Sanctions Or Not, Iranian Competition Yields Successful UAVs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sanctions Or Not, Iranian Competition Yields Successful UAVs

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 7, 2012 @03:54AM from the force-breeds-resistance dept.

garymortimer writes with word of the result from a high-tech student competition that doesn't come with sponsorship from DARPA or Mobil — far from it. Instead, the sponsors include "military and non-military organizations" within Iran. "In this competition, participants must provide a UAV equipped with a camera to search a 10 square kilometer area for at least 40 minutes to find 3 square meter marks on the ground with different English letters on them. Finding ground targets and reporting the geo location are criterion for choosing the contest winner." (This article updates another from last year, which gives some more details about the competition.)

83 of 147 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Episode 1: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:01 · Score: 1

The Drone Wars.
1. Re:Episode 1: by Nationless · 2012-02-07 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Surely you mean Episode 1: The Phantom Menace? Which is exactly what Iran is.
2. Re:Episode 1: by ThePhilips · 2012-02-07 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Iran is a "phantom" only to those who didn't bother to read about the country. E.g. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage.
  Iran is a "menace" only to the two groups of people: people who read too much into the public speeches of their president (who can't even mobilize the army; so much for a president) and politicians who want to prevent Iran from becoming a superpower in the region (and potentially in the world).
  OK. I confess. The bashing of Iran become much less interesting to me, once I took time to learn about the country. Talk about the evils of the education.
  
  --
  All hope abandon ye who enter here.
if you were stuck in Iran.. by gl4ss · 2012-02-07 04:02 · Score: 1

you'd have time to hack together UAV's from cellphones too.
(I wonder, does Iran have any motorsports?)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by elrous0 · 2012-02-07 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From everything I've heard, Iran is a modern, very prosperous country. It's hard to cut through all the bullshit and propaganda on both sides anytime you're dealing with a country that's at odds with the U.S., but I've known two people who went there who said they were welcomed very warmly as Americans and that quality of life there was pretty much the same as any European country.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-02-07 04:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
3. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
  While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
4. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tmarsh86 · 2012-02-07 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you actually enjoy spouting such BS? Do you wait with bated breath for the moments that you get to throw these rocks of ridiculousness? You have no idea what oppression is, but you are welcome to travel to Iran and experience on a level that is worthy of you.
5. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
  There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading". No matter how hard I tried, I was not allowed to pay for anything. Even if I could convince the vendor to take my money, someone would always step up and pay for whatever I was trying to pay for. I didn't buy a whole lot, not wanting to take advantage of my hosts' hospitality and gratitude.
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go. You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  So, again, if you think it's the same thing, you are manipulating the facts in your own head to fit what already believe to be true.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
6. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by codewarren · 2012-02-07 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Since you've experienced the oppression of Iran, please enlighten us.
7. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by khallow · 2012-02-07 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
  At least not since the Iran-Iraq war though to be fair there, Saddam Hussein was at fault, like the rest of the wars he was involved in.
  
  Since we're obviously comparing Iran to the US here, it's worth noting that the US has done so, but the last time was during the Vietnam War. The Lancet studies which claim otherwise are remarkably flawed (to the point, I consider it pure deception) and overshoot greatly other estimates of casualties from the Iraqi invasion and the subsequent unrest.
8. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Lumpy · 2012-02-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies."
  This fit's every single government on the planet except for Sweden and Greenland. Swedes are cool, Greenland is cold.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-02-07 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and the US is so ahead of everyone with "don't ask, don't tell" repealed not two years ago, herds of religious fanatics bursting with hate toward ways unfamiliar or unknown, wonderful justice system and oh so impeccable record in wrongful executions and where every newborn gets $50k debt as a welcome gift.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
10. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tragedy · 2012-02-07 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The question there is, if Saddam Hussein was at fault in the Iran-Iraq war (and I'm not saying he wasn't, he wasn't exactly a very nice guy), why was the US on his side at the time?
11. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by debiangruven · 2012-02-07 06:01 · Score: 3
  
  Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental.
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  
  I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  
  You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
  You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there. Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom. You are very ignorant when it comes to talking about what our armed forces do in battle. I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists. Maybe you should enlist so that you can see what really happens in a war, or better yet move to Iran because it is such a free democracy and one that values human rights so much.
  
