Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the you've-been-warned dept.

Robotics 395

Ostracus writes "The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to 'develop a software/hardware suite that would enable a multi-robot team, together with a human operator, to search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject. The main research task will involve determining the movements of the robot team through the environment to maximize the opportunity to find the subject ... Typical robots for this type of activity are expected to weigh less than 100 Kg and the team would have three to five robots.'" To be fair, they plan to use the Multi-Robot Pursuit System for less nefarious-sounding purposes as well. They note that the robots would "have potential commercialization within search and rescue, fire fighting, reconnaissance, and automated biological, chemical and radiation sensing with mobile platforms."

cancel ×

395 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

robots.txt (5, Funny)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505117)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Re:robots.txt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505137)

Allow: /penis

I, For One (1, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505445)

welcome our new, robot hunting packs.

Three Laws of Robotics (4, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505373)

I think we really need these now:
      1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
      2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
— I. Asimov

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505475)

How are these laws being violated? The robot isn't injuring the people that it captures. It is only holding them until it can deliver them to other humans (1st law). And even if the captive requests to be freed (2nd law), it following orders given by more humans (the government which represents millions of humans). And as far as the second half of the second law, you can circumvent that issue as long as your firing squad is off limits to robots (to protect them from 3rd law issues) and is labeled:

practice rifle range, mortuary, and crematorium: 1st floor
humane prisoner detainment: basement

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (4, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505545)

How are these laws being violated?

If we wait until the ARE violated even once, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR HUMANITY!!!

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505637)

I'm not worried. I don't plan on being physically human by that time.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505665)

Actually, capturing the human to help put them in jail would break law 1. Law 1 is actually provably contradictable. It's logically impossible to be performed in all cases.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505519)

And that leads to contradiction. How about having a kill-switch that no matter what a robot is not allowed to disable by
(1) acting itself;
(2) forcing another living being to act; OR
(3) causing conditions that would disable the switch

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505777)

And that leads to contradiction. How about having a kill-switch that no matter what a robot is not allowed to disable by
(1) acting itself;
(2) forcing another living being to act; OR
(3) causing conditions that would disable the switch

Wouldn't it be easier to install a kill counter? That way, the robot will stop killing if it kills too many people. A 32 bit UINT should be more than large enough for most robots. I'll write the code:

unsigned int killcounter = 0;
do {
        Command cmd = get_next_command();
        if(cmd.is_kill_human()) killcounter += cmd.get_kill_number();
        execute_command(cmd);
} while(killcounter < MAX_FRAGS);

What could go wrong?

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505887)

Absolutely nothing, if you happen to be Zapp Brannigan.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (4, Informative)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505521)

Those laws never worked though. All of his stories were about how they failed in spectacular ways and the process of finding out why they went wrong.

Those laws also require an AI that doesn't exist. Maybe never will.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505555)

Those laws never worked though. All of his stories were about how they failed in spectacular ways and the process of finding out why they went wrong.

Well, that's all the empirical proof I need.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (4, Insightful)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505685)

Well, I think the first major problem was that law 1 is provably contradictable. That's no good... I mean, you give a robot a rule they ALWAYS have to follow but which has various examples where it can't... That's called bad programming.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (3, Insightful)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505653)

I hope you're planning on giving up the death penalty, inaction during genocide, cigarettes, alcohol, and cars when the robots obey rule 1 by acting like a babysitter and taking away all the guns, lethal injection equipment, tobacco plants, hops, and cars to keep us from harm.

Well damn, that was a poorly thought out rule...

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505797)

I'm not sure a robot would evaluate a gun as a threat if it is in a dormant state. There are also situations where taking a weapon away from a human would be in direct violation of rule 1.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505829)

Hahahaha!

While you nerds are arguing about Asimov the military is putting this into place. When the shooting starts nobody's going to come to you for help; you'd only start posting to slashdot about whether or not you could charge a robot with murder. Meanwhile the real bodies are piling up.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (2, Informative)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505885)

This is why I have many guns.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics (4, Funny)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505913)

I would never use a gun to shoot an animal or human for any reason.

But a robot-- there is no hesitation if it came to that. Indeed, one good potshot at an Intel robot deserves a full clip. AMD, I'm not so sure.

