This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by arvana.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Sagemind. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I'm sorry Gwiz,
I'm positive this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Unmanned-Surveillance-Drones

I know I've seen this on the Sift before and upon looking, I found the post from Fedquip.
It is the same news cast. The station identity markers are the same.
Fedquip's post is dead and needs to be fixed though.
If you look at the thumbnail on his post, it lines up and matches exactly with yours at 2:08 min

>> ^dag:

I wonder what the absolute top altitude of a weather baloon is? I guess at some point, the helium is heavier than the surrounding near vacuum. It would be helpful if there was something - other than a rocket that carries all its reaction mass with it - that could reach space.



"The highest altitude ever achieved by one such unmanned research balloon was 51,820m; this balloon was launched from Chico, California in 1972" (32.2 miles)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ValerieChang.shtml

It's funny how they mention the Russian firsts (i.e. unmanned/manned vehicles in space) with sinister Soviet backing music... But then the US first to the moon, also spurred by a sense of military competitiveness, is all fanfare. What they did is impressive too!

Btw, Optimus Prime was the BEST choice for narrator.

>> ^d3n4l1:
Come on guys, you're better than this. That's not real.


This video isn't showing an actual attack, but striking targets from unmanned aircraft is fairly common.

The "drones" aren't only the unmanned aircraft.
Trained mammals who kill other mammals with no thought. Just following orders.
Same old story, and the further away we get from the blood we spill, the easier and more detached the actions become.
Jinx, if you even bothered to look at history, you'd note that the percentage of military to civilian casualties has been flipped within the past 100 years - with a much higher percentage of "collateral damage" -- such a nice, innocuous term. And this type of "virtual reality" is a one-sided virtual. There is nothing "virtual" about being blown up. Rah Rah support of this technological travesty is as insipid as joining the military to protect "freedom" when all you really are is a pawn in the game of power projection.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'houston, police, drone, uav, test' to 'houston, police, drone, uav, test, HPD, unmaned, aircraft, secret' - edited by Sagemind

This movie is our undoing as a civilization.

Step 1 - Make heros out of people that wear large, powered exoskeletal armor.

Step 2 - Engineer this in real life, for use by police and military forces world wide.

Step 3 - Never fear a protest / rioting mob or invading army again, as the power armored super soldier / police enforcer has arrived. You can sell the developement as protecting the lives of those who serve, and demonize the detractors.

Step 4 - Trample everyones rights.

Step 5 - take the man out of the suit, make the powered armor unmanned, place it in the hands of government officials. Eliminate the need for human armies, eliminate the ability to disobey orders.

Step 6 - Thank the marvel franchise for packaging the idea in such a way that the science becomes entertanment, and removes it from the realm of public debate.

Questions - How powerful should paramilitary police forces become, and does the idea of a fully armored, indestructable "good guy" scare people who concider one nations "good guy" as anothers butcher?

This is the primary reason I moved from computer vision to clinically oriented human vision research. All of the capital is flowing towards these projects. Further, the move is from remotely controlled, unmanned vehicles, to autonomous agents. What do we do when we can't even rely on the human conscience (say a merciful soldier) to mitigate atrocities? This sort of technology completely masks the human cost of war.

What safeguard against tyranny still exists in such a world? A legion of merciful programmers?

If I had my way, we'd just settle it with a bunch of knife fights at the UN.

I suppose in some form of twisted logic, developing new rockets, designing new space vehicles, sending manned and unmanned mission after mission to the moon, then loading a shuttle which never actually went to the moon till now, and getting it back to earth, can be considered "easily mined".

It's just not my brand of logic.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have been wanting to type the following for a long time. I just hope that I can compose the next few lines properly.
Shooting some one who stands no chance, no proper chance, in being given the option to defend themselves is the most base definition of cowardly. This goes for all things, most especially unmanned drones, and suicide bombings.
The days of a killer seeing what they have wrought are over. They have no understanding of how a persons dies. To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.
If you cant get along in the collective then keep it to yourself. The sentence before this was typed by an individualist, secular humanist, and a Libertarian.
Violence does not solve any thing. Compromise, Education, and understanding is what the Republic was founded on. So that the "Crazies" could be heard. To the murderer, Fuck you for stifling free speech.


Well spoken, NordlichReiter.

As to the defensive ability of the victim, Jim Pouillon was elderly, overweight, and connected to an oxygen tank constantly, including at the time of his death. If anyone was helpless against an assailant, it was Jim Pouillon. However, Jim Pouillon would disagree. Jim believed that there was a group who was more defenseless, who was more worthy to be loved and defended: Babies.

The attitude of the friends and of Jim has been consistent towards James Drake. They wish to speak to him, to share with him the same world view and belief system held by Jim. They wish him all the Love and hope for his repentance, for truly, James Drake did no damage to Jim. (Jim was more than his flesh and his blood, and Jim knew this.) James Drake has damaged himself and the world for removing such a man from our presence.

I have been wanting to type the following for a long time. I just hope that I can compose the next few lines properly.

Shooting some one who stands no chance, no proper chance, in being given the option to defend themselves is the most base definition of cowardly. This goes for all things, most especially unmanned drones, and suicide bombings.

The days of a killer seeing what they have wrought are over. They have no understanding of how a persons dies. To actually see the wounding, the subsequent expulsion of vital fluids, the dilation of the victims pupils, and the contortions of pain, should be enough to know that killing any one is a complete waste.

If you cant get along in the collective then keep it to yourself. The sentence before this was typed by an individualist, secular humanist, and a Libertarian.

Violence does not solve any thing. Compromise, Education, and understanding is what the Republic was founded on. So that the "Crazies" could be heard. To the murderer, Fuck you for stifling free speech.

He has restored American significance on the world stage.
He's killed a lot of Al Quida in Pakistan with unmanned aircraft. U.S. troops have a reasonable and timely exit strategy.
I am waiting for the education reform he campaigned with.
People are still debating about the New Deal (although, I had never heard anti-Roosevelt propaganda until the Obama/McCain election) and it's almost certain to be continued after our demise. I think he's doing fairly well in this area, although, his hands seem to be tied by the bankers. It's a hell a shit storm to have to sail through and I trust in his ability to keep us afloat.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I have to remark that it could still be considered a cut. This is because this budget includes all the war money. If you remember the Bush days, every few months Bush would ask congress for XX billions to continue the war and support the troops. Obama isn't planning to do this AFAIK. So if you would add Bush's pleas to congress to his military budget it would probably be higher than Obama's. We'll just have to see if Obama doesn't come to congress for more...


Ahh, this is true, and in fact seems to be what Republicans are half-mumbling when confronted on TV about it.

That takes the conversation a little deeper. The essence of the Gates-Obama budget is that it's cutting back massively on cold-war style programs like the F-22, the airborne laser (seriously), and some of the fancier toys the Navy was building, including the new class of aircraft carriers.

Instead, it's beefing up funding for special ops teams, general recruitment, veteran's benefits, unmaned drones, and likely a wide array of other things that would be of direct assistance to the types of conflicts we're actually engaged in.

In short, defense contractors and their lobbyist-vehicles (aka congressmen and Senators) are going to be unhappy because it means their highly-expensive, dubious utility programs will be cut in favor of spending on things that are more valuable to the military, but less profitable to private industry.