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!

Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the meat-is-murder dept.

Biotech 154

Back in January we covered the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot, or EATR. The EATR gets its energy by "engaging in biologically-inspired, organism-like energy-harvesting behavior which is the equivalent of eating. It can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment ..." So many news outlets picked up the story and ran it with titles alluding to the robot "eating flesh" or even "eating corpses" that a company spokesperson put out a press release saying, "This robot is strictly vegetarian." The statement says in part, "RTI's patent pending robotic system will be able to find, ingest and extract energy from biomass in the environment. Despite the far-reaching reports that this includes 'human bodies,' the public can be assured that the engine Cyclone has developed to power the EATR runs on fuel no scarier than twigs, grass clippings and wood chips — small, plant-based items for which RTI's robotic technology is designed to forage. Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI."

cancel ×

154 comments

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

Wording (5, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757031)

Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI

Doesn't say anything about dead "enemy combatants" though, does it?

Re:Wording (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757109)

"After we got a lot of publicity, we are now telling the truth."

Re:Wording (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757207)

It also doesn't say who exactly is supposed to ENFORCE the conventions if someone breaks them.

Re:Wording (5, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757293)

The machines will enforce the conventions.

Vote for ED-209!

Re:Wording (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757427)

I'm voting for Bender (voice now played by Patrick Stewart).

Frank Miller Quote (1)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758147)

The machines will enforce the conventions.

Vote for ED-209!

"ED-209. Not the brightest. But hard working, and Very Sincere!"

--Frank Miller

Sounds like he's a shoo-in for the red states!

Re:Wording (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758223)

The machines will enforce the conventions.

Yes... they will eat you if you fail to comply.

Re:Wording (3, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758263)

I can certainly see the appeal here.. Surely our flesh-eating robot overlords would have a vested interest in making sure that we are all healthy and nutritious. Disease and famine would become a thing of the past! Not to mention the forced breeding programs!

Re:Wording (0, Troll)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757317)

Well, duh. We don't need to enforce the Geneva Conventions. After all, the entire world is basically good and just waiting for someone to tell them what they should do to treat their fellow countries right! ...

And if they don't, we can always remind them. Sternly, if necessary. Or give them a "time out" and make them sit in the corner. I'm sure that will take care of all but the most desperate dictators!

[dripping with sarcasm]

Re:Wording (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758177)

I really don't understand this trashing of the Geneva Conventions that started under Bush/Cheney. The rationale seems to be that "bad guys" are going to do stuff anyways, so we might as well be one of them. (If you can restate your rationale better, please do so). But the fact is the Geneva Conventions have helped a lot of prisoners over the years. Moreover, we have gained nothing by violating them. Abu-Ghraib and Gitmo have created a lot of global cynicism that has impaired our cause far more than whatever we got out of humiliating and torturing people.

Re:Wording (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758873)

Not that I completely disagree with you, but most of the individuals we are dealing with these days are not lawful combatants, and as such are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. If the United States were to go to war with China (just using this as an example because it's not to difficult to imagine), THEN we would be dealing with lawful combatants and would follow the Geneva Conventions when dealing with prisoners. Terrorists will never be anything but unlawful combatants in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions, however.

I do not think that means what you think it means (4, Insightful)

thegameiam (671961) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758937)

The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.

An argument can be made in favor of extending the protections of the Geneva conventions to cover "irregular" forces, but an argument could be made against it as well.

Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea (5, Insightful)

amateur6 (1597289) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759841)

Okay, I'll start...

The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.

Such as, say, people fighting on behalf of fellow citizens, against what they deem to be an oppressive power which attempts to dictate their actions from afar?

So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.

Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760801)

OK, but there's idealism, and then there's the actual treaty that many nations agreed to. Agreed to not because of morality, but because eachthought it would server their self interest to do so. That treaty mostly protects uniformed soldiers under government command, for good historical reasons. And the only punishment for not complying with the treaty is that it will no longer protect your side, so extending its protections to those who don't comply with it destroys the very valuable protections it does offer.

