Street Fighting Robot Challenge

ianchaos writes "There's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by the event sponsored by Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency. Newscientist has a good writeup of the robot challenge, which is to build a robot that can operate autonomously in urban warfare conditions, moving in and out of buildings to search and destroy targets like a human soldier."

Comments

One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Bolo

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic? Attention Moderator on crack and/or woefully ignorant:

Bolo is most definitely ontopic.

I crawl toward the enemy, blind and uncertain of my every move. This is not the first battle I have fought over this broken, bloody ground, but it may be my last. The enemy is ruthless and keenly skilled, led by a commander whose battlefield brilliance has consistently outmatched the government's admittedly wretched field-grade generals. Any commander who can catch a Bolo Mark XX in one successful ambush after another is a force to be reckoned with. I do not make the mistake of underestimating him. I am in pitiful condition for battle, but this rebellion must be stopped. As the only fighting force left on Jefferson with any hope of defeating the rebellion's high command, it is up to me to restore law and order to this world. Civil war is a bloody business, at best, and this one has been no exception. I am not happy to be caught in the middle of it. I am even less happy with the terrain in which I must face Commodore Oroton and his veteran gunners. The terrain through which I creep is ideal country for the rebel army which has made its strongest camp here. Klameth Canyon is more than a single, twisting cut of rock slashed through the heart of the Damisi Mountains. It is a whole series of canyons, narrow gorges, and tortuous blind corries. Tectonic action buckled ancient sandstone badlands and shoved the broken slabs upwards in a jumble that stretches the length of the continent. The deep canyons carved by wind, weather, and wild rivers still exist, but they have been twisted askew by the titanic forces inherent in the molten heart of a world. Above the ancient canyon walls, the high, broken peaks of the Damisi range climb toward the sky, jagged teeth above a spider's tangle of gashes in the earth. I have never seen terrain like it and I have been fighting humanity's wars for more than one hundred twenty years. Even Etaine, the worst killing field I have ever known, was not as disadvantageous as the ground I cross now. If it had been, humanity would have lost that battle--and that world. I fear I will lose this one, for there is no worse terrain on Jefferson for fighting an entrenched army. Commodore Oroton, naturally, has chosen it as his final battleground. The only way into--or out of--Klameth Canyon by ground transport is through Maze Gap, which I cleared nearly an hour ago. I anticipate ambush from moment to moment, but the commodore's gun crews do not fire. I mistrust this quiescence. I have all but given up trying to outthink Commodore Oroton, since I am almost invariably wrong. His battlefield decisions are frequently devoid of straightforward logic, which makes any attempt to predict his moment-to-moment actions fiendishly difficult. If I had a Brigade-trained human commander with plenty of combat experience, he or she would doubtless fare much better than I have, working on my own. But I do not have a human commander, let alone a Brigade officer. The president of Jefferson, to whom I report and from whom I take directives that equate to orders, has the power to issue instructions that I am legally obligated to obey, under the terms of Jefferson's treaty with the Concordiat. The president, however, is not a soldier and has never served in any branch of the military, to include Jefferson's home defense forces. He has never even been a police officer. When it comes to conducting battlefield operations--or outfoxing an enemy commander--Jefferson's president is spectacularly useless. None of these facts raise my spirits as I crawl through terrain I can barely see. If not for the battle archives I carry in my experience databanks, my situation--and my progress through Klameth Canyon--would be impossible. Using my on-board records, I am at least reasonably able to steer a course through the twists and turns of Klameth Canyon. I am less concerned with ephemera such as houses, barns, and tool sheds that did not exist when I

Re:One word

[HRogge]

Even a modern tank is too large to conquer a building... something with the size of a Bolo is absolutely useless for cleaning a house, unless you are willing to destroy the house completely.

Re:One word

[El Torico]

...something with the size of a Bolo is absolutely useless for cleaning a house

Get a Roomba for cleaning the house; get a Bolo for destroying it.

Re:One word

[Anonymous Coward]

something with the size of a Bolo is absolutely useless for cleaning a house, unless you are willing to destroy the house completely

Yes, I do believe you've achieved understanding of some of the subtleties of deploying Bolos for urban combat.

Counter attack

[Tablizer]

Oh yeah? Well Al Quida is countering with suicidal robots with bomb belts. So there!

Robocop

[_Sharp'r_]

Where's robocop when you need him?

Re:Robocop

[Tablizer]

Where's robocop when you need him?

Based on the trend, probably in California politics of some kind.

Re:Robocop

[Anonymous Coward]

They said robots, not cyborgs, you insensitive clod!

Re:Robocop

[Anonymous Coward]

- Serve the public trust

- Protect the Innocent

- Degrade all DRMed HD video files

Re:Robocop

[denzacar]

From TFA:

This robot must be able to negotiate a staircase and use the elevator to dash from one floor to another without the aid of satellite navigation, which may not be available indoors. Well... at least they have learned SOME lessons from watching above mentioned documentary.

There is nothing more depressing than having your killer-robot beaten by target's ability to use stairs.

Re:Robocop

[Pheersome]

Close, but no cigar. The correct answer is "Getting his Ph.D. at UCLA":

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/posts.htm l

Re:Robocop

[Drooling Iguana]

How else would they protect each other from the Terrible Secret of Space?

Page is swamped

[Tablizer]

Do you realize that our military may then get slashdotted in the middle of a battle?

Re:Page is swamped

[jpardey]

Maybe in Unreal Tournament 2020, rather than MONSTER KILL, you will hear DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE

Re:Page is swamped

[_merlin]

You probably know this, but the person who moderated you Insightful instead of Funny probably doesn't: the military's web servers are not critical for battles. They're completely isolated from their operational systems.

Re:Page is swamped

[jpardey]

So... even if I hack the Gibson, I will still be a powerless virgin in my dorm room? My life is shattered.

I for one

[edgr]

welcome our new robotic, stair-climbing, elevator using overlords.

Re:I for one

[Bromskloss]

welcome our new robotic, stair-climbing, elevator using overlords.

So, the elevator is using overlords?

Re:I for one

[somersault]

No, because there's a comma before elevator. Ambiguate that!

Re:I for one

[KDR_11k]

How else would it build all those zerglings?

Re:I for one

[edgr]

Yes! How do you think the elevator is going to climb the stairs? Elevators normally can't climb stairs. So it must use overlords in some incredibly technical way.

These guys don't get out much

[glomph]

I must have seen two dozen movies with the same plot. The trick is to get the cars' petrol tanks to immediately explode.
Lisping Tyrolean accents are optional, but highly expected.

Re:These guys don't get out much

[Form-o-Stuff]

Unfortunately, we're already working on making power sources less volatile. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 24/005254

DARPA Worldwide?

[gbulmash]

Sounds like the DARPA Challenge, but more violent. Cool! I'm all for anything that advances us toward real-life MechWarrior/Gundam type stuff. Though I'd prefer to avoid Robot Jox. :-)

Re:DARPA Worldwide?

[p0ss]

I own robot jox on vhs, how dare you slander it! those giant killing robots won alaska back for you!

Re:DARPA Worldwide?

[gbulmash]

"I own robot jox on vhs"

Okay, whatever you do, NEVER EVER use that as an opening line with a woman.

- Greg

Re:DARPA Worldwide?

[gstoddart]

"I own robot jox on vhs"

Okay, whatever you do, NEVER EVER use that as an opening line with a woman.

No, I think he should be obligated to say that one in the interests of full disclosure. Things like communicable diseases and terminally bad taste in movies really should be brought out into the open early so people can make informed decisions. :-P

Cheers

Re:DARPA Worldwide?

[Cybrex]

Amateur. I own it on VHS and DVD! And have watched it within the last 3 months! (Just please don't tell my wife!)

Crash & burn! ;-)

Re:DARPA Worldwide?

