If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Drone industry to implement the three laws. Will Smith inconsolable   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 74
    More: Obvious, TWT Communities, Syrian opposition, Health Administration, business directory, Montgomery County, industry, adherence  
•       •       •

9577 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2012 at 5:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 05:15:52 PM
Ho hoooo! I almost clicked that link, I did.. then I saw "The Washington Times"
 
2012-07-02 05:18:19 PM
Well, obviously the 1st law won't be not to harm humans. That said, unless they are ai, a code of ethics is useless...
 
2012-07-02 05:19:46 PM
How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?
 
2012-07-02 05:20:17 PM

God--: Well, obviously the 1st law won't be not to harm humans. That said, unless they are ai, a code of ethics is useless...


I thought the code of ethics were for the people deploying/programing/remote flying them. You know "you will not use company drones to spy on your ex-girlfriend in her new house without blinds".
 
2012-07-02 05:22:19 PM

LaraAmber: God--: Well, obviously the 1st law won't be not to harm humans. That said, unless they are ai, a code of ethics is useless...

I thought the code of ethics were for the people deploying/programing/remote flying them. You know "you will not use company drones to spy on your ex-girlfriend in her new house without blinds".



Oh... then why buy one?
 
2012-07-02 05:22:54 PM
someone... please help... I didn't know any better... I clicked on the link then started reading the comments...

My brain feels like it's on fire... how do I make it stop?
 
2012-07-02 05:23:44 PM
Well it's not like something named drone could ever think for itself.
 
2012-07-02 05:24:06 PM

TheAlmightyOS: someone... please help... I didn't know any better... I clicked on the link then started reading the comments...

My brain feels like it's on fire... how do I make it stop?


Drink heavily.
 
2012-07-02 05:25:27 PM
The drone industry on Monday unveiled its first-ever "code of conduct" policy, designed to protect the privacy of those on the ground ...

Hahahahahahaha
 
jvl
2012-07-02 05:26:09 PM
9/10 Subby. You are a bad man.
 
2012-07-02 05:27:56 PM

The Bestest: Ho hoooo! I almost clicked that link, I did.. then I saw "The Washington Times"


Don't worry. TFA didn't have any more info in in than the Fark headline.

/missed the WT identifier
 
2012-07-02 05:28:34 PM
Anyway, I've found a way to deal with this.... I've already gotten use to wearing these:


www.dvinfo.net

people think I'm a crazy idiot... they'll see whose crazy... they'll see.
 
2012-07-02 05:29:18 PM
Hmm...

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Nope, I'd say the Predator does none of these very well. Such a failure.

/no, not really, I favor droning pseudo Islamic assclowns
 
2012-07-02 05:30:41 PM

Sticky Hands: Anyway, I've found a way to deal with this.... I've already gotten use to wearing these:


[www.dvinfo.net image 400x400]

people think I'm a crazy idiot... they'll see whose crazy... they'll see.


www.ifc.com
You will find me in my flying tank.
 
2012-07-02 05:32:38 PM
1 - Don't miss
2 - Don't miss
3 - All adult male casualties are automatically classified as "Insurgents"
 
2012-07-02 05:33:30 PM
Can't wait to see rednecks taking potshots at these.
 
2012-07-02 05:35:33 PM
Rule 1 All nude sunbathers will be streamed live globally with no censorship.

Rule 2. No fatties allowed in Rule 1.

Rule 3. Okay, fatties allowed but they have to be well-groomed and provocatively posed
 
2012-07-02 05:37:19 PM
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
 
2012-07-02 05:38:28 PM
FTFA: will be available for commercial use by 2015.

Yesssss. Now I will be able to prove my neighbor a couple acres down really is spying on me with binoculars.
 
2012-07-02 05:38:36 PM
More evidence of the post 9/11 Panopticon. You'd think Feinstein (Senate Intelligence Chair) would have provided some pushback to the proliferation of domestic surveillance, but she apparently likes the Staasi model, or an even stronger version.
 
