Spy Fly 201
opencity writes "CNN (and AP) reports on the 'Spy Fly' project. "Biologists and technologists at the University of California, Berkeley have spent the past four years developing a tiny robot, called the Micromechanical Flying Insect, that they say will one day fly like a fly." Good technical stuff on the Cal Berkeley page. The Pentagon likes the idea for spying and battlefield deployment but their page has no info about weaponization or command / communication technologies."
Richy Rich anyone? (Score:1)
Re:Richy Rich anyone? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Richy Rich anyone? (Score:1)
Besides, we've already discussed this before [slashdot.org]. If I wanted reruns, I'd go to the source [fark.com].
Re:Richy Rich anyone? (Score:1)
Or Philip K. Dick (Score:2)
A Paranoid Person's Nightmare... (Score:1)
Everyones nightmare (Score:1, Redundant)
Insect spy technology would be almost unstopable, and has the impact on society that the atomic bomb once had, how is this a good thing? How could it ever be a good thing?!
Too much money is spend on stupid shit like this and not enough money is spent on educating the masses.
What good is spending 350-400 billion a year on the military if you only spend 20 billion a year on public schools? You end up with a nation of irresponsible morons who are going to be controlling weapons of mass destruction.
What the hell? If Nano Technology weapons start to appear, I have absolutely no faith that humanity will be able to handle it.
Hmm... (Score:2)
Tell me, when was the last time 2 world powers took up arms against each other?
Seems to me there hasn't been any massive loss of life (say, even close to a world war) since we droped the bomb on Japan.
Re:Everyones nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
Whats the good of having a well educated population that is unable to defend itself? Some power mad asshole decides "Oh boy! Suckers ripe for the plucking!"
Why do you assume that throwing money at schools will magicly cause students to become more intrested in learning than in the next album by their favorite band, or if their favorite team will make it to the Super Bowl, or if they can get some good pot this weekend, or if they will get a piece of ass or......
Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense? (Score:2)
We should be spending equal amounts on both, not almost all our money on the military.
Defense is to defend ourself from assholes, the current government seems to like to bully other countries and try to police the world. This is a bad idea.
We only need enough money to defend our country, you dont need 350-400 billion to defend the country, thats the budget needed to police the entire planet.
I'd say 100 billion is needed to defend the country, and 100 billion to educate the masses.
Why do you assume that throwing money at schools will magicly cause students to become more intrested in learning than in the next album by their favorite band, or if their favorite team will make it to the Super Bowl, or if they can get some good pot this weekend, or if they will get a piece of ass or......
throwing money at the military is no smarter than throwing money at school.
Who said I agree with how schools currently work? Schools need to be completely reformed, and made modern.
Reform the school, currently schools are designed for the 1800s, this is 2002, get rid of chalkboards, replace them with electronic displays, allow programmers to write more interactive learning software, install a touch pad palm style display into all of the desks, no more need for paper, use electronic paper if there is a need.
Internet connect all of this, so the work a person does at school can simply be uploaded to a central server, then when they get home they can continue their learning experience.
Oh, and the reason we should use computers and technology to educate our children, its proven that one teacher can not teach 30 kids properly, and reducing class sizes which is what the government is currently trying to do, is just not going to work.
Accept the fact that public schools will be big, give teachers the tools required to teach a big class.
electronic paper, interactive assignments, complete with videos,students should be taught teamwork and work as a team using the technology provided,homework should be downloadable from the net etc, teachers should be able to use animations to explain things to students on a digital board, an animation should show students how to do their math, show them how the atomic bomb works, etc
Kids dont like school because of how its designed, its not very modern, kids want school to be fun, so why not make it fun, connect the school to the web.
I'm sure some older people here will say "too much technology in school is bad, kids will play and chat, and not learn a thing"
However statistics prove that kids learn more from TV, Games, and Movies than they do from books. Of course before The net, TV, etc exsisted and there were only books, people all learned from books.
Now people learn from the web, they chat, but chatting should be allowed as long as A, everything you say is displayed in public on the teachers electronic board, the teacher can moderate, or should be able to turn this off.
Basically, just like we have the PC designed to help you learn and gather information at home, special devices and tools should be designed to aid in teaching.
Currently its not helping, because people are just throwing PCs at schools, with generic software like microsoft windows, AOL chat, etc.
With a 100 billion dollar budget, a whole industry could form, to develop hardware and software DESIGNED for schools.
This is why the budget should be increased, of course I cant control how the money is spent, and if schools just want to throw money at microsoft and dell, well thats their stupidity.
Re:Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense? (Score:2)
During the Civil Rights era the idea grew that there was a "Right" to an education. There is NO right to a tax payer supported education. That is a privillege to be earned. Dumping the notion of a "Right" to a tax payer supported education will allow the schools to dump the worst trouble makers who don't intend to learn any thing, and won't cost a cent.
Money won't solve the problem of political groups pushing their agenda in the public school system. Scince has been watered down so the Fundementalists won't be offended. History has been watered down so a number of groups on the right and left won't be offended. Every thing else has been watered down so some dummy won't have his esteem hurt when he gets a failing grade.
More toys won't solve the gang problems many schools have. That would involve tossing gangsters out where they can't prey on other students.
Money won't return control of the classroom to a teacher who has to deal with "little angels" whose parents think they can do no wrong and are ready to sue at the drop of a hat, unless it's spent on lawyers instead of equipment.
Work on returning control of the class room to the teachers, on rewarding students who do bother learning, on penalizing students who don't learn, on getting politics out of the classroom, and after you solve those problems, then come back and talk to me about paying 5 times as much in School taxes as I'm paying now.
Re:Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense? (Score:2)
Tech Toys are not going to solve the problems plauging the schools. It dosen't matter how good the tools are if you don't have teachers that inspire students, and you can't buy inspiration. Teachers are leaving the schools in droves, not because of pay, not because of lack of computers but because of frustation that they aren't allowed to teach.
Its proven, that students like to learn, but the tools used to learn currently make learning very time consuming, difficult, etc. If technology could increase the amount you could learn, you could have shorter school days. I'm sure alot of students would like school then. Tech toys? Technology is no more a toy than the copying machine, the book and library, etc.
The tools need to be updated so teachers can teach big classes, not so teachers can inspire students. Statistics show that students do bad in school because teachers cant teach them efficiently, often students get left behind, or students want to go beyond the slow pace of the class.
With software, students will all be going at their own pace, the teachers job should be changed, they should play a more professor like role. The software should instruct the student, the teacher should choose the software, and prepare the lessons. The software should be interactive allowing students to see in complete animation how to do stuff, the student should be able to learn more on their own, instead of forced to follow the pace of the class, so via these touchpads students who are good at math can breeze on by, and go as far as they can handle.
No right to education? Thats why we have so many uneducated people, the same people your tax dollars will pay to lock up in jail. You cant win, you have to pay for them.
More toys won't solve the gang problems many schools have. That would involve tossing gangsters out where they can't prey on other students.
