With New Software, Drones Get Closer to Thinking Like Pilots

Ok, but if this thing is going against a fighter or interceptor, this thing is toast, despite the fact that it can think. I'm sure the survivability rate increases, but if it learns to fly like Maverick, the thing won't be coming back from any missions any time soon. But really, the thing is just for avoiding collisions anyway.

this will be incorporated into all drones so they can fly in any airspace, but it will also alow them to fly together, a huge increase in capability, hopefully they will like their creators

cool. i guess this is a good thing. unless they find a way to go against their creators.

Obviously not well enough to meet Pakistan's requirements to stay from their Al Queda members!

The only way to solve world problems is with math and science

Millenniumparty.org

I'm getting sick that American military war machine keeps pumping our stuff that murders civilians. When amerikkka kills everyone who do think they will turn the war machines on next? Amerikkkan civilians.

@boka
Nor sure if the miss spellling of America is supposed to.an insult but i leave you with these fine qoutes " America Fuck Yeah!" And "Freedom cost a buck 'o five". Btw you sir are the worst kind of hate breading douche go troll on a nom science site we dont care foe your rants here.

Sorry bout the typos but i think i got what i was trying to say across on my cell at work.

@boka, I agree, these drones will be used against the american civilians sometime in the future.

So... Every American citizen is a member of the KKK? Maybe I've been hooked by a troll, but that seriously pisses me off.

Up yours, Boka.

You know, I also resent the implication that if these things were to be released upon unsuspecting civilians in our country, that it would be some kind of poetic justice.

In this world, it takes strength to survive. That doesn't mean that you have to use it, just possess it. But we NEED the capability to defend ourselves, or we will lose our way of life; a way of life that hundreds of thousands of Americans have already died for. I can't believe that some people (I'm looking at you, Boka. You too, Aldron.) would actually want civilians of one country to pay for the mistakes of other governments.

I don't know - or care - where you come from, but here in America we do our best, dammit. We might not be everything that we should be, but America is still the greatest damn country on God's Green Earth.

I guess all I'm really trying to say is what I've already said: "Up yours, Boka," with the addendum of, "You're a real douche."

"There was a time when battles could be won and lost with the mere push of a button, and these mobile dolls (AKA DRONES) are the absolute root of that detestable and hateful spirit."

"When wars are dehumanized, both victory and defeat become miserable, and God no longer lends a helping hand."

"A war with no civility can only give rise to massacres...that's why all the previous battles on the earth have been so tragic."

"Tradition is a history. It's a history of caring built by deep true feelings of people. I do believe that fighting in battles can at times be beautiful. But at the same time, I'd like to express my regret over the lost souls by appealing to you to recognize how priceless man's life is. I believe what mankind needs is not absolute victory but a certain demeanor in fighting, an attitude toward fighting. I fear that the era of the soulless weapons called mobile dolls (AKA DRONES), in other words, the era that the Romefeller Foundation is creating, may become an embarassment to the people of the future."

-Treize Khushrenada, Gundam Wing

@combatko I didn't say that it would be poetic justice when these drones are turned on the american public. It is really ironic though cause it's your tax dollars that is paying for this.

I hope I'm wrong cause I have a lot of family and friends in the states...but did you ever read the Patriot Act? You should give it a go...these things will be turned on the public at some point.

I would also like to say the pre-2001...I could look at all of these cool invetions, & know that if any sinister commie were to invade or declare war they would lose. But now the purpose of these machines are not to defend...but to kill, and in most cases kill innocent people, and in many cases peope that are fighting for their freedom, and in many cases 3rd world people that have nothing to do with the U.S...excet they are living on an oil field.

And also by saying the U.S is the best country on earth, you are proving boka right cause that's KKK mentality. There's nothing wrong with loving your country, but when you go as far as to say "we are the best"...you are implying that there is a pecking order. And even your own constitution says 'All men are created equal"...Not all"American men are created equal"

Everyone!, Nothing will be used against anyone that's not military. This is a full fledged military tool used against terrorists not civilians. Whenever a stray missile hits some civilian house, you people take it seriously like it's a big deal. "Oh, America is such a shame, they killed those poor civilians on purpose." I don't want any of that, ok? It's fights like these that really make me angry.

And I admit, killing isn't right, but when something like this happens, you guys always blame it on America. What about UK or France. They are participating in the war too. You people make me sick.

you could puke on them :) maybe they would notice that in there collective fog of unreality

@ ThisNameTaken

How ignorant could you possibly be?

