Slashdot Mirror


DARPATech Shows off Robot Doc and Cancer Breathalyzer

mattnyc99 writes "DARPATech, the Pentagon research arm's annual R&D free-for-all, has some pretty groundbreaking stuff on display this year: the first portable, self-contained robotic surgeon (which a Defense Dept. scientist said would be deployed by 2009), plus a breath-testing gadget that can scan for multiple diseases (including breast cancer) and three new autonomous 'bots that reflect the Pentagon's increasing need for autonomous machinery as the IED-filled Iraq war continues."

73 comments

  1. And here it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1. Re:And here it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, the [starwars.com] turned the happy surprise into a very obvious joke :(

  2. "No complications"?? by StaceyRey · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    One of the first announcements at this year's three-day DARPATech conference is going to be hard to top: the first portable, self-contained surgical robot will be deployed in the next two years. Brett Giroir, director of the research agency's Defense Sciences Office also announced that the system, called Trauma Pod, has successfully "treated" a mannequin during a test, with no complications.

    A mannequin is already dead. If the robot made some fatal minute error, wouldn't that be a lot more difficult to tell with a mannequin? Sure, better to practice and perfect on a dummy, but this comment FTA seems kinda strange.

    --
    This sig is offered AS-IS, with no warranty express or implied. Risk of using this sig rests entirely with the user.
    1. Re:"No complications"?? by tibike77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In order for something to be "dead" it needs to be "alive" first, then lose that quality.
      Human doctors can make such "minute mistakes" too, that wouldn't show up on a "dummy test".

      Personally, right now, I'd rather put my life on the line to a human than an experimental robot, because I know that a human is less likely to be "buggy".
      However, if a "robot doctor" can prove it won't have any "programming bugs", and once it's endowed with sufficient (and correct) "knowledge", I'd rather take the robot than the human medic, because (unlike humans), machines are less prone to errors in judgement.
      The problem is in deciding WHEN the robot is sufficiently "bug free", and when it has "enough knowledge" (and how accurate that knowledge actually is).

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    2. Re:"No complications"?? by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Wow, already -1, Flamebait ? I'll take it, nevertheless.

      SOMEBODY has to test new technology.
      Sure, you can test it recklessly and without much regard to human rights (read: cheaply), or you can test it thoroughly in simulated environments and then strictly on volunteers and/or terminal patients, with the utmost possible care possible (read: expensively).
      That doesn't change the fact that no technology is bug-free from its first prototype, nor perfect from its conception.

      The matter WHO you test it on is a matter of responsability of developers.
      The technology itself isn't "evil", it's the methods of the developers/testers that MIGHT BE greedy or corrupt.
      But they don't NEED to be.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    3. Re:"No complications"?? by HitekHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the responses here, it sounds like people are expecting this thing to perform triple bypass surgery all on it's lonesome. It's not designed to replace surgeons. It's designed to augment them. If it replaces anyone currently, it would be nurses and anesthesiologists. Surgeons will have better visual display than the naked eye can manage and the machine will allow them to cut more precisely.

      What this really does is get treatment to trauma cases sooner and without endangering the medical staff by putting them closer to the battle. As a side benefit, it may allow surgeons with nerve damage or simple age-related problems to continue to operate when they could not do so manually.

    4. Re:"No complications"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You should have RTFA.

      It's fully human-controlled.

    5. Re:"No complications"?? by Henneshoe · · Score: 1

      It looks like the mannequin was just the first test. The last line of the article says they will have to do surgery on a live pig before they try anything on humans. Plus, if robots can build cars faster and more precisely then humans who says they can preform a better surgery.

    6. Re:"No complications"?? by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "current" incarnation is human-controlled.
      But you'd have to be pretty naive to assume it will (or should) ALWAYS remain that way.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    7. Re:"No complications"?? by Maradine · · Score: 1

      In order to "understand" your otherwise "insightful" post, I needed to "upgrade" my quote-finger "receptors". My "bill" will be in the "mail".

      M

      --

      trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between

    8. Re:"No complications"?? by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1
      Maybe you should have RTFA.

      From TFA "And while a surgeon will be controlling some of the Pod's functions, such as the more invasive procedures, the system relies heavily on autonomous control."

