Computer ran government

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Seriously?

I just vaguely remember there being a little boy who was a robot, and I was pretty sure that the attitudes toward him were positive...

I guess that's not really relevant if that's how it ended.

[ArtificialOne]

It ended in: people went extinct and machines eventually took over (although not by force) (and some thought they were aliens).

But I thought it ended in a good way. I think we need more movies that end this way.

I think that it shows human fraility and the need for us to do more to ensure our survival.

As far as my political views:

A. I think it's important to realize failed types of govenrments "ie Socialism and communism."
B. I believe in values and not changing them due to media opinion.
(which is what many poiliticians are doing now)
C. I respect anyones views as well as they are put forth with respect and fact. And not trying to stir up controversy or bash ones culture.
D. I'm not Liberal, I'm not conservative and I'm not centrist.
E. I believe in technology as the evolution of man. I believe we need to devote more time and effort to perfecting this technology and making it less corrupatable.

I would like to coin the term "Technocrat". Although probably invented by someone else and not in the dictionary, I think it's the best word to use for now.

I'm not a person for utopia or revisiting failed ideas. I believe in the future and long term planing.

If you are looking for interesting reading try MFP (Multifunctionpetropolis) I'll get the book title once I unpack it. The idea has worked very well in japan. Also, I had a hard time finding the princible on the internet.

The only thing I've assumed is "you" making assumptions of what kind of person I am. Ever since I jumped on cptstern for his remarks you've been all over me. I personaly have no care for gay rights or marriage or any other sort of social views along those lines. I think they are a waste of time and distracting us from more important things like mass extinction and preserving our race (the human one) from this great crucible we call existance.

[ArtificialOne]

You need to rent AI and also I Robot. And read Asimov if you have time.

And yes, AI the movie is relevant to this discussion. It is one of the few good movies about the topic and explores human interactions to machines.
I should have qouted it earlier. There's so many, but my point was on the general feeling that america has vs others. And how far and if our views will change with time.

[ArtificialOne]

I'll go further into MFP if people want me to.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

A. I think it's important to realize failed types of govenrments "ie Socialism and communism."

Which is kind of ironic, consider what you're posing creates the same problems.
You're essentially going in a circle.

Socialism and Communism were, at one point, better then what they had at the time, such as Enlightened Despotism and a few Constitutional Monarchies, which was better then what they had before, such as just plain Monarchies. You'd reach a never ending cycle of "We replace X with X".

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

B. I believe in values and not changing them due to media opinion.
(which is what many poiliticians are doing now)

I mean, it's not like the Media, and the People that come with the media, are meant to be influential..

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

E. I believe in technology as the evolution of man. I believe we need to devote more time and effort to perfecting this technology and making it less corrupatable.

Why not just do that with people?

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I'm not a person for utopia or revisiting failed ideas. I believe in the future and long term planing.

Aren't failed ideas, usually good ideas for inspiration later one?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

The only thing I've assumed is "you" making assumptions of what kind of person I am. Ever since I jumped on cptstern for his remarks you've been all over me. I personaly have no care for gay rights or marriage or any other sort of social views along those lines. I think they are a waste of time and distracting us from more important things like mass extinction and preserving our race (the human one) from this great crucible we call existance.

Dude, I do NOT defend Sternn. I just think that you argued poorly with him, and you made him look right, which is NOT ok with me. Sternn is a moron and I would prefer that he always look wrong.

I don't think our race is going extinct any time soon, unless that whole "nuclear wasteland" thing happens. We're incredibly overpopulated as it is.

I'm not sure I would call "mass extinction and preserving the human race" important. Then again, I like to live a little more in the now.

And you -did- make assumptions about me. You assumed I accused you of something, that the simple fucking question I asked you was an accusation. You assumed that a humorous link I posted was some form of "trolling", which I have yet to hear an explanation for.

[ArtificialOne]

By revisiting I mean trying to reinstitute them.

And as far as the media. I think the mass media such as the news networks and radio talkshows are the bad ones (I mean they are for profit). People gobble up info sometimes without checking, and then believe it right away. I would like to see more people involved in local politics and get rid of the "us vs them" mentality that has struck our culture so badly. If more people were involved, more people would know what was really happening and be able to make better decisions. Don't you think if you had a front row seat to something you would be able to make a better decision instead of listening to someone who was there? "Kind of like that game where you whisper a message down the line of people and then see how it changes at the end" That's how I feel about mass media such as the news. That's why I'm for MFP. It would let you in on being a part of a local govt much easier.

