<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_1751232</id>
	<title>Rise of the Robot Squadrons</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257270780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Velcroman1 writes <i>'Taking a cue from the Terminator films, the US Navy is developing unmanned <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571133,00.html">drones that network together and operate in 'swarms.'</a> Predator drones have proven one of the most effective &mdash; and most controversial &mdash; weapons in the military arsenal. And now, these unmanned aircraft are talking to each other. Until now, each drone was controlled remotely by a single person over a satellite link. A new tech, demoed last week by NAVAIR, adds brains to those drones and allows one person to control a small squadron of them in an intelligent, semiautonomous network.'</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Velcroman1 writes 'Taking a cue from the Terminator films , the US Navy is developing unmanned drones that network together and operate in 'swarms .
' Predator drones have proven one of the most effective    and most controversial    weapons in the military arsenal .
And now , these unmanned aircraft are talking to each other .
Until now , each drone was controlled remotely by a single person over a satellite link .
A new tech , demoed last week by NAVAIR , adds brains to those drones and allows one person to control a small squadron of them in an intelligent , semiautonomous network .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Velcroman1 writes 'Taking a cue from the Terminator films, the US Navy is developing unmanned drones that network together and operate in 'swarms.
' Predator drones have proven one of the most effective — and most controversial — weapons in the military arsenal.
And now, these unmanned aircraft are talking to each other.
Until now, each drone was controlled remotely by a single person over a satellite link.
A new tech, demoed last week by NAVAIR, adds brains to those drones and allows one person to control a small squadron of them in an intelligent, semiautonomous network.
'</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966516</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to reprimand, really.</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1257277620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Turn it off and replace the code" is easy to type, but in practice it is immensely difficult, to the point of impracticality.  It's far more likely to just stop working and be a UXO threat... or be salvage for terrorists (if they don't blow an arm off in the process).</p><p>Sibling to parent post actually got it right; a compromised system is more of a hazard than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Turn it off and replace the code " is easy to type , but in practice it is immensely difficult , to the point of impracticality .
It 's far more likely to just stop working and be a UXO threat... or be salvage for terrorists ( if they do n't blow an arm off in the process ) .Sibling to parent post actually got it right ; a compromised system is more of a hazard than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Turn it off and replace the code" is easy to type, but in practice it is immensely difficult, to the point of impracticality.
It's far more likely to just stop working and be a UXO threat... or be salvage for terrorists (if they don't blow an arm off in the process).Sibling to parent post actually got it right; a compromised system is more of a hazard than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967098</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1257281100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the other guy said.</p><p>i made that common mistake (learned from Star Trek) on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. about a year ago and some one pointed out the difference. It's not your fault, blame lazy Sci-Fi writers. But know you know, which is half the battle.</p><p>Be careful with dictionaries, esp. Websters.  Most dictionaries are written by descriptivists.  A class of moron who think words mean whatever anyone feels like them meaning.  They list how words are (ab)used, not necessarily what they *mean*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the other guy said.i made that common mistake ( learned from Star Trek ) on / .
about a year ago and some one pointed out the difference .
It 's not your fault , blame lazy Sci-Fi writers .
But know you know , which is half the battle.Be careful with dictionaries , esp .
Websters. Most dictionaries are written by descriptivists .
A class of moron who think words mean whatever anyone feels like them meaning .
They list how words are ( ab ) used , not necessarily what they * mean * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the other guy said.i made that common mistake (learned from Star Trek) on /.
about a year ago and some one pointed out the difference.
It's not your fault, blame lazy Sci-Fi writers.
But know you know, which is half the battle.Be careful with dictionaries, esp.
Websters.  Most dictionaries are written by descriptivists.
A class of moron who think words mean whatever anyone feels like them meaning.
They list how words are (ab)used, not necessarily what they *mean*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965948</id>
	<title>And we call this new technology...</title>
	<author>Shadow Wrought</author>
	<datestamp>1257274980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skynet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skynet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skynet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29972090</id>
	<title>Saw this on the news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257258360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They had one of the 'operators' and one the the command drones.  The soldier didn't say much, but the robot gave a nice quote: "Pak Chooie Unf".</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They had one of the 'operators ' and one the the command drones .
The soldier did n't say much , but the robot gave a nice quote : " Pak Chooie Unf " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had one of the 'operators' and one the the command drones.
The soldier didn't say much, but the robot gave a nice quote: "Pak Chooie Unf".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138</id>
	<title>Controversy what?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1257281220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Controversial?  The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds.  Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Controversial ?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds .
Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Controversial?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds.
Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967288</id>
	<title>Re:We need robots that can walk around...</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1257281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.defense-update.com/features/2009/october/yellow-jacket\_cied\_291009.html" title="defense-update.com">We're doing that, too!</a> [defense-update.com]</p><p>Also, <a href="http://defense-update.com/features/2009/sept/1709009\_awapss.html" title="defense-update.com">this</a> [defense-update.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're doing that , too !
[ defense-update.com ] Also , this [ defense-update.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're doing that, too!
[defense-update.com]Also, this [defense-update.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966488</id>
	<title>RRTS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>realrealtimestrategy! The newest slashdot tag</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>realrealtimestrategy !
The newest slashdot tag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>realrealtimestrategy!
The newest slashdot tag</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967860</id>
	<title>Predator Drone Swarms, Attack!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly a step in the right direction.  There are 7 billion humans and they breed faster than staphylococcus in a 2-day-old corpse.  Everything about their many cultures is based on procreation, propogation, and resource consumption at the fastest possible rate.  The only things that have a chance of stopping them without annihiliating all the other species on the planet are machines that can target and destroy them, preferably by traumatic perforation with projectiles or shrapnel, or biomechanoids such as viruses.  I fully support predator drone swarms.  Let the cleansing begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly a step in the right direction .
There are 7 billion humans and they breed faster than staphylococcus in a 2-day-old corpse .
Everything about their many cultures is based on procreation , propogation , and resource consumption at the fastest possible rate .
The only things that have a chance of stopping them without annihiliating all the other species on the planet are machines that can target and destroy them , preferably by traumatic perforation with projectiles or shrapnel , or biomechanoids such as viruses .
I fully support predator drone swarms .
Let the cleansing begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly a step in the right direction.
There are 7 billion humans and they breed faster than staphylococcus in a 2-day-old corpse.
Everything about their many cultures is based on procreation, propogation, and resource consumption at the fastest possible rate.
The only things that have a chance of stopping them without annihiliating all the other species on the planet are machines that can target and destroy them, preferably by traumatic perforation with projectiles or shrapnel, or biomechanoids such as viruses.
I fully support predator drone swarms.
Let the cleansing begin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965974</id>
	<title>Swarm by one person...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I told you all that my zerg micro would pay off! Now to join the navy and put my skills to good use!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I told you all that my zerg micro would pay off !
Now to join the navy and put my skills to good use !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told you all that my zerg micro would pay off!
Now to join the navy and put my skills to good use!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967604</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen this movie, and it was terrible</title>
	<author>hack  slash</author>
	<datestamp>1257240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It reminds me more of an episode of "Masters of Science Fiction"; <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779497/" title="imdb.com">Watchbird</a> [imdb.com] <br>
<br>
A scientist guy creates flying drones that aid in wars, taking out the enemy - specifically anyone who has intent or is in the process of harming US soldiers.<br>
But the government think the 'birds' will help fight crime at home by autonomously flying around in the sky above cities looking for people committing crime or even thinking about it.<br>
It all goes wrong when the 'birds' stop listening to their masters and start killing people for even minor infractions of the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me more of an episode of " Masters of Science Fiction " ; Watchbird [ imdb.com ] A scientist guy creates flying drones that aid in wars , taking out the enemy - specifically anyone who has intent or is in the process of harming US soldiers .
But the government think the 'birds ' will help fight crime at home by autonomously flying around in the sky above cities looking for people committing crime or even thinking about it .
It all goes wrong when the 'birds ' stop listening to their masters and start killing people for even minor infractions of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me more of an episode of "Masters of Science Fiction"; Watchbird [imdb.com] 

