NOBODY needs robots !!!

That's what they said about computers in 1985

how about 1965, and 1955.
See Desk Set with Tracy and Hepburn.


--
Pat

   No, blame the guy who mounted a shaft on a stone and called it "an
axe."

--
http://www.flexusergroup.com/

1)first of all i would like to point out that we are hobbists and are
not trying to take your job
2)second of all robots make our life easier, and they save troops.
3)third of all, if you are so scared that your job is going to be
taken, you must not work very hard, becasue robots cannot do many tasks
as of right now
4)lastly, it will be at bare minimum thirty years before robots will be
able to take real jobs, and probably forty until they will be
affordable

P.S. 1)last time i checked robots werent made out of crap
        2)your a dumbass a typical jock, an un-educated american.
Please do not post to our group if you cannot understand at least a
third of the posts

You're replying to a troll. Always ignore the trolls.

-- Gordon


MR Robot wrote:

You're replying to a answer-troll. Always ignore the answer-trolls  ;-)

--
-Stan

Your're replying to an answer answer .... oh never mind
de

his email is piano_nerd@yahoo.com and he has posted a lot of stuff on
other groups, you can click show options and find this out. I think
that i might go to a bunch of websites and sign him up for a lot of
spam. that will show him no to post again.

They have saved troops so far.  But if history is
any guide, it is only a matter of time before any
new weapon is available to both sides.  In the end,
robots may prove more useful to the terrorists/
insurgents.


Hop on a flight to Nagoya, and visit a modern Toyota
automobile factory.  You will see more robots than
people.  Robots are replacing lots of people now.
You will see many more a lot sooner than thirty
years from now.


I think you are underestimating the cost reductions
that mass production can deliver.  Some Japanese
companies have built humanoid robots with multi-
million dollar price tags, but that is mostly
non-recurring R&D costs, and says nothing about
what the robot would really cost if thousands,
or millions, were manufactured.

A human scale robot contains a lot less metal and
plastic than a car, and should therefore cost much
less.  The replication cost of the "intelligence"
is near zero.  Once a human can be replaced by a
robot that costs six months of the human's salary,
expect to see a lot more robots.  Most assembly
jobs are already going, construction and service
jobs may go next.  Eventually any job that doesn't
require creativity will be a candidate for automation.

Obviously there is going to have to be sociological and political
changes as robot workers become common. But are robot workers at all
necessary? Yes. In every industrial country in the world, birth rate
has fallen to below replacement level. Robots will not be taking the
intelligent and creative human endevours, they have been used to do the
repititious and mundane type of work.

At the risk of sounding Clintonian, this really depends on how you
define "robot" and "useful". I doubt a robot in the sense of Sony or
Honda's humanoid models will ever be economically or logistically useful
to insurgents. However, robots like those used in the military I see as
having some potential, but these amount to little more than fancy
radio-controlled cars. It could then be argued that insurgents are
already using this technology in the form of cell-phones and actual RC
cars to remotely detonate bombs.

Typically, terrorists seem to prefer simple, inexpensive technologies,
which any machine deserving of the term "robot" is unlikely to be. In
this sense, I don't see "real" robots being any more useful to
terrorists than tanks or laser-guided missles. The total cost of
ownership and maintenance is just too high.

Chris

Typically, the military doesn't fight terrorists until after they have done
their damage.  Insurgents are a different story--they often _do_ have
sophisticated weaponry.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

if you call m-16s sophisticated

It would help greatly if you quoted the statement to which you were
responding.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clark wrote

Mr. Robot wrote

I see.  So what were the Afghanis using to take down Hinds?  But maybe they
don't qualify as "insurgents".  Then there's the little matter of the air
defense of Hanoi, that took down B-52s.  But I guess they weren't
"insurgents" either.  Then there was that little mess in Somalia, but I
guess they weren't "insurgents" either.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

They used U.S. supplied Stinger missles.  Stingers are heat
seeking.  They home in on infrared.


Of course they were insurgents.


Mostly Soviet supplied radar guided SA-2 SAM missles.  But we
also lost some B-52s to MiG fighters and AAA flak guns (I believe
Jane Fonda was photographed with one of these).


No, of course not.  They were regular soldiers serving the established
government of North Vietnam.  They wore uniforms and bore arms
openly.  In no way were they "insurgents".  Hanoi was defended by
the NVA, not the VC.


I believe the US Blackhawks were downed with RPGs.


Debatable.  Insurgents fight to overthrow an established goverment,
of which Somolia had none.

The issue is not whether they were "insurgents" but that they despite
limited resources and a limited indigenous technological base had access to
weapons considerably more sophisticated than M-16s.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Folks, PLEASE take the political commentary elsewhere. There are many
forums for this subject. These types of threads easily degenerate to
name calling and pull down the friendly nature of user-to-user help
groups.

This is precisely why I suggested not responding to trolls. The person
who started this thread must surely be sitting back and grinning at his
handywork.

-- Gordon


J. Clarke wrote: