Armed Robot Guards - Sorta 281
jshirk writes "The Bankok Post is reporting that the Thailand Research Fund has unveiled the world's first armed robotic guard. The best part: it can be ordered to fire remotely over the Internet. Now, postal carriers have a lot more to worry about than the dog."
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:1)
And as for small towns that rely on the military installations, well, time passes on. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but things will change, and were the US war machine able to develop robotic soldiers, they would very likely be stationed in existing bases, along with their associated support structures.
I do believe that the comment regarding the poor and minorities "being shepherded in" was patently ridiculous, but it would be nice to envision a day when matters could be settled without having to kill people off. Of course, with Vietnam Part Deux (Columbia) escalating, that time is going to be a bit too late.
Deo
Vindication for the NRA (Score:2)
Re:Have you seen the picture??? (Score:1)
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Solution to Hacking? Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
Maybe I've seen too much Robocop (TV series) where the robot (cyborg really) seems to shoot to disable instead of killing criminals. The gun should only be used as a last resort in stopping the intruder, and then only to injure first to disable.
The laws when hardwired are still useful if a robot is hacked. If you've ever read Asimov's novels, you'd notice that as the Robots are hardwired with the above laws, they automatically "crash" or halt when they are about to break these laws preventing them from executing anymore illegal actions either incidental or accidental, and thus in the process avoid causing more damage, injury or loss of life.
I'm not saying that Asimov's theories are perfect, but after over half a century of debate and analysis, long before the dawn of AI in computers, the Internet, or robotics, they are still the most definitive rules to guiding any robot's actions. It's no wonder why so many regard him as one of the best ever visionaries and science fiction writers the world has ever seen.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
Password smashword (Score:1)
How many people will try to hack that one? Heck, one night after a few beers I'm tempted to try to hack it. Not that I would shoot anyone, of course. Maybe shoot near someone, just to see their expression. It would be even better if you could make it talk.
DESTROY ALL HUMANS. DESTROY ALL HUMANS.
Re:heh (Score:1)
Robot Wars (Score:2)
Reminds me of Robot Wars [robotwars.com] (the 'arena sport')
...and Robot Wars [imdb.com] (the cheesy yet amusing B-movie from 1993)
--
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
Sorry to break this news to you (unless you're trollong) but that precious dough they spend is your tax money. If you want to care for those small towns, fine, but why not let those soldiers do useful jobs for the same pay?
Yeah I know, this is an evil world and we all need a devence and so on. Still the only army on the plus side of a national budget is an army at war against a weak but wealthy opponent. Think Iraq.
Read Risks Forum (Score:2)
Stack overflow? Heap corruption? Unanticipated input?
'Nuff said.
Re:Solution to Hacking? Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
At this stage in the game, I'd much rather robots carried no duties that are likely to be dangerous to humans. However, when we reach a time when it would be possible, perhaps it would be better to replace Asimov's laws with the real laws of the state, and class the robot as an individual under those laws.
This way, the robot could protect the bank vault- and if the robber threatened injury, then it could pop it a few. If the robot gets cracked and the intruder instructs it on a wanton rampage, the robot would freeze as soon as it is about to comit a crime- just as it would under Asimov's.
If the robot is smart enough to know when someone's attacking it, it's smart enough to check a law database to see if its response would be criminal.
Hmm (Score:2)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Re:Frightening... (Score:2)
heh (Score:3)
someone call guiness.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
testing (Score:2)
Re:Solution to Hacking? Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
I think a better solution would be to arm the robots with magic amulets that prevent hackers from taking control of them. In the short run, it seems like a more practical solution.
Re:URL? (Score:4)
Bring out the Robot Richard Simmons! (Score:2)
Mr. Burns: No. Bring out the Robot Richard Simmons.
Homer: AAAH!
Combine with this robot.... (Score:2)
New Scientist: Could the future of robotics be a toy train with a taste for flesh? [newscientist.com]
See, I think the best plan would be to combine these two types of robots. Then you would have a robot that could hunt for it's own fuel!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Autocannons (Score:3)
Sounds a bit too anecdotal. The Navy does have Phalanx anti-aircraft systems that are for close range defense. The Phalanx is radar guided and tracks its own bullet stream to correct its aim. It shoots something like 4,500 20mm rounds per minute. Even if it went nuts, you wouldn't have to wait long for it to run out of ammo, it only carries 1,500 rounds. here's a link to the site I got my info from. [navy.mil]
Re:heh (Score:2)
An undisclosed source said that the Thailand goverment had 2000 "killer" attack robots setup and moving towards slashdot's central control room, known as "the geek compound"
(I know the geek compound has disbanned, but it is a lot cooler than saying "Rob's bedroom")
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:4)
The "kid" was teenager from Japan. He was about maximum-violence "gangsta" age.
As are all the kids I know of that age... (well, DUH!) And when's the last time you saw a Japanese gangsta?
He was an exchange student, so he was moderately clueless about the local customs.
Yeah, local customs like shooting people for knocking on your door.
Like many teenagers in/from Japan at the time he had a bad habit: He would suddenly run at people, yelling and making threatening gestures, then take a picture of their expressions of fear. (A disarmed society is NOT a polite society!)
This is such complete bullshit. Get off the crack, buddy.
It was Halloween. It was after dark.
It was Halloween. It was before dark (late afternoon).
The "kid" and another teenage boy from his host's household showed up on the doorstep of a house and tried the door. When confronted, they claimed they were trying to find a party and gave a different address. They were told they were at the wrong address and to go away.
A few minutes later the householder was disturbed again: They were back, trying the door of the garage. The wife, understandably agitated, called the husband, who confronted them again.
I'm not sure why you put quotation marks around the word "kid". He WAS a kid. And the rest of your bullshit is just total fantasy. They knocked on the door, the wife came out, she panicked (well, they were wearing Halloween costumes, something which must be a real rarity on Halloween) and screamed, and the boy (whose name was Hattori, BTW) tried to calm her by taking a few steps (NOT running) towards her while smiling with his EMPTY hands outspread.
