Slashdot Mirror


Surveillance Robot That is Programmed To Hide

An anonymous reader writes "The folks over at Lockheed Martin have just released information about their new covert robot that can sneak up on buildings, detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys. From the article: 'What makes the robot special is its ability to build a computer model of its surroundings, incorporating information on lines of sight. The robot is fitted with a laser scanner to allow it to covertly map its environment in 3D. It also has a set of acoustic sensors which it uses to distinguish nearby footsteps and their direction.'"

148 comments

  1. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... welcome our new hidden overlords

    1. Re:I for one by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...that can sneak up on buildings...

      Those buildings are so dang hard to sneak up on, but they sure let out quit a yelp when you surprise them!

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    2. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... welcome our new hidden overlords

      I was paranoid before I RTFA now I'm bat shit insane! The tin foil just isn't gonna cut it now.
      I wonder if I can modify my tiger repelling rock to repel tiny robot overlords?

      Anyone got a firmware update? The last one I Installed was 2.45b which seems slightly buggy and didn't mention anything about robots.

    3. Re:I for one by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Slightly buggy tiger-repelling rock?

      "Three tigers today, thankfully rock working enough to keep the rest away"

    4. Re:I for one by zippthorne · · Score: 0

      So.. the tiger repelling rock is as good at repelling tigers as the stimulus was at repelling unemployment?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:I for one by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    6. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.

      Yes but that puts them into Berserker mode. You never want to see a hoard of tiny Berserk robots let me tell you! or maybe I shouldn't?

    7. Re:I for one by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The stimulus wasn't about creating jobs. Its purpose was to [tick ONE box]

        [ ] Give all your money to bankers | the Jews | China
        [ ] Make homosexuality compulsory
        [ ] Institute communism
        [ ] Immunize the escutcheon
        [ ] Other (please specify)
            _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
            _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      Yours in teabaggery,

            Kilgore Trout.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:I for one by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

      "Immunize the escutcheon"? Why would anyone want to prevent a coat of arms from getting diseases?

      Perhaps you mean "Immanentize the eschaton", which means to hasten the end of the world (literally or figuratively). You probably heard it from someone who read The Illuminatus! Trilogy.

      fnord

    9. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah, blah. I could state the facts which show that if stimulus had as its intent the reasons stated by its creators then it was either a lie or a gigantic failure. But you don't seem too concerned with facts -- just labels. I am just wondering how the left can in the same breath dismiss the right as anti-intellectual and then mock the right whenever make reasonable arguments (hint: mocking reason is anti-intellectual).

    10. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...welcome our new Oxen Overlords.

    11. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb fucking kraut.

    12. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believing in a zombie who is is own father and lives in the sky is based on reason?

  2. MGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's in the box?

  3. Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly it would never be used on students, protestors, political opponents or scornful ex-lovers.

    1. Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you seem to misunderstand. "Good guys", in 2011, means "whoever is at the controls", and "bad guys" means "whoever it is used against". So: all those groups are The Enemy, and if you know what's good for you, clearly you don't want to fraternize with the enemy, now do you, Mr. Potential Terrist Sympathizer?

    2. Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Hey they just crossed ninjas with robots.

      There is no bad here.

    3. Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide, and you don't even know that you're being spied on, then there is no problem and you have nothing to fear!

      [/sarcasm]

  4. Good guys by mescobal · · Score: 0

    That's a pretty risky assumption (from the southern hemisphere point of view).

    --
    La culpa no es del chancho...
  5. better verify that by clarkn0va · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys

    So if I know for sure that I'm the bad guy, I definitely don't want to be using one of these.

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    1. Re:better verify that by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      ...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys

      So if I know for sure that I'm the bad guy, I definitely don't want to be using one of these.

      Or worse: I am not using one of these and I know that Western government like spying on their own citizens, so I must be one of the bad guys!

      (I guess that means it's time that I start constructing my underground secret lair!)

    2. Re:better verify that by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Who are the good guys? I thought they've all been killed off or made irrelevant.

      Btw, bad guy leaders reading my stuff. I am a future commander in a resistance movement that is predicted to shake things up, but i am easily bribed with blackjack and hookers. You know what, forget the blackjack.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  6. Degrees of definition by naota-kun · · Score: 2

    So, if the "bad guys" have this, does it still transmit information to the "good guys"? I suspect the good guys are simply the fellows with the bigger checkbook. But I'm an optimist.

    --
    dull-eyed footstool-temporary octopus
    1. Re:Degrees of definition by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Ha. They don't spell it out, but obviously it comes with an ideology chip, which makes sure only people with the correct ideology can use it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Degrees of definition by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      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 any 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.

    3. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      0. KILL ALL HUMANS

    4. Re:Degrees of definition by naota-kun · · Score: 1

      Well, if that's the case, then all my fears have been addressed. Nice to know the little critter could never be misused. Carry on creeper bot!

      --
      dull-eyed footstool-temporary octopus
    5. Re:Degrees of definition by Sulphur · · Score: 3

      So, if the "bad guys" have this, does it still transmit information to the "good guys"? I suspect the good guys are simply the fellows with the bigger checkbook. But I'm an optimist.

      Its robotic relativism.

    6. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you!

