Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Science Technology

DARPA Researches Avatar Surrogates 159

Posted by Soulskill
from the presumably-with-more-clothing dept.
kgeiger writes "Feeling blue? DARPA is funding a program to investigate the feasibility of battlefield cyborg-surrogates: 'In its 2012 budget, DARPA has decided to pour US $7 million into the 'Avatar Project,' whose goal is the following: "develop interfaces and algorithms to enable a soldier to effectively partner with a semi-autonomous bi-pedal machine and allow it to act as the soldier's surrogate."' Power and bandwidth constraints aside, what could go wrong? Chinese hackers swooping in and commandeering one's army?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Researches Avatar Surrogates

Comments Filter:
  • by dj245 (732906) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:30PM (#39077909) Homepage
    The government doesn't pour $7 million. They dish it out with an eyedropper.

    Not that $7 million isn't a lot of money for you and me, but for the US government it is a rounding error.
    • by l0ungeb0y (442022)

      To be fair, $7 Million is about one eye drop's worth of money to the US Government.

      • by slartibartfastatp (613727) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:46PM (#39078139) Journal
        The movie "Avatar" costed half a billion dollars - 7 millions seems too low a budget to make it real.
        • Less than a quarter of a billion dollars, actually.

          That doesn't affect your point, though.

        • by Chrisq (894406)

          The movie "Avatar" costed half a billion dollars - 7 millions seems too low a budget to make it real.

          it would give you some change from a Lee Majors [wikipedia.org].

          • by lxs (131946)

            That was the mid '70s.
            Inflation adjusted, Lee Majors is the Slightly-Over-20-Million-Dollar-Man.

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      It's an investigation of feasibility. Not an actual development project. 7.000.000 USD is quite a lot for something like that.

      • by iamhassi (659463)
        $7 million to investigate feasibility of what?

        "develop interfaces and algorithms to enable a soldier to effectively partner with a semi-autonomous bi-pedal machine and allow it to act as the soldier's surrogate."

        We have that now, it's called a robot. Are robots feasible? Yes. Can I have $7,000,000 now?
        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Feasibility of such interfaces and algorithms in relation to using human brain to control a robot. Not robots themselves.

          There is some legwork already done on this in prosthetics, but other then that, it should be fairly virginal territory.

        • by SomePgmr (2021234)

          We have that now, it's called a robot. Are robots feasible? Yes. Can I have $7,000,000 now?

          I'm going to guess they'll have a long list of problematic questions requiring well-researched answers that goes well beyond your intuitional response of, "yea someone could do it".

          Because if the answer were simply "yes", there's lots more follow-on money a-comin' for development, and nobody wants to spend that on a doomed project.

    • And this is why we are so broke. Frittering our money away on bullshit projects such as these. They add up. And to add insult to injury, once this become technologically feasible all previous findings and standards will be have to be scrapped and recreated yet again. Total waste.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah, like all that other BS that DARPA has funded the development of. We don't need any of that shit.

        1. Internet
        2. Self Navigating Autonomous cars

        • by hairyfeet (841228)
          I know I shouldn't respond to an AC but the wrongness was threatening to cause a singularity. For such an argument to hold you would need to show the sum total they have spent on projects and what the outcome was. Now if they have spent several billion on thousands of projects and that is the only two that came to fruition? one could easily argue that its stupid to give them more money for such a lousy ROI. BTW there was the SAGES system which was build by DOD before DARPA was ever born and one could argue
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Bullshit project? Are you trolling, on crack, or just stupid? This is the kind of research that saves soldiers' lives, plus there will certainly be non-military applications down the road.

        • we should be working to put more people on the ground in wars, not less. otherwise more civilians will die as war becomes easier to start. look at how armed drones in the air force has made them more gung ho..

        • Really? And how are you going to power these things? An IronMan Arc generator? Their range and mobility will be limited for places like Afghanistan. Communications could be jammed with noise too. And lets assume war breaks out between major nations. That will go nuclear in a hurry. EMP and all. At the very least, communication satellites would be taken out by missiles as China has proven can be done.