Ill give you that, theres nothing which can be done about gangs, however good security for schools with a gang problem should be used to keep students safe from the gangs, if this means students must have machine gun armed security officers escort them to and from school each day so be it. Gang members however in my opinion, are the result of poverty, crime, and ignorance, I believe if we get rid of poverty, and ignorance, there will be alot less gangs.
Money won't return control of the classroom to a teacher who has to deal with "little angels" whose parents think they can do no wrong and are ready to sue at the drop of a hat, unless it's spent on lawyers instead
Point taken, but you keep thinking of the classical style of teaching, where everything is placed on the teacher, look, its a students responsibility to learn, the tools should be there, the teacher should be the guide, I do not believe the teacher can properly instruct 30 students, I do not believe the teacher can control 30 students, students must be given responsbility, if they arent responsible they should be kicked out of school and forced to do homeschooling, doing their work through the internet.
Work on returning control of the class room to the teachers, on rewarding students who do bother learning, on penalizing students who don't learn, on getting politics out of the classroom, and after you solve those problems, then come back and talk to me about paying 5 times as much in School taxes as I'm paying now.
You can never penalize students who dont learn, because a student who doesnt learn can blame the lack of tools, lack of technology, etc. Right now, its the teachers fault for the students not learning, when you have one teacher and 30 students, of course its more likely that its the teachers fault if one of them doesnt learn a thing.
However when every student has all the tools they need, and all the new technology, well thats when the blame can be put on the student. I dont think students should be punished, they should first be given an option to speak with a conselor, maybe even get tutoring before they are "punished"
The goal is for them to learn, adding stress and punishment to the enviornment will teach them to hate school, it wont really help them learn. Punishment should be given to those who dont follow the rules, not for someone whos making progress even if its not enough.
Money won't solve the problem of political groups pushing their agenda in the public school system. Scince has been watered down so the Fundementalists won't be offended. History has been watered down so a number of groups on the right and left won't be offended. Every thing else has been watered down so some dummy won't have his esteem hurt when he gets a failing grade.
The grade system should be replaced by the portfolio system, students shouldnt be judged by points or grades, teachers should review their work , and judge them by things such as their progress, the amount of overall work completed, the quality of the work,
In the real world, no one gets graded, you are judged by your output, by the proof of your knowledge, not the random facts you've memorized briefly to pass a test. Not your test taking abilities.
One last thing, school should be made to be more specialized in nature, example, after someone learns the basics, they should be able to decide to focus on science, by letting students learn based on their interests, you dont have to worry about keeping them interested.
Even a gang member learns things, but building schools which focus on specific styles, and subjects, a student can remain interested on through the vital highschool years.
Japan is currently experimenting with new ideas
http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/digest5.html
Beginning with the 2002 school year, major curricular reform will occur in an attempt to make schools more flexible and responsive to individual student needs. Nearly one-third of the elementary and junior high curricula will be eliminated with deep cuts in all major subjects. The replacement classroom activity will be a new endeavor entitled Integrated Studies that will have few guidelines and no accompanying textbooks. The goal of Integrated Studies is to provide students and teachers the freedom to study whatever interests them whether the topic is religion, the environment, or foreign affairs. Some elementary schools that were selected as pilot sites for Integrated Studies in 2001 experimented with teaching English during this time block.
I think by giving students more freedom and less structure, they will like school alot more and be inspired. The problem isnt that kids dont like to learn, the problem is kids dont like the structure, they dont like the teachers, they dont like what they are learning, alot of people hate history and math for example, because students have no control over what they are learning, they dont like school, and because in college people control what they are learning, most people like college.
Its not just technology which is needed, but a complete reform.
Re:Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense? (Score:2)
It dosen't matter what format you put a math lesson in, if the student isn't intrested in learning Math, he won't learn it. You have to get their intrest and that means either you find that rare gem, a teacher who can inspire students to want to learn math, or you use a reward/punishment method where students who learn math recieve a reward (ie good grades) and students who don't learn math recieve a punishment (ie bad grades)
There is no way you will ever get enough teachers capable of inspiring students to learn for the love of knowledge. Even when you do have this kind of teacher they can't reach everybody so the reward/punishment system has to be maintained. The more current schools get away from it, the worse the results.
The idea that "poverity" causes crime or gangs is an insult to the majority of poor people who are honest. Crime is a learned behaviour. The Criminal attitude of getting something for nothing, of things are there to be taken instead of earned is a cause of poverity. Children learn the attitude that creates criminals from their parents, or from their peers who learned it from their parents. Poverity dosen't cause Crime, it's the other way around. Crime causes Poverity.
There is another thing you are failing to take into account. The effects of Culture on learning. Some cultures place a higher value on learning than others. Some Oriental Cultures and Jewish Culture have traditionally placed a higher value on learning, and students from these backgrounds tend to do better than students who's cultures don't place a high value on learning. Place a Student who's culture hasn't placed a high value on learning in a system that lacks a reward/punishment mechinism and you have a formula for disaster, one where you create vast differences in the educational achivements because of cultural differences.
Re:Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense? (Score:2)
Many Students dont understand how this relates to the real world, Thats why they have no interest. Currently, math taught in school is alot of the time useless math. By making the math useful, such as making it part of a game, it could be fun. Instead of teaching someone statistics by a text book, they'd learn it better by playing a game which for example, required them to run a company, this would teach them how economics works, in a sim city like way, the competition would fuel them to learn more. Of course, you cannot make something interesting thats not.
Students should learn the basics, they should be listed based on hours spent, a student however should be able to have more control of when they learn what. I think most people do want to learn these things, but at their own pace, when they want. If you like math and yes alot of people like math, You'll want to spend most of your time focusing on math, this is a good thing because you will be learning.
There is no way you will ever get enough teachers capable of inspiring students to learn for the love of knowledge. Even when you do have this kind of teacher they can't reach everybody so the reward/punishment system has to be maintained. The more current schools get away from it, the worse the results.
Everyone loves knowledge, the problem is students dont have purpose, motivation, or reason for learning what they learn. A kid says he wants to be an astronaught, no one sits down with this kid and tells him, "you need to be good at math, and science, lets look over your math and science work and see how you are doing, then lets look at what you'll need to do to become an astronaught"
Students need people to motivate them and guide them, every kid has dreams. Everyone has talents, and everyone is filled with knowledge, the problem is, schools arent built to take advantage of a persons strengths, they are built to try to make everyone fit the same mold, and this is exactly why kids arent interested. A scientific kid, does not want to bother with social studies and some of these other subjects, he wants to learn what he needs to learn to do what he wants to do with his life.
Goal based learning, can only work, when a student understands what they must do. The current problem with the education system, after a student learns the basics, which is about up until middle school, they are forced to learn all this useless junk which doesnt apply to what they want or like, in highschool. You dont NEED to know half the shit you learn in highschool, most of it you forget because it doesnt apply to your field, and even if it does, its usually not taught in a way you remember it.