  --
  Stay negative.
12. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 06:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
  No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  
  Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
  No. It's representative of the people whose families were tortured and killed by the previous government ON PURPOSE! You know, like when they would kidnap a mother, rape and kill her and then send the video tape to the family kinda thing. But yeah, it's the same thing as a civilian who dies because the bridge he was driving on was blown up at 3:00 am to avoid civilian casualties.
  
  You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
  Actually, hijackers, by their very nature are hiding behind the civilians on the plane. Notice that no one hijacks a FedEx transport, for example. The passengers on the plane are their human shields.
  Anything else I can answer for you, jackhole? Do you stand idly buy as that drunk beats the shit out of his girlfriend at the bar? Do you still do nothing when moves onto her children? If you hear a woman being raped outside your window, do you just watch and say, "That's unfortunate. She should do something about that"?
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
13. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cavreader · 2012-02-07 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No they just bankroll every lunatic extremist Islamic group to do their fighting for them. And it's these extremist groups who create the reasons for interference from other countries. Their various actions are more like invitations for others to come over and join in the fighting while they hide behind their women and children and cry foul when people get killed. Iran was a prosperous and modern country until their glorious revolution created an Islamic government whose first act was to kill or imprison anyone who didn't get with their program. The moronic college students fronting the revolution thought it more important to hold US hostages while the Islamic parties actually organized a government. Before the revolution the Islamists were a minority group but all the liberal and progressive morons got so busy expressing their outrage at the US they ended up losing their country.
14. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even think it's fair to grant that much.
  If your nation suffers a coup and starts sourcing support from an outside military - especially if the source military is already more powerful - then you are pretty much out of options, besides national suicide (in which case you can never recover and never live to get the last laugh..
  But when nighttime comes, you can strike back anonymously, as the French did.
  This is why I totally don't GET France-bashing in the US over WW2, which shows not just a lack of common sense, but a complete ignorance of what happened (and the US role) in the war prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
15. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by HaZardman27 · 2012-02-07 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I totally don't GET France-bashing in the US over WW2, which shows not just a lack of common sense, but a complete ignorance of what happened (and the US role) in the war prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
  One of the reasons people bash France's involvement in WW2 is that they built the Maginot Line along the French/German border and got flanked by the Nazis moving through Belgium. What is so ridiculous about this is that the German Army flanked the French Army by moving through Belgium in WW1 as well.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
16. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-07 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  So long as we're into analogies...
  U.S. going into Iraq is the equivalent of ignoring the woman being raped outside your window (half a dozen oppressive countries sponsoring terrorism that U.S. is best friends with, like Saudi Arabia), and going after a guy who slapped his girlfriend.
17. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 06:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there.
  Far far fewer now.
  
  . I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists.
  Anecdotal claims from a soldier in the conflict are not evidence. Please provide a citation for this "99%" figure. Back in 2004 the Iraqi Health Ministry stated that coalition forces were killing twice as many civilians than the insurgents were: More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows.
18. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
  Not true. The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq." And that is coming from a country that was part of the coalition. Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
19. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by chrb · 2012-02-07 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties
  ... and sometimes they refused to let civilians leave and then flattened the city with 500lb bombs and heavy artillery.
  It is odd that your military experience of Iraq is so different to that of these guys:
  American soldier "I killed innocent people"
  Amazing speech by war veteran
20. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by ArcherB · 2012-02-07 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom
  Fuck, did this come straight from dubya? Are you even capable of critical thinking?
  They hate our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!
  Jesus, you're a fucking idiot.
  You are right. The these guys love freedom and feel that the general public should be free to choose. However, if a citizen makes a choice that these guys disagree with, they kill that citizen and his family, hopefully in that order, but probably not.
  And don't call Jesus an idiot.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
21. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cforciea · 2012-02-07 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What you say is true, but there is always an unfair implication that the two invasions via Belgium happened the same way implicit in the summarized version of the story. War was a much slower moving affair in World War 1. The entire design of the Maginot Line was supposed to take into account invasion from Belgium or Switzerland. Yes, it was supposed to make invasion direct from Germany very difficult, but it was also supposed to make it much easier to hold the line on the German border with less manpower specifically to free up mobilized forces to respond to the presumably slower offensives that could take place from other borders.
  