[Stanistani]

"This time next week, I kill you dead..."

Watching this movie was like watching a sugar-hyped three-year-old destroy his Transformers toys by smacking another kid with them.

So..

[vell0cet]

is one of these going to be sent back from the future to kill someone's mother?

Re:So..

[lostguru]

and will it get in a motorcycle accident with its son and need stitches?

The Change in Combat Mentality

[eldavojohn]

I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed.

I understand this is Singapore issuing the challenge, but I would like to see robots (in any format) capable of navigating buildings and hogtying humans without injuring them. The robots themselves may be at risk but the unknown targets inside could be detained and processed under law. Make them infra red or heat sensing so they can operate in the dark. But I am strong believer that combat needs to move away from lethal harm to the individual. More importantly, you would remove the lethal harm to our own troops. Wars are no longer solved through death. What seems to be prolific in today's world is something the Native Americans called a "Mourning War" where you kill my brother so I kill two of yours and the problem compounds upon itself. There was some sort of mental shift after 1914 where you didn't just destroy a force and the country bowed to you. Each side has put themselves on a pedestal and, as a result, even the populace believes they are right or correct.

I heard once someone say that the only way to end conflict these days was total elimination of one side of the conflict. They weren't suggesting the implementation of that or genocide, they were merely pointing out the conundrums that exist over pieces of land like the Gaza Strip.

What does Singapore hope to accomplish with this challenge? Why do they think that wars of the future will still be bent on how lethal your weapons are? Can't they see that the United States has more and better lethal weapons than any other organization in the world ... and yet we are still vexed and taunted by a rag-tag terrorist organization. It's not a matter of flexing your muscle anymore, it's not a matter of dropping a nuke or making an example--I believe that it's a matter of being able to subdue elements inside and expose them for the evils and crimes they commit. Bring justice to them & let them live in shame for what they've done.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[wasted]

I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed....

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

...Bring justice to them & let them live in shame for what they've done...
By then they have already done the deed, and may not even believe that their wrongdoing was wrong. Too late.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[ptelligence]

I'm sure all robots will be 3 laws compliant.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Planesdragon]

I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

The goal in combat is to get the other side to stop fighting. Most of the time, the only sure way to get that result once the shooting starts it to kill them. If there were a way to stop someone from trying to kill you as quickly and effectively as shooting them in the head with an M-16, then we might see it happening. But there isn't -- even the best tasers are essentially one-shot deals that act quite a bit slower than a bullet, and don't do anything once the juice is off.

Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed.

Oversimplification at its finest.

There isn't a country in the world today that doesn't understand that war is a special circumstance. If you pick up a rifle and engage in open war, you might get killed by the other side. We create "enemies" when we act in ways that enrage people, and killing someone in war doesn't do half the damage that, say, starting a war based on lies in the first place does.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[timeOday]

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive.

That's debateable. A wounded soldier is actually a liability to his surviving buddies during the battle.

Besides, indiscriminate killing isn't very useful unless you're willing to commit genocide. Most conflicts are not total war in the style of WWII where carpet-bombing, nuking, and firebombing entire cities was accepted.

Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Ceriel Nosforit]

...killing someone in war doesn't do half the damage that, say, starting a war based on lies in the first place does.

The former is the result of the latter, so the comparison is a bit odd.

At any rate, reducing the bodycount of a war seems to be a lot easier to accomplish than stopping politicians from lying.

Shooting bullets is cheap, but it appears many armies aren't really concerned about cost. Deploying robots that subdue people without harming them seems not that far-fetched...

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[sumdumass]

The highly touted and possibly commoonly misinterpreted Geneva treaty forbid a country from using weapon designed to mame or injure a person instead of killing them. The idea is human rights and one side or the other purposly disfiguring the enemy. Lasors and such were outlawed for personel weapons because of the suffering a person would go through before eventualy being burnt to death.

But you right, Incompacitating a military person is more effective then killing them. It take on the order of three people to care for each person as well as a support staff to remove them from the lines. It also demoralizes the citizens supporting the war and causes it to become unpopular when their best frien comes home missing legs and has scars that makes a rasin look pretty.

However, non lethal weapons do have thier place. That IS in non war type scenarios. Crowd cnotrol, civil unrest, protecting a potential target and general policing. The problem with those weapons is they they attempt to anoy and break the mob-mentality or momentum by providing some sort of imeadiate consequence more then they intend to subdue. This creats a problem when they can shoot you too.

What does Singapore hope to accomplish with this challenge? Why do they think that wars of the future will still be bent on how lethal your weapons are? Can't they see that the United States has more and better lethal weapons than any other organization in the world

I cannot speak or anyone in particular but i would guess the reasons could be more of a defensive posture then anything. Lets say you have a terrorist attack, the terrorist or even invaders are held up in some buildings down the road. Theyhave a snipers advantage so sending troops will almost certainly see casualties. The robots go down, lock onto a target and if they do nothign else then distract, they would have saved the "good guys" lives. Another situation cuold be, you just gave battle with the enimy, you have people down but are afriad of snipers or whatever, sedn the bot in before the medical teams. not only canthe bot locate the wounded but possible find and expose dangers.

Another possibility might be, suppose the cost and maintinence of the bots are cheaper then a real soldier or even the same price over a five or ten year time frame. You could keep a larger army with less in costs of support (food, shelter, health, sanitation,) and use less real people. Then if a conflict starts, the bots could hold the lines until a draft pulls and trains enough people or you can get help from another country (like the US, china, and so on).

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[wasted]

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive.

That's debateable. A wounded soldier is actually a liability to his surviving buddies during the battle.

Besides, indiscriminate killing isn't very useful unless you're willing to commit genocide. Most conflicts are not total war in the style of WWII where carpet-bombing, nuking, and firebombing entire cities was accepted.

Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

The purpose of these machines is precision removal of the opposition. If you carpet bomb, you defeat the purpose. A wounded human terrorist is still able to recover and try again.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Climate Shill]

I'm sure all robots will be 3 laws compliant.

1) Do what thou wilt
2) See above
3) GOTO 1

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Steeltoe]

Why not learn more from native people, and from people from the Far East. Spirituality is clearly the way to go, educate people and the best thing we can all start right now with the Art of Living. If not for others, it will save your own peace of mind & give joy and please & babes!!:

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[rossz]

You can learn all you want about people, but there will ALWAYS be people who will want to kill you or enslave you not matter what. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, would learning more about Nazi Germany have prevented WW2? Not a chance of that. How about today's problems with islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We've learned what they want, to convert the entire world to their religion, by the sword if necessary, and kill anyone who refuses to convert. Our world (meaning the Western World) offends them just by existing. We would have to give up everything we hold dear to _possibly_ appease them. Even then, I bet they'd still want to kill us.

It's not us who needs educating, it's them. They need to learn to live with people who are different. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. To them, different == bad.

I refuse to be ashamed of my culture and beliefs.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I think you are right, next time someone is hitting me with an M16, I will attempt to find a solution that doesn't harm them.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Ash Vince]

Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

Maybe it's a nice building?

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[KDR_11k]

Religion makes for a nice rallying cry but I really doubt this is about conversion, they'd go more for their neighbors and less for the US in that case, they'd also try to conquer territory instead of just causing damage. It's political and the minds behind the whole operation want power, not religion.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[skeldoy]

The US militarys insistence on tauting research into the field of non-lethal
weapons is probably only a ploy to satisfy the humanitarians within US and
to appear a little saner in the UN. I do not believe that non-lethal weapons
will be the main focus of any army for the next 20-30 years. For non-leathal
weapons to work you will have to control the population. No invading army
really controls the population the first 20-30 years of their presence. You
will have to shoot dissenters; they cannot be silenced with non-lethal weapons.

If you detain enough of them in the same place they will organize and come
out of the situation stronger then when they came in. The US cannot continue
the nazi-style detention camps on Cuba; you will have to humanize the "rehabilitation"
of the so-called "terrorist detention centers"; most of us know that it is a place for letting
CIA-officers get some rage out of their systems by raping muslims in the a*-hole and
forcing them to listen to RAP. (troll)

Seriously; before climbing up on a mountain of humanism and "concern" for killing;
imagine a world where all political dissenters were tazed and internalized for the
next 15 years. A place where you did not even get shot in the head by the CIA for
voicing a plea of democracy; orange jump-suit and an eternity of mental and physical
torture in a US "political vacation center". Yuck: I'd prefer those robots killing me!
At least then I would die with a little dignity; with a spaghetti-portion-sized chunk of the
internal wiring in my hand while the robot screams "KILL ALL HUMANS!!" ;)

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Princeofcups]

>>> Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

Too young to remember the Neutron bomb then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_The_Poor

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Make attorneys the first to be drafted. Solves lots of problems.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

'cause they probably have a nicer TV than I do. Mine isn't even stereo, fer christ's sake.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Mike1024]

I understand this is Singapore issuing the challenge, but I would like to see robots (in any format) capable of navigating buildings and hogtying humans without injuring them.

A problem with many nonlethal weapons is abuse.

Also if a disabling robot malfunctions and kills someone, that would be a much bigger problem than if a killing robot malfunctioned and didn't kill people - hence, it's a more difficult technical problem.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[the_REAL_sam]

Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed....

...
Re:

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

...

Remember the Ten Commandments. Killing is a sin. In most people that makes a difference, since Muslims, Christians and Jews are all supposed to keep them, and that accounts for more than half the world.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml

I would expect Hindus and Buddists to be averse to it, as well, given their believe in Karma.

Most of the atheists, agnostics, "theists" & secular humanists I've met wouldn't develop weapons, either.

Consulting the pie chart, that still leaves "primal-indiginous," Sikh and "Chinese Traditional". I don't think we need to worry about them developing any such weapons.

That accounts for most of the world. I guess the category for "no God, no rules, no conscience" was too slim to put on the pie chart.

Of course there's another pie chart: The pie chart of who goes to Heaven vs who goes to Hell. If you give hand grenades to monkeys and use them to manage crowd control, you might find yourself on the losing side of that pie chart. (sure, LAUGH, it's FUNNY. you might be greeted into Heaven by a monkey...with a hand grenade) :) Is giving autonomous killer robots to the police and military any better?

Do you think an autonomous killer robot would be cabable of differentiating a plumber with a piece of pipe from partisan infantry with a bazooka?

FYI, about that reward they offered: a Singapore Dollar is worth 65 U.S. Cents.

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice begins at home

Re:The Change in Combat Mentality

[Cybrex]

Why not learn more from native people

Native people? Aren't we all native to somewhere? I currently live in the same country in which I was born, but I don't feel that gives me any particular insight into how folks should live their lives.

and from people from the Far East.

Sir, are you implying that the people in the "Far East" are pacifists who do not engage in war? If so, I strongly suggest that you put down the Yellow Bamboo videos and learn some history. Southeast Asia has some of the richest and most fascinating (and bloodiest) military history in the world. If I were Chinese I would honestly be offended by your remark.

I see the point you're trying to make, and clearly resolving a conflict equitably by non-violent means is preferable to waging war. It's been said that war is the failure of diplomacy, and there's some truth to that. However, the unfortunate fact is that the pursuit of a life of "peace of mind & give joy" doesn't scale up to international relations. Any nation that values non-violence over its own defense *will* be crushed. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

What is the Real Problem?

[Tauo]

The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares. So what is the next step? trying to kill civilians and others off, using this robot technology. Singapore is starting a race for the next level of warfare. First nuclear was created, now robots.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[sumdumass]

Star trek had some episode about this. They went fomr robots to computer program that strtigicly depicted the death rate then people would report acordingly to be executed.

And i agree, I the goal is war, then there needs to be human element to decide when they have had enough. If the goal is to outspend the other side then other tactics could be more sucessfull.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[Darthmalt]

When/if soldiers are replaced by robots then the primary target will increasingly shift towards the enemies economy. Attempting to destroy their ability to make war by destroying the manufacturing and economic base. Rather than just by targeting soldiers and other military targets.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[RuBLed]

I agree, war is about people.

Would we stop fighting after the robots are gone?

If the answer is Yes, I would like to propose that a Counter-Strike or Battlefield Tournament be held instead.

Seriously, I believe that these kinds of robots are much more suited in police work like capturing individuals or such...

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[Dark_MadMax666]

Who says that robots will be only killing each other? -Point is to kill humans when and as needed without exposing your population. Of course things go wrong and if their robots win this will e your population that gets killed . So dont worry -there was never been a problem with human killing.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[Digital Pizza]

Heh Heh, I enjoyed that episode, especially Kirk's flagrant violation of the Prime directive!

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[rucs_hack]

Bomber Harris thought much along the same lines, which is why he started his city bombing campaign to kill civilians and infrastructure (but mainly civilians, lets be honest here). After all, why kill the army when you can wreck the very thing they're fighting for?

Vicous and terrible though it was, it did have the required effect, which was to terrorise to the point that people wished the war was over. There was not one jot of resistance to the allies once the war was declared finished. Would that have been the case if we hadn't done what we did?

I'll never agree with the decision, but I can understand the motivation.

The truly horrific thing was that the whole bombing of english and german cities thing started because one german bomber got lost and hit london by mistake. I wonder if there could be an alalogue with robots? Perhaps one killing a building full of innocent people?

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[shrykk]

The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers).

Yes, if you're engaging in total war. These are a bit thin on the ground nowadays - a few still occur between non-nuclear states.

Modern warfare tends to take place with a group of nations (e.g. NATO, the EU, or a 'coalition of the willing') committing some fraction of their total force against a state (e.g. Afghanistan) or a non-state force (the Iraqi insurgency). These little wars drag on for years and are ended by political means as much as military ones. Soldiers being killed is just one way a side can lose the will to fight. But in fact, it's often the more powerful nations that are keenest to not lose troops. Consider the political ramifications of the Iraqi death-toll, or how fanatical the Israeli Defence Force are about not losing men.

That is why robot soldiers are desired. Western nations can spend plenty on materiel, but don't like their soldiers coming home in body bags.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[IDtheTarget]

The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares. So what is the next step? trying to kill civilians and others off, using this robot technology. Singapore is starting a race for the next level of warfare. First nuclear was created, now robots.

Actually, that is incorrect. The point of war is to enforce your society's political will upon your opponent's society. This usually involves "defeating" your enemy.

Defeat is an event that occurs in your opponent's mind. He is defeated when he is convinced that he is defeated, that it is no longer worthwhile to resist, or that the cost of resistance is too high to pay.

Creating defeat in the mind of the enemy is an inherently psychological operation, because different societies and individuals have different values and different ideas as to when it is acceptable to surrender and when it is not. In some societies it is never acceptable to surrender, in others it is acceptable if there no longer remains any viable way to effectively resist.

Classically there have been a few ways to defeat your enemy, aside from completely annihilating him:

1. Somehow convince your enemy that if he continues to resist, you can and will completely annihilate him and his unit.
2. Ditto to his society (i.e. nuclear bombing)
3. Occupy or control his "center of gravity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_(mi litary).
4. Destroy your opponent's infrastructure such that he cannot continue the fight or even feed his own people.

Note that destruction of resources is a perfectly valid way to wage war, and has been so for all of recorded history. If you threaten a man with violence, he will often fight back. If you threaten his ability to feed his family, he will often submit.

Re:What is the Real Problem?

[mollymoo]

The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares.