2012-07-02 05:39:49 PM
 
2012-07-02 05:39:52 PM

fusillade762: 3 - All adult male casualties are automatically classified as "Insurgents" "Militants"


FTFY, Need to make it applicable for when we start doing domestic strikes.
 
2012-07-02 05:43:59 PM

Sticky Hands: How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?


You... test it? Not sure what you're getting at there. Nobody would be crazy enough to test a flight computer for the first time in-flight, a nuclear control computer in a working nuclear plant, etc.
 
2012-07-02 05:48:52 PM
www.popsci.com

Rule #1 is DON'T TURN YOUR PET INTO A QUADCOPTER!
 
2012-07-02 05:53:41 PM
What the shiatting SHIAT?!?

Caption from the pic in TFA:
**FILE** A ShadowHawk drone is seen in September 2011 with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members.


SWAT members?!?! So like civilian police? There is absolutely no meaningful difference between the officers in that picture and the soldiers in a professional military. Way to completely shiat all over the Posse Comitatus Act.

Who cares if it's not the actual military policing your citizens if you create an alternate military to police your goddamn citizens with. There's no goddamn difference!!
 
2012-07-02 05:54:35 PM

MrEricSir: Sticky Hands: How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?

You... test it? Not sure what you're getting at there. Nobody would be crazy enough to test a flight computer for the first time in-flight, a nuclear control computer in a working nuclear plant, etc.


Yeah, I didn't write that well, and I probably didn't read it well either.

I got the impression that they meant "completely" test before any flight of any kind.
Which would be a pointless promise, since there are things that you just can't verify until you fly the thing.
....and if it's small and you are in a safe area, have at it!

Anyway, I hope they meant "completely test before putting it in a nice box and selling it at Wal*mart "
 
2012-07-02 05:55:20 PM
Before you say it, yes, the president being in charge Vs. the state being in charge.... it just doesn't seem like a big enough difference when it's still a goddamn military combat boot on our necks.
 
2012-07-02 05:55:32 PM
Anyone notice the picture? The caption was "A ShadowHawk drone is seen in September 2011 with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members." Montgomery County has like three relatively small towns and is too far away from Houston to even count as a suburb. Why in the fark would they need the kind of hardware shown in that pic, much less the drone... and where in the hell did they get the money for that armored monstrosity in the background? If that was the Houston PD SWAT team I could understand it, but Montgomery County sherrif's office? WTF?!?!!111 Probably federal "anti-terrorism" money paid for all those useless toys. Your tax dollars at work, America.
 
2012-07-02 05:58:57 PM

mongbiohazard: What the shiatting SHIAT?!?

Caption from the pic in TFA:
**FILE** A ShadowHawk drone is seen in September 2011 with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members.


SWAT members?!?! So like civilian police? There is absolutely no meaningful difference between the officers in that picture and the soldiers in a professional military. Way to completely shiat all over the Posse Comitatus Act.

Who cares if it's not the actual military policing your citizens if you create an alternate military to police your goddamn citizens with. There's no goddamn difference!!


There are subtle differences. Military is concerned with protecting the country from the "enemy", when you make the population the enemy, solders get confused and defect like in a civil war. Military is trained to kill, police are trained to disable you and take you alive. Military has nukes, police has tazers. you can sue the cops, you cant sue the military. subtle differences.

/Realize these differences only matter until those in charge erase them.
 
2012-07-02 06:02:26 PM
I know I feel safer.
 
2012-07-02 06:03:45 PM

mongbiohazard: What the shiatting SHIAT?!?

Caption from the pic in TFA:
**FILE** A ShadowHawk drone is seen in September 2011 with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members.


SWAT members?!?! So like civilian police? There is absolutely no meaningful difference between the officers in that picture and the soldiers in a professional military. Way to completely shiat all over the Posse Comitatus Act.

Who cares if it's not the actual military policing your citizens if you create an alternate military to police your goddamn citizens with. There's no goddamn difference!!