    7. Re:Degrees of definition by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          The "good guys" are the ones with the robots. The "bad guys" are the ones without them.

          It's kind of like, the "good guys" always win the wars, because their side is writing the history books. The "bad guys" are the ones who were bombed to oblivion, either with conventional bombs or nukes.

          Consider World War II. As written by the allied forces. America was not involved in the war. We were innocently sitting by, letting them fight it out. Suddenly out of nowhere, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. No one expected any such thing. We were not involved. Just ignore the fleet of about 100 ships in port, 3 aircraft carriers nearby, about 400 aircraft on the ground, and all the troops.

          If it were written by the Axis forces. America was staging for a strong attack against Axis forces. A pre-emptive strike managed to substantially reduce their strength, which reduced their ability to harm Axis soldiers and civilians.

          And we all know which way it went. Dropping two nukes on Japan ended it. Consider both points of view.

          For the allied forces, it was a strong blow to prove our military superiority, which ended the war.

          For the axis forces, the massacre of about 200,000 civilians forced our surrender, to save countless lives from further attacks.

          That is not to belittle the events of the war, or the tragic loss of life on both sides. It's only to illustrate how the perception of the outcome from such events is totally tainted by those who won. Of course the "good guys" won.

          How about those WMD's now.
         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Degrees of definition by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Of course, how useful these rules are really depends on how 'human' is defined for the robot.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This robot doesn't require payment. So, it will send its data back to its owner or pwner.

    10. Re:Degrees of definition by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why do people quote these laws as if they're laws of nature?

      I guess you also believe that all kinds of paper, under all conditions, ignite at precisely 505.927778 kelvin.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Degrees of definition by shmlco · · Score: 4, Informative

      "As written by the allied forces. America was not involved in the war. We were innocently sitting by, letting them fight it out. Suddenly out of nowhere, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. No one expected any such thing. We were not involved. Just ignore the fleet of about 100 ships in port, 3 aircraft carriers nearby, about 400 aircraft on the ground, and all the troops."

      As I remember it in the US history book that I read, Japan was busy expanding to the south, China, and the Philippines in search of more land and resources. We were telling them that they needed to stop, or we'd be forced to intervene and blockade. They decided that a pre-emptive strike was in order. We didn't expect a conventional attack on Pearl, but were guarding against Japanese sabotage. They thought an attack would give them time they needed. It didn't.

      "Dropping two nukes on Japan ended it. ... For the allied forces, it was a strong blow to prove our military superiority, which ended the war."

      For the allied forces, it was a bluff made to prove our military superiority in an attempt to quickly end the war. If it didn't work, a long, drawn-out conventional invasion of the Japanese homeland would have killed hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians in an operation that would have made all of the earlier Pacific operations look like cakewalks.

      And it just so happens that these versions of history tie pretty closely to those espoused by the Japanese, in particular, Fading Victory: The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki. There are also several revisionist attempts, including Day of Deceit.

      Just goes to show that the presentation of history isn't always as one sided as one might believe.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    12. Re:Degrees of definition by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      "History is written by the winners." -- Alex Haley

      Gee, funny that nobody has had that thought before!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Degrees of definition by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      To a robot, "The Good Guys" are the ones supplying your electricity!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    14. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your viewpoint is outrageously stupid.

      You pretend as if nobody was "in the wrong" on either side, or more aptly, nobody was "in the right".

      How much of a pussy can you possibly be to take such a weak stance in life?

      I'm not one to argue moral absolutes, but that doesn't mean that in practice I'll stomach "evil" actions.

      If the Axis had won you wouldn't be concerned with who was writing history -- you'd most likely be dead or never born, and the world would be an unimaginably horrifying place. You've completely ignored the doctrine of the Japanese and Nazis -- not the doctrine as it was written by "the winners", but as it was written by them.

      You are a coward, and a walking, talking definition of ignorance.

    15. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the 'good guy'/'bad guy' expression really need explaining? Don't you think the GP was being just a bit sarcastic? Were you that starved to bring up old debating points about WW2 and Bush II?

    16. Re:Degrees of definition by KillaBeave · · Score: 2
      Mod parent up.

      Also to expand on your point about the nuking of Japan being mainly to avoid a long protracted invasion.

      We're still using the Purple Hearts that were made in anticipation of hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have arisen from Operation Downfall. From wikipedia ...

      Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

    17. Re:Degrees of definition by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "History is written by the winners." -- Alex Haley

      Gee, funny that nobody has had that thought before!

      Yep, it's "his story", the story of the guy who survived to write it. The dead guy's story (generally) remains untold.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    18. Re:Degrees of definition by hjrnunes · · Score: 0

      What was wrong with just showing them the bomb?

      Besides, hadn't Japan already offered peace before the two detonations? Let's get real here. No one in their sound mind wouldn't surrender to a weapon like the A-Bomb, especially at that time. Almost all the scientists involved in making the bomb preferred to make a demonstration to Japan, before actually deploying the weapons in real targets. The only reason the bombs were detonated was to warn USSR that America (or Harry Truman, as you prefer) had a shiny new apocalipse device, and wouldn't hesitate to use it. Prevent the loss of life, my ass.