      I think that qualifies as "not" fully human-controlled.

  3. Mannequin? by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    from TFA "Brett Giroir, director of the research agency's Defense Sciences Office also announced that the system, called Trauma Pod, has successfully "treated" a mannequin during a test, with no complications."

    thats great! now you try and persuade a human to step inside.... gives a whole new meaning to blue screen of death.

    1. Re:Mannequin? by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      It is still good to know that it does have a human doctor/operator and most of the autonomous functions deals with fluid administration and surgical assistance, much like a surgeon in an operating room, just replace the nurses with this machine. This would be lifesaving for the soldiers.

      (I really hope there is no "kill" switch)

    2. Re:Mannequin? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I think the screen would be more red

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Mannequin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "treated" a mannequin during a test, with no complications."
      WTF!$#@?>??? The mannequin came out with no penis for crying out loud!!
    4. Re:Mannequin? by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      successfully "treated" a mannequin during a test, with no complications.



      It's good to know that the mannequin didn't bleed out or get staph infection or pnemonia or etc....

      No complications ... !! :-P
      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    5. Re:Mannequin? by jdray · · Score: 1

      Right. Let's just hope the network doesn't drop the doc's session at a critical moment...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  4. Automation and the devaluation of humans by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I was a little guy, I was taught that technology will be used to free workers from tedious and dangerous tasks by allowing unfeeling robots to take our places. This would lead to better jobs for those displaced. Instead of welding safety glass to car doors, we'd be building the robots who would do that. Automation, it was said, leads to a better quality of life for humans. Imagine! No more lost fingers from defective bandsaws. No more horrific scarification from spilled chemicals. Let the robots take those jobs, and let us humans reap the benefits.

    But what we got instead was robots taking our jobs without a safety net for the displaced workers. Humans, it seems, don't fit in the future. Oh, they are necessary insofar as they are active consumers, and we can't let those displaced people starve to death or watch only broadcast TV or drive a 5 year old car. No, those displaced workers ceased to be humans and became consumers, feeders of the machines. The machines work to produce stuff which the humans don't have enough money to buy. So the solution, obviously, is to create more robots to bring the prices down. The solution begets the problem.

    When it is as easy to kill your enemy as it is to press the yellow button on your XBox control pad, you've eliminated 50% of the horrors of war. When it is no longer difficult to kill another human being because the killer is so far removed from the killed, neither human has any more value than the rapidly blinking pixels on the viewscreen.

    We fight wars so that we don't have to fight them again. The horror of war, the firsthand experience of pulling the trigger and ending another human life, the trauma of hitting and being hit, the pain of a friend falling next to you. These are all deterrents to war. The pain that each soldier goes through is a powerful reminder that war is not something to be entered into lightly.

    Automate the killing, and the workers will be out of their jobs. It is precisely those workers that we need to be there to tell us to try one more time at diplomacy, to evaluate one more time our priorities, to stand there and be living and dead proof that the thing on the other side of the gun barrel is a human.

    1. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So far, robots are pretty dumb. While I agree in our modern capitalist world 'bots will continue to chip away at a large number of jobs, these jobs are usually the ones that don't require an education. Get an education and plenty of doors will open up that robots can't touch. If you don't like that don't blame tech, blame capitalism. Your argument about lessening the horrors of war was made by (Mr?) Gatling back in the 1860's. Don't know if you noticed, but the horrible bloodshed his invention allowed didn't scare people away from war. War will happen anyways. A Commander in Chief who never sees the battlefield will be "desensitized" anyways, irrelevant of if he's sending in men with bayonets to kill each other face to face or ordering a tomahawk to be launched. While technology certainly plays a roll in war, it's not the one to blame. If you *had* to kill, wouldn't you prefer just pressing a button? Or would you prefer the PTSD?

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    2. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Knutsi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it is as easy to kill your enemy as it is to press the yellow button on your XBox control pad, you've eliminated 50% of the horrors of war.

