Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled 845

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the stop-or-my-robosapien-will-shoot dept.
mpthompson writes "Samsung has partnered with a Korean university to develop a robotic sentry equipped with a 5.5mm machine gun. Meant for deployment along the DMZ between North and South Korea, the $200,000 robot employs sophisticated pattern recognition software for targeting humans. No three laws here, but the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out. The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled

Comments Filter:
  • OMG! (Score:5, Funny)

    by novus ordo (843883) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:40AM (#16834162) Journal
    real-life aimbot
    • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)

      by IchBinEinPenguin (589252) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:18AM (#16834422)
      real-life aimbot

      with real-dead victims!
      • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SnowZero (92219) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @03:34AM (#16835140)
        Think about the alternatives... Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended. The numerical superiority means some defenses must be automated, leaving land mines as the only existing technology. This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed. Land mines have none of these properties.

        Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.
        • Re:OMG! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by itwerx (165526) <itwerx@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @04:09AM (#16835354) Homepage
          This robot is far better than a land mine...

          That does bring up an interesting question - can it withstand a mine blast?
                (Cue the Homer "Doh!" as they all get blown to smithereens within hours of deployment. :)
          • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Informative)

            by e2d2 (115622) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @09:04AM (#16837010)
            No. Simple fact is a lot of those mines in the DMZ were designed to stop tracked vehicles, not foot soldiers, although I'm sure a foot soldier would fare much worse against one if somehow triggered. There is a big difference between a small anti-personnel mine and an anti-tank mine (Hey uncle sam, you can't say I never learned anything in the Army!).

            But that being said this robot is designed to patrol a known area where the users know the locations of the mines, because they planted them. The robot is created to take men out of harms way and serve as an ever watchful eye. If an attack comes this is not the last defense, only the first.
        • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jamstar7 (694492) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @04:26AM (#16835426)
          This robot is far better than a land mine however; It can be switched off, can be configured to give a warning, and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed.

          If these things are radio-controlled, they can be hacked. Don't think the North Koreans won't be working on that. And speaking from experience of my misspent youth 30ish years ago, I can categorically say it's easier to defeat an electronic/mechanical/computerised system than it is to defeat a Mark 1 calibrated eyeball. Gotta love statutes of limitation. I'm thinking Sanyo's gonna make a killing (no pun intended) at $200k per.

          Land mines have none of these properties.

          Dumb mines are dirt cheap, too. Not a whole lot of markup or chances for cost overruns and such. And they have a proven track record of area denial.

          Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed?

          Absolutely. Unfortunately, they won't sell anybody a shuttle ticket to that world. Know any sane, moral, legal way to change human nature? I don't. It gets me when I hear somebody say things like 'Well, if we don't provoke them, they'll leave us alone' and 'If we all give up our guns, the world will be SUCH a better place. Great idea. You first.

          The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.

          Or, here's a thought. Buy a few thousand of these for 'inner city urban warfare' er, 'police useage'. Yeah, that would work. I'm just curious if any counters to them that show up on the Internet would be considered covered by the Second Amendment.

          Yeah, I love my country. My government, OTOT, scares me shitless...

        • Mines (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @04:45AM (#16835526)
          Would it be nice to live in a world where such things were not needed? Of course. I'm not going to blame the South Koreans at all though, given the realities of their situation. Maybe it will even let more countries sign the land mine treaty/ban. The US, for example, could buy these for defending Guantanamo, and remove the land mines we have placed there.


          Realistically the land mine treaty is a waste of time. Mines will not be abolished from the battlefield for the forseeable future because they are an extremely effective weapon. Here you have a simple device that can be deployed by minimally skilled troops, it is cheap to manufacture, hard to detect and neutralize and can be deployed from aircraft with great speed for rapid denial-of-terrain as the US military likes to call it. Of all the things that tank commanders fear, they fear mines the most. You can see or detect another tank or a helicopter before it strikes, you can even stand a chance to evade, detect or even destroy and LGB or a missile with a counter measures system but a mine the tank commander can't see or detect rapidly in combat. The same pretty much goes for the infantry, they fear few things as much as mines and snipers. Here is an object that costs what? $50 to manufacture that has the power to scare the shit out of the crew of an M1 Abrams tank that costs $4.3 millon to make and better yet it stands a very good chance of destroying it. You can't beat that combination in terms of value-for-money. Trying to ban mines, land or naval, will go the same way that the various attempts back in the 1930s to outlaw the areal bombing of civillians. It is deplorable, but unfortunately also true.
        • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)