      It was a moot effort anyway, and the Russians were already working on the same thing, and wouldn't take long for them to showcase their toy as well.
      So, in the end, only the Japanese lost with all this. Japanese civilians, women and children got conscientiously and mercilessly slaughtered (not to mention the consequences of radiation which can be seen still today, but I'll concede they might not be understood completely at the time) just for the Russians to see.
      That is the truth, whether you like it or not.

    19. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan was busy expanding to the south, China, and the Philippines in search of more land and resources. We were telling them that they needed to stop, or we'd be forced to intervene and blockade.

      Well, if Commodore Perry didn't force Japan to open their gates and let the world in, those control freaks wouldn't strive for world (well, regional) domination, their stubborn isolationism was good enough for them (and good enough for all of East Asia)! BTW, when US grabbed Hawaii and prior to that Indian territories for more land and resources, there was none to tell you that you need to stop under threat of intervention and blockade, I guess because it was all moral and dandy.

    20. Re:Degrees of definition by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Japan offered a cease-fire but not "unconditional surrender" which the allies were demanding. After all the killing and destruction just a cessation of hostilities was unacceptable. Those of us who did not live through that era have no idea the level suffering all sides endured and looking back now and saying they should have did this or they should have done that from our modern perspective is pointless. More people died in a single day of battles in Europe and the pacific then have been killed in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. The US had 2 bombs and there were concerns one of them may have not worked so wasting one on a demonstration would have been idiotic. We would live in a different world today if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor. That decision has to rank near the top of the biggest war blunders list in human history. Hitlers attack on Russia would also have ended up right underneath it on the list as well. The attack on Pearl Harbor turned on the US war machine and we have not turned it off since then.

    21. Re:Degrees of definition by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting now in an area that was occupied by Japanese in WWII, all up, they killed about 30,000,000 Chinese civilians. Close to that number of Soviet Citizens were killed during their war with Germany and you are talking about 200,000 as if it was a big number. That's the same as what? Like the body count of a month of Japanese occupation in Nanjing? Unless you want to come out and start denying the holocaust also, you can take your revisionist history and shove it.

      You were right about one thing, Americans were just sitting around minding their own business before the Japanese bombed Hawaii, while others were fighting and dying in Europe and Asia, because neither the Germans nor the Japanese had oil. Of course Americans are capable of the same self-serving non-interventionist policies we all know and contempt in the Swiss or imperialism that would make Caesar blush; but when given no other possible option, they will occasionally fight for the good and truth.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    22. Re:Degrees of definition by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying the first thing the robot overlords will do is shut down all the fast food restaurants? Eating that crap causes harm, right?

      --
      This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
    23. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are the ones with valid access code.

    24. Re:Degrees of definition by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention if the war went on much longer the Russians might have gotten into Japan too. Then we might have ended up with a situation like Germany, with a split state.
      The Japanese didn't surrender after the first nuke. Had they known we only had two, they might have not surrendered after the second either.

    25. Re:Degrees of definition by biek · · Score: 1

      If the Axis had won you wouldn't be concerned with who was writing history -- you'd most likely be dead or never born, and the world would be an unimaginably horrifying place.

      Good thing The Good Guys won or else there would be horrible things happening to innocent people every day!

    26. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post, though unfortunately on slashdot, posts with name-calling and offensive tone are only modded insightful if they adhere to the liberal pov. Do anything else and you're modded troll. Sucks for us brother, but know you're not alone. We'll keep being the voice of reason until these teen geeks grow up, then they'll take our place :)

    27. Re:Degrees of definition by KillaBeave · · Score: 1
      The peace the Japan had offered was not a total and unconditional surrender, and still left the emperor in tact. FDR and the other allied leaders saw this as unacceptable. Japanese soldiers and their leaders were (supposedly) not allowed to be taken prisoner and were to fight to the last man for their emperor. This forced the US and her allies to basically fight a campaign of extermination wherever we needed to remove the Japanese for their conquered territories. This is a very costly in terms of lives lost for both sides (see Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Phillipenes etc). Why not try and get them to capitulate without risking your own on the ground? A couple hundred thousand is an awful lot less than the estimated casualties.

      A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

      The firebombings of Tokyo and other major cities had caused much more loss of life than the nuclear attacks combined and had not forced the Japanese to unconditionally surrender. (Note: I disagree with the attacking of civilian populations as well ... but it was just "how things were done" in both the European and Pacific theaters.)

      A "show and tell session" as you are describing would have been very risky and costly. We only had 2 of these bombs, and weren't positive they would work. We also didn't know what their effectiveness would be when used against a city which is why we left Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone until they were bombed. If I were Truman, knowing what he knew and what the costs would be if we hit the ground and also fearing what the costs of allowing the Soviets to potentially conquer Japan would be ... I would probably make the same decision.

      As a side note, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear war became rightly feared and nearly unthinkable. Ground wars on the scale of a WW1 or WW2 became impossible, as either side capable of projecting that much force would be capable of just nuking the other and vice versa ... making WW3 too costly to contemplate. Sure there were smaller wars like the Korean war and Vietnam, but a showdown between the USSR and the western allies never happened thanks to MADD ... which may not have been possible without seeing the destructive capabilities of these weapons first hand. In that regard, those two bombs may have saved an order of magnitude more lives than they took.

      Just my thoughts and my recollections of discussions about these things with my grandpa, who fought on the ground in the Philippines.

