Slashdot Mirror


Military's Robotic Pack Mule Gets $32M Boost

coondoggie sends word that Boston Dynamics, maker of the BigDog robot we have been following for a while, has just been awarded a $32M DARPA contract to produce robotic "pack dogs" for the military. "What kind of robot will automatically follow a leader, carry 400 lbs. (182 kg) of military gear, walk 20 miles in all manner of weather, and go 24 hours without refueling? Well, we might soon find out as DARPA has awarded a $32 million contract to build its Legged Squad Support System (LS3) which uses sensors and a GPS to walk along with soldiers across all manner of terrain in any weather without pulling any muscles."

167 comments

  1. Fuck that... by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cast Tensor's Floating Disk!

    --
    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    1. Re:Fuck that... by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

      With the way the wars are going one might think "Tenser's Fortunes of War" (abj.6) would be more usefull, but the USmil seems to have a shocking shortage of serious spellcasters at hand.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Fuck that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the mods haven't played enough D&D...

    3. Re:Fuck that... by pipedwho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Either that or they'd rather carry around a Portable Hole.

    4. Re:Fuck that... by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

      For the fighter-heavy world of the US Military, I would think that portable holes and flying carpets would be more useful. I'd say bags of holding and haversacks would be useful, too, but in a firefight one wouldn't want a bullet accidentally blowing one of them up.

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
  2. Money well spent? by phy_si_kal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the Afghans have mules, that cost nearly 0 and already pass where Humvee's stop. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0504/p22s01-usmi.html

    1. Re:Money well spent? by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mules also happen to have their own logistics costs, are slower, less capable, and can not reach all the same terrains this robot can.

      Yes yes, we've all heard the joke, The Soviets used a pencil, NASA spent millions on inventing the space pen. (More of a myth actually, see: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1)

    2. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But mules wouldn't line the pocketbooks of various surpanational military-industrial corporations with huge amounts of cash.

    3. Re:Money well spent? by Umuri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i'll bite.

      Mule: Requires food, water, and has the potential to get scared in combat or make noise when it should be stealthy due to being surprised. Also surprisingly vulnerable to lead bullets.

      Robot: requires maintenance, can resist bullets, requires recharging, and does not tire.

      Lets be generous: Food, shelter, drugs, etc, to keep the mule healthy would be about equal to maintenance on the robot.
      I'm being generous here, any sufficiently mass produced and sufficiently hardened military hardware requires surprisingly little maintenance(compared to some commercial counterparts)

      Mule has a lower upfront cost, but lasts less time(old age, injuries, etc). However the robot, while being expensive, would drop in price as more are brought into service.

      Likewise, robots cost little to store when not in use, and are quite compact. Mule's require a lot of work.

      So yeah, local rented mules are great for our current situation, but in the long run (which is the military's main focus) and in other theaters of combat, the robot is a little more feasible.

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    4. Re:Money well spent? by jlowery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. Do you think the complexity of these robots won't lead to breakdowns and glitches? And how cheap is it to replace a robot vs. a mule? It would be cheaper to add bionics to the mule.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    5. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was reading about mules in the Italian campaign (1943-44). Compared to a legged vehicle, they suck.

      There is the food aspect, vets and language. Yes, an Afghani mule for example will need a mule skinner than can speak the mule's native language, Dari or Pashtun (that covers like 90% of Afghanistan's mules).

      And if your mules are killed or if you need more, its easier to airlift in some robots than to train or find more mules.

    6. Re:Money well spent? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      We use mules, but they aren't cheap and require food and water.

      http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7537174&page=1

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Money well spent? by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but the robot will get much cheaper over time if they are being purchased and R&D costs are paid. I would much rather see robotics technology pushed forward then provide a handout to mule breeders.

    8. Re:Money well spent? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What may be less feasible, given current imperial hubris, but is certainly a better solution would be to not go invading other countries. Then the USA wouldn't need the mechanical mules. Or the troops. Or the trillions of dollars blown on the military. And it could afford small tokens of civilisation like universal healthcare, and a renewable energy infrastructure.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    9. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet somehow, against the most advanced technology at the time, a bunch of mule-riding tent dwellers have fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies time and time again.

    10. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, the Afghans have mules, that cost nearly 0 and already pass where Humvee's stop.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0504/p22s01-usmi.html

      If mules cost a $1,000 a piece then what in the hell is the military going to do with 32,000 of them? You've got to think like the military. It makes more sense spending 32 million for one prototype than for 32,000 live mules. There's far less support needed for one robotic mule than 32,000 live ones. Just buy one mule? Then what are they supposed to do with the other $31,999,000.00????? Buying live ones just doesn't make sense.

    11. Re:Money well spent? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you eat a robot?

    12. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yea, too bad we don't have a renewable energy infrastructure like...oh...um...Iceland.

      As for the universal health care, we have these things called Congress, Special Interests and Constitutionality that keeps things from being rammed through.

      They have nothing to do with military spending. If the US had an efficient universal health care system like the Swiss and Japanese do, we'd have more money for military spending.

    13. Re:Money well spent? by mlts · · Score: 2, Funny

      The civilian applications of this are tremendous too. SAR (search and rescue) support in areas where even motorcycle transport is dicey (Moab, etc), moving portable gear (generators if the mule can carry them) to a desolate area after a disaster. Additional help for hikers to carry stuff to and from a remote camp. A group of hunters can send a robot back to main camp to pick up another set of kegs, so the main partiers don't have to stumble down a trail at night.

