Iranian Lab's Quadcopters To Rescue Swimmers

Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I expect that's the main thing taking into consideration the mountain stealth jet.

Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:35 · Score: 1

Is it real?
With Iran's record of photoshopping things into being I have to question the existence of this device. I'm not saying it isn't an interesting and beneficial use of this type of technology. I just need more than Iran's word on it because when it comes to Iran (and N.Korea among others) "pictures or it didn't happen" just doesn't seem to be enough.
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:18 · Score: 4, Informative

For the 100th time, The missile photos were Photoshopped by a new agency (There are tens of them in Iran) and the issue was known after the IRGC's official website published the main photo.
The other Qaher-313 in the air Photoshop work was done by "design and graphics team" of a news website (hundreds if not thousands of them exist in Iran).
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:45 · Score: 0

Well this sort of thing is perfectly solved from the scientific/design point of view, isn't it. A business case is missing, and of course a test whether this is effective in likely disaster scenarios (ie how will the infrared work with heavy rainfall ...)
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:32 · Score: 0

For the 100th time, The missile photos were Photoshopped by a new agency (There are tens of them in Iran) and the issue was known after the IRGC's official website published the main photo.
The other Qaher-313 in the air Photoshop work was done by "design and graphics team" of a news website (hundreds if not thousands of them exist in Iran).
Ya gotta wonder whether the entire Qaher-313 is real in the first place -- why in the world, when they're so rabidly anti-american, would the plane have english markings if the image wasn't meant purely for Western consumption?
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:43 · Score: 0

You need another 100th time response?
Iranian Air force, Iran-Air and all other airlines use english language as their technical language. All Iranian Air-force planes have English markings even after 10 times of repaint.
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:51 · Score: 0

Your counting is as good as your photoshop prowess :) Please point me at the 99 previous responses to my comment ..
Why does the iranian airforce have English markings? Do they need to land at international airports when they flee?
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:58 · Score: 0

Iran isn't known to have heavy rainfall. They also are not known to have much drowning. Strange story.
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 03:05 · Score: 0

Oh right those were just shenanigans by the Iranian free press.
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 04:59 · Score: 0

English is the international language of aviation.
Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 06:29 · Score: 0

FYI almost all of the military aircraft of Iranian airforce were obtained from the US before the revolution. Culture, methods, trainings, maintenance in Iranian airforce is taken from the US. They have Russian, French and Iranian planes now but still the American style and methods are used. In addition most of the reverse engineering is done on US made planes.

oh no by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:23 · Score: 0

In before they get linked to weapons research

Re:oh no by Hal_Porter · 2013-03-30 06:50 · Score: 1

No, no no. It's true Iran is making highly enriched Uranium that it could turned into weapons grade stuff in a couple of months, and is testing space launch systems that could easily be used as ICBMs and now is building naval drones that could be used to attack US ships.
But everyone knows these projects are all civilian. The Uranium is for a research reactor which they need to generate power. Even though most countries with large amounts of nuclear power plants don't have research reactors or local enrichment.
The rockets are so Iran can go into the space launch business because obviously US and EU companies would have no legal problems shipping satellites to a company in Iran run by the Revolutionary Guards.
And the drone is to rescue swimmers who've got into trouble. Even though the IRGC is not known for its concern about swimmers in peril
And if you believe all that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

OMFG DRONED by skitchen8 · 2013-03-29 23:27 · Score: 0

They're going to kill us all (but not from drowning apparently). I'm scared, civil liberties, Obama, predator, privacy etc. Am I /. correctly?

Re:OMFG DRONED by skitchen8 · 2013-03-29 23:30 · Score: 2

*DRONES No more /. before coffee :(
Re:OMFG DRONED by WhackAttack · 2013-03-30 01:25 · Score: 1

I'm sure you were scared for your privacy when Bush passed the Patriot Act...
Re:OMFG DRONED by skitchen8 · 2013-03-30 02:58 · Score: 1

I'm not really scared for my privacy at all, whoever is wiretapping me has the most boring job ever. I am active on RCGroups, somewhat active here, and spend a lot of time looking at tower hobbies, xheli, nitroplanes, banggood, and tmart. I call and text my parents, my fiancee, and various people from work. I almost exclusively email people from work, and I travel to and from Syracuse as needed for medical treatment for my son. Hopefully I just saved the FBI some time and resources. There's little they couldn't just find on my Facebook if they wanted to know any of that. I understand why other would be concerned about privacy but I quite simply couldn't care less. I don't believe government invading my privacy has made me safer or anything, but it truly has no effect on my life.

