NOBODY needs robots !!!

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:

Again, it really depends on what you mean by "sophisticated". Improvised explosive devices could certainly be considered sophisticated, but not in the same sense of an Abrams tank. The point I was trying to make was that "real" robots would fall into the later category.

Chris

The philosophical and political ramifications of robotics is fair game for discussion in a robotics forum. And just because the original poster was troll (and a fairly uninteresting one at that), doesn't mean a more engaging conversation can't take root. Personally, I find intelligent discussion to be an effective way to both poke fun at trolls and diffuse flame wars.

If you're not interested in this thread, you're certainly under no obligation to participate.

Chris

No argument there.

Again, I agree, although I used these more as an example of relative autonomy than of a humanoid form-factor.

Do you have any examples of military robots making their own decisions? With the possible exception of some UAVs, all military robots currently in active deployment rely on a human operator to function. In the case of UAVs, the role of autonomy is limited to task of stable air flight since the lag between the plane and human operator is too slow to allow an adequate response to air turbulence. Fully autonomous models are still under immense R&D.

Sorry, I meant the toy's RC circuit. I too haven't heard of any uses of the whole car. I suspect using the whole car to "drive" the bomb wouldn't be as effective as a stationary remotely detonated bomb since it would be easy to spot, being so out-of-place.

From

"Some of the IEDs have been remotely detonated using relatively simple, readily available low-technology devices, such as garage door openers, car alarms, key fobs, door bells, toy car remotes, FRS and GMRS two-way radios, cellular telephones and pagers ? which enable radio frequency command detonation."

Chris

So let's see, surface to air missiles are less "sophisticated" than tanks. Do tell.

Now when did a discussion of the relative sophistication of various weapon systems become "political commentary"?

Indeed.

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.

That means Robots will disappear up there own arses because being unemployed we wouldn`t be able to afford to keep them working!

----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Clarke

-------------------------------------------------------

No argument with that. I just found John's most recent message -- that appears to argue the definition of "insurgent" -- borderline into that political muddy that brings down helpful newsgroups like this one. "Insurgent" is a loaded word. Despite how people are now using it as a synonym for terrorist, the dictionary definition makes George Washington and Alexander Hamilton "insurgents." Which means you ought to be able to take down a Hind with a musket.

I should say before someone dings me on it: I'm in no way putting myself into the roll as moderator, but simply offering a reminder that when the discussion starts to deviate in ways that polarize people along political lines it's best to find another avenue for the thread.

Or maybe not. As you said, I can simply ignore the thread. Sorry to bother.

-- Gordon

When I say "sophisticated" I'm referring to cost, maintenance, and complexity of design and use. Missiles require some maintenance, but are pretty much one-time use weapons. Tanks are more expensive, require more maintenance, and usually require more trained personnel to use. The modern "insurgency", (e.g. one not financed by a world super-power like the USA, Russia, or China) is typically unable to afford either weapon.

Chris

They may require a human operator, but they are still making some decisions. For instance, if I tell a robot to move in a straight line from point A to point B, and along the way it detects that it is veering off course (due to uneven ground, wheel slippage, etc.), and it adjusts the wheel speed automatically, then it is not just using operator input. It is also using info from its own sensors to make decisions. Low level decisions to be sure, but sensor influenced decisions none the less. That is enough to make it a real robot, and not just an ROV.

In April 2001 a Global Hawk flew from California to Australia. I believe that the flight was "hands off" from the time the aircraft was stationary on the runway in California, till it was stationary on the runway in Australia. There aren't many obstacles at 65,000 feet over the Pacific, so the only really hard part was the take off and landing, but it was still an impressive accomplishment.

Wooden sailing ships may not be more expensive, but they certainly require a great deal of maintenance and a large number of trained personnel, so does that make them more "sophisticated" than tanks?

Where there's a will there's a way--one can always _steal_ them.