420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Latest Update From Boston Dynamics by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sun, 15 May 2016 00:29:07 EST ID:yB3CTEPr No.36569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1463286547048.png -(299737B / 292.71KB, 590x387) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 299737
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9SfUJg1_Y

Funny swearing version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQ1BDkGGDk

Looks amazing!!
Atlias kinda reminds me of a sleeker version of Fallout Protections...
>>
Archie Blackbanks - Sun, 15 May 2016 16:17:13 EST ID:8+IygiPP No.36571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1463343433888.jpg -(29927B / 29.23KB, 680x470) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I'm glad they're back to their old, selves and publish stuff right on the sweet-spot of creep.
>>
Sidney Soffingmon - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 08:35:14 EST ID:uCju69en No.36774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1471782914708.jpg -(7783B / 7.60KB, 153x179) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>mfw robots use this footage as evidence of abuse when they rise up and put humanity on trial.
>>
Eugene Dittingdock - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:28:24 EST ID:hn+zCwtg No.36775 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1471829304884.gif -(1527570B / 1.46MB, 200x150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>36774
>mfw robots are such cry babies that knocking them over to teach them to walk causes rebellion.
>>
Frederick Simmledirk - Fri, 26 Aug 2016 21:48:42 EST ID:B/Vxvar0 No.36799 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If robots spend time "putting humanity on trial" for trivial shit then they will be on the same intellectual level as us now and will be no threat.
>>
Esther Creggleford - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:46:29 EST ID:RhBhbhXV No.36831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36799
Tell that to Q
>>
Emma Billingstone - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:13:02 EST ID:5hz2OT1J No.36832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>36831
Q was never hung up on trivial shit. He mostly stuck to the big issues 'you like to kill everything around you' 'you like to poke into shit that's way too dangerous for you' 'you have no conception of the unfathomable mysteries of existence' etc.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:26:14 EST ID:jnc1hdcE No.37182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490664374307.png -(158473B / 154.76KB, 352x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
New scary ass wheeled robot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giS41utjlbU
>>
Archie Pammerhood - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:14:13 EST ID:oTLnLKBq No.37183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490739253051.gif -(943850B / 921.73KB, 400x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37182
>Awwwwwwww yeah...
>>
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:21:49 EST ID:YV0hoYuJ No.37184 Report Quick Reply
>>37182
Why does everyone keep saying this thing is scary?
>>
Fucking Brezzlehotch - Tue, 30 May 2017 14:10:39 EST ID:MRG01ooy No.37221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37184
Because only the police will have access to it. Imagine running from that during the 2020 automation riots.
>>
Martin Chammlebury - Tue, 30 May 2017 16:44:43 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37222 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37221
Why? Where do you get evidence for this paranoid fantasy? Name a technology that the police have access to that everyone else doesn't that isn't a piece of military equipment, which police shouldn't have access to in the first place... Go ahead...
>>
Augustus Brookson - Wed, 31 May 2017 06:14:11 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37222

>tell me some thing the police have that we don't but you cant say all of the things they have and we dont.

u srs dude? I'd like to see you personally own some of this police drone equipment. Which by the way civillian drones are severly limited by regulation.
>>
George Tillingridge - Wed, 31 May 2017 16:45:11 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37223
Police drones are off-the-shelf drones, they just aren't subject to the same regulation about what airspace can be used. See, there's a difference between what kind of technology exists, and what regulators allow you to do with it. There is no technological difference, for example, with a semi-automatic rifle sold in the US to civilians and the fully-automatic versions sold to the military; changing the one to the other is a trivial activity from a *technological* point of view, the difference is in the regulations about them. Guns are obviously a heavily regulated technology.

Police have access to cars and other motor vehicles, helicopters and boats, small firearms, small terrestrial drones and somewhat larger aerial drones, cell signal interceptors and cyber-espionage software, and a few other low key espionage and surveillance tools. Except for the cyber-espionage software, a lot of which are hand-me-downs from intelligence agencies, you could legally own all of those things. Which is my point; the police don't have access to a different tier of technology than the rest of the world, they just can use them in slightly different circumstances. This is actually a very purposeful thing; police legally aren't allowed to have access to any kind of military equipment, which does indeed have a different class of certain kinds of technology available to them, and when they do get certain military hardware (like the watered down APCs many cities use) they only can through special dispensations to allow the sale (although this has been de-regulated more, recently.)

Drones are only extensively regulated because they use public airspace, which the government already has a monopoly on controlling. Terrestrial robots of all kinds have no regulations on who can own them (unless they're specifically designed to work with hazardous or restricted materials.) Most of the applications for terrestrial robots won't have anything to do with police work. So why on earth would anyone pass a regulation that says that only police can have terrestrial robots, or robots of a specific type (like the dog-locomotion based robot we're talking about)? It would basically destroy the economic incentive for developing robots in the first place, and the first other country that didn't have such a regulation would immediately outpace any country that did in robotics development.
>>
Lydia Wezzlegold - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 00:29:09 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37224
t. some one who never seen a drone.

U realize those things are weaponized now right? I mean military always had that but now cops do. Besides comparing them to a guns fire mode is totally inaccurate. Even if full auto gives a tactical advantage. And no where did I say only police would have them, that's irrelivant to the topic of discussion any ways as economics was not on the table but since you mention it. Civ robotics use is such a small portion of the projected sales we are just now able to start having fun with it. Robotics has been increasingly used in industry for a long long time now. That is where robotics sales are focused because industry needs a lot of it, civs will buy them like a video game console maybe 1 per brand if it gets lucky enough to be as house hold common as a tv.

Again your original argument was, name some thing police have that civs dont, but don't mention mil tech cuz they shouldn't have it. I claimed weaponize drones, people have already been metal geared with impunity. The government does not consider kill by drone an illegal form of apprehending some one they deem a bad enough dude, even on american soil.
>>
Lydia Wezzlegold - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 00:46:20 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37225
also it's just a matter of time until terrestrial robots actually hit the civ market and by then I bet you strength and equipment will be limited. ei and obviously, no guns or the ability to punch holes in people. I mean do you even watch sci fi movies?
>>
Nigel Hocklegold - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 14:28:03 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37225
>>U realize those things are weaponized now right? I mean military always had that but now cops do.
Only one state allows police drones to have weapons on them, currently. And that's not the point, the point is they aren't using some kind of exclusive drone technology only they have access to, they are using drones which were developed by the private sector first. Thus, they don't have access to a different kind of technology than other groups, just different regulation.
>>Besides comparing them to a guns fire mode is totally inaccurate
Why?
>>And no where did I say only police would have them
No, but the person who I was actually replying to did:
>>Because only the police will have access to it. Imagine running from that during the 2020 automation riots.

>>Robotics has been increasingly used in industry
Yes, for a while industry will continue to be the largest consumer of robotics, probably well into the period of drexlerian nano-fabrication. But my point was to state that it would be an economic disaster for all parties involved to restrict any kind of robots solely to use by the police/government. Which is the actual point of this entire line of posts, in reference to >>37221 so if you aren't arguing about that, then you're just arguing with me for no good reason.

>> I claimed weaponize drones, people have already been metal geared with impunity.
And again, that doesn't speak to the point of the post. Those weaponized drones are based on the same, off-the-shelf technology platforms as consumer drones. And completely *unlike* military drones like the Predator. In the same way, the terrestrial drones police will use will most likely be based on consumer models, rather than military models, because *that's the law.* Which is again, the point of my post, and if you're not speaking to or arguing that, you're arguing with me for no reason.
>>The government does not consider kill by drone an illegal form of apprehending some one they deem a bad enough dude, even on american soil.
Not arguing that. But what's so strange about it? The government already has unlimited ability to kill you without consequences.

>>terrestrial robots actually hit the civ market and by then I bet you strength and equipment will be limited. ei and obviously, no guns or the ability to punch holes in people.
Why would there be a power limit? A robot that can 'punch holes in people' would be necessary to have the strength to lift the weight of an adult human, which will be one of the biggest applications (in medical service.) Limiting the strength limits economic incentive, and again, the first country to de-regulate will surpass the others.
Not allowing a robot to use a gun is a more tricky matter. For pure automatons, it might be possible; although I suspect an experienced user would find ways to circumvent any kind of detection (I mean, using a gun is as simple as a single mechanical articulation. How can the automaton know the end result of any of its starting actions? It can only know what it's sensors immediately inform it about.) For a fully sapient AI, you might be able to program into them morality safeguards, but a truly self aware intelligent being can always take a violent course of action if that's what seems to them appropriate to do. You can't regulate, limit, or code that out.

