“Mabinogi” has very rich fighting skills, magic skills. The most characteristic is the monster will use the skills, and there are still certain skills of the passengers, adding players in the course of the fighting in the fun. You can buy cheap mabinogi you temporarily to ease the tension!

Posted by: cheap mabinogi at August 5, 2008 09:54 PM

When their Daguai no ability to make money when you can buy Maple mesos. Later games to a new BOSS, Puchu a lot of things, because why did not go to school, the students later I have been playing this game until the most senior.

Posted by: Maple mesos at August 5, 2008 09:53 PM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 09:37 PM

But, slowly, we are all the reasons more and more distant from the RO, RO to leave the distance we have much more. I am a lot busier than before, not like before, often on the line. Although sometimes he also give me a little cheap zeny, but I l know that there are misunderstandings between us, and increasingly deep.

Posted by: cheap zeny at August 2, 2008 03:22 AM

You fools. Sooner or later Asia will deploy these kind of robots over american soil and just imagine that. You just can't see it coming; open your eyes.

Posted by: Eangel at April 18, 2008 01:33 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 11:27 PM

Ok a killer robot..

so in a REAL war not the crap thats going on in Iraq ( thats no way near a actual war people.)

So in a real war we send in these robots to fight.. and the enemy will not be stupid why would the send flesh and blood against them they would send there own robots Right..
now in this case the only people hurt are the innocent civilians.. now if we are going to fight like this people might as well fight wars between nations using street fighter 2. !!!

Posted by: all-tec at September 21, 2007 07:36 AM

ok, but what about child soldiers ? the machine obviously doesn't make distinction over that.

Posted by: toby at April 21, 2007 08:53 PM

So an enemy combatant brandishing an AK becomes collateral damage, who cares? In a combat zone, those that carry guns would be combatants and just as likely to die from the pull of a trigger by a human or a machine. If it can be made efficient and accurate, why not save my troops from dying.
As Patton said, "“A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.” War evolves and technology does as well, deal with it.

Posted by: Eric at April 21, 2007 09:12 AM

Perfect!

Since we're already ignoring a half million Iraqi deaths for our 3000 troops, we'll be able to commit mass amounts of genocide and care even less!

For a federalist company, we sure appear as a totalitarian war machine....

Posted by: Mic Mell at April 20, 2007 01:43 PM

Brilliant to have war where we send virtually none of our troops and let these advanced machines win it for us.

Posted by: Johnson at April 18, 2007 10:01 AM

um...did anyone see terminator....this was how it started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you let the computers break that laws we set for them. give them away to bend the rules given to them. and has anyone seen I, Robot.....yah wow....keep humans in the loop. if not then war becomes a video game and we can just kill without any regret.

WoW god help us if this passes

Posted by: Hermanaitor at April 16, 2007 03:04 PM

This is the best thing for America. To decrease losses and death, we increase technology. These new bots will save lives, as well as stop the terrorist threat by eliminating their targets, humans in the battlefields.

Posted by: Matt Hammonds at April 16, 2007 12:07 PM

I did some analysis of this development on my blog. Knowing what I know about the way that automation and robotics have been applied against working class people here at home, I would advise anyone currently serving in the military to view these technologies very skeptically. Aside from their potentially devastating effects on humanity as a whole, soldiers - as workers - should do some careful study of the application of robots as a tool of a bureaucratic or capitalist class (in this case the politicians and the military bureaucracy) to control its workforce. Robots don't revolt or demand rights, and their spread may undermine the power of soldiers to do so in the future. The power of rank and file soldiers to stop wars through their own autonomous activity is important and would be undermined by the development of this technology.

Read more about it at:
www.phoenixinsurgent.blogspot.com

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at April 16, 2007 01:24 AM

The comment
"Oh, yeah. Autonomous kill-bots. We'll definitely never regret developing this technology, let alone the twisted legal theory that justifies it... another sad development in human history."

is significant. Using such things on a battlefield is one thing. How long will it be before the police deploy them in "civil disobedience" conditions?

What "Right to bear arms"?

Posted by: Charlie at April 15, 2007 10:39 PM

Oh, yeah. Autonomous kill-bots. We'll definitely never regret developing this technology, let alone the twisted legal theory that justifies it... another sad development in human history.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at April 15, 2007 07:58 PM

And the law of robotics?

