NYPD rips up $94,000 'Digidog' contract with Boston Dynamics after backlash from activists...

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
Funny. Same people who are impressionable and highly praise AI and automation as the future (aka: commoners) is always the same people who are easily spooked to see the machine "in flesh".
The point isn't what it is, the point is that leasing this thing for $94,000 at a time when a lot of people are questioning the funding of the police with their wannabe militarization is a terrible idea.

The other thing is that, what if the police started to have these on the regular and got cozy with Boston Dynamics? Then what if, one day, the police said "You know what? It would be great if you made an attack version of this because that could save officers' lives!" and Boston Dynamics agreed to do it?

Sometimes you have to look a little bit down the road at what something could become, rather than what something is right now. Never forget that Adolf Hitler started life as a baby as innocent as any other. Just because something is innocent right now doesn't mean that it will remain that way, it could become the cause of death for thousands, if not millions. The police have already been using robots for bomb threats and they work remarkably well. There was no reason to pay $94,000 just to lease this thing.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
Rather than relying on technology, how about tackling the reason WHY the NYPD felt the need to use the robots, the out of control gun violence born out of decades of unregulated gun ownership?
Unregulated gun ownership does have something to do with it but it's actually much deeper than that. Violence like this erupts as a result of despair, frustration and rage. Look at the current economic situation in the USA where few have everything and many have nothing. This is not unique to the USA, but has been a recurring pattern throughout human history.

Many countries have lots of guns but if the conditions there don't invoke the will to use said guns, the guns don't matter. What's ironic about the USA is that the same people who defend guns are the same people who defend the conditions that contribute so much to their use for violence.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 659   +863
Unregulated gun ownership does have something to do with it but it's actually much deeper than that. Violence like this erupts as a result of despair, frustration and rage. Look at the current economic situation in the USA where few have everything and many have nothing. This is not unique to the USA, but has been a recurring pattern throughout human history.

Many countries have lots of guns but if the conditions there don't invoke the will to use said guns, the guns don't matter. What's ironic about the USA is that the same people who defend guns are the same people who defend the conditions that contribute so much to their use for violence.

That last statement is beyond ignorant. 99.99% of gun owners follow the laws and regulations. They also don't commit crimes and kill people. NYC has some of the most stringent laws in the country already. Thugs and criminals don't care about any of them. More regulation and laws will do nothing but trample good gun owners rights and do nothing to stop crime because those that commit them don't care. And gun owners do not "defend" crime, they defend their rights as citizens just like defending other rights.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
That last statement is beyond ignorant. 99.99% of gun owners follow the laws and regulations. They also don't commit crimes and kill people. NYC has some of the most stringent laws in the country already. Thugs and criminals don't care about any of them. More regulation and laws will do nothing but trample good gun owners rights and do nothing to stop crime because those that commit them don't care. And gun owners do not "defend" crime, they defend their rights as citizens just like defending other rights.
I completely agree with the fact that 99.9% of gun owners are responsible. The problem is that when even 0.1% of a country that has a population of 328,000,000 are pushed to violence, the presence of guns only makes it worse. I have no problem with the rights of gun owners, I was pointing out the paradox of the people who defend guns are also defending the economic conditions makes guns even more dangerous.

I don't agree with people who say "ban all guns" or "guns are the problem" any more than I think that harsher sentences will stop crime. Every time I hear someone talking about "assault weapons" I just cringe because they never know the actual definition of an assault weapon. A semi-auto rifle that looks like an AR-15 or AK-47 is not an assault weapon and is no more deadly than another semi-auto rifle of the same calibre that looks like a cowboy rifle.

The problem here is that both sides of the issue are half wrong. It's true that guns make the world more dangerous but what the gun looks like is irrelevant. However, it's also true that keeping the masses poor while a few live in opulence also makes the world more dangerous because 0.1% of the US population is still over 325,000 individuals. Even if 99.9% of people aren't pushed to the breaking point, that's still a very significant number.

