The Department of Defense has put out a call: design a pack of robots. A so-called Multi-Robot Pursuit System would be used to "search for and detect a non-cooperative human subject." Each robot has to weigh 100 kilograms or less, act autonomously (with a human squad leader), negotiate obstacles, and provide immediate feedback. The robots would report back to a human operator, and defer to that human when the robot AI determines that a "difficult decision" is required.
Aside from the massive programming, cost, armor, and range problems that crop up when first thought about, the unfortunate moral dilemma erupts. This device will save lives by not endangering as many of our own soldiers; but with out the treat of losing lives, what will stop the governments from starting any war any where and anytime they want? Cost in dollars will be the determining factor in war declarations. It is my small, personal, but firm opinion that robotic systems in the military should serve a purely auxiliary or supporting role. Air + Ground Recon, patrol/search systems, bomb disposal, and forward personnel assistance (carrying gear/wounded). This is not to say they could not help on the front line with a half-dozen .30's strapped to the front as an autonomous tank, but this is not the course i think we should take. I'm sure many will disagree with me, claiming the saving of lives justifies the development of a remote controlled war, but saving human life does not outwiegh the cost losing our humanity.
Two disparate concepts can sometimes join together to create a perfectly harmonious third. Few people would have thought that peanut butter and jelly would taste good together, but they do. No one would have guessed that combining two gases -- hydrogen and oxygen -- would produce the liquid called water. But they do. The verdict is still out on what exactly will be the outcome of a paleontologist, Sankar Chatterjee, putting his scientific head together with that of an aeronautical engineer named Rick Lind. But so far the results have been intriguing. The object of their collaboration is a project called the pterodrone, an unmanned aerial vehicle modeled on the flying prowess of an early Cretaceous pterosaur, Tapejara wellnhoferi.
Neverfade, see the article http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-10/paper-stronger-steel I'm still a little dumbfounded and am seeing it's uses everywhere. Also, the tail in front idea invokes memories of "Those Magnificent Men And Their Flying Machines". It seems like a lot of trouble for a novel type of flight. wouldn't a regular plane be more efficient?
Imagine flying an airplane, watching a television or using a laptop computer made, at least in part, from a paper 500 times stronger and 10 times lighter than steel. It's no ordinary paper; it's "buckypaper"—a nanotechnology material that looks like carbon paper and is made out of tube-shaped carbon molecules 50,000 times thinner than a human hair. The material's strength, however, comes when it's stacked and pressed together to form a composite, giving it the ability to conduct electricity like copper and disperse heat like steel.
Is there anything it's not AWESOME for? Conducts electricity, ridicuosly strong, light, heat dispersing, and corrosion resistant? SWEET! I'll have a car, house, and robot all made out of it please.
Dear EarthTalk: What are these "ocean deserts" I've been hearing about? Also didn't I read that there was a huge mass of plastic bottles floating around somewhere on the ocean surface? -- Wally Mattson, Eugene, OR
Firstly; AWattsJr, Wow. you accused the UN of trying to take over the world, that's one I haven't heard in a while, and my friends have serious plans in case of Zombies. Secondly; "Even if the Earth were to heat up several degrees and the sea levels were to rise, that would not be as tragic as we are lead to believe." Tell this to the coastal cities of the world, including New Orleans and New York, whose water run-off systems will probably fail. Or Kirbati, the whole country is estimated to run out of drinkable water in twenty years, rendering all the islands un-inhabitable. Thirdly; If the earth is cooling, why is the perma frost melting? The BBC have a great representation of this at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_10_08_coastline.pdf . I would love to see the data that says the earth is cooling. Or the bit about 'no permenant Ice cap' 1000 years ago. Fourthly; The industrial Revolution, not the first time we've exploited the resource of fire. I'll give you a hint as to what is in smoke. It's CO2 and particulate matter. and every man, woman, and child on earth burned it nearly every day for several THOUSAND years to stay warm, cook, see, bake clay, and forge with. there is a lot of CO2 in the air, and though some sources are natural, but most came from HUMANS. To everyone else; a unmentioned danger of these dead zones in the methane in the ocean. I'm not sure if any of the areas overlap, but should they, the methane released would instantly dwarf the CO2 problem. It also may be released from the permafrost, which could seriously harm the environment.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.