Good reasoning.
So I guess you don't buy the "aquatic ape" thing, huh?
Full Version: Combat Drones in RL
That is true, Method. Archaelogical evidence of early human history, however, describes us as primarily scavengers. We did kill for food, but more often than not we found what was left lying around - other dead critters, nuts and berries, etc etc.
Violent resolution to conflict does not necessarily make one a "predator."
Also, an investigation of the dentition of said wild apes often reveals a much more pronounced set of canines than those possessed by their peaceful and wimpy friends, homo sapiens.
And the aquatic ape thing is CRRRRRRRAP.
Violent resolution to conflict does not necessarily make one a "predator."
Also, an investigation of the dentition of said wild apes often reveals a much more pronounced set of canines than those possessed by their peaceful and wimpy friends, homo sapiens.
And the aquatic ape thing is CRRRRRRRAP.
Yeah, I read about this. Those SWORDs are pretty tough too; several have taken explosive hits and kept working. The centirfugal gun is a very novel idea. The main hurdle with it, as far as I can tell, would be making the circular ammo effective. I see the designer has made ball bullets with multiple hollowpoints, which is pretty neat.
| QUOTE (Method) |
| Apes in the wild very often hunt, kill and cannibalize other apes, especially in cases where an unfamiliar ape enters another shrewdness' territory (a shrewdness btw is a group of apes). It’s a well-documented behavior. In fact they sometimes use what you might call small unit tactics to kill the infiltrating ape, and the fighting is exceedingly violent. |
hell, humans to are known to kill and eat our own if food is low. do the apes or we do so if simpler food is available? and killing in selfdefense (killing a intruder) dont make a predator. going out and hunting someone down as primary means of food makes you a predator...
I wasn't nessisarily arguing that apes are preditors by definition, but I think it does support the idea that, as humans, killing our own kind is in our nature.
Req: you are very right, but then we are speaking in generalizations here. There are a wide range of species, some of which have lovely dentitions.
"When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually. Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for research on the origins of human behavior. These findings come at a time when many anthropologists argue for scavenging rather than hunting as a way of life for early human ancestors. Research into the hunting ecology of wild chimpanzees may therefore shed new light on the current debate about the origins of human behavior."
Dr. Craig B. Stanford
Department of Anthropology
University of Southern California
from this site.
Dr. Craig B. Stanford
Department of Anthropology
University of Southern California
from this site.
Agreed, of course. 
We certainly don't know the whole truth about our origins - and I'm a molecular bio/geneticist type, so not quite as up on ecology as I used to be - but the blanket characterization of humans as predators doesn't seem to be supported.
We certainly don't know the whole truth about our origins - and I'm a molecular bio/geneticist type, so not quite as up on ecology as I used to be - but the blanket characterization of humans as predators doesn't seem to be supported.
| QUOTE (Req) |
| I'm a molecular bio/geneticist type... |
As am I. I do molecular genetics research at the U. Wyoming and Colorado State University in the US. Where do you work?
Get a room, sheesh 
Yeah Yeah! For the guy who started a thread about robots I'm not doing a very good job keeping it on topic am I? 
Combat drones and molecular genetics might have something in common. More than Gundam Seed even.
but its still a function for survival, not for joy (atleast not the norm).
only reason i can find are that our survival instincts can be extended to cover things we belive in, politicaly or religious. but to me thats a damn silly thing to kill someone over.
and the term nature means that its a natural thing, then why dont i just kill the person in front of me in the line? there are buildt in safeguards to make sure we dont make ourselfs extinct.
yes we have the ability to kill, but so have allmost any animal on this planet. some are just more effective then others. and most of them do it as a self defense function. dont trigger the fear, and they have no reason to kill you (unless you are seen as food and they are hungry, and no simpler source is available).
to say that its in our nature and therefor its a waste of resources to avoid doing it is a very silly statement in my view.
point is that we developed farming as its a simpler way to get food then go out and hunt or search for it. then the only reason left for us to go kill our own kind is to take over the territory and resources of the other, or if someone threaten our survival. if neither is present, why do we still do it?
only reason i can find are that our survival instincts can be extended to cover things we belive in, politicaly or religious. but to me thats a damn silly thing to kill someone over.
and the term nature means that its a natural thing, then why dont i just kill the person in front of me in the line? there are buildt in safeguards to make sure we dont make ourselfs extinct.
yes we have the ability to kill, but so have allmost any animal on this planet. some are just more effective then others. and most of them do it as a self defense function. dont trigger the fear, and they have no reason to kill you (unless you are seen as food and they are hungry, and no simpler source is available).
to say that its in our nature and therefor its a waste of resources to avoid doing it is a very silly statement in my view.
point is that we developed farming as its a simpler way to get food then go out and hunt or search for it. then the only reason left for us to go kill our own kind is to take over the territory and resources of the other, or if someone threaten our survival. if neither is present, why do we still do it?
because our perceptions can be twisted in such a way that we come to believe that we require the other group's resources, or that they threaten our survival.
