Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics United States Technology

New Robots Hunt Pirates by Sea 207

Posted by samzenpus
from the long-john-silicon dept.
mattnyc99 writes "PopularMechanics.com takes a peek into the growing world of high-tech piracy on the open seas, which the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard are looking to cut off by investing in a new fleet of superfast, gun-mounted unmanned surface vessels (USVs). From the article: "The Interceptor is available now. But the USV market is just getting started: Two months ago, British defense firm Qinetiq debuted its own robotic vessel, the jetski-size Sentry. Among its potential duties is intruder investigation, which could include scouting out unidentified boats, along the lines of the raft that detonated alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, as well as offering a first look at a possible pirate-controlled vessel.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Robots Hunt Pirates by Sea

Comments Filter:
  • Not piracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by loshwomp (468955) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @08:46PM (#21191129)
    Remember, it's not piracy, it's "unauthorized copying". Oh, wait...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by biocute (936687)
      I think it still holds true: It's not piracy, it's unauthorized crimes.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's only a matter of time. They crank 1000 of these onto the ocean, the hackers go "oh, hey, wait a minute!" and bam, they've got 1000 gun mounted boats at their disposal, patched of course, so the same trick can't work twice.

      This shit is getting fucking unreal.
      • by glittalogik (837604) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:45PM (#21191643)
        It's time. The days of zombie PCs are numbered. The future is...

        Zombie robot pirates!

        Do you realise just how much more awesome the world is about to become?
      • You know you could have so much fun with one of them and a joystick.

        Heck grab two and verse a friend. ;)
      • by Instine (963303) on Thursday November 01, 2007 @05:29AM (#21194125)
        Its allright. I'm sure they'll listen to Reason.
      • It's only a matter of time. They crank 1000 of these onto the ocean, the hackers go "oh, hey, wait a minute!" and bam, they've got 1000 gun mounted boats at their disposal, patched of course, so the same trick can't work twice.

        Then all you need for global terrorism is some hackers together tha facilities to refuel and rearm these boats.You don't even need to control a thousand of them, about 20 ambusing a passenger ship will get you global coverage.
      • If it has a weapon you can bet the link is encrypted with attempts at redundant receivers. Even if some hacker got really, really, lucky with first hand knowledge from insider help, it's very unlikely more than one or two could ever be "hacked". Heck, even their own operators can't hijack another vehicle which hasn't been previously configured on their console. And "patching the system" with new code....pffff... And by hacked, I mean remotely operated. And even this depiction is so far out there, it's
      • Some of the robots will/may be equipped with various types of sensors: low-light, acoustical, shape-recognition, infrared, etc. For any pirates backed by corrupt local governments (or, distant ones with much to lose if piracy is crimped), it'll be inevitable and logical that "seduction mines" (influence/proximity/remote-detonation) will disrupt operations. Either some of these jet-ski-like sentries will be blown up, or they'll be diverted/distracted since the operators won't want to needlessly lose them. Su
    • by camperslo (704715)
      I guess now the pirates can learn how to steal Robot Hunting Vessels and reprogram them to be Robotic Pirate Vessels?

      Maybe someday we'll have war where all the silly humans can just stay home and watch it on television.
  • by Guido del Confuso (80037) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @08:47PM (#21191131)
    All hail our robotic sea ninja overlords!
    • The fools didn't put no fricken lasers on their heads, how can you kill the pirates if your sharks don't have no fricken lasers on their heads?
    • by IgLou (732042)
      I call shenanigans! No one said that the robots were in fact ninjas. Just because most pirates fight with ninjas doesn't mean pirates only fight ninjas. Correlation != causation!!

      They could be robots sent by the MPAA or RIAA...
  • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) * on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @08:53PM (#21191189) Journal
    Arrr, to be sure, this be underwritten by His Noodley Spaghettiness himself. Robots. Pirates. All hail the touch of His Noodly Jetski!

    Ooh arrr, what be a Jetski anyway? Russian Hanna-Barbera futurist?