      And it's already going on. Cruise missiles take out unseen targets daily. Now how does an enemy respond to that? Can anyone say terrorism? Can anyone say anti-Americanism? If you see thousands of your people destroyed by an unseen, elitist enemy that you cannot direct your anger at due to their superiority, wouldn't it make sense to support someone going carrying a suitcase-nuke to downtown NYC as payback?

      I'm not saying it's right in any way, just that maybe terror can't be forced back by causing more reason for grievance?

      But what we got instead was robots taking our jobs without a safety net for the displaced workers. Humans, it seems, don't fit in the future.

      When you retire a generation of workers by robots (somehow a development I suspect is being delayed by something called "outsourcing to the developing world") there will of course be a gap in which a generation of workers need to reeducate. Now, most of those in question will be quite old (as they didn't see the change coming, and thought the job had a future), so obviously there will be problems like this.

      It doesn't mean it's not worth it. After some time, people won't educate to the job that are now replaced by robots. In the future, I suspect the only jobs out there will be engineering, sciences and art. That's not to bad, is it?

      (Personally I do however have a more bleak view of the future related to overpopulation, but that is off-topic)

    3. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      We can always reinstitute slavery if nothing else helps [/sarcasm]

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    4. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like there is some grand purpose for the human life. If you don't follow some religious definition, why can't it be to build and repair robots? Wait until we invent AI and then give it machine guns and rockets! What better purpose could our pitiful species have than to build the machines that will enslave countless forms of intelligent biological life around the Universe? Take pride that your existence will help to create the great metal terror that will put all of us wetbots in our proper place.

    5. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by davaguco · · Score: 1

      I would include doctors and lawyers.

      --
      Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
    6. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what kind of fucked up value system you have that puts the value of one person (who is still alive, mind you) over the value of 500 people. I don't subscribe to that sort of racist tripe. Sorry. I'm confused. Perhaps it is because I only read the words of the parent poster instead of projecting my feelings, but how is the parent racist? As far as you know he or she could have been talking about attacking North Dakota.

      Is it racist to note that someone is improperly using the race card?
    7. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can only suggest that you do a little reading up on your history of Richard Gatling and his gun. Kill the darkies back then, kill the brownies today. Same tune, different era.

    8. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you either option dictates the number of dead. If an armed man broke into my house and fearing for my life I could kill him by pressing a button on the security system, that'd be one dead. If I had to fight him in person, witnessing him die by my own actions, I'd probably get nightmares. One dead, either him or me. Conversely, if I had to take out an enemy base to defend my country, I'd prefer to launch a tomahawk then have to storm the place in person. Bunch of dead people either way.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    9. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      Or maybe doctors will be more like engineers? (: Lawyers on the other hand will be wiped out as soon as nanotechnology sophisticated enough to make a plague specifically targeting certain professions arrives.

    10. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your response. I can now safely say that you are an idiot. The parent poster that I referenced made no reference to any racism by Gatling. The parent poster only pointed out that his gun didn't preclude war. Calling the parent a racist is reckless in the extreme.

      Learn to read and not 'feel' what a poster says. By the way, I was able to feel from your post that you are a pedophile. Stay away from children!

    11. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't know what kind of fucked up value system you have that puts the value of one person (who is still alive, mind you) over the value of 500 people. I don't subscribe to that sort of racist tripe. Sorry."

      Either you don't quite get the whole "war" thing, or you are a big fan of Napoleonic line battles.

      Or maybe you are a mongoloid.

    12. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Blame it on the anti-war crowd. The majority of the opposition to the Iraq war seems to be based on the number of American soldiers killed. So what do you expect? Ofcourse the government is going to try and lower the exposure of soldiers to combat. The fewer men we have out there fighting, the fewer we lose, and the less things there is for the media (and the Democrats) to criticize. Makes perfect sense.

      Don't want killing machines replacing soldiers? Stop with the idiotic "bring our sons home" rhetoric.

    13. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by aeksy · · Score: 1
      So let me get this straight: you are advocating that more Americans should be killed in combat than is necessary, AND you want the public to support that? You also seem to think that criticizing the unnecessary casualties is a purely a Democratic agenda. That's...well...pretty god damn deluded idea.

      Don't want killing machines replacing soldiers? Stop with the idiotic "bring our sons home" rhetoric.