    14. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does have a lot to do with the fact that these armies have more complex goals than just blowing the country into very small pieces.

    15. Re:Money well spent? by homunq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mules run on partly celulosic biofuels, which they convert directly into mechanical energy at the point it's needed. They include advanced elastic shock-absorbers which actually return energy for the power stroke. They have autonomous capabilities and vision systems that put any robot to shame.

      Robotics is trying to imitate all of these aspects, and is probably making great strides. But if I want to carry something over a mountain pass, give me today's mule over the 8-years-from-now robotic mule any day. Wheels, propellors, jet engines, are a way to beat nature, because evolution isn't very good at those things. But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens). You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.

    16. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Protip: the mules had nothing to do with it.

    17. Re:Money well spent? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      And if your mules are killed or if you need more, its easier to airlift in some robots than to train or find more mules.
      Any particular reason they couldn't just train up mules at home and airlift them in?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    18. Re:Money well spent? by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      Can you put a mule on standby?

    19. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What may be less feasible, given current imperial hubris, but is certainly a better solution would be to not go invading other countries.

      Like the bombing of Serbia and partitioning it into new states?

      I seem to remember the leader of the socialist left party in my cultured European country telling the annual meeting that if they didn't back the bombing, she would resign from politics. They narrowly voted for. Ah, good times.

    20. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet somehow, against the most advanced technology at the time, a bunch of mule-riding tent dwellers have fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies time and time again.

      No, they haven't. Neither the "mule-riding tent-dwellers" part nor the "fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies" part is true.

    21. Re:Money well spent? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you put a mule on standby?

      That's the default. Waking from standby is the trick.

    22. Re:Money well spent? by zippyspringboard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah really, just add some kevlar body armor, a camera, blinders, and a remote controlled stick with a carrot on the end of it!

    23. Re:Money well spent? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Of course they did. Bloody hard to paint a mule with radar.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    24. Re:Money well spent? by goldaryn · · Score: 1

      Can you eat a robot?

      If you have a robotic uprising, can you fix it with a carrot?

    25. Re:Money well spent? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Mules also happen to have their own logistics costs, are slower, less capable, and can not reach all the same terrains this robot can.

      May be, but that's at least ten years out. Having a robot that works as intended under ideal spec'd conditions is one thing, but having a robot that won't break down too frequently on the field and actually work as well as a mule under unpredictable conditions. That will be something else.

      That being said, you have to start somewhere. It's good that they're funding this. And it's good that they test this out in the field. It's a learning experience if nothing else. It's important that the military keeps on trying new things, even if occasionally those things don't work out too well the first couple of iterations.

    26. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do mules react under heavy gun fire and artillery versus the robot mule and as for breakdowns and glitches thats what techs are for, besides in dire times when everyone is tired of their MRE's theres always mule for dinner. America will always have the hi tech armed forces in the world.

    27. Re:Money well spent? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      They have autonomous capabilities and vision systems that put any robot to shame.

      A little too damned autonomous, if you've ever met one. I'll stick with the robot. They never spit at me.

    28. Re:Money well spent? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If you train a mule and you don't need it, it keeps eating anyway, and you can't let up on the training in case you do eventually need it. Then you have to provision the plane that brings it to the front, and scoop the poop after the long trip.

      Once you build a mule-bot, you stick it in a box until you need it. It doesn't need fuel until it arrives in theater, and you don't need to hose down your aircraft after bringing it in.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    29. Re:Money well spent? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      But not with infrared heat detectors. There's probably things a methane sniffer could pick up too, not to mention the acoustic detectors listening for stubborn mules and stubborn pack drivers arguing with each other.

    30. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mules are used as pack animals. The USMC and Special Forces use them too.

      As for "tent dwellers", have you seen Afghanistan? Someone called it a nation of Alamos, folks there live in cities, towns and compounds with walls think enough to stop artillery.

    31. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did do in the British back in the 19th century, the Soviets took one to the chin, but their ultimate defeat was because of the broader failing of the Soviet Union and loss of the Cold War.

      They have not "fucked up" the Americans and NATO, its just a long process to nation build and fight a war.

    32. Re:Money well spent? by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

      Evolution does not optimize interfacing with human, digesting petroleum, and receiving repair with anything larger than yourself.

    33. Re:Money well spent? by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      The US military can airlift tanks half way around the world but they cannot air lift some English speaking mules from West Virginia?

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    34. Re:Money well spent? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heinlein had a quote (from I think 'The Green Hills of Earth') that went "Horses can make other horses, that's a trick tractors haven't learned yet". Doesn't exactly work with mules (since horse + donkey = mule), but you get the idea.

      Manufacturing costs are a lot lower.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The mule camp is in Idaho.

    36. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. You're confusing the limited forces which any of those armies have been able/allowed to use with their actual capabilities.

      Not like the US Army has no experience with Mules. Or the Marines.

      But heck, maybe you like sticking your head up a donkey's ass.

    37. Re:Money well spent? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if a mule gets shot in the leg, you can't pull out a replacement part and fix it now can you?

    38. Re:Money well spent? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one would would like to hop on the thing like a pony and ride it to work every day?

      Plus, I could set it to "Terrorize H.R. Mode" and pick it up at the end of the day.

    39. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A mule once bit my sister..."

