Slashdot Log In
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Oct 24, 2008 06:58 PM
from the you've-been-warned dept.
from the you've-been-warned dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Smart Robot Capable of Hunting For Its Own "Food" 191 comments
coondoggie writes "Ok, maybe this is getting a little too close to bringing Terminator-like robots to life. For starters, eco-friendly engine builder Cyclone Power this week inked a contract from Robotic Technologies, Inc. (RTI) to develop what it calls a beta biomass engine system that will be the heart of RTI's Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR). The purpose of EATR is to develop and demonstrate an autonomous robotic platform able to perform long-range, long-endurance missions without the need for manual or conventional re-fueling — in other words it needs to 'eat.' According to researchers, the EATR system gets its energy by foraging, or what the firms describe as '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 as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable.'"
We can only hope they don't team up with the Multi-Robot Pursuit System project to "search for and detect a non-cooperative human."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
robots.txt (Score:5, Funny)
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not true. Rule-based programming is widely used in practice. The canonical example is automated credit rating scoring.
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_rule_system [wikipedia.org]
And incremental rule-based processing can be done very efficiently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_algorithm [wikipedia.org]
Of course, current rule-based systems are NOWHERE complicated enough to understand concepts like 'harm'.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is why I have many guns.
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
Off topic.
I used to feel the exact same way about shooting a human or an animal. I don't need to hunt to eat and I have no desire to take a human life. I shoot competitively, but that's always for a score against paper targets. I figure if I own a gun I should be good with it. A competent user is a safe user and all that...
But then I had an interesting event happen - I got charged by a boar.
I occasionally go hunting with my father in law to take photographs. I always figured "hey I'm learning how to hunt if I ever need it, I just don't have to shoot anything." Quite often my father in law would stalk a deer and let it go, he got off on just doing it. Plus, he ate everything he ever did shoot. He's old school southern ex-military.
After one evening of watching an inactive plot, we called no joy and decided to head back to camp. After about five minutes of walking this boar comes crashing out of some brush right at us. I just drew and discharged my whole magazine. I was scared absolutely shitless. All the competition training and practice went out the fucking window. I'm surprised I even managed to draw. Hell, I'm not sure I'm the one who even killed it.
After I quit crying, and trust me I did, my father in law laughed and said "well, you may not be a hunter, but you're definitely no pacifist." He bundled up the boar and we continued to camp.
I agonized over this event for weeks. I had taken life (or so I assumed) and was none to happy about it, yet I didn't feel it was unjustified - just horrible. I kept running through thought experiments concerning the difference between the ideal I tried to hold myself to and the actions I had taken in light of a real world scenario. Was I a hypocrite? Was it my fault for being there? If I didn't actually own a weapon would these feeling even exist?
Maybe it is just a cop out, but I eventually came to the conclusion that my actions were justified. I also became acutely aware that I had a very different attitude towards having to use my weapon for self defense. Before I never kept it loaded in the gun safe. Now I have a touch sensitive gun case next to the bed, and the gun is loaded.
I also purchased a second weapon, realizing the limitations of the one I had when it came to home defense.
I'm not saying that everyone should own a gun, or that others wouldn't stick to their guns (pun intended) and not use such a tool against an animal or human. I'm just saying that never is a tricky word.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Funny)
I also purchased a second weapon, realizing the limitations of the one I had when it came to home defense.
Yeah, man. When those wild boars start coming down the chimney you gotta be ready.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you're a vegetarian, it's a complete cop-out not to be able to kill an animal.
I mean, I couldn't kill a cat or a dog, and I might kill a person who killed a cat or a dog, but I wouldn't lose sleep over killing anything I ate.
The only thing I still hunt is dove. I don't particularly like deer, or squirrel, and people get pissed when you shoot their hogs.
If on the other hand you ARE a vegetarian, I may eat you myself.
I realize that I'm not particularly eloquent, but Anthony Bourdain has covered this subject much better than I could on his show 'No Reservations' a few times.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a fucked up experience when I ate it.
I was racked with guilt at the time. Everyone, excluding my father in law, told me I should get over it (me and him actually bonded in a weird way because of this). He has never antagonized me about it, and any time the subject is brought up in conversation he hasn't been the one to initiate it - and he never says anything critical.
In a culinary sense, it was good. In an existential sense, it was probably the most meaningful meal I have ever had.
Parent
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:4, Insightful)
Well since my gun safe next to my bed responds to fingerprints I guess we can ignore half your argument as it pertains to me.