  • Keep it a Secret (Score:3, Insightful)

    by failedlogic (627314) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @08:56PM (#21191227)
    I don't understand the rationale behind this. If these boats are going to patrol the waters for enemy boats, terrorists, or protect troops and the other side hasn't thought of, designed or implemented this idea, why let it out? Don't let the information get out and keep it secret. I understand there could be ulterior motives here, or a company hungry for a large contract. But military spending budgets have lots of room for secret spending.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by weak* (1137369)

      ...why let it out?
      The enemy's perception of threat is almost as useful as a genuine threat. They'll never deploy enough of these things to be 100% effective, so scaring them away is a good strategy.
    • Re:Keep it a Secret (Score:5, Informative)

      by bombastinator (812664) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:14PM (#21191399)
      because the main point of a deterrent is to be a deterrent. For example, while cops do have unmarked cars the vast majority are pretty gaudily painted. Police uniforms are designed to make them look larger and more imposing. The idea, at least in most cases, is not to get someone to commit the crime so you can catch him, but to deter them from attempting it in the first place.

    • by mikael (484)
      There is another purpose. The article mentions that one of the tactics used by the pirates is to send out a fake distress call. Then whatever vessel approaches the pirates then becomes hijacked and ransomed for money. If a AUV ship is sent out, it can pick up survivors (if it is a genuine distress call) or shoot the **** out of the pirates.
      • If a AUV ship is sent out, it can pick up survivors (if it is a genuine distress call) or shoot the **** out of the pirates.

        Or
        It could just shoot the **** out of the survivors. Robots are a good solution for some tasks. However, none of those tasks involve firearms.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mikael (484)
          I read the story about the Killer Robot Cannon [wired.com]. Not sure if the picture is the system is question or if it's a frame from Starship Troopers".
        • by rts008 (812749)
          Or, it could be hacked, cracked, and pWned by the pirates. (yes, I understand that we are FINALLY talking about real pirates!)

          While we're at it, we should back these bots up with some kind of amphibious mines based on Rhoombas-with frikkin' lasers.
        • Robots are a good solution for some tasks. However, none of those tasks involve firearms.

          If you'd ever been in a gunfight you might have a different opinion about putting your own wetware on the receiving end of "tasks involving firearms".
      • by mpe (36238)
        The article mentions that one of the tactics used by the pirates is to send out a fake distress call. Then whatever vessel approaches the pirates then becomes hijacked and ransomed for money. If a AUV ship is sent out, it can pick up survivors (if it is a genuine distress call) or shoot the **** out of the pirates.

        Not only do you have the posibility to such a device machinegunning survivors you also have the problem of how to stop pirates hijacking it...
    • by arivanov (12034)

      Well the rationale is all over the place.

      There are more Freudian slips in the article per line than in anything I have ever seen.

      The bigger boat marketing name is "Protector", right? Well in the title of the article it is called " Predator " and on the second page " Interceptor ". That is where the laugh begins, but it does not stop there. On the second page you get "The 55-mpg Interceptor could become the long-range patrol boat of the future, while the jetski-size Sentry (inset) could help a terrorist

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mpe (36238)
        This is about right. If you can have an automated boat loaded with explosives why risk a suicide run.

        Only if the robot boat is cheaper than a regular boat and a fool.
  • "high-tech piracy on the open seas"?
    Good lord, waterproof robot pirates? We're DOOMED!
  • Snowcrash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:03PM (#21191305) Homepage Journal
    First it's unmanned sea vessels, then it's nuclear powered cyborg dogs who dream of flying steaks.

    Or, if you prefer reality to science fiction: Robert Work, a retired Marine officer and analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said piracy is a "persistent threat" that the Navy has worked to address in recent years. [...] "Essentially, you don't want to use a billion dollar DDG [guided missile destroyer] to suppress pirates [military.com],"
    • by Ironsides (739422)
      Geez, at least give the full quote for context.

      "Essentially, you don't want to use a billion dollar DDG [guided missile destroyer] to suppress pirates," Work said. "That's a mission for a much smaller ship. But we have a lot of ships in that area because of ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa. These are ships designed for high-end war fighting, not chasing pirates."
      Using a DDG for this is like using a pile drive to crush a beer can.
      • by Gilmoure (18428)
        ...using a pile drive to crush a beer can.

