Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?

< snip >

Whats the diff.

Robot blowing you up or Religous Zelot (Copyright 2005) Blowing you up.

What's the difference between being blow up with a robot of your own design, and being blown up by a religious zealot?

If you can't see through the difference between complicit suicide and homicide with rational thought, you could always pray for guidance.

$$ and recognition. AKA Fortune and Fame.

Yeah, you should have been paid $40billion. That's how much it would have ended up costing if they'd developed it themselves. $30.8 billion to pad their pockets and their buddies pockets, 1.2billion for parts and labor.

Don't start worrying until Mr. Bush sends autonomous genocide machines running your code to the middle east. The USA can now waste even more money on "war", and less people will be disturbed (no US lives at stake).

The technology "community" should start it's own competition. Each company puts in $100k. Who ever wins the challenge gets the pot. All the companies benefit with the technology break-thrus..we can benefit tech field and ourselves instead of the aristocrats...

...

Emotional intelligence vs academic intelligence?

Here's my suggestion for a commercial contest, plus help for the common man, not to mention the poor 1500-pound moose.

The Moose Grand Challenge. [sounds better than The White-Tailed Deer Challenge]

Many 1000s of deer and moose are hit by cars every year. Most after dark in rural areas. Blighters are hard to see outside the headlight beams, when you're doing 75 MPH or so on a back highway. This site says

350,000 roadkill deer every year.

Probably the main product of the Darpa GC was development of sensors and algorithms capable of guiding a vehicle over bad terrain at 20 MPH or so. Something similar could be used to detect and avoid moose and deer in the night, saving both animals and many millions in repair bills.

"Save the Moose"

- dan michaels

=======================

It would be cheaper to put reflectors on the moose and deer. Red on the right side, blue on the left side. Or is it the other way around?...

-- Gordon

And maybe a big flashing led on the butt.

And maybe a flashing white led on the butt.

No wonder. With a flame bait like yours, who can resist?

They were probably thinking they were saving their countrymen. And they were right. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved on both sides when the use of the bomb forced Japan's surrender. And today, nuclear power is one of cleanest and cheapest means of power generation.

Rigged? Unconstitutional? Is this a diatribe or a creative writing exercise?

Do you feel the same animosity for those that invented gunpowder, the airplane, the satellite, or the computer? I can't help but feel our primitive ancestors had a similar argument when someone invented the the bow and arrow. What were those bow and arrow guys thinking? Inventing something that let people kill other people while being far removed from harms way!? And of course, the bow and arrow was never used for productive purposes like hunting for food...

Chris

My wife misunderstands my motivations. I insist on doing the driving as much as is possible not because I like to drive, but because I am the most qualified. Be that as it may... I personally would prefer to let the car drive itself, just as soon as they are capable of doing so safely and expeditiously. Until that time, however, there is room in the car for only one driver.

If the car isn't qualified to drive itself on an open road, why would I trust it to avoid collisions? If it were capable of driving itself in congestion and avoidance maneuvers, why would I undertake to hold the wheel on the mundane open road portions? There is room in the car for only one driver.

you see, noone cares to save a life of a deer, but to take a life of a human better is something worth of $2M prize. if you have problems with that, perhaps, you morals are all wrong?

"Randy M. Dumse" wrote in news:Psy4f.57$qg1.687 @eagle.america.net:

Yes, you should worry about ALL aspects of your health.

Geez, maybe they were worried about the gun pointed at their head?

thinking?

Maybe they were thinking, "Geez, I'm going to leave it up to the gun toting conspiracy theorists who know what's best for this country and have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than any scientist does. I hope they get their act together soon and take this country back!"

Yes, I'm surprised that 5 teams finished.

technology,

"We" were probably thinking the same thing the Wright brothers thought. That is , "We're gonna be rich, rich, rich!!!" Or maybe not.

Good lord, far be it from me to come between a man and his automobile. This is america, after all. I was suggesting an auxiliary sensor system, not a man-replacement system, like other guys are talking about, re the Darpa GC.

