Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown

Posted by samzenpus on from the let-the-robot-wars-begin dept.

longacre writes "Following in the footsteps of DARPA's Urban Challenge, in which robotic vehicles had to navigate a complex obstacle course without human intervention, the UK upped the ante with its own Ministry of Defence Grand Challenge: within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers. The winning entry, Team Stellar's SATURN system, actually consists of three vehicles: a low level drone and a tracked ground vehicle transmit reconnaissance data to a high-altitude robotic relay aircraft, which proceeds to phone that data home to a central processing center. Upon announcing the winner yesterday, MoD said they are 'carefully considering if technologies demonstrated in the final can be incorporated into future frontline kit for the Armed Forces. It is possible that the winning team will have invented a product that can be developed rapidly for the front line.'"

155 comments

  1. I knew it! by crowbarsarefornerdyg · · Score: 1

    I thought from the moment I saw the movie that he could be used for more than just making cubes of trash!

    --
    "Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
    1. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clumsy robotic overlords? Anyone...?
      Ahh, forget it.

    2. Re:I knew it! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The trash is people.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    3. Re:I knew it! by cp.tar · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The trash is people.

      Funny, that. I sometimes think people are trash.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent trash is PEEEOPLLLLLLLLLLE


      (cap filter cap filter cap filter)

    5. Re:I knew it! by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo a modding mistake. Sorry :(

  2. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just what the world needs, a robotic killing machine that likes to hold hands.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do not run, tasty humans!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Hrmm by haltenfrauden27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.

      --
      Catch telemarketers
    3. Re:Hrmm by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.

      Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
      Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:Hrmm by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear news about automation of warfare I cannot avoid impression that I heard or read it somewhere before, long long time ago. I guess that is because I got pleasure to read some works of great SF(?) writer Stanislaw Lem. I wonder only when washing machines will take the shape envisioned by him in 'Washing Machine Tragedy'.

    5. Re:Hrmm by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just what the world needs, a robotic killing machine that likes to hold hands.

      Especially when the hands are no longer attached to anything.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:Hrmm by colmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great. One step closer to wealthy nations having access to risk-free warfare.

      There's no way this could be a horrible thing in the wrong hands. No way at all.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    7. Re:Hrmm by evilandi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently, all it has to do is "protect British troops". So all you NATO Johnny-foreigner chaps better watch out.

      Presumably, the objective is to bring our friendly-fire statistics into line with our American allies.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    8. Re:Hrmm by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm waiting for his nanobots to bring Peace on Earth.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    9. Re:Hrmm by Smauler · · Score: 1

      It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.

      You mean when it switches to US military mode?

      I kid, I kid ;)

    10. Re:Hrmm by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      So its a friendly robot?

    11. Re:Hrmm by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      or maybe it will be like a Twilight Zone twist ending where we drop it in to kill the aggressors and it kills us, the real aggressors.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  3. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely not a Wall-E look-alike...

    Better luck next time to hype an article with that headline :)

    1. Re:No. by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, there are notable similarities.

      For example, it has tank treads, just like WALL-E. Also, it has binocular-type eyes, similar to WALL-E.

      However, the same could be said of an AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter sitting on top of an M1A1 Abrams tank. :)

    2. Re:No. by gregbot9000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, OK, OK, First off, That robot looked nothing like Wall-E, Second Wall-E was based on robot designs we are capable of making now, so the similarity's are not that striking. Treads: Easy to build and practical, used in most designs except Asimo and Big Dog. Stereo eyes: useful and also integrated into a lot of designs. The big center box: holds batteries and CPU's, though doesn't compact shit. Johnny-5 looked more like this robot then Wall-E, but both are based on real science, J5 was more down to earth then the cartoon who had way to many degrees of freedom without actuators to make me comfortable.

    3. Re:No. by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      But the hands.. where are the hands? If it can't grasp Eve's hand in the galactic loneliness of deep space, then it is nothing like Waaaaall-EEEE.

      PS: shouldn't robots on a battlefield all have arms, to move crap out of the way..etc?

    4. Re:No. by ricebowl · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...J5 was more down to earth then the cartoon who had way to many degrees of freedom without actuators to make me comfortable.

      Why uncomfortable, did it touch you..? ;)

    5. Re:No. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Wall E fed him some salad then waited till he fell asleep then he tyed him up with Christmas lights and molested him while he was unconscious.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    6. Re:No. by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two dis-similarities..