The other arguments regarding domestic violence fall under the auspice of "best weapon available", we going to get rid of chef knives too?
for every scenario where they are used on an intruder successfully, there are 10 other scenarios where they are used on the house occupants: self-inflicted in a moment of despondency, self-inflicted by a child, used on an inhabitant in the dark sneaking in the window because they forgot their keys, used on a wife in the heat of a giant flare up, used on someone while drunk or high
Statistical link or shut the fuck up. Feelings aren't facts.
But lets take this argument along the allegory line you have established.
I have been to 15 competitions where there were over 400 fully armed people competing with each other in their skill at shooting. In a situation where we are all competing, filled with hypothetical testosterone and obviously laying out our manhood against each other, you would think that you could find at least one instance of one competitor shooting another. You can't. In fact, you can't even find an instance of an accidental shooting injury at a match.
Go ahead and try. Use google - I'll wait.
The situations you allude to all have to do with the ignorant doing ignorant things to each other.
Parent
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:5, Informative)
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership. Take for instance our current crime rate. It's on a low plateau, crime has been staying at a pretty constant low for years now. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been increasing significantly. The FBI Crime Statistics Report (2006, still waiting on the next one as they're done bi-annually) showed that for every single state that enacted a Shall-Issue Concealed Carry statute, crime rates have dropped. Every single one, no fliers, no flukes, every single one. I do believe the number is 31 states that have enacted one so far. For a great majority of those states, you can observe the drop starting in the year that the statute took effect. Think like a criminal for a second. You don't care what the law says. You're gonna find a gun one way or another. Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven. You can walk up to someone, pull out your gun, and feel safe in the fact that the people you're robbing are law abiding citizens, and that it is illegal for them to use force against you. It's a win-win situation for criminals. They have no intent on abiding the law, and everyone with wallets to snatch are mandated to sit there and be good little victims.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do. Now that well off looking guy walking with his girlfriend down the street isn't so appealing. He might have a gun, too. Criminals are predators, predators don't oft go after prey that could easily kill them unless they're completely desperate. The math changes quite a bit when pointing a gun at someone could get you killed. Most of them start second guessing their decision, and a fair number decide that maybe it's not a good idea after all. Having a weapon that makes you a badass in front of the girls and gives you a sense of entitlement doesn't do that as much when everyone else has one too. To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
Parent
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:5, Insightful)
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership.
Here's a study [upi.com] based on CDC statistics that essentially confirms what everyone should know intuitively - states with more gun owners have more gun related deaths.
Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven.
Depends upon where you are where you are. Trying to lump "California" or "New York" into one unit regarding crime statistics is disingenuous. Hawaii has a lower per-capita violent crime rate than even Massachusetts, People's Republic Of.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do.
The major cities you listed have violent crime rates per capita significantly higher than the national average. Dallas and Miami are your examples of cities that prove the crime-reduction ability of concealed carry laws? Good grief.
To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
An armed society is a polite society during the periods that nobody is shooting. One can easily think of any number of societies on the globe that are well-armed that are by no means "polite."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
The easiest statistical correlations to draw regarding violent crime is that it moves in lockstep with both poverty levels and the number of Hispanic and African-American residents in a certain area. With regard to current ideals in social discourse it is of course racist to say this, though the FBI statistics show exactly that - but it's in the form of graphs and charts and nobody actually comes out and says it in a straightforward manner.
Parent
Re:crocodile dundee (Score:4, Interesting)
What I wish to say is that if the definition one has of eliminating poverty is the "American Dream" of everyone owning an 11,000 square foot home, 2 luxury cars in the driveway, and 2.5 kids going to the best universities, forget it. It can't be done! Attempting to bring the whole planet up to what is considered an American middle class standard of living will burn through what resources remain on this planet like flash paper.
I feel the reason "poverty" exists as it is defined in the United States is finally because the resources that do exist are ultimately advertised, marketed, and distributed to the "poor" in a way that leaves them physically, emotionally, and spiritually unsatisfied - to keep people always grasping for more - and this is done intentionally by the industries involved to make sure wealth continues to always flow upward. If you can trick people into believing that just that little extra effort, that next little purchase will somehow lead to true satisfaction, you can always make them believe that it's just around the corner. It's just a con-game to make what resources are left bubble to the top.
Finally it all comes down to breeding rights and reproduction. That's what life is here for, it's what the specialized organ at the center of our bodies is there for. Perhaps the final reason for the existence of every concept of wealth, prosperity, and economic success is that it's the current measure by which one's fitness for breeding is judged. And if the current gold standard of breeding fitness is the American way of life - then by God those who have it are going to use every trick in the book to squeeze those who don't by the balls to give them the illusion of getting there when they're really not. The worst thing that could ever happen for their breeding prospects is for the masses to wake up and realize it's all a fucking lie - the closest the U.S. ever came to that stage was the late 1960s - and such deviance was eventually sublimated by consumer culture into the packaged deviance of basically body piercing and ass tattoos.
