither proof or lack of proof to prove or disprove the concept of a supreme being that somehow dictates reality, I have to choose simply to not know.

      Now some atheists and science types will claim Occam's razor, but I'm never quick to rush to judgment like that.

      Simply stated: We do not know enough about our Universe and it's structure to assume anything about it's meaning and origins.

      Anybody who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves with wishful thinking.

      If "God" or some other prehistoric human invention showed up in the flesh tomorrow and held a press conference, well then, I would have no problem acknowledging his/her/their/it's existence(s).

      Until that happens, or further scientific inquiry somehow fully disproves the notion, pretending to know either way is the grossest form of irrationality, and purely the domain of the idiot, which, funnily enough, our species seems to have no small genius in propagating.

      I'm no arrogant ass, either. I'm one of the idiots like most of us. I just happen not to be an idiot with regards to THIS topic. Any of my ex-girlfriends would surely have no problems pointing out a myriad of various other idiocies that I am quite guilty of, however.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    30. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1

      I'm not insecure about anything relating to philosophy or religion. There is the known and the unknown. God is a comforting idea, to some (though the various visages that organized religion seems to create for him/she/them/it are truly horrific more often than not), however he/she/they/it have absolutely no evidence to having ever existed. Therefore I don't believe that he/she/they/it exists OR doesn't exist.

      I'm completely comfortable being honest about it and saying, "I have no idea."

      However the evidence at hand clearly disproves most of organized religion.

      If god showed up, and had a press conference or something, well then, I might be his biggest fan. Until he does, I refuse to acknowledge the idea as anything more than a remote possibility.

      You can believe in him if you want, but unless you have actually seen or heard him (in which case I would still argue hallucination, or wishful thinking), I will call you an idiot for believing in that which has no substantive evidence.

      Now, I'm an idiot in lots of other ways, so you shouldn't take it too hard. Hell, most of my friends and family are idiots too, on some level, and that doesn't mean I don't love them and am completely capable of having them over for dinner, or sharing a few beers and laughs.

      But I'll be the first to tell them that believing in ANY fairy tale, be it ancient and Jewish or otherwise, is infinitely foolish, and demonstrably at least one aspect of what does in fact make the vast populace on this planet: A bunch of idiots.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    31. Re:Apparently, by v1 · · Score: 1

      There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not.

      Actually for the most part there is. The reason it does not appear this way is that, if you create a god that can be tested for, since there isn't a god, your god will eventually be proven not to exist and your religion will disappear. Only religions that describe their god in ways that are untestable have survived the ages. Take a look at all current "modern religions", they all include the same qualities, god isn't around or is "everywhere", you cannot test god, "god works in mysterious ways", basically totally disconnected from your life, and you will never get to meet god until after you die. (makes it kinda hard to get back confirmation reports, eh?) If you look back in history for most of these religions you will find that they have undergone a lot of change over the ages, and if you dig enough you will find that they too had additional aspects earlier that would not have survived scrutiny, and so those aspects were deleted from the religion to keep it viable.

      I recall someone telling me that they had studied a religion that as one of its main tennants had specified the exact day that the world was to end, and sadly they didn't pick like 2 million AD or something, they picked a much more "achievable" date. When the date came and went, that pretty much finished out that religion. heh... now there's a priest that didn't think ahead.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    32. Re:Apparently, by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      No, because they have never proven it's impossible for a fairy to exsist nor that they wouldn't collrct teeth for some reason or other.

      --
      I like muppets.
    33. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is dead. He served his purpose, but we have the rule of law (we don't need doctrine), democracy (we don't need the priesthood) and science (we don't need miracles) now.

    34. Re:Apparently, by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.

      Indeed. He could only judge you based upon your apparent age as reflected by your post. In case you are old enough to have had the opportunity to grow up and learn some manners -but apparently didn't- well all the worse I would say.

      Bear in mind that you imply that e.g. Einstein and many others were idiots. Not "of another opinion than yours", but idiots.

    35. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

      Do you stop sex because you get a text message as well?
    36. Re:Apparently, by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1
      You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

      It's apparent you have NOT been in this situation. I have... and I assure you that doorbell kept ringing and ringing and ringing... hell if I stopped to find out who it was...

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    37. Re:Apparently, by BBadhedgehog · · Score: 1

      Too much coffee dear?

      Regards,

      Nick

      --
      Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
    38. Re:Apparently, by crhylove · · Score: 1

      *Don't put words in my mouth.

      Didn't mean to, sorry!

      *But you cannot make a point without calling people stupid, okay, I got it. So how old are you?

      29. Not that age is generally relevant in any debate on any topic. I can make a point without calling people stupid. However, in this instance, when we are discussing people believing in invisible men in the sky who are omnipotent, and yet are never heard, seen, smelled, touched, or otherwise witnessed by humanity (at least not demonstrably in a way that I find satisfactory), the term idiot is certainly relevant. In the rare cases when it is not (I can envision situations where ignorant might be a better term), it is still completely valid to call somebody an idiot WITH REGARDS TO THIS TOPIC.

      It is my humble opinion that many idiots can be geniuses at the same time, in varying fields and to varying degrees.

      Some days I like to think we all are. I for one completely rule at Mario Kart, and yet can have a difficult time preparing a meal that tastes in any way different than a pile of fetid oozing horse shit.

      I'm sure you can find various examples of this dichotomy in all people's lives. I just don't feel that on the topic of religion, I'm quite as idiotic as the vast majority. Now on other topics (economics, the previously mentioned culinary arts, sub-atomic physics, patience with religious idiocy), I'm quite sure that I'm sub-par at best. That's part of what makes our huge human variety so awesome, and yet tragic at the same time.

      *I personally don't believe in God; the lack of positive evidence in favor of God's existence is my reason. But I cannot, and will not try to, prove a negative.

      Ok. I don't believe anything about the topic, because I think we lack the fundamental knowledge about all of reality that would allow us a clear vision on the issue. I definitely see plenty of evidence however to disprove most of the "god" theory set forth by most of organized religion.

      *Then prove that God does not exist. As I just said--a negative cannot be proven. And if we are assuming the omnipotent, omniscient Christian God is the one up for discussion, you lose by default. Said omnipotent god could choose not to be visible to his creations, and we'd never know the wiser.

      I'm not attempting to prove or disprove the unknown, with no evidence. That is idiotic. I simply do not know, and further, lack the scientific mind to attempt to discover in this area. I can however state, with certainty, that as professed by judeo-christianity, the classical definition of god as explained to me by the various western churches and church goers that I have discussed it with, THAT god most certainly does not exist. It is a logical impossibility. Furthermore, I would also state based on archaeological evidence most of the Jesus story is either highly inaccurate, fabricated, or simply an enormous series of "typos" off some random papyrus scrolls. The only redeeming thing about the whole book or concept is that at one point, he suggested people be nice to each other, and limit what they would pay in taxes. I agree with both of those ethical concepts, but it does not change the rest of the fallacies in "The Good Book". Much less the earlier chapters condoning genocide and all manner of ass-holishness and, I'll say it again: Idiocy.

      *You would not be arguing so angrily if you were not insecure about your beliefs.

      Actually, I'm not that angry right now. As to the concept of religion in general, it would be inhuman not to become visibly upset and angry at the atrocities and ignorance that religion has wrought upon humanity. If my earlier rant was vehement, it was because of pictures I've seen of children and other innocents in every part of the world suffering, dying, starving, being tortured, being brainwashed, and basically having all purpose (in MY view) to life removed, and often life itself. I would very much like to beat the teeth right out of nearly every religious leader alive today, because I have litt

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    39. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, pray tell, did you think could possibly be at the door that was far better and more gratifying than an awesome sexual encounter? You're either lying or a complete moron. No one stops having awesome sex to answer the door. No one! Not even Kim Il Jong would stop - and he's a loon!

    40. Re:Apparently, by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I know this isn't my fight, but I couldn't pass this one up.

      Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.
      Wrong. Believing in something without evidence of any kind is fine, so long as you are prepared to change your view when some real evidence comes into play. If there is no evidence, then it might as well be true for all you know.

      I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven.
      Ever heard of empiricist philosophy? It's largely based around the idea that humans have gained all their knowledge through observation and habit. For example, we have observed that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. How do we know that works for all situations? How do we know that that logic won't change overnight?
      My point is that we really haven't proven anything. We can say that, based upon our observations, God cannot exist, but it isn't proof. Not to mention, he would be above the system, so to speak, if he did.

      I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.
      WHY is it stupid? Why is believing something is false so stupid? Especially if the belief is harmless and can help you deal with life and be happy? What do you want from life? Happiness or absolute truth? I can tell you, the odds of you finding the latter are about as implausible as God existing.

      If you think, as many people do, that religion is about believing in false deities, then you are wrong. That is a small sideshow. Religion is a set of laws, designed to guide people into sensible decisions without the need for a police force. Nowadays, society has changed, and many of the old laws are now outdated, but more still are still relevant. Most of our laws, and our morals and ideas, are based upon old religious morals and ideals. Society owes religion so much, yet now we cry "Religion is for idiots", not taking into account how much better we are for it.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    41. Re:Apparently, by sorak · · Score: 1
      You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

      When I'm having sex, I don't answer the door. If the house were on fire, I might let firemen in, so long as they don't take pictures, but this is sex, we're talking about. Like Christmas, it only comes one day a year, and I'm not stopping for anything.


      As for the religious thing, don't you think you are taking it too far? If you can't respect the beliefs of others, or their right to argue their point, then how can you expect them to do the same for you?

    42. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes just as much 'faith' to believe there is no god than it does to believe in a God.
      While it is considered out of fashion to positively assert the existence of some external particular to explain what hasn't been shown, 'out of fashion' isn't equivalent to 'not possible.'

      You need to move your belief to the middle oh ye of much faith - you aught to be agnostic and take the world for what it is rather than what you assert it should be.

    43. Re:Apparently, by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      I'd disagree - Christianity for example is testable. It makes a variety of claims (like prophets stopping the sun) which can be disproven (e.g. by finding no mentioning of this event in other cultures). (Lots of other things like age of the world, creation of animals etc.) It's contradictory in itself, too - hence can not be true as a whole in the first place. Yet you can see that many people continue believing, even going out of their way to avoid knowledge of their supposed core religious text (how many Christians actually read the bible?) just to avoid facing the contradictions. People continue believing since this belief is important to them, a key point of world view, because it makes them feel safe and part of a community and many other reasons like that. Their capacity to put up with their belief being demonstratable false seems high.

    44. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods.
      Yes. Yes they are. Believing in imaginary things in the face of all facts is basically crazy. You can replace your word with any other imaginary creature and look how it sounds then.
      People are not stupid for believing in one or many unicorns!
      The sooner all religious idiots realize that there is no hereafter and that they are wasting their precious time in this world with petty squabbling about which imaginary afterlife to believe in, the sooner world peace and other real issues get tackled.

    45. Re:Apparently, by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...self-proclaimed "chosen people" who are somehow smarter...

      After reading your post and some of the replies in the thread, I have difficulty understanding in what way you are different. Sure, you're not knocking on doors, but your stated desire to "round 'em ALL up and put 'em in a sandbox", strip them of public office and do violence to people for talking to you puts you in the same category as the worst of them.

      In some posts, you say you think {some,all} people are genius and idiot at the same time in different areas, including yourself. However, you seem to view other peoples idiocy as inherently and dramatically worse than yours. This comes across as very arrogant.

    46. Re:Apparently, by kabocox · · Score: 1

      You have never been mid-thrust in an awesome sexual encounter when the doorbell rings, and some smarmy ass-hole in Sunday best is at the door telling you about their imaginary man in the sky, and how he can save your soul.

      And you have? Come on, this is Slashdot. Righty doesn't count.


      Is that your only problem? I hate the telephone and cell phone. On any given night 2-4 out of these call: my mom calls, her mom calls, her dad calls, her sister calls, her girl scout leader calls, her bunco group calls, her preacher's wife calls, or her friends call and the resulting converstation lasts anywhere from 30min to 1 and 30 min. Mid thrust? You have time to make it to mid thrust? Good/great sex takes a good 1-1.5 hours playing around in bed first. Any phone call during that time is a major turn off and resets her back to not turned on. Why is it that "adults" think that its o.k. to call family/friends as soon as the kids are asleep anywhere from 8-9 going all the way to 10:30 or 11. Oh if I only had door to door people on Sundays to worry about I wouldn't even blink. Strangers, I can call the cops and get them banned from my property. I can't do that to family and friends that are trying to be social with my wife during our getting it on time.

    47. Re:Apparently, by OfficialReverendStev · · Score: 1
      Religion is for idiots
      Amen to that
      --
      A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
    48. Re:Apparently, by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Soon enough we will know.

      Really?

      Unless God, Buddha, or Xenu shows up and personally makes themselves known on national TV, I doubt we would even find out in death.

      When you die you won't know because you won't be around to know the truth.

      Even if there is an afterlife, you don't take consciousness (self) with you in a sense and the person you are now and will be until your death will never know or be able to share that knowledge with any living person.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    49. Re:Apparently, by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

      You know, many (perhaps most) conflicts in mankind's history have been religiously supported/motivated, or a good mixture of religion and politics. At the same time, narrow, intolerant views like yours (and you have to admit that yours is such a view :) ) also contritube to things like genocide. Scary? No, not really, only scary if more people like you get into position of responsibility/authority/power and act on it.

      One of the fundamental problems in interpersonal relationships is assuming everyone is similar to you, thinks similarly to you, or at the very least, SHOULD think like you. That is psychology 101. Translated to a larger magnitude - now you understand why there is such a divide between the Muslim world and the West. It's only recently that I am seeing news articles on attempts to converge the two to get along, learning each other's thinking.

      As much as you feel strongly against religion, and express your views, take time to think about the implications of your thinking. I dare sare you would make a great dictator! :)

    50. Re:Apparently, by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Bah, it's apparent YOU have never been. Women can lose the mood just like that.

      Yes, I've had a phone interrupt. Don't remember if I've had a door interrupt, though.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    51. Re:Apparently, by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That's why you turn off the gorram phone ringers and maybe the answering machine if you're expecting to get busy.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    52. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Stalin...yeah. No human has a monopoly on being batshit crazy.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    53. Re:Apparently, by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      Just cause you never seen God don't assume others have not.

    54. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then, sort it out with technology. Have a door bell that draws power from the phone line, then have every phone and the door bell connect to one master plug that you can yank out on the way to the bedroom.

    55. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Even if there is an afterlife, you don't take consciousness (self) with you in a sense and the person you are now and will be until your death will never know or be able to share that knowledge with any living person.

      How do you know?

      "There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?" - Robert Heinlein

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    56. Re:Apparently, by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since you are very proud of your rational approach to life, you might want to go a step further and investigate a-priori an a-posteriori knowledge. You'll find out that the only things that are provable are the ones that are uninteresting - bachelors are single, and stuff like that. Belief is an intrinsic part of everyone's life, because outside of the mathematical and the semantic, nothing can actually be proven. It can only be inferred with a degree of certainty.

      Even though you believe (yes, believe) that your approach is based on rationality, it isn't. Furthermore, you also haven't figured out the reason that religion exists - to provide answers to questions we can't answer, and where the answers provide peace of mind. Your blanket categorization of all things believed as stupid, less than worthy and below you on the totem pole of human quality therefore does cast a bad light on others who might believe similar things, but who do it without the snobbery that you display.

      I don't think your approach is wrong, but I think you stopped a little early in your decision making process.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    57. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After working in various labs doing grad work in Microbiology, I'm convinced that much of science is religion.

    58. Re:Apparently, by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.

      What about believing in things for which there is lots of credible evidence of various kinds, but no conclusive evidence?
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    59. Re:Apparently, by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      "Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs"

      No not insecure, very secure. The reason that we need to ban religion is that it conditions the mind for compliance, order, and irrational submission to authority. I for one dont want people who are easily susceptible to mind control running around starting wars and killing civvys who believe in a different imaginary ghost or whatever.

      For humanities sake we need to end the mass indoctrinate brainwashing that has occured for thousands of years. Religion is a cancer of the lazy stupid minds, and I for one think humanity has been bread to be religious for too long. We really need to get free or die.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    60. Re:Apparently, by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      It's clear that you religious types always try to find weakness and unfulfilled desires to try to find a way to put our mind in child-mode to be able to program us with your superstitions.

      You are not an idiot at all. You are a very resourceful and manipulative meme-spreading infectious vector.

      But your psicology doesn't work with us.