The basics, which all students should know before they can go into what i'd call a special program which allows them to specialize on certain subjects they like, they need to know how to read, write, and they need to understand the basic concepts of math such as addition, subtraction, multiply and division, I believe a kid could learn the basics in grade 1-5, in middle school a kid can then spend that time trying to figure out which highschool they will go to, highschools should be more like college.
The idea that "poverity" causes crime or gangs is an insult to the majority of poor people who are honest. Crime is a learned behaviour. The Criminal attitude of getting something for nothing, of things are there to be taken instead of earned is a cause of poverity. Children learn the attitude that creates criminals from their parents, or from their peers who learned it from their parents. Poverity dosen't cause Crime, it's the other way around. Crime causes Poverity.
Because I'm currently at in we you'd call poverty, I can tell you exactly why poverty leads to gangs.
When you have nothing, absolutely nothing, and lets say you only live with your mother, in a cheap apartment, she works 2 jobs, you barely ever see her, theres no one to keep an eye on you, you dont have a father figure.
Lets say a neighborhood gangster, drug dealer, or king pin type guy, decides to be your father figure, you dont know how to be a man, and he tells you that in order to be a man, you have to be like him. Its very easy to fall into the trap of being suckered into a gang, when older grown men whom you respect, who have everything you dont have, a car, a nice house, etc tell you that by selling these drugs, and joining their gang, that you'll get women, a car, a and most importantly, you'll be protected from all the gangs which previously would bully you all through your childhood.
Yes, you'd be very likely to join a gang, when your choice is join the gang and be protected, given an easy as hell job, women, etc. When someone has nothing, and some guy offers to help them, even if the guy is a gang member, alot of people will join the gang because they have absolutely nothing to lose, or so they think.
Heres what they have to lose, they can lose their education, usually gangmembers drop out, causing them to lose their future, hey the gang kingpin wants this, of course the kid isnt old enough to understand.
They can go to jail, and lose their youth, but to a person whos living in poverty, going to jail is not really a punishment, lets see you take them off the cold streets and you put them in a warm jail with their friends that they grew up with, thats their punishment? Many gang members view jail in the same way you'd view college, you go to jail and you come out with respect.
The thing which most of these kids dont understand though, that their biggest loss, if the fact that they could and most likely will lose their life at a young age. Sometimes they know this and because they hate their life, dont care if they die young, they want to live it up, others however who might want to live a long life, are stuck once they join the gang and find they cant get out anymore, all the other gangs who would just mess with them, now want to kill them, so they cant get out of it.
So can poverty cause a person to join a gang? Hell yes, if a person has alot to lose, then they are a damn fool for joining a gang, but if a person has absolutely nothing to lose, well, joining a gang to them seems like an easy way out. However in my opinion they'd be better off joining the military.
Children learn the attitude that creates criminals from their parents, or from their peers who learned it from their parents. Poverity dosen't cause Crime, it's the other way around. Crime causes Poverity.
Have you ever been poor, and ever lived in poverty? Most of the kids who are in gangs, dont have parents who are bad or dishonest, their parents are usually not around due to working two jobs doing the honest thing, and its because their parents arent around, that the gang leader becomes their parent, their family. If you didnt ever see your mother because she worked two jobs, and your father just was never around to begin with, you'd need someone, or some kinda guide, can you blame your mother? No, she has to work 2 jobs. Can you blame society? No you cant blame society because its been like this since forever. Can you blame your father? Well maybe, but you still cant change things. Poverty is a DIRECT link to crime, because when you have nothing to lose, you are willing to do anything to get what you dont have. You'll rob a person to pay your bills, you'll steal a car if you cant afford one, and you will sell drugs if you have no food in the house. Whats better, being honest, or starving? This is the choice you have when you have nothing, you have to decide if you should steal something from someone else, or just have nothing.
There is another thing you are failing to take into account. The effects of Culture on learning. Some cultures place a higher value on learning than others. Some Oriental Cultures and Jewish Culture have traditionally placed a higher value on learning, and students from these backgrounds tend to do better than students who's cultures don't place a high value on learning. Place a Student who's culture hasn't placed a high value on learning in a system that lacks a reward/punishment mechinism and you have a formula for disaster, one where you create vast differences in the educational achivements because of cultural differences.
Culture does has an effect, and our current MTV culture, or our war based patriot culture is not really teaching kids to learn. To change culture you must change whats on tv, no you dont need to put alot of educational shows on tv, but more SCI FI startrek like movies, help promote the video game and computer game industry, bring computers to the most poverty filled communities and teach kids there about the internet, slowly you begin to change the culture over time, from an MTV Music Movie culture, to an Internet WWW Napster Slashdot culture.
It takes years, but its slowly happening right now.
Also, you dont need a reward punishment mechanism to teach people the importance of learning, thats like saying as a punishment you make a kid run laps, its better to tell them WHY they need to learn.
Lets for example, take a typical kid, whos about to join a gang, lets say we grabbed him right off the streets, and introduce him to the net. Its easier to just tell the person whats going on, tell them the importance of learning, and guide them.
A teacher does not have to do this, this can be done by you and I, any one of us can just help a random person. Culture does have effects on learning, however, you can change culture, culture is not static its dynamic. You can take someone of a diffrent culture, and explain to them why its important to learn, and if you want to know what to say, just tell them that you understand that they have nothing, and that knowledge is the way out, and you explain to them how you got where you are, and if you were in their situaiton before how you can relate.
The problem with schools, teachers dont care enough to explain to a kid the importance of education. As a kid I didnt have a teacher walk up to me, and tell me how important it was, i didnt have that happen until later. You see, its up to older wiser adults to explain to youth how the world actually works, dont just tell them knowledge is power, tell them why its power, tell them how with knowledge they can write a business plan, and show them how to write one, tell them how bill gates used his knowledge to become so rich, and tell them that they'd make more money starting a legit business than they would starting an illegal one.
You cant make a person care about learning what they need to learn unless you tell them why they need to learn it, and teachers never tell you why you need to learn what they teach, its because they are teachers, they cannot really relate to normal people who work in an office and have real jobs.
Re:Everyones nightmare (Score:2)
Able to criticise the current goverment?
Yes thats exactly what we need, then the world can change and wars will finally cease.
Humanity can't handle the technology fire responsible. Neither cars, AC, household equipment, food...
But these technologies dont destroy all humanity.
Neither have I faith that humanity will be able to handle nuclear or biological weapons. Still we managed it somehow. Quite on the verge of destruction, but still...
We were lucky. We wont be lucky for much longer.
Re:A Paranoid Person's Nightmare... (Score:2, Funny)
Appologies to everyone (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this is pretty damn cool, these things weigh less than 1/24th of a penny, have a wingspan of a quarter. The propulsion system on this thing is pretty interesting / amazing.
Its cool, its cool unless dumbasses control it (Score:1, Troll)
All technologies start of cool, because technologies are usually created by very intelligent enlightened people.
But why should intelligent enlightened people create technologies which dumbass hawks in government will use irresponsibly, to spy on people, harrass, control, and kill people with?