Perhaps a new treaty would be better, and perhaps you could get the world powers to sign tht treaty, and perhaps monkeys will fly out of my butt and serve as moderators for the process.

Re:Wording (2, Funny)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757335)

Those laws only apply to the Human Species.. not to our new robot overlord species. The creators are assuming they'll always be in control of what the robots choose to eat... they made a movie about that I think? heck we can't even control police dogs and they're "man's best friend". Forget robots being as smart as people.. when they get as smart as dogs we'll start having problems.

correction:
It also doesn't say who exactly is LEFT to ENFORCE the conventions if SOMETHING EATS them.

Re:Wording (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757241)

That's kind of a wussy ass war crime. What does it matter what happens to the dead, they're dead. People should be more concerned about the living.

Re:Wording (4, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757521)

That's kind of a wussy ass war crime. What does it matter what happens to the dead, they're dead. People should be more concerned about the living.

Uhh... that's the whole point. Few are very concerned about whether a robot cuts up a body on a battlefield, or whether a soldier does it on his way past to check his gun hasn't jammed, or because he didn't like the expression on the dead guy's face.

The point is that, if people start creating robots like this, it will have a living, evolving impact on our society, and everyone in it. It's more a concern about humans becoming cannibals-by-proxy, than about robots being uncivilised.

Re:Wording (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757727)

What's the difference between having a robot eat the guy, and leaving the guy to be eaten by the crows, coyotes, vultures, or whatever other detrivores [wikipedia.org] are common place wherever you are.

Re:Wording (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757837)

What's the difference between having a robot eat the guy, and leaving the guy to be eaten by the crows, coyotes, vultures, or whatever other detrivores are common place wherever you are.

Go read some philosophy and/or spirituality if you really want an answer to that (or just debate on it). It's WAY out of scope for this discussion, and frankly, it's something I expect civilised people to have already studied somewhat.

Philosophy 101 (0, Troll)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758455)

I studied it, and still don't give a shit. How's that for a philosophy?

Re:Philosophy 101 (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758581)

Pretty poor actually. At least learn nihilism and do it right.

nihilism ur doin it rong (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758803)

Well, I wasn't attempting nihilism. Besides there is simply not enough data in my statement to precisely categorize what I said into belonging to particular philosophy.

I will expand on it if it helps you: I do not care what happens to dead bodies, for they are only containers for consciousness.

(never mind, fuck it, this conversation got boring.)

Re:nihilism ur doin it rong (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758993)

there is simply not enough data in my statement to precisely categorize what I said

Except that you ended your sentence with a full stop which marked your sentence complete...

I will expand on it if it helps you: I do not care what happens to dead bodies, for they are only containers for consciousness.

...making this an entirely different statement. It might well be that it's entirely different only because your initial statement was lazily incomplete, but that's a self-representation issue on your part.

(never mind, fuck it, this conversation got boring.)

No shit ;) You didn't really imagine that starting a conversation with "...don't give a shit..." would lead to an interesting follow-up discussion, did you?

So yeah, let's drop it.

Re:nihilism ur doin it rong (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759441)

No shit ;) You didn't really imagine that starting a conversation with "...don't give a shit..." would lead to an interesting follow-up discussion, did you?

It would have been informative, except I already knew slashdot was full of incorrect pedantics.

Re:nihilism ur doin it rong (0, Flamebait)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759587)

Keep telling yourself that ;)

Re:Philosophy 101 (2, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758983)

Here's a thought; how about we just fead EATR nihilists, since they don't feel there's any point in their existence to begin with?

Re:Wording (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759003)

So this "spirituality" thing (whatever is it supposed to be) allows only for stationary cremation ovens but not for cremation ovens with wheels?

Re:Wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28760205)

What is the difference between being bitten by a poisonous snake in the wild, and injecting poison into someones veins?

Re:Wording (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757581)

No it's not. Maybe, we should collect our enemy's dead, and hire dr. death to plasticize them for display in a "fallen enemies" museum? (http://images.google.com/images?q=dr.%20death%20body%20art&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi) Besides, who the hell wants to sleep next to the guy that cuts the ears off of the people he kills?

