Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stanford's Francis Fukuyama Builds Personal Surveillance Drone

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the who-is-this-fukuyama-guy? dept.

Hardware Hacking 92

HerbieTMac writes "Political science professor Francis Fukuyama builds and flies his own personal surveillance drones. His current model requires ground visibility but he is working on the HAM license that would allow fully remote operation. His YouTube videos (video 1 , video 2) are particularly impressive." I had no idea that Francis Fukuyama had such technical interests.

cancel ×

92 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You will all be watched ! Question here. (1)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032843)

personal surveillance drones ? Any worse than the random google trucks taking pics of people taking out the trash au naturale? Or is this like if everyone had the power to do a wiretap on demand? What do you guys think

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (0, Flamebait)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032955)

With Francis Fukuyama involved, I'm afraid they'll be used to inflict permanent vigilance on all infidels that don't bow to Its Holiness The Almighty Free Market and don't read the Holy Bible Of The End Of History.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033615)

I reviewed The End of History for my Historiography final in University. It was... awful really. I found his ideas simplistic and his proofs rather poor. I'd read student papers that I found more convincing. I honestly cannot believe that it got as much attention as it did. I was also pretty depressed that I didn't get to do Fredrick Jackson Turner or someone at least vaguely interesting. On the bright side, I got to be pretty snarky in a high level university history paper and still got an "A".

H.A.M. Radio! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034749)

but he is working on the HAM license that would allow fully remote operation

If he were a ham, he would know that ham isn't an acronym. And I'm kind of doubting his intelligence if he's working on a Technician license which is the implication here. I have known guys who went in and passed that one without so much as reading a thing about it.
 
Was going to make another point, but when I scrolled up, I noticed that this "story" was accepted by timothy, so I'll leave it at that.

MODERATORS!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034945)

Mod parent up. Guy makes an excellent point. About "HAM'S" and of course timothy. :)
 
Did you all see the video of timothy seeing how many fists he could stick in his bum? He did one run with lube and one without to advertize the lube. What gets me though is that he should be all stretched or whatever from the "dry run," so that kind of skews the results.

Re:MODERATORS!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39037285)

What gets me though is that he should be all stretched or whatever from the "dry run," so that kind of skews the results.

You're assuming that he wasn't stretched out from foreplay with Rob Malda to begin with.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (0)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033849)

Oh shit. I've already been tagged Flamebait. I guess I hit a nerve, hey?

Never question religious dogmas, the fanatics will band together and mod you down into oblivion.

MODERATORS!ll!!!l!!!1!!!l!!!!l!!!eleven!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39041459)

Mod off-topic. He's trolling for someone to mod him up. What a douche.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033161)

I prefer the situation where everybody is watching everybody, with nobody in command, to the situation where a powerful government is watching everybody with only a handful in command.

We cannot stop technology. Cameras are getting too small, and computers too fast and both get too cheap to realistically think they won't be applied on a massive scale. The big question is who controls the data, and what happens to it.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033193)

I prefer the situation where everybody is watching the government with missiles locked on those in command. Just in case.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035435)

And soon, wearing clothes or having opaque walls will be capitol offences.

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39038867)

And soon, wearing clothes or having opaque walls will be capitol offences.

Eeewww. Who wants to see naked fat senators on CSPAN?

OTS solutions already available (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033171)

If you want one of your own, there are many solutions already available off-the-shelf, the cheapest is the Parrot AR.Drone which is computer-controlled via Wifi. If you want something a bit more serious, Mikrokopter makes kits and sells parts, but if you want more range you'll have to swap computer control via WiFi for a traditional FM remote plus UHF camera.

Re:OTS solutions already available (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034743)

I would not be endorsing the Parrot. They still have problems of the thing just taking off on owners, never to be seen again. Sometimes on the first flight. Seriously, how do you not have a failsafe for that?

Re:OTS solutions already available (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034975)

I lose most RC aircraft that way :-(

I know an early prototype stuck itself to the roof of a convention hall, but I didn't think they let that problem go unchecked, especially in a vehicle with a full computer on board that should be able to tell that it's climbing into the wild blue yonder without remote input.

