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: /
[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
I, for one, Welcome our new Robotic Overlords.
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:~#
No, you cannot.
I have it on the authority of a friend that when a police dog comes out of nowhere and leaps on you and you instinctively knock it away, it PISSES THE COPS OFF and the tend to beat the crap out of you. I'm pretty sure you would get a similar reaction from them if you scratch their shiny new toy. Remember, most law enforcement considers this a battle between US and THEM, and they will include these robots in their definition of US.
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.
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
I can attest to that myself.
It DOES piss them off (especially if your knocking it away with Vibram-soled, steel toe boots), but they don't necessarily beat the crap out of you. They just let the now-very-pissed-off dog chew on you for awhile. That way there are no marks from THEM to indicate excessive force.
The problem here is that the DOG does NOT have to announce himself as a police officer (like I'm gunna see a badge, on the collar, in the dark). That allows the officer to apply force without clearly announcing that you are dealing with someone that your not allowed to DEFEND yourself from. When it happened to me, I had already kicked the dog 4-5 times and been chewed on for 10-15 seconds by the time I had ANY idea there was a cop in the area.
Personally, I think robots would just remove the normal hesitation that most people experience when confronted with the decision of killing someone else. In other words, get rid of that pesky conscience.
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.
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.
Crazy, killing a police dog is a felony, but a police office killing someone else's dog is ... part of the job?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
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.