I hope that makes more sense.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
This is beginning to change. Distrust of the megarich is growing on the right, even as sycophancy for them metastasizes within the left.
The distrust of the rich is growing on the Republican side but the problem is that the people on that side don't understand the difference between socialism and social democracy (aka "democratic socialism"). They think Bernie Sanders wanted to turn the USA into "Venezuela" when he really just wanted to make it more like Canada. Hearing the garbage being said by the US corporate media on BOTH sides was making the people in other NATO nations wonder if the USA had officially entered The Twilight Zone.

I think that the sycophancy for the rich that is metastasizing on what I call "the fake left" (NeoLiberals) which is known to Americans as "Centrists" or "Moderates". They may be culturally centre-left but they are economically hard-right. Like for instance, Joe Biden isn't really on the left nor was Barack Obama. They were both Reagan-era conservatives who appear left only because they're to the left of the Republicans who moved so far to the right that even Colin Powell, a man who is undeniably conservative, abandoned them. Sure, they're culturally centre-left in that they're not bigots and are pro-choice but they're still in the pockets of corporations and billionaires.

The USA is so far to the right at the moment that other NATO nations see the Democrats and Republicans as right and far-right, respectively. It's amazing that the USA would ally itself with all of those socialist NATO countries, eh? :laughing:
 
Last edited:

fps4ever

Posts: 659   +863
I completely agree with the fact that 99.9% of gun owners are responsible. The problem is that when even 0.1% of a country that has a population of 328,000,000 are pushed to violence, the presence of guns only makes it worse. I have no problem with the rights of gun owners, I was pointing out the paradox of the people who defend guns are also defending the economic conditions makes guns even more dangerous.

I don't agree with people who say "ban all guns" or "guns are the problem" any more than I think that harsher sentences will stop crime. Every time I hear someone talking about "assault weapons" I just cringe because they never know the actual definition of an assault weapon. A semi-auto rifle that looks like an AR-15 or AK-47 is not an assault weapon and is no more deadly than another semi-auto rifle of the same calibre that looks like a cowboy rifle.

The problem here is that both sides of the issue are half wrong. It's true that guns make the world more dangerous but what the gun looks like is irrelevant. However, it's also true that keeping the masses poor while a few live in opulence also makes the world more dangerous because 0.1% of the US population is still over 3,000,000 individuals. Even if 99.9% of people aren't pushed to the breaking point, that's still a very significant number.

I hope that makes more sense.

Yes it makes more sense thanks. But more gun regulations is not going to stop violence or decrease it any significant amount. Humans have leaned towards violence since Cain and Able (for those religious people) no matter what weapon they choose. I don't have the answers either but blaming a tool instead of focusing on fixing mental health issues and other social problems seems like a much, much better use of resources.
 

BadThad

Posts: 437   +406
The distrust of the rich is growing on the Republican side but the problem is that the people on that side don't understand the difference between socialism and social democracy (aka "democratic socialism"). They think Bernie Sanders wanted to turn the USA into "Venezuela" when he really just wanted to make it more like Canada. Hearing the garbage being said by the US corporate media on BOTH sides was making the people in other NATO nations wonder if the USA had officially entered The Twilight Zone.

I think that the sycophancy for the rich that is metastasizing on what I call "the fake left" (NeoLiberals) which is known to Americans as "Centrists" or "Moderates". They may be culturally centre-left but they are economically hard-right. Like for instance, Joe Biden isn't really on the left nor was Barack Obama. They were both Reagan-era conservatives who appear left only because they're to the left of the Republicans who moved so far to the right that even Colin Powell, a man who is undeniably conservative, abandoned them. Sure, they're culturally centre-left in that they're not bigots and are pro-choice but they're still in the pockets of corporations and billionaires.

The USA is so far to the right at the moment that other NATO nations see the Democrats and Republicans as right and far-right, respectively. It's amazing that the USA would ally itself with all of those socialist NATO countries, eh? :laughing:

Wow, that is some twisted and demented thinking!
 

king cleanass

Posts: 24   +25
Yes it makes more sense thanks. But more gun regulations is not going to stop violence or decrease it any significant amount. Humans have leaned towards violence since Cain and Able (for those religious people) no matter what weapon they choose. I don't have the answers either but blaming a tool instead of focusing on fixing mental health issues and other social problems seems like a much, much better use of resources.

The purpose of gun regulation isn't about reducing crime or violence. Anyone telling you so is either ignorant or lying.