Re:OTS solutions already available (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036083)

Check out the Amazon reviews. MULTIPLE owners complaining about this happening and Parrot basically says 'you're fucked, want to buy another?'

Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034317)

personal surveillance drones ?

Any worse than the random google trucks taking pics of people taking out the trash au naturale?

Or is this like if everyone had the power to do a wiretap on demand?

What do you guys think

Considering he's a Political Science Prof, it makes more sense in this early century as surveillence is all the rage for Political reasons (know your enemy, where he shops, where he buys gas and which CostCo is his favourite.)

Us it against 'em. That's the modern way.

I know where you were last weekend

Will it survive any better? (2, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032847)

We all know what happened to the nuclear reactor this guy built on the eastern seaboard of Japan. Will this thing fare any better against a Tsunami? oh, wait. That was Fukushima right? oops. me bad.

Re:Will it survive any better? (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033085)

It's all part of the cover-up. Political Science has everything to do with why we're all now feeling warm fuzzy feelings about Fukushima. Or is that the radiation? Well... What does it matter? With the addition of remote-control drones monitoring radioactivity, we can all sleep soundly, right?

Ham license (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39032849)

A ham license might let him operate on different frequencies and with longer range. However the FAA does not allow a radio-control aircraft to operate out of view of the controller under current guidelines.

No worries... (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033009)

The summary was written by Timothy, which means it's only peripherally related to reality.

The license is so he can do more sophisticated telemetry. FTA:

I've bought the package that includes a real time video transmitter and receiver, camera, and telemetry system that will send back GPS data on the drone's location, heading, airspeed, etc. This requires, among other things, a ham radio license.

Re:No worries... (1)

fred911 (83970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034443)

Working on it?

  Gime a break. Any somewhat educated person should be able to pass the exam for all privs above 30mhz with an hours worth of reading. What's he been smoking?

Re:No worries... (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034631)

This requires, among other things, a ham radio license.

I guess he's working on those other things...

Re:No worries... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034875)

He's a poly sci professor. Assume dumb as a rock until evidence shows otherwise.

I posted about flying my scale predator over occupiers/gun shows/tea party/rainbow gathering etc (anybody with paranoid tendencies, which I am deliberately feeding) some months ago and got flamed. Was told I was 'off my meds'.

Still posting about it, hoping to encourage others to help push the lunatic fringe over the edge.

Re:No worries... (1)

HerbieTMac (17830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034627)

In fairness to Timothy, I wrote the summary. But without realtime video and telemetry, you can't fly out of sight. So my summary is, in fact, correctly stated (currently requires visual contact, HAM license would allow remote operation)

Re:No worries... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034809)

The summary statement that it would allow "fully remote operation," while true, is misleading. The article makes no mention of any intended use other than telemetry. Also, it's "ham," not "HAM." The word is neither an acronym nor a proper noun.

Re:No worries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034811)

No, it's not correct. The HAM license doesn't "allow remote operation", no matter how you define "remote operation". You can already fly within line-of-sight using telemetry without a HAM license, and you're not allowed to fly beyond line-of-sight even if you add telemetry and an FPV system. All a HAM license would do is allow use of different frequencies... You'd still have to stay within line-of-sight and comply with the same FAA regs.

Re:No worries... (1)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036537)

To back up the AC, his post is completely correct. FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 allows individuals to fly remotely controlled aircraft up to 400 feet in altitude, within visual range at all times. This does not apply to university craft, craft owned by a business, or craft owned "by the public" such as police, military, or any city/county UAVs. You have to be able to demonstrate to the FAA that you are flying solely for entertainment/education and that you are only spending your own money on it, and not making any profit off the venture. In fact, it is against FAA regulations for non-individuals to even fly remote controlled aircraft under this AC (I know this based on a very tense and bitter fight with FAA officials over an R/C club on a military installation using donated money to purchase aircraft).