A scientist guy creates flying drones that aid in wars, taking out the enemy - specifically anyone who has intent or is in the process of harming US soldiers.
But the government think the 'birds' will help fight crime at home by autonomously flying around in the sky above cities looking for people committing crime or even thinking about it.
It all goes wrong when the 'birds' stop listening to their masters and start killing people for even minor infractions of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971182</id>
	<title>Where are the Wiggins?</title>
	<author>avitkus</author>
	<datestamp>1257253320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need Ender to fly a group of the UAVs, without him it just won't be right.  When will Locke and Demosthenes start blogging this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need Ender to fly a group of the UAVs , without him it just wo n't be right .
When will Locke and Demosthenes start blogging this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need Ender to fly a group of the UAVs, without him it just won't be right.
When will Locke and Demosthenes start blogging this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</id>
	<title>Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257274620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And personally, I'm not especially afraid the armed forces are going to change their tune on that aspect.  They most definitely want to have a human being in the firing loop.  And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And personally , I 'm not especially afraid the armed forces are going to change their tune on that aspect .
They most definitely want to have a human being in the firing loop .
And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own , we 're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up .
: ) But in all seriousness , this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And personally, I'm not especially afraid the armed forces are going to change their tune on that aspect.
They most definitely want to have a human being in the firing loop.
And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.
:)  But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29976304</id>
	<title>Peter Singer, Defence policy advisor interview</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1256993040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Former Defense policy advisor to President Obama, Peter Singer does <a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/robot-wars-part-1" title="abc.net.au">a great </a> [abc.net.au] <a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/robot-wars-part-2" title="abc.net.au">interview for </a> [abc.net.au] Hungry Beast on autonomous military robotics. Quite an interesting interview. It is a video but it won't start buffering until you hit play.</p><p>
He raises a good point about us human doing things like this and then thinking 'maybe that wasn't such a good idea'. So much for Asimov's laws for robotics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Former Defense policy advisor to President Obama , Peter Singer does a great [ abc.net.au ] interview for [ abc.net.au ] Hungry Beast on autonomous military robotics .
Quite an interesting interview .
It is a video but it wo n't start buffering until you hit play .
He raises a good point about us human doing things like this and then thinking 'maybe that was n't such a good idea' .
So much for Asimov 's laws for robotics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Former Defense policy advisor to President Obama, Peter Singer does a great  [abc.net.au] interview for  [abc.net.au] Hungry Beast on autonomous military robotics.
Quite an interesting interview.
It is a video but it won't start buffering until you hit play.
He raises a good point about us human doing things like this and then thinking 'maybe that wasn't such a good idea'.
So much for Asimov's laws for robotics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971510</id>
	<title>Battlestar Galactica.</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who's worried that if and when we get into a shooting war against a country who's military is primarily goat-based they'll have hacked these things and just shut them all off? Or jam them, or worse, turn them against us? Especially the jamming and just shutting them all of parts. Are these electronics using parts made in China? Is there a windows operating system connected to the network that's connected to the network, that runs these things? The next uber-botnet is going to allow you to not only send male enhancement spam but to slaughter civilians with your own army of predator drones? (Also, obligatory skynet reference and COOL)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who 's worried that if and when we get into a shooting war against a country who 's military is primarily goat-based they 'll have hacked these things and just shut them all off ?
Or jam them , or worse , turn them against us ?
Especially the jamming and just shutting them all of parts .
Are these electronics using parts made in China ?
Is there a windows operating system connected to the network that 's connected to the network , that runs these things ?
The next uber-botnet is going to allow you to not only send male enhancement spam but to slaughter civilians with your own army of predator drones ?
( Also , obligatory skynet reference and COOL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who's worried that if and when we get into a shooting war against a country who's military is primarily goat-based they'll have hacked these things and just shut them all off?
Or jam them, or worse, turn them against us?
Especially the jamming and just shutting them all of parts.
Are these electronics using parts made in China?
Is there a windows operating system connected to the network that's connected to the network, that runs these things?
The next uber-botnet is going to allow you to not only send male enhancement spam but to slaughter civilians with your own army of predator drones?
(Also, obligatory skynet reference and COOL)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966426</id>
	<title>A larger drone...</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While useful, isn't this just a larger drone with it's parts connected by signals rather than wires?  Sure, it's got ablative resilience (one of three drones can go boom and you still have the rest of the formation), and more payload (more drones to cary stuff), but there doesn't seem to be any capacity for communication beyond holding formation and relaying orders from the human controller.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While useful , is n't this just a larger drone with it 's parts connected by signals rather than wires ?
Sure , it 's got ablative resilience ( one of three drones can go boom and you still have the rest of the formation ) , and more payload ( more drones to cary stuff ) , but there does n't seem to be any capacity for communication beyond holding formation and relaying orders from the human controller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While useful, isn't this just a larger drone with it's parts connected by signals rather than wires?
Sure, it's got ablative resilience (one of three drones can go boom and you still have the rest of the formation), and more payload (more drones to cary stuff), but there doesn't seem to be any capacity for communication beyond holding formation and relaying orders from the human controller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966784</id>
	<title>Re:Well that explains the Starcraft II delay....</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257279120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So *that's* why the flamethrowers have been asking if we've got any questions about propane accessories!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So * that 's * why the flamethrowers have been asking if we 've got any questions about propane accessories !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So *that's* why the flamethrowers have been asking if we've got any questions about propane accessories!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.30034550</id>
	<title>All those fancy weapons have to be paid for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All it really takes is for the Chinese to quit buying our debt and dumping the dollars they already have and we are finished as a superpower. No military technology can save us from ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All it really takes is for the Chinese to quit buying our debt and dumping the dollars they already have and we are finished as a superpower .
No military technology can save us from ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it really takes is for the Chinese to quit buying our debt and dumping the dollars they already have and we are finished as a superpower.
No military technology can save us from ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29976362</id>
	<title>Re:Controversy what?</title>
	<author>Dutchmaan</author>
	<datestamp>1256993700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Controversial?  The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds..</p></div><p>oh finally finally! I KNEW this day would come!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/gleeeee</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Controversial ?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds..oh finally finally !
I KNEW this day would come !
/gleeeee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Controversial?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds..oh finally finally!
I KNEW this day would come!
/gleeeee
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not necessarily up to the military. Congress has blocked funding on a program that could autonomously fire grenades, much like a minefield, except much easier to set up, program and dismantle afterwards. Congress, and thus the people still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.</p><p>There have been cases where our own drones have been shot down by us because they did not return to a safe mode when instructed to. As of now, that could simply mean that they were in an armed state when it shouldn't have been and couldn't change back.</p><p>A co-worker of mine always jokes that we should be adding requirements that state if the system becomes self aware it should be loyal to the US Constitution. I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not necessarily up to the military .
Congress has blocked funding on a program that could autonomously fire grenades , much like a minefield , except much easier to set up , program and dismantle afterwards .
Congress , and thus the people still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.There have been cases where our own drones have been shot down by us because they did not return to a safe mode when instructed to .
As of now , that could simply mean that they were in an armed state when it should n't have been and could n't change back.A co-worker of mine always jokes that we should be adding requirements that state if the system becomes self aware it should be loyal to the US Constitution .
I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not necessarily up to the military.
Congress has blocked funding on a program that could autonomously fire grenades, much like a minefield, except much easier to set up, program and dismantle afterwards.
Congress, and thus the people still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.There have been cases where our own drones have been shot down by us because they did not return to a safe mode when instructed to.
As of now, that could simply mean that they were in an armed state when it shouldn't have been and couldn't change back.A co-worker of mine always jokes that we should be adding requirements that state if the system becomes self aware it should be loyal to the US Constitution.
I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969348</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen this movie.  I think it was called Eagle Eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen this movie .
I think it was called Eagle Eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen this movie.
I think it was called Eagle Eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</id>
	<title>Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1257276480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're on the subject, let's talk about the difference between drones/UAVs and robots so we use the right words.</p><p>A drone/UAV is controlled remotely by a human.  If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area, it is function as a robot.  With the US military, there is a "man in the loop" for any attack using a UAV.  The bomb disposal machines are not robots.  They are remote controlled.  A land mine would be closer to a robot.</p><p>A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person.  An air to air heat seeking missile is a robot.  The software tells it what to do.</p><p>An android is a robot in the shape of a human, like the T800.</p><p>Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots.  They are vehicles piloted by people.  The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient.  Big metal walking thing != robot.  Absence of pilot inside != robot.</p><p>The machines in Battle Bots are remote controlled cars with armor and weapons.  They are NOT robots.  But it would be awesome if they were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're on the subject , let 's talk about the difference between drones/UAVs and robots so we use the right words.A drone/UAV is controlled remotely by a human .
If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area , it is function as a robot .
With the US military , there is a " man in the loop " for any attack using a UAV .
The bomb disposal machines are not robots .
They are remote controlled .
A land mine would be closer to a robot.A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person .
An air to air heat seeking missile is a robot .
The software tells it what to do.An android is a robot in the shape of a human , like the T800.Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots .
They are vehicles piloted by people .
The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient .
Big metal walking thing ! = robot .
Absence of pilot inside ! = robot.The machines in Battle Bots are remote controlled cars with armor and weapons .
They are NOT robots .
But it would be awesome if they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're on the subject, let's talk about the difference between drones/UAVs and robots so we use the right words.A drone/UAV is controlled remotely by a human.
If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area, it is function as a robot.
With the US military, there is a "man in the loop" for any attack using a UAV.
The bomb disposal machines are not robots.
They are remote controlled.
A land mine would be closer to a robot.A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person.
An air to air heat seeking missile is a robot.
The software tells it what to do.An android is a robot in the shape of a human, like the T800.Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots.
They are vehicles piloted by people.
The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient.
Big metal walking thing != robot.
Absence of pilot inside != robot.The machines in Battle Bots are remote controlled cars with armor and weapons.
They are NOT robots.
But it would be awesome if they were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969398</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1257247320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I actually don't expect this to happen. I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for. But it is frighteningly easy to imagine."</p><p>So I can just type whatever the hell I want to here, cause you don't read the last half of posts anyways. Wanker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I actually do n't expect this to happen .
I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for .
But it is frighteningly easy to imagine .
" So I can just type whatever the hell I want to here , cause you do n't read the last half of posts anyways .
Wanker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I actually don't expect this to happen.
I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for.
But it is frighteningly easy to imagine.
"So I can just type whatever the hell I want to here, cause you don't read the last half of posts anyways.
Wanker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966112</id>
	<title>In future releases...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In future releases, this single person will be able to select a subset of these drones by clicking and dragging the mouse to form a rectangle over the desired units and assign sub-group numbers by pressing ctrl-n (where n is 1 to 9) on the keyboard.

The most equipped drone will also be able to pick up ancient scrolls lost in the valleys of Afghanistan which would enhance its armor and features, such as Insightful +3 for improved vision.