          by ricky-road-flats (770129) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @05:02AM (#16835612)
          Think about the alternatives... Given the 1+ million strong army north of the border, and the questionable sanity of the leader controlling it, that border must be defended.
          I see what you're saying - the Mexican government is going to be *really* interested in this!
        • What if it doesn't want to be switched off?
    • Re:OMG! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:34AM (#16834550)
      Wow, I haven't had to go through 3 blogs to get to the source article before. Here it is: the article [metimes.com].
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:41AM (#16834166) Homepage Journal
    I guess after a half-century mediation by America and China, the Korean Peninsula conflict has degenerated into the Crazy Olympics.
    • Remember, this is the Korea that we had no exit strategy for...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) *
        You're confusing Korea and Vietnam. We had an exit strategy in Korea: Blaze a trail into the north and take it over. Just because the war ended in a stalemate and peace treaty doesn't mean that we weren't fighting to win.

        Now Vietnam on the other hand...
        • by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @02:08AM (#16834732)

          Just because the war ended

          The war didn't end. That requires a surrender or peace treaty.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Total_Wimp (564548)
            Not exactly true. There's a defacto end to the war, much like people living together can get common law marriages and how Isreal is a real country regardless of the fact that most of the middle east doesn't recognize them. If you wait long enough in international politics, things are just accepted as fact. The war is over.

            TW
    • by creimer (824291)
      Maybe everyone should play Counter-Strike instead?
    • by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @06:58AM (#16836170)
      degenerated into the Crazy Olympics

      Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"

      It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea [globalsecurity.org] all the way.

      North Korea has the:
      Gold [guardian.co.uk]
      Silver [timesonline.co.uk]
      Bronze [nysun.com]
      Runner Up [heritage.org]
      and "Miss Congeniality" [globalsecurity.org]

      With the recently added [bbc.co.uk] events [bbc.co.uk], they could be in an even better medal position next year.

      I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by addie (470476)
      Mediation? Excuse me?

      To begin with, if it weren't for China, the Soviets, Japan, and America, the Korean peninsula would be doing just fine thank you. Koreans would be united as they have been on and off for their 5000 years of history, despite repeated invasions and attempted cultural genocide. To suggest that China and the USA have somehow being "mediating" a domestic dispute between the Korean peoples is ignorant. Korea is a strategic plaything for the powerhouses of the east, and America. The South
  • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:41AM (#16834168) Homepage Journal
    We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'
    It does not appear to have the capacity to tell the difference between an unarmed intruder and a heavily armed one, so defeating it is not hard: Approach it with some kind of heavier firepower, and while it talks, you blow it away.

    And 200K? For 200 I could do the same thing: a home-depot motion sensor, a voice chip with loudspeaker, and a handful of fertilizer/oil land mines.

    • by NinjaFarmer (833539) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:50AM (#16834236)
      I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.
      • Oh come on! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:53AM (#16834252)
        You can't just up and *ban* the U.S. Marines!
      • I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

        In what way must the brain be attached? Would duct tape work? How about staples?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cold fjord (826450)
        I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.

        Why go for half measures? Why not just ban war by treaty? Its been done before [infoplease.com], and would be at least as effective as what you suggest. I think it would also be much easier to reach agreement on simply banning war since it could be done on simple principle. Your proposal would require all manner of messy discussions about different type of weapons, their munitions, and variations. If you ha
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TapeCutter (624760)
      "simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'"

      ...are not required. The DMZ does not have people wandering around the undergrowth, even with human gaurds you will be shot (armed or otherwise). All it needs to sense is a warm object.
      • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:56AM (#16834678)
        Unfortunately, this would destroy one of the cool developments in the DMZ: a refuge for wild animals. Occasionally, they seem to lose some animals to tripwires and landmines, but nothing too much. This stuff would just mean that the DMZ would become a dead zone. I hope that the pattern recognition they use can actually distinguish a crane from a human (and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).
    • by Leuf (918654) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:09AM (#16834366)

      And 200K? For 200 I could do the same thing: a home-depot motion sensor, a voice chip with loudspeaker, and a handful of fertilizer/oil land mines.

      Yeah, but when yours gets hit by lightning will Ally Sheedy be able to dance with it? I think not.