      Go away.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    61. Re:Apparently, by cdrdude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen God too. I caught Him raiding my fridge a couple days ago.

      --
      This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
    62. Re:Apparently, by E++99 · · Score: 1
      The usefulness of [the knowledge of the existence of God] comes from our ability to use that knowledge to predict the likely consequences of various actions before we commit ourselves to those actions. Knowledge that comes from religion can't be used to make better-than-random predictions.

      If you mean the ability to, e.g., predict the path of a projectile, then you're right. If the only decisions you're making are of the most pragmatic and short-term kind, then you're right. If however, you wish to possess a reality-based philosophy of life, then the existence or non-existence of God is the most essential knowledge there is.

      When I didn't know the answer to that question, I admit that I liked to think of it as "unanswerable." However, it is answerable. Because God does exist, and He is merciful, everyone who wants to know that answer is capable of finding it.
    63. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's total BS.
      Among religious people there are two types: the ones who blindly believe that the Bible is THE book, and the other ones, usually more educated, who understand that the Bible is mostly BS, but want to save what can be because they need it to fill in *their* insecurity about life. Fine with me if you keep it strictly to yourself. But then stop having this dual discourse, playing on words such as God, religion, etc.
      I pity you.

    64. Re:Apparently, by E++99 · · Score: 1
      Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

      Please demonstrate. Upon what do you base your statement that there is no way to prove or disprove the idea of God? When I was ignorant of the existence of God, I sometimes made the same claim. I made it on the basis of ego... my ignorance of the matter was obvious, so if it was actually impossible to know, then that would make me more more insightful than all who claimed to know, instead of just more ignorant. Do you have a different basis for the claim?

      The proof of God is like the proof of the rules of logic. The the rules of logic are the basis for logical and mathematical proofs. Therefore, either the proofs for the rules of logic are as strong as logical and mathematical proofs, or else mathematics and logic are exercises in irrationality. But the rules of logic, and indeed, the fundamentals of mathematics in their actual origins, are exercises in pure perception of underlying truth. This is what mind of man is designed for, and is the basis of all reason, whether it is recognized or not. It is therefore also the basis of all logical, mathematical, and thus also scientific proof. If someone refuses to believe in the rules of logic, or even the fundamental laws of mathematics, you can't prove him wrong to his satisfaction. He either sees it or he doesn't. But that doesn't make them unprovable truly, and it certainly doesn't make them unknowable.

      The presence of God can likewise be directly perceived on a similar fundamental level of the rational mind.

      But print out your rant on the stupidity of believers, and keep it. Then if you ever find yourself no longer ignorant of God, you can tack it up on your wall as a motivator for humility. As Socrates and Confucius said, without humility, and without coming to terms with the perpetual enormity of our ignorance, there is no basis whatsoever for the development of reason or intellect.
    65. Re:Apparently, by vox_soli · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want to cure "compliance, order, and irrational submission to authority" by having an authority tell people what to believe? I think you need to think that one through a little more.

    66. Re:Apparently, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it was Sagan who said it first, there's no way to prove whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Is it reasonable to not only assume that FSM exists, but to worship it?

    67. Re:Apparently, by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Being Agnostic generally means you have a cerain beliefe there is something but you just can't explain it. That is not believing only what you see.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    68. Re:Apparently, by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Is that where my ham sandwiches have been going?

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  65. No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

    No, I think the best thing for the DMZ is for America *and* China to stop *fucking* with the Korean people and let *them* sort things out for themselves.

    Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular."

      Why not? Well, I could see China's case, but the states?

    2. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by dafing · · Score: 1

      I dont like the term for Chinese people you used , not attacking you at all, but I totally agree with what you have said, I dont think that other countries can ever solve the problems of a totally different country. I like the "Vietnam war", I hear that some Vietnamese call it the "American war". I think thats terribly funny, and true, as they have been war torn for yonks, "...land war in asia" and all, so it IS the war with America!

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    3. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I dont like the term for Chinese people you used

      Are you particularly fond of the term he used for American people? Are certain slurs acceptable because they don't hit as close to home, in the same way, or as hard? Are others bad because they are often used with racist intent even when there is no racist intent behind them?

    4. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, personally, perfer rednecks and coolies!

    5. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I dont like the term for Chinese people you used

      Me neither, but I used the term yanks so I thought I should balance it up.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by dafing · · Score: 1
      Hi Ari, thank you for your comment!

      Hey I didnt know that you took that word, I wont use it here if it does offend you, was a bad word! I'm pretty sure that the Americans were always called that during the Second World War for example, and called themselves that? I am sorry if you take that as offensive, I wont use it again.

      I know for a fact that no Chinese person could ever like that term he used. Its a horrible term as to what it means, which I'm sure you know. What does the Y word for American that he used mean? Masturbation? if thats the origin, then its not as bad in that sense as the word that was used for a Chinese person. I myself am a proud New Zealander, I was just sticking up for Chinese people, I myself am not Chinese but I dont think that anyone should use terms like that. I appreciate your comment about the word used for Americans, and if you do find that as offensive, then I will never personally use it again.

      Have a nice day, and keep fighting racism! :)

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    7. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean that you don't think that the Americans have a strong interest in maintaining a balance of terror in north east asia?

      The situation on the Korean peninsula means that the yanks have a fantastic excuse to maintain both Japan and South Korea as their pet states with strong American military presence in the region.

      Then theres the economic powerhouse that a unified Korea would have been (prior to the north becoming a total basket case).

      The two Koreas would complement one another very well indeed.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Arguing about 'terms' like that is ridiculous, almost as bad as the argument that 'master' and 'slave' are politically incorrect when used to refer to hard drives.
      (Personally, I think 'pimp' and 'ho' might be put forward as alternatives).

      I used both terms deliberately to draw attention to the negative aspects of *both* parties; ie that both the Americans and the Chinese (governments) are (in effect) *colluding* to screw with the Korean people and to keep them under control.

      Like a 'good cop/bad cop' routine where China is bad cop to South Korea, good cop to the North and vice versa for America.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by dafing · · Score: 1
      I like your suggestion for HDD terms, but the fact is you shouldnt use words like what you did to describe people. If as you say it is the GOVERNMENTS, dont use a word describing PEOPLE from the country, as that hurts the people when you call them horrible names like that. Its fine to criticize a government, but dont attack people with hurtful words like those.

      I do appreciate your point, and I dont want to argue with you. Its just not right to slander people with words like those.

      Have a great day though.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    10. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I personally have no problem with "Yankee" or "Yanks." I get called a Yank by my Canadian friends all the time, and I call them Canucks in return. For most people, Yank isn't very offensive at all. What matters more is the intent behind it. The classic example is the word "nigger." When one black American says it to another, it is generally meant as a term of endearment or brotherhood, to show solidarity. White Americans have used various other words for the same effect; "buddy" is one of them.

      The word itself is generally considered horribly offensive, but when used with brotherly intent and when the person hearing it understands that intent and appreciates the meaning, it is not offensive at all. By contrast, when a white American calls someone a nigger, there are a few possible things that he might intend. One is plain and simple racism; this is bad. Another is an attempt at being brotherly; this is usually seen as idiotic. Finally, when one white person calls another white person a nigger, people just tend to think he's a total moron.

      The point really is that the intent matters most. In this case, the original poster seems to agree that his intent was to be a little bit edgy with both Chink and Yank. Another person could have said either or both words with different intent. (That said, I don't know if there's a context in which "chink" is not at least a little bit racist.)

      P.S. Don't worry about offending me; it's not easy to do. The only thing I've found even remotely offensive recently was the New Zealand story about accepting text-messaging-style writing on exams. Also, since you are in a fellow former part of the British Empire, go ahead and call us Yanks all you want. :)

    11. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Oh come *on*!

      'Chinks' is simply a phonetic abbreviation. You don't mind being referred to as an 'Enzeder', do you? Its not like 'nigger' or 'kike'.

      Being bothered by words like that is the sort of thing that causes people to riot over cartoons; its just way oversensitive. If you let things like that bother you, you'll be perpetually bothered, always finding something to annoy you.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by dafing · · Score: 1

      Its just as bad as words from N to K that you *also* used. Im leaving it at that.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    13. Re:No, just stop screwing with Korea by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Its just as bad as words from N to K that you *also* used. Im leaving it at that

      In quotes.

      If you consider the quoted use of such words bad, well what *can* I say? 'Lamer'? Is that ok? I sure hope not...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  66. Can it say "Ultra Kill"? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Really, I see the speaker as more useful after it starts firing.

    I can just see it now ... the DMZ suddenly filled with the sounds of automatic gunfire; then silence. A moment's hesitation, then a loudspeaker rings out: "KILLING SPREE!"

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  67. Mexican border by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is perfect as it is.

    The existing armament won't hurt anybody because people just aren't that stupid. OK, maybe ONE idiot tests it out.

    For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.

    This is probably cheaper than using a laser or that skin-heater beam. Despite the robot part, it's kind of low-tech.

    1. Re:Mexican border by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.

      That only works if they believe the alternative is better.

      I am quite willing to believe that a very low double digit percentage of illegal aliens feel that 'staying home' is a fate worse than death. People who think that way will still take their chances, even in the face of almost certain death. As my girl Janis once opined, "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose..."

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Mexican border by Tarrio · · Score: 1

      The Eurostar is the high-speed train that crosses the Channel Tunnel. Migrants would jump from a bridge trying to latch onto the speeding train and cross the tunnel. The chance of death was slightly less than "certain", and yet they did it.

    3. Re:Mexican border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These people are not part of an invading army. They are not trying to kill us. They are not here to destroy our way of life. They are starving people who want to cross over to mow our lawns and take care of our children. I'm not saying that we should just let them waltz in or anything, but for crying out loud, where's your sense of compassion? You don't need guns to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, you need to put pressure on the Mexican gov to get its act together and start acting more responsible towards its people -- especially those in the lower classes. I have a couple of friends who are upper-middle class Mexicans, they speak of the lower classes with such disdain that it's no wonder they have no problem exploiting and then exporting a large part of their population to the United States. This is the real issue and we need to *shame* upper class Mexicans for what their doing to their own people. But nobody will ever talk about this -- instead we talk about stupid things like building fences. Why? Well, because rather that tackling actual problems, it's a lot easier to scare people with invasion on the right or massive deportation on the left, or to push racist buttons (on both sides). These are the sort of things that get votes.

    4. Re:Mexican border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! East Germany had it right, and I'll be damned if we let that lesson from history go to waste.

      We must fortify the borders with tall fences and automated machine guns. Let us double, triple, quadruple-check all travellers' papers and effects. Who do they think they are, asking for probable cause? If they argue, just shoot them -- no, wait, shoot them whether they argue or not, especially if they try to cross the border!

    5. Re:Mexican border by hey! · · Score: 1

      The existing armament won't hurt anybody because people just aren't that stupid. OK, maybe ONE idiot tests it out.

      Bah. Anybody who's seen the classic Trek episode "Mudd's Women" could take out one of these.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Mexican border by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1
      You don't need guns to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, you need to put pressure on the Mexican gov to get its act together and start acting more responsible towards its people -- especially those in the lower classes.Of course - one always listens to countries that set a good example. Wait ... something in that sentence seems off.
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    7. Re:Mexican border by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

      East Germany had a wall around West Berlin, to keep their own citizens in. This is to keep other people out.

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    8. Re:Mexican border by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      Mexico is never going to be a better place to be a citizen of than the USA. The corruption is so rampant at all levels of civil service that it no longer matters what pressure we put on them as a state.

      Even the citizens of D.F. (Mexico City) are stereotyped throughout the country as swindling charlatans.

      The real way to stop the massive influx of immigrants is to make the USA an uncomfortable place for non-citizens.

      We don't punish people who break the law by illegally entering our country. We don't punish the people who hire these criminals to staff their farm/fast-food joint/household/Home Depot parking lot. We provide for them and their children when they realize that, even in this great country, McDonald's doesn't pay the bills. We school them, treat them, feed them, and house them. It's no wonder we have an illegal immigration problem, we practically have a sign that says "Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos."

      These things are never going to change, and here's why:

      The people that make the decisions for all of us want them here.

      The Democrats want them here because they've taken the side of "Minority Friendliness," and they want those votes.
      The Republicans want them here because the majority of Mexicans are Roman Catholics, with Roman Catholic values, and they want those votes.

      And they both want them here because after they've bred, they and their progeny become bright and shiny American Citizens. Once they've whored out the middle class enough to create one soiled writhing proletariat we will all be equally put-upon taxpayers. And those taxes go to support the only livelihood politicians have, self-promoting bureaucracy.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    9. Re:Mexican border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware the turrets were able to distinguish citizens from one country from citizens of the other. Either way, I fully support the building of walls with automated machine guns wherever practical. The more people confined and separated by their ruling powers, the better, I'm sure you'll agree.

    10. Re:Mexican border by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

      Your certainty is unfounded, AC. I'm very much an anarchist on general principles; the point is that the original analogy is not proper.

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
  68. the coolest part... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 3, Informative

    they use the theme song from Pirates of the Caribbean as the soundtrack to their promotional vid...

    --

    My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  69. why is slashdot questioning immediate feasibility? by jbloggs · · Score: 1

    The problem here is not with the pattern recognition. Its the entire goal. A rediculous amount of ethical issues aside, let me put my feelings in a way that most americans can understand: whatever we (the US military or allies) develop will eventually one day be used against us. Technology has been horrible with war. I love how every modern technological advancment, TNT, Machine Guns, Nuclear Bomb, was developed with the mindset: "This will make war so horrible, it will guarantee peace." Haven't you guys understood the point of Dr. Strangelove?

  70. Goldeneye 007 by johntonsoup · · Score: 1

    Plus, those briefcase auto-guns can easily be disabled by tossing a grenade around the corner. Don't they know Kim Jong Il loves the N64?

  71. Hmmm by aarku · · Score: 1

    So what happens when I hold some shrubbery up in front of me as I walk?

    1. Re:Hmmm by nemoyspruce · · Score: 2, Funny

      You! Shrub! Put down that human...you have 20 seconds to comply.

    2. Re:Hmmm by deek · · Score: 1

      So what happens when I hold some shrubbery up in front of me as I walk?


      The robot will demand that you cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with ... a herring!

      Well, at least I hope it would do this, 'cause that would be really cool.
    3. Re:Hmmm by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      The robot sentry will say Ni. And then it will shoot you.

      --
      So say we all
  72. Not a great film... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1
    Not a great film, but it was based on a Philip K Dick short story


    You've just summarized a whole bunch of movies...
    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  73. Those are the main problems you see? by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about:

    - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats

    - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator

    - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above

    - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

    I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by TastyCakes · · Score: 1

      The reason the DMZ has been and continues to be defended by the South is to keep the North Koreans from invading and imposing their ideology which has proved capable of starving millions of its own people. Of course it's a matter of perspective, but if I were a South Korean I think I'd see any reasonable way of better securing the DMZ as money well spent. Unlike many militaries in the world, the strength of the South Korean one could be a matter of national survival. I'm not saying this sentry gun thing is great, if it doesn't work it doesn't work. And I agree with you on your more technical criticisms, telling friend from foe etc. But this isn't the Mexican border we're talking about...

    2. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by bucky0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

      And you're wasting money on a computer + internet access while people, probably in your own city, are starving. What's the difference?

      --

      -Bucky
    3. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by brit74 · · Score: 1

      What about:
      - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats
      - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator
      - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above


      These are all the same issues that you have with landmines. Since it would be deployed facing the DMZ, we're talking about aiming into an area that is already heavily mined, fenced-in, and well known to be a "no go" zone for soldiers and civilians. One advantage that it has over landmines is that it's easier to remove it from an area when it's time to pack-up and go. Landmines, on the other hand, stick around for decades after the war has ended because no one is quite sure where all of them are, and there's not enough impetus for governments to do the large amounts of work to clear mined areas (tedious work that requires throughness) when there are so many other governmental problems begging for money (like healthcare, sanitation, refuge problems, that typically occur during and after a war).

      On a side note, I've linked to the video from my own site and included a video of a similar system made by the Australian military.
      http://www.empiresofsteel.com/devdiary/?p=56

    4. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you're wasting money on a computer + internet access while people, probably in your own city, are starving. What's the difference?


      How can you presume the money is 'wasted' without knowing how those resources are primarily put to use?

      We can easily say developing this particular technology was wasteful because it does not come close to suiting its primary purpose. Some secondary uses or knowledge may come from the development of this technology, but intentionally developing for those purposes would have been more efficient. So at least some part of this spending was wasteful.