1.) today's UAVs still require human pilots, the pilots are just on the other side of the world (not dehumanization)

2.) when UAVs that pilot themselves become the mainstay of our Air Force, there will still be human pilots in aircraft to lead them (not dehumanization)

3.) and why would it become an embarrassment for humans to not die quite so frequently (from drones fighting and humans commanding)

I’d rather be “ignorant” then just plain STUPID like the prior commenter. UAV by very definition is UNMANNED. Further, a simple search yields:

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV; also known as a unmanned aircraft system (UAS) or sometimes incorrectly referred to as a remotely piloted vehicle or RPV) is an aircraft that is flown by a pilot or a navigator (called Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) depending on the different Air Forces; however, without a human crew on board the aircraft. Their largest uses are in military applications. To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

There are a wide variety of UAV shapes, sizes, configurations, and characteristics. Historically, UAVs were simple drones[2] (remotely piloted aircraft), but autonomous control is increasingly being employed in UAVs. UAVs come in two varieties: some are controlled from a remote location (which may even be many thousands kilometers away, on another continent), and others fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans using more complex dynamic automation systems.

Lets see… does not carry an operator, can fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans using more complex dynamic automation systems… the ENTIRE POINT of this article.

Ummmm yeah… that is dehumanization spot on. First and foremost, what kind of coward sends in a robot army? I mean lets face it, just like the trade federation in Star Wars I’d act pretty tough too if I had an army of robot ME’s to try to kick your ass while I’m eating bon-bons from the comfort of my lazy-boy. Also the dehumanization -- the disconnect -- killing you with that robot doesn’t even seem like a moral issue because I didn’t kill you, the robot did. Furthermore you make the absolutely absurd and laughable statement: “and why would it become an embarrassment for humans to not die quite so frequently.” Yeah, because increasing the killing efficiency means less people die... *shakes his head*

@thisnametaken...you really are a dip sh#t...all the current UAV's are piloted by humans, still called UAV's...stop being a literal illiterate creep arguing semantics, f off

@Dragan408 & other brainwashed military folks,

1) " (not dehumanization)"

Dehumanization is the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

dehumanize - deprive of human qualities; "Life in poverty has dehumanized them"
dehumanize - make mechanical or routine
- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

----

So, yeah, "we're the best, better than the rest" and such statements ARE dehumanizing. Using mechanized armies IS dehumanizing.

Clicking a button on a keyboard to make some pixels on the screen fall down or explode IS dehumanizing.

If you had to squeeze the life out of another human being with your bare hands while staring into their eyes as they struggled and kicked and gasped for breath... you'd feel different about it than just clicking "fire" on your UAV controller.

The easier (psychologically) you make it to kill another human, the more dehumanizing war becomes.

Thank you BV.

your so smart you can copy and paste a definition, i think most on here know what dehumanize means, but those that don't i'm sure appreciate your superior intellect...i'm sure those that push the buttons know they are killing and are glad they don't have to choke the life out of them and can go home to their families instead...however, i havn't talked to any, have you?...more advanced technologies have given an advantage to one side or another since warfare began, usually winning out over less advanced, not always (see nazis)...are you really suggesting we should go back to sticks and stones?...you both seem to be both very naive and very unrealistic in your views...even a very libral president knows better, get a grip

@drchuck1,

Yes, one of my best friends is in the military and although he hasn't killed anyone himself he has told me about situations where it has occurred.

One particular case was that of a gunner who was forced to open fire on a vehicle that would not stop at a roadblock in Iraq.

From a distance the guy had no problem holding the trigger and aiming the gun at the truck driving towards the base (he'd practiced doing just that many times in training and video games).

When the truck had stopped and they went to investigate, the guy got close enough to see the effects of his trigger pulling.

He saw the giant bullet holes in the truck, the blood, skin, brain, and bone fragments splattered inside of it. He smelled the burning engine oil, leaking truck fluids, and the charred flesh and released bowels of the driver; he understood the consequences of his actions at that point.

What was his reaction? Puking, sweating, and trembling with nightmares to follow.

I'm NOT so sure that those pushing the buttons understand what they are doing if they never experience the results up close and personal.

Kinda like a virgin wouldn't understand what sex was like emotionally/psychologically simply from telling a video game character to engage in it.

I'm not suggesting we go back to using sticks and stones, or teeth and claws.

I AM suggesting that the easier it is to kill someone (both physically and psychologically), the more likely we are to do it.

I would be willing to bet MOST Americans wouldn't be psychologically capable of killing their own pig in order to eat bacon. Sure, some would. But I think most wouldn't.