Re:Wording (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758367)

because, desecration of the dead isn't about the dead - it's about psychology and the survivors.

It's against the Geneva Conventions because of it's impact on the living.

Re:Wording (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757569)

Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI

Doesn't say anything about dead "enemy combatants" though, does it?

Not to mention civilians. But don't worry, you can protect your family. [hulu.com]

Re:Wording (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758451)

not sure if I mind having a robot eat my dead body. how is that in any way worse than letting the worms get to me first?

as for while i'm living, however, the robot will have to defeat me FIRST in order to eat me.

Re:Wording (1)

UberWhack (319225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758721)

"Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI."

The Dead...
So I guess eating the living is still OK...

Not sanctioned...
If, down the road, some entity does sanction desecration of the dead (or doesn't give a shit) the product already has this capability. Nice!

Nah (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759603)

It just means the robots will have to eat them while they're still alive!

Re:Wording (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760627)

Doesn't say anything about dead "enemy combatants" though, does it?

Apparently they can get away with it. They did in Somalia in 1993 and repeatedly in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 and 2003 onwards.

First evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757043)

Anyone care to guess

Poorly worded (1)

ubergamer1337 (912210) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757051)

Talk about PR backfire...

Re:Poorly worded (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759147)

As much as I appreciate it because I love seeing what craziness they've been up to, DARPA really needs to quit showing this stuff off ^_^

what if it's desperate? (2, Funny)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757057)

this robot wouldn't be the first one to succumb to man-eating under extreme circumstances. the only way to be sure is to starve it, and lock it in a room with McCain.

Re:what if it's desperate? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759521)

this robot wouldn't be the first one to succumb to man-eating under extreme circumstances. the only way to be sure is to starve it, and lock it in a room with McCain.

Is McCain starved too? This could easily turn into the first test case for Robot Rights.

This is too bad (2, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757061)

> Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead

Too bad, there could be use for such a robot in an epidemic scenario or on a battlefield where the many corpses laying around could cause a health hazard to the survivors ;-))))

Re:This is too bad (5, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757163)

Maybe he can be allowed to eat the dead only for recreational purpose. :)

Two factors they don't mention (1)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758287)

  1. Flesh is much higher in energy content than most plant material.
  2. It's much easier to detect moving, living creatures than anything staying still.

Conclusion: Robots will not feed on the dead. They will much prefer the Living!

Re:This is too bad (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757191)

I'm impressed they admit the robot is vegetarian. Isn't that unamerican or something? I'd expect public outrage if it didn't eat hamburgers and deep fried chicken.

Re:This is too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757233)

I'm impressed they admit the robot is vegetarian. Isn't that unamerican or something? I'd expect public outrage if it didn't eat hamburgers and deep fried chicken.

This robot apparently learned FROM the americans and doesn't want to be a disgusting fatass like most of them are. On the upside if the robot does become a disgusting fatass we can program it to blame everyone and everything but itself for enhanced realism.

Re:This is too bad (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757605)

I like the idea. Also... maybe the robot could stop in front of the body, play a dirge to give it a proper funeral, and then start dissecrting it into bits small enough to fit into its energ... portable cremation unit!

No disrepect of the dead at all, each and every one gets an honorable robotic funeral, and a proper cremation.

course, I doubt it would actually be a great power source, the freshly dead still have a lot of water in them and, I would think, would need to be dessicated well. Plant matter has the same issue but... usually a lot more surface area to volume and theres usually a fair amount of already dead and partially dry plant matter around.

-Steve

Besides... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757063)

...the flesh eating module is a premium upgrade. Only Cyberdyne Systems is experimenting with that at the present.

Article 15... (2, Funny)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757065)

As such the robot will seek out enemy combatants who are not *quite* dead yet and feed on them...

Typo (1)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757067)

I think there's a little typo. When they wrote Cyclone they actually meant Cylon.

My New Lawn Mower (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757071)

Wonder when it will be available to groom lawns, chase dogs and patrol my house at night.

soooo what you are saying... (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757077)

...is that I can still get the patent for corpse-eating robot?

