|
|
Post by m4st3r on Mar 3, 2005 19:00:20 GMT 1
what is all this "gun but no chip" nonsense. Are you all forgetting about Artificial Intelligence? It's quite a basic exaple, but look at Single Player wolfenstein. Do the guards go round shooting each other? No. Do they shoot you? Yes. Do they shoot the scary monster things which were supposedly on their side? Yes. Why is all this? Because it can tell by a) your different clothing, and b) the fact that you are attacking them. Don't forget that cyborgs can afford to have something attack them first and then react as they are mostly machine. With the kind of metals that the future holds, most weapons available to humans will have trouble piercing the metallic components/exo-skeleton, and therefore the cyborg will take very little damage before it relises it's being attacked, and acts upon it (i.e. whooping said person's ass)
With a hell of a lot more years in between wolfenstein and cyborgs being made a reality, don't you all think the AI will have been tweaked to the max? Technology will be a lot more advanced in 50 years, let alone 100.
No, my friends I still say 50 years as a maximum for this to become reality, secret or otherwise.
|
|
Rebel
Corperal
a rebel is not a terrorist, a rebel is a fighter for freedom
Posts: 98
|
Post by Rebel on Mar 3, 2005 19:45:55 GMT 1
ugh ugh. you wanna but a machine on the batle field wich RECODNIZE ENEMIES on their CLOTHES??? wow your a dangerous general wich will have a sh.ort general carreer
and ai bots in wolfenstein recodnize each other for the kind of input and they recodnize a enemy for their input is else then theirs and it has a ping
|
|
|
|
Post by m4st3r on Mar 4, 2005 9:38:22 GMT 1
ugh ugh. you wanna but a machine on the batle field wich RECODNIZE ENEMIES on their CLOTHES??? wow your a dangerous general wich will have a sh.ort general carreer You're missing the point rebel. It's not about who's being a dangerous general, and it's not even about the fact that I don't know a LOT about Artificial Intelligence. It's the fact that in 50 years time, the AI will be so much more powerful and advanced that we won't know what's hit us. and ai bots in wolfenstein recodnize each other for the kind of input and they recodnize a enemy for their input is else then theirs and it has a ping Rebel, I don't understand your English  Please try to explain again. |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Mar 4, 2005 13:13:37 GMT 1
what is all this "gun but no chip" nonsense. Are you all forgetting about Artificial Intelligence? It's quite a basic exaple, but look at Single Player wolfenstein. Do the guards go round shooting each other? No. Do they shoot you? . my point exactly.. but in air plaines they want more safty then just software.. they want a hard ware safty so u wont get blown outta the air by friendly fire.. |
|
Rebel
Corperal
a rebel is not a terrorist, a rebel is a fighter for freedom
Posts: 98
|
Post by Rebel on Mar 4, 2005 13:31:26 GMT 1
Rebel, I don't understand your English Please try to explain again. im saying that at wolfenstein they don't see you as enemy just becuasse you wear those clothes. AI ther sees that because you are the player (single player), and at most games on Inet they see you because of you or press buttons.(not very common) or that y have a ping. the team discovery is simple they have a code for both teams. if you see some1 with the same code it will be a allie. else it wil be a enemy. as for real life you can't put in the code. enemy would be able to fake it. and it will not spot the enemy unless they have a code wich is not the same |
|
Rebel
Corperal
a rebel is not a terrorist, a rebel is a fighter for freedom
Posts: 98
|
Post by Rebel on Mar 4, 2005 13:35:27 GMT 1
And not killing innocent people is easy... give all"soldiers on your side a chip so the cyborgs dont shoot u.. ugh ugh. i was not talking about friendly soldiers but about local civilians. you can only stop fire on them by giving them a chip. but by doing that you take the risk of giving it straight to the enemy |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Mar 6, 2005 20:39:13 GMT 1
ugh ugh. i was not talking about friendly soldiers but about local civilians. you can only stop fire on them by giving them a chip. but by doing that you take the risk of giving it straight to the enemy like i sayed.. u can program it. to not shoot unarmed people.. or to shoot when it is beign shot upoun... there are endless possibilities |
|
Rebel
Corperal
a rebel is not a terrorist, a rebel is a fighter for freedom
Posts: 98
|
Post by Rebel on Mar 6, 2005 20:44:55 GMT 1
much uses. both armys send cyborgs into batle. but the cyborgs only atack if they are being atacked
would be catasrophy for arms factory
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Mar 6, 2005 20:49:21 GMT 1
much uses. both armys send cyborgs into batle. but the cyborgs only atack if they are being atacked would be catasrophy for arms factory yeah but isnt that what we want.. i mean nukes keep the status quo, so in the future robot armies will keep the status quo..becos one side knows if they attack then the other side will counter attack... Also look at airport scanners, they scan bags automaticly anc can pick out weapons and other stuff.. so why cant a cyborg do this...answer he will be able to do that too.. |
|
|
|
Post by Piurek on Mar 8, 2005 16:16:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by street on Mar 9, 2005 16:25:07 GMT 1
i dont know move like that ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Mar 16, 2005 23:13:51 GMT 1
we seem to be really devided about this subject..
Poll Question: How long before we have Cyborg Soldiers ?
10 years 0 (0%)
25 years 2 (18%)
50 years 1 (9%)
100 years 2 (18%)
150 years 2 (18%)
200 years 0 (0%)
250 years 0 (0%)
300+ years 4 (36%)
|
|
|
|
Post by flying on Apr 3, 2005 18:46:35 GMT 1
Hey...
