backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by tatoruso.. on Aug 24 at 2:31 PM


  (Source: Gizmodo)
U.S. Army places three gun-toting robots in Iraq

When it comes to robots on the battlefield, the U.S. military has a virtual skunkworks of contraptions roaming the ground and air.

In December, DailyTech reported on the iRobot PackBot which can detect enemy AK-47 gunfire via its Robot Enhanced Detection Outpost with Lasers (REDOWL) system. Just a few months ago, iRobot showed off its SUGV Early (Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle) which weighs in at 30 pounds -- this is compared to 44 pounds for the iRobot PackBot.

The U.S. Army is stepping up things in the battlefield robot arena dramatically with its new Special Weapons Observation Remote reconnaissance Direct action System (SWORDS). Three SWORDS robots were deployed in Iraq and their capabilities put human soldiers out of harm’s way.

Each robot can carry up to three M249 machines guns which are controlled by a soldier through a remote terminal. This means that every shot fired will have to be approved by a human -- the robot will not start firing without prior authorization.

As of today, no shots have been fired by the robots on the battlefield.

"Anytime you utilize technology to take a U.S. service member out of harm’s way, it is worth every penny," said John Saitta of Smart Business Advisory and Consulting. "These armed robots can be used as a force multiplier to augment an already significant force in the battle space."

The Army is pleased with the three SWORDS robots that it now has, but has requested an additional 80 for combat use. Unfortunately for the Army, additional funding has not been approved for the purchase.

"As [soldiers] use them and like them, I’ve heard positive feedback, they want 20 more immediately. It’s a shame we can’t get them to them," said SWORDS program manager Michael Zecca.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Funny
By SavagePotato on 8/3/2007 10:54:48 AM , Rating: 3
As I started reading the article I got to the part about detecting AK-47 fire and thought holy cow, then got this image of a soldier picking up a spare AK and blasting away then getting wasted by the killer robot behind him.

The human control is a very good thing.

Reminds me of the time I was playing coop operation flashpoint and shot my friend in the back of the head in the middle of a battle cause he picked up a Russian gun. Much to his repeated complaining for hours and hours, he still bugs me about that.




RE: Funny
By SlyNine on 8/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By SavagePotato on 8/3/2007 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 1
Actually it was a PKM, which personally I didn't care for. Much like the rest of the LMG's in flashpoint.


RE: Funny
By stromgald on 8/3/2007 1:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. It's a separate robot that detects and identifies gunfire. That one's pretty handy I think. Just keep it with the group and when you hear gunfire, you know where the enemy is and where the friendlies are (assuming they're using the correct rifles). It's also pretty useful at pinpointing snipers too, although the sniper has to shoot once for it to work.

To be honest, I'm not sure how useful this robot will be. Other than sneaking up on an entrenched enemy position and taking out some of the enemy, there's not all that much use to this robot. From the looks of it (yes, looks can be deceiving), it's probably more of a liability in a close-range fire fight.


RE: Funny
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/3/2007 4:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I'm not sure how useful this robot will be

Sorry dude you must be nuts to think this would not have countless uses. Here's some quick ideas: information gathering in hostile areas, take out dogs or other guard animals, going around a corner before the soldiers - see what there and maybe take it out, the robot will not freak out under fire so you can count on it (while its up and running), deploy in dangerous areas - mine fields, enemy is 300 yards away and you need to cross the field to get to them...send a sword or two; not a soldier. This is from less then a minute of think. A soldier I bet can give 300 ideas in 7 minutes...all saving their lives.

Let me ask you this, if you were the enemy and you saw this come around the corner what would be your first thought? Me it would be, what the F... is that? then I'd be dead. I'm guessing no one will scream, shoot and keep shooting that baby tank till it blows up or smokes so bad, you know it will not work.


RE: Funny
By mindless1 on 8/5/2007 9:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
If I were a soldier and saw it coming my first thought would be, "hand grenade". Second thought would be "darn, if I hadn't blown it up I might've hacked it to be under my control, to drive right up to our enemy without them realizing it was about to attack THEM".


RE: Funny
By JimFear on 8/7/2007 8:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the kind of people this would be fighting against don't have the kind of skills or equipment to reverse engineer one of these things in the time it would take for a solider to notice some b*stard has robbed his robot. There are more than likely some kind of tracking device on them, which by the time you've found it they'll already know where you are.

These things are pretty cool though, all we need now is Skynet :P


RE: Funny
By Samus on 8/3/2007 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 4
AK's have proved more reliable than the M16 in Desert combat for years (at least the Russian models) because they don't jam as much from sand getting into its firing mechanism.