Posted by: Marcos V. Pagelkopf Jr at April 15, 2007 01:44 PM

I read all the articles. I think the statement was misplaced if a US Troop gets in the way of the autonomous firing sequnce. The autonomous system should and will stop firing untill the US Soldir gets out of the line of fire. As for manned or unmanned controls in sniper recon mode as this article describes , the newer systems should have both. A double check by man as to stand down, by remote access only if necessary. The idea of this explanation in this article is to allow minimal if none civilian casualties as a minimum, not the insurgents. If the insurgents get shot , while the robot is destroying and counting destroyed munitions on it's internal counter, so be it. I understand the x-ray capacity is being enhanced by cancer research treatment labs here at kc north hospitals. A simple modification to a web cam and you can see with x-ray without being harmfull to tissues. Added into the artificial eyes networks we can So kill off the grenade in fruit thoeory as also carbombs and ifps under rocks or landmines theories. It will detect them too! Bottom line is this newer system will put a lot of terrorists out of business. I can see the Monster.com site now in unemployed job aplicants areas under:

Terrorist Bomb Maker - Us troops and naval research labratories foiled my plots globally with a newer robots that destroy all my bombs ,landmines,sniper sand it nearly shot me last week in my truck delivering a carbomb . I am inelligible for unemployment as I am not a us citizen even though the Cia gave me all these weapons back in the Reagan Era and now they are all seized, used up, or destroyed. Has experience in chicken plants assembly area spreading avain flu globally and also in carjacking chlorine trucks. worked in installazation plants installing car alarms and 2 way radio and cells for installers companies.
Call me ot Pakistans # exchange as I am safe from extradition at the capitol there . All of my unemployed terrorist buddies are here too looking for work also. Call me! Osama Bin Laden

Posted by: Max Anderson at April 15, 2007 12:26 PM

I fear most having to bring lawyers with to the field. The rules need to be simple enough for a conscript without a high school degree to understand. We cannot get caught up with the current force structure or a particular battle when creating rules.

I would love to send 60 unmanned tanks into combat instead of 240 soldiers. But we must have strong human control over every aspect of that deployment.

One question that will be difficult to answer at this point is will the fog of war be better or worse with unmanned weapons?

Posted by: Bob at April 15, 2007 10:23 AM

hay so you killed him befor he killed a lot of young men me i say not sorry this war and they started it.
Like tag we got you first RIGHT.
i say use watever means to end this.
before it ends like KOREA our boys still on the 38th paraell for WHAT and i mean army not all marines

Posted by: albert smith at April 15, 2007 09:05 AM

Perhaps you would consider reading the presentation before rushing to denigrate the concept? Naw, because then your criticism might already have been addressed.
The proposed engagement model REQUIRES the use of warnings and non-lethals to separate the individual from the weapon prior to the destruction of the weapon. If the individual demonstraes hostile intent by e.g. firing at the platform then they have made themselves a valid target and the individual would be engaged.
I found the discussion paper (that is what it is after all) to be interesting not just for the unmanned system aspect but for the existing LOAC/ROE model presented within- an excellent summary.

Posted by: David at April 14, 2007 07:36 PM

Wheres Sarah Connor when you need her?

Posted by: Grandjester at April 14, 2007 06:48 PM

This reminds me of when we were trained to aim mainly at the chest to 'stop' an attacker. It was explained to us repeatedly, and tested, that we were if ever to be questioned to explain that we were aiming at "center body mass" in order to "stop the attacker's progress."

Isn't this just the same thing?

Instead of anyone at any stage verbalizing that anyone had any intent to kill anyone, it was just all about achieving goals and using firepower at enunciated targets.

Posted by: El Cid at April 14, 2007 06:06 PM

I forgot to add this insight, quote: "the muslims which blow themselves up on purpose"..

Arent they a bit like robots? It's not like they think for themselves, act very human or have any value for their live or that of their fellow people. Maybe we could split the legislation: it's okay to kill muslims with robots, but no robots can be deployed againts white people? Eye-for-an-eye kinda thing?

On the other hand, if you could deploy 100.000 hunter killer drones in the badlands and equip them with camera's and remote control, you could deploy the west's major asset: let all our l33t 'patriotic' gamers control the drones (through the internets), and let's see what happens.. maybe first select suitable controllers with an addition to the recruitment game America's Army, train them a bit more on ethics and let them fight the war from their bedroom PC. That would be mining a serious talent pool indeed.

Posted by: Macaca at April 14, 2007 03:43 AM

It's a stupid idea. You'll need a pretty damn accurate weapon to selective target just the AK in the guys hand, and you'd probably have to prove to court that it's feasible to hit it in battlefield conditions, and you probably can't. There's no such thing as: "Yeah, we tried to hit the rifle with a salvo this 2cm airburst weapon, but instead we accidentally vaporized the guy holding it and the complete structure he was in exploded in a ball of shrapnel.. sorry, didnt mean too".

Also the enemy will have a field day with the 'cowardice': the mass not-so-tech-savvy people's you're invading will be played by the oh-so smart enemy propaganda people.

Posted by: Macaca at April 14, 2007 03:35 AM

This is what happens when people who aren't lawyers try to understand legal documents. Neither the Hague nor the Geneva conventions say anything about what caliber weapon you can shoot people with. Total Myth.

I suppose using artillery is against the Geneva conventions then as well, that's much bigger than .50 cal. Or what about 2000 lbs bombs? What about 25mm HE, for troop engagements past 900 meters (7.62 tracer burnout)?

Posted by: Ty at April 14, 2007 02:42 AM

Think again:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar07/4948

As for morality, what about it? You are asking the wrong person to address that concern, that is for ethical humanists. I have no problem with it. Like I said, the FPS gaming generation probably has no problem with it either, compared to some older generation.

All that is needed to defeat the US is kill two soldiers a day, and after a few years, the US declares victory and leaves without producing the desired result. The US has a problem with staying power.

The goal of the insurgents is to kill US soldiers and create the perception of chaos in order to affect US public opinion. This might help turn the tide. You don't get 72 virgins for blowing up robots!

Posted by: BT at April 13, 2007 11:02 PM

yeah, we had similar when I WAS IN THE FORCES. We were only allowed to destroy the énemy's equipment. So we aimed at their dog tags, or rather were we thought they were hiding them under their t shirts. Then the red cross got involved and we were told to stop shooting civillians. Like they really were? we knew better.

Posted by: johnathan at April 13, 2007 10:37 PM

this idea obviously wont work. And wont ever happen.

oh, and "BT"...several things are wrong with your strategy...but I agree with many of your (probably viewed as outlandish) points.

One thing is money...it would costs a lot to make robotic foot soldier...but the price tag could be smaller if you mass produce certain designs...say like 1000 or 5000 of a particular design.
But probably the biggest hurdle other than money...and the technology (which isn't mature enough yet), is the morality. Do you think the general public will agree that its a good idea to build 10,000 armed robots and give then permission to kill people. People will instantly think of Terminator...and vote against it.

Computer processing power, just isn't there but in 10 years...I think it will be. I agree with you that our military cant keep up with the muslims which blow themselves up on purpose.

Posted by: murc at April 13, 2007 07:53 PM

clever, but I'm not seeing it go anywhere. what happens when the target throws his gun down? throws it into a group of civilians? puts a grenade in a piece of fruit? anyway, I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with robots making these kinds of decisions on their own. I'm picturing the scene from robocop where they bring in the prototype for a demonstration and it kills the room full of executives. whoops. still working out the kinks.

Posted by: pjk at April 13, 2007 06:22 PM

Always targeting the weapons, right.

"Yeah, the damn thing always shoots a bit high for some reason."

Posted by: Kevin Genson at April 13, 2007 04:19 PM

The NSWC is in Dahlgren Virgina, actually, just a few miles from here. And, yeah, that's a really...twisted interpretation of the rules, with dodgy implementation possibilities at best.

Posted by: Dave at April 13, 2007 04:09 PM

There should be no reason why a robot, can't select, target, and kill a human, without a human in the loop. It is technically possible right now, as seen by the recent Korean Robot Sentry. It is inevitable. It's probably more cultural, than anything else. Change the damn law.

It is obvious the US does not have the man power to fight a war of attrition with the endless supply of Jihadists. We should do what we do best, and automate as much as possible. I think you could probably sink up a 'Boomerang' like Sniper detector, with a Remote Gun System, and various other technologies, then presto, problem solved. It only would fire, if fired upon. Basically automated air defense, but for ground targets.

Tens of thousands of air and ground armed robots on the loose (automated or not), could be a game changer for the US. This is not the disaster called FCS. No excuse for not having 24/7 surveillance everywhere in Iraq right now.

Posted by: BT at April 13, 2007 03:28 PM

"The Law of Armed Conflict dictates that unmanned systems cannot fire their weapons without a human operator in the loop."

What about mines?

Posted by: RacetrackOwner at April 13, 2007 12:31 PM

Besides, isn't a prerequisite for collateral damage to be acceptable that it be of less value than the target under current Just War doctrines? An automated Predator opening up with an automatic weapon to destroy a rifle seems to be too great a risk of human life when they're "not the target."

And isn't precision of targeting the reason most Unmanned Combat Vehicles are currently armed with spread weapons? Hellfire missiles, shotguns...

Posted by: WingmanX at April 13, 2007 11:43 AM

Ya know, we said the same thing about using 50 cal machine guns when I was in 101 back in the 80s...

Something about not being legal to use against personnel?

"We aim at equipment (with the 50's) : vehicles, weapons, helmets, web gear. Stuff like that."

This was WELL before Barretts, of course.

Posted by: Todd L. Gilbert at April 13, 2007 10:51 AM

Plus, considering that now the Iraqi army and police are the Good Guys, you have to make sure the robots don't try to shoot their kalashnikovs constantly, yet are still able to distinguish the bad guys' as well.

Posted by: mrnitropb at April 13, 2007 09:35 AM

I see a lot of implementation problems here. I mean, there's the usual friend-or-foe IDing issues. Then there's the problem of getting the software to recognise a weapon. If you program it to recognise the shape of an AK, it'll pick up replicas or toys or, heck, lots of stuff that looks vaguely gun-shaped. And the enemy will simply resort to distorting the shape of the weapon, which can't be hard to do.

And as far as the legal issues, this seems like skirting the boundaries, and definitely violating the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

Posted by: Adrian Forest at April 13, 2007 09:27 AM