Yup. Except that, other than being susceptible to civil suits, police arguably have even less accountability than the military would Civilian police misconduct is often investigated by the local department the offender works for, offenders have union reps and attorneys to take their side, and there is no UCMJ. Accordingly, military police might be a better situation than the current one with civilian police --- not that either are correct.
 
2012-07-02 06:05:25 PM
The Rules:

1. "Serve the public trust"
2. "Protect the innocent"
3. "Uphold the law"
4. (Classified)

It's number four we should be worried about.
 
2012-07-02 06:05:46 PM

Sticky Hands: How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?


www.nasa.gov

/was that a serious question?
 
2012-07-02 06:15:55 PM
They include promises that the industry will properly test all drones before flight, comply with all laws governing aircraft, respect the privacy of individuals and work to better educate the public.

Oh, they promise? Well, I'M convinced.
 
2012-07-02 06:16:45 PM

krackpipe: More evidence of the post 9/11 Panopticon. You'd think Feinstein (Senate Intelligence Chair) would have provided some pushback to the proliferation of domestic surveillance, but she apparently likes the Staasi model, or an even stronger version.


I understand that she changed her name from Feinsheistergruben when she immigrated.

It's cute that you think that a D behind her name makes her some kind of hippie-sycophant.

Rule 1. Anyone that moves is an insurgent.

Rule 2. Anyone who does not move is a well-disciplined insurgent.

/Get some!
 
2012-07-02 06:18:27 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Rule 1 All nude sunbathers will be streamed live globally with no censorship.

Rule 2. No fatties allowed in Rule 1.

Rule 3. Okay, fatties allowed but they have to be well-groomed and provocatively posed


I propose that we change one of your rules:

Rule 3. No wieners.
 
2012-07-02 06:22:36 PM
1. Properly test...
Yes they will be tested and found to in compliance with all FAA guidelines that they drafted. So if anything does go wrong, it is obviously poor maintenance or pilot/operator error.

2. Respect privacy...
Well, we will for the business and poltical elite at their retreats where they discuss policy and other important matters. For the rest of the prole, you don't really have privacy anyway, so there is nothing for to really respect.

3. Education...
We promise to run many ads and other promotional tours on TV, VA hall and elemetary classrooms that drones are you friends and will help keep the country free of illegals and drug pushers. We'll even put DARE stickers on them!
 
2012-07-02 06:26:10 PM
Why on earf would he be upset?
 
2012-07-02 06:33:31 PM
Asimov circuits would make these things useless, anyway.
 
2012-07-02 06:33:59 PM
**FILE** A ShadowHawk drone is seen in September 2011 with Montgomery County, Texas SWAT team members. (Associated Press/Vanguard Defense Industries)

Why does that name sound fami-

Vanguard Defense Industries' chief executive Michael Buscher said Friday that the hackers had broken into the Gmail account of Richard T. Garcia, a former FBI agent who now works as the company's senior vice president.

Anonymous said in a statement it had pilfered 1 gigabyte of data _ including personal information, internal meeting notes and several dozen counterterrorism documents which it claimed were marked "law enforcement sensitive" or "for official use only."

But Buscher told the Associated Press "there isn't anything sensitive" in the released material. He said the hackers had not been able to breach the company's servers or its website, which appeared to operating as normal Friday.

Buscher's Houston-area company specializes in the design and development of drones for law enforcement and the private sector. The hackers claimed to have stolen schematics _ an apparent reference to the plans used for building unmanned aircraft _ but Buscher denied that was the case.


Ahahaha, oh wow. Nothing bad could possibly come from all this.

/Link
 
2012-07-02 06:40:40 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Sticky Hands: How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?

[www.nasa.gov image 226x170]

/was that a serious question?


Well, ain't you smart. Tell me, just how do you pre-heat an oven?
 
2012-07-02 06:41:09 PM
These three laws can be the foundation for safe drone use.
 
2012-07-02 06:41:24 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: There are subtle differences. Military is concerned with protecting the country from the "enemy", when you make the population the enemy, solders get confused and defect like in a civil war. Military is trained to kill, police are trained to disable you and take you alive. Military has nukes, police has tazers. you can sue the cops, you cant sue the military. subtle differences.

