Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 June 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 21

Cell-phone cameras vs. normal cameras

How far are technical capabilities of cell-phone cameras to normal cameras? What technical finesses do you find only in normal one-purpose cameras? 88.8.78.155 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm yet to see a camera phone to which you can attach different camera lenses - see that article for why that's significant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you can get fisheye, macro, and wide angle lenses for cell phone cameras. Dismas|^(talk) 04:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The main difference is going to be smaller sensor size and lens quality, which in turn leads to lower image fidelity and potential final image size. Most point and shoot digital cameras (which I assume the OP is referring to when he/she says "normal" as they are by far the most common these days) do not have interchangeable lenses. Camera phones are generally designed to allow pictures to be taken, sent and viewed on the small screen of a phone, not make prints like single purpose cameras. The iPhone 3GS which is marketed as having a high definition camera still has only a 3 megapixel sensor which is less than just about any new non phone camera you can buy, but just fine to make images to be viewed on other iPhones or posted on facebook with that awful app that makes them look like Poleriods . The main exception to this rule would be the Nokia N8 which has a 12 megapixel sensor so it can probably take pretty decent pictures, I don't know for sure, but the specs are pretty similar to a Canon G11, which I know takes great images, that can be printed at sizes up to about 8x10 inches. Additionally most camera phones lack advanced settings and mode operations found on decent single purpose cameras. --Daniel 03:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

... and a "normal" camera that has only a 3 megapixel sensor is still capable of producing much better pictures than the tiny lens on most mobile phones. I'm amazed at the quality obtainable from tiny cheap lenses, but it cannot match that of the quality lenses in higher-end compact cameras, and they cannot match that of professional lenses. The number of megapixels is usually a red-herring. Lens quality and the skill of the photographer are usually the limiting factors. Dbfirs 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) One thing the Nokia N8 still lacks is any sort of optical zoom. There have been a few phones with optical zoom, some of the Nokias and Samsung. The Samsungs at least have often only been sold in South Korea and other parts of Asia.

There has also been a few Chinese and Taiwanese phones with optical zoom, notably from K-touch/Beijing Tianyu (who make phones primarily for the Chinese and other developing world markets) and Altek (who make digital cameras often I think as ODM for some of the more popular brands and may have actually helped K-touch make their camera phones with optical zoom). From what I've seen, many of these have had okay cameras although still not comparable to e.g. an ultracompact like an IXUS or even an older compact digital le alone an SLR (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) the biggest issue probably being the optics (not the sensor although I'm not sure how the sensor size compares to an IXUS or similar). The phone portion has been not much to crow about (usually using the cheap MTK chipsets very common in Chinese phones). In fact some of the early K-touch models were basically a phone combined with a camera, with seperate memory cards for each portion and the inability for the phone to access stuff on the camera memory card. Also because of their target markets they've generally lacked 3G. (On the flipside they've been relatively cheap, the K-touch models dropped to about 800 Chinese Yuan within about 1 year after launch.)

Altek was developing a Android phone with a decent camera for a long time, the Altek A14 Leo it was finally released in March with Android 2.1 (I think supposed to be updated to 2.2 some time in the future) but from what I've read although the camera portion isn't too bad, the phone portion is still not that great. For example it lacks Google's approval therefore does not have direct access to normal Google Apps nor the app market place. It also seems rather buggy as several apps when installed have crashed or otherwise done funny thing. [7] [8] [9].

N.B. Bear in mind I've primarily gone by pictures and translations of reviews since I can't read Chinese. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't fall for the Megapixel Myth, and definitely don't encourage anyone else to fall for it. The resolution of full widescreen 1080p HDTV is 1920x1080 — that's within a hair of just 2 megapixels, and it's displayed on big television screens. (Yes, moving pictures are different from photographs, but it's something to consider.) From the reviews I've read, the Nokia N8 does take excellent photographs for a phone, but if you just compare the largest numbers at the top of the spec sheet and assume that it will serve as a drop-in replacement for a camera like the G11, you're going to be very, very disappointed. Leaving aside the issues of optical quality, a 'real' camera will allow you to take longer exposures, take shorter exposures, work at higher ISO (sensitivity) settings, vary the aperture, shoot sooner after you turn the device on, shoot sooner after you press the shutter button, have direct access through dedicated, tactile, physical buttons and switches to the camera controls, and in general better control your camera and the photographs it produces. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would actually take issue with the oft cited "megapixel myth" in this case. While it is true that a difference of a couple of megapixels (say from 10-12) makes virtually zero difference in the optimum final print size, cell phone cameras like the iPhone 3GS or the are seriously limited due to their sensors. Yes 3 megapixels can be viewed fine on a 1080p TV screen, just don't try to make a good quality print much larger than 4"x6." Resolutions required for print viewing and screen viewing are very different. It is true that if the consumer doesn't plan on making prints, megapixels don't much matter, but if they want to print anything other than snapshots the difference between 3 and 12 megapixels is significant. --Daniel 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