Pigs scream and struggle and fight for their lives when being slaughtered (search on youtube if you want to see). It's very traumatic--maybe so traumatic that the delicious taste of bacon wouldn't be worth the experience of a screaming bloody twitching piglet.

However, slaughtering piggy's is so easy these days... you just hand the grocery store some dollars and you get a nicely packaged, no-longer-screaming-bleeding-twitching piggy.

Same concept can be applied to our wars. Maybe if we had to experience the graphic details of taking someone's life we wouldn't think the trauma is worth the natural resources we're killing over.

If my choice was slaughtering an Iraqi family to secure oil fields for the petroleum my BMW runs on, or riding a bike to work... I'd probably pick to ride a bike.

However, slaughtering Iraqis is so easy for me (the funds to do so are automatically drafted from my paycheck), that I fill up my gas tank every week and don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about it.

What makes it even easier is the constant barrage of rationalizations such as "they are just a bunch of terrorists, they hate our 'freedom', they are so backwards socially that they are hardly even humans, we are way better than them and so are entitled to oil more than they are."

While I understand the need to create more advanced weapons systems, I think it is important to consider who those weapons will be used on, and for what reasons.

I certainly understand that sometimes killing/war is unavoidable. But often times it IS avoidable.

A mechanized army and a dehumanized enemy minimize that little voice in your head that says "well, maybe there is another way to settle our differences, maybe this particular issue isn't worth killing each other about?"

your just not being real, the bad guys are not going to stop because we want them to, we need to keep our technological edge or be overthrown, we are out numbered by those that want us eliminated, unrealistic to think we can end war from a position of weakness, i don't agree with all we have done, i was one of the few people i knew that was against the Iraqi war, we can't just quit because we made a mistake and i'm sure that soldier would have no problem killing point blank if he thought he needed to and would puke later and i work with many former soldiers, some in favorand and some not in favor of the iraqi war

@drchuck1,

"the bad guys are not going to stop because we want them to"

1) Who are the "bad guys"

2) What will they not stop?

"we are out numbered by those that want us eliminated"

Cite your sources for "their" numbers, and define exactly who wants "us eliminated" if you want to be taken seriously...

"i'm sure that soldier would have no problem killing point blank if he thought he needed to"

I would have no problem killing point blank if I thought I needed to as well.

If a crackhead wanted my shoes to pawn them and buy more crack, I would probably just give him my shoes instead of discharging my beretta into his forehead.

If he started slashing at me with a knife, I'd probably run away and call 911 instead of discharging my beretta into his forehead.

If I was trapped in an alley, or was pinned down by fire power from the crackhead... then, sure, I would feel that I needed to kill him, and have no problem doing it.

I, as well as most people I know, WOULD have a problem with preemptively blasting away a group of dirty/poor people on the street because they "hate my freedom and way of life" and then taking their can of baked beans.

BTW, I thought the war in Afghanistan was justified, the current war in Iraq was illegal, and the war in Libya justified though obviously a result of playing favorites due to oil wealth.

ok, i will keep it simple, if we are not the strongest military, then someone else will be and we will have to bow to their demands and they wouldn't be as nice as us, the only reason the west has not been over run is because of the US military, i don't need to specifically name anyone or #'s that would do this, do you follow history much, the strongest rule, the rest are followers at best, for you to believe otherwise is foolhardy

oh, sorry forgot, what fantasy are you dreaming up about this crack head, anyone who has had any training with firearms would know it is too late if the crack head is slashing at you with a knife, your dead, would never get your beretta out in time, the only chance you would have is if you had awareness of this threat and took action before this crack head came at you with a knife, that statement and most of the rest show you have no idea what you are talking about

@drchuck1,

"if we are not the strongest military, then someone else will be and we will have to bow to their demands"

How strong was the Afghan military when we invaded them a decade ago?

How many mechanized drones, or advanced weapons systems did they have?

How easily have they bowed to our demands?

What about the North Koreans? Wasn't it awesome when we just overpowered them with our superior military and made them bow to our demands in the Korean war?

How about during the bay of pigs? How did weakling Cuba with their inferior military fare during that confrontation?

How about Vietnam? How did those poor under-armed farmers do against the most well-trained and best-equipped soldiers in the world?

----

How strong was the British military when the American colonies rebelled?

---

War isn't as simple as a dick measuring contest... those with the biggest guns or the biggest military don't necessarily win. (see half of America's modern wars).

------

re: crackhead knife slashing comment... nice try at misdirection w/a strawman argument.