    40. Re:Money well spent? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing costs are a lot lower.

      True, but production time is much longer--in the range of 340 to 342 day per mule

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    41. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mules have other uses than in military to keep their costs down, what other uses of military hardware could bring their costs, I wonder? More wars, perhaps?

    42. Re:Money well spent? by incognito84 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Koreans will find a way...

    43. Re:Money well spent? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yet somehow, against the most advanced technology at the time, a bunch of mule-riding tent dwellers have fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies time and time again.

      All forces listed by you were "fucked up" only in the same sense as e.g. US was "fucked up" in Vietnam - specifically, when one side uses unconventional warfare, and disregarding traditional laws of war (such as, well, not wearing uniform, using human shields, pretending to be a civilian, etc), and the other side is not willing to respond in kind and is averse to anything but light casualties even at extremely high ratios (e.g. 1 American for 50 Taliban fighters), then you get what you get. But go ahead, ask your nearest veteran who served in Afghanistan just how much time would they need to clear the place out if they could use air strikes, artillery, napalm etc indiscriminately, with no regard to civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, public relations, and laws of war.

      It wasn't really any different for the USSR there, either. The aversion to losses was lower, which is why it took more casualties to decide to pull out, but it was still too politically inconvenient for the leaders internally (it contributed to an already uneasy destabilized political situation in the country).

      If you want an example of how poorly trained ragtag guerilla force does't work very well against a well-trained army that is not limited in means it can use against its enemies, see no further than WW2 Soviet partisans. Very heroic for sure, and they certainly did considerable damage, but Germans were also quite successful at countering them by using simple but brutal measures such as announcing that, for every killed German, 10 local villagers will be shot unless the villagers will identify the partisans they know, and help root out those hiding in the forests (and consequently carrying out those threats).

    44. Re:Money well spent? by daver00 · · Score: 1

      "...requires recharging..."

      BigDog runs on a 2-stroke petrol engine, its limbs are actuated by hydraulics which are controlled by computer. All you gotta do is fill up its tank, no time wasting and infrastructure dependent recharge. Yet another way in which the ever denounced ICE is superior to all battery alternatives.

    45. Re:Money well spent? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Its not as cut and dry as you make it - for instance the same well-trained Germans using the same tactics you described faired poorly against the Yugoslavian partisans, despite having some local support. Harsh methods and retaliation build more support for the guerrillas, so if you aren't successful in braking them early you end up in a worse position then before. Basically its a trade-off. The other main strategy is to "bribe" the populace while carefully going after the guerrillas i.e. the success of the British in Malay, and what the US is doing now. So both strategies can be made to work and both can fail.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    46. Re:Money well spent? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      But if I want to carry something over a mountain pass, give me today's mule over the 8-years-from-now robotic mule any day.... You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.

      Really? I forsee the day when the soldier doesn't even have to go into harm's way any more, just send the robot.

      Beat that with a mule.

    47. Re:Money well spent? by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      Your first couple of sentences echo one of the most tired arguments in the book. "The robot works under ideal spec'd [sic] conditions". What is that supposed to mean? That it only works on rough terrain if it's part of a controlled experiment? that it can only carry 400 lbs in the laboratory? Have you even researched Big Dog? The technology Boston Dynamics has pioneered in the creation of Big Dog is incredible, and it is not to be taken lightly or dismissed so quickly. These machines are created and tested against elemental outliers, or conditions that are fundamentally similar but substantially more extreme. They do this rigorous testing at Level 90 because most of the work it will do in the field is ranked at Level 50. These last few decades have led to absolutely crucial machinery such as Big Dog, and it really shows upon spending more than five minutes doing research.

    48. Re:Money well spent? by adonoman · · Score: 1

      So get 10 horses and donkies working on it - then they'll be done in 1/10th the time.

    49. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you drive a car to work/school or a mule?

    50. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given current imperial hubris, it is essential that we develop imperial walkers. Once the Big Dog is in operational use, the next task is to build larger walkers which should be very useful in rounding up rebels.

    51. Re:Money well spent? by gemada · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes but the mule-itary industrial complex will always get its way in the end.

    52. Re:Money well spent? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It all depends on your objectives. If you want to actually control the territory, then, sure, you need to be careful not to overstep it. If you just want to get rid of "bad guys", and aren't afraid to use scorched earth policy, that works because you don't really care how much the locals hate you - ultimately, there just won't be any remaining. Of course, the territory will then be unusable to you as well.

      But we're speaking about Afghanistan here, and who actually needs it? At this point, it's really just humanitarian reasons.

    53. Re:Money well spent? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      The real reason any self-respecting slashdotter should be for these things is eventually this tech will trickle down into the civilan sector where we can actually start having fun with it.

      Badass robots... or farm animals. Hmm, really hard choice.... ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    54. Re:Money well spent? by atamido · · Score: 1

      Wheels, propellers, jet engines, are a way to beat nature, because evolution isn't very good at those things. But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens)

      This was my thought. Adding wheels to a flexible "leg" system would be far more energy efficient, stable, and simple than trying to make a full on 4 legged vehicle. I've seen off road vehicles that will go over just about anything using extremely variable hydraulic suspension systems for the wheels. Trying the same things with mechanical legs would have resulted in a painful death for the operators.

    55. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the food aspect, vets and language. Yes, an Afghani mule for example will need a mule skinner than can speak the mule's native language, Dari or Pashtun (that covers like 90% of Afghanistan's mules).