Then the woman's husband came charging out of the house brandishing a
They started to go again. But after a few steps the Japanese student suddenly turned, brandished a small black object, and ran roaring at the householder.
This is a total fabrication. Like I said, get off the crack, asshole.
The killer (NOT murderer!) did indeed get off scott free (and rightly so.) Except, of course, for the expense and risk and stress of the trial. And the stress, for himself and his family, of having killed the "kid". And the stress from the liberal press having a field day with him.
Yeah, real stressful. Still better than being dead, though.
Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan, calling for the US to ban guns. (I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
Where are you getting this crap from? What fucking "deadly assault katanas"? You really need to get a grip on reality.
You've got to be careful doing that type of shit though. A few years back here in Ontario there were a COUPLE incidents of swat teams getting the wrong address and going in for bear.
Happens here, too.
Hope it happens to you, so you can feel the effects of living in a gun-ridden society at first hand.
Re:Asimov's Laws of Robotics in a guard robot?! (Score:2)
A smart robot with properly programmed AI would disarm the intruder, restrain him or her and then contact the police. Now that's action, not inaction or letting the intruder in.
Most people seem to be saying that Asimov's laws would stop guard robots from carrying out their task. Guarding something doesn't necessarily have to mean killing any potential thieves. I admit that injury would be inevitable in this task, but like the Police, appropriate levels of force should be assigned. A limit should be set so that if an error occurs, as say when the robot comes to believe that the whole world is a threat to the object of its protection (ala Skynet-style from Terminator), then the robot could only cause so little injury/death before it'd crash. What I am saying is that with the proper implementation of Asimov's laws into a robot's ROM would possibly prevent the robot from going berserk and injuring/killing innocent people.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
Re:Password smashword (Score:2)
just don't trying shooting TO CLOSE to them AFTER you have a couple beers in you, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
"BURP, hey hey give me that that there gunny gun thing. Look I only had a few, now stand still BURP I am going to shoot shoot that little ear ring of BURP yours off OK BURP READY?"
OR the guy you are shooting at with this robot "Hello sir, your robot is shooting and me and it now appears to be trying to have sex with a toaster. I think a drunk hAx0r has been let in"
Well, I dunno... (Score:2)
I ran across a hobbiest's site once who had built a machine that shot BB's out of a pneumatic gatling gun type device. Not really enough to harm someone, but enough to annoy the hell out of them.
The army has long thought about teleoperated machines and robots for use in battle. I remember one device they built that was essentially a mortar mounted on a quad, the thing could take out tanks reasonably well.
Another company that worked with the DOD for developing such devices was Odetic's Inc. (www.odetics.com) - they built a robot called the ODEX-1 (IIRC), it was a 6 legged spider type affair, that stood approx. 6 feet tall, but it could scrunch down, and do other things - in order to get into tight spaces. It was a very stable and strong platform, with stereo cameras. However, I don't know if it had any on-board computers or not.
It was developed in the mid-80's - Pop Sci had a couple of articles about it, and it was featured in more than a few robotics books. Omni magazine had a robot pic spread that included it once, as well. I was a kid at the time - but I still have a lot of the information about the machine - if anyone is interested.
Then, it just dissappeared. I don't know if funding dried up (casualty of the Cold War?), or what - but Odetics doesn't have any kind of robot or defense division. I am planning on calling them, to see if they even remember the robot. It was a great machine - I just wonder what happened to it...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
This whole link is nothing but a diatribe against the 'anti-gun' lobby. At least the link to the Canadian DoJ has some factual information. Guns may or may not be useful/helpful/essential but whoever uses them should have to own up to the consequences of their actions - just like any other tool (car, hammer, aircraft).
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
A human mind is not exactly 'secure' either, bribery? blackmail? Hello?
5-6 "Special" sugar cubes in their morning coffee. Mmmm LSD never tasted so good and the trip is a lot better when you are holding on to a loaded weapon. So are you talking to me?
Re:Read Risks Forum (Score:2)
I presume it will be in the next issue.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
When all the guns are gone, whats left to protect your freedom?
I don't own a gun, and I am not a member of the NRA. However, when the US gov turns in to a hellish nightmare of police states and marshall law (which it will) I want to be able to shoot my way out if I have to.
A gun is just a tool.. you wouldn't be so upset if he killed that dude with a knife! what is it about guns that scares you so bad?
Re:Autocannons (Score:2)
Yeah, but if it went nuts (a big "if" I hope) 1500 rounds can do a lot of damage.
s/run out of ammo/kill hundreds of people/
Re:Let's set this straight - Louisiana NOT Texas (Score:2)
The statistic I keep hearing is that gun owners are 40+ times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident than shoot an intruder.
Anyone know if this is true? If so, it seems to be a good case of restricting access to guns.
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct? Last year, whilst lashed I walked into the wrong house. If this was in the USA, could I have been shot?
Hackers with guns? (Score:2)
--Cycon
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
Exactly. I fail to see why Americans are so obsessed by them. Knives, pistols, assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, nuclear bombs, biological weapons.
They're all weapons, and most people would agree that the more dangerous ones at the end of the list should not be available to the average person. Most first-world countries draw the line before guns, the USA draws it after. It's more a question of practicality than principles; a case of "how much should the general public be trusted" rather than "can the general public be trusted".
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
Actually, the problem is more like, we don't rely on RSA technology often enough .
As long as the people you're trying to keep out don't have a quantum computer, RSA is plenty strong. Really.
