Slashdot Mirror


A New Human-Seeking Drone, Much Cheaper Than a Predator

An anonymous reader writes with this envy-inspiring bit from Gizmodo on the Aeryon Scout Quadrotor: "The drone, packing a camera that can ID a human from almost two miles away (using a standard digital cam or thermal vision), can be hand-assembled. Once in the sky, it gyro-orients itself to track whatever it is you're tracking, can hit speeds of over 30 MPH, and is all controllable with a touch remote. Tap a target, and watch the drone zoom over. It's not going to rain down any Hellfire missiles, but hey, it only weighs a kilogram."

178 comments

  1. The real question is: by spaceplanesfan · · Score: 2

    Can it detect hot chicks?

    1. Re:The real question is: by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      You want infra red for that - oh wait...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What difference could that make ?

      You'll never get in their pants.

    3. Re:The real question is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can it detect hot chicks?

      Only Sarah Connor...

  2. Hand assembled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "can be hand-assembled..."

    I can't be the only one whose first thought was, "Well, I can understand not wanting to use a high level language in its firmware, but we've had assemblers for a long time now and they're really pretty good by now."

    1. Re:Hand assembled? by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hand assembled wasn't the only misstatement in the article. It can't "ID" a person from 2 "miles" away. The narrator clearly says "with its 425mm equivalent zoom lens it can detect a human from over 2 kilometers away." Of course, we can blame jizmodo for these screwups, as it's their article which is quoted in TFS.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Hand assembled? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      That was my first question... do they mean "it can tell that the object 2 miles away is a human", or "it can tell that the object 2 miles away is the specific human it is after out of the 7 billion on this planet". I guess it could do the latter if the target promised to wear their locating beacon.

    3. Re:Hand assembled? by whovian · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for them to come up with a self-replicating drone. We could call them replicators. Um...maybe that's not such a good idea.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    4. Re:Hand assembled? by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing Cylon written all over that carton! :-D

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
  3. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darth Maul had these in 2001.

    1. Re:Old news by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      tl;dr

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Old news by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Half-life 2 had these in 2004. Easy to take down with a crowbar

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  4. Radar by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Something that small would be hard to spot with radar, and it does not need to rain down hell fire missiles, a single well places .22 round will neutralize many targets.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Radar by gman003 · · Score: 0

      You're not going to get a well-placed shot from a drone like this. Far too unstable. If it were me, I'd put something like an MP5SD, a M249, an M240 or an M2 on it (depending on size - having not gotten to TFA yet, I don't know which would be best). The last one would probably be best - accurate at long ranges (it was unofficially used as a sniper rifle in WW2), powerful enough to take down small vehicles or light aircraft (including other drones, hint hint), and automatic (so you don't need a stable firing platform). A bit heavy, and recoil's a bitch, but not impossibly so.

    2. Re:Radar by olsmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A few ounces of high explosive, a detonator circuit, a fragmentable body, and a kamikaze run would probably take care of things nicely.

    3. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a lump of plastic explosive in it and fly it at people's heads.

    4. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's small, hard to detect and pretty fast. One could simply equip it with something like a spinning blade.
      Hmm, sounds somehow familiar...

    5. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only weighs a kilogram, so it probably won't carry more than 100g. So which do you think would be appropriate: the MP5SD, the M249, the M240 or the M2?

      Seriously, though - that's enough for a teeny-tiny explosive charge, if you don't mind losing the drone in the process.

    6. Re:Radar by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the next best thing would be to simply lase the target so the big stuff can be delivered accurately on target - without having some poor grunt in the field having to put his head up. Not sure how big a laser you need to do the job - but can't imagine it's very much weight or power. Looks stable enough to keep a beam tracking on a target. A lased target could be the focal point for various armaments, and would effectively allow the drone to be used to take out targets like tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, - basically you name it. I guess it might even be able to tag hardened targets for big strikes. I assume someone has put an gps in it so the general location is known. Another, alternative might be to arm it with a florescent paint ball, to you can tag a target at night - so they can be tracked easier.

    7. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a trained sniper would have a really hard time hitting this at a few hundred feet up. Even if he could spot it, which seems unlikely, gun tripods aren't designed to allow you to shoot up in the air. The best rifles only have like 800m range.

    8. Re:Radar by bendodge · · Score: 4, Informative

      depending on size - having not gotten to TFA yet

      Here's a better article on it with some pictures that show scale (in case you're not on board with the video craze): http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/military-robots/aeryon-scout-quadrotor-spies-on-bad-guys-from-above
      It can easily fit in a small suitcase, so no, you're not going to be mounting firearms on it.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    9. Re:Radar by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could use it to spot your mortar fire.

    10. Re:Radar by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      You DID catch the "weights around a kilogram" part, right? Power to weight ratio for the weaponry you're talking about would take a LOT more power than this little thing can generate...