How do you code that? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505835)

So are you going to write the AI code that implements those laws? Because I'm pretty sure they can't be coded very easily. (And they can be subverted, if you look at the later books...)

I bet this is.... (3, Funny)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505119)

Co-Funded by the I.R.S.

Oblig. Robocop Quote (4, Insightful)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505143)

[Mr. Kinney points a pistol at ED-209]
ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Dick Jones: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
[Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor]
Dick Jones: [ED-209 advances, growling]
ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply.
[Mr. Kinney turns to Dick Jones, who looks nervous]
ED-209: You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
[Entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire, especially Mr. Kinney]
ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply.
Kinney: Help me!
ED-209: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
[ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Kinney]

Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (0, Offtopic)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505443)

"When the Communists show up to protest the Nazis, you're supposed to pray for an asteroid, not pick a favourite."

I'm an atheist and hence don't believe the FSM will throw space rocks for me. I stand a better chance for self advancement with one of the above-mentioned groups, so I've already picked a favourite.

Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505503)

Well THAT counts as very random and offtopic...

Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (2, Interesting)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505727)

Isn't it interesting though that the world has never seen a modern communist society... I wonder if one could actually work? People said a democracy would never work when the United States started and now most of it's residents would consider that statement to be false.

Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (2, Informative)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505573)

Not really a quote so much as most of the dialogue from the "Robocop" screenplay.

Re:Oblig. Robocop Quote (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505879)

He threw down his gun instead of dropping it. ED-209 got confused. ED-209 should have been programmed to notice the gun is no longer in the suspect's hand and is on the ground.

But if someone was controlling ED-209 via a video game interface it would be a different story. Also ED-209 should have used rubber bullets instead of real bullets to take in the suspect alive instead of dead.

Running man! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505163)

Sounds fun, they should make it a game show. Big prize if you can survive a week without capture.

Re:Running man! (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505239)

They're called "reality" shows now.

Re:Running man! (0, Redundant)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505533)

Maybe we should call it The Running Man [imdb.com] .

That's not funny, man. "They" say I have warrants. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505585)

But a peice of paper titled "Warrant" that is neither signed by a judge and doesn't have an affidavit, injury, proof of claim, and in-personam jurisdiction is not a warrant.

You wait until you have to do some running yourself, but as for me I don't run from the law: I bring the law in form of 10 commandments. All that crap they force on you is limited liability legislation. All the densely populated areas along the coast are slowly being pilfered and liquidated by law enforcement to facilitate the transfer of property to Chinese interests that own it all. They don't care, because they get $60 base pay, $80k base pay expanse for dangerous duty, and overtime is tripple base pay. They also get salvage rights for property that isn't illegal but they libel it on their police report to be used later to falsify searches. In my neighborhood back in Westminster California, 1 of every 3 neighbors is foreclosed and the sherrif and deputies are in overtime even after Mike Carona was caught on over $500k bribery yet to be traced to Chinese interests.

There are over 2.5 Million outstanding arrest warrants in California! [wikipedia.org] , most for non-violent interactions to which the legislature has alienated the rights of someone who had not caused any redressable injury to anyone (perhaps to themselves though). Notice how rather than remedy the matter, they legislate more crap?

How about the crap the pull on Raymon Ronald Karczewski [arkenterprises.com] in Oregon, perhaps the last American remaining that knows how to uphold his inherint rights [arkenterprises.com] along with the Gastons' Pamela and Wilbur Russel.

All the government nowdays is nothing more than corruption that only looks after itself like a club. What percentage of Government workers and Government benefits are compared to independent privateers? It's like 9 out of 10 are closely intwined with Government, and the remaining are eeking by. The people have nothing today. US Government is in commerce you dumb f*cks, they aren't governing they are stealing by entrapment and immiment domain. You all justify your neighbors to suffer yet wouldn't dare suffer yourselves.

Re:Running man! (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505627)

First episode: Eric Rudolph versus the George Johnston.

let me be the first (0, Redundant)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505175)

to welcome our new military robotic overlords.

VERY stupid. It's your tax money. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505301)

"let me be the first to welcome our new military robotic overlords."

VERY stupid. It's your tax money. Most of those projects never produce anything but expensive trash.