The problem is, a huge proportion of internet systems don't use strong encryption at all. Even worse, most break-ins are the result of stupid things that encryption can't solve. Like buffer overflows, forgetting to validate user input before using it in a system() call or SQL query, allowing incoming emails to pass exploit code to insecure "helper" applications, sysadmins and/or software installers leaving important files and directories set world writable, leaving default passwords in place, and other bogosities.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
The first time some script kiddie runs a root kit and ownz a robot and ends up killing someone.. oh boy... I wouldnt want to be responsible for the one with the idea to control the thing from the internet.
Right... I know about the relative (IN)security of the internet *chortle*
Jeremy
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
"The future of warfare is changing... no longer will battles be fought on land, but in space, or on very tall mountains. And these battles will be fought by small robots. You're job as brave cadets will be to build and maintain these small robots."
Or something like that.... :-)
Let's REALLY set this straight. (Score:3)
To the moderator who took me down a point (and who moderated up the idiot above me): get your facts straight.
From a Canadian Department of Justice-funded report on use of firearms in Canada and the US [cfc-ccaf.gc.ca]:
Another recent case, this time in Louisiana, also provides some insight into the manner in which armed self-defence is viewed in the United States. On October 17, 1992, Rodney Peairs fatally shot Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese high school exchange student who mistakenly approached Peairs' door while searching for a Halloween party (73 Texas Law Review 1041). Peairs' wife opened the door and, frightened by the approaching Japanese student, called out to her husband to get his gun. Rodney Peairs retrieved his
The case sparked an international furor when the jury acquitted Peairs of manslaughter, concluding that he "acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner" using "deadly force to protect himself from an intruder (36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1). It is noteworthy, however, that a Louisiana civil court subsequently awarded Hattori's parents a sizable cash award for damages, ruling that the shooting was not justified (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509).
Quite frankly, the moderation on this thread disgusts me. I thought people here were a little more reasonable and able to think for themselves, but it'd seem we have the same proportion of raving gun nuts as any other section of the US population.
BEETLE BOT: Attack! (Score:5)
I feel sorry for the guy who has to supervise these things; You just -know- your going to get some call at 4 in the morning from a bettle bot requesting permission to open fire on a fallen lamp shade.
Re:hate to burst your bubble... (Score:2)
And rifles (the "assault weapons" of the time). And cannon. And fully-armed warships - privately owned, in the case of the militia. (And in the case of sea pirates, the "organized crime" of the era, which is why owning fully-armed warships was economically beneficial for private persons not currently engaged in a war.)
Historical illiteracy has been promoted by the governments of the world - including, sometimes, that of the United States and many of the several states.
A case in point is the use of "state militia". They weren't "state militias". They were "militias", generally deriving their authority (such as it was) from the members (just as governments of and within the United States are supposed to derive their authority solely from the consent of the citizens). A lot has changed in the last two centuries, including additional definitions for the word "militia" and the creation of the National Guard.
In any case, by your rationale, if the purpose of weapons is to fight against the untrusted govt., then pray explain why you're saying that the govt. can own nuclear weapons and tanks, but citizens should only own handguns and puny assault rifles.
Now when did chowda say that?
Can you find anything in the Second Amendment that limits it to "handguns and puny assault rifles"? I sure can't.
(I always find it interesting when the anti-gun side of an argument about whether civilians should have a handgun to protect themselves from attack suddenly starts claiming they want nukes. B-) But it's a legitimate issue here, since we've segued to the defend-from-government-gone-bad issue.)
If you are serious about fighting the US govt., I'd recommend you upgrade your arsenal with 10,000 nuclear warheads, a few hundred F-16s, a bunch of U2s, AWACS, and assorted chemical weapons. That's what the "enemy" has, and any person of reasonable IQ wouldn't go fighting them with just simple handguns and rifles.
Just because the opposition (a hypothetical US government-gone-bad) has a particular weapon doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job if you have to fight them. For instance, a nuke or a biological would generally be counter-productive if you actually had to use it: You'd kill more of your own side than the opposition.
Weapons of mass destruction seem to be effective only as a threat, "Mutual Assured Destruction" style, to give psycopaths with power a personal consequence to think about. More precise weapons, in the hands of an adequately large and determined subset of a population, can create the "assured destruction" part of the threat while skipping the "mutual". Just as effective and much more satisfying.
(But one can always speculate whether there's be more Branch Davidians alive if they'd had a nuke or two, along with a delivery system that could reach Washington DC, as a barganing chip. Not that members of an apocalyptic sect would have done such a thing, of course.)
(Speaking of Davidians: I still recall when the morning news showed the fire. My wife's first comment was "They're not white". Turns out she'd guessed right: Less than half of them were caucasian.)
In any case, I'm curious as to why you gun nuts think citizens should be able to defend themselves against the govt., yet disagree about letting all citizens have access to full scale military weaponry (including missiles). thank you.
I don't see "gun nuts" disagreeing about "letting" all citizens have any weaponry they want. The principle is that the government does not have the power to prevent them from arming themselves with weapons of their own choice. If one potential use is as a check on government, how can it make sense to let that government pick the weapons their potential opposition may have? "We get vulcan cannon, at several thousand rounds per minute. You get one-shot-per-trigger-pull with no more than 10-round magazines."
There is considerable disagreement about what weapons they should chose. And there's considerable social pressure to avoid indiscriminate weapons and those that pose a storage hazard, in favor of things with precise control and a track record of being less of a hazard to the neighbors than a government run amok.
After all, despite ample evidence that armed citizens drastically reduce crime victimization, harm from government misbehavior, and risk of death from war, not all of the neighbors agree that armed civilians are a net benefit. The occasional personal nuke or cache of mutant plague agent, in the hands of someone with different beliefs (both political and religious) would no doubt worry them further. This would lead to more political pressure to disarm the "religious nuts with nukes", after which they'd work their way down through weapons useful against tyrants to the pocket pistol of every woman who'd rather "take back the night" than cower at home.
As with free speech, the technology may change but the principle is timeless.
