Slashdot Mirror
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans
Ostracus writes "The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to 'develop a software/hardware suite that would enable a multi-robot team, together with a human operator, to search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject. The main research task will involve determining the movements of the robot team through the environment to maximize the opportunity to find the subject ... Typical robots for this type of activity are expected to weigh less than 100 Kg and the team would have three to five robots.'"
To be fair, they plan to use the Multi-Robot Pursuit System for less nefarious-sounding purposes as well. They note that the robots would "have potential commercialization within search and rescue, fire fighting, reconnaissance, and automated biological, chemical and radiation sensing with mobile platforms."
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Co-Funded by the I.R.S.
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
[Mr. Kinney points a pistol at ED-209]
ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Dick Jones: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
[Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor]
Dick Jones: [ED-209 advances, growling]
ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply.
[Mr. Kinney turns to Dick Jones, who looks nervous]
ED-209: You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
[Entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire, especially Mr. Kinney]
ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply.
Kinney: Help me!
ED-209: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
[ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Kinney]
This is eerily reminiscent of the "mechanical hound" from Fahrenheit 451
.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?
I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I, for one, Welcome our new Robotic Overlords.
Having robots deal with uncooperative subjects could ultimately help keep police safer, but unfortunately it creates a major imbalance of power. The use of robots in this manner could become a real problem in the hands of governments that wish to strike down on protestors and others who engage in peaceful civil disobedience. The prospects are truly frightening, although I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
They're called "reality" shows now.
Come with me if you want to live.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
On the way home I need:
- toothpaste
- beer
- cereal
- aluminum foil (for tin hat)
Once home:
- google "conspiracy theories"
- google "howto electromagnetic pulse"
- google "group robot porn"
greed@All_Evils:~#
I think we really need these now:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
— I. Asimov
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Please let me know who the "socialist/communist" candidate is in this election so that I can be sure to vote against him or her. Thanks. Oh yes and I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
So often I have heard the internet meme that American soldiers (or soldiers of a western "civilized" country would not turn their weapons on their own people. Indeed, it is hard enough for them to do so to an Iraqi whom they still perceive as "human". However through indoctrination, and a process of dehumanizing the enemy, many Iraqis have died. Well, what happens if the next stage in de-humanizing comes not from propaghanda (which is not infalliable) but from a physical disconnect from targets.
Think about it... It is much easier for a sharp shooter to take out a target at a thousand yards then it is for someone to execute someone at point-blank. It is much easier for a remote drone to drop a bomb than a fighter-pilot to do so.
It is much easier for a robot controlled by a human operator to fire on civilians than an armed soldier, even if the civilian is a thousand yards away....
What if the uncooperative human is the one *controlling* the robots?
Oh, right. Could they manage to fuel the robots off of metabolized human flesh? Oh, and make their heads look like skulls.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...EX-TER-MI-NATE!!!
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
But what if I comply? I was told I had ten seconds to comply!
Oh, please.
My daughter was just a few minutes ago telling me about a friends husband. He had signed on to the Army as a photographer AND as a conscientious objector. After being sent to Iraq a couple weeks ago, he is a mess. He is now a guard in a military prison, I suspect, with orders that do not sit well with him. The military knows nothing of "intended purpose". If it can be used to kill, it will be.
Maybe the military understands that if they can take the PERSONAL out of killing, it will be easier for people like the man I just described to go out and KILL.
And before you say it, I realize the man had unrealistic expectations. Ahh, the folly of youth. Isn't it a wonderful thing?
In my experience, "non-cooperative" is simply used to describe "a person who doesn't want to be found". It is a technical term used to distinguish "search and rescue" scenarios (where the subject of the search is cooperative and will be lighting flares and such) from "search and destroy" or "search and intercept" scenarios. Different search patterns would be used in the different scenarios.
It probably does NOT mean "hunting down a person who didn't answer a (police|military) officer's question". It is simply a technical term used in the research community to distinguish robotic search scenarios.
And that new car out in the driveway, which happily rats out it's location so they can tow it away when you become 'uncooperative' about making payments towards the balance you owe.
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans
Packs of uncooperative humans will hunt down robots and steal their batteries.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well since my gun safe next to my bed responds to fingerprints I guess we can ignore half your argument as it pertains to me.
The other arguments regarding domestic violence fall under the auspice of "best weapon available", we going to get rid of chef knives too?
for every scenario where they are used on an intruder successfully, there are 10 other scenarios where they are used on the house occupants: self-inflicted in a moment of despondency, self-inflicted by a child, used on an inhabitant in the dark sneaking in the window because they forgot their keys, used on a wife in the heat of a giant flare up, used on someone while drunk or high
Statistical link or shut the fuck up. Feelings aren't facts.
But lets take this argument along the allegory line you have established.
I have been to 15 competitions where there were over 400 fully armed people competing with each other in their skill at shooting. In a situation where we are all competing, filled with hypothetical testosterone and obviously laying out our manhood against each other, you would think that you could find at least one instance of one competitor shooting another. You can't. In fact, you can't even find an instance of an accidental shooting injury at a match.
Go ahead and try. Use google - I'll wait.
The situations you allude to all have to do with the ignorant doing ignorant things to each other.
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership. Take for instance our current crime rate. It's on a low plateau, crime has been staying at a pretty constant low for years now. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been increasing significantly. The FBI Crime Statistics Report (2006, still waiting on the next one as they're done bi-annually) showed that for every single state that enacted a Shall-Issue Concealed Carry statute, crime rates have dropped. Every single one, no fliers, no flukes, every single one. I do believe the number is 31 states that have enacted one so far. For a great majority of those states, you can observe the drop starting in the year that the statute took effect. Think like a criminal for a second. You don't care what the law says. You're gonna find a gun one way or another. Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven. You can walk up to someone, pull out your gun, and feel safe in the fact that the people you're robbing are law abiding citizens, and that it is illegal for them to use force against you. It's a win-win situation for criminals. They have no intent on abiding the law, and everyone with wallets to snatch are mandated to sit there and be good little victims.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do. Now that well off looking guy walking with his girlfriend down the street isn't so appealing. He might have a gun, too. Criminals are predators, predators don't oft go after prey that could easily kill them unless they're completely desperate. The math changes quite a bit when pointing a gun at someone could get you killed. Most of them start second guessing their decision, and a fair number decide that maybe it's not a good idea after all. Having a weapon that makes you a badass in front of the girls and gives you a sense of entitlement doesn't do that as much when everyone else has one too. To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.
Here's a study based on CDC statistics that essentially confirms what everyone should know intuitively - states with more gun owners have more gun related deaths.
Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven.
Depends upon where you are where you are. Trying to lump "California" or "New York" into one unit regarding crime statistics is disingenuous. Hawaii has a lower per-capita violent crime rate than even Massachusetts, People's Republic Of.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do.
The major cities you listed have violent crime rates per capita significantly higher than the national average. Dallas and Miami are your examples of cities that prove the crime-reduction ability of concealed carry laws? Good grief.
To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
An armed society is a polite society during the periods that nobody is shooting. One can easily think of any number of societies on the globe that are well-armed that are by no means "polite."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
The easiest statistical correlations to draw regarding violent crime is that it moves in lockstep with both poverty levels and the number of Hispanic and African-American residents in a certain area. With regard to current ideals in social discourse it is of course racist to say this, though the FBI statistics show exactly that - but it's in the form of graphs and charts and nobody actually comes out and says it in a straightforward manner.
Yes, apparently.
Just because you are so convinced that you will never need to defend yourself, or that the police will always be there in time to save you, or that weakness is a virtue, et cetera, doesn't mean that no responsible individual has a right to defend themselves, or even enjoy a harmless sport.
Honestly your attitude towards guns being evil useless deathtraps reminds me of senior citizens who think computers are magical satanic apocalypse-engines.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What I wish to say is that if the definition one has of eliminating poverty is the "American Dream" of everyone owning an 11,000 square foot home, 2 luxury cars in the driveway, and 2.5 kids going to the best universities, forget it. It can't be done! Attempting to bring the whole planet up to what is considered an American middle class standard of living will burn through what resources remain on this planet like flash paper.
I feel the reason "poverty" exists as it is defined in the United States is finally because the resources that do exist are ultimately advertised, marketed, and distributed to the "poor" in a way that leaves them physically, emotionally, and spiritually unsatisfied - to keep people always grasping for more - and this is done intentionally by the industries involved to make sure wealth continues to always flow upward. If you can trick people into believing that just that little extra effort, that next little purchase will somehow lead to true satisfaction, you can always make them believe that it's just around the corner. It's just a con-game to make what resources are left bubble to the top.
Finally it all comes down to breeding rights and reproduction. That's what life is here for, it's what the specialized organ at the center of our bodies is there for. Perhaps the final reason for the existence of every concept of wealth, prosperity, and economic success is that it's the current measure by which one's fitness for breeding is judged. And if the current gold standard of breeding fitness is the American way of life - then by God those who have it are going to use every trick in the book to squeeze those who don't by the balls to give them the illusion of getting there when they're really not. The worst thing that could ever happen for their breeding prospects is for the masses to wake up and realize it's all a fucking lie - the closest the U.S. ever came to that stage was the late 1960s - and such deviance was eventually sublimated by consumer culture into the packaged deviance of basically body piercing and ass tattoos.
If all that's not worth a -1 Offtopic I don't know what is.