View Full Version : Doy Bots and Turrets in RL by 2010
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080227111811.y9syyq8p&show_article=1&image=large
lol
That's gonna take friendly fire to a whole new level!
Gotta love the US government! :lol:
They really do look like DoY bots! :wtf:
Bob Arctor
28-02-08, 16:32
Awesome. If robots are ever used in war then the horrific side of it will be gone. Countries will like go to war over nothing at all. China could be like slagging off America on Facebook and then Japan will give the USA a nudge on MSN and link them and America will be all like:
"OK China! IT'S ON!"
And then they'll wheel out the robots and people will be really excited because war is awesome and you won't have to pretend to be saddened and humbled by the loss of life anymore because they're robots! And then people will be all like:
"MAKE WAR MORE AWESOME!"
And it'll be a spectator sport so they'll make Chainsaw grenades and you throw the chainsaw grenades and it shoots out chainsaws. Oh and there could be rocket propelled chainsaw grenades and custom robots and multiplayer and OH GOD WAR WILL BE AWESOME IN THE FUTURE
Doc Holliday
28-02-08, 16:40
Nice Bob, nice. :lol:
Ritalin bob, take your ritalin. :)
Bob Arctor
28-02-08, 16:41
*twitch*
"They pose a threat to humanity," Got that dam right!!
If you where trying to run the Biotech mission to Loba village they were a serious health threat :lol:
Lol bob, funny post :)
Yep war will be awesome like that...
Machines will taunt eachother: "My AI is better then yours"
Mighty Max
28-02-08, 18:28
If robots are ever used in war then the horrific side of it will be gone.
Actually, the other way around.
War works by destroying resources or the control on resources used to defend and rule the opposing forces.
If the resource "combatant" can be easily be rebuild (it's a machine at that time) the control has to be taken away, which lies (for the democratic countries [us] out there) in the public. To harm the control flow, breaking the will to win a war in the public has to be replaced with the will to end a war.
The easiest and cheapest way to do so and thus likely the chosen method to do so is to target the public. That this is not a fancy theory is shown in the current asymetric battlegrounds out there, where an ideological group fights an alliance and is unable to be beat their war resources -> civilians get targted.
Awesome. If robots are ever used in war then the horrific side of it will be gone.
Nothing awesome about this. The bots won't be used against other bots. These will be used against fleshy people armed with or without weapons.
Weapons (e.g. bots) are designed to crush the enemy and gain contrôle.
Governments are little concerned about enemy casutalies whether they are internal or external to the country. Only how they are perceived.
Bob Arctor
28-02-08, 18:48
But! But! The Prime Directives!
Scaramanga
28-02-08, 19:01
I love how the south korean one can track targets up to 4km day and night etc, but needs an anti theft alarm.
Bob Arctor
28-02-08, 19:07
I liked that bit too. Like someone wouldn't find it suspicious anyway if someone was tugging a 300,000 dollar piece of military equiptment behind them. No, it's the alarm that will really set them apart from a Johnny 5 cosplayer.
William Antrim
28-02-08, 20:03
Civilian casualties are collateral damage gents. Take the Gulf war (the first one), it is CNN who told you it was wrong not the US Army.
Mighty Max
28-02-08, 20:39
Civilian casualties are collateral damage gents.
No. You are misunderstanding collateral damage.
Collateral damage is the set of damage caused unintentionally at wartimes.
Such civilian victims as described above would be fully intentional and thus not CD.
Take the Gulf war (the first one), it is CNN who told you it was wrong not the US Army.
Some of us have personal exp. with such a situation. We can build our opinion on that rather then the media.
Dribble Joy
28-02-08, 21:12
Aside from any ethical business, I really doubt we will see these things in 'regular' service by 2010 (as in a significant portion of 'troops'), and frankly they are still a support item untill AI technology is approaching the sigularity.
What we see first as a 'replacement' for regular boots on the ground is a partial one - cybernetics.
William Antrim
28-02-08, 23:37
No. You are misunderstanding collateral damage.
Collateral damage is the set of damage caused unintentionally at wartimes.
Such civilian victims as described above would be fully intentional and thus not CD.
Some of us have personal exp. with such a situation. We can build our opinion on that rather then the media.
