Tweet
Haciendo un pequeño receso para limpiar las neuronas me encontre con esto:
Que bonito, tortura instantanea...
Y esto otro que parece una muy buena medida, no vaya ser que los cientificos locos sudamericanos se dediquen a crear monstruos sin corazon... aunque los politicos ya estan demasiado evolucionados... asi que dificil que se les iguale.
Saludos.
Two fearsome non-lethal weapons on their way to cops' hands
Look out, everybody — here come the trigger-happy cops with even more non-lethal weapons. Pictured above is the PHaSR, the bad-ass "Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response" rifle that's just about ready for deployment. It puts the hurt on you by dazzling you with laser light, while also burning your skin with an infrared laser. Let's just hope they set those PHaSRs on stun.
The next big, scary gun in development (but not quite ready for deployment) is the Active Denial System (ADS), blasting out a 6-foot-wide microwave beam that makes those evildoers want to jump back, pronto. Ouch. They rifles aren't going to kill you, but they'll make you wish you were dead until you get your carcass out of those hot rays.
It's good news that the police are developing weapons that don't kill people, but when you look at the way police are all-too-eager to use Tasers, you might consider whether this is a good thing or not. We're thinking they can be either good or bad, depending on who wields them. While we're wondering why we can't all get along, we're also thinking to ourselves, "Don't microwave me, bro!"
Look out, everybody — here come the trigger-happy cops with even more non-lethal weapons. Pictured above is the PHaSR, the bad-ass "Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response" rifle that's just about ready for deployment. It puts the hurt on you by dazzling you with laser light, while also burning your skin with an infrared laser. Let's just hope they set those PHaSRs on stun.
The next big, scary gun in development (but not quite ready for deployment) is the Active Denial System (ADS), blasting out a 6-foot-wide microwave beam that makes those evildoers want to jump back, pronto. Ouch. They rifles aren't going to kill you, but they'll make you wish you were dead until you get your carcass out of those hot rays.
It's good news that the police are developing weapons that don't kill people, but when you look at the way police are all-too-eager to use Tasers, you might consider whether this is a good thing or not. We're thinking they can be either good or bad, depending on who wields them. While we're wondering why we can't all get along, we're also thinking to ourselves, "Don't microwave me, bro!"
Y esto otro que parece una muy buena medida, no vaya ser que los cientificos locos sudamericanos se dediquen a crear monstruos sin corazon... aunque los politicos ya estan demasiado evolucionados... asi que dificil que se les iguale.
Navy Says Combat Robots Multiplying Fast, Need "Battlefield Ethics" Pronto.
A new report commissioned by the Office of Naval Research makes a grim statement about the increasing danger of combat-trained robots in the 21st century: "We are going to need a warrior code."
Simply put, increasingly sophisticated robots programmed to kill enemies living and animatronic will at some point be making their own decisions about who to shoot at, and when to shoot at them. New congressional requirements have demanded increased reliance on unmanned vehicles for both "deep-strike" air combat and ground combat, deployed at a fast clip over the next six years. Code is no longer written by one person who understands all facets of it, but by specialized teams who don't necessarily know all the components of the operating system. According to the Times UK article, the report discusses the following bone-chilling concerns:
How do we protect our robot armies against terrorist hackers or software malfunction? Who is to blame if a robot goes berserk in a crowd of civilians—the robot, its programmer or the US president? Should the robots have a "suicide switch" and should they be programmed to preserve their lives
Therefore, the ONR report is the first step by the military in investigating what the report's chief compiler Dr. Patrick Lin calls a "warrior code," essentially a combination of programmed rules and an AI learning period where robots are taught a form of "battlefield ethics."
If this doesn't sound new, it's because a) you read a lot of Asimov, b) you love Will Smith more than most Will Smith fans, or c) you caught the civilian discussion of this matter last year in Gizmodo. We'll understand if your answer is d) all of the above.
A new report commissioned by the Office of Naval Research makes a grim statement about the increasing danger of combat-trained robots in the 21st century: "We are going to need a warrior code."
Simply put, increasingly sophisticated robots programmed to kill enemies living and animatronic will at some point be making their own decisions about who to shoot at, and when to shoot at them. New congressional requirements have demanded increased reliance on unmanned vehicles for both "deep-strike" air combat and ground combat, deployed at a fast clip over the next six years. Code is no longer written by one person who understands all facets of it, but by specialized teams who don't necessarily know all the components of the operating system. According to the Times UK article, the report discusses the following bone-chilling concerns:
How do we protect our robot armies against terrorist hackers or software malfunction? Who is to blame if a robot goes berserk in a crowd of civilians—the robot, its programmer or the US president? Should the robots have a "suicide switch" and should they be programmed to preserve their lives
Therefore, the ONR report is the first step by the military in investigating what the report's chief compiler Dr. Patrick Lin calls a "warrior code," essentially a combination of programmed rules and an AI learning period where robots are taught a form of "battlefield ethics."
If this doesn't sound new, it's because a) you read a lot of Asimov, b) you love Will Smith more than most Will Smith fans, or c) you caught the civilian discussion of this matter last year in Gizmodo. We'll understand if your answer is d) all of the above.
Comentario