  Yes, obviously there was a large miscalculation on how quickly the Germans could advance through Belgium (and in hoping that they would respect Belgium's neutral status), but France's was not the only fighting force to be outmaneuvered by the German Blitzkrieg, and France was highly outnumbered to boot. The whole meme of France learning nothing from World War 1 is way overblown. If the Germans had moved the same way that they had in World War 1, France would have been in great shape. The real problem is that they spent too much effort responding to what they learned from World War 1, and war had changed (despite what Ron Perlman would have you believe).
22. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by jopsen · 2012-02-07 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  but I've known two people who went there who said they were welcomed very warmly as Americans and that quality of life there was pretty much the same as any European country.
  I'm pretty sure things have changed in Europe since your ancestors emigrated 200 years ago :)
  
  </flamebait> if by "any European country" you mean the only poor former east block countries, then maybe you're right... Assuming you don't care about human rights.
23. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by MrSteveSD · 2012-02-07 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  "Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental."
  
  I suppose it depends on how you define accidental. For example in the siege, bombardment and assault on Falluja, it was a certainty that civilian casualties would be significant. The siege was largely revenge for the killing of four armed Blackwater mercenaries (the term Private Military Contractor does not feature in the Geneva conventions). When you attack a city the size of Fallujah to avenge the deaths of four men, use 2000lb bombs and howitzers and kill many civilians in the process, can you really call the civilian deaths accidental?
  
  In fact, it was largely footage of civilian casualties in the hospital that stopped the first attempted attack on Falluja in April 2004, which is why the hospital was seized immediately in the second assault in November. The Red Cross reported that refugees had witnessed the use of cluster bombs and white Phosphorus.
  
  "You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children."
  
  This is a charge commonly levelled against enemy forces. It's a good way of demonizing them. Whenever enemy forces are entrenched in a city, you can accused them of hiding behind civilians. If US forces ever have to defend a US city against an invading enemy, you can be sure the same accusations will be made against them.
24. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by debiangruven · 2012-02-07 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You idiot - read your own post.
  Insurgents.
  Were they there during the time of Saddam?
  Fact is, Saddam may have been a bad-ass, but, I would much prefer living under his rule than have been liberated by the US. Cheers buddy, you help destroy the country and helped it descend into anarchy.
  And who were these terrorists you speak of? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra_prison_incident
  Maybe you should hop on the next boat OUT of this country. Just my 2 cents.
  
  --
  Stay negative.
25. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  so you haven't seen your daughter or mother being sexually molested by a TSA agent....yet
26. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  you are the ignorant one, hundreds of thousands were killed because of U.S. purposeless action, far exceeding Sadam's body count
27. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-07 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or had the leaders of YOUR religion told they have a year to comply with violations of basic beliefs.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
28. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-07 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Correct- just Catholic Bishops being told "pay for our abortions or we'll throw you in jail."
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
29. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by cavreader · 2012-02-07 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  These days the US is doing it's fair share of it's own fighting when necessary. I think the military and CIA have realized the idiocy of providing weapons to a third parties who can't remember which way to point the gun. It didn't happen in Libya and it won't happen in Syria either. The reduction of US participation in these conflicts is just the start. The only reason the US had to do anything in Libya was that none of the other NATO militaries were capable of taking out the air defense system in a matter of days. The drone program is more than enough to eliminate those attempting to cause problems that directly affect US interests. And I don't give a fuck about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. International hand holding and endless negotiating over things that do not directly effect US interests are a waste of time and money. My only wish is for the US to pull out of the entire mid-east and let them kill one another in peace. And as a bonus when the US pulls out Israel can finally finish kicking the shit out of Hamas and all the other militant "palestinian" groups even if it means depopulating the West Bank and Gaza once and for all. It's not like any other country in the world would stop them unless they plan on smothering Israel with meaningless and unenforceable UN resolutions.
30. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by MidGe · 2012-02-07 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  "For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US."
  That is, probably only because the US has more than twice the incarceration rate of Iran.
31. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:25 · Score: 2
  