The intention is not to kill civillians, it is to kill and neutralise foreign military assets. Civillian casualties are collateral damage. I understand the difference between the two terms perfectly well. No army in the world wants to go out and nuke civillians - that is extremism and this is verging on politics so at risk of getting edited I shall say no more.
Cybernetics on the battlefield will hopefully reduce troop casualties indeed. Anything robotic to replace the job of a man (think mine sweeping for a modern example) is a bloody good thing in my book.
Doc Holliday
28-02-08, 23:57
looking at a very extreme end of this whole concept (though admittedly not clicking on the link as yet) it does appear we could end up with a situation such as 1984.
For those who havent read it the world is divided in to 3 great powers who are in a state of perpetual war. such could be said for the world if man were be replaced by machines. it would boil down to who has the most money and is prepared to spend the most to win or who has the better technology to win. or a mixture.
So. somethin to mull over the morning coffee me thinks. that said. i would rather a machine get blown to smithereens in combat than a person. plus all you video game nerds who are leet pvpers could actually get drafted in to something useful by serving your country piloting the machines of the future.
hahahah.
We drafted our army from a bunch of CS players.
wouldnt that make a great headline ;)
Scaramanga
29-02-08, 00:52
And have it all in vector graphics to save on the need for trauma therapy.
Bob Arctor
29-02-08, 01:29
So. somethin to mull over the morning coffee me thinks. that said. i would rather a machine get blown to smithereens in combat than a person. plus all you video game nerds who are leet pvpers could actually get drafted in to something useful by serving your country piloting the machines of the future.
My quibble would be that whoever is controlling the robot would be too detatched from the situation to feel much empathy for anyone on the recieving end of their playstation controller.
Voodoo_Magic
29-02-08, 01:40
My quibble would be that whoever is controlling the robot would be too detatched from the situation to feel much empathy for anyone on the recieving end of their playstation controller.
Of course, this is why bomber pilots need alot of help... and feel alot of guilt ^^
Controller = trigger to gun
My quibble would be that whoever is controlling the robot would be too detatched from the situation to feel much empathy for anyone on the recieving end of their playstation controller.
We've been using game controllers for a loooong tme on our military equipment tbh.
Anyway those arnt that special tbh, they are just weapons mounted on bomb disposal units. They are just nasty remote control toys.
Perhaps each side should choose a faction in Neocron and op war till the first faction either ninja hacks or quits.
War sucks, it would be funny if the military relys on remote control and video screens to fight wars in the future, because couldn't you just make them all simulations in an mmo and no one would findknow the difference?
Mighty Max
29-02-08, 07:17
The intention is not to kill civillians, it is to kill and neutralise foreign military assets.
You might want to re-read the posts that first mentioned those victims or open any news paper to see why this is not the real situation. (Gaza, Kenia, Somalia, Afghania, Iraq, ...) the civilians are prime target where military assets are either too strong for the opponent or have (seemingly) unlimited feed (like beeing machines rather then human)
Nytewolf2k7
29-02-08, 09:08
Skynet anyone...?
This is Robot Jox coming true :rolleyes:
Doc Holliday
29-02-08, 13:11
This is Robot Jox coming true :rolleyes:
hahaha. such a great movie (thats how i remember it. if i watch it now it will probably suck)
Bob Arctor
29-02-08, 13:54
Skynet anyone...?
It's like todays scientists don't even watch sci-fi movies isn't it? Robots. AI. C'mon people!
Oh well, if we're lucky we'll get a cool Fallout style post-apocalypse and not a fruity Will Smith one.
Fear my Bot!!
http://www.jeffbots.com/judgedredd1.jpg
Fear my Bot!!
http://www.jeffbots.com/judgedredd1.jpg
Thats a Juggernaught!
Thats a Juggernaught!
Exactly!
Intellectual theft from KK's part? Or just common sense on how evil bipedal bots would look like?
Mighty Max
29-02-08, 18:34
Some of both.
Sure, neocron was influenced by JD and other movies/books. So were several later movies.
However while the Juggernaut appearance follows the same principle (iconization and overdrawing of raw/masculine features) both bots are not the same. They are alike in their structure, yet very different at the details.