      --
      Stone
    11. Re:Radar by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      ...bud, you really need to step into the 21st century. We are getting reports of confirmed kills at three times that distance...

      --
      Stone
    12. Re:Radar by gman003 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'll be honest - I didn't read the entire summary, either.

    13. Re:Radar by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why shoot anything. Logically you would tweak the battery so that using high discharge capacitors you could overload it and detonate it as the explosive and fragment source (weight saving whilst increasing destructive payload). So you have a short range, very low cost, aerial mine usable and manufacturable by all and sundry, a mobile IED or with government authorised combatants use it, an assassination device.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Radar by rmstar · · Score: 1

      You're not going to get a well-placed shot from a drone like this.

      No, but maybe with a drone like this. A couple of those on a large area can be used to find the victim, and then only one of the big ones to perpetuate the crime.

    15. Re:Radar by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Eh, you could still make it into a killer, just put a six shot pepper box style of 22 rounds (light barrels, especially if they are only for a single shot) and have the bullets dipped in poison...it could work. If you used one of the more nasty ones you wouldn't even have to be very accurate at all, any hit would do.

      But am I the only one who really doesn't like how damned cheap these "electric eyes" are getting? I mean all we need is to end up with the things so damned cheap every BF nowhere PD has the entire population being watched, hell it is already getting harder and harder not to be under constant camera surveillance, do we REALLY need the things so simple cops can drive them with iPhones?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's small, hard to detect and pretty fast. One could simply equip it with something like a spinning blade.
      Hmm, sounds somehow familiar...

      Ah, but it has a camera, wireless communication, and can transmit over the internet! Patent Office, here I come!

      CAPTCHA: Cleanse. How appropriate.

    17. Re:Radar by plover · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Hell, I just watched a TV game show where they held a sniper contest to see how quickly they could place a round on a target at 1000 yards. *spoiler* The winner sighted in using a couple of shots and hit the target in 31 seconds. The military sniper hit it in one shot, but took 33 seconds. Kind of an unfair outcome, but it's a TV show, not combat.

      --
      John
    18. Re:Radar by plover · · Score: 1

      Even a trained sniper would have a really hard time hitting this at a few hundred feet up. Even if he could spot it, which seems unlikely, gun tripods aren't designed to allow you to shoot up in the air. The best rifles only have like 800m range.

      The GP wasn't suggesting a sniper take out this drone. The GP was suggesting that the drone could be outfitted with a very lightweight weapon (such as a single .22 caliber round), and take out one valuable target.

      --
      John
    19. Re:Radar by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I suppose that development would make the terrorist organizations better friends of the civilians, if the terrorists use it to get back at the leaders that sent the war to their lands, rather than just indiscriminately blowing up buildings and killing civilians. Of course, I doubt that outcome; they'd likely use these to target bridges and rail lines.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    20. Re:Radar by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I can it something man-sized at 800m, given a few attempts. 2000m+ shots have been made.

    21. Re:Radar by shish · · Score: 1

      with government authorised combatants use it, an assassination device.

      Totally tangentially -- why is killing hundreds of grunts encouraged, killing hundreds of civilians is frowned upon but tolerated, but killing one specific leader is illegal?

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    22. Re:Radar by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      with government authorised combatants use it, an assassination device.

      Totally tangentially -- why is killing hundreds of grunts encouraged, killing hundreds of civilians is frowned upon but tolerated, but killing one specific leader is illegal?

      It's not illegal. But leaders don't like it because it tends to invite retaliation in kind. And leaders don't usually lead from the front. That would be dangerous. They prefer to let other people do the dying.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    23. Re:Radar by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Of course in democratic countries the opportunity exists to establish laws where by the leaders take front row as a real test of how desirable they really consider the war ie let's pluck and fry the chicken hawks first and see if the war continues beyond that point or whether non-violent diplomacy will resolve all issues.

      As an aerial mine they can obviously be dropped from altitude and hang around for some time before initiating a target of opportunity attack and if they are stationary resting on a suitable vantage point they could hang around for days, with solar panels weeks.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Radar by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      So the mass is about a kilogram, but that describes its weight only when you know the conversion ratio for mass-to-weight for where you are (where it is) at the time.

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    25. Re:Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why waste them? Stick an IR or UV laser pointer on it and have it light up the target for a missile, sniper, long range self-aiming rifle, you name it.

      Probably wouldn't cost much to have a seven-barrel rifle cluster put a nice 2-3-2 hexagon of shots on the target from half a mile away, repeated for a triple-burst. The grouping and repetition should compensate for at least some movement, wind etc. Plus it's a lot harder to spot supersonic bullets incoming than it is to see/hear a head-sized quadcopter buzzing towards you.

