Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong? dept.

Turkey aims to produce unmanned tanks: Erdoğan

Turkey is targeting the production of unmanned tanks for its armed forces, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stated. "We will carry it a step further [after domestically produced unmanned aerial vehicles] ... We should reach the ability to produce unmanned tanks as well. We will do it," Erdoğan said at a meeting held at the presidential complex in Ankara on Feb. 21.

Five Turkish soldiers were recently killed in a tank near the Sheikh Haruz area of Syria's Afrin district, where Turkey has been carrying on a military operation against the People's Protection Units (YPG) since Jan. 20.

[...] The Turkish president has repeatedly criticized certain foreign countries for allegedly being reluctant to sell unmanned aerial vehicles, armed or unarmed, stressing that unmanned systems could decrease casualties.

Also at ABC.

Related: U.N. Starts Discussion on Lethal Autonomous Robots
UK Opposes "Killer Robot" Ban


Original Submission

Related Stories

U.N. Starts Discussion on Lethal Autonomous Robots 27 comments

The U.N. has begun discussion on "lethal autonomous robots," killing machines which take the next step from our current drones which are operator controlled, to completely autonomous killing machines.

"Killer robots would threaten the most fundamental of rights and principles in international law," warned Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch.

Are we too far down the rabbit hole, or can we come to reasonable and humane limits on this new world of death-by-algorithm?

UK Opposes "Killer Robot" Ban 39 comments

The UK is opposing international efforts to ban "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (Laws) at a week-long United Nations session in Geneva:

The meeting, chaired by a German diplomat, Michael Biontino, has also been asked to discuss questions such as: in what situations are distinctively human traits, such as fear, hate, sense of honour and dignity, compassion and love desirable in combat?, and in what situations do machines lacking emotions offer distinct advantages over human combatants?

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, an alliance of human rights groups and concerned scientists, is calling for an international prohibition on fully autonomous weapons.

Last week Human Rights Watch released a report urging the creation of a new protocol specifically aimed at outlawing Laws. Blinding laser weapons were pre-emptively outlawed in 1995 and combatant nations since 2008 have been required to remove unexploded cluster bombs.

[...] The Foreign Office told the Guardian: "At present, we do not see the need for a prohibition on the use of Laws, as international humanitarian law already provides sufficient regulation for this area. The United Kingdom is not developing lethal autonomous weapons systems, and the operation of weapons systems by the UK armed forces will always be under human oversight and control. As an indication of our commitment to this, we are focusing development efforts on remotely piloted systems rather than highly automated systems."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:00PM (9 children)

    by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:00PM (#641807)

    If unmanned tanks fight drones and robot soldiers how do you know which side won? There aren't any heaps of bodies to count.

    I, for one, will not be reporting to my designated disintegration station based on the outcome of calculations.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:15PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:15PM (#641814) Journal

      Whoever hasn't been invaded is the winner.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Taibhsear on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:26PM

      by Taibhsear (1464) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:26PM (#641822)

      The military industrial complex is the winner.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:31PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:31PM (#641829) Journal

      Whoever still has a military industrial complex is the winner.

      Or maybe still being alive and free (in some scents of the word) is the odor of victory amongst the smouldering rubble.

      I predict that we will find it to be more difficulter to kill people in unmanned tanks. We will see if this turns out to be true.

      --
      I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:41PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:41PM (#641840)

      > how do you know which side won?
      Score like battlebots? This is really getting silly (if you stand back and look at all the money spent for destruction).

      More to the point, Why can't we all just get along? New Tedx talk on this topic, brings together several themes I've seen here on SN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndCzlfs3gqs [youtube.com]
      Disclaimer, I knew the speaker as an undergrad, our last contact was nearly 10 years ago.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:59PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:59PM (#641863)

        More to the point, Why can't we all just get along?

        This is a pretty good question about the Middle East in general, somewhat moreso about Turkey in particular. I suppose it's easier to get along with your neighbors when you've genocided all the ones who don't like you into nonexistence.

        The borders of modern Turkey are a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the rump government signed a treaty at the end of WWI, and the general in charge of their armed forces basically said, "That's nice and all but we're not going to abide by that. Come on boys, let's grab as much territory as we can and sign a new treaty instead!" Then the areas they annexed had a bunch of people they didn't like in them so that whole thing that they strenuously emphasize wasn't genocide happened.