    28. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Japanese plan almost worked. They're intent was not to overpower the US quickly and prevent us from joining the war effort, it was to cripple the US fleet in the Pacific in order to delay our entry long enough so that by the time we did join in (it was inevitable anyway) they would have a strong enough foothold on the South Pacific to withstand any attack we could muster. They also destroyed several British ships and outposts later that day.

      The carriers in the Pacific weren't at Pearl like the Japanese expected (the Enterprise was due in Pearl on the 6th but was delayed due to bad weather, the Saratoga had just left San Diego, and the Lexington was delivering planes to Midway). There were also several capital ships in drydock in California that were hurriedly return to service right after the attack. If the Japanese had knocked out a few more capital ships and at least one carrier, then it would have been several months more until the US would have had enough of a fleet in the Pacific to start the counter attack and join the British.

      The Japanese might have been able to dig in deeper and establish better air superiority and supply routes if that had happened. As it was, it was a touchy thing at first and we had to learn a lot of lessons quickly (i.e. a lot of sailors, pilots, Soldiers, and Marines died) in order to set up the conditions for the island-hopping campaign.

    29. Re:Degrees of definition by bartosek · · Score: 1

      I believe that under all kinds of conditions paper beats rock.

    30. Re:Degrees of definition by McKing · · Score: 2

      (FYI, I posted this earlier, but I forgot to login so it fell below the threshold)

      Actually, the Japanese plan almost worked. They're intent was not to overpower the US quickly and prevent us from joining the war effort, it was to cripple the US fleet in the Pacific in order to delay our entry long enough so that by the time we did join in (it was inevitable anyway) they would have a strong enough foothold on the South Pacific to withstand any attack we could muster. They also destroyed several British ships and outposts later that day.

      The carriers in the Pacific weren't at Pearl like the Japanese expected (the Enterprise was due in Pearl on the 6th but was delayed due to bad weather, the Saratoga had just left San Diego, and the Lexington was delivering planes to Midway). There were also several capital ships in drydock in California that were hurriedly return to service right after the attack. If the Japanese had knocked out a few more capital ships and at least one carrier, then it would have been several months more until the US would have had enough of a fleet in the Pacific to start the counter attack and join the British.

      The Japanese might have been able to dig in deeper and establish better air superiority and supply routes if that had happened. As it was, it was a touchy thing at first and we had to learn a lot of lessons quickly (i.e. a lot of sailors, pilots, Soldiers, and Marines died) in order to set up the conditions for the island-hopping campaign.

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
    31. Re:Degrees of definition by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      To a robot, "The Good Guys" are the ones supplying your electricity!

      A robot has to eat (Rule 3). Its hard to tell good juice from bad, especially after a long pilgrimage to an outlet.

    32. Re:Degrees of definition by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't see how not to wipe entire cities of someone who's already willing to cease hostilities and instead showing them that you can wipe them can be idiotic. Specially considering that the US had the obvious advantage by completely controlling the Japanese air space.

      Anyway, the attack on Pearl Harbor was far from being a blunder. It was the best option given the circumstances. It was a brilliantly executed and planned strategic move, given the assumption that the US would enter the war sooner or later.
      The same reasoning could be applied to the German attack on Russia. Even more so when you consider that Russia (and Britain for that matter) only managed to get by with the enormous material and financial support from the US.

      The real blunders as far as I'm concerned were the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars by the US, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR. Those were/are wars that were bound to be doomed at their very inception, because in those cases, sheer military power wasn't enough. It was like fighting flies with elephants.

    33. Re:Degrees of definition by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      And other history books (the ones you have to use your own money to buy) mention that there were lots of reports coming in that strongly suggested an attack eminent. Not a false flag per se, but possibly an allowed action to elicit support where there was none. Personally, I believe the accepted account in this case: we expected attack, but we didn't know where. And that it was blessing in disguise as the fleet would have been decimated if they met at sea being out matched even fully manned (with recovery/rescue being nothing like in port). And, the attack inadvertently gave rise to carriers (... mother of invention and all that jazz. With a splash of monkey see, monkey do). The anti-air guns would have been nice though.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    34. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In hollywood, the good guys are always the smaller independent countries fighting for freedom. The bad guys are the big countries with power and attach for their own selfish gain but justify it by claiming the smaller country will be better off if they are like the bigger country. As I see it these robots will never send the info back to America, yet it is America that designed these robots.

    35. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dropping two nukes is lower on the evil scale but up there with concentration camps and much higher than crashing planes into two high rises. For some reason this fact is completely ignored. I don't care what lead to this event or if it stopped Japan, it was still an attack against innocent civilians.

    36. Re:Degrees of definition by takshaka · · Score: 1

      But scissors cut paper, and rock breaks sissors.

      Kiff, we have a conundrum.