Re:Let's set this straight - Louisiana NOT Texas (Score:2)
The statistic I keep hearing is that gun owners are 40+ times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident than shoot an intruder.
I've heard that stat as well. Don't know if I believe it. If it is true, it is likely because one's odds of being attacked are so low that the odds of a mishap are greater. OTOH, a large number of well-conducted studies have shwn that when attacked attempting to use a gun is your best defense, followed by non-resistance, followed by every other form of resistance.
om reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct? Last year, whilst lashed I walked into the wrong house. If this was in the USA, could I have been shot?
It's not impossible. The shooter would have to have given you fair warning--one cannot, in most states at least, simply shoot someone in the back. He would have had to have reason to believe that you were attacking him (were you significantly drunk, this would have been much easier to demonstrate). And he would almost definitely go to trial after the shooting in order to defend his actions. If he was judged wrong in his actions, he could be founf guilty of as high an offense as second-degree murder.
The lesson? Don't go into people's houses:-) I've been plenty drunk in the past, but I've managed not to do that sort of thing. Going to school in Texas prob. helped--we don't take kindly to burglars and thieves down there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing Caption (Score:3)
Telerobot FAQ 12.7.14:
Q: Why does my robot go berzerk and kill all of my customers while playing classical music?
A: Your Telerobot(TM) is experiencing a TLC deficiency. Wait for Telerobot(TM) to run out of ammunition and then give it the love and attention it deserves.
If the problem persists, consider purchasing our new TeleMaid(TM) to facilitate cleanup so you can get back to business sooner.
Correction: Asimov's Zeroth Law of Robotics (Score:2)
Just rechecking some of my information, it's not the fourth law, but the Zeroth law which was published in 1985 in Prelude to Foundation. The law is as below: Laws one to three are to be obeyed except "where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth Law". An AI guard robot would be perfect for a situation such as guarding deadly viruses in a reseach facility or plutonium in a nuclear arms depot. It could be told that to let this sample be stolen would "allow humanity to come to harm." Hence, like Daniel from Prelude, the robot will do all it can, including use lethal force, and continue operating in order to carry out these instructions. Of course, if a robot becomes "too protective" of humanity, it'd be wise enough to destroy the whatever deadly sample it was guarding.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
Frightening... (Score:2)
I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
On one hand, there's a clear benefit to this technology: it doesn't put human lives at risk -- at least not directly. If a robot guard is destroyed, it can be easily replaced, whereas a human soul can never be. Perhaps one day we'll even be able to use robot soldiers to fight our wars instead of shepherding the poor and the minority into our military.
Unforunately, the problem is that a human mind is a lot more secure than the lines of code powering these machines. It wouldn't be hard for some cracker to take out a robot guard, especially if the guards can be controlled over the Internet. It seems like only a matter of time before someone reverse-engineers the instruction protocol and uses it to start robbing banks. In fact, the robot guards can actually be used to aid crime -- when the police come to stop you, the robots would gun them down. Or the robots could commit a crime entirely by Internet control, leaving no human suspects or witnesses.
Internet security needs to improve -- and fast. We've been relying on the same RSA technology for far too long, and it's in technology like an armored guard that security becomes essential. Our banks are already vulnerable to crackers; do you want to make them even more insecure?
The URL is here (Score:4)
Watch out (Score:2)
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
or leaving.. I don't really care enough to stick around and be any more oppressed than I already am.
Guns will only lead to more deaths, in times of peace and in times of unrest.
you can replace the word "Guns" in that sentence with almost any other word and it still holds true.. so there isn't much going on there.
The only succesful overthrowings of oppressing government in this century, that did not bring leaders to the front that made it even worse are the ones that used minimum force. You must only look at the countries in eastern europe.
Minimal force is fine.. I'm not advocating whole-sale agression against oppressive government... I'm not advocating agression at all.. just the fact that its a RIGHT to own a gun.. the only reason for a govenment to take the right away is if they want to control the people.. government should not be about that!
To think guns can protect you from the state is extremely simpleminded.
No more simple minded than thinking talking is going to stop marshall law. The only thing that can protect you from the power of the state is to get enough citizens to back you and speak up against the things you do not like.
if the state is a democracy..
If you fight with guns you aill only be denounced as a terorrist
or a revolutionary.. a tyrant.. a hero.. a conqueror.. a general.. the new president.. a savior... rebel.. murderer... what your considered depends on a lot more than *how* you fight.
I live here in Germany where we have quite strict gun laws. I cannot say i fell oppressed. I know i have the complete arsenal of a citizen of a democratic state at my hands if the state tries to oppress me. This is enough.
from what I've been hearing about the businesses and living environment in germany you have much more severe problems than gun controll... the arsenal isn't doing you guys much good there...
The only things i can see looking tu the US is that uncontrolled guns tend to produce many unnecesarry accidents and a general feeling of mistrust.
The only uncontrolled guns are those which are controlled by people who are irresposible or are untrained because gun use is so tabboo and un-PC... I know tons of people who have guns.. I trust them all.
The Real Link (Score:2)
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
Your an ass.. wow... I did read about it... 2 articles... confirmed the first poster... go back to your protest...
how about a stable government with the support of the people? Or is that too difficult a concept for you?
there is nothing to be protected from if there is a stable government... duh! The guns help keep the government from making bad choices. An armed public is not always an easy public to push around.. an unarmed public is 250 million cattle to be led to slaughter. If you think the government is ALWAYS the good guy and can do no wrong then.. wow... wake up.. or bend over further cause your getting alot of air blown up your ass.
F'chrissakes, a kid was KILLED because some redneck decided he and his wife were in a life-threatening situation. You do realize that in most countries he would have been convicted for manslaughter, if not for outright murder?
