Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics Science

Street Fighting Robot Challenge 180

Posted by samzenpus
from the gun-jack dept.
ianchaos writes "There's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by the event sponsored by Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency. Newscientist has a good writeup of the robot challenge, which is to build a robot that can operate autonomously in urban warfare conditions, moving in and out of buildings to search and destroy targets like a human soldier."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Street Fighting Robot Challenge

Comments Filter:
  • One word (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bolo
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @12:43AM (#17747838) Homepage Journal
    Oh yeah? Well Al Quida is countering with suicidal robots with bomb belts. So there!
         
  • Where's robocop when you need him?
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @12:45AM (#17747854) Homepage Journal
    Do you realize that our military may then get slashdotted in the middle of a battle?
  • I for one (Score:2, Funny)

    by edgr (781723)
    welcome our new robotic, stair-climbing, elevator using overlords.
  • I must have seen two dozen movies with the same plot. The trick is to get the cars' petrol tanks to immediately explode.
    Lisping Tyrolean accents are optional, but highly expected.
  • DARPA Worldwide? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Thursday January 25, 2007 @12:46AM (#17747864) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like the DARPA Challenge [wikipedia.org], but more violent. Cool! I'm all for anything that advances us toward real-life MechWarrior/Gundam type stuff. Though I'd prefer to avoid Robot Jox [imdb.com]. :-)
  • is one of these going to be sent back from the future to kill someone's mother?
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:00AM (#17747922) Journal
    I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

    Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed.

    I understand this is Singapore issuing the challenge, but I would like to see robots (in any format) capable of navigating buildings and hogtying humans without injuring them. The robots themselves may be at risk but the unknown targets inside could be detained and processed under law. Make them infra red or heat sensing so they can operate in the dark. But I am strong believer that combat needs to move away from lethal harm to the individual. More importantly, you would remove the lethal harm to our own troops. Wars are no longer solved through death. What seems to be prolific in today's world is something the Native Americans called a "Mourning War" where you kill my brother so I kill two of yours and the problem compounds upon itself. There was some sort of mental shift after 1914 where you didn't just destroy a force and the country bowed to you. Each side has put themselves on a pedestal and, as a result, even the populace believes they are right or correct.

    I heard once someone say that the only way to end conflict these days was total elimination of one side of the conflict. They weren't suggesting the implementation of that or genocide, they were merely pointing out the conundrums that exist over pieces of land like the Gaza Strip.

    What does Singapore hope to accomplish with this challenge? Why do they think that wars of the future will still be bent on how lethal your weapons are? Can't they see that the United States has more and better lethal weapons than any other organization in the world ... and yet we are still vexed and taunted by a rag-tag terrorist organization. It's not a matter of flexing your muscle anymore, it's not a matter of dropping a nuke or making an example--I believe that it's a matter of being able to subdue elements inside and expose them for the evils and crimes they commit. Bring justice to them & let them live in shame for what they've done.
    • by wasted (94866) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:18AM (#17748032)
      I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

      Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed....

      It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

      ...Bring justice to them & let them live in shame for what they've done...
      By then they have already done the deed, and may not even believe that their wrongdoing was wrong. Too late.
      • by timeOday (582209) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:41AM (#17748182)
        It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive.
        That's debateable. A wounded soldier is actually a liability to his surviving buddies during the battle.

        Besides, indiscriminate killing isn't very useful unless you're willing to commit genocide. Most conflicts are not total war in the style of WWII where carpet-bombing, nuking, and firebombing entire cities was accepted.

        Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

        • by wasted (94866)

          It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive.

          That's debateable. A wounded soldier is actually a liability to his surviving buddies during the battle.

          Besides, indiscriminate killing isn't very useful unless you're willing to commit genocide. Most conflicts are not total war in the style of WWII where carpet-bombing, nuking, and firebombing entire cities was accepted.

          Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate k

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Ash Vince (602485)
          Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

          Maybe it's a nice building?
        • >>> Look at it this way, if you're going to send an indiscriminate kill-bot into a home to slaughter everything, why not just drop a 5000 lb bomb on the place and be done with it?

          Too young to remember the Neutron bomb then?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb [wikipedia.org]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_The_Poor [wikipedia.org]
      • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:41AM (#17748184) Journal
        It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.
        I've seen cops (in riot situations) revert to these zip ties that are similar to what I tie the cables in my computer up with. The cop takes a zip tie, forces the individuals arms behind his or her back and applies the zip tie.

        These zip ties cost maybe 10 or 20 cents each. They are not fool proof. And the way in which you get the human into the physical position to apply the zip ties is a problem an engineer has yet to solve. But if you're telling me that this is too expensive. Or that, in the aftermath of the war, the individual (who at no time had any risk save maybe a broken arm through failed cooperation) will sue you. I will have to laugh. Have you priced bombs or even arms and ammunition recently? Not cheap. And through the use of those, the alternative is death. You can't put a price on life.

        Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus.
        Well if that sentence doesn't send a chill down my spine, I don't know what does. If you're using that as an actual retort to my original statement, I certainly am confused. Are you suggesting we kill them all because they'll be silent afterwards? Sounds like a war crime which is probably something I'd fear more than a "human rights ruckus". Wasn't that the idea behind the My Lai Massacre [wikipedia.org]? With the most recent Iraq war, hopefully we'll realize that our image to the rest of the world is just as important as our arsenal when entering a conflict.

        I'm not suggesting we use this in a civil setting or time of peace in our own society or anywhere. I consider even this an extreme measure only to be used in times of war.

        And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.
        I don't care if we're talking about Morocco, I hold all governments to a high standard in this modern world. Oh, well, Singapore has a history of sneezing at human rights, so I'll let them slide? No way. If anything, we need to be more critical of them.

        By then they have already done the deed, and may not even believe that their wrongdoing was wrong. Too late.
        And I will assert that oftentimes the reason they feel they were doing the right thing is because of the deaths of people they loved from prior conflicts with their enemies. The trick here is to minimize the deaths and expose those causing the conflicts for what they really are. If you can't expose them to their own people, than maybe you shouldn't be there in the first place. Imagine if we found every Al-Queda member and marked them and made publicly known to everyone around them that they were part of an organization responsible for the deaths of innocent men, women & children, surely their families and societies would hold them as murderers. In our society, when your brother is murdered and you murder the person responsible, you are still tried for murder. Just because they did a crime does not give you the right to replicate the crime on them. And I think a lot of societies today agree with this or should come around to realizing that you can't let people murder each other. Justice & the truth are the only answers.
        • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:59AM (#17748280)
          You can't put a price on life.

          Not to nitpick too much, but people put a price on life all the time. Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't put a price on life, that's possibly another story.

          I think you do raise some interesting points and I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but ultimately I have to feel like it's a little overly optimistic/naive. I don't, for example, really see people who currently shelter violent terrorists shunning them if their crimes were to be known, because said people probably don't share your/our view of what constitutes innocent victims. How great it would be if the solution to all problems was just to tell people the truth, but I don't think that's the world we live in.

          Obligatory Simpsons: Salesman: Surely you can't put a price on your family's lives?
          Homer: I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are.
        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by wasted (94866)

          It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

          I've seen cops (in riot situations) revert to these zip ties that are similar to what I tie the cables in my computer up with. The cop takes a zip tie, forces the individuals arms behind his or her back and applies the zip tie.

          These zip ties cost maybe 10 or 20 cents e

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by somersault (912633)
            "My countrymens' life have a higher value than the enemy's countrymens' lives"

            Why?
            • by gurps_npc (621217)
              If you are a member of the armed forces or of the government, the reason is "I took an oath to protect my countryman". Also your job is to protect your countryman, even if you did not take the oath.