Oh and lets not forget it will eventually spread to people like bin laden, and the next hitler.
Look, geeks in slashdot may be intelligent enough to handle these technologies, but the average idiot, would destroy the world with it.
Governments invest hundreds of billions in weapons, but next to nothing in education, the US government spends less than japan in educating the masses yet spends 350-400 billion on its military.
Look, with the trillion dollar tax cut, and plans for smaller government, what people seem to forget, even with smaller government, you'll still have a country filled with idiots unless you educate the masses on how to use this technology.
The average person cant even use the internet properly, I'm betting george bush doesnt know how to write a program, or do anything more than the average joe who just checks his mail and surfs the web, but this is the guy whos supposed to decide how this new fly technology will be used?
We will let Bush decide who gets nuked? The world is doomed as long as we have leaders who arent as intelligent as the creators of the technology.
The solution? More education, raise the budget on education, and worldwide, so that hopefully we can have a war on ignorance like we have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is caused by ignorance, Hate is caused by ignorance, and both of these are usually results of poor education, lack of knowledge, low intelligence, etc.
Building more weapons, and spy technology only means, the dumb asses of the world will be able to do more damage.
Re:Its cool, its cool unless dumbasses control it (Score:2, Interesting)
Spying on, harassing, controlling, and killing people is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on who it's been done to e.g. Al Quaeda, Nazis.
Oh and lets not forget it will eventually spread to people like bin laden, and the next hitler.
Unfortunately it probably will eventually regardless of what the U.S. does. After all there are other countries in the world capable of developing new technologies.
Look, geeks in slashdot may be intelligent enough to handle these technologies, but the average idiot, would destroy the world with it.
Care to be more condescending and elitist. Somehow the world has survived through 50+ years of the Cold War and associated nuclear arms race despite the non-existence of Slashdot and the fact that most leaders were not geek-types.
Governments invest hundreds of billions in weapons, but next to nothing in education, the US government spends less than japan in educating the masses yet spends 350-400 billion on its military.
Gee, where to start with this.
First of all the U.S. is a very wealthy nation - we can afford guns, butter, AND a health plan for the elderly. The U.S. spends a lot on defense and a lot on education. In fact I believe the per pupil expenditure in the U.S. is greater than most western countries. It's also not clear that education spending beyond a certain level even correlates with better educational achievement. Here in the U.S. it's generally true that the school districts that spend the most per student typically have the worst academic performance.
Secondly, choosing to spend more on defense is not as irrational as you make it sound. After all the consequences of having a deficient military defense include the deaths of millions of fellow citizens and the destruction of your country. Compared to this, the price of having a less than perfect educational system seems very minor.
Furthermore, U.S. defense spending also has beneficial effects for the world at large. For instance the U.S. military pretty much guarantees the Freedom of the Seas for the rest of the world and keeps piracy to a minimum. Global trade could not exist without this quiet protection. It also has a dampening effect on regional rivalries and allows other countries (such as Japan) to get by with minimal defense spending since they're under the U.S. protection umbrella.
Terrorism is caused by ignorance, Hate is caused by ignorance, and both of these are usually results of poor education, lack of knowledge, low intelligence, etc.
Wrong. Terrorism (and hate) may have several causes, but it's doubtful that ignorance and lack of education is among them. After all most of the senior leadership of Al Queda is well educated and familiar with western society. Bin Laden himself actually lived in Europe for a while, and several of the 9/11 hijackers had advanced degrees and had lived in the U.S. and Europe for years. They may hate the U.S. (and western society in general) but it's certainly not because they're ignorant of it or uneducated in general. Sometimes it's intimate familiarity that breeds the most murdurous kind of hate - e.g. Hutus/Tutsis in Rwanda, Serbs/Croats/Bosnians in Yugoslavia.
Knowledge and education are great things, but they're no panacea for all human woes.
Re:Its cool, its cool unless dumbasses control it (Score:2)
Please define mean and evil. Stupid is a better word.
Hate caused by fear? So hate of self means you fear yourself?
Hate of your own species is hate of self. Not everyone who fears, hates, hate is an instinct that certain people possess, just like certain people are greedy, certain people are violent, etc.
by ignorant (Score:2)
This is why I call them ignorant, murder is ignorant.
You cannot harm someone else on purpose, and not be considered ignorant, you purposely do harm to others, you actually are doing harm to yourself, your children, its like a ripple effect.
You can claim they do it because they are evil, but evil is ignorant, the nature of evil, not just the effects.
You think knowledge and intelligence equals enlightenment? hell no, alot of sheep have knowledge. But without proper understanding, you'll use your knowledge to destroy yourself instead of to help yourself.
FLI (Score:1)
Any votes for FLI? (We can work out what this is an acronym for later).
80N
Re:FLI (Score:2)
Re:FLI (Score:2, Funny)
X-10 replacement? (Score:1)
How long until... (Score:5, Funny)
Worst Nightmare is on its way (Score:3, Interesting)
Ants completely immune to insecticide, crawling into people's houses, looking and listening to everything happening in every room.
Ants crawling into keyboards and sensing keystrokes; into monitors and recording displays;
Insects in cars, flying around the sky, networking and collecting data.
Once the prototypes are worked out, and production is tooled up, it'll be viable to implement 100% surveillance of a entire resident populations.
Or, with extreme micromechanical advances, it'll be devices smaller than a human cell, resistant to human antibodies, that can enter via the nasal passages, travel through the bloodstream, sneak past the blood-brain barrier, and embed into various centres around the brain, including the speech centre. Thus such devices will have the ability to read a portion of human thought (the verbal compenent at least), encode verbal thoughts into a data stream, and use the brain's electricity to power a transmitter, sending the encoded thoughts out to external surveillance insects for collection into government databases.
George Orwell's coined word 'thoughtcrime' will take on a much more literal meaning.
This is one of the most frightening developments I've ever seen. The only thing that might hold it in check is an underground movement of people developing technological counter-measures.
Re:Worst Nightmare is on its way (Score:1, Insightful)
Underground? Just go to Walmart and get yourself a flyswat.
Re:Worst Nightmare is on its way (Score:2)
People often believe its a nightmare, but (Score:1, Offtopic)
I for once agree with you heretic, I dont think humanity is prepared for this technology at all. With our current leaders, our USA would be as fucked up as the way the taliban was.
Oh and even if USA isnt turned into a taliban like stay, China, and the rest of the world will have access to these technologies and some of them will try to enslave its citizens with it.
Whoever is developing this technology and hopefully reads our posts should think about what they are bringing forth into the world. I've thought about this technology, it sounds good and appeals to all geeks in terms of its use, but this kinda technology should be used for us to explore space or an alien planet, not used to be used on us.
Does humanity hate itself? We invest more money and effort trying to create weapons to destroy ourselves than we do educating ourselves!!
We claim to fight to protect freedom then develop technologies which by design remove it?
Re: wrong questions, wrongly directed phobias (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to risk some karma here, and suggest you're barking up the wrong tree here:
surveilance devices allready exists, they are very cheap and use realy old-fashioned technology (remember Orwell's 1984 was written >60 years ago )
and to the extent the (any) goverment wants to control the ordinary people's lives they can allready do this technologically and financially.
IMHO, the issues of privacy and citizen-state relationship are not technological by nature, but are political issues, and technology rarely changes them.
the only possible exception to the above is of encryption technology. But as for being afraid of miniature mechanical bugs listening to our conversations / sexual activities / whatever I say nothing has changed. The goverment allready has practically indetectable bugs
so, contrary to common geek belief, technology will nither greatly help nor greatly impede you in your civil-rights struggle. It's not a technology issue.
but that's just my non-expert oppinion, lets wait and see
Re: wrong questions, wrongly directed phobias (Score:2)
I would agree with you but for one thing. Money.
At the moment it costs the state a measurable amount of cash to monitor what I say today. They have to get someone to actually plant a bug, or tap a line, or track me down and follow me.
If you have a 'practically free' method of doing this the state is no longer impeded by availability of funds - and can bug everyone 'just in case'. The auto processing, pattern recognition technology that spots stolen cars / repeat shoplifters, can be used on these feeds to flag up people who say the words 'I'm a baddie' more than twice.
Just by releasing a swarm of flies/ ants they can have a bug in every room in the country. If its okay to use them to stop Bin Laden - why not use them to stop wife beaters, and drug dealers, and tax dodgers, and litterers, and over-eaters. If the costs are low enough then it makes sense.
Re:Worst Nightmare is on its way (Score:1, Flamebait)
Haha you really think aids was designed to thin the black population? Actually if aids were made by humans, and I dont deny that fact that it could have been.
It was designed by religious freaks, who hate gays and people who have sex casually.
Re:Worst Nightmare is on its way (Score:2)
Old news (Score:1)
Yeah and thats why the world is fucked up (Score:2)
The department of defense (should be offense) is spending hundreds of billions per year developing weapons and spy technologies.
What the fuck is the purpose of spending so much money on technologies which are bad for humanity, but not spending any money on education.
Do they expect a bunch of typical people like bush and others to be able to make the right decisions in using this technology?
This is 2002! I think its time USA stopped trying to be the king of weapons and war and started promoting education to the third world.
All of these terrorists, they dont get any education, all they know is islam, they do whatever their leader says, its all they know in life, and thats the problem
Islam is fine, but people need to understand that War is not fine, and spying on people is not good.
I'm sure people will say "but we have to spy on the good, to stop the bad" and thats true, but if we are going to spend all this time effort and money on spy technology to stop the bad, we should also be spending just as much money to provide education to the masses.
Most people arent bad, most are just ignorant, most Nazis and KKK who hate certain races do so in ignorance, sure the leaders like hitler or bin ladens may be smart, but their followers usually are ignorant sheep instead of free thinkers, perhaps letting some of these ignorant sheep on to the net would be more effective than spying on them and blowing them up, and fighting fire and fire.
Re:Yeah and thats why the world is fucked up (Score:2)
I personally think it's high time the USA start promoting education in the USA.
Bush & co are spending 20(!!) times more on military than on education. My guess is that educated people wouldn't vote for people like bush, so I guess it makes sense in the grand scheme of things...
Re:Yeah and thats why the world is fucked up (Score:2)
The education budget should never be less than half the military budget!
350 billion on the military should mean around 200 billion on education.
Re:Yeah and thats why the world is fucked up (Score:2, Informative)
great technology (Score:5, Funny)
Payload? (Score:1)
What kind of payload / application would there be for such a device?
- Germ warefare
- Surveillance (Little Brother)
- Assassination (with a Sarin filled hypodermic)
- Military/battlefield Intelligence
Hm, can't think of many good uses for it.80N
Re:Payload? (Score:2)
These things could get into earthquake rubble no problem at all.
Something like this would have been perfect in the recent mining diasaster (or even the WTC) for searching for and establishing communications with any survivors, and for helping to identify the best methods and locations for the air, water, and rescue holes. Although the miners got out alive, they were very lucky to last for three days without any contact. These rescue attempts are very much a balance between acting quickly, so that you can save someone before they succumb, but also taking your time so that the rescue attempt doesn't kill them or the rescuers. Small guided or autonomous cameras could assess the situation quickly but without dangerously disturbing the situation. In large diasasters, like earthquakes and the WTC, they could help direct limited resources to spots with the best chance of finding survivors.
I can hear the crows talking... (Score:1)
Well, I've seen a house fly,
And I've seen a horse fly,
Hell, I've even seen a dragon fly,
But you know what?
I been done seen 'bout everything when I see a robot fly
Danny Dunn, Invisible Boy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Danny Dunn, Invisible Boy (Score:1)
Re:Danny Dunn, Invisible Boy (Score:2)
All the Danny Dunn books were good. Remember they were tracking a robber with a 'sniffer' that looked like they were vacuuming the sidewalk?
Re:Danny Dunn, Invisible Boy (Score:2)
Nice to see I'm not alone.
Re:Danny Dunn, Invisible Boy (Score:2)
I missed the power supply in the article, but if the power requirements are low enough it might be able to ride on other radio signals. Wasn't that a goal of Tesla, to be able to draw electricity from the air?
beneficial uses? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can imagine the flybot being life savers
in rescue operations. Given the mine collapse
in the news in the last few days (congrats
all around for the successful rescue), I'm
surprised there isn't a more humanitarian spin
to promote this type of technology.
But then, talking about rescuing people doesn't
generate as much buzz as "oh my god! the
government is onto my pr0n collection!!"...
Because most humans are fools (Score:2)
The technology is a very good technology, but most humans are like apes and monkeys, they go around having wars, hating each other, and doing evil crap.
True theres some good people who will use the technology for good, but if just a handful use this technology for bad, it could ruin it.
Create this technology and let some of the dumbasses in the government get a hold of it and you'll see what I mean.
Toner wars!!! (Score:2)
The Diamond Age is a great book and everyone should read it right now to know where this stuff is headed.
Jack Vance had it in the 1960s (Score:2)
- adam
P.S.
"Excuse me for being curious," he said, "but are you Alusz Iphigenia Eperje-Tokay?"
"I am Alusz Iphigenia Eperje-Tokay," she said, correcting his pronunciation.
$2.5 million, huh? (Score:3, Funny)
rrrrrRRRRRrrrrrrRRRRRRrrrrrr
Scientist: "Oooh, look at that!"
rrrrrRRRRRrrrrrrRRRRRRrrrrrr
Scientist: "Let's land over there."
Speaker: "Whadda..?"
rrrrrRRRRRrrrrrrRRRRRRrrrrrr
Speaker: "Damn bugs!"
rrrrrRRRRRrrrrrr SPLAT!
Speaker falls silent.
Re:$2.5 million, huh? (Score:2)
Screw espionage, think of the porn opportunites! (Score:1)
Terrorists will love that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Goodbye, Mr. President/Chancellor/King/Gran Genernalissimo.