You've got to remember, that our Military technology is virgin to Desert warfare. Most of our current technology was developed for Jungle and mountainous regions. Just another reason our transportation equipment is failing as well.

Just to name a few problems:

Tank filters clogged
Ageing radio system "incapable"
AS90 gun filters melted
Helicopter parts unserviceable
Lynx rotor blades lasted just 27 hours
SA80 rifles jammed
Shortage of forklift trucks
Boots melted or fell apart

Complements of BBC news.

*Lynx helicopters are not US Military equipment. We use Cobra Attach and Sea Stallion choppers, slightly more reliable.


RE: Funny
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2007 11:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes...because real world combat relates so closely to video games...


RE: Funny
By CascadingDarkness on 8/3/2007 1:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
You have obviously never played Operation Flashpoint, or its new successor Armed Assault. They are widely regarded under the genre of Combat/War simulators rather than just a video game. If your thinking Counter-Strike, or Battlefield 2 you could not be more off.

Adapted versions have been used around the world for training of troops during down time to help supplement costly live fire training.

I can see how picking up a PKM would get you killed by friendlys in real life or in game. Infact AKs functioned a lot better than early M-16s in Vietnam, but most people wouldn't touch them because firing a common enemy weapon will get you killed by friendlys.

I think these robots are great step in right direction to get less servicemen killed. My only question is three M249s? Do they aim independently, because I'm pretty sure all three at one target is a bit overkill. I understand a backup incase primary jams and they have no means to clear them yet?

Just my observations to the banter so far.
PS I've shot friendlys in ArmA who've picked up Soviet weapons too, much to the ire of teammates.


RE: Funny
By stromgald on 8/3/2007 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
It might be overkill, or they may be compensating for poor aiming accuracy. I'm not sure how pin-point accurate the servo motors are on it, especially in a dusty, sandy environment. Due to it's size alone, it might not be as stable as a human while shooting, so the extra firepower would ensure a hit/kill.


RE: Funny
By CascadingDarkness on 8/3/2007 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't think about it that way. I don't think more guns would increase hit/kill ratio though (suppose testing would be only way to know for sure). It does look like it has a nice large stable base (relatively) and in the video from another post it mentions it's 200lbs. Although the simple fact it's automatic and large caliber means it isn't going to make it too accurate.

My only guess is three guns would be better for suppression. I sure wouldn't want to stick my head out in front of three M249s blasting away. I bet that would be pretty useful for say rearguard to cover as live allies pull back/evac, or even to suppress while humans are advancing/flanking.

Just some guesses on my part. It sure would be sweet to see some video of these in action, even if it was just test live fire against targets with human team counter part. I'd be interested to see to what effect they work with human teams to be effective.


RE: Funny
By Martimus on 8/3/2007 6:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I saw this on Future Weapons, and it is actually VERY accurate. It doesn't have to worry about muscle movement, so you can really zero in on a target and get a precise shot.


RE: Funny
By Chillin1248 on 8/3/2007 2:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Operation Flashpoint was released in 2001 and then converted in the military training simulator Virtual Battlespace Systems 1 (VBS1):

http://www.virtualbattlespace.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS1

BiS then released VBS2 with the updated "Virtual Reality" engine (I believe the same one used in their recent release, Armed Assault).

http://www.vbs2.com/site/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2

-------
Chillin


RE: Funny
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2007 4:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I did play it. I didn't find it very impressive either. The AI was stupid.

"Oh look. A tank coming towards me. I'll stand here and shoot at it with my assault rifle."

It had massive environments for its time. That was about all. I quickly bored of it.


RE: Funny
By Spoelie on 8/5/2007 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
it does seem to resemble movies however, just a few steps before we have the same "swords" as in the movie "screamers"

quote:
Screamers is set in the year 2078 on the planet Sirius 6B, a once thriving commercial hub and mining colony now reduced to a battle-torn wasteland by a prolonged war. The miners (or "The Alliance") created an army of self-constructing, artificially intelligent weapons called Autonomous Mobile Swords in an effort to gain the upper hand on their technologically and economically superior foe. These weapons were nicknamed the "screamers" by Alliance soldiers, due to the shrill screeching sound they emit as they attack.


RE: Funny
By VERTIGGO on 8/3/2007 4:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
Soldiers don't just "pick up a spare AK". At least in every Marine unit we use our own weapons, and carry our own NATO rounds. Of course an interpreter may grab one if the shit hits the fan. We don't arm them for day to day operations.