      A soldier isn't so dumb he can't learn a few dozen commands in a foreign language.

    56. Re:Money well spent? by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      My mule has a prosthetic leg, you insensitive clod!

    57. Re:Money well spent? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      There's probably things a methane sniffer could pick up too, not to mention the acoustic detectors listening for stubborn mules and stubborn pack drivers arguing with each other.

      On the bright side, no acoustic detectors will be required to detect the robotic mule which sounds like a pack of angry chainsaws and can be heard kilometres away even in a thunderstorm. This doubles as a safety feature so that innocent onlookers can safely move out of the way before it passes by, thus avoiding the view of the bizarre twin "half mimes" and the associated ear damage.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    58. Re:Money well spent? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      But we're speaking about Afghanistan here, and who actually needs it?

      I'm pretty sure the Afghans could find a use for it.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    59. Re:Money well spent? by zig007 · · Score: 1

      But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens). You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.

      1. What robotics do, is to mimic the already optimized stuff. And perhaps even optimize it further.
      2. Robotics don't have to, unless they want to, use biologically grown materials. That is a huge upside and makes for great freedom in designing..
      3. Negotiating terrain and walking are a fairly isolated problems. For example Big Dog has really shown that this problem is solved. As with all other software it will get much much better at it. As with all other hardware it will get exponentially more brainpower to help out.

      So I disagree, for this specific case, and in eight years, a robot will be better than a mule. The only problem is that of energy.
      Maybe it could have unfoldable solar panels to use in an emergency, to slowly make it's way home if running out of it.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    60. Re:Money well spent? by skine · · Score: 1

      Who shot who in the what now?

    61. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you build a mule-bot, you stick it in a box until you need it. It doesn't need fuel until it arrives in theater, and you don't need to hose down your aircraft after bringing it in.

      Yes, I can see it: You open the box and ... battery discharged. Hm. Go, get an mule.

    62. Re:Money well spent? by lena_10326 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You probably commute to work and do all your shopping in a car (or perhaps the bus/train/whatever) which is a type of mechanical mule. How come it is that you don't use a horse and buggy for doing all those tasks? The answer is the same for both cases.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    63. Re:Money well spent? by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      [...] sounds like a pack of angry chainsaws [...]

      Thank you ever so much. I was just thinking, "It's been a while since I've rinsed nasally", and you helped with that -- except why did it have to be coffee? :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    64. Re:Money well spent? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      [...] when one side uses unconventional warfare, and disregarding traditional laws of war (such as, well, not wearing uniform, using human shields, pretending to be a civilian, etc)

      A coworker was telling me recently that the schools are trying to reduce teaching about our revolutionary forefathers, because of the tactics they used and how similar they are to the tactics being used against us in the two countries we're terrorizing.

      That's pretty sad: our administration wants to distance itself from its founders. Who do you think would be more right? The people who founded the damned country, or the idiots currently holding the reigns?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    65. Re:Money well spent? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      And it could afford small tokens of civilisation like universal healthcare, and a renewable energy infrastructure.

      But we don't need things like renewable energy infrastructure as long as we have a military capable of invading countries that have oil. That's renewable energy, American style.

      Invading other countries and forcing our will on them is an inalienable American right. After all, if not for our ridiculously unnecessary wars, where would we keep our robot donkeys? Not in my back yard.

    66. Re:Money well spent? by Gorphrim · · Score: 1

      I would much rather see robotics technology pushed forward then provide a handout to mule breeders.

      Agreed. First we push the technology forward, and only after that should we provide handouts to mule breeders.

      --

      Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
    67. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only on Slashdot could I expect to find a serious discussion on the benefits of mules vs. a lifting robot. Never change.

    68. Re:Money well spent? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we agree. Once we tire of our robotic overlords we must engender the mules once again.

    69. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet somehow, against the most advanced technology at the time, a bunch of mule-riding tent dwellers have fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies time and time again.

      That is simply not true.

      The kill/deate ratio for Western soldiers is extremley high compared to their Afghan counterparts. The last place in the world anyone would want to be is in the path of Americas army..

      So no, they haven't 'fucked up' the British, the Soviet, and the American armies; They've bled, died, and starved by the thousands...

    70. Re:Money well spent? by ascari · · Score: 1

      You can simply shoot a mule. It would take at least a rope and an Ewok on a flying scooter to ground this one.

    71. Re:Money well spent? by ascari · · Score: 1

      Yes, an Afghani mule for example will need a mule skinner than can speak the mule's native language, Dari or Pashtun

      Surely you're not saying that's a tough requirement to meet in Afghanistan? Our forces use native interpreters all the time, I bet it's not much harder to find mule skinners. But I agree there are places where a yak or camel would be a better choice.

    72. Re:Money well spent? by ascari · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, you wouldn't need an "English speaking mule". As in so many other situations a good listener will suffice plenty.

    73. Re:Money well spent? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      No you just replace the whole mule and you may even get fresh meat out of the deal too

    74. Re:Money well spent? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      What uses do Mules have other than Grand Canyon tours?

    75. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    76. Re:Money well spent? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They run on liquid hydrocarbons. Pour some out from the fuel dump at the motor pool.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    77. Re:Money well spent? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Yeah they "fuck up" everyone in the same way the Black Knight won, by refusing to quit; and the other side leaving.