      The cardboard last minute visor over the boom camera. The last minute sandwich box with a fan in it on the deck top.

      also the plastic tarp over what looks like a Canon S2 digital camera also mounted on the deck top.

      I love these competitions, the projects come out to compete and every one of them looks like it was just snagged off the bench with a sigh of "I hope this works"...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:No. by crimperman · · Score: 1

      PS: shouldn't robots on a battlefield all have arms, to move crap out of the way..etc?

      Nope - they have rockets and guns (no doubt made out of kidney machines) to blast crap out of the way.

    8. Re:No. by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      No, it just ex-TER-minated him.

    9. Re:No. by orielbean · · Score: 1

      Show me on the wiring diagram where he touched you...

    10. Re:No. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Wow, a Manfred Man lyric reference.

      But rockets and guns are 'arms' too :-).

    11. Re:No. by crimperman · · Score: 1

      Nope a The Jam reference - sort of - From Going Underground.

      "With Kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns
      and the public gets what the public wants.."

    12. Re:No. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the song. I'm only familiar with the song as sung by Manfred Mann's Earth Band, though... hmm, looks like it really originated with The Jam. Thanks, I didn't know that.

  4. What I like by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I like is this:

    within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers

    Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into robots which "make distinctions" between armed troops and unarmed civilians?

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:What I like by theM_xl · · Score: 4, Funny

      But... but... But it's an enemy village! And that would be HARD! =P

    2. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.

    3. Re:What I like by Bartab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Might I suggest you do so first? Show your superior human intellect in figuring out if that guy not wearing a uniform and showing no visible weapon is "armed troops or unarmed civilians".

      No matter which you decide and by whatever criteria, you will be wrong a good percentage of the time.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    4. Re:What I like by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.

      Now, that's what I call a peace keeper.

      Hopefully we can program the robots to not shoot anyone who uses a broom to sweep the weapons off the streets.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.

      That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".

      If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:What I like by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So if i drop them in texas, no one will be left?

      Would also be a nice drop-in (ehhrm) for terrorist HQs like the Mugabe HQ, Cheney HQ, Ahmadinedschad HQ, and so on... O:-)

      I, for one welcome... No, for real... I welcome them. :)

      </funny>

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:What I like by Tyrannicalposter · · Score: 1

      It's an enemy village. There are only armed troops and unarmed troops. No civilians, just like in Iraq.

    8. Re:What I like by scotsghost · · Score: 1

      not wearing a uniform and showing no visible weapon

      there's your answer. anyone not wearing a uniform is "civilian". anyone not showing weapons is "unarmed".

      in a real-world situation, both of these things could change. if you see the subject pull a gun from his coat, he's no longer "not showing weapons", he's now "armed". these aren't static criteria, and neither are whatever other factors that go into deciding whether to use deadly force.

      No matter which you decide and by whatever criteria, you will be wrong a good percentage of the time.

      these recognition systems will have to adjust to changing conditions. their target lists will be constantly updated... unless you just want to kill everything.

      maybe that's only wrong if you care about lives.

    9. Re:What I like by Pugwash69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps it should also distinguish between friendly troops and enemy troops. It would be one-up on US military solutions.

      --
      Pro Coffee Drinker
    10. Re:What I like by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Oh c'mon, we're far from creating an artificial intelligence smarter than natural intelligence. How do you expect us to create a machine that can do what humans can't?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:What I like by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair

      Oh c'mon, when did "fair" become applicable to war again? When you crash into some backwater country that has 40 year old tanks and 15 year old soldiers and you field more firepower than half the globe combined, is that fair or something?

      There is no fairness in a war. Every side will use whatever advantage it has to gain or retain the upper hand, of if this is impossible, inflict as much damage as entirely possible. Period.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:What I like by Bartab · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, no uniform makes him a civilian

      Your criteria has failed.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    13. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      agreed, i'd like a bunch of those roaming the streets too. it can't be programmed to recognize any kind of martial arts weapon as an actual weapon, since all of them are based on tools or other readily available stuff. the kind of stuff that's within "reasonable doubt", the do-not-kill kind of thing. especially staves and similar weaponry.

      that'd mean i get to roam around with my weapon of choice, and those silly police and military folks who happen to be near one are limited to the same! :D

      srsly, i welcome our new robotic peacekeepers, may they do well in their quest to rid the world of guns!

    14. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not deluding myself that fairness really comes into the picture at all. I have seen the war, I have seen its consequences, and I have seen too much for my taste, yet a lot less than some.

      However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    15. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Well, no uniform makes him a civilian

      Your criteria has failed.

