BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Robot Wars

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Quantum
14:49 / 27.10.06
This story caught my eye from the Technology Guardian yesterday, the US want a third of their army to be robots in ten years and spent over two thousand million dollars on uncrewed military aircraft last year alone.

By 2015, the US Department of Defense plans that one third of its fighting strength will be composed of robots, part of a $127bn (£68bn) project known as Future Combat Systems (FCS), a transformation that is part of the largest technology project in American history.

In Afghanistan the US sent in armed Talon reconnaissance drones - small tanks equipped with camera and sensing equipment, and armed with anything from a sniper's rifle to rocket launchers.



Talon robots had been used in about 20,000 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2004. 'a onerobot solution to a variety of mission requirements.'

In the fog of battle, some UAVs have already fired on their own side. With the increasing likelihood of more autonomous systems being deployed, some US generals have also raised concerns about the reliability of software and its vulnerability to hacking and viruses, pointing out that a rogue robot could inflict considerable damage on humans on its own side in a battle.

And finally, According to a US general quoted in the US Army's Joint Robotics Program Master Plan "what we're doing with unmanned ground and air vehicles is really bringing movies like Star Wars to reality".

How cool a name is the Robotics Program Master Plan? Evil Scientist, did you have anything to do with this?
 
 
Quantum
14:51 / 27.10.06
It's like they gave Sir Killalot a gun. These things are already in Iraq.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:25 / 27.10.06
These things chill me to the bone. I don't really know why, since on the face of it they are potentially far less indiscriminate than bombs and landmines. Best case scenario: they have a remote control and a camera mounted on them so that they can be guided by a human who will choose not to attack nonmilitary targets. More realistic: they will be controlled by a 19-year-old who thinks he's playing a fucking FPS. My personal nightmare: Give the sucker a motion sensor and send it on in, then come back when the ammo runs out.
 
 
grant
15:51 / 27.10.06
Soldiers as robots.

They're testing battle exoskeletons next year; an outfit called "Sarcos" in Utah is manufacturing them.

There's also an argument to be made that a lot of the things we call "drones" or UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are really just flying robots.

And are already killing people.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:34 / 27.10.06
My personal nightmare: Give the sucker a motion sensor and send it on in, then come back when the ammo runs out.

Robots really aren't smart enough to reliably distinguish between hostile and non-hostile targets (hell, people aren't that good either, the distinction is very complex, and there's an argument to say that the use of clearly indiscriminatory weaponry in general is deliberate terrorism, despite the claims that "we don't target civilians"). I think that if a proper robot ever gets used, it will be on the basis that it is ordnance. It will just shoot anything that it detects once started, possibly checking for some sort of IFF transponder first. It'll be classified as a munition rather than a replacement soldier or vehicle.

There are "off-road mines" which are basically robots that fire missiles already. In fact an IED with a tripwire is theoretically a very crude robot with basic sensor apparatus. The distinction between, say, a proximity mine and a killer robot is one of sophistication, reusability and area covered.
 
 
Quantum
19:05 / 27.10.06
if a proper robot ever gets used

As opposed to a robot plane that kills soldiers on it's own side? How is a UAV or a TALON not a proper robot? I suppose you could say it's just a remote controlled device because it lacks autonomy, but robots are already killing people, I'd say they were 'proper'.
 
 
Quantum
19:08 / 27.10.06
The attack, which was reportedly carried out by a CIA unmanned drone, also killed 18 local people.

From grant's last link.
 
 
w1rebaby
22:08 / 27.10.06
It's the autonomy; the ones in the examples are remote controlled. And, you know, when I was doing the "killer robots" module in my AI degree, they sneered at that sort of thing.

More significantly, if something is remote controlled, it is the same ethical entity as the pilot (assuming the controls are good enough) which means that RC drones killing innocents is directly blamable on US personnel. Imagine how much more politically useful it would be if it was just a question of firing a munition into an area - the munition in this case is an autonomous killer robot, but hey, there are already some pretty smart cluster bombs which scan for armour and fire explosively forged projectiles at them, a robot is only the next step. And there's no responsibility if it kills civilians.