There exist a wide range of technologies for sending telemetry from air to ground over the 2.4GHz and 900MHz ISM bands. (a few examples) [digi.com] . There is no need or reason for a ham license whatsoever since it's only purpose is to allow you to fly beyond visual line of sight. The claim that it is necessary is flat wrong.

On to the "anyone can build one" discussion: it's absolutely true. I've built a total of 6 UAVs over the last 5 years. Average cost is $1k if you don't crash it during testing. The typical route is to take an ARF model, add a commercially available autopilot, hook up the servos, put in a bigger engine, battery packs, etc. On-board computers (not counting the autopilot itself) are almost never needed because these vehicles have to be operated line of sight anyway. If you want to do on-board computation, there are a wide variety of options from Gumstix, to pc104 form factor systems. All telemetry is usually handled on the 900 MHz ISM band which I have personally flown as far as 15km (in a UAV-approved range with all of the proper approvals) using a Yagi antenna that was self-steered from the telemetry data. The link still had plenty of signal left on it, but the UAV didn't have the legs to go further and still complete its mission.

Moral of the story: learn the rules and stick to them. The FAA does not accept "but I heard someone did it on /." as an excuse, and they have a tendency to not only shut down the idiot that didn't follow the rules, but every other person conducting UAV research who is even remotely associated with that club/institution/location.

Re:No worries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39040675)

Meh. Sounds about as serious as doing 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. If the FAA can catch my UAV, they can have it. Otherwise they can get bent.

Re:No worries... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034903)

FAA requires visual contact at all times.

They won't be the first to break that rule, nor the last. Perhaps they will be the first prosecuted for doing it so publicly.

Re:No worries... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034929)

Replying to self: Building a 'guided missile' is the same offense as building a machine gun (without appropriate licenses). Ten years federal. No joke.

Re:Ham license (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034885)

A ham license might let him operate on different frequencies and with longer range. However the FAA does not allow a radio-control aircraft to operate out of view of the controller under current guidelines.

Incorrect.

Under current guidelines the FAA RECOMMENDS that any SUAS not be operated out of LOS (Line Of Sight) of the operator, but it is only a recommendation, NOT law.

That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon WILL restrict flights to Line of Sight, but Line of Sight is not tightly defined. So there will be ways around it.

Re:Ham license (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#39037191)

Everywhere in the world is within line of sight to very low frequency transmissions.

Re:Ham license (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39039407)

That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon

Just wanted to hang this off your post, although it's OT, it's definitely "News for Nerds": new laws will require US taxpayers to send in the forms that their investment banks send them. In other words, the US government will no longer accept "your word" that your purchase price was what it was; now, they require the investment houses to provide the government with purchase prices, and your report had damned well better match that, otherwise ... well, you won't be paying more taxes while in prison, so perhaps this law will cause an implosion???

Re:Ham license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39039527)

The ham license is probably for transmitting amateur video, which he mentions doing next

Well... (1)

G-Man (79561) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032879)

...what with history being over, he needed something else to do.

Re:Well... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033993)

...what with history being over, he needed something else to do.

Ha ha. Really, he should feel silly for writing that book. As if the end of one empire really meant the end of history.

The burning question... (1)

_0x783czar (2516522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032889)

How Long till Iran downs one?

Re:The burning question... (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032943)

See video 2. They already did.

Personal Surveillance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39032899)

I took the title too literally; I thought he was planning to build a drone that would follow him around and keep tabs on him, like a guardian angel.

Re:Personal Surveillance? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032993)

now that would be an awesome project..

Re:Personal Surveillance? (1)

DrMaurer (64120) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033465)

I wonder what would happen if such a device filmed the owner getting harassed by cops...

Re:Personal Surveillance? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033597)

if you had it always following you - even in public .. i don't think it i would be an "if" but rather a "when"

"Ham" is not an initialism or an acronym (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032929)

so quit writing it in all caps.

Re:"Ham" is not an initialism or an acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033119)

According to Strunk and White, HAM is a pork product, and thus should be written in all caps, and preferably in Comic Sans and/or blinking neon lighting if either is available.