The purpose of gun regulation is give the government/state a monopoly on violence. When talks fail, force prevails - and if you, the average joe, have no means of force projection, you will lose that fight.
 

Ben1978

Posts: 114   +84
The point isn't what it is, the point is that leasing this thing for $94,000 at a time when a lot of people are questioning the funding of the police with their wannabe militarization is a terrible idea.

The other thing is that, what if the police started to have these on the regular and got cozy with Boston Dynamics? Then what if, one day, the police said "You know what? It would be great if you made an attack version of this because that could save officers' lives!" and Boston Dynamics agreed to do it?

Sometimes you have to look a little bit down the road at what something could become, rather than what something is right now. Never forget that Adolf Hitler started life as a baby as innocent as any other. Just because something is innocent right now doesn't mean that it will remain that way, it could become the cause of death for thousands, if not millions. The police have already been using robots for bomb threats and they work remarkably well. There was no reason to pay $94,000 just to lease this thing.
The first person to mention Hitler...
 

Ben1978

Posts: 114   +84
The purpose of gun regulation isn't about reducing crime or violence. Anyone telling you so is either ignorant or lying.

The purpose of gun regulation is give the government/state a monopoly on violence. When talks fail, force prevails - and if you, the average joe, have no means of force projection, you will lose that fight.
Nonsense. The purpose of gun regulation, at least that proposed in America in the last thirty years due to the massive rise in mass shootings and continued inner city violence, is to reduce violence. To believe otherwise is to be paranoid. By all means suppose that the government is spying on you, but don't presume that every proposal to curb "freedom" is an actual attack on freedom, rather than an attempt to make society safer.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
Yes it makes more sense thanks. But more gun regulations is not going to stop violence or decrease it any significant amount. Humans have leaned towards violence since Cain and Able (for those religious people) no matter what weapon they choose. I don't have the answers either but blaming a tool instead of focusing on fixing mental health issues and other social problems seems like a much, much better use of resources.
I completely agree. The root causes of violence are the same no matter what weapon (if any) is used. Guns are mechanically simple devices that can be fabricated by a lot of people with just the equipment that they already have in their work sheds. Banning them won't do a damn thing.

Laws need to be passed that are economically progressive so that people lose the feelings of despair and of hopelessness. When people start to feel like they have something to lose, a good chunk of the ones who would commit these crimes will have no desire to do so. There will always be the ones that do (that's just how it is) but, just going by the numbers, it's not just them shooting people. Unfortunately, I don't see those laws being passed anytime soon. The political compass showed where all of 2020's presidential candidates ranked based on past voting history and the overwhelming majority of them aren't in the right economic/social quadrant to do that:
Presidential-Graph.jpg

As you can see, the laws that are needed would be expected from people in the green quadrant, but almost everyone is in the blue. The blue quadrant is the source from which the vast majority of the problems that exist in the modern USA have sprung. Political Science was my major in university and I've found this compass to be VERY accurate (after taking the test myself).

There's also compass chart about (in)famous people in history and it's accurate about that too. Unfortunately my work computer blocks them but you can find them at The Political Compass.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,107   +1,236
TechSpot Elite
Nonsense. The purpose of gun regulation, at least that proposed in America in the last thirty years due to the massive rise in mass shootings and continued inner city violence, is to reduce violence. To believe otherwise is to be paranoid. By all means suppose that the government is spying on you, but don't presume that every proposal to curb "freedom" is an actual attack on freedom, rather than an attempt to make society safer.
Yes, you are correct. The problem is that it's not going to work. What is needed is to eliminate the source of the violence itself. That's a lot more difficult to do when corporate donors don't want the economy to move to the left and they control the government officials.

So, they crow about gun control (which would be toothless because many people can fabricate guns at home) like it's going to make a difference because the average person doesn't know any better. It's the same as when heavier penalties and longer prison sentences were implemented to try to reduce crime because it was easier than fixing the systemic issues that caused crime to begin with. As we know, it didn't work because the USA still has the highest violent crime rate in NATO by a country mile. What it did do is make the USA have the greatest number of incarcerated citizens of any country in history. Heavier gun control's result would be no different.