(Although the idea that if you kill somebody with a gun, it's okay, is crap, but let's look at the immediate PR effects here.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:01 / 28.10.06
fridge: Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. There's no AI coming anytime soon that will be able to distinguish reliably between an enemy combatant and some poor bastard on his way to the greengrocers. Simple motion sensors, on the other hand...

I realise that this response is informed by my general impression of an insufficiency in the military's giving a flying fuck anyway dept. as anything else.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:29 / 28.10.06
How cool a name is the Robotics Program Master Plan? Evil Scientist, did you have anything to do with this?

Who have you been talking to?

And there's no responsibility if it kills civilians.

Well, arguably the responsibility would be with whoever sent the kill-bot into the situation in the first place. It would be as easy to get away with a robot gunning down innocent civilians as it would with an airstrike being ordered on a suspected terrist who turned out to be a group of innocents.

So looking at Afghanistan...pretty easy.

Arguably a robot combat system would be more effective in some situations. Clearing out enemy-held tunnel systems or bunkers for instance. But autonomy is the big issue. These units will most likely still be remote-controlled so human decision making is still a factor.

What the use of robot units does is to further isolate the pilot/controller from the reality of battlefield conflict and turn it even more into a computer game. But this is a process that navel and air units have been doing for quite some time now.

From a military point of view there are benefits to using remote-controlled robots instead of infantry. Less casualties on your side, arguably less psychological damage for the pilot when they burn out a bunker full of the wrong people (that whole isolation factor). Of course the kind of people who think like that are probably aware that human units are (for the forseeable future) cheaper to use and will make sure the robots only get deployed where overwhelming casualties would provoke a negative political response back home.

Channelling the EVIL here, but robot units would also make deployment of chemical weapons more effective (yeah I know they're banned, so's white phosphorus and it hasn't stopped the US military using it). Your robot units aren't going to be bothered when a slight change in wind direction blows the stuff back over them.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:16 / 28.10.06
See also under depleted uranium, etc...
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
14:02 / 28.10.06
I honestly don't see autonomous robots being deployed for a long time (ten years at least). Until an AI system can be worked out that can distinguish an enemy combatant from a civilian or friendly the PR cost of sending a remorseless killing machine into a battlefield- an urban battlefield most likely considering the way modern wars are being fought- would be just too high. Until then they will be controlled by 'a 19-year-old who thinks he's playing a fucking FPS', which I imagine will probably be a big draw for future recruits- none of that press-ups and running around nonsense, warfare becomes just another Guild raid in which any 300-pound dorkmonster can serve his country.
The psychological side would still be an issue though- the gunners of Apache gunships, who control the front mounted chaingun in much the same way an FPS is controlled have a high incidence of psychological damage from being able to kill dozens, perhaps hundreds of people so easily. A remote controlled 'bot would present the same problem; perhaps even worse if they were being used in close quarters where you'd see the killing up close.
In terms of cost- a Royal Marine costs approx 3 million GBP (around $5.5 million dollars) to train, so if the military can build a 'bot, train a pilot (which would be much easier and therefore less expensive than training a real-life soldier) and provide all the remote-control gubbins for less than that then Marines are going to be a distant memory. The Talon robots seen above are basically, as Quantum says above, "Sir Killalot (with) a gun", and a camera and a transmitter. Obviously I'm no expert, but all in all I would estimate a single Talon wouldn't cost much more than a luxury car, maybe in the $100,000 price range, if it was mass-produced in the same way cars are. It could work out cheaper than training soldiers, with the added bonus of not putting flesh-and-blood human beings into the line of fire- unless they're wearing those awesome Iron Man suits.
What's going to be interesting is how this affects the tactics used by America's enemies in Iraq and future wars in Iran etc., since there seems to be the (mistaken) belief on the part of various groups the US has a beef with (the Taliban, Al-Qaeda-In-Iraq, the Mahdi army etc.) that they can cause enough casualties to force an American withdrawl (forgetting that a) ten times as many US servicemen were killed in the Vietnam war than Afghanistan and Iraq combined and b) that the American administration really couldn't care less that some kind from Alabama isn't going to come home to his job at Dennys). These robots, especially future generations, are going to be very hard to kill without explosives, and there are already systems which can deal with RPG rockets and IEDs, so the combatants in the sort of wars the US is likely to find itself fighting (counter-insurgency, asymmetric warfare etc.) are going to find it near impossible to fight even a guerrilla war. I know there's been a tendency since the Musket was invented to hail every new military development as the one that will make war impossible to fight, but I have my fingers crossed that this will at least be a significant step towards that.
 