      Yeah, parents who wish to bring their children home from an drawn-out, unwinnable war that was sold to the public by blatant lies and misinformation? Those people sure are idiots.
    14. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by bentcd · · Score: 1

      But what we got instead was robots taking our jobs without a safety net for the displaced workers. Humans, it seems, don't fit in the future. Let us all join together and march on these metal monsters, usurpers of our jobs, and throw our wooden clogs at them!
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    15. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is saying that an adverse reaction proportional to the number of casualties incurred is spurring the drive for robotic war machinery, and that is largely correct.

    16. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by mi · · Score: 1

      But what we got instead was robots taking our jobs without a safety net for the displaced workers.

      What a dumb lamentation! There aren't enough workers. America's unemployment is very low and filling a position with a capable worker is rather difficult. Besides, there are jobs, at which humans are simply incredibly bad, whereas a machine is incredibly good. Comparing two texts, for example, or waking you up at the specified time...

      Here is an illustration from an earlier era. Rich people used to have staff, who would do all sorts of routine work for them — now even the poorest can have fast and efficient transportation, clean tea-making implements, fast way to wash their clothes and beddings.

      You are lamenting the fate of all those poor maids, who lost their jobs to dishwashers and electric kettles. The right approach is to celebrate their having their dishes and tea done for them by machines and the freeing of sentient beings from having to perform these mind-numbing chores.

      No, those displaced workers ceased to be humans and became consumers, feeders of the machines.

      A false dichotomy (human vs. consumer). Ok...

      We fight wars so that we don't have to fight them again.

      Oh, boy, please do run for office, lose, and stop repeating this sort of bullshit demagoguery...

      Automate the killing, and the workers will be out of their jobs. It is precisely those workers that we need to be there to tell us to try one more time at diplomacy

      Very poetic and very idiotic. The worst atrocities in history were perpetrated with the perpetrators very much face-to-face with the victims. From the ancient Athens (415 BC - worlds first Democracy, ha-ha): > to Holocaust, to Rwanda and Darfur. The massacres all required a lot of manual labor, which did not prevent them from happening. At least, the robots aren't going to rape the women nor to hack off their breasts (so as to starve off their newborns).

      ... that the thing on the other side of the gun barrel is a human.

      Yes, it is a human. A human, who would ram an explosives-filled truck through a wedding. A human, who wants us to either die or to change ourselves to be like him. We went through this with Communism in the 20th century, we are going through it with Caliphate in the 21st. Where they have fanatiques, we have the technology... We shall prevail — despite you holding us back.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by dm0527 · · Score: 1

      Stop with the idiotic "bring our sons home" rhetoric.
      Wow...okay, I happen to think that the invasion of Iraq was a crappy idea - we missed the target by a letter. That being said, I also believe that now that we're over there, we should stop dicking around and get the job done. I personally believe that pulling out of Iraq will accomplish only causing us to look weak to our enemies, innocent Iraq citizens will die and the terrorist movement will gain a homeland. Basically, I think pulling out of Iraq would be the biggest mistake since Chamberlain said "Hitler just wants some Mandlove Rohlicky...he'll go back home in a couple months".

      That being said, people like you are doing absolutely nothing to help - In fact, just the opposite. It's nearly as much a battle against popular opinion as it is the enemy and spouting verbal tripe like that just doesn't help. Anyone with half a brain wants to "bring our sons home". How can you be that damn thick?
      --
      - dm - The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
    18. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      That'll take a while yet.
      There's more important things on the list for specifically-targeting-certain-professions department.
      Spammers, telemarketers, MAFIAA-endorsing studio executives, SCO executives and a few other breeds of bottom-feeding scum.

      We could, of course, take the practical DA approach and stage a fake planetwide disaster, put them on a spaceship and "evacuate" them first, claiming to follow in the next ships right after...

      --
      -
    19. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by johneee · · Score: 1

      "While I agree in our modern capitalist world 'bots will continue to chip away at a large number of jobs, these jobs are usually the ones that don't require an education. Get an education and plenty of doors will open up that robots can't touch. If you don't like that don't blame tech, blame capitalism."