        Fast-forward to present and can't say what Erdogan's getting up to is terribly surprising. The military's role in Turkish politics was to keep the President et al. in line, so the first time they stand up to him violating his presidential rules it's obviously time to gut the military leadership. So if you don't trust the military, the next step is to make the military irrelevant by making things unmanned. And the second benefit is that the population can't complain about their soldiers getting killed in action.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:29PM

        by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:29PM (#641934)

        It was interesting to hear this expounded in a bigger vision than I ever had. I've told people for years that we should run at least the House of Representatives like jury duty. People can get picked for two years once in a lifetime, given a place to live and three squares a day in D.C. with travel vouchers to regularly get back and forth from home. With the result being that our country would get a lot more interested in providing a proper educational system if any Jo(e/sephine) Blow could be selected for Congressional duty.

        Like all my ideas, nobody cares. [sad trombone]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:56PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:56PM (#641843) Journal

      I believe standard rules apply. The winning side is the one that is advancing into enemy territory, where then the guns turn on the civilians until subservience is achieved.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:46PM (#641858)

      But how will we maintain our infrastructure if we don't abide by the treaty!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:21PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:21PM (#641875) Homepage Journal

      Obama didn't leave heaps of bodies, believe me. Because his PREDATOR DRONES blew them to bits! youtu.be/WWKG6ZmgAX4 [youtu.be]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:07PM (11 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:07PM (#641810)

    >stressing that unmanned systems could decrease casualties.

    That's pretty disingenuous. The entire point of unmanned war machines, armed or otherwise, is to *increase* casualties. They only decrease casualties on your own side, reducing the domestic political cost of warfare.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:21PM (10 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:21PM (#641817) Journal

      Erdogan, like Putin, Trump and Farage, is just putting his county first. It's the modern way, apparently.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM (5 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM (#641824)

        > and Farage

        I actually disagree. I voted remain but I think the Brexit vote was mostly about sovereignty. Immigration and cultural dilution played a very significant role also. I think most Brexit voters accepted the real possibility of economic disadvantage from Brexit, as a cost of maintaining cultural identity and the primacy of democracy. I could rant but I will resist...

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)

          by NewNic (6420) on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (#641925) Journal

          I voted remain but I think the Brexit vote was mostly about sovereignty.

          The excuse may have been sovereignty, but, let's be realistic: it was about dark-skinned and non-Christian people arriving and living in the UK because of EU rules.

          Leaving the EU will leave the UK with less sovereignty: having to abide by EU rules in order to continue trade with EU nations on favourable terms, while having no input on those rules.

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:32PM (3 children)

            by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:32PM (#641954)

            > it was about dark-skinned and non-Christian people arriving and living in the UK because of EU rules.

            I don't have decent stats to back it up - but my personal impression is that this is just what the remain crew want to believe. I realise immigration was part of the issue. But my impression is that complaints about "euro-sausage" is actually the much bigger deal. That argument falls squarely on the issue of sovereignty and the democratic process (or lack thereof in Brussels).

            Nb: I realise I am siding with the Brexit crowd. My premise is that we should push for a much stronger EU (with Britain a member) that is properly democratic, with a democratically elected president. The stupid EU wandering 1 year premiership thing is ridiculous.

            > having to abide by EU rules in order to continue trade with EU nations on favourable terms

            Well, let's see what happens. That may be the De Facto result, but De Jure at least UK can opt out - whereas we couldn't before.

            • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:58PM (2 children)

              by NewNic (6420) on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:58PM (#642007) Journal

              The UK had a great deal with the EU.

              I am just waiting for:
              1. All the howling from people who take their holidays in Spain and are outraged to find that they have no medical coverage.
              2. Car manufacturing in the UK drastically downsizing, while prices of new cars go up.
              3. Companies in the EU making products with names that are protected in the UK, but no longer protected in the EU.
              4. .... etc..

              Everyone in the UK is going to be worse off.

              Euro-sausage? Really? You can't buy traditional British bangers any more? That's news to me.

              No one want to admit to voting for BREXIT because they are racist, but I'll allow three reasons for a BREXIT vote:
              1. Racism
              2. Ignorance.
              3. Rich people who will be able to screw over ordinary people more now that the protections that the EU offered go away.

              --
              lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
              • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday February 23 2018, @11:09AM (1 child)

                by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @11:09AM (#642317)

                > Euro-sausage? Really?

                I think the Euro-sausage was actually Yes (Pri)minister. But it's the tabloid equivalent of "sovereignty". Just as "racism/xenophobia" is the tabloid equivalent of "maintain cultural integrity."

                > 1. Racism
                > 2. Ignorance.
                > 3. Rich people who will be able to screw over ordinary people more now that the protections that the EU offered go away.