Often in science, knowing what doesn't work leads you to something that does.

The "now" is pretty well taken care of. That's why I think we need to look to the future. And also alot of problems that will creep up in the near future can be solved by better plaing of future ideas....

And I'm sure many other species didn't see extinction coming.."Cromags anyone?"

And why not make people incorruptable? It's near impossible, at least in my opinion. That's why I'm all for tech. I think it has a better chance at it than people.

And that funny post? Repost it because I have no recollection of it.

I have to go out but will be back in a few hours..... Seeing another movie......

[Splintered]

There's a difference between Humans today and and Cro-Magnons, in my opinion.

Now that we are aware of, why can't we control it? I mean, if you know a ball is going to fall, we can catch it. If you know you're going to be invaded, you can build an army to protect yourself.

As for people being made incorruptable, I don't see why we couldn't. It's a challenge, but it seems well worth it. I mean, computers fail easily. Biological organisms seem much more resilient. I mean, if I put a bullet in Asimo, chances are, he will have major problems, no matter where I put it, as long as I don't shoot him in the leg.

Shoot me on the other hand? (And no, you can't.) Chances are I'll be able to get up and walk, assuming you don't hit any of my vital areas.

Detonate an EMP blast? I'm fine. Our buddy Asimo? He's toast.

As for the media being less interactive, Web 2.0 anyone?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

And that funny post? Repost it because I have no recollection of it.

My post:

Oh, also, here's a new American perspective on robots:

Robots are gay.

Your response:

Grow up.
I'm not going to argue with a person like you on this topic.
Stop being a troll. If your going to post crap like that I am not going to reply to any of your posts any longer.

My rebuttal:

What you maybe didn't realize is what this show means.

Sure, there are stereotypes running rampant throughout the show, but no more so than gay-friendly Will & Grace. The stereotypes in Gay Robot, however, are so blatant that they're transparent, which makes people think about exactly what the stereotypes they cling to say about them. Also, Gay Robot is a friend and brother to a fraternity, and not a gay fraternity. It's an average fraternity with drinking and sports and manly guys. Gay Robot, despite the fact that he's a.) homosexual and b.) a robot, is accepted by the mainstream.

What, exactly, is "crap" about that?

You didn't watch it, did you? I'm not sure exactly what you assumed I would be posting, since I have made it very clear that I'm a liberal and a strong supporter of gay marriage, but you assumed wrong.

We were talking about perspectives in cultures. Adam Sandler, a comedian who nobody ever claimed to be revolutionary or even particularly classy, came up with this show, and it's become incredibly popular in various online communities, even before it has ever aired. This is an interesting change in perspective in our culture.

Now, how was that trolling?

Clear?

[ArtificialOne]

Ok, before the link didn't work. now it does.

That's scary, and an abuse of robotics.lol That should be a warcrime..lol I can't imagine that making it off the cutting room floor....but then again, we do have American idol...I'll take a bet and say it's going to stay online. Interesting... and scary...

Sorry for accusing you of trolling, it was a tech glitch as the first link you sent I coulnd't click so I didn't think it was a link.

And for Splintered;

Emp's are easily shielded against. In the military they call it "Ruggedizing". Most all military equipment and planes are shielded. Pretty much anything incased in metal will due, and a self contained power source.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...pp/apjemp.html

As far as rugged robots, yes asimo isn't tough. But most industrial and military robots are. There are numerous bots that go into nuclear reactors on a daily and prolonged basis. The military have bomb bots that take out ied's and detonate explosives (and sometimes get detonated themselves).

http://www.nosc.mil/robots/

And the ar-15 (old m-16) rounds tumble through the body causing lots and lots of damage. In fact usually a shot in the limb means amputation and in the torso death.

http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/m16.htm (read through the article)

But basically once it hits the target the cg gets all f'd up and starts to flip around and tumble inside the body. They are also relatively safe since they can't shoot through a standard house wall because of the same princible above.

