0652: "More Accurate"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Magic Molly
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby Magic Molly » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:20 am UTC

rpgamer wrote:Has this video been posted yet?

Just a few steps away from Terminators...



Ummmm.... what was that supposed to show? That we already can make shiny remote controlled bots with over-done sound effects?

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:48 am UTC

Actually there's a guy in that.

It's actually the reverse of Terminator. It's a human wrapped in robot.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:38 pm UTC

From before Ogg's arrow through to the foreseeable future, war has been about killing people. As time has gone by, it has become increasingly virtualized from the physical disconnect of throwing a rock or firing an arrow to missiles launched at targets over the horizon to someone sitting in a room somewhere remotely flying a killer UAV thousands of miles away.

One possible future might include two developments: one might be that war becomes virtualized to the point that robots are the combatants and no humans are harmed; another is that it becomes so completely virtualized that the only physical participants are computers that never have any physical contact and their interaction is purely electronic. The battle is completely non-destructive much like a chess game and, similarly, wins and losses are determined by the rules of the game. It completely boggles my mind that participants would agree to Victory and Defeat in such a scenario. What would such a big-V and big-D outcome consist of? Total annihilation? Enslavement? A trophy on a shelf? I can fly my flag in your territory and you have to sing my song?
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

User avatar
Magic Molly
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby Magic Molly » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:44 am UTC

dennisw wrote:From before Ogg's arrow through to the foreseeable future, war has been about killing people. As time has gone by, it has become increasingly virtualized from the physical disconnect of throwing a rock or firing an arrow to missiles launched at targets over the horizon to someone sitting in a room somewhere remotely flying a killer UAV thousands of miles away.

One possible future might include two developments: one might be that war becomes virtualized to the point that robots are the combatants and no humans are harmed; another is that it becomes so completely virtualized that the only physical participants are computers that never have any physical contact and their interaction is purely electronic. The battle is completely non-destructive much like a chess game and, similarly, wins and losses are determined by the rules of the game. It completely boggles my mind that participants would agree to Victory and Defeat in such a scenario. What would such a big-V and big-D outcome consist of? Total annihilation? Enslavement? A trophy on a shelf? I can fly my flag in your territory and you have to sing my song?



For your second situation, it'd actually just be that your communications systems would get knocked out. Methinks that sort of future would come about when we can colonize other planets, but defending a planet from outside attack become really easy. So all there is is trying to electronically hacking into the other worlds mainframes and whatnot, and maybe trying to stir up riots.

However, your first situation seems a lot like the Supreme Commander universe. In that universe, most things can be made by nanolathing it from mass and energy, to turn that mass into different atoms. Energy can be made from quantum nothingness. A single human can go into a massive 'commander' and 'gate' into a planet, and build an army. In this future, massive battles can be fought, but only one or two people might die at a time, unless a major colony is attacked.

Still, i think/hope that much of the current problems with humanity will be solved once we figure out a way to colonize space, if we survive long enough.

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby Faranya » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:07 am UTC

dennisw wrote:One possible future might include two developments: one might be that war becomes virtualized to the point that robots are the combatants and no humans are harmed;


No humans except the ones living on the battlefield that these robots are using to fight on. Collateral damage is not cool, and it seems that the percentage has been on the rise in every war of the past 100 years.
Image

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:36 pm UTC

Magic Molly wrote:
dennisw wrote:...another is that it becomes so completely virtualized that the only physical participants are computers that never have any physical contact and their interaction is purely electronic. The battle is completely non-destructive much like a chess game and, similarly, wins and losses are determined by the rules of the game...

For your second situation, it'd actually just be that your communications systems would get knocked out. Methinks that sort of future would come about when we can colonize other planets, but defending a planet from outside attack become really easy. So all there is is trying to electronically hacking into the other worlds mainframes and whatnot, and maybe trying to stir up riots.


No, I'm talking about a hypothetical system in which the battlefield is, by agreement, cyberspace. No hacking would be involved. No riots, either. All very "civilized". A wins, B loses.

Faranya wrote:
dennisw wrote:...One possible future might include two developments: one might be that war becomes virtualized to the point that robots are the combatants and no humans are harmed...


No humans except the ones living on the battlefield that these robots are using to fight on. Collateral damage is not cool, and it seems that the percentage has been on the rise in every war of the past 100 years.


Nope. No humans. "One possible future". All by mutual consent. By analogy, the comparison of this would be like Robot Wars versus my second scenario's Battlezone versus Ogg's actual dead people.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

User avatar
Magic Molly
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby Magic Molly » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:08 am UTC

dennisw wrote:
Magic Molly wrote:
dennisw wrote:...another is that it becomes so completely virtualized that the only physical participants are computers that never have any physical contact and their interaction is purely electronic. The battle is completely non-destructive much like a chess game and, similarly, wins and losses are determined by the rules of the game...

For your second situation, it'd actually just be that your communications systems would get knocked out. Methinks that sort of future would come about when we can colonize other planets, but defending a planet from outside attack become really easy. So all there is is trying to electronically hacking into the other worlds mainframes and whatnot, and maybe trying to stir up riots.


No, I'm talking about a hypothetical system in which the battlefield is, by agreement, cyberspace. No hacking would be involved. No riots, either. All very "civilized". A wins, B loses.


Do you honestly think people would agree to that? The whole point of was is that one side wants something of the other, and attacks them for it. They either win, and get it, or lose, and don't get it, and maybe lose a bit to the other side too. What you're describing is more like a video game.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby BioTube » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Tom Clancy has Jack Ryan call war "theft writ large". That's not something you agree to in advance.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
AlexTheSeal
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 am UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby AlexTheSeal » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:13 am UTC

dennisw wrote:
Magic Molly wrote:
dennisw wrote:...another is that it becomes so completely virtualized that the only physical participants are computers that never have any physical contact and their interaction is purely electronic. The battle is completely non-destructive much like a chess game and, similarly, wins and losses are determined by the rules of the game...

For your second situation, it'd actually just be that your communications systems would get knocked out. Methinks that sort of future would come about when we can colonize other planets, but defending a planet from outside attack become really easy. So all there is is trying to electronically hacking into the other worlds mainframes and whatnot, and maybe trying to stir up riots.


No, I'm talking about a hypothetical system in which the battlefield is, by agreement, cyberspace. No hacking would be involved. No riots, either. All very "civilized". A wins, B loses.


That sounds awfully familiar.

Code: Select all

10 REM WORLD'S SMALLEST ADVENTURE GAME
20 PRINT "YOU ARE IN A CAVE (N, S, E, W)? ";
30 INPUT A$
40 GOTO 10

Lulled to sleep by the one-hertz chuckle of Linux logfile writes since 1997.

Devil Master
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 0652: "More Accurate"

Postby Devil Master » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:34 pm UTC

Hello, I'm a long time fan of XKCD. I'm delurking (and upping this topic) because I liked this strip so much that I made a video out of it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtU6YR5OUFg

herbys
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby herbys » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:07 am UTC

Eikinkloster wrote:
herbys wrote:the only weapon carrying robots in existence are all ground-bound and remotely operated.


I'm not sure what "ground-bound" means, but if it means non flying, you're missing the Predator. It carries missiles. You can see one dogfighting a Mig-25 (and losing) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8


The predators are not autonomous, they are controlled by humans via RC from the ground.
They are called "unmanned" because they are not carrying a pilot inside them, but they are not completely autonomous.
The scary thing is that pilots no longer have to risk their lives to kill others, but that has long not been an issue even with manned bombers.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: "More Accurate" Discussion

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

herbys wrote:
Eikinkloster wrote:
herbys wrote:the only weapon carrying robots in existence are all ground-bound and remotely operated.


I'm not sure what "ground-bound" means, but if it means non flying, you're missing the Predator. It carries missiles. You can see one dogfighting a Mig-25 (and losing) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8


The predators are not autonomous, they are controlled by humans via RC from the ground.
They are called "unmanned" because they are not carrying a pilot inside them, but they are not completely autonomous.
The scary thing is that pilots no longer have to risk their lives to kill others, but that has long not been an issue even with manned bombers.

And ballistic missiles. If warring parties would care about things being military targets they would at least be at risk from being on a military base... Then again, these machines are mostly used by countries as a police force in other countries, not really for military purposes, so that risk would not exist anyway.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests