Re:Reality check in aisle four, please!
on
Wi-Fi Security Robots?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What happens, for instance, if an intruder does decide to jam the WiFi network (not really that hard to do)?
That in itself tells you something. If you're wireless networks being jammed, somethings wrong.
Don't think human replacement, think human augmentation. One human security guard from a safe central terminal can monitor a bunch of automated surveillance drones. The drones can be in multiple places at once, carry thermal imaging cameras, fit in small places, etc, etc. The guard functions as the control for the cluster, if any of the drones hit something suspicious they flag the guard who can take a look for himself.
Pretty neat actually, it would allow one guard to cover a lot more physical territory at once, and 'go' places that might be dangerous in an industrial environment.
You're using the wrong paradigm. Don't think human replacement with robots, think cyborg humans only with the hardware mounted externally, and with some simple AI to cut down on the need for direct attention. After all, we are basically using computers right now as artificial memory/intelligence augmentation by using them to do things the human brain isn't well set up to do.
Now we can do some simple physical augmentation as well. Pretty cool really.
You mean a group of symbiotic, specially tailored hunter killer microbes, nourished by the body, to hunt down and terminate foreign organisms? Like the immune system? We already have one, it's really just the command and control needs work...
What I never hear discussed is why global warming is supposed to be a bad thing. Look at what global warming is supposed to do: slight increase in average atmospheric temperature, melting polar ice caps, increase in tropical climate zones, decrease in polar climate zones, and increasing sea levels.
From the point of view of every other species on the planet, aren't these good things? More shallow ocean area (where most marine organisms live), more tropical areas (where most land organisms live), and a return to the warmer temperatures more prevalent throughout most of the richer periods of Earth's evolutionary history. For the animals it's win win win.
For humans isn't it really just a straight cost/benefit analysis? Benefits of industrial CO2 emissions versus the costs from rising sea levels (Holland anyone?) and costs from having to relocate crop lands due to shifting weather patterns (remember melting polar caps means MORE overally rainfall - not worldwide deserts). It's a question to be answered but the problem with Kyoto was always that it crippled the First world economies (why no first world nation, not even signatories is even pretending to implement it) to very little actual effect.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that for the cost of Kyoto we could wall in all the coastal cities of the world, provide agricultural assistance to affected areas and still come out ahead.
But I guess straight economics isn't PC... Seriously, why isn't Canada pumping out CO2 as fast as possible?
Slashdot Mirror
That in itself tells you something. If you're wireless networks being jammed, somethings wrong.
Don't think human replacement, think human augmentation. One human security guard from a safe central terminal can monitor a bunch of automated surveillance drones. The drones can be in multiple places at once, carry thermal imaging cameras, fit in small places, etc, etc. The guard functions as the control for the cluster, if any of the drones hit something suspicious they flag the guard who can take a look for himself.
Pretty neat actually, it would allow one guard to cover a lot more physical territory at once, and 'go' places that might be dangerous in an industrial environment.
You're using the wrong paradigm. Don't think human replacement with robots, think cyborg humans only with the hardware mounted externally, and with some simple AI to cut down on the need for direct attention. After all, we are basically using computers right now as artificial memory/intelligence augmentation by using them to do things the human brain isn't well set up to do. Now we can do some simple physical augmentation as well. Pretty cool really.
You mean a group of symbiotic, specially tailored hunter killer microbes, nourished by the body, to hunt down and terminate foreign organisms? Like the immune system? We already have one, it's really just the command and control needs work...
What I never hear discussed is why global warming is supposed to be a bad thing. Look at what global warming is supposed to do: slight increase in average atmospheric temperature, melting polar ice caps, increase in tropical climate zones, decrease in polar climate zones, and increasing sea levels.
From the point of view of every other species on the planet, aren't these good things? More shallow ocean area (where most marine organisms live), more tropical areas (where most land organisms live), and a return to the warmer temperatures more prevalent throughout most of the richer periods of Earth's evolutionary history. For the animals it's win win win.
For humans isn't it really just a straight cost/benefit analysis? Benefits of industrial CO2 emissions versus the costs from rising sea levels (Holland anyone?) and costs from having to relocate crop lands due to shifting weather patterns (remember melting polar caps means MORE overally rainfall - not worldwide deserts). It's a question to be answered but the problem with Kyoto was always that it crippled the First world economies (why no first world nation, not even signatories is even pretending to implement it) to very little actual effect.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that for the cost of Kyoto we could wall in all the coastal cities of the world, provide agricultural assistance to affected areas and still come out ahead.
But I guess straight economics isn't PC...
Seriously, why isn't Canada pumping out CO2 as fast as possible?