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!

Many UAVs Vulnerable To Directed-Energy Weapons

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the phasers-on-stun dept.

Security 153

mask.of.sanity writes "A New Zealand researcher has detailed ways that UAVs can be crashed using cheap tools like Herf guns and GPS jammers, and could even be downed by flying drones with more powerful radio. The attacks (podcast) interfere with the navigation systems used by flying drones and are possible because security was not designed into the architecture of some machines."

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

Illegal (3, Insightful)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year ago | (#45471731)

Yes, of course there are illegal tools that can down them.
Next up: "drones vulnerable to anti-air missiles"

Re:Illegal (2, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45471767)

You were the kind of kid who, upon reading about dinosaurs for the first time, said "yeah, well I already knew that there was such a thing as animals", right?

Re:Illegal (1, Redundant)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#45471855)

No no, he never learned to read, because he already knew there was such a thing as conveying information.

Re:Illegal (4, Informative)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year ago | (#45471933)

Nope. That an UAV is vulnerable to extreme high power microwaves just doesn't surprise me.
There is a lot that would be destroyed with a blast from such a HERF gun. Wifi interfaces and bluetooth devices especially like it. That is why it is usually illegal (and stupid) to use a microwave oven with a damaged containment.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471969)

I think it's mostly meant as a contrast to a tank, airplaine or any regular car, which are not vulnerable to this type of weapon.

Re:Illegal (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45472177)

Of course they're vulnerable. You just need to dial up more energy.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472599)

Cars used to have carbs and points. Those cars are not vulnerable.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472667)

So the distributor wouldn't stop working?

Re:Illegal (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#45473595)

So the distributor wouldn't stop working?

You may be able to cook the coil, but probably not the distributor. You would likely need enough energy to melt the sheet metal in the body of the car to fry an old distributor. It might be possible to fuse the points, but that would be enough energy to bbq the passanger.

Re: Illegal (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45473013)

So you're saying that those low-carb cars weren't a good idea after all?

Re:Illegal (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45472827)

I think it's mostly meant as a contrast to a tank, airplaine or any regular car, which are not vulnerable to this type of weapon.

Who says they are not vulnerable? They are to varying degrees.

In fact, each of these items you mention are *tested* or have design tolerance to such weapons. The military pays close attention to such things when they buy them and I've seen the results of testing on commercially available cars.

The REAL issue here is how vulnerable drones are to disruptions in communications and navigation data that flows over RF based links. That is the reason we don't want to be solely dependent on them.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472011)

If you already knew this, why didn't you write the article yourself months ago? Why are you depriving the world of your genius?

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472113)

"That is why it is usually illegal (and stupid) to use a microwave oven with a damaged containment."

I'd never do that! It's dangerous.
I just use the emitter from my microwave together with a parabolic antenna to communicate with aliens.
I always wondered why drones are dropping like flies around my home.

Re:Illegal (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year ago | (#45472573)

Just remember to buy your drone hunting license first.

Re:Illegal (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45471901)

The amazing part here is there doesn't seem to be much basic 'offline' intelligence built into them so that if control signals are scrambled or lost it can fly straight and level until conditions improve.

Re:Illegal (4, Informative)

gtall (79522) | about a year ago | (#45472005)

I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.

Re:Illegal (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#45472127)

"I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused."

Just like some old people, drones don't always know that they are confused.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472757)

On the contrary, it's you young smartasses that think you know everything who are confused, sonny. Go troll somebody else, boy.

Re:Illegal (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45472131)

Oh, that's strange "HOME" seems to be right in the middle of that convoy... Oh well, just following my orders, sir!

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472317)

Not "home", but to a "loss of link waypoint", which is most likely near home and far from the source of interference. If GPS is lost along with the command/control link, the UAV may attempt to navigate to the LOL waypoint by dead reckoning using last known valid position, airspeed, wind estimate, etc.

Re:Illegal (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year ago | (#45472549)

I believe many of them have MEMS inertial sensors and can navigate fairly well without any GPS. I know some missiles operate that way at least.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472693)

the UAV may attempt to navigate to the LOL waypoint

Sorry, but waypoints aren't funny.

Re:Illegal (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about a year ago | (#45472431)

I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.

Or they thought about how to market the product. Doesn't mean there's actually any functionality there.