I didn't actually mean to use the word avoid, in the sense of the car doing the avoiding. I meant having sensors to detect the moose/deer, so the driver might be warned enuf ahead of time that he might do the avoiding. The sensors are the important part, which are missing, not the driver :). Couple of years ago, I was driving at nite about 60-65 on a rural road and a deer ran out of nowheres and across in front of me. All I saw was a "flash" going across the headlight beams, and it was sheer lucky timing that the deer made it past my front bumper. Missed hitting its rear end by about 6". No chance to even react, since I never saw the darn thing till it had crossed. Those deer are none too bright.

Yes, this post has red flags all over it. Words like unconstitutional are used too often without any argument whatsoever to back them up. Which part of the constitution did they go against?

I doubt that any of the participants failed to grasp this aspect. I believe they voluntarily signed over their IP rights, and I don't know how smart and intelligent people could fail to recognize what they were doing. I gather you think they were robbed in some way?

Stole? You just said they signed them to the DOD? Voluntarily. I wouldn't be so cavalier in calling the robotic community stupid.

Now your way out there. Elected representatives are just that. The burden of proof needs to be set a bit higher in the depths of your mind. You accept things too easily.

They got recognition, probably additional contracts, exposure etc. I'm sure they knew what they were doing, and weren't duped as you suggest.

Oh... Thanks for the compliment. The robotics community are a bunch of ignorant bumpkins. You are not only insulting the intelligent people who took part, but also a large segment of American culture at the same time. People who attend county fairs and other community events are just as smart as the rest of us.

If someone else had crossed the finish line first, then they would have won. If the DOD knew Stanford would be successful then there wouldn't have been a competition. A little critical thinking is required here. Stanford could have used the $20mil elsewhere and still had money left over. I'm pretty sure Stanford gets a large amount of private funding each year, and I wouldn't consider them a government agency.

You don't know what the source of their funding was. You are making wild speculations.

I'm just surprised at this rant. If Stanford, or Carnegie Melon had gotten a flat tire then the conspiracy would have failed. Thats quite a lot to leave to chance. Especially when all they had to do was go to one of these Universities to begin with. I can hear them now... "Yes, of course we already know Stanford knows how to do it... but you don't understand... we have to take advantage of people somehow... We _Have_ to have a competition just so the universities can spend money they already have to chase a prize we might have to give someone else if they happen to finish first... These country bumpkins won't know what hit 'em when we reveal that they signed away their research... just imagine when they find out their research is indiscriminately killing people around the world - bwahahahahaha."

Because it didn't happen.

So first the Universities are a DOD shill, then for budgetary purposes they are again part of the Robotics community.

You don't know that. I think they at least got a kiss.

I hope some people are actually thinking. By the looks of the successful competition it is obvious some people were thinking, and very proficiently I might add. To compare the participants in this competition with Nazi scientists etc. is bizarre in the extreme. I really don't know what to say about this. How about: I hope you can get over your moral relativism, and see things for what they are.

Yes, I see that now.

Brent S.

Unless they changed the rules from last year, contenstants KEEP all IP rights. It would be seriously stupid to do otherwise, as the technology behind a fully autonomous outdoor vehicle is worth billions. However, this doesn't prevent the government from making a contract with anyone, not just the winner, at fair market prices. I'm not even sure DARPA gets first dibs, though the government always reserves the right to commandeer technology out of the national interest.

-- Gordon

Grow up, the goal of preventing Deer/Moose car crashes is to prevent the lost of Human life. Hitting a deer is likely to total your car, and has a reasonably good chance of killing someone in the car when the deer goes through the windshield as the usually do. Hitting a Moose at any speed is quite likely to be fatal to you. If you are going too fast, 1000+ pound of Moose lands on top of you at high speed. If you are going too slow, the Moose stomps you and your car flat.

On you other point, the purpose of making more automated weapons is to save the lives of US soldiers, by minimizing their exposure to danger. The more accurate and lethal weapons also save the lives of many civillians in the area by allowing precision targeting of command and control or troops. In the old days, before robotic cruise missile, Laser guided bombs the technique was to bomb a wide area around the target, or to fly in close at great risk with only a

Very good example, Joe. You do know how rich the Wright brothers got right? You know about Curtis?