Interesting fact; That the military is once again recalling 9mm's because it's like shooting someone with a bb gun. So they are reissuing .45's for sheer stopping power.

I would say that the biggest problem with robots and electronics is power source. Thats where I'd say the weakness lies. (yes, yes and people are involved too, I know someone will point that out)

And extinction:
History proves there's been nearly dozens. And since we're not cockroaches or bacterium(some would argue). There's a pretty good chance we won't make it. Hence it is coming, just when?
Sometimes, it also happens fast.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGFIBN6PO1.DTL

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml

My opinion is that we are selfish if we are only looking after the now, and not the tomorrow.

And on another sidenote; The movie was good. So were the previews, I look forward to the new Hannibal and Sunshine movies...

[Drake Dun]

The computer would have to make decisions based on some kind of values, moral or otherwise. Since you cannot "find" values scientifically the way you can take measurements of physical phenomena, all you would end up with is a robot programmed with some particular person or body of persons' values. It might have the advantage of being true to those values and not compromising them every time some petty interest came into conflict with them, but it would not do anything to affect the problem of basic human conflict.

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

I agree. It would have to be programmed in a fashion similar to the way constitutions are drawn up. I hope that such a system anyway would resolve many of the problems with todays groups having undue influence in the govt.

I plan in the near future to start a 501 or similar group. I want to help get aid in funding of ai and robotics research. I don't know of many groups currently doing this in the US.

I'll have to print off this post at some time and take notes on what's been said.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

And read Asimov if you have time.

Dan Simmons would be a good read also. He blends the human and computer progress into the future fairly well.


I still am not convinced with the AI for government program. Lack of emotion would imply complete logic basis.

Viewing the government with a pure logical mind:

- abortion wouldn't just be pro-choice, it would be mandatory
- in areas of overpopulation, euthanasia would be authorized
- Laws would be passed dictating what type of cars could be driven, NASCAR would be banned

Frankly, I would see the AI beginning to dictate laws which would begin encroaching on basic freedoms. Eventually, the AI would ratify consititutional amendments to cancel anything previous and begin to control the humans daily lives. The remaining few who aren't already medicated would be required to start.

[ArtificialOne]

I don't see NASCAR being banned a bad thing ...lol...

Yeah, eventually I could see a "I robot" thing taking over. A "for your own good" scenario happening.

Maybe a quasi human/ai approach would be better? Where the ai takes care of the technical stuff and the people make the bigger decisions?

I wonder what we would clasify a truly sentient AI as?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Dan Simmons would be a good read also.

Hell yea!!
I have actually thought that an AI controlled government would be the best of possible governments.
I like the idea in Evangelion of three computers: one with the mind of a politician (I think), one with the mind of a scientist, and one with the mind of a mother.
The computer with the mind of a mother is the crucial one for the trinity to work. It would take out the cold logic of the processes. And it would not have the inevitable bias of whoever inputs the moral standards to the computer, because motherhood is instinctual; pure; untainted by society's values.

[ArtificialOne]

COOL! I forgot about Evangelion. I rented the whole thing when I was in Australia. Pretty cool. I also rented a special anniversery edition of akira...and it made me feel old....

[jacquelinetm]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

What you maybe didn't realize is what this show means.

Sure, there are stereotypes running rampant throughout the show, but no more so than gay-friendly Will & Grace. The stereotypes in Gay Robot, however, are so blatant that they're transparent, which makes people think about exactly what the stereotypes they cling to say about them. Also, Gay Robot is a friend and brother to a fraternity, and not a gay fraternity. It's an average fraternity with drinking and sports and manly guys. Gay Robot, despite the fact that he's a.) homosexual and b.) a robot, is accepted by the mainstream.

Ooooh, you forgot the most famous gay robot of all... C3PO from Star Wars. And that started in the 70's... the "gay stereotyping of robots", that is. :}

[ArtificialOne]

Stop trying to make robots engendered! (I think thats the word) Unless their fembots, but thats ok because I'm sexist...lmao
ok it's too late and I'm starting to feel drunk from lack of sleep....

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by ArtificalOne

Emp's are easily shielded against. In the military they call it "Ruggedizing". Most all military equipment and planes are shielded. Pretty much anything incased in metal will due, and a self contained power source.