Re:Illegal (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45472605)

Navigate via landmarks, probably.

You don't actually need GPS to find someplace, it's just a lot easier and more accurate.

Re:Illegal (2)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year ago | (#45473585)

They don't have sensors to identify landmarks - unless they're being piloted remotely by camera that's no use. Even so, if GPS is denied, they can use inertial navigation and compass heading to get pretty darn close to their failsafe waypoints.

Re:Illegal (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#45473229)

Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS

I have only thought about this for five seconds, but here is my solution: Use a $5 magnetic compass to maintain a constant heading until you are far enough from the jammer to pick up the GPS signal again. Then use GPS to fly home.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473679)

That's actually how that do it.

BUT the compass is likely highly calibrated (not $5) and they have a $$$ IMU to do odometry/Dead Reckoning as well.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471931)

So using electronic countermeasures against enemy aircraft in a theater of war is illegal now? I did not know that.

"Dmitri, I'm sorry they're jamming your radar and flying so low, but they're trained to do it."

Re:Illegal (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45472077)

The assumption, which I hold to be quite valid, is that as with all other government weapons systems, the fear is that they are to be used on the people of the U.S. As they continue to pass laws which enable them to do so, the concern deepens. And I'm somewhat left confused about any law that has ever been written and simply not implemented. Laws start with a desire or need to address a concern. Lately, it has been about enabling the government to do more than they have been allowed to do in the past.

In short, they have been passing laws which enable the military to operate within the US and to act against the people of the US. Legislators wouldn't go through the trouble of writing and passing such legislation if they didn't plan to use it.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472081)

I weap for those chickens in the barnyard.

Re:Illegal (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45472191)

We are rapidly approaching an age where absolutely everything is illegal, according to one law or the other.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472743)

That's what will always happen when instead of repealing laws, new ones are enacted to 'update' the old one.

Congress rarely, if ever, repeals laws. But they make new laws all the time.

From the summary: "CHEAP tools" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472115)

These tools are cheap, just like laser pointers that some use to disrupt manned aircrafts. It matters a lot to know that bored teenagers and organized criminals can both down UAVs using low-profile tools. It matters to know that local partisans in many countries can down UAVs being used against them without using million-dollar sol-air missiles (which they do not have).

Re:Illegal (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45472149)

Yep, not exactly news [youtube.com] lol.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472231)

What illegal tools? Operating a drone legally which just happens to be more powerful could down another drone nearby.
Also, if the UAV in question is not where its supposed to be, everything to down it is legal.

Re: Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472305)

Done forget airplanes.
The are very vulnerable to piolted airplanes.
I would imagine other drones too.

The are real only useful over areas controlled by AK47s and RPGS.

Any air defense would take them down.

Re:Illegal (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year ago | (#45472491)

You will get intelligent drones that can fly standalone, without any remote control. From there is is a very small step to automate the "kill human"decision as well

Termintor drones are not as far away as you might think.

The other solution is not to make them more resistant to such attacks, but to make them so cheap you do not have to worry to loose a drone. You just pcik up a new one, use like one uses other munition/rockets.

Re:Illegal (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#45473373)

What does 'illegal' have to due with the topic of discussion? Are you claiming a general rule like "For any given X, of course you can do X if you allow illegal stuff"?

Re:Illegal (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#45473531)

Yes, of course there are illegal tools that can down them.

You can actually legally own a Bofors L/60 towed anti aircraft autocannon in the US. Drones are vulnerable to one of those too, along with pretty much everything else less beefy than a main battle tank.

UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#45471733)

Yeah, and my BIC pen melts so easily when I throw it in the blast furnace. Lousy engineers.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#45471837)

Beautifully put, and correct.

However:

New Zealand security researcher Stuart MacIntosh told delegates at the Kiwicon 7 conference in Wellington that some vulnerable drone technology designed in the hobby space had trickled down into use by police and commercial operators.

Which makes it notable. Before you use a consumer-oriented item for more serious use, you need to evaluate its fitness for purpose.

Of course, you might go ahead and use it anyway - that's what risk assessment is all about.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (3, Insightful)

Shoten (260439) | about a year ago | (#45472197)

Beautifully put, and correct.

However:

New Zealand security researcher Stuart MacIntosh told delegates at the Kiwicon 7 conference in Wellington that some vulnerable drone technology designed in the hobby space had trickled down into use by police and commercial operators.