And they can be untwisted as well. I would argue peace is human nature as well, if only through sheer laziness.
sure, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to push all humans to act peacefully. the next generation will always come along and throw out what their parents learned.
i dunno. i don't really understand this part of the discussion; who's trying to prove what, here? my stance on this facet is that humans will never give up the habit of going to war, so it's silly to give up the study of making war less horrible. you'll just end up getting butchered, probably in the horrible ways that your research was looking to prevent. the opposing viewpoint seems to be nothing more than a nebulous "war is bad", to me.
i dunno. i don't really understand this part of the discussion; who's trying to prove what, here? my stance on this facet is that humans will never give up the habit of going to war, so it's silly to give up the study of making war less horrible. you'll just end up getting butchered, probably in the horrible ways that your research was looking to prevent. the opposing viewpoint seems to be nothing more than a nebulous "war is bad", to me.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| to say that its in our nature and therefor its a waste of resources to avoid doing it is a very silly statement in my view. |
I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact it’s quite the opposite. We talk about using our resources to reduce killing and needless loss of life.
And there are cases in nature where predators kill more than they need. I've seen video footage where two tigers kill 10-12 gazelles in one hunt. One or two would suffice, but the handlers (they were captive tigers being reintroduced to the wild) suspect that they were having "fun".
Most would also argue that wars ARE fought by necessity and ARE a matter of survival for at least one side- the defenders, if you will. The attackers probably believe the same, but it’s harder to justify (Nazi Germany, for example believed they were throwing off social and economic oppression the Allies had imposed after WWI). I think we can agree that some wars are motivated by simple human ambition (Hitler), but then that speaks for an altogether darker side of human nature, doesn't it?
My stance is that humans are less likely to give up war if they have no risk in continuing it. Domination without death is no better than actual willingness to risk one's life for a cause.
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) |
| And they can be untwisted as well. I would argue peace is human nature as well, if only through sheer laziness. |
an equally valid point, i think.
that'll only work for one, maybe two generations, kanada, if that long. how do you convince people who've only heard of war through stories their grandparents heard as kids that war is too bad a thing to engage in?
Simsense?
But how will you convince people like Sadam Hussein he can't invade Kuait simply because he thinks he's entitled?
Or bin Laden not to blow up every American he can?
Or the Janjawid milita in Darfur?
I think the problem is that you could never get all of humanity on the same page and there will always be those who just don't value human life like they should.
Or bin Laden not to blow up every American he can?
Or the Janjawid milita in Darfur?
I think the problem is that you could never get all of humanity on the same page and there will always be those who just don't value human life like they should.
you're not taking into account the people who would enjoy that kind of simsense, kanada.
Honestly, I don't think it matters. Whether we'll ever end the need/desire for war isn't really my point. I don't know what my point is beyond "continuing war is not an advancement in anyway".
mfb, you could make that satisfy the need/whatever?
mfb, you could make that satisfy the need/whatever?
i don't see how that's true. the whole point of not going to war is that that horrible things happen less often, right? well, if you make war less and less horrible... aren't you basically achieving the same thing, only choosing a route that's more likely to have the effect you want?
as simsense isn't a reality yet, it's hard to speculate on what effects it would or would not have on human psychology, and humanity as a whole. or, rather, it's hard to do anything except speculate--wildly.
as simsense isn't a reality yet, it's hard to speculate on what effects it would or would not have on human psychology, and humanity as a whole. or, rather, it's hard to do anything except speculate--wildly.
| QUOTE |
| the whole point of not going to war is that that horrible things happen less often, right? |
No... no it's to show that you don't need to dominate to coexist...
good luck selling humanity on that one.
I never said I was being realistic. I mean, to you, which is the greater horror: A "conventional" war against your enemy? Or a bomb that kills none but makes you think the same as them?
the conventional war, hands down. even a relatively 'clean' conventional war, like the current one in iraq.
Maybe they should develop the homo bomb. Making love, with war.
please. then the whole planet would be fighting over me, instead of just half.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| please. then the whole planet would be fighting over me, instead of just half. |
Ok, NOW we know the thread drift is terminal.