See also (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39032939)

DIY Drones [diydrones.com]

Front page? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39032957)

He taped a video camera to a helicopter. Fun, but doesn't merit the front page of Slashdot and barely qualifies as "surveillance drone".

Re:Front page? (0)

radiumsoup (741987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033013)

Yeah - "particularly impressive" this is not.

military and law enforcement (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032959)

You need to track someone who is on the move, you use one of these and they will take video and keep tabs on him without needing to place a gps on that person...it is very cool, if someone does not know they are being tracked, however, how small does it have to be in order to be effective at not being discovered, as once discovered, they can just shoot out of the sky or go into a place where they can not follow.

Re:military and law enforcement (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033797)

It's certain to be destruction of government property to purposely sabotage a government drone. So if you're being actively monitored by such a device, you can be pretty sure there's an agent or twelve around the corner from you ready to pounce. You'll get arrested and subjected to search. Also government operated ones will probably be riding pretty high, so picking it off will be difficult. A laser is probably a good idea to blind it, but somehow I suspect it'll fall afoul of the same laws which prohibit lasering manned aircraft.

More likely these will be used to perform either passive surveillance (broad sweeping inspections - eg, let's make sure everyone who built an extension on their house paid for the permit and is paying taxes on it, and watch for signs of commercial activity on residential property, and so forth), these will be built for endurance so they can scope out a wide area. A different class of drone will be active surveillance - when they're watching your movements to feed telemetry back to a ground agent who is attempting to intercept you. These will be built for speed and maneuverability so they can follow a speeding vehicle (more like the drones in Afghanistan - plane style rather than copter style). This latter class is what will eventually be weaponized once people are accustomed to the eye in the sky.

Re:military and law enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035355)

More likely these will be used to perform either passive surveillance (broad sweeping inspections - eg, let's make sure everyone who built an extension on their house paid for the permit and is paying taxes on it, and watch for signs of commercial activity on residential property, and so forth), these will be built for endurance so they can scope out a wide area.

This is already being done. It is only slightly different, in that they are looking for swimming pools from satellite imagery and comparing it to records to see who is paying taxes for having a swimming pool. This is, no joke, happening. It's pretty cheap to buy high quality imagery from GeoEye or Digital Globe, trivial to determine what is and what is not a swimming pool, and do a geolookup.

Is it a bad thing? On the one hand, the people not paying taxes on the pools means that everybody else is paying a little more in taxes to make up for it. On the other hand, it requires a substantial broad inspection of what I normally consider fairly private area, namely a back yard without any sort of probable cause. So, on the whole, it's a bad thing.

Cool but not all that impressive (5, Informative)

Bretski (312912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39032967)

Beside the fact that people have been doing this for years, he built this on a multi-rotor heli platform. Flight times for these are usually under 10 minutes, given the power needed to keep them in the air. If he really wants surveillance with long range, he should try a fixed-wing setup, where flight times can be 30-45 minutes. DIYDRONES.COM is a good place to start.

Re:Cool but not all that impressive (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033781)

Of course, It's getting better everyday in time [youtube.com] and distance [youtube.com] .

On second thought, IMO, Francis is off track, multirotors are cool, but don't fit the use case. That's why the Japan Ministry Of Defense's flying sphere [youtube.com] has temporary hover capabilities, but it designed to fly horizontally, which is more efficient for long distance--its design fits the search and inspect use case. Now for search and rescue, a multirotor maybe more appropriate.

Re:Cool but not all that impressive (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39040443)

I had a radio controlled "Wild Wing" flying wing with Lithium Ion batteries that had a loiter time of well over an hour, how long I don't know as it always outlasted my patience or bladder.

Surveillance Drone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39032985)

More like a RC helicopter with a camera taped to it. How is this news worthy again?

Re:Surveillance Drone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033135)

It isn't. It's just another article with a keyword that will enrage the slashtards to spew anti-American rants.