On the other hand the Mossad can use this system to take out these mad bombing bastards. (The CIA would as usual too lame to kill these retards.)
Re:Terrorists will love that. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes just like they love nuke, biowarfare, etc (Score:2)
Just giving another weapon to evil people in the world.
You see, creating more weapons to destroy evil, ALWAYS ends up helping evil in the long run.
The atomic bomb is a good example.
Why the hell (Score:2)
Evil Men in Black Gov't Headquarters
7pm Meeting
Evil #1: The king of Kuwait is refusing to buy Microsoft software! We must assassinate him!
Evil #2: But how?
Evil #1: I know! Let's do it in such a way that it requires years and years for him to die, if ever!
Evil #2: Someone shoot this man.
Evil #3 (shoots Evil #1 in the back of the head).
Evil #4: How about we just put naurotoxins on the stupid fly like we usually do?
Re:Terrorists will love that. (Score:2)
Solution: Stay inside and maintain a positive gague pressure in your house. Insects are too light to fight their way in. Problem solved.
Serious Research??? (Score:1)
From DARPA page: (Score:2, Informative)
ENVISIONED DELIVERABLES (5/2003): 2.5 cm MFI capable of laboratory flight
I guess, they were way too optimistic about the schedule. Not to mention that their server runs Windows.
Re:From DARPA page: (Score:2)
Yet another reason to switch [apple.com]
Re:From DARPA page: (Score:2)
Which demonstrates that no matter how advanced the network, it takes only one Mac to throw a monkeywrench into it.
This technology is evil (Score:1)
Im sorry but there is absolutely no way in hell this technology could ever be used for anything good.
The people developing this technology should NOT be praised, and people should be protesting this technology along with the nano dust spy technology.
Why the hell do we want to lose all privacy? This absolutely sucks, its as bad as the atomic bomb was to humanity.
Re:This technology is evil (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:This technology is evil (Score:2)
So you believe the atomic bomb SHOULD have been created? are YOU really that stupid?
This spy fly technology is an impossible to stop technology, you do realize by creating it, you are putting it into the hands of Nazis, KKK, Bin Laden, Saddam, even evil people within our own government.
Re:This technology is evil (Score:2)
The United States knew That Nazi Germany had an Atomic Bomb program, but didn't know how far along it was. It was also known that the first nation to develop the bomb would win the war, even if they were on the verge of defeat. Considering Hitler's goals, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Hitler would get the Bomb first.
The USA also knew that the USSR had had a Bomb program but didn't know how far along it's program was. Considering the expanionist goals of Stalin, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Stalin would get the Bomb first.
The USA suspected that the Japanese Empire had an Atomic Bomb Program, and it was confirmed on May 14th, 1945 when the German U-Boat U234 surrended after the European war ended. The Boat had 54 Kilos of Uranium Dioxide, Papers from the Nazi Bomb Program, The Two Japanese Officers who oversaw the shipment had labeled the Uranium Dioxide as U235 (Weapons grade). The USA also found out that there were two Japanese Subs that were loaded with Uranium Dioxide, which was bound for Japan. Considering the nature of the Imperial Japanese Government it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that they would get the bomb first.
In the 1940's it wasn't a question of IF an Atomic Bomb should be developed, it was a question of WHO was going to get the damn thing first, and you better be glad that Hesinberg blew the calculations on Critical Mass leading to a cutback in the Nazi Program or it could well have been Hitler getting the Bomb first. You better be glad that Japanese program was hampered by problems getting ahold of Uranium because they might have won the race, and you'd be hearing about Los Angles and San Francisco instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese Program did involve some Ironies. It's existance likely played a part in the decession to use the American Bombs. The Uranium Dioxide that was intended for the Japanese Program was delivered to Oakridge in May 1945. The Oakridge plant would have taken about a week to process 54 kilos of Uranium Dioxide into half a kilo of U235, so the U235 that was intended for the Japanese program was delivered to Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. (along with additional U235 provided by the USA)
Re:I understand your point howwever (Score:2)
So were we susposed to invade Japan? Any idea of what that would have entailed? Based on what we saw at Iwo Jima and Okinawa we had estimates of over 1 Million US Injured and wounded in the proposed invasion. Estimates made by the Generals who were planning it. These weren't scare tatics to advocate the Bomb instead of an Invasion, the estimates were made by men who didn't know the bomb existed. Japanese dead would have numbered in the Millions.
Or we could have continue to tighten the Blockade and waited to starve the Japanese into surrender. Hundreds of thousands dead of a famine if they didn't hold out too long, Millions if the hard liners retained control.
Either of these options would have entailed ignoring that Japan had an Atomic Bomb Program, and we had no way of knowing if they were months or years away from being able to Nuke us.
"I dont know how many thousands of these nuclear bombs, and of unbelieveable power, what was the point?"
Surrivibility of a deterent after a first strike. In order to insure that if the vast majority of your nuclear weapons were destroyed in a surprise attack, you would have enough left to inflict revenge and still have some as a deterent against a third party. After the 1960's the Cold War was a three way struggle with both the USSR and The USA having to watch China also armed with Nukes.
If you have 200 Nukes and 95% are destroyed you only have 10 left for retribution and detering the third nation. If you have 2000 Nukes and 5% surrive a first strike you have 100 left.
The game was never Blow every thing up 20 times, it was insuring that if we suffered a second Pearl Harbor we would be able to blow enough stuff up one time to make it more trouble to attack us than it was worth.
Coldwar was pointless (Score:2)
The cold was was pointless
Maybe theres no denying nuke had to be made at some point, but the cold war?
Why were we competiting with Russia and China in the first place? Why not let them control their country, and we control ours. Why get involved in world affairs? As long as they dont attack us or our allies?
Re:Coldwar was pointless (Score:2)
The Cold war was the result of the USSR's attempts to export it's despotic form of government. Blaiming the US for it's efforts to counter this is like blaiming France and the UK for starting World War II by siding with Poland when Hitler attacked them.
Re:Coldwar was pointless (Score:2)
Communism in Eastern Europe does not effect the USA.
Sure we trade with them, but this is not enough to create a cold war, Its still not directly involving the USA.
The USA states Capitalism around the world is their goal, is that reason enough for some communists to start a cold war?
Theres going to be people in the world with diffrent goals, even opposite of yours, however, war should only start, when they actually attack.
Russia did not attack the USA, or our allies, and at the time the places they did attack were not our allies. You still have not given me enough evidence that a whole cold war and all this money should have been spent, to stop a mere THREAT.
Re:Coldwar was pointless (Score:3, Interesting)
The USA responed to the Soviet attempt to outflank Nato through control of areas that were not part of the NATO alliance. Failure to respond to the threat of Soviet Imperlism would have been as suicidal as The UK and France's attempts at appeasing Hitler almost turned out to be.
Standing Idly by while a hostile state that has made it's intentions to amass enough power to overcome you clear is an incredible act of foolishness.