        That would be so cool!

        Can it do a full can of peaches, next?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:10PM (#21191361)
    "We are the Dread Pirate Robots. There will be no survivors."

    If only we had a remotely-operated wheelbarrow... That would be something!
  • Robots, with lasers, mounted on sharks, fighting pirates, with the help of ninjas.
  • by shineyboy (840750) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:12PM (#21191379) Homepage
    Who hunts down pirates on the high seas?
    ROBOT GUNBOATS!
    Dangerous and deadly and fatal they be!
    ROBOT GUNBOATS!
    If nautical mercy is something you wish,
    ROBOT GUNBOATS!
    Then put up your hands or sleep with the fish!
    ROBOT GUNBOATS!
  • by Cthefuture (665326) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:13PM (#21191397)
    I noticed they were talking some about possibly making them autonomous. That just seems like a really bad idea. What you would have is a weapon system disconnected from command. The enemy could set up a trap for these machines, capture them and then have some high-tech stuff at their disposal. Unlike a UAV, it seems like it would be pretty easy to catch one of these surface machines using any number of methods even if they normally can protect themselves with weapon systems. If they can't protect themselves then it would be even easier to capture them.
    • by caitsith01 (606117) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:25PM (#21191507) Journal
      ...it's fundamentally unethical, illegal and immoral (depending on your particular morality, I suppose) to allow an autonomous machine to roam free with the capability (and intent) to kill human beings.

      For one thing, we read here every day about the endless ways in which software farks up.

      Furthermore, I find the whole notion of armed robots cruising around freely in any kind of environment - war zone or not - extremely disturbing. How do we ensure they only kill what we want them to kill? Who is accountable when they do kill things? Does the extra layer of separation between commanding officer and 'target' make it more likely that decision makers will authorise killing?

      These toys are very neat from a tech perspective, but they create a perception that killing human beings is like a video game of some description.
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:55PM (#21192139)

        For one thing, we read here every day about the endless ways in which software farks up
        Yes, like this recent case: Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14. [wired.com]
      • by steveoc (2661)
        "...it's fundamentally unethical, illegal and immoral (depending on your particular morality, I suppose) to allow an autonomous machine to roam free with the capability (and intent) to kill human beings.

        From the article, I gathered that they are only programmed to kill Pirates, or Human Beings who are breaking THE LAW.

        So there is nothing to worry about at all. Nothing can possibly go wrong.

      • by mpe (36238)
        Furthermore, I find the whole notion of armed robots cruising around freely in any kind of environment - war zone or not - extremely disturbing. How do we ensure they only kill what we want them to kill? Who is accountable when they do kill things? Does the extra layer of separation between commanding officer and 'target' make it more likely that decision makers will authorise killing?

        There's also an issue of how easy it is to tell these apart from other boats (UAVs at least don't look too much like regul
      • by Eivind (15695)
        It's hard to draw the line though.

        Lots of anti-aircraft missiles, for example, are completely independent after being set loose. And perfectly capable of independently finding, engaging and destroying the target, indeed that's their sole reason for existing.

        You against those too ? If not, for how many seconds/minutes is a armed vehicle allowed to go independently hunting for humans ?
    • The automated gunship may also freak out and kill some innocent fishermen.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by kasin (44122)
      RTFA?

      "While the Interceptor could be fitted with a water cannon or other non-lethal offensive system, its primary mission is to serve as a sentry. "
    • by timeOday (582209)

      The enemy could set up a trap for these machines, capture them and then have some high-tech stuff at their disposal.

      It's just a boat with a machine gun. There's not a fighting force on earth that couldn't already field a boat with a machine gun. The robotic aspect is just a labor-saver to cut costs. It doesn't add capability, in fact it's almost certainly less capable in most respects than a boat with a few armed guys onboard. The infrastructure and maintenance required for these kinds of toys only ma

      • by praksys (246544)
        ...and high political costs for casualties.