(BTW Method, I work in human gene therapy at the University of Washington.)
yeah, i know what you're thinking: "but mfb, if they drop the gay bomb, then only the guys will be after your hot body--still only half the planet!" rigga please. trying to make the ladies immune to my mack? you'd have better luck with that world peace thing.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| trying to make the ladies immune to my mack? you'd have better luck with that world peace thing. |
But they are immuned. They all have Immunity to MFB's mack. It is a racial bonus.
blasphemy!
mfb has a mack?
only in his dreams...
still, trying to eliminate war is definetly a utopia.
in fact the only thing that can get a large group to cooperate over any period of time is a outside source of danger. without it the group starts to fall apart over inside disagreements.
still, trying to eliminate war is definetly a utopia.
in fact the only thing that can get a large group to cooperate over any period of time is a outside source of danger. without it the group starts to fall apart over inside disagreements.
I'm certainly not saying its pointless trying to avoid war. just wanted to make that clear. As for humans being predators, we may or may not have started out that way but don't tell me we aren't predators now!
Anyway, world views aside, I saw mfb's mack a while back.
It was wearing braces and talking about chess club...
Anyway, world views aside, I saw mfb's mack a while back.
It was wearing braces and talking about chess club...
i am beset on all sides by player haters.
trying to avoid war isn't pointless--but failing to prepare for war isn't enlightenment, it's national suicide.
trying to avoid war isn't pointless--but failing to prepare for war isn't enlightenment, it's national suicide.
| QUOTE (spotlite) |
| I'm certainly not saying its pointless trying to avoid war. just wanted to make that clear. As for humans being predators, we may or may not have started out that way but don't tell me we aren't predators now! |
We may be capable of kicking some great amounts of ass, but we're still indiscriminate omnivores. This great proclivity for violence only makes us predators if we move in after the carpet-bombing and set up an all-you-can-eat shattered corpse buffet.
Wow, that's a depressing image. Would make for an interesting game though...
"interesting" isn't quite the word i'd use, myself.
It's called Underground...
Tastee Ghoul anyone?
I'll have an order of Corpus Crispies!
Tastee Ghoul anyone?
I'll have an order of Corpus Crispies!
Ah, I love that game.
That sounds like Asamondo's foreign policy...
| QUOTE |
| (kevyn668) This is starting to remind me of that (original) Star Trek episode where the two peoples of a world had been fighting a war for hundreds of years. |
kevyn668:
The episode in question was called "A Taste of Armageddon" (first season, episode 23, original airdate February 23, 1967). The planets Eminiar VII and Vendikar had been at war for approximately 500 years, and Kirk & Co. blundered right into the middle of it. You all know the story--Kirk, in yet another violation of Starfleet General Order Number One (a/k/a "The Prime Directive"), essentially forces the two sides to come to the bargaining table by destroying the Eminians' (?) central computer system.
This was also the only time that Kirk, or any other Starfleet Captain, AFAIK, issued General Order Number 24--in this case, he ordered LCDR. Montgomery Scott, third in the ship's chain of command, to destroy Eminiar VII if "Scotty" didn't hear from him again before the time period specified--two hours, in this case--had passed.
General Order Number 24, for those of you who may not be familiar with the series, means the total eradication of a planet's population, and the supporting infrastructure.
The Prime Directive was supposed to be the United Federation of Planets' (or at least Starfleet's) highest law--interference with the established civilization of a planet, except for permitted purposes such as trade, or possible admission to the U.F.P. was strictly forbidden, and all Starfleet personnel swear an oath to die before breaking it.
Apparently, though, it was rarely enforced, at least on the original series, because Kirk violated it more than once, yet he not only remained alive, but in command of a Starship.
In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "The Omega Directive" (fourth season, episode 21, original airdate 04/15/1998), we find that there is *ONE* exception to The Prime Directive. During this episode, the Voyager's crew encounters a planet whose people are experimenting with a primitive--by Federation standards--form of faster-than-light propulsion involving the "Omega Particle". The particle in question, because it has the power to destroy subspace--thereby rendering warp drive and subspace communications inoperative--is considered a threat to the very existence of the United Federation of Planets (and, by extension, Starfleet). Command-level officers (Lieutenant-Commanders and above, I think) are the only Starfleet personnel who know of this Directive. It essentially rescinds The Prime Directive temporarily--i.e., the crew(s) of any involved vessel(s) are allowed to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat, up to and including the destruction of the planet(s) involved with the production of the Omega Particles.
CAPT. Janeway to LT. Tuvok: "Mister Tuvok, for the duration of this mission, The Prime Directive is rescinded. Is that understood?"