You request specifics: Okay, I'll play. Equal protection clause of the

14th Amendment With extension of application to the Federal government under the 5th.

"Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right."

When DARPA, before the first grand challenge sent inspectors out to decide who they were going to qualify or disqualify prior to competition, ie, which class of entrants they were going to allow to compete and which they were not by an unpublish set of "rules" of their own devising, the were in violation of the law.

When DARPA made "site visits" a requirement for entry in both competition, they were in violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits "searches" (no matter how nice a little name you put on them) without probable cause and a warrant.

Then there is a larger issue under the "takings" and "equal protection" clauses, whether it is legal to tax many, and to give to selected few. (I think Brian would have a good case to sue for his 2 million, for having completed the task. To make a case against having a special class for Stanford, is at least arguable, but I don't suppose to know the final disposition it might attain.)

You might say, yeah, but it is a race! A race must have a winner. And I'll then ask you, where in the Constitution it says the government is allowed to put on races? I can show you exactly where it is prohibited from doing anything not specified in the Constitution. Just have a read of the 10th. In brief, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states ... or to the people." If it doesn't say, "sponsor races" in the Constitution, then US sponsored races are patently unconstitutional.

Let's turn the spot light around, and approach this from the correct legal stance given the 10th. Please repay the favor of reply with specifics. Which part of the Constitution allowed DARPA to do the G.C. race? Give us a Constitutionally based argment for why it is legal for the federal government to sponsor races with tax dollars. Can you find support for it? Or shall we all conclude the Grand Challenge was wholely unconstitutional from its conception? Because, if there isn't something in the Constitution allowing it, there _is_ something in the Constitution prohibiting it.

You say, "Words like unconstitutional are used too often" and I say, since every single action of government must be checked to see if it is constitutional before it is commissioned, words like unconstitutional are not used enough. Anyone who argues otherwise, argues against the Constitution, and doesn't deserve the protections they enjoy. If enough of us do it, remain ignorant, do not require the agents in our government to fully comply with law, we won't have to worry about those protections anymore.

If you haven't read, or listened, to any major Supreme Court hearing, I highly recommend a series of tapes called "May it Please the Court" where you will hear the Justices often querying the presenting attorneys if they see any application of the 4th, 5th or 14th to the cases before them, and how seriously they take the letter of the law.

Define the class of individuals. Do they share a common race, ethnicity, or gender?

I don't think machines fall under the equal protection clause. I think you are doing your best to look for things which might be unconstitutional because you have other issues with the Govt.

Since the visits were a requirement for entry, and entry was voluntary, then the participants voluntarily agreed to the site visits. To equate this to police/government unconstitutional searches is laughable.

This was put on by the DOD. The constitution allows the Government to defend this country. The Military gets to decide how best to do it. The constitution does not specify exactly how. Heres an equivalent argument: I can't find MREs in the constitution, therefor the troops shouldn't be allowed to eat. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to set up cafeterias... that would be unconstitutional. I don't think micromanaging the DOD would be explicitly specified in the constitution.

Again... Feeding the military is unconstitutional because it isn't specifically stated in the constitution.

Hmmm... let me see here... I guess we could start with the preamble: "provide for the common defence". Well, there's a start. ...Searching through text... here we go, here in Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ... ...To raise and support Armies, ... To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ... ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,"

I suppose when you come right down to it, it is the part about supporting an Army, and making laws necessary to do so. Appointment of officers is necessary because they need to organize races, and make other decisions based on the current needs. :-)

You can conclude anything you want, but if you are sane and honest, then the above argument works.

If every use of the word unconstitutional were backed up then it would be used just enough. Unfortunately it is used by those who have no idea what the constitution actually says.

Thanks for assuming I am ignorant.

This happens all to often, but I never saw myself in that bunch... Thanks.

Given the current make up of the Supreme Court, there are few whos opinions I would respect anyway. A conscience is a necessity in good politicians and judges.

Brent S.

Brent S.