      Although I guess if it was painted sky-blue or night black, and fell directly and silently from a quarter-mile up, it might work. The only problem is that every time you set one off, you'd lose a sky-eye in the process. If you only had the one left, you might not be able to determine immediately if the target was taken down. Although if it dropped a finned grenade from 200ft up, that might work. That way it would only need to place itself in danger if it had to fly in the window of a building to bomb something.

      Speaking of which, I wonder if there would be a market for tiny explosive splatballs which could be shot at a window and have just enough detonation force to smash the glass, allowing the microcopter entry to the structure? Or a reusable sticky glob on a retractable string, which attached to a window and smashed it with sonics or a tiny concussion?

      Hmm, how long will it be before the backpack-sized look-through-walls device is microcopter-sized?

    26. Re:Radar by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      We can even name them manhacks and have them deployed from a soldier's belt.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Cheaper than a predator by spauldo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so it's cheaper than a predator. It's also completely different than a predator.

    It's like saying a golf cart is cheaper than a Freightliner. It's true, but they don't serve the same purpose.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    1. Re:Cheaper than a predator by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And I want one. (As does pretty much everybody else here).

      I wonder how long the batteries last?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but look at it from another angle... Since this is /. let's do a car analogy. Many people currently driving a Hummer would be much better served by a Kia Picanto, which costs roughly twenty times less.

    3. Re:Cheaper than a predator by MrQuacker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure they do. One moves a fat ass cross-country, the other moves a fat ass cross-country-club.

    4. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HaHaHa!

    5. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur. Why yes, I am Italian!

    6. Re:Cheaper than a predator by bendodge · · Score: 2

      According to this article it has a range of 3 km.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    7. Re:Cheaper than a predator by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Totally wrong. The first "fat ass" would be skinny (because of pep pills) and the other would also be skinny (from cocaine this time).

    8. Re:Cheaper than a predator by spauldo · · Score: 1

      My Freightliner moves a fat ass, but it's leased, so maybe the same rules don't apply.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    9. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know feeding the trolls only helps them grow, but twenty times less is synonymous with a factor of 20 less, i.e. dividing by 20. Though where you can find a $2,000 (or even $5,000 if the GP is using a higher end Hummer) new car is beyond me.

    10. Re:Cheaper than a predator by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      I'm not trolling, and I know it's common usage, it just sounds dumb.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    11. Re:Cheaper than a predator by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      What I wanna know is, how does it compare to a crazy stalker?

    12. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Nikker · · Score: 2

      It's less accomplished at climbing trees.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    13. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's probably referring to something else (like radio communication range), as the top speed is given as 50 km/h (which would give it a battery life of about 3 minutes if it only had enough juice for 3 km/h).

      Article I saw gave it a battery life of 25 mins.

    14. Re:Cheaper than a predator by jamesh · · Score: 1

      So it can identify a target 2 miles (3.2km) away, but runs out of battery 200m before it can get there? I'm shaking in my boots!

    15. Re:Cheaper than a predator by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      They say cheaper, but do they list the price anywhere? I didn't see it in TFA nor on Aeryon's website, just "Request a Quote".

    16. Re:Cheaper than a predator by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      (which would give it a battery life of about 3 minutes if it only had enough juice for 3 km/h).

      Should be km, not km/h. Should have made better use of that there "preview" button...

  6. This works both ways by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    This type of statistical image analysis is too easy to do these days. It would be a Synch for the terrorists to construct them. The idea would make a great video game. "Quadrotor Warz!"

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:This works both ways by bferrell · · Score: 2

      Shades of Dune! can you say hunter/seeker? I knew ya could!

    2. Re:This works both ways by mrxak · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought of, except those were motion-sensing. Anyway, stick a poison needle on the front of it.

  7. Hand assembled? by angiasaa · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for them to come up with a self-assembling drone.. Now _that_ ought to make some news!

    --
    Geekism is your _only_ God!
  8. I've got a name for it by microbee · · Score: 1

    iWing!

    Just plug the darn accessory into your iPhone, and throw it into the sky - off you go!

    Did I mention it comes with both black and white?

    1. Re:I've got a name for it by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Funny

      sigh, can I take a shot at this joke please

      Apple announced its partnership with the military today called iWings for iPads

    2. Re:I've got a name for it by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      If it's any consolation, if I hadn't already posted, I'd have modded you +1 Funny... :)

      --
      Stone
    3. Re:I've got a name for it by The+Bean · · Score: 1

      Pacifists were reported to be protesting the product, but the White House insists its intention is to reduce blood shed...

    4. Re:I've got a name for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh, can I take a shot at this joke please

      Apple announced its partnership with the military today called iWings for iPads

      The fact that you can make such a joke shows either: (1) there is a female on slashdot, or (2) a slashdotter has a girlfriend. Either way, I think my head is about to exp*&%&^GKHY(*[NO CARRIER]

    5. Re:I've got a name for it by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      married (runs for cover)

  9. Oblogatory by $0.02 · · Score: 0

    What can possibly go wrong?

