US online apeal for RoboCops

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Oren Beck <orenbeck at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Leo Mauler
> <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- On Sat, 10/25/08, Julie
> <betelgeuse67stang at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In case someone is interested in a great
> >> opportunity, read this:
> >>
> http://www.dodsbir.net/SITIS/display_topic.asp?Bookmark=34565
> >
> > Well its certainly interesting, loads of 
> > potential, and with any luck they won't 
> > arm the approximately 200lb robots.
> 
> Then again? Putting fragile humans in harm's way 
> Vs a human being controlled "Dalek"?
> 
> We presently use "area denial" dogs in some
> situations that have LESS force discrimination
> or target selection ability. I know these dogs
> from having a slight involvement with them.
> Arguably however- that RoboDalek may be a bit 
> "less lethal?

Possibly but only if the RoboDalek was armed with nonlethal (and "lethal" includes tasers these days) methods of subduing human beings.

The problem here is the same one with "surgery robots" operated from several feet to miles away by competent surgeons: the remote control nature will always delay the response time of the operator, and the success of the operator is dependent on the quality and maintenance of the on-site equipment.  If the onsite equipment misses an inspection or the signal gets blocked for any reason, the self-propelled equipment may cause undue harm to the human beings in its way.

I'm not saying headlines like "Robocop Terrorizes Cincinnati", I'm saying "Robocop ends man's ability to walk by driving straight over his legs, crushing them to fragments."