Which makes it notable. Before you use a consumer-oriented item for more serious use, you need to evaluate its fitness for purpose.

Of course, you might go ahead and use it anyway - that's what risk assessment is all about.

Also true...but honestly, I can't recall the last time cops had to worry about crooks with HERF guns. It would be a lot easier, safer and cheaper for the bad guys to simply *shoot* at the drones in these situations. We're not talking about flights of Predators or Reapers flying thousands of feet up, backed by a Gorgon's Eye implementation. We're talking about what's basically a glorified RC copter flying at hundreds of feet.

I will now coin a new acronym..."KEDW," or "Kinetic Energy Directed Weapon," also known as a "gun," and go speak to a conference about how it is a much worse threat than this...because not only can it shoot down police drones, it can hurt people too!

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#45472293)

It may not be as easy as you think to shoot and hit a small moving target hundreds of feet in the air.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#45472553)

I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#45472869)

More like dozens of feet.

Not hundreds.

Bird & clay pigeon shooting is typically small gauge shotguns, whose range is dozens of feet. Not hundreds.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (4, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45472939)

Well, if you can get a drone within 50 yards of me, I could possibly hit it with the shotgun. Outside of that range, things get a whole lot more difficult and it's going to be impossible outside of about 100 yards. Trying to hit a drone using a rifle is about the best you can hope for beyond 100 yards, and those shots would be one in a million.

So, if the drone is flying higher than about 150 feet it is unlikely to be in danger from any kinetic weapon carried by the perp.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473141)

A 50 caliber rifle will shoot the shit out of a drone at a distance much greater than 100 yards.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (2)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#45473507)

What about you and a couple of your friends armed with AKs?

If I recall correctly that kind of shooting is effective up to 600 meters (concentrated firing).

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#45473655)

Against stationary targets maybe, or if the UAV is moving towards you. If it's moving quickly tangentially to you, good luck. Also, UAV's come in many sizes and shapes. Unless you know for sure either its altitude or size, you won't know where to aim. As in, "Is that a small UAV at 150 feet, a medium UAV at 500 feet, or a large UAV at a 1,000 feet?"

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year ago | (#45473329)

I think anyone who has ever been bird hunting (or clay pigeon shooting) knows exactly how hard it is to hit small moving targets hundreds of feet in the air.

Yes, but two things. One, drones of the sort described in the report don't move around much when being used, and definitely not at the speed of a clay pigeon. Two, you get more than one shot at it. Three, you can use a scope, or a shotgun with a smaller or larger choke as you like. Four, even if you miss, just shooting at the drone may be enough to get them to move it, thus succeeding in impeding its usefulness.

And five, the difficulty of shooting a moving object with a projectile is less than that of shooting at it with a HERF gun. Unlike a rifle, you can't easily zero the sights of a HERF gun or be assured of exactly what the field it generates looks like. Maybe it's wide, maybe it's narrow...testing it is not simple. And even if you can, then you still have to aim it...just like a gun.

It's not exactly a competition in accuracy... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#45473457)

...with a single bullet.

They will more likely be willing to simultaneously empty several clips of several automatic rifles in the general direction of the target.

Re:UAV's vulnerable to directed-energy weapons? (1)

Copid (137416) | about a year ago | (#45473599)

Yeah, this shouldn't really be an Earth-shattering surprise. In fact, I've always thought that the DOD interest in directed energy weapons was specifically for shooting down cheap flimsy things like drones. Even countries with tiny military budgets could build large fleets of drones that we would have a hard time shooting down with conventional missiles. I just figured that HERF weapons and the like were the simplest solution to swatting a lot of lightweight threats in a reliable cost-effective way.

anti-drone warfare (4, Insightful)

AndroSyn (89960) | about a year ago | (#45471743)

It was only a matter of time before anti-drone warfare came about. This happens with every new piece of weaponry, the quest for the anti-weapon. They don't call it an arms race for no reason.

Re:anti-drone warfare (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#45472989)

Sure, but this article isn't even about anti-drone warfare. The researcher states: "A lot of these UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) were not really designed with security in mind apart from some that may be destined for law enforcement use or military use."