 
w1rebaby
16:40 / 28.10.06
I think at the moment these things are probably a lot easier to disable than an actual soldier (the latter, lest we forget, having state of the art, complex yet robust multiply-redundant hardware, though it has been jury-rigged into a task for which it is not specialised for i.e. warfare). I've seen a few light armoured vehicles with computers and guns built in, which would be a bit tougher, but most things under the level of an actual tank are vulnerable to RPG fire, and even tanks are vulnerable in urban combat. I wouldn't worry about people being unable to destroy them so much as the simple fact that when used in the right place they can make an army more effective.

The first thing I'd expect to see would be small portable scouts, to be honest. Something someone could carry in a backpack, unfold, send around corners to see what was going on... that's very useful indeed, and if it gets shot, nobody cares. You could fit, say, a LAW onto one, but then it starts to get heavy, and the surveillance is the most valuable bit.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
23:08 / 28.10.06
Isn't there quite a big drive to get robots working not to kill people, but to do logistical stuff - like moving supplies from Point A to Point B without having to worry too much that somebody's buried some tank shells by the roadside?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:09 / 30.10.06
These robots, especially future generations, are going to be very hard to kill without explosives, and there are already systems which can deal with RPG rockets and IEDs, so the combatants in the sort of wars the US is likely to find itself fighting (counter-insurgency, asymmetric warfare etc.) are going to find it near impossible to fight even a guerrilla war. I know there's been a tendency since the Musket was invented to hail every new military development as the one that will make war impossible to fight, but I have my fingers crossed that this will at least be a significant step towards that.

Yes, won't it be great when no-one gets to fight the Amnericans?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:31 / 30.10.06
Good point, killing people is way cooler than fighting with 'ideas' and 'words' and 'nonviolent resistance' and all that smartypants stuff. Look at how effective Martin Luther King's campaign of bombings were in securing civil rights, or Ghandi The Merciless's bloody war against the British. Heck, remember back in 2003 when the noble Iraqi resistance repelled the US occupying forces within a week with virtually no losses? If it weren't for violence then Iraq would still be wracked by civil war and ethnic cleansing.

Snark aside, even if difficult-to-kill robot soldiers and exo-suits were the sole property of the United States (which assumes that Britain, China, India and many other countries won't ever build their own, which is not something that has happened with the current generation of unmanned air vehicles), and even if the technology of said droids was so advanced as to make them so hard to fight that armed resistance against them is pointless, then how does this create a worse world? Fighting the USA, whether it is ordinary state vs. state warfare (the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan) or insurgency (Iraq and Afghanistan after their respective invasions), is already a pointless waste of lives which has done nothing but damage the nations in whose name these so-called resistances fight. They may as well resist the sun coming up in the morning. If it weren't even possible to harm a single US soldier, if it were (even more) impossible to inflict so many casualties on US forces that they withdraw (see my post above for the flaws in this logic), might those who wish to see US forces leave their country turn to other, more effective and morally sound forms of resistance?
 
 
Quantum
01:19 / 31.10.06
If robots or drones or remote vehicles were to become commonplace as the US military predicts, then hackers will be employed or recruited or trained as the new freedom fighters/terrorists. If you can take control of a robot fighter plane with a few lines of code then information warfare is the next arena, as the US miltary explicitly state in the links upthread. One well trained programmer could sieze control of the interface or decision making software and redirect that cruise missile.

They already sent the TALONS into the caves Bin Laden was supposed to be hiding in (which I hear are being turned into a tourist attraction) and will be using more and more remote devices- what's to stop information specialists using the US military's toys against them?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:18 / 31.10.06
Apologies for snark.