FOOTAGE TAKEN FROM THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:29 · Score: 0

Which actually passes muster there in Iran !!

Unlikely to work when needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

It won't work worth spit in a storm.

and that is when you REALLY need something to work.

Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by skitchen8 · 2013-03-29 23:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're not wrong, but losing a $1,000 quadcopter, to me, is preferable to losing either the man in the water or sending out a manned helicopter. It will work better than sitting there going "I hope that guy doesn't drown."
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:48 · Score: 0

Actually better in a storm since the duration and durability of UAV is longer and better than human operated counterparts.
In the future, even beaches will be monitored by UAVs to bolster lifeguards' work. Their role in disaster areas will also be welcome.
Well, unless GW decides that UAVs is just misspelled WMDs XD
WHAT, GW is no more in office? we are all d00med
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by Patch86 · 2013-03-30 00:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Presumably this is in addition to, not a replacement for, other rescue technologies/methods currently in use. If this is a way of getting life preservers to victims at high speed ahead of the conventional lifeboat that is also on the way, that can only be a good thing. A full sized lifeboat can go at what, 25 knots (30 mph) maybe, and perhaps a quadcopter can go 50 mph, that might be the difference between someone being in the cold, rough water without safety equipment for 30 mins or 15 mins.
The quadcopter in TFA also has a heatcam, LED emergency beacons, and a voice recognition system to pick up on people shouting for help. All things that should make it easier for a lifeboat or rescue helicopter to directly pinpoint people in distress and get to them more quickly.
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by mad+flyer · 2013-03-30 00:20 · Score: 1

Pretty sure shortsighted people were spweing the same advice against helicopters when they first start being used.
You have to start somewhere. not everything works perfectly at the first prototype... just look how long it took to get the V22 osprey into active duty. the first prototypes flew in the 60'...
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by AmiMoJo · 2013-03-30 00:32 · Score: 1

This isn't going to be some little toy, it will be a fairly large and therefore having plenty of mass and power to control itself in a storm. Much like a full size helicopter or drone.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by u38cg · 2013-03-30 00:54 · Score: 2

In addition to the other replies, presumably a major use case for this technology is stupid tourists, who rarely go swimming during major storms.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:Unlikely to work when needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:08 · Score: 0

The first small helicopters used for this also failed.
It wasn't until the really large ones came available that they were sufficient to withstand storm winds even slightly.
And they still go down when hit with microbursts.
so they don't even try to hover less than around 100-200 feet above the water. And they prefer higher.
As far as wind speed - any storm will have wind speed above 20 miles/hour - that is just a nice breeze.

It's all going on by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:42 · Score: 0

isn't it?

Delivery system for nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:43 · Score: 1

I wonder how the warmongers are going to spin this as evidence of nuclear weapons manufactory. Possibly as a delivery system for tactical nukes?

Re:Delivery system for nuclear weapons? by game+kid · 2013-03-30 00:06 · Score: 1

I dunno if the US gov is that eager for evidence, but I do think that Iran's would love something like this to free them from hoping a US Navy ship rescues their seafarers.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Delivery system for nuclear weapons? by cdrudge · 2013-03-30 00:07 · Score: 1

If they are having problems with it carrying 3 life preservers, I'm going to bet a tactical nuke might be a little further away.

Try this link by sa1lnr · 2013-03-29 23:53 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.robotee.com/index.php/aerial-rescue-robot-pars-31026/

Re:Try this link by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:35 · Score: 0

http://www.robotee.com/index.php/aerial-rescue-robot-pars-31026/
Interesting link. Not one single real picture. If they had anything more that drug-induced dream you'd think they'd snap some pics and add them to the site, no?
And they only need a further $30K-$40K? You'd think that the iranian gov't would sell a couple more gallons of gas and give it to them.
I wonder if they thought of trying Kickstarter ..