If all that's not worth a -1 Offtopic I don't know what is.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
How are these laws being violated?
If we wait until the ARE violated even once, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR HUMANITY!!!
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder if whoever marked our posts "insighful" was maybe a robot/cyborg trying to warn us. Possibly from the future.
Not sure if I hope this gets modded insightful. On the one hand, I am a whore for the mod points. On the other, it would confirm my darkest fears.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
SWORDS [discovery.com], and Gladiator [discovery.com].
One is already in the field, the other will be coming in 2009.
SWORDS apparently isn't autonomous at all, so maybe it doesn't count (depends on your definition of "robot"). Gladiator is. Of course, neither will fire unless instructed to do so (a Marine pushes the big red button).
But that still breaks law one and is the only exception to law two.
Personally, I don't think the three laws will ever be widely accepted. Robots are seen as tools, and tools are expected to do as commanded, not say "no, that violates the first law."
Then again, maybe you won't be physically human by 3rd quarter 2009?
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Insightful)
50 thousand more United States troops were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, with U.S. casualties reaching 112 for the month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 47 percent.
vs.
50 thousand more United States ACLUs (Autonomous Combat and Logistical Units) were deployed to Iran this month, bringing the total to 210 thousand. Heavy fighting continues in the streets of Tehran, but the Pentagon states that fewer than 200 military robots have been disabled this month. The president's approval rating on the handling of the war remains steady at 87 percent.
It's nice to know we'd win all our wars with few, if any, American casualties, but I shudder to think of the chaos that Bush and Cheney would have unleashed on the world if they had one million autonomous combat robots at their disposal.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:5, Interesting)
Asimov would have written a short story where a Positronic Robot series had just been developed to the point where it could decide imprisonment counted as harm, and a human had directed it that it was acceptable as it offered a chance for the human to reform and become a better person. Susan would get involved over something, like the robot breaking the prisoner out when it became apparent the prisoner wasn't going to reform, or that he already had so the rest of his sentence was superfluous and so counted as harm.
Either way, putting someone in jail only automatically counts as harm at some particular level of mentation. Below that, the robot would assume that if the human got three squares and a cot, and better medical care than being on the run, there was no harm. Above that level, the robot would have to balance issues of human freedom with the harm a human might do to others exercising it. At still higher levels of understanding, the robot would have to consider how the human might harm himself exercising freedom. It's only an automatic violation of law 1 to a robot between the really dumb and the moderately smart levels, not to other robots.
Returning to the thread, the robots described are in the real world = really, really dumb category, too dumb to even apply the first law at all. That means a human would actually be fully responsible for any mistakes the robots made, but tools such as this let that human pretend not to be responsible for mistakes - that's what's really a 'bad thing' (tm) here.
Parent
Re:Three Laws of Robotics (Score:4, Funny)
> It may be that the purpose for biological intelligence is to create machine intelligence.
On what evidence do you base this statement? Please convince me, I'd love to have a purpose.
Parent
I bet this is.... (Score:4, Funny)
Oblig. Robocop Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really a quote so much as most of the dialogue from the "Robocop" screenplay.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Mechanical Hound (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mechanical Hound (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Since they're not people... (Score:3, Interesting)
.... 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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Since they're not people... (Score:5, Interesting)
Crazy, killing a police dog is a felony, but a police office killing someone else's dog is ... part of the job?
Parent
Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, Welcome our new Robotic Overlords.
Re:Because it's FINALLY appropriate. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Uncooperative subjects (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
I have to say it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Note to self: (Score:4, Funny)
- toothpaste
- beer
- cereal
- aluminum foil (for tin hat)
Once home:
- google "conspiracy theories"
- google "howto electromagnetic pulse"
- google "group robot porn"
Could this be the disconnect? (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
what's this plan missing? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, right. Could they manage to fuel the robots off of metabolized human flesh? Oh, and make their heads look like skulls.
Why do I keep hearing... (Score:3, Funny)
Less nefarious purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
"Non-cooperative" is a technical term (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, "non-cooperative" is simply used to describe "a person who doesn't want to be found". It is a technical term used to distinguish "search and rescue" scenarios (where the subject of the search is cooperative and will be lighting flares and such) from "search and destroy" or "search and intercept" scenarios. Different search patterns would be used in the different scenarios.
It probably does NOT mean "hunting down a person who didn't answer a (police|military) officer's question". It is simply a technical term used in the research community to distinguish robotic search scenarios.
And then ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Packs of Robots Will Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans
Packs of uncooperative humans will hunt down robots and steal their batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)