    5. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      Well, lets have a go at this. But first, it needs to be understood that a state of war exists between North Korea and the South Korea / United Nations forces. They are separated by the DMZ. Anyone in the DMZ is subject to being fired on. It has been like this for 50 years now. From time to time there are incidents that kill people, and threaten to bring the war hot again.

      The junior Kim has vowed 'complete liberation of the peninsula', a task left 'half-done' by Kim Il-sung. He is apparently determined to become 'the president of a unified Korea' through armed force.-- Hwang Jang-yop (former Worker's Party Secretary) Speaks


      - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats

      In the DMZ, if it moves, it dies. No problem. That is why they can freely use mines there.

      - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator

      Nobody should be in the DMZ. If they are, you can kill them. See above. Also, not a problem with mines.

      - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above

      Nope. See above.

      - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

      One of those places that has large numbers of people who are starving is in North Korea. They are starving because of the Stalinist, failed, barbaric policies of the crime family government of the psychotic "Dear Leader". The people in South Korea would prefer that the 1,000,000 man army in the North, whose reason for being is primarily to reunite the country someday as they previously had, not impose the North's government upon them. There could be peace, and a lot less military spending on the Korean peninsula, if that was what North Korea wanted. Sadly, it isn't, and the North Korean people will continue to suffer. At least with devices like this, millions of fewer people will be starving since it will help contain the area under control of the vile North Korean regime.

      I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.

      No, ammo is a real concern, especially if large numbers of infantry start coming across the border. They could probably keep a large supply in a bunker though.
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      No, ammo is a real concern, especially if large numbers of infantry start coming across the border.



      If large numbers of infantry start coming across the border, it's time to break out something slightly more destructive than small arms.

    7. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I'm a programmer, not an arms manufacturer/seller, but putting on my cynical, "they wanna kill each other, someone's gonna give them the means to do it, might as well be me getting rich" hat for a moment, I really don't see any of those things as being issues.

      Landmines already suffer from all but the first, and only avoid that one because no attempt at target recognition is made at all. As for the inability to tell friend from foe, all that does is limit their use to confirmed no-go areas; anyone in the area gets shot, everyone learns to avoid it, just as they now avoid mine fields.

      I can't believe that very many of the people involved with this sort of thing, or their potential customers, would regard any of your objections (however valid they may be) as being real issues. It just plain not working (due to ammo starvation, etc) would get their notice, however.

    8. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      The difference is that his existence, unlike military-industrial complex's isn't tax-payer sponsored. He can do with his paycheck anything he damn pleases.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    9. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      I was more poking fun at the parent poster for making the same argument.

      --

      -Bucky
    10. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      And?

      If he feels a moral obligation to provide for the hungry to the point that he feels like other expenditures are wasteful, then he should be willing to practice what he preaches. Taking a stand on an issue and then saying, "Well, someone else should do it" is somewhat...it's early, I can't think of the word.

      And besides, if this works as well as hoped, then SK will be able to reallocate some resources previously used on putting human beings on its border to other places.

      The point was, "Well, we shouldn't do X because there is still Y" is unworkable. We should try to solve Y's problems, but in the meantime, developments like X provide a living for a lot of people who need careers and raise the standard of living for everyone.

      --

      -Bucky
    11. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats
      - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator
      - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above
      - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet


      I'll take your "issues" in reverse order. Very few in any country "care" about those in any other country except for remote relatives. Few care about people starving in the third world, communist countries, or in our first world countries. For those that do care, put your money were you your mouth is. I don't want my government wasting tax income on noncitizens.

      Violation of laws of war or humanitarian issues? I doubt it. The DMZ is a large area where no one of either side esp. civilians should be wondering into. I'd hope that the average SK citizen would have more sense than to drive up to the DMZ and try to find one of these things to play with. Those of us in the US are stupid enough to try it. The machines do give a limited warning and are aimed at the enemny. If anything I could see anti-military people trying to get this things classed as land mines just so land mine removal clauses would apply to them.

      I have no moral issues with machines of any flavor killing humans with or without human control. Why? Because you assume that just having a human in the loop makes it automatically moral. Humans are not very moral rational creatures.

      Your first point about inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats seems to be the only valid objection in my book. Have you read John Ringo's Legacy of the Alldenata series? He has a very simple verison of this that just takes a 2 pictures and aims the gun towards any movement. He had cases of thousands of rounds hooked up to them. I could easily see any military using such machines to guard areas where no friendly should be coming from. The problem is that once deployed "anything" coming toward it would be targeted and shot at. Environmental concerns are that any wildlife wondering into range will be targeted and shot at. We can get around computer vision and AI by making these things really stupid and just shooting at anything oncoming and informing higher up that its been shooting at something. You'd need a human patrol to check out if it was just shooting at nothing or if it needed a heavier response. I find tech. problems about this valid. You are trying to bring your moral issues into it and say that entire tech branch shouldn't be exploited. We know the dangers of AI weapons. Humans of all flavors fear AI control of weapons. Having a really stupid weapon that just shoots at anything coming toward it though is within most militaries' moral set. The worst that could happen is that some wild life is killed and it runs through alot of ammo. You don't have to be pouring tons of fire into the wilderness though. Put it on single shot and only check out those that fire 5+ shots within an hour.

    12. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      What about:

      - the inability of a bored tired 19 year old kid to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats?

      - what about the massive moral issue of having a border patroled with young men who are prone to bordom, fear, anger, they might make them a little too eager to take a shot at something?

      - What is that about war and humanitarian laws? Oh, I am sorry, those don't exist, except for the internal national laws of soveriegn countries. Show me the democratic legislative body for "international law", and show me the global police authorized to enforce it, or admit that international law is largly fiction.

      - What about the fact that starving people can pretty much be used as a catch all excuse for any spending. Why spend so much on cancer research when there are millions of starving people in Africa? Why spend money on after-school sports and music programs when that money could be used to feed starving people?

      Me, while I am skeptical of this kind of military industral complex spending, I realize that the era of mass destruction peaked with the nuke and bio programs of the late 60s and early 70s. Virtually all military research since then has been on how to make weapons that cause LESS death and destruction (I mean, the U.S. and Soviets could pretty much kill every human on the planet back in 1965... you can't make weapons more dangerous than EVERYONE DEAD!!!). I realize that in 10 years the same technology will be used to make some pretty wicked batting cages. :) If money is going to be spent on weapons (and we all prefer it not be spent that way, so save us the lecture), at least it is on dual use technology that will help the civilian world in the future.

    13. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides people mentioning mines that can fit your description of issue two lets recall that traps have been a long standing weapon. This thing has the same sort of moral issues being raised as people digging pits for use against other people, this is just the 21st century version.

    14. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. In the age of interconnected machines and the internet, has no one considered the inevitable use of having a room full of monitors and humans? All these machines (should be) are doing is moving the human away from the gun. I would hope that it is a 'no brainer' to believe that you would have the machine alert a monitor that there is movement, the monitor would evaluate it, possibly issue an order via the speaker, and then press the fire button. All the sentry gun does in that scenario is target and alert the operators.

    15. Re:Those are the main problems you see? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      A rusty barbed wire fence would have the same issues (except the expense).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  74. and this is useful how ? by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, it is not like the NK will not have week, month or year to map map out where those are, then prepare artillery bombardement on those coordinate. Or pass through the holes between the coverage zone of those gun. And it is not like anarmored vehicule would not roll those over twice. And I wonder also if there isn't ways to simply camouflage yourself : have a very wide light weighted tube for the infrared, go in the center with something for sight, and advance slowly toward the sentry gun. Or advance slowly under a thermal carpet. Or in a camouflage of bushes. OR snipe it out with explosive bullet or destroy it with mortar. It sound like this things would need an incredible AI to handle the various way to camoufalge yourself, but it seems only to have IR camera, normal camera and be smart enough to distinguish between trees and human. Just disguise yourself as a tree and that is it.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:and this is useful how ? by antikristian · · Score: 1

      seeing as this is targeted at developing countries, I very much doubt that people will be able to "take it out" with exploding bullets and such. These people are lucky if they can afford a decent rock to throw at it.

      --
      A computer is a tool, but I am not. I use Linux
    2. Re:and this is useful how ? by ezeri · · Score: 1

      Not RTFA is typical, but not even reading the summary? Wow.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    3. Re:and this is useful how ? by merikari · · Score: 1

      I agree. It certainly looks cool and can probably put a couple of holes in you before it is taken out. But 200k for a machine gun is just stupid. In the developing countries (where this is marketed according to some) it's far cheaper to hire a batallion of soldiers armed with assault rifles and RPGs and send them to flank this piece of crap. As a support weapon it's a 'nice to have', but I'd rather have real soldiers with brains at my back. If you want such a static defence or block areas, just buy a sh*tload of mines and you still have cash for arming people that can actually adapt to combat situations.

      And, of course, on the modern battlefield it's a curiosity, but not much more useful than anything else you can buy for the same amount of money.

      --
      My other SIG is a Sauer.
    4. Re:and this is useful how ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mines are easy to defeat too. The whole idea is that you can stop people from launching a surprise attack. Either they will have to slow down to deal with the mine field, or they'll have to send thousands of Private Johnsons through the mine field to clear the mines for the well trained troops.

    5. Re:and this is useful how ? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying, this system is not perfect.

      But it is designed to replace a bored / scared / half-asleep 19 year old kid standing around 10 hours a day with a rifle... realisticly, NK could cross the border anywhere it damn pleases - the DMZ is more like the rope barrier they have at the bank that lets you know you are not supposed to cross an area. This robot sentry is not supposed to keep back the NK hordes, but provide a barrier to casual entry.

    6. Re:and this is useful how ? by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      I mean, it is not like the NK will not have week, month or year to map map out where those are, then prepare artillery bombardement on those coordinate.

      Not a problem. According to this this page they have a mobile version. A picture of it is here.

  75. obligatory comments by Legatic · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of those! YIKES!

    1. Re:obligatory comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could've sworn the parent was gonna say "Does it run Linux?"

  76. I see where you're going with this... by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    You want to go after Detroit!

    does designing, programming, and selling a machine that kills more or less indiscriminately make one culpable for its actions?

    I agree. Those fuckers who build and sell cars kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. They should be held liable every time someone dies in a car. But I digress.

    Maybe the South Korean military should build something into their contract along the lines of, "Mistakenly kill anyone who isn't a North Korean soldier, and you have to shell out big money." Of course, on the DMZ they likely err on the size of freedom to fire. After all, it is the DMZ, not downtown Miami.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  77. Re:why is slashdot questioning immediate feasibili by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    This tech will turn war into a highly spectacular, high budget RobotWars show.

  78. Reception Along the DMZ by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

    Wait, the same company that made my cell phone made this thing? Then why do I only get a 4-digit password? I wonder if it supports custom ringtone creation, or if Verizon will make the Korean military pay per download.

  79. Scary video... by ndogg · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but that musical score is fucking fantastic!

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  80. headshot? by 5imon · · Score: 1

    "The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot." How do you get a headshot with a speaker?

  81. From the article ... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot.

    Robot: "Head shot. Head shot. Ultra Kill!"

  82. You know what really scary by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    Are the comments by people that seem to have no clue as to how absolutly hostle the DMZ is. Tecnhnically North and South Korea are still at war. They signed a Cease fire. THATS IT.
    You can read it here
    http://www.lifeinkorea.com/culture/Korean-War/Armi stice4.cfm

    Nice story here.
    http://members.tripod.com/~msg_fisher/fleet-3.html

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  83. plus, low maintenance by apfortier · · Score: 1

    Repairs and upgrades are easy: all you need is a few whacks from an engineer with a wrench.

  84. Being a true curdmudgeon all I can say is... by Chuqmystr · · Score: 1
    You damn kids! Get off my lawn!

    Thanks Samsung

    -C

    Sorry, my bad, couldn't resist. Mod me to hell if you please :-D

  85. Nice.. by kahrytan · · Score: 1


    I think US Military will take few hundred million of these babies. Add some Armor, just use remote wireless control, and put one on every street corner in Iraq (first Baghdad, then others) then we can better keep terrorist under control and save American soldier lives.

    Just don't give them a smart AI because we don't need real life terminator.

    --
    \
  86. It has been peaceful by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular.

    Aside from the violence along the DMZ, Korea has been peaceful since the armstice ended the Korean War in 1953. Both sides are armed to the teeth, and North Korean saber-rattling has been a fact of life for over 50 years, but both countries are pretty peaceful by most accounts. In the North, they're starving but peaceful, and in the South they're peaceful and not starving.

    Your insights into the motivations of the Americans and Chinese (excuse me, I mean, "Chinks") are fascinating, but I'm not sure what data is guiding those insights. If either America or China wanted war, wouldn't they have already fomented it at some point over the last 53 years? And why would China be acting to restrain North Korea?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  87. At least you get to see it before it kills you. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    Remember that scene from Syriana where they blow up the SUV? A convoy is driving through a desert in the middle east. The CIA are sitting in their comfy air conditioned office in the USA. On screen they have live satellite coverage of the convoy. The convoy stops, they watch a few of the passengers change vehicles but agree that the target vehicle hasn't changed. The convoy stops again. The commanding officer gives the order to the operator to take out the target. The operator draws a box around the stationary vehicle with the mouse cursor, then grips onto a flight controller style joystick and presses the red "launch" button. Somewhere, deep in the desert probably (we're not shown) a missile pops out of its silo and heads towards the target. The operator says something like "30 miles". The commanding officers look on. The operator says "10 miles" a few seconds later. The missile autonomously locks onto the target. There's a giant explosion. When the smoke clears, all that is left of the target is a blackened crater in the ground. The other vehicles in the convoy are slightly damaged but not destroyed. The operator says something like "target destroyed". The commanding officer leaves the room.

    How close to reality is that? It sounds pretty doable doesn't it? It's not like they're shooting lasers from space. It's not like you'd have trouble funding it. "Strategic Strike Capability", that'd get you some tax dollars.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  88. Uh, I'm kinda disappointed... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    I liked the prototype version better.

  89. How do you say... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

    ..."Uber pwnage" in Korean?

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:How do you say... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      I think it's pronounced "Kekekekeke"

      I could be wrong though.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  90. in the words of gaius baltar: by notmelinda · · Score: 1

    i for one welcome our new robot overlords.

  91. Neutral Zone + These --- by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

    Bah, we just need a 200 yard neutral zone around our entire country, with these every 200 feet.

    OK, that may make trips to the beach less enjoyable. Let's not have it around our entire country, just our borders on land. And maybe we need them every 50 feet on our southern border.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
  92. Kim Jong Il to Roh Moo-Hyun..... by spamster · · Score: 1

    KIM: Where are you??? Roh: I'm in yur dmz killin yur d00dz!

  93. Thank god it was Samsung by neuro.slug · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could you imagine if Microsoft made this robot?

    Robo-sentry.NET Vista Live: It looks like you're trying to enter a demilitarized zone! Would you like to:

    • Go back the way you came?
    • Be riddled with bullets?
    • Have me fetch Steve Ballmer to pwn you?

    Either that, or they'd try and sell trespassers V1AGRA

    1. Re:Thank god it was Samsung by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      "Could you imagine if Microsoft made this robot?"

      Yes, I can. Instead of shooting bullets it would throw chairs and f-bombs.

    2. Re:Thank god it was Samsung by oni · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine if Microsoft made this robot?

      Robo-sentry.NET Vista Live: Hotfix 918899

      SYMPTOMS:
      Robo-sentry travels back in time and attempts to kill Sarah Conor.

      You may also recieve the following error message: "I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle."

      RESOLUTION:
      Install Robo-sentry cumulative security patch 918899

      WORKAROUND:
      In Robo-sentry administration plugin,
      1. click on Automated Missions
      2. select Time Travel
      3. uncheck the box labeled "Kill Sarah Conor"
      4. reboot Robo-sentry

    3. Re:Thank god it was Samsung by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1
      • be eaten by a grue.
    4. Re:Thank god it was Samsung by ady1 · · Score: 1

      that might give a whole new meanings to msblaster

  94. Good to know... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

    Good to know the same company that built my hard drive is also behind such high-tech hardware as this! Hopefully my hard drive will be just as reliable as well:)

  95. so... by smash · · Score: 1
    ... all i need is my own RPG equipped robot to roll in and blow it away? :)

    Or to even walk up to it with an RPG and fire before its wait for me to "surrender" times-out? :)

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  96. I remember those from Half Life by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

    and they sucked. If they had the same kind of beep, too, that would be enough to make me chose a different route all by itself.