        This is really why it makes sense. You can send the ro-boat to investigate without having to worry about whether it gets blown up or shot up when it runs into trouble. Of course, until they make a robot boarding party its use is still going to be limited.
      • by mpe (36238)
        It's just a boat with a machine gun. There's not a fighting force on earth that couldn't already field a boat with a machine gun. The robotic aspect is just a labor-saver to cut costs. It doesn't add capability, in fact it's almost certainly less capable in most respects than a boat with a few armed guys onboard.

        The only possible advantage is that it may have more range and more endurance than a manned boat. Since the weight saved by not having a crew can be used for ammunition and fuel. Though one of it'
    • by KKlaus (1012919)
      Near-autonomous boats ARE a good idea though, in another example of very useful tech having to trickle down first from the military. There's really no compelling reason for shipping boats to be manned (and in fact a lot of compelling reasons not), other than the fact robots can't steer well enough yet. So I, for one, welcome our new seafaring robotic overlords.
      • by mpe (36238)
        Near-autonomous boats ARE a good idea though, in another example of very useful tech having to trickle down first from the military. There's really no compelling reason for shipping boats to be manned (and in fact a lot of compelling reasons not), other than the fact robots can't steer well enough yet.

        Robot ships also wouldn't be much good against being boarded/hacked by pirates.
      • There's really no compelling reason for shipping boats to be manned (and in fact a lot of compelling reasons not), other than the fact robots can't steer well enough yet.

        Automated systems can operate complex equipment in controllable (i.e. measurable) situations beautifully - the problem is there's no one to blame, a'la the Captain of the Valdez, when something, inevitably, goes wrong.
    • by mpe (36238)
      I noticed they were talking some about possibly making them autonomous. That just seems like a really bad idea. What you would have is a weapon system disconnected from command. The enemy could set up a trap for these machines, capture them and then have some high-tech stuff at their disposal.

      If they were just after the guns and the ammunition then they are probably not too concerned about "non destructive capture" techniques.

      Unlike a UAV, it seems like it would be pretty easy to catch one of these surf
  • I feel safer already (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yotto (590067) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:16PM (#21191413) Homepage
    What could possibly go wrong? I mean, I'd love my cruise ship to get checked out by the naval equivalent of ED-209.

    "YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO COMPLY"
  • by Anonymous Coward
    int C = 1

    if ( by land ) {
        return C;
    }
    else
        return ++C;
    }

  • by ls -la (937805) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:18PM (#21191433) Journal
    ... my first thought is, "The RIAA is going too far this time."
  • by bombastinator (812664) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:30PM (#21191543)
    Hmm... a jet ski sized robot attempting to observe and engage in the open ocean.. I wonder if any of these guys have actually been in the open ocean?

    The sea is big people. The waves are big, the wind is big and the ships are big. A really small boat just barely big enough to manage to stay afloat semi-reliably in open ocean is generally 30 feet long or more. They do make them shorter, but generally only as a stunt. What is a four foot tall vehicle going to do against a vessel with steel and concrete sides that reach probably at least 10-15 feet up? These things are going to present about as much threat to the average ocean going vessel as a chihuahua attempting to pee on one's foot.

    We also mentioned the sea is big. Average swell depending on area can be 8 feet on a calm day. this means a jet ski about 4 feet high is going to either spend 75% of its time inside the trough of a swell unable to see squat, or skipping along the swell tops in a way that is going to strongly resemble video froma a surfboard cam. Very splashy but not too useful.

    As a harbor or shore defense weapon I can see these being possibly quite useful against similarly sized vessels like dinghies and maybe cigarette boats, but anything offshore is unrealistic.
    • by batkiwi (137781)
      Did you read the article?

      "And both the Navy and the Coast Guard have expressed interest in the Protector, a 30-ft.-long USV built by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Israeli defense firm RAFAEL. "

      That is the trawler.