More megapixel do not make a better image. There is a trade-off between theoretical image resolution and thermal noise. The higher the pixel density in the CCD, the more noise will affect the image. This depends on technology and sensor size, of course (the bigger the CCD sensor, the more pixels you can fit in for a given acceptable noise level). It's been a while since I checked, but last time the sweet spot was claimed to be at around 6 MP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely true, but the sweet spot (for a 1/1.7" sensor) is now probably closer to 10 or 12 MP from what I've heard, so you will very likely get a significant improvement over a 6 MP camera. I understand how the megapixel wars have turned people off to this stat, but to write it off completely is equally wrong. --Daniel 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This all assumes that the optics in front of the sensor are good enough not to be the limiting factor for resolution; an assumption that is going to be very shaky for an 8, 10, or 12 MP phone camera (and probably is questionable for a lot of 3 MP phones...). As well, the conditions where people tend to be taking pictures with their camera phones (indoors, low-light, bars and restaurants, moving subjects like children and pets, etc.) are among the most punishing for small sensors. When one doesn't have a lot of light to play with (due to short exposure times or limited ambient lighting), every photon counts. Putting more pixels on the same-sized sensor means less light for each pixel, and smaller pixels are inherently noisier anyway. (There's a reason why most camera phone sensors won't push past 800 ISO, while the APS-C-sized sensor in my 550D does comparably well at ISO 3200 or faster.) Even if the picture is crisply focused, it may be disappointingly and distractingly noisy—and the human eye tends to be picky about noise more than detail. I agree that one shouldn't completely ignore the number of pixels on the sensor, but the educated consumer needs to be aware of the tradeoffs associated with higher nominal resolution. The 12 MP sensor sounds better until you realize you need to bin it down to 3 MP anyway to get a tolerable level of noise under the conditions where you take most of your pictures. (And let's be honest, the people who want to rely on a pocket combination phone/camera probably aren't going to do anything but screen viewing and 4x6 prints.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The low light performance of phone cameras is pretty dreadful. The 5 MP camera in my phone, first slows down the shutter and ramps up the gain so the image is noisy as hell. To be honest I would rather it just slowed the shutter even more to keep the noise to a minimum - I can often rest the phone on something and use the timer to remove shake. The digital zoom is pretty useless; I may as well take the photo unzoomed and do the zoom in later processing on my PC. Even in fine mode, the artefacts around edges are annoying enough to make the images useful only as small snaps (see this image for an example). Astronaut (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ted Goodwin

What year and where did Ted Goodwin play his last game of rugby league, was it Parkes, Forbes, or Willigee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.100.52 (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am 80 years old and therefore probably considered to be old fashioned, but I do wish that people would say 'please' ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjo (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that, a good answer to the question might be, "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a statement, not a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjo (talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OP, you mean this Ted Goodwin, I guess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What does the description of this van actually mean please?

I'm getting a new van from Motability and they've sent through the agrrement letter which lists the description on it but it means nothing to me so I wonder if someone could explain what it means for me please.

It's a MERCEDES BENZ Dualiner 113CDI ELWB 6stACATMP,

I'd also like to know whether a Dualiner is a Sprinter or a Vito as well as I think it's a Vito

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.240.8 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's based on a Vito; see http://www.eurocommercials.co.uk/motability-people-carrier/ It seems we don't have a specific article about the Dualiner variant (one has been requested here). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Does PSN Code Generator Work?