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    1. Re:Oblogatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      They need to STOP MAKING THESE.

    2. Re:Oblogatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      They need to STOP MAKING THESE.

      HERE HERE. This is one of the biggest threats to humanity, up there with nuclear capability. What happens when a totalitarian government takes control or a terrorist organisation gets hold of a bunch of these?

    3. Re:Oblogatory by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Spelling Obligatory maybe?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:Oblogatory by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      They get even better surveillance capabilities and some aerial IEDs. That's about it. It's not like they are unable to kill people at present...

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  10. Next target? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a hunter-killer. So now we've got Bin Laden does that mean we're going after Paul Maud'Dib next?

    1. Re:Next target? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      That hunter killer was controlled by a Harkonnen agent sealed up in the basement. It did not have an on board computer (computers were outlawed by the Butlerian Jihad)

    2. Re:Next target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking machines were outlawed, not computers. Even a remote controlled drone would require a "dumb" computer of some sort to operate.

    3. Re:Next target? by fireylord · · Score: 1

      Heres hoping gel-circuitry doesnt get invented then

  11. Aeryon is so 2009.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty alternative quad/octo/hexa-rotor projects out there by today.

  12. Human Seekers by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 1

    Something wrong with using Mantracker to hunt for people?

    --
    Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
    1. Re:Human Seekers by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Something wrong with using Mantracker to hunt for people?

      I am looking for Sarah Conner, I'll be bach.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  13. Half-Life 2 by lymond01 · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the Middle-Eastern market for crowbars is a good place to invest.

  14. Um wtf slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF all of slashdot's comments?

    1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1. % 1 Billion

    dollars of budget deficit = 1 Gramm-Rudman

    6.023 x 10 to the 23rd power alligator pears =

    Avocado's number 2 pints = 1 Cavort Basic

    unit of Laryngitis = The Hoarsepower

    Shortest distance between two jokes = A

    straight line 6 Curses = 1 Hexahex 3500

    Did anyone else get that dump on the bottom of their page? It was exactly 64,613 bytes.

    1. Re:Um wtf slashdot by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Looks like someone screwed up the EOL chars for the quotes file. It's spitting out the file until it comes to the end of the buffer or memory location (which in some languages would be that length in terms of string variables).

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  15. Slahdot broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry tor being offtopic, but did slashdot kind of break for anyone else? I got this as quote at the bottom of the page.

    1. Re:Slahdot broken? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Looks like we got all the MOTDs at once.

    2. Re:Slahdot broken? by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      Either that or the front page of the Time Cube site.

  16. "peeping toms" now get high tech... OR... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    Anyone that can afford one can setup a porn site using these things to peer in windows.

  17. Ayreon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a very good band. Listen to "Universal Migrator: The Dream Sequencer" and "Into the Electric Castle". Beautiful music.

    what was the subject again?

  18. Get your own: Parrot AR Drone by aqui · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can get your own:

    Here:
    http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/parrot-parrot-ar-drone-ipod-iphone-ipad-controlled-quadricopter-orange-blue-pf720002ag/10156982.aspx?path=81e4f1876418f65ce283409ba0d00969en02

    for $330 Canadian this baby flies for 20 min. indoors and out self stabilizes and hovers, and can be controlled via your iphone or your computer via wifi
    and has two onboard cameras (one forward facing one downward facing.

    It's made by AR Drone
    http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/

    It's even hackable:
    http://www.ardrone-flyers.com/news/73-urbi-following-a-ball-in-25-lines-of-code.html

    I've seen it fly and it's sweet. With a VGA camera its pretty cool.

    --
    ----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
  19. Very impressive. by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    After watching the Youtube video of this device, I got very interested. I would love to give it a whirl, to look around the town etc.

    Well done, Canadians. If you have the lack of wisdom to outsource production to China, I might get me one of the cheaper Chinese knock-offs ;) Just kidding.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  20. holy crap by Jyunga · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two Canadian technology posts on slashdot in two days.... WE ARE THE NEXT CHINA!

    1. Re:holy crap by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Really? You're going to sell us inferior products at low prices, even as stealing the designs for yourself?

    2. Re:holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You're going to filter the internet and brutally crack down on dissidents?

    3. Re:holy crap by alienzed · · Score: 2

      and then!

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    4. Re:holy crap by d6 · · Score: 1

      well, the conservatives _do_ have a majority now. stay tuned.

    5. Re:holy crap by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, I'm so happy I'm not the only one who thought that as soon as they saw the comment.

    6. Re:holy crap by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      bah we can take you down with a convoy of beer and vintage electric hockey toys

  21. Flag? by Heshler · · Score: 0

    What's with the Canada flag on the story? Not only is there not mention of Canada anywhere in the story, it's kind of annoying that whenever there's a tech development in Canada, Slashdot editors seem to assert that the most important feature of this development is that it is Canadian, rather than the cool tech. This is kind of condescending. Don't forget who won the recession.