This research is not invalid, but it's akin to showing how you can listen in on some walkie-talkies from radio shack. There certainly are analogous concerns in designing military command & control systems, but they are about 70 years past this level of "hey, you could blast some RF noise at it to drown out the signal!"

Granted, allowing un-hardened systems to be adopted inappropriately for use in threatening environments could always be a problem. But if you bring a knife to a gunfight, hey, good luck.

Directed energy weapons (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#45471751)

I don't know of anything invulnerable to directed-energy weapons. From diamonds and steel to civilization and hope, everything is vulnerable to a quasar's polar jet.

I didn't expect UAVs to survive, alone in the emptiness of space after the cataclysmic event disintegrated the entire solar system.

Well, almost alone. There would be Nokia phones too, of course.

Re:Directed energy weapons (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45471769)

The catch here is that these "directed energy weapons" were cheap trivialities bought off eBay and not military EW apparatus or gigantic celestial furnaces.

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#45471921)

The point in my post is that "Directed-Energy Weapons" is unnecessarily insufficiently precise.

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45472161)

unnecessarily insufficiently precise.

Oh come on, now you're just being not unintentionally acutely obtuse.

Re:Directed energy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472543)

You're a weird guy. Probably Asperger's. The word "weapon" surely isn't so imprecise as to suggest a quasar, now is it?

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45471997)

Calling them "directed energy weapons" in the headline was pretty stupid. They're radio jammers and spoofers. What's their output, 10W?

Re:Directed energy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472051)

Yes, that is a sort of broad definition "directed" energy weapon. By that logic a mirror that reflects the sun into my attackers eyes, or the dust that I throw in the air (which carries some kinetic energy, and has a biological effect.. oh my gosh, a combination: directed energy biological weapon).

As would be a laser, a flashlight, hmm.. just about anything except a jammer into an omni antenna, which would also work.

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#45472143)

"Calling them "directed energy weapons" in the headline was pretty stupid. They're radio jammers and spoofers. What's their output, 10W?"

A 1200 Watt Microwave oven emitter with a decent directional antenna is still cheaper.

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year ago | (#45472377)

A HERF is a converted microwave oven. They usually range in the 800-1500 W range. That is a directed energy weapon.
It's also bad for other electronics and illegal in most countries (EM emission limits and all that).

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year ago | (#45472261)

The catch here is they are not talking about military drones.
From the article.
"You can walk all over [the Parrot AR Drone] with frequency-hopping spread spectrum ... you can fly a radio plane near an AR drone and it will very quickly get packet loss," MacIntosh said."
You can interfere with a toy.... And Slashdot tumbles farther down the FUD hole.

Re:Directed energy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471815)

How is that a "weapon"?

Re:Directed energy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471937)

Let the crazy conspiratards on Youtube explain it to you.

Re:Directed energy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472017)

Close enough. [xkcd.com]

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#45471963)

With the exception of bombs that scatter shrapnel in all directions, aren't most weapons directed energy weapons?
I'll stop being pedantic before someones fist directs kinetic energy my way.

Re:Directed energy weapons (1)

InsightfulPlusTwo (3416699) | about a year ago | (#45471971)

From diamonds and steel to civilization and hope, everything is vulnerable to a quasar's polar jet.

Ah, you must be Slashdot's resident poet. I look forward to your next coffee table volume. ;-)

This is pure BullSlash. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year ago | (#45472245)

First of all this article is not even talking about Military drones!
From the article.
""You can walk all over [the Parrot AR Drone] with frequency-hopping spread spectrum ... you can fly a radio plane near an AR drone and it will very quickly get packet loss," MacIntosh said."

eww you can jam a toy.... Really Slashdot you are now the National Enquire.

Kinda makes me wonder... (1)

BreakBad (2955249) | about a year ago | (#45471763)

Surely our beloved overlords already have planned for and created such weapons and technology. Surely they wouldn't have spend eleventy billion dollars producing aircraft that can be downed by a 'more powerful radio'. There is probably a pilot contractor riding in each UAV as a backup. After all, un-maned != un-contractor'd.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45471779)

TFA refers to civilian UAVs and their derivatives in law enforcement and the like, not military drones.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#45472013)