Bush3 is in office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 23:59 · Score: 0

Bush3 is in office, and he's decided he hates slanty eyed Asians more than towel headed Asians.

That theory about durability of UAVs being better than manned aircraft? Any evidence for any of them having better durability?

Re:Bush3 is in office by O('_')O_Bush · 2013-03-30 02:14 · Score: 1

Yep, Obama started the Gulf War and Iraq War. That is why your comment makes so much sense.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re:Bush3 is in office by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:39 · Score: 0

You know I think I figured it out.
They moved to "slanty eyed Asians" cause the other ones covered their heads with a Towel ( http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Towel )
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Ravenous_Bugblatter_Beast_of_Traal :P

Thermite grenades over oil tanker by drnb · 2013-03-30 00:13 · Score: 1

Possibly as a delivery system for tactical nukes?

More likely a delivery system for thermite grenades over oil tankers.

Re:Thermite grenades over oil tanker by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:17 · Score: 0

That might be a realistic (if not very effective compared to their existing missiles) option, but is it enough to scare the masses into wanting yet another expensive war?

They shouldn't have posted photo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:19 · Score: 0

Now the people in the photo are in the Israeli death squad files...

Breasts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:31 · Score: 0

It needs red propellors and breasts.

War is "cheap", occupation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:48 · Score: 0

That might be a realistic (if not very effective compared to their existing missiles) option, but is it enough to scare the masses into wanting yet another expensive war?

Sure, when oil tankers are threatened and the price of gasoline spikes to $10 per gallon in the USA.

Also, the wars are not expensive. Its the occupations that are expensive. Bombing strikes, troops raiding a remote nuclear research site and then leaving, etc ... modern history shows that sort of stuff goes well and is over in some small number of days. Its only when you stay around to rebuild a government, rebuild infrastructure and provide security for society, etc that things become troublesome.

Basically abandon the Powell doctrine of "you break it, you own it". Go with the old fashioned "we broke it, we're leaving now, don't make us come back again".

Re:War is "cheap", occupation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 00:59 · Score: 0

Basically abandon the Powell doctrine of "you break it, you own it". Go with the old fashioned "we broke it, we're leaving now, don't make us come back again".
To illustrate the point:
1991 Gulf War 1 against Iraq = "we broke it, we're leaving now, don't make us come back again".
2003 Gulf War 2 against Iraq = "you break it, you own it".
Repeating that 1991 strategy as needed in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been far less expensive.
Re:War is "cheap", occupation is expensive by tomhath · 2013-03-30 01:14 · Score: 1

Repeating that 1991 strategy as needed in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been far less expensive
Repeating 1991 would've given Saddam an excuse to murder another quarter of a million people as payback (which he did in the mid-90s). And the Arab Spring would never have happened if dictators were free to slaughter people at will.
Re:War is "cheap", occupation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:34 · Score: 0

More importantly, it would have been utterly pointless without the no-bid contracts for occupying and rebuilding. How much did GWB's personal wealth increase, again?
Re:War is "cheap", occupation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 09:38 · Score: 0

Repeating that 1991 strategy as needed in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been far less expensive
Repeating 1991 would've given Saddam an excuse to murder another quarter of a million people as payback (which he did in the mid-90s). And the Arab Spring would never have happened if dictators were free to slaughter people at will.
So Bush was correct in his expectation that toppling Saddam will lead to more dictators falling? Well Gaddafi in Libya did abandon his nuclear program right after the Iraqi invasion. Maybe.

Not going to work any time soon. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:01 · Score: 1

Just some facts.

The range of these battery powered drones with pay-load(1.5kg) would be around 8 minutes, regardless of battery size.
Bigger battery = heavier = more power needed to move around and stay airborne
4 minutes out @ 20mph (unlikely in real world conditions) is 1.3 miles or 2.1 km.
30 minutes to recharge (assuming the wireless charging works at top speed)
For every 1.3 miles or 2.1 km of coastline you would need around 4 drones for 100% coverage.