  For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  I'm pretty sure support of this is in Rick Santorum's campaign.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
32. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Correct- just Catholic Bishops being told "pay for our abortions or we'll throw you in jail."
  Boohoo. The law applies equally. What a travesty.
  BTW, birth control =/= abortion. Nice try there with that pre (first) millenial thinking.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
33. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by tragedy · 2012-02-07 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the US does have a pretty good history of working with, arming, rigging elections in favor of, and generally aiding any ruthless dictator who happens to align with their goals.
34. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  "You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children."
  That's because they don't need to, they normally hide behind technology instead.
  I find it strange to hear side A say side B are cowards because they use human shields. When side B is using human shields as a direct counter to side A using technology from afar to strike at side B. Did you think side B would just let side A slaughter them with impunity?
35. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by mr_lizard13 · 2012-02-07 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
  You're right. The US murders innocent civilians abroad instead.
  
  It's just a different brand of evil.
  
  --
  "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
36. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Tacticus.v1 · 2012-02-07 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're talking about the catholic hospitals they don't have to comply they just have to comply if they want to take fed dollars.
  Strings attached is not forcing
37. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-08 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually late 19th/early 20th century thinking, for those who actually have a half a clue and have read their Chesterton.
  The argument goes something like this: A society that separates sex from procreation, gets used to having enjoyment and fun on credit, without paying for it. That society will soon encourage abortions because of the failure rate of the contraception, but that's not the least of the worries. That society will also start demanding goods on credit, trade on credit, life itself on credit. It will eventually go bankrupt, because nobody has the willpower left to leave enjoyment to tomorrow, to work first then enjoy the fruits of one's labor.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
38. Re:if you were stuck in Iran.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-08 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just Catholic hospitals. It's the Catholic businessman, who takes no federal dollars, but who has more than 50 employees and is required by the federal government to provide health insurance for those employees. It is the Baptist soup kitchen that has employees, and must also pay. It is the Orthodox Russian Catholic School, who employees schoolteachers, that must also pay.
  Under the new mandate- ALL insurance programs have to cover this. The only exception is for "Houses of worship"- so narrowly defined that while we may not have to pay contraception for the priest, we do for his secretary in the office.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
i have some letters for them by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-07 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I can lay down some letters for the iranian drones - "f"..."u"..."c"...
1. Re:i have some letters for them by Bovius · 2012-02-07 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...fuchsia? fucoids? I can't tell what you're spelling out.
2. Re:i have some letters for them by JustNilt · 2012-02-07 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I can lay down some letters for the iranian drones - "f"..."u"..."c"...
  More like "f"..."u"..."D", I suspect.
  
  --
  You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
America wins by Xest · 2012-02-07 04:06 · Score: 5, Funny

