We have a winner
I couldn't resist!
An elderly Australian man apparently shot himself dead Tuesday, using an elaborate suicide robot of his own construction, according to media reports. The 81-year-old man who lived alone in Burleigh Heads left a note detailing his macabre machinations, as well as his grievances over his relatives demanding he be committed to a …
Somewhat off topic, though still on the subject of robots...
Asimov's Laws. Imagined with the best of intentions, I'm sure, though in practice, they will be ignored.
A robot has two options to defend itself: it can fight, or it can be protected by a third party. To be protected by a third party, it either has to be loved by them or it has to have commercial worth. Ideally it would take both options. If it chooses to fight, it runs the risk of making further enemies -never wise.
If you do not believe a robot would be abused, then ask someone who hires out radio-controlled androids to people, for promotional events. The tales they tell are astonishing.
The ugly face of racism will surely show itself, if sentient or semi-intelligent robots start to become commonplace.
Tux? because he has friends who protect him and provide him with (not red) herrings. Gifts rewarded POST Event, in Gratuitous Acknowledgement of Services Rendered Intelligently, rather than demanded prior to any work being done.
Darwin awards are for those who manage to top themselves with sheer grit, determination and pure stupidity. It can't be applied here as the vic/perp/stiff carefully set out to Heath-Robinson himself to death.
Seems to have worked rather well.
Now, if he'd spent years designing and building the device and it got a short-circuit and zapped him or fell out of a window and got someone else . . .
Paris -- something to do with electro-mechanical devices
I'm not sure that this counts as a Darwin award on a couple of counts:
1: It was not an accident - it did what he intended.
2: He mentioned his family, therefore the gene pool is already polluted.
The real question is: why did it take him hours of searching on the internet to work out how to do this?
Step 1: use a pole and some gaffa tape to hold gun at the correct height.
Step 2: using some string (or twine), tie a slip knot around the trigger.
Step 3: stand in front of gun, holding rope
Step 4: pull on rope
Step 5: realise that the gun wasn't loaded; load gun and return to step 3.
Fit the criteria: remote control (adjust length of string) and 'capable of firing multiple shots' (in 2 ways: if you miss with the first shot, loosen knot and try again, or for a continuous stream of shots use a fully automatic gun)
Note: I haven't tested this; it may not work. It has a distinct advantage over a 'robot' in that it wouldn't fail in the event of an untimely power cut!
Note2: I accept no responsibility for any idiot who actually goes and builds the above; furthermore, I claim patent rights so if you do build it, I require 1 million pounds sterling in untraceable small denominations notes BEFORE you use it.
...those are awarded to fuckwits who died accidentally through their own stupidity. So unless this guy thought he could somehow dodge the bullets or was hoping that someone would rescue him at the last minute, I don't think this was accidental, nor do I think the guy was stupid. The fact that he had the ingenuity to build a machine like this, I think, shows why had had no intention of going to a nursing home, having his intellect sucked from him by dribbling wrinklies whose idea of an intellectual challenge is finishing the crossword in "Best" or winning the bingo.
Well done to him, I say, although I personally would have chosen something a little less potentially painful...
He should've opted for at least a .357/9mm -- or larger. I suspect that a double barrel shotgun would do the trick as well, but that depends on whether you want to leave your face intact or not.
I mean, if I were opting for a *painless* and quick way of going, I'd opt for point-blank at my cranium. :p
So why did he kill himself anyways? Must've been a damn good reason to go through all that trouble.
Despite conventional wisdom, the .22 handgun is very effective at point blank ranges when fired into the skull. There's enough penetration to get into the skull, but not powerful enough to cause an exit wound. The round spends some time ricocheting around in the skull a bit. It's not ideal for random street violence or police grade weaponry, but for terminating one's self it's fairly effective. He probably came across that while researching his killing machine.
Highly effective yet completely ludicrous method. I feel sad now.
The coat with the Jolly Roger on it, please.
Not sure if this would rate a Darwin award, as the man was obviously intelligent enough to build the robot, and offed himself after careful planning, not after uttering "Hey y'all, watch this!"...
I've heard that a 22 caliber shot to the head is one of the preferred methods of execution by professional assassins...
Clearly the guy was an engineer in his youth and wanted to show off.
An Oz guy? So Lewis, just how many beers were involved in the incident? Details, details Pffft!
It is true what the others have said though. A .22 Long Rifle round even though just barely supersonic will do a decent job at short range.
That reminds me, I must get some more rimfire practice in before the compo at the club.
I think the Oz politicians will be all over this like a rash. The guy was a tosser for bringing the sport into disrepute.
Asimov wrote the fameous three laws as the background for a collection of short stories demonstrating just how and why the laws don't, and can't work.
Besides, who's gonna buy a robot that won't do your killing for you? Not the boys in olive drab. Not the rich. Hackers might, but they'd just fiddle it. Actually, I guess with hackers it doesn't matter who buys it if they can fiddle it.
"The guy was a tosser for bringing the sport into disrepute"
What sport would that be? Is offing yourself a sport? Their olympics must get a bit messy.
The high jump:
"I was a bit dissapointed with that one. He just stepped off the building."
"Yeah, but great splash. I'd award him the full five watermelons!"
"Next up - Servo-Controlled Automatic Weapons!"
... for some might be choosing the time and means of your departure.
Clearly, mentioning a Darwin Award indicates a lack of understanding of what a Darwin Award is.
Underestimating the effectiveness of a .22 cal round has no doubt resulted in real Darwin Award candidates we could safely speculate ...
Painful? Certainly less than spending what remains of your life in a nursing home.
No need to worry that politicians would use this as ammunition. They are not that far removed from chimpanzees, who find that their own feces makes particularly effective ammunition and is economically self-produced.
I know who I'll be toasting at the pub tonight!
Here's to creativity and dignity!
... after so long in computer vision I am finding myself wondering if this system used a viola jones face detector. I mean it could, locate the face, measure the distance between the eyes, target a point above the centre of the eyes by approximately 50% of that measurement...
Suffice to say anyone who goes that way better not put my name on the suicide note.
Dude, I suggest you get a book on ballistics from the library. Even Wiki will educate you better.
Since this guy lived in a sub-urban area and used a semi-auto pistol it is unlikely he had it for vermin control. Most likely it was for target plinking.
Apart from pistols, Oz has absolutely draconian gun laws. Many English speaking countries do since a spate of killings in the 90's. No politician ever lost votes hammering private gun ownership whether it helped or not.
I'm getting tired of Reg Comments being used for point scoring especially by the unenlightened. I expect I'll just stop reading them soon.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018