Note how they're not shielded, however, on the foot soldier level though. You'll notice that most EMP shielding is done on the building/armor level. Since footsoldiers are required in most scenarios, especially house-to-house combat, you're screwed.

Since you can't shield the foot soldier from the effects of EMP, you can't field that good of an army. Even if you manage to make your force compromise of lighter armor like HMMWVs, smaller APC's such as the Stryker, and then make the rest of the bulk compromise of Main Battle Tanks such as the M1A1, you're still not going to be able to replace the footsoldier.

Not to mention, even with the processes you describe, this hardly protects from any major EMP blast, such as the one from a nuclear detonation. For that, you have to have highly reinforced concrete bunkers.

This is also completely devoid of any other means of destroying a robot (Rootkits, Viruses, Spyware, Lagging, etc.), and the fact that EMP shielding can get rather expensive.

Originally Posted by Artificial

As far as rugged robots, yes asimo isn't tough. But most industrial and military robots are. There are numerous bots that go into nuclear reactors on a daily and prolonged basis. The military have bomb bots that take out ied's and detonate explosives (and sometimes get detonated themselves).

And yet I'm still failing to see bots do house-to-house searches, streetfighting, sniping, or any other major tasks that the infantry do.

And the ar-15 (old m-16) rounds tumble through the body causing lots and lots of damage. In fact usually a shot in the limb means amputation and in the torso death.

And a .9mm can cause a fatality, sure. But this isn't any better in robots. If you shoot a robot in any of the limbs, or rotors, or any type of gear, it's completely fried, provided you hit a critical area. Just like a human. If you manage to get a good shot off on a Metal Storm project, you could fry the electronics completely.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

But basically once it hits the target the cg gets all f'd up and starts to flip around and tumble inside the body. They are also relatively safe since they can't shoot through a standard house wall because of the same princible above.

Which was one of the design points of the 5.7 SS190 round. Yet, the 5.56 and 5.7, both suffer a major drawback: Unless you can score a target hit, chances are any type of Kevlar will keep you safe from the major damages. Your assumption is that the target is unarmored, or lightly armored. Yet anything above a Type III body armor will protect against 7.62 rounds.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Interesting fact; That the military is once again recalling 9mm's because it's like shooting someone with a bb gun. So they are reissuing .45's for sheer stopping power.

Which is stupid.
Raw caliber doesn't replace skill in combat. A shot to the head with a .22lr is just as lethal as a shot with a .45 ACP, or a .50 BMG. Sure, you could probably do more damage, but you could give any rookie a .45 ACP, and let him blast away with a high powered, fully automatic machine pistol, and he still won't beat a soldier with a 5.4mm pistol.

Body Armor changes it up a bit, sure, but not by too much.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I would say that the biggest problem with robots and electronics is power source. Thats where I'd say the weakness lies. (yes, yes and people are involved too, I know someone will point that out)

That, and just like a computer network, if one fails, everything slows down massively.

History proves there's been nearly dozens. And since we're not cockroaches or bacterium(some would argue). There's a pretty good chance we won't make it. Hence it is coming, just when?
Sometimes, it also happens fast.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGFIBN6PO1.DTL

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml

My opinion is that we are selfish if we are only looking after the now, and not the tomorrow.

And how many of these things observed evolution on a critical level?

As for a note on the military: We're talking purely speculation here. There are too many factors to say which would be effective in combat, because you cant' define combat scenarios by a set of numbers. You'd have to take in millions of factors, such as troop morale, number of troops, skill of the troops themselves, what armor support is arriving when, the weather, unexpected aid, lucky shots, advanced tactics, etc. Simply defining "Robot X can survive IED, therefore Robot X is better then a footsoldier", means absolutely nothing when Robot X isn't facing an IED, instead Robot X is facing Joe Civilian with a .22 Luger, and is really pissed off that you're stepping on his property.

Also, this is not to mention that Robots are still in the early stages of combat here. What we do have is either in prototype, or still in conceptual stages. We could try and argue that we have UAV's as robots, but they aren't to the point of self-autonomy, they still require a heavy amount of human interaction.

