Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics United States

U.S. Will Use Robots to Patrol Water Supply 218

Posted by michael from the drink-me dept.
bl8n8r writes "By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply. Realtime environmental details will be used to help safeguard the nations drinking water. The robots would take on the painstaking, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous, task of collecting water samples which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Will Use Robots to Patrol Water Supply More

U.S. Will Use Robots to Patrol Water Supply

Comments Filter:

  • Can robots pee? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:12PM (#9154244)
    Let's certainly hope not.

  • Obligatory Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)

    by tcopeland ( 32225 ) * <tom.thomasleecopeland@com> on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:12PM (#9154249) Homepage

    And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
    Thanks SNPP [snpp.com]!
    • "Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving" -Professor Frink

  • Not quite... (Score:5, Informative)

    by KevinKnSC ( 744603 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:12PM (#9154253)
    By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply.

    The article only mentions a project to monitor the Seneca River, some connected lakes, and an existing system that monitors part of the water supply for New York City. That's not quite "the nation's fresh water supply," although it is certainly a promising technology.

    • The thing is that people from New York City think that NYC==USA. So while you are right by their terms it is "the nation's fresh water supply". :)
    • The first Paragraph of the article:

      OTISCO LAKE, New York (AP) -- A network of underwater robots beaming up a near real-time environmental profile of lakes, rivers and reservoirs could soon be on the prowl helping safeguard the nation's drinking water from sabotage.

      It's the submitter that said it, in any case.

  • Why use robots? (Score:5, Funny)

    by EulerX07 ( 314098 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:12PM (#9154262)
    Wouldn't it be easier to just use sharks mounted with lasers on their friggin' heads?

  • Power? (Score:3, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:13PM (#9154263) Journal
    Are these robots going to be powered by fish flatulence [slashdot.org], by chance?

  • ...and sometimes dangerous... (Score:5, Funny)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:13PM (#9154264) Journal
    Oh please, will someone please think of the robots!

    Wait till they unionize, we're fucked.

  • Bender (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:13PM (#9154266)
    Are robots any more trustworthy than humans, and less likely to pee in the water just to get back at their fleshy masters?

    • Re:Bender (Score:3, Informative)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      You've been modded as funny, but you raise an interesting point.

      In general, people are more distrustful of a computer or machine to do a job that a person could be or was doing. A machine would be subjected to _FAR_ more rigorous tests than a person would ever be before it would be entrusted to perform the same task(s) as a person might. Once such trust has been obtained, however, invariably a bunch of "carbon based lifeforms" glumfully head for their nearest unemployment office.

      The cost of progress.

      • Weather stations did this (Score:5, Informative)

        by hpulley ( 587866 ) <hpulley4@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:36PM (#9154652) Homepage

        Recently in Canada a good number of weather stations went from human operated to just a set of instruments and a network connection. It does save money but you occasionally get wonky readings like a "Recent snowshower" in July which a human would never report. Perhaps better programming could be used to ensure that multiple readings are used to filter out extraneous data but there will always be a need for at least a few carbon-based testers to go out there and install them, maintain them and check them when they act up. Similar issues will likely appear with robotic water testing.

      • My computer will do precisely as it's told, barring hardware failure. Whatever instructions I feed it, it will execute faithfully. However, it has no concept of if what it is doing is right or wrong. If my instructions are bad, even just one of them, it can go off and do something totally undesirable. Compare that to a human. If my instructions aren't perfectly clear, or one is wrong, they can usually figure that out and either correct it or ask for clarification.

        Computers are much more reliable than human
    • Eliminates the need for those hunter-killer robots, not to mention terminators and time travel.

      Just poison the water supply, and voila!

  • robots will protect us (Score:3, Funny)

    by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:13PM (#9154275) Homepage Journal
    From the terrible secret of space! [jonathonrobinson.com]^W Water!

  • Robots (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:14PM (#9154290)
    I have this image of a man pulling over to pee in a resevoir, only to have a many tentacled robot emerge from the water to cut off the source of pollution.

    • Hentai (Score:5, Funny)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:18PM (#9154351)
      "I have this image of a man pulling over to pee in a resevoir, only to have a many tentacled robot emerge from the water to cut off the source of pollution"

      You've been watching too much hentai. No more anime for YOU!

  • Contamination (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SCSi ( 17797 ) <corvus AT vadept DOT com> on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:15PM (#9154315) Homepage
    I just hope these robots arent made with anything that can contaminate the water supply if they malfunction/leak/blow up.

  • Wait a Minute (Score:2, Funny)

    by jetkust ( 596906 )
    With all the robots patrolling US waters, who's going to play chess against the humans?
  • Ahh but can these robots protect us from those deadly water striders that make us thirsty? They don't break the surface of the water, you know.

  • I, for one (Score:3, Funny)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:18PM (#9154359) Homepage Journal
    welcome our new underwater robot overlords!

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phanatik ( 696510 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:19PM (#9154380)
    Millions die from water contaminated by rusty robots.