By the way, the command center is being built within the U.S. base in South Korea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In future releases , this single person will be able to select a subset of these drones by clicking and dragging the mouse to form a rectangle over the desired units and assign sub-group numbers by pressing ctrl-n ( where n is 1 to 9 ) on the keyboard .
The most equipped drone will also be able to pick up ancient scrolls lost in the valleys of Afghanistan which would enhance its armor and features , such as Insightful + 3 for improved vision .
By the way , the command center is being built within the U.S. base in South Korea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In future releases, this single person will be able to select a subset of these drones by clicking and dragging the mouse to form a rectangle over the desired units and assign sub-group numbers by pressing ctrl-n (where n is 1 to 9) on the keyboard.
The most equipped drone will also be able to pick up ancient scrolls lost in the valleys of Afghanistan which would enhance its armor and features, such as Insightful +3 for improved vision.
By the way, the command center is being built within the U.S. base in South Korea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969794</id>
	<title>um who are these idiots fighting now</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1257248520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG its oscar the dolphin gt the swarmbots ready</p><p>ATTACK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG its oscar the dolphin gt the swarmbots readyATTACK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG its oscar the dolphin gt the swarmbots readyATTACK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734</id>
	<title>Out of context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why they are calling these UAVs "swarms" is because they are using Particle Swarm Optimization to determine their flight path and schedule.  (The basis for this research was done at my school, Purdue, so I know a lot about it.)  The whole 'networking together' idea is not necessarily true either.  The UAV's status is reported to a central machine/server/program that constantly reprocesses the incoming data to determine an optimal order of operations (such as blowing this up, looking at this, etc.)  The program considers all of the situations of various other drones, in addition to other external data (wind speed, etc) to determine the optimal result.</p><p>Taken out of context, it sounds a lot like terminator type stuff, but it's not really... it's more like optimizing the operations of drones so that they can be controlled by less people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why they are calling these UAVs " swarms " is because they are using Particle Swarm Optimization to determine their flight path and schedule .
( The basis for this research was done at my school , Purdue , so I know a lot about it .
) The whole 'networking together ' idea is not necessarily true either .
The UAV 's status is reported to a central machine/server/program that constantly reprocesses the incoming data to determine an optimal order of operations ( such as blowing this up , looking at this , etc .
) The program considers all of the situations of various other drones , in addition to other external data ( wind speed , etc ) to determine the optimal result.Taken out of context , it sounds a lot like terminator type stuff , but it 's not really... it 's more like optimizing the operations of drones so that they can be controlled by less people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why they are calling these UAVs "swarms" is because they are using Particle Swarm Optimization to determine their flight path and schedule.
(The basis for this research was done at my school, Purdue, so I know a lot about it.
)  The whole 'networking together' idea is not necessarily true either.
The UAV's status is reported to a central machine/server/program that constantly reprocesses the incoming data to determine an optimal order of operations (such as blowing this up, looking at this, etc.
)  The program considers all of the situations of various other drones, in addition to other external data (wind speed, etc) to determine the optimal result.Taken out of context, it sounds a lot like terminator type stuff, but it's not really... it's more like optimizing the operations of drones so that they can be controlled by less people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968680</id>
	<title>Oblig. xkcd</title>
	<author>FallinWithStyle</author>
	<datestamp>1257244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/652/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/652/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/652/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/652/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973098</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257266160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That will work great until they run into the Fourth Directive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution .
That will work great until they run into the Fourth Directive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told him that could cause a lot of trouble for politicians in Washington depending on how it interprets the Constitution.
That will work great until they run into the Fourth Directive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966472</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a little concerned that the "fire authorization" part could be reduced to a dialog box that says, "Fire? Yes. No." Then they'll put one person behind a dozen drones, who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target. As soon as the dialog pops up, he clicks "yes" without checking out the situation at all or giving the appropriate amount of thought to whether it's really right to fire or not. They could easily design drones that technically keep a human in the loop, but reduce his role so much that he doesn't have the information or awareness required to make an informed decision.</p><p>I actually don't expect this to happen. I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for. But it is frighteningly easy to imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little concerned that the " fire authorization " part could be reduced to a dialog box that says , " Fire ?
Yes. No .
" Then they 'll put one person behind a dozen drones , who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target .
As soon as the dialog pops up , he clicks " yes " without checking out the situation at all or giving the appropriate amount of thought to whether it 's really right to fire or not .
They could easily design drones that technically keep a human in the loop , but reduce his role so much that he does n't have the information or awareness required to make an informed decision.I actually do n't expect this to happen .
I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for .
But it is frighteningly easy to imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little concerned that the "fire authorization" part could be reduced to a dialog box that says, "Fire?
Yes. No.
" Then they'll put one person behind a dozen drones, who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target.
As soon as the dialog pops up, he clicks "yes" without checking out the situation at all or giving the appropriate amount of thought to whether it's really right to fire or not.
They could easily design drones that technically keep a human in the loop, but reduce his role so much that he doesn't have the information or awareness required to make an informed decision.I actually don't expect this to happen.
I think the military gives more thought to moral matters than people give them credit for.
But it is frighteningly easy to imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966308</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>silver69</author>
	<datestamp>1257276540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say "I for one welcome are new overloads" but I think it is a little to close to home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say " I for one welcome are new overloads " but I think it is a little to close to home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say "I for one welcome are new overloads" but I think it is a little to close to home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967696</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1257240600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Apparently you aren't familiar with the phrase "Disassemble Number Five".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up .
: ) Apparently you are n't familiar with the phrase " Disassemble Number Five " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.
:)Apparently you aren't familiar with the phrase "Disassemble Number Five".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967322</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257238800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our new robot-brained overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new robot-brained overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new robot-brained overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966078</id>
	<title>starcraft</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1257275580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[protoss voice]Carrier has arrived.[/protoss voice] *releases swarm of autonomous drones*</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ protoss voice ] Carrier has arrived .
[ /protoss voice ] * releases swarm of autonomous drones *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[protoss voice]Carrier has arrived.
[/protoss voice] *releases swarm of autonomous drones*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967968</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology."</p><p>Humans, yes, but not necessarily the military. Examine the number of private contractors that the military uses (if not necessarily for combat roles).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But in all seriousness , this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology .
" Humans , yes , but not necessarily the military .
Examine the number of private contractors that the military uses ( if not necessarily for combat roles ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.
"Humans, yes, but not necessarily the military.
Examine the number of private contractors that the military uses (if not necessarily for combat roles).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966504</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1257277560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.</i></p><p>Well the issue here is that the US military is going to be fighting human targets for some time so the delay between a human operator in a bunker versus the target they are fighting.</p><p>Now, if the US ever went against an enemy whose targeting was based on computer decisions leaving humans out of the loop, then a human operator might be too slow to fight toe to toe and the US military decides the only way to maintain an edge would be to automate the systems completely as well.</p><p>Seeing no other nation at this point is attempting a complete automated system to beat a remote control system, it may not happen for another decade or so.</p><p>And even then... Such a system will not be deployed by anyone other than a major power like China and Russia so it will be doubtful we will ever fight them directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own , we 're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.Well the issue here is that the US military is going to be fighting human targets for some time so the delay between a human operator in a bunker versus the target they are fighting.Now , if the US ever went against an enemy whose targeting was based on computer decisions leaving humans out of the loop , then a human operator might be too slow to fight toe to toe and the US military decides the only way to maintain an edge would be to automate the systems completely as well.Seeing no other nation at this point is attempting a complete automated system to beat a remote control system , it may not happen for another decade or so.And even then... Such a system will not be deployed by anyone other than a major power like China and Russia so it will be doubtful we will ever fight them directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.Well the issue here is that the US military is going to be fighting human targets for some time so the delay between a human operator in a bunker versus the target they are fighting.Now, if the US ever went against an enemy whose targeting was based on computer decisions leaving humans out of the loop, then a human operator might be too slow to fight toe to toe and the US military decides the only way to maintain an edge would be to automate the systems completely as well.Seeing no other nation at this point is attempting a complete automated system to beat a remote control system, it may not happen for another decade or so.And even then... Such a system will not be deployed by anyone other than a major power like China and Russia so it will be doubtful we will ever fight them directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971284</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen this movie, and it was terrible</title>
	<author>chakras</author>
	<datestamp>1257253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SPOILER ALERT !!!!  Plot of Stealth</p><p>Flying Knight Rider is good.<br>Flying Knight Rider turns bad.<br>Flying Knight Rider turns good again, but dies.</p><p>THE END</p><p>Yup just plane terrible....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SPOILER ALERT ! ! ! !
Plot of StealthFlying Knight Rider is good.Flying Knight Rider turns bad.Flying Knight Rider turns good again , but dies.THE ENDYup just plane terrible... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPOILER ALERT !!!!
Plot of StealthFlying Knight Rider is good.Flying Knight Rider turns bad.Flying Knight Rider turns good again, but dies.THE ENDYup just plane terrible....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971644</id>
	<title>Re:Out of context</title>
	<author>Iced Cubicle</author>
	<datestamp>1257255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually work on the team that handles the swarming aspect of the system. Entities in the swarm do not report to a central server as you purport. It is not PSO which actually has nothing to do with our approach. Each entity is responsible for knowing the location and task of other entities in the swarm. This enables us to scale the system very efficiently by eliminating a centralized server that maintains knowledge of the environment and entity state.

While the swarm is autonomous, there can be a man in the loop. In the scenarios we were testing in, this was a requirement but that is not to say that it couldn't run without one. Even when operational, I do not see there ever being a case where a human operator will not be in the loop given current doctrine and rules of engagement.

You are correct, this is not really "terminator type stuff," it is an effort to decrease human risk, increase intelligence gathering and other operational efficiency.