      And, in fact, I do blame capitalism... The problem being that in our society we don't value in any way the necessary work that is done by people with little education or even intelligence, and our system blames them for the lack of it.

      I mean, 100 is an average iq (by definition). It's all fine and good to say that the person of average or above average intelligence from a middle class family should educate themselves and better themselves so they can repair the floor cleaning machine rather than mopping the floors themselves, but how about the person who was born in a disadvantaged family and has a below average IQ and therefore has neither the opportunity or the intelligence to become a floor cleaning robot technician? Is it their fault? No. Right now we look down on them and throw them away when they're not needed anymore... And I don't have an answer for this either. It's just something that bothers me.

      Oprah's one of the worst transgressers in this by the way... she pulled herself out of poverty because she's exceptionally driven and intelligent and has made a fortune by peddling the lie that anyone can do the same. Well, they can't if they have an IQ of 80, have FAS, have ADD, or even just aren't good looking enough. It's impossible, and we shouldn't look down on them for not 'getting an education and making something of themselves' when they just don't have the ability to do so at all. They still have value to society, just not the same as those of us with different abilities.

      Sigh. Off topic rant over.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    20. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Anyone with half a brain wants to "bring our sons home". How can you be that damn thick?
      I'm sure that anyone with half a brain wants exactly that. I'm also sure that anyone with a full brain wants to stay and finish the job. I'm not sure exactly what you think we're disagreeing about.
    21. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Zoquo · · Score: 1

      Don't fit in??? Heck, I am the future! I'm going to work for the government!

    22. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Here is an illustration from an earlier era. Rich people used to have staff, who would do all sorts of routine work for them -- now even the poorest can have fast and efficient transportation, clean tea-making implements, fast way to wash their clothes and beddings. You are lamenting the fate of all those poor maids, who lost their jobs to dishwashers and electric kettles. The right approach is to celebrate their having their dishes and tea done for them by machines and the freeing of sentient beings from having to perform these mind-numbing chores.
      Great. Now what about the rest of the people, as in all the people who live in Africa and Asia? Not everyone lives in the west. You misunderstood the parent. He's not saying machines are bad, he's saying the way the benefit of machines has been divided up is bad.
      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    23. Re:Automation and the devaluation of humans by mi · · Score: 1

      Great. Now what about the rest of the people, as in all the people who live in Africa and Asia? Not everyone lives in the west.

      He is saying, the machines — as we employ them — are bad, because they are being introduced without a safety net for the displaced workers. He can not be talking about the people "in Africa and Asia" because those (largely agrarian) societies never had the "workers" before.

      You misunderstood the parent. He's not saying machines are bad, he's saying the way the benefit of machines has been divided up is bad.

      This — your own is crap too. The benefits may be divided unevenly, but everybody benefits anyway, even it is only a little for some. And "the rich" sometimes benefit less, actually, because, for example, they could afford (hand-made!) comforts before, but the poor could not. And now they can...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. You're scared of the ATMs of the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You start with:

    When I was a little guy, I was taught that technology will be used to free workers from tedious and dangerous tasks by allowing unfeeling robots to take our places.

    But you don't want robot soldiers? Isn't that a dangerous task?

    (I also think you should have attributed Marshall Brain).

  6. Humans, it seems, don't fit in the future? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And yet people whose lives are lucky enough to be touched by technology have, at least on average, a better standard of living than their ancestors, live longer etc etc

    Somehow your horror story doesn't add up.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  7. More wasted R&D Billions by malsdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    While robot marines and autonomous machines such as the ones displayed will help the army maintain technological strength over the long-term, I can't help but wonder if they are wasting A LOT of our money. If you look at the hundreds of billions which has been spent on Stealth technology over the past couple of decades, it is pretty impossible to claim even a fraction of that amount has transferred into actual military value.

    The fact of the matter is that that in most situtations (the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam wars being good examples) that Stealth technology is all but pointless because there is no need for it (i.e. enemy anti-air infrastructure has already been destroyed). Even the few of occasions it has been used though (e.g. the Bosnian war and exercises) the stealth technology has only worked part of the time. If you remember in the Bosnian war, stealth aircraft were still able to be shot down, and that was using cold-war era Russian equipment not even designed to combat stealth aircraft.