              If you are a citizen than that statement is not neccesarilly true.

        • by vertinox (846076)
          And I think a lot of societies today agree with this or should come around to realizing that you can't let people murder each other. Justice & the truth are the only answers.

          The problem is that justice and truth is relative to the observer. If you were a well standing German in 1942 you would believe the war that you were involved in was the right thing to do. If you were a crusader in Jerusalem killing every single person alive in the city in 1098 AD, you felt that was the right thing to do. If you own
        • Governments can put a price on human life. For example, the average American will create about $1M in his lifetime. A third of that will go to the government in the form of taxes. So the price of a life (from a government perspective) is $333k.

          Also, it is trivially easy to put a relative price on a human life. The geneticist who is developing technology to increase world food production by 20% is worth many times what the poor farmer who can barely feed his family is worth (to humanity as a whole).

          If you qu
        • just to nitpick, bullets cost less than 20cents each in bulk
      • Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed....

        ...
        Re:

        It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.

        ...

        Remember the Ten

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Planesdragon (210349)
      I don't understand why the summary uses the phrase "destroy targets." Honestly, I was thinking that a while ago, the United States should be prioritizing weapons that disable humans through means other than chemical or lethal implementations.

      The goal in combat is to get the other side to stop fighting. Most of the time, the only sure way to get that result once the shooting starts it to kill them. If there were a way to stop someone from trying to kill you as quickly and effectively as shooting them in th
      • ...killing someone in war doesn't do half the damage that, say, starting a war based on lies in the first place does.

        The former is the result of the latter, so the comparison is a bit odd.

        At any rate, reducing the bodycount of a war seems to be a lot easier to accomplish than stopping politicians from lying.

        Shooting bullets is cheap, but it appears many armies aren't really concerned about cost. Deploying robots that subdue people without harming them seems not that far-fetched...

    • by sumdumass (711423)
      The highly touted and possibly commoonly misinterpreted Geneva treaty forbid a country from using weapon designed to mame or injure a person instead of killing them. The idea is human rights and one side or the other purposly disfiguring the enemy. Lasors and such were outlawed for personel weapons because of the suffering a person would go through before eventualy being burnt to death.

      But you right, Incompacitating a military person is more effective then killing them. It take on the order of three people
    • by Steeltoe (98226)
      Why not learn more from native people, and from people from the Far East. Spirituality is clearly the way to go, educate people and the best thing we can all start right now with the Art of Living. If not for others, it will save your own peace of mind & give joy and please & babes!!:
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rossz (67331)
        You can learn all you want about people, but there will ALWAYS be people who will want to kill you or enslave you not matter what. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, would learning more about Nazi Germany have prevented WW2? Not a chance of that. How about today's problems with islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We've learned what they want, to convert the entire world to their religion, by the sword if necessary, and kill anyone who refuses to convert. Our world (meaning the Western World) offends
      • by Cybrex (156654)
        Why not learn more from native people

        Native people? Aren't we all native to somewhere? I currently live in the same country in which I was born, but I don't feel that gives me any particular insight into how folks should live their lives.

        and from people from the Far East.

        Sir, are you implying that the people in the "Far East" are pacifists who do not engage in war? If so, I strongly suggest that you put down the Yellow Bamboo videos and learn some history. Southeast Asia has some of the richest and most fas
    • by Mike1024 (184871)
      I understand this is Singapore issuing the challenge, but I would like to see robots (in any format) capable of navigating buildings and hogtying humans without injuring them.

      A problem with many nonlethal weapons is abuse [youtube.com].

      Also if a disabling robot malfunctions and kills someone, that would be a much bigger problem than if a killing robot malfunctioned and didn't kill people - hence, it's a more difficult technical problem.
    • .... you have to leave enough to run the Casino on the reservation!
  • by Tauo (1052708)
    The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares. So what is the next step? trying to kill civilians and others off, using this robot technology. Singapore is starting a race for the next level of warfare. First nuclear was created, now robots.
    • by sumdumass (711423)
      Star trek had some episode about this. They went fomr robots to computer program that strtigicly depicted the death rate then people would report acordingly to be executed.