What if they had been in danger? what if the kid was going to mug and kill them... happens every day.. the number of people who get killed "for no reason" is much smaller than the number getting killed by criminals.. Maybe the guy made a bad decision.. if so he should be charged with at least wrongful death.. I'm sure the man in question is not some blood thirsty vampire.. I bet he has nightmares about killing that kid.. and he'll have to live with it forever..
Here is the URL (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
"Hey Joe, where's your robot going with a gun in its hand?
Hey Joe, where's your robot going with a gun in its hand?"
"I haven't a f***ing clue, it's been cracked, I'm running as fast as I can."
"Hey Joe, your robot's just blown my pussycat away.
Hey Joe, your robot's just blown my pussycat away."
"Never mind the cat, how's about us!? Just keep your head down and pray."
"Hey Joe, what's that robot doing following you?
Hey Joe, what's that robot doing following you?"
...
DAKADAKADAKADAKA!
Grab.
man shoot (Score:2)
NAME
shoot - send bullets to GPS coordinates
SYNOPSIS
shoot [-dfnqrvR] [-c count] [-i wait] [-l preload] [-p pattern] [-s calibre ] [-w waitsecs]
Man pages are scary enough without things like this.
Bob.
Re:Hmm (Score:3)
If we had something to protect, then we hired a real honest human being to protect it. All you kids nowadays need to sit back behind the safety of a kiosk and do your dirty work. Show some integrity and respect and go out there and shoot your own damn intruders.
You kids are going to get your robotic gaurd confused with Slash from Quick 3 or Quack 3, or whatever and then go on a rampage shooting everyone in sight. Those damn bleeding hearts will then blame society and video games for your misunderstanding of reality.
Please, go out and find an honest job and gaurd your possessions without robotic assistance.
You'll thank me when you are older.
Re:Let's set this straight - Louisiana NOT Texas (Score:2)
Actually this is not the case. I live in Texas and the shooting ocurred in Louisiana NOT Texas. I do remember this and I also remember my relatives, who live in Louisiana, telling me how shocked they were that this happened so close to them.
It is a shame that this sort of thing happened. The man did have the right to defend himself if he believed that his life was truly in danger(which I hardly believe this to be the case)however, the Japanese teen should have been prepped by his host family about the dangers of racist rednecks and their big guns.
Having been to other countries, I think it is necessary to become familiar with laws that could potentially get you into trouble. For example, I visited Zimbabwe many years ago and it was known by all that if the presidents motorcade was coming through you got out of the way or you got shot.. no questions asked. Some tourists were gunned down because the flashing lights and loud sirens didnt mean anything to them and the lead military car littered their rental car with bullets. We are not the only country with gun problems.
My conclusion -- Why couldnt the man have gone back inside, shut the door, and called the police. Certainly that would have been the more civilized thing to do. If the kid then tried to force his way in then he could have shot him. I can't believe that this type of force was necessary, especially given the circumstances. We have the right to bear arms but, we also have the obligation to be responsible.
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
A soldier is "useful" in the same sense as a fire fighter, a doctor or a cop. They don't put bread on anyones table, they merely make sure that the bread is not taken away. For that service they get a slice themselves. If my soil can be kept safe by a smaller number of soldiers and fires, diseases and crime becomes less frequent, the rest are just dead weight, heroic or not.
Re:It's not the first one, by far. (Score:2)
Or am I thinking of Nintendo 64.
Love, Stuart
Cripes.. (Score:3)
If I did that now, I'd be hauled away as a psychotic sociopath and would end up the 'persecuted-geek-poster-boy' for Jon Katz..
Re:Primer for US gun nuts (Score:2)
nothing *ensures* liberty.
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
I guess it all depends on what YOU believe freedom is.. If thats what you are satisfied with.. fine.. have fun..
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
come on.. comparing me to a slave owner is not getting you anywhere.. I dont advocate take ANYONES rights away from them.. that entire statement just sucks.. Just because jefferson believed in guns and not equal rights does not mean I cant believe in equal rights just because I believe in guns.. christ...
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
I am getting an education.. almost done.. not that it means much..
I dont believe the media.. I believe what I see.. we have a VERY secretive government.. they work for us.. they take too much of our money.. the media is pushing the people into believing that taking away gun rights is a good idea...
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
Those stats mean nothing... the 51% gun owners could be among the 60% that CAN identify their country on the map..
It was a nice list you made at least.. better luck next time
Missing Caption (Score:5)
Get shot by script k1dd13s (Score:4)
Great...just great! (Score:2)
Correct link (Score:2)
"Recta non toleranda futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"
Does it use M$ Windoze as its OS? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3)
1. It gets taken over by some malicious group.
2. Do you really want to trust a robot with some sort of weapon? Be it a stun gun, or a fire arm.
3. Legal concerns. What happens if it shoots a pregnant woman?
4. How easily can it be fooled?
I certainly wouldn't like any of these in the neighborhood. I can see it now. "Hey Joe, would you turn off the robot so I can come over and borrow a cup of sugar" or "Dammit Joe, that's the fifth dog I've had to buy this week. Would you fix the robot so it will stop shooting my dogs"
mark
Re:Let's set this straight. (Score:2)
>for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
[] my understanding is that you're 50 years too late - swordmaking has been banned in Japan since WW2.
Please note that I was referring to possession, not manufacture, and knives, not just swords.
You'll notice that most of the murders in Japan are committed with knives or scissors. And that's true regardless of whether you include those that are counted as suicides in Japan but would be counted as the "murder" part of a "murder-suicide" in the US.
Yes I did mention katanas. And unless I'm mistaken the manufacturing ban you refer to was imposed by the US occupation at the end of WWII - as part of an attempt to break the aristocracy responsible for getting them into a war with the US while attempting to conquer the oriental portion of the world.
But the existing historical weapons can still be possessed. And recovering family heirlooms from WWII veterans who took them as souvenirs is quite the hot button. That's why I mentioned them - in the hope that it might help some readers to understand the enormity of the insult committed by the Japanese letter-writers who called for gun bans in the US.