Who says we don't have them already?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zecristo on Apr 3, 2005 23:49:47 GMT 1
Recognition codes are used for ages. Use of uniforms is one basic example. Of course it is fakeable but nevertheless it is still used. So, I don't see why they wouldn't be used on cyborgs.
Shortly after the beggining of WW II we had a good example of modern sophisticated use of them when the RAF equiped it's fighters with a device which signaled continuosly in a given radio frequency thus enabling the radar control crews to tell who was british and who wasn't.
On the subject of how warfare will be in the future I remember seeing a documentary from the "History Channel".
Let me see if I can find it in my "video" lists... Yes, I think it's number 46...
It's an american series called "Brute Force - The History of Weapons at War" and the particular episode is "Future Weapons".
I think it covers most of the ideas you wrote about in this topic.
Computer chips, automatic target recognition, hovering missiles (they wait airborne for a target to appear), directed energy weapons (ray gun kind of thing), "environmental suits" and armor for the infantry, robot soldiers, unmanned vehicles, and some other more ordinary technologies.
There's another episode on "Experimental Weapons" and I think it touches, among others, the subject of space weapons.
Summing up; if they say it's being developed we can be sure it's already made and at least tested...
|
|
|
|
Post by flying on Apr 4, 2005 3:45:26 GMT 1
Summing up; if they say it's being developed we can be sure it's already made and at least tested... Yep, that's pretty much what my brother says. He also says another thing: it they are showing it on movies as sci-fi, that means it's already been around for some time now, no matter how advanced it may seem to the rest of us. You see, military technology advances at a rate of 40:1 when compared to civilian technology. This means that they move forward 40 years worth of Research & Development for every calendar year that goes by. So, if you start counting from the end of WW2 (1945), then they now have a techology that is nearly 2,500 years ahead of what you and I can buy on the stores... |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Apr 5, 2005 14:32:18 GMT 1
yep did u see that link of that robot i posted on page 1 or 2. it can do a sjit load of very VERY complicated moves. you just attach a gun to it and u have a cyborg.. He also says another thing: it they are showing it on movies as sci-fi, that means it's already been around for some time now, no matter how advanced it may seem to the rest of us. a good example is star trek, captain Kirk and hes "cell phone" calling the ship to beam him up, now we all have "cell phones" like that  |
|
|
|
Post by m4st3r on Apr 6, 2005 10:30:17 GMT 1
a good example is star trek, captain Kirk and hes "cell phone" calling the ship to beam him up, now we all have "cell phones" like that Really? Dammit, I must be behind, mine doesn't beam me up ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ironman on Apr 23, 2005 3:47:59 GMT 1
Really? Dammit, I must be behind, mine doesn't beam me up ;D well no not yet, but maybe in the future... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Fibremat on Apr 24, 2005 15:23:04 GMT 1
Has anyone been in a factory with Robots.
The type you see in the car adverts even though they are jut machines atached to computors they are realy spooky.
I worked in a cental utilities ware house (water gas and electricity) puting in some fibre and installing cabinets and this robot arm moved up and down a long room all day selecting disks and sloting them in different servers all day non stop 24/7
that was so freaky with no humans within 100 meters.
|
|
|
|
Post by flying on Apr 24, 2005 19:26:29 GMT 1
Fibremat,
No, I've never been in a factory with robots, but I'm well aware of their capabilities.
Although they are very competent to do repetitive/programmed work, these machines do have 2 inherent design weaknesses (or at least, so we are being told...):
a) the controller-elements can only engage in pre-programmed activities (unless they are operated by remote control); and
b) the servo-elements require a substantial amount of electric/hydraulic power to operate (which limits them to relatively-fixed positions).
However...
We've all see movies where the robots (android or otherwise) work on batteries (of one type or another) which allow them considerable freedom of movement.
Also, these "fictional" robots can think for themselves, or at least have some degree of choice over a wide range of pre-programmed options.
These 2 freedom-factors may at first seem to contradict the very notion of a robot as a slave (from Czech, I think). But if you think about it, aren't humans the ultimate robot?
What are our thinking processes if not the result of very complex programming, running on a wet-wire CPU that is capable of establishing it's own neural pathways? If to that you add self-pruning capabilities (based on a trial-and-error type of behaviour, processing data collected by sensors), on top of a stable, pre-wired, support structure taking care of LSS, and you throw in a staggering data-storage capacity, you get a brain...
You give it mimetic capabilities, surround it with role-models, give it enough time to start turning data into info, and you get a working mammalian brain...
Speaking of which, wouldn't it be be much, much cheaper to just use "donw-rated" humans to do the work of robots? You won't get any cheaper commodity than human bodies, an all you had to do would to them was removing their capacity for abstract thinking...
But if you don't want to go to the trouble of changing their genetics, just use "toggle-switch", On/Off mind control.
You see, mind-control techniques (so called "brain-washing") are far, far more advanced than we would like to believe.
It is now perfectly possible to control the thoughts of any given subject by just pointing at him a source of micro-waves, tuned to the correct frequency, length and power.
Mind-controllers can now do away with any pre-conditioning of the subject: no torture, no drugs, no hypnosis, no surgery, no implants...
Just point your ray-gun at the guy (or point a ray-tower at an entire population, for that matter) and you get them to behave in a certain way, or even to think certain thoughts -- and the subjects won't even realise the thoughs don't originate inside their heads!
Anyway, back on topic.
Do such "free-roaming" robots exist? I would say "yes"...
Is the general public going to be told about them? I would say "no"...
|
|
