Slashdot Mirror
First Outdoor Flocks of Autonomous Flying Robots
KentuckyFC writes "Aerial flocking has been a long-standing goal for roboticists, but the technical demands for autonomous outdoor flocking have always been too great. Now a European team has successfully demonstrated autonomous outdoor flocking for the first time, with up to 10 flyers in the air simultaneously for up to 20 minutes. The flyer of choice is the MK Basicset L4-ME made by the German company MikroKopter. They modified this by attaching an extension board carrying a variety of navigational devices such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, and GPS receiver, as well as a wireless communications unit and a minicomputer to calculate trajectories. To simplify these calculations, all the quadcopters fly at the same altitude to make the flocking problem two-dimensional. The team say the quadcopters can fly autonomously in lines and circles, and even demonstrate self-organizing behavior when confined to specific volumes of space. Crucially, the flock does not rely on any centralized control for its behavior. The researchers imagine using them for large-scale, redundant observations over wide areas, perhaps for farming, traffic monitoring and, of course, military purposes. They might even put on aerial displays for entertainment purposes."
someone post a link to an actual video of this
We do realize that "minicomputer" means a specific thing, and you would probably not want to attach one to a UAV?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
How can incremental research into simple AI algorithms be so mired in conspiracy in your mind?
Born 1960, been paying attention. Unlike most of you, apparently.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Get lots of them for "fireworks" display!
Ow, I'm suing you from the pain and suffering from just how far back in my head my eyes rolled.
"STRICTLY AMBIGUOUS REASONS THAT ARE TOTALLY CLEAR TO THOSE PAYING ATTENTION!!!! (Also my dementia seems to be the early onset variety)"
Little batteries everywhere (ripped off from a joke in Sleeper)
Can't speak to what the GP said ... but the way governments have been behaving lately, I know I more or less assume such things.
You know, like that an always-connected-to-the-internet XBone would be misused by spy agencies to spy on us -- and now we see news reports saying exactly that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Seems kind of gimmicky: more of a PR stunt than actual, you know, technological innovation.
Let me state this once and for all.
Awesome. So this means you're not going to bring up your Luddite views again?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Okay, um not going back too far, there's been a bit of noise about a "National Security Agency", which I surmised has revealed a distinct lack of respect for lawful action by my Fearless Leaders. Since we value our Military Budget as nearly sacrosanct as the Dole for the Banks, I expect this to be militarized, and then used against me, or some unfortunate foreigner whose misfortune is to live in a resource-rich or strategic location, which of course, will need stablization.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Yeah, but you've got to separate a public demonstration by European researchers at a small robotics company from the US federal government's secret plans. There has to be a line somewhere.
How close do they really need to be? Can you "swat" them if they're a few hundred feet up?
Proverbs 21:19
Video or it didn't happen. Or how about even a photograph? Something better than the blurred crap on top of that article this posts links to redundantly.
Any flock of flying robots, autonomous or not, over my head or my property will encounter bags of nails, wires and other terrible obstacles designed to swat them.
Remember kids, what goes up must come down... in unrelated news, people who oppose drones can be recognized by the nails, wires, and other 'terrible obstacles' that embedded in their face.
But the horrible things the US does isn't the question I asked.
(Also you might want to check what's being done with the DoD's budget this year in particular when you raise the idea of it being "sacrosanct")
This is a network in the sky.....
strategic location which, of course, will...
Oops.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Do you "swat" the airplanes and helicopters that currently fly over your house? What difference does it make if there is a person on board?
Well, I postulate a new law:
It may not be the intent, but it will be the effect.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ow, I'm suing you from the pain and suffering from just how far back in my head my eyes rolled.
I just wanted to inform you that 1). I LOLed and 2). I may re-use that claim without attribution one or more times at some point in the future. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Downsizing the human personnel is part of the scam. AI doesn't shirk when the mission is denial of civilian incursion.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Eight words that have completely changed their meaning:
http://writinghood.com/style/g...
Do you "swat" the airplanes and helicopters that currently fly over your house?
If they're flying below the legally established floor, I might consider it.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
and/or operating the craft in an unsafe manner:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
What difference does it make if there is a person on board?
Other than a murder/manslaughter charge vs. possible destruction of property?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh no, better put the kibitz on scientific advancement.
This string of words you put together here, they're grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. This is straight up "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" territory.
Is this horrendously upscaled JPEG all we're going to get?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
ROBOTS FOLLOW ORDERS.
Get it? (Have I been trolled? This is getting tedious.) My Fearless Leaders have proven themselves untrustworthy in regards to Life and Liberty. When I say I fear personally from this development, it is a generalisation of any unarmed American Citizen who might wish to expect not to be controlled (surveilled/terminated) by a robot, or an unstoppable swarm of them, whilst he tries to go about his day.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
This is the part I was referring to:
"AI doesn't shirk when the mission is denial of civilian incursion."