The USSR's policies started the Cold War. It's insistance on attempts to export it's form of government made ending it impossible.
The "end the Cold War" nonsense in the west was seldom anything other than a attempt to end any attempt to foil Soviet Imperalism without even pretending to ask for anything in return from the Soviet Union, and ammounted to a call for an abject surrender to an Expansionist Power.
Re:Coldwar was pointless (Score:2)
And the USA is any better?
How do you think countries view the USA in the middle east? We are no diffrent than the soviets when we say stuff like "We are going to convert the world to democracy, and use globalism to spread our capitalist ideals"
You see, the USA is no better.
The USA was busy having a War on communism, the USA was saying this stuff BEFORE the soviets started. IF you look back at history, the USA started to expand first, the USA started to be anti communist.
Now I understand, the USA being capitalist, its in the USA's best interest to try to convert others to its lifestyle.
But you have to understand that, both sides are responsible for the cold war, if both sides would have just kept their capitalist or communist business to themselves, we wouldnt have a cold war to see which side would dominate the world.
Its because both sides wanted to take over the world, that this happened, and the USA and Capitalism was around before communism, and the soviet union, so yes, its the USA who started it.
Re:I understand your point howwever (Score:2)
Oh yeah, The US won WWII by using a "Symbol of power"
And they would of stopped USSR's expansionist policies by waving around a "Symbol of Power"
US "You better stop that, you big bad USSR! We have several nukes!"
USSR "So? Go ahead and destroy a few of our towns. We have plenty of nukes to meet our goals. Rolling off the assembly line like sausages."
The USA pushed USSR? Yeah, Stalin is synonymous with "Good guy".
Re:I understand your point howwever (Score:2)
The USA did not have to get into the cold war that was absolutely pointless as was vietnam.
I understand world war 2 was a defensive situation and no ones doubting that hitler and japan was dangerous.
However, after world war 2, the situation was very diffrent, we were winning world war 2 before we used nuke, nuke was just the final nail in the coffin, and lastly, the cold war, and making thousands of nukes, thats pointless.
You dont need nuke to do that (Score:2)
Depends on how the laser works. (Score:2)
In space, you should in theory be able to create a laser thousands of times more powerful than it would be if its on earth, due to the fact that if done right, the suns energy could be harnessed.
Also theres other ways, you could simply use more than one laser aimed at the same target to increase how effective the laser is.
Airforce [airforce-technology.com]
current plans to deflect astriods [space.com]
you can see two sites there with lasers currently in the works which are said to be powerful enough to do it.
See picture [space.com]
Re:Depends on how the laser works. (Score:2)
Of course, if the laser doesnt work, thats when you'd use nuke, of course theres the chance even nuke might not help because nuke could blow the astriod up and create hundreds of smaller ones, which is just as bad because some of them might be on a direct path to earth.
When will society and government learn (Score:4, Troll)
That you cannot invest all this money and effort, into destruction, without destroying the world as the result.
"CNN (and AP) reports on the 'Spy Fly' project. "Biologists and technologists at the University of California, Berkeley have spent the past four years developing a tiny robot, called the Micromechanical Flying Insect, that they say will one day fly like a fly." Good technical stuff on the Cal Berkeley page. The Pentagon likes the idea for spying and battlefield deployment but their page has no info about weaponization or command / communication technologies."
This basically means, like with the atomic bomb, the government is using technology for evil purposes.
Why do we need a 350-400 billion military budget yet only a 20 billion dollar school budget?
Please tell me what would happen, if I gave some monkeys, a button, and told the monkey not to push the little red button which ends the world, wait lets take it a step further, lets say I give this power to thousands, millions of monkeys.
How long until one of the monkeys pushes the button?
For scientific minds reading this, the second law of thermodynamics clearly explains in a very logical way, that unless humans are educated and evolve mentally as a whole, expect things to collapse, with technologies like this here, the atomic bomb, soon nano technology, just wait until it gets in the hands of bin laden, the next hitler, hell i wouldnt even trust these technologies in the hands of george bush or the average american.
So why are we busy creating technology after technology without educating people in how to responsibly use these technologies we create? Are we supposed to be proud of our technology which will be used to spy on millions of people, ruin millions of lives, get people killed etc?
Re:When will society and government learn (Score:2)
Re:When will society and government learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When will society and government learn (Score:2)
It's worth noting, for instance, that with all the expensive high-tech stuff we have these days, our record for attempted genocide was considerably worse when the most sophisticated weapons possessed by the US were repeating rifles and infected blankets. On the face of it, possession of nuclear weapons has made us more, not less, careful of our actions in combat. Our standards have risen.
I find the outrage at the Chinese Embassy strike illuminating. Back in the halcyon days of World War II, before all the monkeys and buttons, keeping the bombs within a mile of the designated target was pretty good work. Mention of "the wrong building" would have elicited horse laughs from any bomber pilot, and "the wrong city" wasn't unknown.
Most of the recent increases in defense spending have been toward increasingly precise weapons that focus intense violence on smaller areas. The effect is to allow flexibility and choice. There is no "button", and hasn't been for years, because there are many options for military response besides simply pulling the pin and killing everybody. Doctor Strangelove wasn't a documentary.
Re:precision, dumb-proof (Score:2)
We used to flatten a city in an attempt to destroy a single ball bearing plant. Now we can often not only hit just the plant, but do so at night when the workers are at home. The motivation for hugely destructive weapons, like hydrogen bombs, is tremendously reduced.
I guess people just missed it. Nuclear weapons aren't expensive. They were attractive because they were cheap, and we're less likely to use them when we're willing to spend a few bucks. Take a deep breath and read that again.
A nuclear missle is expensive compared to a tank, or even a brigade of tanks, but compared to a division of tanks? Cheap! The US built a large nuclear arsenal because we were afraid of having to fight a huge conventional war with the USSR, and neither the American public nor, God knows, the European public, were willing to sustain the kind of massive forces that would have required. Millions of men, with millions of salaries, and gas, and food, and lodging, and ammunition -- no wonder we thought in terms of battlefield nukes. But we don't have to do that anymore, and we don't.
Do you think we're likely to destroy the world with Tomahawks? Those things carry a 1,000 pound warhead, or about 1/20 the explosives that were carried by a WW II B-17, a plane typically used several hundred at a time. It would take one hell of a lot of them to destroy Rhode Island, much less the world.
Let me put it another way: the Hiroshima bomb was about a 15-kiloton weapon. That makes Hiroshima a 30, 000 Tomahawk bomb. AFAIK, we neither have nor intend ever to manufacture as many as that.
Re:When will society and government learn (Score:2)
Yeah, Lord knows "Ending WWII next month instead of next year" and "We can't be sure what the Soviets intend to do with theirs" are lousy reasons.
"Why do we need a 350-400 billion military budget yet only a 20 billion dollar school budget?"
Irony: You're an example of how poorly US schools are doing by not knowing which level of government is supposed to be the one spending money on education. If you want more money for schools, talk to your state and local governments.