      Criterion.

      There is only one, you see.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    16. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The robot's only weakness would be Chuck Norris.

    17. Re:What I like by JustOK · · Score: 1

      kill 'em all and let admin sort it out

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    18. Re:What I like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's an enemy village!

      See, that's the thing: I don't think systems like this are for use against the "enemy" at all. At least not our enemies.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in a real-world situation, both of these things could change. if you see the subject pull a gun from his coat, he's no longer "not showing weapons", he's now "armed". these aren't static criteria, and neither are whatever other factors that go into deciding whether to use deadly force.

      [in "robotic" voice:]"You two, in coats! Yes, you! Open your coats, turn around and show what you carry beneath! ... Same for you, granny, get that skirt lifted up ... Higher!"

      Well, robots ARE expensive, but their production could be step up with no limits. When an operational human (soldier, or civilian) dies, you not only need around 20 years to make an replacement, but it also hurts lots of other humans, emotionally and economically. If an all-robot patrol goes "false negative", at least no soldier will get tin-canned, so robotized party can cut some slack to their potential opponents and be somewhat more relaxed with their war paranoia. Thats why robot patrols should be used on their own, without putting soldiers (and civilians) to risk.

    20. Re:What I like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.

      Like the West Side of Chicago?

      Maybe they'll upgrade them to be able to tell who's got an NRA membership card and who does not. Or who's a liberal and who's not.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:What I like by jabithew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a vague suspicion that a robot would get fewer false positives; humans are paranoid and value their own skins highly. As long as we don't add those survival values to robots they might do better. However, that would depend on making them very cheap.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    22. Re:What I like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge...

      Can we design a robot to seek out and neutralize the "trigger-happy morons"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:What I like by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you expect us to create a machine that can do what humans can't?

      We can make a machine that spins at 50,000 rpm. Can you do that? I can make a machine that lifts 2,000 kg.

      I'd say we can already create machines that can do what humans can't.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:What I like by jabithew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side.

      Firepower, yes. Numbers? No. You'd have to have some nutty situation like the entire PLA of China invading Luxembourg to have soldiers outnumber civilians.

      It doesn't excuse the slaughter of unarmed civilians, but it does give a greater insight as to why guerilla forces who can blend in with unarmed civilians are so powerful and cause so much paranoia.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    25. Re:What I like by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.

      VC ... Venture Capitalist? So, we're talking about a war with venture capitalists?

      I like it!

    26. Re:What I like by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair -- soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

      When a civilian kills an armed soldier, that it unfair on the other civilians. A major reason for the rules about combatants wearing recognisable uniforms is to protect civilians. If the solders know that only other uniformed solders will shoot at them, then they have no reason to attack civilians. If the civilians decide to join in the fight, then they're not civilians any more; they're soldiers illegally out of uniform.

      Depends on the situation, sure. But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

    27. Re:What I like by zoefff · · Score: 1

      RFID is the way to go....

    28. Re:What I like by Vizzoor · · Score: 1

      I can make a complicated machine that starts in an upward position and then proceeds to fall over and never get up no matter how tempting the offer.

    29. Re:What I like by oliderid · · Score: 1

      However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.

      Look at this report concerning the Korean war and nukes. Atomic bombs have been seriously considered but diplomatically speaking it would have seriously impaired the US position (see the British reaction) and stratigically speaking there were strong doubts that it would help to win the war....And even if you wiped the ennemy out of a region...Well what did you gain? The "freed" area will be a no man zone. A position lost depending on your strategy. It would even make your troops movement more complex and healthcare more costly/complex.

    30. Re:What I like by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow...I can't believe this is "Insightful". No uniform makes him a civilian, if you don't see a weapon they are unarmed? Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable. Armed soldiers killing unarmed civilians is tragic. But here is a bit of a wakeup call, that is why "War is hell".

      Colonies vs Britian - your "unarmed civilians" won because they were "unarmed civilians" until they were close enough to pull the trigger.
      Vietnam - your "unarmed civilians" used babies as explosive devices and any number of horrific ambush tactics. This is where America learned that just because they look unarmed or look civilian doesn't mean they are.
      Iraq, Afghanistan - This is what that whole Gitmo problem is about! The fact that these terrorist assholes have no uniform, and frequently pretend to be unarmed. Many pretend to be unarmed right up until they explode killing dozens of people around them. The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.
      That is just a few of the major ones. It is this kind of idiotic civilian rulemaking nonsense that lead to so many deaths in Vietnam. "Nonono, you can't hit THOSE targets, that would upset people. You have to leave their factories alone so that their war machine can keep running. Who cares if casualties on both sides go through the roof, it would cause too much political problems to hit their factories!"