Only on slashdot (1, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757579)

would that be modded "interesting".

Re:soooo what you are saying... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28758929)

Perhaps it could clean up the Ganges River

Too bad. That ship has sailed... (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757099)

Some head-line writer killed this company's product. It sucks, but it happens. Post this one to failblog.org/.

I for one welcome our flesh eatin robot overlords. (1)

sammyo (166904) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757123)

Never thought I'd see a post where that lame meme was apropo...

Just another example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757137)

of media outlets giving a bad name to technology.

10 Modern Plagues? (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757147)

They're are the locusts, eating our crops.

Clarification (5, Insightful)

Peregr1n (904456) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757183)

What he's essentially saying is that it DOESN'T eat human bodies. However, that doesn't mean it COULDN'T.

Re:Clarification (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757237)

In much the same sense that a cow could, in principle, eat you. It's just not terribly likely to happen outside of some contrived wood-chipper accident.

Re:Clarification (4, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757327)

That's what I tried to tell the police.

Re:Clarification (2, Informative)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757881)

Convenient that this thing carries a wood chipper with it, then.

Re:Clarification (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758689)

In much the same sense that a cow could, in principle, eat you.

The Man-Eating Cow [internationalhero.co.uk] laughs at your principles!

Re:Clarification (1)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760167)

So, just like dogs, it might need to be put down once it gets a taste for human flesh. Everything's fine while it stays strictly vegetarian, though...

organism-like behavior (1)

Marvin01 (909379) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757219)

engaging in biologically-inspired, organism-like, energy-harvesting behavior

Aww, its never as much fun after I spit-take and then read it over again...

"Company Denies Its Robots Feed On The Dead" (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757367)

-- Insert Microsoft Employees Joke Here --

Wait until Oil prices get too high... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757371)

Trust me - when gas starts reaching 5 bucks or more a gallon in the states, people will be SHOVELING relatives they don't like into the hoppers...

Re:Wait until Oil prices get too high... (1)

Igorod (807462) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757435)

Why do I suddenly see an increase in business for the mafia?

What a waist of time... (5, Funny)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757373)

I spent all my time working on my emergency Zombie plan but now what i need is an Emergency robot plan.

Re:What a waist of time... (4, Funny)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757443)

I made a belt buckle out of a wristwatch so I could waist time.

Re:What a waist of time... (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760061)

You hippie!

Re:What a waist of time... (1)

daviee (137644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758893)

Do it quicker this time; else you'll need to develop an emergency robot-eater-eater plan.

Re:What a waist of time... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759101)

To say nothing of the emergency Pirate and Ninja plans.

Re:What a waist of time... (4, Funny)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759929)

I believe the creators of this robot have perfected their emergency zombie plan...

Second Variety (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757389)

Wait til they come out with the second variety of these and they start replicating themselves.

Food preference = Fatties over Skinnies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757411)

Fat generates more heat, which means more energy. The time to lose weight is now!

Desecrating the dead... (3, Insightful)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757429)

Desecrating the dead may be a crime, but aren't humans the only ones who can be help responsible for war crimes? If I carpet bomb an enemy military installation, can I be held responsible for a war crime if that installation had any dead bodies that get vaporized? Similarly, if I set loose this robot in a war one and program it to eat the dead (maybe only dead enemies), would I be held responsible for the actions of the robot? As someone above asked, who enforces this anyway? Can't they just make 'killing people' and 'destroying stuff' war crimes?

Cheers!

Re:Desecrating the dead... (1)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757493)

Ooooor should that be "digesting the dead"?

Well... (2, Interesting)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757475)

I'm sure we can change that.

Lame (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757497)

This thing SHOULD eat corpses. You know how much land is wasted in cemeteries and such? And how much cash in embalming and other funereal preparations? This could have saved thousands of acres and millions of dollars. Oh well, there's still a chance Japan will come through for it.