    Seriously, it appears that you could probably outrun the tracking mechanism, as all of the demonstrators were moving pretty slowly. If you could confine movement, the weapon would probably work better than if you allowed an open space.

    Do you think the guy demonstrating surrender insisted on the weapon being unloaded first, or did he trust it? I suppose you could have the AI engineer be the guy doing the surrendering. If he's not willing to stand in front of it fully loaded and trust that it won't go off, I suppose no one would.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:I remember those from Half Life by SuperStretchy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Would hucking a grenade at it accomplish the same thing?

      Also, does it distinguish friend from foe? Maybe some sort of RFID tag or something...

      All the same... I would NOT stand there to demonstrate.

  97. Neat video, questionable translation by EQ · · Score: 1
    Well it looks like googles Beta translation leaves a bit to be desired:


    There is not an expense bottle and the iron tub it defends together and it gives.

    Infiltration it sleeps but after detecting the above object, the intelligent elder brother watch guard robot which is the possibility of hacker directly with the weapon which is affixed on the inside until control was initially developed from country. This robot when it reaches, from next year demonstration is the prospect which will be arranged in the cease-fire line back.


    Check it out at the Google translation Korean to English URL

    But at least the video is pretty cool.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
  98. Whoohoo! Killbots! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    And I can already think of the first application for them. They should have to dodge those things on Survivor. And minefields. And, oh, maybe radioactive death zones. Make it "Survivor: Bikini Islands" or some such. Last man standing gets the cash. And a lifetime supply of post traumatic stress disorder.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  99. Re: They really kick ass.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..I think they will come in handy. - Cpl. Dwayne Hicks

  100. freeman by jagdish · · Score: 1

    unfortunately, it fails to work once it is tipped over.

    1. Re:freeman by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      well, considering it "works" up to 2km distance daytime, it'd still be rather hard to tip it over without some technology aid, which the gun is not meant to be deployed against anyway.

    2. Re:freeman by jagdish · · Score: 1

      hmmm. you didnt get it, did you? i thought the hl2 reference was quite obvious.

    3. Re:freeman by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

      Oh I got it. It just seemed to me that you didn't get the range of the Samsung guns :)

  101. Robokilling refugees, defectors, UN observers by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The only obvious advantage this has over landmines is that it's easier to deactivate if hostilities ever end or if the DMZ moves. But otherwise, it's sitting there waiting to kill civilian refugees, surrendering North Korean military, UN observers, and anybody else who might be there for some reason.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Robokilling refugees, defectors, UN observers by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Nobody has a reason to be inside the DMZ, that is why both sides already shoot at whatever moves inside it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  102. Time for the North to dress as trees by noigmn · · Score: 1

    If this thing targets anything that looks like a person, wouldn't it be easiest to convince it that you won't a person.

    --
    Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    1. Re:Time for the North to dress as trees by mihaibu · · Score: 0

      He must 'see' in infrared also

  103. On threads like these, turn off the "funny"... by posterlogo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, if you want to learn anything when it comes to threads like these, tune your preferences to demote posts marked "funny". You'll be amazed.

    1. Re:On threads like these, turn off the "funny"... by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, if you want to learn anything when it comes to threads like these, tune your preferences to demote posts marked "funny". You'll be amazed.

      Then...

      (Score:5, Funny)

      What do you know... Slashdot mods actually do have a sense of humor. Can I mod this comment's moderation +1, Funny?

  104. only a matter of time by Surt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is one more step along the path that will allow the rich to finally do away with the poor. The rich need poor people to man their factories, and to protect them from other poor people. Soon robots will do both those jobs. Then you have to start wondering just how many crazy rich people it takes to really commit to that path.

    Also, insert joke about robots taking old korean people's medicine here.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:only a matter of time by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but moderated offtopic? Mod parent back up ...
      Get 'em metamods.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  105. Not just JWs. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll give you that JWs are not as bad as Mormons, or some others that play the stock market with little or no ethical considerations, however, their fundamental views on reality are still as inherently flawed. And as for G: That's nice /. boasting by a JW, but there is no doubt that you do NOT in fact no that to be true (though *I'm* quite sure it is), and furthermore it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand a rather weak straw man at that.

    If you want a more specific critique of JW philosophy then I would simply mention that in this life, I've probably MET 144,000 that were deserving of a heaven if there was such a place, and that putting any kind of exact number on it like that is stupid and petty, anyway.

    Consequently, I have some JW friends, and have no qualms attacking them philosophically at any given moment, which I relish. It's just too easy when you look at those stupid Awake! magazines and their mind-numbingly imbecilic illustrations, that even from an arts point of view are more corporately disgusting than a Kinkade.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  106. Rise of the Machines? by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    OMG! It's happening! They're here!

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  107. What's it called? by khelms · · Score: 1

    Ed-209?

  108. More information needed. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

    In what way must the brain be attached? Would duct tape work? How about staples?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  109. Cool, but... by Kuukai · · Score: 1

    If they capture one, that's some fancy state-of-the-art equipment they'll get.

    --
    Sendou Wave Kick!!
  110. Yawn by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    very few armies still use them (use of anti-tank mines is still considered ok)

    Except on the Korean peninsula, where the only two armies that matter regionally both still use them heavily, particularly within the DMZ.

    I'm not sure that the opinions of the rest of the world are really having any effect, or are particularly relevant, there.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Yawn by Calinous · · Score: 1

      It might have some effect on the South Korea. As for the North Korea, there are other issues that needs to be solved first, much before the anti-personnel land mines are tackled.

  111. Two questions by nytes · · Score: 1

    How much is the down-payment?
    Where do I sign?

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  112. Coordination is their advantage. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't this unit be modified to call in artillery if the attacking force appeared to be overwhelming? It could upload the fire mission to guns that can also fire with a minimum of manual intervention. It's all about not exposing your soldiers to enemy fire.

    Not only that, but these guns could themselves be "called in" by other external sensors.

    I'd imagine that they would be most effective when deployed as part of a deep network of sensors. The 'gun' would use these sensors as its eyes and ears, and would use them when selecting and engaging targets, even if a particular target wasn't visible from the gun itself (not that you can do a whole lot of accurate indirect fire with a 5.56mm machine gun). Perhaps more importantly, a network of these guns would allow them to be coordinated, and engage targets in concert -- working together far more skillfully than would even be possible for teams of discrete human shooters with radio communication.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Coordination is their advantage. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      I'd imagine that they would be most effective when deployed as part of a deep network of sensors. The 'gun' would use these sensors as its eyes and ears, and would use them when selecting and engaging targets, even if a particular target wasn't visible from the gun itself (not that you can do a whole lot of accurate indirect fire with a 5.56mm machine gun). Perhaps more importantly, a network of these guns would allow them to be coordinated, and engage targets in concert -- working together far more skillfully than would even be possible for teams of discrete human shooters with radio communication.

      You do realise, of course, that this $200,000 'weapons system' is going to be built by government contractors, right? Anybody in their right mind that ever had to deal with government contractors would know upfront that it'll be an overpriced POS that would work real well as a paperweight, and that's about it.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  113. "Samsung techwin" by Dersaidin · · Score: 1
    Did anyone else notice that?

    I thought it was hilarious, Samsung teched up to age 5 and did robotic sentry research..
    Meanwhile their enemys just sent wave after wave of human targets at them. Samsung wins through tech! RTS masters!

  114. Final price won't be $200k. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Well they're not going to sell you just one, silly. The minimum quantity is probably five or ten, so there's your million right there.

    And that's before you get into spare parts, maintenance contracts, training ...

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  115. How long until smartguns? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This makes me wonder how long it'll be until this sort of tech gets miniaturized enough to fit on a portable gun, so we end up with people toting Aliens-style M56 Smart Guns. You could imagine it being coupled with some sort of friendly-fire deterrence system like they use with aircraft.

    1. Re:How long until smartguns? by upside · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been wondering the same. And how come it's taken so long for _this_ to come out? Why use humans as weapons platforms - lousy senses, wobbly aim?

      We have automated weapons systems for taking out vehicles on the ground, air and water. Most use humans to designate the target and the machine does the rest. Ships have totally automated antiaircraft cannons. These are fairly large scale, but that is no limitation. Portable anti-tank systems exist. Digital SLRs have had cheap tracking technology for taking pictures of fast moving targets since the early 90s.

      My guess is there will eventually be an AT-missile type antipersonnel weapon that will combine traits from digital cameras and existing large scale weapon systems. Put the MG or launcher on a tripod and aim at the enemy, or perhaps define a kill sector by pointing and clicking. The platform will figure out what your intended target is and do the sub-millimetre adjustments that are required to hit the target, possibly compensating for target movement.

      Even servo control is not necessarily required. You aim and squeeze the trigger but the weapon will fire the round only once it has decided you are going to hit the mark.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    2. Re:How long until smartguns? by dcam · · Score: 1

      Why use humans as weapons platforms - lousy senses, wobbly aim?

      You clearly nothing about sensors, the kind of thing you might use on this. Human senses are far superiour.

      --
      meh
  116. soundtrack by Falladir · · Score: 1

    The music halfway through the promo video is rather a surprising choice. Did they steal it from the Master and Commander soundtrack? Anyone know where it's from?

  117. Error Safe spyware warning... by Lanttu · · Score: 1

    The site where the link on that post directs tries to install Error Safe spyware to your computer... IE 6.0 --> it doesn't even bother to ask... But freaky stuff... And I just bought Samsung television so I gave money to develop that kind of **it... :(

  118. How long until... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1
    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  119. I want one by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    The NRA say's it's part of the constitution.

    Will the super soaker corp produce a non leathal one to?

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  120. I want one! by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    and the NRA says it's in the constitution!

    (will there be a super soaker version?)

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  121. Here we go again - who will service the damn thing by cheros · · Score: 1

    Just imagine it runs Windows - best not give it too much ammo or you won't be able to get near it for service if it needs an update..

    "20 seconds to comply" is thus obviously no longer SF :-).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  122. You got me wrong. by crhylove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not just throwing around random insults. If you believe in unproven and especially disproved things, you are in fact an idiot. So by simple definition, MOST religious people (all billions of them) are in fact idiots.

    I mean, if you truly believe that some guy died for your sins 2,000 years ago and that your belief in him somehow will be your salvation "in the next life", or in some made up location like "heaven" or "hell", which clearly we have absolutely no evidence for, then you ARE in very simple terms, a moron.

    Lots of people believe the earth is flat. What do you call them?

    Now, there is a possibility in some backwards cultures and societies that these believers are in fact ignorant and not morons, but with the advent of the internet, at least in most countries where you have access to so much knowledge for free (wikipedia, etc.), ignorance is no excuse, and in fact if you REMAIN ignorant, that is in itself a form of idiocy.

    Stop defending ignorant people who willfully refuse to accept the reality they live in. They are idiots, and they're hurting themselves, their families, the planet, and most of the good things that humanity and individuals IN humanity have achieved over the last few millennia. It's inexcusable. Stop defending them. They are idiots, by the very definition of the word.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:You got me wrong. by raduf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you are setting the standards too high? Of course religion is stupid, but there is a sort of "shhh! don't say it out loud" understanding that usually prevents people from posting rants like yours. Also, do you have any ideea how hard it is to live without a point of support? Well, you probably do, but let me remind you anyways: hard. So most people don't bother, since they'll be happier anyways believing in something.

      And lastly, Larry Wall. An exception, true, but reason enough to avoid blanket statements like "all religious people are idiots".

      Don't get me wrong btw :) I _really_ enjoyed your post. Found it refreshing. Feel free to post the links you were threatening with earlier...

    2. Re:You got me wrong. by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Euler was an idiot? Pascal an idiot? Newton an idiot? Wow, you must have contributed so much to the field of scientific endeavor, because you are certainly riding one mighty high horse there. Maybe you should actually calm down and see that not everyone views the world in the same way you do, and that has no bearing on their intelligence. Or maybe just grow up and realize that you are not in fact the smartest person in the world and if you are going to claim that others are idiots, you might want to check who that group includes first.

      Funny that you mention wikipedia, have you ever looked at the articles on various religions in there(hint, they are there). Ever notice how some very well educated believers contribute material to the articles on their respective religions? Are you claiming you are in fact smarter than all those people?

      Every world religion count(s/ed) among its adherents some of the smartest people ever to walk this earth, there are some insanely smart people who believe in no religion at all. My point? Believing in a religion has no bearing on your intelligence, and you are an arrogant fool to say otherwise.

    3. Re:You got me wrong. by crhylove · · Score: 1

      It is my humble opinion that many idiots can be geniuses at the same time, in varying fields and to varying degrees.

      Einstein is another classic example.

      Some days I like to think we all are. I for one completely rule at Mario Kart, and yet can have a difficult time preparing a meal that tastes in any way different than a pile of fetid oozing horse shit.

      I'm sure you can find various examples of this dichotomy in all people's lives. I just don't feel that on the topic of religion, I'm quite as idiotic as the vast majority. Now on other topics (economics, the previously mentioned culinary arts), I'm quite sure that I'm sub-par at best. That's part of what makes our huge human variety so awesome, and yet tragic at the same time.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    4. Re:You got me wrong. by Metex · · Score: 1

      Personally I think your argument is pretty horrific:

      1. Most religious people arent Christian as implied by your statement.

      2. Your argument hinges on the fact that it is stupid that Christians believe in Jesus and that he died.

      3. Given the fact that that "you have accsess to so much knowledge for free" You should have looked up maybe the top 25 scientists that came to mind and see if they were religious or not. I mean they have such wonderful quotes to support your arguments such as:
      "God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstien or
      "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." -Heisenberg.
      Seriously you could name a scientist and I could find 40 direct quotes from then indicating a beliefe in god.

      As a side note you will be hard pressed to find a scientist who doesnt believe in some sort of god but more likely then not it will just be a notion that they is some being that created some inherent structure to the universe.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    5. Re:You got me wrong. by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not just throwing around random insults. If you believe in unproven and especially disproved things, you are in fact an idiot. So by simple definition, MOST religious people (all billions of them) are in fact idiots.

      Count yourself in that group. There is no certainty as you cannot know what it is that you do not know. That is the boundary of rationality, if you cannot test it, you cannot disprove it, therefore you cannot rationally consider the question. Having faith in the existence or non-existence of omniscient dieties falls outside the limits of criticism. Attempting to prove religious belief with certainty is as much a futile effort as trying to disprove them. As the parent pointed out, the only logically true statements are boring and do not tell you jack about what you should do.

      I mean, if you truly believe that some guy died for your sins 2,000 years ago and that your belief in him somehow will be your salvation "in the next life", or in some made up location like "heaven" or "hell", which clearly we have absolutely no evidence for, then you ARE in very simple terms, a moron.

      You have no evidence for getting up in the morning. There is no certainty, no rational reason to believe you will live to see another day, that the sun will rise or that this day even exists and this isn't just a dream. Just ask yourself this question, why do you get out of bed? You will not find a rational basis for the answer, no matter how many answers you try.

      Lots of people believe the earth is flat. What do you call them?

      This is testable, like the age of dinosaur bones, however these tests are a predicated on the irrational belief that there is some sort of natural order to the universe. Rationality has been our best tool for discerning this natural order, but to overlook the limits of criticism and thus the bounds of rationality leaves one with statements of faith disguised the illusion of reason. If all of our empirical tests are not invalid for some reason, the earth is not flat. However, I cannot know the answer to this question with certainty, just as those who declare it is flat cannot present their position with certainty. Now, it may be counter productive to most of the shared irrational goals of humans to disregard empirical evidence, but one can only claim superior adherence to the rationalist identity if one explicity states the irrational goals, such as the natural order of the universe, that the predictive content of your assertion is based.

      Now, there is a possibility in some backwards cultures and societies that these believers are in fact ignorant and not morons, but with the advent of the internet, at least in most countries where you have access to so much knowledge for free (wikipedia, etc.), ignorance is no excuse, and in fact if you REMAIN ignorant, that is in itself a form of idiocy.

      Again, you're simply assuming that everyone else shares your irrational goals for why they get out of bed in the morning.

      Stop defending ignorant people who willfully refuse to accept the reality they live in. They are idiots, and they're hurting themselves, their families, the planet, and most of the good things that humanity and individuals IN humanity have achieved over the last few millennia. It's inexcusable. Stop defending them. They are idiots, by the very definition of the word.

