🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob wrote:
> Chris Spencer wrote:
> 
>>At the risk of sounding Clintonian, this really depends on how you
>>define "robot" and "useful".
> 
> 
> Robot:  A mechanical device that senses its environment and makes
> decisions based on that sensor info to physically manipulate its
> environment.
> 
> Useful:  In this context, the ability to kill, maim, or otherwise
> incapacitate people you don't like.

No argument there.

>>I doubt a robot in the sense of Sony or
>>Honda's humanoid models will ever be economically or logistically useful
>>to insurgents.
> 
> I doubt they would be very useful to the US military either.  But
> a robot doesn't have to be humanoid to be a robot.

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

>>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.
> 
> 
> An R/C car is not a real robot because it does not sense its
> environment, and it makes no decisions.  But most military
> "robots" have sensors, and many make some of their own
> decisions.  The "kill" decision is still human controlled, because
> we are still uncomfortable with machines making that decision.
> But a terrorist would not be restrained by similar compunctions.

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.

>>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.
> 
> I have read about insurgents using cell phones to detonate bombs
> in parked cars.  But I have not heard of them using RC cars to
> deliver bombs, although it seems like a logical approach.  There is
> a scene in one of the "Dirty Harry" movies where the bad guys try
> to kill Harry with a gasoline powered R/C car.  When I saw the movie,
> I wondered why bad guys didn't do that in real life.  It seemed very
> effective in the movie (although Harry survived).

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 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied-iraq.htm

"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