Re:Surveillance Drone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39038237)

yeah exactly it hasn't even got telemetry built in yet so it's not even at the same tech level as the ar parrot drone for the ipod. Don't get me wrong good on this guy for getting in to RC it's a great hobby, but wake me when it can fly itself through burning rings.

Illegal? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033027)

I don't see how you get to that conclusion.
I mean, I understand the fear that the government will want the technology for itself, but the facts do not support the conclusion.

The main reason I can say this with confidence is that the government has so far built its legal basis for operating these drones on some rather common and pedestrian legal precedents. So to really restrict the usage of drones, the government would have to restrict the kind of laws that allow hobbyists to fly RCs and journalists to do their jobs... that's pretty much a non-starter.

Maybe he should stick to technology (3, Informative)

quax (19371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033047)

After all his "End of History" prognosis was spectacularly wrong.

Re:Maybe he should stick to technology (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033101)

Ah, but he totally redeemed himself with his lucidity and insight during his PNAC years...

Re:Maybe he should stick to technology (1)

quax (19371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033281)

You are a very funny fuzzyfuzzyfungus :)

Re:Maybe he should stick to technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033287)

After all his "End of History" prognosis was spectacularly wrong.

I disagree. If one read his 1989 essay in the National Interest and his subsequent 1992 book carefully, he hedged his bets about the end of history with technological progress/science's potentially restarting the engine. The fact that twenty years later the thesis is still alive and debated corroborates this

http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fukuyama_End_Of_History_Revisited

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2010_winter/02_fukuyama.html

Re:Maybe he should stick to technology (1)

quax (19371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033639)

The art of prognosis: Say one thing and allow for the other.

Every third rate investment letter writer knows that trick. That way they can later pull out the part of an old prognosis that makes them look good.

Color me unimpressed.

Eh... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033063)

Well, seeing how brilliantly his forays into the fields of political science and politics have gone, I'd be willing to consider the notion that he ought to consider a change of field...

At least his little RC toys appear to actually fly, don't cost billions of dollars, and haven't yet crashed into a morass of delusionally bad decision-making.

Who the fuck is he? (1, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033157)

And why should I care?

And yes I did read the Wikipedia article.

Re:Who the fuck is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033297)

1) He built a personal survellance drone
2) If you don't care, go read the next article.

Why you should care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033341)

You should care because it means that a random political science professor can hang a camera off a drone and get data. That's how easy it is to do. This used to be something that only serious makers played around with; now even some old guy whose day job is to sit on executive boards and panels can do it!

Re:Why you should care (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033407)

You should care because it means that a random political science professor can hang a camera off a drone and get data.

If I was so inclined I could drop less than $1k and buy a prebuilt drone that will run rings around this guy's drone - something that will fly a GPS plotted course and linger at various waypoints while it beamed back video. All I am seeing here is that I should pat this guy on the head, smile and go "aren't you a good boy!"

Re:Why you should care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033715)

If I was so inclined I could drop less than $1k and buy a prebuilt drone that will run rings around this guy's drone

Okay then, build it, fatass, if you think you can do better. Then post a story on /. about it too. Otherwise go kill yourself.

Re:Why you should care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39039449)

lol reading fail... he said "prebuilt" eg off the shelf. Lots of links on here to model shops with quads and other platforms with payloads up to around 5kg...

Re:Who the fuck is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39041345)

Go kill yourself.

So you put a camera on a RC model (3, Interesting)

LanceUppercut (766964) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033331)

So you put a typical camera on a typical RC model - something virtually every single RC pilot has been doing for years already. YouTube is choke-full of such videos. Where's the news? The fact that he call it a "personal surveillance drone"? Or the fact that a Stanford professor is playing with a toy) (He should have bought a real non-toy RC model) P.S. And no, HAM radio licence is not sufficient for BVR operation.

Re:So you put a camera on a RC model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035457)

Yeah, no drone here, it's an rc helicopter with a camera on it. I've done that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXcprG4zIg [youtube.com]

Re:So you put a camera on a RC model (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#39037305)

A personal surveillance drone isn't of much use if you personally have to control it. Is he developing some sort of automation for it, or is it really nothing more than an RC aircraft with a camera?