U.S. government corruption: Anything for weapons and oil investors, nothing for average citizens.

Read House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com] . Bush and his friends and associates sell U.S. government power to those who pay the most. Saudis have paid them 1.4 Billion dollars, so the Saudis got EXACTLY what they wanted.

Re:VERY stupid. It's your tax money. (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505589)

Most of those projects never produce anything but expensive trash.

Yeah, but the ones that do make something usefull often balance out the cost. Example: the thing you're using right now.

Re:let me be the first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505439)

Oh whatever, robots are fucking dumb.

Throw poo at them - they'd need some fancy wipers to clean those camera lenses. Mmm... then the operator can see unfocused smeared poo.

Remember boys and girls: Fight fascism with feces.

Mechanical Hound (4, Interesting)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505185)

This is eerily reminiscent of the "mechanical hound" from Fahrenheit 451

Re:Mechanical Hound (3, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505451)

It's worse than that. It's here. [bostondynamics.com] . Well, sort of anyway. It's more like a psychotic hydraulic mule. But I would especially want one chasing me.

Re:Mechanical Hound (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505551)

Scratch that: Would NOT want psychotic hydraulic mule chasing me. I'm not quite that weird. Stupid uneditable Slashcode. The movie is large, a WMV, but pretty cool nonetheless.

Re:Mechanical Hound (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505577)

That thing is susceptible to the oldest traps on the planet, hole covered by leaves and counter weighted net covered by leaves.

Nifty yeah, but not very scary.

Re:Mechanical Hound (1)

moogleii (704303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505743)

Or minority report.

Since they're not people... (2, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505213)

.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?

I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh.

Re:Since they're not people... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505299)

.... can I just shoot them if they try to hunt me down? What about a nice EMP blast? And will they be armed? Or will they behave more like searchers from the Chronicles of Riddick?

I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh.

The fun thing about EMP blasts are that, you know, the easiest way to make them is by detonating a nuclear weapon in the air [fas.org] . If you consider that "easily disabled", remind me to not get on your shitlist :)

Re:Since they're not people... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505331)

Or you can just use this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KcD3KQ38CM. Not quite as mindblowing, but a bit more targeted. :)

Re:Since they're not people... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505341)

No, you cannot.

I have it on the authority of a friend that when a police dog comes out of nowhere and leaps on you and you instinctively knock it away, it PISSES THE COPS OFF and the tend to beat the crap out of you. I'm pretty sure you would get a similar reaction from them if you scratch their shiny new toy. Remember, most law enforcement considers this a battle between US and THEM, and they will include these robots in their definition of US.

Re:Since they're not people... (4, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505775)

I can attest to that myself.

It DOES piss them off (especially if your knocking it away with Vibram-soled, steel toe boots), but they don't necessarily beat the crap out of you. They just let the now-very-pissed-off dog chew on you for awhile. That way there are no marks from THEM to indicate excessive force.

The problem here is that the DOG does NOT have to announce himself as a police officer (like I'm gunna see a badge, on the collar, in the dark). That allows the officer to apply force without clearly announcing that you are dealing with someone that your not allowed to DEFEND yourself from. When it happened to me, I had already kicked the dog 4-5 times and been chewed on for 10-15 seconds by the time I had ANY idea there was a cop in the area.

Personally, I think robots would just remove the normal hesitation that most people experience when confronted with the decision of killing someone else. In other words, get rid of that pesky conscience.

Re:Since they're not people... (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505509)

You could shoot or EMP them, but you'll be brought up for a DMCA violation, and that calls out the lawyers.

Re:Since they're not people... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505567)

"I'm really not sure if I'm looking forward to that. Either they won't be armed, and they'll be easily disabled, or they will be, and then.... Meh."

Armament and resistance to damage are completely different qualities.

"What about a nice EMP blast?"

What about automobile airbag charges propelling water-based paint?

Blind the optics and the machine is useless. In situations such as protests the action would be non-violent and not ruin the spendy machine at possible great cost to those caught disabling it.

Airbag gas generators come in a variety of configurations, are cheap or free if you don't mind old ones or units with cosmetically damaged covers, and put out quite a volume of gas.

Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (5, Funny)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505217)

I, for one, Welcome our new Robotic Overlords.

Re:Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (3, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505391)

I'm not quite sure they'd be "overlords" as such. They'd be more like disgruntled, unpaid footmen who answer to a group of meatbag overlords. The meatbag overlords probably wouldn't even know how to use their stereo, let alone a law enforcement robot.

Uncooperative subjects (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505229)

Having robots deal with uncooperative subjects could ultimately help keep police safer, but unfortunately it creates a major imbalance of power. The use of robots in this manner could become a real problem in the hands of governments that wish to strike down on protestors and others who engage in peaceful civil disobedience. The prospects are truly frightening, although I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.

Re:Uncooperative subjects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505265)

This is true about everything.
That is why you, me, everybody needs to be involved in their governments to ensure protections get put in place and that when an agency violates them they get called out.

Re:Uncooperative subjects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505337)

I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.

We just need Microsoft to bribe enough officials to get the government robots to run on Windows. Barring that we are going to need something virtually akin to Luke's cans of pepper.

Re:Uncooperative subjects (3, Insightful)

weld (4477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505467)

The technology trend is for government to afford it and then within 10 years typically upper class citizens can afford it, and then within 20 years middle class citizens can afford it. This means soon we will have wealthy people or well funded criminals battling these robots with their own robot armys. This is going to get crazy.

Will countermeasures become illegal? Can I EMP these suckers?

Re:Uncooperative subjects (2)

globaljustin (574257) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505479)

although I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.

This is not a zero-sum game. Only large organized crime syndicates would have the ability to do as you say.

Ordinary citizens would not have the ability to defend themselves against this if the government began using them for suppression of free speech.

These robots should not be developed. And if they must be developed they should be illegal to use on US citizens. But really, just don't develop them.

Re:Uncooperative subjects (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505753)

We can test them on those pesky border crossing Canadians.

Or when you said "illegal to use on US citizens", did you mean that no government should use these against the people it governs?

Re:Uncooperative subjects (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505773)

I have to disagree with you a bit on the ability for humans to defend themselves against robots of this type. Building a robot that could deal with stairs, leaps across large gaps, and still be able to maintain pursuit speeds would probably be weak against simple things like judo.

Airborne robots would probably run out of steam after they exhausted their disabling payloads.

Track using robots aren't very good at detaining a human, but they excel at recon.

The human form allows us to overcome these limitations by adapting and utilizing our other abilities to compensate, robots on the other hand are shit for improvisation. So we attempt to overcome that limitation at design time. The problem is, when humans design a way to deal with a shortcoming it comes with the creation of an inherent weakness.

Our greatest advantage over these sort of machines is that humans cannot develop anything that has no limitation.

A firearms greatest strength also becomes its greatest weakness, its binary - and dependent upon the skill of the user. Our attempts to overcome the limitations of the user only further reduce the situations where such a device can be used. Guns get specialized but less adaptable.

A tool developed for non-lethal crowd control would quickly become unusable in a non lethal manner once it could cope with all contingencies.

Re:Uncooperative subjects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505747)

governments that wish to strike down on protestors and others who engage in peaceful civil disobedience

Or victimless crimes, of which there are literally thousands to keep track of living under the US government.

Wasn't this on TV some time ago? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505251)

Wasn't something like this on TV some time ago. They had several bomb disposal robots chassis reconfigured with several different sets of cameras (infra-red, wide-angle, zoom lens, rear-view), and a mounting point for a rifle with zoom optics.

Previous slashdotters had suggested that the best defence would be to tip the robots over, build some ground-traps or hide in a river.

you think youre going to win? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505253)

there is a long of anger out on the streets and there will be no unity. you guys lose. faggots are losers so it only makes sense. fucking homos.

Danger George bush DANGER! (0, Flamebait)

Ieatsyou (1383005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505261)

Robo-Cheney?

I have to say it.... (5, Funny)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505279)

Come with me if you want to live.

Re:I have to say it.... (1)

ijakings (982830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505421)

To California?! Id rather die.

Re:I have to say it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505643)

I'll be back.

Well, searching for a cooperative human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505293)

is hardly worth the money -- if he wants to and is trying to get found, he'll just yell "help" or something. Both Osama and a guy passed out under a broken building are "non-cooperative" by definition.