          There. I saved America 7 million tax dollars right there. You can thank me later.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:31PM (#39077923)
    He will set the country on the path to freedom from religious persecution and return us to our rightful place in God's plan. Eliminate the government and all those who stand in the way of worship of our rightful, true Ruler. The crimes that are performed in the name of our current governmental system, including but not limited to murder of innocent children, forcing citizens to pay for products they don't want, driving our society into unrecoverable debt that our children (if they aren't aborted) will never be able to repay, placing women in harms' way and outside of the role evolution has trained them for as mother and caregiver, stifling business under the guise and heavy hand of global warming, raising taxes on those of us who are successful, teaching our precious children ridiculous theories that men were once apes and spontaneously changed into what we are today, and attempting to diverge from the Christian principles that our forefathers observed and that this country was founded upon. We need to return to His holy way, and remove the heathens from our path, if necessary, by force. It's time to stopping giving away our children's inheritance to lazy jobless people and Godless welfare cases. It's time we took back our economy and this country.
    • by stungod (137601)

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

      *GASP*

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Thanks for the best laugh of the week. You should take back your meds.

      • by jdgeorge (18767)

        Well, it's either well-thought-out satire, or... (shudder) ... not.

        Since it does a pretty thorough job of touching on all the so-called "conservative" talking points, complete with contradictory positions (hard to accomplish without a clear head and an eye on the news), I'm thinking there are no meds involved.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      raising taxes on those of us who are successful

      Something you'll never have to worry about from down in Mommy and Daddy's basement, eh?

    • by lucm (889690) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:59PM (#39078299)

      He will set the country on the path to freedom from religious persecution and return us to our rightful place in God's plan. Eliminate the government and all those who stand in the way of worship of our rightful, true Ruler. The crimes that are performed in the name of our current governmental system, including but not limited to murder of innocent children, forcing citizens to pay for products they don't want, driving our society into unrecoverable debt that our children (if they aren't aborted) will never be able to repay, placing women in harms' way and outside of the role evolution has trained them for as mother and caregiver, stifling business under the guise and heavy hand of global warming, raising taxes on those of us who are successful, teaching our precious children ridiculous theories that men were once apes and spontaneously changed into what we are today, and attempting to diverge from the Christian principles that our forefathers observed and that this country was founded upon. We need to return to His holy way, and remove the heathens from our path, if necessary, by force. It's time to stopping giving away our children's inheritance to lazy jobless people and Godless welfare cases. It's time we took back our economy and this country.

      Who would have thought Noam Chomsky would one day post on Slashdot

    • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:09PM (#39078421)
      I was on the fence about Obama, but watching the Republican side show and sealed the deal for me. You guys are fucking nuts.
    • by idontgno (624372) on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:16PM (#39078531) Journal

      Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

      -- Poe's Law [wikipedia.org]

  • Not Avatar (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:31PM (#39077937) Homepage Journal

    Surrogates [wikipedia.org]. Bruce Willis does more than just destroy asteroids!

    Avatar had live sentient animals being grown and controlled by humans. In Surrogates, they're robots, and surrogacy starts on the battlefield.

    Good SF movie, I don't know why it's so unknown.

    • by bhcompy (1877290)
      Mod parent Informative. This is 100% accurate comparison to existing fiction, rather than grasping at blue alien sentience transference straws
      • Forever Peace (Score:5, Informative)

        by SgtChaireBourne (457691) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:40PM (#39078055) Homepage
        And halfway in between is Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace [thehugoawards.org]. In the novel, soldiers use mechanical body surrogates which have the bizarre side effect of linking all senses of the team members as if it were a single organism. It's a good read. We can already see, hear and launch weapons from drone platforms and this is just the early stage of remote piloting.
    • Allready been done [youtube.com]
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      I prefer the Wargs from Westeros- not only could they take over the bodies of other animals- some of them can actually control other people.