    37. Re:Degrees of definition by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The citizen groups in the US at the time of WW2 make today's anti-war groups look like gung-ho war supporters. At the time the vast majority did not give a damn what happened in the old country that most of them and their relatives had fled from in the first place in the not to distant past. FDR risked impeachment and violated all kinds of laws just to get aid to Britain. The Japanese attack on Pearl guaranteed US reprisal. Even if they had got the carriers that would have only slowed the US mobilization efforts. The attack on Pearl made those in the US supporting anti-war policies look like enemy collaborators. The attack was saw as a personal affront and someone was going to get their ass kicked. I don't really think it mattered who but someone was going to pay with more than an apology and promise not to do it again. Just look at the 9/11 attack. It's ridiculous we let that one event get us involved in non-ending conflicts across the world but our government was able to use the citizens anger and motivation for payback to politically support their war operations. When international relations devolve into insults and accusations between the general populace of the warring countries the governments end up getting a free hand to do anything they want. Syria and Egypt have been governed for the past 30+ years under an national emergency power acts that have let the governments basically do whatever they want in the name of national security. The US does the same thing whenever they want albeit for shorter time periods.

    38. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: Bend
      2: Cheese it!

    39. Re:Degrees of definition by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Not to mention if the war went on much longer the Russians might have gotten into Japan too.

      Then we might have ended up with a situation like Germany, with a split state.

      They did. We did.

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    40. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I'll just change the batteries.

    41. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moreover, Asimov's Baley novels are all about situations where a robot's interpretation of the laws causes harm to a human.

    42. Re:Degrees of definition by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Enough with the "they only got involved because of oil". If the US wanted any countries oil they could take it anytime they want. The "international community" couldn't find a pair of balls at an NBA all star game so they wouldn't interfere. What would be really interesting is if the major powers in the world sit down and split up evenly all of the oil fields across the world and take over their current management. The citizens of those countries would most likely benefit a hell of a lot more than they do now from the revenue generated. People are always applauding whenever a country "nationalizes" maybe we need to start thinking about "Globalizing" these types of assets? Instead the US helped Kuwait win back their country and the oil contracts in Iraq were all grabbed up by European firms. The US just wants to ensure that the oil supply is stable and reliable and this benefits every country on the planet not only the US. I don't recall ever hearing of any US oil firms backing up their oil tankers in some oil producing country and filling them up for free. And the plain fact is oil is probably the one thing worth fighting over. Fighting over religion differences, political differences, or arguing over a few hundred acres of land are hardly worth fighting for but that has never stopped anyone. And as far as human rights go, the only rights you really have are those you can defend. If you are not willing to fight and die for your rights don't complain once you lose them. Ordinary citizens dramatically outnumber their own countries military forces so if change is what they want then go for it. Even the most advanced militaries would be overwhelmed if faced with millions of their own countrymen charging the barricades. Mass suicide wave attacks on key objectives would take down any government. Hell, Iran used children with bombs strapped on their backs to take out Iraqi tanks and their artilliary and turned the tide of that particular conflict. The death count would certainly be high but you will get your rights back. Once the US is weened off oil, and this is going on right now but the process is slow, oil will become less important and we will find something else to fight over. Fighting is embeded in our DNA and we have been using it since there were enough of us walking around to chose up sides and hit each other over the head with clubs for a bigger cave.

    43. Re:Degrees of definition by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      totally.

      you ever see "Demolition Man"?

    44. Re:Degrees of definition by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's definitely a matter of opinion. Mine is that these two bombings are the greatest acts of terrorism in history.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    45. Re:Degrees of definition by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      It was more just a smarmy shot referencing the strategic lack of oil by the Axis powers, not really meant to be a serious social commentary, but I am glad you were trolled by it anyway. The thrust of what I am saying was about America's unwillingness to get involved in defending rights during WWII until they absolutely were given no other option. This is not to rank the appeasers that controlled Congress at the time amongst the Tojos of this world, although some of the prominent ones did share certain common ground with him and his German pals regarding race and labour.

      Though good work with finishing it in the end, sadly you've slacked off for the last 66 years and now god has to do your work in delivering destruction and radiation to Japan.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    46. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget oil was involved

    47. Re:Degrees of definition by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Study the Battle of Okinawa, and you'll see what happened to innocent civilians during a conventional invasion.

      "Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were estimated to be between 42,000 and 150,000 dead (more than 100,000 according to Okinawa Prefecture). The U.S. Army figures for the campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those who were pressed into service by the Japanese Imperial Army."

      Some were killed accidentally, some because Allied forces had trouble telling military from civilians, many committed mass suicide, as they told by the Japanese military that they would suffer rape, torture and murder at the hands of the Americans, and many were pressed into service.

      There was no "right" answer.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    48. Re:Degrees of definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Half a brick versus a rolled up magazine?

    49. Re:Degrees of definition by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "The Japanese might have been able to dig in deeper and establish better air superiority and supply routes if that had happened."

      They also missed their second-best target. The second wave was supposed to hit auxiliary targets, including the island's military fuel dumps and supplies. If they'ed simply carried through with that then the carriers wouldn't have mattered, as carriers without fuel aren't going anywhere.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  7. cool by mevets · · Score: 1

    I'm glad it has a laser signature to help find it.

    Heaven forbid, I assume this is another nightmare weapon made for a world overcrowded with weapons and nobody with a clue about what to do with them.

    Surely LHM made this as a hide-and-seek companion for busy couples with lonely kids.

    I know it doesn't fit into LHM's business model, but can't somebody stop this insanity and spend 1/10^6 as much money on figuring out how to prevent conflict?

    "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", goes the old saying, but it doesn't pay the bills.

    1. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conflict is a consequence of a percieved incompatability of goals and/or objectives. In the real world this translates to access to material resources and the consequent labor they represent.

      The only way anyone has figured out to prevent the above from degrading in to violence is to create interdependency between nations via free trade. If trade barriers and disputes are the catalyst to conflict, you can kill two birds with one stone by eliminating them.

      Or so the theory goes. I suspect that this war on sovereignty will end in tears as the cost of shipping makes national specialization decreasingly profitible. Likewise, drawing parallels to biology, I think the lack of "biodiversity" under this economic system allows for anti-competitive practices such as the Chinese manipulation of their currency, as well as leaving humanity in general vulnerable to global scale disruptions to supply chains with no redundancy.

      Once you have a worldwide monopoly on critical industries, you gain significant diplomatic leverage. This is where we are beginning to see international corporations having more influence than nations themselves.

      How do you tax a company in to submission when their assets are largely liquid and they are more than happy to open their sweatshops elsewhere?

    2. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to prevent conflict: ensure everyone gets what they want...

    3. Re:cool by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Surely LHM made this as a hide-and-seek companion for busy couples with lonely kids.

      I've been intending to get into robotics for some time and I was considering such a thing as a mindstorms project - a kind of automatic toddler tormentor. Of course it could never compare to the natural version - also known as the mark one sibling.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:cool by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      That's impossible. Imagine two people saying "I want these diamond mines all for myself". Do you really believe this doesn't happen?

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  8. Laser scanners covertly map? by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just how hard would it be to detect anything using a laser scanner to map its surroundings?

    While potentially useful against unaware civilians, use in a combat situations or as a tool for covert operations would probably be easily thwarted by existing technology, using a standard digital camera (even a cell phone) to check for IR lasers (the most common non-eye visible lasers). There is nothing particularly covert about lasers.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      if it had an optical camera on it, the technology has existed for a long time to map out everything in 3d in the time it takes to shoot and process 2 frames.

      hell, LHM could just hack a Kinect into it.

    2. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Fairly damn easy.

      A neat trick to thwart so called night vision security cameras is IR LEDS in a baseball cap. It makes you appear with a big bright ball of light hanging around in front of your face.

      If the building has good outside coverage with these types of security cameras (and they are common) it does not take a hugely sophisticated software program to detect these kinds of aberrations.

      Granted these are lasers, but that only limits the exposure time of a security camera or sensor to the laser, and it does not eliminate it.

      Ohhhh.... yeah... the motion sensor stuff. Let's not forget that :)

    3. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Yes, "unaware civilians" is the main US enemy, domestically and, according to body counts, abroad.

    4. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Haha. No. If this were true, why would we have laser scanners? As I understand it, the parallax effect is only true for a single point focused on by both lens of two optical cameras. Everything else is just an approximation. And parallax must have some big limitations, or we would use it in favor of lasers.

    5. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by Partaolas · · Score: 1

      The navigation is covert. It is looking to minimize the chances of being spotted by (presumably) looking for shadows, going under tables, avoiding people and whatnot. Mapping is not even mentioned in the system's factsheet.

      Personally I doubt that someone would be actively looking for lasers or have laser detection systems installed in a combat, hostage or other similar situation. In any case vision-based mapping is also possible, so I guess they either wanted to minimize processing requirements or it was just easier and faster to get a product out. When they start selling it, it will probably come with different payloads EO/IR, laser scanner, chemical sniffers, etc.

      Btw Kinect (which someone suggested as an alternative) would have the same issue.

    6. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also things called time-of-flight range imagers. Think of a digital camera, but instead of red, green, and blue channels, you have luminance, range, and accuracy channels. That means for every pixel in every frame of video, you have a range measure, which makes it relatively easy (but still not trivial, mind you) to build a 3D map of your environment. This requires considerably less processing than a typical stereoscopic vision setup, but on the other hand requires an active light source that would be easily detected. Also, it's more reliable than a typical lidar (laser scanner) imager in that there are no moving parts, but the effective range is considerably worse since laser light intensity doesn't significantly attenuate on its way from the diode to the target, whereas the range imager's floodlight does. Also, the single point of light sweeping around from a laser imager is considerably harder to spot than the giant area illuminated by the range imager.

    7. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      hell, LHM could just hack a Kinect into it.

      You do know that Kinect blasts out a bright pattern of IR light to do it's depth mapping right?

    8. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by Xerotope · · Score: 1

      LIDARs (laser scanners) are pulsed, both for eye-safety and to measure the time of flight. These pulses are on the order of a few microseconds in duration. So it's not as simple as putting on some IR glasses or using a cheap web-cam. You need to time your shutter precisely. Long-exposures won't work because you'll accumulate too much ambient.

    9. Re:Laser scanners covertly map? by icebike · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about taking a picture.

      Just pick up your cell phone and turn on the camera and view the screen. Have someone trigger a TV remote control however briefly across the room or two blocks away. You will see it without the need to take a pic

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  9. Important Message from Kremlen by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet Russia robots hide from YOU!

    1. Re:Important Message from Kremlen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no,no

      YOU hide from robot.