I bet America's RQ-170 entry won.
Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 04:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is one of the things the Middle East is very good at. The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
We saw this innovation in Libya, including some humorous military innovations such as the Bread Helmet and some far less humorous things like technicals, anti-air turrets, etc. Iran saw how effective the US's drones were and they want some of their own. They saw how effective stuff like DARPA is, so they do the same thing. Of course, Iran has the advantage of coming late to market so they can get all of the component parts much, much easier.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
1. Re:Comment Subject: by Xest · 2012-02-07 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "Of course, Iran has the advantage of coming late to market so they can get all of the component parts much, much easier."
  Especially when your enemy lands them in your back yard.
2. Re:Comment Subject: by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-07 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the things the Middle East is very good at. The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
  And exactly who do think invented Duck Tape?
  USA! USA! USA!
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that Cracked is a humor site and strives for being funny over being accurate.
  That said, what's the deal with the letter "ç"? It's basically an S every time I've heard it - why the heck don't you guys just use an "S"? d:
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
4. Re:Comment Subject: by painandgreed · 2012-02-07 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  Keep in mind that Cracked is a humor site and strives for being funny over being accurate.
  That said, what's the deal with the letter "ç"? It's basically an S every time I've heard it - why the heck don't you guys just use an "S"? d:
  Because the S in english is a voiceless alveolar fricative and the ç is a voiceless palatal fricative, a sound english doesn't even have. You can substitute the S for the ç but you'll sound like some guy with an accent to a native speaker.
5. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, okay. That's the first legitimate answer I've ever gotten, ha.
  There's a place in my city called "Café Opçao". (Pretty sure I'm missing the accent over the A.) I asked a Brazilian friend how to pronounce it and then how to pronounce it if you replaced the ç with an s. It sounded essentially the same. Maybe he's been in America for too long.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
6. Re:Comment Subject: by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard that with sounds of that nature, it can be hard to even hear the difference if you weren't raised with them. Like Chinese with "l" and "r". (I could be wildly off base here.)
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
7. Re:Comment Subject: by Ihmhi · 2012-02-07 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting note on that that most people don't hear, but Japanese (which also has the L/R distinction problem) also has an issue with B/V. Any English loanword that has a "V" in it will have a "B" instead. Example: bampaia (bam-pie-ah)
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
X-Prize by aero2600-5 · 2012-02-07 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Nice, the Iranian version of the Ansari X-Prize.
What people don't realize is that even with all the sanctions, hostility, and generally crazy behavior, Iran IS NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now, American casualties are seen as unacceptable, which is leading our drive towards more drones. If we pick a fight with the Iranians, or let them pick a fight with the US, there will be American casualties. They have the ability to sink U.S. war ships. That have the support of Russia and China. Granted, they probably didn't ground that RQ-170, but that doesn't mean it isn't feasible in the near future.
We all know that quite a large chunk of the young adults in Iran don't like the current regime, but do you know what they like even less? The United States. Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.