RE: Funny
By SlyNine on 8/3/2007 6:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
In reference to the video game .. So take the rods out of your.. Bums. it was a joke and as for the AK proving more reliable. perhaps, but definitely less effective


RE: Funny
By SavagePotato on 8/3/2007 9:07:25 PM , Rating: 1
Holy shit people. Laugh much? smile ever?

Make a joke about a video game and killer robots and you get railroaded by tightwads about military protocol or how much said game sucks in their opinion.

The guy moaning about how unrealistic flashpoint was and how much it bored him, take a break from bitching for a while or something.

You could post that the second coming of christ just started and someone on the internet would find a reason to go on a bitch rant about it.


RE: Funny
By SlyNine on 8/4/2007 2:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
They should include these in Americas army's video game.


Short Circuit
By Verran on 8/3/2007 10:59:49 AM , Rating: 5
Johnny Five is alive!




RE: Short Circuit
By darkpaw on 8/3/2007 11:37:53 AM , Rating: 5
We are sad to report the death of Johnny Five today outside of Basra, Iraq.

He was killed while attempting to converse with a roadside IED.

He will be missed by no one.


RE: Short Circuit
By GhandiInstinct on 8/3/2007 1:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Come on Johnny 5!!!!! Get upppppp!!!!"

:)


RE: Short Circuit
By Lord Evermore on 8/5/2007 9:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it was one of his decoys. Hooray!


And yet...
By novacthall on 8/3/2007 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
And yet somehow, that looks nothing like a Terminator.

What gives?




RE: And yet...
By TedStriker on 8/3/2007 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 3
Give it time. Soon, they will realize that making it bipedal will allow it to go to the same places a human soldier can. Then just a few more inivations till we get the T-1000


RE: And yet...
By augiem on 8/3/2007 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, but when comparing physical capabilities of humans to other things in nature, we suck. Why limit the robots to our physiology?

They're better off making killer robot monkeys or birds or bugs or something.


RE: And yet...
By geddarkstorm on 8/3/2007 4:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Only for specific purpose applications. The human form is the best multi-purpose robust form I can think of, and hence why we dominant over other animals. Intellect is only part of the equation, as it doesn't matter if it can't be utilized.


RE: And yet...
By mindless1 on 8/5/2007 9:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, we dominate over animals due to our brains, intellect - inventions including shelters and weaponry, and teamwork. You versus a lion, go ahead and tell me you'd win. He'd chew your opposable thumbs right off. You're half right though, this IS a special purpose.


you have 10 seconds to comply...
By f4tb0y on 8/3/2007 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 5
5 seconds to comply...




By mendocinosummit on 8/3/2007 10:40:53 AM , Rating: 3
American, American!


RE: you have 10 seconds to comply...
By Griswold on 8/3/2007 12:54:10 PM , Rating: 1
It didnt hear the gun dropping!


By JimFear on 8/7/2007 8:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Roboinsurgent will kick his ass though.


Funding in Iraq
By AggressorPrime on 8/3/2007 11:46:19 AM , Rating: 1
Hopefully this will inspire more Americans to start supporting the war in Iraq again to remove the terrorist threat. The money will be used to increase efficiency, not violence.




RE: Funding in Iraq
By Griswold on 8/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Funding in Iraq
By straycat74 on 8/4/2007 11:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should look into the sunnis that are becoming allied with the US forces because even they are getting tired of the civillian suicide bombings. Now only if the Iraqis could only be Iraqis first, as one people like us Americans. -Oh wait, we are not Americans first, we are hyphinated Americans. Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans., Etc. Nevermind. My bad.


RE: Funding in Iraq
By dude on 8/5/2007 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, they are now our allies.

Unfortunately, they are just as violent as ever.

Fortunately, their violent nature is working well against the opposing force.


RE: Funding in Iraq
By ceefka on 8/4/2007 11:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saddam who was never a friend of fundamentalists to begin with...


Which was one of the reasons his reign was condoned at first by the western countries.


Awesome
By FITCamaro on 8/3/2007 10:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
About time we put guns on them.

Now how about you guys at DailyTech realize that two plural words don't go together.

"New Army Robots Lug Machine s Guns to Iraqi Battlefield"




RE: Awesome
By oTAL on 8/3/2007 1:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
The title was corrected, but the error remains on the article.

quote:
Each robot can carry up to three M249 machine s guns which are controlled by a soldier through a remote terminal.


Anyway, this is just nitpicking as it doesn't really affect the reading experience.


RE: Awesome
By Screwballl on 8/3/2007 2:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Each robot can carry up to three M249 machines guns...


Each robot can carry up to three M249 machine guns...
OR
Up to three of the machines guns can be mounted using the M249...