      Perhaps you should concentrate on your own illusions and errors. How is it that you can go about providing salvation for the rest of humanity when you have such a poor understanding of your own faith? I don't care what irrational goals other people have, nor what their faith dictates they believe. That is liberty of conscience, something I refuse to live without and would not deny to another. I only care if you violate my rights, which are the irrational goals of the political state I live in. The civil courts and law enforcement have a way of ensuring there are consequences to impedding those goals, just as reality has a messy habit of enforcing gr

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    6. Re:You got me wrong. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      This guy deserves the mod points than me (at least up until his sig, but nobody's perfect). I agree with him entirely. (Cue the "AOL! AOL!" chants.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    7. Re:You got me wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA.
      Feynman.

    8. Re:You got me wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > very world religion count(s/ed) among its adherents some of the smartest people ever to walk this earth,
      > there are some insanely smart people who believe in no religion at all. My point? Believing in a religion
      > has no bearing on your intelligence, and you are an arrogant fool to say otherwise.
      >
      It may be true that religious people are not on average less intelligent than non-religious people, but you argument for this does not make sense. You are arguing from the fact that SOME religous people are more intelligent than average. That does not say anything about the average intelligence of religious people. Your argument has the same validity as "I know someone who smoked who lived to be 100 years old. Therefore smoking does not have an impact on lifespan".

  123. A Job for Clippy! by zeromorph · · Score: 2, Funny

    Invading North Korean soldier
    or South Korean Soldier (or just a tourist) who lost one's way........

    Clippy:

    "It looks like you're intruding South Korea.

    Would you like a perfect headshot?

    *Get shot immediately.

    *Run still a bit and get shot then.

    [ ] Don't ask again."

    --
    "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
  124. Coddling Religion is the Problem by AndOne · · Score: 1

    Welp while a certain level of anger and rage is present in said post. I've gotta say... I agree. Religions are the problem. And I'm sick and tired of this attitude of "Oh we have to respect your religion even if you're attempting to forcefeed it to us or kill us for being infidels." When the Muslims rioted and burned cars and buildings and Embassies, Europe and the US both sat on their hands. We tried to placate these people(religous whackjobs.. not muslims in particular). At the point in time when people are BURNING embassies it should be pretty damn obvious that we're in a cultural war between religion and... well... the rest of us. I've gotta say I believe in many of the "Western" world ideals. I could do with a bit less greed and a bit more compassion for ones fellow man but the basic premise of things is on the right track. As a simple example... in most of europe and the americas women get a much much fairer shake than they do in the more religious communities(well mainly religions of the "book" aka judaism, christianity and islam). THIS IS A GOOD THING(tm). Sure the western world is flawed but we also don't have female circumcisions, women forced to wear covers with penalty of death or mobs of people killing others for things they don't like with impugnity. I'm not religious... even if I were a christian I still wouldn't be religious. Belief\faith in something is fine... whatever gets you through the day... but when you start telling me what has to get me through the day it's time to fight. Too many people are just willing to let these religious zealots and bullies roll over them or to sit quietly and hope the problem will just go away. It won't and we need to stop placating people. Tell them to shut up.. Tell them to get the hell out of schools, government, politics or whatever the hell else they want to control.

    Just for the sake of fairness when the orthodox jews recently rioted about a gay pride parade they should have been rounded up and charged to the fullest extent of the law for destruction of property and disturbing the peace. I mean hell last year they stabbed someone for being homosexual.. How crazy is that.. I mean really what right does anyone have to determine your sexuality... If you're not sexually involved with that person... the answer is none.

    --
    I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
  125. Mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.


    Realistically the land mine treaty is a waste of time. Mines will not be abolished from the battlefield for the forseeable future because they are an extremely effective weapon. Here you have a simple device that can be deployed by minimally skilled troops, it is cheap to manufacture, hard to detect and neutralize and can be deployed from aircraft with great speed for rapid denial-of-terrain as the US military likes to call it. Of all the things that tank commanders fear, they fear mines the most. You can see or detect another tank or a helicopter before it strikes, you can even stand a chance to evade, detect or even destroy and LGB or a missile with a counter measures system but a mine the tank commander can't see or detect rapidly in combat. The same pretty much goes for the infantry, they fear few things as much as mines and snipers. Here is an object that costs what? $50 to manufacture that has the power to scare the shit out of the crew of an M1 Abrams tank that costs $4.3 millon to make and better yet it stands a very good chance of destroying it. You can't beat that combination in terms of value-for-money. Trying to ban mines, land or naval, will go the same way that the various attempts back in the 1930s to outlaw the areal bombing of civillians. It is deplorable, but unfortunately also true.
    1. Re:Mines by bentcd · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that there is a significant difference between anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mines. I believe it's only the anti-personnel variety (and then only automated ones) that are banned by the treaty.
      Not that those aren't considered useful of course.
      Anyway, the practical result of banning various weapons and use of weapons is to cause non-desparate militiaries to think twice about using them. Obviously, if you're losing the war, you'll do anything at all to get ahead but if you're already winning, or superior from the get go, you might decide to observe the niceties of the situation for the benefit of your diplomatic efforts elsewhere. The expect more than this out of rules for war is to deceive oneself.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    2. Re:Mines by James+McGuigan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anti-personnel mines are fairly harmless against a tank and anti-tank mines can be disarmed by a person. So often they are used together, an anti-tank mine surounded by anti-personnel mines.

    3. Re:Mines by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you're losing the war, you'll do anything at all to get ahead
      Well there is the real problem, the land mine gets used by desperate armies fight there to a loss. When we use the mines, the G8 type countries, putting one out involves a shit-pile of paper work and most often keeping personel on site to physically observe the mine field. A lot of times, an area will be marked as mined, a couple hundred holes dug and then maybe 3 or 4 mines place at the edge. Then when we leave all the mines hgave to be recovered, hense the paperwork. A lot of times we see mines being used aren't in warfare but in genocide.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:Mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      I would like to point out that there is a significant difference between anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mines. I believe it's only the anti-personnel variety (and then only automated ones) that are banned by the treaty.

      Light anti-tank/anti-vehicle mines cause deaths among civilians since they will take out soft skinned vehicles (which are often more valuable targets than any armored combat vehicle anyway because of the supplies they carry) as easily as an armored car or an APC which is why there has been considerable lobbying to include AT/AV mines in the scope of the ban as well. From a military standpoint banning anti personnel mines but not AT/AV mines is pretty stupid anyway since AP mines are the key to making minefields aimed at tanks or other vehicles hard to deal with by making life difficult for the enemy sappers. You typically want to use both types of mines together because they complement each other. The AP mines take out the human sappers the AT/AV mines make life hard for their fancy robots as vell as for enemy tanks and combat vehicles. Banning only AP mines is a bit like allowing people to own cars but not wheels.

      Anyway, the practical result of banning various weapons and use of weapons is to cause non-desparate militiaries to think twice about using them. Obviously, if you're losing the war, you'll do anything at all to get ahead but if you're already winning, or superior from the get go, you might decide to observe the niceties of the situation for the benefit of your diplomatic efforts elsewhere. The expect more than this out of rules

      It's not just the desperate militaries of this world that consider mines an indispensable tool. It is the non-desperate ones as well. My prediction is simple, the moment there is a really serious shooting war involving the armies of NATO and a worthy enemy of equal power (which NATO hasn't had since the Soviets went on permanent vacation although China is looking like a budding successor) any armies whose governments signed the land-mine ban treaty will forget about their high and lofty ideals, plant anti tank and anti personnel mines with wild abandon and the men who make that decision will be lauded as heroes and strong leaders for doing this regardless of the slaughter of innocents their actions caused. The anti land-mine treaty will not survive contact with reality because it is totally impractical just like that papal bull 800 years ago banning crossbows. The mine like the crossbow is just to useful for anybody to ignore using it. You might as well concoct a treaty that bans traffic accidents and get everybody to sign it, the accidents won't stop happening.
    5. Re:Mines by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you're losing the war, you'll do anything at all to get ahead
      and therin lies the problem, the very people who won't be following any mine ban treaty (desperate groups who don't answer to anyone) are the very same people who's mines will be the nastiest (because there is unlikely to be any accessible record of thier location) after the war.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Mines by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Mines will not be abolished from the battlefield for the forseeable future because they are an extremely effective weapon."

      They are used to deny passage to enemy troops. The problem is that they don't discriminate between friendly troops or civilians. They also deny passage to your side. They have the same downside as persistant chemical weapons like mustard gas.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:Mines by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      DARPA has self repairing minefields that jump around, wouldn't surprise me if they can tell friend from foe, too.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Mines by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      A landmine with logic and sensors? Hmmmm, a hackable mine field!

      Not sure if I'd want a minefield that redraws itself at random. Would make clearing it a bitch.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    9. Re:Mines by c_woolley · · Score: 1

      Walked through quite a few mine fields in my time...gently. Know what scared me the most? Anti-tank mines. Know why? Anti-personnel mines have triggers that can usually be seen fairly easily if (like most sloppy enemies) they don't know how to hide them properly. Anti-tank mines on the other hand, can be buried and the dug up earth will eventually match the surrounding earth. They are set off by weight. The type in the area we were in set off at approximately 250lbs. I weighed 220lbs (fit). With weapon, rucksack and gear...walking over an anti-tank mine...let's just say I would have probably lost some weight.

    10. Re:Mines by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It can be remote controlled to self-disarm or be set on a timer. The mines even raise a flag to make them easily visible for pickup when that happens. They've thought of that.

      The Patriot missile system uses IFF to know what to shoot at with no human intervention (leading to the destruction of a british aircraft whose IFF transponder failed). If you can hack the IFF system you can do a whole lot more than just walking across their minefields.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Mines by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Or stacked, so stepping on the AP mine(s) triggers the AT mine(s) underneath.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:Mines by angulion · · Score: 1

      The worst problem with mines, especially anti-personel mines, is when they are deployed by (minimally skilled) troops that A) don't mark them well on a map/at all, B) looses track of them. C) after the crises ends does (the country really) not try to remove them..

      It is still to this day dangerous to move in for example Kamboza and some other places.
      This is why there are treaties that ban antipersonel-mines like Ottawa Convention (http://www.landmines.org.uk/7).

  126. Real use is .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... for the meltdown, when all the mega rich will have these to protect their bases from the marauding hoards - which includes you, sucker.

  127. Making Atheists look bad! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    How exactly am I making atheists bad, since I don't profess to be one?

    Here's a more detailed analysis (from my blog):

    More on Atheism, Religion, and the infinity of human stupidity.
    Current mood: Introspective
    Category: Introspective Parties and Nightlife

    Well, I have a tendency towards the vitriolic online, which is natural I suppose, given the vast body of online experience I've achieved over the last decade (I was on BBS systems even before the Internet EXISTED), but I'm going to try to tone it down and be completely reasonable for a minute.

    Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

    Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.

    Is the world flat?
    Is there an Easter Bunny?
    Is the earth a giant egg hatched from a Condor?

    Does believing one or all of those make you stupid?

    I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. And I'm proud to say, that if something I believe is unproven, I'm quick to change what I believe. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.

    As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time. Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like /. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective.

    Religion (in particular the belief without evidence kind) is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such. Too long have all of us suffered under crusades, against moral judgments, ancient superstitions, ethics given by rote that are in themselves unethical. It is time, nay, it is WAY PAST TIME, to start living our lives, leading our plans and families, based on a scientifically proven linear of what is best for the greatest amount of people at any given time. And yes, I would argue that future generations are potentially THE GREATEST amount of people, and that should be weighed accordingly.

    I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy. Perhaps I should take the hours and years that it would to debunk the ludicrous claims made by nearly every religion on the planet. Maybe I should just throw my hands in the air and claim that we can't even prove OUR OWN existence.

    But I see our existence. I see the lives and deaths of people all over the planet. I see the petty religious squabbles. I see the petty race squabbles. I see the petty ageism squabbles. Frankly, I'm over it.

    If something is right for a great many people, and even if it may inconvenience a few, or even disrupt them in the most ultimate way (death, prison, genetic eradication), by god (or more importantly, by the good of all living things), let's do it.

    Our economy runs on the basis that "optimally" 5% of the population be unemployed in order to lower wages. WTF?!? That means that roughly 20 million people in this country are EXPECTED to be unemployed. That's not a system. That's human misery. That's straight up BULLSHIT. The average American worker makes less than 40% of the profit that he or she delivers to her company. That is highway robbery.

    You, my friends, family, fuck it, even my enemies and people I hate, are getting screwed.

    You're getting screwed by corrupt idiots that would step on their own mothers

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  128. Guns don't kill people, ... oh wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta be kidding. This is GDR border "automatic firing device" reborn, only a bit more polite (however, if victim is unable to hear the warning...). It is obviously designed as counter-civilian (anti-refugee or at most counter-infiltrator) device, because armed soldiers would probably have less trouble with it then with human sentry.

    Now, if you are going to make brothers-in-arms with mr. Roboto here, how do you think he'll know you from Kim Jong Il? I don't like it, be it on my side or not! In fact, it is on nobody's side, except on anti-anything-warm-with-a-face side. Not much better than cluster bomb.

  129. S U P E R S O A K E R / NERF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, don't tease me this way. I'll revert 20 years JUST to justify playing with one of those if they ever came out.

  130. Guantanamo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

    The US could return Guantanamo to Cuba. But they should find another place to torture people before.

  131. How come no one has still said... by Vulturo · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new machinegun sentry robot overlords.

    --
    Vulturo, Prince Of Darkness
  132. Just like Macgyver by XTbushwakko · · Score: 1

    Oh man! Both the look of the robot and the intro is just like an episode of Macgyver!

  133. Offer them a Book of Mormon by canadiangoose · · Score: 1
    I've found that keeping a "Book of Mormon" near the door and offering it to them works quite well. As a former Mormon, I've gotta say that it's fun beating them at their own game.

    When the Mormons come to my door, all I have to tell them is "I used to be a member, ordained priest, even. Not interested, thanks though." It's honest, and it's the only thing that works. I suppose something along the same lines would work against the Jehova's Witnesses as well, but offering them my Mormon scriptures is much more fun.

    --
    Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
  134. Could it work elsewhere? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia 'the DMZ is devoid of humans' (except for two small villages) and so the DMZ is a good environment to apply Pattern Recognition (everything with two legs gets shoot). PR would have some difficulty to work in an Iraqi village where not even real humans can distinguish between terrorists and civilians (imagine a PR classifier like 'everything with facial hair will be shot').

  135. HA HA by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I appreciate it, but I had to laugh out loud for real since it was an Anonymous Coward. Something about a standing ovation from an Anonymous Coward is funny.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:HA HA by nizo · · Score: 1

      If you knew what he was doing with his hands before he started clapping, you would run away screaming instead.

    2. Re:HA HA by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Lame comment. Nice painting, though. :D imminent nuclear war.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  136. Theism, atheism and idiocy by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    > Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to
    > prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is
    > definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

    There is no way disprove that a small apple pie is in orbit around Jupiter. Neither is there a way to prove it exists. Nonetheless, I believe that there isn't one. Disbelieving in entities based on lack of evidence is called Occam's razor, and is a part of the scientific method. You may call it stupid if it makes you feel better (I don't care), but the scientific method and Occam's Razor has served us well, so I believe in them. They key, of course, is to be willing to readjust your beliefs when new evidence turn up.

    In my world view, neither theism or atheism are stupid. There are plenty of evidence (in the form of miracles) for the existence of gods. The quality of the evidence is debatable though. Some are impressed with the atheism, and thus believe in gods. Some think little of it, and take the default position in lack of evidence, which is disbelief.

    And finally some are not bright enough to understand why others can reach different conclusions based on the same evidence than they themselves do, and resort to calling everybody else stupid. It is the Homer Simpson position: "Everybody does everything because they are stupid". Very popular on the net.

    1. Re:Theism, atheism and idiocy by crhylove · · Score: 1

      No. The only logical choice given the evidence is to be agnostic. With neither proof or lack of proof to prove or disprove the concept of a supreme being that somehow dictates reality, I have to choose simply to not know.

      Now some atheists and science types might claim Occam's razor (as you mentioned), but I'm never quick to rush to judgment like that. I'm not sure Occam's razor PROVES anything. It is sometimes helpful in a situation where there is more than one possibility, and the simple explanation is immediately implicated by "Occam's Razor", but even in those instances, further testing and evidence is generally necessary.

      I mean, Two Hundred years ago, "Occam's Razor" would easily have disproved all of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean that are current understanding is vastly superior.

      Simply stated: We do not know enough about our Universe and it's structure to assume anything about it's meaning and origins.

      Anybody who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves with wishful thinking.