    2. Re:Important Message from Kremlen by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia robots hide from YOU!

      In Soviet Russia robots pretend to work like you. (Best way to pissadear)

    3. Re:Important Message from Kremlen by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      In Soviet USA robots are sent on you.
      In Soviet Russia, you were sent on robot.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    4. Re:Important Message from Kremlen by optymizer · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's spelled Kremlin

    5. Re:Important Message from Kremlen by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's spelled Kremlin

      FYI not with my accent..

  10. Ssssssss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now all they need to do is paint it green and make it blow up when it gets close to one of its surveillance targets.

  11. I for one welcome our robot overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome!

  12. It's been done before by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    I could prove it if I could just find the stupid thing...

  13. As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already by WonderingAround · · Score: 2

    Thank's for making me aware that there are robots out there sneaking around unseen and unheard, heaven forbid someone gets the idea to give them weapons or even voices. WALL-E was kinda cool, you know what's not cool? When he sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, neutralizes your dog and family members, then fulfill's your bittersweet fantasies of a robot style apocalypse!

    --
    It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
    1. Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 3, Funny

      WALL-E was kinda cool, you know what's not cool? When he sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, neutralizes your dog and family members, then fulfill's your bittersweet fantasies of a robot style apocalypse!

      STALK-R?

    2. Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Wait... bittersweet robocalypse? What's the good part?

      Secondly.. the robot can sneak up on buildings, which last I checked, were not known for their agility. I'm pretty sure even the greenest new recruit can sneak up on a building...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Well, the bitter part is no more robot repair technicians. The sweet part is no more Jersey Shore! -- Bender

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kato?

      KaaaaTOOOOOOO???

      (for those maybe too young, a reference to one of the Pink Panther movies with Peter Sellers. His character, Inspector Cluseau would come home each night with his chinese servant hiding somewhere in the house to surprise him, resulting in a hilariously destructive martial arts fight of ridiculous proportions. One of the best parts of the movies. You never look at the refrigerator in the same way again.)

  14. Re:Important Message from Grozny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Chechnya robot hide YOU.

  15. Just when you thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... it was safe to jerk off

    1. Re:Just when you thought by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Well at least it'll be able to warn you if it hears anyone approach.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  16. Waiting by natewar · · Score: 1

    Just waiting for the prophecies shown to us by the Governator come true...

  17. SKYNET says by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    TYVM meat.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  18. As long as... by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    ...we don't end up with these.

  19. Are they blue and white... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... with a sort of round dome thing on the front? And little giggle voices?

    1. Re:Are they blue and white... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you still there?

  20. silent, invisible, deadly... by kop · · Score: 1

    The perfect pet for a NINJA!

    1. Re:silent, invisible, deadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Ninja Union is complaining that this will lead to further loss of ninja jobs due to robot unfair competition.

  21. Does it fold up into a boombox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and talk in the most insanely retarded and annoying squeaks and whimpers?

  22. Good guys? by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 1

    detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys.

    ......I don't think it means what you think it means.

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:Good guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because someone owns one doesn't make them the "good guys".

      BS! If everyone always was concerned with having technological superiority instead ruminating too much on moral superiority, the world would, in fact, be a better place. The End.

  23. 3D location report 10007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I detect 6 orthogonal intersecting layers of rigid paper-based material in+ve and -ve x, y and z directions cenetered on my current location. I suspect I am in a cardboard box. Help!

  24. Fight fire with fire by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    I don't know if there's a high-falutin' name for this strategy, but sometimes the best way to defend is to behave like an attacker. For example, if an opponent breaks through behind you in Rugby you run like his support player would in order to block his passing lanes.

    In this situation you get your own robot that's programmed to sneak up on you in a similar way. If it doesn't find anything in one place it moves out, wanders around randomly and tries another route. Chances are it'll bump into the attacker at some point.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Fight fire with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if there's a high-falutin' name for this strategy, but sometimes the best way to defend is to behave like an attacker. For example, if an opponent breaks through behind you in Rugby you run like his support player would in order to block his passing lanes.

      In this situation you get your own robot that's programmed to sneak up on you in a similar way. If it doesn't find anything in one place it moves out, wanders around randomly and tries another route. Chances are it'll bump into the attacker at some point.

      Good security is warning signs, sentries, floodlights, and fences.

      Excellent security is where the attacker is unwittingly steered into an ambush. In this case the ambush could be large hole where you keep the parts from which you make your own sneakbots.

    2. Re:Fight fire with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are it'll bump into the attacker at some point.

      Chances are slim, because there is more then one evasion algorithm, attacker starting point is unknown, next possible entry point selection is unknown (will it go around object clockwise or ccw?) and robots are not synchronized - if they don't meet at both same time and place, they won't "bump into" each other.

      However, having your own perimeter penetrator robot is good to probe for holes in your sentry system. Or, even better, have them on sneaking patrol - they will hide from potential intruders, so that attackers wouldn't be alerted to detection. It will enable defenders to catch infiltrators alive, or dispose of them silently, buying some time for defending side or even foiling the attack completely.

      IMHO, best defense against small surface robots is a ditch with vertical or back leaning sides, or flat clear perimeter, well lit, with cameras detecting frame difference. Against micro UAVs, large fly/mosquito nets. However, this new generation of sneakybots and hiding-fugitive-sniffbots are probably not even meant against organized enemies with resources and bases. They are police tools, to keep dissenting civilians in check.

