|
|
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #133954] |
Sun, 23 January 2005 18:02   |
|
|
I don't really think it would be practical for use with machine guns patrolling/assaulting/etc., a soldier can easily move around obstacles, climb walls, ladders, etc., while the little robot can't. Until they can come up with Terminator like robots, actual soldiers will be the better choice.
Now, for something like assassination where the robot would just need to sit on the side of a mountain with a heavy sniper rifle and wait for the target to come out, it would be much better then actual people.
.:Red Alert: A Path Beyond Modeler:.
E-mail: sirphoenixx@gmail.com
AIM: Sir Phoenixx
ICQ: 339325768
MSN: sirphoenixx@hotmail.com
Yahoo: sirphoenix86
If anyone needs any help with using 3dsmax, or gmax feel free to contact me.
My Gallery: sir-phoenixx.deviantart.com/gallery
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #135647] |
Tue, 01 February 2005 20:22 |
 |
PointlessAmbler
Messages: 318
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Sir Phoenixx |
I don't really think it would be practical for use with machine guns patrolling/assaulting/etc., a soldier can easily move around obstacles, climb walls, ladders, etc., while the little robot can't. Until they can come up with Terminator like robots, actual soldiers will be the better choice.
Now, for something like assassination where the robot would just need to sit on the side of a mountain with a heavy sniper rifle and wait for the target to come out, it would be much better then actual people.
|
Sure, a soldier is more useful, but I think they wanted to use this as a simple armed patrol device that could potentially save the lives of some US soldiers. One destroyed robot is a lot less of a loss than one dead soldier.
Red Alert: A Path Beyond Manual Writer
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #135651] |
Tue, 01 February 2005 20:25 |
|
|
| PointlessAmbler |
Sure, a soldier is more useful, but I think they wanted to use this as a simple armed patrol device that could potentially save the lives of some US soldiers. One destroyed robot is a lot less of a loss than one dead soldier.
|
Uhh, financially no, but towards the eyes of the American society, yes.
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #135887] |
Wed, 02 February 2005 20:49 |
 |
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
Perhaps this will set a nice precedent. In the future, we won't even need people to fight wars!
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #135897] |
Wed, 02 February 2005 21:24 |
icedog90
Messages: 3483
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| IRON-FART |
I don't think they can match anything a human can do.
|
|
V
| PointlessAmbler |
Sure, a soldier is more useful, but I think they wanted to use this as a simple armed patrol device that could potentially save the lives of some US soldiers. One destroyed robot is a lot less of a loss than one dead soldier.
|
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #135907] |
Wed, 02 February 2005 22:05 |
|
|
| YSLMuffins |
Perhaps this will set a nice precedent. In the future, we won't even need people to fight wars!
|
And then they'll get smarter and refuse to fight our wars.
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Slightly less ridiculous than the "gay-bomb"... [message #136008] |
Thu, 03 February 2005 10:10 |
Weirdo
Messages: 369
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Quote: |
Eighteen of the 1m-high robots, equipped with cameras and operated by remote control, are going to Iraq this spring, the Associated Press reports.
|
I doubt they actually have there own real AI. So there is no danger in them attacking the wrong side. Unless of course, the enemy actually finds a way to hack the remote signals and creates it's own remote controls. Altough the military ofcourse has a way better encryption than normal computers.
Size doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