    It isn't difficult to envisage in 10 years time the army neglecting their robotics as almost useless, in the same way most of the hundreds of billions spent on stealth technology is being disregarded as almost useless in "the war on terror".

    I bet Lockhead Martin and the other defense contractors aren't complaining though, our tax dollars keep their industry a highly paid one!

    1. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by icebrain · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the fault of stealth not working. Current theories (at least from my rusty memory) for the reason the F-117 was shot down are as follows; it is likely that many (if not all) of them contributed:

      1: Leadership dictated that strike aircraft follow the same flight paths in/out of the target area, night after night.

      2: Enemy intelligence revealed some of the flight paths being used.

      3: Stealth aircraft are vulnerable to radar detection when their weapons bays are open. The aircraft may have been detected momentarily. Also, it is possible that the doors didn't close all the way, or that there was some kind of flaw (screw sticking up, improperly sealed panel, etc) making the aircraft easier to detect.

      4: The missile used to shoot the aircraft down was probably not using radar guidance. Many Soviet/Russian SAM systems incorporated a backup optical (manual command-guided) mode; this could have been used and there would have been no warning. Alternatively, the aircraft may not have been precisely targeted; a blind barrage of flak/missiles may have been shot up in the expected flight path, just hoping to hit something.

      Current stealth technology does not make aircraft (or anything else) invisible to radar. It merely reduces the "signature," the amount of radar energy reflected back to the receiver, with the expectation that said receiver will either filter it out as noise, or not be sensitive enough to detect it at all.

      I know you've probably heard about the "stealth-detecting radar" and the cell-phone-tower technique. It is true that there are ways to detect stealh aircraft using radar systems, but those methods generally either require massive computational power, or use such low frequencies that the aircraft is detected, but you can't locate it very precisely. After some observation, you could probably get a rough idea of heading and speed, but nothing even remotely close to useable for weapons targeting. That requires use of higher-frequency setups, which the stealth tech is more effective against. Even then, a high-frequency radar could detect stealth aircraft (say, at 1 mile as opposed to 100mi with conventional aircraft), but you need insanely high power to do so at longer ranges, and you won't find that kind of power on most fire-control radars.

      Again, stealth doesn't make you invisible. It merely drastically reduces the range at which the enemy can engage you--hopefully to less than the range that you can get him from. That's why even conventional aircraft (like the B-1, F-18E/F, Typhoon, etc.) incorporate some signature-reduction techniques. Hopefully, it lets you get close enough to the target that you can shoot without being fired back at, or at least reduces the time that you can get shot at.

      Remember also that stealth worked very well back in 1991. Iraq had one of the most dense air defense networks in the world, especially around Baghdad, but not a single aircraft was lost. And while it may not be useful against low-tech enemies like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is always the possibility of a shooting war with China, Iran, a resurgent Russia, or some other, better-equipped force. It's better to have the capability and probably never need it, than to suddenly need it real bad and not have it.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    2. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sentiment is incredibly short sighted. Even if Stealth is never used again it was a development stepping stone to whatever could come next. The huge value in R+D is not only in what it made today but what it can help make in the future. I would much rather see a lot more money spent on R+D myself.

    3. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Of course, first generation stealth technology was very expensive and unperfect, exactly as any other technology.

      The F117 was slow, not very maneuvrable and had to stay near the ground and take benefit of the geography for the stealth to be effective, and therefore, it could be heard and its path was relatively predictable, so it was vulnerable to ambushes.
      Now compare that to the F22. Of course, it is expensive, but it's the ultimate hunting machine up there. Now, is that the best ROI when the oponents only have old Mig & AK, maybe not.

    4. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by trawg · · Score: 1

      I bet Lockhead Martin and the other defense contractors aren't complaining though, our tax dollars keep their industry a highly paid one! indeed; I have to wonder if the dollars was taken out of the equation (eg, make all military contractors non-profit government entities) exactly how keen people would be to keep up this whole war thing.