No one cares? Over here, the memories of the hardships the whole of the UK went through in WWII haven't faded away quite yet. They weren't unique to the UK of course, many applied to other countries too. I'm not talking about the hardships of those in the military or who were bombed directly, but those on rations for a decade; those working long hours in munitions factories; those for whom new clothes, let alone the equivalents of PS3s and HDTVs, were rare luxuries; those who had their homes, businesses and careers comandeered for the war effort. They cared.

Are you really sure you wouldn't care if you couldn't fix your car because the factory that used to make the parts was making parts for killer robots? Are you really sure you wouldn't care if you couldn't afford a holiday because of the 78% tax rate to pay for all the killer robots? Are you really sure you wouldn't care if you were sent to work on software for killer robots in a strange city hundreds of miles from your friends and family? I would.

Not much to do with defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing these days what gets researched under the guise of "defense"

I don't see how such a robot could be used for defense, though it would be pretty handy for assassination.

Next thing you know some general will be talking about asymmetric warfare: "no fair ! our less-armed opponent is using desperate tactics ! he should just let us win !"

Too much too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just start with a robot which can move in & out of buildings and *identify* targets.

As long as they...

[Nathgar]

get the robotic voices to authenically scream sonic boom, its all good.

To stand a chance, al-CIAida must defeat Shen Long

[Anonymous Coward]

But before they can get to Shen Long, they must first get past Chuck Norris and his hurricane Kick.

Oh and BTW...Hadouken! Hadouken! Hadouken! Farfignuggen!

Just an observation

[Anonymous Coward]

The robots were kung fu fighting - WHOA
Those cats were fast as lightning - HA
At first it was a little bit frightning

*insert asian music*

Street Fighter Robot?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Smoke? Oh yeah, not Street Fighter. Wrong universe. That one is from Mortal Kombat. Maybe they need instead a Mortal Kombat Robot Challenge.

Which quote do I want...

[Mantrid42]

Hmmm... yes... autonomous soldier robots... worked out well for the 12 Colonies of Man, didn't it?

Re:Which quote do I want...

[reyalpdemannu]

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

slavery

[wall0159]

Robots probably won't destroy humankind, but they could allow us to be enslaved by other humans.

At the moment, for someone to be in a position of power, they need to convince other people of their merit (regardless of whether they're a despot, or an elected official).

Robots like these could allow wealthy people to subjugate others - private-army style.

It would also absolve the high-level commander for any atrocities as they could attribute it to "machine malfunction" - oh how I look forward to that new euphemism.

Re:slavery

[jpardey]

Actually, there is already a term for that kind of thing. Criminal negligence. It doesn't take much to influence people, ever heard of the Milgram Experiment? Or, for that matter, the Stanford prison experiment? It does, however, take a lot of work to get a factory of people together to build robots, and to supply the raw materials. I don't think robots are necessary.

Re:slavery

[fmoliveira]

With good working robots, nobody would need slaves.

well..

[TheBeardIsRed]

I can't lie. The inner 14-year-old suburban white male in me thinks this kindof rules.

What language should they be written in?

[bunions]

I'd say Guile.

You lose. Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that advocates a game that has a duel ending in a choice of gruesome Fatality, Babality, or rainbow-bannered Friendship should be thrown into a pit with Chuck Norris as he defuses a bomb from the dismembered torso of a conquered al-CIAida terrorist.

And to rub salt into your wound, my post was a couple seconds before yours. That means I have the first attack, and it's a Hadouken up your ass!

Attack me if you dare! I will crush you.

But can they dance?

[DavidHumus]

That's nothing - here are the real Robots of Mass Destruction: Robot Dance Competition http://web.gc.cuny.edu/sciart/.

Re:You lose. Perfect!

[PitaBred]

dismembered torso of a conquered al-CIAida terrorist

So... you're still seeing those black helicopters, eh? Did they tell you any more about the aliens at Area 51?

Note to slashdot "editors"

[chefmonkey]

Oh, heck. I have karma to burn.

than '[th]&n, '[th]an (conjunction) 1 a -- used as a function word to indicate the second member or the member taken as the point of departure in a comparison expressive of inequality; used with comparative adjectives and comparative adverbs

then '[th]en (adverb) 2 a : soon after that : next in order of time b : following next after in order of position, narration, or enumeration : being next in a series c : in addition : BESIDES

Re:Note to slashdot "editors"

[Canderel]

Amen brother.

It's its when you mean it's its,
It's it's when you mean it is.

Re:Note to slashdot "editors"

[krahd]

You know, some time ago, after years of being pretty proficient in the English language, I had to actually look up if I was wrong and "then" and "than" could be interchanged freely.

And then I learned to not trust slashdot comments no more :D

Re:To stand a chance, al-CIAida must defeat Shen L

[SleepyHappyDoc]

All I can think of now is Smoke versus Goro. Let's hope they don't blow up the world.

Tough Ask

[Voice of Meson]

I understand that Singapore are trying to push the boundaries here but 2008? Really? To have a robot that can "navigate both indoors and outdoors in an urban landscape", climb stairs and use elevators all without the use of GPS is something I wouldn't think we'd be able to do for 5/10 years.

But I guess everyone is in the same boat so the winner might be the one that gets 1/4 way through the course and shuts the elevator door on it's head. In the first DARPA Challenge the 'winner' only got 7 miles through the 142 mile course.

Re:Tough Ask

[Dark_MadMax666]

I doubt they will succeed by 2008 as well. But you gotta try. As you already mentioned no car even completed first DARPA challenge , yet in just it was done. Also 2008 is 2 years away plenty of improvements will happen by then. I think by 2010 it will be completed.

Re:Tough Ask

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't think we'd be able to do for 5/10 years.

I think 6 months is too short as well

gets 1/4 way through the course

I don't think any robot will be able to get 1 to 4 way through the course

Purpose of such contests

[dkhoo]

I am an employee of DSTA, but I do not speak in my capacity as one.

The purpose of such contests is typically not to field an operational capability. It is very unlikely that the winning robot or a variant will actually be deployed. The main purpose is to encourage industry and academia to perform research in certain fields, such as machine vision, control systems, AI, etc. This is a long term investment. The secondary purpose is to gauge the state of the art in these fields while advancing it. This is the short term gain.

The contest is modelled after the DARPA Grand Challenge, which concentrates on outdoor navigation. Similarly, you will not see autonomous combat vehicles anytime soon. However, DARPA has certainly focussed interest and effort toward all the fundamental research questions needed to achieve such a feat. DARPA also now has a good idea of what is possible when planning acquisitions and upgrades, and is able to better assess the technical risk of new developments. If the US Army asked for an autonomous UGV tomorrow, DARPA would be able to give a good estimate of how much it would cost, how long it would take, and what is realistically achievable (then the politicians will come in and screw things up).

Such contests are an admission that the state of the art is no longer in the military or intelligence communities, but in the acadamic and industrial spheres. AES was developed outside the NSA, for example. More and more equipment is COTS or MOTS (commercial / militarized off-the-shelf). The days when you could get a national laboratory (Singapore has one too) to singlehandedly advance the state of the art are long over. Nowadays inhouse research tends to be focussed on either security-sensitive fields, or areas no one else simply wants to touch. This trend will only accelerate in the future.

Re:Purpose of such contests

[harish]

You should not have identified as being an employee of DSTA, but then again it is your choice (and no I don't work for the DSTA, but do live down the road from them).

I think you are correct in your assessment of the role of innovation and it is quite clearly and well stated by Alexis De Tocqueville's book "Democracy in America" - which he wrote in the 1830s - in which he states:

"When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the co-operation of the Government, but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less successful than the State might have been in his position; but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the Government could have done. "[1]

[1] http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/ politicalscience/DemocracyinAmericaPart1/chap9.htm l

Re:Purpose of such contests

[clusterix]

Hi Harish!