    1. Re:Flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not your friend, pal.

  22. Yawn! Story from the year before yesteryear by hknust · · Score: 0
  23. oh, the abuse by Thad+Zurich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can you say "Paparazzi"? I knew you could.

    1. Re:oh, the abuse by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Even better, we can keep an eye on the cops from a distance. Finally we have more tools to fight back against the abuse of wiretap laws. Definitely a good thing.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  24. No Hellfires? Meh! by md65536 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the point of any technology that can't rain down Hellfire missiles?

    That's right! None!

    Anyone who is developing any technology, from baby food to high-powered anti-personnel ordnance, should ask themselves: "How can we monetize this, and how can we weaponize this?"

    1. Re:No Hellfires? Meh! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      i bet somebody puts a custom scoped rifle or poison dart shooter thingy on it before the year is over...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:No Hellfires? Meh! by stinkytoe · · Score: 2

      Honestly, outside the military, I could see how this makes sense to you. But in practicality, there are other, more pertinent missions that this UAV would be more suited for. For example, I work on UAVs for the Marine Corps. We're are far more interested in the smaller, more field expedient UAVs that we can operate in theater and provide direct intel to our riflemen brethren. If we need a large, hard target taken out we call other support (cobras, arty, our jets, air force jets etc...). But on the level I work at, we already have motivated Marine grunts nearby and don't need the heavy shit. We just have to keep eyes on the situation to aid them in tracking the enemy, they to the work. So while there is a place for UAVs to make the kill (and honestly i'm surprised that Osama wasn't taken out by an Air Force Reaper), most situations still require boots on the ground, and the smaller more local UAVs are more suited to that goal.

    3. Re:No Hellfires? Meh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a camera, WiFi, and a FaceBook account.

  25. A dog wrapped in Detcord and ball bearings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It can refuel itself and with little more than a dirty sock it can track a target for miles. Best of all you can deploy hundreds of them for less money than a single drone.

    1. Re:A dog wrapped in Detcord and ball bearings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can refuel itself and with little more than a dirty sock it can track a target for miles. Best of all you can deploy hundreds of them for less money than a single drone.

      It has been done. They were trained to run underneath tanks. But, sometimes all the noise would scare them and they would run back to their handlers instead. Apparently, the new trend is to use people instead of dogs, and have remote detonation devices in place in case they get scared.

    2. Re:A dog wrapped in Detcord and ball bearings by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Actually the issue was that the dogs were trained to go under tanks and stay there. The problem was that they were trained by Russians using Russian tanks so they had a tenancy to blow up their own tanks because those were the ones the dogs were familiar with. Dogs have a very poor IFF.

  26. It only has to carry a laser to paint a target by Marrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real damage would come from much further away.

  27. Assassin droid by twistedemotions · · Score: 1

    When packed with explosives, this sounds like a perfect tool for assassination. Make it cheap, decrease noise, increase range, add some further refinement in stealthily bringing it into a location (composite materials?)....

  28. Already Obsolete by retroworks · · Score: 1

    The Germans were already marketing these in 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4jtguSF0n4 In fact, Voice of America has already publicly announced (March 2011) that the millitary is using "hummingbird drones" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcXH4iCnck4 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the robot spies the size of a hummingbird are already publicly discussed on Voice of America, I would assume they have tick, mosquito, and chigger drones in actual use by now.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Already Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing out there comes close to this. That bird isnt even in production, it's on a lab bench. There's a big difference between marketing and something that works!

  29. 3 Idiots by nbauman · · Score: 1

    The 2009 Indian geek movie 3 Idiots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Idiots had a prototype just like that. It looked like they built it for less than $500.

    There were toy radio-controlled helicopters selling for $1,000. http://www.rctoys.com/rc-products/DF-VTI-EYE.html

  30. Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing got cheaper. What a great achievement.

  31. Won't it be great... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    ...in thirty years, when the technology is so commonplace that every terrorist, assassin, etc. can get one.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Won't it be great... by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      Anyone with a few hundred bucks can get one NOW. Welcome to the future, enjoy your stay.

    2. Re:Won't it be great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because radio controlled flying devices have never been easily available to the general populace. Get real. I've been flying scale aircraft by remote for 3 decades.

      All it takes is money, you can buy an R/C helicopter with camera and payload delivery system for several hundred dollars. Add more money, get more toys. Want a crane module? Done. How about extended range fuel tanks? Done. Self flying module? Done. GPS navigation and waypointing? Done.

      What part of this technology did you think wasn't already available at your local hobby store?