      And i agree, I the goal is war, then there needs to be human element to decide when they have had enough. If the goal is to outspend the other side then other tactics could be more sucessfull.
    • However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares.
      On the contrary. These robots will need to be designed, built, programmed, and repaired. This war will breathe new life into the IT industry.

      Isn't that one of the laws of acquisition? "War is good for business"?
      • by cliffski (65094)
        They are rules, not laws, and the next rule is (as you may know) "peace is good for business".

        On a serious note, I'm unhappy with anything that allows for warfare to be any further removed from the human protagonist. If we could have stealth bombers flying by wire, is it really such a good thing? There is an argument that says, that if you are not willing to risk your own citizens to fight a war, is that war really justified? The first person to suggest that to me was a serving UK soldier.
        If the US could im
    • by Darthmalt (775250)
      When/if soldiers are replaced by robots then the primary target will increasingly shift towards the enemies economy. Attempting to destroy their ability to make war by destroying the manufacturing and economic base. Rather than just by targeting soldiers and other military targets.
    • by RuBLed (995686)
      I agree, war is about people.

      Would we stop fighting after the robots are gone?

      If the answer is Yes, I would like to propose that a Counter-Strike or Battlefield Tournament be held instead.

      Seriously, I believe that these kinds of robots are much more suited in police work like capturing individuals or such...
    • by rucs_hack (784150)
      Bomber Harris thought much along the same lines, which is why he started his city bombing campaign to kill civilians and infrastructure (but mainly civilians, lets be honest here). After all, why kill the army when you can wreck the very thing they're fighting for?

      Vicous and terrible though it was, it did have the required effect, which was to terrorise to the point that people wished the war was over. There was not one jot of resistance to the allies once the war was declared finished. Would that have been
    • by shrykk (747039)
      The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers).

      Yes, if you're engaging in total war. These are a bit thin on the ground nowadays - a few still occur between non-nuclear states.

      Modern warfare tends to take place with a group of nations (e.g. NATO, the EU, or a 'coalition of the willing') committing some fraction of their total force against a state (e.g. Afghanistan) or a
    • by mollymoo (202721)

      The problem I see with this, is that there is no point in fighting a war with robots, because the point of a war is to weaken your enemy, by killing off their people (soldiers). However, with robots, all that will be destroyed is robots and resources. No one cares.

      No one cares? Over here, the memories of the hardships the whole of the UK went through in WWII haven't faded away quite yet. They weren't unique to the UK of course, many applied to other countries too. I'm not talking about the hardships of

  • Too much too soon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:04AM (#17747946)
    Let's just start with a robot which can move in & out of buildings and *identify* targets.
  • get the robotic voices to authenically scream sonic boom, its all good.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The robots were kung fu fighting - WHOA
    Those cats were fast as lightning - HA
    At first it was a little bit frightning

    *insert asian music*

  • by Mantrid42 (972953) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:11AM (#17747994)
    Hmmm... yes... autonomous soldier robots... worked out well for the 12 Colonies of Man, didn't it?
  • slavery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wall0159 (881759) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:14AM (#17748008)

    Robots probably won't destroy humankind, but they could allow us to be enslaved by other humans.

    At the moment, for someone to be in a position of power, they need to convince other people of their merit (regardless of whether they're a despot, or an elected official).

    Robots like these could allow wealthy people to subjugate others - private-army style.

