Police devices and technology coming to a city near you

The beginnings of Brainiac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbFFs4DHWys&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuxFJcG9SEo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rNXUwhcjBs&feature=related
 
Definately scary stuff - and that's just the beginning. With computer processing power doubling approximately every two years (Moore's Law), we'll be having our very own 'friendly' neighbourhood terminator right at our door sooner than we think! And if we get a handle on quantum processors, sentient robots won't be far away - and we all know where that's gonna lead.... :scared:
 
The Recon Scout XT is a rudimentary robot, but he already accompanies the special strengths, that use it on the land while making it pass to insure that no ambush waits for them.

Weighing in at 1.2lbs and able to withstand a drop from three stories up, it can shoot real time video day or night. Its signal goes through walls with no problem and the controller is no bigger than a standard company command radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW7lE-aCoV4

This small rustic robot can be going to verify what waits for the soldiers on the other side of a fence thus, in a bunker or to the angle of a street. And the night? It can activate its invisible system of infrared illumination. The future of the battle field will certainly be filled of this kind of robots, and also of detecting robots of recognition robots.
 
Definately scary stuff - and that's just the beginning. With computer processing power doubling approximately every two years (Moore's Law), we'll be having our very own 'friendly' neighbourhood terminator right at our door sooner than we think! And if we get a handle on quantum processors, sentient robots won't be far away - and we all know where that's gonna lead.... Scared

I agree, we'll have Terminator 5 coming soon but only difference is that it's for real.

This video is disturbing, it's about robots that can create artificial organizam and can make their own softwear and hardwear, and can heal itself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkvpEfAPXn4&feature=related

This is exoskeleton that could be used by army in near future, Ironman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4J69EEpu4
 
It’s all in the legs. Boston Dynamics’ new PETMAN is billed as an anthropomorphic robot for testing chemical protection clothing used by the U.S. Army. Now available as a prototype, PETMAN is built from the same balancing technology that makes the four-legged mule-like BigDog so formidable in hostile terrain – except that PETMAN has two legs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67CUudkjEG4&feature=player_embedded


While this new robotic leg technology is both scary and impressive, PETMAN is a far cry from eight-foot-tall Terminator T-600 model from the Terminator movie franchise. In the movies, the rubber-wrapped T-600s use their somewhat human-like appearance to get high-caliber weapons into striking range.
The finished PETMAN –- expected in 2011 –- is being designed to mimic human physiology, for example sweating in response to temperature and humidity changes, to make it a realistic testing device for the chemical protection suits. At a top speed of 3.2 mph, the PETMAN prototype is not going anywhere too fast –- yet.

But what exactly is the Army up to? A recent Time article quotes U.S. Lieut. General Michael Vane, who directs the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Fort Monroe, Va.: "I am starting out with the idea of having a technology-enabled human. [But] we might someday come up with [separate] IT doctrine and robot doctrine... We want to make the people or humans in charge under command and control in a 'whole of government' approach."

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led the Army to increasingly look for rapid delivery of anything that can lighten a soldier's load. P.W. Singer, a Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute, characterizes the current state of U.S. military robotics in a TED talk earlier this year (see the h+ interview with Singer, “Wired For War or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Let Dystopian SF Movies Inspire our Military Bots” in Resources):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1pr683SYFk&feature=player_embedded

An Army Robotics Strategy White Paper published earlier this year makes it clear that the Army has big plans for robotics systems:

1. Reduce risks to soldiers in war through IED detection and neutralization,
2. Reduce the workload on soldiers by having robots perform routine tasks and tasks that required sustained “high tempo” operations, such as routine surveillance of bases, and
3. Enable extended range for unattended ground sensors for mobile reconnaissance.
The White Paper also makes the case that, “many of the robotics systems in use by soldiers and small units in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven their worth – they have saved dozens, perhaps hundreds of lives.” It sets the following priorities:

* Reconnaissance and surveillance
* Target Identification and Designation
* Counter-Mine Warfare
* Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive Reconnaissance

Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a public policy think tank, questions the ability of robotic systems to distinguish between a friendly ally, a local civilian, or a hostile fighter. "It is tough enough for us to train human soldiers to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants on the battlefield. It is much more difficult to write software that does that," suggests Goure.

Dr. Ronald Arkin, director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at Georgia Tech and under contract with the U.S. Army, is working on ethical guidance software for battlefield robots that is intended to help with such delicate battlefield discrimination. (See the h+ interview with Dr. Arkin, “Teaching Robots the Rules of War” in Resources) “I don't believe there is any fundamental scientific limitation to achieving the goal of these machines being able to discriminate better than humans can in the fog of war, again in tightly specified situations,” says Arkin.