I think that governments are starting to realize that the 'military industrial complex' method of driving technology results in bloated defense contractors and over budget impossibly resourced projects. It works well at first as long as there are clear nationalistic needs and attainable goals. However, this is just centralized planning which can never be efficient and is always open to abuse. Also, deliberately limiting your design and manufacturing sources to trusted companies only works if you can guarantee the best minds will always work there. This is a different world compared to the 60's or even the 80's where that used to mean a specific group of companies in the US, and I think getting the best minds is probably more of an issue than economic efficiency at least for the US government. Maybe S'pore is maybe waking up to this reality as well.

Re:Purpose of such contests

[HBI]

Is there risk to identifying the agency you work for?

In the US Army, there is no such risk as long as one obeys the rules. If you possess a clearance, no discussion of information associated with that. No distribution of sensitive information. Follow those basic rules and everything is generally ok.

Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[eldavojohn]

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

I've seen cops (in riot situations) revert to these zip ties that are similar to what I tie the cables in my computer up with. The cop takes a zip tie, forces the individuals arms behind his or her back and applies the zip tie.

These zip ties cost maybe 10 or 20 cents each. They are not fool proof. And the way in which you get the human into the physical position to apply the zip ties is a problem an engineer has yet to solve. But if you're telling me that this is too expensive. Or that, in the aftermath of the war, the individual (who at no time had any risk save maybe a broken arm through failed cooperation) will sue you. I will have to laugh. Have you priced bombs or even arms and ammunition recently? Not cheap. And through the use of those, the alternative is death. You can't put a price on life.

Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus.

Well if that sentence doesn't send a chill down my spine, I don't know what does. If you're using that as an actual retort to my original statement, I certainly am confused. Are you suggesting we kill them all because they'll be silent afterwards? Sounds like a war crime which is probably something I'd fear more than a "human rights ruckus". Wasn't that the idea behind the My Lai Massacre? With the most recent Iraq war, hopefully we'll realize that our image to the rest of the world is just as important as our arsenal when entering a conflict.

I'm not suggesting we use this in a civil setting or time of peace in our own society or anywhere. I consider even this an extreme measure only to be used in times of war.

And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

I don't care if we're talking about Morocco, I hold all governments to a high standard in this modern world. Oh, well, Singapore has a history of sneezing at human rights, so I'll let them slide? No way. If anything, we need to be more critical of them.

By then they have already done the deed, and may not even believe that their wrongdoing was wrong. Too late.

And I will assert that oftentimes the reason they feel they were doing the right thing is because of the deaths of people they loved from prior conflicts with their enemies. The trick here is to minimize the deaths and expose those causing the conflicts for what they really are. If you can't expose them to their own people, than maybe you shouldn't be there in the first place. Imagine if we found every Al-Queda member and marked them and made publicly known to everyone around them that they were part of an organization responsible for the deaths of innocent men, women & children, surely their families and societies would hold them as murderers. In our society, when your brother is murdered and you murder the person responsible, you are still tried for murder. Just because they did a crime does not give you the right to replicate the crime on them. And I think a lot of societies today agree with this or should come around to realizing that you can't let people murder each other. Justice & the truth are the only answers.

I don't think you should count on help.

[Kadin2048]

Where's robocop when you need him?

Oddly enough, there was an article I saw in Wired recently about the actor who played RoboCop; apparently he had a mid-life crisis and is now a professor of Classical Studies at some university. I think his specialty has something to do with Roman aqueducts.

Re:I don't think you should count on help.

[loganrapp]

Bullshit! He became a terrorist!

Re:I don't think you should count on help.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see him on the History Channel

(I monitored, so I have to post AC)

Re:I don't think you should count on help.

[tsm_sf]

He's headlining a Broadway play called Frank's Home. Might just be on a sabbatical though ;)

I liked the title

[SP33doh]

I liked the title... but there was surprisingly low levels of actual street fighting robot content.

what a disappointment.

i mean, I would have even settled for robots playing street fighter.
or people street fighting over robots...

or something...

Re:I liked the title

[tech49er]

Or a Group of people living on the same road (ie: Street) fighting with a robot ...

Pick your favorite death-bot!

[sankyuu]

1. Replicant - burns candles at both ends
2. iRobot -trendy, comes in black and white
3. Hunter-seeker - finders weepers
4. Terminator - capable of winning state elections
5. Matrix agent - software
6. Matrix squid - hardware
7. Suicide booth - manufactured by Bender
8. Robots are our friends - powered by old peoples' medicines
9. Martian Reprisal Interplanetary probe - that was for our babies!
10. Transformers - nasty power supplies
11. Cowbot Neal - no nuclear warheads. less lethal than iRobot. Lame.

Re:Pick your favorite death-bot!

[Silicon Jedi]

I Pick Number 8.

But I'll be safe, I'm covered by Old Glory Insurance

Re:Pick your favorite death-bot!

[aero6dof]

You forgot Ed-209 -- if only they can fix the stairs problem.

Go Robo!

[freeze128]

Someone installed Windows Vista on him.... He's still booting.

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Mongoose Disciple]

You can't put a price on life.

Not to nitpick too much, but people put a price on life all the time. Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't put a price on life, that's possibly another story.

I think you do raise some interesting points and I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but ultimately I have to feel like it's a little overly optimistic/naive. I don't, for example, really see people who currently shelter violent terrorists shunning them if their crimes were to be known, because said people probably don't share your/our view of what constitutes innocent victims. How great it would be if the solution to all problems was just to tell people the truth, but I don't think that's the world we live in.

Obligatory Simpsons: Salesman: Surely you can't put a price on your family's lives?
Homer: I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are.

That's not a BAD thing...

[freeze128]

However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares.

On the contrary. These robots will need to be designed, built, programmed, and repaired. This war will breathe new life into the IT industry.

Isn't that one of the laws of acquisition? "War is good for business"?

Re:That's not a BAD thing...

[lostguru]

yeh and i can start my new career designing them


*reads mail

shit just got drafted NVM

Re:That's not a BAD thing...

[cliffski]

They are rules, not laws, and the next rule is (as you may know) "peace is good for business".

On a serious note, I'm unhappy with anything that allows for warfare to be any further removed from the human protagonist. If we could have stealth bombers flying by wire, is it really such a good thing? There is an argument that says, that if you are not willing to risk your own citizens to fight a war, is that war really justified? The first person to suggest that to me was a serving UK soldier.
If the US could impose total control in Iraq using laser-equipped Mechs with not a single US citizen as risk, I'm sure a lot of US marines getting killed over there right now would be very happy about it, and I don't blame them, but if there is *zero* risk to your citizens from a war, then the 'barrier to entry' for new wars gets lower and lower.
If The US had effective, mass produced killer mechwarrior doodads, does anyone doubt that they would already have invaded Syria and Iran? (Of course, you might think that would be good too, but where does it end?)
Personally, I think that would be a bad thing. Wars should be a last resort, fought over issues so vital that men and women are genuinely prepared to risk life and limb to fight them. They should not be fought on a whim for economic reasons by wealthy nations, at no risk.

Re:That's not a BAD thing...

[KDR_11k]

With more automation we could also replace the commanders with computers at some time and even invent an electronic government. We could rename the country United Civilized States because clearly everyone else is just a bunch of barbarians.

why not

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just pipe a wires remote that looks like an Xbox controler and give it to the 12 year olds who usualy wax my ass in any game i play against them on the damn thing.

You could just goto school and let them play you to victory.

Re:why not

[KDR_11k]

Because schoolchildren winning wars is too much of an anime clichee and God's a better writer than that?

Street Fighting Robot Chicken?

[uzor]

I totally misread that title as Street Fighting Robot Chicken. Imagine my disappointment upon opening it.

and the task is...

[paulpach]

... to go back in time and kill John Connor and a bunch of other random people.

There are a few pictures of the contestants which have failed so far.

The Rules of Robot Fight Club

[SeaFox]

1st RULE: Terminal will not transmit data about ROBOT FIGHT CLUB.