Sounds like they need a few of us for proof readers *chuckle*


Enduring Freedom
By SlyNine on 8/3/2007 10:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully this will save Iraqi citizens and American lives. A robot doesn't have to fire at all if civilians are in the way or being used as shields.

I just wish they could help us survive the flame war that is sure to commence.




RE: Enduring Freedom
By SlyNine on 8/3/2007 10:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
And all the collation forces for that matter.


thats a...
By shamgar03 on 8/3/2007 11:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
backronym if I've ever heard one...




RE: thats a...
By 440sixpack on 8/3/2007 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I thought...


Without reading everyone else's post...
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2007 4:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case anyone posted something similar I have to say that I didn't read everyone's post because it takes awhile (time is of the essence my dear Watson) but I wanted to share some thoughts in case nobody else mentioned them. One, will this increase danger of friendly fire? Two, I think this remote soldier concept is very cool. You could have a guy in a jeep with 20 of these things and he could sit and deploy them secure an area while being the only soldier actually present. Awesome. Someday, soldiers may be completely "off-site" and just drop radio controlled robots into an area via airplane. Never having to set foot in a dangerous area. The only problem with this idea is that just like the nuke, our enemies will soon learn how to build their own robots. That scares me.




By tacorly on 8/4/2007 2:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
so at what point are we fighting robots with robots, and where will this lead us in terms of peacemaking, who will win? the side with the most/any robots left? or does the side that loses all robots freak out and then deploy men to fight the remaining enemy robots, men who have not fought in actual war before because the robots were doing it...


A Good First Draft
By Arrundale on 8/4/2007 11:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
One day we will look back on these as we do the biplane in aviation: a critical principle is there but the execution is primitive.

These bots are insufficiently lethal, too expensive, controlled by specialists and are outside the command and control of the battlefield commander.

The tactics of our enemy will be incorporated into a bot with American technology and the cost-efficiencies of mass production. One day we will flood the battlefield with "one use," low cost "IED" bots that have the option of being a frag charge or a narrow, explosively formed charge.

Under cover of darkness any urban environment could be flooded with tamper-proof bots designed to eliminate hostiles: tamper with one and you're dead, shoot at one and the nearest frag charge eliminates the threat to the "network."

A "strategic" inventory of Robotic Explosive Devices (a US RED army ?!) that could saturate "X" square miles of enemy territory will be part of a new political calculus that will balance the costs of this new inventory against the political costs, and human lives lost, of protracted urban warfare.




RE: A Good First Draft
By augiem on 8/4/2007 1:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Explosive robots... In your scenario, I'd say they should be very small flying robots. If they're meant to kill people, the smaller the better. Maybe insect sized or even smaller to make detection harder. If they're for blowing up structures, obviously they'd have to be bigger.

Of course, they'd probably be easier to defend against than a bullet, but in massive numbers, I'm sure they'd be effective (and wonderfully expensive just like the gov and wpn contractors like it).


But, uh...
By Polynikes on 8/5/2007 11:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it, but this thing has a serious chance of being rendered ineffective very quickly. Why? It's toting an M249 SAW, which in my experience as a Marine infantryman is extremely prone to misfeeding and jamming under even the best conditions. On a line of 8 of them firing at a range, almost never were they all up and running properly for more than 30 seconds.

Next problem: hot barrels. Those barrels get hot fast and that robot sure as heck can't change them itself. I don't think it even has room for extras on there. This thing would only be good when deployed on the battlefield by a squad right in the middle of a fight, and I'd HATE to be the guy wasting time clearing jams and changing barrels. He'd be a sitting duck.




RE: But, uh...
By SandmanWN on 8/6/2007 10:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like you missed the part where its mobile. If it gets jammed or the barrel gets too hot you simply turn it around and head back to the nearest soldier. No need to be a doofus and go to its compromised and open position. Not to mention the military is asking for more than one so it makes sense that they use these in groups to ensure that breakdowns wouldn't cause a mission failure.

Put it this way... If you try with the robot and fail you've only lost a chunk of metal. I'm pretty sure that makes the whole ordeal worth while.


Erm yeah.
By Amiga500 on 8/3/2007 10:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
All well and good.

But the war in Iraq is not conventional its asymmetric. This robot is not going to be of much use to them for patrolling really.




By HardwareD00d on 8/3/2007 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Judgement day.




Human in the loop
By Boottothehead on 8/3/2007 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
In both the case of the AK listening robot and in the Talon/Swords models there is a human in the loop. The sniper detector just gives the direction of incoming enemy fire to soldiers... It doesnt return fire. As for the Swords bots, they are controlled by remote by a soldier. They aren't autonomous.