      If "God" or some other prehistoric human invention showed up in the flesh tomorrow and held a press conference, well then, I would have no problem acknowledging his/her/their/it's existence(s).

      Until that happens, or further scientific inquiry somehow fully disproves the notion, pretending to know either way is the grossest form of irrationality, and purely the domain of the idiot, which, funnily enough, our species seems to have no small genius in propagating.

      I'm no arrogant ass, either. I'm one of the idiots like most of us. I just happen not to be an idiot with regards to THIS topic. Any of my ex-girlfriends would surely have no problems pointing out a myriad of various other idiocies that I am quite guilty of, however.

      Part of the genius of The Simpsons, and Homer's character in particular, are the subtle truths that sometimes get uttered out of context, seemingly disproving them, and yet subtly underlining them in another way that is, for some (myself included), quite humorous.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  137. bring it on! by blockcentre · · Score: 1

    Yep, I've just found the ideal tool to give me peace on Sunday afternoons. How quickly do you think the Jahovas will take off with that in your front yard?

  138. Change of moderation by foobsr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The comment I posted was rated 2:interesting. No, I do not care. It has changed. Given the the overload of political articles we observe recently does this not give raise to the idea that /. is bought out to eliminate the dissidents?

    CC.

    P.S.: Editor: Explain, if you can! Never mind, be sure we meet at Guantanamo, you are leaking as well!

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  139. Re:S U P E R S O A K E R / NERF by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    prepare to revert, hackaday has an autogun project hmmmm time to Mcguyver the camera tripod!

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  140. MOD PARENT Up for CANADA! by Wacky_Wookie · · Score: 1

    Best short reply on /. in ages.

  141. Re:There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The families who lived in the Korean DMZ area when it was declared a DMZ still live there. They get subsidized by the Korean government for some reason or another, too. Probably just for being good sports, until this whole thing blows over (another 50 years from now).

  142. Most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it run Linux?

  143. Female Voice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What disturbs me the most is that they gave it a pleasant female (Korean) voice.
    Thank you, die again! \ratatat...

  144. Robocop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That walking robot in Robocop surely had a nice targetting system.

  145. Sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just sick. Never again will I buy anything by Samsung. Fucking sick sons of bitches.

    The only good thing about war is that you have people killing people. Ergo, you end up with human losses and tragedies on both sides. This is the only way to realise that killing is not the answer. The only good thing about human suffering.

    Trust some sick korean motherfucker to come up with shit like this. As if guns weren't bad enough, no .. make killing even more abstract. Cowardly whores. If you're going to kill someone, then at least do it yourself. Bah.

    Can someone here please develop a god damned light sabre or something similar already?

  146. In a world without organised religion... by rHBa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...bad people do bad things and good people don't.

    In a world *with* organised religion bad people still do bad thing and good people do bad things in the name of religion.

  147. INSTALLING CRAPWARE by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    clicked on the link and it tries to install some activeX crapware. How 'bout using the machine gun on that kind of threat?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  148. Obligatory ED-209 quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  149. LOL by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Ok, so maybe my post was a bit of a rant, but at least I'm not throwing curse words around, in the voice of God, guessing at people's sexual preference (wrongly), while posing as omnipotent, and also, posting as an Anonymous Coward.

    God:
        If you are so bad ass, use a real /. ID so we can see all of your profound earthly achievements that are somehow vastly superior to the violin career I've sweated over for more than a decade. And it's LeperKhanz all one word. If you're going to give me press (shitty is still good, according to some), at least do it in a way that is valuable and allows people to google it. Actually, here, god, check out my violin:

    http://cdbaby.com/cd/leperkhanz

    Proceed with the gay bashing comments and such. I'm here with my name and FACE online, completely unafraid of you, or any other deity impostor. And I'm proud of my achievements and can take a healthy dose of criticism on my way to hell, where I'll laugh at you for pretending to be superior, when it's obviously me who has a better sense of humor.

    Nice troll, though. I mean, minus the unnecessary and clearly uneducated over use of cussing and vehement stupidity.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  150. The original source of the story? by tka · · Score: 1

    Did anybody else follow the links which point to the source of the article?

    The original slashdot story link
    http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develo ps_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php

    which has a link to a story
    http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/sam sungs-200000-machine-gun-sentry-robot

    which in turn links to
    http://www.gorobotics.net/The-News/Military/South- Korea-Develops-Machine%11Gun-Sentry-Robot/

    that has a link to probably to the original story at
    http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060 928-042215-5882r
    by AFP

    The original doesn't have an image nor video but as story it's far better than the article (rip off) mentioned in slashdot story.

  151. Does it play the POTC soundtrack when acitvated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I HAVE to have one!

  152. University students? by ecuador_gr · · Score: 1

    Ok, so while University students in most countries, including the US, occupy themselves in mostly peaceful research, the Korean students are building ED209??? I thought university students are, or at least ought to be, the most idealistic group. I guess I am wrong...

  153. This looks familiar.. by MortimerV · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they just ask these guys how to do it?

  154. A problem to solve! by dimer0 · · Score: 1

    These would definitly solve our immigration problems on the US southern border. Screw fences.

  155. Einstein was also an idiot. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    It is my humble opinion that many idiots can be geniuses at the same time, in varying fields and to varying degrees.

    Einstein is another classic example (By many accounts I'm sure as a violinist I've got him bested, but even attempting to logically wrap my head around concepts of advanced physics, gravity, and electro-magnetism could send me into convulsions of idiocy).

    Some days I like to think we all are. I for one completely rule at Mario Kart, and yet can have a difficult time preparing a meal that tastes in any way different than a pile of fetid oozing horse shit.

    I'm sure you can find various examples of this dichotomy in all people's lives. I just don't feel that on the topic of religion, I'm quite as idiotic as the vast majority. Now on other topics (economics, the previously mentioned culinary arts, sub-atomic physics, patience with religious idiocy), I'm quite sure that I'm sub-par at best. That's part of what makes our huge human variety so awesome, and yet tragic at the same time.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Einstein was also an idiot. by k2r · · Score: 1

      > I for one completely rule at Mario Kart, and yet can have a difficult time
      > preparing a meal that tastes in any way different than a pile of
      > fetid oozing horse shit.

      That's just because playing Mario Kart is more important to you than preparing your food.
      Eyerybody with an average sense of taste can learn to prepare average tasting but at least nutritious food.
      You just have to spend serious time on training - as much time as you spend on Mario Cart.

      We had this "I was always bad at math"-attitude before, now we have "I was always bad at preparing my food".
      Both attitudes are stupid.

      k2r

    2. Re:Einstein was also an idiot. by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Well that's a fair criticism, but seriously, you have NOT tasted my cooking, and I HAVE spent some time in and around a kitchen.

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  156. Frakkin' Toasters! by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 1

    My Korean is a little weak here to help me out: can this thing tell the difference between, say, a human being and a sasquatch? What about a human being and a really tall raccoon?

    In other words, are these little buggers going to take out every squirrel in Korean as corollary to their mission to bring god to the shameless pantheists of Caprica?

    Answer me now! You have five seconds to comply. Four seconds...three seconds...

  157. Tooth Fairy Logic, Again. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    A very valid point. We do not know either way, and I'm willing to say for the moment that it IS a possibility, however I'm willing to wager with you that it will never be proven in our lifetimes that they do in fact exist. In fact, given the overwhelming lack of evidence supporting THAT idea, I'm going to assume that they don't.

    Still though, I'm not going to rule it out completely until I see conclusive evidence one way or the other.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Tooth Fairy Logic, Again. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      But that's the thing, humans have a very limited range of senses and even machines can't see everything yet. If we saw atom sized people with wings, would you deny there were fairies? These things are all possible and the future is never what we expect, after all it's 2006 and I don't have my moon holiday home, nor my flying car nor my skin tight silver body suit.

      --
      I like muppets.
  158. Amen to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  159. Products generated from entertainment? by vsigma · · Score: 1

    Is it just me - or does this thing look like a cross between an ED-2909 from robocop, and the automated sentry device that they had in Aliens - with the Pirates of the Carribean soundtrack overlaid?

    The cellphones came from the communicators of Star Trek. Future interfaces from Minority Report. What next? Food hydrogenators from Back to the Future?!

  160. moving by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

    Why does it need to move to look around? This makes it a bit more humanoid and opens up the possibility for James Bond to sneak past when it is not watching, but wouldn't it be easier to have multiple fixed cameras to cover all directions? This would also eliminate the need to filter out the robot's own movement and make detection of moving objects easier.

  161. MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh I wish I hadn't used my mod points.

  162. I'm worried by Almighty+Tallest · · Score: 1

    First they think we're made of bacon, and now they can track and shoot us.

  163. So, you Navy or Army? by doublem · · Score: 1

    While I've never served in the military myself, I have seen a good deal of the ribbing that goes on. At my last job, two of my bosses were former Navy, and they spent a good deal of time ragging on the Marines and the Army.

    Of course it wasn't all fun and games. A lot of it was pretty harsh, and while the older guy was clearly joking, the younger of the two had some real hostility issues with the Marines.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:So, you Navy or Army? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      You'd have hostility issues too if you were always the bottom.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:So, you Navy or Army? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Which explains why Marines are so touchy about IQ tests.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:So, you Navy or Army? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While I've never served in the military myself, I have seen a good deal of the ribbing that goes on. At my last job, two of my bosses were former Navy, and they spent a good deal of time ragging on the Marines and the Army.


      It's kinda funny, when I was in the US Army, the Marines basically viewed us as barely one step removed from civilians.. which was the same attitude we in the army had toward the Air Force and Navy.

      Every service has its forte, and now that I'm a bit older I just leave it at that. You want a beach stormed or another type of expeditionary force? Marines. You want a grid square removed with ground power? Army. You want something vaporized in 30 minutes? Air Force. You want a nation's navy gone? Then the US Navy will suffice. Of course all these are gross oversimplifications.

      The best techies I've ever met (I'm an ex-Army component level electronics repair guy) were Navy, but conversely the fattest-assed most out of shape people ever to serve on active duty seem to be Navy as well (an no, the .00001 percent of the Navy who are SEALs or Corpsman attached to Jarine units do not count). The Air Force guys definitely have the best hairstyles and lifestyles, no doubt.. and while they appear to be lax I've seen good military discipline exercised overall.

      As far as the Marines? What can you say.. they drink their own Kool-Aid. As much as I make fun of them for believing their own bullshit I will say it also makes them dangerous as hell to the people on the wrong end of the weapon. Marine NCOs have no illusions about their place in the world: a buddy of mine told me "my squad and I are tools of the US at the most basic level. We will do what is necessary. Period." Of course that's true for all military units, but the Marines I've known (the most memorable being.. I shit you not.. SGT Kill) would likely have no hesitation storming anything under fire even if their chances of survival were nil. Would they like to get shot? Of course not. But they are pretty indoctrinated to do what's needed.

      Of course it wasn't all fun and games. A lot of it was pretty harsh, and while the older guy was clearly joking, the younger of the two had some real hostility issues with the Marines.


      Well, when you're known as the taxi service of the US Marine Corps I can see how that'd piss you off after awhile.
  164. Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, in Korea only old people use landmines.

  165. Sentry guns vs. KJI? by stephencrane · · Score: 1

    As entertaining as is the UA 571-C Sentry Gun, we all learned early on that nuking the site from orbit is the only way to be sure.

  166. Actually, by crhylove · · Score: 1

    It was green tea and honey. You've discovered me! :P

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  167. No need for those toys, by javaDragon · · Score: 1

    I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
    It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
  168. Dupe! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Somebody made the same point above, and this was my response there as well:

    It is my humble opinion that many idiots can be geniuses at the same time, in varying fields and to varying degrees.

    Einstein is another classic example (By many accounts I'm sure as a violinist I've got him bested, but even attempting to logically wrap my head around concepts of advanced physics, gravity, and electro-magnetism could send me into convulsions of idiocy).

    Some days I like to think we all are. I for one completely rule at Mario Kart, and yet can have a difficult time preparing a meal that tastes in any way different than a pile of fetid oozing horse shit.

    I'm sure you can find various examples of this dichotomy in all people's lives. I just don't feel that on the topic of religion, I'm quite as idiotic as the vast majority. Now on other topics (economics, the previously mentioned culinary arts, sub-atomic physics, patience with religious idiocy), I'm quite sure that I'm sub-par at best. That's part of what makes our huge human variety so awesome, and yet tragic at the same time. Potential for genius, potential for idiocy, often in one tidy package!

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Einstein say something to the effect of God does not roll dice, and hence didn't bother trying to understand Quantum Mechanics? Some Genius.

      Here is a Koan to solve:
      What happened to the Genius that thought he knew everything?

  169. pwning-howto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 - Take your coat out and stick it to a short pole.
    2 - while covered by an obstacle, move the pole repeatedly.
    3 - wait until the stupid AI shoots all its bullets to the bait.
    4 - capture it then destroy it or sell it on ebay.
    5 - profit!

    These robots are nothing more than a stoneage grunt armed with a
    machine gun. They're technically impressive and strong but stupid
    and ultimately fairly easy to defeat. Their cameras, for example, have
    no way to protect themselves from blinding: even a modified paintball
    gun could make them nearly useless in seconds.
    If I was american I would welcome these machines instead of angry
    policemen on crack.

  170. Worst Case Scenario. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    In the nuclear age, tolerating the ignorance that goes on due to religion is extremely dangerous. Look at the current situation we have with our own idiotic carpet muncher, and that bearded carpet muncher in Iran. None of this is cool. One of these idiots is going to claim that god told them to push the launch button.

    We should have zero tolerance for these kind of people, particularly in positions of power.

    I wouldn't argue that religion hasn't done something for us at some point in the past. But this is not the past. We need a "Best for all living things" approach now, and none of the religions or prehistoric dogmas are really up for that job. Science and reason are though. We just need to make them a bit more popular. Or wait for the gulf stream to stall, Europe and the Eastern US freeze, and then let it popularize itself.

    I for one would very much like to get people on board with reason and off the sinking ship of religion NOW, and save a lot of lives (both human, and human food-stock as well) before some catastrophe like either of the two plausible ones I've outlined happen first.

    God and Oil have had their day. Let's give science and solar a chance and see if it gets any better.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...idiotic carpet muncher, and that bearded carpet muncher...

      Although I would be the last person to say that any post is not improved by the addition of lesbians, I can assure you that both Bush and Iran-Guy, being, y'know, guys, are therefore not lesbians.

      OR ARE THEY?!

      Let's give... solar a chance and see if it gets any better.

      Ha! HA! BWAHAHAHAHA!

      That's funny. You're a funny man, you are. Solar is not a solution and is unlikely to ever truly be. It used to be an energy sink, and I believe only the top-tier panels now-adays actually produce more power in their projected lifetimes than they take to produce, and even then it takes 10 years to break even. They are also not in the REMOTEST sense "clean" energy. Production of solar cells produce collossal amounts of pollution, especially relative to the energy they generate. This isn't counting the harsh cleansing solutions needed to keep the panels operating at peak capacity which is the only way you can get to that theoretical additional power.

    2. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1
      We should have zero tolerance for these kind of people, particularly in positions of power.
      Yes, but that's like the RIAA saying that most file-sharers use the Internet, so we should have a zero-tolerance policy on the Internet. A majority of people who are religious have core values that most would agree with. Only the religious "nuts"*, who get widely publicized, yet are a small minority, are the ones we should be worried about.

      I could say that life is too important to be left to the mad scientists. By mad, I mean, of course, a scientist who doesn't share the same ethical boundaries as me. Unfortunately, religion is getting slammed so much and terrorism is such a focus today, that religious "nuts" are much more newsworthy than scientific "nuts".

      *Notice that Islam was of very little influence on our morals. Therefore, we see the more extreme Muslims as religious "nuts". They don't count when I say "a majority of people who are religious..."
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my science!
      Science damn you!

    4. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      You are assuming a world without morality or religion would be better off. Instead of different religions we'd have the different athiest groups fighting each other. Only difference is athiests don't have a moral code to follow or are accountable for their actions.

    5. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      But what shall the atheists call themselves? United Atheist Alliance! (That South Park episode was great...had to say it.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    6. Re:Worst Case Scenario. by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Also loved that South Park. I think that the scientific method is a lot less likely to cause warfare than random prehistoric cults.

      So this retarded fish-frog butt-fucked a monkey.....

      rhY

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  171. I have only two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1: Is it mobile?

    2: If so, can I outrun it?

  172. Wireless Network could control them... by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

    ...and we could even name the network, SkyNet.