      Given government's past trends to be relatively easily swayed by vast sums of money, and the vast sums of money going to defense contractors, in my (admittedly extremely limited) view it seems like its a pretty nice circular arrangement they all have going there. The only people that lose are the kids that keep getting sent off to fight, I guess. And the tax payers. And everyone affected by war, both at home and abroad.

      Well, ok, I guess everyone except politicians and defense contractors.
    5. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by toolie · · Score: 1

      Remember also that stealth worked very well back in 1991. Iraq had one of the most dense air defense networks in the world, especially around Baghdad, but not a single aircraft was lost. The reason no aircraft were lost is simple. The war started when Apaches (decidedly non-radar stealthy) took out the early warning radar sites to open up a corridor to Baghdad free of any anti-aircraft radar. The Apaches got close enough (within 8km of the radar sites) by staying NOE and below the radar. Its hard to see something when you have no eyes. All that footage of the sky over Baghdad being lit up by flak was because the forward deployed radar sites were engaged and the Iraqi's assumed that it was a coordinated strike on Baghdad at the same time, which was incorrect. That attack came shortly after the corridor was cleared.
      --
      -- toolie
    6. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by Thirdlight · · Score: 1

      Do you not understand the difference between robots and stealth? They are 2 completely different subjects...Stealth is used mainly for war, while yes these specific robots are being made to help in war they are also furthering the advancement of robot technology everywhere. You also have the big difference of vehicles versus something that go in a house or on the ground and make sure our soldiers themselves will be a lot safer. I almost married a soldier, and trust me anything that makes her life or any other soldiers life safer is welcome by me. Lets see you go house to house in an urban combat environment and be the front man.

    7. Re:More wasted R&D Billions by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      My point isn't about the maturity of the technology, it's about the short-sightedness of military expenditure on R&D.

      We spent hundreds of billions expensively trying to get Stealth technology working quickly based on a cold war mentality and now that it is working we have absolutely no use for it in the "war on terror". Now however, the urgent rush is to get autonomous vehicles working, but it's a sure bet that by the time they are working, the "war on terror" will be over and autonomous vehicles will be not worth a fraction of the R&D spent dealing against whatever new threats.

      Military spending needs to be more long-term based. At the moment, laser defense research is being slashed to make way for autonomous vehicles (largely due to politics of course as it's mainly overseas firms specialise in lasers and such defense tech) but I bet you in 20 years time, the lasers would have far more applications than a bunch of autonomous backup vehicles.

      Of course I use that example as just an example, defense spending in general needs to be more long-term based and less politicized! ...this is where China's military is really starting to take the lead over us.

  8. Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really hope that robotic surgeons and doctors spell the end for crappy hospital-themed TV series.

    Or transform them into awesome series about robots waging war on each other.

  9. Teddy Bear Head by garlicbready · · Score: 3, Informative
    for the Trauma Pod I was looking at this bit

    Getting the patient off the battlefield and into a hospital is another matter. While the Pod is supposed to eventually meet certain size and weight restrictions, there are no plans yet to incorporate specific vehicles

    and I couldn't help but think of the other bot they've got for evacuating injured soldiers from the battlefield (the one with a bears head)
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/ 07/1631239

    why not combine the two?
    to wake up and find your being operated on by a robot with a giant bear head
  10. Counter-Terrorism Funding by greedyturtle · · Score: 1

    So my question is this, why does the lifestyle changing medical breath test device have to get it's funding from CounterTerrorism? Shouldn't there maybe be a well funded medical program somewhere? Possibly making life saving devices like these, without being forced to kowtow to some military use constraints?

    Cuz we all know that the main goal of our medical technology companies today is to keep people sick, and therefore paying...

    1. Re:Counter-Terrorism Funding by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Let me guess...

      1) Stupid politician strongly reduce medical program to give the money to counterterrorism.
      2) Intelligent counterterrorism executive know they have far enough money for what they have to do and look for something that kills far more americans that terrorism.
      3) Profit.