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    31. Re:What I like by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

      That's a little simplistic though. Just because my neighbour breaks those rules doesn't mean I can't complain when I am considered a target. Similarly, if a soldier breaks those rules, the civilians have every right to be upset.

      As you say, it depends on the situation. I have the luxury of not having to make that sort of decision under battlefield or similar conditions. I don't envy those that do not have that luxury; but personally, I'd still rather see more soldiers dead than more civilians. But maybe I'm biased as I am a civilian.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    32. Re:What I like by Spatial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Know what's even cheaper? Not going to war. Maybe governments should try that instead.

    33. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

      I see what your saying, but don't agree at all as the implications are huge. If a small country is invaded by an overwhelming force then that small countries only chance of defence is people picking up arms. By your logic, they shouldn't then expect any help or protection from international law once they do this.

      I think if your sending your army into another country you should be held accountable by international standards no matter what. People will defend themselves any way they know how to, this doesn't give you carte blanche to shoot anyone you dont like the look of.

    34. Re:What I like by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Saying "well, all civilians could be armed, so they'll all be treated as such" is not OK, no matter how you define what OK is, as it means innocent civilians, who never even thought of picking up arms, are being punished for the actions of others, by being endangered. Collective punishment, which this is eerily similar to, is illegal under the geneva conventions. Easy != OK.

      Also, when warfare is so ridiclously asymmetric as we're seeing, expecting people to play by the rules is ridiculous, as someone staring down the barrel of an M1A2 is going to do all they can to not be in that position in the first place, when their entire arsenal is an AK-47 and some cheap explosives. What to the west might be a "minor peacekeeping mission" is "life or death, protect my country, my people, my family, at all costs" to others. Just take a look at the Auxillary Units of World War 2 - uniforms be damned, if it's life or death. Everything is out of the window. It doesn't make sense when the commander in a tank is complaining about the targets he's sighting are wearing civilian clothes. I doubt any US troops would be in front of the enemy in such tiny numbers marching forwards to their slaughter. It's suicide, and everyone knows it, on both sides.

    35. Re:What I like by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Whereas distinguishing between armed troops and roadside bombs is easy. If it has arms and legs, it's probably not a roadside bomb.

    36. Re:What I like by famebait · · Score: 1

      A war on venture capitalism, no less.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    37. Re:What I like by Mung+Victim · · Score: 1

      Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable

      Such as (to pick just one example) the French Resistance during WWII?

    38. Re:What I like by db32 · · Score: 1

      You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution rather than attempting to invoke Godwin's law right?

      The causes, reasons, and methods of groups that hide in the civilian populace are completely tangent to the fact that civilians get killed because of it. Arguably it is worth it in some cases. It still drags innocent civilians into the fight, and the notion that "unarmed civilians" can be judged as "unarmed civilians" because they have no uniform and no visible weapon is laughable. A guy with a radio with no uniform calling out coordinates or troop movements for airstrikes or artillery is hardly an "innocent civilian" despite being unarmed and with no unform.

      You also gloss over the fact that the American Revolutionaries and French Resistance both eventually formed up into formal armies. Something that doesn't frequently happen with groups hiding in the civilian populace.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    39. Re:What I like by KuNgFo0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.

      Now, that's what I call a peace keeper.

      Hopefully we can program the robots to not shoot anyone who uses a broom to sweep the weapons off the streets.

      Please put down your weapon.
      You have 20 seconds to comply.
      You have 15 seconds to comply.
      You are in direct violation of penal code 1-13, section 9.
      You have five seconds to comply.
      Four, three, two, one.
      I am now authorized to use physical force.

      blam blam blam blam

    40. Re:What I like by xant · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the difference between an armed troop and a sniper, anyway? I'm pretty sure one is a proper subset of the other.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    41. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WALL-E can sweep it all up and compress it into blocks

    42. Re:What I like by Mung+Victim · · Score: 1

      You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution

      I'll point out whatever examples I choose, thanks for asking.

      My point is simply that calling combatants hiding amongst civilians "despicable" is a silly statement, because it entirely depends which side you are on.

      Presumably if the Nazis had won, history would have painted the various underground resistance movements of WWII as 'despicable terrorists' or some such. Whereas now we rightly regard them as heroes.

    43. Re:What I like by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

      Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into getting the quote right, which was picking out an array of potential targets--including uniformed troops, armed snipers perched in windows and roadside bombs instead of twisting it to meet your agenda.

    44. Re:What I like by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

      When an armed civilian kills an armed soldier, they become an illegal combatant and war criminal under the Geneva Convention for the very simple reason that it places other civilians at risk. That is a deliberate act and grossly more dispicable than a solider (or robot) accidentally killing a civilian.

    45. Re:What I like by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      There is no fairness in a war. Every side will use whatever advantage it has to gain or retain the upper hand, of if this is impossible, inflict as much damage as entirely possible. Period.

      Except this isn't true at all. US forces restrict themselves all the time, and they're not allowed to do anything they want to. If you want utterly immoral and completely unrestricted warfare then go to Africa or something.

    46. Re:What I like by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Nope. Saying "well, all civilians could be armed, so they'll all be treated as such" is not OK, no matter how you define what OK is, as it means innocent civilians, who never even thought of picking up arms, are being punished for the actions of others, by being endangered. Collective punishment, which this is eerily similar to, is illegal under the geneva conventions. Easy != OK.

      But the more civilians participate in combat, the more difficult it becomes for soldiers to distinguish between real civilians and civilians in disguise.

      What to the west might be a "minor peacekeeping mission" is "life or death, protect my country, my people, my family, at all costs" to others.

      They're not protecting their country, people or family. They're waging religious warfare against infidels and tribal warfare against the other guys. There is nothing noble about any of it.

    47. Re:What I like by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Also it would be cheaper if we just eliminated world hunger, brought every country up to 1st world standards and discovered an eternal energy source. Then later on we could all have some tea together and admire the rainbow.

    48. Re:What I like by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

      You're putting every civilian into the same category as an enemy combatant. Civilians far outnumber soldiers, as everyone who isn't fighting is essentially a civilian. They can't be held responsible for the actions of a small section of soldiers that are disguised as civilians to trick the enemy, and thus they can't take the blame for "breaking the rules intended to protect them." If I'm an unarmed civilian walking home from the grocery store with a bag of food and some soldier invading my country shoots me because he thinks I have a bomb in my bag, you're saying it's my fault because I broke the rules? No, somebody else from my country did, and now the soldiers have itchy trigger fingers. That doesn't mean that they're above the law or above morality.

      Cops are put into this situation all the time. They are never up against soldiers dressed in uniform and are always up against civilians who may or may not be armed and dangerous. Their rule book says that they can't shoot until they're being shot at for the exact same reasons as stated above. Civilians aren't soldiers until they show the weapon.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    49. Re:What I like by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Not if everyone wears a little speaker thingie around their neck yelling "Klaatu barada nikto!"

    50. Re:What I like by umrguy76 · · Score: 1

      Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.

      How would you program the robot to detect if that old lady shuffling towards it has a grenade in the folds of her clothes?

    51. Re:What I like by umrguy76 · · Score: 1

      When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

      It is all too easy to pass judgments like this when you have never been in a combat situation.

      No, I haven't either, but I'm not making claims like the above.

    52. Re:What I like by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Under the Geneva Convention, civilians who spontaneously resist armed aggression have the same rights as uniformed soldiers. What "spontaneously resist" means is not entirely clear, though.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    53. Re:What I like by sootman · · Score: 1

      Here you are, just a few seconds away from the best line in the entire movie (and that's really saying something):
      "How do you shoot women and children?"
      "Easy! You just don't lead'em so much!"

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    54. Re:What I like by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Funny

      But how will we fund it?! Damn!

    55. Re:What I like by db32 · · Score: 1

      No. It is still despicable. It puts innocent civilians in the line of fire (more than they already would be). That it was done with good intent or good results is tangent. You seem to be falling victim to the notion that one side must be right and the other side must be wrong. That the Nazis did even more horrific things than hiding combatants among the civilian populace does not take away from the bad of hiding combatants among the innocent civilians.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    56. Re:What I like by nasch · · Score: 1

      The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.

      "inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces" are entitled to POW protection. Looks like a uniform is not necessarily required.

      http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P41_7391
      http://www.superpatriots.us/aboutthecase/genevaconvention.htm#Article_4

      "4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

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

      Again no requirement for a uniform to get POW status, but there are other requirements they must meet.

    57. Re:What I like by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nuking is no option. For a couple reasons.

      First, international reaction. People kinda don't like countries that use nukes.

      Second, you want the resources. At least in Iraq.