It doesn't mean anything.
I've seen people doing flocking demonstrations for years, and it seems like something robot tinkerers spend significant time on. And it usually involves this:
Why? Why is that crucial? Why not let the robots communicate with a central control? I understand that's not how animals do it, but animals don't have, like, RF glands. To be clear, there's no reason the central control couldn't be in one of the robots (and there's no reason the "central" robot needs to be statically defined, they could instantly elect a new one if the old one dropped out or something). It's only a difficult problem in practice, but there's not really a practical reason to impose this restriction.
Where's the big downside of a central control? The upside is the practical problem is way easier. And it is really just a practical problem - the theoretical flocking problem is much easier and can be thought about much simpler in simulation.
In general, robot tinkerers seem to spend a ton of time making up odd, practical problems that don't need practical solutions. Like the dudes a few SlashDot stories ago that were inventing a way for robots to communicate facts to each other without sharing any kind of pre-defined language. The communication thing is an interesting, useful problem - but it has nothing to do with robots, and doing it with actual robots just adds a bunch of extraneous hassles. It'd be like building counting robots to move abacuses so you could to math theory.
I mean, if you're actually building robots that need to communicate, you can just have them able to communicate in a non-ridiculous way because we know how to have computers communicate at a distance. Just like you don't need a robot to be able to physically manipulate an abacus (at least not in order to help it count).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Hurray, hurray, it's the First of May!
Outdoor flocking starts today!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Um, have you ever heard of something called a "Drone Strike", where someone in Omaha or somewhere like that deploys some ordnance on some wedding party in Pakistan? Eventually, the target-rich environment might be at the grounds in front of the Washington Monument or some place where the machine might want AI control, although it is probably easy to recruit unscruplous people like yourself who just want an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
On Slashdot, everything is a conspiracy.
Yeah, and here's where you sound crazy.
It may not be the intent, but it will be the effect.
Has been so far, up until now, but it seems to be getting more blatant, routine, and far more egregious as time goes by.
The average unthinking turd does not seem to think it is an issue, despite the historical record.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
...My Fearless Leaders have proven themselves untrustworthy in regards to Life and Liberty...
...said the guy - posting openly on the information network created by the US DOD.
The kibitz? Well, yes, we do like to chat about scientific advancement around here.
Proverbs 21:19
Other than a murder/manslaughter charge vs. possible destruction of property?
Don't be a pussy. You have important property rights to defend.
Which is incredibly difficult to do from inside a prison cell.
FWIW, 99.999999999999% of the manned aircraft that fly over my property are A) above the legal flight floor, and B) not being piloted by some irresponsible dickhead who wants to take naked pictures of my wife through our windows. The one's that fail the test of A and B above have to answer to the FAA, so I'm not too worried about them getting away with anything. What I am worried about is douche bags with more money than sense, who are not under the purview of the FAA, violating both my property and privacy rights.
Don't be a falsely-equivocating douche, keep your spy toys out of my airspace.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
On Slashdot
Fucking site is overrun with mathematicians and logical thinkers.
Do the math.
Or don't, if it makes your brain hurt.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I may see what crimes are CURRENTLY BEING COMMITTED without correlation to whether I, personally am paranoid. About these well-documented crimes.
...and I don't think posting A.C. from a tor link would protect my dossier.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
...without comprehension. Are you N.S.A., or just Republican?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Carry on!
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I think, if you recall, the lack of comprehension was the original point, in that you're constructing non-ideas out of your words.
Fucking site is overrun with mathematicians and logical thinkers.
You joking? This place is jam packed with front line helpdesk staffers who are under the delusion that they're logicians- while being utterly blinded by their existing biases.
worried about is douche bags with more money than sense, who are not under the purview of the FAA,
How exactly would an aircraft not be under the jurisdiction of the FAA? That's kind of their thing.
how the hell did this guy secure a FP7 grant to make a couple of quadricopters fly in circles?
word.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
worried about is douche bags with more money than sense, who are not under the purview of the FAA,
How exactly would an aircraft not be under the jurisdiction of the FAA? That's kind of their thing.
http://investigations.nbcnews....
Until the FAA actually creates and enforces a set of regulations in regards to UAV/S, it's going to continue to be like an airborne Wild West.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Don't believe everything you think.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Shotgun pellets will bounce off harmlessly on their downward trajectory. Wear a hat.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Born 1959, what a waste it would have been to spend the last 50yrs living in fear of my own species.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hey, I'm not the one filling the skies with killing machines for defense, and tracking every person on the planet to maintain stability. I am not the one filled with the fear.
So, you have observed little and surmised nothing? That must be very comforting.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
An autonomous coordinated array of independently targeted guns; I wonder if the military is doing any development in this direction for CIWS?
Someone better get on it.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.