      "This past summer, Florida-based Marine Robotic Vessels International (MRVI) unveiled a USV that emphasizes reconnaissance over firepower. The 21-ft.-long Interceptor can travel at up to 55 mph, and is designed to be piloted both remotely and autonomously. "

      A smaller stealth based model

      Where hav
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by linzeal (197905)
        They will make them when the average American hits 1000 lbs. I presume this will happen somewhere in Michigan. There will be a cup holder and a sausage dispenser.
      • by mpe (36238)
        "This past summer, Florida-based Marine Robotic Vessels International (MRVI) unveiled a USV that emphasizes reconnaissance over firepower. The 21-ft.-long Interceptor can travel at up to 55 mph, and is designed to be piloted both remotely and autonomously. "

        Who measures the speed of boats in mph?
    • by Radon360 (951529) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:32PM (#21192371)

      Well, for engagement, I'd certainly agree with your point, but for surveillance, I'd think the platform would have a number of advantages.

      The first one is stealth, if it's capable of hiding in between the seas, then you'll have a heck of a time picking it up on ship radar. Even if it is seen, it'll blend in fairly well with the sea clutter on the display. Helicopters and airplanes stick out like a sore thumb, both visually and on radar.

      The second is speed. Although they'd take a significant hit in higher seas, they can potentially put up with more banging and bouncing around than a human crew could ever take. And, with the unit being virtually encapsulated, seaworthiness is no longer an issue (the water it would take would be minimal).

      And as far as surveillance goes, couldn't a simple telescoping arm with a camera equipped with gyro-stabilized optics be employed? You couldn't use it effectively underway, but a slow/stop speed it would give you a decent vantage. I regularly use a 14x power set of gyro-stabilized binoculars and I can read boat registration numbers (3" high block letters) fairly easily from over a half-mile away in 5 foot sea conditions.

      Let's face it, Popular Mechanics likes to write fluff, and whatever they can do to make something sound more cool, sexy and manly is their primary M.O. Step back, look at the actual facts (in which there are few in this case) and not the claims of the marketing group, nor the speculation and opinions of the writers and the real potential uses start to become visible.

    • Hmm... a jet ski sized robot attempting to observe and engage in the open ocean.. I wonder if any of these guys have actually been in the open ocean?

      The sea is big people. The waves are big, the wind is big and the ships are big. A really small boat just barely big enough to manage to stay afloat semi-reliably in open ocean is generally 30 feet long or more. They do make them shorter, but generally only as a stunt. What is a four foot tall vehicle going to do against a vessel with steel and concrete sides that reach probably at least 10-15 feet up? These things are going to present about as much threat to the average ocean going vessel as a chihuahua attempting to pee on one's foot.

      We also mentioned the sea is big. Average swell depending on area can be 8 feet on a calm day. this means a jet ski about 4 feet high is going to either spend 75% of its time inside the trough of a swell unable to see squat, or skipping along the swell tops in a way that is going to strongly resemble video froma a surfboard cam. Very splashy but not too useful.

      As a harbor or shore defense weapon I can see these being possibly quite useful against similarly sized vessels like dinghies and maybe cigarette boats, but anything offshore is unrealistic.

      http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/greenpeace-zodiac-manoeuvres-i [greenpeace.org]

      • Zodiacs are kind of a special case. They qualify in the "skipping over the water category. A zodiac with just a pilot and no gear is so light it is not uncommon to have power to weight ratios as high as 1 to 2 or 3. Two or three horsepower for every pound of boat. A 200 mph "supercar" like high end Ferraris by comparison have power to weight ratios of more 6 to 1. one horsepower for every 6 pounds of car. At high speeds zodiacs don't merely hydroplane they actually create aerodynamic lift and literally
    • I have had friends stationed on Destroyers and they will tell you that in stormy weather it is no fun. Even at lengths approaching six hundred feet the high seas can be a rough place. Its a matter of displacement and the ability to have enough length to not go up and down waves. The longer ships fare much better. I have sailed on a thirty foot sailboat out of Savannah and you can take a pounding when it gets a bit choppy.

