>> ^raverman:

As scary as i find the idea of being chased down and torn to shreds by a robot saber-tooth...
...I still don't think it would win Robot wars.


Hmmm, apparently a sprinter could outrun it over a short distance, but it would eventually catch them. The rest of us are fucked. Time to break out the EMP!

this is necessary for Defense why ..... There is no reason for this weirdo pack dog to be developed by our military. Air and sea superiority, which we have, takes care of moving supplies. The reasons why we would need this machine are basically for post-apocalypse, so I'd like them to come out and say what is really on their minds here... this isnt for outer space its for this planet...



the darpa exo skeleton that is like the one in Alien, now that has uses for actual people, not targets in a war or scarce resources in toxic environments... or drone wars against "resistance fighters".

paranoid sundays!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

LOL - haven't laughed that hard at an internet video in a while.
>> ^mxxcon:
There's also footage of DARPA's BigDog Beta


and see how much this video is spot on, here's the original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

LOL - haven't laughed that hard at an internet video in a while.
>> ^mxxcon:

There's also footage of DARPA's BigDog Beta

Your video, DARPA's gigantic new quadruped "AlphaDog", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ColHrFrumpyPants:

Awesome, millions of dollars to build a horse. /FACEPALM
But a horse don't have backwards facing knees!

Really dude? This technology could be incredibly useful. I wouldn't cast it off like you have.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

This thing has Congressional Pork all over it. If they could just cut all the utterly stupid defense contracts like this one the US economy might have a fighting chance.

There's also footage of DARPA's BigDog Beta

I think you misquoted that, shouldn't it read, ""The AlphaDog Proto is a lab prototype for the Legged Squad Support System, a robot being developed by Boston Dynamics with funding from DARPA and the US Marine Corps. When fully developed the system will be capable of draining tax-dollars at a rate impossibe for current technologies to match."

This thing has Congressional Pork all over it. If they could just cut all the utterly stupid defense contracts like this one the US economy might have a fighting chance.

>> ^jerryku:

dgandhi, but how much of those "gifts" of the government, created in the past, were already paid for entirely by past generations of Americans?


Not gifts, common property, and it's not like this ever stops consider this MOST of technological advancement is produced, not but private industry, but as a direct result of government money spent on research.

>> ^jerryku:

Is DARPA's creation of the Internet still on some kind of 50 year monthly payment setup? I don't think so. Perhaps the government needs money to upkeep the Internet.


It did not start, and did not end with TCP/IP. Don't be obtuse, the needs of the US federal government account for the vast majority of bleeding edge technology. The technology, that nobody else can afford to buy, and which, once developed, eventually works its way into consumer tech.

>> ^jerryku:
The things we enjoy using in this world are produced by the billions of people who inhabit it. Should everyone be taxing everyone? No, we buy their things and that's that.


Taxing is what we do when it's scale inefficient to charge. You charge for your services I charge for mine. I don't charge, and am not charged for, the tax supported infrastructure I use. You, I and our clients/employers are taxed for these things.

dgandhi, but how much of those "gifts" of the government, created in the past, were already paid for entirely by past generations of Americans? Is DARPA's creation of the Internet still on some kind of 50 year monthly payment setup? I don't think so. Perhaps the government needs money to upkeep the Internet. But I doubt they need as much as they are getting now.

The things we enjoy using in this world are produced by the billions of people who inhabit it. Should everyone be taxing everyone? No, we buy their things and that's that.

Now I realized that you all had this conversation before I got here, but I would like to answer this question:
>> ^blankfist:

Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor?

You stole it. That's all I need. What you have in your hand is not the result of your labor only, but disproportionately a result of the all of the infrastructure of government which allows you to do what you do efficiently.

We have decided, through our government, to socialize those things which we have found to be inefficient to keep in private hands. Every road is not a toll road, the police do not protect people on a fee-per-call basis, the military does not protect our borders selectively, we all benefit, and we all pay when we make money, because, in reality, those who make the most take the most from the commons.

I'm a computer geek. Everything I work with on a daily basis is dependent on technology created with money from the DOE or DARPA, they don't charge me for this common technology, but it makes my field possible, and it makes what we do orders of magnitude more powerful and profitable.

Don't think your exempt, every business that you depend on, every service and product that you buy is cheaper and more plentiful because of our socialized roads, legal systems, DARPA funded tracking technology etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you WANT not to be the recipient of this socialized charity does not make it so, you have taken something that you did not earn. Don't whine when we expect you to give it back.

>> ^blankfist:

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Some of it is, lots of it is not, at the moment nobody in a position to act on the issue seems at all interested in pushing hard to remove the bad programs, only the good. I'll not champion the destruction of good programs in the name of some arbitrary context free judgement that taxes are bad.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you

I promise to internet to your liking next time.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.

Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?
>> ^ChaosEngine:
You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.
You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"
How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?
And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.


You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.

In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you


I promise to internet to your liking next time.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.


Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.


Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.

You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).


Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"

How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?

And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on?

I guess as much as I can differentiate how the bully from my high school stole my lunch money and what he used it to buy.


Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you, but what the hell, I'll bite.

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use. Secondly the bully does not give you any option as to whether he'll take your money. You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).