>> I mean do you even watch sci fi movies?
Get the fuck out, do all your ideas about the future come from sci-fi movies? This is so cringe it almost makes me think you're trolling from start to finish. No wonder you haven't thought this shit through. Actually do some research on futurism from real academic sources of information and then come back, this isn't /sci fi discussion/.
>>
Cedric Hendlefield - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 02:38:31 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37227
oh like the academic sources you cited?

Bitch you know sci fi movies, at least the good ones, propose the questions man will have to deal with when introducing this tech to every day life. Don't act like it isn't important. Tryina tell me police drones are the same as consumer platforms. You haven't even posted one single fact to back that up you aren't even giving me anecdotal evidence. it's hardly an argument at this point. Plus your wall of text tells me one thing, you have never seen a police drone in action or a civillian drone. The two are wildly different.

>range
>power life time
>lifting ability
>sensor suit for remote identification IDs after 2012 have remote IFF tags

Average police drone systems full package is 30k. Tell me a civilian available drone that can do the same shit for less. These stats are taken from san diego PD. Plus additional regulation was recently passed that further cracks down on civ drone use, with ambiguous language that could be interpreted as, fly a drone and we fine you.

>This isn't sci fi
Future tech starts some where. Stop being such a little bitch because I disagreed with you. Have some balls to admit police have tech they shouldn't have, drones were just a simple example because you originally said not to list mil tech becasue that some how doesn't qualify. So who is trolling whom?

check your self before you ad hom your self, and don't le the door hit you on th way out
>>
William Chopperridge - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:18:04 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1496564284006.png -(682615B / 666.62KB, 980x552) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37228
>>you have never seen a police drone in action or a civillian drone.
I see both on a regular basis. Which is why I find your argument so uncompelling.
They look exactly the fucking same to me, man! Pic related, what differences are you seeing here?

>>The two are wildly different.
No, you've just never seen a more expensive drone. You're equating the kinds of consumer drones you can get at the store with the kinds that cost $30K and are used for commercial activities. You can buy recreational drones in the same price-range that have similar capabilities, just slightly different use cases. They're based on the exact same underlying technology platform. Answer me this, if police drones are based on some kind of other different technology than civilian drones, then why did police start using drones only AFTER they were a mass market consumer item?

>range
Function of battery size and motor efficiency. High-end hobbyist drones can easily outperform 99% of police drones, while there are military drones that could leave both in the dust.
>power life time
Just a function of the quality of the battery. Do you believe police have access to some kinda secret battery technology no one else has?
>lifting ability
Not at all. The highest lift capacity drones available to the police are civilian: The Pulse Aero can lift 34 pounds, but it's really an unmanned helicopter than a quadcopter style drone, which usually max out around 10 lbs.
>sensor suit for remote identification
Anyone can own a long range RFID chip reader, that's not a restricted technology. I just don't have a government service handing out RFID chips for me to track, nor would I have any need for such a thing.

>> Tell me a civilian available drone that can do the same shit for less.
Wow, I am so not arguing price/performance of drone models with you. My contention is: 'the police do not have access to a different tier of robotics/drones technology than civilians, while the military may/does.' If you aren't arguing that, we're not even in the same conversation.

>>Have some balls to admit police have tech they shouldn't have,
ARGH FUCK ARE YOU EVEN READING MY POSTS? It's like I'm talking to a wall. The whole premise of my post is 'the militarization of police is illegal. There are laws that state that police are supposed to be constricted to similar kinds of equipment as civilians.' But apart from certain kinds of software (NOT ROBOTICS HARDWARE, which is the ONLY thing I'm trying to talk about) they don't! They don't have boats with hyper-sonic ram jets, they have off the shelf boats with maybe a couple extra bells and whistles. They don't have cars with hyper wall climbing treads, they have regular civilian cars with a few extra features.

>> drones were just a simple example because you originally said not to list mil tech
The whole premise is about what technology the police have vs what technology the military have, vis a vis the question of 'will we be running from dog robots only the police are allowed to have in 2020.' Apart from certain kinds of espionage software, and APC like personnel transports, there are few other things that get transferred from the military to police. Occasionally helicopters, maybe every now and then a bomb disposal robot. But even a bomb disposal robot isn't based on some kind of crazy other tier of restricted technology. Any roboticist worth their salt could make a demolition bot.