Hi guys, i saw some posts and download links where you can download psn code generator. Are these stuff working? I have an example that i found in this blog: redacted just wondering if this would be of any use. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonabeck2 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not link to content which is of dubious legality. I've removed the link from your post. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't access this specific thing (because of some badly-written web apps that it makes one visit) but in general such code generators try to fake the format of serial and registration numbers that various programs and websites use. But it's very often the case that they make you download a .EXE program that doesn't generate valid codes, but that does infect your PC with malware and sets it up as part of a botnet. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It probably works, a huge collection of codes was stolen from the playstation network in a recent hack. That said, using it would be very dumb for legal reasons(can't specify: no legal advice allowed, but you could go to jail), because it would get you banned from PSN, and because you should never trust unknown programs from the internet. It cannot be worth it for a few free games. i kan reed (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Boxers and swim trunks; women's underwear and bikinis

So this is something I have discussed with others at times, but I want to know if there has been a real discussion in an RS or RSs about it. Even though things like boxers often cover the same amount of skin as swim trunks, and women's underwear (except lingerie of course) cover the same areas as bikinis, why is it that there is a taboo on wearing your underwear in settings that are swimwear appropriate? Yes I know that we usually know the person is in their undies, by why is it really a big deal when the same amount of flesh is covered/uncovered? No "it's obvious" stuff. Why is it such a big deal for us really? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would there be a distinction between wearing one's pajamas in a public place—assuming the pajamas were full-length—and wearing pants and shirt covering a similar amount of the body? There just seems to be a different implication between that which social mores deem acceptable in public and those styles of dress or articles of clothing that generally-held opinion determines to be best restricted to realms where privacy is demanded by the individual—such as in one's own home. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wearing pajamas in public is okay actually, at least in New York and Washington D.C. as far as a I know, and especially for women, at least those in their teens and in college. No one will give you a second look and it is sometimes thought of as being cute. If there are different implications, why are there? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a balance struck between an individual's demand for privacy in the restricted spaces of the home for instance, and the public's demand that communal areas not be populated by people in dress-styles associated with private spaces. One can be in one's private home dressed in the most publicly-presentable evening-wear and yet object to an uninvited person entering one's home. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Any actual studies done on this topic? :p Is the same true in most of Europe btw? Like do people have this reaction that Americans do? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons you don't see people in their underwear at the beach is transparency. Swimwear uses materials that stay opaque when wet, underwear will frequently turn semi transparent. _{This can cause embarrasement due to shrinkage} --Daniel 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the OP was thinking along the lines of lounging on the beach, not going for a dip. Googlemeister (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmmm, very good point for swimmers, though let's be honest, probably 70% of people who got to the beach do not actually go in the water. Also, with regard to the last point, speedos. Yep, exactly, GooglemasterSir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

21 June 2011 (UTC)

If your just going to be lounging, boxer shorts aren't a great choice as most aren't really designed to keep everything hidden all the time. Most swim shorts have netting and are just more substantial. --Daniel 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is that, but you do have boardshorts or something which don't have the netting. Substantial works for some swimtrunks, but this isn't about planning on going to the beach (I am not for some time), just about why there is a taboo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really a taboo, it is just style, wearing underwear at the beach makes it look like you can't afford swimwear or came to the beach unprepared. If you have underwear that covers you sufficiently, I doubt anyone would say anything. I have seen people in underwear at the beach many times (even in the water with the translucent issue) and I've never heard anyone complain. --Daniel 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely that could not have been in the US though. As my mother pointed out, Britney Spears recently when to the beach in her underwear and the tabloids were all over it (even though it is their job to report on idiotic garbage). I have never seen anyone do that at a beach. At pool parties with close friends or acquaintances, yes, but not beaches. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I grew up in Santa Cruz, California (admittedly on the more liberal side of the country). Again it is just fashion, when Britney goes against the grain, the tabloids jump on it. You could do the exact same thing and no one would notice. --Daniel 15:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The mere fact that she's actually wearing underwear is news, where Britney is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So there's an example in that part of the country. :p I spend my time in the North Eastern Seaboard though and have not seen it ever. Has anyone else seen people in their underwear at the beach or other swimwear appropriate settings? Does anyone know of instances where people have possibly been arrested for wearing them? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say zero chance of being arrested just for wearing underwear instead of swimwear, if it covers appropriately there is no legal difference (except for the fashion police). --Daniel 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Being outdoors in undies is considered uncouth, maybe unless you had to run outside due to a fire or something. Just like walking around your typical shopping center wearing swimwear would be considered way out of place. It's got a lot to do with "what everyone else is wearing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember a cartoon strip in Mad Magazine many, many, many years ago in which some boys at a beach or swimming pool were totally uninterested in a couple of girls until they realised that they were wearing underwear rather than bikinis. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Curbing the dog