And they will not work when winds are over 20 mph.
And they will not work in freezing conditions (batteries cannot deliver the power below 5 deg C).

Nice toys, no game changers.

I'm betting on their petrol powered 30 pound / 10 pound payload brothers.

Re:Not going to work any time soon. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-03-30 01:54 · Score: 2

Just some facts.
Care to post your qualifications first?

The range of these battery powered drones with pay-load(1.5kg) would be around 8 minutes, regardless of battery size.
Where'd you get those numbers from?

Bigger battery = heavier = more power needed to move around and stay airborne
Bigger battery also = more power available, so...

4 minutes out @ 20mph (unlikely in real world conditions) is 1.3 miles or 2.1 km.
Who says these things only go at 20mph? And how is (as you appear to be implying) 2.1 km not far enough?! These things could easily save lives within a few hundred metres of shore or an off-shore installation like an oil rig. Oh, also, because I did some reading, I found out that they're designed to soft splash into water when they run out of juice to be recovered later, so you can double whatever number you've invented.

30 minutes to recharge (assuming the wireless charging works at top speed)
And also assuming a) that the charging is wireless and also b) that it does actually take 30 minutes to recharge. And this is hardly a problem at all unless people start drowning more than once every 30 minutes. And there's always the battery swap option.

And they will not work when winds are over 20 mph.
Who says?
Why must someone always dump on every prototype? Does it make them feel smart?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

50mph? in your dreams. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 01:17 · Score: 0

More like 20mph top speed for these fixed multiotor systems.

The problem is the fixed design of the rotor, it has been designed to hover efficiently.
To fly fast you need adjustable rotors to compensate for the wind speed.
It affects your virtual angle of attack or air speed vs rotor speed.

Above 20mph this design becomes very inefficient at moving air.

Re:50mph? in your dreams. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-03-30 02:30 · Score: 1

Even the variable pitch rotors used in full sized helicopters are not all that efficient compared to fixed wing aircraft. (Here "efficiency" is defined by the energy used to move payload). You see the fixed wing aircraft produce enough thrust to overcome drag and the aerodynamics of pushing the wing into air creates lift. Anything that hovers must produce enough thrust to overcome the weight. Typically in a fixed wing aircraft the Lift (or weight) to drag ratio is above 10. Thus you are using much smaller engine for the same weight in fixed wing aircraft. So purely by fuel efficiency point of view, rotary wing aircraft can never compete with fixed wing aircraft.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by skitchen8 · 2013-03-30 03:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

I offer a challenge: fly a fixed wing aircraft to a man in water. Stop the plane, throw down life preservers, and stay exactly above the swimmer with a beacon light to guide rescue swimmers in. I bet at the beginning of the second sentence fuel efficiency stops mattering as you fall out of the sky and the quad copter begins laughing maniacally. Rotary wing aircraft exist, and are used because despite the small disadvantages they also offer one huge advantage as well. There is a reason rotary wing is used over fixed wing in rescue operations, and it isn't because they forgot to ask your opinion.
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by skitchen8 · 2013-03-30 03:23 · Score: 1

Step 1) Google warthox. Step 2) Watch videos Step 3) Stand (or sit, I don't care) corrected. I can hit almost 20 mph with my $40 Chinese micro quad, hitting 50 is relatively trivial for a more expensive/powerful machine. Efficiency begins to matter less when you are trying to potentially save a life, especially when your aircraft is unmanned and expendable.
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by maeka · 2013-03-30 09:48 · Score: 1

You appear to be picking a nit which wasn't offered.
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by skitchen8 · 2013-03-30 11:03 · Score: 0

Ummm... I was responding to a comment that was basically saying rotary wing is useless because fixed wing exists. You appear to be unable to read context of a discussion before picking your own nits. So, kindly GFY
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by maeka · 2013-03-30 12:36 · Score: 1