Note to self: (4, Funny)

Narnie (1349029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505305)

On the way home I need:
- toothpaste
- beer
- cereal
- aluminum foil (for tin hat)

Once home:
- google "conspiracy theories"
- google "howto electromagnetic pulse"
- google "group robot porn"

Re:Note to self: (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505679)

And if you add some numbers and letters, it becomes a quiz to match them up correctly:

On the way home I need:
1.toothpaste
2.beer
3.cereal
4.aluminum foil (for tin hat)

Once home:
A.google "conspiracy theories"
B.google "howto electromagnetic pulse"
C.google "group robot porn"

Re:Note to self: (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505825)

- google "group robot porn"

Another robosexual out of the closet.

Required for Liberal control of populace (0, Troll)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505309)

Call'em Nazi's all you want, but the Republicans (or at least the Conservatives) have never made demands over what you eat, what you drive, the type of toilet you use, or whether you smoke; that's for Liberals to control.

Don't think so? 'Crowd Control' is SYNONYMOUS with socialist/communist nations. How much censorship did we see at the Olympics? How many thousands of people disappear off the street in Russia? It's about power and retaining it.

So now you can vote the way the TV/Radio/Movies/College Profs want you to vote, or you can vote for freedom. I just hope you learn which is which, in time.

God, I wish I was kidding...

Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505355)

You fucking idiot troll.

Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (2, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505375)

Please let me know who the "socialist/communist" candidate is in this election so that I can be sure to vote against him or her. Thanks. Oh yes and I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (1, Insightful)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505601)

Okie dokie. On the 2008 election there are two communist/socialist candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Hope that helps! ;)

Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505791)

Actually, it would help if it was helping THIS... "Hope this helps", would be the proper English sentence.
But, what would we expect of someone with a Mexican name?
Crawl back through the fence, amigo. As you don't understand English, you also don't understand American politics...

Re:Required for Liberal control of populace (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505611)

So now you can vote the way the TV/Radio/Movies/College Profs want you to vote, or you can vote for freedom.

"But a TV professor just told me to vote for freedom... error... error... -explodes-"

It worked! We destroyed those packs of conservative-hunting robots with sheer dislogic! America is once again saved!!!

Robotic domination (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505389)

Wouldn't make more sense to capture and enslave all the cooperative humans first?
Then the uncooperative ones can be terminated...

Will this put 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' out of a job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505397)

Because I'm all for it! No more self-important thug, no more trash TV! it's win-win!

Could this be the disconnect? (3, Insightful)

VE3OGG (1034632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505415)

So often I have heard the internet meme that American soldiers (or soldiers of a western "civilized" country would not turn their weapons on their own people. Indeed, it is hard enough for them to do so to an Iraqi whom they still perceive as "human". However through indoctrination, and a process of dehumanizing the enemy, many Iraqis have died. Well, what happens if the next stage in de-humanizing comes not from propaghanda (which is not infalliable) but from a physical disconnect from targets.

Think about it... It is much easier for a sharp shooter to take out a target at a thousand yards then it is for someone to execute someone at point-blank. It is much easier for a remote drone to drop a bomb than a fighter-pilot to do so.

It is much easier for a robot controlled by a human operator to fire on civilians than an armed soldier, even if the civilian is a thousand yards away....

I think I see a flaw in their plans... (5, Insightful)

dacut (243842) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505425)

What if the uncooperative human is the one *controlling* the robots?

Re:I think I see a flaw in their plans... (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505569)

Then you call Tom Selleck? [wikipedia.org]

what's this plan missing? (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505497)

Oh, right. Could they manage to fuel the robots off of metabolized human flesh? Oh, and make their heads look like skulls.

I'd feel better if the US was trustworthy. (1)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505535)

Their not planning on using these in the Constitution-Free Zone are they?

Why do I keep hearing... (2, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505537)

...EX-TER-MI-NATE!!! [wikipedia.org]

compliance (2, Funny)

mrbobjoe (830606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505561)

But what if I comply? I was told I had ten seconds to comply!