I saw a sign in NYC today that read, "Please leash, curb and clean up after your dog!" Was the sign being redundant, just to cover all the bases, because, from what I can tell, curb refers either to leashing/controlling the dog or cleaning up after it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I googled [curb your dog meaning] and a lot of items came up. This one seems useful.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the definitions that Merriam-Webster gives for the verb curb is "to lead a dog to a suitable place to defecate", so I see three distinct requirements in the sign's verbiage. Wiktionary could use an update for that meaning. --LarryMac | Talk 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Even taking the intended meaning of "curb" to be "control" (as the OP did), control is not synonymous with leashing. A dog could be on a leash - particularly one of the very long retractable ones - and still be permitted to approach people aggressively and physically attack other animals, both things I myself have witnessed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.203 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See curb (road). That's the meaning I have always assumed, being the more usual meaning of the word, at least in the UK.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As that article notes, it's usually spelt kerb in the UK, though the OED says that curb is the original form (related to "curve"). In the sense of "restrain" it's always "curb". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a play on the words "curb" and "kerb". I didn't think it was that difficult. Alansplodge (talk)

two questions about wikipedia...

1. is it considered sockpuppetting to use just an IP adress for a while, before switching to using an account?

2. I'e seen lots of users with funny/different signatures... can anyone direct me to a page where I can read up on stuff pertaining to signatures?

Thanks! Dubious status (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It is never considered sockpuppetry to use multiple usernames and/or IP addresses, so long as the use of those multiple usernames and/or IP addresses isn't used to obscure, deceive, or obfuscate your editing history. That is, if you aren't trying to "get away" with something (like voting multiple times in a discussion, or mask bad behavior, or avoiding an active block under an old username/IP address) you shouldn't have a problem.

2. See Wikipedia:Signatures. --Jayron32 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it is only sock puppetry when you use multiple usernames and/or IP addresses to deliberately look like you are multiple people. If you have multiple usernames, you should only use one at a time, discontinuing one when you start to use another. When using IP addresses, of course the IP address changes depending on which computer you are using, so if you edit from multiple computers, multiple IP addresses really can't be avoided. The thing I find the best to remember is never to reply to your own comment using another username/IP address than you used previously, unless you explicitly state that you are the same person. This discussion reminds me of a time when I was editing the Finnish Wikipedia anonymously, and got a warning about a page I had never edited. It turned out that I was using my work computer, and the company's network servers made all outgoing communications use the same IP address, and another employee had edited the same page, so the people at the Finnish Wikipedia thought I was the same person. I of course left a reply that I had nothing to do with it. JIP | Talk 20:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what my company does too, which is one reason why I don't edit via an IP. And it's why wikipedia doesn't generally indef IP's, unless they are proven to be proxy servers or something. One IP can have many users, and one user can have many IP's. Companies aren't typically a problem that way, most often it's junior high schools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Dubious Status ^{How's it going?} 22:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AA 96 Accident (Cargo Door Failure)

In your list of References, there was one left out (because it was a book that "named names") and showed just how 'manipulated' the FAA was and still can be when it comes to aircraft saftey. The book is called "The Rise and Fall of the DC10". It was authored about one year after the THY 'AA96' "rehersal". Apparently the Author was threatened legally and physically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.95.178 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you're referring to the article American Airlines Flight 96. The list of references in any Wikipedia article isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of all references that exist on the article's subject; it's a list of what references the writers of the article have used to source and support the statements in the article cross-referenced by the footnote numbers. Evidently none of the contributors to that article have used The Rise and Fall of the DC-10 by John Godson (probably not the person of that name we have a Wikipedia article on) for these purposes. There are several more likely explanations of why not than your suggestion of a deliberate cover up by those contributors:

They used the same original sources as John Godson, so citing his book would be redundant;

None of them considered the book a Reliable Source;

They do not have, or even have never heard of, the book.

Remember that all Wikipedia articles are written and modified by unpaid volunteers like you and me, who are unlikely to all be involved in some air industry corruption cover-up. No article gets written (or amended) unless somebody chooses to do so: if you think further information drawn from Godson's book should be included in the article, you're free to discuss it on the article's Discussion page (where your concerns would have been more appropriately raised in the first place - it's what Discussion pages are for) and to make the article edits yourself, provided they comply with Wikipedia guidelines, which you should perhaps read up on beforehand: if others disagree with the merits of your edits, they may well challenge and remove them unless you can make your case - this is how Wikipedia works.