2nd RULE: Terminal WILL NOT transmit data about ROBOT FIGHT CLUB.

3rd RULE: If command "HALT" executed, or terminal fails to respond, or gives hardware error code the fight process will be killed.

4th RULE: Only two robots to a fight.

5th RULE: One fight per session.

6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.

7th RULE: Fights will go on as long as required to complete the operation.

8th RULE: If this is terminal's first session at FIGHT CLUB, the terminal MUST fight.

Re:The Rules of Robot Fight Club

[tont0r]

these robots just broke the first two rules of robot fight club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0mDIGobdtQ

Re:The Rules of Robot Fight Club

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so saving that for a Paranoia gaming session!!!

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[wasted]

It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

I've seen cops (in riot situations) revert to these zip ties that are similar to what I tie the cables in my computer up with. The cop takes a zip tie, forces the individuals arms behind his or her back and applies the zip tie.

These zip ties cost maybe 10 or 20 cents each. They are not fool proof. And the way in which you get the human into the physical position to apply the zip ties is a problem an engineer has yet to solve. But if you're telling me that this is too expensive. Or that, in the aftermath of the war, the individual (who at no time had any risk save maybe a broken arm through failed cooperation) will sue you. I will have to laugh. Have you priced bombs or even arms and ammunition recently? Not cheap. And through the use of those, the alternative is death. You can't put a price on life.

We were talking about robots. What is the probability that an enemy combatant will find a way to nullify the robots' non-lethal mode? Are you a programmer? Can you program the ability to ziptie a non-cooperative combatant as reliably as the ability to destroy a non-cooperative combatant? If the non-lethal, zip-tie, mode is nullified, the non-enemy combatant can be in harm's way, and die. And as you said,

You can't put a price on life.

My countrymens' life have a higher value than the enemy's countrymens' lives. But, the general in the field has to deal with this. So, he has to look at the consequces of dead enemies. Thanks to today's media, every dead enemy combatant has the potential to be a martyr.

Imagine if we found every Al-Queda member and marked them and made publicly known to everyone around them that they were part of an organization responsible for the deaths of innocent men, women & children, surely their families and societies would hold them as murderers. In our society, when your brother is murdered and you murder the person responsible, you are still tried for murder. Just because they did a crime does not give you the right to replicate the crime on them. And I think a lot of societies today agree with this or should come around to realizing that you can't let people murder each other. Justice & the truth are the only answers.

You obviously don't understand religious zealotry(sp?). Those who kill in the name of religion will kill regardless of what others think.

Housewives prefer Farnsworth's kill-bots!

[saviorsloth]

pay no mind to any of these 11 death-bots or Wernstrom's kill-bots.....

Wernstrom!

wars should be fought...

[Grinin]

on a chessboard. I mean, I thought that was the original idea for chess, no?

Asimo loads up

[Neo-Rio-101]

Time to arm Honda's Asimo with a rocket launcher.

I can see it now: Asimo comes out on stage at CES and bleeps angrily "It's 5 o'clock! Time for your medicine!", before pulling out an AK47 and going wild.

Mod parent up

[e4g4]

He/she may have made a seriously obscure reference, but it was quite clearly on-topic and well sourced; a scifi reference is very appropriate for a topic like this.

Re:Mod parent up

[poolmeister]

Maybe the original moderator though he meant Bolo Yeung, who's also got a bit of a reputation as a cold street-fighting robot.

Sure way to win hearts and minds

[kop]

Just rip em out with your steel claws

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't understand religious zealotry(sp?).

Who uses (sp?) in the age of 'dict zealotry'?

In any case, you are way too cynical to be posting on such subjects.

Pattern recognition

[Myrcutio]

AI today, and probably for a while still, is notoriously bad at pattern recognition. If a program can't predict how a human opponent will behave, it won't win in combat. There alot of 'what if' scenario's that the robot controller needs to account for, or end up being easy prey to an unorthodox opponent. Something urban warfare is notorious for. Til the AI get's intuitive, watching battle bots is as close as we're going to get to something like this.

Re:Pattern recognition

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Actually it's even worse than that; if there are humans on the robots' side mixed in with the fighting -- and there almost certainly will be -- then bad pattern recognition means lots and lots of "friendly fire" deaths. Distinguishing friend from foe in the split second it takes to make a firing decision is hard enough for the human brain.

Chip Jagger Sings It -

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of spinning, charging wheels, robo
'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, robo
Well then what can a poor robo do
Except to aibo-dance for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy Singapore town
There's just no place for a street fighting robo
No!

Hey! Think the time is right for a city-state revolution
'Cauce where I live the game to play is mechanized solution
Well then what can a poor robo do
Except to aibo-dance for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy Singapore town
There's no place for a street fighting robo
No!
Get down

Hey! Said my name is called magnetic disturbance
I'll beep and squeel, I'll kill the king, I'll rail at all his servants
Well, what can a poor robo do
Except to aibo-dance for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy Singapore town
There's no place for a street fighting robo
No
Get down

**EXTERMINATE**

[rHBa]

The next generation will be able to fly up stairs.

Re: Could the ammunition industry profit??

[Extremus]

I read somewhere the bullets and the missiles are the best products inside the capitalism logic: you really need them, they are expansive and you cannot reuse it. Non-lethal weapons/amunition can be reused. Or, at least, they are less expansive to reuse. Then, it is hard to make money with the non-lethal approach.

why go from door to door?

[big mike kite]

The current method used in Iraq seems to work quite well - find a house/village that you feel is suspicious and then just call in air support. Label everything that died a terrorist and then move on to the next village.

The current method requires no difficult intellident software, in fact no intelligence at all, and seems to be winning hearts and minds all over.

Re:why go from door to door?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you have no idea what you're talking about, but pretend like you do. It takes real guts to be that determined to be an idiot, sir. I salute you!

Re:why go from door to door?

[Chicken04GTO]

Thats an interesting dream world you live in.

Re:why go from door to door?

[big mike kite]

Dear Anonymous

Iraq-Fallujah
"There were reports that cluster bombs and white phosphorus, a controversial incendiary weapon, were used on the city. Initially the Pentagon denied the use of the latter weapon but later, after testimony by U.S soldiers, admitted using it" "The American warplanes came continuously through the night and bombed everywhere in Fallujah! It did not stop even for a moment! ... I cannot give a picture of how panicked everyone was."

To kill one man -the terrorist Zarqawi
"At 14:15 GMT two United States Air Force F-16C jets[112] identified the house and the lead jet dropped two 500-pound (230kg) guided bombs, a laser-guided GBU-12 and GPS-guided GBU-38 on the building located at 334802.83N, 443048.58E. Six others - three male and three female individuals - were also reported killed (see below).[113] Amongst those killed were his teenage wife and child."

Afghanistan
"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."."

When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."."

Vietnam and napalm
"Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut describes the day in June 1972 when he photographed a nine-year-old girl, Kim Phuc, fleeing her village after a napalm attack - a picture that won him a Pulitzer prize."

Korea
On 21 March 2000, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea issued a memorandum detailing records of "criminal acts against humanity" committed by United States troops during the three-year Korean War (1950-1953). The DPRK report stated that the United States killed peaceful citizens by indiscriminate bombing and naval bombardment against urban and rural areas in the North. According to the DPRK, from 11 July to 20 August 1951, more than 10,000 United States planes had conducted over 250 air raids on Pyongyang, dropping as many as 4,000 bombs, killing 4,000 civilians and wounding 2,500 more. From 11 to 12 July 1952, 400 United States planes dropped more than 6,000 napalm bombs and time-bombs, killing 8,000 civilians, including women and children.

WWII
On the night of March 9-10, 1945, LeMay's B-29 bombers attacked Tokyo, a city of 6 million people. Nearly 600 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of fire bombs on the Japanese capital, destroying 16 square miles of the city. The resulting firestorm killed 100,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki from atomic bombs a few months later. Most of the victims were women, children, and old men.