Oh, this is also completely disregarding the fact, that there has been no real need to develope specific "Anti-Robot" technology. Currently, most modern militarys are focusing on projects like next-generation rifles (M8, FN SCAR, G36k I believe), UAVs (Predators, Globalhawks), or other items like that. Weapons designed to counter Robots haven't exactly hit the market yet, because Robots are essentially useless, or extremely expensive. Yet, I can see when they do become useful, and cheap to build, there might be a massive surge of weapons designed specific for that task.

Imagine this:
Arms Dealer: "Hey, I can wipe out sixteen robots with one missile".
Researcher: "I can enhance that, and do research projects to destroy more robots."
China: "OMFG! LETS GO!"

Capitalism at it's best

[ArtificialOne]

As far as accuracy goes, pistols aren't the thing. Larger caliber is usually better with handguns since you don't have the chance to stop and aim. Hence, a larger round to do more damage. Accuracy and handguns rarely go hand in hand so to speak (due to the nature of close combat). Sure their are target pistols, and you can shoot someone with a .22 and kill them. But shooting the same person at 10yrds with a small round vs a larger one diminishes the odds of a kill or knockdown substantialy. And since most pistols are used in close combat, you're rarely farther than 10 yrds away, and want to make the kill or knockdown fast (not havev to shoot more than once). Do you want to trust a .22 with your life? I don't. Most weapons experts and soldiers will tell you that larger is always better with pistols. Example; The navy seals use the .357 Magnum by S&W as the survival gun due to the fact that it's usally one shot one kill, and it's reliability.

I would love to see anti-robot countermeasures come into play. Nothing spurs evolution like hardships.

I wouldn't call what the robots are doing now useless. As I said before ,they are being used to take out ied's, which is pretty useful to those driving on roads out there. Also they are used to clear caves and set explosives in dugouts.

I predict in the next five years we will see more robots with more capabilities. The navy just relaesed from testing a uav helicopter that is autonomous in flight and manual when it comes to firing munitions. you input coordinates and it flies itself there, then a person takes control for the firing actions. (which is different from the predator as you have to control every aspect of it's flight and operation)

There are also "swarmbots" being tested and funded by DARPA right now to do house and building clearing. Although most interest has come from mapping and fire fighting activities till now. It's not a far stretch to see them in the near future taking on urban warfare. Imagine how shocked a group of badguys or hostage taker would be if dozens and dozens of rat sized robots swarmed over them and the entire place.

I'm not sure where you live but you should check out Aberdeen, MD's NBC warfare division. All of US minor and major armor are protected against high level emp blasts, such as nuclear blasts, so are military aircraft. Thanks to the cold war. As a precaution though, when the us mil does make an emp hit, such as during the first days of the Iraq war, we clear the area of friendly aircraft and personel as to not take chances. I'm sure when more robots become available and trustworthy they will be protected from such things.

I know the article stated a faraday cage as the best (and very expensive), but really any good steel incased and grounded enclosure will do. You can also add special diodes to the power side of the circuit to help protect them.

Another thing is that most military robots cannot be pr0grammed by radio access. In operation you can only activate controls and options, but not programm (same with planes and armor , you can send and recieve data but not programm). So a virus attack similar to an email or web attack wouldn't work. The only way to affect an attack like that would be from the inside, like a spy or someone.

I think the goal as far as military hardware goes, is to have fully autonomous machines that also repair and guide eachother.

Just remember that technology is evolving rapidly. See moores law.
We already have the mechanics down, it's just a matter of programming and tweaking the electronics really.

I think we have been lagging behind so far in robotics because, for the longest time, they haven't been taken seriously until now. Just see how far the darpa grand challenge has came since the begining races.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

As far as accuracy goes, pistols aren't the thing. Larger caliber is usually better with handguns since you don't have the chance to stop and aim. Hence, a larger round to do more damage. Accuracy and handguns rarely go hand in hand so to speak (due to the nature of close combat). Sure their are target pistols, and you can shoot someone with a .22 and kill them. But shooting the same person at 10yrds with a small round vs a larger one diminishes the odds of a kill or knockdown substantialy. And since most pistols are used in close combat, you're rarely farther than 10 yrds away, and want to make the kill or knockdown fast (not havev to shoot more than once). Do you want to trust a .22 with your life? I don't. Most weapons experts and soldiers will tell you that larger is always better with pistols. Example; The navy seals use the .357 Magnum by S&W as the survival gun due to the fact that it's usally one shot one kill, and it's reliability.