    3. Re:Won't it be great... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Exactly. RC helicopters have been around since the 80s and I don't remember any assassins using one to kill someone. Sure this has a camera but tiny wireless cameras have been out since the 90s and no RC murders yet.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Won't it be great... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      The operative word in your statement is "yet". Before 9/11, no one had committed large scale murder with airplanes. There's always a first time for everything and when a lot of the people looking at this immediately conclude "assassination tool" you bet there will be others that actually will use it like that.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:Won't it be great... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      The operative word in your statement is "yet". Before 9/11, no one had committed large scale murder with airplanes. There's always a first time for everything and when a lot of the people looking at this immediately conclude "assassination tool" you bet there will be others that actually will use it like that.

      Bruce Schneier holds an annual contest for best movie plot threat. You should submit your entry.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  32. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lack of ways to kill without guilt has been a big problem for this country. Glad to see progress on this. Wait until these get deployed by police in the US.

    1. Re:Finally! by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      On the contrary.. It will make it easier to watch the police from a safe place and keep the bastards honest.. A highly directional mic will help even more.. I'm all for it.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Finally! by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Watching the police is already being fast tracked to being illegal.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    3. Re:Finally! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Won't matter. This will make much easier to do it anonymously. They won't know they're being watched until the youtube vid shows up..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Finally! by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Actually, that'll be highly amusing, crackdowns on electric motors and digital cams, people smuggling Mexican knockoffs of banned toys over the border.

      It'll be like living in a Cory Doctorow story.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  33. And much more limited than an MQ-1 by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    MQ-1 Predator can cruise at 80-100 mph, 2000 mile range, 24 hour endurance at 25,000 feet, satellite uplink, SAR, IR/UV/Visible light cameras.

    So yea, its going to cost more, it can do alot more.

    1. Re:And much more limited than an MQ-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't put a predator in yer backpack though.

  34. each citizen gets personal droid equipped drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as if the .5 million dollar per citizen fake terror tolerance stipend isn't enough? with the 3X6 airtight personal citizen bunker attachment, most of us should be able to ride our way out of the storm systems. mynutswon;on to babylon.

    disarm, as if it were almost all we really need to do about the 'weather' problems.

  35. Wait for an upgrade... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to hold out for a model where the landing struts are replace with multi-functional
    robotic tentacles... then it will have some real use as a fun toy :D

  36. What's with the flag? by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    Out of interest, why does this story have a Canadian flag icon on the front page? It's true the company's Canadian, but other tech stories aren't flagged (heh) by their country of origin -- I don't see the Stars & Stripes gracing every piece about Apple or Oracle.

    1. Re:What's with the flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of interest, why does this story have a Canadian flag icon on the front page? It's true the company's Canadian, but other tech stories aren't flagged (heh) by their country of origin -- I don't see the Stars & Stripes gracing every piece about Apple or Oracle.

      Because slashdot is a 'Murikan site. So, any o' them thar' furrin stories get the flag.

      CAPTCHA: tongues. Is there some AI running the CAPTCHAs today?

    2. Re:What's with the flag? by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Well the assumption all over much of the internet is that all readers are in the US, and that if something is foreign it needs to be clearly marked that way - this despite the obvious international nature of the internet, the huge numbers of users outside the US currently using it etc. Even /. has to obey this rule it seems.

      As a Canadian, I am well aware that we are quite high tech, have invented or helped invent a lot of today's technology etc. I too was surprised to see the Canadian flag on this article though, as I only expect to see something like that when the story specifically involves Canada or our Government.

      As for the tech, its kinda neat. I can imagine when this stuff gets into regular public use though, and our already struggling privacy is reduced yet again.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:What's with the flag? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      it's an American web site there's no need to state when something is also American. Just like they write $100 without mentioning if those are USD or AUD or ZWL or ZWR or ZWD, because if they are aren't USD they'll specify what they are.

      And the person who assigns the icon probably couldn't see anything else that fit.

  37. Skynet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One step closer to Judgement Day!!!

  38. A .22 or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a directed energy weapon (i.e. lazurs, sound waves, microwaves, etc) that would only be limited by its power supply. Good thing significant gains in battery tech are far off and there is no chance this thing would ever be used by an autocratic government. Secret police of 2012 are scarier than those mentioned in the history books.

  39. Now.... by meglon · · Score: 1

    .... if we could get it to take a crap on their heads, we could revel in the fact we've mechanically reproduced the pigeon.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  40. Too many drones, not enough eyeballs. by wisebabo · · Score: 0

    The problem I understand nowadays is not that we (the U.S.) don't have enough drones (even though the predator costs millions) but that we don't have enough flight crews to operate them. I understand they require the equivalent of a fighter pilot and navigator/"gunner" and while the armed forces are training them as fast as they can there still aren't enough.

    So why not "outsource" (from the military not from the U.S.) these less lethal but presumably easier to fly drones?