  11. Cancer scanner by nearlygod · · Score: 1

    The cancer scanner reminds me of the time that Dr. Romano diagnosed Dana Scully's cancer by trying to eat her right after the Super Bowl. Good times.

    ng

    --
    The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
  12. Why have health care? Give it to the military! by Jestermax · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm, just seems odd that its the military and not health care or any other foundation that receives millions a year that developed these gadgets. You'd think that medical professionals would want to develop a quick and cheap (for the patient) way of performing surgery/testing for diseases sooner, no? Oh wait! Then they couldn't make as much money, right...

  13. ObTrek by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Please state the nature of the medical emergency."

    1. Re:ObTrek by owlnation · · Score: 1

      The scary downside of this is that it does seem that the DARPA guys spend most of their time trying to create stuff that was on Star Trek. I'm sure at least one of them is working on a Genesis device. A little worrying...

      Mind you, the upside is that we do get to play with things from Star Trek. Let me know when they make a 7 of 9...

    2. Re:ObTrek by Atheose · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the obligatory StarCraft quote! Gave me a good chuckle this morning.

      Whenever I would play some Brood War and the medic said that, at LAN parties I would respond "The nature of my medical emergency is lack of blowjob." Ahhh, I miss those days.

    3. Re:ObTrek by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      The scary downside of this is that it does seem that the DARPA guys spend most of their time trying to create stuff that was on Star Trek. It could be worse; at least they're Trekkies instead of Pokemon fans. Imagine if instead of this stuff, all they had to show for their research was a billiard ball you could suck your pets into.
    4. Re:ObTrek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be worse; at least they're Trekkies instead of Pokemon fans. Imagine if instead of this stuff, all they had to show for their research was a billiard ball you could suck your pets into. Well, Pokemon are serving alongside the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  14. Oh, the irony... by BistroMath · · Score: 1

    of /.-ers whining about the agency (DARPA) directly responsible for the invention of the Internet, using the Internet.

  15. Forget surgery, imagine a simple haircut... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Think of all the code you have written over the years. Now imagine a "harmless" off by one error, or a mismatch in units between standard and metric.

    Now climb up in that chair, and let the robot barber give you a shave and a haircut!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  16. Micro Air Vehicle video by planckscale · · Score: 1

    I found a vid of the MAV - looks like one of the surveillance drones in Half Life 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZht4Qvjorg

    --
    Namaste
  17. The real anti-war crowd didn't war at all by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
    They objected to the war because it was unjustified and therefore the deaths on all sides would be a waste.

    That other Americans are now seeing that little as being achieved and lives are actually being wasted (and worse, American lives!) isn't something to blame on an "anti-war crowd", it's just a self evident fact. (Personally I think that you bought into this mad scheme and should stick it out).

    It's the pro war crowd who misled the American people into believing that arms-length combat, "shock and awe", smart bombs and so forth would be enough in Iraq and the soldiers would have nothing to do but accept flowers and cheers from grateful Iraqis. It's the pro war crowd who attempted to dehumanize and oversold the consequences America's technological advantage. The anti-war crowd were pointing out the human cost which will be there no matter how smart your weapons are.

    Don't want killing machines replacing soldiers? Stop with the idiotic "bring our sons home" rhetoric.
    Yes, in order to stop dehumanizing war we should stop giving a shit about humans dying for little reason. Absolutely brilliant.
    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  18. it's a gas chromatograph... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That 'groundbreaking breathalyzer' is a SRI gas chromatograph connected to a hose that you blow into. Why didn't I think of that?!

  19. Videos of The Trauma Pod Robot Doc by docinthemachine · · Score: 1

    Surgical robotics was initially conceived by DARPA as remote battlefront or space surgical robots and this technology is now widely available in the DaVinci surgical robots. I had had the fortune to have used these in the OR and to have spoken to the people at DARPA about the TraumaPod. Here is a link to my post on the traumapod that includes 3 videos from DARPA. These show their videogame-like concept animation and 2 work in progress videos of the systems. http://docinthemachine.com/2007/08/08/traumapod/

  20. It wont be long... by SageMusings · · Score: 1

    Now that that R&D has been sunk in these new devices, Asia can step in and clone everything for pennies preventing a dime of profit in the United States.

    We will see Chinese-made disease breath analyzers in drug stores by Fall.

    --
    -- Posted from my parent's basement