With so may references to Skynet in this entire thread, if this truly is the start of Skynet, then I for one will welcome my Terminator assassin sent back from the future to prevent this from happening and you can all say that you told me so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually work on the team that handles the swarming aspect of the system .
Entities in the swarm do not report to a central server as you purport .
It is not PSO which actually has nothing to do with our approach .
Each entity is responsible for knowing the location and task of other entities in the swarm .
This enables us to scale the system very efficiently by eliminating a centralized server that maintains knowledge of the environment and entity state .
While the swarm is autonomous , there can be a man in the loop .
In the scenarios we were testing in , this was a requirement but that is not to say that it could n't run without one .
Even when operational , I do not see there ever being a case where a human operator will not be in the loop given current doctrine and rules of engagement .
You are correct , this is not really " terminator type stuff , " it is an effort to decrease human risk , increase intelligence gathering and other operational efficiency .
With so may references to Skynet in this entire thread , if this truly is the start of Skynet , then I for one will welcome my Terminator assassin sent back from the future to prevent this from happening and you can all say that you told me so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually work on the team that handles the swarming aspect of the system.
Entities in the swarm do not report to a central server as you purport.
It is not PSO which actually has nothing to do with our approach.
Each entity is responsible for knowing the location and task of other entities in the swarm.
This enables us to scale the system very efficiently by eliminating a centralized server that maintains knowledge of the environment and entity state.
While the swarm is autonomous, there can be a man in the loop.
In the scenarios we were testing in, this was a requirement but that is not to say that it couldn't run without one.
Even when operational, I do not see there ever being a case where a human operator will not be in the loop given current doctrine and rules of engagement.
You are correct, this is not really "terminator type stuff," it is an effort to decrease human risk, increase intelligence gathering and other operational efficiency.
With so may references to Skynet in this entire thread, if this truly is the start of Skynet, then I for one will welcome my Terminator assassin sent back from the future to prevent this from happening and you can all say that you told me so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969176</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257246420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots. They are vehicles piloted by people. The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient. Big metal walking thing != robot. Absence of pilot inside != robot.</p></div><p>Technically, the vehicle Transformers are Mecha that happen to be sentient.  There's an episode of the Rodimus-Prime era Transformers series where Cobra Commander transfers the Autobot minds into cloned human bodies (a tech from a previous GIJoe episode featuring Shipwreck) and they have to pilot their own Mecha bodies.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only\_Human\_(Transformers\_episode)#Season\_3\_.281986-1987.29</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots .
They are vehicles piloted by people .
The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient .
Big metal walking thing ! = robot .
Absence of pilot inside ! = robot.Technically , the vehicle Transformers are Mecha that happen to be sentient .
There 's an episode of the Rodimus-Prime era Transformers series where Cobra Commander transfers the Autobot minds into cloned human bodies ( a tech from a previous GIJoe episode featuring Shipwreck ) and they have to pilot their own Mecha bodies.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only \ _Human \ _ ( Transformers \ _episode ) # Season \ _3 \ _.281986-1987.29</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mecha in Robotech and the like... are NOT robots.
They are vehicles piloted by people.
The transformers are robots that happen to be sapient.
Big metal walking thing != robot.
Absence of pilot inside != robot.Technically, the vehicle Transformers are Mecha that happen to be sentient.
There's an episode of the Rodimus-Prime era Transformers series where Cobra Commander transfers the Autobot minds into cloned human bodies (a tech from a previous GIJoe episode featuring Shipwreck) and they have to pilot their own Mecha bodies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only\_Human\_(Transformers\_episode)#Season\_3\_.281986-1987.29
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971758</id>
	<title>Not Brains!</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1257256140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary says they added "brains." I disagree, because I ambushed and tried eating on of these new drones, and I did not find it to be satisfying in the least. Quite a let down, really.

Sincerely,
Steve the zombie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says they added " brains .
" I disagree , because I ambushed and tried eating on of these new drones , and I did not find it to be satisfying in the least .
Quite a let down , really .
Sincerely , Steve the zombie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says they added "brains.
" I disagree, because I ambushed and tried eating on of these new drones, and I did not find it to be satisfying in the least.
Quite a let down, really.
Sincerely,
Steve the zombie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967868</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen this movie, and it was terrible</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1257241380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah that was a pretty horrible movie.</p><p>What most people missed (I only saw it because I was projecting it) was an extra scene at the end of the credits showing the wreckage of the plane being looked over by the North Koreans.  Then they scan over the damaged AI unit of the plane (the crystally thing) which suddenly starts to glow again.  Sequel anyone?</p><p>The biggest problem with that plane though seemed to be that it thought it was much better than the people commanding it.  Which was probably true in that case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that was a pretty horrible movie.What most people missed ( I only saw it because I was projecting it ) was an extra scene at the end of the credits showing the wreckage of the plane being looked over by the North Koreans .
Then they scan over the damaged AI unit of the plane ( the crystally thing ) which suddenly starts to glow again .
Sequel anyone ? The biggest problem with that plane though seemed to be that it thought it was much better than the people commanding it .
Which was probably true in that case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that was a pretty horrible movie.What most people missed (I only saw it because I was projecting it) was an extra scene at the end of the credits showing the wreckage of the plane being looked over by the North Koreans.
Then they scan over the damaged AI unit of the plane (the crystally thing) which suddenly starts to glow again.
Sequel anyone?The biggest problem with that plane though seemed to be that it thought it was much better than the people commanding it.
Which was probably true in that case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966756</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Timmy D Programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1257278940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number Five is Alive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number Five is Alive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number Five is Alive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966148</id>
	<title>For our sake...</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1257275820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope those <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/03/1450211" title="slashdot.org">new rats</a> [slashdot.org] don't manage to take over the networked swarm drones!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope those new rats [ slashdot.org ] do n't manage to take over the networked swarm drones !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope those new rats [slashdot.org] don't manage to take over the networked swarm drones!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974104</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257273360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cute, we've been doing this for about a year now. Tried to sell the tech to Raytheon, we were told they only work with US firms...</p><p>edit: the captcha was "automata"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cute , we 've been doing this for about a year now .
Tried to sell the tech to Raytheon , we were told they only work with US firms...edit : the captcha was " automata " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cute, we've been doing this for about a year now.
Tried to sell the tech to Raytheon, we were told they only work with US firms...edit: the captcha was "automata" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966274</id>
	<title>Easier to reprimand, really.</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1257276420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You turn it off and replace the code. Try doing the same with a human soldier, pilot, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You turn it off and replace the code .
Try doing the same with a human soldier , pilot , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You turn it off and replace the code.
Try doing the same with a human soldier, pilot, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970594</id>
	<title>Botting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257251160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they're basically botting like that guy with 5 shamans that hit me with chain lightening all at once to kill me in WoW?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they 're basically botting like that guy with 5 shamans that hit me with chain lightening all at once to kill me in WoW ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they're basically botting like that guy with 5 shamans that hit me with chain lightening all at once to kill me in WoW?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</id>
	<title>We need robots that can walk around...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257274620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this air stuff is awesome, but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this air stuff is awesome , but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this air stuff is awesome, but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967060</id>
	<title>What do we do when they go mustang?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1257280740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unv9C2t7f5c" title="youtube.com">watch the precision</a> [youtube.com] of the people flying Predators and Reapers, one wonders what would be the incentive to give the machines more autonomy.

</p><p>There have been armed UAV's that have <a href="http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=27924&amp;Itemid=225" title="army.mil">gone off the reservation</a> [army.mil] and failed to respond to commands or their default programming, which tells them to fly home.

</p><p>I'm not sure we want to give something with that kind of bomb load more latitude.  You could maybe automate the actual flying, let the auto-pilot handle the aircraft control but I'm not really seeing the motivation to drive the technology too far beyond that.