      Imagine if our soldiers could go to sleep and wake up in expendable human bodies when going to battle. We could get our soldiers to take over French soldiers and march them into military victory over Germany.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Avatar the word (not the movie) means "An incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person or idea", so I think the name is perfectly well chosen. The robot body manifests the controller in a different place. It is the right word to choose regardless of scifi book or movie titles.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        If it were avatar the word and not Avatar the movie it wouldn't be capitalized and italicised.

    • by dpilot (134227)

      Or try the "soldier boys" in "The Forever Peace", by Joe Haldeman. Some of the book is about the psychological disconnection of being a semi-immune actor on the battlefield, some about getting your robot "killed" out from under you while "fully immersed." I was going to add a bit more information, but it's too much of a spoiler.

    • I was thinking of an eariler work, Surrogates [imdb.com]; it had what I considered some useful solutions for current issues.
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        The movie you linked on imdb is the same movie I linked at wikipedia. Surrogates, Bruce Willis. And yes, it is older than Avatar but not as well known.

    • One of my favorite, Sci-Fi movies.

      Agreed, I'm surprised this movie isn't better known.
    • by thomst (1640045)

      mcgrew pointed out:

      Surrogates [wikipedia.org]. Bruce Willis does more than just destroy asteroids!

      Avatar had live sentient animals being grown and controlled by humans. In Surrogates, they're robots, and surrogacy starts on the battlefield.

      Mmm ... to me, Surrogates absolutely reeked of Keith Laumer's novelette "The Bodybuilders". The plot differed, but the basic meme - people use mechanical surrogates for social interaction, so they can be as handsome/beautiful, and in as good apparent shape as they'd like to be in meatspace - is a straightforward copy, as is Willis's reaction when he's forced to confront external reality in his own, very vulnerable, biological body.

      I always wondered why his estate didn't sue, but I guess t

    • That was my first thought when I first read this story on another site.

      Relevant scene is here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79JDeCcXGtw [youtube.com]

  • Jaming and lag (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1. any kind of lag or areas with a poor signal may not work to well even more so if the link need to go over a few Satellites.

    2. You don't need to hack them just jam them and they can be come useless

    • Re:Jaming and lag (Score:5, Informative)

      by Baloroth (2370816) on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:03PM (#39078343)
      This is DARPA. They don't even raise the question of "practicality" when they do projects like this, they just ask "can it be done at all?" These are the same people who build flying tanks. Is it practical? Almost certainly no. Is it cool and possibly practical in the future? Maybe, but we won't know until we try.
      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        Right, they start somewhere insane and then dial it down. The applications are immediate.

        Will it be practical for combat in the next 20 years? Probably not. But it could be used in EOD (Explosives and Ordinance Disposal) where you would have the advantage of human dexterity in disabling a bomb without having to risk an actual person. (They already use small robots as is.) It could also be useful in firefighting situations - a tethered "avatar" robot could go far closer to a fire and fight it (or inside a bu

    • From the little i know about jamming, there is something called frequency hopping to countermeasure this. It just makes things a little bit more complicated, but that's why it's called research. Also, lag and poor signal can be compensated with some autonomous movements maybe (or even something I can't think of now), again that's why it's called research.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    We have loads of people on /. screaming that China is not cracking systems and would not go aggressively after other nations (say Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, thailand, or even India) or even USA. Surely all of these ACs on the site combined with Chinese Political and Military leaders could NOT be wrong.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The fact that DARPA is budgeting $7 million on research to "develop interfaces and algorithms to enable a soldier to effectively partner with a semi-autonomous bi-pedal machine and allow it to act as the soldier's surrogate" is proof that Chinese human/surrogate interface manufacturers have already infiltrated DARPA's budgeting systems.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You've got millions of people ages 10-whatever that can play fps games. How about a computer screen, keyboard and mouse interface. I'll happily take a portion of that 7 million now. Just forget that the bipedal robot part doesn't actually work yet.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    What a massive waste of money. We have people starving in the world (yes even in the US) and they throw 7M at this crap?

  • How could this possibly backfire?

  • by wisebabo (638845) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:43PM (#39078095) Journal

    Here's a submission I sent a few days ago about humanoid television-robots making the first handshake in space (on the ISS).

    wisebabo writes

    "As long as we are still in debt to the Chinese and can't afford an ambitious space program, we should be developing THESE (humanoid telerobots). Just get the astronaut NEAR the Moon or Mars (or someday Titan!) and operate these without that stupid speed-of-light time delay. A huge proportion of the weight and complexity of going to these places is that last 100 miles so while times are lean this is the way to go.

    Maybe James Cameron can be persuaded to do a pre-quel of Avatar, unfortunately I don't think he'll find a planet full of sexy tele-robots!"

    Link to Original Source

    • with the moon, it could probably work directly from Earth. make it smart enough to move around and avoid falling rocks etc, and have someone give it short term goals ("hammer that nail", "reorient that antenna", etc).
      even from orbit there would be some delay (you need to send everything through a satellite anyway since you're on the other side of the planet half the time), so just do it from Earth.

      • The issue is "telepresence" requires more of a real-time feed, IMHO, than what you'll get even earth-to-moon.

        For example, "avoid falling rocks." Figure that it takes a radio signal 1.25 seconds to get from the Earth to the Moon. So you're watching a rock falling towards you. What you're seeing was 1.25 seconds ago. So you immediately jump to the right to avoid it. By the time the robot gets the signal to jump to the right, it's been another 1.25 seconds. So assuming your robot was just standing there,

        • by wisebabo (638845)

          Actually, as I mentioned later in my other post "Stupid auto-correct", does the moon's 1/6th gravity help?

          I mean does it give you six times longer to react so that the 2.5 seconds you point out "feels" more like .32 seconds?

          Of course this only is true because of the moon's weaker gravity (and it won't help for any non-gravity related motion, like driving into a wall) but maybe that's good enough.

          Sounds like a good research topic that could be easily(?) done in simulation!

        • I did mention that you should make it smart enough to avoid falling rocks on its own. I think that can already be done. as far as I know, there are tiny robots playing football, so they can do a lot of this fast reflex stuff on their own.

          • I did mention that you should make it smart enough to avoid falling rocks on its own.

            Where is the dividing line between "telepresence" and "remote control"?

            I would submit that telepresence is where the "robot" (for lack of better term) is completely and utterly controlled by you--the robot is merely a collection of sensors that are fed to you. So, for example, if the robot touches something hot, it will communicate it to you by applying heat to your fingers and you will pull back your hand. The robot will not decide for itself that what it touched is hot and pull back the hand for you.

            Now

        • I think they meant that the robot would be pre-programmed to automatically avoid falling rocks or deal with other anticipated emergency situations that require an immediate response not possible with the Earth-Moon time delay.

          Think of it as a reflex for robots - the same way as when I touch something hot with my hand I don't have to think "move my hand away from that" because my nervous system can handle that for me.

    • I meant "telepresence" not television!

      Also the sub-poster makes a good point. While an astronaut in orbit around the MOON (not earth) would be much closer, he would still have to go through a lunar relay at least half the time. In any case, compared with the cost of just running it from a nice beach resort (okay lab) on earth, the 1-1/2 second time delay seems acceptable.

      It's helped out by the moons 1/6 gee. So if you drop something, you have six times longer to react!

  • What can go wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:49PM (#39078167) Journal

    ... ironically, is that soldiers will not be risking their lives in the field of combat.

    Not that I am advocating soldiers dying per se, but if a cause is not worth dying for, then why is it worth going to war for in the first place? If one is prepared to kill their fellow man for whatever cause they might believe in, however true, and however noble, and however right, but they themselves are not prepared to die in the name of that same cause, then their so-called virtuous beliefs are nothing but hollow claims.

    Nothing of any real worth or value has ever been achieved without making some sacrifice... and it is the virtue of the people who *have* made such sacrifices that gives us that much more a profound appreciation for the victory that was gained by it.

    Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.

    This is a bad idea.

    • Don't worry, it has a kill switch.
    • by ch-chuck (9622)

      Nobody wins a war by dying for their country. You win a war by making the OTHER sob die for HIS country.

      • You miss the point. If a war isn't worth putting your ass on the line for, it's also not worth killing other people for.
        • by idontgno (624372)

          I suspect you're trying to make a moral point. If this is so, you're both right (or at least, I agree) and completely beside the point.

          In practice, the only cost considered in waging war is the cost to "the good guys". If you can inflict 5000 casualties on the enemy (and, maybe, some of their non-combatants as well), without suffering any casualties of your own, that's zero casualties. The other side doesn't count, except as targets. If they don't want to die, they can surrender. Maybe. Or flee. Maybe.

          Reall

        • You miss the point. If a war isn't worth putting your ass on the line for, it's also not worth killing other people for.

          You must be new to this planet.

          -AI

      • Nobody wins a war by dying for their country. You win a war by making the OTHER sob die for HIS country.

        Classic Gen. George S. Patton, there!

    • by JoeKlip (2566683)
      This is such limited thinking. The Internet was developed so the military can communicate between different system rather than receiving radio or telephone call. The main point was to issue the kill command as quickly as possible. Yet the system become something opposite. It united people to the degree mankind never before experienced. This concept, when realized, will be such a life saver too. Imagine you can build tall buildings with no real people except for the avatars. How about mining. Also how about
    • They want the ultimate armchair warrior. Right now people can be convinced to send people to die for totally bogus reasoning (Iraq war). Imagine how easy it would be to get support if no soldiers on our side were dying. Bad idea, indeed.
      • You have similar situations today with Drone attacks, not to mention the cruise missile strikes against "terrorist targets" in the 1990s.

    • by iceaxe (18903)

      Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.

      This is a bad idea.

      The argument could be made that this is already the case, with "expendable" soldiers acting as the avatars for politicians or other unscrupulous sorts.

      • The argument could be made that this is already the case, with "expendable" soldiers acting as the avatars for politicians or other unscrupulous sorts.

        To a certain extent, yes. But human lives still have value, if not to the politicians, to the military leaders calling the shots, and to the people who have to read about it in the paper.

        Consider: a little shy of 4,500 US soldiers have died in Iraq since hostilities began in 2003, and nearly 33,000 have been wounded. Stalin wrote that 1,000 deaths is a tragedy, 1,000,000 is a statistic, and the same holds true for this conflict: 4,500 dead is a *lot*, but it's a number most of us can wrap our heads around,

    • by thrich81 (1357561)

      That sort of thinking (noble combat, laying your life on the line for something you believe in) is what got hundreds of thousands of young men to go to their deaths in the trenches in WWI. War is just one extreme of the application of force to achieve your group's desires -- slaughtering of animals and unfortunate native populations which get in the way is the other extreme. We usually have called them wars when the protagonists were equally enough matched to make it risky for both sides but in the histor

    • by thesandtiger (819476) on Friday February 17, 2012 @08:44PM (#39081837)

      You're assuming that the nature and meaning of "war" wouldn't undergo a fundamental shift if people weren't dying during it.

      Lots of things are, essentially, "war" where people don't die. Apple and Samsung are engaged in a "war" against each other - they're both hoping to take something from the other by coercion, even if that isn't physical coercion.

      Being able to "wage war" where stuff, rather than people, die would be huge. I'd much rather throw away stuff than people any day.

      Also, I dispute entirely your belief that somehow we have a more profound appreciation for things that people have died for. In fact, I dare say that the fact that when people die in wars and other people use it for cheap political theater shows just how shallow the "appreciation" is.

      Look, for example, at the whole "support our troops" thing as it happened with Iraq and Afghanistan: Some people used the deaths of troops to support a kind of "sunk cost" fallacy about dead soldiers, other people used it to say that their political opponents were politically bankrupt, other people used it as a club to beat up those they felt weren't appropriately patriotic, others used it to profit from selling shitty yellow ribbon magnets and Chinese-made American flags, and on and on.