That's actually quite.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033347)

... unimpressive.
Quadrocopters with video cameras have been around for a long time, and while active research is still going on (google "flying machine arena"), the featured "drones" are certainly nowhere near cutting edge.

Did anybody else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033353)

Did anybody else read that name as Fuck You Mama?

Re:Did anybody else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033879)

Oedipus dear, why aren't you in school? Don't make me have the professor put you under surveillance.

ugh (3, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033479)

I don't particularly care what Francis Fukuyama does with his free time, though I guess the more time he spends working on electronics hobbies the less time he can dedicate to screwing up the world through his incompetence. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm [newamericancentury.org]

Re:ugh (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035433)

Wow, the signature list on that letter is like a Who's Who of the worst people in early 21st-century America.

Note to mods: the parent post is not "offtopic." The story isn't about some random guy building a drone, it's about a specific guy building a drone, and just in case you missed the point, the summary links to the Wikipedia article about the guy! That makes who he is, as well as what he does, a fair topic for conversation. My guess is that whoever slapped nomadic's very insightful post with an "offtopic" mod is someone who still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea. If that's the case, then defend your postion (if you can) rather than using a weasel mod.

Another Neo-Con with a surveillance drone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033551)

So he's just like the US Military then? Without the bombs being dropped. Why is this news?

Too bad the neo-con thing is almost still alive.

LOL: image: "inhuman" rather appropriate.

He can work on his toys in jail (1)

toby (759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033923)

As a neocon, his nutty ideological BS helped provide fake justifications for the attack on Iraq. Back in the 1940s this sort of thing was considered a crime. Where is the new Nuremberg trial for last decade's war criminals?

Re:He can work on his toys in jail (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034359)

You're not put on trial for war crimes unless you lose your war. It's one of the unwritten rules of diplomacy, like the flag rule [youtube.com] .

Re:He can work on his toys in jail (1)

damienl451 (841528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042773)

Which attack on Iraq? If you're talking about the 2004 invasion, Fukuyama actually publicly came out against the invasion and the overambitious objectives of the Bush administration.

I wonder how many of those who criticize Fukuyama on this thread have actually read his books.

you 7aIl it.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034347)

and personal New c0re is goinJg

Well Well... (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035205)

I hear Walmart will be selling them...

Actually I think it a good idea for the hobbits to get involved in drones with paint ball guns attached ... you know for dog fighting with gov drones...

UFO (1)

legont (2570191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035231)

Here are some Russian folks combining private drones with rather impressive image tech. Anti-government meeting in Moscow http://www.airpano.ru/files/Moscow-Bolotnaya-Square-Rally/start_r.html [airpano.ru] Occupy Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMzyvKzyL58&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com] And more from around the world http://www.airpano.ru/ [airpano.ru]

Re:UFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035547)

What color revolution are these guys? The good ole NED regime change / propoganda playbook is getting a bit boring these days.

Welcome to the old hobby professor. (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035425)

Several of us have been doing this for years now. http://diydrones.com/ [diydrones.com]

I have had a self guided drone that will take off and land on it's own as well as fly to preprogrammed waypoints for over a year now. It runs off of an arduino http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8785 [sparkfun.com]

ham radio ATV is the video feed and I send packet data via cellphone to control it. I am hoping to get a Android phone to make it completely cellular based for video and control to avoid the problem with using Ham radio (long range is a problem with HAM and fast scan ATV.

I am glad a Professor has finally caught up to us hobbyests that have been dinking with it for years now.

"His YouTube videos are particularly impressive." (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036485)

You sure are easilly entertained.

Whiskers?! (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39039063)

Reading the article summary, I suddenly imagined a few orbs floating around his body, like WSKRS in SeaQuest DSV.

Maybe it's time for a break...

Good lord! next thing you know ... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39040689)

people will be able to see me with their own eyes, just walking down the street. Oh, wait ...

Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39077625)

I didn't have any idea that Francis Fukuyama had such technical interests either. I wonder what he had for breakfast?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>