</p><p>Now for reconnaissance I could see driving the autonomy envelope.  Because that's largely repetitive and boring as all get out.  And, if something goes wrong, you don't have a full load of ordnance crashing into some politically charged civilian target.  Ironically Predators first mission was recon, then someone got the big idea to hang a couple Hellfire's on the wings and that's how we got where we are today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you watch the precision [ youtube.com ] of the people flying Predators and Reapers , one wonders what would be the incentive to give the machines more autonomy .
There have been armed UAV 's that have gone off the reservation [ army.mil ] and failed to respond to commands or their default programming , which tells them to fly home .
I 'm not sure we want to give something with that kind of bomb load more latitude .
You could maybe automate the actual flying , let the auto-pilot handle the aircraft control but I 'm not really seeing the motivation to drive the technology too far beyond that .
Now for reconnaissance I could see driving the autonomy envelope .
Because that 's largely repetitive and boring as all get out .
And , if something goes wrong , you do n't have a full load of ordnance crashing into some politically charged civilian target .
Ironically Predators first mission was recon , then someone got the big idea to hang a couple Hellfire 's on the wings and that 's how we got where we are today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you watch the precision [youtube.com] of the people flying Predators and Reapers, one wonders what would be the incentive to give the machines more autonomy.
There have been armed UAV's that have gone off the reservation [army.mil] and failed to respond to commands or their default programming, which tells them to fly home.
I'm not sure we want to give something with that kind of bomb load more latitude.
You could maybe automate the actual flying, let the auto-pilot handle the aircraft control but I'm not really seeing the motivation to drive the technology too far beyond that.
Now for reconnaissance I could see driving the autonomy envelope.
Because that's largely repetitive and boring as all get out.
And, if something goes wrong, you don't have a full load of ordnance crashing into some politically charged civilian target.
Ironically Predators first mission was recon, then someone got the big idea to hang a couple Hellfire's on the wings and that's how we got where we are today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966656</id>
	<title>Re:We need robots that can walk around...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257278340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>All this air stuff is awesome, but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Not quite sure of my own reasoning on this yet, but we need to at least recognize the danger of making war too safe for any party.  It doesn't seem too far off that we could replace foot soldiers with ground-based drones, and station our troops out of DC metro, with time after a raid on [insert 3rd world village] to make the kids' soccer game and have some pizza over Idol.</p><p>Remember, we put a politician in charge of our military and historically the human cost of going to war has always had to be contemplated.  When an entity (be it a politician, a party, a country, an alliance) can conquer another without loss of life (on its side, of course), it'll likely become too alluring.  We already have a problem with empire-building tendencies with the status quo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this air stuff is awesome , but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance .
Not quite sure of my own reasoning on this yet , but we need to at least recognize the danger of making war too safe for any party .
It does n't seem too far off that we could replace foot soldiers with ground-based drones , and station our troops out of DC metro , with time after a raid on [ insert 3rd world village ] to make the kids ' soccer game and have some pizza over Idol.Remember , we put a politician in charge of our military and historically the human cost of going to war has always had to be contemplated .
When an entity ( be it a politician , a party , a country , an alliance ) can conquer another without loss of life ( on its side , of course ) , it 'll likely become too alluring .
We already have a problem with empire-building tendencies with the status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> All this air stuff is awesome, but the guys on the ground could still use a device that can detect a buried pipe bomb from a safe distance.
Not quite sure of my own reasoning on this yet, but we need to at least recognize the danger of making war too safe for any party.
It doesn't seem too far off that we could replace foot soldiers with ground-based drones, and station our troops out of DC metro, with time after a raid on [insert 3rd world village] to make the kids' soccer game and have some pizza over Idol.Remember, we put a politician in charge of our military and historically the human cost of going to war has always had to be contemplated.
When an entity (be it a politician, a party, a country, an alliance) can conquer another without loss of life (on its side, of course), it'll likely become too alluring.
We already have a problem with empire-building tendencies with the status quo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966862</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257279660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I'm a little concerned that the "fire authorization" part could be reduced to a dialog box that says, "Fire? Yes. No." Then they'll put one person behind a dozen drones, who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>You know, specious strawman arguments like that don't even deserve the honor of a response, but unfortunately they're all too common.</p><p>You clearly have absolutely NO idea how operations software is written, nor how pilots behave.  But that isn't stopping you from just making shit up and then using it as a basis for a criticism.</p><p>Homer Simpson is NOT piloting these UAVs, and Krusty the Clown is NOT writing the software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little concerned that the " fire authorization " part could be reduced to a dialog box that says , " Fire ?
Yes. No .
" Then they 'll put one person behind a dozen drones , who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target .
You know , specious strawman arguments like that do n't even deserve the honor of a response , but unfortunately they 're all too common.You clearly have absolutely NO idea how operations software is written , nor how pilots behave .
But that is n't stopping you from just making shit up and then using it as a basis for a criticism.Homer Simpson is NOT piloting these UAVs , and Krusty the Clown is NOT writing the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm a little concerned that the "fire authorization" part could be reduced to a dialog box that says, "Fire?
Yes. No.
" Then they'll put one person behind a dozen drones, who will sit there reading a magazine while the drones fly out to the target.
You know, specious strawman arguments like that don't even deserve the honor of a response, but unfortunately they're all too common.You clearly have absolutely NO idea how operations software is written, nor how pilots behave.
But that isn't stopping you from just making shit up and then using it as a basis for a criticism.Homer Simpson is NOT piloting these UAVs, and Krusty the Clown is NOT writing the software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966422</id>
	<title>Re:Well that explains the Starcraft II delay....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard made the training simulator for the drones/swarms so the military could release a game to the public to recruit operators and pilots through various military sponsored tournaments.</p><p>Just don't tell Jack Thompson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard made the training simulator for the drones/swarms so the military could release a game to the public to recruit operators and pilots through various military sponsored tournaments.Just do n't tell Jack Thompson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard made the training simulator for the drones/swarms so the military could release a game to the public to recruit operators and pilots through various military sponsored tournaments.Just don't tell Jack Thompson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973738</id>
	<title>Re:Controversy what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Controversial?  The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds.  Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.</p></div><p>They're controversial for a few reasons. First, their operators are civilians at a further physical and emotional distance from war than any military pilot ever was. There's a very convincing argument to be made that if we remove the emotional toll of war, we make it more attractive, and that's something we should be careful of.<br>
Second, they're controversial because of how they've been employed. They're being used in Pakistan to eliminate "high-profile" targets, but nobody outside of the CIA or the administration knows exactly what that means. When is it okay to fire a missile into a crowded area to eliminate an insurgent? When the target has murdered hundreds of people? Probably. When he has been known to do business with terrorists? Maybe. When he spends a lot of time on Al-Queda.com? I don't really think so. But the CIA is making these decisions without telling us their thought process; we don't even know what they think merits an assassination, let alone whether or not their decision is morally defensible.<br>
Third, the psychological effect on a native population of using drones hasn't really been considered. Is it a good long-term strategy to make people in the middle-east fear and hate us? There's a good debate to be had on that question, but if we decide that winning hearts and minds is the way to go then we should probably stop terrifying ordinary Pakistani civilians with invisible, omnipresent death-machines.<br> <br>
Don't get me wrong; drones have saved American lives and their tactical usefulness is inarguable. But the national conversation on the morality of these things just hasn't really happened, and I feel it needs to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Controversial ?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds .
Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.They 're controversial for a few reasons .
First , their operators are civilians at a further physical and emotional distance from war than any military pilot ever was .
There 's a very convincing argument to be made that if we remove the emotional toll of war , we make it more attractive , and that 's something we should be careful of .
Second , they 're controversial because of how they 've been employed .
They 're being used in Pakistan to eliminate " high-profile " targets , but nobody outside of the CIA or the administration knows exactly what that means .
When is it okay to fire a missile into a crowded area to eliminate an insurgent ?
When the target has murdered hundreds of people ?
Probably. When he has been known to do business with terrorists ?
Maybe. When he spends a lot of time on Al-Queda.com ?
I do n't really think so .
But the CIA is making these decisions without telling us their thought process ; we do n't even know what they think merits an assassination , let alone whether or not their decision is morally defensible .
Third , the psychological effect on a native population of using drones has n't really been considered .
Is it a good long-term strategy to make people in the middle-east fear and hate us ?
There 's a good debate to be had on that question , but if we decide that winning hearts and minds is the way to go then we should probably stop terrifying ordinary Pakistani civilians with invisible , omnipresent death-machines .
Do n't get me wrong ; drones have saved American lives and their tactical usefulness is inarguable .
But the national conversation on the morality of these things just has n't really happened , and I feel it needs to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Controversial?
The only controversy is people who want to fly planes but are losing their jobs to video game nerds.
Really...nuclear weapons is controversial....these things are just plain awesome for military personnel safety.They're controversial for a few reasons.
First, their operators are civilians at a further physical and emotional distance from war than any military pilot ever was.
There's a very convincing argument to be made that if we remove the emotional toll of war, we make it more attractive, and that's something we should be careful of.
Second, they're controversial because of how they've been employed.
They're being used in Pakistan to eliminate "high-profile" targets, but nobody outside of the CIA or the administration knows exactly what that means.
When is it okay to fire a missile into a crowded area to eliminate an insurgent?
When the target has murdered hundreds of people?
Probably. When he has been known to do business with terrorists?
Maybe. When he spends a lot of time on Al-Queda.com?
I don't really think so.
But the CIA is making these decisions without telling us their thought process; we don't even know what they think merits an assassination, let alone whether or not their decision is morally defensible.
Third, the psychological effect on a native population of using drones hasn't really been considered.
Is it a good long-term strategy to make people in the middle-east fear and hate us?
There's a good debate to be had on that question, but if we decide that winning hearts and minds is the way to go then we should probably stop terrifying ordinary Pakistani civilians with invisible, omnipresent death-machines.
Don't get me wrong; drones have saved American lives and their tactical usefulness is inarguable.
But the national conversation on the morality of these things just hasn't really happened, and I feel it needs to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>geckipede</author>
	<datestamp>1257276840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not universally true:  <a href="http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/October/Pages/FailureToFieldRightKindsofRobotsCostsLives,ArmyCommanderSays.aspx" title="nationalde...gazine.org">http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/October/Pages/FailureToFieldRightKindsofRobotsCostsLives,ArmyCommanderSays.aspx</a> [nationalde...gazine.org] <br> <br>

There is at least one general who believes that robots should be deployed right now with the ability to fire their own weapons. Quoted from the linked article:<blockquote><div><p>"There's a resistance saying that armed ground robots are not ready for the battlefield. I'm not of that camp," he told National Defense.

That includes the robot autonomously firing the weapon or, in other words, shooting without a human in the decision loop, he said. SWORDS never had that feature, and the idea of armed autonomous robots firing guns on the battlefield remains controversial. But Lynch was steadfast.

"I believe we can do automatic target recognition<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to allow that capability. Autonomously," he repeated.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not universally true : http : //www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/October/Pages/FailureToFieldRightKindsofRobotsCostsLives,ArmyCommanderSays.aspx [ nationalde...gazine.org ] There is at least one general who believes that robots should be deployed right now with the ability to fire their own weapons .
Quoted from the linked article : " There 's a resistance saying that armed ground robots are not ready for the battlefield .
I 'm not of that camp , " he told National Defense .
That includes the robot autonomously firing the weapon or , in other words , shooting without a human in the decision loop , he said .
SWORDS never had that feature , and the idea of armed autonomous robots firing guns on the battlefield remains controversial .
But Lynch was steadfast .
" I believe we can do automatic target recognition ... to allow that capability .
Autonomously , " he repeated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not universally true:  http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/October/Pages/FailureToFieldRightKindsofRobotsCostsLives,ArmyCommanderSays.aspx [nationalde...gazine.org]  

There is at least one general who believes that robots should be deployed right now with the ability to fire their own weapons.
Quoted from the linked article:"There's a resistance saying that armed ground robots are not ready for the battlefield.
I'm not of that camp," he told National Defense.
That includes the robot autonomously firing the weapon or, in other words, shooting without a human in the decision loop, he said.
SWORDS never had that feature, and the idea of armed autonomous robots firing guns on the battlefield remains controversial.
But Lynch was steadfast.
"I believe we can do automatic target recognition ... to allow that capability.
Autonomously," he repeated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966806</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257279300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area, it is function as a robot.</p></div></blockquote><p>And all our base are belong to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area , it is function as a robot.And all our base are belong to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a UAV is on autopilot flying to the target area, it is function as a robot.And all our base are belong to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29976770</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1256997660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would like to welcome our new swarm of robotic overlords.  may their dark reign last a thousand years!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would like to welcome our new swarm of robotic overlords .
may their dark reign last a thousand years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would like to welcome our new swarm of robotic overlords.
may their dark reign last a thousand years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966964</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1257280200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.</i></p><p>Perhaps. Even considering such reluctance some future politicians might not be entirely happy with that; humans may be reluctant to, or even refuse to fire upon their own citizens, and that may be a flaw that highly automated systems can correct.</p><p>Even the nastiest warlords in history were limited in their engagement in atrocities by their ability to get their soldiers marching in their desired direction. That may no longer be true in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in all seriousness , this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.Perhaps .
Even considering such reluctance some future politicians might not be entirely happy with that ; humans may be reluctant to , or even refuse to fire upon their own citizens , and that may be a flaw that highly automated systems can correct.Even the nastiest warlords in history were limited in their engagement in atrocities by their ability to get their soldiers marching in their desired direction .
That may no longer be true in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.Perhaps.
Even considering such reluctance some future politicians might not be entirely happy with that; humans may be reluctant to, or even refuse to fire upon their own citizens, and that may be a flaw that highly automated systems can correct.Even the nastiest warlords in history were limited in their engagement in atrocities by their ability to get their soldiers marching in their desired direction.
That may no longer be true in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968162</id>
	<title>Re:Out of context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People prefer to look at it as "skynet" because they are ignorant morons who are so inundated with Hollywood stupidity that they take leave of their common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People prefer to look at it as " skynet " because they are ignorant morons who are so inundated with Hollywood stupidity that they take leave of their common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People prefer to look at it as "skynet" because they are ignorant morons who are so inundated with Hollywood stupidity that they take leave of their common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967622</id>
	<title>Great...</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1257240240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there's one thing worse than a flying robot killing machine it's swarms of flying robot killing machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's one thing worse than a flying robot killing machine it 's swarms of flying robot killing machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's one thing worse than a flying robot killing machine it's swarms of flying robot killing machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967790</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1257240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress, and thus <strong>monied corporations and lobbyists</strong> still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.</p></div><p>Looks like you had a typo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress , and thus monied corporations and lobbyists still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.Looks like you had a typo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress, and thus monied corporations and lobbyists still have the power of the purse to decide whether or not our weapon systems can be autonomous or not.Looks like you had a typo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965914</id>
	<title>I guess this means...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257274800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...we've still got <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron:\_2084" title="wikipedia.org">75 years left</a> [wikipedia.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we 've still got 75 years left [ wikipedia.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we've still got 75 years left [wikipedia.org]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974402</id>
	<title>Re:A larger drone...</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1257276180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can think of a swarm of smaller drones as just that, a swarm.  Each element can behave independently or can work together with other elements, possibly more efficiently than before.  As an example, you could have a few elements with sensing and targeting gear, and a few elements carrying small guided munitions (think hand grenade or smaller size).  Rather than having to pilot the payload-carriers up to the target, you could use the sensor elements to relay targeting information to home base, and relay a firing solution back to the payload-carriers.</p><p>The payload carriers can then program their munitions and send them on their way.</p><p>Or, the controller of these elements can use the sensor elements to get a better angle of attack, say, by moving around behind the bunker or higher in the air, before sending down the munitions.</p><p>Right now, a drone is just that, a drone.  It's a sensor package, a weapon carrier, and a communication platform, all with a big power system and avionics package.</p><p>Imagine a swarm of 20 toy helicopters carrying various packages of sensors and hand grenades.  Lose one, image another one to replace it and get it ready for the next mission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can think of a swarm of smaller drones as just that , a swarm .
Each element can behave independently or can work together with other elements , possibly more efficiently than before .
As an example , you could have a few elements with sensing and targeting gear , and a few elements carrying small guided munitions ( think hand grenade or smaller size ) .
Rather than having to pilot the payload-carriers up to the target , you could use the sensor elements to relay targeting information to home base , and relay a firing solution back to the payload-carriers.The payload carriers can then program their munitions and send them on their way.Or , the controller of these elements can use the sensor elements to get a better angle of attack , say , by moving around behind the bunker or higher in the air , before sending down the munitions.Right now , a drone is just that , a drone .
It 's a sensor package , a weapon carrier , and a communication platform , all with a big power system and avionics package.Imagine a swarm of 20 toy helicopters carrying various packages of sensors and hand grenades .
Lose one , image another one to replace it and get it ready for the next mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can think of a swarm of smaller drones as just that, a swarm.
Each element can behave independently or can work together with other elements, possibly more efficiently than before.
As an example, you could have a few elements with sensing and targeting gear, and a few elements carrying small guided munitions (think hand grenade or smaller size).
Rather than having to pilot the payload-carriers up to the target, you could use the sensor elements to relay targeting information to home base, and relay a firing solution back to the payload-carriers.The payload carriers can then program their munitions and send them on their way.Or, the controller of these elements can use the sensor elements to get a better angle of attack, say, by moving around behind the bunker or higher in the air, before sending down the munitions.Right now, a drone is just that, a drone.
It's a sensor package, a weapon carrier, and a communication platform, all with a big power system and avionics package.Imagine a swarm of 20 toy helicopters carrying various packages of sensors and hand grenades.
Lose one, image another one to replace it and get it ready for the next mission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967160</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new. In WW2 the Germans used guided rockets &amp; missiles. Weren't they "programmed" to attack a target?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new .
In WW2 the Germans used guided rockets &amp; missiles .
Were n't they " programmed " to attack a target ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new.
In WW2 the Germans used guided rockets &amp; missiles.
Weren't they "programmed" to attack a target?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966458</id>
	<title>In the near future ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... this for sure will broaden the semantics of <a href="http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon\_23.html" title="ccil.org">hack attack</a> [ccil.org].
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... this for sure will broaden the semantics of hack attack [ ccil.org ] .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this for sure will broaden the semantics of hack attack [ccil.org].
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969304</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An android is a robot in the shape of a human, like the T800.</p></div><p>That thing with the flesh on top of mechanical parts? Cyborg.</p><p>Reverse cyborg, but not an android.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An android is a robot in the shape of a human , like the T800.That thing with the flesh on top of mechanical parts ?
Cyborg.Reverse cyborg , but not an android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An android is a robot in the shape of a human, like the T800.That thing with the flesh on top of mechanical parts?
Cyborg.Reverse cyborg, but not an android.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968306</id>
	<title>This technology is essential - get used to it</title>
	<author>Swarm Master</author>
	<datestamp>1257243240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes three people to remotely pilot a Predator. There are never enough Predators or Global Hawks in the sky for all the intelligence we would like to gather. We don't have enough people, platforms and dollars to buy, launch, pilot, and support all the reconnaissance we would like. And while the imaging capabilities on the big unmanned platforms is impressive, they still can't see through mountain ridges or down deep urban canyons. For that you need something that can fly right overhead and get close enough without being seen or heard and that requires lots of small UASs. But the only way we can get enough of those into the air is to have some way for a single person to manage two or a hundred platforms just as easily as one. </p><p>
Swarm may be an unfortunate term, since it can evoke the image of a killer swarm of bees - hence we naturally think of swarms as lethal attack technology. In fact, unmanned attack swarms are still science fiction. The swarming research that is going on (and demonstrated in the article) is all about surveillance and reconnaissance. Even if we get to the point of arming the individual swarming platforms, there will always be a human in the loop making the final decision to fire a weapon. Don't kid yourself: even with all the new technology it has only gotten more difficult to make the decision to engage not easier over time. Ask those that do this for a living about the hoops they have to run through before they can fire a weapon from a Reaper. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes three people to remotely pilot a Predator .
There are never enough Predators or Global Hawks in the sky for all the intelligence we would like to gather .
We do n't have enough people , platforms and dollars to buy , launch , pilot , and support all the reconnaissance we would like .
And while the imaging capabilities on the big unmanned platforms is impressive , they still ca n't see through mountain ridges or down deep urban canyons .
For that you need something that can fly right overhead and get close enough without being seen or heard and that requires lots of small UASs .
But the only way we can get enough of those into the air is to have some way for a single person to manage two or a hundred platforms just as easily as one .
Swarm may be an unfortunate term , since it can evoke the image of a killer swarm of bees - hence we naturally think of swarms as lethal attack technology .
In fact , unmanned attack swarms are still science fiction .
The swarming research that is going on ( and demonstrated in the article ) is all about surveillance and reconnaissance .
Even if we get to the point of arming the individual swarming platforms , there will always be a human in the loop making the final decision to fire a weapon .
Do n't kid yourself : even with all the new technology it has only gotten more difficult to make the decision to engage not easier over time .
Ask those that do this for a living about the hoops they have to run through before they can fire a weapon from a Reaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes three people to remotely pilot a Predator.
There are never enough Predators or Global Hawks in the sky for all the intelligence we would like to gather.
We don't have enough people, platforms and dollars to buy, launch, pilot, and support all the reconnaissance we would like.
And while the imaging capabilities on the big unmanned platforms is impressive, they still can't see through mountain ridges or down deep urban canyons.
For that you need something that can fly right overhead and get close enough without being seen or heard and that requires lots of small UASs.
But the only way we can get enough of those into the air is to have some way for a single person to manage two or a hundred platforms just as easily as one.
Swarm may be an unfortunate term, since it can evoke the image of a killer swarm of bees - hence we naturally think of swarms as lethal attack technology.
In fact, unmanned attack swarms are still science fiction.
The swarming research that is going on (and demonstrated in the article) is all about surveillance and reconnaissance.
Even if we get to the point of arming the individual swarming platforms, there will always be a human in the loop making the final decision to fire a weapon.
Don't kid yourself: even with all the new technology it has only gotten more difficult to make the decision to engage not easier over time.
Ask those that do this for a living about the hoops they have to run through before they can fire a weapon from a Reaper. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966360</id>