It really depends where the US is wrt the "planned for and created" vs prototype that can be sold to the US gov vs what the US gov wants to risk.
All the US gov needs is a tool to watch, soak up signals and use for double tap missile strikes.
All the US export market needs is a tool to watch, soak up signals and to enjoy ongoing 'parts' and 'service' contracts.
The contractors are happy with every sale, the long term contracts, the missions work out and US gov risks little in the way of new tech with any crash.
If the US where to add shielding, extra signal protection (hardware and software) the price in any crash goes up and a lot of 'new' systems would have to be changed.
So you have a lot of tech out in the market place built to a price, built to use existing tech and for export/other gov/other country use.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year ago | (#45472415)

all it would really take is

1 design and build a drone that is "cheap" by DOD standards
2 as a first stage after %time% without a gps lock enable a GO HOME (use terrain recog)
3 stage 2 (after %time% X 1.N) it either A climbs to MAX HEIGHT B finds the nearest "valid target" and then it self destructs

i would of course make sure that the destruct package had a decent amount of BANG

When (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471791)

When did a directed energy weapon become a "cheap tool"?

Re:When (2)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about a year ago | (#45471841)

When did a directed energy weapon become a "cheap tool"?

Sorry, I initially read NERF guns... anyone can make a mistake. :)

Re:When (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471979)

That works too depending on the size of the NERF.

Re:When (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | about a year ago | (#45471851)

When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

Re:When (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#45471879)

perhaps an omni-directed energy weapon.

Re:When (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471947)

It's the usual bad summary/title I'm afraid.

The article itself doesn't refer to 'directed energy weapons' at all, merely refers to "tools including GPS jammers and do-it-yourself high energy radio frequency guns".

Re:When (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | about a year ago | (#45472185)

When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

You know, when Han used his Tricorder to restimulate the active particule neutrino phase shifters, which resulted in a plasma beam that disrupts the life-support system on any craft that flies slower than 22 parsecs.

Re:When (1)

gaudior (113467) | about a year ago | (#45472633)

When did a GPS jammer become a directed energy weapon?

You know, when Han used his Tricorder to restimulate the active particule neutrino phase shifters, which resulted in a plasma beam that disrupts the life-support system on any craft that flies slower than 22 parsecs.

Only if he reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.

Re:When (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45472655)

When it was tuned to attack a specific type of target.

like comparing hobbies to genocides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471899)

i feel like i'm being trained to stop calling them drones?

results never vary so far; http://youtu.be/xcdJVAUyvzc

call this weather??? http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561
wizards & warloks idea of climate change

my tv remote is D.E.W. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471929)

if i aim it with malicious intent or watch mindphucking corepirate nazi media mongrels schlapschtick?

my tv remote is a DEW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471961)

if i use it maliciously or watch endless mindphucking corepirate nazi media mongrel talknicians

do i need to repeat myself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45471991)

not again please

Also vunerable to bullets (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45471923)

You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45472229)

Or Flock of Seagulls for that matter... depending on how loud you cranked the sonic disruptor.

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45472671)

Bad 80's hair is no reason to go flinging people at things.

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45472867)

... or is it?

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472883)

Let my armies be the rocks and the trees, and the birds in the sky.

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about a year ago | (#45472443)

You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

Or have a hell of a time trying - sounds like fun!

Re:Also vunerable to bullets (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#45472661)

You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.

With a trebuchet, you could send one in a variety of directions. :p

Alanya Emlak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472039)

Very nice, thanks
http://www.yegingroup.com

ALL UAV's can be taken out with direct energy..... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#45472043)

Unless they invented laser proof UAV's....

Re:ALL UAV's can be taken out with direct energy.. (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | about a year ago | (#45472193)

Unless they invented laser proof UAV's....

Then we would just switch to phasers.

Did anyone even read this article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45472535)

This is sensationalist garbage. This has nothing to do with military drones. The "researcher" was talking about a consumer product called an AR.Drone . Drone is merely part of the name and has little to do with the function of the device.

Actually I own one and it is merely an rc multirotor aircraft with autolocation stabilization that is controled from an apple iphone or andriod tablet.

There was a recently released gps module that allows you to program it with a route.

This garbage article is akin to writing about a new samsung phone and confusing it for a story about autonomous humanoid robots. Android

"Directed Energy Weapons" (1)

Tifer (2644417) | about a year ago | (#45473069)

..will never not make me think of lasers

UAVs can be downed by a directed energy weapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473205)

What, like a rocket launcher? ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?