    78. Re:Money well spent? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      The Cantonese already have

    79. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Koreans will find a way...

      They already have, only old people in Korea use mules...

    80. Re:Money well spent? by WBDinnigan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps instead of placing the solar panels on the robotic mule itself, they could instead mount an antennae to pick up beamed power. I know that the US military has been interested in the use of Solar Power Sats to send power down to remote locations, so this might be a useful application. Best of all, it won't be as disrupted by clouds as a solar panel itself would be.

    81. Re:Money well spent? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > There is the food aspect

      FWIW, robotic pack mules probably taste worse than conventional mules.

      --
    82. Re:Money well spent? by cgfsd · · Score: 1

      This is a government conspiracy to win the hearts of PETA members to support the war.

    83. Re:Money well spent? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      HA! Silly person, that will only yield 10 times the mules :)

    84. Re:Money well spent? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You left out the big problem with horses and mules in a larger war: production.

      In WWII, the German army got less mobile as the war went on, because horses were getting harder to get, and they didn't have enough trucks. The US and Britain were able to build truck factories fast, and ramp up production to any desired extent in a few years, while the Germans were unable to do that with horses. Mass production pretty much requires standardized interchangeable parts, and you can't take a leg off one horse and weld it on to another one. Heck, you can't even make horse subassemblies in another plant. They have to be manufactured individually, in the old-fashioned way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    85. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know schools are reducing what is taught about the Founders because a good chunk of them were slave owners and all were white, and thats just not what we teach anymore.

      As for the American Revolution using tactics similar to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Hamas, etc. That just isn't true. There were very limited irregular forces used by both sides, the Loyalists did it a little more than the Colonists did, from what I've read.

      There was no murdering civilians who didn't side with the revolutionaries, no beheading, no suicide bombing, no Colonist went to London or occupied New York and blew up a British Army post or shot up a crowd of shoppers.

      Even the American Indian Wars were more conventional and "regular" than whats happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    86. Re:Money well spent? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Thank you ever so much. I was just thinking, "It's been a while since I've rinsed nasally"

      I think that would make a great sig.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    87. Re:Money well spent? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      an Afghani mule for example will need a mule skinner than can speak the mule's native language

      What, how many commands do mules typically know? One of those keychain voice recorders ought to do if the soldiers really can't remember a half dozen or so new words (which I suppose they can).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    88. Re:Money well spent? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      What's the shelf life of a mule packed in storage, and how much space and maintenance does it need? How long can it operate out in the desert sun or arctic tundra? How do you get it to go toward the danger / scary noises when it doesn't want to? How do you remote control a mule? Can you fit a mule with a gas mask and hasmat suit to protect it from NBC weapons?

    89. Re:Money well spent? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Misread as "self-replicating slashdotters". I qualify under that category.

    90. Re:Money well spent? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      You could ride it while drunk. "No occifer, I'm not driving. My mule (belch) knows the way."

    91. Re:Money well spent? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      I've read that the US dropped more munitions on North Vietnam in tonnage, than were dropped in the entire European theater of WWII by all sides. If that's the case, your scorched earth theory doesn't seem like it would work, since NVA came out on top of that one (meaning they survived until the American political machine couldn't handle the expense and bad PR).

    92. Re:Money well spent? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      There are few practical problems with your approach:

      1. Robots are 10 zillion times cooler than mules
      2. Robots cost a lot more than mules, stimulating jobs for workers.
      3. Robots breakdown more and when they breakdown they are much more expensive to fix thereby stimulating more jobs for workers.
      4. Robots are just way way cooler than mules, what general wants to spearhead the US military's advanced mule airlift program in the 21st century?

      I'm sure there are other reasons why your idea won't work, but that's off the top of my head. In other words: your idea makes too much damn sense, would be too cost effective and just might actually work.

    93. Re:Money well spent? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      Yes - reliability is a big concern in meatbots vs metalbots - but have you read the earlier poster's comment about this metalbot sounding like a storm of chainsaws? Seems like there are some problems here: doesn't it seem like where soliders want to cover rough terrain on foot (i.e. where they can't airlift by helo or parachute, and can't drive in w/4x4's) that silence is probably real important? Granted donkeys make noise too, but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to surgically silence a donkey than to engineer a quieter packbot.

      I actually have no idea, so that's a real, not rhetorical, question..

    94. Re:Money well spent? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      What about the horrendous noise of the packbot? It's so loud on the videos as to be almost unbelievable. I guess it's probably powered by a lawnmower engine with all the exhaust removed so maybe adding that back would help (at the cost of horsepower). I'm pretty sure that robots of this kind are going to be pretty vulnerable to small arms fire as well, but who knows - the research seems interesting, even if it's just swords to ploughshares kind of work.

    95. Re:Money well spent? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I tried that with mine, and the damned thing went blind and then into convulsions. :-(

    96. Re:Money well spent? by EricTheO · · Score: 1

      I've seen videos of the "BigDog" in action and they were VERY loud in the video, think a chainsaw on steriods, unless they make it quieter it will attract the wrong sort of people.

      --
      -Eric
  3. Robotic mules? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, they should have no problem at all finding the mountain wampus now. I just hope the project doesn't get canceled when they run low on smithore.

    1. Re:Robotic mules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have to make sure the mules are in the right spot when they activate them, or else they'll run away.