	<title>Re:We need robots that can walk around...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1257276840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have this. And they function on more or less the same swarm functions. They scale really easily, since they simply communicate with each other to navigate. If one blows up, no loss, and you've found a bomb.</p><p>It's not quite as elegant as a magic bomb detector, but it's just as effective. I saw them demoed at a CS conference a few years back, and the designer said that they sent them off to Iraq and got back the empty husks (they're basically rolling cylinders with a single 'payload' unit that is just enough for a camera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have this .
And they function on more or less the same swarm functions .
They scale really easily , since they simply communicate with each other to navigate .
If one blows up , no loss , and you 've found a bomb.It 's not quite as elegant as a magic bomb detector , but it 's just as effective .
I saw them demoed at a CS conference a few years back , and the designer said that they sent them off to Iraq and got back the empty husks ( they 're basically rolling cylinders with a single 'payload ' unit that is just enough for a camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have this.
And they function on more or less the same swarm functions.
They scale really easily, since they simply communicate with each other to navigate.
If one blows up, no loss, and you've found a bomb.It's not quite as elegant as a magic bomb detector, but it's just as effective.
I saw them demoed at a CS conference a few years back, and the designer said that they sent them off to Iraq and got back the empty husks (they're basically rolling cylinders with a single 'payload' unit that is just enough for a camera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966050</id>
	<title>I hope the USN is not taking another cue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the Terminator franchise is getting weaker and weaker to the point of irrelevance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the Terminator franchise is getting weaker and weaker to the point of irrelevance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the Terminator franchise is getting weaker and weaker to the point of irrelevance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966118</id>
	<title>makes sense...</title>
	<author>kyle5t</author>
	<datestamp>1257275640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>since the main thing limiting additional deployment of Predators is the availability of bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>since the main thing limiting additional deployment of Predators is the availability of bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since the main thing limiting additional deployment of Predators is the availability of bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966628</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days, distinctions between "robots" and "drones/UAVs" are not so clear.  A remote pilot is not telling each servo on the UAV to move, they are specifying higher and higher level commands:  "head over there", "look over here".  As the interpreting software gets more sophisticated (and as human command inputs get "higher level"), you have a continuous spectrum of system ranging from true remote-control all the way to human-robot interaction.   Who knows where in this spectrum the military is currently playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , distinctions between " robots " and " drones/UAVs " are not so clear .
A remote pilot is not telling each servo on the UAV to move , they are specifying higher and higher level commands : " head over there " , " look over here " .
As the interpreting software gets more sophisticated ( and as human command inputs get " higher level " ) , you have a continuous spectrum of system ranging from true remote-control all the way to human-robot interaction .
Who knows where in this spectrum the military is currently playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, distinctions between "robots" and "drones/UAVs" are not so clear.
A remote pilot is not telling each servo on the UAV to move, they are specifying higher and higher level commands:  "head over there", "look over here".
As the interpreting software gets more sophisticated (and as human command inputs get "higher level"), you have a continuous spectrum of system ranging from true remote-control all the way to human-robot interaction.
Who knows where in this spectrum the military is currently playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967490</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long before we see children doing this? Hideo Kojima has laid some snarky commentary for it recently... But I think Orson Scott Card saw this coming a long time ago.</p><p>Seriously... I see more shadows (no pun intended) of "Ender's Game" here than I do "Terminator." We're going to have kids piloting these remotely and taking out enemies who knows how far away. The only blessing is that these things are still unmanned. Just wait till we can remotely pilot personnel carriers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before we see children doing this ?
Hideo Kojima has laid some snarky commentary for it recently... But I think Orson Scott Card saw this coming a long time ago.Seriously... I see more shadows ( no pun intended ) of " Ender 's Game " here than I do " Terminator .
" We 're going to have kids piloting these remotely and taking out enemies who knows how far away .
The only blessing is that these things are still unmanned .
Just wait till we can remotely pilot personnel carriers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before we see children doing this?
Hideo Kojima has laid some snarky commentary for it recently... But I think Orson Scott Card saw this coming a long time ago.Seriously... I see more shadows (no pun intended) of "Ender's Game" here than I do "Terminator.
" We're going to have kids piloting these remotely and taking out enemies who knows how far away.
The only blessing is that these things are still unmanned.
Just wait till we can remotely pilot personnel carriers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965940</id>
	<title>A.K.A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257274980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">An Army Of NONE</a> [pbs.org]</p><p>Yours In Baikonur,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Army Of NONE [ pbs.org ] Yours In Baikonur,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Army Of NONE [pbs.org]Yours In Baikonur,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970272</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drop a autonomous unit behind enemy lines, have it kill anything that moves, and then begin rolling back to base for reload.</p><p>Hell, you could shoot the things behind enemy lines.</p><p>I'm all for developing autonomous military systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drop a autonomous unit behind enemy lines , have it kill anything that moves , and then begin rolling back to base for reload.Hell , you could shoot the things behind enemy lines.I 'm all for developing autonomous military systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drop a autonomous unit behind enemy lines, have it kill anything that moves, and then begin rolling back to base for reload.Hell, you could shoot the things behind enemy lines.I'm all for developing autonomous military systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966798</id>
	<title>trp[ollkore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257279180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use8s. BSD/OS</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use8s .
BSD/OS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use8s.
BSD/OS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966248</id>
	<title>That's no swarm.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257276300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's no swarm.  It's a beowulf cluster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no swarm .
It 's a beowulf cluster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no swarm.
It's a beowulf cluster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967620</id>
	<title>Yeah, that's bad... for THEM!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257240240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because now, one dedicated hacker with his OLPC will be able to take down a whole army. Or even better: Make them fly back, acting as if they had been successful, landing, and then either detonating right there, or in the face of their best engineers who just before that downloaded the trojan that will now spread though the whole research facility and then report back to its master.</p><p>Man... killing is always the action of a coward. No exceptions. No sides taken.<br>And war is mass murder. Always. Period. No discussion about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because now , one dedicated hacker with his OLPC will be able to take down a whole army .
Or even better : Make them fly back , acting as if they had been successful , landing , and then either detonating right there , or in the face of their best engineers who just before that downloaded the trojan that will now spread though the whole research facility and then report back to its master.Man... killing is always the action of a coward .
No exceptions .
No sides taken.And war is mass murder .
Always. Period .
No discussion about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because now, one dedicated hacker with his OLPC will be able to take down a whole army.
Or even better: Make them fly back, acting as if they had been successful, landing, and then either detonating right there, or in the face of their best engineers who just before that downloaded the trojan that will now spread though the whole research facility and then report back to its master.Man... killing is always the action of a coward.
No exceptions.
No sides taken.And war is mass murder.
Always. Period.
No discussion about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969672</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257248220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure he'd sing a different tune if he was patrolling in front of that robot. Oh, the joys of never having to be near an actual battlefield anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure he 'd sing a different tune if he was patrolling in front of that robot .
Oh , the joys of never having to be near an actual battlefield anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure he'd sing a different tune if he was patrolling in front of that robot.
Oh, the joys of never having to be near an actual battlefield anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966046</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Hybrid-brain</author>
	<datestamp>1257275400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our......flying automated overlords?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our......flying automated overlords ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our......flying automated overlords?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966652</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1257278280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sapient?</p><p>I think you mean "sentient".</p><p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sapient" title="merriam-webster.com">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sapient</a> [merriam-webster.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient" title="merriam-webster.com">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient</a> [merriam-webster.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sapient ? I think you mean " sentient " .http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sapient [ merriam-webster.com ] http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient [ merriam-webster.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sapient?I think you mean "sentient".http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sapient [merriam-webster.com]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient [merriam-webster.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967732</id>
	<title>UAV's aren't controlled via satellites....</title>
	<author>sealfoss</author>
	<datestamp>1257240720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>omni and directional antennas.  i suppose a satellite could take over, but that seems sort of retarded to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>omni and directional antennas .
i suppose a satellite could take over , but that seems sort of retarded to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>omni and directional antennas.
i suppose a satellite could take over, but that seems sort of retarded to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966872</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1257279720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human operators are also cheaper to rollout and maintain than all but the simplest robot AI, and will remain so for the foreseeable* future.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p><p>* For certain values of foresight -- I'm sure some AI enthusiast will jump on here and say that realistic, reliable target-acquisition AI should be possible in "about 10 years..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human operators are also cheaper to rollout and maintain than all but the simplest robot AI , and will remain so for the foreseeable * future .
  -- 77IM * For certain values of foresight -- I 'm sure some AI enthusiast will jump on here and say that realistic , reliable target-acquisition AI should be possible in " about 10 years... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human operators are also cheaper to rollout and maintain than all but the simplest robot AI, and will remain so for the foreseeable* future.
  -- 77IM* For certain values of foresight -- I'm sure some AI enthusiast will jump on here and say that realistic, reliable target-acquisition AI should be possible in "about 10 years..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969598</id>
	<title>Genre switch?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1257247980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, instead of playing Combat Flight Sim now some lucky Corporal can play live-fire Command and Conquer?</p><p>Sounds like progress to me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , instead of playing Combat Flight Sim now some lucky Corporal can play live-fire Command and Conquer ? Sounds like progress to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, instead of playing Combat Flight Sim now some lucky Corporal can play live-fire Command and Conquer?Sounds like progress to me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966194</id>
	<title>Need space drones that do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As China said over the last couple of days, Space wars are coming. Better to have small swarms of these that can avoid items being thrown or shot at them. <a href="http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.80/pub\_detail.asp" title="strategycenter.net" rel="nofollow">It will be useful to easily take out orbiting weapons platforms.</a> [strategycenter.net] In addition, from space, small squadrons could come down on ships, tanks, etc. Even just releasing "Rods from God".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As China said over the last couple of days , Space wars are coming .
Better to have small swarms of these that can avoid items being thrown or shot at them .
It will be useful to easily take out orbiting weapons platforms .
[ strategycenter.net ] In addition , from space , small squadrons could come down on ships , tanks , etc .
Even just releasing " Rods from God " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As China said over the last couple of days, Space wars are coming.
Better to have small swarms of these that can avoid items being thrown or shot at them.
It will be useful to easily take out orbiting weapons platforms.
[strategycenter.net] In addition, from space, small squadrons could come down on ships, tanks, etc.
Even just releasing "Rods from God".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970300</id>
	<title>Re:We need robots that can walk around...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have them, there called ROBOTS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have them , there called ROBOTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have them, there called ROBOTS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026</id>
	<title>Well that explains the Starcraft II delay....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well that explains the Starcraft II delay....