      All I can assume is that these machines will designed to ignore the wash. Without
      • by mpe (36238)
        No, these look like interdiction for speedboats and inflatables favored by "terrorist"

        But possibly not too much use against a real MTB.
  • by bigattichouse (527527) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:34PM (#21191573) Homepage
    dah leet pirates wit millions of $$$ will h4xor your unmanned vessels. duh. It will work for a while, and then it will just escalate the stakes. And when you have limitless manual labor, you can afford to send out fishermen that blow up the unmanned vessels. (by holding their family hostage). "Don't mind me, I'm just fishing, see ya later... smile and wave" (boom).
  • by kramulous (977841) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @09:48PM (#21191669)
    OMG! Oh My God! Oh my god, Oh my god, OH MY GOD!!!!!

    If this stuff is not what dreams are made of, then I'll eat my eye patch.
  • Do we have ninja available? Because that would be the battle royale of all time: pirate vs. robot vs. ninja. Just $49.99 on pay-per-view!
  • Why not use this class of fast maned vessel, HMCS Bras d'Or (FHE 400) [wikipedia.org]. They can cruse in ocean waters and due to their speed are able to get on the scene very quickly and no ship can outrun them.
    • by Phrogman (80473)
      Because of course, like pretty much every Canadian military innovation to come along, our Federal Government quashed it and there are no active ships in that line still in existence. The Bras D'Or is a Museum vessel now.

      Still I take your point, a ship that can do 60knots/hr (110kmh) ought to make a pretty decent pirate chasing vessel for sure. Just get someone else to build it because my country seems patently incapable of actually producing the wondrous military innovations we produce. The Avro Arrow, the
  • This is stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deliveranc3 (629997) <deliverance AT level4 DOT org> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:15PM (#21191817) Journal
    How long until these things ARE THE PIRATES!

    "THIS VESSEL IS A SATELITE CONTROLLED DRONE... PROVIDE 64 bank account access codes or it will OPEN FIRE! Your airwaves are being monitored!"

    If this tech spreads into the world of piracy an isolated problem for the super rich may start striking all boaters... My sailing dingy is NOT bulletproof.
    • by mpe (36238)
      "THIS VESSEL IS A SATELITE CONTROLLED DRONE... PROVIDE 64 bank account access codes or it will OPEN FIRE! Your airwaves are being monitored!"

      Most likely a real pirate will interpret this as "...PROVIDE 64 bank account access codes or 6 RPGs..."
  • It's as simple as amending international marittime law to permit ship crews to arm themselves. A .50 cal deck gun should deter most of the baddies, but the Captain and crew should have sidearms and shotguns for close-in work if necessary.
    • Modern day piracy... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:51PM (#21192101) Journal
      Most piracy today, typically has help of an inside man.

      Typically it will be at night, in the straights south of Singapore. 4-5 guys suddenly appear with big machetes, and they know where to be because the inside guy told them when and where. Oh, yeah, the traitors are on watch at the time...

      Cell phones and text messages work for good and ill.

      I am an gung-ho as the next guy, but If I am one seaman in a crew of 12 on a small freighter and I don't know which of my mates are "in on it", shooting it out with the pirates in front and the traitors at my back is not worth it. Take the stuff, it is not mine anyhow.

      Seriously, if you want to stop piracy, shipping companies need to do better background checks on their employees.

      • To prevent most piracy all you have to do is to not pay the crew third world wages. Pay real wages and you will save money in the long run.
  • Among its potential duties is intruder investigation, which could include scouting out unidentified boats,

    So what can a small scout vessel report back that a surveillance satellite couldn't?

    OK, maybe the name painted on the side of the ship. But that's about it, isn't it, and that's not necessarily the most important detail? It can't carry any decent weaponry - a 7.62 cannon wouldn't be much use against a ship and I doubt a small vessel is a stable enough platform to snipe the crew.

  • ...for as we all know, less pirates means more global warming.

    http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif [venganza.org]
  • "This plaque is to commemorate the brave pirates who gave their lives to keep this box safe from the Robot Menace. Lest we forget them..."
  • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Thursday November 01, 2007 @10:06AM (#21196045) Journal
    I'm still waiting for the flying cars Popular Mechanics promised me in 1950, and 1951, and 1952...

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Working...