    Have a reality show where any U.S. citizen is permitted to try flying one of these things. A decent home computer with a broadband connection should suffice. At the basic level, groups of these beginner flyers will be supervised (moderated) by a flight instructor (moderator). Fly enough hours and you get to fly solo and then become a moderator yourself. Gain enough hours successfully "moderating" flight groups without too many crashes and you'll be allowed to try being a navigator/gunner (again being moderated). Rinse, repeat.

    Do this, with improving more capable drones until you are flying predators with hellfires!

    If you could thow in a little pay, it might help reduce the 9 percent unemployment. And it would provide the U.S. with one hell of a reserve force in the event of a major war!

    1. Re:Too many drones, not enough eyeballs. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It would make sense to kick out another game in the spirit of Full Spectrum Warrior, let alone America's Army or Future Force Company Commander.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Too many drones, not enough eyeballs. by stinkytoe · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much right on the dot with the problem with UAVs these days. It doesn't take all that much technical expertise (nor much sophisticated technology) to be a UAV operator. It does, however take a lot of trust and responsibility.

    3. Re:Too many drones, not enough eyeballs. by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      From http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050214s.html

      The two X-45As began the latest test, known as Peacekeeper, by departing from Edwards and climbing to altitudes of 24,500 and 25,500 ft respectively. Separated by approximately 25 miles and operating at Mach .65 (225 knots), the jets began their combat air patrol (CAP) mission to provide airborne alert over the exercise area. Tasked with suppression of enemy air defenses, the two vehicles were given two simulated pop-up ground threats to eliminate.

      Once alerted to the first threat, the X-45As autonomously determined which vehicle held the optimum position, weapons and fuel load to properly attack the target. After making that decision, one of the X-45As changed course and the pilot-operator allowed it to attack the simulated ground-based radar. Following a successful strike, another simulated threat emerged and was subsequently destroyed by the second X-45A. The two X-45As completed their mission and safely returned to Edwards.

      In the future, ground-based pilots will be controlling multiple combat aircraft with high-level commands: Patrol that sector, destroy target, refuel, RTB.

  41. 3oz RDX EFP would make it a flying grenade by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    Seriously, all you need is a tiny charge and fly it over the person. If people think this won't be weaponized they are fooling themselves.

    1. Re:3oz RDX EFP would make it a flying grenade by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Just like RC helicopters from the 80s... oh wait... they weren't weaponized

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  42. Flight duration by Mike610544 · · Score: 2

    From the Aeyron website "Operational duration: up to 25 minutes."

    In practice it's probably a lot less than that.

    I'm not sure that their scenario of detecting a dork dressed up like a spy stealing my Hyundai has me sold on the concept.

    --
    ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    1. Re:Flight duration by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'd say endurance is the weakest part about it, but that'll only get better with battery and motor tech. 30-45 minutes would start to be acceptable. With a top speed of 50 km/h it could only go about 10km before it would have to turn back to get home before running out of juice, and that's with no loiter time once it gets to the target area, which would be all but useless. And that's assuming the 25 minute battery rating is 25 minutes at sustained full speed flight. It probably means 25 minutes at light use, just hovering and making small maneuvers.

      If this things was around $1000-1200 I'd think about getting one, even with the 25 minute endurance. But this system looks like it's quite a bit more than that.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  43. Now imagine that is flies in and lands. by Marrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Say someone lands it on a rubbish heap or something, Its flat, quiet, drab. Camera is running. They watch a house. The target appears in a doorway for a second. Bing. The signal goes out. The target is painted. A global-hawk-predator-whatever that has been sitting on station for the past month refueling in-flight is tasked. Weapons free. The weapon follows in the laser. Boom.
    They could make it smaller with a top mounted camera so it could sit in on a haystack or on top of a barn. With just a fiber-optic camera sticking up. Heck, it could even have a solar panel to keep the camera transmitting for long periods.

    1. Re:Now imagine that is flies in and lands. by Marrow · · Score: 1

      heck, they could drop the thing from a plane.

    2. Re:Now imagine that is flies in and lands. by stinkytoe · · Score: 1

      Trust me, either they're dropping ordinance within the hour, or not at all.

    3. Re:Now imagine that is flies in and lands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you write this, I imagine your hand in your pants; "fap fap fap!"
       
      Yeah, you assholes immediately jump to these sick fantasies.
       
      Fuck you. Just fuck you.

    4. Re:Now imagine that is flies in and lands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predator's can stay in the air 24 hours at a time. This can do like 20 minutes before it's battery runs out. Since they have such a short range, the person watching the camera has to be pretty close by too. Based on this, I would use them in a more tactical situation. For example, you are storming Osama Bin Laden's house. You come in the front door, and a half a dozen of these things start flying around corners with infrared cameras and operators outside the building inform you of any people it finds, especially those carrying weapons. I would recommended adding taser or pepper spray to the bottom. Then people could be neutralized with minimum collateral damage.