Well, Phex, yes, it would be great if people turned to non-violent resistance, and of course it would be better than all this killing. But:

Might those who wish to see US forces leave their country turn to other, more effective and morally sound forms of resistance?

Well, no, because attacked people don't seem to behave like that, do they? Fighting Americans, as you say, is already difficult to the point of being pointless, but I don't see any fewer people attempting it...I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but you seem to be advocating for already insanely powerful people to be given invincible fighting machines to...what? Encourage sensible debate? I really hope I'm missing something.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
13:32 / 31.10.06
I don't see a future where no soldiers would have to be deployed being - in peacekeeping/counterinsurgency/whatever-the-hell-Iraq-is situations - even a remote possibility. While we could see robots being used in specifically combat operations, they're still going to need an enormous network of support staff, operators - at the very least, operations planners - and so on. The machines might be invulnerable; the people running them won't be. Even robotic supply vehicles are going to spend a lot of their time interacting with people at each end of their journey.

I don't see that changing until we see some nightmare Von Neumann supply / construction / maintenance / control depot technology. Well, perhaps drop the construction part, but the supply, maintenance and control is going to need to be local and is going to need people to do it. I don't think robots are going to be the "answer" to situations like Iraq for a long, long time... 1997 at the least.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
11:30 / 20.11.06
Israel's in on it too now,

Anyone else think the world's getting more like Ultimate Marvel every day (and not in a good way)?

Phex: i don't think you intended it that way, but your post reads (to me) very uncomfortably like privileged-class moralising about nonviolence which equates things that are really not on an equal footing (namely, the violence of an imperialist aggressor and the self-defensive violence used in response to it).

I'll dig up some links to critiques that have been written about nonviolence-as-ideology and its class and colonial context when i've got a little more time, tho i think it's a debate which might be more suitable for the Switchboard or Head Shop than the Laboratory...
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:20 / 20.11.06
Please do (okay, that sounded uncomfortably like 'Yeah? BRING IT ON!', but it shouldn't have). You may want to leave it a couple of weeks since there are a few threads in Headshop that have just started out (imho it's probably a topic for Headshop rather than Switchboard).
 
 
grant
16:34 / 09.05.07
Washington Post has a fascinating story on robot esprit d'corps.

They're getting field promotions. And being taken fishing by their buddies in Iraq.

And the anthropomorphization is extending into American laboratories, too:

At the Yuma Test Grounds in Arizona, the autonomous robot, 5 feet long and modeled on a stick-insect, strutted out for a live-fire test and worked beautifully, he says. Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield.

Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.

The human in command of the exercise, however -- an Army colonel -- blew a fuse.

The colonel ordered the test stopped.

Why? asked Tilden. What's wrong?

The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.

This test, he charged, was inhumane.


If, as the thread summary suggests, we're "bringing movies like Star Wars to reality," just think of how cuddly the droids are....

Ted Bogosh recalls one day in Camp Victory, near Baghdad, when he was a Marine master sergeant running the robot repair shop.

That day, an explosive ordnance disposal technician walked through his door. The EODs, as they are known, are the people who -- with their robots -- are charged with disabling Iraq's most virulent scourge, the roadside improvised explosive device. In this fellow's hands was a small box. It contained the remains of his robot. He had named it Scooby-Doo.

"There wasn't a whole lot left of Scooby," Bogosh says. The biggest piece was its 3-by-3-by-4-inch head, containing its video camera. On the side had been painted "its battle list, its track record. This had been a really great robot."

The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.

"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."
 
 
Hieronymus
19:12 / 09.05.07
I'm not sure what it says about the robots. But, as usual, it's more telling about human beings than it is the machines. And that's what I find so hypnotic. That looking at even the possibility of robo-sapiens...has to be like a parent looking into the face of their child. Beautiful. Breath-taking. And yet so portentious about our own finite, mortal end. "My son, my executioner" et al.

It's no wonder to me that so many 'robot stories' have involved the robots slaughtering us all, like some kind of Zeus-to-Cronos familial prophecy. Because it speaks to our adoration and outright fear of the next generation.
 