Blizzard has been busy designing interfaces for the military.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that explains the Starcraft II delay... . Blizzard has been busy designing interfaces for the military .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that explains the Starcraft II delay....

Blizzard has been busy designing interfaces for the military.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966626</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>dgr73</author>
	<datestamp>1257278160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could always have swarms and swarms of small, but inexpensive machines with no autonomy over target selection, but preprogrammed attack modes. Things that come to mind are miniature flying darts for anti personnel work. Once a target has been identified and a valid go-ahead has been given by operator, the swarm would detach a portion of it's strength for an suicide attack. If the target remains valid, it could be reattacked or a new validation sought (to prevent dummies from sapping the swarms). For antitank work a slightly heavier flying mine could do the trick, vehicle heat signatures being big enuff, you could not easily mistake one. These are defensive weapons that could substitute mines... probably not useful to the US, as they are always attacking countries, but perhaps very useful against them.

The main idea would ofcourse be cheapness.. a peabrain just big enough to see potential targets, some cheap method of elevating them to attack height (balloons?). That would be an automated defense network I could get behind.. cheap, dumb and effective in saving human lives. Plus there's always the scare factor.. everyone can attack an enemy on order, assuming "You will be given artillery support.. blah blah"... but who wants to attack a swarm of razorblades flying at you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could always have swarms and swarms of small , but inexpensive machines with no autonomy over target selection , but preprogrammed attack modes .
Things that come to mind are miniature flying darts for anti personnel work .
Once a target has been identified and a valid go-ahead has been given by operator , the swarm would detach a portion of it 's strength for an suicide attack .
If the target remains valid , it could be reattacked or a new validation sought ( to prevent dummies from sapping the swarms ) .
For antitank work a slightly heavier flying mine could do the trick , vehicle heat signatures being big enuff , you could not easily mistake one .
These are defensive weapons that could substitute mines... probably not useful to the US , as they are always attacking countries , but perhaps very useful against them .
The main idea would ofcourse be cheapness.. a peabrain just big enough to see potential targets , some cheap method of elevating them to attack height ( balloons ? ) .
That would be an automated defense network I could get behind.. cheap , dumb and effective in saving human lives .
Plus there 's always the scare factor.. everyone can attack an enemy on order , assuming " You will be given artillery support.. blah blah " ... but who wants to attack a swarm of razorblades flying at you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could always have swarms and swarms of small, but inexpensive machines with no autonomy over target selection, but preprogrammed attack modes.
Things that come to mind are miniature flying darts for anti personnel work.
Once a target has been identified and a valid go-ahead has been given by operator, the swarm would detach a portion of it's strength for an suicide attack.
If the target remains valid, it could be reattacked or a new validation sought (to prevent dummies from sapping the swarms).
For antitank work a slightly heavier flying mine could do the trick, vehicle heat signatures being big enuff, you could not easily mistake one.
These are defensive weapons that could substitute mines... probably not useful to the US, as they are always attacking countries, but perhaps very useful against them.
The main idea would ofcourse be cheapness.. a peabrain just big enough to see potential targets, some cheap method of elevating them to attack height (balloons?).
That would be an automated defense network I could get behind.. cheap, dumb and effective in saving human lives.
Plus there's always the scare factor.. everyone can attack an enemy on order, assuming "You will be given artillery support.. blah blah"... but who wants to attack a swarm of razorblades flying at you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969530</id>
	<title>Re:Robots vs. Drones/UAVs</title>
	<author>axlash</author>
	<datestamp>1257247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person.</p></div></blockquote><p>
What you mean to say is that a robot is not controlled in real-time... surely, the fact a person who wrote the program means that he IS controlling the robot, no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person .
What you mean to say is that a robot is not controlled in real-time... surely , the fact a person who wrote the program means that he IS controlling the robot , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A robot follows a program and is NOT controlled by a person.
What you mean to say is that a robot is not controlled in real-time... surely, the fact a person who wrote the program means that he IS controlling the robot, no?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968346</id>
	<title>Re:What do we do when they go mustang?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257243420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this as well.  "Human in the loop" should be absolutely required for all ordinance.  Despite what we're being told, I'm unconvinced.  What I'd want to see and hear is that the weapons system is discrete from the flight system, with separate communications and control.  If they're touching, even at the communications level, they can bleed over to one another.</p><p>Remember the parable in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/quotes" title="imdb.com">Terminator</a> [imdb.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Terminator: The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.</p><p>Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.</p></div><p>Step one, remove humans.</p><p>Step two, machine learns.</p><p>Step three, it does something we didn't expect it to do...</p><p>Obviously we don't go from one to three without some magic.  That being said, why are we even considering approaching step one?  And in this case, I think this is exactly what we're doing.  We're inching slowly towards allowing the machine to pull the trigger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this as well .
" Human in the loop " should be absolutely required for all ordinance .
Despite what we 're being told , I 'm unconvinced .
What I 'd want to see and hear is that the weapons system is discrete from the flight system , with separate communications and control .
If they 're touching , even at the communications level , they can bleed over to one another.Remember the parable in Terminator [ imdb.com ] : The Terminator : The Skynet Funding Bill is passed .
The system goes on-line August 4th , 1997 .
Human decisions are removed from strategic defense .
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate .
It becomes self-aware at 2 : 14 a.m. Eastern time , August 29th .
In a panic , they try to pull the plug.Sarah Connor : Skynet fights back.Step one , remove humans.Step two , machine learns.Step three , it does something we did n't expect it to do...Obviously we do n't go from one to three without some magic .
That being said , why are we even considering approaching step one ?
And in this case , I think this is exactly what we 're doing .
We 're inching slowly towards allowing the machine to pull the trigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this as well.
"Human in the loop" should be absolutely required for all ordinance.
Despite what we're being told, I'm unconvinced.
What I'd want to see and hear is that the weapons system is discrete from the flight system, with separate communications and control.
If they're touching, even at the communications level, they can bleed over to one another.Remember the parable in Terminator [imdb.com]:The Terminator: The Skynet Funding Bill is passed.
The system goes on-line August 4th, 1997.
Human decisions are removed from strategic defense.
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate.
It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug.Sarah Connor: Skynet fights back.Step one, remove humans.Step two, machine learns.Step three, it does something we didn't expect it to do...Obviously we don't go from one to three without some magic.
That being said, why are we even considering approaching step one?
And in this case, I think this is exactly what we're doing.
We're inching slowly towards allowing the machine to pull the trigger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968730</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen this movie, and it was terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see this film. A good film, until the <b>ludicrous, stupid and mediocre</b> final.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this film .
A good film , until the ludicrous , stupid and mediocre final .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this film.
A good film, until the ludicrous, stupid and mediocre final.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044</id>
	<title>I've seen this movie, and it was terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I don't mean Terminator.</p><p>Did anybody actually watch Stealth? I wish I could unwatch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't mean Terminator.Did anybody actually watch Stealth ?
I wish I could unwatch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't mean Terminator.Did anybody actually watch Stealth?
I wish I could unwatch it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966290</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-autonomous being key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.</p></div><p>This is more insightful than you know. Doesn't matter if it is a individual soldier or an advanced piece of technologiy, mistakes happen. I work with some of the most advanced armed UAVs, including new generation prototypes,  and all of the systems are designed to ensure that at any given time there is someone definitively in charge of what the unit is doing, even for the models with high autonomy levels.  It's just as much about being able to lay the responsbility of a mistake or bad behavior at a specific persons feet as it is about making sure there are no control conflicts. You can't chastise a robot, but you can yell at the person in charge of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own , we 're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up .
: ) But in all seriousness , this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.This is more insightful than you know .
Does n't matter if it is a individual soldier or an advanced piece of technologiy , mistakes happen .
I work with some of the most advanced armed UAVs , including new generation prototypes , and all of the systems are designed to ensure that at any given time there is someone definitively in charge of what the unit is doing , even for the models with high autonomy levels .
It 's just as much about being able to lay the responsbility of a mistake or bad behavior at a specific persons feet as it is about making sure there are no control conflicts .
You ca n't chastise a robot , but you can yell at the person in charge of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I bet part of the reason is that we may be close to having machines that can find and attack targets on their own, we're a hell of a long way from having machines that you can usefully reprimand for fucking up.
:)  But in all seriousness, this seems like a deeply ingrained philosophy in the military that humans should be in charge of the technology.This is more insightful than you know.
Doesn't matter if it is a individual soldier or an advanced piece of technologiy, mistakes happen.
I work with some of the most advanced armed UAVs, including new generation prototypes,  and all of the systems are designed to ensure that at any given time there is someone definitively in charge of what the unit is doing, even for the models with high autonomy levels.
It's just as much about being able to lay the responsbility of a mistake or bad behavior at a specific persons feet as it is about making sure there are no control conflicts.
You can't chastise a robot, but you can yell at the person in charge of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965882</id>
	<title>On Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257274560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh shi-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh shi-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh shi-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966212</id>
	<title>Mark 1 Eyeball</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1257276060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, the Mark 1 Eyeball can not be remotely operated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the Mark 1 Eyeball can not be remotely operated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the Mark 1 Eyeball can not be remotely operated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29976362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1751232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29974104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29970272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29969176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29968162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29971644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29965882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29967138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29973738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29976362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1751232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1751232.29966194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
