The big issue with human controlled drones in an "all drone" future is signal security, bandwidth and latency.
Agreed. Anti drone warfare is going to be all about creating interreference that makes it hard for drones to talk back.
And it why future drones will gain increasing autonomy, so if cut off from base, they can still attempt to complete their mission.
if i was a master criminal i'd be working on a drone to nab the Imperial State Crown from off HMQs coffin. (is it that crown?)
Don't key requirements for being a master criminal include choosing crimes you are unlikely to get caught for and where it is relatively easy to convert the proceeds into something spendable like cash?
that sounds more like a regular criminal. i'm thinking more Despicable Me types.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
I agree. Monarchies will probably attempt to "slim down" in the future in order to placate public opinion but in doing so will lose the sense of magic and mystery that keeps them going.
The Scandinavian and Dutch monarchies are doing OK, aren't they ? Also much more egalitarian, and particularly since 1979, better functioning societies than ours.
That's the model Charles is most interested in, and I would say that he's right, in that.
You know the people that advised Prince Andrew on his Newsnight interview, I am sure they are advising Centre Parcs.
Center Parcs has provoked further confusion after telling holidaymakers they must remain in their lodges on bank holiday Monday as a “mark of respect” for the Queen.
WRT the teaching of history, there was always one subject that got the undivided attention of the class:
Medieval executions.
It was demise of Edward II that had my class mesmerised.
Well ok me.
That. And also, the demise of Hugh Despenser the Younger, and Richard Roos. The latter was lowered into a vat of boiling water on chains, before being raised again, to give the Smithfield crowd a show. This was repeated several times over.
Henry VIII merrily quipped "The cook was cook'd".
Could have brought that back for Boris Johnson and I wouldn't have protested too loudly.
There's a bit of a medieval executioner in most of us.
The big issue with human controlled drones in an "all drone" future is signal security, bandwidth and latency.
Agreed. Anti drone warfare is going to be all about creating interreference that makes it hard for drones to talk back.
And it why future drones will gain increasing autonomy, so if cut off from base, they can still attempt to complete their mission.
if i was a master criminal i'd be working on a drone to nab the Imperial State Crown from off HMQs coffin. (is it that crown?)
Don't key requirements for being a master criminal include choosing crimes you are unlikely to get caught for and where it is relatively easy to convert the proceeds into something spendable like cash?
Not if you're a master criminal in a Movie/TV-Programme.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
I agree. Monarchies will probably attempt to "slim down" in the future in order to placate public opinion but in doing so will lose the sense of magic and mystery that keeps them going.
Little magic in that clip of Charles and the delinquent pen.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
Has anyone made a drone for shooting down other drones yet?
As many as 400,000 people will see the late Queen lying in state amid growing concern that five-mile queues will “see some horrible stories about people suffering” in order to pay their respects.
The Government warned the public to “be prepared for long queues” and told parents to think twice before bringing along children.
The queue will be cut off early at the point at which authorities believe new joiners would not be able to see the late Queen’s coffin.
Queen Elizabeth II will lie in state in Westminster Hall from 5pm on Wednesday until 6.30am on Monday, the day of her funeral. Sources said if the queue runs smoothly about 400,000 people will be able to see her lying in state - twice the number who saw the Queen Mother following her death in 2002.
Ministers have suggested mourners may have to queue for as long as 30 hours.
Well-wishers will be given colour coded, numbered wristbands before they join the queue that will allow them to leave the queue “for a short period” in order to use the toilet or buy food and drink.
In a warning not to enter the queue lightly, official guidance issued Tuesday night states: “You will need to stand for many hours, possibly overnight, with very little opportunity to sit down, as the queue will keep moving.”
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Emotional abuse can often be more damaging than physical violence. It was a little more toxic than "waving their (his) hands around a bit". He was clearly enraged at a rather minor detail (twice). How he responded later is the key, and we are unaware of that.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Spy satellites say "Hi!"
Spy satellites are just drones in space.
Come on, that's pushing definitions a little...
Sure, I'm pushing it. But only a bit.
Ultimately, they are unmanned vehicles doing the job that manned vehicles did previously.
Was quite interested to find that the US had gone a long way towards building a manned spy sat (Manned Orbital Laboratory cover name) till they realised that the vibrations of the crew moving around would shake the camera too much for clear images. Not sure if the chaps were supposed to stay still and hold their breath during the exposures.
There’s some very good stuff on MOL on nasaspaceflight.com
The real killer of the program wasn’t that, it was the K series satellites suddenly becoming reliable, after a long series of failures dotted with occasional success.
WRT the teaching of history, there was always one subject that got the undivided attention of the class:
Medieval executions.
It was demise of Edward II that had my class mesmerised.
Well ok me.
That. And also, the demise of Hugh Despenser the Younger, and Richard Roos. The latter was lowered into a vat of boiling water on chains, before being raised again, to give the Smithfield crowd a show. This was repeated several times over.
Henry VIII merrily quipped "The cook was cook'd".
Could have brought that back for Boris Johnson and I wouldn't have protested too loudly.
There's a bit of a medieval executioner in most of us.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
Has anyone made a drone for shooting down other drones yet?
At one point they were trying to train birds of prey to bring them down. They were going to give them metal gauntlets to protect their feet.
As many as 400,000 people will see the late Queen lying in state amid growing concern that five-mile queues will “see some horrible stories about people suffering” in order to pay their respects.
The Government warned the public to “be prepared for long queues” and told parents to think twice before bringing along children.
The queue will be cut off early at the point at which authorities believe new joiners would not be able to see the late Queen’s coffin.
Queen Elizabeth II will lie in state in Westminster Hall from 5pm on Wednesday until 6.30am on Monday, the day of her funeral. Sources said if the queue runs smoothly about 400,000 people will be able to see her lying in state - twice the number who saw the Queen Mother following her death in 2002.
Ministers have suggested mourners may have to queue for as long as 30 hours.
Well-wishers will be given colour coded, numbered wristbands before they join the queue that will allow them to leave the queue “for a short period” in order to use the toilet or buy food and drink.
In a warning not to enter the queue lightly, official guidance issued Tuesday night states: “You will need to stand for many hours, possibly overnight, with very little opportunity to sit down, as the queue will keep moving.”
my guess that 1.7m might be able to file past was a bit out then.
Astounded that only 2% think there has been too little coverage.
What is missing is a good but compact 5 minute round up each day. I'd watch that, but ended up watching virtually nothing as even if you tune in on the hour just get endless slow banalities.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Spy satellites say "Hi!"
Spy satellites are just drones in space.
Come on, that's pushing definitions a little...
Sure, I'm pushing it. But only a bit.
Ultimately, they are unmanned vehicles doing the job that manned vehicles did previously.
Peant alert: we've never really had manned satellites solely for reconnaissance. The MOL/Dyna-Soar got cancelled, replaced with the CORONA/Gambit spy satellites. Russian crewed missions were not solely for reconnaissance, either.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
Actually never saw that.
Washington Behind Closed Doors was my grounding in US politics.
Of course you did. It's the show where Catherine Bach wears micro-shorts and works as a stripper/ masseuse at Mar A Lago, and their orange Dodge Charger had a Confederate flag on its roof. Donald Trump owned the courts and the police force too.
Astounded that only 2% think there has been too little coverage.
What is missing is a good but compact 5 minute round up each day. I'd watch that, but ended up watching virtually nothing as even if you tune in on the hour just get endless slow banalities.
I'd imagine Deutsche Welle (like the BBC World Service) would be good for that, as I'm sure many other broadcasters worldwide that have English language news would be too. The death of the last queen is getting quite a bit of coverage here, but it is still only one article in a news bulletin or 5 minutes in a news programme.
Comments
Can't read it, though ... paywall.
That's the model Charles is most interested in, and I would say that he's right, in that.
Center Parcs has provoked further confusion after telling holidaymakers they must remain in their lodges on bank holiday Monday as a “mark of respect” for the Queen.
https://inews.co.uk/news/center-parcs-sparks-confusion-customers-remain-lodges-bank-holiday-monday-1855780
Top trolling from a master.
The Government warned the public to “be prepared for long queues” and told parents to think twice before bringing along children.
The queue will be cut off early at the point at which authorities believe new joiners would not be able to see the late Queen’s coffin.
Queen Elizabeth II will lie in state in Westminster Hall from 5pm on Wednesday until 6.30am on Monday, the day of her funeral. Sources said if the queue runs smoothly about 400,000 people will be able to see her lying in state - twice the number who saw the Queen Mother following her death in 2002.
Ministers have suggested mourners may have to queue for as long as 30 hours.
Well-wishers will be given colour coded, numbered wristbands before they join the queue that will allow them to leave the queue “for a short period” in order to use the toilet or buy food and drink.
In a warning not to enter the queue lightly, official guidance issued Tuesday night states: “You will need to stand for many hours, possibly overnight, with very little opportunity to sit down, as the queue will keep moving.”
The real killer of the program wasn’t that, it was the K series satellites suddenly becoming reliable, after a long series of failures dotted with occasional success.
The coverage is, after all, mostly footage of the event.
It would be very topical 40 years on.