    • by adamkennedy (121032) <adamk@c[ ].org ['pan' in gap]> on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:27AM (#16834492) Homepage
      It's a machine gun for the Korean demilitarised zone.

      There's nobody in there that isn't an enemy, and there's nobody in there that isn't armed (or at least, it doesn't matter if they are or not).

      And if it accidentally shoots the odd deer, then nobody cares.

      Further, the whole point of talking is to prevent accidents with North Korean troops seen by accident out fishing or something.

      You can bet your ass at the first sign of real trouble, they'll all be set to "kill on sight".

      Take another look at the context of where this thing will be actually used, then try commenting again.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by blackcoot (124938)
      depends on the optics.

      optics for ir sensors are incredibly expensive — the gimbal mounted color + mwir or lwir pan/tilt/zoom units that get mounted on military jets cost on the order of $200k a pop, with about $50k going to the gimbal mount and $50k+ going to the insanely huge and incredibly lenses (regular glass is opaque in the mid-wave and long-wave ir bands, i.e. the "useful" bands so i believe that they use gallium instead). add on another $20k odd for controllable optics and a large sensor which
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:41AM (#16834172)
    Am tired of the same old joke.
  • Insert

    [Terminator]
    [Robocop]
    [Starcraft]
    [random sci fi movie]

    joke here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by BobSutan (467781)
      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
      Guy: But, but, but....
      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.
      Guy: Please, I put it down already. Don't shoot!
      E.D.-209: Please, put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.

      Guy: ...
      E.D.-209: Thank you for your compliance.
  • I WANT ONE! (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_hoser (938824) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:44AM (#16834194)
    This thing would pwn jehova's witnesses!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Karloskar (980435)
      How on earth can parent be moderated funny!? Murdering people because of their religious beliefs? That's way uncool.
      • Re:I WANT ONE! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:20AM (#16834436) Homepage Journal
        He's not talking about murdering people because of their religious beliefs. He's talking about murdering people because they come to your home, annoy the living shit out of you, won't take no for an answer, and occasionally shout threats at your children (true story.) While murder may be a little harsh for such an offense, I don't think there's anyone who hasn't been bothered by these nutcases who hasn't felt the urge now and then.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Try working the graveyard shift then being woken up by these bastards. Religion has nothing to do with it.
  • by shadwwulf (145057) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:44AM (#16834196) Homepage
    it doesn't like to hunt for it's own bacon.
  • ...can I program it to say "Get off my lawn!"
  • by DuranDuran (252246) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:45AM (#16834200)
    > politely issue a warning before taking the target out

    I could have given them some to use:
    "Dead or alive, you're coming with me!"
    "Your move, creep!"
    "Stay out of trouble!"

    And the list goes on.

    But knowing them, I bet they'll just go with "You have 20 seconds to comply".
    • by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <christianpinch@NoSpAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:48AM (#16834224) Journal
      "Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' And to tell you the truth, I've deleted that information in all the excitement. But being as this is a 5.5 caliber machine gun, a reasonably priced weapon for developing nations, and has nigh infinite ammo, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, PUNK?"
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CAIMLAS (41445)
        I don't mean to nitpick, but...

        The article states it's a "5.5 milimeter" machine gun. That's only .21 caliber, roughly the same as both 5.56mm NATO ammo (the main Western troop rifle/carbine chambering) and .22LR (defacto "plinking" ammunition in the US - small bullet, small pop). 5.56mm NATO is essentially a "fast" .223 Winchester round, with bullets around 55 grains in weight. .22LR ammo typically doesn't have a weight over 22 grains (IIRC) and has a substantially weaker powder load. For a general idea of
    • by mibus (26291) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:07AM (#16834362) Homepage
      Or, NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!
    • by LordEd (840443) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:49AM (#16834644)
      It looks like you are entering my firing range. Would you like help with this feature?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by isotope23 (210590)
      Come On, you KNOW the warning should be:

      "Where Do YOU want to go today? (punk)"

      Cause you know it runs windows (with dual AK-47 processors no less).

  • by clambake (37702) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:45AM (#16834202) Homepage
    But can it tell the difference between trees and... aliens?
  • by mkettler (6309) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:46AM (#16834212)
    I could very much see something like this being very useful in the US if the armament was different. I'm picturing something armed with essentially a paintball gun loaded with balls of marker dye... Might be very useful for places like prisons, etc. It might even be useful as a part of a bank security system. Have it mark them with paint as they leave..