    --
    Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
  173. Basically by GnuDiff · · Score: 1

    .. after reading most of the comments, it seems that the only thing these guns would be effective at, is killing off those North Koreans who do try to escape to South.

  174. Number 5 by Spookticus · · Score: 1

    Remeber guys, incase of a lightning strike, number five is our friend

  175. Maybe...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Dick Jones directs Kinney to threaten ED-209. Kinney points a gun at the robot.]
    ED-209: PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON. YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY.
    Dick Jones: I think you'd better do what he says, Mr. Kinney.
    [Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 growls menacingly.]
    ED-209: YOU NOW HAVE 15 SECONDS TO COMPLY.

  176. In other news by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    It has a sophisticated pattern recognition which can detect the difference between humans and trees

    In other news, North Korea unveiled today their new camouflage suit that would allow troops to be mistaken by anyone for genuine trees.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  177. Working out the bugs by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

    How'd you like to be one of the developers on this? Every system has some errors and has to be debugged.

    "Hmmm... when I turn it off, it's not sending the confirmation that it's been deactivated. Go see what's wrong with it."

    "You 'go see what's wrong with it'"

    "I'm in charge here!"

    "Where's Jennings? How come I haven't seen him at work since the last malfunction?"

    "I said go!"

    "I quit"

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  178. TFA defences too strong by blootooth · · Score: 1

    I got scared off by the defenses that TFA through at me. I had to retreat.

    --
    Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation
  179. Banning mines is easy by xtal · · Score: 1

    Obsolete them.

    If you had an affordable, reliable means to detect mines easily and quickly, they would be removed from warfare very quickly.

    Of course, they'd be replaced with equally as bad or worse. :)

    --
    ..don't panic
  180. Huh? Just a box,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this be a good real-life application of the cardboard box from Metal Gear?

    I can already see these boxes slowly crossing the DMZ....

  181. Testing? by Slicky · · Score: 1

    So, um, how do you test this thing?

    --
    Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword.
  182. So if you knock them over... by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    ...do they fire wildly for a few seconds before shutting off?

  183. Ob: Ed 209 quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have ten seconds to comply

  184. MOD PARRENT DOWN - TROLL by haagmm · · Score: 1

    i mean COME ON

  185. Go green. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In response, North Korea is issuing tree costumes to all it's troops.

  186. Jellicle Attack! by hoggoth · · Score: 1

    There isn't going to be much wildlife left after these things start taking out every cat that wanders by.

    And if they can tell the difference between a cat and a person, they have another problem:

    "Sir, the cast of Cats is attacking the border!"

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  187. = copyright lawsuit by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

    = copyright lawsuit. But don't worry, all they've got to do is reprogram it to shoot the horde of oncoming MPAA/RIAA lawyers.

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

  188. Prisons, no. LAN parties, YES! by Marbleless · · Score: 1

    Just the kind of incentive for capture-the-flag games.

    Whoever gets the flag aims the robot. You can target enemy players at their PCs to distract them ... or your own players who aren't pulling their weight :)

    Or ... if you are that way inclined ... yourself!

    --
    --I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
  189. Hmmm... Now I can sell my 2-man horse costume... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...to the North Koreans. Seriously, pattern recognition software is crap at discerning humans who are attempting to not look like humans. This isn't a security apparatus (current video analytics software is an augmentor not a replacement for traditional security), it is an anti-invasion tool. If you install a few hundred of these along the DMZ and the north invades, turn the key to 'Pasteurize' and they'll kill anything remotely human.

    --
    Loading...
  190. It can fire $3000 taxpayer dollars a second by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Besides, nuking them from orbit is the only way to be sure.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  191. camo-sentry-gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poeple like to talk about all the ways they can take one out... but... didint it ever cross your minds that instead of setting them out in the open, like in the pictures, they would put em under a guilli suit in some bushes. Good luck finding that unless you want to sacrifice a few poeple to find where the bullets are coming from.

    This is still a war, folks... it is just under a long ceasefire. All is fair in love and war. Besides, N Korea has nukes and nukes>sentry guns.

  192. I think I might have seen this before... by widget54 · · Score: 1

    Looks like something out of Dr. Who!

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  193. Who wants to bet ... by bsytko · · Score: 1

    ... that Arnold does the voice for this.

  194. Of course, if it runs Windows...... by bondjamesbond · · Score: 1

    It redefines the term, "Blue Screen of DEATH".

  195. Joy by richardwatson · · Score: 1

    Just a matter of time before The Wrong Person gets hold of one of these! Then we have to make Machine Gun Sentry Robot Eater Robots, and then Machine Gun Sentry Robot Eater Robots Eater Robots, and then...

    --
    http://www.tudumo.com - todo list with tags
  196. If I had one of these... by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

    ...I would send it to the webmaster over at TFA. I would have my robot ask the webmaster if they might, please, pretty please, consider removing a few of those ads, else take a few rounds in the head.

    I for one can't wait until a few of these babies show up on eBay. So I max out my credit cards...so what? What's the bank going to do, repot my Terminator?

    Bwahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ahem.

    Soon, my precious. Sooooon.

    </creepy satire>

  197. The obvious counter-argument: by kestasjk · · Score: 1
    Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

    Do you apply this logic to Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Aphrodite, the teapot in orbit around the Sun, etc?
    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  198. You have 20 seconds to comply by amigabill · · Score: 1

    The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot.

    I hope they spent more time debugging this bit of code than OCP did with their model.

  199. life in heaven? 144000? by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    Part of this problem with the number "144000" lies in the interpretation for centuries that everybody who is good will go to heaven. That doctrine has been taught by all mainstream christian religions. Obviously, what gives, since at present there are 7 billion on earth.

    Through the study of the Bible (again, don't attempt to believe this if you dont' want to, but just read it for explanatory purposes) you get to realize that those 144000 are selected to form a government. Sort of like representatives are elected into the house or senate. They "reign" over the rest of the country. The bible also speaks of earth being a place most people refer to as heaven - paradise, and that one day that paradise will be restored. In that earthly paradise, there bible says will be people that "no man is able to number", meaning an unspecified, large number of people.

    1. Re:life in heaven? 144000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dumbass, that's just how your particular cult chooses to interpret the Bible. The fact that there are some many interpretations of the Bible, with the adherents to each interpretation being absolutely sure that theirs is correct and everyone else's is wrong, speaks volumes regarding how unclear, ambiguous, and useless the Bible is.

  200. Can you be so sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).

    What about people or soldiers who are trying to defect?
    --
    AC

  201. Tags by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    The tags for this were: aliens, terminator, robocop, cylons

    Not sure why I found that amusing.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  202. Obligatory RoboCop Reference by Mr.+BS · · Score: 1

    I'd by that for a dollar!

  203. He was shot 50 times in the legs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently someone replaced the warning software with DDR!

  204. What's with the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does *that* cost 200 grand, exactly?

    Those are something that hobbyists build for fun.

  205. Terrorist attack tool? by winchester · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can anyone imagine what would happen if one of these would be lt loose in a busy place like a christmas shopping mall, a crowded airport or atoher place where loads of people are available and unprepared for such a device? Sounds like the perfect massacre tool to me...

    1. Re:Terrorist attack tool? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Can anyone imagine what would happen if one of these would be lt loose in a busy place like a christmas shopping mall, a crowded airport or atoher place where loads of people are available and unprepared for such a device? Sounds like the perfect massacre tool to me...

      Oh, sure, it's much easier and cheaper to buy a large $200,000 automatic gun and set it up in a busy place without anyone noticing than to just buy or sneak in some AK-47s and a few suicide warriors. If anything, it will be the U.S. government sticking them around the white house or something equally paranoid.

    2. Re:Terrorist attack tool? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      A bomb with the same general dimensions would do far more damage.

    3. Re:Terrorist attack tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you can get a machine gun in a mall, you don't need the robot.

  206. Re:There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Cite?

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  207. What good against a sniper @ 1km? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    A good sniper could take out these suckers from 1000 yards. "Oops! Sorry Mr. South Korea! Very much accident. Cleaning rifle and it go off! Ha Ha! Good thing no one hurt. Not happen again! Haha. Ok bye." And what would a powerful laser do to the vision systems? These acts are not intended as a prelude to invasion, but just to make life expensive for the robot owner.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:What good against a sniper @ 1km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a decent sniper.
      A good sniper could do better.
      Police/Swat snipers count as awful.

  208. Zerg rush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder how many multiple incoming targets it can handle...

  209. So lock into my signal and beam on down! by mmell · · Score: 1
    "Because here at Minos we don't sell weapons, but complete weapon sys-..."

    Ahh, Korea - the new "Arsenal of Freedom".

  210. It can be switched off by Ardipithecus · · Score: 3, Funny

    What if it doesn't want to be switched off?

  211. Reminds me of ED-209 from RoboCop by BurningTyger · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the part in RoboCop when ED-209 malfunctioned and killed a board member.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ED-209

  212. Phalanx CIWS by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    ... This is just a more modern version of equipment (machine gun + radar + aircraft-recognition computer) that's been on US aircraft carriers since the late 70s or early 80s. It's just adapted for use against people on land.

    -b.

  213. War of attrition. by einnar2000 · · Score: 1

    Give me a medium ranged sniper rifle with silencer. For about 20$ worth of ammo (match grade), I'll take a couple million dollars worth of robots offline. This isn't a solution, it's a toy. Whoever runs out of money first loses. Keep setting them up, and pass the ammo.

    For it to be effective, you need area denial (mines), and human supervision. Ideally, you'll seperate the sensors from the gun, so that the gun can be protected until needed. Also, hide the sensors. If they're not necessarily near the gun, you don't draw attention to it until it's ready to fire. If you really want to mess with someone, have another system on relay that can launch tear gas if it detects a large group of people coming. Add in wire to slow them down and channel them, and you're starting to have a defense. Have humans there with the real defense.

    This is a great augmentation to a defense, but if it replaces it, you're going to be overrun soon.

  214. There's a problem here by Intron · · Score: 1

    Would you be willing to service one of these if it was broken?

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  215. Not acceptable for Battlebots by Robot+Randy · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately this would not pass inspection at BattleBots. You are not allowed to have any untethered projectiles.

    Tethered projectiles are allowed, but the tether cannot be more than 8 feet long.

    And no, you can't use a T.O.W. Missile.

  216. I think.. by afz902k · · Score: 1

    itsatrap

  217. Hail to the King, Baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want creative warnings, just use Duke Nukem 3D.

  218. The first thing in the user manual: by thePfhitz · · Score: 1

    "Disconnect power before servicing."

  219. Already invented by Austin+Milbarge · · Score: 1

    Someone's been playing too much Splinter Cell at Samsung perhaps? Trust me, all you need to do is throw a flare to defeat the robot gun.

  220. A Better Idea... by CYDVicious · · Score: 1

    A long while back there was an article about how some rancher in Texas or wherever setup a camera to a rifle so people could hunt online, but aiming and firing remotely. I think South Korea should deploy several remote-access camera/rifles along the DMZ, such that they can be precise and accurately controlled in the North Facing 180. So with all the rifles "controlled" via website, North Korea will be eager to hack into the systems to gain control. With the tech genius that is South Korea, one could hope for rapid advancement of Network Security! ~CYD

    --
    //Nothing to see here, please move along.
  221. Am Yisrael Chai by Sir+Homer · · Score: 2

    I was born a Jew and I will die a Jew. Judaism has done so much for me, set me in the right path, and made be a better person. I will not forsaken all my relatives and ancestors who died for a belief. You may take my life, however you will never take my religion from me.

  222. Pull! by MrSquishy · · Score: 1

    Im confused.
    Are you wanting to hunt rabbits by throwing them into the air and letting sentry guns pick them off?

    1. Re:Pull! by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

      A few years ago we had a rabbit plague here in Australia. People who grew food, e.g. farmers were doing everything they could to kill the rabbits in an effort to stop the rabbits from eating everything. Actually Rabbits had been a problem here for about 50 years, then we introduced a virus that killed most of them.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
  223. Mexico should use this by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    They could use this to guard their border and keep the gringos out!

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  224. As long as everyone remembers the number one by TerryOutOfWork · · Score: 0

    rule of auto guns.

    Never let the computer pull the trigger.

  225. Doesn't look much like a Tachikoma by FirmWarez · · Score: 1

    but then for only $200k, I guess that's to be expected.

  226. Re:We is Winning Again by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

    Finally! "We is winnin'!"

  227. Vampire Hunter D:Bloodlust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought of that scene where he's tossing those little peas up to distract all the lasers.. That's a good idea you thought of.

  228. Half Life turrets by kaoshin · · Score: 1

    OMG, this thing is totally a half life turret. It probably has many counters, and would be more effective against targets who have very limited or no methods of countering such device or in situations where it has the element of surprise, like if it popped up on folks or something. I think it would be best used to augment or to replace many jail security responsibilities, or to be used as indoor automated defenses. Then they need to make the speakers say something like.. "HALT CITIZEN!!"

  229. Actually, that's why I'm not too worried about by crovira · · Score: 1

    North Korea invading anyone anywhere else.

    I cant see them retaining any invading army the day after they let them out to disperse amongst the world populace.

    You think that you can hang on troops who have been fed lies all their lives about the supposed importance of North Korea, only to discover that nobody really gives a shit.

    We live a lot better than they do. We want to keep it that way. All of our time and energy is devoted to that...

    Fsck North Korea. We're BUSY here and we've got much bigger/smaller worries.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Actually, that's why I'm not too worried about by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Fsck North Korea. We're BUSY here and we've got much bigger/smaller worries.

      The only thing to be worried about is that NK may commodify weapons of mass destruction. Then again, they probably won't. Kim jong Il is simply too paranoid to sell nukes to random organizations and NK's only real ally - China - already has The Bomb.

      -b.

    2. Re:Actually, that's why I'm not too worried about by thedeviluknow · · Score: 1

      Yeah that kind of thinking worked really well last time, the Korean war ended with a negotiated armistice and that was simply because the NATO forces felt that was a less ignominious ending than the total defeat they would eventually have been dealt. It's highly unlikely that any revived Korean conflict would end any differently so the only option is to do everything to prevent another outbreak of war in the peninsula. Anything which would tip the ballance should be discouraged.

  230. Game Over by VinB · · Score: 0

    After it kills all the bad guys, does it display a video of credits?

  231. Am I the only one wondering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the off switch? It says it can recognize humans as opposed to trees, but how does it tell who's a friendly and who's not? And if it can't, how does one turn it off if they can't get close?

  232. All of this has happened before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and all of it will happen again.

  233. Holy crap! by singingjim · · Score: 0

    I want one!! Two even!! One mounted on each side of my front gate.

    --
    Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
  234. Limited usefulness, landmines will be more use. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    As a static device anyway, unless it's supported by humans. I'd put money on it that a cheap laser pointer will dazzle the optics. Then you have sheets of cardboard or plywood to hide your shape etc etc etc Never mind stuff like rocket propelled grenades and other simple but effective military goodies.

    Lets see some real tests. Fit it with a paintball gun and see how it fairs against some good old human ignorance. I'll bet on the squaddies. Anyone want to suggest odds?

    --
    Deleted
  235. Interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zoom, adjust contrast, fill contiguous region will bullets!
    The interface looks suspiciously like apple Aperture.

  236. Re:There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  237. Hardly perfect. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    I can get 100 L of acetone and peroxide for far less. It's easier to make some TATP high explosives and just blow the people up.

    --
    Deleted
  238. Cardboard cutout = $200,000 Romba by newgalactic · · Score: 1

    I can see it now. One mannequin dressed in battle fatigues waved in front of this robo sentry until it runs dry of ammo = $200,000 conversation piece. Maybe we can load Linux onto this thing and program it to vacuum the floor?

  239. Sun Tzu still likes mines by DescentToCocytus · · Score: 1

    The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.

    I am sure the standing army these things are designed to keep out have weaponry which can destroy these things from distances of a mile or more. A simple pair of binoculars would all but neutralize these robots as a threat. Mines, on the other hand, cannot be easily detected from distances of much more than a meter or two, and even when found can be dangerous and time consuming to disarm.

    The only advantage to using these robots would be to reduce casualties to those who have accidentally wandered into the DMZ. In all other scenarios, at least those which I can think of, they would be useless against actual threats.

    1. Re:Sun Tzu still likes mines by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      I am sure the standing army these things are designed to keep out have weaponry which can destroy these things from distances of a mile or more.

      The problem is that these things aren't really meant for battlefield use. They're meant to control civilians. That's what the new century is all about; enforced depopulation and control of resources.