Ep... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505587)

developers. The are tied up in paranoid co8spirac7 arithmetic, prima donnas to

Imagine the possibilities (1)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505605)

This could be loads of fun. Break some superfluous law to engage them, run them through an electromagnetic field, go in and out of a store that has scanners... I could spend a whole day playing with them and drive their "keepers" nuts.

Compared to what's happening now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505613)

it's not a bad idea.

Think about it. Some poor schmucks in the Army have to search a building in Iraq. They go in, scared to death that someone is going to come around a corner and shoot them or they will come across a boobie trap. So, they unleash hell on the place, and shoot anything that moves. Or they just have the predator drop a bomb on the building.

It would be better that someone could remotely send a robot in and have them look for people, and figure out what's going on. Actually, what would be better is if we didn't have the f'ing war, but that's kind of OBE now.

Also, this would be helpful for firefighters that have to go into burning buildings to find a child under a bed. But, I doubt that this is really what they are thinking about.

Less nefarious purposes? (3, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505625)

Oh, please.

My daughter was just a few minutes ago telling me about a friends husband. He had signed on to the Army as a photographer AND as a conscientious objector. After being sent to Iraq a couple weeks ago, he is a mess. He is now a guard in a military prison, I suspect, with orders that do not sit well with him. The military knows nothing of "intended purpose". If it can be used to kill, it will be.

Maybe the military understands that if they can take the PERSONAL out of killing, it will be easier for people like the man I just described to go out and KILL.

And before you say it, I realize the man had unrealistic expectations. Ahh, the folly of youth. Isn't it a wonderful thing?

commercial use? (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505655)

INTRODUCING THE ROBO-STALKER 2000!

...stupid lameness filter

Bounty Hunters (1)

iztehsux (1339985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505699)

Where can I buy one?!

human quarry in britain (1)

Tiro (19535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505711)

In response to those who tagged this story 'mechanicalhound', let me note that in modern Britain, people no longer hunt foxes, dogs hunt people: British foxhunting ban leads to human quarry [ft.com]

As they pet the hounds, allowing the animals to memorise their scent, the master huntsman Clive Richardson offers a few words of encouragement. "Don't worry," he says. "When a limb's torn from you, it really doesn't bleed that much."

I wish I had a scanner so I could post the print photo. It's a runner in modern gear sprinting across a field of cut straw being chased by four hounds and two dozen mounted men wearing traditional suits.

So this is where Skynet started at (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505729)

So this is where Skynet started at

I hope they name them cylons (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505749)

because eventually some of them will evolve into real hotties

Doctor Who called... (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505751)

he wants his Daleks back.

Think about your options, solve the root problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505755)

As militaries get stronger, as nations become more powerful, as even individual human attain powers of substantial destruction, we need to start looking at how we organize ourselves as a society.

Clearly, we are on the brink of enabling every techno-nightmare ever conceived.

Simply trying to "stop the bad guys" isn't going to work anymore. We need to change the way we govern ourselves. That's the point behind the Metagovernment project [metagovernment.org] ; combining the principles of open source and democracy with the new capabilities enabled by emerging web technologies.

Are you in, or would you like to see where developments like military human-hunter robot swarms take us in another couple of decades?

your time has come. so to speak. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505769)

obama will have white men sucking on his dick, admitting their faggotness of being white. this will happen right after he fucks ever white women.

Hey, I remember seeing these robots in Deus Ex! (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505807)

So now let me put in a couple requests at my local gun shop... EMP grenades and scramble grenades. And yes, my contact at UNATCO is still good for it.

It is not nefarious (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25505813)

Everybody is so busy hating on their big-brother government that they can't possibly see any legitimate use for a group of robots that would hunt down a human.

What, then, I might ask, is the purpose of a SWAT team? And why must SWAT officers die saving innocent hostages, thwarting bank robberies, and so forth, when we could use robots instead?

Hey -- I know how we can make some money off this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505821)

Anyone have the source code to Pacman?

Need a little definition (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25505895)

"uncooperative subject" simply means a person who is not acting by a set of rules that might put the robot at an advantage. Meaning, that person is not cooperating with the robots.

Assuming "uncooperative" has anything to do with laws or socially accepted behavior is simply projecting your fears and creating a context that was previously not there. It is simply another way of saying, "testing in the real world with no handicaps for the robots."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?