      Yet, when it comes to doing things that *actually* matter - taking care of injured veterans and helping their families - it's just *crickets* *crickets* when these men and women come home and need some help because of what they've left "over there." Veterans make up a disproportionate number of homeless - I dare say that if we had a "more profound appreciation" for the sacrifices made in war that wouldn't be the case because we wouldn't, as a society *let* it be the case.

  • Why limit ourself to China, or any other country. Terrorist groups, drug cartels, anybody who is intelligent enough (or has money to hire someone who is) can try to take control. Why fly a plane into a building when you can just use "the surrogat army" to do it for you with.
    • Because at the end of the day a set of box cutters is cheaper than hacking a surrogate army... I don't recall our bloated military keeping 9/11 from happening.
  • by Johann Lau (1040920) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:55PM (#39078247) Homepage Journal

    with the kind of presidents the USA churns out, is "it could be hacked" *really* the first thing that comes to mind when you ponder what could go wrong? how about this, it might NOT get hacked, and offer even more potential to murder and maim even more people with even less inhibitions, politically as well as on the level of individual soldiers? we had nintendo pilots for a long time. now there'll be nintendo grunts. fucking great. and the princess is STILL in another castle.

    but oh noes, the chinese [youtube.com]. you are so lost.

  • by HalAtWork (926717) on Friday February 17, 2012 @02:59PM (#39078291)
    It's easier to turn a machine against its original purposes by fooling it, hacking it, or other such methods. It's harder to turn entire swaths of human soldiers.
  • by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:07PM (#39078397)
    That dash in bipedal was really confusing. Made me think of a robot with two pedals. Also why have a robot with legs?? Why not treads or flight? It doesn't need to do everything a person does. It just needs to kill things.
  • by Whatanut (203397) on Friday February 17, 2012 @03:10PM (#39078431)

    If they continue down this path they will mostly just turn war into a big video game. All the real people will be locked up in a bunker somewhere controlling their avatars and such.

    So, then the question becomes this: Why not just settle disputes by actually playing video games. You lose at starcraft, you lose your country. Seems like the natural progression...

    • Voting is the natural progression from war. Most early wars are won by the side with the most soldiers. So instead of fighting the war you just pick the victor based on whose army is bigger.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      If they continue down this path they will mostly just turn war into a big video game. All the real people will be locked up in a bunker somewhere controlling their avatars and such. So, then the question becomes this: Why not just settle disputes by actually playing video games. You lose at starcraft, you lose your country. Seems like the natural progression.

      As foreshadowed by a ST:TOS episode [memory-alpha.org].

    • star trek tos had a episode like that that with computers running a VR war with real death chambers that people just went into and they did that as it's was better then useing real weapons.

    • "Why not just settle disputes by actually playing video games"

      Already done, it's called Congress: kids arguing with on another, collecting credits ($$$), having re-dos (reelection), cheating, and playing mind games.

      If everyone is remotely fighting, instead of building up this huge infrastructure: wouldn't it be easier to just pick up the d*mn phone and settle it?

    • by laron (102608)

      That would require a kind of gentlemen's agreement similar to a "fight of the two champions" in lieu of a a battle between two armies. That sort of civilized behavior never really caught on when the stakes are high enough. IIRC Saddam Hussein offered the same to George W. Bush in 2003, but somehow the US didn't accept this offer.
      While you celebrate your victory in your bunker, the "defeated" side may have just cut off the antenna and sealed the entrance to your bunker. Who's a winner then?

  • Can't defy the laws of physics people--this will never work from a remote aspect (think latency).

    The Gundam [wikipedia.org] approach is the way to go.

  • by nimbius (983462)
    the name seems a hypocritical outcry. the ultimate advanced research project in defense is to eliminate the need for war entirely. since its inception darpa has done nothing but develop ever more sophisticated tools to perpetuate wars by different means. we dont want surrogates for our defense, we want them so that during the next incursion into the middle east, we dont have to impose a press blackout on returning c130 transports laden with bodybags.

    we still want war, just as europe still wanted war
  • I have seen this movie. Or maybe this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woxgr_GtFnU [youtube.com]

  • one EMF and BAM! no communication to any of your bipedal droids.

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...