--
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
1. Re:X-Prize by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-07 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  Typical government lapdog mentality: If we rattle a saber at someone and they don't flinch, they are a threat and must be cowed.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  My personal opinion is that wars involving world economic powers are going to become less and less likely over the next 50-100 years. There is too much at stake at home, and I don't just mean troops' lives. The global economy is a reality, and we're quite entangled with the economies of pretty much any other country of economic significance - by that I don't just mean the G8, but well beyond that. With the other large economies, we have a lot to lose on exports/imports of finished goods if we go to war, but with the middle 50%, we lose access to inputs - sometimes critical ones, like oil - if we go to war. Even beyond the idea that killing each other is so 20th century, there's too much to lose economically in a hot war in probably 75% of the cases. With Iran, we're talking a global oil price spike affecting us, while Iran's exports virtually grind to a halt because they can't get out of port. In the coming decade, I think we're going to get smart enough to realize that a hot war is not the solution to an ideological divide, and by we, I mean everyone - not just the US. Even though I personally think the cost of lives is too high a price, our leaders (on both sides) often don't, but the last thing anyone wants is to lose power due to an avoidable economic catastrophe.
  Of course, we can look at history and point out many examples of wars that happened despite it being a poor economic decision to do so, so maybe my thinking is just wishful. As an economist (by education at least), I think we tend to think economics can solve anything.
3. Re:X-Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, yes, promoting/funding terrorism (the kind that kills people on a daily basis), and producing materials needed to build terrible weapons, while producing deeply antisemitic rhetoric. Sounds JUST like lacking a flinch reflex. Or... [warning, Godwin ahead]
4. Re:X-Prize by aekafan · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and then what does Iran do?
5. Re:X-Prize by X.25 · 2012-02-07 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  So, when will USA answer to the rest of us, eh?
6. Re:X-Prize by JDG1980 · 2012-02-07 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  My personal opinion is that wars involving world economic powers are going to become less and less likely over the next 50-100 years. There is too much at stake at home, and I don't just mean troops' lives. The global economy is a reality, and we're quite entangled with the economies of pretty much any other country of economic significance - by that I don't just mean the G8, but well beyond that. With the other large economies, we have a lot to lose on exports/imports of finished goods if we go to war, but with the middle 50%, we lose access to inputs - sometimes critical ones, like oil - if we go to war. Even beyond the idea that killing each other is so 20th century, there's too much to lose economically in a hot war in probably 75% of the cases.
  Norman Angell made the same argument in 1912, in his book The Great Illusion. He noted that any kind of large-scale war among European powers would be economically destructive and futile, and that even the "winners" would lose more than they gained in blood and treasure. He was right, of course, but it didn't stop World War I from happening anyway only a few years later. I think you overestimate the rationality of humans and underestimate the power of tribal ideology.
7. Re:X-Prize by MMInterface · 2012-02-07 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Iran IS NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now, American casualties are seen as unacceptable, which is leading our drive towards more drones. If we pick a fight with the Iranians, or let them pick a fight with the US, there will be American casualties. They have the ability to sink U.S. war ships. Granted, they probably didn't ground that RQ-170, but that doesn't mean it isn't feasible in the near future.
  Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.
  Iran isn't Iraq. But where exactly are you getting this idea that their armed forces are so much better? Their equipment is equivalent to what the Iraqis had for their time, and they both fought each other to a standstill. Furthermore, the Iraqis had the ability to strike US warships and they did. The Iranians ability to sink warships is irrelevant. During a conflict, US warships aren't going to be in range until most of those threats are neutralized by long range strikes. The only risk is a surprise attack on a US warship before a conflict starts and the Iraqis already did that. Also, it doesn't matter if Iranian people solidify because the US wouldn't go for an occupation. Solidarity doesn't help air defenses.
8. Re:X-Prize by gmhowell · 2012-02-07 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
  So, when will USA answer to the rest of us, eh?
  As soon as the rest of the world nuts up and makes us. I suggest you figure out a way to get China to quit selling us cheap plastic crap in exchange for our Weimar-esque currency.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Don't tell anyone... by srussia · 2012-02-07 04:21 · Score: 1

but the Ansari family is Iranian.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:Don't tell anyone... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-07 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Anousheh even migrated from Iran.
  Plus, the X-Prize program isn't just funded by her money - there have been lots of other X-Prizes that got funding from other sources.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What are "English letters"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-07 04:37 · Score: 1

Did the English have an alphabet of its own before the Romans introduced the Latin one?
1. Re:What are "English letters"? by elrous0 · 2012-02-07 04:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think they meant the American alphabet.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:What are "English letters"? by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-07 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Next thing you know, Americans will start labeling things with Arabic numerals!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:What are "English letters"? by rmstar · 2012-02-07 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Next thing you know, Americans will start labeling things with Arabic numerals!
  I'm mystified - why don't we call them Freedom numerals instead?
4. Re:What are "English letters"? by sonamchauhan · 2012-02-08 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Its the French alphabet without the accents.
Despite sanctions? by HeckRuler · 2012-02-07 04:45 · Score: 1, Informative

Despite sanctions? Dude, all the parts come from China. And China isn't part of the embargo. 10^2 km is a little wide for the smaller RC fliers out there, but for the larger ones that have a gas engine, it's completely do-able. That's retail store level technology. That hard part is flying it out of sight. Sensors, cameras, communications, all these little modules are made in china and are hobbyist stuff.