  4. Now it just needs to learn how to stop. by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 0

    That chainsaw motor is frapping loud! Thing needs a Honda Genny. Hopefully some of that money will include powerplant research :) in the parts of the video done in a lab with external power, it's very quiet, only the small servo motors.

    But yea, there is a comparison to be made here with off the shelf naturally grown mules. Lots of trade-offs there.

    1. Re:Now it just needs to learn how to stop. by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I believe the grant for powerplant research already went to the robot that eats people.

      (It runs on a quieter, stirling engine.)

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  5. I would have expected the Brits to do that first.. by jameson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyway, if they get John Leeson to do the voice, I'm buying one.

  6. Hideo was right by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    Metal Gear Solid 4, here we come.

  7. This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by d474 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they wanted mules, they'd use mules. Problem is, it's kind of hard to ask your mule to scout ahead 100m, scan territory, and post an "all clear" message back to your squad, while providing live video feeds and fire support (it may even deploy it's own microUAV during maneuvers). Old No. 7 isn't going to do that for you.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by Dynedain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, even as a pack mule, it's still useful.

      I'm sure that mules aren't very effective when encountering combat situations. Something that follows the leader and doesn't run away when under fire would be very useful.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't watched video. It's too slow and too loud for any kind of recon. Maybe one day, after many refinements, it will get there but not anytime soon. It does look like a damn fine pack mule though for a small, mobile squad.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    3. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Until they start building mortar launchers that aim at that frequency.

    4. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Maybe with $30M they could look in that direction.. but I expect they'll just be doing more "don't fall down" research.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by twein · · Score: 1

      But Francis would do it! (Well, not the video feet bit!)

    6. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone mentioned the problem of getting a mule to jump out of an airplane?

  8. Can it haul the national debt? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    So, that's the plan. The robotic mule will be used to haul basketloads of $1 trillion notes.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  9. What do we need the army for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Put dual chainsaws on these! Instant surrender.

  10. no mule, more like a white elephant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless there are some unforeseen multiple breakthroughs in power plant technology, you are better off with a $3k ATV from outdoor stores.

    $32M will net you about 10k units.

  11. Re:I would have expected the Brits to do that firs by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

    Anyway, if they get John Leeson to do the voice, I'm buying one.

    Oh, God, no. If I'm running from some fundamentalist Dalek I'm not going to stop and hold the door for some slow-ass bot to trundle through before continuing my frenzied dash just because the public likes it better than they like me!

  12. If I had NASA's resources... by Snufu · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd build some good robot ass too.

    1. Re:If I had NASA's resources... by ascari · · Score: 1

      There once was a skinner named Bruno
      Who said "There is one thing I do know:
      A woman is fine
      A sheep is divine
      But my mule it is numero uno."

  13. Pfahhhh! by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Funny

    A robotic mule? That's ridiculous. Use a real mule. Now a robot donkey, that's different. Could be real hand. Or a bionic burro. An android ass could be the ultimate.

    1. Re:Pfahhhh! by good+water · · Score: 1

      "A robotic mule? That's ridiculous. Use a real mule. Now a robot donkey, that's different. Could be real hand. Or a bionic burro. An android ass could be the ultimate."

      According to reliable sources in Google Android Ass should be available with the next upgrade as a special Apple Edition.

    2. Re:Pfahhhh! by alexj33 · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Pfahhhh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      My favorite mule: the eMule.
      Especially its special m(u)l(e)Donkey version with works in the large bitTorrent.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  14. In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been in the pipeline for the last year, and in fact Boston Dynamics had already won the trade study contract for the Legged Squad Support System, the "LS3". This is the next phase, the contract to build prototypes, which will be field tested.

    This isn't a research program, as BigDog was. The program is now in DARPA's Tactical Technology Office, which builds prototypes of weapon systems. The next step is volume production and deployment.

    So far, DARPA isn't discussing armament. Since the USMC is involved in this program, someone is almost certainly looking at that option. It's attractive as a weapons platform. Since it already has full inertial and GPS sensors, a weaponized version could easily have a stabilized gun, like a tank, so it could fire on the move and hit targets. There's also the possibility of integrating the "automated mortar" developed a few years ago. The "automated mortar" concept is that someone up at the sharp end designates a target, the firing data goes back to the gun, and the gun duly clobbers the selected target. That's what mortar squads do now, but lugging the gear around ties up too many people and slows up the operation. The automated mortar was too heavy to lug around on foot, and mounted on a vehicle, it duplicated existing heavier weapons. The LS3 is just the right size to move that thing around.

    So there's the LS3, trailing the squad, when someone spots something that needs to be destroyed. They point something at the target, data goes back to the LS3, and the LS3 quickly launches a mortar round, which arcs over the squad and lands on the target. No more target.

    And yes, the annoying buzzing sound will go away. That was just the off the shelf powerplant used in the experimental version. The production version will use a small Diesel engine. (The U.S. military is all-Diesel. Gasoline tankers have no place on the modern battlefield.)

    1. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pork rinds... pork rinds cry out on a metaphysical level their self imposed desire to be destroyed

    2. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, it's been done...

      http://pictureisunrelated.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/wtf-pics-donkey-tank.jpg

    3. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Should totally name that project Rush as a tribute to Megaman.

    4. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      You're splitting hairs.

      A need for destruction doesn't have to be internalized to the target. Imagine that the team's leadership declared that a mission's target was A, B, and C and tells them that those targets need to be destroyed in order to save the day. Now the team is out in the field and they spot target C; as far as the team is concerned, C "is something that needs to be destroyed".