Which once again comes down to the skill of the soldier. Caliber doesn't mean much in the hand of an expert, which is the entire point.

Originally Posted by AritificalOne

I wouldn't call what the robots are doing now useless. As I said before ,they are being used to take out ied's, which is pretty useful to those driving on roads out there. Also they are used to clear caves and set explosives in dugouts.

But once again, that isn't the main part of any substantial army. It doesn't cover main battle tanks, Air-to-Air vehicles, troop transports, command vehicles, aircraft carriers, etc.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I predict in the next five years we will see more robots with more capabilities. The navy just relaesed from testing a uav helicopter that is autonomous in flight and manual when it comes to firing munitions. you input coordinates and it flies itself there, then a person takes control for the firing actions. (which is different from the predator as you have to control every aspect of it's flight and operation)

But it still requires a human to fire.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

There are also "swarmbots" being tested and funded by DARPA right now to do house and building clearing. Although most interest has come from mapping and fire fighting activities till now. It's not a far stretch to see them in the near future taking on urban warfare. Imagine how shocked a group of badguys or hostage taker would be if dozens and dozens of rat sized robots swarmed over them and the entire place.

Yes, but swarmbots are still within the really beta stages, and even then can be beaten by simply boarding up the place, or using some kind of electronics scrambler (Chaff Grenades, Ultrasonics, Random Radio/Wifi Signals).

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I'm not sure where you live but you should check out Aberdeen, MD's NBC warfare division. All of US minor and major armor are protected against high level emp blasts, such as nuclear blasts, so are military aircraft. Thanks to the cold war. As a precaution though, when the us mil does make an emp hit, such as during the first days of the Iraq war, we clear the area of friendly aircraft and personel as to not take chances. I'm sure when more robots become available and trustworthy they will be protected from such things.

And the infantry levels, which it's hard to protect from EMP blasts, purely because of size?

And this is still completely devoid of the possibility of things beyond EMP being used.

Originally Posted by ArtificlaOne

I know the article stated a faraday cage as the best (and very expensive), but really any good steel incased and grounded enclosure will do. You can also add special diodes to the power side of the circuit to help protect them.

Which is expensive still, not as effective as the proper stuff, and still hard to deploy on an infantry level.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Another thing is that most military robots cannot be pr0grammed by radio access. In operation you can only activate controls and options, but not programm (same with planes and armor , you can send and recieve data but not programm). So a virus attack similar to an email or web attack wouldn't work. The only way to affect an attack like that would be from the inside, like a spy or someone.

You apply the same principle of using an infected floppy disk. You put the virus on a floppy disk, and then someone uses it. The computer does autorun, accidentally runs the executable, and you're fried. The Robot plugs in to do a firmware update? It's gone. Anything that touches the network is toast.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Just remember that technology is evolving rapidly. See moores law.
We already have the mechanics down, it's just a matter of programming and tweaking the electronics really.

We've beaten moores law before, if I remember right, but it doesn't matter. "Just a matter of programming and electronics", means that it's actually incredibly hard, and time consuming. I mean, look at how much work goes into maintaining a single web-server, on a corporate level. Trying to maintain the same thing on a global level is almost insane.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

I think we have been lagging behind so far in robotics because, for the longest time, they haven't been taken seriously until now. Just see how far the darpa grand challenge has came since the begining races.

I think we're lagging behind, simply because we already have people, who can do the same task, don't need to be manufactured, and with a little assistance from the technology, can be just as good, or better.

[ArtificialOne]

I'm still arguing the point of caliber in handguns.

Fact is, no expert or soldier I know, who are also expert marksmen, will use anything smaller than a .38. It's not skill or training, it's just common sense. If you shoot a guy 5 times with a 9mm in the torso and they don't go down , Whats the point? It's always taught that you take aim at the largest target (ie Torso) Because with pistols it's very hard to hit a target (let alone a moving one) at more than 10yrds. That's why handguns are strictly self defense weapons and not sniper weapons. Thats why caliber is also very important. If all you can be sure of hitting (and that's what they teach) is the torso, you want the largest caliber you can reasonably carry. The military, police, security forces, etc all teach to aim at the largest target, ie. the torso.
Pistols (with acceptions, ie hunting and target) are not that accurate due to short barrels and low muzzle velocity. Hence ar-15, .30-08 and such are better for long distance and accuracy. Ak's with their heavy bullets and low velocites are not that accurate. That being said, they can be made to be accurate through several means,but is rarely done in the field by the enemy.