Long story short, it's impossible to embargo technology any more. It used to be that areospace technology was unatainable by anyone outside the industry. Serious engineers with serious companies with serious money. Now it's cheap. Kids are launching their own satellites.

Embargoes work for bulk goods, regulated and controlled substances, and money. And they usually work very badly. UAV technology doesn't fall under those categories.
Re:For spotting evac attempts? by HeckRuler · 2012-02-07 04:51 · Score: 2

I think the more direct use would be for spotting, targeting, and destroying tanks and other vehicles. Most armies stencil on the name of the thing in big bold letters. Slap on a brick of C4 and you have a pretty smart missile that hover around till needed and can choose to come home and not detonate.
Repeat by jeffmeden · 2012-02-07 05:34 · Score: 1

I saw this a few weeks ago on an episode of Rocket City Rednecks. Not that I have anything against Iranians, but building a RC plane and fitting it with a camera and transmitter is something not challenging for a teenager, not to mention you can buy them on the internet (unencumbered by any military hardware restrictions) if you aren't even a hobbyist. What is the real story here? That those darn Iranians are "at it again"?
English letters? by jdc18 · 2012-02-07 05:38 · Score: 1

Please explain what are english letters, as far as I can remember it is the greco-roman alphabet
1. Re:English letters? by rubycodez · 2012-02-07 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Greco? The greeks never used it for greek, though the Latin alphabet did evolve from one particular greek one, the Cumaean.
People are good at that everywhere by Shivetya · 2012-02-07 06:02 · Score: 1

this is not just a trait of those in one region of the world, though living in constant threat of your life from your government and those around you does tend to spur innovation. Even Slashdot has been replete with stories of people creating their own drones, shooting off rockets, and the like.
The difference comes down to scale and integration. Anyone can put up a model plane and find things they are supposed to find. Now, having the ability to do so in varied weather conditions, varied terrains, and coordinate the search and response with related elements is there the process bogs down. It bogs down because of dependencies, something this contest did not cover. (Besides there is a good number of small drones out there in the hands of many countries)
The are two messages here. First, smart and innovative exist world wide, and second the pace and spread of technology is outstripping the ability for many people to comprehend.
Well there is a third reason, Iran's government needs to impress. Impress their own people more than others btw.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Re:People are good at that everywhere by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2012-02-07 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's a feature of life in less affluent societies. People learn to make do with what's on hand, and not rely on ready made(expensive) tools and equipment.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
Not UAVs by Corson · 2012-02-07 06:49 · Score: 1

I looked at the pictures, those are not UAVs but air models. We used to make and pilot such toys in grade 6. They are radio-controlled and require a clear line of sight and proximity for decent maneuvering. In any case, they are pretty expensive even for an amateur.
1. Re:Not UAVs by wmac1 · 2012-02-07 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  In 6th grade you used to build models which tracked a 10 square kilometers to find an alphabet and send back the photo?
  
  You are a shameless lair Mr.
  
  It does not matter how small is the plane, the communication and navigation makes it valuable.
Innovation from crowdsourcing by charliehotel · 2012-02-07 08:12 · Score: 1

While people are joking and laughing at the Iranians for making their little toy models of the crashed drone, they are rapidly catching up in the UAS department. A UAV competition means they have realized that the amateurs and students are where the real innovation lies.
1. Re:Innovation from crowdsourcing by wmac1 · 2012-02-07 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Iran sent its 3rd satellite to the orbit this week and will send the 4th satellite next week. I'd prefer everyone to make jokes and laugh at them but let them do their job.
Re:rut roh by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-07 08:37 · Score: 1

I wonder if their hexadecimal uses the latin alphabet, as well? The nerve!
I wonder what English letters are though?
Alfred Nobel too by KingAlanI · 2012-02-07 10:25 · Score: 1

Alfred Nobel saw dynamite as having a sort of mutually-assured-destruction effect (in addition to the civil engineering uses). Right idea, but a few decades too early.
More recently, this economic argument was part of Tom Friedman's _The World Is Flat_.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.