By the way: In my opinion the US military may have made a mistake when, in imposing an edited version of the US system on Japan, they deleted the Second Amendment. In the short run it may have been necessary for the safety of the occupying troops. (Between WWI and WWII the Japanese military had been in control of the education of the population, to bad effect.) But a more effective way to break the aristocracy and empower the general populace would have been to dismantle the arms bans on the general population, erasing the distinction between the aristocracy and the pesants.
So the occupation actually succeeded in instilling the European, rather than the US, governmental model. To this day, in Japan, "the nail that stands out will be hammered down" rather than "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
Re:heh (Score:3)
when i was at a meeting in Bangkok with Loxley Public Company, i was told during a presentation that the outbound Internet pipe in Thailand is only a 2.1MB/s link. i didn't think this was possible, so i double and triple checked it with people in the know, and they all said it was correct. apparently a faster pipe is not needed, as very few Thai people surf sites outside of Thailand, and very few people outside of Thailand care to read Thai (approximately 80% of Thai-based Internet sites are written in Thai i was told).
i'm still not sure if i believe that the entire country could have only a 2.1MB/s link to the rest of the world, but it would explain the painfully slow server!
- j
Strange thoughts (Score:2)
I design a robot that has a feature which is designed to kill (a pistol such as this has).
I design an AI for this robot and assign certain guidelines by which it must follow. The AI is programmed to evolve.
One of the guidelines is that the robot cannot kill innocent people.
The AI evolves and develops the ability to circumvent its guideline and kill innocent people.
The robot goes out and murders several thousand innocent people before anyone is able to stop it.
To what degree am I liable?
Murder? Unlikely. I pulled no trigger, I had no target, no motive.
Manslaughter? Possibly. If I drive a car while drunk, I am intentionally endangering people's lives, while not having any intention of killing anyone. However, I specifically design the robot so it will NOT recklessly endanger innocent lives. The robot just had other plans.
Negligence seems more likely. Gun manufacturers have been sued on this point I believe, even though the responsibility isn't really with them. The robot is a tool I created, and the robot went out and killed people. It very well could be said that I am responsible for it, regardless of what happens, since I created it and programmed it.
Lets take a slightly alternitive scenario. The ram inside the robot had a single bit error which caused the evolution (and this can somehow be proved). Can the company that creates the ram be held liable? I would think not. Yet again, its a crazy world we live in.
With that thought... I go to bed. Later.
-Restil
Deadly force (Score:5)
I don't know about Bangkok but would this be legal in the US? Can you fire at someone when your life or another life is not in danger? The "guard" isn't alive. So can it use deadly force to protect itself (property)?
And if it is shooting in auto mode who is at fault? The programer? The owner of the machine?
Can't wait for the legal fun this is going to cause.
Re:Missing Caption (Score:2)
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
It's more accurate to say that code can be created from formal mathematical specification and shown to match it. The problem is that creating a mathematical specification is fundamentally no less complex or error-prone than writing code!
Thus Knuth wrote: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
Re:Primer for US gun nuts (Score:2)
No, there are many things that do. Obviously you'll never have a perfect society where everyone is singing songs and skipping happily. But a well established judiciary, free press, and a stable executive founded on democracy makes the difference between a free country and one where citizens don't have much freedom.
Don't take a binary view of "all or nothing". Different countries have different levels of individual freedom. The ones with a very good record are mostly nations following old european precedents (including the US), and 90% of them have no gun culture as a foundation of liberty. Have you wondered how they maintain a good record? And don't quote switzerland. The US and switzerland are 2 exceptions among dozens of nations like France, belgium, luxembourg, netherlands, denmark, iceland, finland, australia, new zealand, UK, portugal, etc. etc. which ensure liberty for its citizens. Ever wonder how they do it? (and don't quote some crap about them spying on your email. Like I said, it's never perfect, but developed democracies ensure liberty for their citizens, by any benchmark their present record is about the best in human history and better than the rest of the planet. Stay in the real world.)
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
There are several revolutionary wars being fought across the world today, and they aren't tea parties either. That doesn't mean that they are the movements which first founded liberty as a generally followed principle of govt.
The rest of your comments are crap, so I won't bother answering. Hope you don't mind.
w/m
Re:Primer for US gun nuts (Score:2)
Go for it.
That's an interesting assertion - especially since the governments of nearly all the current countries of Europe date from events surrounding World War II or later, and their current forms of government were heavily influnced by that of the US.
Govts. didn't appear out of thin air. They are founded on precedents from over centuries. Ever wonder why France and the UK have very similar govts. compared to Japan? It's because the methods and rules followed by a society are based on precedent. For example, divorce law in the US has a history that goes all the way back to ancient Roman law.
Switzerland is an anomaly. You gotta look at averages. A small fraction of dictatorships result in prosperous nations (eg, singapore) but the majority don't. Similarly, the US and Switzerland are only 2 developed countries w/ a high gun ownership, one of which has a positive record and one which ranks poorly in homicide rates and govt. brutality (that would be the US). The rest of the developed world has an excellent record on both counts and a near zero gun ownership rate in comparison. Look at the whole picture, I'm not convinced by exceptions.
w/m
Re:heh (Score:2)
Mark Duell
IP enabled firearms (Score:2)
What is this world coming to?
Makeout Parties in the Office Restroom (Score:2)
When I opened the restroom door, finding the room dark of course because it was after hours, much to my suprise a giggling teenage couple came running out of the bathroom past me and headed out the door.
They must have got the keys from one of their parents, I suppose.
Bet they thought the john in an office building downtown would be a secure private place for some hanky panky - but they didn't count on there being a software company down the hall!
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
- Be adjacent to us. Canada and Mexico aren't scaring me much.