Apocalypsox
29-02-08, 22:37
Awesome. If robots are ever used in war then the horrific side of it will be gone. Countries will like go to war over nothing at all. China could be like slagging off America on Facebook and then Japan will give the USA a nudge on MSN and link them and America will be all like:
"OK China! IT'S ON!"
And then they'll wheel out the robots and people will be really excited because war is awesome and you won't have to pretend to be saddened and humbled by the loss of life anymore because they're robots! And then people will be all like:
"MAKE WAR MORE AWESOME!"
And it'll be a spectator sport so they'll make Chainsaw grenades and you throw the chainsaw grenades and it shoots out chainsaws. Oh and there could be rocket propelled chainsaw grenades and custom robots and multiplayer and OH GOD WAR WILL BE AWESOME IN THE FUTURE
DONT FORGET MY FUCKING COMBAT MECHS!! YEEAAHHHH!!!!!!
Anyways, would be awesome to mount 6 of those "Stationary" turrets on a striker and just park it in the middle of an urban warzone. Talk about lockdown
P.S
Fear my Bot!!
http://www.jeffbots.com/judgedredd1.jpg
Thats a great movie, Riddle :D
William Antrim
01-03-08, 16:05
You might want to re-read the posts that first mentioned those victims or open any news paper to see why this is not the real situation. (Gaza, Kenia, Somalia, Afghania, Iraq, ...) the civilians are prime target where military assets are either too strong for the opponent or have (seemingly) unlimited feed (like beeing machines rather then human)
Case in point, youre talking about what the media reports. See my original post. Its the media that TELLS you what to think... etc etc. anyway, I am not debating this any further as it does go down the realms of politics and all that bs and its not allowed here.
@ Nellus - which one did you support? Alexander or Achilles? (Yes I am THAT nerdy).
@ Apoco-wotsit - The Strykers are already being tested to have their own built in robotics to drive them in the future. The idea being one person drives the lead vehicle in a convoy and relays the drivers commands via wi-fi back to pursuing convoy. Any movements the lead vehicle makes will be copied by the pursuers in the theory that they too will avoid any obstacles the lead vehicle encounters. It is still at an early stage of testing but there is enough info about it all on the web if you know where to look.
Robotics has always been the future, its just now they're closer to realising it.
@ Mighty max/Jaeon - reference the juggernaught from Judge Dredd - go back through the archives and you will find a post from either MJS or Snowcrash I believe (mightve been Thanatos back in the day) actually admitting that they saw this movie and wanted to use the models from it.
In fairness I would've gone for a Terminator style droid myself but they used that name for a crappy shotgun. :(
Mighty Max
01-03-08, 16:38
Case in point, youre talking about what the media reports. See my original post. Its the media that TELLS you what to think... etc etc. anyway, I am not debating this any further as it does go down the realms of politics and all that bs and its not allowed here.
You should read the whole post.
I was referencing the media because it is the only source i know you will be able to get. (And if you honestly think all media around the world are proposing the very same lie on purpose, then tbh ... go to see a doctor)
As previous written (The thing you missed): I have my own exp. with this topic not from the media but from my own involvement into war. If you look closely at some posters, you will notice that there are several individuals around here who got their fair share of live-action.
William Antrim
01-03-08, 17:00
I didnt miss it at all. I just didnt feel the need to elaborate on it. What a man chooses to do to earn his living is his own business. Some people dont like talking about their experiences and yes I know several. Personally I am looking forward to mine.
Mighty Max
01-03-08, 17:23
Well then your post (and your "Case in point") doesn't make any sense at all (to me):
If you know that i have first hand exp. then why do you accuse me to sololey follow only what the press writes in the reply?
Or was it just a try to troll?
William Antrim
01-03-08, 18:37
Well then your post (and your "Case in point") doesn't make any sense at all (to me):
If you know that i have first hand exp. then why do you accuse me to sololey follow only what the press writes in the reply?
Or was it just a try to troll?
fucking hell not again. Do you have to get on your high horse with EVERYONE who has a different opinion to you. I read your opinion, thought it was not entirely accurate and gave my own. Military units targeting civilians in todays media is called 'extremism' or 'ethnic cleansing' and many other terms. Its the sort of thing that can (as i said once already) get edited on a forum like this, its not the place for it.