                I did find this article (Torygraph, I realise) that supports what I am saying:

                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/did-britain-really-vote-brexit-to-cut-immigration/ [telegraph.co.uk]

                Quote:
                "
                Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll of 12,369 voters after the referendum suggested as such, finding that one third of Leave voters chose to back Brexit as they saw it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." This was the second biggest motivation for Leave voters, just behind “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
                "

                I couldn't find the source poll, unfortunately. And most of the Brexit polls seem to have disappeared into history.

                ==

                Another tack:

                Whose choice was it that we should have freedom of movement in EU? Whose choice was it that we should accept whatever quota of asylum seekers? I never heard any debate about this issue, nor did it ever come up in any election material. Let's say there was a strong "anti-freedom of movement" vote in EU elections - would anything really change? If not, why not?

                One of the big arguments for EU is that it promotes Western democratic values in Eastern Europe. But fundamentally, it is an institution that *is* driven by non-democratic bureaucracy. That's a huge problem.

                ==

                Just to be clear, I would like to see a stronger EU with a proper democratic mandate. We have spent last 300 years dealing with monarchy, oligarchy and autocracy in UK. Shame to chuck away the hard work and replace it with this crappy secondary democracy that we have in EU.

                • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday February 23 2018, @06:54PM

                  by NewNic (6420) on Friday February 23 2018, @06:54PM (#642549) Journal

                  Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll of 12,369 voters after the referendum suggested as such, finding that one third of Leave voters chose to back Brexit as they saw it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.

                  As I said, racism. They didn't want to let those "dirty foreigners" into the country.

                  Do you expect someone who was so pro-BREXIT to commission a poll that would identify racism as a cause?

                  The UK government also made some strategic mistakes. When Poland was admitted to the EU, the UK could have legally prevented movement by Poles to the UK for 2 years. Other EU governments did this. So Poles who wanted to leave Poland for a richer EU country inevitably move to the UK, and were naturally followed by other Poles because there was already a Polish community in the UK.

                  It is important to note that the UK *needs* immigrants. The native population is ageing and declining; without immigration, there will be no one to pay the taxes and provide the services necessary to keep the country running and provide for retirees.

                  Perhaps I am more pro-EU because, unlike many people, I have actually benefited from the freedom of movement rules. And yes, I share your concern over the undemocratic nature of the EU, but I was also hopeful, as the EU Parliament has flexed its muscles in recent years.

                  --
                  lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:35PM (#641833) Journal

        Maybe they need to begin to see that "their people" is the human race.

        If the planet becomes uninhabitable we all lose, including the 'victors'. (The AIs might win.)

        If there remained no longer any capability to record who the victor was into textbooks, does it make a sound?

        Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side. As long as they don't decide to be on their own side.

        --
        I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 23 2018, @02:24PM (2 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 23 2018, @02:24PM (#642371)

          There does not seem to be any threat on the horizon of self-aware AI that could choose to be on it's own side. I'm sure we'll figure it out if we work long enough, but for the foreseeable future the threat is how the machines are used by the small cabal of people who control them. And how they malfunction, because their decisions are clearly not based on the same criteria we would use to generally make the same decisions.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 23 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @05:27PM (#642472) Journal

            Yes, I realize that.

            Try this one instead:

            Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side. As long as they don't decide to be on the side of the contractor who built them.

            --
            I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 23 2018, @11:13PM

              by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 23 2018, @11:13PM (#642711)

              It's extremely unlikely they'll go that way either - the contractors have a good deal going, and know full well that the first time they turn their weapons turn against the owners, all their clients around the world are going to start shopping with their competitors.

              I suppose it's remotely possible that one manufacturer would gain enough of the total market share that they had a realistic chance of taking out all their competitors hardware, as well as the conventional militaries involved, and conquer enough area to be worth losing their entire global market. But if they wanted to conquer the world they probably would have gone into politics instead of manufacturing.

              Try a more realistic take:

              Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side, and not the side of the government or military that you for some reason imagined was on your side.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ben_white on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:14PM (2 children)

    by ben_white (5531) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:14PM (#641813)

    Autocrats with remotely controlled armed forces. The end times are nigh.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:37PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:37PM (#641835) Journal

      Not until Erdoğan and Putin et al invade Israel. Not until Rev 19 where you are beheaded for your testimony of Jesus.

      --
      I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:23PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:23PM (#641819)

    No man really likes Erdoğan, but the President of Turkey doesn't want his job to be a tankless one.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:25PM (4 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:25PM (#641821)

      See also: Are Bots a Danger for Political Election Campaigns?

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:38PM (2 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:38PM (#641837) Journal

        Ban all servos and bots are no longer a danger to political erection campaigns.