      If you pause and contemplate for a while instead, C may very well blow your ass, err, mule up.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    5. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Would be awesome if they made it wolf like with razor sharp fangs and glowing red eyes. Oh and if they roamed in packs. That would be some scary shit.

      I was looking for a skynet reference in this thread. Haven't seen it yet, but this technology is scary from a skynet perspective. (If not skynet a mad scientist!)

    6. Re:In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean besides the M1 Abrams, which runs on JP8?

  15. Robot miltary dogs should be next by bolthole · · Score: 1

    Next stop: Slash.

    http://myanimelist.net/character/1317/Slash

    (hey, I just wrote a post with "Slash Dot", while being gramatically and contextually appropriate. I should be given UberModPoints or something :-D )

    1. Re:Robot miltary dogs should be next by Faaln · · Score: 1

      Except it's gramMatically. So very close, sir.

  16. Sounds Low. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    $32 million sounds like a pittance to bring something like this to production ready. I'm glad to see something like this getting some of my tax dollars though. Wish more of them went for nuclear/alternative energy though.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  17. And when it fails... by koan · · Score: 1

    it becomes a 400+ pound burden.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:And when it fails... by Faaln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So are two GIs who collapse from fatigue after marching eight hours through sand carrying over a hundred pounds of kit each.

    2. Re:And when it fails... by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Soldiers recover, and they are trained for the workout, machines break down and that dog is loud as fuck when it's running even with a muffler...no parts to repair = 400+ pounds of junk, stick with the human soldier.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:And when it fails... by Animats · · Score: 1

      Soldiers recover, and they are trained for the workout, machines break down and that dog is loud as fuck when it's running even with a muffler...no parts to repair = 400+ pounds of junk, stick with the human soldier.

      That's what some old soldiers said about motor vehicles, around 1939 or so.

    4. Re:And when it fails... by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as loud, I'm reading in other comments that the engine they used in the video from 2 years ago is much louder and less powerful than what'll go into the final version.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    5. Re:And when it fails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it becomes a 400+ pound burden.

      More like a 32M+ dollar burden.

    6. Re:And when it fails... by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      stick with the human soldier.

      How bout we let that human soldier decide.

    7. Re:And when it fails... by koan · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me, lets ask the soldiers sent to Iraq with little or no body armor, and poorly armored humvees, see what they think of a robot dog rattling away like a broken vespa.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  18. Some personal experience... by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mules are quite intelligent.

    I've worked with pack horses, and horses can be incredibly stupid when they've got a pack on their back, but mules are very smart. They're sure-footed
    and can sense when the path ahead is too dangerous to travel, and if they don't wanna go, they just won't go.

    Mules are intelligent, which means the operator has to build a strong relationship with them, built upon mutual respect and trust. Not that I don't think our soldiers are capable of doing such a thing, but it's something you don't want them doing. Seeing your favorite mules getting blown to bits will be just as traumatic and harmful as seeing your buddies getting killed, maybe even worse, since people often build closer bonds with animals than they do with other humans.

    Also, one last thing is that when a mule is feeling cranky and wants to ruin your day, they won't just lash out like a stupid horse. Doc Waters warned us in class that they will target your belt-buckle and wait placidly until you're in range. No laid-back ears, no swishing tail, no sign of anger or aggression. You'll walk up and *KER-POW!*

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Some personal experience... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Horses are obedient.

      Mules are mulish and stubborn.

      We prefer perfect obedience and vaguely dumb vs. "I know what I'm doing" and intelligence.

  19. Yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/75541-army-to-terminate-robotic-vehicle-aircraft-programs

    The magic word is "unarmed"

  20. fahrenheit 451 by betogm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a prenunce of book Fahrenheit 451 robotic dog?!

  21. military vs helping people with disabilities by ecorona · · Score: 2

    Something this technology can eventually do is help people with disabilities eventually get around without having to use a wheelchair. It would give people with disabilities the freedom to use robotic legs to be more self-reliant. I'm talking climbing stairs, getting in and out of cars without $25,000 modifications, and traversing airports independently. If you think going through TSA is bad now, imagine what they do to you if you need to go through with a metal chair. The problem that many people don't realize is that people with disabilities don't earn enough money to create a market for these things because of widespread discrimination in the job market for people with disabilities. This is one case where capitalism severely fails. We have the technology to very significantly improve the lives of many people with disabilities. In particular, there is a car that people without appropriate upper body strength can drive, but the damned thing costs $127,000. Combine that price tag with widespread job discrimination in even extremely qualified people with disabilities, and we are simply just teasing an already disadvantaged minority of people.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Limited use by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1, Interesting


    This has to be refueled every day?

    It goes 20 miles in 24 hours--or ~1mph? You could outrun it--and the squad that it's supporting, as they'll be tied to it or it'll get lost.

    Longer journeys might make it useful, but so much of it's own carrying capacity would be taken up by it's own fuel demands that it still wouldn't be able to go very far. Plus, it'll be big target--take one of these out, and the squad has to leave behind 400 pounds of gear, if it isn't destroyed already. If it can barely walk, it's not going to be able to take much damage before it's motor control is confused, let alone act correctly to avoid direct fire.

    I suppose the best use would be for non-hostile but rugged terrain that's 10 miles from a FOB--so it can take supplies out 10 miles and then 10 miles back to refuel. But isn't that what helicopters are for?