/Realize these differences only matter until those in charge erase them.



Yeah, I realize we're probably largely on the same side here, but I'd still disagree on some of those points you made....

For your first point, about making the population the enemy, I think we've go the same problem with cops when we just go ahead and turn them in to a de facto military anyway! So no real big difference there.

With the military being trained to kill and police trained to take you alive....... Not necessarily. There are daily instances of these pseudo military SWAT teams gunning down people in their own homes, sometimes innocent people. Instead of just waiting to grab someone with minimal fuss when they go out to get food or something they storm in in the middle of the night with flashbangs, kill the family pets and sometimes even kill the occupants. And if it was the wrong house. "Oops, our bad. But fark you anyway."

Cops are taught to shoot to kill if they shoot. Yes, they have more options, but the SWAT teams are very very deadly teams of people, with every right and ability to gun down pretty much whoever they want with near impunity.

And the difference in equipment is disappearing more and more every day. At this point, the civilian police pretty much have access to everything below the level of bombers and artillery. The same weapons, the same body armor, armored personnel carriers... now drones! As long as it's not the very cutting edge-est classified gear or shiat you'd use to knock out a building they've pretty much got it.

And suing the cops.... It's nice in theory, and it does work sometimes, but not nearly often enough. The deck on that one is stacked so hard in their favor that it's a near miraculous thing to be able to persevere at.
 
2012-07-02 06:41:55 PM

Sticky Hands: MrEricSir: Sticky Hands: How does one properly test something that flies before it is flown?

You... test it? Not sure what you're getting at there. Nobody would be crazy enough to test a flight computer for the first time in-flight, a nuclear control computer in a working nuclear plant, etc.

Yeah, I didn't write that well, and I probably didn't read it well either.

I got the impression that they meant "completely" test before any flight of any kind.
Which would be a pointless promise, since there are things that you just can't verify until you fly the thing.
....and if it's small and you are in a safe area, have at it!

Anyway, I hope they meant "completely test before putting it in a nice box and selling it at Wal*mart "


The physical aspects of aircraft are well known and easily modeled. The flight software flies through simulators before ever being loaded into an actual vehicle. ie, The outputs of the software are plugged into a simulator's inputs. The 787 flight software went through many millions of hours of 'flight' before a test flight ever left the ground.
 
2012-07-02 06:48:03 PM
So, are we going for the synthetic 0th law or are they writing it in?
 
2012-07-02 06:50:59 PM
3-Laws Safe
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-02 06:51:07 PM

chachi88: krackpipe: More evidence of the post 9/11 Panopticon. You'd think Feinstein (Senate Intelligence Chair) would have provided some pushback to the proliferation of domestic surveillance, but she apparently likes the Staasi model, or an even stronger version.

I understand that she changed her name from Feinsheistergruben when she immigrated.

It's cute that you think that a D behind her name makes her some kind of hippie-sycophant.

Rule 1. Anyone that moves is an insurgent.

Rule 2. Anyone who does not move is a well-disciplined insurgent.

/Get some!


No thanks -- I decide what's cute or not cute about thoughts I never had and comments I never made. But the Rules made me laugh. Nice work!
 
2012-07-02 07:06:16 PM
Oh yea, self control, moral adherance to voluntary restrictions and a proven safety record of the lowest bidder have worked so well in the past.

"It's all bullchit, and it's bad for ya"
 
2012-07-02 07:09:04 PM

Harry_Seldon: These three laws can be the foundation for safe drone use.


ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2012-07-02 07:17:50 PM
Anyone want to bet that the first fatality caused by a drone malfunction will occur in less than 2 years (after 2015), a drone violating restricted airspace around an airport within 2 years, and a near miss and/or collision with a manned aircraft within 5 years? The only reason I put the dates so far out is that most government bodies are nearly broke and it will take time to buy the larger higher flying drones.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report