    Of course, the liability of it hitting someone in the eye would be a killer, but it is at least interesting to think about what could be done with such a system if armed with non-lethal weaponry.
    • Mexican border (Score:3, Interesting)

      by r00t (33219)
      This is perfect as it is.

      The existing armament won't hurt anybody because people just aren't that stupid. OK, maybe ONE idiot tests it out.

      For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.

      This is probably cheaper than using a laser or that skin-heater beam. Despite the robot part, it's kind of low-tech.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)
        For those that think the current border is "cruel" because of the harsh desert and mean ranchers, this is better. People will cross when the chance of death is only a few percent. They won't cross if death would be nearly certain. Thus, fewer people die.

        That only works if they believe the alternative is better.

        I am quite willing to believe that a very low double digit percentage of illegal aliens feel that 'staying home' is a fate worse than death. People who think that way will still take their chances, e
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        These people are not part of an invading army. They are not trying to kill us. They are not here to destroy our way of life. They are starving people who want to cross over to mow our lawns and take care of our children. I'm not saying that we should just let them waltz in or anything, but for crying out loud, where's your sense of compassion? You don't need guns to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, you need to put pressure on the Mexican gov to get its act together and start acting more responsibl
  • You can't invade an enemy Titan without these stupid things trying to shoot at you through thirty feet of boxes and walls. A couple good shotgun blasts should do one in though, or maybe a rocket.
  • by tomz16 (992375) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:50AM (#16834238)
    I'm sold! Imagine how much better we will all be able to sleep once these bad boys are deployed along the Canadian border!
  • by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:53AM (#16834250) Homepage

    So I guess these bots will pretty much serve the same purpose as landmines did: If you enter a certain zone you are likely to die.

    There are some nicities though, such as being able to turm them off if required, as well as them being a little bit more visible. It would be cool if these things had a skeet shooting mode where you could rapidly throw targets into the air and watch the bots shoot them down. Sayyyy! I wonder if you could use them for rabbit shooting? That would have been cool here in Australia a few years ago, sure beats running around killing rabbits with your bare hands or trying to pick them off with a .22 rifle.

  • by Charcharodon (611187) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @12:55AM (#16834266)
    After being thwarted yet a third time in the past, Skynet outsourced time line assassinations to Samsung and the rest they say is history.
  • lol.... sorry... I'm sure about 1 out of 10 of you get that one :)
  • I saw a sci fi movie once, forgot the title, where people developed machines to do the border fighting for them, and then unbeknownst they allowed the machines to do some of the designing, and after the planet was semi abandoned, the machines kept designing themselves. Initial versions were sandcrawling things, then 2nd generation more sophisticated ones were little 5 year old girls asking for help and crying to take them with you into your base where they would detonate, then the 3rd generation most advanc
  • This robot was featured in Slashdot some time ago, back when it was just an idea. A lot of people went into hysterics about it, but I think the robot could be a Good Thing for the South Korean military. The DMZ is the most heavily-armed border in the world. There was never a peace treaty between the Koreas, and it occasionally gets hot [globalsecurity.org] on the DMZ. Watching a static border like the DMZ seems well-suited to a robot sentry, and I'm sure South Korean soldiers wouldn't mind much if they didn't have to run as man

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:02AM (#16834328)
    When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

    Now we shoot them?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by khallow (566160)

      When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.

      North Korea is still at war with South Korea. The border is militarized far more than the Berlin wall. As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mikrorechner (621077)
        North Korea is still at war with South Korea. The border is militarized far more than the Berlin wall.

        I fully agree. But I have to add something:

        As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.