Speed?
By BiuTech on 8/3/2007 12:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
These things are sweet. Great for the military; anything that can put soldiers more out of harms way. I was curious as to how fast they are and apparently they move about 5mph, which is sufficient. Here's some cool footage:

http://military.discovery.com/videogalleries/warbo...




Hello Zero Hour!
By exdeath on 8/3/2007 2:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Laser defense systems, remote control robots, F22 Raptors... wow.

All we need now is a ground based particle beam cannon that can up link it's beam to a satellite network to fire instantly at any point on the globe and cold fusion reactors and we are all set.




cylons!
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/3/2007 3:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is where our money goes....

Creating cylons!

Hey maybe after they've wiped us out 20-30 years from now, they'll actually fix our bridges and levees just to spite us?




James Cameron would be proud
By wordsworm on 8/5/2007 10:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
So these are the fledgling steps that are beginning the age of robotic warfare. It's really just the beginning. I've envisioned squadrons of small AI planes loaded with ounces of plastic explosives flying low in a kamikaze attacks against open enemies.

If these machines are controlled remotely, perhaps it's only a matter of time before the enemy gets its hands on one and learns how to hack them to their own ends.

Well, that's fanciful. But it seems to clearly demonstrate that Cameron's imagination is coming to fruition, without the time travel and happy ending. It's just a matter of time before one man, malevolent or benevolent, controls these machines.

May mankind gain wisdom and a conscience before it's too late.




Funny...
By tatoruso on 8/24/2007 2:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
It´s really funy that the US would waste so much time, sooooo much money, in a war against an invisible enemy.
Also, it´s funny how they justify the death of over 3000 US soldiers (fathers, sons, grandchildren, smart, capable people)in order to AVOID further american deaths from terrorism...
Plus, you all talk about it with such lightness... don´t you realize that they are people too? it sickens me.
Please rate this down. It makes the header RED, which in turn attracts more attention and will probably make more people read this.
mmm and also.... pray that they don´t get a chance for revenge... lo que siembres, cosecharas, y ellos estaran muy molestos :P




I'll take three
By TimberJon on 8/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: I'll take three
By CascadingDarkness on 8/3/2007 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 1
Put down the pixie sticks kid. This isn't a sci-fi movie it's RL.

These are a great start, but you can't just right to huge intensely armored/armed robotics without learning along the way. I'm sure they'll improve with new models once these are field tested in a real battle zone.


RE: I'll take three
By augiem on 8/3/2007 1:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of funny. You got voted down for being too enthusiastic about what EXACTLY what this robot is designed to do. Kill the enemy! (Why 3 machine guns then?) But when you came out and say it without putting some PC disclaimer like "Oh, we all know war is so terrible, but the potential to save lives with these robots..."

Your ideas are an evolution of the robot design and undoubtedly are being worked on along with others.

It just strikes me odd that a message board on a site full of very smart people have the knee-jerk reaction to vote you down because you're using a seeming callous tone or something.

Don't you just love the mind police?


RE: I'll take three
By stromgald on 8/3/2007 1:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe he got voted down because his whole post is RIDICULOUS. Rail guns would never work on something like that because of the power requirements. Building it to survive grenades and machine guns is equally ridiculous since we have trouble protecting humans, which can carry much more weight.

The post was more of a fantasy than anything remotely close to discussion of future evolution of the robot.


RE: I'll take three
By rippleyaliens on 8/3/2007 4:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
I got one quick one for all the members in this arena who have ever had to pull Guard DUTY,..
HAve a bunch of these on perimiter, 1. They never sleep
2. a soldier can control 4 of these. which means more rest for the soldier/marine.
More importantly, these things can go FIRST.. Up front.
I have had my 6 pulling the first man, and i tell you.. the thought of always being teh first one shot , is horrible.

I cant wait until they have like full size ones, from T3.. about 6-8ft tall, fully armored.. etc...
Sensors, the whole package.


RE: I'll take three
By JimFear on 8/7/2007 8:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
Humans are fleshy, shrapnel from grenades chew through fleshy things, the only reason human soldiers don't have massive armour on is because of mobility, I'm sure soldiers would be chuffed (and shot) to bits if they waddled around wearing bomb disposal armour.

They could and should develop armour for these robots that has a layer of armour then some synthetic fleshy armour filled with a resin (maybe that liquid kevlar stuff) that hardens on contact with air, a a grenade would go off piercing the armour but the resin would set in and harden up to give it that extra fighting chance. I wonder how resilliant they are to toppling too?


RE: I'll take three
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2007 5:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
No. I don't love the ratings systems. I think it's stupid, and many would agree. We don't need this form of secondary censorship.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki