Slashdot Mirror


Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown

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.'"

50 of 155 comments (clear)

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

    The trash is people.

  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.

    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 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
    5. 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!
    6. 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
  3. 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 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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!

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

      The robot's only weakness would be Chuck Norris.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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!

    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. Re:What I like by Spatial · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    20. 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

    21. Re:What I like by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Funny

      But how will we fund it?! Damn!

  4. 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. :)

  5. 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 TheJasper · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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 Smauler · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  8. 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.
  9. 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 -----------------------------------
  10. 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..? ;)

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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."
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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!
  18. 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.