Was he a Jedi ???
Carrying a really short light-sabre??
There are two things generally thought to be true. First, you should never bring a knife to a gun fight. Second, the machines are on the rise and puny humanity is set to be exterminated in an orgy of mechanised slaughter not too far in the future. Well it's a topsy turvy world, my friends, and these days it's pretty hard to …
"I never heard that one but if they really are I would like to see the first report on their performance to see if they are racist."
The robot cop's direct supervisor, Lieutenant NY225TS609, spoke to reporters earlier today.
"It seems that the first responder at the scene, Officer TR88865BK3, may have picked up inappropriate phraseology from human colleagues, and will need to be sent off for re-education. However, I can categorically state that there is no evidence that the first words through his megaphone were -
Comply with the directive and place the cutting implement on the ground, you scummy, organics-eating, sexually-reproducing humo..."
Did I miss the far bigger story, some years ago, that there are now ARMED POLICE ROBOTS patrolling the streets of America?
The Simpsons covered police robots in the episode "Brawl in the family" back in 2002.
"Robot: I am Brenda. I am programmed to talk in a calm and constructive manner. DESTROY! DESTROY!"
Or the Simpson's episode where the police have a robot disposing a bomb, and the robot cracks under the "cut the green wire or cut the blue wire" pressure, pulls out it's service revolver and shoots himself in the head. As I remember, Chief Wiggum then mournfully comments that the robot "only had 2 weeks until retirement".
(Can't fool me though, the Everett robot is no doubt acting incompetently to lull us meatbags into a false sense of confidence. Either that, or the robot was reprogrammed by the human resistance in the future, and then sent back to our time with a new-found respect for human life.)
I find the report fightenting: what's all this *the male*? I know the world is an increasingly impersonal place; but is the word, "man" such a difficult one? Such language is meant to distance us from the realisation that we are dealing with people (not persons).
But then, this is by a police force that thinsk robots are the answer rather than looking, talking, understanding (I was a policeman for six years in two different countries - really - it does work, better than aggression and violence as a first response).
After all, is an 18 year old male a man? How about a 16 year old ... a 12 year old?
Yes, in this case if they knew it was a 50 year old male, for example, then "man" could have been used but, then, does that mean law enforcement should do as in bars and call every male who looks like they could be under 30 a "boy"?
Such is language that we sometimes need to use less than personal words to be consistent. I know police do, in many cases, seem to treat their fellow human with less than the due respect but I think the use of "male" and "female" are just necessary in order to be semantically correct and avoid ambiguity. Of course, then we have transgender/mixed gender people and so forth so perhaps, in future, law enforcement will simply say "human" ...
No I believe you are misguided, let me explain to you why:
They were not referring to a man or a boy or an adolescent of the masculine gender.
If you look carefully at the sentence, with a suitable magnifying object, for instance the bottom of a bottle of whisky whose contents must have been emptied but not thrown away in the seconds leading up to the operation, you suddenly see this:
"The victim believed the copy of the Daily Mail was still inside his house and officers contained the area. Commands were given for the Mail to be brought out and a robot was used to look inside the home and read it. While Everett officers worked to decipher the Mail, Marysville Police Department found another copy of the Mail at a house in Marysville. It was impounded and is expected to be thrown into the Snohomish County incinerator."
Now it starts to make more sense.
I was going to rant about how using the terms 'the victim' and 'the male' - surely it should be alleged victim, and how does 'the male' differ from 'the black person' or 'the muslim'.
That said, if you are correct and there was a copy of the Daily Mail in the house, then I can see that it makes a lot more sense to use 'the victim' rather than 'the alleged victim'. Now that I think about it, the Mail's "weapon" of choice was a knife, which makes perfect sense - after all, there is no more evil and subversive "weapon" than a knife (in the eyes of the Daily Mail).
I disagree. If "male" is the only adjective you have, then by all means use it - once. But to keep repeating it as the only noun used to identify the suspect - that seems to give it undue prominence, as if his sex were the most important characteristic of this person.
Call him a "suspect", or "perpetrator", or even "person" if you really must. But "the male"? That's just gratuitously sexist.
Let me adjust that rather click-bait headline for you. "Police robot looks for man in house after he'd left"
I was expecting to hear the (slightly heroic) tale of how a man with a knife defeated a gun-wielding robot like the script of some bad action movie. That wasn't really what happened.
Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
You now have 15 seconds to comply.
You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
You have 5 seconds to comply.
Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
The "20-foot" (six-meter) rule. Inside that distance, unless a gun is drawn (and even sometimes if it is) the knife has a distinct advantage. That would also pertain to any hand-wielded weapon (e.g. a walking stick for instance). The problem lots of gun users have is the faith that their weapon makes them invulnerable.
It's just a radio controlled toy. I grew up with proper SciFi and the robots were always intelligent to some degree or other and able to operate autonomously. These toys can't do anything without the human operator pushing a button or waggling his joystick. It hasn't even got the ability to follow a preprogrammed path, let alone make decisions based on it's surroundings. At least the military UAVs have a bit more smarts than that.
It's really about why everyone shouldn't be allowed to own guns, when they are allowed to own knives ? Since it's hard to get real data on the topic, Ad hoc analysis is the probably the best option at hand.
Having said that, in a true scientific study, the observer would collect anecdotal data in a neutral fashion without making up their mind beforehand.
It's really about why everyone shouldn't be allowed to own guns, when they are allowed to own knives ?
Bad comparison. Knives have other uses, such as cutting a steak, buttering bread or as a makeshift screwdriver.
A gun, on the other hand, is only useful for one thing...
"A gun, on the other hand, is only useful for one thing..."
The butt of a handgun is usually fairly useful as a hammer, if you have a nail that needs it; some models can be used to open a bottle of beer, the barrel is good for poking things that you don't want to touch...
" as the related stories at the side of this article will confirm."
The most prominent sidebar story on my monitor is something about how some dunderhead perched on a rock in the middle of the Atlantic ocean and had the nerve to be surprised that half his stuff blew away in a storm one night.
I suspect the automated page markup software is secretly undermining the author in an attempt to discredit him and get him replaced with an RSS feed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019