  44. Lots of comments on using this as a weapon, yet... by Tynin · · Score: 1

    It seems like a sweet way to get "public" pictures if you were in the paparazzi / picture media biz. People are talking about loading it down a load of weapons, but I say, just load it up with extra batteries to get more flight time, and a good camera, and I imagine you'd do quite well following (or doing recon on) anyone.

  45. Coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were just a little bigger (next version, perhaps) it could carry a hand grenade, weight one US pound, about 1/2 kg.

  46. Lame by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    No hellfire missiles, much cheaper than a predator. Lame.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  47. so if a non human comes onto my land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if a non human comes onto my land without permission can i shoot it and have fun.

  48. The Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think the camera, at the end of the video clip, reminded them of Sauron's Eye?

  49. Movie industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can imagine this being used in the movie industry as a cheap way to get shots from hard to access places. Not to mention beach pervs!

  50. My worry by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My worry as an RC enthusiast (I have three RC helicopters) is when our increasingly paranoid governments see this sort of thing, they are going to start legislating the RC hobby into oblivion because of "fears of terrorists". It really wouldn't be that hard to automate my T-Rex 600, the parts can be bought from Sparkfun Electronics, and governments will fear that an ordinary citizen can build a drone from off-the-shelf RC parts and electronics.

    All of a sudden we're treated as "terrorists" and another avenue of harmless pleasure is closed off or made so awkward (for instance, you need a background check to buy RC parts) that it will destroy the hobby.

    1. Re:My worry by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the hobbies of rocketry and pyrotechnics. You can't store a 2 gram electric match without a BATFE approved explosives magazine, or make a 60mg flash cracker without a high explosives manufacturing permet, but if you own a replica muzzle-loader you can store 25 pounds of black powder in your basement.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:My worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of person gains 'harmless pleasure' from learning and playing with practical engineering and electronics anyway? Obviously not a normal person. Normal people have healthy, wholesome hobbies like shoveling virtual cow dung and typing vapid drivel to their virtual friends.

    3. Re:My worry by cffrost · · Score: 1

      You can't store a 2 gram electric match without a BATFE approved explosives magazine, or make a 60mg flash cracker without a high explosives manufacturing perm[i]t [...]

      This holds true, despite the fact that neither of your examples contain high explosives? Does BATFE regard all low explosives as high explosives?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  51. Soon my precious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's not going to rain down any Hellfire missiles, but hey, it only weighs a kilogram."

    I'm sure they'll figure out 1/4 kilo hellfire missiles soon enogh

  52. Other uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this be used to transport of small things like pizzas or groceries?

    1. Re:Other uses? by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

      It can transport small valuable cargoes. Fly it to your dealer and back with coke or other drugs.
      There might be a few sales to our Mexican friends who want to expedite international trade.
      Cue: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds......

  53. yes but can this find my errant tee shots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this find my lost golf balls?

  54. who needs or wants missiles in the first place by eyenot · · Score: 1

    missiles are noisy and needlessly, senselessly destructive. too many collateral casualties and too much unwanted attention. this is the nineties, people. we have aerosol propelled chemical weapons. you can drop a bulb the size of your paintgun's baby co2 canister right between a target's feet and have your choice of impact or radio release. tsch. missiles. as if!

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  55. Pie on your faces by Jyunga · · Score: 1

    I knew Harper using child labor in our Maple plantations to fund his defense spending would pay off in the long run... and their legs and arms will be stronger when we sell them off to the NHL in a couple years!

  56. What about wind? by CaptainAmerica1941 · · Score: 1

    How high do wind speeds have to be to make this thing ineffective?

  57. "The bad guys" by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    I am tired of the use of that childish phrase to describe anyone being targeted by the military or law enforcement. It's infantilizing, naive and may even contribute to an imperialistic foreign policy.

    1. Re:"The bad guys" by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Aha, a dissenter. Obviously, you're one of the bad guys :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  58. My usual on the irony of this... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
    "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? "

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  59. Train Hobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like what happened to train hobbyists. Just taking pictures of trains will now get you arrested on suspicion of terrorism.

  60. Who NEEDS a Hellfire missile ? Ramming Speed ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think Kinetic energy, folks... even the little helicopter hitting someone in the head at 50kph would be injurious. Knock someone over at the right time, and it could be fatal. Or just pack a few oz of C4 in it.. Yep. It could be a weapon.

  61. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If China gets hold of this tech in dealing with dissenters; or Colonel Gadafi; or the next Osama bin Laden, we will need to arm ourselves. I hope the Maker community is thinking about how to deal with human tracking drones.

  62. search replace km mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder if they're actually doing a search replace on km with mile.

  63. Fuck gizmodo. by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Anyone purposefully sending them traffic is a fucking reject. Fuck you slashdot.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.