    I honestly don't see the use for this with those limitations. If the fuel is preplaced, or if the speed is increased, I suppose. But I don't think either is likely to happen.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:Limited use by nawitus · · Score: 1

      And the first tank was an expensive death trap. And the first car was useless. And the first airplane couldn't fly very far at all.

    2. Re:Limited use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that 400 lb capacity is used to reduce each soldier's burden by 40-50 lbs, then you have less exhausted soldiers when the robo-mule does get disabled and they need to reload their packs back to full weight.

      As for speed, it's likely the speed is about what a unit marches already, and if not will be improved to that point during this phase of development. If you need to hustle to pursue an enemy, tell the mule to wait in its current location, then come back for it later.

  24. Comes with free enemy alert system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an added bonus to walking and carrying a load, it makes an extremely loud alarm sound to alert your enemies of your arrival. No more awkward silences when your scout team stumbles into an unprepared enemy ambush -- just send "alert-o-bot" ahead on point so they know you are coming. Don't forget your bright orange hunting vests and flashing reflective headgear and the new "bang flag" bullet system.

  25. Finally found a 1...4 profit model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Go to livestock auction, get donkey -> $100

    2) Hire Mr. "Dude, that's pretty cool, but WAY too skin tight" Tron costume guy -> $100 consultation fee

    3)Mod donkey to look like robot, plenty of blinkenlights, whirring noises, antennae, Lost in Space" robot voice, etc. Heck, bolt old shotgun on top for "effect". -> $100 thriftstore, dollar store, scrounge in junk gadget drawer, and pawn shop mod materials costs

    Total costs= $300

    TA DA!

    4)Sell to DARPA for..ONE MILLION DOLLAHZ!

  26. Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we just tape lasers to regular mules?

  27. Uncomfortable parallels by MistrX · · Score: 1

    It all starts innocent and good and all, but after a few years I would ask you if you would come with me if you want to live, reach out my hand and avoid the T800's rage of steel.

  28. The Luggage.... by philwebs · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of Sir Terry Pratchetts creations: The Luggage The Luggage is a large chest that follows Rincewind literally wherever he goes- even onto Roundworld, which Rincewind only visited virtually. It is made of sapient pearwood (a magical, intelligent plant which is nearly extinct, impervious to magic, and only grows in a few places outside the Agatean Empire, generally on sites of very old magic). It can produce hundreds of little legs protruding from its underside and can move very fast if the need arises. It has been described as "half suitcase, half homicidal maniac" Its function is to act as both a luggage carrier and bodyguard for its owner, against whom no threatening motion should be made. The Luggage is fiercely defensive of its owner, and is generally homicidal in nature, killing or eating several people and monsters and destroying various ships, walls, doors, geographic features, and other obstacles throughout the series. Its mouth contains "lots of big square teeth, white as sycamore, and a pulsating tongue, red as mahogany." The inside area of The Luggage does not appear to be constrained by its external dimensions, and contains many conveniences: even when it has just devoured a monster, the next time it opens the owner will find his underwear, neatly pressed and smelling slightly of lavender. One of the most notable features of The Luggage is its ability to follow its current owner anywhere, including such places as inside its owner's mind, off the edge of the Disc, Death's Domain, inside the Octavo, the Dungeon Dimensions, and even (literally) to Hell and back. Like all luggage, it's constantly getting lost and having to track its owner down. It has only one way of overcoming obstacles, and that is by simply ignoring them and smashing a hole through them — including a wall to a magic shop that had since relocated to another city by magical means.

  29. I would like to read more fairy stories about... by dugeen · · Score: 1

    Can't we just for once have a story that goes 'The US military has rejected plans for the new flying keyhole penetration nerve gas delivery system. "Use of this device would lead to indiscriminate civilian killings and stain America's proud record of adherence to the laws of war," said Gen Cyrus Bigchin.'

  30. M.U.L.E. ? Old idea... by jayveekay · · Score: 2, Funny

    They had this way back in 1983 and all it took to run was a C64!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E.

    1. Re:M.U.L.E. ? Old idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is a real MULE too.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Utility/Logistics_and_Equipment

  31. Will BigDog have a Nose? by zenopus · · Score: 1

    Would something like this nose
    http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads_innovation/Innovation_Articles/security/electronic_sniffer_dog.html
    work outdoors in hot dusty Afghanistan or cold mountainous Afghanistan?

  32. Re:I for one... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    It wasn't one fell swoop, a lot of the engineers at Boston Dynamics are from MIT and were doing leg research there.

    http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/

  33. Answer: a camel by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    "What kind of robot will automatically follow a leader, carry 400 lbs. (182 kg) of military gear, walk 20 miles in all manner of weather, and go 24 hours without refueling? Well, we might soon find out as DARPA has awarded a $32 million contract to build its Legged Squad Support System (LS3) which uses sensors and a GPS to walk along with soldiers across all manner of terrain in any weather without pulling any muscles."

    A camel.

  34. Some benefits of being a robot in a war by codercoded · · Score: 1

    The robot has no feelings and doesn't go into panic when bombs start to fall. It can't catch any diseases (..except that virus from the Independece day). And later it most likely will carry a gun of its own + some sensors to make it a sentry mule in the fighting situations.

  35. Perfect time to attack: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Right after the 24 hours are over and the things needs to reload for a couple of years or so. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.