Method, Jrayjoker: There was a combat drone in real life. It was called the "Prowler" ("Programmable Robot Observer With Logical Enemy Response"), and was built by the now-defunct Robot Defense Systems, Inc., of Denver, Colorado.
Here are a couple of links:
Prowler Robot
and:
Image through RDS-built Laser Vision System mounted on Prowler--Brightness Represents Distance
According to what I was able to find, the "Prowler" was produced from 1983 until RDS, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in 1986.
INTRODUCTION: AUTONOMOUS SECURITY ROBOTS
(Sorry. Botched the link on my first attempt.
)Its most famous appearance was probably when one of the robots co-starred with Chuck Norris in the 1986 film Code of Silence.
--Foreigner
That laser vision system is essentially how ultrasound would look.
Foreigner:
I am impressed. Your attention to detail is, well, impressive.
I am impressed. Your attention to detail is, well, impressive.
kevyn668:
Flattery will get you everywhere.
I'm what you might call a "second-generation-Trekkie-by-osmosis"--my brother and I were only two years old when STAR TREK premiered in 1966. We watched it in syndicated reruns. My brother was the real addict; AFAIK, he's watched ALL of the episodes of EVERY STAR TREK-inspired series, beginning with the original show, then STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, then STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, then STAR TREK: VOYAGER, and nowSTAR TREK: ENTERPRISE.
As far as the "attention to detail" bit, it might have something to do with the fact that I (A) suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and (B) have a lot of time on my hands, as I have been unemployed for over four years--I was "downsized due to a corporate restructuring" in August, 2000, after working for the same company for just over 12 years. They tried to fire me because my then-supervisor thought that I was sleeping on the job--however, once they found out that I was protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because I have the "silent" form of epilepsy (which I found out during a CAT scan and MRI to to find out what was causing my apparent attacks of on-the-job narcolepsy), they used the "corporate restructuring" bit as an excuse to get rid of me. (I wasn't the only person who got the axe at the time, though. Some folks who'd been there for thirty or more years were also "downsized". Try getting a fresh start when you're considered "old enough to retire".) What galls me most about it was that the new supervisor, who had replaced the one who had accused me of nodding off after she was promoted and transferred, had assured me that my job was safe at my Performance Review approximately five months earlier.
(Not to mention that my "sleeping on the job" had gone on for the better part of TWO YEARS before the little twit decided to confront me. Try explaining that to your boss when you have no idea what's happening. All I knew was that I would feel drowsy for what was, to me, a period of only a few seconds--I was unaware of the actual seizures and, because I also have no short-term memory, I was unable to remember having had them. Some of my coworkers, though, said that I was often "out of it" for several MINUTES at a time. If I and my family had been the sort to file a lawsuit, I would have OWNED the place.)
--Foreigner
Flattery will get you everywhere.
I'm what you might call a "second-generation-Trekkie-by-osmosis"--my brother and I were only two years old when STAR TREK premiered in 1966. We watched it in syndicated reruns. My brother was the real addict; AFAIK, he's watched ALL of the episodes of EVERY STAR TREK-inspired series, beginning with the original show, then STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, then STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, then STAR TREK: VOYAGER, and nowSTAR TREK: ENTERPRISE.
As far as the "attention to detail" bit, it might have something to do with the fact that I (A) suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and (B) have a lot of time on my hands, as I have been unemployed for over four years--I was "downsized due to a corporate restructuring" in August, 2000, after working for the same company for just over 12 years. They tried to fire me because my then-supervisor thought that I was sleeping on the job--however, once they found out that I was protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because I have the "silent" form of epilepsy (which I found out during a CAT scan and MRI to to find out what was causing my apparent attacks of on-the-job narcolepsy), they used the "corporate restructuring" bit as an excuse to get rid of me. (I wasn't the only person who got the axe at the time, though. Some folks who'd been there for thirty or more years were also "downsized". Try getting a fresh start when you're considered "old enough to retire".) What galls me most about it was that the new supervisor, who had replaced the one who had accused me of nodding off after she was promoted and transferred, had assured me that my job was safe at my Performance Review approximately five months earlier.
(Not to mention that my "sleeping on the job" had gone on for the better part of TWO YEARS before the little twit decided to confront me. Try explaining that to your boss when you have no idea what's happening. All I knew was that I would feel drowsy for what was, to me, a period of only a few seconds--I was unaware of the actual seizures and, because I also have no short-term memory, I was unable to remember having had them. Some of my coworkers, though, said that I was often "out of it" for several MINUTES at a time. If I and my family had been the sort to file a lawsuit, I would have OWNED the place.)
--Foreigner
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.