      -FL

  240. How Not to be Seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or in a camouflage of bushes.

    Ah-ha!

    Mr. aepervius has learned the first lession of how not to be seen.

    However, he has selected a very obvious hiding place...

  241. Robot Sentry for the DIY crowd... by mpthompson · · Score: 1

    This page describes:

    Amateur roboticists (and gunmakers) Aaron and Eric Rasmussen built an autonomous sentry gun as a summer project. Aaron wrote custom software to acquire and track human targets using images recieved from an attached USB webcam. The brothers have incorporated as USMechatronics to begin building sentry guns based on the technology.

    More information here on the brothers official sentry gun website.

  242. Really, you should feel sorry for them. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Religion is simply a form of mental illness. People who are religious have almost certainly had the illness passed on to them by their parents who were probably similarly infected. Rather than despise and revile them, you should feel sorry for them and do what you can to help them see how they've been deceived and how silly and bizarre their beliefs really are. Rather than force them into hiding, talk to them and explain the reality of the world. Be an evangelical atheist, or agnostic if you prefer.

    Books like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins can help, it condenses all of the religious insanity into one book.

    --
    Deleted
  243. Danger to Animals by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    It has a sophisticated pattern recognition which can detect the difference between humans and trees

    That's not really good enough. I think there will be a lot of objections over the wildlife that would be targeted and killed. They will have to improve their algorithms to distinguish between animals and humans. Of course, this inevitably leads to a large scale onslaught of North Korean soldiers dressed up as pantomime horses.

  244. Hey, expensive targets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's to stop North Korea from picking these things off with cheap rocket launchers all day long?

    South Korea loses $200k per pop, there are no casualties to complain about, and it costs what, a few hundred bucks or less per rocket for North Korea? And what's South Korea going to do about it? They don't have the leverage to get North Korea to stop.

    Not to mention maintenance difficulties. Who's going to go out into the minefield to retrieve the broken robot? Who's going to pay the 20-30k per year to maintain it?

    As cool as these might be, I'd guess their cost/value ratio is way too high.

    Mr. A.C.

  245. Ways to defeat this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there are several ways to defeat a system like this.
    -Hide behind something bulletproof (i.e. an armored car/tank, a shield ala CS, a tree or pile of dirt). The mobile things could take you through this gun's range.
    -Disable it from outside it's range (snipe it).
    -Outnumber/overlaod it (rush it with 50 people, some must survive, and yes, I did play Totall Annihilation)
    -Wear a bulletproof helmet (it always aims at the head, right?)
    -Hide behind something that does not look like a human (like roll towards it in a hollowed out log, or pipe) In fact, I wonder if a big bush would do the job.
    -Train an animal to disable it (i.e. monkey or ferret)
    -Throw a smoke grenade at it so it can't "see" you (would a flash damage the camera?)

    I can't say that I'm terribly impressed by this thing. But nice try.

  246. Music? :) by gknoy · · Score: 1

    I find it funny that the music sounds like it's from one of the Rainbow Six series of games. I suspect it /is/, as opposed to merely being composed by the same people ... .I don't know. :)

    1. Re:Music? :) by merc64 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the Pirates of the Caribbean theme music...

  247. what? by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    Didn't they ever watch Joint Security Area?

  248. Sweet! by gwayne · · Score: 1

    The U.S. government should order 100 or so for the wall it's building along U.S.-Mexico border.

  249. Finally! by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    Those damn deer won't stand a chance now.

  250. From the comments--nobody seems to get it. by bill_kress · · Score: 1

    This technology is going to completely revolutionize all sorts of encounters. Sadly (for the US) it will mostly balance in favor of the invaded rather than the invader.

    In the end, this is nearly 100% software, so the cost is going to be minimal--probably less than mines.

    Imagine thousands of these $5000 "mines" throughout a city like Baghdad. Each group is linked to a single cheap PC. Each group has both cameras and guns, concealed from view.

    When a group of soldiers come into view, they can be activated--either remotely by radio or by identifying some insignia on the clothing. After being activated they can silently track until all targets are in view at the same time. One or two shots to the head of each soldier should make for nearly a 100% kill rate--there is no real reason for a shot to miss (a very simple calibration routine and software that waits until all targets are vulnerable should take care of that).

    The soldiers that are left, if any, would be incapable of identifying the locations of most of the "Mines". Each "Mine" would be reusable, cheap, and nearly 100% accurate, and they could operate automatically or with targets selected by a solder located in an inaccessible bunker.

    And the type of imaging software required for this is so useful that it MUST be developed and spread. With this type of technology, you also get the ability to do things like:

    -Notice any patron in a restaurant that raises a hand and send a waiter to him immediately.
    -Perhaps even simple drink orders by hand gesture.
    -Track peoples locations at home and use the info to control heat, light, music, ...
    -Identify people in a store that need help.
    -Identify erratic movement patterns that indicate a potential crime.
    -All sorts of interaction via hand-gestures in all sorts of locations.
    -Criminals in jails could actually be watched at all times--no more shivs.
    -Insects could be tracked for laser eradication.
    -Crack houses could be seriously defended from police...
    (I'm not saying I think these things are all good, I just think they are all going to happen.)

    All these "advances" come from simply being able to combine multiple camera images into a 3-d model, kind of the opposite of what a graphics card does today. I think that ability will revolutionize computers and how we interact with them yet again, but it scares the crap out of me too.

  251. Golf by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    You forgot that North Korea also has the "World's Best Golfer". Stand aside Tiger; Kim Jong is here. Palmer? You suck next to Kim Jong. Yellow jacket? We don't need no yellow jacket. We've got red nuclear missiles, or at least missile shells with nuclear logos painted on them.

  252. Just a matter of time.. by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

    Automated machine gun mount.. just a matter of time before someone gives it legs/tracks and then some intelligence so it knows what to shoot.

  253. Totally old news! by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1
    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  254. Easy Solution by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 1
    FTA -
    It has a sophisticated pattern recognition which can detect the difference between humans and trees
    So what happens if soldiers dress up in tree costumes with rocket launcher limbs?
    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  255. Test Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would hate to be the test subject...

  256. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Answer the door naked with a vodka bottle filled with water.

    Swig the water and ask 'what do you want'?

    They don't come back.

  257. Why do you hate America?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible.
    Why do you hate Freedom?

  258. Amateurs. Check out *this* freakin' company: by RexDevious · · Score: 1

    http://www.gizmag.com/search/BAE/

    Scary, huh? I was going to apply there, because it's always been my dream to be at least partially to blame for when the robots come for us. But... I don't know. These guys are actively *trying* to make unstoppable killbots (and succeeding, from the look of it). When their robots come for us... where's the sense of adventure? I mean, it looks like they'll be doing exactly what somebody wrote out in a functional spec somewhere. So if they run amock, word'll get back to BAE and they'll be able to fix whatever went wrong I bet. That takes all the fun out of it. My dream always involved the army calling up the company behind the robots to find out what went wrong, and having a conversation like this:

    Army guy: "Damn it! Why are the robots killing everyone???";
    My company: "I don't know... they weren't designed to do that."
    Army guy: "No sh_t, Sherlock. You think we would have put an order in for 20,000 units that were designed to run amock and kill everyone?"
    My company: "No, no. I mean, you don't understand. The scenario you've described... picking locks, stealing parts, making self-modifications... they weren't simply not designed to do those types of things... they weren't designed to be *capable* of doing those types of things!"
    Army guy: "So wait a minute, you're saying that... hold on. Who's that yelling 'Woo-hoo!' in the background?"
    My company: "Huh? Oh, that's just one of our coders. Pipe down, Rex, we've got a serious problem over here!"
    Army guy: "OK, that's better. So you're saying these units have what, evolved or something?"
    My company: "Well no. Technically this would be adapting. You can't say they've evolved until they start reproducing."
    Army guy: "They can reproduce?"
    My company: "Lemme check. Hey Rex, can the robots we sold the army reproduce?"
    Me: "You think I'd be working until 10 PM every day if I'd figured out how to make them reproduce yet?"
    My company: "Whaddya mean, yet?"
    Me: "Oh... nothing"
    My company: "So why are they killing everyone?"
    Me: "Probably because they can't reproduce. Seriously, a few more months of not getting laid and I might join them."
    My company: "No no no. I mean how is this happening?"
    Me: "Oh the killing everyone thing? Well, I was getting kind of tired of feature creep, so I just made the code kinda flexible."
    My company: "Flexible? How flexible?"
    Me: "Um, apparently 'changing-their-programming-and-then-killing-every one' flexible."
    My company: "Well how the hell do we stop them?"
    Me: "I'd have to take a look at the code. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember a tiny fraction of what I wrote. That's why I commented it so heavily!"
    My company: "Yeah, I know. The guys we have looking at the code are currently reading about how a particular television show inspired a new technique of callbacks in the NLP module. They're up to the part where you describe the ingredients of the drinks you were serving while watching it..."
    Me: "Oh yeah, I forgot all about those drinks. Those were killer."
    Army guy: "What the hell is going on over there???"
    My company: "Uh, we're looking into the problem now"
    Army guy: "OK. You call me the split second you come up with anything".
    My company: "Will do. Rex, you let me know the split second you... hey, where are you going?"
    Me: "I have rehearsal"
    My company: "But the Robots... killing everyone..."
    Me: "Oh relax, there's like, what? Six billion of us?"
    My company: "Yeah, eight years ago. There's 10 billion people on the planet these days".
    Me: "No, I mean left. I just checked the news. See? Six billion left."
    My company: "Holy crap!"
    Me: "Six billion's still plenty. I guarantee I get things sorted out before we're down to 5."
    My company: "Down to five!!!"
    Me: "Well, four tops. Three at the outside. But absolutely, positively no less than two."
    My company: "That's unconscionable!"
    Me: "I know, especially considering that they'd o

  259. mexican border patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...canadian too

  260. What happens if I dont have an arm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if I have a missing/broken/shot/injered arm(s)? will the "bot" still shoot me as I am surrendering but cant hold up my arm(s)?

    And what will it do to another "bot" that is aiming at it? hummm mechassult...

  261. Easy to take out by DbZeroOne · · Score: 1

    A 12 year old kid with a paintball gun could render it useless rather quickly, particularly if they had specially formulated paintballs to goob up whatever sensors it might have.

  262. Video Outtakes... by agw · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there is a scene where the robot doesn't recogzine, that the north korean has his hands up in the air and starts shooting?

    Again, this show us how great a movie robocop was and that we should be afraid.

  263. Contractors don't have a lock on incompetence. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about that, most of the U.S. military's aircraft, its armored vehicles, its artillery, even a fair majority of the ordnance itself, is designed and built by contractors, and it seems to generally do its job. It's just not cheap. But then again, contracting outfits have little reason to be cheap, since there's no competition except with each other, and the client literally has the ability to print money.

    I've worked in government contracting, and however fucked up you think that side of things is, it doesn't even touch the level of fuckedupedness that is your average USG agency. The level of apathy, bizarre interpersonal conflicts, mindless bureaucracy, and downright incompetence that I saw from government employees was truly astounding. That the government manages to do anything never ceases to amaze me, and more often than not I think it's only because of the labor of a few very skilled and dedicated people, hauling along the rest of their agencies like an ant beneath a dead whale.

    The government, and anything that touches it, however peripherally, is a total sausage factory. If you want to retain any appreciation at all for the things it produces, don't watch them being made.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  264. Semper Fi, buddy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a former member of Uncle Sam's Motorcycle Club (12 exciting years, several of them in Korea oddly enough), I can say your ordering above was pretty much how we saw it. I also agree with your second point about the proper uses of the different branches.

    Regarding the Koolaid - again, I cannot disagree. I think you overlook the self-selective nature of the All-Volunteer-Force, though ... me and my happy band of brothers were all people who had already decided we were willing to get shot at if it gave us the chance to shoot at Bad Guys (tm).

    And the brass never sugar-coated it either - training & doctrine stated the 2 responsibilities of an officer are (1) Accomplishment of the Mission, and (2)Welfare of the Troops, most assuredly in that order. We were never in any doubt about our place in the overall scheme of things ...

  265. aeon flux by i621148 · · Score: 1

    Now they just need some giant scissors that cut you in half when you try to cross the border like in Aeon Flux (which ironically is really about North and South Korea)...

  266. Let me hear it say... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    "You have 5 seconds to comply..."

  267. Our duty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Was initiated last week in in the US.

  268. I'm just glad it's Samsung... by merc64 · · Score: 1

    ...and not any company I've purchased wireless networking equipment from. Every half hour it would crap out and charge through the nearest city, guns blazing.

  269. NO by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    No. No, no, NO.

    This suffers from exactly the same problem as land mines. When a human doesn't make the targeting decision, innocent people get maimed and killed.

    Admittedly, robot guns degrade more gracefully than land mines. But still, this is highly immoral.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  270. Don't take it personally by dbIII · · Score: 1
    It was noting a viewpoint and not noting a reality - I apologise if it was seen as a personal attack. While it is real that some people think landmines are OK I do not think that makes it right - that should be clear from my post.

    I also have problems with killing machines that discriminate by a rough visual profile as well as well as mines that choose their target by weight. Thoeretically the mine problem in solved by mapping where they are - the same thing that will be proposed for this thing but not work unless it requires frequent maintainance and you really do need to know where it is or it stops working. A set and forget thing with a ten year power source is just another mine that is better at killing civilians after hostilities cease - but I don't think this is such a thing yet.

  271. Political uses by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Wow, they can now manufacture Republicans, and they are made in Korea yet.

    I wonder what happens when one of these comes across a Diebold touch screen voting machine?

    Cheers

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  272. Oblig. Homer quote by mclipsco · · Score: 1

    hmmm, Canadian Bacon...

    --
    Take off every 'SIG'!!
  273. Artificial Intelligence Fooled by Artificial Trees by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

    I think this device is ridiculously primitive, and an example of useless technology. All one has to do is dress up to look like a tree, and they won't be recognized. Or, just draping yourself in a light-weight reflective mylar mirror would totally confuse the system. Hunters have done this for ages... hiding behind a mirror that is tilted toward the ground, so that your subject only sees a reflection of the ground when looking at you.

  274. I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Werecat!

  275. Notification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations rolfwind!

    At the time of nomination you had a +5 Insightful for your mere 32 words and as such you have reached a tentative first place for the 2006 Slashdot Awards in the following subcategories:
    - False Analogy
    - Reality Substitution
    - Grating Miscomprehension
    - Involuntary Contextual Misrepresentation

    You are also nominated but not holding first place in the following categories:
    - Idiotarian Advocate
    - Demented Love (formerly known as 'Ban The Bomb!')

    The award committee extends their appreciation for doing such an excellent job with such meagre resources and wish you the very best of luck in winning.

    There are no prizes (except possibly infamy) as there is nothing (legal) we can give you that would help. However most past winners are perfectly able to do the worst to themselves and continue to do so regularily as far as we can ascertain.

    Regards

    2006 Slashdot Awards Committee

  276. Goldeneye by BrotherLuigi · · Score: 1

    You take these things out the same way you took them out in Goldeneye - Sniper Rifle from just out of its visibility range. Be sure to pick up the important documents out of the safe first though ...

  277. Meant for deployment along the DMZ by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

    Why do they want to take out my game server?

  278. so... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

    They're commissioning a $200,000 robot that can be taken out with one $50 EMP grenade?

  279. Language issues by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 0

    So what happens if you are a tourist taking a stroll and wander into the DMZ.....
    Robot: [unintelligible Korean words in computer voice]
    Tourist: "Huh?" Flips through phrasebook.
    Phrasebook: "You have 20 seconds to leave or I will shoot you in the face."
    Tourist: Looks at watch...gulps
    Robot: [more Korean words]
    Tourist: Flips through phrasebook
    Phrasebook: "Bang. Bang."
    Tourist: Pines for fjords.

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  280. cookingly-challenged by k2r · · Score: 1

    If you'd live near my area I'd just take the challenge.
    I'm absolutely confident that basic cooking is a skill everybody can and should develop.
    And I have had some friends on university who couldn't cook spaghetti without burning the water...

    I had them start with a very simple version spaghetti Bolognese (without instant stuff). I'm absolutely confident that even you can learn basic cooking. Start with a simple recipe and a friend who's good at cooking.
    If you can do it, throw away the recipe and start experimenting, failing and succeeding.
    I believe in you :-)
    I have been broke many times while attending university and It's a good feeling if you know that you can still cook something tasty and nutritious with almost nothing in your kitchen...

    k2r