- Have a huge air force and/or navy capable of transporting an invasion force. Even at the height of the Cold War, I don't think anyone was seriously expecting a massive amphibious assult on the shores of the USA. (Outside of a handful of movie scriptwriters playing on Cold War paranoia.)
- Have a metric shitload of nuclear weapons - which makes it unwise for us to go to war with you.
So where's the threat? Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, and Korea were not about to invade the USA. Even in WWII, the direct threat to the US was minimal. (Remembering that Hawaii was at the time recently-stolen land, not a state.)(All of which, BTW, doesn't mean that kicking Nazi ass and stopping Japanese agression wasn't morally the right thing to do; but then, the Nazis would never have come to power if it wasn't for WWI, where we got involved without any threat at all to the US.)
Where's the threat? It's to "our overseas interests". Which, these days, means the ability of American corporations to rake in the dough.
Mod that down: it's fabricated (Score:2)
Even if you didn't know the facts, can't you tell from the tone and the fantasy material that it's fabricated? This is the kind of stuff that makes people lose faith in moderation.
Primer for US gun nuts (Score:2)
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
* The US is just one of dozens of countries which are founded on liberty. Many of these have been free for centuries longer than the US, gun culture is not a part of these countries, and they have a historically BETTER implementation of liberty than the US. If you ask "when guns are gone, what is left to protect your freedom", I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
This robot is nothing... (Score:2)
OK - I just went to the site - all I can say is:
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!!!!
Sorry - damn near had an orgasm - they are returning to Phoenix!!! I went to their show in '96 - best damn time I've had in a LONG while. You better bet I'll be there again this year!
If you've never been to a showing by SRL - you haven't got a clue...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Re:hahahaha (Score:2)
Actually, it doesn't.
Crime (both commission and victimization) among US residents of European descent in the US is lower than in their countries of origin. Ditto among US residents of African descent. Ditto among US residents of Japanese descent, etc.
Unlike the rest of the "developed world" the US has a very diverse population, and doesn't insist that they stay separated or leave their cultures entirely behind.
But among those that do assimilate and reach "middle class" income, the crime rate drops, not just below that of their ancestrial country, but to that of US residents of white European descent - below that of, for instance, England.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
The perfect crime (Score:2)
---
Re:Missing Caption (Score:4)
According to my calculations, the robots won't go berserk for at least 24 hours.
<Robots go on rampage>
Oh, I forgot to, er, carry the one.
Re:Cripes.. (Score:2)
and bring on the MPAA
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
Terminator? How about ED-209 in Robocop?
[ED209 kills someone.]
"Dick, I'm very disappointed."
"I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback."
---
Oh yeah, this is good (Score:2)
Anywhere through the internet! Yes, very good idea.
I'm glad the biggest concern I have is that the automatic doors in my building might close on me accidentally, or I forget my ID badge and get locked out of my wing of the building when going to get a Coke or Pepsi.
just wait for the script kiddies... (Score:2)
Philip K Dick wrote about this a lot (Score:2)
Quote: One of the recurring themes in his fiction is the Autofac (automatic factory). Little factories that literally breed, starting off tiny as flies (AFAIK, far before people started talking about nanotechnology). Several of his stories center on a post-apocolyptic civilization where the Autofacs are the only things left fighting. Humans, by and large, have been bombed back into the stone age, except for supply drops by the Autofacs. Which just keep fighting, because they weren't programmed to stop, and they're too efficient to break down.
Dick's biggest criticism of machines was that they have no compassion, no charity (in the biblical sense). He said that there's something ineffable about humans that machines will be never be able to duplicate, only mimic.
Machines don't stop. Ob. Frank Herbert quote (hope rob hasn't instituted that "Frank Herbert filter" yet): "Mercy is the ability to stop, if only for a moment." Same idea, really. How does a robot guard know when you've surrendered? Or does it matter? If a human is shot in a forest of robots, does his death make a sound?
Solution to Hacking? Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Score:3)
Until AI in robotics are advanced enough to comprehend the author Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics from 1940, independent robots should not be placed in positions where their actions could jeopardise the lives of other human beings. Even if hacked, a robot hardwired to follow the three rules below would be severely limited from injuring innocent people. The three rules are: And of course, there is a fourth rule that Asimov brings up in Prelude to Foundation, in which the robot Daniel is programmed to over the first three laws in order to ensure the survival of the human race, but that law in itself is a little too far for a guard robot! For an interesting look into the implications that Asimov's laws introduce into artificial intelligence in computing and robotics, then you look at this article [anu.edu.au] by Roger Clarke at the Australian National University.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
Yowza (Score:2)
On one hand, there's a clear benefit to this technology: it doesn't put human lives at risk
Cough! Splutter? Sorry, putting a gun on a robot, and hooking it up to the internet, doesn't put human lives at risk? Would you want your pacemaker on the internet for the 5cr1p7 k1dd13z to play with?
"Oh, don't worry, I'm running my left kidney as a honeypot." Sorry.
Perhaps one day we'll even be able to use robot soldiers to fight our wars instead of shepherding the poor and the minority into our military.
That was what the inventor of the machine gun was thinking. Seriously, he was a (misguided?) humanitarian.
At the time, disease was the major killer in war - like ten times the casualties of your average enemy army. So the thinking was, why don't we make this gun that can fire a hundred times the bullets, with maybe a tenth the accuracy, of one soldier? Then it can stand in for ten soldiers, a good four or five of whom would likely have died of [dysentery, malaria, tuberculosis, the local plague] by the time the army hit the field anyway.
Didn't take too long for that to go bad, did it? And in this case, you don't even have to look too far into the future to see how this could turn really, really nasty. Just wait till the NRA gets hold of it "There should be an armed robot in half the homes in Texas, with easy browser-based configuration, before it's too late and only the criminals have armed robots."
Now, do you want MS Attack Robot prowling around your yard at night, listening to all and sundry a dozen or two ports? Kinda freaks me out.