As I said. A nit which wasn't offered. GPP mentioned the efficiency but in no way suggested that made them unfit for the job at hand. The only person running with that claim is you.
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by deadmantalking · 2013-03-31 01:04 · Score: 1

Sorry, I am a bit confused. Isn't this discussion about quadcopters in general and their rescue role in specific? Why would the GP mention fixed wing, unless he thought them to be relevant to the discussion?
For example, if you were discussing the merits of presidential democracy versus parliamentary democracy, and I jumped in to say that in Mussolini's fascist state, the trains always ran on time, would it not be proper for you to assume that i brought in fascism because i thought it had advantages over democracy? In which case, it would be perfectly fair for you to point out that if I had spoken out of turn in his regime, I would have been thrown straight under one of those efficiently running trains.
Would it then make sense for someone else to pop up and say that my facism remark did not deserve your response because I was not making any comparison with democracy?

--
A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by maeka · 2013-03-31 02:01 · Score: 1

He was responding to someone talking about the efficiency of non-pitch-shifting rotors. He commented on how efficiency doesn't improve much once you introduce blade pitch-control. He used fixed-wing aircraft as a contrast.
That's all.
You were the one who chose this subthread as your Nteenth location for saying the same thing, ignoring relevance to the specific discussion at hand.
Sure this overall story is about QCs and rescue. But the subthread you chose to lose your mind in isn't.
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-31 02:09 · Score: 0

He was responding to someone talking about the efficiency of non-pitch-shifting rotors. He commented on how efficiency doesn't improve much once you introduce blade pitch-control. He used fixed-wing aircraft as a contrast.
That's all.
You were the one who chose this subthread as your Nteenth location for saying the same thing, ignoring relevance to the specific discussion at hand.
Sure this overall story is about QCs and rescue. But the subthread you chose to lose your mind in isn't.
Fair enough. One nit: first time in years that I posted on /. so it can't be my nteenth location...
Re:50mph? in your dreams. by maeka · 2013-03-31 03:42 · Score: 1

If deadmanwalking != skitchen8 I apologize, but the verbiage smells the same.

Disturbing long distance swimmers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 02:35 · Score: 0

Imagine someone doing a long distance swim, say crossing the English Channel. This thing finds them and keep dropping life rings on their head.

Re:Disturbing long distance swimmers by ColdWetDog · 2013-03-30 03:26 · Score: 1

Imagine someone doing a long distance swim, say crossing the English Channel. This thing finds them and keep dropping life rings on their head.
Go imagine Natalie Portman swimming in a pool.
You'll have a nicer day.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Disturbing long distance swimmers by kevingolding2001 · 2013-03-30 06:21 · Score: 1

Have a nice day.
http://wallls.com/wallpaper/25151/

saving face by onyxruby · 2013-03-30 02:47 · Score: 1

This actually sounds like a good idea. Perhaps they got tired of the US having to rescue their sailors?

It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 07:04 · Score: 0

THIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

APK

P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

As the submitter of this posting... by mpthompson · 2013-03-30 07:28 · Score: 2

I work in the robotics industry and what really caught my eye was that this interesting work is coming out of Iran. Something I thought was pretty cool considering the negative press we get from our media about the country. Obviously, the Iranian government is very anti-American, but I would bet if I were to sit down with the folks at JST Labs working on this project I would find we share a lot of common interests in technology and such. It is from such common interests that broader cultural bridges can be built from.

Re:As the submitter of this posting... by swillden · 2013-03-30 14:37 · Score: 1

I would bet if I were to sit down with the folks at JST Labs working on this project I would find we share a lot of common interests in technology and such. It is from such common interests that broader cultural bridges can be built from.
My experience is that I get along like a house on fire with geeks from any nation, culture or ethnicity. Interests in technology and building cool stuff cross all other boundaries. I often feel like there's a vast, unknown international brotherhood of geeks. It's seriously beautiful. I'm sure I could walk into any city in the world, and if I could just find a brother nerd I'd be safe, well cared-for and building cool stuff right away.
Well, except for those idiots who use vi. I just can't stand being in the same room with anyone who uses that crap editor. EMACS is the One True editor. Duh. And don't get me started on the cult of Ruby "brogrammers"; anyone who doesn't see that monkey patching is of Satan deserves to be burned at the stake for practicing that witchcraft. Oh, and those utter fools who let themselves get sucked into the Evil Empire's gaping maw should just give up and die because they've already sold their souls for a slightly-improved version of Java.
But other than that, yeah, geeks are geeks the world over -- it's like our brains all work on the same wavelength. If only we they'd put us in charge we'd end all conflict in a jiffy, and the world would be a place of peace, beauty and freaking awesome quadcopters for all.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:As the submitter of this posting... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-31 00:53 · Score: 0