        The border between East and West Germany also had its victims. 1065 people werde killed along the border and the Berlin Wall until 1989. (source [berlinermaueronline.de])
  • by Wes Janson (606363) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:35AM (#16834558) Journal
    As others have pointed out, this concept has a tremendous number of issues that would have to be overcome for it to be worthwhile. First off, these units would be incredibly vulnerable to long-distance fire from heavy-caliber anti-material rifles. It's practically the most ideal target imaginable for a .50 BMG shooter: large, immobile, limited lethal range, and no human suffering upon destruction. Anyone else notice that those prototypes look to have M249 SAWs in them? You can see the tail end of a belt feeding in during part of the video, and it's the most likely possibility for a small 5.56 belt-fed. Except there doesn't seem to be any provisions for decent ammo storage. That tiny box that the weapon sits in isn't nearly large enough to hold more than a hundred rounds or so at most, and it doesn't really look like the weapon is designed to be fed from the base (ammo exposed to the elements; feeding issues; turret rotation and elevation interfering with feeding). Overall, it looks pretty well useless.
    • by caitsith01 (606117) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:51AM (#16834650) Journal
      What about:

      - inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats

      - massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator

      - probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above

      - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

      I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bucky0 (229117)
        - fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet

        And you're wasting money on a computer + internet access while people, probably in your own city, are starving. What's the difference?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098)
      I don't think it's designed to replace a battalion of humans guarding the border. If that's their idea, you're right - the sentry robot is terribly unsuited for that. More likely though is that it is supposed to prevent infiltration. The Nort Koreans have a long history of trying to sneak into South Korea for a number of reasons - see mini-subs and tunnel digging. This would mean they can post a sentry every 100 feet, and have that area completely covered, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Someone tries to s
  • the coolest part... (Score:4, Informative)

    by sTalking_Goat (670565) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:46AM (#16834626) Homepage
    they use the theme song from Pirates of the Caribbean as the soundtrack to their promotional vid...
  • by aepervius (535155) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:51AM (#16834652)
    I mean, it is not like the NK will not have week, month or year to map map out where those are, then prepare artillery bombardement on those coordinate. Or pass through the holes between the coverage zone of those gun. And it is not like anarmored vehicule would not roll those over twice. And I wonder also if there isn't ways to simply camouflage yourself : have a very wide light weighted tube for the infrared, go in the center with something for sight, and advance slowly toward the sentry gun. Or advance slowly under a thermal carpet. Or in a camouflage of bushes. OR snipe it out with explosive bullet or destroy it with mortar. It sound like this things would need an incredible AI to handle the various way to camoufalge yourself, but it seems only to have IR camera, normal camera and be smart enough to distinguish between trees and human. Just disguise yourself as a tree and that is it.
  • by ndogg (158021) <the.rhornNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @01:59AM (#16834688) Homepage Journal
    ...but that musical score is fucking fantastic!
  • by neuro.slug (628600) <(moc.liamtoh) (ta) (__oruen)> on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @02:39AM (#16834878)

    Could you imagine if Microsoft made this robot?

    Robo-sentry.NET Vista Live: It looks like you're trying to enter a demilitarized zone! Would you like to:

    • Go back the way you came?
    • Be riddled with bullets?
    • Have me fetch Steve Ballmer to pwn you?

    Either that, or they'd try and sell trespassers V1AGRA

  • by posterlogo (943853) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @03:05AM (#16835000)
    Seriously, if you want to learn anything when it comes to threads like these, tune your preferences to demote posts marked "funny". You'll be amazed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mattwarden (699984)

      Seriously, if you want to learn anything when it comes to threads like these, tune your preferences to demote posts marked "funny". You'll be amazed.

      Then...

      (Score:5, Funny)

      What do you know... Slashdot mods actually do have a sense of humor. Can I mod this comment's moderation +1, Funny?

  • by FleaPlus (6935) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @03:51AM (#16835260) Journal
    This makes me wonder how long it'll be until this sort of tech gets miniaturized enough to fit on a portable gun, so we end up with people toting Aliens-style M56 Smart Guns [wikipedia.org]. You could imagine it being coupled with some sort of friendly-fire deterrence system like they use with aircraft.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by upside (574799)
      I've been wondering the same. And how come it's taken so long for _this_ to come out? Why use humans as weapons platforms - lousy senses, wobbly aim?

      We have automated weapons systems for taking out vehicles on the ground, air and water. Most use humans to designate the target and the machine does the rest. Ships have totally automated antiaircraft cannons. These are fairly large scale, but that is no limitation. Portable anti-tank systems exist. Digital SLRs have had cheap tracking technology for taking pic
  • by winchester (265873) on Tuesday November 14, 2006 @10:43AM (#16838236)
    Can anyone imagine what would happen if one of these would be lt loose in a busy place like a christmas shopping mall, a crowded airport or atoher place where loads of people are available and unprepared for such a device? Sounds like the perfect massacre tool to me...

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...