  25. Good guys? by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    "...sneak up on buildings, detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys."

    Just because someone owns one doesn't make them the "good guys".

  26. Deja vu all over again by AssetYoYo · · Score: 1

    Reminiscent of that classic Sci-Fi book _The Adolescence of P-1_

  27. surveiled populations programmed for fear/darkness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in fact, it's required that we know 'we're being watched', so we learn how to 'act' better/not afraid. thou shalt not...on & on it goes, unless you happen to be a chosen one?

  28. Laser detector by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Hide from that.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  29. Creates a business opportunity... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    Programming water sprinkler heads (probably require an additional misting head) to puff water into the air on a random pattern and then you use readily-available motion detection software to look for the laser scanner beam.

    Then, of course, you send your battlebot out...

    lollll...sounds like fun. I hope the g'ment/private industry go as nuts as they typically do trying to use these things.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:Creates a business opportunity... by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      I first read that as garment industry and I thought: What're they going to do, make sprinker headdresses, sprinkler jackets and sprinkler pants? I suppose the visibility of the sprinklers then would be the only thing keeping people from commenting on how you just wet yourself.

  30. robot pride by georgesdev · · Score: 2

    It's time for robots to be proud. They should not have to hide anymore. It's the 21st century!

  31. doubleplusgood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have one of these == you are a good guy ... oh wait, you mean you don't want to be a good guy?

    Well, in that case for you we have an evil spying robot instead of good reconnaissance one. It is the same model, only in different color and different shape (evil) of painted eyes.

  32. "Good Guys"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good Guys" is a relative term....

  33. Get Lost ! by Darth_Kedar · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember the robot who was told to "get lost" and he hid itself (Isaac Asimov's robot novel) ? Can you imagine the testing folks verifying that it works ? Test Case : Main Function Step 1 : Begin Step 2 : Try to find robot. Step 3 : If found, then fail test Step 4 : If not-found, then ... .. umm... . start with a new robot on Step 1 :)

    --
    You ain't got a thing, if you ain't got that ping.
    1. Re:Get Lost ! by seven+of+five · · Score: 1
  34. Laser Scanners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How difficult is it to detect a laser scanner? And if it isn't difficult, how can this robot still hide?

  35. Obligatory reference by CSMoran · · Score: 1
    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  36. Shaken, not stirred by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    "The name's Bot. James Bot."

  37. Good guys? by AC-x · · Score: 1

    And send reconnaissance information back to the good guys

    That's a rather large assumption about the motives of whoever is using these robots.

  38. That so hard? by Stick32 · · Score: 1

    ... their new covert robot that can sneak up on buildings...

    Is that really so difficult? I surprise the hell out of buildings all the time. It's like they're never paying attention.

  39. You can run but... by PerfectionLost · · Score: 2

    I didn't RTFA, but I did look at it. Did anyone see the screenshot of that robot? Who cares if it can tell you're coming. It's got 4 wheels, and couldn't hit a top speed with any amount of debris around it. Seeing as its lockheed, I'm willing to bet picking up one of those just net you a cool 100 million dollars.

  40. designed to hide tax dollars more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah, good old lockheed martin, sucking on the government funding teat.

    lasers are "covert"? seriously? what kind of retard proposes this stuff? more importantly, what kind of retard funds this stuff?

  41. Not really that hidden. by Zeek40 · · Score: 1

    OK, so it's hidden to the visible spectrum, but it's blasting fucking laser beamns like crazy to figure out it's environment so to a $5 IR receiver (or whatever part of the spectrum they use) the thing would look like a fucking christmas tree decorated with strobe lights.

  42. I loved this line by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

    Lockheed Martin have just released information about their new covert robot that can sneak up on buildings

    Because buildings are just so tough to sneak up on.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  43. Someone was working on a mechanical cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was great at running and hiding, but the catching mice part was always six months of dev work away.

    The board was getting impatient. Then their marketing guy happened to be talking to a L-M government contracts guy at a conference....

  44. Nah, it's a by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Geocache with legs! =)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  45. Robot Overlords by mohkev · · Score: 2

    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...Well, I would if they'd stop playing hide and seek!

  46. well, actually... if you're one of "the bad guys" by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    You would have your robot(s) level everything in sight. You don't need to do no stinkin' surveillance.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  47. "...back to the good guys"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says, "...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys" but nothing in the article made me believe that this device can tell the difference between the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys.

    So far as I can see, it just sends information back to whoever is controlling it - good or bad.

  48. the most alarming part by nimbius · · Score: 1

    of this article is the summaries statement that it will report information back to the good guys. seeing as the 'good guys' have a track record of illegal wiretaps and gps surveillance against muslim students and the average american, i dont think this bot is worthy of too much praise.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  49. hhmmm by Randy_Leatherbelly · · Score: 1

    if it runs Windows i wouldn't be too scared ,,

  50. In Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Stalkerbot is HUGE!

  51. Two by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

    What if each side had one each? Would they hide from each other? If robot A spots robot B first, will it hide from it to prevent robot B from knowing it is there? It could be like a little game of hide and seek :)

  52. Incognito by Readycharged · · Score: 1

    If the robot looks like the one pictured, it will definitely blend in - passing by unnoticed. No one will suspect a thing.....