In my experience with Iranians (including dating one for a while) is that they are pretty awesome. Unlike the other middle eastern states, they are very modern, secular, and more like Turkey than Saudi Arabia.
They are also very smart. I had the pleasure of going to Uni with many of them (we have an exchange program with Iran, easy visa access, regular flights etc...) and they are vey good at Engineering.
They are however very anti-american, which considering what the USA did to them through history to the present, does not surprise me really. I and my country are pretty anti-american as well, thanks to your attacks on us. When you go about meddling, overthrowing and killing people, don't expect them to sing your praises afterwards.
Saying that, by "anti-american" does not mean a hatred of US citizens, but rather your state and its government. We do distinguish "America" from "An American". If you ever visited the only thing you would get from the locals, as an American, are some heated debates/questions about your contries policies :).

Wrong, Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 08:36 · Score: 0

The media bias is all wrong.

Shock and horror, Iran has the technology to build quad-copters. Worse, the Iranian government pretends to save lives, not wage war. How dare Iran threaten the USA with this (potentially) offensive weaponry! Cue outrage and 'in-depth' discussion on Fox news.

Killbot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 09:58 · Score: 0

It seams to me that a quadcopter that finds it targets like this could also be used on a battlefield to hunt down and kill soldiers, drop a bomb instead of a lifesaver??

Re:Killbot? by skitchen8 · 2013-03-30 11:06 · Score: 1

Let's name other things that could deliver bombs: RC cars, normal cars, those little foam gliders you get from the dollar store, a Frisbee, and tennis balls. So what point were you trying to make?
Re:Killbot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 12:41 · Score: 0

It seams to me that a quadcopter that finds it targets like this could also be used on a battlefield to hunt down and kill soldiers, drop a bomb instead of a lifesaver??
I wonder what country you're from? Let's see, presented with a new technology the first thing you think of is how to use it as a weapon. Well, I don't think it's Iran...

This was already by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 19:24 · Score: 0

I think a very similar idea was already tested by "prototype this" on Discovery channel. They used RC plane dropping lifr jackes for victims further from cost and secondary system with cannon firing life jackets closer to cost line.

BS! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-30 20:17 · Score: 0

Why do many american technologists ridicule Iranian technologists because of quarrels between their governments?
The people who are doing that are clearly not scientists. They are merely cheerleaders/hooligans.

The rescue quad copter is a brilliant idea. It is a relatively cheap device that can rescue people at sea while not having to lift the weight of a person.
It only has to lift the weight of an inflatable beach toy. I know from experience that it is difficult to get the life ring to the person in the sea because of wind
and distance. This potentially solves that problem. Also, this can be used in search operations that today requires one full sized rescue helicopter per pair of eyes.

The components involved in something like this are so simple, common and reliable that successful operation is merely dependent on software, which by the way is also very common in most smartphones ( gps, image recognition, movement sensors ) if not mature.

We are all pulling in the same direction here.

Rescue Swimmers? Ya, Sure by LifesABeach · 2013-03-31 03:24 · Score: 1

How about delivery systems? They are a bit noisy, but useful. All this crap about nuclear bombs was a mis-direct. Iran's goal is to compete with the likes of Fed-X, UPS, On-Trac, and the Post Office. This would make a good app, wait! Isn't there one of those already?

this technology wouldn't be necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-01 03:17 · Score: 0

if iranian women would stop swimming in burkas

Slashdot Mirror

Iranian Lab's Quadcopters To Rescue Swimmers

81 comments