    It would also absolve the high-level commander for any atrocities as they could attribute it to "machine malfunction" - oh how I look forward to that new euphemism.
    • by jpardey (569633)
      Actually, there is already a term for that kind of thing. Criminal negligence. It doesn't take much to influence people, ever heard of the Milgram Experiment? Or, for that matter, the Stanford prison experiment? It does, however, take a lot of work to get a factory of people together to build robots, and to supply the raw materials. I don't think robots are necessary.
  • well.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheBeardIsRed (695409) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:17AM (#17748020)
    I can't lie. The inner 14-year-old suburban white male in me thinks this kindof rules.
  • That's nothing - here are the real Robots of Mass Destruction: Robot Dance Competition http://web.gc.cuny.edu/sciart/ [cuny.edu].
  • by chefmonkey (140671) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:26AM (#17748080)
    Oh, heck. I have karma to burn.

    than '[th]&n, '[th]an (conjunction) 1 a -- used as a function word to indicate the second member or the member taken as the point of departure in a comparison expressive of inequality; used with comparative adjectives and comparative adverbs

    then '[th]en (adverb) 2 a : soon after that : next in order of time b : following next after in order of position, narration, or enumeration : being next in a series c : in addition : BESIDES
    • by krahd (106540)
      You know, some time ago, after years of being pretty proficient in the English language, I had to actually look up if I was wrong and "then" and "than" could be interchanged freely.

      And then I learned to not trust slashdot comments no more :D
  • by dkhoo (618628) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:39AM (#17748170)
    I am an employee of DSTA, but I do not speak in my capacity as one.

    The purpose of such contests is typically not to field an operational capability. It is very unlikely that the winning robot or a variant will actually be deployed. The main purpose is to encourage industry and academia to perform research in certain fields, such as machine vision, control systems, AI, etc. This is a long term investment. The secondary purpose is to gauge the state of the art in these fields while advancing it. This is the short term gain.

    The contest is modelled after the DARPA Grand Challenge, which concentrates on outdoor navigation. Similarly, you will not see autonomous combat vehicles anytime soon. However, DARPA has certainly focussed interest and effort toward all the fundamental research questions needed to achieve such a feat. DARPA also now has a good idea of what is possible when planning acquisitions and upgrades, and is able to better assess the technical risk of new developments. If the US Army asked for an autonomous UGV tomorrow, DARPA would be able to give a good estimate of how much it would cost, how long it would take, and what is realistically achievable (then the politicians will come in and screw things up).

    Such contests are an admission that the state of the art is no longer in the military or intelligence communities, but in the acadamic and industrial spheres. AES was developed outside the NSA, for example. More and more equipment is COTS or MOTS (commercial / militarized off-the-shelf). The days when you could get a national laboratory (Singapore has one too) to singlehandedly advance the state of the art are long over. Nowadays inhouse research tends to be focussed on either security-sensitive fields, or areas no one else simply wants to touch. This trend will only accelerate in the future.
  • by SP33doh (930735) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:51AM (#17748230)
    I liked the title... but there was surprisingly low levels of actual street fighting robot content.

    what a disappointment.

    i mean, I would have even settled for robots playing street fighter.
    or people street fighting over robots...

    or something...
  • by sankyuu (847178) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @01:53AM (#17748246) Journal
    1. Replicant - burns candles at both ends
    2. iRobot -trendy, comes in black and white
    3. Hunter-seeker - finders weepers
    4. Terminator - capable of winning state elections
    5. Matrix agent - software
    6. Matrix squid - hardware
    7. Suicide booth - manufactured by Bender
    8. Robots are our friends - powered by old peoples' medicines
    9. Martian Reprisal Interplanetary probe - that was for our babies!
    10. Transformers - nasty power supplies
    11. Cowbot Neal - no nuclear warheads. less lethal than iRobot. Lame.
  • I totally misread that title as Street Fighting Robot Chicken. Imagine my disappointment upon opening it.
  • by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @02:54AM (#17748548)
    1st RULE: Terminal will not transmit data about ROBOT FIGHT CLUB.

    2nd RULE: Terminal WILL NOT transmit data about ROBOT FIGHT CLUB.

    3rd RULE: If command "HALT" executed, or terminal fails to respond, or gives hardware error code the fight process will be killed.

    4th RULE: Only two robots to a fight.

    5th RULE: One fight per session.

    6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.

    7th RULE: Fights will go on as long as required to complete the operation.

    8th RULE: If this is terminal's first session at FIGHT CLUB, the terminal MUST fight.

  • Time to arm Honda's Asimo with a rocket launcher.

    I can see it now: Asimo comes out on stage at CES and bleeps angrily "It's 5 o'clock! Time for your medicine!", before pulling out an AK47 and going wild.
  • Pattern recognition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Myrcutio (1006333) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @03:50AM (#17748816)
    AI today, and probably for a while still, is notoriously bad at pattern recognition. If a program can't predict how a human opponent will behave, it won't win in combat. There alot of 'what if' scenario's that the robot controller needs to account for, or end up being easy prey to an unorthodox opponent. Something urban warfare is notorious for. Til the AI get's intuitive, watching battle bots is as close as we're going to get to something like this.
    • Actually it's even worse than that; if there are humans on the robots' side mixed in with the fighting -- and there almost certainly will be -- then bad pattern recognition means lots and lots of "friendly fire" deaths. Distinguishing friend from foe in the split second it takes to make a firing decision is hard enough for the human brain.
  • Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of spinning, charging wheels, robo
    'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting in the street, robo
    Well then what can a poor robo do
    Except to aibo-dance for a rock 'n' roll band
    'Cause in sleepy Singapore town
    There's just no place for a street fighting robo
    No!

    Hey! Think the time is right for a city-state revolution
    'Cauce where I live the game to play is mechanized solution
    Well then what can a poor robo do
    Except to aibo-dance for a rock 'n' roll band
    'Cause in sleepy Singa
  • They must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.

    Chris Mattern
  • Something seems strange. The first paragraph of the article is the only one that mentions that the robot must "search and destroy targets". Everything afterwards deals with movement, navigation, and "accomplishing a set of assigned tasks." I have a feeling that spraying the target with bullets is not really one of the assigned tasks.
  • "There's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by the event sponsored by Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency.

    What total nonsense. In terms of threats, bio, nuclear and chem, in that order, outweigh any robotic threat by a great deal (discounting Turing machines, which are a far different class than that discussed here).

    In fact, I'd put it as "there's no better way to assure the eventual destruction of mankind than by continuing to develop lethal technologies with

    • by JMZero (449047)
      What total nonsense. In terms of threats, bio, nuclear and chem, in that order, outweigh any robotic threat by a great deal (discounting Turing machines, which are a far different class than that discussed here).


      Yes, a Turing machine adapted for war would be pretty scary. Imagine the symbols it could leave on a man! Imagine the countryside devastated by layers of its infinitely long tape!

      Only Schrodinger's cat is powerful enough to stop it!
      • by Glock27 (446276)
        Yes, a Turing machine adapted for war would be pretty scary. Imagine the symbols it could leave on a man! Imagine the countryside devastated by layers of its infinitely long tape!

        Only Schrodinger's cat is powerful enough to stop it!

        LOL!

        Sorry, in my haste to post and move on I apparently confused Von Neumann with Turing. Apologies.

  • (lameness filter is lame)

    YOU HAVE FIFTEEN SECONDS TO COMPLY.

    'nuff said.

    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  • I need to start hacking the software and changing its orientation (slightly).

    Reminds me of Tom Arnold's line in the movie "Cradle 2 the Grave" about his Abrams tank: "It's good for getting around the bad areas of town, keeps the neighborhood kids in line."

  • If you see an ad requesting beta testers just say no!
  • They regected my "flaming homosexual combat robot". They said it would have a bad effect on the moral of the other robots in the showers.
  • It looks like whippings for vandalism and outlawing chewing gum have lead to their natural outcome, robotic killers. Singapore, always looking for ways to make a better society...and kill them!

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...