        --
        I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:15PM

          by Bot (3902) on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:15PM (#641848) Journal

          Yep I promise (the sound you are hearing is the crossed IO pins behind my back shorting circuits a bit)

          --
          Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:07AM (#642102)

          Slight problem with artificial muscles. [latimes.com] Not many servos required there.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:45PM (#641841)

        Would anyone notice? Most political elections are already the result of people endlessly droning on...

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:12PM (4 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday February 22 2018, @04:12PM (#641846) Journal

    > unmanned weapons decrease casualties
    right
    next step, don't do war, just model it.
    > the military industrial complex will not allow it
    yes they will, as long as people pay money for the virtual weapons.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (#641927)

      next step, don't do war, just model it.

      Because that worked out so well for the people in the Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon".

      Plus, given that we'd now be deciding geopolitical situations based on effectively RTS games, I'd think the South Koreans would proceed to swiftly conquer the planet!

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:02PM

        by Bot (3902) on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:02PM (#641979) Journal

        I was thinking more of a liquid war thing anyway.

        --
        Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:11AM (#642104)

        Are you kidding me??? Pay rednecks a lot of money to blow shit up and they will master the fuck out of that shit.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 22 2018, @11:54PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday February 22 2018, @11:54PM (#642092) Homepage Journal

      We've been "modeling" our nuclear weapons, they call it modeling. I say, where are the models? Where is the runway? There's no runway. Little Rocket Man does it the old fashioned way. Because he doesn't have computer. He doesn't have cyber. And we can tell what he has by how big the boom is. The last one, he says it was a Hydrogen Bomb, it's not. Or it's the smallest Hydrogen Bomb you've ever seen in your entire life. Sad!

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Graeme on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:23PM (3 children)

    by Graeme (6617) on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:23PM (#641895)

    The age of BOLO tanks is at last starting...

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:43PM (#641907) Homepage Journal

      God, I want one. Of course, no one would ever let me in one - I'd be lucky just to get close enough to take pictures. But, I want one, all the same. I don't even care much what model - XXX would be the ultimate, but I'll settle for anything with an AI and a hellbore. Maybe I can find some hot chick with the training and intelligence to fix one up, so that it's not braindead most of the time. Can't remember her name now, but that's my kind of woman!

      --
      "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @12:14AM (#642105)

        No SHIT they wouldn't let you in one "The Bolo was a heavily armed and armored fighting machine with the latest AI systems, and was to conduct operations with very little need of human intervention."

        You think an AI tank would welcome a sweaty greasy human inside? lawl

        Git back to yer ship scrub.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:18PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:18PM (#642027) Journal

      They need automated license plate readers.

      --
      I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:51PM (2 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @06:51PM (#641914) Journal

    So those tanks will be driven by women? ;-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:59PM (#641976)

    Something the Soviets had in the 1930s...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Bobs on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)

    by Bobs (1462) on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:09PM (#641981)

    My suspicion is that any state that relies upon automated / unmanned weapon systems will eventually be hacked into oblivion.

    Either:
    - (subtle) The weapons fire as usual, but keep missing the target. So the opponent destroys them, and wins.
    - The systems just stop, and the opponent walks past them and wins.
    - The weapons suddenly turn and fire on their owner / each other and the opponent wins.

    May not happen the first time, but it will eventually happen. Especially with weapon systems provided by low-bid military contractors.

    And you only need to lose all your weapons once.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:20PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:20PM (#642029) Journal

      Especially with weapon systems provided by low-bid military contractors.

      This problem can be avoided by outsourcing your military contractors to China. Or maybe your civilian infrastructure. Or the major internet routers?

      --
      I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:01PM (2 children)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:01PM (#642011) Journal

    I'm going with the bombs that don't have a warhead: if it hits near you, you are dead. Report to the death chamber.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:22PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:22PM (#642032) Journal

      Since everyone carries a device that geo-locates them in real time, when the radius of a virtual bomb is computed, and you fall within it, you can simply be sent a message to report for disintegration. Or maybe your mobile phone can just somehow kill you on the spot? That would result in seeing actual war casualties, but not having to build the mass infrastructure of disintegration machine to which people have to report if they have been notified they are a war casualty.

      --
      I get constant rejection even though the compiler is supposed to accept constants.
      • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 23 2018, @12:04AM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:04AM (#642100) Homepage Journal

        People don't know this, but Jeff Bezos' Amazon made a fire phone. Nobody bought it because they didn't want fire in a phone. Not many smokers anymore and our smokers all have lighters now. And Samsung made a VERY SPECIAL phone too, it could do fire or even explode. But they recalled that one.

  • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday February 23 2018, @09:46AM

    by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday February 23 2018, @09:46AM (#642289)

    Are the fatalities too high to cover up?

(1)