 
Blake Head
15:12 / 07.06.07
Don't worry - Rescue B.E.A.R. is on the way!

Cute? Useful? Terrifying?

How about the overall utility? Fine it can go in to a dangerous area and retrieve a wounded combatant, but isn't the idea of a cute unarmed rescue bear that reassures the injured with its friendly appearance marred slightly by the squad of heavily armed troops that presumably need to secure the area before they can be evacuated?
 
 
grant
20:30 / 07.06.07
Just in case you weren't worried about a new Cold War or an arms race or anything, China introduces the Vanguard-1 combat robot, which "can complete missions of battlefield reconnaissance, defuse bombs and attack targets."
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
23:05 / 12.06.07
TTS: There's no AI coming anytime soon that will be able to distinguish reliably between an enemy combatant and some poor bastard on his way to the greengrocers. Simple motion sensors, on the other hand...

I realise that this response is informed by my general impression of an insufficiency in the military's giving a flying fuck anyway dept. as anything else.

Three developments which all have a bearing on both those points:

Israel's robot gun turrets on the border with Gaza.

Israel has begun deploying stationary robot gun-and-sensor installations along its borders with the Gaza Strip, according to reports ... The robot systems are said to mount cal-fifty (12.7mm) machine guns, protected by "armoured folding shields" until ready to fire.

...

According to Defence News Tel Aviv correspondent Barbara Opall-Rome, "each machine gun-mounted station serves as a type of robotic sniper, capable of enforcing a nearly 1,500-meter-deep no-go zone".

"The IDF's Southern Command is also considering adding Gill/Spike anti-tank missiles to extend the no-go zones to several kilometers, defense and industry sources here said."

The integrated robo-sniper network has reportedly been dubbed "See-Shoot" by the IDF, suggesting that asking questions isn't on the priority list.

"Nobody has any business approaching our border fence," an unnamed Israeli official told Opall-Rome. "It's well-understood that this area is off-limits..."

...

What's more, there seems to be a future plan for the Israeli gun systems to become true killer robots rather than just remote hardened weapon stations.

"At least in the initial phases of deployment, we're going to have to keep the man in the loop," an unnamed IDF commander reportedly told Opall-Rome. "We don't want to risk making tragic and politically costly mistakes with such a lethal system."

So that's one actual lethal autonomous robot system eventually planned for full operation.

Defense News quotes a spokesperson for The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:

Sarit Michaeli... is concerned about the deployment of such a system, regardless of whether it is operated in automatic or semi-automatic mode.

“There have been many cases in which people with no hostile or terrorist intentions were shot approaching the perimeter fence,” she said.

“Some attempted to enter Israel to find work, others suffered from disabilities, and still others were children who may have wandered into the forbidden areas. From a human rights perspective, the technology here is not as important as the need to evaluate each potential threat on a case by case basis.”

According to Michaeli’s statistics, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, 14 unarmed Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces at ranges of 100 meters to 800 meters from the perimeter fence. IDF statistics for that same period, however, show seven “terrorists killed” and 12 others wounded in the no-go buffer zone.

That's presumably all before the See-Shoot was deployed.

Here's another autonomous killer flying robot:

...the RQ/MQ-8 vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned air vehicle (VTUAV) commonly known as "Fire Scout".

The Fire Scout is a heavily modified small commercial 3/4-seat chopper, the Schweizer 333. The cockpit for outmoded flesh pilots has been removed and replaced by robo control and sensor systems, and an extra rotor blade added in order to achieve more lift. As it now stands, the Fire Scout can stay up for eight hours with just sensors and a targeting laser, or five hours with a load of weaponry in addition.

The robo-gunship can pack a fairly impressive arsenal for a small aircraft, including 70mm Hydra rocket pods or Hellfire laser-guided missiles. It truly is a flying robot, not a remote-controlled aircraft; Fire Scouts have made autonomous trial landings aboard US warships underway at sea, without any pilot guidance.





While the South Korean military are doing something similar to Israel in the DMZ.