      And finally, do you think it's a coincidence that Iraq is right west and Afghanistan is right east of Iran? I mean, what good is a base when it's more likely to kill your people than the enemy?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    58. Re:What I like by Mung+Victim · · Score: 1

      No. It is still despicable. It puts innocent civilians in the line of fire (more than they already would be).

      Really? Including the good old French?

      "Train derailments were of disputable effectiveness as throughout the occupation the Germans managed to repair the tracks fairly quickly. Following the invasions of Normandy and Provence in 1944, however, the sabotage of rail transportation became much more frequent and was effective in preventing German troop deployments to the front and in hindering their retreat later on.[138] It was also preferred as it caused less collateral damage and civilian casualties than Allied bombing"

      Your blanket 'despicable' statement fails to capture the nuances of the subject. There is a big difference between a largely self-coordinating civilian resistance movement and a military command which uses civilians as human shields.

    59. Re:What I like by sootman · · Score: 1

      Ack! I borked the line. It's not "How DO you shoot..." it's "How CAN you shoot..." Not that anyone cares, we're pretty far OT by now.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    60. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, was I mentioning soldiers accidentally killing civilians?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    61. Re:What I like by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I have lived through a war. I was too young to fight; now I am too smart to fight.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    62. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, true. Because if the robot identifies any of those three things, the proper response is always the same: Blast it!

      So, that task is not so tricky then, eh?

    63. Re:What I like by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well...I'm glad it was effective. Glad that their actions caused less collateral damage. Glad that the Nazis lost that one. However, it still made it far easier for a German soldier to put bullets in the head of any civilian they encountered rather than risking that they are facing a resistance member.

      I have never said it didn't take some pretty despicable shit to win a war, in fact I would suggest it is probably pretty necessary. That is one of the reasons I think the concept of the rules of war stuff is so funny. Ok...we are going to come out here and kill and destroy each other until one of us gives up or is wiped out...so here are the rules... I think a civilian populace (doubly so on the politicians involved in making war) that uses the military as human shields is pretty despicable as well, if the threat is that great why didn't they all take up arms? I'm not some mindless pacifist that thinks we can all hold hands and sing to stop war, I believe there have been more than a few necessary wars. By all means, feel free to point out a conflict that didn't involve both sides doing some pretty horrible things to win.

      As for those good old French. There wouldn't really have been a French Resistance had they not initially welcomed the Nazis to town in the first place.

      How many innocent civilians died when it was decided they should use a passanger ship to try and smuggle weapons past the German uboat blockade to England? Even more so knowing full well that the sinking of a passenger ship would be the propoganda needed to bring America into that war. I believe the Nazis had to be stopped, but lets not pretend there were good guys and bad guys in this fight.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    64. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from Skippy's List, rule #136:

      "136. Shouting âoeLetâ(TM)s do the village! Letâ(TM)s do the whole fucking village!â while out on a mission is bad."

    65. Re:What I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the solders know that only other uniformed solders will shoot at them, then they have no reason to attack civilians.

      Yeah, cause no soldier anywhere ever brutalised a civilian just cause they thought they could get away with it.

    66. Re:What I like by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately then they would have to also get rid ob themselves....

      *i know* *i know*...

      The answer is...

      ROBOTWAAARSSS! :D

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  5. Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you know the 'hero' always wins? ;) Even if it is a robot...

  6. Potential Site for Military Challenge by six025 · · Score: 1

    ... British robot enthusiasts are more likely to respond to this interesting challenge if the site of the "mock enemy village" was centred around, oh I don't know ... say 10 Downing Street?

    Peace (!),
    Andy.

    p.s. or for 60's T.V. geeks, the real Village from the Prisoner ... dodge Rover for an extra 10 points ...

  7. Short Circuit. by ZJVavrek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did no one else see this movie? This is clearly a step towards Johnny 5, Wall-E be damned.

    1. Re:Short Circuit. by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I could only hope the government could come up with a peace loving robot... but I won't hold my breath...

      --
      Money is the root of all evil?
    2. Re:Short Circuit. by TheJasper · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Wall-E is obviously inspired by number Five. OTOH take tracks and put a binocular sensor on top and that is pretty much what you are going to have.
      Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.

    3. Re:Short Circuit. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.

      You'll need a fair bit of money. Johnny 5 was worth over $11 million, and that was 20 years ago.

    4. Re:Short Circuit. by TheJasper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well...maybe I can get a lego-storm version?