All the above quotes were from the internet (wikipedia etc). The book "a history of Bombing" by Sven Lindqvist is also very informative. Obviously us British are no angels (Dresden etc).

The idiot

HADUKEN!

[cheese-cube]

HADUKEN!

Re:HADUKEN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has actually seen street fighter anime ... wow :D
Tho I believe it was HADOU-KEN.

Re:HADUKEN!

[cheese-cube]

Main inspiration comes from this shirt I own: Haduken!

Talk about...

[Zx-man]

...the Three Laws of Robotics.

Re:Talk about...

[Abrax]

So it's OK to have a 'peaceful' nanobot in the hands of your next door neighbor. That can go anywhere and slowly dissolve your brain after entering your ear or even worse screw with your DNA?

Re:Talk about...

[Cybrex]

Didn't you hear? US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has decided that since Asimov's three laws aren't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution we have no right to protection under them.

Let's link them together

[exsilium]

I have a neat idea - let's link them together and control them from the sky.. In fact lets call it Skynet and write a common AI to it.

Yes.. neat idea..

I'm uploading the Second Life when they're ready

[Abrax]

OK, it's bad enough but just imagine the little brat next door with a nanobot kit or the government. Fuck the real world.

Tetra Vaal Urban combat robot animation... Eerie

[Ringthane]

Link to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snfc_wNWqSU

Those evil-natured robots...

[rubberchickenboy]

They're programmed to destroy us...

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[somersault]

"My countrymens' life have a higher value than the enemy's countrymens' lives"

Why?

Re:Tetra Vaal Urban combat robot animation... Eeri

[flyneye]

Nice contestant in "kill the human race"!A little reprogramming and set it loose.
I dunno,still seems a little mild mannered.Made me think of a bunny rabbit.
My vote for the contract to buid the hardware for this project goes to
Survival Research Laboratories http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=surviv al+research+lab&search=Search
They may not have the AI yet,but that may be a good thing.

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Zeek40]

In any case, you are way too cynical to be posting on such subjects.

Or perhaps you are way too idealistic. People who kill without remorse are real. Serial killers and terrorists are real and they will not 'see the light' and change their ways because someone shows them how wonderful life can be when everyone plays nice, or becuase someone attempts to publicly humiliate them.

*Beep* Hi, Sailor

[Snufu]

Does this mean every naval port will be equipped with robot prostitutes--err..."maintenance droids?"

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Zeek40]

Why?

Because your countrymen aren't the ones trying to kill you.

Do you believe your friends and family's lives have higher value than others? It's simply an extension of that principle. If you don't hold your family's lives in higher value than other peoples, I'm glad I'm not related to you. It would be frightening to know that I'm no more important to a family member than a stranger is.

And before you try to go into the 'I don't even know most of my countrymen' semantic argument, I believe the context in which he used the term suggested that his countrymen were those fighting alongside him.

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[somersault]

Yes they were fighting alongside him. Of course personally my family are more important to me, but I'm not stupid enough to think that my or anyone else's life is any more important than any other. Self defence is a decent reason to defend your life and your country. War is a strange thing. Like I believe in WWII we were on the 'right' side, though does that even make the German/Japanese soldiers' lives any less important than our own? Some of them were genuinely evil no doubt, but some were just in their country's service, the same as any other soldier.

People can have personal opinions and love certain people, being willing to give their life for those people, but to consider someone else's life as less valuable just because of something as stupid as them being the 'enemy' is sad. If you're programming a fighting robot, you have to consider the enemies' lives expendible of course, but in human terms, you can't say that someone else's life has any less worth than your own without qualifying why, and even if you have reasons, it's still a rather shallow view of things..

Street Fighting Robots?

[Chris Mattern]

They must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.

Chris Mattern

Bolo qualifications

[Anonymous Coward]

A contest to build a robot that can operate autonomously in urban warfare conditions,
Check

moving in and out of buildings
Check, no problem for a Bolo to move into a building or out of the rubble

to search and destroy targets like a human soldier
Check

a robot that completes a stipulated set of tasks - yet to be revealed - in the fastest time possible.
Check, a Bolo can deal with changing requirements and will execute them with unparalleled speed

a robot that "must, on its own, be able to navigate both indoors and outdoors in an urban landscape and accomplish a set of assigned tasks within a stipulated time
Check

This robot must be able to negotiate a staircase and use the elevator to dash from one floor to another
The Bolo has no problems moving over the staircase, elevator system or various floors of the building. This has the added benefit that upon exiting, the building has been converted to a single story.

without the aid of satellite navigation, which may not be available indoors.
Check

Navigation without satellite help would require the robot "to have machine vision capabilities to identify visual cues along its intended path to serve as waypoints
Check

more complex tasks, like opening a door or using an elevator, can present a huge problem. "How do you know which button goes where, or even what floor you're on?" he says. "It's very, very confusing." One solution, he says, is to train a robot by presenting it with hundreds of different doors and elevators.
A Bolo can evaluate such situations with ease. It can then drive through the appropriate door.

...will crown the robot warrior that can complete the assigned task in the fastest time.
I hope the crown comes in an extra large size.

Bolo Mark XV for the win!

Street Fighting Robots?

[Primal Curve]

I, for one, would welcome our new robot overlords if it weren't for the fact that they keep sweeping me when I come close and jumping over all of my Hadouken.

is "DESTROY" really part of the challenge?

[kalirion]

Something seems strange. The first paragraph of the article is the only one that mentions that the robot must "search and destroy targets". Everything afterwards deals with movement, navigation, and "accomplishing a set of assigned tasks." I have a feeling that spraying the target with bullets is not really one of the assigned tasks.

Re:is "DESTROY" really part of the challenge?

[kshrop]

"I have a feeling that spraying the target with bullets is not really one of the assigned tasks."

well it damn well should be, gotta have some entertainment after all

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of interesting points, great post.

"[..]publicly known to everyone around them that they were part of an organization responsible for the deaths of innocent men, women & children, surely their families and societies would hold them as murderers."

Part of what US soldiers are doing in iraq.
Somehow they come back and pride themselves on fighting for..well, for whatever you think the motive for this war was. I guess it's the only possible outcome of brainwashing uneducated kids, giving them something to believe in that provides a sense of purpose worth fighting for, and a gun.

"Just because they did a crime does not give you the right to replicate the crime on them."

yup, and that's precisely why war is not the answer. Let's start by investing in education and ending hunger, we'll see how that goes. Solving conflicts by force is medieval.
Let's see: $5.2B/yr end world hunger. We spent in iraq, what, $250B?

Yes, I sound like a hippie and probably naive too, I am just saying what my ideas are, and I rather be an idealistic idiot than a practical killer. Sorry.

"And I will assert that oftentimes the reason they feel they were doing the right thing is because of the deaths of people they loved from prior conflicts with their enemies. The trick here is to minimize the deaths and expose those causing the conflicts for what they really are"

I totally agree on capturing them alive, and make their crimes publicly known, that's another form of educating. I agree with you here, if you can't expose them, you shouldn't be there.

I mean, come on: patriotism, religion, politics. Whenever someone wants to force others to adopt the same ideas, shit happens.

Anyway, great post.

Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot!

[Glock27]

"There's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by the event sponsored by Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency.

What total nonsense. In terms of threats, bio, nuclear and chem, in that order, outweigh any robotic threat by a great deal (discounting Turing machines, which are a far different class than that discussed here).

In fact, I'd put it as "there's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by continuing to develop lethal technologies without making any real effort to improve our ethical standards."

Getting the heck off this rock is a good idea too!

Re:Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot!