As for trying to troll? no I am not. Do I think you're argumentative and belligerent? yes I do but you have to realise that other people DO have different opinions. I don't accuse you of anything, I don't do hidden agendas. You should know from reading my posts that I say what I think so please do not try to bait me into flaming or worse.
:)
Mighty Max
01-03-08, 19:10
Oh man.
You are very welcomed to have an own opinion.
However i usually correct one if i'm quoted into a complete different context and wrong assumptions on vital points. (Or ask about what i didn't understand in your posting) That's my /right to, isn't it?
If you are thinking my correction about those assumptions are an attack on your opinion, then you are completely wrong. Correcting wrongs, bringing in facts and differnt point of view is what makes a discussion, otherwise we'd just have a nonlinked list of opinions without any progress on any side.
You on the other side are also welcomed to correct my wrong assumes as well logical breaks in my postings, or present an even or more likely scenario that will probably change my opinion.
In this way, btt:
Why would machine combatants remove/reduce cruels at wartimes?
i dont get it why this things are so usefull....really Friendly fire is soooo much more possible or just imagine a hacker hacks the bots and turns the enemy detection on the own troops.
I can imagine Intelligent mines that can identify an enemy tank and engage it....that would be usefull but with the current technology its potencial suicide to make armed robots.
Has nobody learned a lesson from terminator, startrek, matrix and of course Neocron. These things are buggy and they will be it for a looong time. And when they finally work then they will anyway turn against us.
I prefer that every country get 20 10mt nukes so nobody would make a war again.
Peace on earth is so easy
Apocalypsox
01-03-08, 23:53
Has nobody learned a lesson from terminator, startrek, matrix and of course Neocron.
Yes, Yes we have learned something. We have learned that all of these things are Fake, Science Fiction, and Peace is a pipedream. Peace cannot exist on the earth while people have indivuduality. Someone will always be there to fuck it up :mad:
Yes, Yes we have learned something. We have learned that all of these things are Fake, Science Fiction, and Peace is a pipedream. Peace cannot exist on the earth while people have indivuduality. Someone will always be there to fuck it up :mad:
Amen! (haha)
Yes, Yes we have learned something. We have learned that all of these things are Fake, Science Fiction, and Peace is a pipedream. Peace cannot exist on the earth while people have indivuduality. Someone will always be there to fuck it up :mad:
Nobody attack somebody if he know he would Loose. (ok Suicide by cop...)
Ok lets say u have a sword and your enemy has a maschinegun, i guess u would stop to think about attack him.
on larger scales this works much better. A weapon that is capable of complete annhilation unstoppable and Uberfast. Nobody will risk a war.
So long constant fear of mutual annhilation exist so long will exist peace.
Lets bring it on neocron
If there is a weapon which needs str1 and can kill in 6 sectors Everything. No clan will make op fight.
@ Nellus - which one did you support? Alexander or Achilles? (Yes I am THAT nerdy).
Actually i wanted Athena :p
But if i had to choose between the other 2 then of course it would have to be Achilles.
Bob Arctor
03-03-08, 13:22
Nobody attack somebody if he know he would Loose. (ok Suicide by cop...)
Ok lets say u have a sword and your enemy has a maschinegun, i guess u would stop to think about attack him.
on larger scales this works much better. A weapon that is capable of complete annhilation unstoppable and Uberfast. Nobody will risk a war.
So long constant fear of mutual annhilation exist so long will exist peace.
Lets bring it on neocron
If there is a weapon which needs str1 and can kill in 6 sectors Everything. No clan will make op fight.
Weapons like this already exist, and so does war.
This theory of 'mutual deterence' was held by most of the world pre-WWI with the massive power superblocks. The thinking was that if starting a war with one person meant that the whole world would have to fight too, then noone would ever do it. Fail.
Then there came nukes and everyone tried again until the Cold War nearly gave us Neocron 20 years early.
Nukes just don't work as a deterrent, chiefly because nuking a whole nation would cause far more problems than it would solve. The only thing it deters is another nation using nukes on you (As in Doctor Strangelove)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.