    5. Re:Short Circuit. by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes

    6. Re:Short Circuit. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Ok that one is COOL :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    7. Re:Short Circuit. by Wolfger · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Hollywood. Blatant copying is the new originality. Any kid seeing Short Circuit is liable to say "they stole that off of WALL.E" despite the obvious order of precedent.

      --
      Nothing to see here. Move along.
  8. WALL-E by luag · · Score: 1, Funny

    WALL-E, War Associate to Locate and Liquidate the Enemies.

    --
    Everything is possible. The impossible just takes longer.
    1. Re:WALL-E by scotsghost · · Score: 1

      sounds like it's part of Wal-Mart's private army.

  9. Number Five by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    is ALIVE!

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  10. Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone that runs, is a VC.

    Or French.

    Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC.

    Or lazy and French.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by aproposofwhat · · Score: -1, Troll

      Or lazy and French.

      Or perhaps arrogant and French?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    2. Re:Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1

      Hey, if I was coming home to this, I wouldn't be too eager to get anything shot off either!

    3. Re:Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by peragrin · · Score: 0, Troll

      once you know he is french you know they are arrogant.

      Just like you know an american cause they are lazy.

      and yes I am an american.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by zoefff · · Score: 1

      gosh, do I need to mod this as funny, insightful or just interesting...

    5. Re:Obligatory dig at the snail munchers by Smauler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, whatever you decided to do you just screwed up by posting :P.

  11. Number Five is ALIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Number Five is ALIVE!

  12. I for one by duanemc · · Score: 1

    welcome our new robotic ov... wait, hasn't this been done before?

    --
    Contrary to popular oppinion, London is not burning. It is, in fact, quite nippy.
  13. MOD PARENT UP by scotsghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

      Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, well... poor human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.

      There fixed that for you.

      We would be in far fewer wars if the children of our leaders (president,supreme court,congress, etc..) were required to be the first there and on the front line in FRONT of everyone else. Let the rich people put up their children and grandchildren to die for their war first.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Vizzoor · · Score: 1

      The United States can actually spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to train some of our more specialized troops.

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      I don't know what country you are from, or how things work there, but here in the U.S. our troops are among the best educated in the world. And I don't just mean in combat tactics and preparedness. Although that too.

      Compared against the general population of America, America's troops have a higher level of education, score higher on standardized tests, and have a higher average IQ. They also, on average, come from families with a higher mean income. This is among standard enlisted men and women, not counting non commissioned officers and upper leadership. Obviously, if one counts those in the level skyrockets even more.

      The point is, the educated and wealthy in America are ALREADY putting their kids on the line first. Maybe not the HOLLYWOOD rich or the Kennebunkport Leftist "Old Money" families, but all through the rest of America, middle class, upper middle class and wealthy families have kids serving with distinction and honor. They make up the bulk of our armed forces, and the numbers bear it out.

      The old saw of "send the poor kids off to die while the rich kids stay home" is NOT true in America and hasn't been true for AGES. (if it ever was true.) While there are instances of poor kids joining the military so they can step up in life (and why not, you can get craploads of money for college and gain valuable training while there!) and there were instances of rich kids whose families have influence buying the kid out of the draft back in Vietnam (no draft since then, and the Pentagon has said unequivocally that they do NOT want one. America's military is all-volunteer.) those are rare exceptions, NOT the rule.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    5. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      dont know where in USA you live, but where I live, only the poor are in the Military and reserves.

      I dont see ANY of the doctors and lawyers kids signing up for army.

      Lumpy is spot-on. You are so far off, you need to turn on the radio and listen to your daily dose of Rush Limbaugh to get back on track.

    6. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An American human is worth approximately $6.7 million dollars. Used to be more.

      Colbert said so not long ago.

    7. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide some sort of citation for this.. as it is the exact opposite of what actually occurs.

      Front line soldiers are generally recruited in poor neighborhoods, school dropouts, people with low wage jobs etc.

      Commissioned Officers and defense staff however generally come from higher income backgrounds and are relatively well educated.. but of course they aren't actually in the firing line.

      This is the way all military institutions work, not just in America... as it would be stupid throwing away your more "valuable assets" on the front line.

  14. Designed for... by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quote:

    within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops

    This is obviously designed for use in "the war on terror" where most of the fighting is against mock enemies....

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  15. Killbot kill limit by benwiggy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just make sure that the robots have a preset kill limit. Then you can send wave after wave of your own men in, until they shut down.

  16. Morality of developing military hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Do these people consider the morality of developing military hardware? Some of these technologies may potentially be used to kill. I don't know if I could participate in such development knowing that.

