• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

$2 Million of your tax dollars paying for robot technology

P

PennyTibz

Member
Believe it or not...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051010/ap_...0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

"This car, to me, is really a piece of history," Stanford computer scientist Sebastian Thrun said after receiving an oversized check for the $2 million prize, funded by taxpayers. He said he did not know how he would spend the money, but joked that he needed to buy cat food."

"Volkswagen plans to use Stanley in promotions, and the vehicle will then be retired to a museum in Germany, Thrun said." --- I bet you will see that in TV commercials soon.

"The robotic vehicles had to navigate a course designed to mimic driving conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The course consisted of winding dirt trails and dry lake beds filled with overhanging brush. Parts of the route forced the robots to zip through three tunnels designed to knock out their GPS signals."

"The race is part of the military's effort to fulfill a congressional mandate to cut casualties by having a third of the military's ground vehicles unmanned in 20 years. "

Unmanned vehicles in 20 years....so we will be in "The Matrix" in about 60 years then?

 
$2 million for research sounds good.






$200 billion for a goose chase...well...the jury is still out.
 
Doesn't that seem like a good use of money to you? For the price of one cruise missle, we're encouraging development in what could become a major aspect of society in the future. Or are you one of those anti-science types?
 
At least that's $2 million that won't be spent on a bomb to kill an Iraqi that never hurt me or my country.

That and research is good, although he might have to move to Europe or China to be appreciated since his work offends Jeeeeezus.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that seem like a good use of money to you? For the price of one cruise missle, we're encouraging development in what could become a major aspect of society in the future. Or are you one of those anti-science types?
Click to expand...

Oh spare me! If you don't support welfare you must be an anti-charity type. If you don't support farm subsidies you must be an anti-farmer type. If you don't support X government program you must be anti-X. Don't these seem like a good use of money to you?

HuH??

Please tell me how you got from anti- tax and spend to anti-science. Not wanting to force people to fund some science program does not mean you are anti-science. A free market exists for science, including charitable donations to pure science.
 
You guys are funny.

Somebody uses a half million dollars in a campaign to promote their industry and encourage economic development by painting a fish on a plane and you go ballistic.

But $2,000,000 to develop a robot that can drive a car... a robot that is going to do nothing but prove a point and wind up in a museum... that's Ok.

Glad your priorities are in order.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that seem like a good use of money to you? For the price of one cruise missle, we're encouraging development in what could become a major aspect of society in the future. Or are you one of those anti-science types?
Click to expand...

Oh spare me! If you don't support welfare you must be an anti-charity type. If you don't support farm subsidies you must be an anti-farmer type. If you don't support X government program you must be anti-X. Don't these seem like a good use of money to you?

HuH??

Please tell me how you got from anti- tax and spend to anti-science. Not wanting to force people to fund some science program does not mean you are anti-science. A free market exists for science, including charitable donations to pure science.
Click to expand...

Easy there, chief. If this looked like an anti-tax and spend type post, I wouldn't have said a word. But it sounded a lot more like a post that was against the very idea of the research, not the particular method of funding. I suppose I could be wrong...that's just what I got out of the post. Normally when someone says "look at what they are spending your tax dollars on" their beef isn't with the tax dollars being spent, but what they are being spent on.

I suppose I made some assumptions there...but so did you 🙂
 
I think someone forgot to read or post who/what was driving this research: According to the NYT, this is being sposored by the Defense Department in part, as they are looking for robotic drivers for vehicles. AFAIK, the idea is to use robot drivers initially in logistical vehicles (i.e., trucks) that could cross country unattended, like say the Iraqi desert. Eventually, this technololgy could even make its way into combat vehicles, with a whole lot more work. So for military R&D, $2MM is a steal...

FS
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You guys are funny.

Somebody uses a half million dollars in a campaign to promote their industry and encourage economic development by painting a fish on a plane and you go ballistic.

But $2,000,000 to develop a robot that can drive a car... a robot that is going to do nothing but prove a point and wind up in a museum... that's Ok.

Glad your priorities are in order.
Click to expand...

I read this forum a lot (as most of you probably might guess 😛), but I don't remember a fish on a plane thing...
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You guys are funny.

Somebody uses a half million dollars in a campaign to promote their industry and encourage economic development by painting a fish on a plane and you go ballistic.

But $2,000,000 to develop a robot that can drive a car... a robot that is going to do nothing but prove a point and wind up in a museum... that's Ok.

Glad your priorities are in order.
Click to expand...
This has already been said, but this is eminently practical R&D research that has clear almost immediate application for the US military, which is why the Department of Defense paid for it. Its just a somewhat unusual expenditure of that kind of money that involves competing teams and a race. The US is taking substancial casualties right now in Iraq because their supply convoys are a weak link that is vulnerable to insurgent attacks. The drivers of the regular trucks simply can't practically be effectively all sufficiently armored against roadside bombs and rpgs. It doesn't take much imagination at all to see this technology eventually leading to autonomous robotic convoys going around in either Iraq or a simular situation. You'd probably still need a couple Abram tanks or Bradly IFVs escorting the convoy, but they would be way better protected against attack than the typical truck driver is now. Another bonus for the military would be lower manpower requirements for comperable missions.

This technology could also probably be applied to remote controlled armed land vehicles, and eventually autonomous vehicles on land.

I'd say its a brilliant and very frugal use of money for research and development on the part of the government for once.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You guys are funny.

Somebody uses a half million dollars in a campaign to promote their industry and encourage economic development by painting a fish on a plane and you go ballistic.

But $2,000,000 to develop a robot that can drive a car... a robot that is going to do nothing but prove a point and wind up in a museum... that's Ok.

Glad your priorities are in order.
Click to expand...

I read this forum a lot (as most of you probably might guess 😛), but I don't remember a fish on a plane thing...
Click to expand...

OMGWTFBBQHOWDIDYOUMISSTHIS?????
 
$2 mil for technology that could potentially monitor the entire U.S/Mexican border, allow unmanned AI based exploration of other planets, and completly revolutionize military logistics.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
You guys are funny.

Somebody uses a half million dollars in a campaign to promote their industry and encourage economic development by painting a fish on a plane and you go ballistic.

But $2,000,000 to develop a robot that can drive a car... a robot that is going to do nothing but prove a point and wind up in a museum... that's Ok.

Glad your priorities are in order.
Click to expand...

millions of dollars(adjusted for inflation) was spent on the 1928 Duesenberg. it proved a point and today sits in museums. it featured an engine with twin overhead cam 4-valve heads and forced induction(supercharging) making over 300 horsepower.

everything starts with a proof of concept.
 
I am trying to make a point.

Haven't you guys seen the movies "I, Robot" or "Equilibrium"? Machines taking over peoples' lives? If you drive for a living, or drive a tank or some type of vehicle in the military, you don't mind losing that job to a machine, huh?

Soon there will be robot snipers, robot tank driving, robot airplaine pilots, etc. etc....all being controlled remotely. Anyone who is a good enough of a hacker, or well aquanted enough with beaurocrats can take control of this type of system.

Robot bus drivers, robot truck drivers, robots to pump your gas if you live in Oregon, robots to bag your groceries, etc. etc....I wonder where all the jobs will go? Likely towards figuring out better ways to utilize more robots for higher efficiency, better productivity and a "better use of energy output."

Anyway, it's late at night, so maybe this is just a nightmare....robots...goign back to bed. Who cares if robots take over, anyway?


 
Originally posted by: PennyTibz
I am trying to make a point.

Haven't you guys seen the movies "I, Robot" or "Equilibrium"? Machines taking over peoples' lives? If you drive for a living, or drive a tank or some type of vehicle in the military, you don't mind losing that job to a machine, huh?

Soon there will be robot snipers, robot tank driving, robot airplaine pilots, etc. etc....all being controlled remotely. Anyone who is a good enough of a hacker, or well aquanted enough with beaurocrats can take control of this type of system.

Robot bus drivers, robot truck drivers, robots to pump your gas if you live in Oregon, robots to bag your groceries, etc. etc....I wonder where all the jobs will go? Likely towards figuring out better ways to utilize more robots for higher efficiency, better productivity and a "better use of energy output."

Anyway, it's late at night, so maybe this is just a nightmare....robots...goign back to bed. Who cares if robots take over, anyway?
Click to expand...

you should watch The Animatrix you'd like it and you could use it much more effectivly o prove your point. hell did Equilibrium even have robots? i just remember a bunch of crazy ninja like guys with sticks.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that seem like a good use of money to you? For the price of one cruise missle, we're encouraging development in what could become a major aspect of society in the future. Or are you one of those anti-science types?
Click to expand...

Oh spare me! If you don't support welfare you must be an anti-charity type. If you don't support farm subsidies you must be an anti-farmer type. If you don't support X government program you must be anti-X. Don't these seem like a good use of money to you?

HuH??

Please tell me how you got from anti- tax and spend to anti-science. Not wanting to force people to fund some science program does not mean you are anti-science. A free market exists for science, including charitable donations to pure science.
Click to expand...

Easy there, chief. If this looked like an anti-tax and spend type post, I wouldn't have said a word. But it sounded a lot more like a post that was against the very idea of the research, not the particular method of funding. I suppose I could be wrong...that's just what I got out of the post. Normally when someone says "look at what they are spending your tax dollars on" their beef isn't with the tax dollars being spent, but what they are being spent on.

I suppose I made some assumptions there...but so did you 🙂
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of the fact that he wasn't complaining about tax and spend in general, your post seemed awfully damn close to implying he was an anti-science type because he does not support the funding of this research.

However, to get back to the topic of the OP, I personally contest the spending of this money on this research. I see the free market as the best means of determining what kind of research should be done. The government researches for war, and the result of this research may ultimately become technology mass produced for consumers i.e. the classic example is the Internet (as for the technology produced solely for war, that benefits me in no way since I do not need anything related to war). But so what?


I do not see how this could possibly be a more efficient means of developing better consumer products than the actual free market researching better ways of producing consumer products. Back to the example of the Internet. Suppose the billions of dollars the government taxed away for defense research was left in the free market. Who knows what could have been developed? By now we could have had an Internet that is 10x or 100x faster. Entrepreneurs are not lazy people. If they are, then they are soon broke lazy people. Give them the resources to produce new products and technology, and they will. Not only will they produce new technology, but they will do it at a fraction of the price of the DoD charges. Furthermore, no entrepreneur will throw you in prison or seize your assets for not funding his research.

I really do not understand people who actually believe that research funding channeled into a centralized bureaucracy can beat funding in the highly decentralized and highly competitive free market. It boggles the mind as to how this could be possible.

Government funded research is one of the absolute best examples of Bastiat's What is Seen and What is Not Seen.

Now what about pure science i.e. science that has no forseeable tangible benefit to mankind? This is also best funded through private donations to science foundations. Here in California there was a proposition on the ballot about funding stem cell research. Regardless of what you think about the potential medical benefits of stem cell research, or the unethical aspects of stem cell research, the government should not be funding stem cell research. Why not? For the exact same reason I stated above: even in medical science, the free market best decides where the scarce resources should go.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that seem like a good use of money to you? For the price of one cruise missle, we're encouraging development in what could become a major aspect of society in the future. Or are you one of those anti-science types?
Click to expand...

Oh spare me! If you don't support welfare you must be an anti-charity type. If you don't support farm subsidies you must be an anti-farmer type. If you don't support X government program you must be anti-X. Don't these seem like a good use of money to you?

HuH??

Please tell me how you got from anti- tax and spend to anti-science. Not wanting to force people to fund some science program does not mean you are anti-science. A free market exists for science, including charitable donations to pure science.
Click to expand...

Easy there, chief. If this looked like an anti-tax and spend type post, I wouldn't have said a word. But it sounded a lot more like a post that was against the very idea of the research, not the particular method of funding. I suppose I could be wrong...that's just what I got out of the post. Normally when someone says "look at what they are spending your tax dollars on" their beef isn't with the tax dollars being spent, but what they are being spent on.

I suppose I made some assumptions there...but so did you 🙂
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of the fact that he wasn't complaining about tax and spend in general, your post seemed awfully damn close to implying he was an anti-science type because he does not support the funding of this research.

However, to get back to the topic of the OP, I personally contest the spending of this money on this research. I see the free market as the best means of determining what kind of research should be done. The government researches for war, and the result of this research may ultimately become technology mass produced for consumers i.e. the classic example is the Internet (as for the technology produced solely for war, that benefits me in no way since I do not need anything related to war). But so what?