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757641)

A good friend of mine has been saying the same thing for years. But my counter-argument to it is this:

At least here in the United States, we have no shortage of land. Cemeteries are often located in areas that aren't really the most desirable for other construction anyway. (One of the biggest ones in my city is located right across street from my workplace, which is in a run-down part of town where most businesses have already closed up. The ones remaining, around here, are primarily doing manufacturing or truck deliveries and repair. Nobody's really upset that the cemetery's land isn't available for purchase .....)

Furthermore, sure - funerals are costly and large unnecessary affairs, but they're simply catering to what the market wants. You always have the option of a cremation, which is far cheaper and solves the whole problem of buying a cemetery plot, embalming, cost of a casket, a tombstone, etc. etc.

Re:Lame (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757965)

You're right about funeral expenses being the will of the market, though how anyone was ever convinced your loved ones will hate you if you're not planted in a $10,000 box baffles me.

As for the cemeteries not being on desirable land, I'd have to see surveyor's reports to say for sure, since there's some massive ones in my city right next to major roads. I can't imagine that someone wouldn't want to throw a couple businesses up next to a major thoroughfare.

Re:Lame (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757947)

Actually, it is a old practice to allow people to be buried, and then after a suitable time, the bones are dug up and put in a bone house or something like that. It is a relatively recent thing for people to be preserved and stuck in airtight caskets. Chances are that the practices will change again if land ever became an issue. Not even most religions require any thing like permanent burial in plots forever and ever, so it's pretty much a practice for the benefit of the living, as opposed to the dead.

You know the drill... (1)

polyomninym (648843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757633)

I welcome our new vegan overlords.

How will it know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28757787)

Or do they just mean that many of recently deceased aren't sufficiently composted yet?

Perhaps not dead, but... (2, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#28757827)

... tired and all shagged out from a long walk would be fair game.
[My apologies to Monty Python.]

What the heck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28758115)

Isn't the chainsaw a bit much for just harvesting just "twigs, grass clippings and wood chips"?

Grass clippings? (4, Funny)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758123)

You damn robots! Stay off my lawn!

Re:Grass clippings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28760449)

A practical application: Grass-powered robot lawnmower. It's so crazy, it might just work. ...unless it develops a taste for moles and voles and tries to hunt them down...

All what you need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28758133)

if (feed.type == humanflesh) { // comment this line out at war time ....
}

Soylent Green (1)

JoeF (6782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758329)

So, it is not a Soylent Green [imdb.com] style food, then???

I relieved... (3, Funny)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758377)

the robot only eats vegetarians. Pfew! That was a close one.

Roomba (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758513)

Crap! You mean I'm going to have to clean the dead rats out of my Roomba by myself for the foreseeable future?

When can our household robots get omnivorous digesters without someone fretting over it being a war crime?

Looks like... (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758525)

...PETA got to them.

People Eating Tasty Armymen? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758791)

I always eat my greens :P

Well what's the bloody point then? (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758535)

If it can't eat them after it kills them then why bother? It'll just leave a messy battlefield behind it, won't it?

Yellow Journalism (1)

MWoody (222806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28758553)

Technically, couldn't you shove a corpse in with the fuel of a steam engine and burn it? Does that make old-timey trains monstrous death-machines?

Hell, for that matter, what are "fossil fuels" but the corpses of plants and animals, anyway?

This thing would be scary if it actively hunted corpses not because of its ability to digest them, but rather its intent and design to do so. That you might could shove a body part into a robot out collecting twigs and grass clippings isn't really the designers' fault.

Sure, but for the carrots.... (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759157)

It IS the apocalypse.

Soooooo...... (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28759495)

...this is going to work really well in the true desert regions. No fuel--no food. Now, quick! blow something up so the robot can refuel!

Hurray! (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760103)

I always knew that I lived in an amazing time. I always knew that incredible things would be developed while I was alive. However, I expected these to be things like a reliable cure for cancer, widely available flying cars, and the reduction of disease and hunger in exotic locales where we could benefit from cheap, well-fed labor.

Never did I imagine that we would instead focus on robots that do not, but theoretically could, eat people as fuel.

What about eating enemies alive? (1)

jmgk (1602001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28760245)

Geneva Conventions cover eating enemies alive?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>