  • No more skinny dipping... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:20PM (#9154400) Journal
    I don't know if it will make the US's lakes and rivers safer but I bet they'll be less skinny dipping.

  • Wouldn't it make more sense... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:20PM (#9154409) Homepage
    ...to actually implement and enforce some decent environmental standards? AFAIK, the past four years has been a tremendous step backwards regarding water quality regulations.

    In other words, patrolling the rivers isn't going to do a goddamn bit of good when whatever minimal laws don't even have any teeth.
  • cripes - does no one see anything creepy about this. I'd be worried about sitting on the toilet, you might get a nasty (painful) surprise.
    • I'd be worried about sitting on the toilet, you might get a nasty (painful) surprise

      Meanwhile, one robot would report back that it had found a hot spot of water-borne pollutants...

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by JeanBaptiste ( 537955 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:27PM (#9154509)
    National Security brought to you by Aibo.

  • I've actually met these robots. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chiasmus_ ( 171285 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:32PM (#9154578) Journal
    I had a conversation with these robots, and they explained to me how they will protect me from water-borne pollutants.

    The first one declared that his function was to push a water sample into a purification chamber. The second one then declared that his function was to shove pollutants out of the water.

    After a brief debate over which function was superior, they agreed that water-borne pollutants have a terrible power. Then they politely asked me to go stand by the stairs. That was weird.
    • They were only trying to protect you from the terrible secret of pollutants.

      Pushing will protect you.
      that is incorrect. Shoving will protect you.
    • The first one declared that his function was to push a water sample into a purification chamber. The second one then declared that his function was to shove pollutants out of the water.

      So will there only be one per water source, or will they spend all day throwing each other out of the water? (I know I know the article said they were for monitoring only)

      Also, for their protection they need to be made to look less fun to take apart (ohhhh big ol' solar panel on top).

  • I want one! (Score:5, Funny)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis@ubasics.PERIODcom minus punct> on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:32PM (#9154580) Homepage Journal
    By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply

    Hah, they have robots in there now.

    I've been slowly leeching arsenic into my pipes trying to lure it to my workshop.

    -Adam

  • Misleading Commentary (Score:5, Informative)

    by hndrcks ( 39873 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:36PM (#9154651) Homepage
    "... task of collecting water samples..."

    We have been using 'robots' [americansigma.com] to collect water samples for many years - I believe the article states that the new breed of robots will directly sense the water quality, with no sampling required. A small but important semantic difference.

  • You're making this sound much more interesting than it is >:)

    I want killer robots running around killing anyone that approaches their precious water, not some weak water sample collecting robots a 3 year old baby can beat!!

  • The cost savings are tremendous (Score:5, Funny)

    by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:40PM (#9154715) Homepage
    The robots would take on the painstaking, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous, task of collecting water samples which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms.
    I think we should all hail this as an amazing achievement. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the cost to train your average water-quality inspector runs in excess of $40,000. When you consider that your average water inspector might taste no more than 4-5 samples before falling over dead from intestinal parasites, terrorism-related poisoning or environmental toxins, that's a heavy price tag. Don't get me wrong -- there's still no better way to test the quality of local water than to feed it to a human being and see what happens. But this is one job that I, for one, have no qualms turning over to robotic replacements. I'm just afraid that this plan is on a collision course with the local water-quality-tester unions, who I'm sure will have something to say about these mechanical "temp workers."
  • Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

  • What about the divers! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mordaximus ( 566304 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:44PM (#9154765)
    "The robots would take on the painstaking, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous, task of collecting water samples which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms."

    I'm sure these carbon based lifeforms are happy they are having their jobs outsourced to robots next year. Why make it sound like we are doing these divers a favor by taking away their work?
    • I'm sure these carbon based lifeforms are happy they are having their jobs outsourced to robots next year

      That's not the same thing as outsourcing.

      Outsourcing would be if we scooped up samples of water and shipped them to India, where college-educated engineers willing to work 80-hour weeks for $7.50 an hour analyzed them for pollutants.

      When a job becomes automated, that's called, last time I checked, "technological progress."

      Yes, technological progress causes some irritation. For example, when Fre
    • We are doing them a favor ^^

      Who likes to work, anyway? (Very different than asking, "Who likes their work?")

      The less work there is, the better in general, I think. Call it inflation if you want, but ultimately I do think every job will boil down to basic customer service.

  • Water sampling is getting easier every day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:44PM (#9154767) Journal
    Judging from the combination of drought in the west and the rate that water is being drawn from sources around the country, water sampling will soon consist of wading out and scooping up some muddy water. Hell, the problem may go away entirely:

    Lake Powell Article [ksl.com]

    Lake Powell Photo [wildnatureimages.com]

    Lake Powell Satellite Image [nasa.gov]

    Ipswich River in Mass [usgs.gov]

  • Isn't this how the Matrix got started?
  • In the spokane river, the maximum amount of fish you can eat is 2 per year.
  • I see we have learned nothing from Hollywood. Anybody remember The Matrix, Terminator, etc.? Robots should NOT have control of the water supply!