"Please tell me what would happen, if I gave some monkeys, a button, and told the monkey not to push the little red button which ends the world,"
If you can make monkeys understand the spoken word, you should be able to make enough money to retire comfortably in about five minutes flat.
"wait lets take it a step further, lets say I give this power to thousands, millions of monkeys."
I know you tried to put an analogy in there somewhere, but I still can't find it. Are you trying to say that the US government has passed out nuclear weapons to everybody? How come I didn't get mine then? I can think of quite a few places I'd like to use mine...
"For scientific minds reading this, the second law of thermodynamics clearly explains in a very logical way,"
Your attempt to try to apply entropy to anthropology is yet another example of how poorly US schools are doing...
"that unless humans are educated and evolve mentally as a whole, expect things to collapse,"
Even though you're way out in left field, let me try to help you. If you are trying to draw an alaogy in human behavior to entropy, what you should be saying is "We can never go back to the way things were five minutes ago." No stipulations. No exceptions. No "unless we're educated," no "unless the technology is kept secret," no nothing. Nothing short of time travel will fix that. Change will happen, and all we can do is try to shape the outcome. For someone who tries to reference the second law of thermodymanics, you sure have a poor understanding of the third...
"with technologies like this here, the atomic bomb, soon nano technology, just wait until it gets in the hands of bin laden, the next hitler, hell i wouldnt even trust these technologies in the hands of george bush or the average american."
The problem isn't having it get into the hands of somebody else (which will happen) once it has been invented (which will happen), the problem is shown in the fact that you didn't include yourself in that list.
"So why are we busy creating technology after technology without educating people in how to responsibly use these technologies we create?"
See, there it is again. You advocate the education of responsible use, and it seems that you have already decided just what is "responsible use." The problem is people just like you assume that they have the ultimate knowledge of what is Right and what is Wrong. Stalin, Hitler, Amin, Pol Pot, bin Laden... They didn't wake up one morning and decide "Hey, I think I'm going to be evil today." In their minds and their hearts they knew they were right. No doubt at all.
At any rate, people will die because of this technology. Period. There is nothing you or I or anybody else short of omnipotence can do about that. On the other hand, people will live because of this technology that would have died otherwise, and without this technology there would have been nothing you or I or anybody short of omnipotence could have done about it. And as is usually the case with technology, even military technology, more people would have died without a specific innovation than with.
The sword, the gun, the atomic bomb... It's always so easy to count how many people have been killed by these weapons, but you never hear about how many people were not killed because of their existance. A weapon has two purposes, to kill and to frighten. Nobody ever really takes that second one into account.
Have you taken a look at some of the casualty figures of wars two thousand years ago? Looked at the sizes of the armies and how many each lost? At how long they lasted? Only a few hundred years ago wars were declared on almost a monthly basis and they lasted for years, decades even.
And then the Industrial Revolution happened, and with it wars became more immediately frightening. The destruction was more apparent because they took less time and less effort. Then we start seeing the birth of modern diplomacy, which is nothing if not the active avoidance of war. The machine gun ended WWI and the atomic bomb prevented WWIII. The only conflicts we really have left in the world are those between two powers without a modern technology base to cause immediate harm to one another, and those are the bloodiest. Have you looked at Rwanda and DRC lately?
"Are we supposed to be proud of our technology which will be used to spy on millions of people,"
Unless there have been some major AI advances, to watch one person requires at least one person. We learned this the hard way both on 12/7/41 and 9/11/01, where we just didn't have enough analysts to sift through the data.
Secondly, spying isn't always bad as you seem to imply. A decent spy network would have prevented 9/11.
"ruin millions of lives,get people killed etc?"
And it will save millions as well. That's what technology does. But you've already decided what's right and what's wrong...
Before you get on your high horse, I'm not saying that this (or any other) technology will always be good for Good (however you wish to define it). And I am also not saying that this will always be used for Good purposes by the US. However, I would prefer this technology be used by a government with little censorship and plenty of opportunities to complain about misuse. And we Americans are nothing if not complainers...
Weapon? O'course, but against tiny foes. (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it should be weaponized. A little pincer or something of the kind, a tiny camera, some image recognizion software, and I could use it to hunt down those d****d mosquitoes. I sure could use one of those, following me everywhere!.
incredibly interesting science (Score:1)
this is the most interesting aspect of this project, and it's a pity
for those interested, there was a Sci. Am. article [sciam.com] on robotic insect-flight several months ago.
predator (Score:2)
Cute. (Score:2)
Oh yippee! At least *real* insects only carry diseases. I'm scared the government wants to turn me into a borg.
So what OS will this run on? (Score:1)
I hope it does run on windows so we can DOS (Score:2)
Re:I hope it does run on windows so we can DOS (Score:2)
Farting for mid-course corrections (Score:2)
"Michelson said he is developing a flapping robot, called the entomopter, that will use bursts of gas, a byproduct of the device's chemical propulsion system, to adjust the amount of lift provided by each of the robot's twin sets of wings."
What's the fuel? Chili?
This stuff has been going on with the 80s but it looks like they've finally gotten close to some results.
With apologies to Dumbo (Score:2)
But I've never seen a spy fly.
A lot of needless hand-wringing (Score:2)
But this tech will work both ways. I believe David Brin said it in Transparent Society. The problem isn't the spying itself so much as the onesidedness of it all, in that only the rich and powerful have been able to spy, and avoid being spied upon. Once these things are mass produced, they will get into civilian hands, and the rich and powerful will be more susceptible to them, not less. Similar to Diamand Age, also.
I'd say the tech will be as great an equalizer as the gun was -- all previous weapons required lots of personal time for training which only the rich and powerful could afford. Just as spying on my uncle took lots of manpower, previous weapons required lots of resources and commitment -- armor, the longbow, swords. The revolver in particular was a revolution in personal weaponry. These bugs will be just as revolutionary, and the rich and powerful won't be able to hide from them nearly as well.
Yes, but does it... (Score:2)
Killer bees! (Score:2, Funny)
A problematic scenario. (Score:2)
Yesterday evening, John Fisher, a middle-aged, South London bachelor was led away from his house after he was found to have swatted a bionic fly-like creature which was buzzing around his kitchen. Neighbours looked on in surprise as Fisher shouted in confusion when a SWAT team broke down his front door and rushed into the house. The suspect was allegedly busy making popcorn and running a plastic fly swatter under the tap.
"Huh? What the hell are you arresting me for? Let me go!" he cried as he was bundled into a waiting police car. "All I did was swat a damn fly!" Curiously, the police failed to tell him that what he had destroyed was not actually a fly, but an electronic insect costing $40 million being tested by the US military. The electromechanical creature was spying on Fisher to test out its televisual capabilities, relaying images to the nerds controlling it over at DARPA.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
No, it will run FlyBSD. Or FlyRIX. Maybe even BeeOS, but it was discontinued.
*runs*
Re:I had a class with Professor Fearing ... (Score:2)