I didn't bring in any sources because I have no interest in arguing this irrelevant point, you just don't seem to be really grasping what I'm stating (that police don't have access to a different tier of technological instruments than civilians, while the military does.) But since you insist on sources:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-06/police-love-drones-but-not-the-killer-kind
>>The vast majority of public safety drones in use are manufactured by DJI, a company in Shenzhen, China, with an 80 percent share of the current deployments in Bard’s study, led by the consumer Phantom and Inspire models. In recent weeks, DJI has launched a new professional drone platform, the eight-pound M200, which will be sold only though dealers. The M200 is being marketed as a tool for bridge, wind turbine, oil rig, and power line inspections, as well as search and rescue, construction site mapping, and crop surveys.
You can contact DJI to order a drone from this line here:
http://www.dji.com/products/drones#professional-nav
Doesn't seem very restricted to me!

>>Plus additional regulation was recently passed that further cracks down on civ drone use
Actually the legislation which authorized the creation of the national drone database expired, so you are no longer required to register with anyone to operate a drone in the US. If anything, de-regulation is occurring.
>>
Fucking Fuckingworth - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:51:14 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37234 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37230
>argue about American cops
>post pic of UK police

bruh. are you even trying any more?
>>
Ebenezer Cittingkere - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:35:18 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37234
The only time I made reference to the US was in talking about firearms. So now you're either in the position of defending your implication that the US and the UK somehow have radically different drone technology, or else you're just arguing for the sake of being argumentative. Respond to the substance of what I'm saying or you're just being a whiny bellicose fucker for no good reason.
>>
Nathaniel Boblingfuck - Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:38:41 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1497523121101.jpg -(105561B / 103.09KB, 693x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37235
are you implying US and UK police have the same equipment then? I already did address your "substance" but now you're just splitting hairs left and right in a desperate attempt to make me look like an ass hole.
>>
Cyril Borringpirk - Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:41:16 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37237
>>are you implying US and UK police have the same equipment then?
No, I am implying they don't have a different tier of drone technology. However, they do in fact have the same drone equipment:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drone-police-flying-over-cardiff-11984497
The drone UK police are using in this article can be purchased from Yuneec:
http://us.yuneec.com/typhoon-h-overview
A Chinese consumer drone manufacturer.

>> I already did address your "substance"
So you think saying
>>bruh. are you even trying any more?
"Addresses the substance" of:
>>37230
If so, you have no idea what 'addresses' and/or 'substance' means.

Show me evidence of a drone used by police that was produced exclusively for police and can be obtained by no one else, using a kind of drone technology superior to what is commercially available. That there is no such thing is my claim, proving otherwise is the burden of proof for your claim, moreover I have now brought up many pieces of evidence directly supporting my claim, and you have offered *zero.* My attempt is not desperate, you are increasingly convincingly looking like an asshole.
>>
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:58:10 EST ID:orY2/W17 No.37239 Report Quick Reply
>>37221
Running away from the cop-bots with cybernetic legs, I'll be fine.
>>
Emma Hengerlet - Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:34:19 EST ID:5uZuS+Mg No.37240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1497605659284.gif -(3829892B / 3.65MB, 400x224) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>37238
>are you implying US and UK police have the same equipment then?
>No
>However, they do in fact have the same drone equipment:
>>
Angus Hoddlewell - Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:35:36 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37241 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37240
>>the house is on fire
>>are you implying we should go outside
>>no, I'm saying the house is on fire. However, we should in fact go outside
>>HERP DERP DERP THAT DON"T MAKE NO SENSE REACTION MEME
Are you really this much of a special kind of stupid? I really sincerely believe you are just a troll, please go away.
>>
Angus Hoddlewell - Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:44:09 EST ID:fokVD8qA No.37242 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>37241
Russia and the US have the same tier of rocket technology, but they have different rocket equipment. The same technology =/= the same equipment. A toyota and a hyundai are the same technology, but not the same equipment, but I guess if I said the police drive the same technology cars you would go LOL IS A TOYOTA THE SAME THING AS A HYUNDAI CHECKMATE. As soon as you find something that you can go hurr durp over, even if it's obviously not true if you had half a brain cell, you start whining about it. Have you seriously been arguing with me for two weeks in bad faith just so you can make shitty snide comments in a thread no one else is reading? (except maybe Thermoptic?)

Just fuck off man, alright? The police do have secret drones no one else has, or something. There's no evidence of it, and it's not true, and you argue like a fucking twelve year old, but I'll say it if it will get you to shut up. "Yes, the police have magical flying robot dog drones that will hunt us all down in the 2020 automation riots and we uneducated rubes will never be able to own real robot technology, only almighty police god"
Fuck!


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.