5 ms·

It's sounds pretty cutting edge but a video instead of a still (why calling it a gallery?) would have been better. Looking at these feats of technology and tre

It's sounds pretty cutting edge but a video instead of a still (why calling it a gallery?) would have been better. Looking at these feats of technology and trends of early drones, lasers, processing, robotics, motor-limbs, 3D printing and other aspects of machine development it seems that the day is not far when the outreach of the Government is gonna get completely beyond people's ability to contain it. I can imagine things like people not being allowed to use naked eyes while walking on the streets; force use of licensed Ocular Rifts to take a stroll instead. Driving cars taken off the list, use self-driving ones etc. Eventually shunt the squishy skin under a robot and rely only on the brain part of the human to do the mundane stuff. Doesn't look great to me, but ...

stevenrace 13y ago
>>but a video... would have been better. Boeing released video earlier in the year [1]. Raytheon has had video of their's shooting mortars since 2008 [2] and drones in 2010 [3]. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_NrG3zcf1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_NrG3zcf1s [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrtJbsyvmSo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrtJbsyvmSo [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfKbR0XRz0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfKbR0XRz0
rayiner 13y ago
> Looking at these feats of technology with early drones, lasers, information mining, robotic motor-limbs, 3D printing and other trends of machine development it seems that a day is not far when outreach of the Government is completely beyond people to contain 'em. I find this point of view somewhat perplexing. The history of the last 1500 years or so has been a continuous, if not perfect, arc towards better societies. Technology reached the point long ago where it outstripped the ability of the people to contain government in a pure firefight. North Korea's government, for example, is managing to maintain total and absolute power using essentially 1950s technology. If it weren't for the other countries breathing down their necks, they could do it with WWI technology. The basic problem at the root of most dystopian descriptions of the future is that they assume that government actors are not subject to game-theoretic considerations. If anything, technology makes the kind of governments presented in Brave New World or 1984 even less feasible, because with as destructive technology advances, it takes a much smaller faction of people within the government to topple the whole system.
- harryh 13y ago
  People are hardwired to think that doom awaits us all whether it's from eternal damnation due to our sins against god, or due to totalitarian governments building dystopic futures on the back of advanced technology. It's basic Joseph Campbell. The story is always the same, just with some of the words changed.
  - monsterix 13y ago
    > People are hardwired to think that doom awaits us ... I didn't say that doom awaits us all. But responses to my half complete comment do say something about what is likely, or what average people are afraid about. If we are to believe that we often meet our destiny on the road taken to avoid it, these refutations are a sincere indicator of the potential impact. Let me come to what @rayiner said on the comment above yours. From parent > If anything, technology makes the kind of governments presented in Brave New World or 1984 even less feasible, because with as destructive technology advances, it takes a much smaller fraction of people within the government to topple the whole system. Absolutely! Smaller fraction of people will have higher power to execute, topple or rule. So it works both ways. I do have some apprehensions about this new level of operation. New tech bases itself on deep understanding and application of human psychology, magnifies its wrath on the perpetrated empowers the perpetrator even more. But given any tech product for every x% of legitimate and intended use, there is y% of illegitimate and unintended use. For example, for each licensed gun that protects somebody in the US, there are a few versions of that same innovation that kill hundreds of people elsewhere. I am not sure if y > x, but could be. True that a gun is not responsible for the crime - it is the person vying to kill who is - but the gun definitely is a quicker and surer "solution" for people with that intent. It's harder to kill a man with a knife or bare hands, so a killer would prefer a gun. IMO, petty violence will find a new complex and probably dreadful micro form with advent of weapons having more sci-fi. How this will impact Governments of future, some with money and even more dreadful resources, some with lesser money and more nastier leadership is yet to be seen.

stevenrace 13y ago

>>but a video... would have been better. Boeing released video earlier in the year [1]. Raytheon has had video of their's shooting mortars since 2008 [2] and drones in 2010 [3]. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_NrG3zcf1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_NrG3zcf1s [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrtJbsyvmSo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrtJbsyvmSo [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfKbR0XRz0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfKbR0XRz0

rayiner 13y ago

> Looking at these feats of technology with early drones, lasers, information mining, robotic motor-limbs, 3D printing and other trends of machine development it seems that a day is not far when outreach of the Government is completely beyond people to contain 'em. I find this point of view somewhat perplexing. The history of the last 1500 years or so has been a continuous, if not perfect, arc towards better societies. Technology reached the point long ago where it outstripped the ability of the people to contain government in a pure firefight. North Korea's government, for example, is managing to maintain total and absolute power using essentially 1950s technology. If it weren't for the other countries breathing down their necks, they could do it with WWI technology. The basic problem at the root of most dystopian descriptions of the future is that they assume that government actors are not subject to game-theoretic considerations. If anything, technology makes the kind of governments presented in Brave New World or 1984 even less feasible, because with as destructive technology advances, it takes a much smaller faction of people within the government to topple the whole system.

harryh 13y ago
People are hardwired to think that doom awaits us all whether it's from eternal damnation due to our sins against god, or due to totalitarian governments building dystopic futures on the back of advanced technology. It's basic Joseph Campbell. The story is always the same, just with some of the words changed.
- monsterix 13y ago
  > People are hardwired to think that doom awaits us ... I didn't say that doom awaits us all. But responses to my half complete comment do say something about what is likely, or what average people are afraid about. If we are to believe that we often meet our destiny on the road taken to avoid it, these refutations are a sincere indicator of the potential impact. Let me come to what @rayiner said on the comment above yours. From parent > If anything, technology makes the kind of governments presented in Brave New World or 1984 even less feasible, because with as destructive technology advances, it takes a much smaller fraction of people within the government to topple the whole system. Absolutely! Smaller fraction of people will have higher power to execute, topple or rule. So it works both ways. I do have some apprehensions about this new level of operation. New tech bases itself on deep understanding and application of human psychology, magnifies its wrath on the perpetrated empowers the perpetrator even more. But given any tech product for every x% of legitimate and intended use, there is y% of illegitimate and unintended use. For example, for each licensed gun that protects somebody in the US, there are a few versions of that same innovation that kill hundreds of people elsewhere. I am not sure if y > x, but could be. True that a gun is not responsible for the crime - it is the person vying to kill who is - but the gun definitely is a quicker and surer "solution" for people with that intent. It's harder to kill a man with a knife or bare hands, so a killer would prefer a gun. IMO, petty violence will find a new complex and probably dreadful micro form with advent of weapons having more sci-fi. How this will impact Governments of future, some with money and even more dreadful resources, some with lesser money and more nastier leadership is yet to be seen.