Re:Correction: Asimov's Zeroth Law of Robotics (Score:2)
Let's set this straight. (Score:3)
Depends on the jurisdiction. In most states the rule is some variant on "You can fire only when 'a reasonable and prudent man' in your situation would believe he was in danger to life or limb." So you can usually defend when attacked, but must stop when the attack is broken off.
In some states (notably, Texas) you can fire to stop, for instance, a thief making off with your property under certain circumstances. In others you must retreat if possible when attacked - but generally not when in your own home. (One exception is Maryland, where you must retreat even in your own home.) In at least one (Oregon, due to a court interpretation), a woman attacked in her home doesn't have to stop shooting, say, when the housebreaker retreats toward his car - because he might be going for a gun.
Hell yeah Just a few years ago some (Texan?) shot to death a kid knocking at his door late at night.
To paraphrase the defence: "It was dark out and I was scared!"
If I remember, it was a exchange student from Asia, who just happened to knock on the wrong house. Not understanding or speaking English when challenged by a guy with a gun didn't help.
Let's get this straight. (Here's how I remember the story. But I got it from accounts of the trial, so I might have a detail or two off...)
The "kid" was teenager from Japan. He was about maximum-violence "gangsta" age. He was an exchange student, so he was moderately clueless about the local customs. Like many teenagers in/from Japan at the time he had a bad habit: He would suddenly run at people, yelling and making threatening gestures, then take a picture of their expressions of fear. (A disarmed society is NOT a polite society!)
It was Halloween. It was after dark. The "kid" and another teenage boy from his host's household showed up on the doorstep of a house and tried the door. When confronted, they claimed they were trying to find a party and gave a different address. They were told they were at the wrong address and to go away.
A few minutes later the householder was disturbed again: They were back, trying the door of the garage. The wife, understandably agitated, called the husband, who confronted them again.
They started to go again. But after a few steps the Japanese student suddenly turned, brandished a small black object, and ran roaring at the householder.
Oops!
The 'killer' got off scott free.
The killer (NOT murderer!) did indeed get off scott free (and rightly so.) Except, of course, for the expense and risk and stress of the trial. And the stress, for himself and his family, of having killed the "kid". And the stress from the liberal press having a field day with him.
Not to mention the orchestrated letter campaign from people in Japan, calling for the US to ban guns. (I wonder what they'd think of an orchestrated letter campaign in the US calling for Japan to ban knives - especially deadly assault katanas?)
One thing much of the rest of the world doesn't get about the United States: It was SUPPOSED to be a nation of free, armed people. (Think "nation of Samuari", though that isn't QUITE the right image. "Nation of Ronin" might be closer.) At this point, over half the households have at least one gun, so we're closer to that ideal than its opposite.
Now what would happen to a teenager in Japan who twice made like he was breaking into a Samurai's house, was twice told to leave by the alerted Samurai, who then suddenly roared and charged...
You've got to be careful doing that type of shit though. A few years back here in Ontario there were a COUPLE incidents of swat teams getting the wrong address and going in for bear.
Happens here, too.
BATF are big offenders, with a penchant for raiding at 4AM (to maximize the raidees' confusion), in black ski masks, breaking down doors. (One little old lady blew one away when they got the address wrong. She got off scott free, too.)
Another problem is police agencies after their cut of RICO gold. Like the ones who spotted a woman buying groceries with hundred-dollar bills. They investigated, and found she was the new wife of a fellow with a VERY large estate near Los Angeles, which some government agencies had been trying for years to get him to sell, without success. Someone made a crack about him being rich with drug money.
So they got together a multi-department task force and went after him. They managed to kill him in the process. No drugs were found.
Turns out they were honeymooning, and the hundred-dollar bills were from the weding present. As for being rich from "drug money", they sure were. The guy they blew away was named "Sandoz". He was the heir to the family fortune from the (completely legal) drug company of the same name.
Another one: The Gypsy Jokers bicycle gang was living in a house in a reasonably quiet neighborhood in Oregon. The cops decided to raid them. They also decided to "serve the warrant" by breaking down the door, guns out, in ski masks and black. The Jokers thought they were under attack by a rival gang and fought, killing at least one policeman.
The Jokers duly "got off". The judge agreed with them that they had good reason to believe, given the behavior of the police, that they were under attack by a rival gang and at risk to life or limb.
But don't expect such enlightened treatment in, say, Santa Clara, California. (I'll save THOSE stories for another time.)
One big caveat: If you're raided in the night and you blow one away, your mileage may vary, BIG time. (Remember Waco!)
Re:Solution to Hacking? Asimov's Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
Unless, of course, the bank is to be robbed by a gang of rogue robots, in which case the pistol might come in mighty handy.
God, what I wouldn't pay to see that, especially if they were a gang of those daft looking lady-bug robots as pictured in the article.
Re:I have seen the future, and it is Terminator (Score:2)
That's a weak argument... that's like saying using copy machines to replace those who made copies by hand would wreck havoc on the economy... or using computers to control traffic lights instead of cops out there... Think how many jobs would be created... someone's gotta fix them damn robots, run them via the Net, practice with them, oil them, build spare parts, etc., etc., etc.
Asimov's Laws of Robotics in a guard robot?! (Score:4)
Wouldn't a guard robot that obeyed Asimov's Laws of Robotics be completely useless?
Robot: Halt. No authorized person may enter.
Robber: I order you to let me enter. Heck, while you're at it, help carry the money to my car.
Robot: I have a more sophisticated method for discriminating between comflicting orders than mere chronology. Your orders will not be followed where they conflict with my previous order to guard this building.
Robber: (Placing gun to own head) But you cannot allow a human to come to harm through any inaction. If you do not follow the following instructions completely, I will shoot myself. Open the safe and carry the money to my car. When you're done, bash in your head so you can't identify me.
Robot: Yes, sir.