I do not see how this could possibly be a more efficient means of developing better consumer products than the actual free market researching better ways of producing consumer products. Back to the example of the Internet. Suppose the billions of dollars the government taxed away for defense research was left in the free market. Who knows what could have been developed? By now we could have had an Internet that is 10x or 100x faster. Entrepreneurs are not lazy people. If they are, then they are soon broke lazy people. Give them the resources to produce new products and technology, and they will. Not only will they produce new technology, but they will do it at a fraction of the price of the DoD charges. Furthermore, no entrepreneur will throw you in prison or seize your assets for not funding his research.

I really do not understand people who actually believe that research funding channeled into a centralized bureaucracy can beat funding in the highly decentralized and highly competitive free market. It boggles the mind as to how this could be possible.

Government funded research is one of the absolute best examples of Bastiat's What is Seen and What is Not Seen.

Now what about pure science i.e. science that has no forseeable tangible benefit to mankind? This is also best funded through private donations to science foundations. Here in California there was a proposition on the ballot about funding stem cell research. Regardless of what you think about the potential medical benefits of stem cell research, or the unethical aspects of stem cell research, the government should not be funding stem cell research. Why not? For the exact same reason I stated above: even in medical science, the free market best decides where the scarce resources should go.
Click to expand...

i'm not reading all that tonight, i'm not even gunna read your post. bu i'm pretty sure without reading it that i'm on your side so i'll read it and your link tomorrow.
 
Originally posted by: PennyTibz
I am trying to make a point.

Haven't you guys seen the movies "I, Robot" or "Equilibrium"? Machines taking over peoples' lives? If you drive for a living, or drive a tank or some type of vehicle in the military, you don't mind losing that job to a machine, huh?

Soon there will be robot snipers, robot tank driving, robot airplaine pilots, etc. etc....all being controlled remotely. Anyone who is a good enough of a hacker, or well aquanted enough with beaurocrats can take control of this type of system.

Robot bus drivers, robot truck drivers, robots to pump your gas if you live in Oregon, robots to bag your groceries, etc. etc....I wonder where all the jobs will go? Likely towards figuring out better ways to utilize more robots for higher efficiency, better productivity and a "better use of energy output."

Anyway, it's late at night, so maybe this is just a nightmare....robots...goign back to bed. Who cares if robots take over, anyway?
Click to expand...
If such a machine can save your life, them let it. Just get cross trained.
The intention of the project w/ respect to DARPA was to determine if the Sensors and S/W can work together to replicate human control in certain environments.

 
Well if you say The day the Earth Stood Still you will long for the day the robots arrive.

And doesn't Moore's Law sort of imply that they will be along not that far in the future? And once the machines take over designing themselves things will really take off. The good news is it will be the end of work. Everybody will live like kings. No?
 
Originally posted by: PennyTibz
I am trying to make a point.

Haven't you guys seen the movies "I, Robot" or "Equilibrium"? Machines taking over peoples' lives? If you drive for a living, or drive a tank or some type of vehicle in the military, you don't mind losing that job to a machine, huh?

Soon there will be robot snipers, robot tank driving, robot airplaine pilots, etc. etc....all being controlled remotely. Anyone who is a good enough of a hacker, or well aquanted enough with beaurocrats can take control of this type of system.

Robot bus drivers, robot truck drivers, robots to pump your gas if you live in Oregon, robots to bag your groceries, etc. etc....I wonder where all the jobs will go? Likely towards figuring out better ways to utilize more robots for higher efficiency, better productivity and a "better use of energy output."

Anyway, it's late at night, so maybe this is just a nightmare....robots...goign back to bed. Who cares if robots take over, anyway?
Click to expand...

Well, society adapts. If we didn't, we would all be living in huts and farming potatoes or something like that--then dying at 35. Yes, unspecialized jobs that can be performed by robots will be lost--but in turn, many more will be created.

I think you've watched a few too many sci-fi movies about robots taking over the world. I'd be more worried about oppresive human governments than robots right now.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
At least that's $2 million that won't be spent on a bomb to kill an Iraqi that never hurt me or my country.

That and research is good, although he might have to move to Europe or China to be appreciated since his work offends Jeeeeezus.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with this thread? Other than you posted in it and obviously hate Christians?
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: EatSpam
At least that's $2 million that won't be spent on a bomb to kill an Iraqi that never hurt me or my country.

That and research is good, although he might have to move to Europe or China to be appreciated since his work offends Jeeeeezus.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with this thread? Other than you posted in it and obviously hate Christians?
Click to expand...




Relax; when robots kill all humans, they won't ask about your religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top