True about the people vs robots thing. But robots are gainding ground simply because it puts less lives in danger, not really because they are better. New versions of uav planes that have stealth and more weaponry are being developed on such prinicibles. Saving lives by putting machines in the palce of men will trump other arguments as to who's better. Even evac robots are being developed and funded by darpa (E-evac or field medics is one of the most dangerous jobs in the military).

Simply put, once a robot can do a simple dangerous job such as clearing and holding a building, transporting goods, routine patrols. People will be taken out of those areas and put on other tasks like public relations and such. It just makes sense that if you can help to not put someones life at risk, you wont.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Fact is, no expert or soldier I know, who are also expert marksmen, will use anything smaller than a .38. It's not skill or training, it's just common sense. If you shoot a guy 5 times with a 9mm in the torso and they don't go down , Whats the point?

I don't care if you shoot a guy five times in the torso with an SS190, if you hit him five times in the torso with anything, you're going to do a severe amount of damage to him, and probably make him go down. Your only factor that you'd have to worry about would be bulletproof vests, but chances are if you're going up against that, then they will have something like Type III body armor, it will be ineffective anyway.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

It's always taught that you take aim at the largest target (ie Torso) Because with pistols it's very hard to hit a target (let alone a moving one) at more than 10yrds. That's why handguns are strictly self defense weapons and not sniper weapons. Thats why caliber is also very important. If all you can be sure of hitting (and that's what they teach) is the torso, you want the largest caliber you can reasonably carry. The military, police, security forces, etc all teach to aim at the largest target, ie. the torso.

Take a look at IPSC competitions. I don't doubt that if they fired at the same ranges you're describing, they could easily hit some kind of unprotected vital area, no matter the caliber (Such a the head, kneecaps, inside of the arms, etc.) I can understand why you'd want larger caliber maybe for a rookie, but I still say that if you put an expert against a rookie, it isn't going to matter who has the larger caliber.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Pistols (with acceptions, ie hunting and target) are not that accurate due to short barrels and low muzzle velocity. Hence ar-15, .30-08 and such are better for long distance and accuracy. Ak's with their heavy bullets and low velocites are not that accurate. That being said, they can be made to be accurate through several means,but is rarely done in the field by the enemy.

Which a submachine gun (FNP90, HKMp5, Mp7, or Steyr TMP), can easily take care of the short barrels and low muzzle velocity. Even then, a standard Glock or Heckler and Koch is accurate enough at short ranges, to place accurately at a target. Especially if multiple rounds are fired.

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

True about the people vs robots thing. But robots are gainding ground simply because it puts less lives in danger, not really because they are better. New versions of uav planes that have stealth and more weaponry are being developed on such prinicibles. Saving lives by putting machines in the palce of men will trump other arguments as to who's better. Even evac robots are being developed and funded by darpa (E-evac or field medics is one of the most dangerous jobs in the military).

Yes, but the problem is that you face Robots against Robots, and it becomes an economics war, until one is forced to pull out the foot soldiers, and then the robots will likely be outmatched. You may have new UAV planes soon, but how is that going to match a full-size F16, or F22?

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Simply put, once a robot can do a simple dangerous job such as clearing and holding a building, transporting goods, routine patrols. People will be taken out of those areas and put on other tasks like public relations and such. It just makes sense that if you can help to not put someones life at risk, you wont.

And when one side is forced to pull out the infantry, then you're going to simply run up against a wall that can't be beaten. If both sides can deploy robots, it's not unlikely that they can deploy troops with any advanced weapons for soldiers. Nor is it unlikely that they could find other Anti-Robotics technology.

[ArtificialOne]

Curious if you have ever heard of the "swarming battles" theorist are trying to make up to do battle... I thought it was kind of funny because it would look like a dust storm or two clouds coming together.

Yes robotic warfare would and probably will cause another arms race or cold war. There are prices for progress.

[ArtificialOne]

Sorry* I meant to add nanites somewhere up there.