(Incidentally, I see from googling in connection with this query that the John Godson in question has written at least five books about air travel and safety, and now recall that I've read another of them, Unsafe at Any Speed Height, which didn't strike me as particularly fringe - perhaps this author is notable enough to merit an article himself?) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.203 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

N.B.—Unsafe at any Speed is the 1965 Ralph Nader book about automakers' reluctance to incorporate safety features in their vehicles. Godson's book was the 1970 Unsafe at Any Height, which riffs/trades on the popularity and recognition of Nader's title. No comment on the relative importance of Godson's books to the corpus of air safety writing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Well spotted, TOAT. I obviously made a subconscious substitution while typing: amusing since I've never read Nader's book, while I still have Godson's around somewhere. I've corrected my mistake above to avoid misleading anyone. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we have robot tanks?

Teletanks were operating in WWII, and remote-control technology has increased substantially since then, as has AI technology. So why are tanks usually still manned locally rather than being remotely or AI controlled? 97.125.26.162 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle and Foster-Miller TALON are in active use. Larger unmanned ground vehicles are in prototype - e.g. BAE's Black Knight. As DARPA Grand Challenge shows, driving is much harder than flying, at least for robots. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the level of autonomy allowed. If you just expect it to go to the target location, and figure out how, that requires lots of machine intelligence, especially if you don't want it to flatten villager's houses on the way. If you control it like an RC car, by specifying every turn, then it doesn't need any intelligence at all, but you do need a reliable communications channel, which could be a problem if the enemy jams it. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Because as shown to us by Hollywood the robots will rebel and attack us. Really though then hacking would become more of a concern, no one can match us militarily anyways, but some random person on the internet can hack into or jam our robots.AerobicFox (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

By using "us" and "our" I presume you are not referring to somewhere like The Duchy of Grand Fenwick? However, please remember that readers come from many places around the world. Astronaut (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, pretty clearly, Aerobic fox was talking about humanity, not any one nation. Home country doesn't matter much to an uncarring killing machine. i kan reed (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Robot aircraft are used in different roles to tanks. The US used main battle tanks in the invasion of Iraq, but in other conflicts (e.g. Libya) and particularly counter-insurgency operations, smaller armored carriers and supporting air power are more important (a robotic armored personnel carrier with human passengers is a slightly bizarre idea). Robot artillery and other robots have limitations: without a human guard someone might walk up and disable or steal it. If we faced a Cold War-type scenario with huge tank battles on flat ground, robot tanks might be more useful, but even so, in modern warfare tanks tend to operate with infantry support (see combined arms). Hence, a lot of work on robot vehicles concentrates on support for infantry (carrying heavy loads, reconnaissance, etc), rather than completely replacing soldiers in the field. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that somewhere in there there's also the fear of an 'it malfunctions and starts firing indiscriminately at everything that moves' scenario when it comes to autonomous armed robots. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't restrict that risk to robots, though... ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hacking into the robotank command and control and turning it against its owners would seem to be a good reason to have a human in control, coupled with its huge cost and its vast destructive capability. The US has had one major spy scandal after another, with a few persons in the FBI and the military willing to sell every national secret they can get their hands on to a foreign power, or persons handing over classified info for idealistic, nationalistic, or religious reasons. There is a strong likelihood that "secret" encryption formulae, as well as complete tech manuals would be in the hands of opponents, allowing robotanks to be neutralized or co-opted if they were used in a war against a well organized opponent. In conflicts where they are used against poorly trained and poorly equipped insurgents with AK47's and IEDs and RPGs, robotanks would be a very useful adjunct to manned vehicles, to run ahead or and parallel to the route followed by a convoy. They can be fast and lightly armored, and operated by a person in a truck in the convoy. Such remote operated devices are already in use and their use is expected to vastly increase, along with unmanned aerial vehicles, if occupation forces continue to be in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. If the opponent is so low tech he cannot shoot down aerial drones,then he also might not be able to hack a robotank. One would expect major powers to have programs to be able to neutralize robotanks (or remote guided truck bombs) and drone bombs when opponents use them against them, but that might be expecting too much foresight. Edison (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Asimov's robot laws specifically prohibit robots from harming humans. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that only applies to us real humans, not those slit-eyed, red-haired, black-skinned Buddhist imperialist libertarians talking foreign! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see there being much risk that a tank could be taken control of, remotely. Both the tank and the remote controller could have, say, a 32 GB flash drive filled with an encryption key, and each instruction could have a new authorization code to be checked against the next portion of the key. Assuming the authorization code is the same length as the command, you could then have 32 GB of commands sent before you'd need to replace the flash drives.