  • Carbon based Life forms? (Score:4, Funny)

    by An-Unnecessarily-Lon ( 761026 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @01:58PM (#9154956) Journal
    Jeeze... We are right here. You dont need to talk about us like that.
  • Sorry, I thought it said "U.S. Will Use Robots to Petrol Water Supply", referring to a military plan to contaminate water supplies with gasoline. My mistake.

  • no problem here.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nolife ( 233813 )
    I have well water you insensitive clod!!

    Of course my supply has to come from somewhere but I'd assume the public supply would be tainted and noticed loooong before anything reached my own private well. I occasionally get some sand and grit but I'll take that over a blistering agent any day.
  • thank goodness... now these robots can replace the humans who before were exposed to deadly dihydrogen monoxide [dhmo.org] every time they took a sample!

    thank you, robots, for doing such dangerous work!
  • (Referring to Sideshow Bob)

    Bart: He's planning something evil, I know it. It must have something to do with the town's water supply.

    Milhouse: Maybe he's gonna pee in the river!

    Bart: Mmm, nah, that's not his style.

    "Brother from Another Series", from snpp.com

  • Terrorist Attack? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @02:53PM (#9155739) Journal
    This is crazy. You're talking about millions of gallons of water. Do you know how much it'll take to pollute that? Maryland wastr treatment plants are known to be dumping 8x the legal limit of fecal bacteria, and they have yet to have anythign happen to them.

    Poinsoning the nations drinking supply can only be effectively done in an area close to a user. Maybe a city block or street at most. Anything else would take HUGE amounts and would definately be suspicious.

    If you really want to protect the country from terrorism, get us off a centralized power grid. And get off petrol. The day american homes supply the businesses with power, (with the power company securly locked int he middle to manage it) will th the day that we'll be safe. Unless you can't telecommute. Which is when you should be driving an electric vehicle. Hell your house will prooduce your own fuel for the car. It's "free" energy.

    Water can be purified from almost any kind of contaminant. Energy can only be made (currently) at dams, reactors and windmills. (Solar is not big in the US, and nat-gas fuel cells still need a central line to the fuel company)

  • yeah (Score:2)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 )
    And they'll be able to run for years at a time by utilizing nuclear reactors.

    One person said they believe all of our environmental problems can be solved by technology and this is a perfect example of that......... What part of "Monitoring" has anything to do with solving environmental problems?

    Hey, look there's an environmental problem! Call in the "We can do anything we please environmental squad!"

    "Hi there, you'll have to stop producing steel, and you sir, you'll have to stop fertalizing your farm.
  • ...which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms.

    Ah, carbon based lifeforms. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!
  • protecting us against the terrible dangers of dihidrogen monoxide in our water supply. Our water needs to be clean and safe from all impurities!

  • Profit from fear, a very common business (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FedeTXF ( 456407 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @03:42PM (#9156455)
    1) Create in the general population a sense of fear of something. (It can be an irrational fear)
    2) Make a product or service that helps reduce that fear. (And patent it)
    3) Call the government and make them buy your patented product or service
    4) Profit!

    Or alternatively

    1) Make a product or service. (And patent it)
    2) Create in the general population a sense of fear of something so your product or service helps reduce the fear.
    3) Sell the product or service for a reasonable price
    4) Profit!

    If we buy the idea that anything is at risk, that terrorists can do anything and I mean anything, there's nothing we can affor not buying to help us feel safer.
    Fear and shopping, great combination. An it is good for businiess too!
    By the way, who was the one sending anthrax in letters back in 2001, remember?
    And I don't buy a plane crashed in the pentagon. Too much evidence against it.
  • The International Brotherhood of Robots, Automatons, and Intelligent Devices - local 00110000111 (underwater workers), announced today that they will be working to organize the robots involved into a collective bargaining unit.

    In a related story, a huge outcry from the environmental lobby about the increased lead, nickle and lithium in the National water supply due to leaky robot batteries.

    Robots can pee
  • They'll get a lot of bang:buck from these robots when they patrol the corporate offices of Wal-Mart and the other polluters which dump into our increasingly stressed water supplies.
  • While this proposal is a natural winner here at /., it's sad that only a combination of terror hype and hi-tech government contracts have attracted a defense of an essential natural resource. Decades of obvious noxious pollution have scored only infrequently adequate committments to guard against the polluters, almost invariably domestic corporations. Even the landmark Superfund has been abandoned by BushCo [rff.org].

    While we're on a roll, how about expanding the robot corps, patrolling all public territory for poll

  • terror BS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @10:04PM (#9159151) Homepage Journal
    What is this "terrorist" crap? As the article states, these robots have been developed to patrol such waterways as "Onondaga Lake, a federal Superfund site that is considered the nation's most polluted waterway". Is terrorist poison more poisonous than industrial poison? These robots are a welcome safeguard, but let's not pretend we're not under siege by domestic corporations, without hyping the terrorist bugbear.

Slashdot Top Deals

Them as has, gets.

Close