[JMZero]

What total nonsense. In terms of threats, bio, nuclear and chem, in that order, outweigh any robotic threat by a great deal (discounting Turing machines, which are a far different class than that discussed here).

Yes, a Turing machine adapted for war would be pretty scary. Imagine the symbols it could leave on a man! Imagine the countryside devastated by layers of its infinitely long tape!

Only Schrodinger's cat is powerful enough to stop it!

Re:Hyperbole, thy name is Slashdot!

[Glock27]

Yes, a Turing machine adapted for war would be pretty scary. Imagine the symbols it could leave on a man! Imagine the countryside devastated by layers of its infinitely long tape!

Only Schrodinger's cat is powerful enough to stop it!

LOL!

Sorry, in my haste to post and move on I apparently confused Von Neumann with Turing. Apologies.

Answer: D, All of the above.

[Kadin2048]

Just to clarify, in addition to being an actor, History Channel commentator, and Jack Bauer's onetime nemesis, "Weller also holds a Masters Degree in Roman and Renaissance Art, and is an occasional lecturer at Syracuse University on the subject of Hollywood and the Roman Empire" (or so sayeth the great Wikipedia on the subject).

Re:You lose. Perfect!

[Killjoy_NL]

Helicopters can't talk, silly ^_^

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Archangel Michael]

I often wonder if people consider that there is anything worth killing for, or dying for.

I know many of the left wing elites don't really believe so, and because of that, they are some of the scariest people in the world, because they wouldn't stop an invasion because they don't value what they have above "life".

On the other hand, there are tyrants of the world, who only value power/wealth and are willing to kill people who are in the way to acquiring and accumulating it.

In the middle of these two extremes is 99% of the people, who just want to be left alone to live life quietly and in peace. They don't line up on the streets with signs saying "no war" and "peace at all costs", neither do they resist the powerful, as long as that power is kept in check.

I'll kill and be willing to die for a cause greater than myself. But I'm not in it for myself at that point, I'm in it for posterity of my children and grandchildren.

  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the Blood of Patriots
and tyrants it is it's natural manure"
Thomas Jefferson

PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON

[drinkypoo]

(lameness filter is lame)

YOU HAVE FIFTEEN SECONDS TO COMPLY.

'nuff said.

Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

> destroy targets like a human soldier.

Translation: destroy targets like a human civilian.

Funny how the ratio of civilian deaths to soldier deaths has about 1000:1 in every war since ancient Roman times. Oh wait, it's not funny.

In the future, it ain't gonna be robots fighting robots to resolve wars. It's gonna be robots killing civilians to resolve wars.

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[vertinox]

And I think a lot of societies today agree with this or should come around to realizing that you can't let people murder each other. Justice & the truth are the only answers.

The problem is that justice and truth is relative to the observer. If you were a well standing German in 1942 you would believe the war that you were involved in was the right thing to do. If you were a crusader in Jerusalem killing every single person alive in the city in 1098 AD, you felt that was the right thing to do. If you owned slaves in 1840s in South Carolina, you felt this was the right thing to do.

Not only that but you entire society, family, and religious authorities agreed with you on this was the right thing to do.

And who is to say the common activities of what we are doing today that we feel are the right thing to do will not be seen as an evil in a hundred years from now.

That said... There is no truth in right or wrong because both are opinions of whoever attempt to justify them. Truth is fact one can say that certain actions causes human suffering. Whether or not that suffering is justifiable is completely up to the observable which can label such actions are evil or good.

Even then you cannot measure suffering as something that is tangible that can be compared to every single person as the same feeling.

Thus, I accept what I feel to be right and wrong may be not the same as others and that there may not be a universal truth other than I exist and life is an illusion and suffering is universal (aka Buddhism) and that I can help others not suffer.

But I understand where you are coming from and this is more of a philosophy argument. I think the grandparent was arguing the truth that if given these weapons as tools that people would use them in such a manner regardless of if it was right or wrong in context.

Look at is this way... Had Germany had robot killing machines they would have used them to an efficient method to exterminate undesirables. Seeing that it wouldn't matter how many they were to kill, there would be no moral consequences with the robot soldiers. The robots don't care either way. They are not good or evil. They are simply tools told what to do.

Where can I buy one?

[Master of Transhuman]

I need to start hacking the software and changing its orientation (slightly).

Reminds me of Tom Arnold's line in the movie "Cradle 2 the Grave" about his Abrams tank: "It's good for getting around the bad areas of town, keeps the neighborhood kids in line."

If you see an ad...

[Eric Damron]

If you see an ad requesting beta testers just say no!

So this is

[Have Brain Will Rent]

the beginning of Saberhagen's Berserver saga

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[gurps_npc]

If you are a member of the armed forces or of the government, the reason is "I took an oath to protect my countryman". Also your job is to protect your countryman, even if you did not take the oath.

If you are a citizen than that statement is not neccesarilly true.

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Lord Ender]

Governments can put a price on human life. For example, the average American will create about $1M in his lifetime. A third of that will go to the government in the form of taxes. So the price of a life (from a government perspective) is $333k.

Also, it is trivially easy to put a relative price on a human life. The geneticist who is developing technology to increase world food production by 20% is worth many times what the poor farmer who can barely feed his family is worth (to humanity as a whole).

If you quantify this "value to humanity" then you have numbers very much like dollar figures--the price of human life.

Here's another one: Suppose you are a charity that buys medical care for the poor. Your budget is $100k. You have one person who needs $100k heart surgery to live, and 10 people who need minor $10k surgeries to live. When you make the decision on who lives, you are putting a price on human life.

I can go on and on, but the point is, hearing "you can't put a price on human life" is a red flag that the speaker is thinking with his emotions, not with his mind; he should be discounted from the conversation.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Hoi Polloi]

They regected my "flaming homosexual combat robot". They said it would have a bad effect on the moral of the other robots in the showers.

Thanks Singapore!

[Hoi Polloi]

It looks like whippings for vandalism and outlawing chewing gum have lead to their natural outcome, robotic killers. Singapore, always looking for ways to make a better society...and kill them!

Price on life

[way2trivial]

just to nitpick, bullets cost less than 20cents each in bulk

Re:Cheaper to Kill? How Much Is Our Image Worth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, although you make a few good points, you're talking from such a high horse that you've lost sight of the realities "on the ground". Such as that human life indeed has a price (ask any competent actuarial) or that "truth and justice" aren't THE answers because even when you're caught in a lie or shown to be wrong you still want to get away with it (it's called "human nature"). Modern conflict is much more complex than your black-or-white oversimplifications can handle.

Don't kill ALL of them...

[Dareth]

.... you have to leave enough to run the Casino on the reservation!

the age old question

[redhat_redneck]

I'm concerned that this could tip the scales in favor of Robots and give them an unfair advantage over the pirates, ninjas, and monkeys. To date, robots have remained reasonably lame - Asimo is hardly a cylon. And that lameness has held electric dreams of robot world domination at bay. This could lead to escalation, and I think we can all say that the world would be better off without hordes of robotic killer monkeys. Pirates, already endangered, may reach extinction. Ninjas, who to the best of my knowledge are already extinct, could face elimination from the question entirely. Maybe an army of clones could be put in place as peacekeepers or maybe we could piece some people together from corpses and use them as a franken-peacekeepers.

everytime you build a robot assassin, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens.

Of course...

[nixkuroi]

Of course this is to combat urban terrorism only and could NEVER be employed to attack foreign shores or to take over other countries remotely. :)

There are lots of places this is useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can be used for patrolling the grounds of critical installations like oil refineries.

"Bad bots bad bots..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"... what you gonna do?

Tonight on BOTS: Sergeant Sprocket hogties 12 Iraqi males having an orgy in an alley..."

So, offset R&D costs by selling footage from the bots' visual input.

(Just edit out the part where the bots strip the civilians, insert blunt objects up their butts and pile them up).

Little brothers of..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal... Gear...!