    1. Re:Morality of developing military hardware by Icarium · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just about any technology can be used to kill. At least with military hardware, the best weapon is one that never needs to be used.

      Also, is there something intrinsically better about being mauled by an old fashioned cannonbal than a grenade? Or a crossbow bold instead of a sniper bullet? Ideally, if you could develop and maintain a sufficiently large enough technology gap you woulnd't need to fight. Military development is as much about saving lives through conflict deterrence as it is about winning wars by killing people.

      Bottom line, guns don't kill people, people do. All I know is that I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight than a knife to a gun fight. I'd also rather be the one wearing a bulletproof vest in a gunfight, and the one with the armour peircing bullets etc.

    2. Re:Morality of developing military hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about any technology can be used to kill.

      I think there's a major difference between "any technology" and technology that is specifically designed for killing.

      Also, is there something intrinsically better about being mauled by an old fashioned cannonbal than a grenade?

      The people who made cannon balls faced essentially the same moral issues as those making high tech hardware today. Perhaps if everyone had considered their moral culpability in designing weapons of war, right back to the days of cannon balls and before, the world would be a better place.

      Bottom line, guns don't kill people, people do.

      The thing is, people developing military hardware are essentially palming off responsibility to unknown faceless future users. They don't know who and for what purposes their technology will ultimately be used. It might be used for wars of agression and much worse, but they just happily design it and let others use it how they will.

    3. Re:Morality of developing military hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about any technology can be used to kill. At least with military hardware, the best weapon is one that never needs to be used.

      You say the best weapon is one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree.
       
      I prefer the weapon you only need to fire once. That's how dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

    4. Re:Morality of developing military hardware by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      So we just rely on the huge military power to be benevolent?

      Unchecked power is a pretty bad thing.

      So maybe a few lives are saved, but are those lives worth living if they are lived in subjugation?

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  17. American robot. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Funny

    DARPA and the MOD tried to have a joint challenge, however most of the British robots were shot or run over by the American robots during the exercise.

    --
    What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
  18. Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else is a drone supposed to look like?

    In any event, there is plenty of prior art.

  19. The bit of blue tarp was a nice touch. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    With the possible side benefit of clearing the area of horses...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  20. What? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    They were making robots that look like that way before Wall-E. If anything Wall-E was designed off of some other robot

  21. Well said by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Hence the clauses in the Geneva convention referring to carrying arms openly, and distinctive badges and insignia.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Not much of a look alike. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Yes it has binocular eyes and tracks but that is about it. I would say it would look more like Johny Five from "Short Circuit". As Johny Five had binocular eyes, tracks, and was silver and designed for warfare.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  23. British? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shouldn't it be armed with a bayonet, have a red jacket and run on tea?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:British? by Sethumme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes.

      And if it was made in America, it would need to have a hatchet, a horse, and look like Mel Gibson.

  24. But can it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make me cry like a little girl like the real Wall-E did?

  25. What, no Daleks? by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 2, Funny

    You would think in a UK competition there would be at least one of those remote control Daleks running around hollering "EXTERMINATE!!!"

    --
    -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
  26. "Swarm" technique may hold more promise by EGenius007 · · Score: 1

    I have to say, the photo of the winner suggests to me that while it might be able to locate one sniper, roadside bomb, or armed troop it probably wouldn't last long enough to find a second one.

    While the multi-layered approach sounds like a winner, I can only imagine that any land based robot is going to need to be small and fast to have a very high survival rate. Or, small and cheap so that several can be deployed.

    --
    I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
  27. it's not wall-e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's johny 5 Zombie style

  28. I can see it now... by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    "I'm Wall-E"
    "and I'm a PC"

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  29. Find and identify by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

    find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers

    Tap, tap. "Excuse me, are you an armed troop?"

  30. Don't blame all of them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not all of the J5, "Jackson 5" are that way after all.

  31. Holy random capitalization, Batman! by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I must say, mentioning distinction and honor when your armed forces are viewed as an aggressor in the large part of the rest of the world sounds rather... hollow.

    I also won't take your claims at face value; they sound like way too much propaganda. Well, you sound like propaganda, to be more accurate.
    Random capitalization doesn't help, either.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  32. Pun: 'Waste' of cash by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't they just build a real one like this one they used on the publicity tour?

  33. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree. I think the best weapon is the one you only have to use once.

  34. but does it play a good game of... by my_left_nut · · Score: 1

    chess

  35. What... by ineedbettername · · Score: 1

    No "Skynet" tag?

  36. mod parent up please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up please