The PETMAN prototype is literally all legs -– there is no cognitive processing. The autonomous T-600 Terminators, like the fictional Cylons from the TV series Battlestar Galactica, have sophisticated AI software to guide their actions. Robotics expert Dr. Noel Sharkey, a computer science professor at the University of Sheffield is skeptical that such intelligence can be achieved. In a New Scientist interview, he suggests that AI is a dangerous myth that could lead to a dystopian future of unintelligent, unfeeling robot caregivers and soldiers. “I'm an empirical kind of guy, and there is just no evidence of an artificial toehold in sentience,” says Sharkey. “It is often forgotten that the idea of mind or brain as computational is merely an assumption, not a truth. When I point this out to ‘believers’ in the computational theory of mind, some of their arguments are almost religious. They say, 'What else could there be? Do you think mind is supernatural?' But accepting mind as a physical entity does not tell us what kind of physical entity it is. It could be a physical system that cannot be recreated by a computer.”

This is an ongoing debate in both cognitive and computer science. Proponents of strong AI in robotics, such as Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil, see a different future than Sharkey, one in which computer processing speed will eventually overtake that of the human brain, and in which human consciousness can be simulated electronically and uploaded into a robotic substrate.

The Army’s goal of using “technology-enabled humans” to reduce risk to soldiers on the battlefield certainly does not preclude a possible future of robotic warriors similar to the fictional T-600 Terminators or Cylon Centurions. But, regardless of which side of the strong AI debate you’re on, it’s clear that PETMAN’s robotic leg technology makes military bots start to look more like bipedal humans than four-legged mules.

http://www.hplusmagazine.com
 
The Invisible Tank

http://www.unexplainable.net/Technology/The-Invisible-Tank.shtml

It sounds like something from the fevered brain of a science-fiction writer. Invisible soldiers? Disappearing tanks? Surely this is not possible. And yet that's exactly what a group of DARPA funded scientists are attempting to do: render military assets completely invisible to the human eye.

The U.S. military has had a long history of tweaking stealth technology to give the brave men and women on the front lines that most vital of strategic assets: surprise. At around the start of the 20th century, camouflage, or "camo" for short, came into its own, being adopted by most major world powers. The early 1900's saw soldiers wearing drab, dull-toned uniforms and camo patterns being painted onto vehicles and artillery pieces, ammo, dumps, and other such things. While unlikely to hinder another soldier's sight on the battlefield, it managed to hinder the casual observer, especially if the camouflaged subject was in the dark and staying still.

However, up until recently, that seemed to be the end of the camo story. Compared to technology such as aircraft, tanks, missiles, and firearms, camouflage technology has been at a relative standstill for the last century.

Until now, that is.

Recently, United States scientists received the green light from DARPA to pursue an advanced system of "crypsis", a term meaning the avoidance of observation. This research, funded so far with seventeen million government dollars, is geared towards two projects in particular: The primary project takes the form of a collapsible, deployable "shield" made of a self-healing fiber-optic/kevlar mesh that both "cloaks" those behind it in an obfuscating aura and protects them from bullets. The Second, and perhaps the more ambitious, project seeks to do the impossible: render an entire tank invisible to normal observation.

If it seems to strange to believe, consider the following:

In 2007, the British Army stated that it had already created a functional prototype of a "cloaking technology" for their tanks, and stated that they expected it to be deployed by early 2012. While there is little evidence beyond the testimony of a few officials, it is still intriguing.

There is the infamous story from October 28th, 1943, in which the U.S.S. Eldridge, a destroyer escort, was reputedly rendered invisible to the naked eye for a few brief moments, in what has been dubbed the Philadelphia Experiment.

And of course who can forget about Public Enemy No. 1, U.F.O.'s, aircraft that zip about the sky and seem to disappear and reappear like magic? Is it too ridiculous to imaging that the United States government has developed technology so advanced that the general public can only believe that it is either non-existent or of other-worldly origins, or that they have reverse-engineered alien technology, and either way have neglected to reveal it to the public or the world? After all, what good is a stealth weapon if everyone knows about it? And doesn't the American B-2 stealth bomber seem to resemble an alien space craft?

And from an American perspective, nothing seems more bizarre and unexplainable than the British military discovering cloaking technology first, especially considering the amount of support DARPA has given American initiatives to develop such projects.

Still, if all of these projects come to fruition, we can expect to see these high-tech cloaking technologies deployed in 2012 or shortly thereafter.

Or rather, not see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hussenzILM&feature=player_embedded#
 
Let me get this straight. They know when i shop, what i buy, and when.
They know where i bank, when, and what i take from the bank.
They monitor where i buy groceries, what i buy, and what i eat.
They know when i was born and where was born, as well as every medical, and dental procedure I've have ever had.
They know if i have car insurance, and what kind of car i move around in.
They monitor my computer habits, in what i surf, when, what i write and whom write too.
They know the first job i had as the last.
They can watch from the confines of space from a monitor on the streets.
They can listen to the conversations of phone, when you talk , how long and to whom.
And if that was not enough they want to know where i am when i make that call on a cell.
Did i leave anyhting out?
Who needs a shadow when they looking down your neck.
And who the hell is "they"?

From the Wild Bunch
They set it up.
"They"? Who in the hell is "they?"
"They"? Why, they is the plain and fancy they, that's who "they" is! Caught you, didn't they? Tied a tin can to your tail. Led you in and waltzed you out again. Oh my, what a bunch! Big tough ones, hunh? Here you are with a handful of holes, a thumb up your ass, and a big grin to pass the time of day with. They? Who the hell is "they?"

Apple now collecting, sharing precise location of iPhone users

By John Byrne
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 -- 9:41 am
The world's largest technology company by market capitalization may soon rival the National Security Agency in its ability to track Americans using their cell phones.

Apple Inc. is now tracking the "precise," "real-time geographic location" of iPhones, iPads and Macintosh computers -- and has unwittingly gotten its customers to sign off on their being tracked by making a little-noticed modification to the language in its apps store.

The company's "partners and licensees" will now be able to collect and store data about your location.

Apple's new privacy policy comes in the wake of a new "Find my iPhone" app the company approved which allows users to recover their lost phones using AT&T's location services.

Tracking digital consumers by location is nothing new. Websites routinely receive information about their users' locations in order to serve relevant advertising. For example, Raw Story's ad providers use information provided by readers' Internet service providers to serve ads appropriate to the region in which they're being read -- for example, you might get an ad for a political campaign in your area. You can opt-out here.)

Story continues below...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Apple's new terms and conditions allow it to store information about users' exact locations, a level of privacy intrusion not heretofore seen. Websites can tell users' locations down to a zip code, generally speaking, but they neither store nor track exact locations -- which Apple and AT&T can do using triangulation down to about ten feet.

(AT&T, if you remember, was a participant in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which allows the US government to track the phone numbers called by its citizens abroad. A whistleblower said that AT&T in fact had its own spy room in San Francisco for the government.)

Adds The Los Angeles Times:

The company says the data is anonymous and does not personally identify users. Analysts have shown, however, that large, specific data sets can be used to identify people based on behavior patterns.

An increasing number of iPhone apps ask users for their location, which is then used by the application or even uploaded to the app's maker. Apps like the Twitter application Tweetie and Google Maps make frequent use of location data, either to help the user get oriented geographically or to associate the user's action with a specific location (as when a tweet is geotagged).

Apple says in its privacy policy that it uses personal information to "improve our services, content, and advertising."

On Monday, Apple also rolled out its new advertising platform, iAd, for the latest version of its iPhone operating system (iOS 4). The company may well be integrating the location information into its advertising system -- for instance, to help local shops sell coupons to users in the neighborhood.
The new passage in Apple's terms and conditions is:

To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.

Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe “Find My iPhone” feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.
Ironically, The Los Angeles Times' parent company released their own iPhone app just two hours after they did a writeup on Apple's new privacy policy.

Mac OS Hints offers this tip to turn off "Location Services" in iPhone OS 4:

As iOS 4 is being released for upgrading today (you'll need iTunes 9.2 to do so), a lot of new features will be introduced. Many are brand new, but some resemble features introduced with the iPad and iPhone OS 3.2, and are improved beyond that.

One of them is the Location Services Settings, especially with respect to privacy controls.

In iPad, a little NE pointing arrow appears in the top bar to alert you that the GPS is being accessed from an application, and that function is now in iOS 4 as well. [crarko adds: My mistake: it appears this wasn't in iPhone OS 3.2, and is new.]

What's new is the ability to toggle on or off the ability of apps to use Location Services on a per app basis, much like Notifications. If you look in Settings » General » Location Services, all the apps that make use of the GPS are listed, along with the NE arrow icon if they have used Location Services in the past 24 hours. There is also a toggle switch for each app, to enable/disable the services.

Note you will no longer be presented with the dialog box asking for permission to use your current location in apps, but will instead be warned by an app that you've turned off that it can't get current information. An app which is enabled will display the arrow icon.
 

Attachments

  • graphicarts1[1].jpg
    graphicarts1[1].jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 4
And who the hell is "they"?

My understanding of it is simply that 'they' are virtually anyone. But because our world promotes corruption and is governed by money , someone evil who wants to pull the strings can simply buy every information about you , straight from that previously mentioned 'anyone'.

Don't worry , technology can be easily fooled , it is just a matter of knowing what to do and how. There is always an anti-technology for every existing technology IMO :)
Exactly like with yin-yang - 'they' call it balance :D
 
Nice c.a. Very A-one poetry! The interesting part is that stacking up all that knowledge computes a database so large and detailed that no normal humans could ever quaff it, at least in the months that would be required to eat a whole wild ox.
 
Back
Top Bottom