Make sure that truly random numbers are used (perhaps based on radioactive decay), rather than pseudo-random, and don't make any other copies, and there should be no way to hack it. Also, a directional antenna on the tank could only accept commands from the location of the controller.

However, the possibility does exist that communication could be lost, due to jamming, a destroyed antenna, etc. Some autonomous action, like "disarm and return to base" would make sense for that case. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

YOU might use such encryption, but is there any evidence major powers are doing so? One TV news program said the output of video surveillance from US drones was presently unencoded. Edison (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on unencrypted Predator feeds from a few years back. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the crucial difference between a remote-operated or teletank where a person is making the decisions and taking responsibility for them, and a true robot tank, which would be acting autonomously. There is ongoing discussion in the military and armaments worlds about the practical and ethical problems of deploying robot weapons systems (such as sentry guns), since it's very, very difficult to program them well enough to serve their purpose but not to occasionally kill innocent people where a human would not have done so. There was an article in New Scientist magazine on this subject last year (which is behind a paywall for non-subscribers, so I won't bother linking it). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recall the "automatic sentry" in Aliens (film) (Alien 2), which was just a motion detector that fired the gun at anything that moved. Still, there are some places where there absolutely shouldn't be any civilians, so that might work there. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What you do there is send a load of rats in before the troops and let it expend all its ammo. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"No ! Think of the children (rats) ! ". StuRat (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

[...]not to occasionally kill innocent people where a human would not have done so. - not that I put overly much trust in machines, but there is the American Luftwaffe... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Humans can be held responsible for their actions, but how do you prosecute a machine for poor judgement? The principles underlying Asimov's laws are taken seriously by people working on military robotics. Take for example the Predator UAV, it is capable of autonomously flying to a predetermined location and locate and identify targets. It will even "lock on" the missile guidance system, but the "fire button" is exclusively under the control of a human operator. See http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/progs/mmme/publicengagement/Pages/principlesofrobotics.aspx http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908201841.htm Roger (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the first law it seems since there doesn't seem to be much code requiring the UAV to stay alive or to listen to any other human commands. Googlemeister (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple answer: the last major tank battles involving large numbers of MBTs was the invasion of Iraq, and before that the Persian Gulf War. The only side in both wars to have any kind of technology near to creating a fully autonomous army of tanks was the Coalition, and with Coalition MBT casualties at exactly zero in both wars, there is not much point in investing in such a robot army. Also, the main reason we have airborne drones is because planes have a tendency to be shot down over enemy territory, and pilots need to be rescued (costing money and risking lives). This sort of thing doesn't happen with tanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"The main reason we have airborne drones is because planes have a tendency to be shot down over enemy territory". There have been essentially zero shootdowns of fixed-wing aircraft in Afghanistan. The big advantage of drones isn't pilot safety, but their unmatched loiter times. --Sean 12:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been no shootdowns of human-piloted fixed-wing aircraft in Afghanistan, yes, but there were a number of them in both Iraq wars (as well as in the Balkans, and numerous other conflicts in which fixed-wing aircraft have been deployed on bombing missions). In both Iraq wars (and in the Balkans, and numerous other conflicts, etc.), unmanned drones were not in service. They were implemented afterwards - partly in reaction to the unacceptable level of human-piloted planes being shot down - and are now used in Afghanistan (also, don't forget, use of fixed-wing aircraft in Afghanistan is slightly different from Iraq, as the Coalition is not bombing targets surrounded by AA guns). Undoubtedly, drones are able to stay in the sky for longer ('unmatched loiter ability'), but that is only one of many advantages. In any case, none of this applies to tanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The loiter ability might apply. They could just park in a secured area outside the battlefield and wait to be deployed at a minute's notice, while tanks with crews would need tents, food, water, latrines, etc., to do that. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)