A new gun-toting sentry robot, developed by Samsung Techwin Co. for the South Korean government, may soon be coming to a disputed border near you. The SGR-A1 robot uses a low-light ­camera and pattern recognition software to distinguish humans from animals or other objects and, if necessary, can fire its built‑in machine gun

...

The Samsung robot packs a 5-­millimeter, Korean-made light machine gun. Should it detect an intruder, “the ultimate decision about shooting should be made by a human, not the robot,” says Yoo, who led the team that designed the robot. But the robot does have an automatic mode, in which it can make the decision. (my emphasis).
...

For use in the DMZ, the sentry bot doesn’t need to distinguish friend from foe. “When you cross the line, you’re automatically an enemy,” Yoo says.

Which is pretty much the same line as the Israeli bots on the Gaza border.

And naturally, they're looking for exports:

Myung Ho Yoo, a principal research engineer at Samsung’s Optics & Digital Imaging Division in Seongnam City, just southeast of Seoul, says the robot is the first of its kind to be commercialized ... Samsung is also looking to deploy the robot—minus the gun, but perhaps with some sort of nonlethal weapon—at airports, prisons, and nuclear power plants, among other places. There’s no price tag as yet, but Yoo estimates it will be in the US $80 000 to $100 000 range.

So coming to an Authorized Persons Only area near you soon?
 
 
grant
23:50 / 12.06.07
I remember visiting the Wall once when I was young (I'd call it the Berlin Wall, except we were nowhere near Berlin.)

Uncanny experience, being told I couldn't walk from this meadow over here to that meadow over there because I'd be shot by the men in that tower waaay over there.

I can see the Wall designers really getting into this technology -- it's like a cross between robots and mines, really. Something you set up that kills people who come along later.
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
10:15 / 03.07.07


Now iRobot (who manufacture cleaning automata among others) are joining forces with Taser International to offer law enforcement bots.

AP Reports:

some observers fear such developments ultimately could lead to robots capable of deciding on their own when to shoot and kill.

"It's one more step in that direction," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a military research organisation.

...

"It is not the first step in that direction, but I think at some point toward the end of the next decade, you're going to start seeing RoboCops, or a Terminator," Pike said, referring to a pair of 1980s robot-themed science-fiction films. "We may see autonomous robots capable of inflicting lethal force.

...

"For now, as soon as you let go of the joystick, the robot just sits there," Pike said. "So questions of moral agency don't arise _ that is to say, whose finger is on the trigger. But a little further down the road, when these ground vehicles do achieve greater autonomy, there may be no human finger on the trigger."

Pike imagines elite police teams and prison guards using Taser-equipped robots to deal with hostage situations and unruly inmates. He also expects they could supplement _ or even replace _ human guards patrolling property. What isn't discussed anywhere is whether there will be a capability for administering first aid to the person who has just been shocked by the taser, for example, or for removing the barbs from their skin.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:19 / 03.07.07
There seems to be a lot of money to be made if you can make something that kills people in a convenient fashion. I wonder what'll happen when somebody hacks into these robot's command networks...
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
12:44 / 31.07.07
MOD competition to build the best semi-autonomous military robots.

To be tested in a fake East German village in Wiltshire.
 
 
grant
01:36 / 11.10.07
Rest easy, citizens!

Robot insects have been spotted monitoring anti-war rallies.

The peace will be maintained!
 
 
Quantum
07:50 / 11.10.07
Holy crap grant! Check out the CIA robot dragonfly in that link, and this micro flying robot;



That's a flying robot! I'm getting robot fear!








  
 
grant
18:04 / 11.10.07
I'm getting robot fear!

I think they need a more serious name so people realize that, like, they're not made up and are, apparently, already in use.
 
 
Quantum
08:23 / 12.10.07
More serious than Micromechanical Flying Insect? How about Autonomous Surveillance Systemm (ASS) or RoboFly? 'Half Fly, Half Machine, All Cop'?

We're racing toward the nanocaust I tell you.
 
 
grant
12:48 / 19.10.07
Oops.

Still, uh, trying to get the kinks out.

Sorry about your soldiers.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply